I would like to commend Susan Alter-Klapperman for her very timely Dec. 20 op-ed article, “Protecting Our Children from Terrorists.”
This is a topic that concerns me greatly. I recently wrote a 40-page guide, “Keep Your School Safe,” which outlines safety and security procedures for schools. More than 10,000 copies were distributed all over North America. It can be downloaded for free at keepyourschoolsafe.com.
To receive a hard copy, e-mail email@example.com.
Re Dennis Prager’s excellent op-ed article “The Most Damaging President We’ve Ever Had” (Dec. 20):
Why did anyone think Barack Obama would make a good president in the first place? Would anyone hire an engineer without engineering experience, an accountant without accounting experience or a programmer without programming experience? Of course not. Then why would anyone think someone with experience in practically nothing would make a good president?
Ironically, many of the same people who voted for Obama thought Sarah Palin would not make a good vice president. If being governor of a state does not qualify one to become vice president, what in Obama’s background qualified him to become president?
With Obama’s lack of experience and radical background he probably couldn’t get a high-level job or security clearance in many corporations. That he had no problem becoming president tells us we need a vetting process for presidential candidates that goes beyond merely citizenship, age and residency.
The blatant hypocrisy of an academic group voting to approve a boycott of Israeli universities is the ultimate betrayal of what academic discourse should be promoting – namely, freedom of expression and liaison (“American Studies Association to Boycott Israel,” news story, Dec. 20).
When challenged that there are countries whose human rights records are far more deserving of the opprobrium heaped on Israel, the president of the ASA, Curtis Marez, offered the inane excuse that “we had to start somewhere.”
It behooves more universities to join the handful that already have refused to be party to such a reprehensible action by an academic consortium.
Rabbis Yehuda Oppenheimer and Aaaron Reichel (Letters, Dec. 20) write approvingly of Nelson Mandela’s belief in forgiveness and reconciliation.
This clashes with King David’s deathbed order to his son, Solomon, to exact retribution against Joab and Shimi for the wrongs they perpetrated against David, and to reward the sons of Barzilai for the good he did to him (1 Melachim 2:5-9).
Which message is superior?
While Mandela’s approach sounds like the New Testament precept to love thy enemy – as if Christians actually practice it – King David’s directive conforms with the distinction between good and evil found in the Hebrew Bible. Would Mandela have forgiven savages who dispatch suicide bombers to slaughter civilians? Doing so makes a mockery of the principle of justice.
On the other hand, Jews believe in hakarat hatov, the duty to recognize the good someone does to you. It is the principle upon which Yad Vashem in Jerusalem honors those deemed Righteous Among the Nations during the Holocaust era.
It is important to comprehend and publicize the authenticity of the Torah’s message of good and evil because we live in a hypocritical, immoral world where the benevolence of Israel is denied while it has become the scapegoat for the world’s evils.
Thanks to columnist Sara Lehmann for directing our attention to the critically important issue of Jewish community’s passivity and inertia regarding issues vital to Israel and America (The Right Angle, Dec. 13).
We at Americans for a Safe Israel are well aware that silence is capitulation. We have been going out on the streets for years, carrying our signs and raising our voices, to protest against dangers to Israel and America.
Most recently, we had planned a protest for December 9, to be held outside the U.S. mission to the United Nations. We were prepared to denounce the dangerous and immoral Geneva accord with Iran, supposedly resulting in the cessation of Iran’s nuclear program. Unfortunately, we could not get the support of the 52 major Jewish organizations that make up the Conference of Presidents. And there was no other scheduled demonstration we could have joined. Finally, the weather was stormy, so the entire effort was canceled.
As Ms. Lehman pointed out, we are admonished in our prayers not to put our trust in “princes.” Apparently we have no leaders in whom we can place our trust to speak for the American Jewish population. Perhaps that is one reason the masses are so silent. History will record this as one of the great tragedies of our time.
Americans for a Safe Israel/AFSI
Chazal And Science: Rabbi Meiselman Responds
In his Dec. 13 letter concerning the Nov. 29 Jewish Press article about my new book, Torah, Chazal & Science, reader Avi Goldstein states that the Talmud clearly believed the earth is flat with a hard-shell, semispherical top.
While this may be the respondent’s view of the Talmud, such significant Talmudic scholars as Tosafos (Avodah Zarah 41a s.v. Kekadur), Rabbeinu Yonah, Meiri, and countless other rishonim say clearly that the Mishnah is based on the fact that the earth is spherical. What is clear to Mr. Goldstein was not clear to these significant rishonim.
I discuss the Gemara in Pesachim in my book (pp. 143-149). It would have been more productive had the respondent taken the time to read the book, especially this section, rather than just referring to the review.
The length of the solar year is discussed on pp. 63-69 and if Mr. Goldstein will read these pages he will learn that I never say what he claims but rather that all rishonim are of the opinion that these are two approximations that are used for different purposes. For practical reasons, we are given approximations to function with in this world. This is stated clearly in rishonim and this is clearly documented in the book.
The respondent neglects to mention that I discuss at length (pp. 273- 295) the Pachad Yitzchak’s view on lice. But I do this within the context of his comments in his section on Chokrim where he clearly states that when there is a conflict between Chazal and science, then Chazal trump science. He then cross-references the section on lice. This was the basis of my statement that he backtracked. In the section on Nikkur he further says that whoever doubts that the words of Chazal on scientific issues are God-given has heretical tendencies and should be put in cherem and prevented from holding a communal position.
In the interests of honesty Mr. Goldstein should have quoted these as well.
I do not know where I have ever quoted my revered uncle HaRav HaGaon Aharon Soloveichik, zt”l, as my mentor. I mention him only once in my book, quoting his statement that Chazal never err in realia. He was a major talmid chacham from whom I learned many things. I have had only one rebbe in my life. That is why I refer throughout my book to HaRav HaGaon Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, zt”l, as mori ve’rebbi. This does not minimize my respect and reverence for my other uncle.
Furthermore, I never heard from him anything about evolution and I would want to know the exact context in which he said those words. Whereas he made the above statement about Chazal not erring in realia, I highly doubt he believed in evolution.
I suggest to Avi Goldstein that he read my book carefully. I am willing to respond to any thoughtful and thought-through questions he may have.
Rabbi Moshe Meiselman
Yeshivas Toras Moshe
About the Author:
If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.
Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.
If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.