Impressed With Pope

I am amazed at the strident criticism directed at Pope Benedict XVI over his remarks at Yad Vashem and agree with you that it is misplaced ("The Pope at Yad Vashem," editorial, May 15). Most of what he said constituted a sharp condemnation of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. I will not quarrel with those who think he should have gone further, but we should appreciate his message to the world that the Holocaust is something that should never be forgotten or minimized.

It seems to me the pope's critics have either forgotten or never knew the approach our gedolim tookover the centuries regarding relations with the Church. With Jews being such a minority in a sea of non-Jews, our rabbis realized how counterproductive it would be for the community to take an antagonistic approach, even in times of oppression.

It should be all the more so in this instance when the pope is actually teaching his followers positive things about us. He should in all ways be encouraged to continue.

We must never forget the old adage Tofasto merubeh, lo tofasto (If you overreach, you realize nothing.)

Chanoch Katz

Jerusalem

Not So Impressed

Will we ever learn? The Christian world will never abandon the fundamental belief that Jews are "Christ killers" and will never stop viewing us accordingly. Nor will it ever forsake the belief that Judaism is a stale, perfidious religion and therefore we Jews are always proper targets for conversion.

In the short term, what the pope has said about anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial perhaps will make Jews somewhat safer. In the long run, however, these are mere words designed to appease critics of the Church. Bottom line, we are still considered outcasts with all that idea brings with it.

Gary Fruchter

(Via E-Mail)

Insignificant Spain

I would like to add to Steven Plaut's incisive column ("Spain To Israel: Do As We Say, Not As We Do," op-ed, May 15). Israel's relationship with Spain encapsulates what has gone wrong with Zionism. How absurd is it for a country known for its long history of ruthlessness - Spanish Inquisition, expulsion of Jews in 1492, Spanish empire which enslaved Africans and Indians in Latin America, Spanish civil war - to set up a court to judge the morality of Israel?

Israel should have broken ties with Spain not only because of the kangaroo court but also for hostility to Jews in the Spanish press and the recent anti-Semitic abuse directed at the Israeli ambassador on a street in Madrid. Israel has to tread carefully with unfriendly countries like China, Egypt, Russia and Turkey because of their influence, but Spain today is an unimportant country.

Jacob Mendlovic

Toronto, Canada

Indifferent To Boxing

Dmitriy Salita and Yuri Foreman are not only exceptional athletes, they're exceptional Jews. Both are Sabbath observers and both are the finest examples of Jewish pride by virtue of the manner how they conduct themselves. They are perfect gentlemen.

The root of the problem addressed by Ron Goldman ("Boxing's Invisible Jew," op-ed, May 8) is not so much that Dmitriy and Yuri are Jewish and therefore not getting championship fights but rather that Jews are indifferent to boxing and therefore do not support our two undefeated prize fighters.

In the days of the Jewish champions to which Goldman alluded, Jews would pack the fight halls to rally on their Jewish fighters. If only Jews today would support their fighters like other groups do theirs. Then the boxing promoters would be giving our two guys the championship bouts and big purses they well deserve

Myron Sugerman

Montclair, NJ

Gay Marriage Debate

Biblical Foundation

Rabbi Yair Hoffman provides an excellent explanation of traditional moral values that emanate from the Torah ("Opposing the Redefinition of Marriage," op-ed, May 15).

It is clear that the founding fathers of the United States were significantly influenced by biblical values. In order for this republic to endure, a return to spiritual and moral foundations of God's Word is essential. It is therefore necessary to oppose the abomination of same-gender marriage that is simply an attempt to rebel against God. All such attempts to cast off God's authority have led to the downfall of great empires.

Rabbi Zalmen Shapiro

(Via E-Mail)

Discredited Arguments

Rabbi Hoffman offers several tired and discredited arguments against the legalization of same-sex marriage.

In his overheated language, "undermining an institution that has been designed by history and Natural Law to vouchsafe the future of mankind can be compared to unleashing chemical and nuclear hazards with the potential to undermine mankind's future."

He gives no facts to support this claim. There is no evidence that allowing gay couples to marry keeps straight couples from doing so. There is no evidence that children of gay couples are worse off than children of straight couples. Little if any evidence exists that children raised by gay parents are more or less likely to be gay. There is no evidence that people are having fewer children because of gay people.

There is, however, evidence that many children who today have no home might have one if gay couples could adopt them and evidence that gay couples who want children use the avenues of adoption, in-vitro fertilization, and surrogacy to have them.

Hoffman argues that legalization of gay marriage will lead to legalization of incest and bestiality. Suffice to say, Hoffman presents no evidence of a constituency advocating for either one.

It is true that having a mother and father is optimal. But using this argument against gay marriage is itself dangerous. In the first place, little evidence exists to show that children raised by gay couples do not develop normally. In the second place, prejudging the suitable environment for a child based on "normal psychosocial development" suggests that the government should be quick to interfere in all circumstances that are less than optimal.

Why shouldn't the government remove children from a home where the parents are unemployed or poor, since studies show that rich children do better in school than poor children? Why should single parenthood or divorce be legal? Should one's personal beliefs be examined before one is permitted to reproduce?

Yes, as Hoffman points out, we certainly give homeowners a tax break based on the belief that home ownership brings more social stability than a "transient lifestyle." We also have a tax credit for those who have children. But we have not outlawed the renting of apartments, and we have not forced childless parents to divorce.

Finally, Hoffman reveals his true purpose: "[R]edefining the parameters of marriage amounts to a subtle and insidious attempt to undermine the beliefs and principles of those who uphold the sanctity of Natural Law. It is an insult to Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and practitioners of other religions in this country."

Legalizing gay marriage places no restriction on my ability to be a heterosexual or my ability to reproduce. Neither does it prejudice anyone's ability to argue that heterosexual marriage is superior. If anything, it strengthens the institution of marriage, which has been eroded by high divorce rates, the frenetic, self-destructive pace of modern life, and the narcissism that pervades our society these days.

As a member of a religious minority, I believe legislating personal religious viewpoints can only hurt us and our open society. Our fight against Islamic extremism is in part a fight against that kind of thinking, where so-called religious insult serves as justification for curtailing civil liberties and in extreme cases, organized violence.

Rabbi Hoffman should relax. Legalization of gay marriage is not going change things, and humankind will be just fine.

Michael Brenner

Woodmere, NY

Rabbi Hoffman Responds: I would like to thank Rabbi Shapiro and Mr. Brenner for reading and responding. This is an issue that must be taken seriously.

Mr. Brenner describes the arguments offered against redefining marriage as "tired and discredited."

To reiterate the first argument: There is such a thing as Natural Law, which is why the founding fathers established this country as one nation under God. This is neither tired nor discredited. It is not overheated to say that redefining marriage undermines this institution - the fact that the nuclear family has all but disappeared in entire neighborhoods has contributed to a deterioration of society in terms of education and crime. This too is neither tired nor discredited.

As for my second argument - "the slippery slope" where other marriages will become legalized - is Mr. Brenner really saying there is no constituency for multiple wives? There are tens of thousands of people in this country who have multiple wives and they do want to legalize it. From schismatic Mormons to certain Islamic groups, there are strong voices that wish to legalize second and third wives.

On the third argument - that having a mother and father is optimal for psychosocial reasons and that it is in the state's interest to preserve the traditional definition - it would seem the statistics comparing children from no-fault divorce states to states with no such laws prove the point. No amount of dressing up and role-playing will replace the essential fact that a child needs a mommy and a daddy.

It's interesting that Mr. Brenner claims my true purpose is revealed in argument number four. My main point actually lies in the first argument. The Midrash tells us that no society ever went so far as to redefine marriage. My op-ed merely pointed out that the motivation behind the movement to redefine marriage is, quite likely, to "stick it" to those religions that consider the practice of homosexuality an abomination.

Further, no one is advocating a justification for "curtailing civil liberties." Let us not fool ourselves. There are no civil liberties being argued for in this legislation. What is being argued for is the right to hijack terms and institutions.

Like Mr. Brenner, I believe legislating personal religious viewpoints can only hurt us and our open society. But Natural Law has historically been and still is at the very heart of our society. And there is a higher moral power that has defined the institution of marriage. We live in a free country, and we all value those freedoms. But let us not make the mistake of confusing freedom with the wanton hijacking of terminologies.

Read Comments (8)

Re: Michael Brenner's Message
Date 11:05, 05-20, 09

The issue at hand is not about civil liberties; it is rather about a radical agenda being irrationally supported by a government predicated on normal values shared almost universally.

Practically all major civilizations recognize that marriage is defined by a union between a man and woman who agree to be loyal to one another in order to raise a family.
(There is no rationale for enlisting government to redefine
such a normal and universal understanding of marriage.)

Does Mr. Brenner propose enlisting government to
define marriage as a union between a man and animal as well?
(Such a radical agenda can also be used to justify bestiality. There is no limit to anarchy and the destruction
it will unleash.)

Rabbis Hoffman and Shapiro are to be commended for their lucid presentation in favor of moral values and opposition to same-sex unions. (Such an abomination led to the downfall of Sodom and Gemorrah as stated in the Bible.)

The Founding Fathers of the United States understood the necessity of a moral code to ensure the viability of the new republic. Although not all of the Founding Fathers were formally religious, they did accept the legitimacy of numerous biblical and philosophical principles.

It would be horrible to ignore our traditional heritage in an attempt to resurrect a discredited Sodomite
outlook on life.

Finally, we must remember that Almighty God will not tolerate such immorality.

Let us pray to Almighty God that the moral
foundations of the United States Of America will be reinvigorated. Rabbi Yoel Colon

The "gay marriage" debate
Date 01:05, 05-20, 09

I find myself in the unusual, and certainly the uncomfortable, position of disagreeing with all three of the letters on the subject of "gay marriage" in this week's (5/20) issue of JP. Though Rabbis Shapiro and Hoffman disagree with Mr. Brenner on the specific issue being discussed they all three seem to share a fundamental, and very flawed, assumption: that the Laws of G-d do not merit serious consideration and must be thrown over in favor of such matters as "natural law" (a pagan/Roman Catholic invention) and the Founding Fathers.

Hashem is Melekh Malkhei HaMelakhim. The Founding Fathers did not create the universe. And while Mashiach has most certainly not yet come, the Laws of G-d have NOT, G-d forbid, been suspended. Furthermore, just as all Jews are obligated to observe the Torah whether they agree with this or not, so all non-Jews are obligated to observe the Noachide Laws. These G-d-proclaimed law--Torah for Jews and Noachide for non-Jews--are the one and only true basis for all ethics, all morality, all justice, and ultimately all law.

Mr. Brenner's assertions that "legislating private religious positions" and that secularization is part of our war with Islam are both disingenuous. For one thing, the Left cuts Islam considerable slack for its own pseudo-theocratic inclinations in the name of multiculturalism. For another, what are our laws against theft and murder if not the state recognizing the laws of G-d? Perhaps in the name of secularism we should rescind all laws against murder as well?

I myself am an identifying Noachide which means that I find myself in a very unique and uncomfortable position in American society. I rejected Xianity because I came to see it conflicted with Objective Truth, not because I was born into an ancient non-Xian ethno-cultural community. Orthodox Jews have their own state-within-a-state and their own courts and judges, so they need not feel implicated in the descent of society into barbarism. Where does a Noachide turn? There are no ethno-cultural-communal institutions serving the Noachide community, and if there were they would miss the point that ALL non-Jews are Halakhically Noachides and that the Noachide Laws bind ALL non-Jews individually and as a society. The point I am trying to make (perhaps not very well) is that many religous communities can continue to live in a quasi Theocratic world even in a thoroughly secular society. But not everyone has that option.

Finally, there is no such thing as "religion." There is only Hashem, the Creator of All Whose laws govern not only the Temple Service and the Kohanim but also the King, the law courts, the conduct of business and agriculture, and every other endeavor. Inside the shuls Orthodox Jews know and proclaim this. Unfortunately, it seems that outside the shul Hashem is a mere member of the pantheon of quaint private beliefs which should have no bearing on anything objective. This is a most un-Jewish notion and ultimately lies in Xianity's "render unto Caesar." Judaism, like Islam (with which, however unpopular it may be to say so, it shares in some ways a closer kinship than it does to voluntary, salvationistic Xianity), knows no Caesar. Hashem is a Jealous G-d, and was so long before Xian salvationism proclaimed the Nazarene the "only way to heaven." While most non-Jews, and even Jews, may qualify Halakhically in this peculiar age as tiynoqot shenishbu, that does not in any sense alter Hashem's absolute Kingship over all things, public and private, "religious" or "non-religious."

I have read that the present Galut is not so much a physical as a spiritual condition (which is seemingly confirmed by the status of the current State of Israel as an outpost of decadent Western democracy rather than of what the Jewish State was always understood to mean for all the millenia that preceded it). May I suggest that the heart of this spiritual Galut is the cutting of the Jewish soul in two, so that half lives in the Theocratic world of Hashem while the other lives in the secularized, "enlightened" world of Thomas Jefferson (who, by the way, absolutely loathed the Torah and G-d of Israel). And no number of discos in Tel-'Aviv can undo this sad condition.

Re: Noahide's Message
Date 12:05, 05-21, 09

The anonymous Noahide misreads Rabbis Hoffman and Shapiro, mistakenly writing that the aforementioned rabbis
think "that the Laws of God do not merit serious consideration and must be thrown over in favor of ... natural law."

Rabbi Shapiro, in fact, does not mention "natural law." (Rabbi Hoffman does; but his discussion is apparently geared toward a philosophical perspective on the issue at hand. I do not presume to speak for Rabbi Hoffman; but it is clear that his presentation is totally based on a lucid
grasp of Jewish tradition. Contrary to the anonymous blogger's message, Rabbi Hoffman clearly asserts that God's laws DO merit the utmost serious consideration.)

I would therefore suggest that the anonymous
blogger re-read the aforecited essays; on sober reflection, he should conclude that the clergymen cited above are really in total agreement with his viewpoint.

At this juncture, I would like to commend the Noahide writer for his sincere and passionate expression of faith. He is definitely on the right path.

So-called "Natural Law" is actually an outgrowth of the Noahide Code, the famous Seven Commandments
Almighty God transmitted to Noah according to classical
Jewish theology. This code is indeed still in effect.

The writer is certainly correct about the
relevance of the Noahide Code.

This is a very important subject. Opposition to a re-emergence of the antiquated Sodomite system is indeed essential. All decent people must oppose such immoral legislation. I also pray that the moral majority in the United States will be successful in their cause to thwart such abnormal initiatives.

In New York, Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Paterson are on the wrong side of history in their support for same-sex unions. (There is no reason for sane government
to enact such wicked legislation.)

May God bless America!
Rabbi Chaim Silver

Re: Michael Brenner's Message
Date 01:05, 05-24, 09

Michael Brenner's arguments in favor of "gay marriage" are not logical.

While he concedes that "it is true that having a mother and father is optimal", he further writes that "using this argument against gay marriage is dangerous."

He inaccurately asserts that opposition to same-sex unions involves unwarranted government intervention.

The inaccuracy of that statement relates to the fact that the proposed establishment of same-gender unions does in fact involve unwarranted government involvement in our lives.

As Rabbi Hoffman points out, such an initiative
in essence entails an official usurpation of terminology
which results in a wanton nullification of tradition cherished by civilized societies all over the world.

Marriage is in fact universally recognized as
a union between a man and a woman. It is a viewpoint held by most people in the world. According to every single poll taken on the subject, it is certainly the majority viewpoint held in the United States Of America.

This traditional view, in particular, has been upheld over and over again in every referendum on the subject in the United States Of America. Most recently in California, a proposition asserting that marriage is between a man and a woman passed by an overwhelming majority.

Why does Mr. Brenner insist on making same-gender unions an issue in light of its overwhelming unpopularity? Why is he surprised that Orthodox Jewish Rabbis support normal marriage and oppose same-gender unions? (Mr. Brenner should take a deep breath and relax.)

Aside from the obvious theological objections, it should be emphasized that this is an issue government should stay out of. Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Paterson,
whatever their personal views are on the subject, have no business expressing support for Sodomite unions.

Shelly Silver had no business sponsoring same-sex union legislation.

Since this is a Jewish Orthodox newspaper, it is definitely appropriate for rabbis to voice their opposition to such evil,since it violates God's law.

Rabbi Hoffman writes: "The Midrash tells us that no society ever went so far as to redefine marriage."
The Midrash Rabbah Beraishis reports that one of the evils that led to the Flood was the decision by the rulers of that time to sanction same-sex unions.

More rabbis and clergymen of all faiths should vehemently oppose Sodomite legislation. Politicians should uphold traditional marriage to avert God's wrath. The Torah's warnings against immorality are meant to be taken literally. Rabbi Chaim Silver

To respond to Chanoch Katz concerning the Pope's visit to Israel.
Date 11:05, 05-24, 09

Maybe you missed something in you analysis, it is called the Holocaust. There are no more rules. The fact is self imposed censorship is worthless and based upon fear and ignorance. Christianity is wrong not only because of the 450 vile anti semitic instances in the New Testament but because it is fiction. Jews are not perfidious because the story is a phony one. Rabbis and lay Jews have to understand that the Jewish and Rabbinical acceptance even of the christian storyline and christian history is not only apostasy but is totally not supported, any statement even by Rambam is not provable, is not explained, there was zero due diligence done, how would he know, based upon what hearsay and innuendo and what myth. If any Rabbi agrees with the christian storyline, he is speaking based upon rumor not facts. Any critical reading of the Christian Bible would lead to thousands of instances of accreted fiction based upon 250 years of scholarship by liberal christian theologians and scholars. I think it is surreal that Rabbis spout an understanding of which they are so ignorant of, christianity is known only through the New Testament and that is 100% fiction.

Re: Last Message Posted On Chanoch Katz Message
Date 12:06, 06-2, 09

Questions for anonymous blogger: Why do you cite Rambam in your message?

You assert that Rambam's statements are not "provable."

What statements are you referring to?

What does Rambam have to do with the subject?

Who are the rabbis you're talking about?

Re: Noahide's Comments
Date 02:06, 06-2, 09

I would like to inform the anonymous Noahide that
acceptance of civil law is in fact prescribed by the Torah.

Specifically, we should be law-abiding citizens.
(One caveat---as long as the government does not abridge our religious freedom.)

See Pirkay Avos Chapter 2 where we are called upon to pray for the welfare of the government in order to avert
anarchy---which is graphically described in terms of people
swallowing one another alive---to paraphrase the original Hebrew.

Of course HaShem is Melekh Malkay HaMelakhim---
the Supreme King of the Universe. We pray that HaShem will
usher in His reign swiftly.

Until that event, however, we should be good citizens and follow HaShem's Torah.

You are certainly on the right path as you have
understood the importance of Shevah Mitzvahs BeNay Noakh---
the Seven Commandments of Noah which are still in effect.

The appeal to Natural Law is prudent in order to explain the significance of safeguarding traditional family values: marriage as defined as a union between a man and woman. (This was in effect before the Mabul--the biblical Deluge) Rabbi Chaim Silver

Addendum To Noahide Inquiry/Comment
Date 07:06, 06-3, 09

The actual quote is found in Pirkay Avos Chapter 111, Mishneh 2 which contains a statement by the great
sage R. Chanina who ruled we are to pray for the welfare of the government. (I am repeating this to you not as an historian or academician but as a rabbi.)

This is a practical principle that applies nowadays. For example,in many synagogues, there is a special prayer for the President and Vice-President of the United States. (Of course, this does not mean that we cannot disagree with the president. In fact, when necessary his actions and statements should be vigorously criticized and of course he can be voted out of office in a free election. As I write these lines, the United States is still a constitutional government with three branches; as citizens we must guard our freedoms jealously and with God's
help we can preserve those freedoms.)Rabbi Chaim Silver

I have elaborated these points in response to your mistaken notion that Judaism does not accept the validity of any man-made government---if I understand your point correctly. Nothing can be further from the truth.
The quote cited above from the Ethics Of The Fathers shows clearly that good citizenship is considered a virtue.

In addition, this essay is designed to refute
wicked anti-Semites who cite some negative statements found in our Torah literature which were directed against tyrannical societies governed by belligerent pagans who abused their power. That does not apply to an enlightened society as enumerated in the Bill Of Rights where basic freedoms are guaranteed.