Thursday, December 31, 2009

Do they know ?

 

Tomorrow night otherwise sensible people will party hardy to celebrate the end of one year and the beginning of another according to the common calendar.

I wonder if they would be in such a celebratory mood if they knew exactly what they were celebrating.

If Jesus was born on December 25 - and there is substantial evidence he was NOT born on the 25th day of December - count the days until January 1.

        1 - 25
        2 - 26
        3 - 27
        4 - 28
        5 - 29
        6 - 30
        7 - 31
        8 - 1

Eight days.

Now when my sons were born, 8 days later we had celebrations. Lots of people, lots of food, lots of photos - still and video - lots of congratulations.

Jesus and my sons have several things in common.

All are Jews and two were born in Israel - Bet Lehem or Bethlehem - still IS in Israel.

One more thing all three have in common: on the eighth day of their lives they were circumcised - by a mohel, an especially trained, observant Jew. OK, I'm "assuming" that Jesus' mohel was "especially trained and observant."

What non-Jews are celebrating as "New Years" actually is their god's circumcision day.

It would come as a shock to the anti-Semites that they are celebrating a Jewish event.

It would come as a surprise to some Jews to learn that "Sylvester" - the name for the holiday in Israel - honors the god of a people who for centuries persecuted Jews.

Here, in the Several States, most revelers will consider the December 31 celebration and January 1 headache an "American" holiday free of any religious significance.

Just like "Christ"mas and Easter and Halloween are "American" holidays. They may be American COMMERCIAL holidays, but they are very much religious holidays, albeit borrowed from, or celebrated with icons taken from, pagans.

The reason Jesus' birth is celebrated in December near the Winter Solstice is because early European followers of Jesus were afraid the sun would desert them. They took a pagan celebration to appease the gods controlling the sun, moon, stars, and heavens so the sun would come back, gave it a spin to something their priests could approve, and gave it a new name. (Frankly, that also may be the reason Hanukah is conveniently near the solstice, some times closer than other times.)

Halloween, that great "American" holiday where children are taught to coerce treats from adults (versus simply begging for gifts before the winter holiday) by threatening a "trick" (such as "TP'ing" the house or painting graffiti on walls) was "converted" by Jesus' followers to the "Eve of all Hallows" - "hallows" being the church's saints.

Solomon said it - there is nothing new under the sun, but to borrow from the introduction to Jack Webb's "Badge 714" tv program, "the names have been changed to protect", not the innocent, but the previous pagan celebrants' holidays.

The rabbi of the congregation where I currently hang my kippa (so to write) said he will forego any December 31 parties. He doesn't object to Jews going to Jewish celebrations; he is, after all, a realist. However, he makes a concession to the holiday; the morning shiur (class) starts at 7 a.m. instead of 6 a.m. since many members of this working man's minyan will have the day off.

I once had as a friend a Conservative rabbi, back in the day when Conservative was conservative. ("Had as a friend" only because we lost touch over the years; our differing approaches to the religion had little to do with the past tense condition.) Rabbi Alan was asked by his parishioners if they could have a December 31st bash in the synagogue basement. The then young rabbi responded with a flat "No." I think the membership went on with the party, but at a different venue . . . and Rabbi Alan kept his job for many years after.

For me, December 31 is a night to stay off the road. Besides, I have to be up at 6 a.m. to get ready to "slap leather with the guys" at the synagogue.

Yohanon
Yohanon.Glenn at gmail dot com

Monday, December 28, 2009

Untimely thought

 

I was reading some entries in a blog by the "(no longer) The Northernmost Jew" when I chanced upon entry 279. "White House Seder" (http://northjew.blogspot.com/2009/04/white-house-seder.html) .

Amy W's blog (http://northjew.blogspot.com/) is worth a visit; she has some interesting "stuff" - some "Jewish," some slightly political.

Anyway, the bit on the Obama seder caught my attention and reminded me that a seder with a non-Jew (no-kare) is strictly prohibited by the Torah, and yes, I will cite book, chapter, and verses: Shemot/Exodus 12 43:50; look it up.

Ah, but the hagadah (Maxwell House or otherwise) tells us to feed "all who are hungry."

That seems to contradict the Torah.

It doesn't; not really.

We are obliged to feed all who are hungry, but not necessarily at the seder. Rambam - Moses ben Maimon or Maimonides - tells us we first take care of our immediate family, and then if there is excess, the extended family and then the community, and finally, the general community. (Bear in mind that there "always" is a little excess; even beggars are obligated to put a coin in the box.)

Back to the seder.

We - my family - had a very dear non-Jewish friend, a woman who truly was "like family," a "Dutch aunt." She very much wanted to participate in a seder, but this scrivener citing the Torah prohibition prevented it.

I should have taken a leaf from my educator Spouse's book and created a "mock" seder.

Most Jewish Community Day Schools have mock - or practice - seders. Often the parents are invited. Some of the children come from mixed marriages and some children are, by halacha, not Jewish. (I understand Reform accepts as Jewish any child born of a Jewish parent - father or mother.)

The "mock" seder, not being a "real" seder - that is, not occurring on the first night of Pesach - lacks the Torah prohibition, so everyone, even a US president, can attend.

Had I been "day school aware," I could have invited my "Dutch aunt" to a mock seder a couple of days before the "real thing." Or even during hol ha"moed (intermediate days of the festival).

What about mixed marriages - both religiously mixed and Jewishly mixed? My rabbi tells me that for "shalom biet" it now is (rabbinicly) permitted to have a no-kare (non-Jew) at the seder. My rabbi, were he Ashkenazi, would fall into the "Orthodox" category, but Sefaridim really don't understand "Orthodox," "Conservative," Reform," et al; a Jew is a Jew is a Jew'; some more observant, some less observant, but in the final analysis, a Jew.

In Israel, because of so many mixed marriages - and this time I refer to Sefardi and Ashkenazi couples - the rabbinute has relaxed its stand on kitniyot (peas, beans, and other items missing from an Ashkenazi Pesach menu) for the sake of "shalom biet."

There is one problem with a mock seder and that is timing.

The practice seder has to be held at least two days before the first night of Pesach. Why? The rabbis ordained that we must abstain from matzah on the day before the seder. Why? Because if we ate matzah every day, it would not be special at the seder.

Aside from the first night of Pesach, there is no requirement to eat matzah during Pesach. Leavened products still are prohibited, but matzah is not required.

One nice thing about a school mock seder - it teaches all who participate the "generics" of the period without impacting each family's own traditions.

Was the Obama seder - the issue that started this rant - a "kosher" seder?

According to one article I read, the White House seder was on the second night, and while most Jews outside of Israel celebrate two "first nights," TECHNICALLY the president's seder wasn't a "real" seder (that is on the first "first night") so maybe ...

After all, according to one report he had "kosher style" food.

In our time we follow Hillel; when the Mashiach comes, we will follow Shamai.

Caveat: I am not a rabbi and I don't play one on tv.

 

Yohanon
Yohanon.Glenn at gmail dot com

 

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Primary care rabbis

 

I was a lunch guest last Shabat (the Spouse is visiting our kin in Israel). After a delightful meal we started talking about rabbis.

Traditionally, a person is to find a rabbi and stay with that rabbi - you direct questions to the person and accept his answers.

I am fortunate to have a worthy rabbi at "my" synagogue. He's a dayan, a mohel, and a shochet in addition to his congregational duties. He's North African. He's also my second source, my first being books by North African rabbis, mostly Messas (Shalom and Yosef) and Macluf Abehatzarah. I also have other works (R. Lau included), but the luminaries who authored the other books are not North African.

My hostess (I'm old enough to remember the distinction between "host" and "hostess" and "actor' and "actress") emphasized the point that a person needs to follow one rabbi. Period.

I contend that with modern communication, we can - and should have - a "primary care rabbi," a PCR, and specialist rabbis.

The best examples I can think of are medical-related. Medical ethics, even in the general world, are challenging. Within Judaism, more so. Transplants - taking, giving, and receiving; Do Not Resuscitate (DNR).

Law issues also come to mind. Do I sue a rabbi who destroyed my home in civil court or rabbinical court? Civil court, some hold, makes us (Jews) look bad, but suing a rabbi before his peers seems patently foolish and a sure waste of my energy.

Can my PCR, as wise as he is, provide an answer that will be accepted by all? (Well, no rabbi can do that, but you get my point.) My PCR is not a universally recognized authority on Jewish medical ethics, but there are some "specialists."

Would any person in their right mind ask their primary care physician (PCP) to perform open heart surgery? So why would a person ask his or her PCR to answer a technical question?

Back in the day, if a person had a religious question, they went to their PCR and asked him. If he was a good PCR, he would ask someone he considered an authority who might ask someone with a greater reputation.

The problems are that (a) something always gets lost - or changed- as a message is passed along and (b) by the time an answer filters back down to the Jew who asked the question, said Jew might already be dead.

I would be concerned that my PCR would not fully understand my question, that he wouldn't forward it to a specialist (unlike the military where a private can write a letter to the president and all the intermediaries in the chain of command MUST forward the letter, the PCR has no obligation to seek assistance from a specialist rabbi), or that in forwarding my query that the question would be modified - perhaps innocently, perhaps in translation from my language to the specialist's language by the PCR who may have neither my language or the specialist's technical language as his primary language.

I'll quickly concede that an email to a hakham from Yohanon Glenn will, in the normal course of events, get less attention that an email - or snail mail - from a dayan and well-respected PCR. I also will concede that most specialists probably have people to screen their incoming communications and who, receiving my communication, might be tempted to condense or otherwise modify it, defeating the purpose of direct contact between "patient" and "specialist."

However, many of the specialists have published their opinions. Many of the opinions are available on the Internet. What did R. Soloveitchik, Feinstein , or Twerski say about this or that? What was the ruling from the current or previous Hakham Bashi (Sefardi Chief Rabbi in Israel) - hopefully following the advice of the specialists, both rabbinical and technical?

I don't expect my PCP to be an expert in all things medical. In fact, I don't WANT my PCP to claim expertise in all things medical; I expect to be sent to a specialist.

Likewise, I don't expect my PCR - as much as I respect and appreciate him - to be a specialist - an expert - in all things Jewish, especially contemporary issues that are "subject to change" as our wisdom increases.

Unlike medicine or law, I'm not certain there is a guaranteed way to get a rabbinical specialist's response in a timely manner. Rambam constantly complained that he was overworked, and given his fame, there is little doubt his claim was justified. But we can, and I posit that we should, use the technology at hand to find specialists' opinions that relate to our situations.

As for me, I'll search the WWW.

My hostess said we can't pick-and-choose a rabbi based on what we want to hear (but in truth we do that anyway in our choice of congregations), and she's right. At the same time, I think I would be remiss if I failed to seek an expert opinion on esoteric issues that my PCR - wonderful person that he is - lacks first hand, up-to-the-minute experience. If I ask my PCR a question beyond his ken and if he gives me an answer (which, in my PCR's case I doubt would happen) I would be obliged to "live with" the answer.

Opinions are handed down daily in the religious centers of the world; most don't make headlines even in the "professional press" but are known only to the experts concerned with the specific issue. My rabbi, a congregational rabbi, has too much on his plate to scour all the literature in paper and on the Internet for every issue that a congregant might encounter.

With all due respect to my rabbi and my hostess - who, incidentally , goes to a different synagogue - I will continue to seek the experts' opinions wherever I can find them.

 

Yohanon Glenn
Yohanon.Glenn at gmail dot com

 

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Pastels

 

The following is excerpted from an AP article picked up by Yahoo.

Headline: Israel: British arrest warrant threatens ties

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091215/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_britain_livni

By AMY TEIBEL, Associated Press Writer

Israeli opposition leader Tzipi Livni was targeted for her role in last winter's brutal offensive against Hamas in Gaza, when she was foreign minister.

Livni, a one-time lead negotiator with the Palestinians, enjoys a dovish reputation in much of the West. But as foreign minister, she staunchly defended Israel's devastating military offensive in Gaza.

Her support for that operation, launched to end years of rocket fire by Gaza militants against Israel, has remained strong, despite widespread international criticism and allegations of war crimes due to the hundreds of civilian casualties.

Well, Ms Teibel at least noted - almost as an after thought - that the "devastating military offensive" was "launched to end years of rocket fire by Gaza militants."

There is some debate about the number of casualties in Aza - and no mention of Israeli civilian casualties prior to Israel's "brutal offensive."

This is "colored with a pastel paint" journalism; not blatantly yellow but one-sided and incomplete.

 

Yohanon Glenn
Yohanon.Glenn at gmail.com

 

Sunday, November 29, 2009

Yakov as Risk Manager

.

According to Torah Org's Rabbi Aron Tendler, Yakov ben Yitzak ben Abraham was a risk manager.

No, R. Tendler didn't come right out and state the fact.

But for Perashat Vayishlach the rabbi wrote that when Yakov learns that Eisav is coming to meet him with a 400-men force, he (Yakov) "applies a three pronged strategy in preparation for the confrontation: a) Tefilah - prayer; b) diplomacy; and c) war."

Granted, that may not be "risk management" as we now think of it, but Yakov - like Noah before him - understood, in a Biblical way, preparation, mitigation, and recovery.

Yakov prays for Devine assistance and guidance. He's been known to try to "buy" HaShem (if you promise me this, I'll let you be my god) much in the way we "buy" a vendor (it you'll back up your offer with proof you can meet the Service Level Agreements, you can be my vendor). Yakov, in his own way, is preparing for his inevitable confrontation with his estranged brother.

Yakov then comes up with a mitigation plan. Figuring he cannot avoid meeting his brother - no escape if he is to do as G-d tells him - he decided to send gifts to Eisav, to mollify his anger.

Finally, Yakov "prepares for war."

I disagree with the rabbi on this point. The Torah clearly states that Yakov wanted to preserve as much of his assets as possible; he elected to split his possessions - including wives, concubines and off-spring - into four groups. The Torah has given no indication that Yakov was anything but passive his whole life - the only time he did anything in his own defense was when he wrestled with a man (B'reishit 32 25).

Obviously, in today's world, if we are to instigate risk management into our lives we would try to identify the risks.

On a family level, out first priority must be to the family members: spouse, children, parents. We look at what could happen to them and look for ways to avoid or mitigate the risks. Something as simple as a tetanus shot (flu shots being suspect for some) or having arrangements with neighbors to watch our youngest (and eldest) dependents.

Then we look beyond our most precious "resource" to housing and sustenance.

At the synagogue, the first priority must be protecting people. Most of us don't have to worry about terrorist attacks (thank G-d), but we do need to be concerned with fire, flood, and structural integrity. We need to make sure the sefri Torah are safe; in a fireproof and waterproof aron. (Why people first? "From the grave who will praise you?" gives us the answer.) After that, membership information, both for current and previous members. Then, if the building "goes away," where can the congregation meet?

As risks are identified - and financial risk is a very real concern - ways must be found to avoid or mitigate the risks.

Avoidance and mitigation usually have a price tag. Sometimes the price is minimal - if, for example, all the congregation's records are on a computer, the "cost" is the price of a portable, external back-up hard drive and the time for someone to copy data from computers to it (not all data has to be copied each time so while copying should be frequent, it need not be unnecessarily time consuming). It is understood that all congregational structures will have fire detection and suppression systems installed, but water tends to do mean and nasty things to computers and to paper. Likewise fire (before the detection/suppression system has time to work).

Identifying risks is a "group" process that includes all members of the congregation, local police and fire personnel, and risk experts from the insurance company; it is time to prioritize the risks (remember, avoidance or mitigation usually has a price tag and most congregations have a limited budget) based on (a) probability and (b) impact on the organization.

So far, we only rated the risk to determine which are most critical to the organization.

Now it's time to look for avoidance and mitigation options. As before, the entire congregation should be involved, as well as the outside resources mentioned above.

The board will have to decide which avoidance or mitigation options need to be implemented and set an implementation schedule.

Once that is in place, plans need to be developed "in the event of."

For example, ushers and synagogue leadership need to be trained to safely move people out of the facility in case of fire (or broken pipe). Perhaps a Members' Handbook could be developed that, in addition to congregation bylaws, customs, and "how to do" for honors, includes a map with all exits noted as well as where fire extinguishers, ACDs, and other first aid equipment are located.

Synagogues are a business, just like General Mills or a Mom-n-Pop market; they have risks that need to be considered and, as appropriate, avoided or mitigated. Synagogues, like a doctor or lawyer or plumber or electrician provide a service (or several); that generates income. The source of income (the service) must be protected.

If the service "goes away," the income may also go away - to another congregation or, worse, to be lost completely.

Certainly we should put our trust in HaShem, but as the following old tale suggests, we need to do our part, too.

    Seems there was a gentleman who owned a home in a flood plain.

    The rains came; the creek overflowed its banks and the water came into the fellow's home.

    Some friends came by in a truck and offered to carry the man to safety. No, he said, G-d will provide.

    The water rose higher and he was forced to the house's second floor.

    The Fire Department floated by in a boat and offered to take the man to safety. No, he said, G-d will provide.

    The water rose still higher and the man was forced to the roof of his home.

    The National Guard came over in a helicopter and offered to take him to safety. No, he said, G-d will provide.

    The water rose higher and the man drowned.

    The fellow insisted on seeing G-d and the angels acquiesced.

    Standing before HaShem he demanded to know how he, a religious man who depended on HaShem, could have let him die by drowning. "I put my trust in You; why didn't you save me?"

    Replied HaShem: I did try to save you; I sent the neighbors in the truck; I sent the Fire Department in the boat, and I sent the National Guard in the helicopter.

As the fellow in the flood, we should depend on HaShem, but we also need to do our part, and that includes protecting ourselves, our families, our business, and certainly our congregations.

Yohanon Glenn
Yohanon.Glenn at gmail.com
Enterprise Risk Management practitioner available for new projects

.

Friday, November 27, 2009

Looking for a new job

I received word the other day that I was left off the 2010 budget.

Translation: I am looking for a new "home." Preferably - and that is the "operative word" - working in a staff or staff consulting job preferably - that word again - in, or from, southeast Florida; however, all opportunities will be considered.

In as few words as possible:

Enterprise Risk Management - Business Continuity defined


Enterprise Risk Management, a/k/a Business Continuity, identifies profit centers, and all related internal and external, processes. It is similar to Business Analysis. Enterprise Risk Management looks at all potential threats to a process from inception (e.g., proposal) to completion (e.g., payment received), identifies means to avoid or mitigate the threats, and prioritizes preventive actions. Additionally, Enterprise Risk Management develops plans to respond to threats if they occur, creates a process to maintain the plan, and creates response exercises to assure efficient, expeditious, and economical recovery if a disaster event occurs. Enterprise Risk Management is, in 3 words, a business survival program.
In brief


Experience More than 13 years creating programs and complete plans for Defense, Energy Exploration, Financial, Fortune 100, Government, Insurance, International, and Transportation organizations
Certification Member, Business Continuity Institute since 2004
Initially certified by The Harris Institute in 1999
Plan types Enterprise, Key Business Unit, IT-specific
Management Diplomatic manager and mentor to personnel at all levels
Managed 47 sites in 17 states from virtual office in Florida
As many as 20 direct reports; unknown number of indirect reports
Presentation Present Enterprise Risk Management/Business Continuity to personnel of all levels, individually and in groups
Related skills Emergency Management
Crisis Management
Documentation: all program and project documents from proposal to final deliverable; marketing materials, proposals, policies & procedures, public relations; technical documentation, user guides, and journalism
Publications Published twice-a-year in the leading quarterly professional journal, frequently published by other professional publications; occasionally published in trade and general media
Other Disaster Recovery Journal (DRJ) Editorial Review Board
Active member, DRJ Forums and Blogs
Maintain professional Web presence and professional blog
Citizenship United States, evidenced by active U.S. passport
Travel Extensive job-related domestic and international travel welcome
Availability Two weeks from employment confirmation
Resume A detailed resume and list of references is available upon request
Yohanon.Glenn @ gmail.com or 1.727.542.7843

 

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Thanksgiving

 

American Jews seem to have a mixed opinion on what to do about Thanksgiving.

One religious leader I know refuses to celebrate the holiday - despite enjoying this country's freedoms since his birth - so he deliberately has macaroni and cheese on the last Thursday of November. Seems to me his thumbing his nose at one of the few American holidays that ALL Americans can celebrate is an acknowledgement in its own right - a special Thanksgiving Day meal.

Many in the Ashkenazi Orthodox community agree with our "mac-n-cheese" guy, but not all.

Most observant Sefardi Jews, even those who were born outside the 50 States, acknowledge the holiday; some celebrate it, understanding that of the UN's 193 member countries, the United States ranks in the Top 5 of countries where Jews are treated as "just another citizen" - the mark of a truly free people.

Is (national) Thanksgiving a non-Jewish custom rooted in idolatry or is it a foolish custom?.

Ran (Rabbenu Gerondi Nissim 11th Century) and Maharik (Rabbi Joseph Colon ben Solomon Trabotto, 15th Century) rule that only customs that have a basis in idolatrous practices are prohibited. Apparently foolish--but secular--customs are permissible so long as they have a reasonable explanation (and are not immodest). Normative Halakhah follows the ruling of the Ran and Maharik. (1)

According to Rabbi Moshe Feinstein in four published responsa [rabbinic rulings] on the issues related to celebrating Thanksgiving, all conclude that Thanksgiving is not a religious holiday but a secular one.

Rabbi Feinstein reinforces his understanding that Thanksgiving is not a religious holiday in a responsum published in 1980. He states: "On the issue of joining with those who think that Thanksgiving is like a holiday to eat a meal: Since it is clear that according to their religious law books this day is not mentioned as a religious holiday and that one is not obligated in a meal [according to Gentile religious law] and since this is a day of remembrance to citizens of this country, when they came to reside here either now or earlier, halakhah [Jewish law] sees no prohibition in celebrating with a meal or with the eating of turkey. One sees similar to this in Kiddushin 66 that Yanai the king made a party after the conquest of kochlet in the desert and they ate vegetables as a remembrance.

"Nonetheless it is prohibited to establish this as an obligation and religious commandment [mitzvah], and it remains a voluntary celebration now; in this manner--without the establishment of obligation or religious commandment--one can celebrate the next year too with a meal.

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik also agreed that Thanksgiving was not a Gentile holiday, and ruled that it was permissible to eat turkey on Thanksgiving. Rabbi Hershel Schachter, in his intellectual biography of Rabbi Soloveitchik, Nefesh HaRav, writes:

"It was the opinion of Rabbi Soloveitchik that it was permissible to eat turkey at the end of November, on the day of Thanksgiving. We understood that, in his opinion, there was no question that turkey did not lack a tradition of kashrut and that eating it on Thanksgiving was not a problem of imitating gentile customs. We also heard that this was the opinion of his father, Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik."

Others have also recounted that Rabbi Soloveitchik ruled this way, and that he found it difficult to comprehend how one could consider Thanksgiving a Gentile holiday or that it was prohibited to celebrate it. Indeed, there were instances when Rabbi Soloveitchik implied to his students that he and his family celebrated Thanksgiving, although shiur [class] was always held on Thanksgiving.

An exactly opposite approach to the rulings of Rabbis Feinstein and Soloveitchik appears to have been taken by Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner. Rabbi Hutner argues that it is obvious and apparent that--whatever the merit of celebrating Thanksgiving the first time in the 1600s--the establishment of an annual holiday that is based on the Christian calendar is, at the very least, closely associated with idol worship and thus prohibited.

Rabbi Hutner argues that such a celebration becomes a "holiday" through the creation of an annual observance and celebrating Gentile holidays is obviously wrong. Rabbi Hutner concludes: "In truth, one must distance oneself from these types of customs and even from those events that are similar to these types of customs . . . The truth is simple and obvious."

But Rabbis Feinstein and Soloveitchik, giants of their generation, ruled that Thanksgiving is not a religious event. Moreover, Thanksgiving does not fall on a specific date (as do, for example, Jewish holidays) but on a specific day (Thursday) of a specific month (November).

In Israel, in his sedur v'Zerah haShemish, Hakham Shalom Messes notes that the whole Hallel is said on Independence Day (fixed date, not day) either with, or without, the related blessings (depending on tradition).

We are told (Jeremiah 29:7) to "Seek the welfare of the country where I have sent you into exile; pray to the L-rd for it, for your welfare depends on its welfare.”

The Mishnah, too, enjoins us to pray for the government. In Pirkei Avot, Chapter 3, Mishna 2, it states: “Rabbi Chanina deputy of the Kohanim said ‘Pray for the welfare of the government. If it were not for the fear of the government, each man would eat his neighbor alive!’”

In the 14th century, Rabbi Dovid Abudraham first included a prayer in the Siddur, writing that it is the “custom to bless the King, and to pray to G-d that He may give him victory.

The preceding 3 paragraphs from Ask Moses at http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/577,2067239/What-is-the-origin-of-the-prayer-for-the-welfare-of-the-government.html

As Thanksgiving (and by extension, July 4, Independence day in the US) is a national, vs. religious, holiday, there is a question about reciting Hallel for US holidays, even though we (Jews) enjoy greater freed to practice our religion here than almost anyplace else in the world.

At my synagogue, Thanksgiving is recognized as a holiday by starting shaharet one hour later than usual (I'd rather it started one hour EARLIER than usual, but I'd probably be the only one there). Will Hallel be recited? Don't know; this is my first Thanksgiving holiday with this congregation.

I'm a red, white, and blue son of the US of A; I'm also an Israeli. Finally, I'm the father of a young woman (born in the USA and now in Israel) who will not celebrate the holiday. A religious issue? No; for her it is a moral issue; she abstains in honor of the Indians the Europeans killed with sword and disease. (For those who play at "political correctness," Indian is the proper term; just ask the Seminole Tribe of Florida, "a Federally Recognized Indian Tribe, the only tribe in America who never signed a peace treaty (http://www.seminoletribe.com/)."

Yohanon Glenn
Yohanon.Glenn at gmail dot com

 

(1) All information, unless otherwise noted, is from http://www.myjewishlearning.com/holidays/About_Holidays/Non-Jewish_Holidays/Thanksgiving.shtml

 

By the way, if anyone needs a certified and experienced Enterprise Risk Management (Business Continuity) practitioner, please send an email to the above address. I am available.

 

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Barely made a minyan

 

My congregation always - always - makes minyan. Sometimes, for weekday minhah, it's close in the winter time, but we manage.

The other night we had a meeting to nominate candidates for 3 vacancies on the board.

This is a pretty big congregation. On Mondays and Thursdays we have 30 or more men for shareet; other days at least 20 show up. Shabat, of course, is THE day and a turnout of less than 60 would be a major surprise.

If you're new to this blog, my congregation is traditional Sefardi (mostly Moroccan with a scattering of other traditions); translations: Only men are counted in the minyan.

That's not to suggest the ladies stay home. The balcony usually is well-populated on Shabat, although rarely does a woman show up for a weekday service. (Occasionally one will show up for a gomel or with a special request for a mi sha'barak.)

But yesterday evening was a surprise.

We could have "made minyan" and there were five ladies present, but for something as important as nominating board members (with whom we're "stuck" for two-year terms), the turnout was nothing short of pathetic.

Apathy? Possibly. The session was well publicized, so an "I didn't know" is not acceptable.

According to some serving board members, the turnout was not surprising. The congregation has "shrunk" over the years - some defections due to internal politics, others do to dues (already the lowest of any established congregation - excluding Lubavitch and Aish minyans), and still others who found a minyan in their neighborhood (I have two within a few blocks of my home; the synagogue is 8/10ths of a mile distant, so on a stormy Shabat, the temptation is great to make minyan with the "locals" ).

I moved here to be a member of this congregation and, with dues "paid in full," I intend to get my money's worth - in other words, I'll make the trek on Shabat "no matter what" and I'll show up at other congregational events. My wife already is active in the Sisterhood (which means that on an occasional rosh hodesh I am "confined to quarters" or told to "go someplace and stay out" until late while the ladies "do their thing" at our house. It's not so bad; the Spouse prepares enough goodies to feed an army so there always are leftover munchies.

I guess we are burdened with too many people who are willing to let someone else make their decisions for them and then complain later. I don't think these people will show up for the elections, either. Maybe just as well.

Yohanon Glenn
Yohanon.Glenn at gmail dot com

 

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Not black, not white

 

The Torah - biktav - makes it clear that no one is without fault and, similarly, no "rasha" is 100% bad.

All of the avot had blemishes.

Moses was less than perfect.

But the midrashim and misniyot try to play down the faults; to show that when, for example, Moses struck the rock, he was so frustrated by the people he simply lost it, but he held his "cool" longer than any man could be expected to do so.

On the other hand, while the Torah cites the positive aspects of the "bad guys," the rabbis who gave us the midrashim and misniyot have a field day with verbal tar and feathers. A few renegades do find something positive to write, but in general, the press is all bad.

Esav, for example.

The Torah tells us that he was hardly what we would call a "refined gentleman." The rabbis jump on that and build tales based solely on their imaginations.

What most - and this has to be emphasized, "most" - rabbis fail to tell us that Esav had some good traits, too.

Torah makes it abundantly clear that Esav had "kabod l'av v'em" or at least respect and honor for his father. There is no indication that his brother shared this trait for his father or even his mother.

Many rabbis take Yitzak to task for wanting to give the behor (first born) blessing to Esav; then they excuse it because, they insist, Esav was cunning and two-faced. The Torah never suggests that.

My rabbi, who is very much into "k'ruv" - bringing Jews closer to Judaism and the mitzvot - acknowledged both Esav's honor of father as well as the opinions that he simply was duping his dad.

To go off on a slight tangent, the good rabbi has, over the last two Shabatot, talked about communications between husband and wife (Abraham failing to tell Sara that he was taking a trip to sacrifice Yitzhak and Rivka failing to tell Yitzhak what HaShem told her as she labored with the twins). I moved where I live specifically for this rabbi and his wisdom - and, to be honest, his humor, too.

Bila'am, who made an appearance in this blog earlier, is a prophet of HaShem, yet that's typically forgotten or glossed over by the rabbis who gave us midrashim and misniyot that paint him as evil as humanly possible.

In truth, I have no problem with midrashim and misniyot PROVIDED they are introduced as what they are and not - as too often is the case - "mi Sinai" (from Sinai).

Yes, I know Torah ba'al pe - the Talmud- is considered "mi Sinai" as much as bik-tav.

We - Jews - have been "underdogs" for most of our history; as such, we should be looking for ways to point out that even the worst of us has something to be said in his or her favor.

Moses hit the rock; Esav honored his father.

No one person is totally good or totally evil.

I wish all of our rabbis would realize that.

Yohanon Glenn
Yohanon.Glenn at gmail dot com

 

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Pretzel reporting

 

It's really amazing what some reporters - or editors (I've been on both sides of the desk) - will do to "twist" a story to their editorial point of view (without actually stating "Editorial").

The following BBC article is an excellent case in point.

The BBC, never a friend of Israel, starts off with kudos for the Jewish state - Israel is allowing (giving?) "around 3,000" head of "cows" into Aza (Gaza) for the Moslem celebration of Eid al-Adha.

Anyway, the article quickly turns from Israel's "good deed" to the plight of the so-called "Palestinians" in Hamas-controlled Aza.

Seems the Azans can't rebuild the homes destroyed when Israel invaded Aza - lest we forget as the BBC apparently forgets - to put an end to Hamas rocket attacks on Israel.

Israel, the story states, embargos building materials it fears will be used against it.

But, the article goes on, the UN - those people who allowed Hamas to fire at Israelis from its building in Aza - promises to make sure Hamas won't get the materials.

Interestingly, the BBC article notes, albeit only in passing, that "As a result of the Israeli blockade, most fresh meat is brought into Gaza THROUGH SMUGGLING TUNNELS UNDER THE BORDER WITH EGYPT, WHICH HAS ALSO IMPOSED RESTRICTIONS. Live animals are scarce and expensive."

Egypt - a Moslem country - is blocking its border to prevent FELLOW MOSLEMS from entering. Understand that Egypt, in its deal with Begin, refused to accept Aza as part of its country; Begin's biggest mistake of his political career. (Jordan doesn't want it either - nor does it want the occupied "West Bank," remembering "Black September" when these same people tried to assassinate the royal family and topple the government._

The BBC article includes two photos credited to the AP - one, a tight shot of cattle that could have been taken in Texas, and one of a woman in Islamic garb standing outside a tent. It also has a pull-out of a statement by Maxwell Gaylard, the UN's Humanitarian Co-ordinator, stating how "miserable" life is in Aza.

So, read on and learn how the BBC twists a humanitarian good will gesture by Israel into a condemnation of the only country that seems willing to help the people of Aza, people who routinely try to murder the people that help them..

Yohanon Glenn
Yohanon.Glenn @ gmail dot com

 

Israel allows Eid cows into Gaza
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8352076.stm

Sheep or cows are traditionally slaughtered on Eid al-Adha

Israel is temporarily easing its blockade of Gaza to allow in thousands of cattle ahead of a Muslim festival.

Around 3,000 cows are expected to be shipped into the coastal territory before Eid al-Adha in late November.

Earlier, a UN humanitarian official said thousands of Gazans whose homes were destroyed in Israel's offensive in December faced another winter in tents.

The Israeli authorities have restricted the importation of building materials since imposing a blockade in 2007.

They say cement, steel and other raw materials could be used for military purposes by the Islamist group Hamas, which controls Gaza.

'Living in tents'

On Monday, 330 cows were brought into Gaza through a southern border crossing in a move that a spokesman for the Israeli military spokesman said was a "goodwill gesture".

During Eid al-Adha, Muslims who can afford to, slaughter livestock, usually sheep or cows, in remembrance of the prophet Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son when God ordered him to.

As a result of the Israeli blockade, most fresh meat is brought into Gaza through smuggling tunnels under the border with Egypt, which has also imposed restrictions. Live animals are scarce and expensive.

During a tour of the territory on Monday, the UN humanitarian co-ordinator for the Palestinian Territories, Maxwell Gaylard, said the border restrictions were also severely limiting the ability of people to rebuild homes destroyed in the Israel's 22-day offensive last December and January. The UN estimates around 20,000 Gaza residents were made homeless.

"We know that there are hundreds of families still living in tents. We know that there are more than that living in the ruins of their own homes," he told reporters.

The UN says 20,000 Gazans were made homeless by the Israeli offensive

"They need materials to repair their houses. They need fuel to be able to keep warm during the winter. They need good water and sanitation systems."

The UN has lobbied Israel for months to allow in materials that would allow it to complete construction projects worth $80m. Mr Gaylard said the organisation had repeatedly promised Israeli officials that they would not allow Hamas to use the materials.

"For the people in Gaza, life is miserable, life is not getting better, winter is coming, the rain is coming," he added.

Palestinians and human rights groups say more than 1,400 Gazans were killed during Israel's offensive, but Israel puts the figure at 1,166. Thirteen Israelis, including three civilians, died.

 

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

"Ponzi" is not a Jewish name

 

It’s happened, I knew it would.

Thanks to the likes of Bernard Madoff and Scott Rothstein, anti-Jewish – anti-Semitism is the wrong word here - feeling is once again finding new friends.

Thanks to the Internet, Jew haters easily gather to lend each other support.

We, Jews, have our share of scoundrels, probably no more than any other “group.” What type “group” are we, anyway? Religious? If Madoff and Rothstein were observant Jews they would not have done what they did. Ethnic? Judaism has too many converts to be ethnic. The only ones who can define us are the Jew haters, and there are many.

I’d like to say that, unlike some Moslem leaders, Madoff and Rothstein never killed anyone. But I’m not so sure. When Madoff’s treachery was discovered, I understand some committed suicide; the blame lies squarely at Madoff’s feet. He also ripped off charities that now may not be able to help needy people.

Funny we don’t hear about Moslem-on-Moslem murder; Aza (Gaza) is a prime example of Murder By Management.

While Madoff and Rothstein – who, to be fair has not been convicted of anything as this is written – drilled holes in the Jewish boat, not caring or ignoring the fact that as the boat sinks, we all sink with it, a number of others also were aboard the ponzi scheme luxury liner.

What is interesting and something the Jew haters conveniently overlook is that there are many, many ponzi schemes perpetrated by non-Jews.

Even the name, “Ponzi” is not Jewish – it honors the Italian-born Charles Ponzi (March 3, 1882 – January 18, 1949) who, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ponzi), “was one of the greatest swindlers in American history.” The same source notes that ”Ponzi was probably inspired by the scheme of William F. Miller, a Brooklyn bookkeeper who in 1899 used the same scheme to take in $1 million.” There is no evidence to suggest that Miller, despite his Brooklyn address, was Jewish.

In the 1980s, according to http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/15/a-century-of-ponzi-schemes/, a Ponzi scheme was exposed at J. David Dominelli’s currency trading firm, much to the shock of San Diego’s upper crust. About 1,000 investors lost a total of $80 million in Mr. Dominelli’s fraud, which promised returns of about 40 percent or so. One suspects that, given J. David’s family name he, too, was not Jewish.

The following are from http://www.neatorama.com/2008/12/22/9-most-brazen-ponzi-schemes-in-history/

 

 

Maria Branca dos Santos, or more commonly called "Dona" Branca, was a poor Portuguese woman when she decided that she would open her own "bank" in 1970. To make it attractive, she promised an interest rate of 10% per month, and got thousands of clients (including the working poor of Portugal) to give her their money.

The scheme lasted more than 14 years, and during this time she's known as "The people's banker." Dona Branca was arrested and sentenced to 10 years in prison. She died poor, blind, and alone.

In 1993, her crime inspired a Portuguese soap opera titled A Banqueira do Povo ("The People's Banker").

 

 

In 2005, a Pakistani high school science teacher Syed Sibtul Hassan Shah went to Dubai. When he came back to his hometown of Wazirabad, Pakistan, he convinced his neighbors to give him their savings, which he doubled in just 7 days, based on a "stock program" that he had learned in Dubai.

Words soon spread of the "Double Shah" and people began investing with him. In 18 months, he took in over Rs. 70 billion (about US$880 million) from 3,000 people and was even considered to be the next political leader from the area.

When police arrested Shah on charges of robbery in 2007, thousands of people descended to the streets to protest against his arrest. He is now in custody and his case is pending.

 

 

In 1992, Damara Bertges and Hans Gunther Spachtholz founded the European Kings Club, a "non-profit" association that rallied against big European banks and promised to help the "little guys."

Investors buy a "letter," which was kind of a club share, for 1,400 Swiss francs. This entitled them to 12 monthly payments of 200 Swiss francs, which meant doubling their money in just a year.

The European Kings Club meetings were a hoot: they sang their own anthem, and the duo made a show of pressing money into the hands of the "club members."

When the scheme collapsed 2 years later, some 94,000 German and Swiss investors were bilked out of US$1 billion. In the Swiss cantons of Uri and Glarus, it was estimated that one in ten adults had fallen for the scheme.

But even after authorities raided the EKC offices and captured Bertges, her investors still believed that she was their champion. When Bertges went put on trial, her "victims" applauded so loudly that the judge had to clear out the room. For defrauding people out of US$1 billion, Bertges got 7 years and Spachtholz got away with less than 5 years in jail.

 

 

In 1999, Wang Fengyou founded the Chinese Yilishen Tianxi Group and hatched a scheme so crazy it's brilliant: ant farming. He convinced poor farmers to give him 10,000 yuan (about $1,500). In return, they got a box of "special ants" and a list of very strict instructions: spritz the ants with a sugar and honey solution at 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. every day, and feed them cake and egg yolk every three to five days. Under no circumstances were they to open the box. Every 74 days, workers from Yilishen would come by and pick up the ants to be ground up and made into an aphrodisiac. For their troubles, the farmers get 13,250 yuan, a 32.5% premium every 14 months.

By 2006, Wang was a very rich man. His company was featured in newspapers and on TV. He hired celebrities to publicize his company and hobnobbed with government officials. He even got the "China's Top 10 Entrepreneurial Leaders" award from the government. His ant aphrodisiacs were sold in some 80,000 pharmacies across China and by some accounts, over 1 million people bred ants for Yilishen, giving the company an annual turnover of 15 billion yuan (US$2 billion).

In October 2007, Wang's scheme collapsed. The company started to miss payouts and thousands of ant farmers descended on his company's headquarter and government offices. A month later, Wang Fengyou was arrested.

Unlike other Ponzi scheme con artists who got off after only a few years in jail, Wang's fate doesn't look good. In the same year Wang's scheme collapsed, the Chinese government started cracking down on 3,747 pyramid schemes. Wang's rival, who conned people with a similar ant-breeding scheme, was sentenced to death.

Oh, and did his aphrodisiac ants really work? Actually yes, but not because of the ants. His products contained sildenafil, the active ingredient in Viagra.

 

 

Just one million people? Meh, said Sergey Mavrodi. His scheme duped two million people!

Mavrodi was a Russian scammer who along with his brother Vyacheslav Mavrodi and Vyacheslav's future wife Marina Murayveya, founded the MMM company in (the triple Ms came from the surnames of these three people). In the early 1990s, MMM promised dividends of 1,000%, promoted itself heavily in TV ads, and delivered on its promise. At its peak, Mavrodi's company was taking in more than $11 million a day from the public! Within 5 years, Mavrodi took in $1.5 billion from at least 2 million people.

When the whole thing unraveled and the police raided MMM offices for tax evasion, Mavrodi pulled another fast one: he convinced his "investors" that it was the government's fault that they lost their investment. He even ran for the Russian State Duma (the lower house of parliament) to get the government to initiate a "payback" program ... and he was elected! That was a good thing because he got himself a parliamentary immunity.

When his immunity was later revoked, Mavrodi went on the lam. In 2003, he was arrested , fined $390, and sent to a penal colony for four-and-a-half years. That translates to about $38,052 swindled per hour in the slammer.

 

 

In Denver CO (http://www.miamiherald.com/business/nation/story/1337109.html) “Federal regulators have accused four people and two companies of fraud in an alleged $30 million Ponzi scheme that lured 300 investors nationwide in purported eco-friendly investments.

“The Securities and Exchange Commission alleges Wayde McKelvy and Donna McKelvy, who were married, used their Centennial, Colo.-based company Speed of Wealth to find investors for Bala Cynwyd, Pa.-based Mantria Corp.

“The SEC filed a complaint in federal court Monday in Denver alleging the McKelvys and Mantria executives Troy Wragg and Amanda Knorr of Philadelphia overstated Mantria's successes to lure investors. “

Jewish names? Not one.

 

 

According to the Mortgage Blog (http://www.mortgagefraudblog.com/index.php/weblog/permalink/former_mortgage_broker_pleads_guilty_to_a_20_million_mortgage_fraud/ ), “Edward William Farley, 47, Hoschton, Georgia, pled guilty in federal district court to committing mortgage fraud, bankruptcy fraud, operating a real estate investment "ponzi" scam involving over 150 victims, and a check-kiting scheme.

“Farley was charged in a criminal Information on October 15, 2009 with bank fraud and conspiracy, which included the bankruptcy fraud. He pleaded guilty to those charges. He could receive a maximum sentence of up to 60 years in prison and a fine of up to $2,000,000, plus full restitution to all victims. In determining the actual sentence, the Court will consider the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which are not binding but provide appropriate sentencing ranges for most offenders.”

I don’t think “Farley” will be found In a list of Common Jewish Family Names.

The bottom line is that while Madoff and Rothstein are embarrassments to us, financial crimes are not something uniquely Jewish. As a matter of fact, our representation in any rogues gallery of criminals probably is proportionate to that of the so-called “general” population.

And yes, we have our share of terrorists – Lewisburg Penitentiary in Pennsylvania had a Jewish population. When I visited there, I asked my guard-escort what the forks with the traditionally (Ashkenazi) Jewish names did to deserve residence as guests of the Federal government I was told white collar (financial) crimes and anti-war/anti-government terrorist crimes (this was the Vietnam era).

We are supposed to be a “light unto the nations” and we are failing miserably in that area, so to write that we are “no worse than anyone else” is hardly a compliment, although it is pretty accurate.

Yohanon Glenn
Yohanon.Glenn @ gmail dot com

 

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Billy Wordsworth - Well read in Eastern Bloc (?)

 

Gmail does a pretty good job of separating spammers from "real" mail and I have a pretty high level of trust that Gmail doesn't dump "real" mail into the Spam "folder."

But sometimes, just to be sure, I check the spam list.

I am a reader - I got my first library card before I went to first grade (I had "proteckzia" as they say in Israel) and I have been addicted to books since. Mind, I can't SPELL worth a bean, but I do read OK.

My daughter, Morgan, inherited her father's reading habits and, like "dear ol' dad" she can sit down to read the Unabridged for hours - sometimes we actually get to the word that caused us to open the tome in the first place.  (In a hurry, it's http://m-w.com - much faster. but not nearly as interesting.)

Anyway, back to the point, I recently looked through the list of subjects caught by Gmail's spam detector and discovered a "pot full" of literary teasers.

Most of the spam came from .ro (Romania) or .ru (Russia), although an interesting one came from .pt (Portugal).

Initially I thought the spammers were becoming literate. Subjects included

{Subject} Thou Faery Voyager that dost float
[Wordsworth, To H.C.; http://www.online-literature.com/wordsworth/poems-in-two-vols-1/17/]

{Opening line} Bewicks History of British Birds http:||vtime.do.sapo. pt/alcoholism . html
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bewick]

{Subject} Ere a leaf is on a bush
[Ere a leaf is on a bush, In the time before the thrush. Has a thought about her nest, Thou wilt come with half a call, Spreading out thy glossy breast ... from a poem by Billy Wordsworth - see http://www.everypoet.com/archive/poetry/William_Wordsworth/william_wordsworth_200.htm]

{Opening line} And fly about in the air together http:||nfsbu.by . ru/geography . html
[Wordsworth, Redbreast Chasing the Butterfly, ibid.)

{Subject} And Thou if they should totter teach them to stand fast
[Wordsworth, Ode to Duty; http://www.online-literature.com/wordsworth/poems-in-two-vols-1/17/]

{Opening line} It longs to get trapped in the fishermen's net
This one stumped me and Google Search.

{Subject} Where the early pumpkins blow http:||vlahuta . ro/malabar . html
[Ed Lear, http://www.nonsenselit.org/Lear/ll/ybb.html]

{Opening line} There sometimes does a leaping Fish
[Wordsworth, Fidelity, ibid.)

{Subject} But we will downwards with the Tweed http:||podium.h1 . ru/cheekbone . html
This one also got the best of Google and this scrivener.

{Subject} Like something fashiond in a dream (Note lack of "e" in "fashioned")
There were a number of "fashioned" and "dream" hits, but no matches with, or without, the missing "e."

{Opening line} Oh vain and causeless melancholy http:||vascotrade . ro/narrower . html
[Wordsworth, To H. C., ibid.)

It seems that someone "discovered" Poems in Two Volumes and cut-n-pasted some lines that caught their fancy. Mostly the purloined phrases come from within the poem (rather than the title).

I must - OK, I don't have to, but I will - admit that I don't have Poems in Two Volumes on my shelves; Google (my other Search Engine Of Choice is the Librarian's Friend, Dogpile) made the "who wrote that" search painless.

Many of the spam mails included a Google warning that the link may not be what it seemed and to consider carefully the possibilities of a virus or Trojan horse waiting for my visit. I took the warning for what it is worth - if I failed to do that, my AVG "protection against everything on the WWW" also would have cautioned me.

It's sad, but my Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is to delete-without-opening all email with an Eastern Bloc address with the exception of a known good addresses and URLs.

Still, I have to wonder - could someone who reads William Wordsworth REALLY send me spam? Would their missive possibly lead to something nasty invading my computer? How uncouth! How crass!

 

Yohanon Glenn
Yohanon.Glenn at gmail dot com

 

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Humane slaughter (Part 2)

 

This is a follow-up to the Oct. 19th posting titled Humane slaughter http://yohanon.blogspot.com/2009/10/humane-slaughter.html

I queried two rabbis, Yehuda Benhamu and Alexander Haber.

Their qualifications:

    Rabbi Benhamu is a North African (Sefardi) rabbi who also is a shochet (ritual slaughterer). He is the rabbi of B'nai Sephardim/Shaari Shalom in Hollywood, Florida.

    Rabbi Haber, although he has a Sephardi ancester, is Ashkenazi; he is the son and grandson of shoctim (ritual slaughterers); his father heads a yeshiva in Jerusalem; he is a rabbi at Cong. Bnai Israel in Norfolk VA.

I have known both for years and both have my highest respect; they normally provide the reasoning for their decisions. Both fall into the "orthodox" category.

R. Haber responded that the primary problem with stunning an animal before the cut was that the blood must forcefully "spritz" from the animal. The suggestion is that the stunning somehow reduced the arterial pressure. This is a question neither raised nor answered in the article.

Unless the blood spurts from the animal, the meat is trefe - not acceptable.

R. Benhamu agreed, but noted that the very last paragraph of the article may - may - offer a way to combine stunning with ritual slaughtering.

The last paragragh reads:

"Johnson thinks the way forward is best exemplified by Muslims in New Zealand, who use a reversible form of electrical stunning that animals can recover from if they are not immediately slaughtered. This proves the animal is alive when killed and is therefore halal"

Assuming the blood spurts from the stunned animal, will this be acceptable to the rabbinate? Possibly.

But which rabbinate? Sefardi or Ashkenazi? Israeli or outside of Israel?

By the way, R. Haber wondered if the brief, albeit intense pain of the knife might not be more psychologically damaging to the animal than the perhaps longer, albeit less severe, pain of the stunning process.

It seems to me that the researchers would have been wise to involve Jewish and Islamic religious authorities and expert ritual slaughters to participate in the study so that questions such as raised by the rabbis Haber and Benhamu could have been addressed.

To me, there are two possibilities:

    One: The researchers had an agenda that might be compromised by having qualified observers present or

    Two: Tim Edwards, the article's author, either had an agenda, lacked time to research the scientists' paper, or was too lazy to do what I did - ask the religious authorities - and then go back to the researchers for clairification (which I have not yet done).

Yohanon Glenn

Yohanon.Glenn at gmail dot com

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Humane slaughter

An article in the FirstPost headlined "Proof of pain leads to calls for ban on ritual slaughter" once again puts kosher slaughtering - shechita - in the spotlight.

The article is at http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/54850,news-comment,news-politics,after-scientific-proof-of-pain-should-we-ban-islamic-and-jewish-religious-slaughter. FirstPost is a U.K.-based effort.

Never mind that only kosher and (Islamic) halal slaughtering is discussed; never mind that the processes at most abattoirs in the US, and I suspect elsewhere, is at least as painful as a precise cut with a sharp knife, only kosher and halal slaughtering is targeted. The article even includes a photo of what appears to be a kid being slaughtered.

Ignoring that kosher and halal are targeted (while all other methods are ignored), the article does suggest that slaughtering can be "more humane" if that is not too much if an oxymoron.

According to the article, "Practitioners of ritual slaughter say the animal must be alive to facilitate the draining of blood – and that throat slitting is humane.

"But the new research suggests otherwise. Dr Craig Johnson and his colleagues at New Zealand's Massey University reproduced the Jewish and Islamic methods of slaughter in calves. The calves were first anaesthetised so although their pain responses could be detected, they wouldn't actually feel anything. They were then subjected to a neck incision. A pain response was detected for up to two minutes following the cut, although calves normally fall unconscious after 10 to 30 seconds.

"The team then stunned the calves five seconds after cutting their throats: the pain signal detected by electroencephalography ceased immediately.

"Johnson told the New Scientist he thought this work was 'the best evidence yet that [ritual slaughter] is painful'. However, he observed that the religious community 'is adamant animals don't experience any pain so the results might surprise them'.

"The findings have earned Johnson the inaugural Humane Slaughter Award from the Humane Slaughter Association. Dr James Kirkwood, the charity’s chief executive, said: 'This work provides significant support for the value of stunning animals prior to slaughter to prevent pain and distress.' "

The U.K. has a law that requires all animals about to be slaughtered to first be stunned.

Caveat: I am not a rabbi or shochet, nor do I play one on tv. I consider myself to be an observant Jew.

The article is correct is stating that the animal must be alive to be killed. With kosher slaughtering, the animal must not only be alive, it must be healthy and in otherwise no danger of dying. A wounded animal that dies from its wounds is trefe - not kosher. A sick animal no matter who slaughters it by what method is trefe.

I understood kosher slaughtering to be a means to teach us - humans - respect for all life, even an animal's.

Loss of consciousness, and by extension loss of any sensation of pain, is supposed to be nearly instantaneous. I know that "unconsciousness" does not necessarily equate to being pain free. Ask anyone who has attended a cancer or burn patient.

If the animal is alive and well at the time it is stunned, and if the stunning only makes the animal insensible to pain, the animal - it seems to me - is not damaged and the stunning is a fist step in the slaughtering process; much akin to securing the animal before the cut.

If the whole idea of kosher slaughtering is to spare the animal pain (while teaching us respect for all life), I would think that observant Jews (I dislike the term "orthodox") would be some of the first in line to accept and insist upon stunning. On the other hand, if we only pay lip service to the Torah's mandates, then I can see where resistance will be strong.

The question I put before anyone reading this is simple:

    Is there any reason, based on Jewish law, why stunning an animal as part of the slaughtering process would render the animal unfit for kosher use.

I asked that question to some acquaintances. One's response completely ignored the question and challenged the research on "where the pain was measured." Does it matter? Is my correspondent asking if the animal was brain dead, Judaism's current definition of death (used primarily to harvest organs for transplant)? Death was caused not by stunning - that simply immobilizes the animal and renders it - the researchers claim - pain free when the knife cuts the jugular.

Unless there is something missing in the news article - and I suspect the research paper provides a great deal more details - it seems to me that the rabbis should, rather than exhibiting a knee-jerk reaction (as some Jews did to the article) consider why we slaughter as we do and what impact stunning would have to either improve the slaughtering process or make the animal unfit for kosher use.

ABOUT COMMENTS: Comments are desired. There are only two requirements. Comments must be signed with a real name (otherwise the comment will be deleted) and I ask that you let me know if you are (a) Jewish and if you are Jewish, are you a "professional" Jew (e.g., rabbi, hazan, religious school teacher).

Rabbis Yehuda Benhamu and Alexander Haber's comments are found in "Humane slaughter - Part 2" http://yohanon.blogspot.com/2009/10/humane-slaughter-part-2.html

Yohanon Glenn
Yohanon.Glenn at gmail dot com

Monday, October 12, 2009

Eye of the beholder

I am reading Jos. Teluskin's Biblical Literacy (ISBN 0-688-14297-4, Wm. Morrow & Co., 1997).

Most of Rabbi Teluskin's comments on various Biblical portions present a new twist on the “straight text.”

One that I found particularly interesting was on Essau and Jacob. Has Essau been treated fairly by the rabbis of old? Teluskin, following the rabbis' admonishment to turn the Torah over and over again, turns the Essau story over and speculates that maybe, just maybe, Essau's actions might be – if not justified, then mitigated by circumstances.

He takes a psychological approach to the sibling conflict; as he does with Joseph and his brothers.

Unlike the Torah, which simply lays out a personality's life, the good and the bad, the rabbis of old often work hard to make a person “almost” all good (e.g., Abraham and Moses) or absolutely evil (Essau, Korach, Balaam).

I've always thought Korach, Aviram, Dotan, and Balaam got an undeserved bad press. There was no Paul Harvey to intone “the rest of the story.”

Bilaam especially.

He is, according to the Torah, a prophet of G-d and a man who publicaly acknowledges HaShem's authority (B'Midbar/Numbers 22, 8-13).

When the Moabites and Midianites send a relatively low-level delegation to Balaam, the prophet tells the visitors to stay the night while he (Balaam) inquires of G-d (v 8). G-d tells Balaam to stay home; the message is relayed to the delegates and they are sent on their way.

When Balak, Moab's king at the time (v4) and his Midinaite associates heard Balaam's response from the messengers, Balak decided to “up the ante.”

This time, a high level delegation visits Balaam and offers all manner of inducements that the prophet should return with them to curse the people (Israel).

Again, Balaam tells his visitors to cool their heels while he checks with his Boss.

This time G-d tells Balaam to go with the delegation, but to say only what HaShem tells him to say.

Both Teluskin and I agree that at this point Balaam seems to have G-d's OK to make the trip.

The rabbis of old, and many today who only can echo the old, severely castigate Balaam for even entertaining the delegation.

Wasn't it enough that G-d already told Balaam to stay home, they challenge? Balaam should not have bothered G-d again, they opine.

But that simply is not logical, nor is it the way of several of the Torah's greatest heros.

Abraham argrued with G-d over the destruction of Sodom and Gemorra. Argued with Him!!

Moses argued with G-d many times for many different reasons. First, he didn't want to be G-d's representative to the Hebrews or to go before the reigning pharaoh.

He argued with G-d more than once over the destruction of the multitude that left Egypt using the typical parents' refrain “What will the neighbor's think” (people will say You led them into the wilderness to die).

He argued with G-d over his death – he was human after all and who really wants to die when there are “things to do, people to see, and – especially in Moses' life – places (across the Jordan) to go.”

As you get older your willingness to come to terms with your own demise drastically changes.

Besides, if G-d had really wanted to keep Balaam home, He could have prevented the second delegation from arriving at Balaam's home office. Nothing very big – a storm, perhaps. Constant, absolute darkness, maybe. Both pretty much Standard Operating Procedure for HaShem.

From my perspective, I think Balaam acted exactly as HaShem expected him to act.

He acted properly and with full respect to G-d.

Despite the offers presented to him, he told the delegation to wait while he asked G-d what to do. The Torah doesn't even suggest that Balaam was seeking permission to go; he certinly wasn't begging to go. He told the delegation that he had to inquire of G-d . . . to ask G-d what he should do.

I do that when I need “another opinion.” I'll wager that most of us – including the rabbis of old – also turned to G-d to help them resolve a thorny question. Moses cerainly did – again and again and again. Just ask the daughters of Zelophehad (B'Midbar/Numbers 27 v 1) .

I think Balaam got a bad press.

So what about the donkey he beat?

In the whole story of Balaam, from the time he is introduced until the time he blesses Israel, there is nothing that makes him fully human; where are the failings listed in the Torah? Is he perfect; better than Moses? Moses had his faults. Abraham, Yitzak, Yakov all had their faults; the emmahot (mothers) likewise were less than perfect.

So maybe, just maybe, the story of Balaam's donkey was introduced to make sure we understand that, as all the other personalities, he was just human and had his failings. The rabbis – and PITA – sieze upon the incident as a sign that HaShem really did NOT want Balaam to make the trip.

That doesn't make sense to me . . . Balaam already had “work experience” with HaShem; the Boss knew Balaam would do as he was instructed, regardless of promises of riches and fame. (Fame he already had, and one suspects wealth, too.)

I understand that the rabbis base some of their feelings toward Balaam on one verse (B'Midbar/Numbers 31 v8) that states “… Balaam the son of Peor they (the Israelites under Pinehas) slew with the sword.” The rabbis insist that Balaam was still in town working as a prophet for Ba'al Peor, but given his apparently long-standing relationship with a very jealous G-d, the rabbi's suspicion has a false ring to it.


By the way, how many animals speak to humans in the Torah?

Just two. Havah's (Eve's) snake and Balaam's donkey.


Yohanon
Yohanon.Glenn at gmail dot com

Monday, September 21, 2009

Give me a break

Maybe I'm unusual (I hope so, but in a good way).

I go 6 days-a-week to bet knesset (“shul”) - Sunday I stay home so I can say my prayers slowly and correct reading errors and study commentaries and footnotes.

Monday through Friday I go to work right after the minyan. Ideally, I'd like to start at 6 or 6:30 so I can be “on the job” by 8. We normally start at 7, but with the extended s'lihot (that doesn't start until 6 or a little later) and add the extra prayers for a fast day, I got to the office at 8:30.

Young Israel down the road – which only now is encountering s'lihot – has an earlier minyan and, if the one time I was there years ago is any indication, the service moves along at a rapid pace; perfect for the working man (who “davens” Nusach Ashkenaz – don't ask me which “variation on the [Ashkenazi nusach] theme” is used at YI; I wouldn't know Litvak from German from Chelm).

In Bet Shean the nusach changes (to nusach North Africa), but a fast, albeit complete, service is the rule. No hazan.

Because some – OK, much - of the service is recited with a melody, the Bet Shean morning service, complete with Torah, takes maybe 10 or 15 minutes more than the same service at Young Israel. Both YI and the congregation I join in Bet Shean are “working men's minyans.”

I'm not anti-social; if I'm on vacation or have a day off, I'll gladly join my fellow “minyanaires” for a cup of tea (with nana [spearmint] and too much sugar, if you please) and maybe a cookie. But for day-to-day services, I'd like the hazen to either take a break or get with the program. My congregation “imports” a hazan from Israel for Yomai Noraim – same fellow every year, I'm told.

His voice is OK, but – as you may have guessed – I go to synagogue to pray, not to be “entertained.” In short, I am not a fan of “hazenute” and I particularly am not a fan of paying to bring, house, and feed a hazan from elsewhere, especially when we HAVE a hazan.

To me fair, both the resident hazan and the rent-a-hazan have good tenor voices (I'd prefer a baratone, but those apparently are harder to find) and, to his credit, the rent-a-hazan showed up at the Monday-after-Rosh HaShanna morning minyan … as “just another Jew.” He has my fullest respect.

There was a self-proclaimed hazan at one congregation who dragged out a blessing soooo long that by the time he finally got to “Baruch atah” we'd forgotten what the blessing was all about. It's about the same on Yomai Noraim, especially on Yom Kippor.

I don't begrudge the time I spend with HaShem, but do I have to listen to what pains my ears? Next year I'm going to look for a congregation that is too poor to hire a hazan, one where the members come to pray rather than be entertained.

My brother-in-law and his son are part-time hazens in “the olde country.” They are nice guys, but even with the family connection my opinion of hazenute stays at the same level - “spare me.” Maybe I'll chalk up the “entertainment” as “afflicting my soul” on Rosh haShanna and Yom Kippor, but if I had a choice . . .

Yohanon Glenn
Yohanon.Glenn at gmail dot com

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Good-bye Microsoft

 

I've used Microsoft products for years - since Word 1.0 was distributed in a popular pc magazine - ON A SINGLE 5 1/4-INCH FLOPPY !!

I've suffered each time Redmond "improved" the product with a new User Interface or "UI."

I LIKE the MS Office products - Access, Excel, PowerPoint, and Word. I like many of the utilities that come with the operating system - the many "accessories."

But the constant mucking around with the UI has finally caused me to look elsewhere.

I just bought a new notebook (nee' laptop) from Toshiba. Nice machine.

It came loaded with Vista Home - a major step down from XP Pro that was on my Compaq replacement machine and on the office machine. (The new office boxes probably will be loaded with Windows 7, but the cycle for me is a couple of years away.)

I both love and hate Microsoft Word … as a simple word processor, I think it is great. My preferred word processor. It has severe limitations, but realizing that, smart documentation people use other programs for serious documentation; creating text in "weird" and pouring the text into a real page composition application. Likewise graphics. Sure, Word can be used to create simple graphics, but Visio is bettere for block diagrams and flow charts, and there are a few good programs out there for "real" graphics.

But much as I love Word, I have come to the end of the line with Microsoft products.

I just tried to access the COOKIES "folder" (a "sub-directory" to my peers in age). I don't have access to the folder.

Yet I am, by default, the "system administrator." In fact, I am the ONLY user of this computer.

What do I care about accessing the Cookies folder? Turns out Microsoft's Internet Explorer V8 can't seem to purge the cookies . . . on XP Pro IE 7 could clear out all the cookies AND let me confirm the deletion. Actually, I want to manually DELete cookies so I can "save" one; the cookie StatCounter uses to ignore hits on my Web page and blog that originate from my computer.

Vista shares the notebook's hard drive with Linux Ubuntu, OpenOffice.org applications, and Firefox

Firefox not only can clear out all cookies, it asks me each time an application wants to set a cookie if I want to keep it, delete it at the end of the (browser) session, or block the cookie.

OpenOffice.org - a poor man's free version of the commercial StarOffice from Sun, has allthe program types MS Office offers, but there are many features and functions missing that Office users are accustomed to using. Likewise Evolution, the email handler that functions like Outlook. Granted, all the applications that came on the Ubuntu CD are free and most are developed by volunteers, so lacking some features and functions fund in the "high priced spread" versions (e.g., Microsoft products) is understandable.

I'm sure that the freeware will, as Microsoft products did, improve with age. Likewise, I am sure there are "alternatives" and "work-arounds" to make the free applications function more like the commercial versions.

I only hope that the people working on Linux applications learn from what I term Microsoft's mistake and refrain from "updating" the UI with each new release.

If Ubuntu and Linux developers follow in Microsoft's footsteps, I may be forced to go back to pen and paper. (I wonder if I still can find a good, affordable (bulb) fountain pen … and a jar of ink to fill it.)

Yohanon.Glenn
Yohanon.Glenn at gmail dot com

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Perception

 

 

I used to live near Tampa Florida.

At one time, a group of people wanted to moor a replica the (in)famous slave ship, La Amistad, in Tampa's harbor.

The area black community would not allow this, so the ship was sailed north where is it moored at Mystic Seaport, Mystic, CT.

About the same time, someone offered a railroad box car once used to haul Jews to nazi prison and death camps to a Tampa bay area Jewish organization.

The Jews gladly accepted the box car and put it on display as a reminder to all – not just Jews – that history forgotten is bound to repeat.

Were Tampa's black wrong to reject the ship? Were the blacks of Mystic Bay wrong to accept the ship?

Were the Jews wrong to accept the box car?

The answer is, for the people involved, “No.”

Perspective.

When I was little, I learned about the Uncle Remus tales and saw Disney's Song of the South.

Little did I know that to some, Song of the South is racist. To me, as a small boy, Uncle Remus would have been great to have around, telling stories – fables just like the famous Greeks – using animal characters to make the point.

Dialect? We all have a dialect of some type.

It's a skillet to some, a frying (fryin') pan to others.

I used to first listen, and then watch Amos 'n' Andy. Maybe the radio show was racist, but only because white folk played the parts of the black characters.

I didn't see racism in the program. I watched it in Indianapolis where everything was integrated, but as a child I was more attuned to personalities and characters rather than the skin color of those personalities or characters.

This “rant” is prompted because I tripped over Nancy Green as I was looking for something else on the WWW.

Lots of people don't know who Nancy Green was, but they do know her alter ego, Aunt Jemima of pancake and now syrup fame. (The Aunt Jemima on today's label is not Ms. Green who looked like a woman who cared for you; today's Aunt Jemima is thinned down and “modern.”)

When I was a youngster, Aunt Jemima WAS pancakes.

Did I pay any attention to the fact that I was several shades lighter than the character on the box? Never occurred to me.

I never thought much about Uncle Ben, either.

Turns out, Uncle Ben actually honors slaves who taught white southerners how to grow rice.

Now I'm absolutely certain there are those “out there” who take umbrage over the use of Aunt Jemima (slimmed down and modernized not withstanding) and Uncle Ben, but neither of these characters were a Lincoln Theodore Monroe Andrew Perry (bit of trivia – he was born in Key West Florida) who played the degraded Stepin Fetchit in the movies or the sometimes resigned, sometimes with a smart reply Edmund Lincoln Anderson's Rochester . Nancy Green WAS Aunt Jemima, and by all accounts although born into slavery, she was no one's slave when she created the Aunt Jemima persona.

I don't like stereotypes of anyone, including husbands who of late always seem unable to get out of the rain without the wife calling to them. I didn't, and I don't, see either Aunt Jemima or Uncle Ben as stereotypical.

That's my perception. But then I never was offended by Jewish comedians whose act used dialect and Yiddish, although I have neither the eastern European dialect nor Yiddish.

As someone wiser than me once opined, “it's all in the eyes of the beholder.”

I appreciated Aunt Jemima and Uncle Remus as a child and I regret that today's children in a “politically correct” home will miss out on Song of the South.

At least it was not scary like The Wizard of Oz (think about that) or some of the nursery rhymes (Rock-a-bye baby falling from a tree? Come on!)

Yohanon
Yohanon.Glenn at gmail dot com

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Spreading "flu" in synagogues

 

It will be interesting to see, as the "real" season for flu approaches the northern hemisphere, the number of cases reported by people active in their congregations.

Sephardim, more so than our Ashkenazi brothers, tend to be hand shakers and cheek-to-cheek bussers . Many Sephardim touch their "shaking hand" to their lips after the handshake.

Then there are the bet mezuzot - touch the object then touch the lips.

Likewise with the sefri Torah, be they in box or covered by a cloth mantle.

And then there are the congregation's sedurim and humashim.

I won't depend on my fellow congregants sneezing into their elbows; more likely they'll share their sneeze with whomever is near.

I can't visualize a congregation that dons tallit, tefillin, and masks, although that might be a good thing for the rabbis to invoke in the short term. (Is there a shatnez issue? What about wearing the mask on Shabat? Is that carrying; do we need an eruv?) Would Sephardim put the mask on differently than the Ashkenazim? What about the Sephardi from North Africa vs. the Mizrachi from Iraq?

Seriously, it will be interesting to see if HaShem really does protect us from ourselves to the extent that Jews who regularly attend services (two and a half times a day since minhah and ar'veet [ma'ariv] usually are run together) have a lesser incident of The Flu then the less observant community and the non-Jewish community.

Another group to watch, albeit the men at least are not "cheek-to-cheekers" are what I refer to as "Pump-handle Baptists," Southern Baptists who almost out-shake observant Jews. Will they have a "similar-to-us" infection rate? Or will our observance of Shabat rest ... pray-eat-sleep-repeat ... give us added protection?

Contagious diseases ARE a concern within our community. At least one hasidic leader now avoids passing the kiddish cup from person-to-person to reduce the opportunity for people to "share" their malady.

Hopefully in these "enlightened" times if we indeed have a lower incidence of The Flu our non-observant and non-Jewish neighbors won't place the blame on us for their higher infection rate.

Meanwhile, maybe I'll look for face masks that either compliment, or contrast with, my Shabat and weekday kippot - and are not too uncomfortable over the beard.

Yohanon
Yohanon.Glenn at gmail dot com

 

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Fatah to dust off terror plans

 

If an article Tony Karon/Time magazine article* I read (via Yahoo) is at all accurate, Israel needs to tighten its borders with Fatah-controlled areas of Occupied Israel.

Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas soon will be trotting the Moslem's top vote-getting strategy of "Who can claim the most Israeli civilian lives" during the first conference in two decades of his Fatah movement, a conference to be held in Bet Lehem (Bethlehem).

In order for a Moslem politician to win Moslem votes he needs to show not only that he is anti-Israel, but that he walks the walk by sending others to kill Israelis - babies in baby carriages, pregnant women, old folks, and - with rockets from afar - soldiers at their bases.

The reason Hamas controls Aza now is because it walked the walk better than Fatah; the latter was relegated to historic Israel.

Two things are needed for any Moslem group to gain control of a government:

1. Evidence that it can, will, and does wantonly slaughter Israelis

2. That it is willing to maim and murder other Moslems to assure it wins at the polls

I will concede that Hamas DID "win" in Aza. Was it a "fair" election by US standards? Jimmy Carter thinks so - that and $3.50 might buy a cup of coffee at Bernie's, a Starbucks-like place with better tasting (to my mind) java.

The Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt actually wins elections by providing services to the poor, a process apparently overlooked by the warlords in Aza and Occupied Israel (possibly because they can't compete with the services provided by Israel when it controlled the area, services provided at the expanse of loyal Israelis - Jews, Moslems, and others).

Abbas, the Times article suggests, wants the conference to be held in Bet Lehem so that Fatah can scream to the world that Israel refused to allow his terrorists into the country to attend the conference (where Israel's destruction is bound to be a top item on the agenda).

Never mind that Abbas' fellow Moslems in Hamas are, as of this writing, blocking Fatah delegates from Aza from traveling to Bet Lehem until Abbas agrees to release some 1,000 Hamas prisoners being held by Fatah in the Occupied Israel.

The article concludes that the conference marks the first opportunity Fatah's own membership will have to comment on the moderate negotiating strategy adopted by President Abbas, and the result is likely to weaken his mandate to pursue the sort of talks the Obama Administration is envisaging in the near future. For many the priority is to rebuild Fatah, which requires that the movement return to the sort of politics that can challenge Hamas for the mantle of "resistance". Since the failure of the Camp David talks in 2000, successive Israeli elections have shown the voters moving steadily away from support for the peace process envisaged in the Oslo Agreements. So, too, have Palestinian exercises in democracy, and the Fatah conference is unlikely to buck the trend.

 

* http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090804/wl_time/08599191445900

 

--------

Yohanon Glenn

Yohanon.Glenn at gmail dot com

Monday, August 3, 2009

Ashkenization of Sephardim

 

I've recently heard a lot of noise about the "Ashkenization of Sephardim."

Most of it revolves around rabbinical garb.

Some Sephardim want their religious leadership to doff the black suits and black hats for ... what ? A glalabia/djellaba and a turban or fez?

That might be fine in Israel, and certainly it is the ceremonial garb of the Rishon l'Zion, but in the United States, where I live, the black suit - with or without a black hat - is considered the "rabbinical uniform."

I'm not a rabbi but I have at last 5 black suits hanging in my closet. Why? I was in a suit-wearing position and black always is "business appropriate." I have several hats - one white straw for Florida's long summers, a brown waterproof hat suitable for cool-weather rains (when I don a khaki rain/overcoat) and even a grey (or gray) - but not black; I'm not ready for "prime time" - hat for when I visit cold climes and wear a black overcoat.

My normal attire for weekday services is a short-sleeve shirt and long trousers. On Shabat, most of the year the shirt is long-sleeved. There are days when the nearly one-mile jaunt between house and synagogue demand a short-sleeve shirt even on Shabat, and - yes, Virginia, we do have "winter" in south Florida - on chilly days, I'll dust off a suit. (Since I work from a home office, my "business attire" is, well, something less than "business casual.")

I do own suits that are not black - there is a grey one and a white one (for Yom Kippur) and even an eggshell-colored one that I bought when I "outgrew" my white suit. (I since shrunk back into the white suit.) Right now, I'm looking for a seersucker suit for summer use. Light blue maybe, but certainly not black.

At the Sephardi congregation where I spend my time there is a mix of dress, Many of the congregants are Israelis so there are many "un-tucked" shirts even on Shabat; something that never would be accepted in any Ashkenazi congregation I know about (except perhaps Chabad which, like many Sephardi congregations, is happy that a Jew found his (or her) way to services regardless of appearance).

I live in south Florida and the normal apparel here is sans jacket. (That changed a bit when everything became air conditioned and the inside temperature dropped to 68o F, but for people who actually WALK during the heat of the day ... "mad dogs and Englishmen" comes to mind.)

I even see Ashkenazim !! walking sans jacket or with a jacket over their arm.

In Israel, at least in Bet Shean with a south Florida-like temperature, most, albeit not all, Sephardi men come to services in short-sleeve shirts even on Shabat. (I can't speak for our brothers the Ashkenazim ... there are not that many in Bet Shean.)

But, in the US, suits are still the norm for business - forgetting for the moment "business casual" that I find sometimes is more "casual" than "business."

In the Arab-dominated lands, Jews dressed like their neighbors.

In the Orient, Jews dressed like their Chinese and Indian hosts.

So, in the "west," Jews logically should dress as their neighbors; in cooler climes, a suit (with or without tie); in Florida and similar locales, going "jacket-less" should be acceptable, even for religious leadership.

I have some Persian (Farsee) neighbors who look, in every respect, like an "Orthodox" Ashkenazi - black suit, black hat, peyot, and tzit-tzit hanging out. To me, that seems strange; why would a Sephardi want to look like an Ashkenazi? I had never seen a Farsee with peyot and flying-in-the-wind tzit-tzit? On the other hand, I HAVE seen Temanim with long, dangling peyot; I doubt the peyot are Ashkenazim-influenced.

Would I object if "my" rabbi showed up for services looking like most of the congregants?

Not at all.

Do I think you have to wear a black suit to be observant? Hardly. (Maybe to be "orthodox" with a capital "O," but big "o" orthodoxy is not a Sephardi "thing.")

For all that, I will not criticize my rabbi - or any other Sephardi religious leader - for wearing Ashkenazi black. I wish they would not look like our Ashkenazi brothers, but since that is the "uniform" so be it.

But I really wish they'd tuck in the tzit-tzit.

* * *

Yohanon
Yohanon.Glenn @ gmail.com

* * *

from the lyrics of the 1932 Noel Coward song by the same name

In tropical climes there are certain times of day

When all the citizens retire

To tear their clothes off and perspire.

It's one of those rules that the greatest fools obey,

Because the sun is much too sultry

And one must avoid its ultra-violet ray.

 

Papalaka papalaka papalaka boo,

Papalaka papalaka papalaka boo,

Digariga digariga digariga doo,

Digariga digariga digariga doo.

 

The native grieve when the white men leave their huts,

Because they're obviously definitely nuts!

 

Mad dogs and Englishmen

Go out in the midday sun,

The Japanese don't care to.

The Chinese wouldn't dare to,

Hindoos and Argentines sleep firmly from twelve to one.

But Englishmen detest a siesta.

 

In the Philippines

There are lovely screens

To protect you from the glare.

In the Malay States

There are hats like plates

Which the Britishers won't wear.

At twelve noon

The natives swoon

And no further work is done.

 

But mad dogs and Englishmen

Go out in the midday sun.

 

It's such a surprise for the Eastern eyes to see

That though the English are effete,

They're quite impervious to heat,

When the white man rides every native hides in glee,

Because the simple creatures hope he

Will impale his solar topee on a tree.

 

Bolyboly bolyboly bolyboly baa,

Bolyboly bolyboly bolyboly baa,

Habaninny habaninny habaninny haa,

Habaninny habaninny habaninny haa.

 

It seems such a shame

When the English claim

The earth

That they give rise to such hilarity and mirth.

 

Mad dogs and Englishmen

Go out in the midday sun.

The toughest Burmese bandit

Can never understand it.

 

In Rangoon the heat of noon

Is just what the natives shun.

They put their Scotch or Rye down

And lie down.

 

In a jungle town

Where the sun beats down

To the rage of man and beast

The English garb

Of the English sahib

Merely gets a bit more creased.

 

In Bangkok

At twelve o'clock

They foam at the mouth and run,

But mad dogs and Englishmen

Go out in the midday sun.

 

Mad dogs and Englishmen

Go out in the midday sun.

 

The smallest Malay rabbit

Deplores this stupid habit.

In Hongkong

They strike a gong

And fire off a noonday gun

To reprimand each inmate

Who's in late.

 

In the mangrove swamps

Where the python romps

There is peace from twelve till two.

Even caribous

Lie around and snooze;

For there's nothing else to do.

In Bengal

To move at all

Is seldom, if ever done.

 

But mad dogs and Englishmen

Go out in the midday sun.