I Blinked

 

I learned today that Weight Watchers^® spokeswoman Jessica Simpson will be taking a break from the company's commercials during her second pregnancy.

The announcement said she was expecting her second child with fiance Eric Johnson. She and Johnson have been engaged, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Simpson), since November 2010. Their first daughter was born May 1, 2012.

Back in the day - my day, that is - a reputable company such as Weight Watchers never would engage the services of an unwed mother (or father) as its spokesperson. Marriage, back when it was between a man and a woman, was the norm for people who intended to raise a family.

A "single mother" meant a divorcee'; an unwed mother meant a woman with a child born out of wedlock, one who is "illegitimate." (This definition of "illegitimate" remains the first, i.e., most common, use of the word: not recognized as lawful offspring; specifically: born of parents not married to each other .)

Yet Hollywood, "Hollyweird" to some, seems to accept - perhaps even celebrate - unwed parents. Perhaps this is logical since Hollywood marriages, when there were marriages, often lasted less than the two-plus years (and two pregnancies) of Miss Simpson and her beau, Mr. Johnson. Perhaps the stigma of illegitimacy current in "my" day and in my part of the country no longer exists anywhere in the country; if it did, would a nationally advertised organization such as Weight Watchers have a Ms. Simpson as its spokesperson.

Unmarried couples have been "making babies" since men and women first discovered "there is a difference." Unmarried women have been "going it alone" with only a little help from a sperm bank and their favorite doctor for decades.

Judaism, unlike other beliefs, until "modern times" never considered the off-spring of an unwed woman illegitimate, primarily because a man having intercourse with an unwed woman was a form of marriage, one of three acceptable to the religious authorities. A "bastard" - in Hebrew ממזר - was the child of a forbidden liaison. I suppose that were Ms. Simpson and Mr. Johnson Jewish they would be considered married, although I am certain today's rabbis and religious leaders would balk at that status.

Still, the idea of entering into a progenitorial relationship before marriage is as foreign to me as "marriage" between two people of the same sex. (I'll accept a sanctioned relationship on an equal footing with traditional marriage, but don't call it "marriage." )

While there have been "unwed" mothers (and fathers) since the invention of state sanctioned unions, until the 1960's "free love" decade, flaunting such relationships and the off-spring of non-sanctioned unions were "discouraged."

I am a "geezer" - it beats the alternative - and the idea of an unwed mother, soon the unwed mother of two, as a spokesperson for a national company leaves me shaking my head.

Welcome to 2012

 

I recently read, but now cannot recall the source, that an observant (a/k/a "Orthodox") Jew may eat at a less observant (a/k/a non-"Orthodox"> Jew's table. This decision came from an "Orthodox" rabbi.

An aside. Sefardi and Mizrachi Jews don't divide Jews into European-defined camps of "Orthodox," "Conservative/Traditional," and "Reform/Liberal" or any other segregationist grouping (Reconstructionist, Humanistic, etc. and et al). To a Sefardi, all Jews are Jews - some simply are more observant and others less observant.

While I was pleased to know I could eat at the table of someone who normally ignores kashrut - assuming the host/hostess presented me with kosher food (catered by a kosher caterer or cooked in/with new single-use utensils and served on single-use plates, etc.) - I also realized that this revelation coming in 2012 was, in fact, nothing new.

Hakham Yosef Messas long-ago (c 1924) ruled this way.

From Ideals, Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals (http://www.jewishideas.org/articles/rabbi-joseph-messas)

An example of this is seen in (Hakham Yosef) Messas' experience in Tlemcen. He arrived in the city in 1924 and found that although there was proper shehitah, the kosher butcher shops were all open on the Sabbath. At this time, there wasn't yet a system of mashgihim who would testify to the kashrut of an establishment. Instead, all of Morocco followed the old approach of relying on the personal religious observance of the butchers. This practice was based on the assumption that if you could eat in someone's house without questioning if the food was kosher, you could also purchase from his shop. Yet this principle only applies to observant Jews, and in this case the butchers were all public Sabbath violators. According to Jewish law, these people simply did not have the religious credibility that observant Jews need from their butchers.

At first glance, there appears to be no avoiding the conclusion that since the butchers were not religiously reliable, observant Jews were obligated to give up meat. (As Messas explains, it proved impossible to open a shomer Shabbat store to sell the meat.) Yet was this the only possible conclusion? Messas recognized the many problems that would arise if he declared the butchers not kosher, not least of which would be that many people would simply ignore his declaration, thus destroying any communal standards of kashrut observance. He was also concerned for the honor of his community, which was, as he tells us, being portrayed as a place where everyone ate non-kosher. He therefore offered a radical halakhic justification for the status quo. He argued that since, according to one approach in the medieval authorities, the butchers were not violating any biblical commands which in Temple days would be regarded as a capital offense, they could still be regarded as trustworthy with regard to the meat they prepared and sold. He also offered other reasons why the local butchers, despite being Sabbath violators, could be believed in matters of kashrut. Messas surely knew that he was going out on a limb with this ruling, but under the circumstances he believed that it was the only proper halakhic answer, one that dealt with the reality he was confronted with (Mayim Hayyim 1:143).

While in earlier times it was obvious that one must avoid patronizing non-shomer Shabbat butchers, Messas felt that in his era, when so many were not observant, it was important to find a leniency. This is just one of many examples where Messas shows how dynamic halakhic decision-making can be, and how it can lead to some surprising conclusions. In this particular case it was very hard for those outside of his community to agree with his conclusions. Yet as R. Nathan Neta Leiter wrote to Messas, after expressing his disagreement: "I can find one justification for you, and that is what our Sages said, ‘Don't judge your fellow until you are in his place,' and I do not know the nature of your country" (Tziyun le-Nefesh Hayah, no. 29).

This trend of Messas is seen in other responsa as well. His most famous halakhic ruling is that in an era when women generally go about with uncovered hair, it is no longer regarded as nakedness. As such, it is entirely permissible today for married women not to cover their hair (Otzar ha-Mikhtavim, vol. 3, no. 1884, Mayim Hayyim, vol. 2, Orah Hayyim no. 110). He defended this opinion at length, and a well-known Moroccan halakhist from the subsequent generation, R. Moshe Malka, later chief rabbi of Petah Tikvah, expressed complete agreement with Messas' view (Ve-Heshiv Moshe, nos. 33-34).

The approach of limud zekhut, that is, of finding justification for the practices of the masses, has a long history in Judaism. It is this approach that Messas adopts in his responsa on women uncovering their hair. Since, as he tells us, the wives of pious people do this, there was a great motivation to find it halakhically permissible.

As Shlomo allegedly said אין שם חדש תחת השמש

Ahh, Europe

Could it happen here?

 

An op-ed piece titled No-go Areas for Jews in Europe at http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12605, lead off with

"Surprised that Israelis entering Jordan are required to deposit religious Jewish items, like skullcaps and tefillin, for "security reasons?

"It's happening in many European countries as well, where Jews are once again in grave danger and Judeophobia has become the common currency of politics."

The article goes on to cite anti-Jewish/anti-Israel attacks in

* Denmark

* Finland

* France

* Germany

* Holland (The Netherlands)

* Italy

* Norway

* Sweden

* UK

We are told not to appear Jewish - no kippot (yarmulkas/skull caps), no "Jewish" jewelry such as a mogan David; in fact, don't even carry a book by a Jewish author!

A few weeks ago a Jewish man was attacked and rendered unconscious in a Paris metro. How did the anti-Semitic mob recognize that he was Jewish? Because of a philosophy book by the chief rabbi of Paris that he was reading in the metro when he was attacked.

Granted, the North American (Canadian and U.S.) mentality is far removed from the mentalities of Europe and its off-shore islands, but as the U.S. and Canada continue to welcome people with anti-Jewish and anti-Israel hatreds, Jews must wonder: "Can it happen here?"

There are only a few places in the world in which a Jew - particularly an observant Jew - can live without constant fear of being attacked.

Even in Israel, it seems, Arabs have greater protection than Jews. In the U.S., liberal Jews lead the way in demonizing Israel and observant Jews and their practices (e.g., circumcision and ritual slaughter).

I'm not writing about הרידים (haridim) or "hasid"im who tuck their trouser legs into their stockings; I'm referring to ordinary Jews who have the nerve to display their Jewishness, perhaps their religiosity.

The only way to prevent violent anti-Jewish and anti-Israel attacks, be they verbal or physical, is to meet the enemy - and be assured, the provocateurs are very much enemies of Jews and Israel - on the enemy's terms.

If verbally attacked, file a complaint with the police, and then file a civil action against the offender.

If physically attacked, fight back if possible; otherwise, involve the police and then bring a civil action.

For (almost) every criminal violation, there is a civil action that can be brought. A civil action is easier to win - and often has a bigger impact on the offender. Don't ignore the civil option.

I grew up in Miami (not the Beach) at a time when anything anti-Jewish was rare. It happened, but in my personal experience, a strong response usually caused the perpetrator to "rethink" his words or actions.

The "American" way, the Jewish Defense League (ADL) - vs. the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) - way is "If you push me, I will push you back . . . harder." Bullies, and that is what most anti-Semites are at heart; never anticipate a strong response.

That is not to suggest anyone should go looking for trouble or travel alone in an unsafe (for any reason) area; it is to suggest that we must not be like the Europeans who cower at shadows, who let bullies rule their lives.

Maybe martial arts ought to be part of every Jews' education. It's good for both physical and mental health.

As Theo. Roosevelt is credited with saying: "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Let the "big stick" be a willingness to fight back; to defend ourselves from bullies in every way we can.

AJC's chutzpah

 

According to a June 27, 2012 article in HaAretz headlined Will Israel's chief rabbi eventually end up like the Archbishop of Canterbury?, the American Jewish Congress (AJC) is calling "to overturn decision to recognize Reform and Conservative rabbis, the American Jewish Committee is proposing to strip the Chief Rabbinate of its power so it will only hold a ceremonial role. "

The article is at http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/will-israel-s-chief-rabbi-eventually-end-up-like-the-archbishop-of-canterbury.premium-1.444455

The AMERICAN Jewish Congress.

America, where assimilation is more and more speedily taking its toll on Judaism.

America, where inter-marriage between non-observant Jews and non-Jews is more common than not.

Wherer does the AJC "get off" trying to revamp Israel's politics.

If Conservative and Reform Jews want change in Israel, let them close their wallets until the changes they want are implemented. Better, these Conservative and Reform Jews ought to move to Israel so they can have legitimate political clout.

For the Sefardim, the whole issue of paying Conservative and Reform religious leaders a salary is nonsense. Most Sefardim either are (a) observant or (b) heloni (non-observant). Even the heloni pay to support the synagogues and religious establishment without a great deal of complaint.

Granted, there ARE things in the "religious establishment" that need to be reviewed with an intent to bring about change; to make the rabbinute more "humane" and in tune with the 21st century. The in-fighting, such as the recent wars on conversions, is an embarrassment to the Chief Rabbinate, both Ashkenazi and Sefardi.

International airports?

 

I've had the pleasure of cooling my heels in a number of "international" airports.

Since flights into and out of the host country were to other countries, and since, in the U.S., the presence of U.S. Customs (and Border Patrol) automatically designates an airport as "international" I can say I've been in a few such fields.

But I have been in only one truly international airport and that one is in Detroit Michigan.

The last time I flew out of Lod, Israel's international air gateway, I listened as flights were called in Hebrew and English.

My gate was previously used by Alitalia, an Italian carrier. I asked the girls at the check-in counter if any of them spoke Italian. Answer: No. English and Hebrew.

As I waited for my flight, I listened to calls to board a LOT flight to Poland. All announcements were made in Hebrew and English, not Polish.

But Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport- that's another matter.

Detroit is a major hub - or was a major hub - of the airline once known as Northwest. (It has since become part of Delta.)

As I waited for my flight I heard announcements in several languages of the Far East. Announcements also may have been - they didn't catch my attention - in Spanish as well. English is a "given."

At Miami International and Hollywood-Fort Lauderdale International (which actually is located in Dania Beach), I hear announcements made only in English and Spanish.

Since most travelers passing through Miami and Hollywood-Fort Lauderdale airports are coming from or going to Spanish-speaking countries, there is not much call for other languages. But, there are enough people from Europe, Israel, and now the Far east to warrant announcements in other languages, at least when calling flights for those countries' national carriers and code shares.

For my money, of all the "international" airports I have visited, and there have been a few, only Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport deserves the title "international" airport.

Learn the language

 

I live in south Florida. The area has a large number of Spanish-speakers, primarily from Cuba. There also is a large Hatian population. We also have immigrants from Latin/South America.

Most of the Cubans have been here for many years; many since the 1960s.

The other day a charter bus slammed into an overpass at Miami International airport, killing two passengers and injuring at least 11 others.

The accident should not have happened.

According to the accidenrt report, the bus driver got lost on his way from Sweetwater, an independent political unit surrounded by Miami, to West Palm Beach. A map shows that the route between the two communities was an almost direct path - Tamiami Trail (FL 836) to I-95 North to West Palm. FL 836 skirts Miami International's southern limits.

Somehow the driver managed to turn into Miami International and then, ignoring signs, drove the bus under an overpass marked by multiple signs stating that high vehicles, such as the bus, must avoid trying to pass under the bridge.

About the only way a sober driver could have ignored the signs - and there is no indication the driver was less than sober and awake - is if the driver, like his passengers, failed to comprehend the language of the country, English.

So far, according to local police, no charges have been filed against the driver.

If my assumption is correct that the driver's command of English was severely limited, it is the driver's employer that should be charged. The employer failed to assure the driver was able to read, comprehend, and obey road signs.

(Florida does not require a knowledge of English to pass either the written test - available in Spanish and Creole - or the driving test, yet 99% of all road signs in south Florida are in English; many are graphics or a combination of text and graphics.)

I understand that learning a "new" language can be difficult for older people. My mother-in-law speaks very little Hebrew even though she has lived in Israel since the 1960s. But she, unlike immigrants to America, lacked any opportunities to learn the language. Later immigrants to Israel, including this scrivener, had the "ulpan advantage."

In the U.S., English as a Second Language courses have been offered for 100 years or more, either free or at low cost, during the daytime or in evenings to accommodate almost everyone.

Like my mother-in-law, many of the non-English speakers cluster into "first language" communities, meaning that their social, and to some extent business, lives are carried on in their native language. This reduces any impetus to learn a new language, to integrate into the larger community.

(When I was a youngster growing up in Miami, signs in store windows proclaimed two things: "Conditioned Air" (air conditioning) and "Si Habla Espanol" (Yes, Spanish spoken). Then, in the 60s, the signs started to change to "We speak English" and by the 80s, if you didn't speak Spanish in Miami, you didn't do business in Miami.)

I lived in Israel from 1975 to 1979. I went to learn to learn Hebrew. Following my 6 month stint in an ulpan (intensive language course, an American innovation, by the way) I could have gone to an English-speaking community such as Netanya or an American-populated kibbutz and survived nicely on my English knowledge.

Instead I moved away from English-speaking communities to one where few spoke the language. To deal with my grocer, who spoke 7 languages, none of which was English, I had to speak Hebrew. Fortunately I had a good dictionary. Later I worked as a technical writer - in English - but the engineers with whom I worked insisted on adding to my Hebrew vocabulary and grammar, and my "Russian" co-workers could converse with me only in our common Hebrew.

The bottom line: I was in Israel. The two national languages are Arabic and Hebrew. If I wanted to survive in Israel I had to know Hebrew, the dominate language where I lived and worked. I could have survived with English as long as I didn't venture out of my own group, but then I would not be living in Israel.

Trust me, I was past my 20s when I got on my first flight to Lod. Learning Hebrew - not only a different language but a different alphabet - was a challenge, but to live in Israel, learning at least a survival-level Hebrew was a must. (I'm still no Ben Yehuda, but I "get by.")

As an English-speaker in the U.S. who has struggled to learn another language, I have a problem with non-English speakers who come to "my" country" and (apparently) cannot make an effort to learn English, the national, albeit unofficial, language. Certainly a person working here ought to have some command of the language, more so if the person holds the lives of others in his or her hands (as did the bus driver).

Again, IF the driver lacked sufficient English skills to read and comprehend road signs, the fault lies with the driver's employer and, to be fair, the State of Florida for licensing the driver in the first place.

The bottom line: As far as we know at this point, there is no excuse for the accident that claimed two lives and caused injuries to at least 11 others.