Spiel

Rick Santorum's Chanucah faux pas

Jennifer Lipman — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:27:14 +0000

A new kosher conundrum in the will they / won't they rollercoaster of the Republican presidential hopefuls. Did Rick Santorum really mean to send Jewish voters a card with a quote from the New Testament on?

Rick – he of the sweater vests and staunch Christian conservatism – was obviously hoping to shore up support from an unlikely corner when he sent the card last year (at least, I assume it was last year; getting the date of Chanucah wrong would have been an even bigger gaffe).

But really, dude? Even for those who want all the religions of the world to work together (and Santorum doesn't really strike me as a happy-clappy interfaith kind of guy), this is pretty bizarre.

Whatever the reason (a clueless intern, most likely), it seems Rick didn't learn too much from his time in a Jewish fraternity.

I look forward to being wished "Happy Passover: have a nice sandwich" by the Santorum campaign.

Harry, it's over to you

Danny Caro — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:00:54 +0000

Who in their right mind would take the England job? One has to ask.

In fact, it's the question a handful of respected managers in the game will have asked themselves this morning.

Indeed very few people took to Fabio Capello because he wasn't English and didn't speak the lingo.

His record in qualifying campaigns spoke for itself but he failed to get the best out of the players when it really mattered, and left the nation disillusioned once more.

So who next?

Like many, I believe Hary Redknapp is the man for the job. Pretty much the only man for the job. It appears I'm in a dying breed of supporters that cares about the national team.

There are not many strong candidates. In fact I can count the serious contenders on one hand. And how long do they get before the same people start sharpening their knives (and pencils)?

So, back to Harry. The clear favourite, the obvious choice and pretty much the only choice.

England must, MUST learn that short-term fixes don't work. They must plant a seed for the future to ensure continuity and long-term success.

At 64, Redknapp has five maybe six more good years in him at the top level. People might say look at Fergie - still going strong in his 70's, but he's a one-off and Harry has had hearts problems so even though he says he prefers the daily involvement, the pace of international football could suit him better.

Why Harry? The proof is in the pudding. It's not only Spurs fans that are waxing lyrical about the team's progress over the past couple of years, as well as their easy-on-the-eye style of play. He's taken them into the Champions League and currently has turned them into Premier League contenders in no time.

He's the top man who has helped shape the careers of the likes of Lampard, (Joe) Cole and Ferdinand and he will bring back the pride in playing for the badge and getting the best out of the players. No-one knows the players better.

The so-called 'golden generation' came and went empty-handed. Now isn't the time to make empty promises. It's time to knuckle down and start with a blank template. Again.

In fact, many are saying this could be the best thing that happened to English football for a long, long time.

Harry, it's over to you.

Vegetable Men and Mystery Monsters

Simon Rocker — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:38:43 +0000

The mind boggles at what some Jewish children are taught. Take a look at this blog from Rationalist Judaism (Rabbi Natan Slifkin).

His six-year-old was told by his school teacher that the fourth plague on the Egyptians not only included lions and tigers but also “dangerous humanoids that are attached to the ground, like a vegetable, by a cord emerging from their navel (and which were able to come because God brought the entire patch of ground that they were on), as well as giant octopuses which broke through the roofs of the Egyptians' houses and unlocked their doors from the inside.”

“The most interesting thing happening in Jewish life”

Simon Rocker — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:17:24 +0000

Read David Hazony, guest at last month’s Limmud conference, on why the event is not just a winter retreat, but a revolution with far-reaching implications for the Jewish world.

Should batmitzvah girls be called to the Torah?

Simon Rocker — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:16:13 +0000

You may have read our story in Friday’s newspaper about a United Synagogue member asking the London Beth Din whether there are circumstances in which a woman could be called to the Torah.

Here is a copy of the paper submitted to the Beth Din written by Dr Alexis Brassey of Hampstead Garden Suburb Synagogue in support of his case.

An enquiry to the London Beth Din:

I would like the United Synagogues Bet Din to clarify an issue pertaining to the baraita in Megillah 23a which states:

‘Our rabbis taught: All may be numbered among the seven, even a minor and even a woman, but the Sages said: a woman is not to read from the Torah on account of kevod hatsibur’.

Given the above baraita, also echoed in Tosafot and Shulhan Arukh (Orah Hayyim 282.3), the principle area of discussion in regards to permitting women’s aliyyot pertains to the notion of kevod hatsibbur. Much of the Rabbinic and halachic literature spends time debating the nature and extent of women’s obligations and the extent to which this may permit an aliyya, some of it tends to be permissive, some of it tends to be restrictive. The principle authority for the former position is based on Mishnah Rosh ha-Shannah (3:8) which states that unless one is obliged to perform a religious duty, one cannot perform it on behalf of the congregation. Instances of women being exempt from obligations include circumcising their sons, Pidyon Haben, Torah Study per Qiddushin 29a-29b and observances that are “determined by time”. Arguments in favour of the permissive position are based on the baraita itself, along with the explanation put by R Avraham Avli Gombiner (Magen Avraham) who cites Masekhet Soferim indicating women are obliged to hear the reading of the sefer as are men. This view is also followed by R Hayyim David Azulai (Hida) in Birkei Yosef. Further support for this view also comes from R Aryeh Leib Gunzberg (Turei Even) who argues from Tosafot that rabbincally ordained mitsvot (in this case qeri’at ha Torah) can be performed by the non-obligated.

There are two common features in the literature which appear to invite consensus. The first relates to the fact that women are not forbidden in all circumstances from being called. There are various authorities for this position but the most widely cited are the case put by Maharam of Rothenberg and the Mordecai in which a town is entirely populated by kohanim. R Issac Luria also permits women being called in certain stressing circumstances - sha’at ha-dehaq.(Siddur me-ha Ari Zal ha Niqra be- Shem Qol Ya’aqov p35).

The second area of consensus, relates to the position of non-obligatory performance of mitzvot. Here both sets of commentators appear to agree that providing there is sufficient communal consensus the halacha presents no barrier for a woman to perform positive obligations. This consensus appears to be uncontroversial and perhaps best articulated by Ramban who states:

‘women and slaves who want to wrap themselves in tsitsit wrap themselves without the blessing. And similarly, with the rest of the positive commandments from which women are exempt if they wish to perform them without the blessing, we do not protest’(Hilkhot Tsitsit 3:9).

The view that women may involve themselves in non-obligated mitzvoth is also supported by R Yosef Karo in Beit Yosef and R Mosheh Isserles (Rema) who states:

‘Nonetheless if women or slaves wish to wrap themselves in a tallit and make a blessing on it they may do so as is the case with the rest of “time determined” positive commandments’(Rema).

Given that a non-obligatory eighth alyyia (“8A”) is non-obligatory, this paper seeks clarification on its status from a theoretical halachic perspective.

Methodology

I have considered positions from the mainstream Orthodox responses in respect to the area of non-mandatory aliyyot for women. These commentators all argue against women’s aliyyot for the mandatory readings. I have not rehearsed the arguments put by proponents who are in favour of women being called for mandatory aliyyot on the basis that I am seeking clarification only on 8A. I understand that Dayan Gelley is extremely busy and I therefore only seek guidance on this point.

The issue I would like the Bet Din to consider relates to this issue, solely from a theoretical halachic perspective. In other words I am not looking for a prescription, declaration or statement that expressly permits 8A from a practical perspective, merely clarification of the theoretical position.

Yehuda Herzl Henkin

R.Henkin argues forcefully in respect to not permitting women to receive aliyyot (Yehuda Herzl Henkin , Qeri’at ha-Torah by Women: Where We Stand Today.” Edah 1:2, 2001) in direct response to the paper put by Shapiro (Mendel Shapiro, “Qeri’at ha-Torah by Women: A Halakhic Analysis” Edah 1:2, 2001. Despite his position on mandatory aliyyot, however, R. Henkin states:

‘Only if her aliyyah is superfluous from the standpoint both of its ordinal number and its contents would kevod ha-tsibbur not apply’(Yehuda Herzl Henkin , Qeri’at ha-Torah by Women: Where We Stand Today.” Edah 1:2, 2001 page 6).

Although R. Henkin goes on to state that any congregation which institutes women’s aliyyot...

‘...is not Orthodox in name and will not long remain Orthodox in practice. In my judgment this is an accurate statement now and for the foreseeable future, and I see no point in arguing about it” (Henkin p7).

... it is reasonable to consider these views as pertaining only to mandatory aliyyot and not to 8A. In support of the position that R. Henkin, in fact adopts a rather accommodative halachic stance towards 8A, it is of note later in his article when he argues in favour of specifically non-mandatory aliyyot for women, specifically in relation to Simhat Torah. He cites Resp Avnei Neizer, Orah Hayyim, no. 35...

‘...it might be possible for women to have aliyyot even in the ezrat nashim...’ (Henkin p8).

He caveats this position by indicating such an innovation should only be considered where women strongly desired to participate in the service and should be subject to the decisions of a local halakhic authority.

R Henkin offers no halachic objection to women being called outside of the mandatory aliyyot per the views of Rema and Ramban as cited in the background notes.

Rabbi Gidon Rothstein

Gidon Rothstein writing in 2005 was also responding to R. Shapiro’s article in Edah (Gidon Rothstein, "Women’s Aliyyot in Contemporary Synagogues." Tradition 39:2, Summer 2005). R Rothstein takes issue with R Shapiro’s analysis of kavod hatsibur. His central argument pertains to the temporal nature of a wavier in regard to kevod hatsibur, specifically pointing to the “unbearded (young) Chazzan” as a matter that would pass in time.

It is of note, however, that R Rothstien recognises a number of medieval commentators accepted the theoretical possibility of women’s aliyot. He also accepts that most of the major authorities accepted that women could read the final aliyyot and therefore by implication 8A.

R Rothstein specifically points to R Shapiro’s authorities namely: Or Zaru’a, R. David Pardo, R. Isaiah de-Trani (Rid), R. Jacob Emden, R. Meir ha-Kohen of Rothenburg (Hagahot Maimoniyot), Ran, Rivash and Rema’s. He concludes that Shapiro’s points are difficult or invalid in relation to calling women for the first six portions but accepts they provide support for women potentially reading a seventh portion and by implication 8A. In regards to kevod hatsibur, R Rothstein suggests that...

‘ the outsourcing of an obligation betrays an undignified attitude towards the obligation itself...’

There are arguments to be had about whether this view is valid, particularly in the context of communities that contain individuals of widely varying knowledge and religious practice. What does appear to be the case, in regards to R Rothstein’s view is that his arguments do not pertain to aliyyot that are not “obligations” namely 8A.

R Rothstein offers no halachic objection to women being called outside of the mandatory aliyyot per the views of Rema and Ramban as cited in the background notes.

Rabbi Yaakov Ariel

R Ariel raises two issues which have a bearing on 8A. The issue of kol isha, and the problem pertaining to sexual distraction (Rabbi Ariel Yaakov "Aliyat Nashim ba-Torah 'o la-Torah", Women's Aliyot: In the Torah or to the Torah?", "Hazofe" August 8, 2007: and Ramat Gan chief rabbi slams 'radical feminist' egalitarian minyanim Jerusalem Post February 20, 2008). Dealing firstly with the issue of kol isha, R Ariel’s view does not appear to hold in regards to the possibility of 8A, this is based on a number of authorities namely Divrei Cheifetz (Specific mention is given to Shabbat Hymns and funeral diges are not kol isha because men to not derive sexual pleasure from them), R David Bigman, R Avraham Shammah, and importantly Maharshal and R Ovadio Yosef who permit various violations of the tzniut providing the behaviour in question is not sexually enticing in that time and place.

The issue relating to sexual distraction can also be dealt with by the same authorities given the purpose of 8A. There are few objections to 8A in the Orthodox literature that deviates away from the issue of kevod hatsibur, but R Ariel’s are noted.

Rabbi Aryeh A. Frimer

Rabbi Frimer argues that kevod hatsibur is unwaivable for reasons of modesty and obligation (Aryeh A. Frimer Review of Daniel Sperber’s Darka shel Halakha). He also suggests that the baraita in Megilla 23a only permitted leniency in the event of an emergency. R Frimer argues against the principle as put by R Sperber that kevod hatsibur can be overridden by kevod habriyot (Daniel Sperber, (2002) "Congregational Dignity and Human Dignity: Women and Public Torah Reading”). The basis for R Frimer’s argument is that kevod hatsibur can only be waived in certain circumstances such as where shame or embarrassments were to obtain. According to R Frimer, given that a rabbinic prohibition can never be characterised as an embarrassment, R Sperber’s argument fails.

Whilst it is the case that R Frimer’s points may have merit in regards to kevod hatsibur, they appear to again be based on the notion of obligations. The principle behind 8A is that the woman is engaging in something that has no obligation attached and therefore falls outside of the area of his critique.

R Frimer offers no halachic objection to women being called outside of the mandatory aliyyot per the views of Rema and Ramban as cited in the background notes.

Shlomo Riskin

R Riskin argues (Meorot 7:1, Tishrei, 5769, Yeshivat Chovevel Torah Rabbinical School) directly against the positions put by Shapiro (The Edah Journal 1:2, Sivan, 5761) and Sperber (The Edah Journal 3:2, Elul 5763) in their analysis to find justification for aliyyot or women. His principal arguments again relate to the assertion that women are not obligated to read Torah as men are. He also argues that kevod hatsibur cannot be waived.
In the final paragraph of Riskin’s paper and dialogue with Shapiro, he states:

‘...I am indebted to Rav Shapiro for having opened a full discussion of the broad issues raised by the encounter of halakhah with modernity in general and gender issues in particular. It should also be clear from my study that from a purely halakhic perspective, there may well be room for a woman to be called up to the Torah for a reading of the maftir and the haftorah as well as for hosafot to the seven obligatory Torah readings as long as there is a propert mehitsah in the synagogue’ (Meorot 7:1, Tishrei, 5769, Yeshivat Chovevel Torah Rabbinical School, p34.

R Riskin offers no halachic objection to women being called outside of the mandatory aliyyot per the views of Rema and Ramban as cited in the background notes.

Conclusions

Given that all of the Orthodox positions on women’s aliyyot relate to prohibitions pertaining to obligations I cannot appear to find any halachic authorities that prohibit non-obligatory aliyyot. I realise that there are many other practical obstacles such as the creation of an appropriate mechitza, the support of the specific congregation, the willingness of women participants and the logistics of such an operation. I do not, however, seek guidance on these matters.

R’s Frimer, Henkin, Riskin and Rothstein offer no halachic objection to women being called outside of the mandatory aliyyot per the views of Rema and Ramban as cited in the background notes.

Please could you confirm along with the views of Rema, Ramban, Frimer, Henkin, Riskin, Rothstein, Or Zaru’a, R. David Pardo, Rid, R. Jacob Emden, Hagahot Maimoniyot, Ran and Rivash that there is no halachic prohibition in so far as it relates to women and non-obligatory aliyyot.

Sacks challenged over interfaith views

Simon Rocker — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:58:47 +0000

A number of rabbis here have been talking about an article in the latest edition of Tradition, the American journal of Orthodox thought published by the mainstream Rabbinical Council of America.

It is written by Alan Jotkowitz, who is director of the Jakobovits Centre for Medical Ethics at Ben Gurion University, and is a critique of the interfaith views of Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks.

The author is an admirer of the Chief Rabbi whom he describes as “probably the world’s most foremost expositor of Jewish values and ethics”.

Nevertheless, he questions whether the Chief Rabbi’s attitude towards other religions has strayed too far from conventional rabbinic positions.

The title of the article describes Sacks’s theology as “radical” – generally not a term of commendation in these circles.

Jotkowitz focuses mostly on the Chief’s 2002 book, The Dignity of Difference (which was subsequently revised after leading strictly Orthodox rabbis branded it heretical). Comments such as “In heaven there is truth; on earth there are truths” – rewritten in the second edition – lent credence to the truth claims of other faiths, according to the Chief Rabbi’s critics.

But Jotkowitz is not wholly convinced by the revisions and argues that the Chief’s ideas remains theologically problematic.

In contrast, Jotkowitz says that Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik “makes it clear that a Jew has to believe that his or her faith is supreme and there is an absolute truth to that faith, even at the expense of the beliefs of other religions”.

'The Orthodox World is Being Overtaken by Extremism'

Simon Rocker — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 13:13:23 +0000

A very powerful statement on the recent religious clashes in Israel from Rabbi Shaul Robinson of Lincoln Square Synagogue, New York (considered one of the favourites for UK Chief Rabbi, should, of course, he be interested in the job).

For his article, entitled “The Curse of Violent Extremism – from the 10th of Tevet to Bet Shemesh”, can be read in full on the synagogue website.

An Israeli yeshivah head’s view of Limmud

Simon Rocker — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 10:24:58 +0000

Rabbi Herzl Hefter, head of Harel Yeshiva in Israel reflects on his recent appearance at Limmud in his weekly email letter:

“Early Friday morning I returned home to Israel from the Limmud Conference in the UK. Jews of all backgrounds, secular, Orthodox, Masorti, Reform and Liberal attended. I say 'attended' and not 'were represented' because we were all there as individual Jews, representing only ourselves, united by a thirst for Torah and community. Limmud had managed to create a wonderful “safe space” where Jews could simply encounter one another as fellow Jews. Coming from Israel, the experience was inspiring, almost intoxicating.

So why am I depressed? Because I had to write “coming from Israel…” To what did I return home? I returned home to haredi violence in Beit Shemesh and a haredi boy dressed by his parents with a yellow Star of David. According to reports, his father said that the Nazi-Zionist government's persecution of the haredim is worse than what was carried out by the Nazi regime. What would my father, who witnessed his mother being taken to be shot, who alone survived of nine brothers and sisters and unknown number of nephews, nieces and cousins, what would he say?

Confrontation. I returned home to confrontation. Religiously speaking, I returned home to an abomination in the House of the Lord.

Arguably, there are more Jews studying Torah in Israel today than ever before in Jewish history. Has the society most devoted to Torah study become a light unto the nations or even unto our own nation? Do spiritual seekers, Jews and non-Jews, the world over flock to Bnei Brak and Mea She’arim in pursuit of holy, refined spiritual human beings reflecting the image of God? The vulgar expressions of the past weeks come from the most sheltered corners of haredi society; the most isolated from the modern world and its influences. The sicaricim are the “most pure”.

As Jews who hold tenaciously to the Torah and its teachings we must not shy away from the painful conclusion that for some, the Torah has become, in the language of our sages (Yoma 72b), sam ha mita, a deadly poison, and in our case a toxic environmental hazard.

In my mind, two things need to happen, one political and the other educational. We need to rethink and redefine the marriage of religion and state in Israel in a manner which preserves the Jewish character of the state while eliminating the morally numbing influence of political power on religious groups. Political power and fervent religious obscurantism are the father and mother of the noxious fruit which we must all now ingest.

Educationally, we need to dispel, once and for all, the notion that the more we shut out the world, the more "Torah true" we are. In fact the exact opposite is true.Absolute faith in the Torah obliges us to encounter, squarely and honestly, the ethical and theological challenges of the modern world. The authentic encounter (there is no other kind) is characterized by the consciousness that we may actually learn something new in the process. Open mindedness and humility are the two keys to shifting from confrontation to encounter; authentic encounter of ourselves, the other and ultimately, God.”

Secular Israelis like ‘Mixed Multitude’

Simon Rocker — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 12:50:09 +0000

A very disturbing post on the latest religious unrest in Israel on the website Failed Messiah.

Rabbi Aharon Leib Steinman reportedly denounced secular Israelis as a “mixed multitude” who hate the Jews – a biblical reference to Egyptians and others who left Egypt with the Israelites and were regarded as a bad spiritual influence by commentators.

According to the website, Rabbi Steinman declared: “Now that we see the violence, the baseless hate, the harassment [against Charedim], we know and we understand that their ways are not like our ways, and that we certainly must distance ourselves from them, for their inside is not like their outside [ie their internal state is not like they try to appear]. They are a mixed multitude who hate the Jews.”

Ken's kosher campaign?

Jennifer Lipman — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:50:16 +0000

Mayoral candidate Ken Livingstone has, for whatever reason, decided that the best way to fill his campaign coffers is to give his mission some meat.

No, not substance of the political kind, but of the poultry variety. His site now boasts a "fundraising chicken". Something about Boris Johnson being too chicken to debate him.

How droll. But the real question is, is it kosher?

A Chanucah story - with a little help from Friends

Jennifer Lipman — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:39:37 +0000

The festival of lights is upon us and with that in mind, I feel it is time to share my "top Jewish moment of 2011".

I was at a party earlier this year, when the subject of Chanucah traditions came up in conversation with someone for whom, it's safe to assume, December 25 is a pretty awesome day.

We discussed the usual - oily foods, eight days of presents (I wish), lighting candles - when he said (in total seriousness):

"And you guys have the holiday armadillo, too."

Ah yes, when the Maccabees took on the Greeks, they had the help of a trusted mammal with a leathery armour shell. Thank you, Ross Geller, for letting the world in on that little secret.

Happy Chanucah, one and all.

One more and we'll have a set

Jenni Frazer — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:07:41 +0000

According to the Mail on Sunday, disgraced MP Aidan Burley not only sat beside his friend who wore full Nazi uniform at the now notorious French stag party, but Burley actually ordered the uniform.
This rather begs the question of not only Burley's own judgment, which we may accept is dubious, but in the Conservative Friends of Israel rush to cover him with the mantle of their blessing. "Not an antisemitic bone in his body," the CFI declared. That would be the non-antisemitic bones which persuaded him to order an SS uniform, I imagine.
Who's kidding who, here?
Burley himself, asked directly why he hadn't got up and left the event when someone appeared in SS dress, burbled something weaselly about its being difficult to leave somewhere when one was 800 miles up a mountain. Now we know: he was protecting his investment.

A week of weakness

Marcus Dysch — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:34:26 +0000

While our non-Jewish friends and colleagues wind down in advance of the festive period and we look forward to the joys of Chanucah, I find myself, as usual, rather disgruntled.

Never mind the season of goodwill, this has been a strange week and one in which I’ve spent a considerable amount of time shaking my head in disbelief.

When I first saw the story about Tory MP Aidan Burley’s presence at a Nazi-themed stag do late on Saturday night I was disgusted, as I expect were most of you. I felt sure that when the JC spoke to Jewish community representatives this week there would be outrage.

There was, from some people. The Board of Deputies, the Holocaust Educational Trust, and other right-thinking groups were "appalled", "alarmed" and "insulted" by Mr Burley’s mindless stupidity.

But what of the Conservative Friends of Israel? CFI is one of the largest parliamentary lobby groups and works with dozens of Mr Burley’s colleagues.

CFI director Stuart Polak issued a statement: "I have worked closely and travelled to Israel with Aidan Burley. I know him well and he does not have an antisemitic bone in his body. The actions of his friends were unacceptable and inexcusable. Aidan should not have been associated with this. However, Aidan is both a friend of Israel and a friend of the Jewish community."

Oh, well that’s alright then. He enjoyed a free holiday in sunny Israel. He’s a mate. I hadn’t realised.
I’ve heard the old excuse "some of my best friends are Jewish" plenty of times, but never "some of my best friends' friends like to dress as Nazis, it’s fine". That’s a new one.

Last week Labour Friends of Israel felt able to criticise Labour MP Paul Flynn following his vile comments about British Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould. Why is it that Mr Polak saw the need to defend Mr Burley following similarly insane behaviour? Maybe I’m missing something.

But this episode was merely the CFI dessert to the United Synagogue’s sour main course.

While I was away last weekend a friend emailed me asking if I’d seen the US weekly newsletter. I hadn’t, but expected there to be a full and frank apology following the publication of the organisation’s report into the missing graves of stillborn babies.

How wrong I was. I looked for the newsletter and found a despicable, all-guns-blazing attack on the JC, likening the publication to the very worst of tabloid press practices.

The US was "extremely saddened" that the JC had put itself "at odds with Jewish ethics". In revealing the web of lies which stretched from at least 1933 to 1985, and then rightly criticising the paucity of the US' own efforts to investigate the tragedy, we had "struggled to rise above the morality" of the now-defunct News of the World.

That’s strange, because I, along with the vast majority of British Jews, was rather more than "extremely saddened" by the United Synagogue’s long-running practice that left dozens (perhaps hundreds?) of bereaved parents distraught and misled about the final resting places of their poor children.

Yet US president Stephen Pack pops up in this week’s edition of the paper to praise "the positive contribution that the JC has made". Our revelations were, he says, "a fine example of journalism providing a real service to our community".

Make your mind up.

I don’t always agree with my colleague Geoffrey Alderman. I thought his attack on the Chief Rabbi last Friday a little unnecessary. But this week he hits the nail on the head. There is clearly now a question hanging over the US leaders' fitness for office.

Both cases leave me disconsolate. Where has the fortitude gone? Why are so many of our supposed "leaders" so spineless when it comes to criticising those who so blatantly deserve it? Whatever happened to actions having consequences? There must be many guilty consciences knocking around the apparent top tables of British Jewry.

We know that the days of politicians' honourable resignations are long gone. It seems that the "no blame" culture which seeps into every pore of British society has now sadly also found favour within our own communal organisations.

Thankfully there was one huge, shiny, bright spot. On Wednesday evening I had the pleasure to meet 83-year-old Eugene Black. He was a jolly Yorkshireman with a gentle handshake and a twinkle in his eye. But as I soon discovered, the Holocaust survivor also had an incredibly moving story to tell.

After being liberated from Bergen-Belsen at the end of the war, Mr Black spent more than 60 years desperately searching for the truth about his two sisters' fate. Thanks to the remarkable archives of the International Tracing Service he was able to discover the full tragedy of what really happened to them.

Mr Black could, undoubtedly, teach many people a thing or two about unfailing dedication, bravery and strength. Hearing him speak in the Locarno Room at the Foreign Office brought a tear to my eye. But the comments of others this week have brought sadness to my heart.

A guide for the perplexed

Jenni Frazer — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:14:17 +0000

This is for MPs and MEPS, of whatever party, who appear to be intellectually challenged.

1. If someone appears at a celebration, and sits next to you wearing full Nazi uniform, it's time to go home. Do not even think of posing for a picture. You will not look good. Early Day Motions will be tabled.

2. If you even think about making a comparison between the treatment of present-day Palestinians and either Holocaust behaviour or 19th century antisemitism, you need to lie down in a dark room for several days. You will not look good.

3. Do not blog citing Hitler in any way, shape or form. You will not look good.

4. Do not leap to condemn stupidities uttered by the famous if you aren't bothering to condemn blatant antisemitism on your own doorstep. You will not look good.

5. And finally, if you have done any or (horrors) all of the above, consider whether being in the public eye is the right place for you. After all, you want to look good, don't you?

After the "Jew goal", the "Jew punch"?

Marcus Dysch — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 13:45:12 +0000

Remember the “Jew goal”? Well now it seems another sport may have adopted a similarly tasteless phrase.

Welcome to the world of the “Jew punch”.

Subscription boxing channel BoxNation this week apologised and launched an investigation after a retired boxer made a rather dubious remark on one of its shows.

The channel cancelled repeats of the Bunce’s Boxing Hour show – hosted by respected boxing journalist Steve Bunce – following former cruiserweight Dominic Negus’s comment.

Mr Negus had been discussing his career on the November 21 edition of the show when he described his fighting style and said: “I’m very Jewish when I throw a punch”.

Mr Bunce made an on-air apology during a broadcast this past Monday.

But BoxNation chief executive Simon Green said he did not believe the remark had been intended as a “racist comment” and argued that it had instead been “misinterpreted”. He added the bizarre caveat that the on-air apology was “voluntary” and applied only to those who had made the misinterpretation.

Viewer Matthew Kane complained to BoxNation, saying the comment was made in the context of Mr Negus “being sparing with his right hand. If it was not meant to imply that Jewish people are mean, what was he saying?”.

Mr Kane rightly pointed out that if the comment was innocent, as Mr Green protested, then the channel would not have felt the need to apologise.

Defending BoxNation, Mr Green said: “Mr Negus is upset and sorry that his comment caused any offence. I understand that Mr Negus’s partner is a Jewish lady and his children attend a Jewish school.

“Although innocent in its intention, [the phrase] can also be misinterpreted and as such I apologise on behalf of Mr Negus and BoxNation.”

Make what you will of the inclusion of the line about Mr Negus’s partner being “a Jewish lady” with Jewish children. Some of his best friends may or may not be Jewish, but his missus is? That’s ok then.

I’m not the world’s biggest boxing fan, but my understanding is that references to a Jewish punching style are not common boxing parlance. I’ve yet to find anyone who had heard such phraseology before this occasion. Pushed to explain what exactly Mr Negus had meant – if he wasn’t referring to Jews being stingy – Mr Green offered no further answers.

Mr Negus, of Chingford, north east London, had a relatively short professional career, fighting 19 times, winning 13 – with six knockouts (not so sparing then) – and losing five times.

He also once appeared on “documentary series” Danny Dyer’s Deadliest Men, where he discussed his past exploits working with the East End’s criminal fraternity, and recalled how he head-butted Olympic champion Audley Harrison during a fight in 2002.

No doubt he is an interesting guy, but perhaps he should stick to letting his fists do the talking – and not by throwing “Jewish” punches.

BoxNation broadcasts on Sky to subscribers paying £10 a month. I’m not tight, but I think I’ll spend my money elsewhere.

Among the missing

Jenni Frazer — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 11:24:15 +0000

I have rarely felt such a sense of disappointment in a Labour leader as I do today in Ed Miliband.
Repeatedly asked to condemn what you might think would be a no-brainer, MP Paul Flynn's scurrilous remarks about the British ambassador to Israel and his alleged "dual loyalty", Mr Miliband took refuge in weak silence. It was left to his shadow foreign secretary, Douglas Alexander, to do the deed and castigate Mr Flynn's comments.
In recent weeks Mr Miliband has let drop intriguing hints about releasing his inner Jew. He has had, we are told, deep conversations with himself about his Jewish identity following the birth of his second son. He has had long discussions with the Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks, and the new Israeli ambassador to Britain, Daniel Taub (who, by Paul Flynn's bizarre logic, should also be guilty of dual loyalties since he is British-born.)
I can't imagine that such conversations, were they to take place this week, would be so comfortable for Mr Miliband.
All he has to do - in fact all he had to do - was to state clearly and unequivocally that Paul Flynn's remarks are completely and utterly unacceptable, no ifs, buts, or maybes. No hedging, no fudging, no ringing round with putting in context.
What Paul Flynn said was deeply offensive and completely bought in to every antisemitic trope and stereotype currently being peddled on what we have hitherto considered the lunatic fringe. But Flynn has now brought this attitude into respectable conversation. Mr Miliband needs to tread on this immediately; but I cannot understand why he hesitated. Unless, of course, he believes that his own background will lead to a loss of credibility, and he is allowing his Jewish identity to constrain him.
For shame, Ed. I thought you were better than that.

Intermarriage down in the USA?

Simon Rocker — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 10:07:42 +0000

For as long as I can recall, intermarriage rates have been assumed to be rising in the West.

But an American demographer, recrunching the data, suggests they could have dropped in recent years. You can read more here.

Picking the Chief

Simon Rocker — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 14:24:55 +0000

The United Synagogue has, predictably, decided not to take the radical step of holding a ballot to elect its next Chief Rabbi after Lord Sacks retires in September 2013.

But it has set up an tripartite structure to make the selection process more representative of the Chief Rabbinate’s constituents and, notably, women will play a greater role than they did in previous years.

But there are two comments made by US president Stephen Pack, who also chairs the Chief Rabbinate Trust, when he announced how the Chief would be chosen this week which are worth noting.

Following a consultation exercise within the US and the regions, it emerged that the quality people most want in a Chief Rabbi is to be “a fantastic communicator” – someone, Mr Pack said, who could not only address the Orthodox sector but “be able to communicate on behalf of Anglo-Jewry”.

This is no great surprise but it does suggest that the selectors of the next Chief see him as a figurehead for the community as a whole. The non-Orthodox reaction will be interested.

There has been a lot of talk about having “a rabbis’ rabbi”, a phrase which is capable of meaning anything but, to some at least, suggesting someone more focused on internal Orthodox affairs than national issues.
Naturally, the next Chief will be expected to be someone the rabbis look up to.

But Mr Pack said: “We are not going to appoint someone who thinks it’s their job to override the dayanim because that is not the way the Beth Din works…We are not looking for wholesale revolution.”

Football - a game where colour should not be an issue

Danny Caro — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:02:54 +0000

The campaign to kick Racism out of football in England has been one of the success stories of the modern game.

As per the battle against Antisemitism, Islamophobia and Homophobia, it remains an ongoing project, and one that is rarely out of the headlines.

On the day that Luis Suarez was charged with racially abusing Patrice Evra, the words of FIFA president Sepp Blatter on the topic left the football world open-mouthed. They displayed a lack of understanding of FIFA’s own rules of the game.

While we have been trying to kick it out, he has brushed it under the carpet.

There followed a fierce reaction from players, officials and media, dare I say predominantly in this country, forcing Blatter into a hasty retreat, and something of a grovelling clarification after he said: "there is no racism on the pitch".

It was the behaviour of a man that is out of touch and out of mind. It appears he is well past his sell-by date in terms of representing world football.

Some will say he has worked wonders for African nations and third world countries but his comments are ill-advised to say the least.

Whilst the game has moved on, Mr Blatter has been well off the pace for some time. In his eyes, racism can be "settled with a handshake at the end of a game". His words left Rio Ferdinand "astonished".

Former players including Paul Elliott, Brendan Batson and John Barnes have campaigned long and hard to help get the unacceptable face of football out of the game.

Many people, including a significant number in this country, have worked above and beyond the call of duty to help identify the problem and root out the evil. A lot of time, money and effort has been put in to addressing the problem with several high-profile players, past and present, flexing their muscles to ensure it stays in the public eye.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There is no place for the N-word, the Y-word, the P-word or the G-word in football, let alone society.

It appears that the message has not reached Mr Blatter though, and there is still plenty of work to be done.

Someone needs to remind Mr Blatter that football is a global game, a global brand. Man against man. Colour should not be an issue, but clearly it still is.

The breadmap to Mideast peace?

Jennifer Lipman — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 15:27:58 +0000

For those who say there will never be peace in the Middle East, here's a "hole" lot of proof that coexistence is possible.

Reports the New York Daily News:

The oldest Jewish bialy and bagel shop in New York City is being rescued by two Muslim cab drivers - and they plan to keep it kosher.

Zafaryab Ali and Peerzada Shah said the first bagels and bialys they ever tasted when they immigrated here from Pakistan more than 16 years ago were made at the Gravesend noshery.

"It doesn't matter," Ali said of the cross-cultural differences. "I make the food for everyone."

Could a good bit of dough be the elusive solution to an age-old dispute?

Name games

Simon Rocker — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:14:49 +0000

In the past couple of weeks, we have read about the Creation and the Flood in the Torah portions of the week. But for all the drama of the stories, both sedarot end on a seemingly anti-climactic note with a list of names detailing the generations from Adam to Noah in the first sidrah, and then from Shem to Abram (he does not become Abraham until this week) in the second.

It’s easy to find your attention wandering when they are recited but one curiosity is to pick out which names are still in currency today. Understandably, no one is going to call their son Cain; Abel instantly evokes the American Bible Belt. But Seth, the name of Adam’s third son, enjoys greater popularity.

I can’t think of any Methusalehs, but you’ll still come across Chanoch, the Hebrew for Enoch. Does the name Ada derive from Adah, one of the wives of Lamech? I don’t know. You are unlikely to bump into a Mahalaleel today but Jared (son of Mahalaleel) is still around.

Few of the names of Noah’s genealogy survive – although Ashkenaz (son of Gomer) is first mentioned in the Bible: so too is Ashkenaz’s uncle Magog. I have never found anyone named Mash (son of Aram). But one name revived in modern Israel is Ophir, son of the prolific Joktan.

Mazel Tov: Royal succession change at last

Jennifer Lipman — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:09:22 +0000

It looks as though, finally, the UK's archaic laws on royal succession are to be scrapped. The 16 Commonwealth heads have agreed to change the law so that male and female heirs to the throne are treated equally.

David Cameron says he will put it to parliament at the next session, when, one hopes, even the crustiest and most conservative members will accept it.

The constitutional reform would also remove the ban on the spouse of a Catholic from taking the throne (a ban that was only in place for Catholics). Under the current system, had Kate Middleton been Catholic, Prince William would effectively have had to forfeit his right to the throne in order to marry her.

It's an outrageous example of discrimination, yet one deeply embedded in the UK's constitutional makeup. In 2011, there is simply no excuse for that kind of religious inequality (likewise that kind of gender inequality).

As a minority religious community – one that, like the Catholic community in this country, has faced considerable persecution at times in history - we should welcome this as another step in the right direction for the UK.

Although it's not over yet. As the Telegraph explains: "A separate rule that the Sovereign must be a Protestant will not be changed because the monarch is Supreme Governor of the Church of England."

So while our royals are free to marry Jews, Hindus, Muslims or Catholics, any kids they have will have to adopt the faith of the royal parent. Could this lead to a situation where we have a monarch who is halachically Jewish, but is forced to renounce their birth-given faith in order to accede to the throne?

PSC forced to cancel trade union conference

Marcus Dysch — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:15:40 +0000

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign has been forced to cancel a conference with trade unionists which was due to take place tomorrow.

The event was expected to promote boycott methods and encourage local groups to support BDS measures against Israel. Speakers were to include RMT general secretary Bob Crow.

In a statement, the PSC said the event would be rescheduled for next year and said the move was being made to avoid disrupting preparations for the day of strike action which unions are planning for November 30.

But I'm told that a lack of interest from trade unionists and insufficient numbers of registered participants had caused substantial fears over filling the Congress House venue in central London, and the obvious financial repercussions that would have resulted.

Despite all their talk, it's another example of the BDS movement's failure to generate substantial support.

Thoughts on Gilad Shalit's release

Jennifer Lipman — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:13:43 +0000

When Gilad Shalit was captured, most of us didn't have Facebook. There was no Twitter, no iPhone and certainly no iPad.

Barack Obama was still a relatively unknown freshman senator from Illinois and Tony Blair was running this country. The economy hadn't collapsed just yet, Osama bin Laden was nowhere to be found. Newspaper websites were free to browse. The West Wing was still on air in Britain.

While Gilad was in captivity - with almost no word from Hamas about his welfare - his peers were moving on with their lives. They were finishing their army service, going off to see the world. They were starting their studies, falling in love, perhaps even having children.

But still, Gilad Shalit was not home.

Objectively speaking, the prisoner swap deal Israel has accepted is lunacy. More than 1,000 prisoners - a number of whom were serving life sentences for brutal and bloody terrorist atrocities - for one man?

But as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said yesterday, "Israel doesn't abandon its soldiers." It's a basic principle of Israeli society and it's not about pride, it's about serving the people as the people serve the country.

Gilad may be one individual in a country full of fresh-faced soldiers. But that's the point.

He was no mighty fighter off to face his enemies. He was a 19-year-old doing his duty and he could have been any fresh-faced soldier. He could have been any Israeli teenager, male or female.

Is it logical for Israel to sacrifice so much for one soldier? With so much at stake? Of course not. Is it right? Absolutely.

Gilad Shalit

Jenni Frazer — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 08:40:42 +0000

Within hours of the news breaking that a deal has been done to secure the release of Gilad Shalit, the debate about whether it is proper to exchange hundreds of Palestinian prisoners for the sake of one Israeli soldier has re-erupted.

Israel has always held to the tenet that it will do anything and pay a very high price for its citizens, something it has demonstrated over and over again. Those who have suffered at the hands of terrorists are, understandably, unhappy about the swap: a former rabbi in the IDF has warned today that those who are being released will slide back into their old haunts and habits immediately, the better to wreak further havoc on Israel.

I was very struck by the comment on one website in which someone wrote that he did not know how the Shalit family would live with themselves when the next inevitable act of terrorism was committed by someone who had been released so that their son could be free. But who can judge the Shalit family in that way? Who can imagine the pain and suffering undergone by the family in the last five years? And who among us can comprehend the lonely, frightening situation of Gilad himself, never knowing if the next knock on the door was someone coming to kill him?

There is no right and wrong answer to this agony, except to be grateful that Gilad Shalit's long nightmare may indeed be coming to an end. May such a nightmare not be repeated by any other Israeli soldier.

The Honey Trap

Simon Rocker — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 15:26:22 +0000

I have a seasonal confession to make: I don’t like honey.

From early years, I have avoided spreading it on my challah or dipping my apple in it.

As a child, I used to sprinkle sugar on them instead.

But I’d still be interested to know whether there is really a suitable alternative. Honey, after all, is a pure substance and options like chocolate spread which I have tried before seem artificial. Somewhere out there, someone must have the answer.

Was there a touch of divine intervention at Balenciaga on first day Rosh Hashanah?

Jan Shure — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 17:28:12 +0000

Was I the only (Jewish) person on Planet Fashion who wondered whether there was a spot of divine intervention going on in Paris during Fashion Week when not one but three benches – and front row benches at that – collapsed during the Balenciaga show, which took place on the first day Rosh Hashanah.

I do, of course, sympathise with the fashion capitals – London, Milan and New York as well as Paris – whose organisers all try desperately to fit in all four spring/summer fashion weeks, which take place annually in September, without clashing with Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur. Some years it’s easier, when the High Holydays fall late, as the four fashion weeks can usually be crammed in. But often rows erupt between organisers and buyers and journalists when one or other city tries to schedule major shows on Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur.

Two years ago it was London that offended, scheduling shows on the Yom Kippur and provoking the wrath of some senior fashion editors and ensuring that many top US buyers would be absent.

This year, unusually, Paris offended, scheduling a handful of top shows on first day Rosh Hashanah. It was an odd move for a capital where there many people in key positions are Jewish, and where American buyers, many of whom are Jewish, are seen is vital to a fashion house’s success.

Perhaps next September, the Balenciaga bench debacle will prove a salutary reminder not to schedule shows over the High Holy days.

No copy cats, just coincidence...

Jan Shure — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 15:18:58 +0000

There’s been weird stuff going on between The Times fashion pages and The JC fashion pages… cue X Files music.

Last Saturday, September 24, the Times carried a fashion story about impossibly high shoes, and how the fashion pack refused to give them up. Under the headline “The fashion pack is really not over heels” new fashion editor Laura Craik wrote about “taxi shoes”, how the fashion editors and top fashion bloggers were clinging on to their impossibly high heels and how this was fine if you had a car waiting to transport you between runway shows, but not so great if you were a real person having to occasionally walk or run…

Observant readers (and I am not talking religiously observant here) may have spotted that the most recent edition of the JC, September 30, which came out on Wednesday – two days early because of Rosh Hashanah – also contained a story about shoes, how the fashion pack were wearing “taxi shoes” with impossibly high heels, and how this worked if you “had a limo purring” at the kerb, but not so much if you were a real woman who needed to walk, etc.

To the casual observer it might have appeared that the JC had borrowed liberally from The Times story, except that the JC fashion pages containing the shoe story were completed on Thursday September 22, two days before the Times piece.

In today’s edition of the Times, Laura Craik is writing about the Crombie (or, in JC parlance, the boyfriend) coat, about the choices of coats out there, and about the versatility of one particular style of coat.

Your next edition of the JC, on October 7, will contain a spread on choosing your winter coat, the huge choice, the importance of choosing a coat that is versatile. Because of Rosh Hashanah, those pages were completed last Tuesday, on September 27 – four days ahead of the Times piece.

Just to be clear, I am not for a nano-second suggesting that the Times might copy the JC, and I know I’m not copying the Times, and I also know that fashion pages cover the same ground, write about the same trends, etc. But Laura Craik and I both seem, almost uncannily, to be tuned into extremely similar, if not identical fashion vibes, making similar observations and coming to similar conclusions about readers and their purchases. As I said earlier, cue X Files music…

Metal gurus

Simon Rocker — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 19:52:32 +0000

Earlier this year I ran an article about an enigmatic collection of lead books which, it was being argued, were ancient Jewish mystical texts.

Immediately, rival theories began to appear all over the media here and abroad that these were early Christian codices.

But the claims of antiquity began to be debunked on the blogs.

Further detective work done by scholars – see this and this - suggest that the metal mysteries, sadly, are simply fakes, as the Israel Antiquities Authority believed all along.

UJS's "radical, progressive" campaign? Sensible, or a cause for concern?

Marcus Dysch — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:32:09 +0000

The Union of Jewish Students announced plans this week to launch a "radical, progressive" campaign, encouraging students to speak up for the rights and "liberation" of both Israelis and Palestinians.

It includes proposals to ask Jewish students arriving at universities in the coming weeks to support "two states for two peoples" and hand out Israeli and Palestinian flags.

The campaign has already led to online debate between students over how they want to be represented by UJS and what effect the proposals could have.

One Birmingham student commented this afternoon that the plan could boil down to students being told: “Welcome to Jsoc - here's your Palestinian flag.”

Another said: “I'm all for a two-state solution but asking me to wave a Palestinian flag is a bit much. I wouldn't expect a Palestinian to wave an Israeli flag either. It's an absurd idea, even if it is just a publicity stunt.”

Others believe the plans are a realistic approach for UJS to take given current events. “If you really support a two-state solution then I suggest you get over whatever weird effect the Palestinian flag has on you, because like it or not, it's going to be their national flag," commented one former UJS worker.

The debate is likely to continue – and no doubt grow in its intensity when students return to their campuses for Freshers’ Week.

So what do you think? Are UJS right to take this “bold approach”? Is quiet concern within the Jewish community well-placed? Leave your comments below.