All the historical forces that exist today in the Arab-Israeli conflict are just rebirths of old forces we tend to think of as new. What is new is simply each generation’s discovery of these forces. It proves the old maxim that history does not repeat, but it certainly rhymes.

And so it is with Mitchell Bard’s new book, “The Arab Lobby.” You may think AIPAC is devising the Mideast policies of the US government. You might think that Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer’s 2007 book, “The Israel Lobby,” accurately portrays the new state of the US-Israeli relationship whereby the Israeli tail wags the US dog; that the US State Dept. and our military bend to Israeli concerns over American self-interest; that Arabs and Arab states have become more reasonable and Palestinians are now the underdogs; and that Israel is an imperialist and even apartheid state. And finally, you might believe that it is new to say that it is in Israel’s self-interest for the USA to take a more aggressive approach to some presumed Israeli intransigence, for their own good (tough love?).

Bard makes the case that there exists an Arab Lobby, that this Lobby has existed formally since the 1948 Israeli War of Independence and informally through various Arab political formations after the fall of the Ottoman Empire near the end of World War I. The House of Saud, for instance, is one example. More importantly, the same political forces pulling on the US government, the White House, the Arabs, the Palestinians, the Islamists, the Pentagon, and all the parallel institutions of the Israelis has not fundamentally changed over all these years. The one thing that has changed though is that the Arabs are better at lobbying in the USA and have more influence than ever. But not near enough to change their relative strength in our political arena.

One important thing that is true now and was true way back when is that the Arab Lobby does not have a popular base among the US people while the Israel Lobby does.

The Arabs do not seek to call attention to or debate Israel head on because their attempts to do so have always been failures, as Bard points out. They’ve tried this. Their heavy-handed narratives only alienate them from the American people. So they prefer to insinuate themselves in more subdued ways, such as funding and therefore biasing Middle East scholarship departments at important American universities by endowing chairs. Or influencing the placement of their insufficiently critical narratives in our grade school and high school textbooks. Or establishing their extremist Wahhabi schools and mosques in urban and suburban America.

The fact that American support for Israel has not changed since the formation of Israel in 1948 drives the Arabs just plain crazy. But it drives the Arab’s American supporters even crazier. These Americans are an important contingent of so-called Arabists who populate and dominate our own Departments of State and even the Pentagon, some Christian denominations, the old oil industry, universities and intelligentsia, media and philo-Arabists who for various reasons (up to and including hatred of Jews) think Israel’s formation was an historical tragedy. Bard thinks this combination of forces is larger and more powerful than the Israel Lobby, but less politically agile because it fundamentally has to go against American sympathy for Israel and the Jews.

Moreover, Bard says, the Arabists have been consistently wrong in their arguments against Israel and in favor of the Arabs. These historic arguments include that Israel’s formation would be a danger to the Jews, that arming Israel would lead to Israeli over-reaction and war, that Israel would go communist, that the Arab nations would break with the United States and deny us oil, etc. Still, the Arabists manage to continuously dredge up these same arguments in new forms.

From this understanding Bard then makes a new and interesting point: The Arab Lobby morphed from its nascent Jew-hatred, oil-based threats and denial of Israel’s self-determination to support for a narrative of an underdog, oppressed and repressed Palestinian nationhood. Bard makes a case that this new narrative never really accorded with the reality of Israeli-Palestinian politics. In 2002 NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman reported to much excitement that Saudi ruler Crown Prince Abdullah announced at a dinner to which he was invited in Riyadh that the Arabs would bury the hatchet (normalize relations) with Israel if Israel made a complete withdrawal from the disputed territories. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Ohlmert famously made the requisite Israeli-side offer to negotiate on this basis, but the Saudis never responded positively to his entreaties, even changing the terms. Meanwhile, Friedman’s hechsher helped them garner much undeserved goodwill just after the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center.

To continue, the Arabs also succeeded in turning the struggle of narratives from one of an embattled David (Israel) against the Arab Goliath to a religious war in which the Arab and Muslim diaspora could pit a Jewish/Nazi/imperialist state against Islam. Otherwise, why would Muslims in Asia care about the Palestinian problem when they have many others closer to their home? Yet none of this has empirically increased their support among the American people.

Yet the Arabs and Muslims have built many American-based Islamic and Arab organizations precisely to push the religious line: devout and peaceful Muslims against Islamophobia. These organizations get ample funding and backing from Arab sources. The Congress of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is one of these. It bills itself as a Muslim version of the NAACP. But it was founded by elements of the Muslim Brotherhood, it refuses to back Israel against Hamas, and it’s leaders have been put on record in closed meetings as calling itself pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah. They have lost support from a high of 29,000 members after the 9/11 attack to around 1,700 in 2006, according to a report in the Washington Times. Meanwhile, they have been feted by high-level administration operatives and used as counsel on such things as police training against a supposed Islamophobia.

Bard details the more contemporaneous cast of characters: Christian anti-Zionists such as the Presbyterian Church, diplomatic alumni seeking careers as Arab and Muslim favorites, academics who couch the Arab and Muslim narrative in biased terms in the classrooms of our youth and in our universities.

None of these new initiatives has paid off so far in turning America against Israel. Meanwhile the Israeli narrative has grown stronger in America. But can this working relationship be undone? The Arab Lobby would like to do just that.

Come and learn more about this important work by Mitchell Bard and deepen your understanding of this subject. Mitchell Bard will make an appearance at the Boulder Jewish Community Center on Sunday, February 12 at 7:00 pm to talk about his new book, “The Arab Lobby.”

It will perhaps then come as a modest surprise to the student of Judaism that the Classical and Hassidic Rabbis held a more complex and nuanced view of sin that paints a less than black and white image and understanding of this religious category. To be clear, the Classical and Hassidic Rabbis as one would imagine did not promote sin; this notoriety would be left to the 17^th century manic- depressive false messiah Shabtai Zvi who developed a pseudo-kabbalistic doctrine of “Redemption through Sin”. In this doctrine, certain sparks of holiness enveloped within evil, due to the primordial mythic shattering of the Divine Vessels, the antecedents of physical creation, could only be redeemed through sin. (see Redemption Through Sin in The Messianic Idea in Judaism by Professor Gershom Scholem) Nevertheless, the classical Rabbis did have some teachings that are sufficiently provocative that they deserve our attention and are required input if we are to understand what a broad Judaic view on the subject encompasses.

The first rabbinic concept we need to acquaint ourselves with is that of a, “Sin for the Sake of Heaven”. The meaning of this rabbinic terminology is — doing something that is clearly wrong (A Sin) but with good intention (For the Sake of Heaven).  The Babylonian Talmud in tractate Nazir 23b explores this concept and quotes Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak as stating that, ”Greater is a Sin done for the Sake of Heaven than a Mitzvah done not for the Sake of Heaven.” This teaching however brings to the surface a different rabbinic teaching, that of Rav who stated that, ”A person should always engage in the study of Torah and the performance of Mitzvot even when they are done not for the Sake of Heaven, for out of their being done not for the Sake of Heaven one will come to do them for the Sake of Heaven.” This counter teaching, which sees insincere Mitzvah observance and Torah study as having greater potential than a Sin for the Sake of Heaven, leads the rabbis of the Talmud to conclude that, ”A Sin for the Sake of Heaven is equal to a Mitzvah done not for the Sake of Heaven.”

In explanation, Sin for the Sake of Heaven has the virtue of pure intent and the liability of a sinful deed. Whereas a Mitzvah done not for the Sake of Heaven has the merit of a virtuous deed but the liability of a deficient intent, albeit one that can ultimately lead to a more sincere intent. It is worth noting that the upward spiritual mobility that the rabbis saw in a Mitzvah done not for the Sake of Heaven did not inspire them to value such an insincere Mitzvah as being of greater spiritual worth than a Sin committed for the Sake of Heaven.

One example that the classical Rabbis see as emblematic of Sinning for the Sake of Heaven is that of the Biblical heroine Yael. When Sisera, commander of the Canaanite army, was defeated in Battle he fled and hid in Yael’s tent. (Judges 4:17) Yael seduced Sisera and engaged in a quite heated evening of adultery. This for the purpose of weakening Sisera in what turned out to be in the Talmudic mind an exceptionally busy evening. (Nazir 23b) Then while Sisera naively slept in utter exhaustion, Yael killed him in her incarnation as a religious fem fatale. (Judges 4:22)

This rabbinic teaching on a Sin for the Sake of Heaven recognizes that sinning may at times be necessary and that if done with sincere intent it has legitimacy. True, it is not what Judaism is pointing to as an ideal, which would be sincere intent coupled with a clear cut virtuous deed, but Sin for the Sake of Heaven is as well not a priori rejected as an option. It is also worth noting that the methodology of studying Torah and doing Mitzvot insincerely with the assumption that they will lead to sincere religious life was not universally accepted and was specifically rejected by 19^th century Polish Hassidic Masters such as Rabbi Simcha Bunim of Przysucha and Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk when it did not truly motivate the person to raise their level of intention. (see The Quest for Authenticity: The Thought of Reb Simcha Bunim by Rabbi Dr. Michael Rosen z’l pg. 155)

When we further explore classical Rabbinic teachings on sin we also find a vein of both limited accommodation to sin and as well a policy of damage control. The Babylonian Talmud in tractate Kiddushin 40a begins with a teaching of Rabbi Chanina that, ”It is preferable for a person to commit a sin in private and not desecrate the name of Heaven in public.” The Talmud then quotes a teaching of Rabbi Elai the Elder, ”If a person sees that their inclination is overcoming them they should go to a place where they are not known and wear and cover themselves with black clothes and do what their heart desires and not desecrate the name of Heaven in public.“ The Talmud soon clarifies that this teaching is speaking about an individual that is truly unable to contain themselves and thus it is better that the reverberations of the sin be minimal. Here we have a rabbinic teaching that while not condoning sin seeks to work with human frailty in a way that we do not see reflected in Biblical literature. Many classic rabbinic authorities (Rabbeinu Channanel, Ritva, Meiri) presumably astonished by this tolerance for overwhelming impulsivity seek to read this teaching in a way that takes a step back from the accommodation to human eros it represents, but others (Tosafot Toch and Tosafot HaRosh) acknowledge that this indeed is what these rabbis espoused. (see Steinsaltz Iyunim on Kiddushin 40a ad. loc)

We also find a classical rabbinic teaching that sanctions the performing of a minor sin by a more educated and committed Jew (Chaver) so as to avoid a major sin by a less educated and devout fellow (Am Ha’aretz). Some rabbinic authorities define a “Minor Sin” as a violation of Rabbinic Law (Mishne La’Melekh on Hilkhot Terumot 3:17) whereas others see it as permitting even a Biblical violation of lesser stature and weight (Gittin 30b and Tosafot Yevamot 93b s.v. Ela). The source for this teaching is in the Babylonian Talmud tractate Eruvin 32b which records the halakhic view of Rabbi Judah the Prince, ”It is in the interest of a Chaver to commit a minor sin so that an Am Ha’aretz does not commit a major sin.” This view despite the prominence of its author as the compiler of the Mishna does not go unchallenged by no less than his father Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel. He opines that, “It would be in the interest of a Chaver for an Am Ha’aretz to do a major sin and he not commit even a minor sin.” We have here a profound debate as to what extent if any can a person compromise their own spiritual integrity to serve another’s spiritual integrity.

Lest our imagination run wild, the case in which this principle of Rabbi Judah the Prince emerges is dealing with Biblically mandated tithes where he holds that a Chaver could tithe in a less than appropriate fashion i.e. not in the location of the crop (Minor Sin) in order to prevent the Am Ha’aretz from eating produce (that he provided the Am Ha’aretz) that would go without being tithed at all (Major Sin).  This view of Rabbi Judah the Prince does find itself being utilized in the halakhic responsa literature as a viable halakhic principle well beyond the issue of tithes. (see Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef’s Yabia Omer Part 4 Even Ha’Ezer Siman 4 for one contemporary example within the Ultra-Orthodox Sefardic community)

In this classical rabbinic teaching of Rabbi Judah the Prince we see that our responsibility for our fellow Jew and Jewess may under certain circumstances potentially call those of greater education and devotion to be willing to diminish their own potential conformity to the Halakha in its purist expression in order to mitigate against a greater damage to the religious life of a fellow Jew and Jewess. This could be called by analogy the path of a Halakhic Bhodisattva.

The classical rabbis also recognize what we would define as a lesser of two evils approach in relation to sin where the rabbis would prefer people to sin in ignorance rather than inform them of the wrongdoing and have them transgress willfully — assuming of course this is the probable result. The latter, willful transgression, is seen as the greater wrong and is to be avoided. In rabbinic terminology, ”It is better that they be unintentional sinners and not intentional ones.” (Talmud Bavli Shabbat 148b)

There is as well a willingness on the part of the classical rabbis at times to permit something that ordinarily would be forbidden, or look the other way in order to prevent an individual from transgressing in that matter in its forbidden state! In rabbinic terminology, ”It is better that Israel eat meat from an animal that is on its way to death that is slaughtered [in the halakhic procedure] and they not eat meat from an animal that has already died.”(Talmud Bavli Kiddushin 21b) In explanation, Halakha forbids the consumption of an animal that would die from mortal wounds or specific illnesses even if the animal had been properly slaughtered by a ritual slaughterer. Halakha also forbids eating a Kosher species of animal that died naturally absent ritual slaughter. (Mishne Torah Hilkhot Ma’acholot Assurot 4:1, 4:7-9) What this teaching is informing us is that the classical rabbis felt that eating the meat of an animal that died on its own is a more severe sin than eating the meat of an animal that would die but nevertheless was slaughtered.

The rabbis derive this principle of preferential sin from the Torah’s granting of an Israelite soldier permission in time of war to take even a married Gentile woman captive and essentially convert her and marry her — I will spare you the debate regarding when he is permitted to have sexual relations with her. (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 and Steinsaltz Iyunim of Kiddushin 21A) We will need to bracket the issue at present of the rather belated Geneva Conventions and their relation to Biblical morality and laws pertaining to war. Thus we see that the classical rabbis did not at all times and under all circumstances see the Torah as a zero sum game where either one lives in an ideal manner or not at all and they were even willing in limited circumstances to allow Halakha to be turned into somewhat of a pretzel to help Israel avoid sin. This Talmudic principle and analogous ones like it, for instance, ”It is better that they eat the gravy [of the forbidden fat] and not the forbidden fat itself” were adopted by later rabbinic authorities in concert with other halakhic considerations for leniency to as well permit the otherwise forbidden. (see Responsa of the Rambam Pear Ha’Dor Siman 132 for a case regarding Conversion)

The Babylonian Talmud in tractate Menachot 44a tells a rather wild story that while overtly seems to stress the reward in this world for the Mitzvah of Tzitzit (and Mitzvot in general), on a more subtle level tells us as well something about how the classical rabbis viewed sin in some circumstances. The story goes that there was a wealthy man who was very fastidious about observing the commandment of Tzitzit. Nonetheless, he was highly vulnerable to his libidinal urges and developed an active interest in illicit relations with prostitutes. The man hears of a highly expensive Gentile prostitute in a rather far away locale within the Roman empire and sends her fee of 400 Gold Dinars in advance, perhaps hoping that you get what you pay for. He arrives and is led to an erotic set up of seven beds one on top of the other –the first six of silver and the last of gold, all with fine linens with the prostitute laying naked on the top bed. He disrobes and begins his ascent and the Tzitzit begin to pelt him in the face. It is not clear whether this is meant literally as a magical episode or metaphorically as meaning that they aroused his conscience. He comes down from the ladders connecting the beds and sits down and the woman as well comes down and sits besides him. She is astonished and expresses a desire to know what he found wrong with her. He poignantly shares with her that she is the most beautiful woman he has even seen (apparently this was not his first such visit), it’s just that in this instance his Tzitzit reminded him of his accountability in this world and the next and simply deflated his ardor. The woman demands his name, the name of his city, rabbi and house of study and she bids him goodbye. She then proceeds to divide her possessions and treks to her failed paramour’s hometown and seeks an appointment with his rabbi. She asks to convert and explains the story of what inspired her and her request is granted. The rabbi in his parting words encouraged her to marry the lustful but conscience ridden student and the rabbis observe, ”Those fine linens that she prepared for him illicitly she may now prepare for him with halakhic sanction.”

This is quite a strange story even on a surface level as it is employed to demonstrate the “reward” for the Mitzvot, in this case Tzitzit. The lustful man is rewarded with the ability to now marry and have a permanent, sanctified and more cost-effective relationship with the most beautiful woman he has ever beheld.   For our purposes the relevance of the story points to a rabbinic view that sees the outcome of the intention to sin, and for that matter a lifestyle of sin itself, as having at times a rebound effect where a greater good can result from the trajectory of sin embarked on. In the words of Dr. Claudio Naranjo, a Fourth Way Psychologist quoting a popular wisdom teaching, ”The Devil knows not for whom he works.” (Character and Neurosis: An Integrative View-Introduction) Many people on the spiritual path can relate to the notion that if they had not gone through certain blind alleys, dead ends and misguided life choices they may never have arrived at a place of greater spiritual maturation.  It is sometimes out of our greatest personal darkness that we eventually reveal and experience our greatest light.

Let us now turn our attention to select Hassidic masters within the 19^th century Polish school of Hasidism.

The Babylonian Talmud in tractate Gittin 43a debates the issue of whether a half-freed slave-woman can be betrothed. The sage Rabah is initially inclined to say no and after hearing the reasoning of his colleague Rav Chisdah reverses his opinion and considers himself in error in his original position. He then after quoting a verse in scripture where the Torah is referred to as a stumbling block (Isaiah 3:6) states, ”A man does not establish himself in Torah unless he stumbles in it first.” (Ain Adam Omed Al Divrie Torah Ela Im Ken Nichshal Bahen Techilah). The plain meaning of this rabbinic statement is referring to issuing halakhic rulings in Torah and the inevitable errors of logic and interpretation that are part of the process of learning for a rabbi. When the sage errs and is corrected by his colleagues this advances his learning process. (see Rashi s.v. Ve’Hamchshalah)

In the Hassidic teachings of Rav Tzadok Hakohen of Lublin this teaching takes on a much broader application and he sees this pathway of error and stumbling as being relevant to a person’s struggle for spiritual attainment in Divine Service and understanding of the Torah. He writes, ”That in truth so established the blessed God for by means of a person’s efforts and actions they will attain all the spiritual levels and therefore even though in the beginning this draws one to stumbling, nevertheless by means of this stumbling they reach and establish themselves on the words of the Torah.”(Likutie Ma’amarim Amud 13)

Professor Moshe Idel in his work Kabbalah: New Perspectives describes Hassidism as, ”The Psychologization of Kabbalah” here we have Hassidism as the, ”Psychologization of the Talmud.” What in the Talmud is an observation about the process of issuing Halakhic rulings, in Rav Tzadok’s spiritual hand becomes a guide for the personal journey of the spiritual aspirant. We learn by mistakes, by at times committing sins but if we are sincere these sins teach us and we come to an eventual place of spiritual integrity. Here we see that sin can have a constructive contribution to spiritual development. We need not seek sin out as we are reliable to find it without effort — it is part of the human condition.

We will conclude with what is by far the most radical teaching within the 19th century Polish Hassidic tradition in relation to sin — the notion that sinning can at times be God’s will. Paradoxical as this sounds, as conventionally we would consider sin to be the opposite of God’s will, in the antinomian mind of Rabbi Mordechai Yosef Leiner of Izbica, not so.

In his work Mei Hashiloah redacted by his grandson it states, ”With regards to certain things in the Holy Torah, when it is clear to a person that now is the time for the Lord to work, as Elijah did on Mt. Carmel, then it is necessary to overturn the general principles of the Holy Torah and act only in accord with the understanding [binah] that God infuses to man. Rabbi Nathan says that when the understanding is not present, the person is required to conduct himself in accord with the manifested general rules of the Torah without transgressing the bounds of the Halakha.  Rabbi Nathan further says, when a person’s heart strives after the will of God and he removes from himself all personal attachments, God summons him to do an act which seems to him to transgress the principles of the Torah, heaven forbid. It is concerning this case that Rabbi Nathan said that a person whose heart strives after the Lord and has removed from himself all personal gain can be certain that it will not be counted as a sin, heaven forbid. He can be certain that it was a time for the Lord to work. (All is in the Hands of Heaven: The Teachings of Rabbi Mordechai Yosef Leiner of Izbica by Dr. Morris Fairstein pg. 38)

The Mai Hashiloah does teach elsewhere that this teaching is not intended for casual application and is intended for a ”Holy man”. (Mei Hashiloah, Volume I Parashat Kedoshim s.v. Ish Imo Ve’aviv.) I would also point out that when one considers what we know of the life of Rabbi Mordechai Yosef it would seem that the most radical actions he ever took perhaps in fulfillment of this teaching were to break from the Kotzker rebbe who was his teacher and perhaps to pray one of the three formal prayers at a later time than prescribed by Halakha! So we need to be circumspect in applying this teaching if at all.

By way of explanation of this teaching there is a verse in Psalms 119:126 that reads, ”It is a time to act for God they have made void your Torah.” (Et La’asot La’Hashem Heyfiru Toratecha) in the piece quoted above the author translates the verse, ”It’s a time for the Lord to work…” Regardless, this verse in Psalms was utilized by the classical rabbis to underpin the Torah’s granting emergency powers on a temporal basis to set aside Torah law with the rarest of commandments excluded from this permission. (see the author’s essay Emergency Halakha in the Rabbinic Tradition in Millin Chavivin Rabbinic Journal of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah) Rabbi Moderchai Yosef Leiner is taking a teaching that generally was seen as only to be utilized by Prophets and establishment rabbinic authorities and in general for the collective benefit of Israel, the Torah or a specific Jewish community and is applying it to the spiritual life of a holy man i.e. a true Hasid. The notion that in however limited circumstances in the life of the individual what would by convention be considered a sin is in fact God’s will is a teaching that while certainly invigorating in its radical nature is also deeply concerning in regards to an individual’s ability to make responsible use of it absent the natural human proclivity towards rationalization. I believe this teaching is the appropriate climax of our studies and I will close with some brief remarks that hopefully serve in the capacity of spiritual brakes for those however few who may be in need of them.

The intention of this essay is to share with the student of Judaism a broader understanding of the religious category of sin as related to by the Classical and Hassidic Rabbis. The life process, spiritual journey and human beings are often not simple and it would be a shame for people to have a sense that the rabbis of our tradition saw sin, which as it is has such heavy and today Christian intonations, in black and white terms. These teachings as a whole clearly portray a more nuanced and sophisticated view of sin than what some might have expected.  The depth of thought that these teachings point to hopefully will garner additional respect for the Rabbinic and Hassidic tradition. I feel it only responsible to add that the Rabbinic tradition is more complex that what this brief essay can reflect and in order to gain a fuller understanding of how sin was viewed we would need to attend to other more conservative teachings that seem to go in a different direction. Teachings that require our understanding and potential reconciliation are ones that express concern and rejection of, ”A Mitzvah that comes about through Sin.” (Talmud Bavli Berachot 47b and Succah 30a) and the rhetorical rabbinic question to be answered in the negative ,”Do we say to a person sin so your friend can merit?” (Talmud Bavli Shabbat 4a) It should also be mentioned that the Izbica Hassidic work Mei Hashiloah failed to garner an approbation from a single Hassidic Rebbe of its time. It is the author’s hope that this essay stimulates the reader’s interest in the depths of Rabbinic and Hassidic thought and as King Solomon says, ”If you quest for it as silver and seek it as hidden treasure then you will understand the awe of God and attain knowledge of the Divine.”(Proverbs 2:4-5)

Rabbi Debra Rappaport's Tallit and Tallit Bag

When Rabbi Debra Rappaport became the spiritual leader of B’nai Vail Congregation in Vail, her proud mother, Susan H. Rappaport, made her a stunning cashmere tallit, along with a matching tallit bag out of silk. The meaningful pieces brought the rabbi to tears, and she cherishes both of them to this day.

Now others will be able to share the joy the rabbi experienced when she first received her personalized tallit and tallit bag because both are showcased in a new book exploring the world of Jewish fabric crafts and the inspiration behind this imaginative work.

Called “Jewish Threads: A Hands-On Guide to Stitching Spiritual Intention into Jewish Fabric Crafts” (Jewish Lights Publishing, 288 pp.), the book presents 30 fabric craft projects, created by talented artisans from throughout the United States and Israel.

Compiled and written by Diana Drew with Robert Grayson, “Jewish Threads” delves into the backstory of each of the pieces spotlighted in the book–how and why they were made and what sparked the idea for each one. The artisans whose work is presented in the book freely share the influences in their lives that prompted them to create the pieces contained in this treasure trove of Jewish fabric crafts.

For Susan Rappaport, who lives in Minnesota, making the tallit showcased in “Jewish Threads” was a family affair. In choosing the materials for the tallit, Susan used white cashmere from sweaters worn by her husband, Gary; her daughter, Debra, the intended recipient; her other daughter, Lissie Schifman; and by the artist herself to ground the tallit in a sense of family heritage. Susan sewed everything by hand, making the tzitzit (ritual fringes) from directions she found on the Web.

The directions were very specific about keeping focused on your intention and not being distracted by the things around you,” she points out. “It was a very profound process for me.”

And this magnificent tallit holds extraordinary meaning for Debra, who notes: “Though my mom invited quite a bit of collaboration on this project, I was moved to tears when I received this tallit. The thoughtfulness and love that went into it were profound. I feel deeply blessed, held, and joyful every time I put it on.”

Author Diana Drew spent a year and a half sifting through a myriad of projects from throughout the United States and Israel, choosing those that reflected deep-rooted connections to Jewish heritage and contemporary Jewish life. Each project had to have a compelling story behind its creation, and fit in with the overall concept of the book as both a volume of stories about artisans’ spiritual intention in making these crafts and a how-to book for novices as well as more experienced needlecrafters.

“Jewish Threads” is designed to motivate readers to fashion some of the traditional ritual items as well as more contemporary pieces included in the book–individually or in groups–by offering easy-to-follow, step-by-step instructions at the end of each of the stories about the fabric artists and their spiritual intention. Most of the projects are relatively simple, and make wonderful gifts.

Readers are encouraged to draw on their own life experiences to give the pieces they make a distinctly individual flair, a one-of-a-kind feel. So the book can serve as a springboard for readers’ own imagination and creativity.

“Jewish Threads” craft projects range from wall hangings for the home to shulchan (lectern) covers for the synagogue, whimsical pieces for celebrating holidays (a ChanuCats quilt for Chanukah and Dancing Hamantaschen costumes for Purim, for example), and meaningful craft projects to honor milestones in the Jewish life cycle, such as healing and memorial quilts. Some of the crafts presented in “Jewish Threads,” such as challah covers, have roots in Jewish tradition, while others, including Purim puppets and a knit seder plate for Passover, play off centuries of tradition, while incorporating a contemporary spin.

Among the fabric craft techniques represented in “Jewish Threads” are quilting, needlepoint, knitting, crochet, felting, embroidery, appliqué, needle felting, and counted cross-stitch.

Ellen Premack, executive director of the Mizel Museum in Denver, says of “Jewish Threads“:

Bravo for getting us back to our needles, threads, and sewing machines to create beautiful Judaic objects! With this book, author Diana Drew has reminded me of growing up in a small Jewish community and learning our traditions, history, and Hebrew through making artifacts. This book is a wonderful guide for every artsy-craftsy Jewish education-through-the-arts type of person, whether it be for your home, your synagogue, your Hebrew school, or your community Jewish museum!”

Says Drew, an award-winning former daily newspaper reporter and a longtime book editor:

‘Jewish Threads‘ brings together the disparate threads of my own life–Judaism and Jewish observance, sewing and knitting, writing and editing–while stitching together the inspiring stories of fabric artists from throughout the United States and Israel. Collectively, these personal stories, and the projects that spring from them, form a patchwork of modern-day Jewish life. The part openings, written by Robert Grayson, place these crafts in historical perspective, with tales from the Jewish tradition that give these fabric crafts added resonance today.”

“Jewish Threads” is available at major bookstores and online.

Film maker Amitai Gross, son of Reb Victor and Reb Nadya Gross of Pardes Levavot.

I attended an excellent movie the other night. It was filmed and produced by Amitai Gross, son of Reb Victor and Reb Nadya Gross, and a friend of mine from BBYO back in the day. It was funny seeing him again after a few years, and not just because I barely recognized him with the short hair and beard. It was because somehow I knew he’d find a way to blend music and Tikkun Olam.

His documentary “Music in the Key of Peace”, though rough around the edges, was an excellent film. In it Amitai captures four neutral organizations geared towards coexistence in Israel, all of them using music as their medium for bringing Jews and Arabs together.

Most of the time, when you hear about Middle East peace groups, their orientation is pretty clear: for Israel or for Palestine. They want to end the conflict but favor one side over the other. (That seems a bit pointless, don’t you think?)

Of course, there are also neutral groups, both here and abroad: groups whose aim is not for either side to win, but for both of them to just get along; an antidote to incitement on both sides. However, even in neutral groups there is a looming hurdle, and that hurdle is language. How can the two sides ever hope to coexist if there’s limited understanding between them?

This is where the ideas of people like Amitai are important. Music is the perfect bridge because it is something that is universally understood. For instance, I listen to a lot of Japanese music–while I don’t understand half the words, I can still connect to the feeling behind the music. That’s what makes Music in the Key of Peace and other similar projects so powerful. If the feeling is peace, then music is the best way to communicate that feeling because it can go outside of words and language to connect people on both sides of the divide.

l-r: Morah Yehudis Fishman, Reb Zalman Shalomi-Shecter, Rabbi Marc Soloway, Reb Victor Gross, Rabbi Ori Har DeGenaro, Reb Nadya Gross, Amitai Gross, Rabbi Josh Rose.

Kudos, Amitai. I hope that someday your documentary has a wide audience and spreads the word that coexistence in the Middle East is possible.

More pictures of the event:

Related articles:

4 Questions for Filmmaker Amitai Gross

Music in the Key of Peace

The creators of “13: The Musical” understand the dilemma well. Evan is about to embark on this rite of passage into adulthood, but all he can think about is how to get kids to come to his party. Much to his indignation, Evan has been swept out of his cool New York City life and plopped down in the middle of nowhere, also known as Indiana.

But Evan is about to learn a lesson in maturity. He will grow up a little in the space of two acts and over the course of 18 (chai!) songs. What does it mean to become a man, he wonders? It means doing the right thing, he discovers, not to anyone’s surprise. He also finds out that tsuris is just part of growing up. It’s painful but there’s no other way to get there.

Under the direction of Angela Gaylor and David Ayers, “13” is a high-spirited romp through puberty, with all its clichés and truisms. There’s nothing remarkably novel about the musical’s well-worn plot, but the lively staging and terrific performances make for a very enjoyable theatrical experience.

The best thing about “13” is that the actors are all very close to the age of the characters they play. There are no grown-ups in the play – and no kids with wigs and fake pot-bellies playing them. The actors are free to let loose as they express the qualities of the early teen years:  exuberance and flirtatiousness, sarcasm and scorn, and a lot of insecurity that is behind it all.

The second best thing about “13” is the talent of the teens in the production, who do equally well singing and acting – and have fun with the lively choreography. These young actors are obviously benefiting from being part of Parlando’s Broadway in Boulder Studio. The professionalism of the production is quite astounding, especially considering the age of the performers.

The shows are double cast, so there’s not much point singling out actors since I have not seen their counterparts. But Zach Litner, a sophomore at Fairview, did an excellent job capturing the gawky teenage angst of Evan. Jimmy Bruenger, who is 12 and attends Denver School of the Arts, was also terrific as the sad-sack kid on crutches. (The joke is that Evan becomes part of a three-some of outcasts: “a geek, a crip and Jew.”)

“13” may not be a “10” but it gets high marks for sheer audacity. Or should I say chutzpah?

The final performances of “13” are November 12-14 at Boulder High School. Tickets to “13 the Musical” are available on line at http://www.parlando.com. A portion of each ticket sale will be donated to There With Care, a Colorado-based philanthropic organization, which is committed to helping families with critically ill children.

As part of the Festival of Books and Culture, author Thanassis Cambanis will be at the Boulder JCC this Thursday, November 4 at 7:00 pm to discuss his book “

A Review of Thanassis Cambanis’ “A Privilege To Die: Inside Hezbollah’s Legions And Their Endless War Against Israel“

It is a well-worn but worthwhile cliche that journalists write the first draft of history. Thanassis Cambanis is a journalist rather than a scholar who sortied into the heart of Hezbollah and sought to reflect on the politics, philosophy and religious impulse of this Islamist organization.

A journalist could have interviewed only Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the titular head of it, and some have, but then Nasrallah would certainly control the flow of information and therefore the image projected.  Cambanis, interviewing an assortment of personages inside the organization would go this at least one plane higher. It would create an image that is not so controlled and therefore more real. Thus, Cambanis’ book, “A Privilege To Die,” is not scholarship and it is not strictly journalism–it is somewhere in between. And that is a good place to be because scholars will inevitably use such books to write the academics’ version later.

In short, as the publishers like to point out, Cambanis tries to accomplish in his book what Thomas Friedman was able to do in his seminal book in the 1980s, “From Beirut to Jerusalem;” i.e., explicate the dynamic forces of directly competing politics (Israel, Iran and Hezbollah) in an understandable, rigorous and reasonable way. Whereas other journalists are busy agitating, he is merely reflecting. For those who want to be reasonable and not overly alarmist, to be realistic about properly responding effectively to the Islamist challenge, such a book points us in the right direction.

But there are contentions to question as well, as we shall see.

In summary, Cambanis makes the case that Hezbollah is different from Al Qaeda. It is seen as successful and as long as the West cannot destroy it, then it continues to be successful. (p. 12) Thus it wins more support and greater images of success which breeds still more support. This is a vicious cycle for us, but a virtuous cycle for them. We in the West want to see a moderation of Muslims as a practical and principled matter of diversification and democracy. Many Muslims want to see Islam dominate, but not necessarily as a result of death and destruction, just as a matter of practice of shariah law for example. Hezbollah largely accomplishes this without suicide bombings, even if with its nasty tone, so it is still a role model for many “moderate” Muslims. Thus, unlike Al Qaeda, Hezbollah’s populist basis is reason enough to earn it ever more support.

But, Cambanis argues, the secret to its popularity is not its social safety net, it is its ideology. In the context of Lebanese self-serving politics, “…with sectarian loyalty dominating everyone’s identity, Hezbollah’s comparatively simple and ecumenical message propelled its dizzying rise.” (p. 38) It was a resistance movement. “Their enemies, they said, were those who hated justice and loved material comfort.” (p. 54) They were Shia, but they were inclusive of all other sectarian groupings such as the Christian Maronites, at least on the surface. But not Israel at all.

Cambanis observes that Nasrallah could suspend the harsh Islamism for the Lebanese, allowing gambling, smoking, skimpy clothing in public beaches, but he would remain an implacable foe of Israel. Though the Lebanese opposition to Nasrallah and Hezbollah could mount bigger public rallies against them, a large number of Lebanese supported Nasrallah because of his stance against Israel. The Lebanese opposition wanted Hezbollah to disarm and become a strictly political party in the Lebanese government, but Hezbollah always found ways to keep its army. Neither did it shirk using terror against the Lebanese population to keep people in line with its goals and methods.

But not all is well and good because certain important mistakes are made. Cambanis, for instance, makes the claim that Hezbollah won the two wars in 1995 and 2006, and that the IDF killing of 28 civilians in a Qana residential building during the 2006 Second Lebanon War is unjustifiable (“proving its desperation…and that the Jewish State wasn’t as strong and moral as it purported to be.” p. 82) and that the schooling of Israeli children to hate “Arab terrorists” was equivalent to the schooling of the Islamist children to hate “Jewish terrorist aggressors.” (p. 83)

Cambanis fails to note that numerous authorities on the question of defense and war would dispute his assertion that Israel lost and Hezbollah won the wars. On the Qana bombing, he fails to provide the IDF side of the story, namely that the target at Qana was a rocket launcher placed next to an apartment building and the IDF regretted the misdirected outcome. It should also be pointed out that Israel, under international law, has the right to strike at military targets even when near civilians if they must do so to stop rocket launches. Israeli regret is moral, but so is the attempt to stop rocket launchers from targeting Israeli civilians. And it is just plain WRONG to make as equivalent the fiendish use of propaganda against Jews and Israel by Hezbollah with any government inspired and encouraged anti-Arab programs of the Israeli government. As far as I know such programs do not exist and certainly do not encourage Jewish children to become Jewish martyrs. However, Hezbollah’s youth organization, the Mahdi Scouts, does precisely this. (pp. 212-217)

On another plane of thought on the matter, Cambanis is sometimes didactic, rather than reflective. For instance, he writes, “the logic of total warfare rarely works as intended.” (p. 83) This is meant as a reminder that the world will not allow Israel to use its military muscle even if the Islamists such as Hezbollah can. Maybe yes and maybe no, but it is the assertion of a journalist and not a military expert.

Still, there is much to learn from his experience. Cambanis was in the thick of the fighting in Lebanon during the 2006 battles between Hezbollah and Israel, on the Hezbollah side of the fight. His description of that experience is enlightening and worthwhile as it illuminates just what Israeli forces faced. He confirms, for instance, that “carloads of bearded Hezbollah operatives,” crisscrossed “the South in beat-up Volvos similarly (as he) marked ‘TV.’” (p.94) In other words, Hezbollah was using TV crews as human shields against attack by Israel.

The saying goes, nothing succeeds like success. And Cambanis would argue that Hezbollah is unique because it has been, so far, glaringly successful in comparison to the political failures of other groups in the Middle East. Firstly, it has survived two wars against Israel. Second, it commands loyalty from a large swath of Lebanon. Third, it has built a structure that largely keeps the loyalty of that swath of Lebanese humanity. Thus, it provides a successful model of armed resistance that can be copied.

At the same time, he notes its flaws. It is dependent on Iran. It has no long term economic foundation that stands on its own. It does not easily dovetail with the rest of Lebanon and depends on armed force. Even within its own ranks, it must ultimately utilize a heavy hand rather than allow an opposition to become independent.

To understand Hezbollah and its context in the Middle East, read this book.  At least come out to hear Cambanis at the Boulder JCC.

Besides inventing NLTD, ModernTribe is the exclusive retailer of Spinagogue, the official spinning stadium of Major League Dreidel (who knew?), and the site now stocks over 500 items of Judaica and gifts. “We are a new kind of Judaica store and Jewish gifts shop for people with progressive minds, spirits, & style.” As seen in the New York Times, two of their menorahs were chosen by Jonathan Adler to Light The Nights: the Sabra menorah and Woodland Linking menorah (great article and photos).

ModernTribe works with Israeli and Jewish designers to bring innovative products to market, and to supply style-conscious shoppers with design-forward Jewish ritual items, Israeli designer personal accessories, apparel, and more. It recently acquired PopJudaica.com.“With more novelty oriented items and an emphasis on funny Jewish gifts, Pop Judaica fills a merchandizing space we don’t already cover, “ explains Jennie Rivlin Roberts, founder of ModernTribe and inventor of No Limit Texas Dreidel. “Plus, Pop Judaica is a great brand! It was a pioneer in the online Jewish gifts space, one of the first to bring the world funny Jewish t-shirts and novelty Judaica.” “The two sites have always made a great pair,” says Sara Schwimmer Marcus, founder of Pop Judaica. “Jennie is the most qualified mamaleh to take on my baby and I know she’s going to take Pop Judaica to the next level.” Sara is now concentrating on her newest venture, JewishWeddingNetwork.com, an online resource for modern Jewish brides. ModernTribe and Jewish Wedding Network will continue to collaborate to bring the best wedding resources and products to Jewish brides. (from PRWeb)

Through Friday, December 18th, ModernTribe has FREE GROUND SHIPPING ON ORDERS $65+. $7.95 flat rate ground for orders under $65. Applies to Continental US addresses only. Hope you’ll click through and check them out!

*What’s machatunim?  There is no English equivalent. When two people are married, his parents’ machatunim are her parents and vise/versa. Used in reference to Bill and Hillary Clinton this week in Jewish Daily Forward (“For Chelsea Clinton, a Jewish Fiancé“):  “…Mezvinsky’s parents…appear to have plenty in common with their future machatunim.”