The simplest approach to identify in relation to Gay Marriage is one that could be called “Logical” and is an approach that is held by both proponents for and against Gay Marriage. I classify this approach as “Logical” as it tends to naturally and instinctively follow from one’s views on homosexuality itself. If one perceives homosexuality as a sexual practice to be morally legitimate and equally valid to heterosexuality as a sexual practice, then for many it logically follows to be in support of Gay Marriage. The reasoning being: why should a moral and valid way of practicing one’s sexual life and developing love relations be proscribed from the normative socio-economic institution of organizing and recognizing such committed relations, namely marriage? Conversely, if one holds homosexual sexual practice to be morally illegitimate and beyond the pale of how one is to practice one’s sexuality and develop one’s love relations, then for many it logically follows that Gay Marriage should not be allowed to become an institution in this country.

The second approach in relation to Gay Marriage is a more complex one and could be called “Neutralized”. This as well is an approach that can be held by both proponents for and against Gay Marriage. For example, a religious Jew or Christian who understands their Bible to prohibit homosexual sex and further understands these religious traditions not to recognize such marriages when and where they occur could nevertheless politically support Gay Marriage. How is this tenable? Such a person could take the view that what constitutes moral sexual behavior and what are valid bonds between humans fall under the domain of religion and as the United States is constructed with an intended Separation between Church/Synagogue/Mosque and State the Federal Government should not dictate what these sexual norms and the sociological institutions that emerge from them should be. To do so would violate, in their minds, limits that the Government should respect in relation to its authority and jurisdiction. In short, one can hold one’s religious belief to be true but one can neutralize such a religious belief in the political sphere and not use the instrumentation of Government and Politics to impose it on another. I classify this approach as “Neutralized” as the individual who holds such an approach essentially has one political principle they respect neutralize another religious principle they hold dear. The latter, left to its own devices would lead to the more “Logical” approach elucidated prior.

Likewise, a person who believes that homosexual sex is morally legitimate and supports the idea of Gay Marriage could take the view that this country, informed as it is by a Judeo-Christian heritage, in the construction of its Constitution and laws never intended to allow men and women to marry persons of the same sex and that the Founding Fathers could not conceive of this as being a restriction of their equality or pursuit of happiness. They would further recognize that there are other laws in this country that can trace their roots or influence to the Judeo-Christian heritage, for example the illegality to commit suicide and practice euthanasia and these laws as well could equally be overturned among others if we seek to neuter this country from any religious moral influence whatsoever affecting its laws. The reasoning goes: If we seek to legalize Gay Marriage and divorce the country from its former moral underpinnings on the issue, what laws will be next? This individual could take the view that while they personally disagree with the religious basis for the current predominant definition and legal status of marriage they nevertheless do not believe that this is what the Founding Fathers were concerned with when they established the Separation between Church and State and nor is it what they conceived of when they were enshrining as core values of this country equality, freedom and the pursuit of happiness. Here as well, this approach shows the “Neutralized” quality I refer to, as one principle in this case their understanding of the Constitution and their belief about how it should be interpreted neutralizes what their belief about the moral validity of homosexual sex and marriage would “logically” lead to.

People can also take an approach that this is a “States Rights” issue and put their personal and or religious views aside and take a principled Political/Constitutional stand as to how they see this country is supposed to function when an issue is not clearly and unambiguously addressed in the Constitution. In this case as well this would be another example of a “Neutralized” perspective.

Lastly there is an approach that can be classified as ”Triage”. In this approach the person regardless of their view on homosexual sex and Gay Marriage and regardless of their views on the Constitution and its interpretation see the country as in need of a certain kind of “Change”. In light of this desired change they put aside their views on the above issues and subordinate their decision around Same Sex Marriage to what they deem most critical for the country as a whole. For example, an otherwise Socially Liberal Democrat could feel that this country needs a new economic direction and vote for Romney with the hope that Mr. Romney will bring a different approach to resolving the current economic distress we are facing.  Alternatively, a moderate Republican could feel that the Grand Old Party has taken a very scary direction and would prefer President Obama’s general policies and tone than what the Tea Party, Religious Right and Conservative Republicans are offering. In the “Triage” approach Gay Marriage while an important issue is not viewed as a critical issue and they relegate it to a secondary status in their politics.

In general, people who galvanize around the “Logical” approach tend to construct this issue in terms of “Good vs. Evil” or “Progress vs. Fundamentalism”. They also tend to bring significant energy to the debate with very strong and at times hardened views. Individuals in the other approaches described tend to be less committed one way or the other and are less useful in steering the issue one way or another, as the momentum on this issue is usually being dictated by activists within each camp or political expediency feeding such activism.

It seems that our Presidential candidates are each appealing at present to an element of their base of support and are taking the “Logical” view on this issue- logical that is to those individuals who hold deep convictions one way or the other on Homosexual Sex and Marriage and what naturally follows for them from these views. One of the consequences of the discourse being constructed to those within the “Logical” approach is that there are many people who will stand aside from the debate and leave it to the extremes within each approach to battle till kingdom or utopia comes. I am not convinced that this is what is best for the country or for our public discourse but I am convinced its plenty good for Talk Radio and the news Media who have their cliché images and sound bites with which to bombard us.

By and large, I seem to have made more mistakes than any others of whom I know, but have learned thereby to make ever swifter acknowledgment of the errors and thereafter immediately set about to deal more effectively with the truths disclosed by the acknowledgment of erroneous assumptions.”  R. Buckminster Fuller

The least questioned assumptions are often the most questionable.” Paul Broca

The Babylonian Talmud in Bava Batra 88b and Yevamot 21A teaches in the name of Rabbi Levi, ”More difficult is the Divine punishment for transgressing the Torah’s prohibitions regarding deception in weights and measures than that of the Divine punishment for transgressing the Torah’s prohibitions regarding forbidden sexual relations…”

The Talmud concludes that the basis of the more severe Divine punishment meted out for transgressing the prohibition of deception in weights and measures (Leviticus 19:35-36) is that this unethical interpersonal sin has inherent obstacles to complete and authentic repentance.  Forbidden sexual relations, though, can be atoned for completely, as these are sins conceived of as between a person and God (See Tosafot Harosh and Meiri ad loc.) and often are isolated incidences with known persons. With regards to the transgression of employing false weights and measures: while atonement from God is both necessary and possible, atonement from the individuals one has deceived and stolen from, while definitively necessary, is deemed not completely possible. Firstly, one is not capable of determining all the individuals wronged and secondly, the exact amount wrongfully gained is incalculable.  Even, as the Talmud suggests, dedicating the estimated funds wrongfully gained to the needs of the public does not quite right the wrong in the ideal way.

The Rambam in Sefer Nezikin Hilkhot Geneivah 7:12 clearly articulates the perspective that forbidden sexual relations are a matter between a person and God. He writes,  ”More difficult is the Divine punishment for transgressing the Torah’s prohibitions regarding deception in weights and measures than that of the Divine punishment for transgressing the Torah’s prohibitions regarding forbidden sexual relations for this sexual relations is between a person and God and this weights and measures is between a person and a person.”

The modern person may be perplexed in contemplating the notion that sexual prohibitions, such as adultery or incest, are perceived within the rabbinic view as  matters between a person and God. How can the rabbis see having sexual relations with another man’s wife as not being a sin that is an interpersonal violation? Is this not, as the contemporary reasoning goes, stealing another man’s wife (or infringing on his partnership, if you prefer)?

How can the rabbis consider incestuous relations between a father and his daughter or a mother and her son etc… not an interpersonal sin but rather one that is exclusively between an individual and God?

Human beings make assumptions. Religious human beings have a tendency to make moral assumptions.  We have a tendency to assume that the way that we conceive of moral reality per force is always the way it has been and should be conceived of. How could one conceive of adultery or incest as anything other than an interpersonal wrong? Perhaps it is also a Divine wrong, but to exclude the human element seems difficult. The intention of this article is to question our moral assumptions to the extent that we hold them as absolute fixtures of human reality and in so far as they are unhelpful in understanding the Biblical and Rabbinic tradition and to explore the implications of reading the Biblical text in light of its original context.

Simply said, the moral culture of Ancient Egypt and Canaanite societies, the civilizations in which Israel as a people was nurtured and among whom they lived, had a radically different view of sexual morality than we do. Based on pagan mythology and Near-Eastern socio-political philosophy, these cultures not only didn’t consider sexual relations that the Torah deemed immoral as such, but they perceived them as “The way of the Gods” or a ritual enactment of their mythic beliefs. (see The Sociology of Religion by Max Weber)

• What we call adultery was for them at times potentially part of a fertility rite or its orgiastic aftermath, and it was inherently assumed that one would share one’s wife with another man in such a context.
• What we call “incest” derived from the Latin “Incestus” with a general meaning of impure or unchaste was for Egyptian royalty a sanctioned and valued strategy for keeping the royal family lineage within its own exclusive circle. (see article The Labyrinth of Kinship by Jack Goody in the New Left Review)
•  There was no moral disdain for these practices anymore than there was no moral disdain for having sex with animals as part of the same religious-magical rites. (see Beastiality section in Forbidden Sexual Behavior and Morality by Robert E.L. Masters)

Civilization at the time of the giving of the Torah simply did not conceive of these sexual activities as being fundamentally immoral and, as well, not specifically a wrong that one person harms another by engaging in when performed in the sanctioned contexts of that society. While this is incredible to consider, given our current moral assumptions, it will not require Einsteinian thought experiments to demonstrate, as the Biblical, Rabbinic and Midrashic sources clearly confirm, this academic understanding.

Firstly, let us turn to the Bible itself in Leviticus 18, the section of the Bible that introduces the broad range of forbidden sexual relations. We read, “God spoke to Moses, telling him to speak to the Israelites, and say to them: I am God. Do not follow the ways of Egypt where you once lived, nor of Canaan, where I will be bringing you. Do not follow [any] of their customs. Follow My laws and be careful to keep My decrees [for] I am God your Lord. Keep My decrees and laws, since it is only by keeping them that a person can [truly] live. I am God.” (The Living Torah translation, Kaplan).

The Bible then goes on to identify all forbidden sexual relations, beginning with incest, moving along to prohibitions of sex with a menstruating woman, adultery, male homosexuality, and bestiality of any kind. The Bible sternly and severely concludes the section as follows, ”Do not let yourselves be defiled by any of these acts. It was as a result of them that the nations that I am driving away before you became defiled…” It seems quite clear from the Biblical text above that these prohibited sexual customs were a way of life for the Egyptians and Canaanites. As such, they would certainly not see them as wrong in relation to the divine, but as well in their interpersonal relations, they could not conceive of any moral flaw.

Indeed the careful reader will notice that the Torah in the introductory section to this sexual code states that by keeping God’s decrees and laws, one will “Live”. Why would I assume otherwise? Why do I need to be told that I will live if I abstain from all these sexual practices? These practices were seen as the way to attaining a life of abundance and blessing and included the very fertility rites and mythic sexual enactments played out in these pagan societies, as well as their schemas for preserving their political, economic, and sexual dominance. (Regarding the latter see Dr. Jacob Milgrom’s Leviticus: A Continental Commentary pg. 195). The Torah is thus specifically saying that by obeying this new revolutionary code that does away with the “religious technologies and paradigms” of the era, that nevertheless you will truly live.

The Rabbis in the Babylonian Talmud Yoma 88b make a Derasha and interpret this word, “Live” to mean that, ”One may violate [almost] any commandment of the Torah to save a life.” The peshat, plain meaning and historical context is as I have explained.  The Bible was understood by the classical rabbis to be an interpretive text in which one can anchor Oral traditions or Rabbinic laws. The interpretive engagement, though, does not eliminate the authorial intention of the text. (See Peshat & Derash: Plain and Applied Meaning in Rabbinic Exegesis by Rabbi David Weiss Halivni Oxford University Press, Chapter 1).

Rabbinic Midrash also has sources that reflect moral assumptions contrary to our own.  In explaining the sin of the Golden Calf, the rabbis commented, ”They [Israel] only worshipped the Golden Calf in order to permit themselves forbidden sexual relations in public.” (Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 63a) Why would the sin of idolatry per force lead to sexual vacuity?  The explanation is that by adopting, however superficially, the worldview that informs such worship, the moral worldview that permits a less restricted sexuality is activated and arouses no rebellion of conscience.  Nor does this worldview perceive these sexual acts in any way as an interpersonal offense.

The Midrash as well records that when the Jewish people were in Egypt, they, with the exception of the tribe of Levi, worshipped idols. (Mechilta Bo Parasha 5 and see Rambam Hilkhot Avodat Kochavim 1:3)  While this Midrashic tradition does not assume Israel performed sexual sins, it asserts that the Israelites were fully immersed in the Idolatrous culture. In a related Midrashic strand the Zohar Chadash teaches that the Children of Israel sunk to the 49^th level of spiritual impurity. (Parashat Yitro). It seems that it would be difficult to descend to the 49^th level of Spiritual Impurity while maintaining sexual discipline and holiness. One might get as far as the 30^th level but to get to the 49^th in a system with only 50 levels, you might very well need to be sexually depraved. Thus it will come as no surprise when Shmuel, in the Babylonian Talmud Yoma 75a, metaphorically interprets the verse in scripture where the Israelites complain, ”We remember the fish that we ate in Egypt for free…” (Numbers 11:5) to be a reference to the sexual license they enjoyed in Egypt.  Sexual license that includes: adultery, incest, homosexuality, and bestiality.

The sages indicate that the severity of Divine punishment for engaging in false weights and measures is harsher than that of engaging in illicit sexual relationships due to pragmatic concerns regarding the feasibility of repentance. The Talmud teaches, “[For] These [sexual sins,] repentance is possible, [for] these [weights and measures sins,] repentance is not possible,”(Yevamot 21a & Bava Batra 88b). The Rambam, in his Halakhic codex, however, offers instead the reasoning that, “For this [Forbidden Sexual Relations] is between a person and God and this [Weights and Measures] is between a person and a person.” (Sefer Nezikin Hilkhot Geneivah 7:12. Emphasis added). What the sages said was quite specific to the particular sin of weights and measures. Why the broad generalization pinpointing the interpersonal class of sins as a whole? His generalization implies that the category of interpersonal commandments is treated more severely than the category of those between a person and God.

I will offer two explanations: First, it has been observed by the Talmudic sages that there is a distortion of mind that takes place within the psyche of many a religious individual who somehow is highly reverential and devotional to God but not necessarily so, and sometimes inversely so, in relation to their fellow human beings. (Babylonian Talmud Yoma 23a) The Rambam is seeking to educate us that this is backwards. We do not hurt God by our lack of observance. We do however hurt ourselves, as well as others, by sinning interpersonally. Secondly, to err in God’s demands for us in our relationship to Him is understandable, as these are commandments that seek to raise us from the domain of a human being to a holy being and we are after all human. However, to fail in the domain of the interpersonal is to fail at being a human being itself and this is something that is a far worse desecration of God’s name than anything else. It is one thing for a Jew or Jewess to have a gap in the realm of the holy but to be severely distorted and lacking as a human being is intolerable.

It would be wise to end with a little known but highly relevant Midrash based on the verses in scripture that read, ”You shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteryard, in weight, or in measure. Just balances, just weights, a just efa, and a just hin, shall you have: I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.”(Leviticus 19:35-36) The Midrash teaches, “‘I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt’ on this condition I took you out of the land of Egypt on the condition that you accept upon yourself the commandment of just weights and measures…” (Sifra Parashat Kedoshim 8:10). According to this Midrash, the redemption from Egypt was conditional on the commitment to interpersonal business ethics. Strangely, there is no mention of Shabbat, Kashrut, Family Purity, and Sacrifices…How can this be explained? According to some scholars of the ancient Near East, Pagan religion concerned itself primarily with religious cult in the specific sense of care of the Gods. People worshipped Gods to secure a variety of needs.  Ethics were not a fundamental part of these religions and ethics made its way into the Greco Roman world primarily via philosophy. (see Lecture 2 From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity by Professor Bart D. Ehrman University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). It would seem that in the view of the rabbis, the Torah is coming to fuse worship of God with interpersonal ethics. This can also explain why the two are commonly presented together, as we find in Parashat Kedoshim, where sacrificial law (Leviticus 19:5-8) is immediately followed by agricultural laws concerning the poor (Leviticus 19:9-11). The Torah has a dual focus. Individuals who focus on the worship of God to the neglect of their fellows are essentially more Pagan than Orthodox.

May we merit an integration of humanity and holiness that reflects positively on the Divine Image in which we were created and the path of Torah we have been chosen to live.

Although these might be interesting and important points that enhance stakeholders’ comfort with an expanded view of corporate citizenship, for some business executives they are not the raison d’être for making social investments in the communities in which they operate.

Kent Thiry, chairman and chief executive of DaVita, is one of those executives. With headquarters in Denver, DaVita is an international provider of kidney dialysis services with 42,000 employees, serving 142,000 patients a week, with 18 million treatments a year. Net revenue for 2011 totaled nearly $7 billion.

Although Thiry is aware of the business case for corporate philanthropy, that is not his motivation for leading a company with a core commitment to community investment and active corporate citizenship. Rather, Thiry thinks “companies can be an amazing and formidable force for good without sacrificing capitalist goals” and encourages DaVita’s employees and his peers to “use social innovation to harness market forces along with philanthropy to solve the scale of the social problems we face.”

Businesses, working alongside nonprofit groups and government, bring unparalleled resources to address pressing community needs in health, education, environment, housing, poverty, employment and equity.

DaVita’s philanthropic initiatives include employee volunteerism, corporate donations, support of kidney-disease awareness and education initiatives. In an employee-driven community investment program called “DaVita Way of Giving,” more than 600 DaVita clinics across the country select locally focused charities to receive more than $1 million in combined contributions. By empowering employees with the responsibility of selecting local charities to support, DaVita creates a sense of pride and ownership in the company. Observing the pride DaVita employees have in their company, Thiry quips, “No one ever washes a rental car.”

Thiry says companies choose between being “residents” of the communities in which they operate and being participating “citizens.” As DaVita’s leader, he asserts that “no community is self-sustaining” and that it is “not reasonable to expect communities to be business friendly, if the businesses that operate there are not community friendly.” Contending that “business decisions are profoundly and inherently moral,” Thiry encourages companies to invest in their internal and external communities.

There are many resources for business leaders who wish to expand their roles as corporate citizens. The Corporate Community Investment Network is a Colorado-based organization comprised of local professionals who have primary responsibility for managing community investment programs for businesses.

The Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy is a large and impressive network of global CEOs committed to corporate philanthropy that highlights “best practices” and provides resources to corporations.

Boston College’s Center for Corporate Citizenship offers excellent training in the field of business philanthropy. A Billion Plus Change is a national campaign to inspire the largest commitment of corporate skills-based and pro bono services to nonprofits ever. The Council on Foundations has a division specifically focused on corporate grant makers.

Thiry leads a Fortune 500 company that strives to be a good corporate citizen, rather than merely a resident, of the many communities across the U.S. and beyond in which it operates. Thiry opines: “Most human beings want to be part of a team that is trying to do something that’s good for the world” and promotes business philanthropy and responsible corporate citizenship not merely for their business justifications, but “because it’s the right thing to do.”

This article originally appeared in the Denver Post on 4/22/12, and is posted here with permission of the author.

As Israel prepares to begin its 65^th year of modern-day independence, there can be no disputing that this nation remains confronted with a myriad of challenges and threats to its very existence.  But despite the perceived pall of fear and tension which seem to hang eternally over Israel, I can confidently say, as someone who has been blessed to contribute to its modern renaissance, that Israel’s daily reality is one of hope and promise for a brighter future – a reality in which most Israelis live.

Recently, I appeared in a new film which will soon be showing across the world: “Israel Inside: How a Small Nation Makes a Big Difference.” The film attempts to pin down the elusive key characteristics that make modern Israel a nation unlike all other nations.

I’ll name a few: Chutzpah, Transforming Adversity to Advantage and Powerful Family Links. While many explanations have been offered as to why our nation has accomplished so much in such a short amount of time and in a challenging and hostile environment, I believe that the issue of national character and personal determination shouldn’t be overlooked.

Undoubtedly, there is an underlying Israeli (or many would say Jewish) characteristic that can only be defined as chutzpah.  To the uninitiated, this term is often mistranslated as brashness or even rudeness.  Yet, those who truly appreciate what motivates chutzpah know that this is a character trait driven by an unwavering determination to get things done – and ensuring that “no” can not be the answer.  Chutzpah can also be used positively to challenge the status quo and look for new ways to do things better and reject the skepticism of the naysayers.  This is a big part of what makes Israel so successful and unique.

I can certainly relate to this character trait  – it’s what made me push ahead when I founded Birthright Israel and since then, it’s a vision that I have been blessed to share with hundreds of thousands of young people since the program’s launch.

In the spirit of this film, Israel’s 64^th anniversary should be used to dismiss the notion of a modern Israel solely defined by the conflict that surrounds it. In little more than half a century, a country has been created that is a burgeoning haven of scientific innovation, a marketplace of ideas that attracts the world’s leading minds and a center of some of the world’s most contributive medical discoveries.

An arid land of desert and harsh climate has literally been transformed into a leading international exporter of thousands of products to the majority of ports around the globe.  Despite the global economic downturn, the Israeli export industry continues to grow and in 2011 recorded $89 billion in sales, a 4.5 percent increase over the previous year.

As clichéd as many might think it to be, the truth is that all of Israel is one big family – in times both good and bad.  The concept of a national collective that motivated the establishment of the state demonstrates itself today in the ethos of a national responsibility for fellow citizens and has penetrated into all aspects of Israeli society.

I chided the Jewish establishment when I founded Birthright. My theory was that Jewish identity among American secular Jews would surge if that group felt connected to Israel. And I was right.

Here, I will chide again: Israel’s identity at 64 must be linked to our collective pride in Israel’s accomplishments, and the confidence that we have only revealed a portion of the country’s full national potential. It is for this reason that I threw my lot in with the makers of “Israel Inside,” JerusalemOnlineU.com, a group of innovative American Israelis dedicated to upping the connection of unaffiliated American Jews through paradigm-shifting film education.

Israel gives us many reasons to look forward to another year of our beloved nation’s independence.  But most of all we need to remember that now is the time to embrace a new outlook on the Jewish State and ensure that we begin to view her for what she truly is – a nation of remarkable progress, innovation and the very best of downright chutzpah.

Michael Steinhardt is the Founder of Birthright Israel and a member of the advisory Board of JerusalemOnlineU.com.  He is featured alongside other leading Jewish and Israeli personalities in the film “Israel Inside“, produced by JerusalemOnlineU.com. To find out about viewings in your area, please visit www.israelinsidethemovie.com

OU Kosher Kitniyot Mark

The Torah prohibits the consumption of Chametz on Passover. (Exodus 13:3)  Chametz is understood within the Rabbinic tradition to exclusively derive from the grains of: wheat, barley, oats, rye and spelt as only these grains are seen as undergoing a process of Chimutz (leavening) when contacted with water. (Babylonian Talmud Pesachim 35a) Kitniyot is a rabbinic term, classic examples of which are rice and millet that Ashkenazic Jewry gradually starting in the 13^th century and nearly universally by the late 17^th century decided to abstain from on Passover. (Yesodie Yeshurun Vol. 6 Ma’arechet Kitniyot) This custom developed despite these food items being permitted by Torah law, as they are not seen to undergo the process of Chimutz (Leavening) when contacted with water. Kitniyot has become an expansive classification and now includes a wide array of foods including: corn, legumes, various seeds and their derivatives and much ink and energy is spilt analyzing whether this food or that food should be considered Kitniyot.

Classic explanations of why the custom of Kitniyot is observed by Ashkenazic Jewry are that:

1. There is a concern that grains that can become Chametz could unintentionally become mixed in with Kitniyot.
2. There is concern that people will mistakenly come to eat grains that become Chametz due to confusing their identity or their forbidden status with those of Kitniyot which are permitted. This, given that flour/bread can be made out of some Kitniyot items or they are often both boiled in the process of cooking.

This essay will concern itself with the little known history of the criticism, opposition and at times defiance and subterfuge within the Ashkenazic rabbinic community itself to this ensconced custom.

My astute and somewhat brash teenage son Ezekiel once observed that “the difference between Modern Orthodox Judaism and Conservative Judaism is that Modern Orthodoxy complains about problems within Halakhic Judaism and Conservative Judaism actually does something about it!” I do sense that there is some significant truth in his observation, beyond any emerging teenage rebellion and indeed Rabbi Golinkin of the Israeli Conservative movement has authored a responsum permitting Kitniyot. Nevertheless, this article is intended within the Modern Orthodox tradition of “complaining” about aspects of halakhic tradition and not specifically “doing” anything about it. I say this despite my great personal dissatisfaction with this custom as I see it effectively as a potent obstruction to simple, accessible, affordable, healthy and well-rounded eating during the Passover holiday. The intention of this article is to foster intellectual ferment and as well let others who find this custom problematic know that they are far from alone and thus the title of this article “Misery Loves Company.” I will at the end of this article articulate a novel approach as to why I do observe the practice of abstaining from Kitniyot.

Let us begin with the Germanic sage Rabbi Yaakov Ben Asher’s (1269-1343) Halakhic Codex, the Tur, a staple of classic rabbinic learning and halakha.  Rabbi Ben Asher writes, ”There are those who forbid the consumption of rice and all manner of Kitniyot and cooked foods made thereof because [of concern that] wheat kernels become mixed up with them and this is an excessive stringency and we are not accustomed such.” (Orach Chaim Siman 453)

Rabbeinu Yerucham, a prominent French/Spanish early authority (1290-1350), in his classic halakhic work Toldot Adam Ve’Chavah writes, ”Those that have accustomed themselves not to eat rice and varieties of Kitniyot that were cooked on Pesach this is a foolish custom except if they are doing it to be stringent on themselves and I do not know why.” (Netiv Hey Chelek Gimmel 43a as brought in Bet Yosef on Tur Orach Chaim 493:A).

Rabbi Yaakov Emden, the son of the Chacham Tzvi (Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch ben Yaakov Ashkenazi 1656-1718) records in the name of his esteemed father that he would regularly be in pains over the custom of Kitniyot and say, ”If I had the power I would nullify this inferior custom which is a stringency that leads to a leniency…therefore I say one who nullifies this custom to abstain from eating Kitniyot my portion [in the afterlife] shall be with him if only the greatest Torah sages of the generation would agree with me…” (Mor U’Ketizyah Siman 453)

Beginning in the 19^th century there also appeared lone voices of rabbinic defiance against the historical weight of this custom who permitted Kitniyot. (see Teshuvot Chatam Sofer Orach Chaim Siman 122 and Teshuvah Me’Ahavah 1:259 where they are referenced) However, by that time the winds of halakhic and theological change had already started to blow and prominent rabbinic authorities during this time and after this time upheld the custom. (Teshuvot Tzemach Tzedek Orach Chaim Siman 56, Ma’amar Mordechai Siman 32, Teshuvot Maharam Mi’Brisk Siman 48 and Teshuvot Divrie Malkiel 1:28)  In doing so they emphasized either the obligatory nature of ancient protective customs that have been upheld for centuries and our inability to nullify them and/or the foundational quality that communal customs hold in the structure of Halakhic Judaism.

Perhaps the most interesting example of resistance towards this custom is that of Rabbi Saul Berlin, an 18^th century German Talmudist who inclined heavily to the emerging Reform movement. Having to lead a closet life of a traditional rabbi based on his education, family and official position, he authored several works either anonymously or under false identities that critiqued, ridiculed and through subterfuge sought to undermine Traditional Judaism and Halakha. One of his most famous and controversial works is that of a volume of responsas entitled “Besamim Rosh” which he attributed to the great medieval rabbinic authority Rabbeinu Asher who is a foundational pillar or Traditional halakha. In this work (Siman 348) he opines that the custom of Kitniyot is a foreign and in fact heretical implant within the Jewish people placed there by the Karaites. The Karaites were a heretical sect that emerged between the 7^th and 9^th centuries of the Common Era that denied that the Oral Law was of Divine origin but rather a purely rabbinic invention. He claimed that during one of the expulsions of Jews within Europe, a Karaite community was expelled with them and became mingled with them. This heretical community did not eat anything on Passover that flour and bread could be made out of as they rejected the Talmudic notion that only the five grains of: Wheat, Barley, Oats, Rye and Spelt could leaven. He provocatively claims that, ”Those that are stringent in observing this custom will be called to Divine account.” While it is as likely that the Karaites are the origins for the custom of Kitniyot as it is that Rabbeinu Asher is the author of the work Besamim Rosh nevertheless it is a fascinating example of rabbinic subterfuge in response to the perceived need for halakhic change.

Related to the classical explanations above for the reasons that the Kitniyot custom is observed is an interesting contemporary expression of rebellion from within Orthodoxy against the custom of Kitniyot. The iconoclastic Rabbi David Bar Chayim of the Machon Shiloh Institute (www.machonshiloh.org) claims that the classic explanations above that many are familiar with for the observance of the custom were later justifications for the custom. (See his article “Qitniyoth: A Qaraite Custom”) Whereas in his view the original reason for the custom was, that the Kitniyot that the French Rabbis who developed this custom based it on, were similar in their view to the classic 5 grains themselves and should be considered a minor form of Chametz. He notes that what is strange about such a basis for this custom is that this would directly contradict the Talmudic view that only the 5 grains of: Wheat, Barley, Oats, Rye and Spelt are capable in contact with water of leavening and are Chametz capable. This leads Rabbi Bar Chaim to consider that the basis for the latter more classic explanations (concern with wheat kernels getting mixed in or mistaken identity issues) were to lay a new foundation for the custom which had already taken root that seemed to reject or at a minimum not dovetail with explicit rabbinic law! Rabbi Bar Chaim is thus also led to opine that there may indeed be Karaite influence at play. Although, he offers no direct historical proof for this claim beyond the acknowledgment of the Rambam that there were Karaite customs that had made their way into the traditional Judaism of his time own time and by extrapolation could make their way into 12^th and 13^th century French Jewry. Rabbi Bar Chaim considers the custom of Kitniyot an erroneous custom and one that can simply be dropped. (See his response to the questioner “Are we bound to the Ashkenazi custom regarding Qitniyoth”) In what must be a strange twist of halakhic fate and methodology for him (as a staunch rejectionist of Conservative Judaism) he comes to the same Halakhic conclusion of Rabbi Golinkin of the Israeli Conservative Movement.

One note of necessary caution for Orthodox Jews waiting to jump ship is that while Rabbi Bar Chaim is a learned rabbi his writings on this subject have not to my knowledge been presented in the classical format of neither a well fleshed out rabbinic responsum nor a scholarly article in a rabbinic or academic journal where they can undergo the proper peer review where such claims whether they be halakhic or historical can be vetted. While his views are fascinating I at present must consider them speculative as they often on their website format lack even the presentation of source documentation and neither do they thoroughly engage the important halakhic issues involved with negating this custom that have been raised by his esteemed predecessors of which there are many. So I cite his views as part of the historical record and not at present to promote them.

In light of all this it is a fair question to ask why do I observe the custom of Kitniyot? After all, reasonable halakhic arguments can be marshaled against it and as both a modern and a staunch individualist, formal arguments that are somewhat reactionary about our alleged inability to nullify this custom do not really appeal even if I acknowledge that they are the accepted perspective within the contemporary Orthodox tradition.

From Jewlicious, 4/1/07

The reasons I observe the custom of Kitniyot are based primarily on spiritual intuition and could arguably be considered Neo-Hassidic in their approach, albeit a conservative approach within Neo-Hassidism. I sense that our Ashkenazic predecessors who developed this custom out of concern for observing Passover did so out of great piety and personal sacrifice –these people were deeply devoted to Halakha and God and I feel that to break this custom would be to fall out of harmony with the energy of commitment and devotion that they invested in it and which has been spiraling in the Ashkenazic Jewish community for some time. I would prefer to ride the wave of commitment and spiritual energy that they invested in this practice even though when I rationally consider it I find it problematic and apparently I am not alone. I am in question as to whether the intellect alone is a fitting instrument to decide on these matters and whether there is something beyond the intellect that requires consideration.

I also sense that to empower oneself and take on one’s shoulders the responsibility of changing Judaism is not a light matter, not psychologically and not spiritually. I need to exercise serious self-reflection as to my readiness and appropriateness for such a task even if only in my individual life. I need to thoroughly consider what are the potential pitfalls for such an undertaking and what have the experience and experimentation of others led to and how do I feel about the results. There is a saying that haunts me from within the rabbinic tradition that I find potentially applicable to the arena of the Philosophy and Kabbalah of Halakhic change: it teaches, ”Rabbi Shimon Ben Elazar says, ’If youth say to you build and elders say to you destroy listen to the elders and do not listen to the youth. For the building of the youth is destruction and the destruction of the elders is building…’” (Babylonian Talmud Nedarim 40a) Judaism requires innovation and interfacing in order to stay relevant to the society in which it finds itself. Nevertheless, there is a valid concern that not every innovation, leniency and theological development is necessarily ultimately constructive and not every holding on to tradition is necessarily ultimately destructive. Kitniyot may be as small as a grain of rice but perhaps the universe of Torah in all its complexity can be seen within it. May we be blessed to see with depth, honesty and integrity and develop a sustainable Judaism for the Here and Now.

It was an Arab hotel that reminded me of the one in the movie, “The Shining” (yes, the Stanley Hotel in Estes Park). It was a huge hotel with almost no other guests, absolutely no one around until I found someone behind the main desk. It was very dilapidated and every single plant life around the exterior building was dead or dying, like in a Western. The lone desk clerk was friendly, but some among the few personnel serving breakfast in the nearly empty restaurant stared menacingly at us. Or so it seemed. By that time we had learned that the hotel was built by the Jordanians on top of Jewish graves situated in the Mount of Olives for many hundreds of years when they had control of the eastern half of Jerusalem, which they divided off beginning from the 1948 Israeli War of Independence. They would not let Jews have access to it, nor to the Old City which included the Wailing Wall (Western Wall, or Kotel). Their snipers, I understand, used to fire on Jerusalemites in the Western half of the city. They used the Mount of Olives Cemetary headstones as paving stones for streets. Anyway, we had unknowingly booked rooms in a hotel that desecrated our Jewish ancestors on purpose and without purpose. We were ashamed and left right after breakfast, not having been able to sleep most of the night.

We met friendly and welcoming Arabs and seemingly hostile Arabs on the Mount of Olives, and we felt horribly for the plight of the hotel, situated in Israel, without much business, but we could not abide by the misuse of the Mount of Olives Cemetary.

Any hostility between Arabs and Jews, between Muslims and Jews, is disheartening to me, and fills me with pain. But any idea that Jews are to blame for such a situation is just not allowable either and anyone who says differently is just not knowledgeable about the Palestinian and Arab failings, or not willing to acknowledge such failings. That is bad enough. Does one call their child to task for being the object of hate and scorn and threats of death? No, and we shouldn’t be doing so either. But Peter Beinart does for he calls for an economic boycott of the Settlers. Does this include East Jerusalem? What about Maale Adumim? Does not such a call give Jewish sustenance to the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) Movement against all of Israel anyway?

But such a boycott is even worse. For it fails to acknowledge that Israel is under siege, and for that matter so is world Jewry (think of the Jewish children murdered recently in Toulouse, France) and that this siege is orchestrated and funded by Arabs and Muslim radicals who are predominant in these communities and national states. And it fails to acknowledge the anti-Semitism of the hate-mongers on the Left, who in groups such as Media Matters, J-Street and the Occupy Movement, submerge their Leftist values to anti-Semitism too.

The article about the recent Mount Olive attack, accessible below, shows that Jew-hatred, the very essence of the Holocaust, is capable of existing even in Israel because the Jews are either unable or unwilling to fight it. Why? Because it is overwhelming and they are under siege. Yet some among us want to objectively hold back the struggle to fight against Jew-hatred. I do not believe such people anymore when they say they act to oppose Israel in order to save it, to wipe Israel of its sins. I believe they act, wittingly or unwittingly, to oppose Israel for other reasons.

I have heard that a Rabbi in our community retorted, when asked if they supported Israel, that they “support Israel from the Left.” Do you support your children, under siege, from the Left? But maybe this explains this curious sentiment and therefore behavior, the behavior of Jews wanting to support Peter Beinart or to seek to undermine those who want to support Israel.

The fact is, what Israel does, and I believe it tries mightily for peace, it does as a process of self-protection and self-preservation. What the Palestinians do, and the Arabs do, to Israel, is driven by their desire to destroy Israel and kill or subdue Jews. The Muslim Brotherhood has the same goals as Al Qaeda, just a different way of achieving them. The actions of the oppressed are not equal to the actions of the oppressor. Israel and the Jews are the oppressed and the Arabs and the Palestinians are the oppressors. This is true, despite the fact that there exist many peaceable and friendly Arabs and Muslims who oppose their leadership and their brothers against Jew-hatred. Instead, these people need to actively support Jews and Israel against the siege and work against their own leadership. Some indeed do that, showing much bravery, but not enough to rely on.

I am sorry for cutting short my stay at the hotel on the Mount of Olives; there were many good people in the Arab community and I do not want to withdraw my economic support as a tourist, but still, I cannot sleep on the graves of Jews purposely destroyed because of Jew-hatred in the Arab and Muslim world. My boycott of them is not the same as their boycott of Israel; nor is my boycott the same as the boycott Peter Beinart proposes against the Settlers.

href=”http://www.israelunitycoalition.org/news/?p=7955″ title=”Protect The Mount of Olives, from a Jerusalem Post Editorial”>

Bruce DeBoskey of the DeBoskey Group

Venture capital takes financial capital and expertise and provides it to high-potential, high-risk, startup businesses. Venture philanthropy uses the same approach and applies it to philanthropic donations in the nonprofit or social enterprise sector.  Both VC and VP involve a commitment of time and resources, carry a high degree of risk and can produce outsized returns.

Many people think of charitable donations as social investments.  Just like business investments, charitable social investments come in different varieties for different types of investors.  Some donations to nonprofit organizations are like investing in bonds: They involve low risk and generate more conservative social returns.  Many charitable organizations do excellent and important work, and such donations produce meaningful and largely predictable results.

Venture philanthropy, on the other hand, is more like investing in hedge funds: The risks are greater and the potential for outsized social returns and impact from the donation is enormous.  As a philanthropist, you can evaluate your risk tolerance and determine which types of philanthropy work best for you.

There are many examples of successful VP.  The Growald Family Fund, with others, made a relatively small donation to a startup nonprofit initiative called Beyond Coal that recently received a $50 million grant from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to help the U.S. create a clean-energy future.  The Draper Richards Kaplan Foundation has generated big social returns by providing funding and business mentoring to 38 early-stage, high-impact nonprofits.

In 1997, George Roberts, the founder of leveraged buyout firm KKR, established the nonprofit VP fund REDF generating thousands of jobs and producing millions of dollars of social-enterprise income for nonprofits.  The Acumen Fund is a global nonprofit VP fund that uses entrepreneurial approaches to solve the problems of global poverty.  In its first decade, Acumen invested $73 million in 65 enterprises that serve the poor.  Social Venture Partners with 25 nonprofit affiliates across the U.S., Canada and Japan, including in Denver and Boulder, combines financial contributions and professional skills to strengthen the capacity and effectiveness of local nonprofits.  New Profit Inc. is a nonprofit VP fund that invests in innovative nonprofit organizations with the potential to create significant, long-term impact on the social mobility of low-income Americans.

Venture philanthropy often involves:

•  More due diligence than typical charitable donations.
•  An emphasis on capacity building for the nonprofit recipient.
•  The potential that a small social investment will allow the nonprofit to scale its impact to reach a much larger group of beneficiaries and attract much larger donations.
• Heavier involvement by the venture philanthropist, more akin to a partnership and often including board service.
• Specific goals, benchmarks and metrics for the nonprofit to achieve.
• An exit strategy for the venture philanthropist when sustainability and scale have been attained.

Joanna Messing, president of Positive Ventures, a VP advisory firm, cautions that there are several pitfalls for the VP investor to be aware of:

• The risks are greater than traditional philanthropy, and there might not be any return on the social investment. In other words, the donation could produce lackluster results or even fail in achieving its goals.
• VP is potentially more time-consuming than traditional philanthropy.
• Unless you are comfortable taking high risk with your philanthropy, VP should be part of a broader and diversified social-investment portfolio, to balance risk and continue to sustain proven nonprofits.

Messing observes:

Through a focused, researched and strategic approach, it is possible for VP to create real leverage and social change along with a deep sense of satisfaction and passion.”

You don’t need to be wealthy to be a venture philanthropist. Rather, by making strategic social investments on your own, or by pooling your resources with others by donating to venture-philanthropy funds, you can have an enormous impact on our nation’s and the world’s most challenging social problems.

This post originally appeared in the Denver Post on March 18th, 2012.  The author has re-posted here with permission.

Morah Yehudis Fishman

As many of these readers know, I was quite shook up by the negativity expressed in the Brit Milah film and panel held this year on the last day of Sukot. I walked away startled at how far some Jews have come from appreciating one of the cornerstones of Jewish identity and connection to G-d and each other. But last week, like Esther in the Purim story, I received a wink from Above that all was not lost and that Hashgacha Pratit, otherwise known as Divine Providence, was alive and well in Boulder Colorado.

The wink came from a Brit Milah celebration last Friday, Shushan Purim. A beautiful boy was born to a prominent Boulder Jewish family, the Berlins and to the grandparents Rich and Karyn Schad, a family who I had been privileged to teach for many years. I brought a scroll of Megilat Esther with me, not to read, since Purim was just over, but to illustrate a remarkable teaching from the scroll, which I will summarize briefly:

In the story there is a curious set of verses. After Haman’s sons had already been hung, Esther asks the king to hang the ten sons ‘tomorrow.’ Another anomaly in the megilah is that when listing the names of the sons, some letters are written in a smaller than normal size- a Zayin, Tav, and Shin, and one letter, a vav, is enlarged.

The sages could not make much sense of these unusual features till recent times. However, during the Nuremberg trials in 1946, ten Nazis were hung, the last of who was Julius Streicher, the editor of the rabid anti-Semitic magazine, Der Sturmer. As he was being led to the gallows, he cried out, ‘Purimfest, 1946.’ This was to say the least a cryptic remark, since the hanging took place- get this!- on Hoshana Rabbah, the last day of Sukkot.

Thus to many the mystery of the letters as well as Esther’s prophetic request took on a new meaning. Esther, who is called the last of the seven great Prophetesses of Biblical times, could have been referring to the Nazis, the modern day descendants of Haman. And the letters? The shape of the Vav symbolized the gallows, while the three small letters numerically add up to 707, the Hebrew year corresponding to 1946!

Furthermore, in the megilah itself there is a reference to Brit milah: On the verse, the Jews had light, happiness, joy and honor, (the same phrase we recite during Havdalah) the sages say that light refers to Torah, happiness refers to holidays, and joy, sasson, refers to Brit milah, and honor to Tefilin.

So here I was attending a most joyous Brit milah of a baby who literally glowed with holy radiance and tranquility (even right after the circumcision) on Shushan (same Hebrew letters as Sasson, the word for joy) Purim!

To add to the power of the ‘wink’, the attending Mohel was Dr. Shelly Ciner from Denver, the mohel who was hoping to come up and participate in the panel, but could not because of a death in his family. The Berlins had contacted another Mohel for the Brit, but the other one was unavailable and so Dr. Ciner- who could not come to the panel on Hoshanna Rabbah, now shows up at this Brit on Shushan Purim!

This event for me was a true healing from the apprehension I felt on Hoshana Rabba. I wondered if Brit Milah in particular and Judaism in general, might be an ‘endangered’ species here in Boulder. I’m sure G-d responded to my fears. Two weeks ago a new baby Jewish boy named Noach Moshe arrived in Boulder, and to me at least, this has made all the difference. I pray that sooner than later, there will be in Boulder a thriving Jewish day school for this baby to attend and grow in Torah and positive Jewish values, and like his namesakes, Noach and Moshe, that he grow up to be a source of light and salvation for the entire world.