fbpx

August 18, 2021

What We Know about Zebulun Simantov, Afghanistan’s Last Jew Who Still Won’t Leave the Country

(JTA) — Amid the Taliban’s total takeover of Afghanistan this week, some had specific concerns about one person: that country’s last remaining Jew, 62-year-old Zebulun Simantov.

Simantov, who has in recent years lived in Kabul’s only synagogue, said earlier this year that he would leave before the Taliban arrived, possibly for Israel. He has also said that the Taliban jailed him during the fundamentalist Muslim group’s last hold on power in Afghanistan, and that they tried to convert him and regard him as an infidel.

Days after the Taliban takeover, Simantov’s whereabouts remain unclear.

Meanwhile, Israeli media has revealed new information about the family situation of the carpet dealer and former restaurant owner who grew up in the city of Herat, including that for decades he has refused to grant his wife a divorce.

Here’s what we know right now.

Many people are trying to help Simantov — but it’s unclear if he wants them to.

Several Jewish organizations have expressed willingness to help Simantov if he wishes to leave. And Mendy Chitrik, chair of the Alliance of Rabbis in Islamic States, said he has been in contact with authorities in Turkey, where he lives, about Simantov.

But an employee of a Jewish group told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that a journalist in Kabul contacted Simantov Sunday, and that Simantov told the journalist he would not leave.

Moti Kahana, an Israeli-American businessman, said people interested in getting Simantov out of Afghanistan have reached him after the takeover but that he declined, demanding “personal funding.”

It wasn’t the first time Simantov had tried to extort someone seeking to contact him. “I don’t go under 200 dollars,” one journalist from a German news organization reported him as saying in 2015. Another account from last year has Simantov demanding $500 from an Israeli journalist for an interview, finally settling on $100.

Amie Ferris-Rotman, a British-Jewish journalist who used to work in Afghanistan, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, “He really liked alcohol, and used to insist journalists who wanted to interview him bring some.”

It’s unclear whether Simantov has spoken publicly since the Taliban seized Kabul. An Indian news channel, WION, on Tuesday quoted him as saying that he would not leave Afghanistan, but the report featured archive footage only.

His refusal to divorce his wife has spurred international diplomacy in the past.

Reports about Simantov in the past have noted that his wife and daughters moved to Israel in 1998. On Wednesday, reports emerged in Israeli media that he has refused for more than 20 years to divorce his wife under Jewish law. (Yedioth Acharonoth in 2010 already reported about the attempts of Simantov’s wife, who lives in Holon near Tel Aviv and has not been named in the Israeli media, to divorce him.)

Under Jewish law, a “get,” or rabbinic bill of divorce, is required for women to be able to remarry. Women whose husbands refuse to give a get are known as “agunot,” or chained women, and their plight is seen as a major point of gender inequality in Orthodox Judaism. In recent years, Orthodox rabbis have invested effort to address the issue.

That was the case a decade ago, when Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, the president of the Conference of European Rabbis, offered in 2011 to fly to Kabul to obtain a get for Simantov’s wife. Ferris-Rotman heard about the woman’s attempts to obtain a Jewish divorce certificate from Israeli colleagues.

“I knew Zebulun and I knew Rabbi Goldschmidt, so I tried to see how we can solve the situation,” Ferris-Rotman, who now lives in London, told JTA. She said others had discussed pressuring Simantov in the past.

But Simantov refused to meet Goldschmidt, despite being offered a hard-to-obtain commodity to sweeten the deal. “Even after Amie offered a case of single malt scotch, the man refused,” Goldschmidt tweeted on Wednesday.

In Israel, men determined to be “recalcitrant spouses” can face jail time, and Israeli media said that Simantov is staying in Afghanistan to avoid dealing with his divorce and rabbinic authorities. But a spokesman for the Israeli Chief Rabbinate told JTA he was unfamiliar with a ruling or edict from a rabbinical judge denouncing Simantov as a recalcitrant spouse, or “sarvan.”

Ferris-Rotman said she had asked Simantov why he wouldn’t grant his wife a divorce. “He would say, ‘Oh, her, I’m done with her,’” she said.

He’s had problems getting along with others before.

“He’s something of a disgruntled old man,” said Ferris-Rotman, who communicated with Simantov in Russian, which he does not speak very well. Simantov, whose main language is Dari, the Afghan dialect of Persian, also speaks broken Hebrew.

Simantov had a famously bad relationship with Kabul’s other remaining Jew, Ishaq Levin, until Levin died in 2005. Speaking about Levin to The Guardian, Simantov said: “The old man was crazy,” screwing a finger against his temple to illustrate the point.

The two lived at opposite ends of the synagogue, the report said, and would only exchange curses. According to stories Simantov has told journalists over time, each man went to the Taliban to accuse the other of criminal behavior. He said the two argued so much in prison that the Taliban released them both — though the group kept a Torah that Levin and Simantov had tried to recover.

One report Wednesday suggested that Daniel Kurtzer, U.S. ambassador to Israel from 2001 to 2005, might also have been involved in Simantov’s divorce diplomacy. But Kurtzer’s recollection suggests that he was likely working on the issue for Simantov’s housemate, Ishaq.

“What I did was arrange for a Jewish chaplain in the U.S. Army to go to the synagogue in Kabul where this man was living, and to try to persuade him to give a get. The chaplain did get back to me to say that the man was unwilling to do so,” Kurtzer recalled.

The next year, the chaplain was back in Kabul and sought to try again. But he learned that the husband had died, so the woman in Israel was informed that she was no longer an agunah, but an almana, or widow.

His fate under the Taliban is unclear.

Simantov has been a well-known local personality. Journalists came to him regularly and some taxi drivers already knew where he lives in Kabul, where many of the streets have no names.

That means the Taliban knows just what he thinks. Unlike Ishaq, who said he had no quarrel with the Taliban, only with Simantov, Simantov has been outspoken about his disdain for the Taliban. Ferris-Rotman said that was the case when she lived in Afghanistan, and it was still the case this spring when Simantov conducted an on-air interview.

For now, the Taliban says Simantov should have no reason to fear. On Tuesday, an Israeli journalist from the Kan broadcaster asked Suhail Shaheen, a Taliban spokesperson in Doha, Qatar, whether Simantov would be safe under Taliban.

Shaheen, who said he was not aware that he was speaking to an Israeli publication, said: “We don’t harm minorities. There are Sikhs and Hindus in the country, and they have their religious freedom.”

What We Know about Zebulun Simantov, Afghanistan’s Last Jew Who Still Won’t Leave the Country Read More »

We Are All Britney Spears

The following is the transcript of Orit’s passionate video plea to #FreeBritney #FreeUs.

That was me 13 years ago dancing in my living room to Britney Spears. No, I’m not showing-off my hot bod back then. There is a deeper purpose.

Britney has always been inspiring to me and to millions of people. And she, like us, has experienced senseless lockdowns and a confiscation of basic rights.

I used to think Britney was just a fad until my younger sister made me watch her videos. I eventually became a huge fan, and so did so many of my friends. She was so fun, so pretty, and so passionate. She radiated freedom and individuality. She became the American Dream at age 17, rising to pop royalty from a small town in Louisiana through her sheer will, talent, and hard work.

She could get almost anyone to dance. In a living room or nightclub, she made us women and many men, too, feel sensual and alive—and that includes moms. I’m proud to pass on a love of Britney to my daughter.

But 13 years ago, her life force was taken away. After a notorious breakdown, her father, Jamie, took over her estate in what is called a “conservatorship.” From then, she had no more control of her own life, even as she made millions of dollars with a Las Vegas residency. Now, her only outlet for free self-expression seems to be her Instagram account. Talk about home-office.

The recent documentary “Framing Britney” brought to light the horrifying conditions of her father’s conservatorship. The #FreeBritney movement finally seemed to move the pop sensation, and she fought back in court petitioning for the conservatorship to end. The testimony is shocking and heartbreaking.

The control he had over someone as powerful as me — he loved the control to hurt his own daughter 100,000%. He loved it.

She describes how he sent her to a Beverly Hills home for a rehab program she had to pay for all the while making her rehearse for a concert she didn’t want to do and for a profit she didn’t want to give to her controllers.

I packed my bags and went to that place. I worked seven days a week, no days off, which in California, the only similar thing to this is called sex trafficking. Making anyone work against their will, taking all their possessions away — credit card, cash, phone, passport — and placing them in a home where they work with the people who live with them.

She had to submit to weekly testing and therapy and was medicated and drugged. And what happened to “My body my choice?” They kept her on birth control.

And I want to progressively move forward. And I want to have the real deal. I want to be able to get married and have a baby. I was told right now in the conservatorship, I’m not able to get married or have a baby, I have an [IUD] inside of myself right now so I don’t get pregnant. I wanted to take the [IUD] out so I could start trying to have another baby. But this so-called team won’t let me go to the doctor to take it out because they don’t want me to have children, any more children. So basically this conservatorship is doing me way more harm than good. I deserve to have a life. I’ve worked my whole life.

Finally, she’s taking her mask off and fighting back. Finally, she’s showing the power that for so long she showed in her music: Individual strength. Freedom. Personal Power. Her handlers must be petrified.

And that’s why I’m telling you this again two years later, after I’ve lied and told the whole world “I’m OK and I’m happy.” It’s a lie. I thought I just maybe if I said that enough maybe I might become happy, because I’ve been in denial. I’ve been in shock. I am traumatized. You know, fake it till you make it. But now I’m telling you the truth, OK? I’m not happy. I can’t sleep. I’m so angry it’s insane. And I’m depressed. I cry every day.

 And the reason I’m telling you this is because I don’t think how the state of California can have all this written in the court documents from the time I showed up and do absolutely nothing — just hire, with my money, another person and keep my dad on board. Ma’am, my dad and anyone involved in this conservatorship and my management who played a huge role in punishing me when I said no — ma’am, they should be in jail.

We are all Britney Spears now.

Because of a stupid virus, the government thinks it can control us. We are in its conservatorship for “our own good” and “for the good of society.” Our lives are not our own anymore.

We are being medically tested all the time and even drugged, if that’s what you could call a vaccine. We are constantly counting cases and being evaluated. We’re told when and where we could travel. We’re kept away from our families. We are forced to shut our mouths, literally and figuratively. All this–when we are of sound enough mind to take care of our own selves—and others. Enough. This has to end. We are being abused.

I truly believe this conservatorship is abusive, and that we can sit here all day and say oh, conservatorships are here to help people. But ma’am, there is a thousand conservatorships that are abusive as well.

I don’t feel like I can live a full life. I don’t owe them to go see a man I don’t know and share him my problems. I don’t even believe in therapy. I always think you take it to God.

In denying her rights, the State of California, which actually has the toughest Corona restrictions, has oppressed and exploited one of the most productive Americans today. It has crushed the American dream.

And that’s what these Corona restrictions seem to be about: suppressing the producers and creators so that others can feed off us, mostly bureaucrats and mediocre minds who cannot achieve half of what we productive, hard-working citizens do. It is a demented form of communism.

Because she’s speaking her mind, she finally got the right to her own lawyer. Sure, her life might be messy if she could always do what she wants. And sure, life might be a bit messy if we live without Corona restrictions, but that’s life! We are strong and smart enough to handle all of it and make our own decisions.

I’ve done MORE than enough. I don’t feel like I should even be in room with anyone to offend me by trying to question my capacity of intelligence, whether I need to be in this stupid conservatorship or not. I’ve done MORE than enough.

We’ve all done MORE than enough. The FreeBritney movement is a movement for us. We must take Britney’s inspiration and demand our rights back, but we don’t need the courts for that. We can do it without permission. Actually, we should sue the government, the way Britney wants to sue her family. They’re the one’s who have to ask permission to suck us of our lifeblood.

Free Britney. Free Us.

This video originally appeared on the German site, Die Achse Des Guten.

 

We Are All Britney Spears Read More »

Denver Yeshiva Student Shot and Killed

A 19-year-old Jewish student was shot and killed in front of his college dormitory at a yeshiva in Denver, CO on the evening of August 17.

The student, identified as Shmuel Silverberg, was originally from a Cleveland suburb known as University Heights and attending Yeshiva Toras Chaim, a Talmudic seminary school for males, and will be buried in Lakewood, NJ, where his family is currently located. The shooting took place at around 11:30 pm that night; earlier that night, the suspects had committed two carjackings, resulting in one person who was not Jewish being shot and critically wounded, according to The Jerusalem Post.

The Denver police are searching for three cars connected to the carjackings and shootings: a 2018 maroon Honda CRV, 2020 dark blue Toyota Camry and a black 1998 Toyota Rav 4 and are offering a $2,000 reward. The police consider the suspects to be armed and dangerous.

 

A spokesperson for the Denver police told Jewish Telegraphic Agency, “At this time, it does not appear that it was a bias-motivated incident, but we are still in the early stages of the investigation.”

StandWithUs CEO and Co-Founder Roz Rothstein tweeted, “Part of a “crime spree” (as police say)? Or a specific Jewish target? Time will tell. Horrific, Heartbreaking. Condolences to his family & friends. May his memory be a blessing.”

 

Denver Yeshiva Student Shot and Killed Read More »

Table for Five: Ki Teitzei

One verse, five voices. Edited by Salvador Litvak, the Accidental Talmudist

And they shall say to the elders of his city, “This son of ours is wayward and rebellious; he does not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.”

-Deut 21:20


Rabbi Elchanan Shoff
Beis Knesses of Los Angeles

The rebellious son is put to death. The Talmud (amidst an extensive treatment of this subject in Tractate Sanhedrin) explains that God is letting us know that if a youngster acts this way, there is no hope but that he will eventually take the lives of others in acts of banditry. Should the boy exhibit certain very specific signs of rebellion, better that he should die now whilst innocent than later after committing capital crimes. Yet strikingly, the Talmud then tells us that there never was a rebellious son, and lets us know that there never ever will be one.

The Torah only wrote this to us to give us the opportunity to benefit from learning lessons from this subject, but it’s not really something that will happen. Now what could be the message of that? Is there not already plenty of Torah to learn? What lesson are we to gain from discussion of putting to death theoretical at-risk youth? But in fact, I think that the Talmud is telling us something crucial to anyone raising children. You can never ever give up on them.

You see, there will never ever be a child who is definitely going to be wicked. There has never been such a child, nor will there ever be. Every single person has the chance to change. No behavior that you are seeing in your teen is reason to write them off. There is hope for all of our children. We may never give up.


Rabbi Pinchas Winston
Thirtysix.org

The Talmud says that a wise person is one who can see what is being born (Tamid 32a). Not just born, but how it will “grow up,” meaning to what it will probably lead. The commandment of killing the “rebellious son” teaches a similar message (even if it was never carried out).

A ben sorrer umoreh is not killed because he has already done something that warrants the death penalty. He is killed because he has done things that seem to indicate that he will do such things in the future. The Beis Din kills him now while he is still “meritorious,” before he becomes guilty of the death penalty. But what if the boy grows up and matures nicely? What if he leaves behind his troubling ways, as so many other “rebellious” children have done over the ages? If saving one soul is like saving an entire world, isn’t it worth the risk to see how this one turns out too? What if the concern does not apply to this son?

The Torah says assume that it does and go with the signs. And not just in the case of the rebellious son, but in life in general. Many bad things have happened because people have disregarded the signs of where they were going. They suffered from cognitive dissonance, psychological conflict that results from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously. As they say, “All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”


Rabbi Gershon Schusterman
Mashpia, writer, businessman

The “Wayward and Rebellious Son” precept is so outlandish that some Talmudic rabbis say (Sanhedrin 71b), “This commandment never occurred, nor will it ever occur in the future! If so, why is it in the Torah at all? Expound on the Torah’s passages and receive the reward.”

Is this just a scholarly pursuit? What is to be learned from something that can’t happen? Underlying this law are lessons for parents to be gleaned regarding their critical role in raising their children. Each child is a tabula rasa, a clean slate. Parents need to introspect into their role in their child’s rebelliousness.

“They shall say, our son is wayward and rebellious, he does not listen to our voice (exact translation); he is a glutton and a drunkard.” (21:20) The precept of the “rebellious son” applies only if his father and mother speak in the same voice. This means both parents must take an active role in educating their child and must relate to their child with an equal sense of seriousness, and most importantly, both parents must convey to him the same message and the same value system.

Only if parents have met these criteria are they blameless if their child becomes rebellious. But if the parents have not worked together harmoniously in bringing up their child, then the fact that the child has become unruly may not reflect his innate depravity, but rather a dysfunctional upbringing. Change these factors and the child might well improve.


Rabbi Rebecca Schatz
Assistant Rabbi, Temple Beth Am, LA

Both parents must willingly present him to the community for what will result in punishment. But we’re not told what anyone might have done to prevent the development of such a person, or what was tried privately before going public.

The 20th century Rebbe of Piaseczna wrote in his singular work, Chovat HaTalmidim, “It is not enough to just teach the lad that he is obligated to listen to the educator, and nothing more. The main point is to bring this opinion into his heart: To know that he – the child himself – is the main educator. Rather, he is the sprout of God’s planting in the garden of Israel.” Though the quote continues to say the responsibility is on the father and rabbi to teach the child, the child must own his progress and success, as well as his failing. Our job as parents, teachers and community is to make the child feel supported and safe when questioning, exploring, and sharing new learning. Public shaming will ostracize and brand the child, dooming him.

Proverbs 22:6 reminds us to teach children individualistically, connecting with their abilities and interests, so that they will not grow disloyal to the Teaching. The same Hebrew word is used for “disloyal” in Proverbs and our Torah verse, reminding us of the lofty obligations of raising our community’s children. We must prepare our family to sprout in God’s garden. We must offer an attentive and loving first chance and then a second chance!


Lori Shapiro
Rabbi, Artistic Director/Open Temple

Today’s social media influencer is tomorrow’s tossed aside child unpacking a public display of thoughtless behavior. Torah’s strident proscription for the rebellious and wayward child bears wisdom for today’s parenting. The rabbis seek to justify his actions as being aberrant and problematic; Rabbi Bachya admonishes: “Parents’ love of God must supersede their love of their children; if the Torah commands it, they must be ready even to hand their son over to the court.” Parenting styles encouraging “your child to find his own interests and pursue them” seemingly present as anathema to Torah wisdom. But are they?

The rabbinic stridency towards the “wayward and rebellious child” serve as a cautionary tale reminding us of our parenting responsibility. Lao Tzu, the author of the Tao Te Ching (Taoism), is credited for stating: “Watch your thoughts, for they become words, watch your words, for they become actions, watch your actions, for they become habits, watch your habits, for they become character, watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.”

Parents are the gatekeepers, planting the seeds of thought, nurturing the value of words, seasonally modeling habits, harvesting character in community and walking a destiny that becomes our children’s inheritance. As adult children, parents must embody both the self-discipline of our seasoned relationship with our own inner-rebellion as we serve as cultivators of awareness for our children, guiding their curiosity towards godliness, lest their social media handles lead them into acts of rebellion and intemperance and into the contemporary court of public scrutiny.

Table for Five: Ki Teitzei Read More »

Unscrolled Parashat Ki Teitzei: The Paradox of a Bird’s Nest

In Parashat Ki Teitzei, we learn the commandment of Shiluach Ha’Ken, the “sending away of the bird’s nest.” “If, along the road, you chance upon a bird’s nest,” the law states, you are not to take “the mother together with her young.” Rather, you are to send the mother away, and only then may you take the eggs (Deuteronomy 22:6-7).

The medieval Jewish rabbi and commentator Maimonides was conflicted as to the meaning of this law. In his “Guide to the Perplexed,” he teaches that the law’s purpose is to engender compassion and to prevent animal suffering (3:48).

In his commentary on the Mishna, however, he takes a different position. If God was truly concerned with the welfare of animals, God would have forbidden the slaughter of animals altogether. (Mishnah Berakhot 5:3) Therefore, Maimonides concludes, the law is what is known as a chok, a commandment without reason, which we are nevertheless obligated to obey.

Different interpretations bear different fruit. Understanding the law’s ethos as one of compassion, one might, in the end, decide to “leave the whole nest untouched” (“Guide to the Perplexed” 3:48).

Understanding this law as a chok, however, creates the impression that snatching a bird’s eggs is God’s desire, and ought to be pursued irrespective of whether one wants or needs those eggs. Indeed, this is what some religious Jews do when they “chance upon” a bird’s nest, grabbing the eggs for the sole purpose of scoring some “mitzvah points.”

That said, we can understand Maimonides’ reasons for downplaying the ethical dimension of this law in his Mishnah commentary. As a sharp-minded and philosophical person, how could he accept that God’s law of compassion would be so imperfectly compassionate? Why should an all-wise God permit slaughter in one part of the Torah and then turn around and fawn over a bird in another?

The same problem bedevils Parashat Ki Teitzei’s law of the captured woman. When a man captures a woman in war, according to this law, he shall take her home, cut her hair, and pare her nails. He shall let her spend a month mourning her family, and only then may he take her as his wife. If, after all that, he no longer desires her, he shall let her go as a free woman.

Like the law of the bird’s nest, the ethos of this law seems to be compassion, but can we really accept that? The captured woman’s pain and suffering is taken seriously. Not seriously enough, however, to grant her freedom and autonomy. And so, like Maimonides, we are torn.

We could take this as grounds to dismiss the law. If we are very secular, we might dismiss it as a bit of patriarchal nonsense from the past. If we are very pious, we might dismiss it as a chok.

In both cases, we would be letting the perfect defeat the good.

The Torah, however, does not speak the language of the perfect. It is a book of reality, a book of life and a book of humanity, all of which require constant compromise. Its laws are animated by the timeless values of justice, mercy, compassion, equality and kinship, but they are concealed by the cultural markers, context and blind spots of the Torah’s historic moment.

No one understood this more than the Kabbalists, who taught how the supernal Torah (perfect and timeless) was forced to don the garments of this world when it was given to us at Mount Sinai.

To understand how this works, simply put yourself in the Torah’s place. Imagine, for instance, that you were to witness an injustice against an animal at a factory farm. And now imagine that you were in a place to decree laws for all mankind to follow. Lifting your staff in the air, you declare: “When you raise an animal for slaughter, you must care for its comfort and wellbeing all its life. When the time comes to slaughter the animal, you must do so in a way that causes no pain at all.” Hearing this law, your followers would be moved by the depth of care you extended toward the animal kingdom.

Now imagine that 3,000 years have passed. Your book of laws is still widely read and observed, but the world has changed. Animals are no longer raised for meat. The development of cell meat has made animal agriculture obsolete, and humans now regard the practice of killing animals for food as a barbaric chapter from the dark ages. Reading your law about animal welfare, they see nothing but speciesism and cruelty. They don’t much care that you put a nice face on it by trying to be kinder to the animals. At the end of the day, you condoned their enslavement and slaughter.

Would those future critics of your law be wrong? Not quite. But they would have missed the point, confusing the law’s garment with its spirit, and this would be their loss.

But they would have missed the point, confusing the law’s garment with its spirit, and this would be their loss.

And so it would be our loss to confuse spirit with garment in our reading of Torah. Parashat Ki Teitzei thrums with the impulse of compassion toward all of creation. For this reason, it is one of my favorite portions.

Go and read it now and let yourself be touched by its profound spirit. Then ask which garments (actions taken and words spoken) are needed to bring that spirit into the world today.


Matthew Schultz is the author of the essay collection “What Came Before” (2020). He is a rabbinical student at Hebrew College in Newton, Massachusetts.

Unscrolled Parashat Ki Teitzei: The Paradox of a Bird’s Nest Read More »

Afghanistan Journalists: How You Can Help

FROM THE INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF JOURNALISTS:

The Los Angeles Press Club joins with the International Federation of Journalists to raise money to assist Afghan journalists, especially women, trying to get out.

To the IFJ Member UnionsAux Syndicats membres de la FIJA los Sindicatos miembros de la FIP

Dear Colleagues

As the Taliban take control of more towns and cities across Afghanistan, we are witnessing a rapid escalation of violence and threats against journalists and independent media.

The Taliban have made huge territorial gains in the rural areas and media outlets have been forced to close or have been taken over by the Taliban to broadcast their own propaganda. The staff have fled or are in hiding.

Just yesterday, August 17, 11 media outlets were forced to close when the Taliban took control of Baghlan province.

Women journalists are being banned from working.

The director of Afghanistan’s media and information center was assassinated in Kabul. “Dawa Khan Menapal was killed by gunmen on Darul Aman Road in the capital, reports said. The Taliban said he had been “punished for his deeds.”

In other areas, security fears mean that many media outlets are reducing their activities.

Already, over 1,000 journalists and media workers have lost their jobs.

The IFJ is working urgently with our affiliates AIJA and ANJU to provide emergency support, to help journalists take protective measures, seek safety and where necessary to leave the country.

Our affiliates in a number of countries are lobbying their governments to provide emergency visas to enable those most at threat to leave the country.

We have now established a special fund within the IFJ Safety Fund to channel further support.

We are seeking your solidarity to help us provide that urgent much-needed support. If you can, please make a donation. All funds raised will go directly to providing support to our Afghan colleagues.

FROM IFJ:

IFJ General Secretary Anthony Bellanger said: “Violence against media workers is increasing daily in Afghanistan. We have a duty of care but also a moral duty to support journalists who are working and risking their lives to cover the conflict in Afghanistan. It is time for the authorities, rights groups, media outlets, governments and the international community to do everything in their power to keep journalists, their colleagues and their families safe. Solidarity and assistance are urgently needed.

Afghanistan Journalists: How You Can Help Read More »

Oh, Brother

Yibum, the biblical institution of levirate marriage, seems awkward and antiquated. It occurs when a man dies without children, and leaves behind a widow. It is a mitzvah for the brother of the deceased to perform yibum, and move in with the widowed sister-in-law and take her as his wife. (When the widow and her brother-in-law choose not to perform yibum, a ceremony called “chalitzah” takes place.)  Yibum is the polar opposite of romantic love, and is the ultimate arranged marriage.

Already in the times of the Talmud, there was discomfort with yibum. Marrying a widowed sister-in-law is ordinarily prohibited, and only allowed in a case when the deceased brother left no children; the former prohibition is now turned into a mitzvah. Abba Shaul, who lived in the second century, felt that yibum should be forbidden for everyone, because this previously prohibited relationship is set aside when one is performing yibum for the sake of the commandment; and it is impossible to be certain that the brother has only pure intentions.

The other rabbis disagreed with Abba Shaul, and encouraged yibum. This debate continued on through the centuries; in the 7th and 8th centuries, the Babylonian Yeshiva of Sura encouraged yibum, while the nearby yeshiva in Pumpedita discouraged it. Similarly, in the Middle Ages, Sephardic halakhists encouraged yibum, while Ashkenazic authorities discouraged or forbade it. As a consequence, yibum has not been practiced in Ashkenazic communities for hundreds of years. In 1950, the Sephardic and Ashkenazic Chief Rabbis of Israel, Rabbi Ben Zion Uziel and Rabbi Isaac Herzog, attempted to institute a universal policy against yibum in the State of Israel. A year later, a Yeminite couple presented themselves to the Rabbinical Court in Petach Tikvah, asking for the right to perform yibum. The man was shocked that his arrival in the State of Israel would prevent him from performing this mitzvah. Rabbi Ovadiah Yoseph, who was then a 30-year-old newcomer to Israel, wrote a lengthy responsa defending the historic Sephardic practice, and disagreeing with the Chief Rabbinate’s new policy. Ultimately, Rav Ovadiah’s view proved decisive; and in a well-publicized case in 1985, Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu gave permission to a widow and her brother-in-law in Ashkelon to perform yibum, and marry.

While yibum is uncommon, it plays a significant role in biblical thought. A close reading of the Tanakh leads to the realization that the theme of yibum is a foundation of nationhood. It plays a central role in two biblical narratives: Tamar and Judah in the book of Genesis, and Ruth and Boaz in the Book of Ruth. In both cases, a somewhat reluctant man is called upon to marry the widow of a deceased relative and build a family, after others refuse to do so. And both of these yibum marriages are performed by prominent ancestors of King David, the founder of Israel’s dynastic monarchy. Clearly, yibum is central to the future Jewish commonwealth. But why?

The answer lies in understanding what yibum represents. The Torah explains that when a baby is born to the new marriage, it will “carry on the name of the dead brother, so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel” (Deuteronomy 25:6). The brother who has passed away will never be forgotten; the new baby will carry on his name and legacy. (There is a dispute over whether the verse is metaphorical, or actually means that the child should be given the identical name as the deceased brother; either way, the baby represents a way of keeping the memory of the deceased brother alive.) Yibum is a difficult sacrifice for the brother who marries the widow; his new son is not quite his own, as he has dedicated this child to the legacy of his dead brother. In performing yibum, the living brother accepts responsibility to carry on his brother’s legacy and care for the widow. In the ancient world, yibum is a powerful act of solidarity, where one brother sets aside his own interests to stand in for the other.

Solidarity is critical to building a nation. The Tanakh sees the Jewish nation as a family writ large; and the lessons of yibum are also lessons of leadership. Every nation will have multiple tribes; but it can only succeed if those tribes stand up for each other, as if they were brothers, and ensure each other’s existence. When King David ascends to the throne, his first responsibility is to find a way to unite all the tribes; and that remains the first responsibility of every future king and leader.

Yibum teaches the importance of unity and solidarity, both in families and in nations. This message is popular, and oft repeated, both in synagogue pulpits and at dinner tables. The problem is that in real life, this lesson is often ignored.

Yibum teaches the importance of unity and solidarity, both in families and in nations . . . The problem is that in real life, this lesson is often ignored.

One of the more fascinating aspects of the biblical passage regarding yibum is the phrase “when brothers dwell together” (Deuteronomy 25:5). In Hebrew, the two root words for dwell (yeshvu) and together (yachdav) are only grouped together in three other passages in the Tanakh. They are found in Psalm 133, where it declares “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!”  This Psalm is about the crowds gathering in the Temple, with a multitude of different tribes joining together, and represents the ideal realization of the values found in yibum. But the two other Biblical parallels remind us how difficult unity actually is; both are in cases when a family is splitting apart.

When Abraham and his nephew Lot separate from each other, they do so because “their possessions were so great that they could not dwell together”; a battle between their shepherds ensues. When Jacob and Esau take each other’s leave, it is because “their possessions were too many for them to dwell together.” In both cases, a family dissolves because of ambition. They have too many possessions, and because of the conflicts that arise, they cannot dwell together anymore. Unity makes for fine sermons; but all too often, it is much easier for brothers to dwell apart.

When I was in yeshiva, I had a teacher who would hammer away at the unconscious hypocrisy about unity we all carry. He would repeat the words of a student who once told him: “of course I love Jews. I love the Jews in the Soviet Union, I love the Jews in Syria. It’s my roommate I can’t stand!” We all talk a good game about unity, but don’t realize that this rhetoric masks how difficult it is to achieve. We can’t ever take for granted that two brothers will dwell together. This is true of families and communities; and at a time when the various Jewish tribes seem to be drifting further apart, this is certainly true of the Jewish people as a whole.


Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz is the Senior Rabbi of Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun in New York.

Oh, Brother Read More »

Rabbi Dick Hirsch: A Liberal and Zionist Hero

At a time when too many people think that Liberalism and Zionism are at odds, at this moment when too many Reform rabbinical students spend more energy bashing Israel than celebrating it, one of the Jewish people’s great synthesizers has died at the age of 95.

Rabbi Richard Hirsch spent his long life reconciling liberalism and Zionism, Reform universalism and Israeli particularism, human rights and Jewish rights, religious devotion and nationalist pride, Israel and Diaspora, as mutually-reinforcing movements, ideals and values. In the process, this liberal and Zionist hero left not only a long line of achievements in his wake, but also generations of fans like me, charmed by his passion, his wit, his warmth, his vision, his generosity and his infectious smile.

This central catalyst in the Zionizing of Reform Jewry was born in Cleveland in 1926. Ordained by Hebrew Union College, a young Dick Hirsch insisted on doing some of his training in the newly-established State of Israel, helping to create a precedent thousands of Diaspora rabbis have followed. He founded the Reform movement’s Religious Action Center in Washington, D.C. in 1962. After an intense decade of social activism that included lending his offices to Martin Luther King Jr., when the reverend was in town and helping to write the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, Hirsch moved to Jerusalem in 1973. He insisted on moving Progressive Judaism’s international headquarters to Jerusalem, which he deemed Reform Judaism’s “most significant decision … in the 20th century.”

Building Reform Zionism’s ideological and institutional infrastructure, Hirsch helped create the Association of Reform Zionists of America (ARZA), and founded two Reform movement kibbutzim (Yahel in 1976 and Lotan in 1983). He told me that those two kibbutzim were his greatest achievements—beyond his extraordinary marriage and family.

He told me that those two kibbutzim were his greatest achievements—beyond his extraordinary marriage and family.

Rabbi Hirsch also led the long, frustrating fight for religious pluralism in Israel, demanding a “Jewish State,” meaning a state with a Jewish character, not a state privileging Orthodox Judaism. In 1974, Rabbi Hirsch lectured Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin about the importance of opposing “the politicization of religion and the religionization of politics,” while nevertheless remaining friends with the thin-skinned, hot-tempered, Rabin.

Hirsch was not naïve, and was no pushover. He saw how easy it is for fanatics of one side or the other to set up constant tensions between Reform Judaism and Zionism. He explained that Reform Judaism “was grounded in hope for Jews in a gentile world,” while Zionism “was mired in hopelessness for Jewish survival in the gentile world.”

In the Diaspora, he taught,

“Jewish life is voluntary. A person is free to decide on Jewish identity and the extent of participation in, and support of, the Jewish community. In Israel, Jewish identity is compulsory. By virtue of living in a Jewish state, the individual Jew is obligated to identify as a Jew, pay taxes to the Jewish state, and fight in the army to defend the Jewish state. … In Israel, the Jews are not afforded the luxury of selecting favorite issues and noble causes. All issues are Jewish and all are denominated as Jewish, both by those who live in the state and by those who live outside it. Both the private and the public sectors are Jewish. Indeed, everything is Jewish: from economy to culture, politics, the army, and the character of society. In the Diaspora, Jews tend to distinguish between universal and particular concerns. In Israel, every issue is both universal and particular. It is impossible to separate between humanness and Jewishness.”

Hirsch loved that balancing act, the synergies released, the tensions resolved—and persisting.

As a Religious Zionist attuned to the Jewish and Zionist imperative Na’aseh v’Nishma, “We will do and we will listen,” Hirsch said that in establishing the Reform seminary’s magnificent campus overlooking Jerusalem’s Old City, the movement was marrying history. In 2000 he articulated Reform Jewry’s “Declaration of Interdependence”: “of people and faith, of Jewish tradition and contemporary needs, of the universal and the particular, of Israel and the Diaspora, of each Jew with all Jews.” In his classic statement that year, “Toward a Theology of Reform Zionism,” which I included in my anthology, “The Zionist Ideas, Hirsch hewed to the golden middle path, insisting, “The establishment, protection, and development of the State of Israel are integral premises of Progressive Jewish belief.”

Hirsch was enough of a liberal-nationalist to recognize the State of Israel as “a state like all other states.” But as a devout liberal Jew, he always recognized “the return to the Land of Israel and the restoration of the Jewish people’s sovereignty” as fulfilling “sanctified religious aspirations … rooted in the Jewish concept of the covenant between God and Israel.”

Seeing Israel as “the testing grounds for keeping the covenant between God and God’s people,” he knew the Jewish State would often be in an agitated state, “confronted by the tension between the holy and the secular, the potential and the actual, the vision and the reality.” For this reason, he refused to stop criticizing what was wrong to make things right, but also refused to stop celebrating what was right because it was wrong to abandon your own people, your own state, your own values and dreams.

The focal point that helped him juggle all these ideals was simple: we are all one family, he preached. We need one another, and we need to learn from each other: “American Jewish culture needs the stimulus that come from Israel, just as Israel needs the stimulus that comes from the diaspora.”

Hirsch’s Zionism began with his devotion to peoplehood, refusing to limit Judaism to a religion without appreciating its national aspect. What he dismissed as a sterile “religionized” American Judaism risked losing “its family feeling, its activist impulse, its historic soul, encouraging assimilation.” Hirsch was grateful that, for all the problems, “Israel has restored balance and perspective to Reform Judaism, necessitating the strengthening of our ties with the Jewish people. Israel has enriched the consciousness of Jewish peoplehood, and, in doing so, has revitalized Jewish history and culture.”

He added an important warning to those who some of us call today’s “un-Jews,” those who seek to undo this fundamental link between Judaism and Zionism: “If liberal Judaism can flourish only in a non-Jewish environment and not in a Jewish environment, then we will be like fish that can [only] live out of water.”

“If liberal Judaism can flourish only in a non-Jewish environment and not in a Jewish environment, then we will be like fish that can [only] live out of water.”

A decade ago, I wrote: “For appreciating Jewish peoplehood not just as a glue that binds us together but as an engine driving us to greater heights; for using the very best of liberalism to make the United States and Israel fulfill their loftiest ideals; for championing Zionism as a vehicle of Jewish idealism, not just a Jewish insurance policy against bigotry; for being the kind of rabbi who ministers to the masses and lives his ideals every day; and for urging us, welcoming us, teaching us to ‘let the debates continue,’ I designate Rabbi Richard Hirsch one of my favorite Zionists.”

On a personal note, for hosting me with many a cheese-toast in his office, regaling me with compelling tales from the past and equally inspiring thoughts for the future, and always having a kind word for me and my writings, I also salute Dick Hirsch as one of my favorite people.


Gil Troy is a Distinguished Scholar of North American History at McGill University, and the author of nine books on American History and three books on Zionism. His book, Never Alone: Prison, Politics and  My People, co-authored with Natan Sharansky was just published by PublicAffairs of Hachette.

Rabbi Dick Hirsch: A Liberal and Zionist Hero Read More »