Be the Change You Want to See In the World

Women, Taboo and Liberation

Menstrual cycle, impurity, prohibitions, blood, uncleanliness, hushes…

Judaism actually celebrates menstruation as a women's ability to create life and the tradition encourages the fruitfulness possible due to this gift to women.  Still, rabbis scratch heads pondering why the family purity laws (those laws that legislate sexual relations between spouses) get such bad press and has fallen into disuse even amongst observant Jewish couples.

Here are 3 examples of how traditional Judaism misrepresents the beauty of a woman's power to be Gd's partner in the process of Creation….

1. Anyone who has ever heard that a woman is forbidden to touch a Torah scroll has also heard the following reason:  if a woman were in her menstrual state of restrictedness ('impurity') she would transfer impurity to the Torah by touching it.  The explanation – and prohibition – is a complete fabrication and untrue.  The surety of proof comes from the Parah Adumah (Red Heifer) ritual that we just read in synagogue last week.  There we learn that anyone who comes in contact with a dead body either through touch or even presence (like in a cemetery or a hospital) is ritually impure.  The only way to be rid of this impurity is through a Temple ritual using the ashes of a completely red-haired cow.  For the last 2,000 years, there has been no Temple and no such ritual.  The majority of all men, therefore, are ritually impure.  How is it we can touch the Torah scroll – because the Torah cannot receive impurity.  I've sent many traditional yeshiva students back to their teachers seeking to refute this proof.

What is the reason for this bubbe meise (old wives' tale)?  What is the resulting attitude of boys, and girls, and men, and women, toward menstruation?  Why hasn't this myth been shattered?

2. Have you ever noticed in America that Orthodox-observant couples do not hold hands? The reason for this abstinence is because for them it is forbidden for a male to touch a female who is a niddah (ritual impurity caused by her period).  After her period and her visit to a mikveh, touching is permitted again.  At least 2 weeks every month a couple is permitted to touch – so why not walk together hand-in-hand in public?  Were the couple to hold hands during the permitted days, then others would deduce that when the couple is not holding hands the woman would be experiencing her period and this knowledge would somehow be immodest or embarrassing.  But, why?  In Israel, religious couples can be seen walking hand-in-hand in every city….

3. As a rabbinical student 15 years ago, I was hosted by a fellow Conservative student and his wife for Shabbat dinner.  In a respectful way, I asked them to explain to me how they traverse the issue of Judaism's family purity laws. The response I received was the one most often delivered – and most likely to slam the door to the curious – "those are private issues for a couple and not to be discussed."    

The answer is not to abandon the family purity laws; the answer is to abandon the rabbis' adolescent discomforts….

Israel's Indignation: Understanding my Pain

I scratch my head trying to identify why American Jewry's criticism of Israel is so difficult for me.  I live in Israel and see the societal and political ills up close, so the reason is not because of a loss of my innocence or the destruction of a vision of utopia that I harbor for the Jewish State.    

I recently read an article telling of a society where most cases of reported sexual abuse and harrassmnet never go before a judge because there is a culture of tolerance for such male behavior.  It elicited an analogical awareness:

In the face of a woman's being violated by a man there is the tendency -- and even the desire -- to try to find the woman somewhat responsible for the act (a flirtatious personality, the way she dresses, she allowed herself to be alone with him, we know what happens in fraternity houses and she should have known better than to go to the party, she grew up in an abusive home so is attracted to violent men, it wasn't rape because they were on a date, she's a spurned woman making accusations out of revenge....).  By finding her at all culpable we try to bring order to the chaos/randomness of the violent act so we can reduce anxiety about our own chances for being victimized, and it helps us to deny the extant evil of the perpetrator.  Additionally, it allows for those persons who do not agree with certain expressions of femininity to be critical of that womanliness.  And, it also causes a reduction of sympathy for the victim.  In a way we do it regarding cancer, too -- lung cancer -- was he a smoker? does cancer run in the family?  (as if it reduces the horror of the cancer or the tragedy of it because it could be predicted). 
 
To even raise the issue of the female's behavior is to diminish the act of the perpetrator. 
 
Settlements, roadblocks, separation walls, blockades, Operation Cast Lead, intransigence toward a Two State Solution, right wing coalition forces....these are accusations and explanations used (by Israel's detractors and others) for Israel somehow deserving to be victim to ideologies that do not condone Israel's existence and deserving to be victim to cultures that justify the perpetration of barbarism as legitimate means of protest. 
 
Though American Jews who argue for 'honest debate over Israel' do not agree with these ideologies and cultures, they do use the same terminology as Israel's true enemies and by doing so it reduces the perpetrators' evil and points an accusing finger at the victim. 
 
I understand legitimate difference of opinion regarding Israel's approach to its national security, I need not validate those whose very arguments abet and vindicate -- even unintentionally -- the pernicious enemies of Israel.

Does Torah Intend to Protect Animals? Part II

In this second session of chevrutah with Pardes Institute Rosh Yeshiva Rabbi Danny Landes, I employ traditional sources to prove that Torah holds that Tsa'ar Ba'alei Chaim (the pain of living creatures) applies to emotional pain and not just physical pain.

 

Abolitionist Interview

The "Abolitionist-Online" is a website dedicated to being a "Voice for Animal Rights."  The online magazine did a RELIGION Issue and the link below shares the interview had with me as a/the Jewish Voice.

Some of the questions posed:

What are you views on comparing factory farming to the Holocaust?

Is Gd a militant?

Would Gd create something that would destroy part of His own Creation?

What was your wake up call to animal welfare issues and How to convince others?

FULL INTERVIEW FOLLOWS:

 

Rabbi Adam Frank – The Interview.

By Claudette Vaughan

 

Rabbi Adam Frank lives and works in Jerusalem with his family. He wrote an excellent article titled “What’s Jewish about a Vegan Diet?” posted at jewishveg.com

We wanted to catch up with the Rabbi and ask him a few of our own questions. Here’s that interview.

 

Abolitionist: Is God a militant in an age where so many religious people refuse to speak favorably in terms of animal rights? Would God create his own Creation to then turn around and allow them to be eaten?

Rabbi Adam Frank: We start with the premise that God created the world, God created both humans and the non-human animal kingdom, God created lions and God created lambs. Lions eat lambs so yes, God is capable of creating that which God knows will consume something else that is living. Is God a militant? Certainly not in any negative sense. I think it’s important to say why God is so critical, at least in my perspective of the world. I believe how we define what is good and bad, what is moral and immoral, what is ethical or unethical must originate from something outside of human opinion.  Different communities of people may come up with different definitions of what is moral and what is immoral and for this reason it is critical for me to turn to a source which is external of humans to be the foundation of what is good and what is bad.  Judaism turns to God and believes that God gifted to humanity the Five Books of Moses as the foundation of defining what it means to live an appropriate life. In Judaism there are numerous verses and sources that guard against the unnecessary and cruel treatment of animals. These sources speak of human potential in its ideal form. Unfortunately, human influence – the human touch -- corrupts.   While Judaism certainly has many teachings instructing that humans be sensitive and sensitized to other parts of God’s creation, I believe there has been a corruption, and sometimes even a willful ignoring, of certain precepts which allow us, all humans, to live more comfortable personal lives at the expense of others.

 

Abolitionist: Why are you vegan, Rabbi?

Rabbi Adam Frank: I am vegan because both Jewish law and my own use of logic and reasoning tell me that there is something terribly wrong with the animal food industry which places the animals in the conditions that is modern factory farming. I want to be clear, too, as this gets to your question of how do we lead a revolution of thinking to get people to stop eating meat and to make them more sensitive to their consumptions. I think the message has to be non-radical for human ears. The concept that people have no right to eat animals or that people have no right to infringe on the individual autonomy of an animal is so foreign to human thinking that it will be ignored. Judaism teaches that animals can be seen to exist in order to serve human needs but in the same breath Judaism obligates us to act as proper stewards and to act compassionately toward all that God created.  Part of Judaism is to imitate/imbue the compassion of God. As God is compassionate towards humankind, so too must humankind be compassionate towards animals. I am vegan because farming methods are abusive and cruel to animals. I don’t want my food choices to condone the suffering that occurs in the animal food industry.

Judaism takes seriously  the idea of personal responsibility.  Communal change for the better and improved societal ethical behavior starts with the individual -- I cannot expect or hope for others to be concerned about animal suffering if my own actions reflect disregard for the wellbeing of animals.

 

Abolitionist: None of the holy books declare anywhere that humans have to eat meat. Do you think that factory farming itself is an abomination against God?

Rabbi Adam Frank: You’re right. I can’t speak for other holy books. I can only speak for Jewish sources. At the biblical level, Jewish sources do not require us to eat meat, though animal sacrifice was required in the times of the ancients.  Built into the Jewish religion is the concept that we would use and even kill animals for some purpose. In Hebrew, the word for sacrifice – korban – literally means to draw closer or to “draw near”. Whether pagans or Jews, why would people sacrifice animals? Sacrifices were a vehicle to give up something of great value as a way of service to something greater.

 

Abolitionist: Couldn’t sacrifice also mean to sacrifice the human condition as now stands to submit to God?

Rabbi Adam Frank: The ideal in certain Christian beliefs is abstinence. Judaism embraces moderation not abstinence.  In Judaism, the ideal is to have a sexual relationship that occurs in the realm of the holy partnership of monogamous commitment. No action should go unchecked. The idea that we humans make sacrifices in our own personal lives for the greater good is certainly part of Jewish practice. In fact, that which distinguishes humans from other animals is our ability to make choices based on our reason, knowledge, sensitivities, and beliefs.

 

Abolitionist: In ‘Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals and the Call to Mercy” Matthew Scully is troubled about, “Kosher meats require the anaesthetized killing and blood-draining, with the kill pace exceeding hundreds of animals per hour, in plants mostly unsupervised by non-Jews”.  We asked Australian Jewish groups also about ‘kosher’ and they said it wasn’t happening. That they had done their own inspections and it just wasn’t happening due to stress and other things on the kill floor and they reported it was a dreadful way to be killed. By your education you have been impacted by the thought that the treatment of animals to fulfill human food desires is an appalling violation of Jewish law prohibiting the unnecessary infliction of pain on an animal. Can you further outline your thoughts here please?

Rabbi Adam Frank: Are you talking about AgriProcessors at the plant in Iowa? In late 2004, there was a video expose filming the operations in a kosher slaughterhouse in North America. In Australia, secular law requires that the animal remains upright during the killing process. The abuse that occurs in kosher slaughter has to do with the animal handling systems but not the actual killing method. E.g., how do you position the animal prior to the kill and how soon after the cut is the animal moved. As I said earlier, anything that humans touch is going to be corrupt, and for various reasons the system of shackling and hoisting an animal – of raising it upside down off the killing floor while still conscious – became a practice in kosher and non-kosher slaughter in the early 1900’s in America as a result of secular federal sanitary laws. In order to process the amount of kosher meat that is currently in demand there are animal handling systems similar to those described above  in use that fulfill the letter of Jewish slaughter laws but transgress the Jewish laws of animal welfare. Also, like any industry the bottom line is profits and this influences the systems by which meat is produced. So the idea is to produce the product as inexpensively as possible and that means an individual animal’s welfare is surrendered. This mentality occurs in kosher slaughter as it occurs in secular slaughter as it occurs in any industry where humans have contact with animals. I think it’s upon Jewish leadership to make a change.

 

Abolitionist: The late Henry Spira was an effective and gracious animal activist who was also Jewish. He said the animals live in “a universe of pain and suffering”. As we wake up every morning, day in and day out, how should we as vegans relieve some of that pain and suffering for animals day in and day out?

Rabbi Adam Frank: We need to get people to the stage where they recognize that there is terrible cruelty occurring and it’s unnecessary and that the industry norm is one which provides for that cruelty. I find the following example helpful:   While children, we believed the police were all good but as adults we realise that police can be corrupt and that the citizens best interests are not always at hand. We also have to realise with regard to the food industry that just because governments have anti-animal-cruelty laws, the laws and their lack of enforcement allow for an industry norm that is nothing short of torturous for animals. Every time we sit down to eat we have a choice. Judaism teaches that the one who gives charity is transformed more than the person who receives that charity – similarly, the decision I make to eat a non-dairy sherbet instead of ice cream is as much as about me as it is any animal that I’m trying to not cause pain to.

 

Abolitionist: As a Jewish Rabbi I would value your views on comparing the Holocaust to factory farming? Is this a shameful comparison to you and/or should this comparison best be left to the Jewish people to discuss?

Rabbi Adam Frank: I, as much as any other Jewish leader I know, have a sensitivity and a commitment to the well-being of animals. I am very offended by the comparison and there are several reasons why. I think humans should make a distinction between human life and animal life. The offensive part of the comparison is not that it elevates the value of an animal life but that it reduces the horror of what happened during the Holocaust.  The Holocaust was the attempted genocide of a people, a way of life, of a value system whose massacre had no benefit other than the extinction of the Jewish ‘other.’  The comparison discounts the psychological torture of daughters raped in front of parents, of newborns beheaded while in the hands of their mothers, of parents murdered in the presence of their children; it discounts the torment of losing all worldly possessions, security of being and the loss of faith in humankind. 

 

The truth is I don’t think it helps the cause. It draws a picture that animal rights people and animal welfare people are equating human life and animal life – a message so radical and foreign to normative human thinking that it allows the audience to dismiss the message which is the non-radical message of compassion to animals. 

 

Abolitionist: There’s also a movement happening in the world that denies the Holocaust, that wants to make the Holocaust an entertainment and what’s, through time and memory loss, to water down it’s significance in the 20^th century up until now – so there’s that danger as well.

Rabbi Adam Frank: I think the term “genocide” should be applied to humans and not animals.  Of the people who kill animals in the billions, the goal is not to extinguish the animals – to wipe them off the face of the earth – it’s not to de-animalise an animal as was the goal during the Holocaust to dehumanize the Jewish people. The goal is to provide meat and “comfort” to humans. The goal in genocide, specifically during the Holocaust during WWII was the elimination of Judaism and anybody connected to Judaism. The goal was to seek to get humanity to see Jews as animals, as vermin. Once the Nazis convinced people to think it was okay to treat Jews like animals then there was no reason not to put them into the conditions which the pictures from out of the Holocaust show. I don’t think the word ‘genocide’ is an appropriate word regarding animals unless it’s the genocide of trying to exterminate or extinguish one of the species.

 

Abolitionist: Three and a half years ago you attended your first animal rights conference and you have said this event was a wake-up call to you. What happened?

Rabbi Adam Frank: I learned the reality of the animal food industry of which I was previously unaware, and I interacted with people who were sensitive, caring, thoughtful humans who weren’t anti-establishment folks but who, like me, had simply seen the evidence and thought to themselves “we have got to try and stop this”. I could hear the message better at this animal rights conference because it wasn’t coming to me from out of anger or militism but from a sense of there are atrocities occurring here and let’s do something to repair it. I identified with the messenger which allowed me to hear the message which I might add was a non-radical message.

 

Abolitionist: How will the movement turn this thing around?

Rabbi Adam Frank: This is how we will do it. We’ll appeal to people’s reasoning. When I teach here in Jerusalem I start by saying “There are 6 million people here in Israel. Let’s say everyone here in Israel eats half a chicken a week. That’s 3 million chickens a week. That’s 150-160 million chickens a year. I ask is it possible to raise, to give veterinary care, to transport, to slaughter this sheer number of animals in any way we can ensure that we are being compassionate and appropriate?” This appeals to peoples’ reasoning. In America, 25 million animals are being killed each day – is logical to believe that the well-being of the animals are being cared for in an honest way? I teach:  “If you take a knife and stick it in the side of a cow, the cow is going to move away from the knife. The cow is going to yell, to bleed and to run away. If you cut into a cow’s leg or if you cut a tendon she’ll do the very same thing as what a human would do. Empirical evidence shows us that a cow can suffer. So we keep building the argument based on logic.

Abolitionist  So animals, while not having the same status as humans, have the right to be treated with compassion and dignity.  However, according to your religious views animal life is not equivalent to human life?

Rabbi Adam Frank: Correct.  I think it is important that we who are fighting for animal welfare and animal rights have an integrity that recognizes that we also live a life that benefits from earlier exploitation/use of animals.  Before the invention of fuel-driven machines, animals were absolutely necessary as partners in our work to produce and build essential elements for a society. And we should keep in mind that there is no such thing as living a no-impact life – rather, our goal is to lead a low-impact life regarding the suffering of animals and the destruction of the earth’s resources

 

Does Torah Intend to Protect Animals?

Part of a project of the Pardes Institute of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem -- video of me having chevrutah (paired learning) with Pardes Rosh Yeshiva Rav Daniel Landes.

In this learning session, I use traditional sources to show that Torah intends to protect animals.

[However, the Torah does not teach animal rights -- click here for more.]

 

How to be a better Husband (without the help of your Wife)

 

I just returned from a husband-only day and half retreat on the topic of "How to bring Gd and Spirituality into Your Marriage" under the guidance of AYEKA – Adult Education for the Soul.

 

Each of the 11 participants were special people; thoughtful, considerate, communicative, caring, willing to share, respectful.  And yet, not one person in the group was satisfied at the current health of his marriage.  

 

We were asked: "Who talks to others about his marriage?" – Only one person raised his hand.

 

We were asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 10 (best) the "Shalom Bayit" (Jewish expression for the serenity / happiness / contentment / peace / comfort between spouses) of our marriage and the average of our scores was a 5.  That's an F. 

 

At the end of the retreat, I felt invigorated and excited, hopeful and confident at the prospects of raising the health and joy of my marriage to new heights.   I've been home for 4 days; I've asked nothing new of my wife, and I already rate our state 2 points improved on the 1-10 scale. 

 

What happened at that retreat?  How can it be that my marriage improves when I left my wife at home on a Shabbat with our 3 small children?

 

All of the discussions we had began with studying Jewish texts and from these texts questions were raised and responses examined. 

 

Men, imagine the impact on your marriage if you never criticize or comment; where every interaction with your wife is seen as an opportunity to serve and to please Gd; where the health and serenity of your marriage has priority over EVERYTHING else; where your expectations for your wife are based on who she is and not who you want her to be.

 

None of the above has anything to do with changes in your wife – as our facilitator shared, the only thing one really has control over is his own attitude.

 

New York Times' Thomas Friedman is whacked

My lettter to NYTimes Editor in response to the following:

Reality Check

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: December 11, 2010

---

Thomas Friedman treats readers and world leaders like children as he consistently presents facile solutions to deeply profound and complex problems.  Most recently, he teaches readers that the lesson behind the Israeli and Palestinian refusal to accept U.S. help – and generous incentives –  in brokering a peace agreement is due to the arrogance and disconnection to reality of the regions' leaders (Reality Check 12/11/2010).  Perhaps the arrogance and disconnect belong to Friedman and others who cannot fathom that the reason the Israeli/Palestinian leaders do not enter into a peace-agreement-process is due to their understanding of the region and its populations; their assessment that there is not enough substantial trust between the inhabitants to stand behind an agreement at this time.  That is, a forced U.S. led peace agreement will be no more than paper and ink which is certain to fail and set back the chances for a sincere peace agreement in the foreseeable future.   Friedman's misread of the situation and, most importantly, his presentation as certainty of fact exhibits the very disconnect from reality that he readily attributes to others.

Do Animals have a Soul?

[This post was originally written for www.jewishvaluesonline.com]

 

As part of a forum of rabbis assigned to answer questions, I was tasked the following:

 

Do Jews believe dogs and cats have souls?

 

There is no doubt that Jews of all backgrounds and practices may believe that dogs and cats have souls; accordingly I would like to reframe the question and respond to the following: 

 

Does *normative Jewish thought support the idea that dogs and cats have souls?

 

The question assumes that 'soul' is a given, understood term and as such need not be defined; however, without clarifying its meaning any answer would be fallible.  For the sake of this response, 'soul' is understood as the Jewish concept of a non-corporal entity that consciously influences physical behavior toward either good (yetzer ha’tov) or bad (yetzer ha’rah).  Action which is only instinctual or learned while void of an ethical decision making process – e.g. sleep, hunger, thirst, reproduction, survival – is not a sign of the Jewish concept of 'soul.'

 

The Biblical verse that communicates the Jewish understanding of ‘soul’ is found in Proverbs 20:27 נר ה' נשמת אדם – Gd’s light is the human soul.  ‘Soul’ is that part of a person's constitution which manifests Gd’s image  – that part of us that **incorporates intellect, emotion, psychology, wisdom, experience, thoughtfulness, consideration, expectation, humor, loyalty, relations, consequence, ethics, morality and more as we attempt to interact with the world.  In other words, ‘soul’ is the Gd part of humans as expressed in thought and action.  As such, humans are capable of altruism and unselfish behavior for the sake of others even to our own detriment.  Much of human behavior is the result of calculated thought whereby we decide to act in our own best interests – dogs and cats and most all animals also act in their own best interest but their behavior is the result of an amoral decision making process.  Much of conscious human activity is action that can be classified as having moral overtones.   

 

There are certainly recorded incidents of animal behavior that goes against the natural instincts of seeking pleasure and avoiding pain.  Those instances are not the normative, recognizable behavior of animal species.  Whereas it is fair to claim that human understanding of animal behavior is limited by our imperfect ability to communicate with animals, it is also fair to claim that 'soul' is a term reserved to label a feature exclusive to humans. 

 

It is understandable that many people, Jews and non-Jews alike, want to attribute the personality and intellect of animals to the concept of soul.  There is no doubt in this author's mind that animals have a connection and relationship to Gd, have the capacity to be in friendship with others, and whose behavior is influenced by a decision process.  However, to label these characteristics as 'soul' is to misrepresent the Jewish understanding of soul.  

 

In closing, it would be incorrect to believe that if animals do not have a ‘soul’ they are merely ambulatory organisms not worthy of consideration or compassion.  Though Judaism does not place animals on the same plane as humans in terms of capacity to manifest the attributes of Gd, human treatment of sentient creatures is legislated by Jewish law.  Our tradition recognizes that animals with a perception and consciousness of pain and pleasure – physical and/or emotional – deserve the benefit of human employment of the very soul that would have us act responsibly, compassionately, and with humility toward these virtuous creatures with whom we share Gd’s world.

 

 

* This response does not incorporate kabbalistic/mystical Jewish teachings regarding animals.

 

** That someone may have a disability and is therefore not able to incorporate the attributes of Gd into her daily life does not mean that a soul is absent.  The soul certainly accompanies such a person throughout her lifetime, but the expression of the soul is stymied by the bio-physical limitations of the person.

Do you prefer secular or Ultra-Orthodox?

What are the chances that children will grow up to hold the exact same opinions as their parents?  Specifically, regarding religious observance the prospect that children will fall directly in line with the chosen observance levels of their parents is highly unlikely.  Ironically, the Jewish religious populations whose adherents are most likely to have offspring that are most similar to themselves are the Ultra-Orthodox (Heb. h_aredim) and the non-affiliated/secular (Heb. h_ilonim).

In light of the above, I recently asked my wife which she would prefer:  that upon reaching adulthood our children will be stricter than us in their observance levels of Jewish practice or less strict -- understanding that their moves could likely take them to the extremes of either side.  Lynne doesn't like to entertain such questions and so she turned the tables and asked me.  I'm someone who holds Jewish observance as a high priority, but I found myself acknowledging that perhaps my preference would be that our children be less observant to the point of becoming h_iloni rather than more observant to point of h_aredi. 

I surprised myself with my answer, but I must give an important caveat to my answer:  location. 

We live in Israel where a secular Jew speaks Hebrew fluently, can read the original script of the Torah as easily as reading a newspaper, knows the Jewish calendar by month and holiday, enters public buildings and stores that all have mezuzot on the doorposts, whose partner in life is 95+% likely to also be Jewish, serves in the Israeli Defense Forces, and has an intimate and mature relationship with the world's only Jewish state. 

Whereas the h_aredim in the Diaspora have built lives of strictures intent on keeping out the influence of non-Jewish culture and populations so as to preserve their Judaism, the choice of the h_aredim of Israel is to deliberately separate themselves from the rest of the Jewish people.  Rather than an ultra-Orthodox lifestyle being the vehicle by which one safeguards the ability to serve Gd through ritual as in the Diaspora, the h_aredim of Israel seem to cleave to religious strictures as a matter of proof of piety while sacrificing the unique offering of the State of Israel to safeguard the ability to serve Gd through ritual.  The h_aredim of Israel do not live a lifestyle that recognizes that Jewish education is a right of every citizen of Israel, rather, the h_aredim live a lifestyle that rejects, rather than interacts with, their Jewish brethren.

Were I living in the U.S., my choice would be simple:  let my children choose to be Ultra-Orthodox so as to maintain fidelity to tradition and stay amongst the chain of our peoples' history rather than disappear by way of assimilation.  Here in Israel, my simple choice is the opposite:  let my children stray from the path of religious practice while remaining relevant to the Jewish future.

Fruit from the Tree -- I hope!

My dad was recently featured in a Jerusalem Post article.  He was the only Jew on his team and was captain of the Vanderbilt University football squad of 1956 that defeated Auburn Univ. in the Gator Bowl (a big deal made bigger because there were only 5 bowl games a year in that era).

The link to view the article is below -- here was a follow up letter to the JPost editor that was printed a few days later:

Dear Jerusalem Post,

It was a thrill for me to read Rabbi David Geffen’s article about the superlative on-and-off-the-football-field exploits of my father (“Remember The Days?” 18.05.10). 

To this day I am approached by folks who grew up Jewish in the south and tell me stories of my dad’s iconic status as the Jew who never hesitated to ‘confront’ anti-Semitism and in the process restored the dignity of southern Jewry.  Many of these stories I hear for the first time as my father downplays them or does not remember them – of course, the witnesses to events often remember more than the participants.  There is one element of the article that needs elucidation – as a freshman my father did inform the Vanderbilt coaching staff that he would not play against the University of Georgia as it fell on Rosh Hashanah – the article did not mention the reason:  my grandmother would not let him.  Grandma did more than a few things right with her son.

 

Adam Frank
Jerusalem, Israel

Original article located: click here