Hamas' Useful Idiots

Although there is a widespread perception that Jews are clever, sometimes they can be extremely stupid.

Consider Hamas, and all the others who seek the destruction of the State of Israel (which necessarily includes the massacre of countless Jews). You'd think that Jews would make every effort not to assist them in this goal. And yet, there are countless Jews who unwittingly benefit their cause.

One such case is with Rabbi Yaron Reuven, a.k.a. "Hitler's rabbi." In one of his apocalyptic teshuva rants, he notoriously spoke about how Hitler had good reason to hate the Jews, who were corrupting German society. Now, as it happens, his claims about Jewish life in Germany and Nazi antisemitism are false. But even if it were to be true, as Reuven believes, what he doesn't seem to grasp or care about is that by producing such a YouTube video, he's not just stimulating Jews to improve their ways; he's also licensing antisemitism of massive proportions, with this video being shared and viewed by antisemites literally hundreds of thousands of times. 

Another case of this occurred during Operation Guardian of the Walls. A number of Jews (or as Natan Sharansky called them, un-Jews), scholars in academic Jewish studies, signed a public statement. They decided to condemn Israel for using "state violence" to try to stop Hamas from firing rockets. Of course, this is innately foolish in that they didn't actually present any explanation of how Israel is supposed to stop thousands of rockets without engaging in military action. But an additional layer of folly is that although at least some of them believed that they were equally condemning Israel and Hamas, the bottom line that they were clearly effectively strengthening Hamas. After all, their criticism of Hamas was only obliquely mentioned at the end of the second paragraph, where they referred to the rockets being "unjustifiable and indiscriminate," whereas their condemnation of Israel was touted explicitly and strongly in the very first sentence of the very first paragraph. They might not believe that they are out to strengthen Hamas and those who seek to destroy Israel, but that's unquestionably the effect of their actions.

The most recent case of useful idiots for those who seek to destroy Israel is, of course, the Ben & Jerry's affair. A number of Jews, sincere supporters of Israel, also quite reasonably believe that controlling Judea & Samaria, with its huge number of Palestinians that are not being accepted as citizens of Israel, is an enormous problem. Rather less reasonably, they also believe that Israel is primarily to blame for this, and that pressure on Israel will lead to a solution (of course, they never explain what this solution entails and how it would play out). And very foolishly, they do not realize that joining the Ben & Jerry's campaign has the effect of strengthening those who are trying to destroy Israel entirely.

It's all about the context. If you believe that Israel should be making greater efforts to achieve a withdrawal from the West Bank, then there are ways to fight for that; you could support Meretz or something like that. Joining a global effort led by, and supporting, those who wish to destroy Israel entirely is not the way to do it. The distinction between Israel and the West Bank might be very significant to you, but it is of absolutely trivial significance to the haters of Israel, the BDS activists who want to destroy the country, all of whom are welcoming the Ben & Jerry's decision.

The most blatant display of such folly is by none other than Ben and Jerry themselves. In an op-ed for the New York Times, Bennett Cohen and Jerry Greenfield declared that they are fully in favor of the action, and that there's clearly nothing antisemitic about opposing Israel's settlement policy in this way, because they are strong supporters of Israel. Apparently they know nothing at all about the director of the board of the company that they founded, who is opposed to Israel's very existence. While Cohen and Greenfield themselves state that they support the State of Israel, their company is not saying any such thing. The company did not put out a statement saying "We support Israel against those haters and activists who seek its destruction, but we do not support the control of Judea & Samaria."

The Haniyahs and Nasrallahs and Omars and Sarsours of this world must be laughing with incredulity when they see how well-meaning Jews latch on to efforts to destroy Israel, piping up with their little spiel about they oppose the '67 occupation and thinking that they are part of the same fight. When will these Jews wake up from their little bubble and see what their actions are doing in the larger context?

If you'd like to subscribe to this blog via email, use the form on the right of the page, or send me an email and I will add you. 

The BDS Error

There are mistakes being made by people at both ends of the political spectrum regarding the Ben & Jerry's action.

I saw a post from someone who seems to consider himself an enlightened liberal Zionist, declaring a Gotcha! on those who are opposed to B&J. The argument was as follows: If you consider the B&J withdrawal from Judea & Samaria to be BDS, the same as a withdrawal from Israel, then you're saying that Judea & Samaria are properly part of Israel - in which case you're admitting that there is apartheid, because the Palestinians can't vote!

It's a foolish argument, but some people are getting the reason wrong as to why it's a foolish argument. (And it's entirely separate from the fact that even if Israel was claiming that Judea & Samaria are part of Israel, the situation still wouldn't be one of apartheid; not every human rights inequality is apartheid.)

Judea & Samaria are historically part of the Jewish homeland (just like Lebanon is and Eilat isn't). But, contrary to what some people on the right claim, they are not part of the State of Israel. Israel has not annexed these areas, and Israeli law does not apply there. You're not allowed to keep a pet king cobra in Beit Shemesh, but you are allowed to keep one in Efrat, though I would most definitely not recommend it. 

This is basically obvious and agreed upon by everyone (at least, as soon as they give it thought). And so boycotting trade in Judea & Samaria is obviously not exactly the same as boycotting trade in Israel proper. (Technically speaking, it might not even be BDS. As my friend Rabbi Scott Kahn has pointed out, BDS refers specifically to boycotting Israel. If someone were to boycott trade in Jaffa, due to claiming that it was stolen from Palestinians, that might not be BDS.)

Nevertheless, although the B&J boycott of Judea & Samaria is not the same as a boycott of Israel proper, it must still be opposed and it is still wrong (and perhaps more insidiously so). Because (A) it comes from the people who want to boycott all Israel, (B) it is a precursor to a boycott of all Israel, and (C) it is wrong for the very same reason as boycotting Israel is wrong. 

Regarding point A, by now it is fairly well known that B&J wanted to actually boycott all Israel, and were only reined in by Unilever. The board is headed by Anuradha Mittal, who has posted over 100 anti-Israel tweets, including one describing the creation of Israel as a "catastrophe." This action was not about Israel pulling back to the 1948 borders.

Even more significant is point B. As Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein of the Simon Wiesenthal Center has written:

BDS is an irritant, a mostly failed attempt to harm Israel economically which has not put a dent in the growth, B”H, of the Israeli economy. The B&J/Unilever gambit is more dangerous. It takes a large, well-liked company with name recognition in practically every US family, and associates that good name with a finding that Israel is a huge human rights violator – perhaps the worst in the world. Making that horrific label stick, possibly in the minds of tens of millions of Americans, can indeed wreak havoc with Israel’s standing in the world community. If it goes unchallenged, it makes it that much easier to heap all the other epithets on Israel: apartheid, brutal, inhumane, Nazi-like. It would make it so much easier for the next business to do the same. And the next. And the one after. It will make it easier for school curricula (beyond the college campuses, which have been lost for years) to lump Israel together with the truly brutal regimes of the world. It can put every Jew on the defensive for being on the wrong side of history. The fact that a true corporate giant – Unilever – would not cry foul at this misstep will greatly solidify the impression that Zionists/Israelis/Jews are evil and expendable. 

And finally, the B&J boycott of trade in Judea & Samaria is wrong for the very same reason as boycotting Israel is wrong. It places all the blame on Israel for the creation and/or perpetuation of a situation which is at least as much the fault of the Palestinians, if not much more so (and which further disincentives them from seeking compromise). And it obsesses over a purported terrible crime against the Palestinians while ignoring vastly greater injustices elsewhere in the world, not to mention the far greater suffering caused to Palestinians by other regimes. The fact is that the vast majority of people only get fired up about Palestinian suffering if they can blame the Jews for it.

It's perfectly legitimate to be upset about various deficiencies in human rights suffered by Palestinians. It's perfectly legitimate (although possibly mistaken) to think that Israel made a huge mistake by not relinquishing control of Judea & Samaria. It's perfectly legitimate (albeit probably futile) to try to pressure the Israeli government as well as the Palestinian Authority to try to reach an agreement. But joining an antisemitic campaign is antisemitic.

If you'd like to subscribe to this blog via email, use the form on the right of the page, or send me an email and I will add you. 

This Is Amazing!

We just produced an amazing music video! Watch it on YouTube at this link, with the volume up!

I would like to ask something of the 95% of the readers of this blog who read it in order to benefit from it (as opposed to those who read it in order to hate it!). Please can you express your hakarat hatov by forwarding this video to several other people? Thank you! 

(Here, I'll make it super-easy for you, just copy and paste the following into an email/WhatsApp:)

Hi, check out this terrific music video, I really think that you'll enjoy it! https://youtu.be/zBFzJOZh_ag

 

Beneath the Hysteria around Ben & Jerry's

While hysteria erupts surrounding the Ben & Jerry's boycott of Judea & Samaria, some people are wondering if it's really so terrible. I've seen two types of questions/ points being made:

1) Plenty of Jews - liberal Zionists - object to the occupation. Some refuse to buy products made in the West Bank. Why should a non-Jewish company be any different?

2) The claim is often made that it's only antisemitic to oppose Israel, not any particular government policy. That claim is surely being undermined by blasting Ben & Jerry's as antisemitic, since they are not opposed to selling in Israel, only in the West Bank; they are not part of BDS.

Here's why these points are off-base - and why they are generally being made only by people who do not live in Israel. 

Yes, Israel is engaged in a form of occupation - although the Jewish People have a historical and moral claim to the land (since it was won in a defensive war), even the State of Israel itself does not consider Judea & Samaria to be Israel. This has various bad consequences. 

However, in fact you will find that the overwhelming majority of Jewish Israelis - including many of those that pushed for years for Israel to withdraw from the West Bank - do not believe that any form of boycott is appropriate. The reason is very simple. After the political events of the last twenty years, and the Gaza withdrawal and its consequences, most Israelis realized that no matter how bad the problems of the occupation, no matter how much they may want to leave the West Bank, there's simply currently no way out. 

What would people, such as the directors of Ben & Jerry's, actually have Israel do? Let's recall that Israel acquired the territories in a defensive war, fought against people who have repeatedly tried to wipe Israel off the map. Withdrawing from the territories under a negotiated peace agreement may sound ideal, but the reason why it hasn't happened has very little to do with Israel and a lot more to do with the Palestinians. Serious offers were repeatedly made by Israel and were rejected by the Palestinians. They're not actually even proposing anything or even willing to discuss it. And it's pretty clear that there is no Palestinian leadership that is interested in a final resolution (which is actually quite understandable, because they'd rather be a hero to their people for opposing Israel than get a bullet in the back for making compromises for peace). So why blame Israel for the situation?

The other alternative is for Israel to unilaterally withdraw. But this is likewise not viable. It wouldn't be long before there were rockets fired into Tel Aviv. And then Israel would be handicapped against defending itself, just as with the Gaza war, because the international community believes that Jews have no right to take the necessary military action required to prevent rockets from being fired. 

It's all very well to be upset about the situation and to fervently wish for peace. But at the moment, there's simply no way to make that happen. And it's wrong to place the blame at Israel's doorstep.

With regard to the second claim - that since Ben & Jerry's are only opposed to selling in the West Bank, then they shouldn't be described as anti-Israel/ antisemitic - the response is as follows. Although Ben & Jerry's should not be confused with Unilever (from which they have full independence in this aspect), the fact is that Ben & Jerry's have no problem doing business in countries whose moral challenges are far greater than those of Israel. 

Ben & Jerry's pulled out of Russia solely for financial reasons. They operate in the United Arab Emirates, which is an authoritarian state with no democratically elected institutions, no formal commitment to free speech, and in which there are systematic human rights violations, including the torture and forced disappearance of government critics. They have no objection to the Palestinian Authority, which is itself condemned by Amnesty for stifling free speech, torturing detainees with impunity, and various other abuses of human rights. And so when Ben & Jerry's singles out the Jewish State for boycott, then yes, this is anti-Israel and antisemitic.

(Note too that it was Unilever that said that they wish to stay operating in the rest of Israel; Ben & Jerry's itself then objected to that statement. The board of directors of Ben & Jerry's is led by Anuradha Mittal, a dedicated anti-Israel activist who has described the creation of Israel as a "catastrophe.")

On a lighter note: Since the Israel franchisee of Ben & Jerry's is losing his license as a result of refusing to cooperate with the boycott, I propose that he continue manufacturing ice cream under a different name, one that projects Israeli political strength; he could call it "Bennett & Ya'iry's"!

If you'd like to subscribe to this blog via email, use the form on the right of the page, or send me an email and I will add you. 

Do The Ends Justify The Means?

It's unfortunately very easy to get into the mood for Tisha B'Av this year. Aside from all the external threats to Israel and the Jewish People, and the rise and legitimization of antisemitism, there are also serious problems and dangers caused by Jews. There's the group of academic Judaic scholars who whitewash the threats posed by Hamas and others and condemn Israel's actions to defend its citizens. And here in Israel, the political internecine strife has reached disturbingly extreme levels. But before elaborating, I would like to first discuss the question of whether the ends justify the means.

Twenty-eight years ago, during a Yiddish shiur at my yeshiva gedolah in Manchester that I couldn't understand, the Rosh Yeshivah suddenly inserted the English phrase "the ends don't justify the means." This took me by surprise, because only the previous week it was parashas Toldos, in which Yaakov lies in order to get Eisav's brachos. I asked the Rosh Yeshivah about it and he explained that the means were not wrong, as Yaakov didn't lie; "truth" is whatever is the right thing to say, not whatever is accurate. Shortly afterwards I moved to a yeshivah in Israel, where the Rosh Yeshivah told me that of course Yaakov lied. He added that the ends do indeed justify the means, as we see from the principle that you can break Shabbos to save a life, and in the verse and principle Eis la'asos l'Hashem, heferu Torasecha.

This left me very perplexed. But after a lot of further thought and analysis, I realized that the entire concept is misleadingly phrased. It's more precise to phrase the question as "Does the attainment of high priorities justify overturning low priorities?" And the answer to that question is that in theory, absolutely, but in practice, it's often very difficult to implement, for several reasons.

First of all, if we're discussing mitzvot, then it's not necessarily obvious which things are a high priority and which are a low priority. As the Mishnah states, Be as careful with a lesser mitzvah as with a greater one, since we do not know the reward for each. How exactly does one weigh Shemirat Shabbat against Bein Adam LeChavero? 

Second, there could be all kinds of other priorities that one is not taking into account. In particular, the very act of overturning any priority is one with potentially very damaging consequences, because it has desensitized one to overturning priorities! Suppose one tells a lie for a noble purpose. This may sometimes indeed be  permissible and even obligatory, but it should not be overlooked that the cost is not a one-time act of dishonesty; it's a general weakening of one's commitment to the truth. This is not to say that it is necessarily wrong; it is just to stress that the cost-benefit analysis may not be as it first appears.

And then there's a third reason why it can be problematic to overturn low priorities for the sake of higher ones. Sometimes, achieving goals take on a significance which leads people to forget about the reasons why they were important to begin with. The pursuit of these goals leads to rationalizations in which a true evaluation of priorities gets shunted aside. This is something that is being tragically played out in Israel.

The Bibi Bloc, consisting of Likud, Smotrich's party and the charedim, proclaim that the Bennett-Lapid government is a "dangerous Leftist government which will harm Israel." They proclaimed that their single overriding goal to bring down the government. And because they defined "bringing down the government" rather than "protecting Israel's interests" as the goal, this became a way to rationalize causing all kinds of harm.

First, they voted against the Citizenship Law - the very law that Likud itself originally instituted for reasons of national security. They gleefully joined forces with the Arab Joint List to actively enable countless thousands of Palestinians to obtain Israeli citizenship (some of whom likely do so in order to make it easier to carry out terrorist attacks). For the sake of the goal of weakening a government that is harmful to national security, they harmed national security.

When I wrote about this a short while ago, some Bibi-fans claimed that this wasn't actually what happened; that the law which they opposed was a changed and harmful law. This happens not to be true. And another event last week proved beyond all doubt what is happening. 

When, God forbid, a woman is assaulted, any DNA from the attacker is held as evidence for three months, after which it is disposed of. The government proposed a bill to ensure that all samples would be stored permanently. This is particularly important because sometimes it can take a while for victims to summon the courage to come forwards. Such a bill is of obvious importance, and has absolutely no downside whatsoever. And yet it was voted against by all 51 members of the Bibi bloc.

There wasn't even any attempt to claim that there was any innate reason to vote against the bill. It was simply done because of a policy of opposing whatever the government proposes. In an interview, Likud MK Miki Zohar said “It is a pity that I had to oppose, it is a very important thing. But there is something more important than anything – that the State of Israel be led by people fit to do so.”

It is a tragic, insane situation. 51 MKs, representing right-wing and religious communities, vote against national security, against protecting women from rapists, all because it's more important to save Israel from a "dangerous" leadership! Is there no point at which it becomes apparent that the opposition are themselves the ones inflicting the actual harm?

(Sadly, this craziness is also beginning to affect the government coalition. In response to the Bibi bloc voting against government laws out of spite, some coalition members have decided to do the same to bills proposed by the opposition.)

There's nothing wrong with harshly criticizing and opposing those that you believe to be wrong, but it gets to a point where it becomes a matter of partisanship and tribalism rather than genuinely trying to fix society. Two thousand years ago, the Jewish State was destroyed because different groups of Jews were so obsessed with defeating other groups that they were driven to betray their own morality and harm their own cause. We need to put the brakes on this behavior.

 

If you'd like to subscribe to this blog via email, use the form on the right of the page, or send me an email and I will add you. 

It's Not A Sin

Reporting molesters to the police is not Mesirah. 

Exposing how some people are dangerous is not Lashon Hara. 

And criticizing harmful wrongs in a community is not Sinas Chinam.

Thorny Problems, Thorny Solutions

(Note to those who subscribe by email: We are still working out some kinks in the system; meanwhile, you might receive each post twice.)

And so it begins. The consequences for the charedim of not being in the government have started. Avigdor Lieberman has announced that government subsidies of daycare for families in which the mother is working but the father learns in kollel will end. They will only continue for families in which both parents are either working or enrolled in training/ education programs.

Is this a good idea? It's not clear. It's a very complicated matter, and I personally certainly don't understand all the aspects or ramifications (and I think that the same is true for many people who nevertheless have outspoken opinions). 

Of course the situation of mass kollel is wrong, against traditional Judaism, harmful to the charedi community, and dangerous to the entire country. It should be dismantled, not subsidized. And we're talking about 400 million shekels annually, which is a lot of money for the State to spend on something that is detrimental to national economic welfare. (Some have also raised concerns regarding where this money actually goes.)

But it's not entirely clear that stopping these subsidies at very short notice is the right way to change things. How are all these thousands of charedi men supposed to enter the job market at such short notice? On the other hand, if they can't find a job, then they can always look after the kids, instead of being in kollel. There's no reason why the State should pay for that.

Still, as I said, I do not know all the factors and ramifications. It might well be that Lieberman is doing something wrong, something foolish, or both. It could be like Lieberman's stated desire to immediately draft all the charedim into the army, which might also be wrong and is certainly foolish. It's true that the charedi exemption from military service is itself very wrong; as we just heard from the greatest Gadol B'Torah in history, there is no justification for an entire sector of the population to avoid sharing the burden of military service. But at the same time, it's also wrong to suddenly insist on drafting people who have always been allowed to be psychologically entirely unprepared for it, and it's foolish to think that it's actually practically feasible.

But one thing that I do know is this. Most of the charedim who are screaming about the evil of Lieberman's actions do not have a moral leg to stand on. It reminds me of when people in the Orthodox community were outraged at those who were reporting abuse to the press. If there's a problem that you're not fixing, you can't complain when other people try to fix it in ways that you don't like. 

The structure of charedi society, in which there is mass deliberate unemployment, very few professional careers, and very little secular education, is a terrible, disastrous, dangerous problem. For all the talk about how charedi society is changing, and the new programs and new schools, the fact is that these are a drop in the bucket; the change is not anywhere near broad enough or fast enough. 

Furthermore, most charedim - certainly the Gedolim and MKs - are not even trying to change the system! The only reason that anything at all is happening is that there is a rare situation of a government in which charedim are not members. And it's a situation which is unlikely to last for long. You can't really blame Lieberman for wanting to make changes while there is a rare chance to do so.

It can't be said enough times; as even Jonathan Rosenblum has acknowledged in Mishpacha magazine, the charedi community is driving the entire country towards economic ruin and consequent loss of national security. Together with their Likud partners, they were doing this unchecked for years. Given all this, I don't think that anyone is in a position to criticize those who are trying to change things while they can.

 

If you'd like to subscribe to this blog via email, use the form on the right of the page, or send me an email and I will add you. 

 

Sinat Chinam and Israeli Politics

It may seem strange that the Sages named sinat chinam, "baseless hatred," as the explanation for the destruction of the Second Beit HaMikdash. It relates to the story in which Bar Kamtza was mistakenly invited to a feast instead of Kamtza, and was thrown out when the mistake was realized. Bar Kamtza was so enraged against the community and its rabbis that he devised a plot to make Caesar believe that the Jews were revolting and would attack them. But the hatred there was not baseless at all. Bar Kamtza was forcibly removed from the party, undergoing great personal embarrassment, and had good reason to hate all those who were present and did not object!

In fact, this is a general problem with the liberal use of the term sinat chinam to castigate people. The people being castigated always respond that it's not baseless hatred, they have good reason for opposing others. And they may well be correct!

I've been bothered by this question for a while, but now I finally have an understanding of it. It's an answer which fortunately/ unfortunately puts me in the perfect frame of mind for the Three Weeks. And it's thanks to the actions of various Israeli politicians this week.

For those who don't know, the Family Reunification Law (also known as the Citizenship Law) was created by the Likud itself back in 2002. It blocks Palestinians who marry Israeli Arabs from receiving Israeli citizenship. The reason for it is that the offspring of Palestinians who acquired Israeli citizenship constitute about 15% of those involved in terrorism among Israeli Arabs - three times more than their relative share of the population. The law has to be renewed every year, and the current vote on renewing the law was submitted three months ago by none other than the Netanyahu government, which was still in power.

Now, although the Likud, Religious Zionist party and charedi parties are no longer in power, one would expect that they would still support this law (or at least not actively oppose it), since they themselves instituted it for reasons of national security. But because they lost power, they instead opposed the law, so as to try to undermine the Bennett/Lapid government!

This is so shocking to grasp that it is worthwhile spelling it out clearly. The Likud and its affiliates actively worked to do what they believe would harm national security!

The various justifications that they offered for this have ranged from the irrelevant to the insane. They said that they have a much better law to propose - but this one was perfectly adequate for them until now, and their stronger version wouldn't have been able to pass. They said that a government which cannot pass its own national security laws is not fit to be a government - but this is not a reason for the Likud and co. to oppose the interests of national security. They said that they need to topple the government - but the government did not topple as a result of their actions. They said that they need to expose the danger of the Bennett/Lapid government - but they themselves are the ones that created this danger! They said "Don't expect us to save you from the mess that you made with this coalition" - but nobody is expecting them to "save" the Bennett-Lapid coalition, they are expecting them not to vote against the interests of national security.

In short, they did something which according to their own beliefs, harms national security. It had no benefit other than giving them an opportunity to "stick it" to Naftali Bennett. But that was a sufficiently delicious prize for them, so that they could cheer afterwards - along with Achmad Tibi and other Arab haters of Israel who couldn't believe their good fortune.

This is what happened with Bar Kamtza. He even had very good reasons to hate the community which stood by and allowed him to be shamed. But he had nothing to gain by riling up the Romans against them. Bar Kamtza himself also surely suffered, and was possibly killed, when the Romans attacked. But he didn't care about that; he was so blinded by his hatred that he was willing to cause harm to his own interests, as long as he was able to harm those that he hated. 

This was the sinat chinam that destroyed the Bet HaMikdash. The extent of the infighting among the Jewish people that took place was unbelievable. The various factions of Jews were so intent on scoring points over each other that they were willing to harm their own national cause in order to do so. The factions fought vigorously over the control of Jerusalem, trying to destroy each other's grain stores in order to starve each other into submission. By the time that the Romans finally attacked, the Jews had already lost all their food reserves and had been severely weakened. The Jews did the Romans' job for them!

Sinat chinam does not mean "baseless hatred." The "nothing" which is the translation of the word chinam does not refer to a lack of cause for the hatred. It refers to a lack of gain for it. It's hatred which is so severe that it is exercised even when it gains nothing. Sinat chinam is when it's so important to score points over the other side that you do so even at cost to your own cause. 

Sinat chinam demonstrates that tribalism has taken hold out of all proportion. It's a problem which has become exacerbated over the last few years. This week, we saw one negative result. Let us hope that people have the sense to rein themselves in before the consequences become any more dire.

If you'd like to subscribe to this blog via email, use the form on the right of the page, or send me an email and I will add you. 

An Important Message for Email Subscribers

If you subscribe to Rationalist Judaism via email, you will have received a rather odd-looking message from FollowIt, which read as follows:

You receive this email because the publisher of the feed Rationalistjudaism imported you to this list, claiming that you were already subscribed to this content in other ways previously. Please confirm this is correct and you want to receive this content by clicking here, or decline if you don't want to receive it. 

The reason for this message is that the service which sends out blog posts via email is stopping any day now. We had to find a replacement service, and we chose FollowIt. You must click on the confirmation link in the email that you received in order to continue receiving the blog posts. If you accidentally clicked Decline, then you must re-subscribe, using the new form on the right-hand side at www.RationalistJudaism.com.

The new mailing service included various advertisements at the end, some of which may have been unsavory. We are upgrading to the paid version of this service in order to remove these advertisements. 

If you'd like to help offset the costs of this blog, and show your appreciation for the material, please make a donation to The Biblical Museum of Natural History at this link!

Snakes Alive!

It's been a momentous time at the Biblical Museum of Natural History. Our most prominent live exhibits are undoubtedly our enormous Burmese pythons, Cuddles and Shayna. Two months ago, Shayna delighted us by laying 38 huge eggs. We removed them for incubation, and this week they started to hatch! 

It's truly incredible to follow the process. We had slit open some of the eggs last week to check on their development (it doesn't harm them at all), and we could see the embryos moving around. Some of them popped out this week through the slits that we had made, but the ones in the eggs that we hadn't touched made their own way out. Using a tiny "egg tooth" on their snout, they would make a number of slits in the leathery shell. Then they would poke their heads out for a while, and withdraw back in for a while. Finally, they would emerge completely, measuring a little under two feet in length.

Such an event calls for a celebration. And so this Friday we are hosting a kiddush! See the details below. Im yirtze Hashem by you!