Should intermarriage be viewed as a type of kiruv?

update: Regarding Eddie's recent comment that proselytising should be viewed as kiruv - this article presents a related viewed that intermarriage should be viewed a kiruv. Accepting intermarriage is viewed as holding on to Jews who would normally either leave the community or be driven away. I also means holding on to the 25% of their children who identify as Jews. Holding on to Jews who would otherwise be lost is called kiruv!

update     Head of Reform movement - intermarriage and kiruv

Forward  [...] Reform rabbis in particular receive no clear guidance on this issue from their denominational leaders. The decision of whether to officiate interfaith marriages is left to the clergy themselves and to their understanding of Jewish theology, of the right path for American Judaism and primarily of the needs of their own community. For some, like Zemel, coming out in support of marriage of Jewish and non-Jewish couples took the form of a letter to the community. Others took to the pulpit during prime-time High Holy Days sermons to explain their move.

“After long and deliberate consideration, I have reached this decision: Going forward, when a Jew and a non-Jew in our community here at Temple Israel come to me and state that both partners are willing to commit to a Jewish future, Jewish education for their children and the creation of a Jewish home, I will officiate happily at their chuppah,” Rabbi John Rosove stated in his 2012 Rosh Hashanah sermon at Los Angeles’s Temple Israel of Hollywood.

The stakes for Ponet were probably higher than for others. His decision in July 2010 to perform the wedding of Chelsea Clinton and Marc Mezvinsky made him the rabbinic public face of interfaith marriages. “I outed myself,” he said, “and I knew it would impact the dialogue.”

Reaction to the high-profile celebrity interfaith wedding was mixed. Many expressed their support, while others saw it as a “terrible betrayal,” he recounted. Looking back, Ponet believes that performing the wedding was the right move, and that sticking to old beliefs about intermarriage contradicts the rabbinical mission of attending to the Jewish needs of Jewish people. “We were neglecting Jewish individuals for the sake of some theory of demography,” he said.

The demographic predictions that Ponet and others refer to are based primarily on studies showing that intermarriage is a key indicator for the loss of Jewish identity in the second generation. The recent survey by the Pew Research Center does find an increase in Jewish identity among individuals born to interfaith families in recent years, thanks, presumably, to a greater effort on behalf of the Jewish community to welcome intermarried families. But the numbers still show a significant difference between Jewish identification and behavior of in-married and out-married families.

“I know the statistics that only 25% of children of intermarried families will identify as Jewish, but I want to keep these 25% in our community,” Rosove said.

The Reform movement, America’s largest Jewish denomination, has become increasingly tolerant of rabbis officiating interfaith weddings. Though the movement does not have a clear policy on the issue, it is estimated that half of the 2,000 members of its rabbinic arm, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, now perform marriages between Jews and non-Jews.

But in Conservative Judaism, American Jewry’s other major liberal religious stream, rabbis struggling with this issue face a more complicated situation. The movement maintains an absolute prohibition against rabbis conducting interfaith ceremonies — or even attending such a ceremony. Violators of this ban are subject to being thrown out of the Rabbinical Assembly, Conservative Judaism’s rabbinic organization. [...]

Oporto Community of Portugal objects to activities of Michael Freund/Shavei Israel

Dear Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn,

Shalom.

We would like to present the following situation.

1 – Ecumenism is being used by Shavei Israel as a weapon in favour of its proselytizing objectives.

2 – In February, Michael Freund intends to go to London with priest Agostinho Jardim Moreira to speak with "great rabbis", including the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth. Having no credibility whatsoever amongst Jewish religious circles, Freund will face difficulty in talking to them. However, if he asks us, we ourselves will request those meetings for him.

3 – What does Freund want to speak about with "great rabbis"? Ask if the proselytism is allowed? Ask if the conversions of false Marranos he supported in Portugal are valid? Ask whether the falsification of news and documents is acceptable? NO. He just wants to go to London and abstractly speak of "ecumenism and interreligious dialogue", but in our opinion this is nothing bet a trap for the unwary rabbis who have the misfortune of receiving him, because, in the following days, false news will be published on the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, on the Arutz Sheva, etc., saying "Great London rabbis support the priest’s project", "The Jewish Community of Oporto is isolated", etc.

4 – The Jewish Community of Oporto is not against ecumenism, but rather against Shavei Israel proselytism and against the projects of this organization in Oporto. This organization was expelled from our community by Jews who have lived  in Oporto for over 50 years and by a Religious Committee of shomer mitzvot Jews. Now it is again seeking to have headquarters in this city  for its proselytizing activities, joining the Priest's project.

 

5 – The Shavei Israel proselytizing philosophy is subversive both to Judaism and to Christianity because there would be no Christians left in Portugal if Shavei Israel converted all Jews’ descendants in the country. Scholars believe that almost all Portuguese citizens are descendants of Jews.

6 – The trip to London is a continuation of a move that Freund tried in Oporto a few weeks ago, to break, by force, the resistance of the Jewish Community of Oporto to the project of a Jewish Memory Interpretation Centre run by a priest and Shavei Israel. Shavei Israel led the priest to arrange an "Interreligious meeting" in order to make the public presentation of the project and the meeting was scheduled for January 14, 2014, with the convening of the Portuguese press and other Jewish communities from Portugal, fact that was immediately reported in the newspapers. Of course the Jewish communities were invited to the "Interreligious meeting" without knowing that the Jewish Community of Oporto opposed the Interpretation Centre project, that is to say, they were deceived and instrumentalized to unwittingly play the role opposing the Jewish Community of Oporto.

7 – It seemed impossible to stop Shavei Israel's plan, but the strong public opposition of the Jewish Community of Oporto made the Church intervene and the "interreligious meeting" to be cancelled. Too bad for Shavei Israel. 

8 – When Shavei Israel saw its plan had failed, at once started pressuring the priest to write letters to the rabbis who are friends of the Pope, complaining about the rabbi of the Jewish Community of Oporto. The priest resisted, as he has already understood something is not right. The priest is a victim of Shavei Israel and he will have many difficulties in setting free in the future.

9 – The Jewish Community of Oporto has given Shavei Israel many proofs of benevolence, handling this issue only within the Jewish institutions. The situation will change if Shavei Israel insists on bringing the issue in the public square. We will have access to the foreign media we want and even if members who do not want protagonism (because they do not like being buffoons) have to speak publicly, they will do it in the press and wherever necessary, dismantling all the scams and demanding legal pursuit of those who have prevaricated. One must put an end to such huge, repeated evils.

10 – The Shamash and security man of the Oporto Synagogue has long written the Rabbi of Shavei Israel explaining in detail what happened with fake Marranos converted with the support of such organization. There was obviously no response. Maybe it will soon be necessary for us to publish these significant explanations and other documents in the Daas Torah. It will be disappointing to unwary benefactors who give Shavei Israel money to find “lost Jews” in Portugal.

We invite Freund, on his journey to London, to visit the Beis Din and say what he wants. We will be there waiting for him and we will use the opportunity to discuss the validity of many of the conversions supported by Shavei Israel (as for as the rabbis believe that people supported by Shavei Israel are "lost Jews", therefore the conversions are done almost automatically), including the conversion one of his converted rabbis, a former evangelic priest.

Rabbi Daniel Litvak

Religious Committee

Board of Directors

Shalom Bayis: There is no such thing as constructive criticism by Allan Katz

Guest post by Allan Katz      There is no such thing as constructive criticism – it is criticism and destructive to shalom bayis as various experts have said. Instead why not engage in CPS – collaborative problem solving and work on a mutually satisfying solution. The process is not easy , but we can avoid the following mistakes -  don't try to solve problems in the heat of the moment, talk about concerns and  problems – not behaviors . Once we have a clear understanding of the concerns of both parties, only then we can talk about solutions. 

CPS - Collaborative problem solving between spouses 

The following comment by Terisa Atkins made me appreciate how valuable a tool CPS – collaborative problem solving is for families – not only for solving problems between parents and kids and of course between kids themselves but also important for the marriage relationship. So raising kids with CPS, prepares them for life and especially for marriage.

'All too often, women think that talking to our husbands is the way to make them see how their behavior affects us. If the behavior doesn't change when we first bring it up, we want to talk more, longer, or louder because we think maybe they didn't get it the first time. One of the biggest pet peeves for men is that feeling of being nagged or badgered, especially if they don't know what the problem really is. Also, the rules of polite, kind, nice conversation that women try to follow often come off as indirect, manipulative and mysterious to men. Women often conclude that their husbands don't care because they haven't changed after a particular conversation.

What really amazed me was that same lack of skills that parents display when trying to solve problems with kids is evident when trying to solve a problem with a spouse. The husband is coming out of the conversation not really knowing what the problem really is and the woman comes off as indirect and mysterious.

This is because the woman has difficulty in articulating the problem and her concerns and in most cases is being too general and vague. She may be talking about behaviors which can be happening in many different situations and  contexts, such as 'not helping' and with this type of ' clumping '  of problems together , the man does not have a clue what the woman is saying. When the problem is too general and vague the man will have difficulty in responding in an effective manner. The response will be defensive and vague. Problems can only be solved when they are defined, are very specific and in detail.

Before I share in a real problem in the home, here are some tips to help one be more successful problem solvers. CPS is a skill and needs practice. click here for rest of post

Hungarian Neo Nazis leader becomes frum Jew

סיפורו של המנהיג הניאו נאצי שחזר בתשובה from COLlive.com on Vimeo.

Dr. John Gottman: Marriage counseling often destroys the marriage

(Continuation of the thread that divorce is used to often as a solution for a bad marriage - which can typically be saved if the couple has more realistic information about the nature of marriage and what to expect.)
see also Esther Perel

Couples are often advised to go to marital counselling by rabbis/rebbetzins and friends. The assumption being that a popular therapist [or wise rabbi or rebbetzin] will be the best way to save the marriage - if there is what to save. If the therapist can't help then it is assumed that divorce is the only solution.

Dr. John Gottman takes a approach that is different and makes a lot of sense - and often works. 

  Wikipedia

Gottman found that the four negative behaviors that most predict divorce are criticism of partners’ personality, contempt (from a position of superiority), defensiveness, and stonewalling, or emotional withdrawal from interaction. On the other hand, stable couples handle conflicts in gentle, positive ways, and are supportive of each other.^[5]

He developed the Gottman Method Couple’s Therapy based on his research findings. The therapy aims to increase respect, affection, and closeness, break through and resolve conflict, generate greater understandings, and to keep conflict discussions calm.^[6] The Gottman Method seeks to help couples build happy and stable marriages.

 The following is one of the reviews of his books.

=========================

Amazon Review  I practiced psychotherapy in New York City for fourteen years. Though I had training as a marriage counselor in addition to my main training as a psychotherapist, I turned away more couples than I accepted. Most years, I didn't take on more than one or two couples, if that. 

There were many reasons for this, but fundamentally it was that marriage counseling rarely works. (About thirty-five to forty percent of the time, and half of those relapse, according to the best research.) I had made a vow when I went into training that I would never take on patients that I did not honestly believe I could help. (I can't say that I kept that vow sterling, being human--but I tried.) Most couples, I believed, could not be helped, so I didn't want to take their money or waste their time. 

In hard, cold truth, most of what most marriage counselors teach is just made up. Concocted. Without any sound research base. That's just a fact. When I was in training, I was utterly shocked at this. I was appalled at the simple-minded dogmatism of marriage-counseling orthodoxy. 

Most mental health care has a flimsier basis in research than its proponents admit (or even know, often), but in marriage counseling, the paucity of good research was almost total. (This evaluation of the low scientific basis of mental health care is not some private crackpot theory of mine; I wrote it up in my book "Cultures of Healing," which was published by the book-publishing arm of Scientific American in 1995 and will be republished, under a different title--"Health and Suffering in America: The Context and Content of Mental Health Care"--next year by Transaction Publishers/Rutgers. My point here is not to plug my book so much as to tell you that I know whereof I speak, and to encourage you to take my recommendation here seriously.) 

If I had known John Gottman's work back then, I would have had an entirely different approach to treating couples, and I would have taken more of them on. (No one in my three years of training ever mentioned Gottman, and I went to a pretty respectable institute. Gottman is just so at odds with conventional wisdom in the field that he wasn't even taken seriously.) 

Gottman's opinions--though he denies that they are opinions--are based on admirable, extensive, carefully analyzed research. While there is much to criticize methodologically about this research, and it certainly is nowhere near as conclusive as he says, at least he has done real work--not sat around making stuff up and pawning it off on students and patients. His is the best research of which I (now, many years later) know. Even if it isn't knock-down-drag-out conclusive, it is much better to have opinions based on extensive research and attempts to understand it rigorously than on no research, wild speculation, wishful thinking, and wooly feelings. Gotttman's opinions are very good, for the most part. 

This book does a nice job of conveying the gist of his work, in clear, practical form. 

In my experience, most marriage counselors do more harm than good and teach more made-up nonsense that practical wisdom. So unless you can find someone who trained with Gottman, I'd say DON'T go to a marriage counselor--buy this book.[...]

$680 Million sex abuse suit against Yeshiva University is thrown out

NY Daily News     The $680 million sexual-abuse lawsuit brought forth by 34 former Yeshiva University prep school students against the Washington Heights institution has been tossed out.

Manhattan Federal Judge John Koeltl ruled Thursday the claims in the lawsuit are barred by statutes of limitation because the alleged abuse by Yeshiva University High School staff occurred decades ago. The decision infuriated the plaintiffs, who plan to appeal. [...]

The state statute for negligence is three years from the time of injury and Koeltl applied the same limit to the sexual-harassment claim the plaintiffs brought under federal law. [...]

Yeshiva University is “gratified that the federal court recognized the validity of our arguments,” the school said.

Rogatchover on the validity of a forced get Rambam 2:20

Hebrew Books

The following was sent to me regarding the issue of a forced get. The item of interest is in the right column and it is the end of a discussion from the previous page.

Rabbi Safran: Broken Marriage Must Divorce - Rebuttal by Rav Dovid Eidensohn

   Rabbi Safran Broken Marriage Must Divorce  - rebuttal

See Rabbi Safran's article

Esther Perel: The secret to desire in a long-term relationship

FOR MATURE AUDIENCE ONLY.see also Dr. John Gottman

This talk addresses one of the major reasons for divorce today - including the Charedi community. The husband or wife feels that they do not have a satisfying relationship and are sure that they can get it with someone else. What they need is not a new spouse but rather to understand the dynamic of relationships.

Yeshivat Chovevei Torah sponsors: Exploring New Halachic Solutions to the Agunot Crisis

Considering the sponsor I found it important to note that ORA's Rabbi Stern is a featured speaker. Obviously my posting should not be considered an endorsement of the conference, its speakers or the proposed solutions.

Yom Iyun: Exploring New Halachic Solutions to the Agunot Crisis

Sponsored by Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbinical School

Beginning February 01st, Ending February 02nd

Special_Event - Daily

Time - 9:30am till 11:40am

Location - OSTNS

Mark your calendars! Ohev Sholom will be hosting a significant Yom Iyun on Sunday, February 2. The speakers will be Rabbi David Bigman of Yeshivat Maale Gilboa in Israel, Rabbi Dov Linzer, Rosh Yeshiva and Dean of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbinical School, and Yaakov Roth of Jones Day. Our speakers will share their experiences working to help agunot, and present new solutions to the crisis plaguing the international Jewish community.

We will also have a Shabbaton that Shabbat, February 1, with Rabbi Jeremy Stern, who is the Executive Director of the Organization for the Resolution of Agunot. Rabbi Stern will give the Dvar Torah on Shabbat morning, on "Hearing the Cry: The Role of the Community in Combating Abuse," and give a shiur during Seuda Shelishit, titled "Breaking the Chain: A Roadmap to Resolving the Agunah Crisis."

Schedule9:15 AM Bagel Breakfast9:30 - 10:15 AM Rabbi David Bigman10:20 - 11:05 AM Rabbi Dov Linzer11:10 - 11:40 AM Yaakov Roth

About our SpeakersRABBI DAVID BIGMAN
"Getting Out Without the Get: New Halachic Frontiers in Addressing the Agunah Crisis"
Rav David Bigman moved from suburban Detroit, Michigan to Israel to work the land in the spirit of the Zionist pioneers and to make it his home. Soon after his arrival, the leadership of the Religious Kibbutz movement took note of his prodigious knowledge, his open-mind, and his moral sensitivity and appointed him to head the movement's most important educational institutions. Rav Bigman was a founder of Midreshet Ein Hanatziv (one of Israel's first women's yeshivot), Rosh Yeshiva at Ein Tzurim, and for the last 17 years has served as Rosh Yeshiva at Ma'ale Gilboa. The combination of his classical Talmudic training as a student of Rav Israel Zev Gustman and Rav Aryeh Leib Bakst with Rav Bigman's intellectual curiosity and breadth makes for a fascinating approach to Torah study. In Rav Bigman's Beit Midrash, Rav Nachman of Bratzlav, Yishayau Leibowitz, Martin Luther King Junior and David Grossman -- to name just a few -- are all in dialogue. The creativity and innovation of Rav Bigman's teaching has drawn hundreds of students searching for a sophisticated and intellectually honest path in Torah. Rav Bigman currently resides on Kibbutz Maale Gilboa with his wife Ariella and family.

RABBI DOV LINZER
"The Threefold Cord is Not Easily Broken: Bringing the Proposed Solutions Together"
Rabbi Dov Linzer is the Rosh HaYeshiva and Dean of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbinical School, a groundbreaking Orthodox smicha program. Rabbi Linzer spearheaded the development of YCT to create an innovative four year smicha program which provides its students with rigorous Talmud Torah and halakhic study and sophisticated professional training in the context of a religious atmosphere which cultivates openness and inclusiveness.
Rabbi Linzer has published Halakha and machshava articles in Torah journals and lectures widely at synagogues and conferences on topics relating to Halakha, Orthodoxy, and modernity. Rabbi Linzer writes a weekly parasha sheet, and teaches a Daf Yomi shiur which is widely watched and listened to on YouTube and iTunes. He is most recently the awardee of the prestigious Avi Chai Fellowship and was the convener of the 2012 Modern Orthodox Siyyum HaShas.

YAAKOV ROTH
"Agunot and the Role of Secular Courts"
Yaakov Roth graduated summa cum laude from Harvard Law School in 2007, and subsequently clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court. He is currently an Associate in the Issues & Appeals group at Jones Day, where he has worked on a number of matters relating to religious freedom and the First Amendment, including a pending challenge to New York City's regulation of ritual circumcision and an appeal on behalf of Kentucky prisoners seeking to exercise religious liberties. He and his wife, Arielle, are members of Ohev Sholom.

RABBI JEREMY STERN
(Shabbaton Speaker)
Rabbi Jeremy Stern serves as the Executive Director of the Organization for the Resolution of Agunot (ORA), an international nonprofit organization which advocates against the abuse of the get (Jewish divorce) process. Rabbi Stern received a B.A., a Master's in Jewish Education, and rabbinic ordination from Yeshiva University, and a Master's in Public Administration specializing in Nonprofit Administration from Baruch College. With ORA, Rabbi Stern has been instrumental in resolving over 100 contentious Jewish divorce cases and in leading community-wide initiatives to assist women who are victims of get-refusal. Rabbi Stern lectures frequently on issues of domestic abuse, the interplay between the Jewish and American legal systems, and the role of the Jewish community in preventing and counteracting get-refusal.

Shidduchim: Does a victim of incestual rape need to reveal it?

This question has been raised a number of times. Thought it would be helpful to indicate my understanding of how this should be handled.

The description is not of a particular individual - but this is a description of a not uncommonly encountered problem - especially in large families where parents are too busy to properly supervise.

Question: A 19 year old woman had been raped by her teen-age brother for a number of years before she was 12. Her parents were never willing to acknowledge that their son – who is now married and doing well in kollel - had a long term incestuous relationship with their daughter. Therefore even though they did send her to a therapist because of the severe psychological problems that resulted – she feels betrayed not only by her brother but by her parents and other authority figures. However she feels that she has gotten passed her brother's abuse and she says that she understands her parent's failure to acknowledge what was happening and lack of emotional support and forgives them.

She is now involved in shidduchim – and wants to know whether she needs to say anything about the rape?

Answer: 1) If there was penetration she cannot marry a Cohen 2) If the therapist feels that there will be minimal impact on marriage and relationship to her husband and if she will never reveal the information and it won't come from other sources – Rav Triebitz said that she does not have to say anything. Rav Sternbuch, however, indicated that it is unlikely that the information will remain a secret and therefore she should say something before marriage. 3) On the other hand if a competent therapist thinks that her abuse will have an impact on marriage – she should not keep it a secret and she needs to reveal it before marriage. 4) She should not say anything unless it seems that the relationship is becoming serious (as noted below from Igros Moshe). Rav Moshe Feinstein's view is that for serious matters that would probably destroy the shidduch - if there is no direct question, there is no need to volunteer the information before marriage. However the future spouse needs to be informed prior to marriage – even though Rav Moshe Feinstein allows waiting until after engagement. 5) Regarding the kesuba – if she is a baal teshuva then there is no need to inform the chasan that she is not a besulah. However if he assumes that she is a besulah than Rav Sternbuch said she needs to inform him – but does not need to give the reason. If the chasan is aware that she is not a besula it is still permitted to write in the kesuba that she is (see the following Igros Moshe).

שו"ת אגרות משה אורח חיים חלק ד סימן קיח

ובדבר אם צריכה את להגיד להבחור שירצה לישא אותך לאשה, ודאי את צריכה לגלות לו, אבל אינך צריכה להגיד לו בראיה והכרה דפעם ראשונה שעדיין לא ידוע אם ירצה בכלל השידוך וממילא אסור אז להגיד לו, ורק אחרי שתדעי שרוצה לישא אותך בברור שכבר אמר לך ודבר בדבר הנישואין, צריכה את לומר רק בזה שנזדמן איזה פעם בשעה שלא היה לך כובד ראש כל כך לעמוד נגד המפתה בדברי רצוי ופתוי הרבה ותיכף נתחרטת ומצטערת על זה שאירע דבר כזה עד שיכיר מדבריך שאין לו לחוש שיארע גם כשתהא נשואה לו, ואז מאחר שהוא רוצה בך מפני שהכיר המעלות שלך לא יחזור בו בשביל זה שאירע איזה פעם מאחר שיכיר אותך לנערה שומרת תורה ומצותיה שיש להאמין שלא חשודה את שוב בזה ותהי' אשה מסורה לבעלה כדין התורה.

בדבר כתיבת הכתובה אין צורך להגיד למסדר הקידושין, כי מאחר שהחתן יחתום על הכתובה הרי הסכים לכתובת בתולה ושוב ליכא קפידא ומחוייב בכתובת בתולה אף אם באמת אינה בתולה אם לא הטעתה אותו, מאחר דרצה להתחייב בכתובת בתולה לא גרע מתוספת כתובה, וכשניסת להבועל עצמו יותר נכון לכתוב כתובת בתולה ולכתוב בתולתא והטעם מבואר בתשובותי באגרות משה חלק אה"ע סימן ק"א ויפה עשה הרב ההוא, אך גם בבעולה מאחר אם נבעלה מישראל כשר שכשרה לכהונה שאינו נוגע לענין איסור אלא לענין סך הממון אם החתן יודע ורוצה בכתובת בתולה יכולים לכתוב כתובת בתולה, וממילא אין לגלות זה להמסדר קידושין ולא לשום אדם כדכתבתי לעיל.

Did Hamodia err by writing "Ariel Sharon z"l " ?

Cross-Currents   by Rav Yitzchok Adlerstein

Whoever the “Letters” editor of Hamodia may be, I prefer to think that he/she is more clever than obtuse. It is the only way I could understand the reaction to a reader other than wimpy silliness.

The reader took offense at some reference in the paper’s coverage of the passing of Ariel Sharon. Apparently, the article’s author lost all of his religious bearings, and made reference to the former Prime Minister as z”l – of blessed memory. 

What could this author have been thinking? We know that Sharon made no pretense of halachic observance. If he was not frum, there should be no reason why we should find any berachah in his remembrance at all! Therefore, the reader took Hamodia to task: “Even though the writer attempts to describe him as a very proud Jew, it seems to be quite irrelevant when the proud one is actually not practicing what he’s proud of. Hamodia, being an orthodox paper with Torah values should of (sic) not honoured an unorthodox person with this title.”

The reader has a point. When Sharon ignored orders and led his troops across the Suez Canal within striking distance of Cairo, thereby singlehandedly turning the course of the Yom Kippur War back in favor of Israel, he could not have been acting as a proud Jew. Chances are, he was just in the mood for some treif pizza, and Cairo seemed like a good place to pick it up. 

When he saved the life of a young soldier whom others had given up as too seriously wounded to warrant further care, there could not have been any Jewish pride in that. Probably, he wasn’t thinking at all, which we know to be the way all non-observant Jews live their silly and useless lives. (The soldier later became a rav and a leader of the settler movement. It may have been R. Yoel ben Nun, who took strong issue with Sharon in later years, but remained grateful to him for saving his life. Our audience can corroborate or correct this.) ....

As for me, I will continue to find blessing in the memory of even the poshei Yisrael of a previous generation who devoted their lives to creating the Jewish State.