Meating (and disagreeing) minds

One of the nice things about writing a column such as this is receiving feedback. Last issue’s column on Agriprocessors is an example. Below are two responses, one from a Christian reader, the other from a Jewish one:

“Loved your ‘Ethical Table’ article … I believe your points about ethical struggles and the tension between righteousness and recklessness can be applied in a variety of situations. Thanks for sharing your valuable insights.”

The second is less complimentary:

“After reading your recent article in the Jewish Voice & Herald, I was wondering what you would wear to work when school started. Since most of the clothes we buy are made
overseas in sweatshops where people earn a minimum amount, should we be buying and wearing these clothes? I challenge you to find clothing made in the United States by workers earning a fair wage. In protest maybe you should go to Roger Williams in the nude.

“I'm not saying the owner's of Agriprocessors are mensches. But from what I have read they are cleaning up their act and trying to do the right thing. They are hiring workers at better wages and improving the working conditions. They are to be commended for that, not boycotted.

What about all the Jewish businessmen that import or manufacturer goods overseas in sweatshops?

“I think its unfair to pick on these people in this industry alone. We are in a global economy and we all benefit from sweatshops overseas. Why are prices so low in Walmart? Imagine what our standard of living would be like if everything we purchased was manufactured in the United States at fair or even minimum wage?

“Best wishes for a good and healthy new year.”

Which are you hoping is from the Jewish reader? You would be wrong. The Christian got the point, the Jew missed it. Jews! We are supposed to be a lamp onto the nations, not followers of trends. To be of the chosen people is to be ethical, not to shop for bargains at the expense of others. It’s the workers who give value to a product. Cotton on the plant is valueless—pick it, comb it, spin it, weave it, cut it and sew it and you have a shirt. All those readers out there who think it appropriate to treat the laborers who covert the plant into the shirt as though they were not the most important part of the process raise your hands? OK, so don’t believe me. Read Adam Smith, the great champion of capitalism. Treating workers like dirt for greater profits is inexcusable for anyone; but for Orthodox Jews? It’s a shanda.

My correspondent asks “What about all the Jewish businessmen that import or manufacturer goods overseas in sweatshops?” to which I respond what are they going to be thinking when on Yom Kippur Isaiah asks “Is this the fast I have chosen [merely to afflict the body]?... No, says the prophet in God’s name. “This is my chosen fast: to loosen all the bonds that bind men unfairly, to let the oppressed go free, to break every yoke.”

I don’t know what my correspondent has been reading when he says that Agriprocessors is “cleaning up their act and trying to do the right thing.” I read that after the illegal workers were rounded up they recruited American labor promising them rent subsidies for the first two months of employment which were not forthcoming. They did not receive any wages, instead their money was placed into a bank account which charged them $5.00 to withdraw funds. And the recruiters were paid from these same bank accounts. The workers were promised furnished apartments and found mattresses on the floor. I’m not sure this counts as cleaning up their act.

And then there’s the Walmart observation. “Why are prices so low in Walmart? Imagine what our standard of living would be like if everything we purchased was manufactured in the United States at fair or even minimum wage?” I don’t shop at Walmart because of its reputation as an exploiter of its labor force (and because I don’t like to shop in big box stores—Walmart, agoraphobia, I think it’s called). What would life be like if we treated our workers fairly and paid them a decent wage? The word is honorable. It’s what being a Jew is about, no? Or so I had thought.

As to the interesting sartorial suggestion, there may be something in my contract that prohibits teaching in the nude. I’ll look.

Setting an ethical table

As I was reading yet another chapter in the on-going exposé of business as it’s conducted by the holier-than-thou crowd which runs Agriprocessors, the largest kosher meat slaughtering and packing institution in the country, I engaged in a thought experiment. If I had the choice of eating a steak produced by people who flaunt the laws of society, exploit first one group of workers, and then their replacements, or a pork chop produced by a packing plant that treated its workers with respect, paid them an honest wage and treated the animals humanely even in bringing them death, which would I chose? The kosher steak or the traif pork? On the one hand the steak from Agriprocessors is from a kosher animal which rabbis have certified was slaughtered according to halacha, Jewish religious ritual. On the other hand, the pork is chazer, but the people who bring it to my table aren’t. Thus the dilemma. The obvious solution, of course, is to go vegetarian. But that avoids the issue.

I’ve addressed this sort of thing before. Back in October 2006 I wrote about Conservative rabbis whose law committee voted against (yes against!) requiring Conservative Jewish employers paying their employees a living wage. There’s nothing in halacha that requires it, they complained; Jews would be at an economic disadvantage, they moaned as they washed their hands of the question. Now Conservative rabbis are taking the other position arguing that there is more to kashrut than the process by which kosher animals are slaughtered and prepared. There is an ethical component as well. It’s nice that the Movement is on the right side of an ethical issue this time.

Rabbi David Lincoln, emeritus of New York’s Park Avenue (Conservative) Synagogue is quoted in the Forward as saying “I think there’s a general feeling that in the Orthodox community, in many Orthodox communities, and especially in the more Haredi, more extreme Orthodox communities, there’s more concern for the strict rules of halacha, for how you cut the animal’s throat and how you examine the lungs. They’re not really concerned about whether you’re stealing, or whatever, or going into court and perjuring themselves.”

Harsh words. But some Orthodox rabbis agree. Shmuel Herzfeld, an Orthodox rabbi from Washington, DC wrote an op ed piece in the Times condemning the hypocrisy Agriprocessors and those who defend its practices, calling it a desecration of God’s name. He was roundly condemned in his turn by the Orthodox Union which certifies Agriprocessors. One Orthodox group, Uri L’Tzedek, describes itself as the Orthodox Social Justice Movement. Its website says that its purpose is “to develop the new, growing discourse among traditional Jewish communities making the connection between God, Torah, and social issues in America, and to help translate that discourse into action.” It has come out against the abuses at Agriprocessors but again, defenders of the see no evil, discuss no evil camp of the Orthodox attack it and its leaders.

So, must ethical people chose between pork and vegitarianism? Or can American Jews apply to ourselves the standards we hold dear when discussing America. Many of us abhore the policies of the current administration. It is our right. Is it an obligation to go public with our complaints? Of course. Are there those Jews to whom the administration is doing the right thing? Of course. Is it their right to defend? Certainly. Is either less American for doing so? Is one group demonstrably more patriotic than the other? P’shaw, of course not. Is America embarressed by the public outcry? I hope so. Should the public scrutiny cease? Not until a determination is made. It’s the same with the Agriprocessors scandal. Those of us who maintain a kosher household must weigh what we read and decide. To eat meat or to go parev. Hiding the truth, denying the truth is an abandonment of ethical principles. Knowing what I right is no secret. Read Micah. We know what God requires, what Judaism has always advocated—to do justice, to love goodness and to walk modestly with our God. Exploiting our workers for the purpose of greater profits, ignoring the prophets in the process cannot be defended. I won’t eat the pork, but meat produced by Agriprocessors is off my table.

The Bard and Barack

It’s summer time and the livin’, as Ira Gershwin wrote, is easy. The world has no fewer problems but the tendency is to put the serious stuff on the back burner until after the World Series. But people can go too far.

I have in mind Edward Achorn in Tuesday’s August 5 Providence Journal: “Was the Bard a secret Catholic?” is the question asked, and it will come as no surprise that the answer is a definitive “could be.” Achorn relies on Joseph Pearce’s The Quest for Shakespeare: The Bard of Avon and the Church of Rome. You may remember Pearce. He was a member of the British National Front, a neo-fascist society dedicated to race purity. Twice he served time for militant racism, but then he found the Catholic Church and reformed. Currently he is a professor of literature at the right-wing Catholic Ave Maria University.

The evidence Achorn selects from Pearce’s tome is interesting, but it’s the kind that people present when they want to make the case that Columbus was Jewish—as circumstantial as it is irrelevant. Achorn concludes his article with a graphic you-really-don’t-want-to-have-to-read-this-stuff-while-sipping-your-morning-coffee description of being drawn and quartered, a punishment meted out to Catholics in Elizabeth’s persecutions of them. This is followed by, “His works remain universal. But that Shakespeare might have been a hidden Catholic lends undeniable piquancy to the themes of power, honor and strained loyalty running so strongly through his work.”

If Catholics want to claim Shakespeare, it’s fine with me. But what is objectionable is that while Achorn uses as his source a (pseudo) academic and quotes a legitimate one—Anthony Esolen who contends that Pearce’s case is “meticulous, reasonable and convincing” he without cause or justification maligns academics in general. Hey! What’d I do?

“All this of course, [that Shakespeare was devout crypto-Catholic] must seem anathema to academics who wish to embrace Shakespeare as the spokesman of secular modernity. The popular creed of our day is that godless Man is all, and that elites, using Machiavellian means to advance themselves, should have as much power as possible to work their superior will over less enlightened human beings. In the view of some, Shakespeare had nothing specific to say about morality or religion, other than to question the legitimacy of both.”

Let’s parse this. To begin with there is no such thing as “academics”. We are, if anything, anarchists. No one of us speaks for another, and often enough, not even for ourselves. We are ready to admit that we favored something until we opposed it. We are a punching bag for conservatives who see our malign presence in the classroom as undermining everything they believe in, but the punching bag is never the aggressor; it’s the innocent bystander.

Is there really a stampede of academics embracing Shakespeare as the spokesman of secular modernity? Is secular modernity so immoral as Achorn assumes? I know conservatives who are atheists, liberals who believe in God and neither camp advocates immorality.

Now we get to the core. We secular modernist academics are elitists! And we don’t trust the common man to make decisions for themselves! And we are inappropriately co-opting Shakespeare, that moral Roman Catholic. I know you know, this, dear reader, but when conservatives use the word “elite” they are not talking about Noble Prize winners, nor even of Congressional Medal of Honor recipients. They are talking about liberals, especially liberal Democrats, and, now-a-days more particularly Barack Obama. It’s the cry of the right-wing haves who want to wrest the poor and the lower middle class away from the Democrats who have been their champions at least since the days of FDR.

Oh, and lest it goes unsaid. Poor Shakespeare was a crypto-Catholic because he feared torture and death at the hands of rabid Protestants? This is why he “revered justice, detested bullies, and fully understood the sinfulness and frailty of his fellow men and women”? Elizabeth’s predecessor, her half-sister Mary, burned Protestants at the stake and Guy Fawkes, a Catholic, tried to blow up Parliament. In Spain the Inquisition’s auto de fes were consuming Protestants, Moors and, need I remind you, Jews. Galileo was threatened with the same punishment for the same crime as Giordano Bruno who had been burned at the stake for teaching the Copernican theory. Let’s face it, Catholics at that time held no monopoly on being persecuted. Belief in God does not equate with moral behavior; secularists can be just as moral—or immoral—as religious folk.

Obama's flip-flops are growing worrisome

I’m worried about Obama. It’s not the usual right-wing bombast (he’s an anti-Israeli-crypto-Muslim). In fact, my problems are the opposite of theirs. Now that the nomination is surely his, he’s taken some “centrist” positions in a vain hope to win over moderate Republican support.

First it was agreeing with the Supreme Court’s gun decision. That strict constructionalists failed to notice the words referring to the maintaince of a well regulated militia as the raison d’être of the Second Amendment’s very limited acquiescence to individuals bearing arms amazes. In 1973 the Court said, “Let the slaughter intensify, legally” and it did. Now the Justices are saying it again, and it will. And Obama supports them. Narrowly the case was about whether people in Washington, DC had the right to a loaded gun in their house for self defense and a rifle for hunting, but the chuckleheads who constitute the NRA are going to take this as the opening shot to bring home an alleged right for anyone not yet convicted of a crime to pack a rod.

Then it was his advocacy of federal funds going to faith-based groups. That sound you hear is Thomas Jefferson rolling over in his grave, or maybe it’s the wall of separation between church and state cracking. Or both. Have we learned nothing from the Jim Jones fiasco? You remember Jim. He established Jonesville in the jungles of Guyana after first conning such luminaries as Vice President Walter Mondale and First Lady Rosalynn Carter, and then when his frauds were becoming public he had an investigating congressman and his entourage murdered and then ordered the mass suicide of his 900 Kool-Aid-drinking-faith-based-community. And now in his swing to the right Obama wants to give money to people who on the one hand say “We will use it wisely” and on the other object to government scrutiny of how they spend money—based on their constitutional right of separation of church from state.

Not that Obama isn’t getting pilloried from those with whom he is trying to make friends on the right. He is. When he spoke of giving federal funds to religious groups he hedged. “First, if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help, and you can’t discriminate against them—or against the people you hire—on the basis of their religion.” Bill Donohue (I wrote about him in the December 8, 2006 edition of the Voice & Herald, you may recall) shouted “Fraud!” Donohue, who fronts the “Catholic League,” fulminated: “What Obama wants is to secularize the religious workplace.” He argues that Obama’s position is “a body blow to religious groups that apply for federal funds.”

And in this Donohue may be right (I hate to write that). Obama, who billed himself in this specious speech as “someone who used to teach constitutional law” ought to know better. Part of the reason for the separation of church and state is actually to protect religion from the state. If government can impose a requirement that religious institutions can not insist that people hired share their religious convictions and sensibilities than government would, in effect, be delivering the body blow of which Donohue protests. Oh what a tangled web Obama weaves when first he practices to, to what? To deceive? Maybe.

And has he changed his position on bringing the troops back from Iraq within 16 months of his taking the oath of office? I don’t know. He says “yes” and explains “no.” He challenges those such as me who hold him to our standards. I’ve been saying these things all along, he says; we weren’t listening. Ah, the fault dear reader is not in the man but in ourselves, for we were so desperate for change that we failed to pay attention. Is that what Obama is saying?

Not that John McCain has won my support. He is a Republican. George W. Bush is a Republican. Under Bush, though warned, we were attacked, we’ve fought the wrong enemy, spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives while the price of fuel has skyrocketed, tens of thousands of jobs have been lost, the stock market is in free fall and the Taliban is on the rise. McCain is trying to put as much distance between himself and Bush as he can, but he’s still a Republican and while someday that emblem may not be a stigma, it is today. Just ask former Senator Lincoln Chaffee.

Morgan the Flying Dog

The Voice & Herald is on vacation. So this is a shabbatshalomagram message I sent out. Enjoy.

July 18, 2008

Shabbat Shalom, Haverim:

On Sunday last Penney watered the hanging geraniums we keep in flower boxes outside our bedroom and Sam’s. She filled the watering can, raised the window then the screen in Sam’s room and watered and she lowered the screen and the window. She went and re-loaded the can and came to our room where she raised the window and the screen and watered and lowered the screen and then we drove to Tanglewood (Hayden, Bach, intermission, Mozart, Schubert) where we rendezvous-ed with some friends. (I wonder if any of you were there as well? We saw some other people from Rhode Island; we always do, but I bet at least one other person on this list was there on the vast lawn or in the shed who we missed.)

We chatted, read, picnicked, looked up at the uncertain sky which serially sent forth sun, cloud, drizzle, sun, cloud, sun, drizzle, sun, and enjoyed. We drove home, stopping to eat at a pizzeria we like and arrived here at about 8:00. The odd thing is that the key didn’t open the door directly. The bolt, it turned out, had also been locked. Strange, I’m pretty sure I left the house last; I’m positive I didn’t lock the bolt. Ah, well. Morgan the Wonder Dog greeted us excitedly, complaining about the lack of fresh air, exercise, and toilet facilities, so we leashed her and took her out for a stroll around the block. There are two beagles in the neighborhood who compete for the honor of shrillest howlers as Morgan sachets past their homes. One lives to the West of the public tennis courts we walk around, the other directly opposite on the Eastern side. Sometimes their barking is in stereo. We smile condescendingly—stupid dogs, poor owners—and Morgan often turns her back to one or the other (as they are scrapping against glass windows barking and barking and barking) and squats, sticks her tail out vertically, and poops. “Take that you pesky Beagle,” she seems to be saying. We dutifully scoop and continue on.

As we returned to the house, conversation was on how one of us could have bolted the door and forgotten that he (or she—my choice) had. But as we got home I noticed that the flower basket was resting on the yew bush. It’s not supposed to be there; it’s supposed to be hanging in front of our bedroom window. I looked up and—voila! It wasn’t there. I pointed this out to Penney and realized that our across the street neighbor Rick has a key to the house and that he often turns the bolt when we’ve asked him to come in and feed the dog or whatever. “Rick must have bolted the door,” I said. “But why, she asked?” The window box has something to do with it,” I Sherlocked.

So when we got in, I called Rick. Yes he had been in the house. The dog had been out. “Huh?” I asked in my most unsherlockian tone. “Well, Andy from next door rang my bell this afternoon and he had Morgan by the collar and asked what we should do with her. I said I had the key so I’d bring her back. I did, then I checked to see that all the doors and windows were closed on the first floor; they were, so I left bolting the door behind me,” he reported.

Even though it was only 8:30 at night, the dawn was breaking. Penney went upstairs to our bedroom and invoked the deity. “The screen, it’s gone and there’s the impression of a dog in the bush below!”

It was all clear to us now. Morgan, upstairs (rummaging through the wastebasket, I’m sure—this is how she punishes us) had heard one of her (many) enemies walking in front of the house. She charged towards the window, went through the screen, knocking over the flower box in the process and either flew (in a manner of speaking) or plummeted (same result) onto the bush, apparently unscathed. At some point later one across the street neighbor collared her and the other brought her home, checked the doors and windows and left confused, wondering how she could have gotten out, bolting the door behind him.

That night, as we went to bed, Penney had a thought. “I wonder what the person who was walking by the house thought as he saw first the screen, then the flower box then the dog fly from the second floor window. I imagine that he picked up his dog and ran like hell. I would have.” “Me, too,” I laughed, and so did she.

So that was our Sunday. Nu? What was yours like?

As always I wish you all a week filled with love and joy, peace and prosperity, good health and the wonder of discovery. Be strong and resolute, Haverim.

Again, Shabbat Shalom.

I send you all my love,

Josh

On things French (and Hasidic)

Ha! And you thought the recent Obama v. Clinton rivalry was hot, that the upcoming Obama v. McCain tussle will be rough and ready. Pshaw! You’ve not been paying attention if you think these political struggles are the most virulent around. Try the recent contest for Chief Rabbi of France. Now there, mon Dieu, is a struggle of epic proportions fought in hit-below-the-belt ferocity. I grant that it doesn’t sink quite to the level of the recent Zimbabwe debacle, but still…

The incumbent was Joseph Sitruk a 63-year-old Sephardic rabbi originally from Tunisia known for his common touch. The challenger was 56-year-old Gilles Bernheim, an Ashkenazi philosopher from Alsace who is the rabbi of Paris’ largest synagogue. As in Israel, Sephardi Jews had felt under appreciated and sought a greater voice in communal affairs. This was achieved in 1987 when Sitruk was elected Chief Rabbi. Bernheim challenged his reelection in 1994 (the post is for seven years) and lost in the usual “Ho-hum-the-communal-leaders-are-choosing-another-figure-head” election. Now, however, the gloves are off. Blame the internet. Martine Cohen, an expert on French Judaism at the National Center for Scientific Research in Paris does. She argues that “This is the first time such an election draws so much attention…The new technology allows many more people to ‘connect’ and to have rumors spread on the Internet.” Fortunately that sort of thing never happens here.

Someone calling himself “an indignant rabbi” posted what was purported to be Bernheim’s candidacy announcement in which he appeared to be making disparaging remarks about Sitruk. But it was a fake, a French swiftboating. Another charge floating around was that Bernheim was spending too much time with Catholics. In France this is hard not to do. But then the accusatory piece went further, seeming to justify the crucifixion of Jesus. Gevalt. Catholics took note and were displeased. The election, which took place on June 22, is not a democratic one. Three hundred rabbis and local communal leaders from around the country meet in conclave. It’s not quite a white smoke affair, but it’s along the same lines. (So that the suspense won’t kill you, Bernheim won the election 184 to 99.)

Rabbinical infighting takes place in America, too, but in a localized fashion. In Brooklyn, amongst the Hassidim there are two on-going disputes. In the Satmir community two brothers vied to succeed their father as grand rabbi and even brought their conflicting claims to the American legal system. The Chabad movement is split over whether the late Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson is or is not the messiah. The group that controls the basement synagogue of the iconic 770 Eastern Parkway headquarters, argues that he is, the group that controls the upper floors vehemently argues that he’s not.

Last week French President Nicolas Sarkozy was in Israel. He was greeted warmly as a friend by all factions. In his speech before the Knesset he said all the right things:

Israel and France share deep friendship that has stood test of time
French ties with the Jewish people has enriched France’s culture
French people will always stand by Israel when it is threatened
France is committed to the struggle against terrorism
France will stop anyone who calls for Israel’s destruction
Israel is not alone in its battle against Iran’s nuclear ambitions
France is ready to aid in efforts to free abducted IDF soldiers

On some other points, there can be disagreement:

Palestinians have a right to a viable state of their own
Peace is not possible without the immediate end to Israeli settlement activity
There can be no peace without a solution to problem of Palestinian refugees
Jerusalem must be recognized as the capital of two states as a condition for peace

Jerusalem as a dual capital is a suggestion whose practicality I question. The Palestinian refugee problem is a thorn. These poor people have been living in a virtual no-man’s land ever since 1948. Is it Israel’s fault that their Arab brethren didn’t absorb them the way Jewish refugees were absorbed into Israel? Whether they left the territory that became Israel voluntarily or by force, it is impossible to repatriate them without Israel losing the essential nature of its mission. Arabs claim a right of return. It’s not going to happen in any but a symbolic way. That Sarkozy chose to bring this issue up is unfortunate, but placed within the context of his overall message, that France stands with Israel, Zionists can be reassured of France’s position.

tribute to a friend

Each morning I wake up and throw a stone. An early first century rabbi suggested this and as his advice was generally humane, I follow it. Being as I am without sin (except possibly of hubris) I keep my record clean by aiming at an inanimate object, often a photo of a politician or a terrorist. Duty done I retrieve the stone, not wanting to be accused of the sin of untidiness and go forth onto the world at large.

It’s not that I don’t confess sin; I do that annually. But those confessions are mumbled sotto voce. The problem is that I haven’t actually committed any of them and some I would never think to commit. Nevertheless, based on the theory that someone somewhere did these things I repent of them, beating my breast with the strings of my tallis wrapped around my fingers.

I mention this because of a discussion in my schul last week. My rabbi, Alvan Kaunfer, is retiring from the pulpit (again—he’s done this once before to head up the Schechter School, but this time I fear it’s for real). In his penultimate d’var torah he led a discussion: “When someone commits any wrong toward a fellow, thus breaking faith with the Lord, and that person realizes his guilt, they shall confess the wrong that they have done and shall make restitution” (Numbers 5:6-7).

He then presented three commentaries. Maimonides says this confession must be in words spoken to the offended party accompanied by a promise not to commit such an offense again. A contemporary went one step further explaining that with the oral confession the person “will become careful not to do the same thing again; and as a result, becomes reconciled with his Creator.” In fact, says a still earlier commentary, “If a person is guilty of a transgression, and makes a confession but does not change his behavior…it is to no avail.”

The question Rabbi Kaunfer posed to the assembled was, “How important is confessing/admitting to wrong, in the process of changing one’s behavior? How important is it to do this verbally?” Hands flew up (but under the circumstances not mine, of course). We talked about sins against God and sins against people and debated the different means of obtaining absolution, or even if absolution was possible. One congregant whose professional life puts him in contact with violent criminals, people who have been convicted of rape, murder, armed robbery, etc. said that in such circumstances restitution is impossible; the only way to atone is to show publicly one’s genuine remorse. But I wondered at the relevance of this. I’m pretty sure that most of the people in my congregation do not commit, nor would they think to commit, such heinous sins. We promise something and forget to deliver; or we add a dubious deduction onto our tax return and if challenged will pay up; I know a fellow who took a pen home from the supply cabinet at work; and a pad of paper as well. These are the sins I imagine most people in that room capable of committing. Murder? I think not.

Then someone suggested what I’d been thinking. Maybe we do more harm by confessing than by keeping quiet. If against all odds I sinned against someone and they don’t know about it (which was the premise of the Torah statement) why tell them? A silent vow not to repeat accomplishes the same object without injuring again, though differently, the party sinned against. Back and forth the ideas flew. As they did, I remembered the 2004 presidential election. Mr. Bush was asked if he had made any mistakes in his first term. He essentially responded, “no.” He was asked if he’d ever made a mistake and replied certainly in letting Sammy Sosa get away when he’d owned the Texas Rangers and possibly in some of his sub-cabinet appointments, but he didn’t say whom. Apparently George Bush believes that if he did it there’s nothing to atone for. I’m not so sure.

Last Sunday there was a festive gathering to honor Rabbi Kaunfer, in case this really is his final departure from Temple Emanu-El. By count 613 people came to hear his praises sung and to concur in the encomiums. He will be missed; thought provoking discussions such as we had last Shabbat are but a small reason. If ever someone deserved the honorific “mensch” it’s Alvan Kaunfer, my friend, who never lets an opportunity to do good pass.