Uncategorized
Judaism doesn’t want you to wander and live just anywhere — or does it?
(JTA) — I was a remote worker long before the pandemic made it a thing, but it was only last month that I really took advantage of it. Early on the morning of New Year’s Day, I boarded a plane from Connecticut bound for Mexico, where I spent a full month sleeping in thatch-roofed palapas, eating more tacos than was probably wise and bathing every day in the Pacific. I’ll spare you the glorious details, but suffice it to say, it wasn’t a bad way to spend a January.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I found myself again and again coming into contact with expats who had traded in their urban lives in northern climes for a more laid-back life in the tropics. There was the recently divorced motorcycle enthusiast slowly wending his way southward by bike as he continued to work a design job for a major American bank. There was the yoga instructor born not far from where I live in Massachusetts who owned an open-air rooftop studio just steps from the waves. There were the countless couples who had chosen to spend their days running beachfront bars or small hotels on the sand. And then there were the seemingly endless number and variety of middle-aged northerners rebooting their lives in perpetual sunshine.
Such people have long mystified me. It’s not hard to understand the lure of beachside living, and part of me envies the freedom to design your own life from the ground up. But there’s also something scary about it. Arriving in middle age in a country where you know nobody, whose language is not your own, whose laws and cultural mores, seasons and flora, are all unfamiliar — it feels like the essence of shallow-rootedness, like a life devoid of all the things that give one (or at least me) a sense of comfort and security and place. The thought of exercising the right to live literally anywhere and any way I choose opens up a space so vast and limitless it provokes an almost vertiginous fear of disconnection and a life adrift.
Clearly, this feeling isn’t universally shared. And the fact that I have it probably owes a lot to my upbringing. I grew up in an Orthodox family, which by necessity meant life was lived in a fairly small bubble. Our house was within walking distance of our synagogue, as it had to be since walking was the only way to get there on Shabbat and holidays. I attended a small Jewish day school, where virtually all of my friends came from families with similar religious commitments. Keeping kosher and the other constraints of a religious life had a similarly narrowing effect on the horizons of my world and thus my sense of life’s possibilities. Or at least that’s how it often felt.
What must it be like — pardon the non-kosher expression — to feel as if the world is your oyster? That you could live anywhere, love anyone, eat anything and make your life whatever you want it to be? Thrilling, yes — but also frightening. The sense of boundless possibility I could feel emanating from those sun-baked Mexicans-by-choice was seductive, but tempered by aversion to a life so unmoored.
The tension between freedom and obligation is baked into Jewish life. The twin poles of our national narrative are the Exodus from Egypt and the revelation at Sinai, each commemorated by festivals separated by exactly seven weeks in the calendar, starting with Passover. The conventional understanding is that this juxtaposition isn’t accidental. God didn’t liberate the Israelites from slavery so they could live free of encumbrances on the Mayan Riviera. Freedom had a purpose, expressed in the giving of the Torah at Sinai, with all its attendant rules and restrictions and obligations. Freedom is a central value of Jewish life — Jews are commanded to remember the Exodus every day. But Jewish freedom doesn’t mean the right to live however you want.
Except it might mean the right to live any place you want. In the 25th chapter of Leviticus, God gives the Israelites the commandment of the Jubilee year, known as yovel in Hebrew. Observed every 50 years in biblical times, the Jubilee has many similarities to the shmita (sabbatical) year, but with some additional rituals. The text instructs: “And you shall hallow the 50th year. You shall proclaim liberty throughout the land for all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you: each of you shall return to your holding and each of you shall return to your family.”
Among the requirements of the Jubilee was that ancestral lands be returned to their original owners. Yet the word for liberty is a curious one: “d’ror.” The Talmud explains its etymology this way: “It is like a man who dwells [medayer] in any dwelling and moves merchandise around the entire country” (Rosh Hashanah 9b).
The liberty of the Jubilee year could thus be said to have two contrary meanings — individuals had the right to return to their ancestral lands, but they were also free not to. They could live in any dwelling they chose. The sense of liberty connoted by the biblical text is a specifically residential one: the freedom to live where one chooses. Which pretty well describes the world we live in today. Jewish ancestral lands are freely available to any Jew who wants to live there. And roughly half the Jews of the world choose not to.
Clearly, I’m among them. And while I technically could live anywhere, I’m pretty sure I don’t want to. I like where I live — not because of any particular qualities of this place, though I do love its seasons and its smells and its proximity to the people I care about and the few weeks every fall when the trees become a riotous kaleidoscope. But mostly because it’s mine.
A version of this essay appeared in My Jewish Learning’s Recharge Shabbat newsletter. Subscribe here.
—
The post Judaism doesn’t want you to wander and live just anywhere — or does it? appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Tucker Carlson draws scorn for claiming he was ‘detained’ at Israeli airport after Mike Huckabee interview
(JTA) — Tucker Carlson had just barely wrapped his interview with U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee before the two were already disagreeing on a basic fact.
Carlson, the influential conservative commentator, flew to Tel Aviv on Wednesday to conduct the interview with Huckabee at Ben Gurion Airport, departing hours later without leaving the airport. But before leaving, he told the British tabloid Daily Mail, Israeli authorities confiscated his passport, dragged his executive producer into an interrogation room “and then demanded to know what we spoke to Ambassador Huckabee about.’
Not so, says the ambassador: What Carlson’s team experienced was simply a routine security measure.
“EVERYONE who comes in/out of Israel (every country for that matter) has passports checked & routinely asked security questions,” Huckabee wrote on X, refuting his former Fox News colleague before their conversation could go live.
Israel’s airport authority also denied the allegations, saying Carlson’s team “were politely asked a few routine questions, in accordance with standard procedures applied to many travelers.” A longer statement from the U.S. Embassy in Israel also said Carlson’s decision to stay in Israel only a few hours without leaving the airport was his alone.
Carlson’s complaints drew withering reactions from Jews and others who said they recognized the intense security practiced at Ben Gurion. The conservative commentator John Podhoretz, for example, recounted on X how he had been questioned for 20 minutes because he was couriering a dress for a relative. “I’ve known Tucker was an asshole for 30 years but this takes the f–king cake,” he wrote.
The back-and-forth was a preview of the hotly anticipated interview between the two divergent flanks of the Christian MAGA coalition, whose public disagreements on Israel have paralleled a larger fissure in the Republican party. Carlson, the influential GOP kingmaker, has increasingly embraced anti-Israel talking points on his show at the same time as he has platformed conspiracy theorists and antisemites including Nick Fuentes. A growing number of young right-wing influencers and candidates are lining up behind his views.
Huckabee, meanwhile, is a leading evangelical Christian Zionist who has argued in favor of Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank. He publicly lobbied Carlson for a sit-down after Carlson used his podcast to criticize him for what Carlson described as a failure to intervene in Israeli demonization of Christians. Carlson agreed to a talk, and posted a picture of himself arriving Wednesday prior to the interview.
“Greetings from Israel,” Carlson posted to X, captioning a photo of him posing outside near an Israeli flag with his arm around business partner Neil Patel. (“Sell out,” Sneako, a livestreamer and Internet personality with a long streak of antisemitic and anti-Israel comments, wrote in reply.)
Greetings from Israel. pic.twitter.com/1uBWvqBNST
— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) February 18, 2026
To some seasoned travelers, the location was obvious.
“That’s the walkway to the private jet terminal for VIP entry,” tweeted David Friedman, who was U.S. ambassador to Israel during President Donald Trump’s first term.
“After the Western Wall, the Temple Mount, the City of David, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the Garden of Gethsemene, Capernaum, the Sea of Galilee, Nazareth, Bethlehem, Yad Vashem, the Knesset and about 2 million other places, this walkway is an important site (but only if you fly on private jets),” he continued. “Too bad Tucker stayed in the airport in the face of so many invitations to see so many wonderful places. A huge and obviously intentional missed opportunity.”
Trump, an ally of both Carlson and Huckabee, may have also played a hand in arranging the interview, according to a former Fox News reporter who told the Times of Israel that Trump wanted to prevent an intra-party spat over Israel that could benefit Democrats. The source, Melissa Francis, also described the interview as “emotional” and said Carlson’s team had tried and failed to also arrange an interview with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Little about the interview process had been straightforward. The week before Carlson touched down in Israel, according to local reports, Israeli authorities had indeed briefly discussed whether to bar Carlson from entering the country over his past comments — something they routinely do for non-Jewish critics of Israel, even for prominent figures. They ultimately decided to avoid a diplomatic incident, according to reports.
In the days since agreeing to an interview with Huckabee, Carlson has posted new interviews with Ryan Zink, a pardoned Jan. 6 rioter and Texas congressional candidate; billionaire hedge-fund manager Ray Dalio; conspiracy theorist Ian Carroll; and former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul.
Carlson has not yet published his interview with Huckabee. But late Wednesday, he shared an interview about Israel, continuing the vendetta that started their exchange. “How does Israel treat Christians? We spoke to one whose family has lived there since Jesus. His story is shocking,” Carlson wrote to promote the video.
For Carlson’s Jewish critics, the whole day offered yet more evidence that whatever he ultimately says about Israel should be discounted.
“Tucker Carlson is a chickens–t. The guy who’s been spouting lies about Israel for the past two years, landed today at Ben Gurion airport, took a quick picture in the logistics zone, tweeted it to pretend he’s actually IN Israel (so he can later claim that he’s a serious reporter who toured Israel), didn’t even step foot in country, then made up a story that he’s being supposedly harassed by our security (didn’t happen), whined about it, got back into the private jet and flew off,” tweeted Naftali Bennett, the Israeli politician. “Next time he talks about Israel as if he’s some expert, just remember this guy is a phony!”
The post Tucker Carlson draws scorn for claiming he was ‘detained’ at Israeli airport after Mike Huckabee interview appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Les Wexner testifies that he was ‘conned’ by Jeffrey Epstein and did not know of his crimes
(JTA) — Leslie Wexner, the Ohio retail billionaire whose association with Jeffrey Epstein has shadowed his philanthropic legacy, spent six hours Wednesday answering questions in a closed-door congressional deposition that Democrats later derided as implausible and evasive.
Wexner, 88, appeared before staff of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform at his home in New Albany, Ohio, where he sought to rebut years of scrutiny tied to Epstein, the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender who once managed Wexner’s personal finances.
In a prepared opening statement submitted to the committee, Wexner cast himself as a victim of deception.
“I was naive, foolish, and gullible to put any trust in Jeffrey Epstein,” Wexner said. “He was a con man. And while I was conned, I have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide.” He added: “I completely and irrevocably cut ties with Epstein nearly twenty years ago when I learned that he was an abuser, a crook, and a liar.”
Wexner’s testimony comes amid renewed attention to his relationship with Epstein following the release of previously redacted federal investigative records. Wexner, long celebrated across the Jewish communal world for his business achievements and billion-dollar philanthropy, has never been charged with a crime connected to Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation and has consistently denied knowledge of Epstein’s misconduct.
In his statement, Wexner presented that denial in unequivocal terms. “Let me be crystal clear: I never witnessed nor had any knowledge of Epstein’s criminal activity,” he said. “I was never a participant nor co-conspirator in any of Epstein’s illegal activities.” He continued, “At no time did I ever witness the side of Epstein’s life for which he is now infamous.”
Wexner also addressed the emotional toll of the scandal and expressed sympathy for survivors. “Before going any further, though, I want to acknowledge the survivors of Epstein’s terrible crimes and the devastation that each of them has endured,” he said. “The pain he inflicted upon them is unfathomable to me. My heart goes out to each of them.”
Throughout the document, Wexner portrayed Epstein as a master manipulator who carefully curated an image of elite credibility. “Epstein lived a double life. He was clever, diabolical, and a master manipulator,” Wexner said, describing how Epstein “revealed to me only glimpses into the life in which he was a sophisticated financial guru.”
Wexner reiterated longstanding claims about the unraveling of their relationship, saying that after Epstein’s legal troubles surfaced, his wife Abigail Wexner reviewed financial records and concluded Epstein had misappropriated “vast sums” from the family. “Once I learned of his abusive conduct and theft from my family, I never spoke with Epstein again. Never,” he said.
But Democrats who participated in the deposition emerged sharply skeptical.
“He’s claiming there was no friendship with Jeffrey Epstein,” Rep. Robert Garcia of California, the committee’s top Democrat, told reporters during a press conference outside Wexner’s residence, calling the claim “bogus.”
Garcia went further, arguing that Epstein’s wealth and influence were inseparable from Wexner’s patronage. “There would be no Epstein island, there’d be no Epstein plane, there would be no money to traffic women and girls … without the support of Les Wexner,” he said.
Rep. Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts struck an even harsher tone. “There’s no question in my mind, given the evidence so far, that Les Wexner knew about this and failed to stop it,” Lynch said.
Other Democrats questioned the credibility of Wexner’s repeated assertions that he had neither seen nor suspected misconduct. Rep. Yassamin Ansari of Arizona said his claims of not recalling key details about Epstein strained belief. Rep. Dave Min of California summarized the testimony as a case of “see no evil, hear no evil,” calling it “really just not credible.”
Committee Republicans did not attend the deposition, citing a medical procedure for Chairman James Comer. A committee spokeswoman said Wexner “answered every question asked of him” and pledged that video and transcripts would be released.
For Wexner, the proceeding marked another chapter in a saga that has complicated his public image and tarnished his name in the Jewish world, where countless rabbis and other professionals have received fellowships bearing his name. In his statement, he framed the deposition as an opportunity for to help the Epstein’s victims.
“I hope you are successful in uncovering the truth and bringing closure to all survivors,” Wexner said. “If I am able to assist you in that effort by answering your questions, I am grateful for the opportunity to do so.”
The post Les Wexner testifies that he was ‘conned’ by Jeffrey Epstein and did not know of his crimes appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Quietly sold by Jewish library, letter by famed 18th-century rabbi surfaces at auction, fetching $400,000
(JTA) — A decade ago, amid a financial crisis, the Jewish Theological Seminary turned to its assets, selling real estate as well as rare books from its world-renowned library. The book sales were private, and the institution has never detailed what was sold or for how much.
Now, a lost treasure from the library has once again emerged at auction: this time, a letter written and autographed by the 18th-century Jewish luminary Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, also known as the Ramchal.
When it was housed at the library, the letter belonged to a Ramchal collection numbering hundreds of pages. Removed from the collection and marketed to the auction house’s Orthodox clientele as a profound text by “a great and holy Kabbalist,” the letter sold on Sunday for nearly $400,000. The identities of the seller and buyer are not publicly known.
The price reflects the massive appeal of heritage items in a newly affluent Orthodox market, where rare texts and autograph material are increasingly treated as both status symbols and investment vehicles. It is a market the auction house, Genazym, has helped supercharge by selling not just books, but proximity to revered rabbinic figures.
Born in 1707, Luzzatto was an Italian Jewish thinker, mystic and writer whose influence far exceeded his brief life. His best-known work, “Mesillat Yesharim,” became a cornerstone of Jewish ethical literature and remains widely studied today. Though his mystical teachings stirred suspicion among some contemporaries, later generations regarded him as a major figure of Jewish thought.
In a famous 1928 essay titled “The Boy from Padua,” the Hebrew poet Hayim Nahman Bialik offered one of the most enduring modern interpretations of Luzzatto’s legacy. Bialik described Luzzatto as a forerunner of three great streams of modern Jewish history: the Lithuanian rabbinic tradition, Hasidism and the Enlightenment.
The auctioned letter, spanning two handwritten pages and addressed to his mentor, captures Luzzatto engaged in a detailed discussion of mystical concepts. He uses the space to explain his reasoning and mentions additional writings then in progress.
For scholars like David Sclar, the quiet removal of Luzzatto’s writings from the JTS library and their transfer to private hands suggests a cultural decline.
“It’s a scandal within the world of scholarship and American Jewish institutions,” Sclar, a librarian at a Modern Orthodox high school in New Jersey, said in an interview. Sclar wrote his dissertation on Luzzatto using primary sources such as the auctioned letter.
He is also a former employee of the special collections division at JTS who left the institution years before the crisis that precipitated the sell-off. He sees the outcome of the auction as evidence of not only wrongdoing but incompetence.
“This is one of the items that they sold through the back door, which means they sold it for probably virtually nothing,” Sclar said. “And the tragedy in all of this, besides JTS sort of destroying cultural heritage, is that it’s also stupid, because if they had decided that they were desperate for money then just do an auction. Don’t do it through the back door.”
The librarian at JTS, David Kraemer, declined a request for an interview, directing questions to the institution’s spokesperson, who offered a brief emailed statement.
“Decisions were made at the time with careful consideration of what was in the best interest of the institution,” the spokesperson wrote.
In 2021, amid earlier revelations of the library’s sell-off, Kraemer told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that he had been ordered to sell items of his choosing to raise a specified amount of money, which he did not disclose.
In their defense of the sales, Kraemer and other JTS officials said at the time that the deaccessioned materials had been digitized and were deemed to have limited research value, allowing scholars to access their contents even after the originals left the collection. Seminary leaders described the decisions as financially prudent and of minimal impact on the library’s core mission.
Critics, however, argue that digitization does not replace the scholarly and cultural value of original manuscripts.
The post Quietly sold by Jewish library, letter by famed 18th-century rabbi surfaces at auction, fetching $400,000 appeared first on The Forward.
