The West Essex JRant

Respect for other religions?

2008-07-04T13:50:00.002-04:00

Emanuel Feldman, in Cross-Currents, published an article entitled Missionaries on the Jewish Doorstep in which he discusses the Jewish attitude towards those who practice other religions. He states:

We are not a missionary religion, and the benevolent behavior of the modern State of Israel toward non-Jewish religious minorities demonstrates Jewish magnanimity to those who do not follow Jewish ways. We have only respect for those who wish to worship their own deity in their own way, and to live ethically and lovingly with all people. We condemn those who would demean or use violence against believers of another religion.(emphasis added)

Is it odd Feldman would reject violence against those who practice other religions, but seems to be silent about violence against Jews whose practice is different from the Chareidi view of Judaism?

Israeli-Disapora Relations

2008-07-02T17:28:00.003-04:00

In an article in the Forward titled Israeli Prime Minister Turns Tables, Asks Diaspora: What Can We Do for You? Anthony Weiss reports that Ehud Olmert has asked, in a change of direction, what Israel can do to support the Diaspora:

Olmert suggested a number of practical possibilities — among them an international network of Israeli cultural houses, programs that would send Israeli teachers to Jewish schools around the world and venues to connect Israeli expatriates to local Jewish communities — all to be jointly funded by Diaspora Jews and the Israeli government.

What is even more important to Jews around the Diaspora is the sense that living as a Jew in the Diaspora is not wholly different and incompatible with living as a Jew in Israel. Perhaps nothing divides Diaspora and Israeli Jewry more completely than the sense that what it means to be a Jew is so different for both communities. Diaspora Jewry has a broad and largely inclusive definition of what it means to be a Jew. Certainly, there are many individual Diaspora communities that shun other groups of Jews and label them as inauthentic. But they have no power to influence or affect the vast majority of Diaspora Jews in any meaningful way.

However, in Israel, a minority of Jews make it virtually impossible for the majority Jewish community to actively live meaningful Jewish lives. Through their political power, the Chareidim demand adherence to their own narrow and largely anachronistic view of what it means to be Jewish. The Chareidim have so successfully promoted their view of what Judaism means that most Israelis have little interest in being Jewish. They would prefer to leave that to the odd-looking people in their long silk coats and funny hats who don't seem to live in the same real world that most of us populate.

For most of Diaspora Jewry, the gap between their idea of a Jewish life lived well is very different from what they see going on in Israel. It makes it almost impossible for Diaspora Jews to identify with and seek relationship with their Israeli counterparts. If Olmert wants to increase the connection between these two communities, he needs to look at what it means to be a Jew and not just what it means to be an Israeli.

The "Cult" of Oprah Inflames Religious Right?

2008-04-29T07:40:00.003-04:00

I happened to read Gary Laderman's article The "Cult" of Oprah Inflames Religious Right that starts out:

[There are some in] conservative Christian circles who point to comments of
hers that have been floating around the web for some time: "... One of the
mistakes that human beings make is believing that there is only one way to
live... there couldn't possibly be just one way [to God]..."

Asked by an audience member: "what about Jesus?" Oprah responds: "What
about Jesus?"

I thought that he was then going to talk about the lack of respect for pluralism on the religious right. What a surprise to find that he instead launched into a lengthy discussion of how Oprah is a cult-like figure that is threatening the very foundation of Christianity. I spent most of the column wondering if the whole thing was intended to be ironic - but he is serious!

Evangelizing Jews

2008-03-31T13:20:00.003-04:00

Not surprisingly, Abe Foxman and the ADL has denounced the recent New York Times ad "by the World Evangelical Alliance, a 162-year-old global network that claims to represent 420 million evangelicals." (See the JTA article). I don't understand Abe's problem: these are our friends and, frankly, I'm not insulted in the least that they want me to have the Good News, as they see it. That doesn't mean I have to agree with them. I disagree with my friends all of the time; that doesn't make them less my friends.

I'm not ignoring the danger inherent in evangelization - that some Jews might actually come to accept the message. But this doesn't bother me either, for two reasons. First, I don't think that Judaism is the only path to G-d and, for some who are born Jews, a Christian path might even be the right one for them. I certainly don't discourage Christians from exploring a Jewish path that might speak to them more fully than their current one.

Even more important - shame on us if we don't educate our children sufficiently to see the beauty, joy, hope, and fulfillment of a life lived Jewishly. Our own failure to articulate our own Good News is at the heart of any success that evangelicals may have. Competition is good.

I'm glad that the evangelicals love me enough to want me with them. I'm even happier that they finally realize that they don't have to kill me to show their love.

On Knee Jerk reactions

2008-02-22T10:18:00.000-05:00

Avi Shafran writes in

What Remains (Cross-Currents): "Because all that many, if not most, of the Jewish Week’s readers will likely ever remember about the entire business will be a
mendacious headline. Despite all the setting straight of facts, what will remain
in minds – not to mention in the eternal echo-chamber of cyberspace – will be
only those deceptive, in fact slanderous, words."

Shafran is writing about the distortions in a report that evaluated sexual abuse in the Orthodox community. Shafran took issue with the methodology and has received some level of support from the authors of the report.

This post is a response to the responses to Shafran original article. As he points out, many respondents took umbrage at what they saw as a willingness to cover-up abuse in the Orthodox community.

What I note is the last paragraph, which reminds me that it is far too easy to assume that we know who the enemy is and what he will say. We speak far too often and listen far too little. I don't agree with R' Shafran on many, many issues, but I find him routinely insightful and his input is invaluable.

Freedom of Expression - especially when it hurts

2008-02-01T13:42:00.001-05:00

I just saw an article from the JTA in which a book that is reputedly rabidly anti-religion would be banned with the blessing of the Jewish Council:

Stephan Kramer, secretary general of the Central Council of Jews in
Germany, said he thought the book was equally mean to all three faiths. "It is
simply anti-religious… and militantly atheistic," he said in a statement. "What
is perfidious and dangerous is that it uses very attractive graphics to appeal
to young children, who are not able to respond to such anti-religious
baiting."

This is an issue to be handled in Germany, by Germans, but it illustrates once again that Freedom of Expression is easy when nothing particularly hurtful is said. It really counts when you find the content and/or form of the message repugnant. Banning books, no matter how mean-spirited, is worse than the reputed harm that the book may cause.

A Conservative Jew's Bookshelf

2008-01-16T17:11:00.000-05:00

I am posing a challenge for those who are have created a library or are interested in creating a library. If you had $500 available and were starting from scratch, what you would purchase to create a Jewish bookshelf appropriate for and relevant to the Conservative Jew.

A caveat - This list is for books that you will want to have at your fingertips, to which you will refer time and again. This is not a list of books you need to have read but books that you need to have. Many of the books on my list are of the reference variety. Some, I have read from cover to cover. Others, I pick up and skim when the mood or need arises.

Here is my current list, which adds up to $491.08. I have created a link for each book so you can look up more information if you are so inclined.

Chumash (Etz Chayim - $72.50)

This is really hard. I happen to really like the Stone Chumash because it has the Rashi and its translation is very literal. A literal translation is valuable for someone who is interested in the etymology of the word. In some senses, it is like having a dictionary available to help me translate words that I don't know. I also like the Stone Chumash because its derash is very traditional. As a Conservative Jew, I would rather start with the traditional interpretation and then find ways to work with it in a modern context than starting with my modern bias and ignoring the traditional because it is too, well, traditional.

At the other end of the spectrum, the Plaut Chumash is also very good. Gunther Plaut wrote this chumash for the Reform movement and in the truest and best spirit of Reform Judaism. Instead of throwing out all of the traditional and problematic interpretations, he brings in a host of traditional and modern interpretations and lets the reader decide which to accept and reject. He makes no attempt to hide Reform Judaism's rejection of the Torah as divine writ, but in including traditional interpretations and comments on the Torah, he implicitly acknowledges that Reform Judaism is neither the first nor the last word on the subject.

However, as a Conservative Jew, I am going to "have my cake and it it too." I have selected the Etz Chayim because presents the Conservative movement's approach to Torah. In no other selection below have I made a selection based on it being the Conservative entry to the area under consideration. But here, where we are talking about the fundamental text on which everything else is based, I have to bow to that consideration. That said, the Etz Chayim is a very strong entry in its own right. The translation is the New JPS and the commentary blends peshat (face-value interpretation) with derash (homiletic). The essays at the back are worth the price of the book itself.

Tanakh (ArtScroll Stone - $53.99; Jewish Study Bible - $29.70)

Tankakh again is a tough one and here I think I am going to spend the money on two. One is the the ArtScroll Stone edition of the Tanakh. This way I get the Hebrew text and the literalist translation that I want. The Stone Tanakh does not contain the extensive commentary found in the Stone Chumash, but it gives me a reasonably compact volume that contains both Hebrew and English text. It is a good choice for a quick reference to the text.

In addition, I am adding the Jewish Study Bible, to which I was introduced by Gary Rendsberg during my Me'ah class. I really like this Bible for its modern, critical approach to the text. There is lots of good material here. The big downside is that it doesn't have the Hebrew, which I think is essential.

Put the two together and you have a good set that covers both a right-wing "traditional" position and a modern, critical position.

Siddur (ArtScroll - $31.99)

This one is easy. The ArtScroll Siddur is far and away the best siddur that I have used for general purposes. It is complete and the instructional information is easy to follow and invaluable. When you need to find the blessing for a rainbow or the sheva brachot for a bris or Kiddush Levanah - it is all there. If you aren't sure who has precendence on Torah Aliyot or what to do when you are missing a Kohen - it is spelled out. The instructions on when to include or omit certain prayers is generally easy to follow. Other siddurim may have more theologically pleasing translations or textual emendations, but this one has all the critical stuff. People who have theological differences with the traditional text can add other versions to their collection, but for a basic bookshelf, this is the one to have. All the others are secondary.

Lawrence Hoffman's amazing compendium to the Siddur: My People's Prayer Book would be a must have, but at over $200 for the set, it has to wait for the next $500 installment. This is a must-have for anyone who wants to really understand Jewish prayer. Hoffman and his collection of contributors cover everything from the history of the prayer to the challenges in translation to the choices that different editors have made when compiling their own Siddur. If you have an extra $200 and you are interested in gaining a real understanding of Jewish prayer, this collection is wonderful.

Hebrew-English Dictionary (Alcalay Complete English-Hebrew Dictionary, New Enlarged Edition - $111)

Jews are people of the Book, but if you don't know what the words in the book mean, then you are left out on the sidelines. A good Hebrew-English dictionary should be on everyone's bookshelf. The Alcalay is class for a reason. It is probably the largest and most comprehensive dictionary available. It has not only modern Hebrew, but also Biblical and Aramaic references. It doesn't take the place of Jastrow for the serious learner, but it is comprehensive and vital.

Guide to Observance (A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice - $27.50)

This guide by Rabbi Isaac Klein is indispensable to the Conservative household. I don't know what its equivalent is in an Orthodox house. This guide covers all of the key issues relating to Jewish observance. It discusses daily prayer, Shabbat and Holidays. It covers ritual ranging from Bris to Mourning and everything in between. While no book can cover everything and I have occasionally had questions that were not answered, by and large, when I need to know the answer to a practical question of observance, Klein has answered it.

Mourning (The Jewish Way in Death and Mourning - $12.89)

The may be nothing more difficult for a person to confront than death. Whether a death in one's own family or the need to comfort a friend, death is a hard topic to approach and many of us feel at a loss as to what to do or say when put into this position. Lamm's book is a classic, covering much of the ground that a Jew needs to know to navigate through this very difficult time. While there are many other books that may provide more spiritual comfort to the mourner, this book is essential on your bookshelf to consult when you just need to know what to do or what not to do.

I would love to add some other books here. Goldberg's Mourning in Halacha is also very good, but I found that he cites some very right-wing halachic positions that are not suitable for more modern Jews. What is really helpful about this book is that he cites the sources for each of his statements, so if you want to research the issue, you have direction. Also, the book is laid out in a way that makes it easy to find his position on very specific issues. It is a book of law rather than an excursus on Jewish mourning. Lamm's book is more readable.

I also really like Wieseltier's Kaddish. It is a fascinating mixture of the personal and the academic. It is not an easy read, but I marveled at the depth of Wieseltier's research and the breadth of his observation. Ultimately, it doesn't make my list because it is a great book to read, but it isn't one that you will want to have at your fingertips.

Modern Theology (Choices in Modern Jewish Thought: A Partisan Guide - $22.50)

I love to read theology. Some of it is too arcane for me (Levinas comes to mind and forget about reading Rosenzweig) but every thoughtful Jew should be familiar with and be able to refer back to the critical trends in modern Jewish thought. Borowitz may be the greatest teacher of Jewish theology of our time and his book is a classic for reviewing and providing snippets of the critical strains of thought that have influenced modern Judaism. This is a book to refer to time and again when trying to place different thinkers into a broader context.

Jewish Literacy (Jewish Literacy: The Most Important Things to Know About the Jewish Religion, Its People and Its History - $23.10)

Telushkin's book is already a classic for a bookshelf reference overview of Jewish writing. He covers the gamut of Jewish history from Biblical through modern periods providing short descriptions and definitions of key terms, biographies of important people, and a broad overivew of Jewish history. He can't cover everything and what he covers is superficial, but for a one-volume overview, his is the best I have seen.

Legends and Stories (Book of Legends/Sefer Ha-Aggadah: Legends from the Talmud and Midrash - $55.97; Tales of the Hasidim - $15.00)

Judaism has an incredibly rich history and literature. No people is complete without their stories. Bialik's Book of Legends is a wonderful volume to have on the shelf. It collects hundreds of short stories from the classic texts and organizes them according to theme. This is the kind of book that you will pull off the shelf when you are looking for a short, pithy story or anecdote to underline an idea.

What Bialik misses is the wonderful treasure of Hasidic stories that has become a key part of the literature of the Jews. While not that old, dating back only to the 17th and 18th centuries CE, these stories have entered the Jewish bloodstream and are told as if they are ancient midrash. Buber's collection is the classic. I have a two-volume edition that I like better than the current one-volume edition available from Amazon, but I think it is out of print.

Holidays (Jewish Holidays - $16.47)

A library needs to have a book on the Jewish Holidays. Unfortunately, I can't say that I am that familiar with the range of options. I have found Strassfield's Jewish Holidays to be very usable and probably fits the bill. The price is certainly right to fit in our budget. I am open to other suggestions on this one.

Jewish History (Open)

I have read many Jewish History books, but none stand out in my mind as definitive and essential. I would love to have suggestions in this area.

Jewish Atlas (Barnavi, A Historical Atlas of the Jewish People: From the Time of the Patriarchs to the Present - $18.47)

Is it possible to understand Jewish History without an atlas to show the changing geography of the Jewish people? Barnavi's Atlas, which I do not own, appears to be an outstanding choice. It combines the expected maps and charts with essays on each period in Jewish History. There are other atlas choices out there, but this one seems to be the one to pick.

Ok - that is my list (for now). Now it is your turn - what would you change? Remember, the rule is that the total list has to be $500 or less.

Bone Transplant - Kosher for Kohen?

2008-01-11T14:12:00.000-05:00

I was reading this article about Robin Ventura and his ankle-bone transplant. Ventura mangled his ankle in 1997 and the problem grew progessively worse through his playing career. Eventually, he got to the point where he could barely walk. He underwent a procedure in which part of his ankle was replaced by a bone from a cadaver. According to the article, the procedure was a success and Ventura can now walk pain-free.

My question is: can a Kohen undergo such a procedure? Assuming that the procedure is to improve the quality of life, but not to save his life, can he accept part of a dead body?

Pirke Avot 1:3

2007-10-21T13:24:00.000-04:00

Antignos of Socho received [the tradition] from Shimon the Righteous. He
used to say: Do not be as servants who serve the Master to receive reward.
Rather, be as servants who serve the Master not to receive reward. And let the
fear of heaven be upon you.

The famous Israel philosopher and theologian Yeshayahu Leibowitz argued in support of Antignus of Socho that the only valid reason for performing the mitzvot is because it is G-d's command. Any other reason, as our mishna suggests, would fall to the status of expecting a reward. No motivation except the fear of heaven, by which we mean acceptance of the commandments, is sufficient reason to compell us to act according to Halacha.

For most of us, it would seem that both Leibowitz and Antignos of Socho are asking of us that we perform the impossible. Even when our motives are pure, our actions are always with an eye of the effect. It is certainly simple enough to eschew the more crass and materialistic rewards that we might think accrue to those who follow G-d's ways. Most of us understand that there is no quid pro quo that attends to those who follow the mitzvot. By the time we have reached adulthood, we no longer think that simply because we are good people that only good things must result.

But putting aside material rewards such as riches or even more spiritual requests such as good health, each of acts with the idea that some good will accrue to us because of our actions. We give tzedakah not because it puts a point on our scoreboard when we stand before G-d, but because doing so gives us the sense of satisfaction that we have done the right thing. We eat according to Jewish law for many reasons: it allows us to participate in the Jewish community; it adds a sense of kedusha (holiness) to the mundane act of eating; it may be healthier. All of these reasons cary with it some sense of reward or compensation for having chosen to follow the laws of Kashrut. In keeping Shabbat we are compensated by the sense of peace and tranquility that setting aside this day brings to us. Indeed, for many with hectic lives, the thought of setting aside a day increases stress, not the opposite and thus they do not observe Shabbat.

Yet, it is possible to understand how we can follow this Mishna if we separate the notion of serving one's master in general from specific deeds that our Master may require of us. The general notion is summed up in the beginning of the Sh'ma when we are told, "You shall love the Lord your G-d with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might." The basic thought that should guide us in doing G-d's commands is that we are commanded to love G-d. But the very notion that we can be commanded to love G-d is a paradox. (See Chapter 11 of Louis Jacobs A Jewish Theology for a detailed discussion of this issue). How can we be commanded to love anyone; love is an emotion over which we have no control. Thus, when we truly love, whether it is our parents, our spouse or our children, our family or our friends, we do so without thought of reward. We love and from that love we are motivated to do things that demonstrate our love.

In the same way, if we truly love G-d, then we are motivated to follow G-d's commandments not in the hopes of receiving a reward but because this is how we demonstrate our love for G-d. We run to perform to mitzvot out of our deep feeling of love for G-d. This is how we can be like the servant who serves the Master without thought of reward.

Pirkei Avot 1:2

2007-10-14T07:50:00.000-04:00

Shimon the Righteous (HaTzadik) was of the remnants of the Great Assembly. He
used to say: "The world stands on three things - on Torah, on Avodah and on Gemilut Hasidim"

Shimon HaTzadik chose three categories on which he claims that the world stands. Putting Torah aside for a moment, we can look at what he means by Avodah and by Gemilut Hasidim. Avodah specifically refers to the sacrifices in the Temple. Shimon lived at a time when the Temple still stood and was the center of Jewish worship. The daily sacrifices as well as the sacrifices for specific reasons and times were the center of Israelite worship of G-d. But even during Shimon's time, there was more to the worship of G-d than sacrifices in the temple. The synagogue had emerged by this time and there were more local and more transcendant methods of worshipping G-d, including prayer and study of sacred text. We can see that Avodah refers not to a specific method of worshipping and serving G-d, but to a category of service that we refer to as Mitzvot ben Adam L'Makom, mitzvot between a person a G-d. All of our ritual actions, such as prayer, Shabbat, Kashrut, tefillin, and tzitzit fall into this category of worship.

The other category that Shimon identifies is Gemilut Hasidim. This category covers all of the mitzvot that are Ben Adam V'Adam, those that are between a person and another person. Commandments to care for the poor, visit the sick, welcome the guest, celebrate with the bride, and others fall into this category. Between Avodah and Gemilut Hasidim, we cover all of the commandments that G-d has given to us.

What, then, is Torah in Shimon's tri-archy? If we understand his three pillars to represent three different categories that stand apart from each other while linked through their role of sustaining the world and in their ultimate source as coming from G-d, then we need to derive a category for which Torah is the archetype or representative. One clue is in recognizing that Torah is different from Avodah or Gemilut Hasidim in that the latter categories are actions that we, humans, must take. People are responsible for performing the sacrfices, offering prayer, wearing tzitzit, leaving corners of the field for the poor, doing tzedakah and all of the other mitzvot. By contract, Torah is something is G-d's revelation to His people. Torah is G-d's action, G-d's responsibility to us.

The difference between Torah and the other two categories is that the latter categories, mitzvot that we must perform, represent finite actions. Either we perform the mitzvah or we don't. Once we have performed it, it is done and we move to the next mitzvah. The peformance of a mitzvah stands at a point in time. By contrast, Torah is an eternal revelation. According to the Midrash, Torah was created before the world was created and will exist in the World to Come.

Torah is how we know what G-d expects of us. It is the revelation of G-d's will that informs us how to perform the mitzvot that makes up the other two pillars. It is G-d's part in sustaining the world. G-d has one part in making the world exist; we have two. G-d has told us what we must do to sustain our world. It is up to us to do it.

Chancellor Eisen holds a Town Meeting in Livingston

2007-09-25T11:13:00.000-04:00

The new JTS Chancellor held a Town Meeting, what is apparently one of many that he has been holding around the country. After he presented his views, he entertained questions from the audience and then asked a question of his own, what can JTS be doing to improve Conservative Judaism for the congregation? (I have paraphrased it as I remember the question). Here is my written answer to Dr. Eisen:

Dr. Eisen -

Thank you very much for holding the Town Hall meeting last night at Beth Shalom. It was good to be able to hear what you had to say.

You asked for suggestions of what problems JTS could help to solve in our communities. To answer that question, I think that one needs to start by looking at where JTS has failed the Conservative communities over the past several decades. If JTS, under your leadership, can start to address those failures, then there will be real success. I see those failures in two areas.

First, JTS has failed to provide the Conservative Jewish community with an answer to why we should believe. Religion is inherently a system of belief in tenets that are not subject to academic or scientific proof. As a scholarly institution that prides itself on academic rigor, JTS has excelled at tearing down the pre-modern edifice on which belief rested. Fields like archaeology, anthropology, sociology and literary and textual criticism have given us wonderful and important insights into our history. As Conservative Jews, we have marvelled in and taken pride in these discoveries and insights. But, as spiritual beings, we have been stripped of the underpinning of belief.

Like you, Heschel is my intellectual, and even more, my spiritual hero. Heschel painted a picture for us of belief that rests first and foremost on a love of G-d. As you said last night, the ideal is that we enter into mitzvot out of a love for G-d and community. When we commit ourselves to observance because it is an expression of our gratitude for G-d's gifts to us and our way of touching the divine, we are achieving our highest spiritual level as Jews. I believe in the Torah as G-d's revelation for Jews not because there is scientific proof that it is G-d's word, but because that is how I, as a Jew, know how to serve G-d. How the Torah came into being is interesting as an academic exercise; why it came into being and what it means to me is the spiritual journey that I travel.

We need Jewish leaders who believe, deeply and passionately, in G-d, Torah and Israel and who can articulate why they believe in ways that are compelling to other Jews. They need to be more than role models; they need to be leaders. We are far too smug about what we know to be false and far too timid to talk about what might be true.

The second area in which I think that JTS has failed the Conservative movement is in creating faith communities. We have many synagogues and congregations, but woefully few true communities. A community is one that comes together to pray, to learn, to socialize, to support, to act, and to live together. How many congregations view their synagogue or center as their second home? How many congregations have a large percentage of their members in the synagogue building on a weekly basis? A congregation is a board, a building, a staff, and dues-paying members. A community is much, much more than that. Are we training our leaders to understand the difference and to work for the latter rather than the former?

One test of a community is how it treats the stranger, the visitor. I used to travel extensively for work and on those occasions when I need to stay over Shabbat, I invariably ended up at Chabad instead of the Conservative shul, because the Conservative shul had no concept of, much less ability to provide, Shabbat accommodations. A community that observes Shabbat together naturally comes to have the ability to provide such facilities for those who happen to find themselves in the community.

The failure of our congregations can be seen by examining the success stories. Every successful Conservative congregation of which I am aware, with my congregation of Agudath Israel as the notable exception, is based in a community with an Orthodox population. If I take congregations such as Beth Ahm in LA or the Conservative Center and Temple in Highland Park, the East Brunswick Jewish Center, the Conservative congregation in Rockville, or a number of other successful Conservative congregations, they all have thriving Orthodox communities as well. It is the Orthodox communities that make it possible for committed Conservative Jews to live in those communities. It is the Orthodox that create and supporet the Kosher marketplaces, build the Eruv, build the Mikvah, and create a public Jewish face that is not ashamed to be seen as religious. The committed Conservative Jew is largely a free-rider on these benefits.

When that Orthodox community does not exist, the Conservative congregation is much weaker. It has a hard time attracting the committed Conservative Jew because for that Jew the needed services that stretch beyond the doors of the synagogue don't exist. This, more than anything, I think is why young people raised in Schechter schools, Ramah camp, and USY find themselves drawn to Orthodox communities. I don't think that it is simply that they have come to believe something different from what they were taught, but because they have been taught that living the life of a committed Jew is important, they have no choice but to find an Orthodox community that can provide the essential services.

In your talk last night, you touched on these themes and for that I am hopeful that your leadership will address these issues. Having read your books, I know that you understand the forces that are at work and that you have spent much time thinking on how to harness them for positive results. I am cautiously optimistic for the future of our movement because you are at the helm.

I wish you the best of luck.

Women and Kippot

2006-09-19T15:30:00.000-04:00

An incident has stuck in my mind for well over a year now that bothered me quite a bit. There was a women, a Rabbi, who was a guest at a Bar Mitzvah in our community. She was asked by the family to lead Maariv services. Despite her lovely voice, her ruach and energy, I could not help but be distracted by the fact that she was not wearing a Kippah. She wore a Tallit, her own, as the Shalicha normally does for Erev Shabbat, but she did not wear a Kippah. I asked later for an explanation and was told that she considers a Kippah to be a male garment and, as the wearing of a Kippah is a Minhag and not a Halachic requirement, she chose not to wear one.

I wonder, from the distance of time, what would have happened had I removed my Kippah, which I wear all the time, not just for services. I can imagine that someone would have politely reminded that I was not wearing my Kippah. I am sure that they would have assumed I had dropped it or forgotten to put it back on at some point. I imagine the conversation when I say that I see no reason that I need to wear a Kippah if the Shlicha, who surely has a greater obligation than me, chooses not to wear one. The consternation and unhappiness that would have resulted is palpable, even in my imagination.

The point should be obvious: it is not possible to celebrate an egalitarian approach to worship and insist on one's right to reject that which is normative in the community. Had this Rabbi been a member of the congregation, there would have been no issue, since we do not insist on women wearing a head covering when not taking a public role in our service. However, when serving as the Shlicha for the congregation, it seems all to obvious that she should have donned a head covering, whether a traditional Kippah or a more feminine alternative.

Instead, it seems to me, she was arguing, through her actions, that while she insists on her rights as an egalitarian Jew to be counted equally, she does not want the norms of the community to be imposed upon her. She insists, in her autonomy, that she should be treated with respect, yet she fails to respect the community as equally legitimate. Moreover, she seems to acknowledge that there are very real differences between men and women, differences that can be symbolized in clothing, such as a head-covering. If there are differences that are legitimate and worth noting and acting upon, then why are we so committed to the notion that within our service, we need to treat men and women with equal responsibilities and rights.

The answer appears to be that egalitarianism stops with rights and does not extend to responsibilities. Women are to be accorded the rights of men within the ritual space, such as being counted in a minyan, reading from the Torah and Haftarah and leading services. But when it comes to taking on the responsibilities on which these rights are based, it seems that these can be rejected on such flimsy premises that they are Minhag or that they are uncomfortable or that we might offend the sensibilities of some older members of the Kahal.

It is time for those who are egalitarian to insist on that the rights are subject and secondary to the responsibilities. Within Judaism, which is based on mitzvot, commandedness, and not natural rights, we must start with understanding our responsibilities to G-d, to our community and to ourselves. Only then, do we earn the rights that we covet.

Halacha and the Conservative Movement

2006-09-18T13:51:00.000-04:00

Rabbi Andy Sacks was posted in Shefa (its not clear whether he wrote specifically for Shefa or whether this was posted from some other origin) writing an implicit response to Avi Shafran's charge that the Conservative Movement has abandoned Halacha. Rabbi Sacks writes, "The Masorti/Conservative Movement is indeed a Movement committed to deep respect for Halacha . Those that pay heed to the writings of the Movement in matters of Jewish law know that the level of scholarship is high and the respect for sources runs deep." He goes on to say that "Far too often those to the right, in particular those in the fervently Orthodox world, confuse Minhag (custom) with law. We find custom, which has a central place in our tradition, becomes frozen and somehow sanctified. This applies to the black garb that many Orthodox wear and it applies too much in the realm of the (in)active participation of women in public Jewish ritual life."

The rest of the article is an attempt to argue that the current debate about homosexual practices within Judaism is well within halachic norms. I have to say that I agree with Rabbi Sacks up to this point. I think that each of the statements he makes, except for his fundamental premise, is correct. I think that Masorti and Conservative Rabbis do, by and large, have enormous respect for the sources from which our traditions spring. I agree that the right-wing has become unable or unwilling to distinguish between Minhag and Halacha, though there is a strong argument that Minhag can become "like" Halacha (e.g., the requirement that men wear a Kippah at least when engaged in ritual activity). I would go farther to say that the right wing's fear of innovation has led to a defensive posture that manfiests itself in lashing out at anyone who would dare to engage in such innovation. I agree that debate on any subject, including homosexuality, is condoned and protected by Halachic standards. There was no subject off-limits to Chazal and there should be no subject off-limits to us.

However, I think Rabbi Sacks fails to make his basic point, that this debate, being within a Halachicly-recognizable process, will yield a valid halachic outcome. Rabbi Sacks fails to identify what he means by Halacha and how it is that the current (or previous) debates fell within that definition. Simply respecting the sources and using them in the context of a Tshuvah is not enough to make something Halachic. The arguments made and the conclusions reached are not Halachic only by citing enough traditional sources; a Halachic decision requires something more and Rabbi Sacks has not identified what it is (and neither will I, because I am not sure I know either).

But, let us say that the elites of the Conservative movement, both Rabbis and educated and engaged laypeople, do engage in Halchically recognizable and defensible debate; it is still too evident that the vast majority of the Conservative movement, with the acquiesence if not outright approval of the elites, have abandoned any serious commitment to Halacha in a practical sense. It is facile to point to the number of Jews affiliated with the Conservative movement who have abandoned any pretext of keeping Kosher or Shabbat. We can look to the elites of their communities for a more compelling argument. In how many congregations have large sections of the liturgy been abandoned to save time? In how many congregations have accommodations been made to allow photography, electronic music and other Shabbat-prohibited activities for the sake of a Simcha? How many Conservative communities have acted to build Mikvaot so that their members can fulfill be more closely bound to the mitzvot associated with the laws of Niddah?

In how many congegrations that call themselves "Egalitarian" has this come to mean that women can do, or not do, anything that they choose, without any concomitant responsibilities. Is the same expectation of Tallit and Tefillin placed on women that are placed on men? Are women who claim that Kippah, as a Minhag and not Halacha, is not obligatory making a valid point or have they lost any perspective of the damage that their decision does to the halachic understanding of the rest of their community? Certainly, there are some congregations that have applied Egalitarianism in a thorough way, but they are simply the exception that proves the rule. To argue on the one hand that Egalitarianism can be defended within Halcha and then to use it to abandon Halacha is simple hypocrisy.

There is certainly a place somewhere between the ossification of the right-wing Orthodox and the hypocrisy of the left-wing Conservatives. Whether it lays with the Modern Orthodox, who have not been able to find their way to a full engagement of women within ritual practice, or in the so-called traditional Egalitarian synagogues who struggle to explain their decisions to a laity that is unengaged with halachic debate, remains to be seen.

Pirkei Avot 4.14

2006-09-15T13:40:00.000-04:00

Rabbi Yochanan the Sandler says: Every assembly that is dedicated to the sake of Heaven will have an enduring effect; but one that is not for the sake of Heaven will not have an enduring effect.

One has to wonder about the context in which Rabbi Yochanan made this statement. Rabbi Yochanan was a Tanna of the generation of Rabbi Akiva, which means that he lived after the destruction of the Second Temple and during the Bar Kochba rebellion. Looking backward at the destruction of the Temple, it is tempting to think that Rabbi Yochanan may have been castigating that generation for their sins that led to the destruction of the Temple. Looking at the Bar Kochba rebellion and its gruesome aftermath, Rabbi Yochanan may have had serious doubts about the efficacy of their task.

But, with the benefit of millenia separating us from those events, we can see that that Rabbi Yochanan was correct in the positive statement that he made. The purpose of Chazal (the sages), was always to create community that would last. They taught a tradition that was designed, by man and G-d, to create communities that could withstand the worst that the world could inflict upon them. Their teaching became that moral foundation of the Western world and has allowed Jews to remain Jews until this time. Certainly, one can look back and see that their assembly, which had everything to do with L'shem shamayim (the sake of heaven).

Our own building is on the verge of closing. Like the Jews of Rabbi Yochanan's time, though on a much smaller scale, we are about to find out what life is like without the geographic focal point of our Jewish community. For 18 months or so, we will be wandering around Caldwell from location to location creating sacred space wherever we find ourselves. It is our hope that we have created an assembly that is truly for the sake of heaven, for that joined purpose will create something that lasts long beyond this temporary dislocation

(Prepared for Congregation Agudath Israel, 9/15/2006)

Shafran and Shefa

2006-09-13T13:56:00.000-04:00

Not surprisingly, the Shefa folks are up in arms about Avi Shafran's latest shot across the Conservative bow. Shafran writes in the Jerusalem Post that "a prediction I made in an article for Moment magazine more than five years ago - and for which, at the time, I was roundly pilloried - has been confirmed by recent events." What recent event could have confirmed Shafran - none other than the clear signal that a Conservative decision recognizing homosexuality is imminent. So, while Shafran could only predict 5 years ago that the Conservative movement would drop its adherence to Halacha, now he has his proof?

But that isn't what causes me to write. It is Bill Plevan's response. Plevan takes the standard way out of this accusation - he simply states that what Shafran understands as halacha and what the Conservative movement understands as halacha are different and therefore the accusation is baseless. Plevan says, "his [Shafran's] characterization of the 'halachic process of the millennia' is at best contestable, which is precisely what many rabbis and scholars within Conservative Judaism have argued for a "century." Of course, the only Rabbis who contest this are Conservative rabbis, who, having abandoned an adherence to traditional understandings of halacha have taken it upon themselves to define halacha to fit their own pre-conceptions.

Lets face it, Neil Gillman is write when he states categorically that it is time for the Conservative movement to abandon its tortured defense of its halachic bona fides. Gillman writes in this issue of Conservative Judaism magazine that a definition of halacha as loose and flexible as that of the Conservative movement can hardly be called halachic at all. I'm no fan of Rabbi Gillman, but I have to admire his candor. I surprised that Avi Shafran didn't quote directly from the leading philosopher of the movement.

Kavvanah

2006-09-13T12:04:00.000-04:00

My son and I were talking last night about Kavvanah. His goal is to daven with Kavvanah at all times, but he finds this very difficult in his school minyan in which few are davening at all or in our shul minyan in which the pace is too fast for him to concentrate. We talked about whether it is really possible to strive to daven always with such concentration and intent.

I related a story that I had heard from a source now forgotten. A Rabbi in a Yeshivah asked his students how often they davened with Kavvanah. Answers ranged from "Every day" to "Once or twice a week." No student wanted to admit that Kavvanah was hard to achieve, at least on occasion. The Rabbi told his students, "I feel fortunate if I can daven with Kavvanah once or twice a year."

Kavvanah is something you can strive to achieve, but can not achieve consciously. Once you become aware that you are davening with Kavvanah, it is over. Kavvanah is an attempt to become joined to G-d, such that there is no difference between your prayer and G-d. As Rabbi Pinchas, a Hasidic master, says, "When a man who is praying thinks his prayer is something apart from G-d, he is like a supplicant to whom the king gives what he has begged from him. But he who knows that prayer in itself is G-d is like the king’s son who takes whatever he needs from the stores of his father."

Kavvanah is a spark that burns only for a instant. Its brilliant light catches our eye, if we are looking in the right direction, but then, just as we see it, we lose sight of it and it vanishes. All we can do is to keep trying to capture that spark each time we reach out to HaShem with our prayers.

Pirkei Avot 4.13

2006-09-13T11:50:00.000-04:00

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: He who fulfills a single mitzvah gains for himself a single advocate; one who commits a single transgression gains for himself a single accuser. Repentence and good deeds are like a shield against retribution

I found, in the ArtScroll Pirkei Avos Treasury, a parable (paraphrased) for this mishna that is worth sharing:

There was a man who had three friends. He loved the first friend very much and spent much time pursuing this friendship, sometimes to the exclusion of other friends. The second friend was almost as close and he felt very comfortable in this friend's company. The third friend was more of an acquaintance; the man would occasionally seek out this friend, but might go some time without his friend's company.

This man was summoned to appear before the court to be accused of a crime. The man, understandably concerned and wanting for someone to stand with him, approached his first friend, but this friend would not accompany the man to the court. The second friend was willing to accompany the man to the court, but only as far as the outside steps, not inside the courtroom. Desparate, the man approached the last friend, the acquaintance. This friend said that he would be happy to stand with the man in the court and help to defend him against the charges.

The first friend is like our money and wealth and all that we strive so hard and with such single-mindedness to accumulate. None of this will make any difference when we stand before our Judge and answer for our actions. The second friend is like our family who loves us and whom we love. They can accompany us only as far as the cemetery and no farther. They can not stand with us when we stand before the Judge. The third friend is our good deeds, our true repentence, and the mitzvot that we have strived to keep. These stand with us when we answer our accuser before the Judge of all. These are our witnesses that we have striven to live our life as G-d intended it.

As we approach the Yomim Noraim, we can keep in mind that even one mitzvah may be just what is needed to tip the scales of justice in our favor. A single mitzvah may be the advocate that we need to win a favorable judgment.

(Delivered 9/8/2006 at Congregation Agudath Israel

Pirkei Avot 4.2

2006-06-30T16:31:00.000-04:00

Ben Azzai said: Run to perform even a minor mitzvah, and flee from sin; for one mitzvah leads to another mitzvah and one sin leads to another sin; for the reward of a mitzvah is a mitzvah, and the reward of a sin is a sin.

In their book, The Jew Within, Arnold Eisen and Steven Cohen write that most liberal Jews approach their religious obligations based on their level of comfort or appreciation for that particular form of observance. Those for whom a family experience is meaningful, which describes most Jews, will observe Passover and other family-oriented religious traditions. Those for whom a prayer experience holds value will find themselves at a synagogue on a more regular basis. Those for whom social action is a central part of religious activity will gravitate towards those kinds of activities and the communities that promote them.

Most liberal Jews, according to Cohen and Eisen, reject the idea that they are commanded to observe, and that in that commandment lies its own obligation. For most liberal Jews, the idea of sacrificing their autonomy to choose those activites that are most relevant to their lives and core beliefs is anathema. To sacrifice one's autonomy, especially to something as amorphous as a religious community, is to give up what is best about being a member of the American experience. It is our ability to choose our particular path, the one that speaks to us, that defines the modern experience, not only of Jews, but of all Americans in the beginning of the 21st century.

The Rabbis, by contrast, neither knew nor would they have understood the centrality and priority of autonomy. What they understood was that there were those who are in a position to command - kings and gods - and those who are subject to those commands. G-d may have given us free will (see Pirkei Avot 3.19), but that does not change the fact that we have been given a command, indeed 613 of them, and that our choice is only whether to obey or disobey the command and the Commander.

The essence of Halacha is the notion that we are commanded in the Torah, both the Written and the Oral Law, and that our only choice is whether we will obey the command. We may, in fact we must, study in order to fully understand the nature and the form of the command. We may understand these commands in a historical, theological or sociological context. We may apply modern notions sensibilities to these commands to observe them in ways that are consistent with our moral and social framework. What we may not do is reject them as irrelevant , unnecessary, or anachronistic. To do so is to reject the very framework of positive historical Judaism, the claim of the Conservative movement. When Conservative Jews choose automonmy over commandedness, Conservative Judaism sacrifices its claim to be a Halachic movement.

As Conservative Jews, we have an obligation that calls out to us. We are commanded to observe. As Ben Azzai says, in doing one Mitzvah, another will follow and that, in itself, is the reward.

Pirkei Avot 4.1

2006-06-27T16:22:00.000-04:00

I am way behind on my posts, so I am going to skip to where we are currently and catch up on the older entries over the next few weeks.

Ben Zoma says: Who is wise? He who learns from every person, as it is said: From all those who taught me, I grew wise (Psalms 119:99). Who is strong? He who subdues his personal inclination, as it is said: He who is slow to anger is beter than a strong man, and a master of his passions is better than a conqueror of a city (Proverbs 16:32). Who is rich? He is happy with his lot, as it is said: When you eat of the labor of your hands, you are praiseworthy and all is well with you (Psalms 128:2). 'You are praiseworthy' - in this world; 'and all is well with you' - in the World to Come. Who is honored? he who honors others, as it is said: For those who honor Me I will honor, and those who scorn Me shall be degraded. (I Samuel 2:30).

Last week, I wrote about a friend who asked about my reaction to an article by Vanessa Ochs and the response that the newspaper received. To summarize, Ochs wrote that going to church on occasion can be an invigorating experience. There is a palpable sense of G-d's love for each individual person that pervades the atmosphere of the most exciting chuch services. (I suspect that this feeling is much more subdued in more mainline Protestant churches than in the Black Baptist or Methodist AME churches.) Readers, especially Orthodox readers, responded that she might find a similar level of intimacy with G-d in the Orthodox service and that a Jew would be better off looking at authentic avenues of Jewish expression than trying to seek something in the church experience.

I think that this response misses the critical point that Ochs raises, which is that each tradition brings something special and unique to the worship of G-d. To say that the church experience brings something that Ochs finds missing in her experience of synagogue services is not to disparage the synagogue, but to point to a uniqueness that is found elsewhere. Those who are threatened by such comparative approaches are diminished; those who understand the value that comes from understanding that which is Other are enhanced.

How does this relate to our Mishna this week? Ben Zoma says that the one who is wise is one who learns from all who would teach. How better to understand this point than to see that learning from the Other, those whose traditions and sensibilities are different from ours, is contained within the verse From all those who taught me, I grew wise. There is no limitation on who may teach me and I am encouraged to learn from all who have something to say. Conversely, we might say that he who limits his learning to only those who he would wish to teach him can not hope for wisdom.

Continuing in Ben Zoma's framework, strength is found in mastering one's passions. The passion that says that my tradition, my community, my prejudices, my preferences are right and correct and that those of the Other that are different are wrong weakens me. It weakens my ability to interact and grow through the Other. It weakens my community by denying it access to other truths. This does not mean that we need descend into relativism, but there are many more paths to truth than the one that I follow. I am strong when I can master the passion that would say that only my path can be the true path.

I am rich when I recognize that my path is also a path of truth. The Psalm says, When you eat of the labor of your hands... The fruit of our labor is the path on which we walk, made from the traditions of our people and the revelation that we have received. Our path is a path of peace and our Torah is a tree of life. To acknowledge that the Other path is also truth in now way diminishes the value in my path. My path to G-d makes me rich and it is the only path on which I can walk.

Finally, who is honored, one who honors Others. Can I truly serve G-d when I deny that Others too serve G-d, albeit differently. As I wrote here, we are all created b'tzelem elokim and we are all unique and equal and inifinitely precious. When I not only acknowledge and learn from Others, but honor them for their uniqueness, then I too am worthy of honor.

Going to Church?

2006-06-23T15:15:00.000-04:00

A friend sent me an email suggesting that I read Vanessa Ochs' article in the New Jersey Jewish News (link here). Ochs writes, "It was Bishop Krister Stendal who illuminated the blessings of interfaith conversations with the concept of 'Holy Envy.' The idea was to articulate what we admired about other faiths. Here is what I envy: the feeling I get when I go to church." Ochs' goes on to write about the feeling that G-d loves each individual churchgoer that is palpable in the church experience and is so missing from synagogue. She envies the deeply ingrained sense amongst church goers that they are, as specific individuals, the object of G-d's love. She writes that when she goes to synagogue, "I am so busy saying all the words of the prayers and noticing all the people I care about that it never strikes me that I have blown an opportunity to feel I am loved by God."

The point of my friend's email was that there were a several critical letters to the editor suggesting that church is no place for a nice Jewish woman. The letter writers, perhaps unfamiliar with Ochs' extensive knowledge of and commitment to her own tradition, suggested that she spend more time learning about Judaism and less time in the place of the Other. My friend wanted to know what I think.

My response to this is nonsense. I welcome, indeed I want to celebrate, all true expressions of faith in G-d. It is not enough to recognize that there are other paths to G-d, we should seek to understand those paths that are different from our own. Each path has something to teach us about G-d's love for the world G-d created and each of us in it. Understanding and celebrating those paths can broaden and deepen our appreciation for our own path.

In understanding the paths of the Other, we learn what is truly transcendent about G-d. We learn that there are foundations to faith that are independent of a particular ritual or community or tradition. We learn that a true faith is one that leads us, in Karen Armstrong's words, to an "active compassion." We learn that any faith that does not build up the world around us is not a true faith. That any faith that would tear down another in a selfish need to claim ascendancy as a truer faith is no true path to G-d.

We also learn about what distinguishes us. We learn why the Other is Other and why that path is not the path that leads us to G-d. We learn why our path is true for us by understanding the truth in other paths that do not speak to us. And we learn that there is much that other paths can teach us that strenghten, energize, and enliven the path that we have taken.

Ochs clearly understands that we have passed through a time when Jewish suspicion of the Other as stronger and bent on our destruction is warranted and necessary. There are still incidents that should concern us (growing anti-Semitism in Europe, hate in the Arab world, Israel-bashing in the world press), but here in North America, we have built a society in which the open exploration of traditions other than our own is not only possible, but will lead us to new understandings that will enrich us for years to come. So, I would say to my friend, go to church. You may find you are a better Jew for it.

Blogging the Bible: Abraham vs. God. By David Plotz

2006-05-17T21:07:00.000-04:00

This is worth taking a look. Many of us have tried to read the Torah from cover to cover. I have started this project any number of times, but never stuck to it from beginning to end. Of course, as a regular shul-goer, I "hear" the Torah read every week, covering the entire Torah in the course of a Jewish year. But I have never successfully sat down to read it cover to cover.

Equally interesting is the attempt to read it without the help of commentary. I am skeptical that this is possible. The Torah is simply too ambiguous, too sketchy, and definitely too contextual to understand it without the lens of a tradition.

Nevertheless, I will keep reading. It is worth a look. You'll find it at: Blogging the Bible: Abraham vs. God. By David Plotz

Pirkei Avot 3.17

2006-05-17T13:33:00.000-04:00

Rabbi Akiva says: Mockery and levity accustom a man to immorality. The Masora (tradition, Oral Law) is a fence for the Torah; tithes are a fence for wealth; vows are a fence for abstinence; a fence for wisdom is silence

Setting aside the reisha (head, first part), I want to look at the idea of fences and what they mean to Rabbi Akiva and to us. A fence can be something that demarcates a boundary. It can be protection against unwanted intrusions or an obstacle keeping those on the inside from getting out. A fence, in and of itself, has no moral standing. It is how we use that fence that gives it value and worth.

In the traditional view of fences, the intent of Rabbi Akiva's statement is to protect that which is inside the fence by creating a boundary around that which is precious and worth protecting. The Oral Law, which carries the same weight as Torah, is a protection against misinterpreting Torah law. The Oral Law teaches us what the Torah means when it uses ambiguous language such "a tooth for a tooth." The Oral Law teaches us that this is to be understood as monetary compensation, not a literal rendering of the text. In this way, the Oral Law protects us from misapplying Torah dictates.

Likewise, tithes provide a clear protection against the excesses of wealth. The Rabbis never considered wealth to be a bad thing, rather they were concerned, reasonably so, that wealth not be considered an end, but rather a means to do G-d's will. The requirement to give tithes from one's wealth is protection against the idea that the wealth that we achieve is truly ours.

However, we can look at these fences differently. Rather than to protect what is inside the fence (Torah, wealth, etc.) from us, the fence may be there to protect us from what is inside the fence. In our zealousness to have what is good and to do what is good, we require a fence to protect us. From this perspective, the fence around the Torah is to protect us from the zealousness of our desire to do G-d's will. The tradition creates a protective boundary, not to prevent us from "doing it wrong," but to prevent us from getting burned in the act of doing what the Torah commands. Therefore, we learn from the Torah that all belongs to G-d, but we learn from the Oral Law what that means to us on a day to day basis. We learn from the Oral Law how to restrain our thanksgiving and our grief, to balance our commitment to ourselves with our commitment to G-d, Israel and the world.

Tithes, then, may not be a protection against the notion that wealth is the end, but against the zealousness that might cause us to give all of our wealth away in an effort to do what is good. We might feel that if giving some to tzedakah is good, then giving more is better. But the Rabbis warn us that we may give only so much and not more so that we do not impoverish ourselves and become a burden on the community.

Vows are a fence against the zealous desire for abstinence. Abstinence has always been understood as a way to atone and to become closer to G-d. But asceticism has never been part of mainstream Judaism. Our Rabbis prized both worldly physical pleasures along with the more spiritual pleasure. Both were considered valuable. Indeed, we learn that without the yetzer hara (the impulse for evil) there would be no marriage and no trade. Vows allow us to limit and contain our spiritual impulse towards abstinence, thereby protecting us from ourselves.

Finally, the Rabbis cherished wisdom, but saw silence as even greater. Knowing when to speak is at least as important as speaking wisely. Silence preserves our wisdom in two ways. It raises the value of our counsel by making what we say rare and important, rather than plentiful and ordinary. Even more important, silence allows space for us to learn from others. As Ben Zoma says (Pirkei Avot 4:1), the wise person is one who learns from everyone. We can not learn if we are always talking. Silence is a fence that protects us from missing the opportunity to learn from others.

(As presented to CAI 5/7/2006)

Pirkei Avot 3:16

2006-05-11T10:45:00.000-04:00

Still catching up. I had some real difficulties presenting this particular mishna, so this is not exactly what I presented, but some thoughts I have had in the intervening days.

Rabbi Yishmael says: Be kal (easy, yielding) to a rosh, noach (restful, pleasant) to a tishchoret, and receive every person cheerfully.

I have purposefully not translated "rosh" or "tishchoret" because understanding these words is the crux to understanding this mishna. Turning first to the seifa or the concluding thought, it is easy to understand the admonition to receive each person cheerfully. Certainly, this is a key to civil society, to receive those we know and those whom we do not know with good cheer. Not always an easy task, but certainly one that is worth striving for.

How then to understand the first two parts of the Mishna. The word rosh literally means "head." It can be the head that siits on ones shoulders, though that is unlikely in this context. More likely, it is the head of some group or community. This is reasonable and the admonition to be yielding or easy to the head of one's group or community is a suggestion that, in most cases, is also worth following.

The whole mishna, it seems to me, hangs on how we translate and understand the word tishchoret. Our sages had difficulty with this word because it is not used with any frequency and has a very ambiguous meaning. Rashi suggests that this word means a young(er) person. He understands the root to be shin, chet, resh, which means "black." One who is young is one whose hair has not turned grey - it is still black. Therefore, the traditional interpretation is that one should be pleasant to the young. Look back at the beginning, we might then understand rosh to be an elder and this leads to the traditional understanding that one should yield to an elder, be pleasant to the young and receive all people cheerfully.

However, this translation of tishchoret, which reasonable, is apparently not correct based on the usage of the word in other contexts. Rather, the tischoret appears to have been what we would call a "press gang." This was a group of Roman soldiers who would waylay Jews and send them on errands for the soldiers. While the Jews were generally not pressed into military service, they may have been made to suffer at the hands of these gangs of Roman soldiers.

In this understanding, we may have a more historical view of Rabbi Yishmael's recommendation. Rabbi Yishmael was,as a boy, a slave who was enprisoned by the Romans and redeemed by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chanina. Rabbi Yishmael may be giving the advice that in the face of the occupier one should act in a positive and cheeful manner, so as not to give offense to the occupiers.

This is a difficult lesson and one that we very much doubt we would apply today. With the history of the Holocaust still fresh in our minds, even three generations later, we are wary of those who would tell us to be pleasant and accommodating to those who would oppress us. We have learned from the heroes of the Warsaw ghetto and others that Jews must be willing to defend themselves rather than yield to those who would destroy us.

Understanding, as we do, the danger in kowtowing to those who would inflict evil, we are even more obligated not to be bystanders in watching those who would do so to others. Whether we are talking about the genocide in the Sudan and other parts of Africa or the growing anti-Semitism in Europe and elsewhere, Jews can not afford to receive everyone cheerfully.

Pirkei Avot 3.15

2006-05-09T13:05:00.000-04:00

I've been a little lazy about getting these up. I will be posting the next several over the next few days.

Rabbi Elazar the Moda'ite used to say: One who desecrates sacred things, who disgraces the festivals, who humiliates his fellow in public, who nullifies the covenant of our forefather Abraham, or who perverts the meaning of the Tora contrary to Halacha - though he may have Torah and good deeds, he has no share in the World to Come.

The question that immediately confronts us is how can someone who has Torah and good deeds not have a place in the World to Come (Olam HaBa)? Surely, these are the key elements to right living: to know G-d through the Torah and to put that knowledge to use through good deeds (ma'asim tovim). Shall one who has lived rightly not receive his reward?

In its historical context, it is clear that R' Elazar's list is an injunction against the beliefs of sects of Jews that did not accept certain key elements of Jewish law. It is not hard to see that R' Elazar is likely attacking the early Christian decision not to require circumcision of Gentiles. Prior to the wholesale departure of the Christian church from the Jews, the turmoil created by the decision of Paul, Peter and the other early Christians to relax this rule is similar to our own turmoil over patrilineal descent.

However, we need to not understand this mishna solely through its historical lens, for it speaks to us today. R' Elazar's list of infractions all involve public demonstrations of community participation. We can understand this list as an example of MiPhrat L'Clal, the hermeneutic principle that a list of specific laws followed by a general summary is to be understood as exmplary of the general law and not complete. In this understanding, we understand that these and any infraction of Jewish communal law is sufficient to render Torah and good deeds insufficient for a place in the World to Come.

Jewish life and relationships stand on three legs. Our relationship with G-d, our relationship with the children of Israel (Jews) and our relationship as Jews with the greater non-Jewish world. To the extent that we are bound to each of these, to that extent are we assured of a place in Olam HaBa. Torah is what binds us to G-d; it is how we hear G-d's voice and what gives expression to us as a religious people. Good deeds are what binds us to the greater world; they are what makes us a "light unto the nations." Our communal practices - holidays, circumcision, tolerance to name but a few - are what binds us as Jews to each other. Without this third, we surely sacrifice part of the world. We diminish what we, as Jews, can be and that in turns diminishes the World that we are commanded to build.

(Presented to CAI on April 21, 2006)

shefa : Message: Davening -- My Personal Journey (from Dan Kimmel)

2006-05-02T13:14:00.000-04:00

Normally, I read the Shefa group to make sure that my blood pressure doesn't drop too far. It is good to get riled up once in a while. To my surprise, there is an excellent post (excellent because I agree with it) about the suggestions that music and other innovations are needed to liven up the service.

shefa : Message: Davening -- My Personal Journey (from Dan Kimmel)

The author, Dan Kimmel, makes a very nice statement about his own growing observance and the connection that he has been able to make to the traditional service. Like Dan, as I became more and more familiar with the traditional service, the less I wanted it to change. The liturgy has become a well-trod path with landmarks that I look forward to seeing. There is much more that I could say, but I think that Dan's post does a good job of covering the ground.