The Famed Israeli Singer Noa says “Delete” to Israeli Song Award Because of Another Singer’s Hatred Towards Gays, Arabs, Leftists, and Secular Jews

14 Friday Feb 2014

Posted by in Art, Ethics, Israel and Palestine, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History, Jewish Identity, Social Justice

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Achinoam Nini (Known internationally as “Noa”) is among Israel’s greatest singers. Forty-four years old of Yemenite family background, she is not only a phenomenal singer and a true beauty, she is principled, kind-hearted and generous of spirit.

Noa refused to accept a prestigious singing award from ACUM, a nonprofit group that seeks to ensure copyright laws protecting artists’ works, because another singer Ariel Zilber was to be presented with a life-time achievement award at the same ceremony.

Noa has taken offense at Ariel Zilber’s extremist politics and hateful speech towards a number of groups.

He hates homosexuals and declared not only that gays and lesbians should be banned from society, but that “To be a homo is a perversion.”

He proclaimed that all secular non-religious people “have nothing to offer, only to get sick with AIDS and look at naked women. Phooey!”

He said, “All leftists should be expelled [from Israel] and sent to the devil. They are Amalek!”

He praised the assassin of Yitzhak Rabin, Yigal Amir, as well as Baruch Goldstein, the American doctor who murdered 29 Muslims with a machine gun while they were praying in the Hebron Ibrahimia mosque, the traditional burial cave of Abraham and Sarah that both Jews and Muslims regard as a holy site.

He supports “Price Tag” attacks (perpetrated by extreme right wing settler groups) on Arabs and Israeli peace workers (i.e. Shalom Achshav).

He proclaimed that “the Arabs are not worth anything. They don’t know how to do anything but kill.”

And Zilber composed a song stating that Rabbi Meir “Kahane was right,” though the High Court of Israel outlawed Rabbi Meir Kahane’s political party “Kach” as racist.

I am grateful to Uri Avnery, a venerable 90 plus year Israeli journalist, for alerting me to Noa’s political and moral courage in refusing to share a stage with this hateful bigot.

Noa deserves a different award altogether, an “Israeli Mensch Award.” Not only has she lifted her good name high above the fray. She is the embodiment of the best of Israel’s spirit.

Israeli MKs Need a Course in Anger Management – D’var Torah Ki Tisa

12 Wednesday Feb 2014

Posted by in American Jewish Life, American Politics and Life, Divrei Torah, Ethics, Israel and Palestine, Israel/Zionism, Jewish Identity

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Last week I was stuck in a traffic jam and one driver’s road rage was so intense that I feared a physical attack. It didn’t happen, but I got to thinking about how anger plagues so many of us and how badly it disturbs our relationships, our character and civil discourse.

This week’s Torah portion, Ki Tisa, pulls the veil off Moses’ rage. It is a famous scene. Moses is carrying the tablets of the law down from Mount Sinai when Joshua tells him of the people’s celebration around the golden calf. As Moses approaches the camp he hears for himself the revelry, his anger is kindled, and with righteous indignation he confronts the people, smashes the tablets, burns the golden calf, grinds it to powder, mixes the pulverized idol with water, and force-feeds the substance into the gullets of the guilty Israelites. (Exodus 32:15-20).

His rage still boiling over, in the next chapter we read, “Now Moses took the tent and pitched outside the camp.” (Exodus 33:7).

The Jerusalem Talmud (B’chorim 3:3) explains why he pitched the Tent of Meeting so far away from the camp:

“…because he was tired of the people’s constant complaining and criticism. As he would walk around the camp some would say ‘look at his thick neck, his fat legs, he must eat up all our money.’”

Moses moved the tent of meeting out of sight so that those who desired truly to come close to God would have to make the effort to do so.

God, however, appealed to Moses (Midrash Rabbah 45:2):

“I want you to change your mind, go back to the camp, and deal with the people face to face, as it says ‘The Eternal would speak to Moses face to face as one person speaks to another.’” (Exodus 33:11)

We can’t blame Moses for his impatience with the people. He had lived with their obstinacy, distrust and faithlessness since leaving Egypt. However, tradition reminds us that magnanimity of mind, heart and soul, compassion and patience are critical virtues in a leader and that once the leader loses control due to anger or despair, so too do the leader’s moral credibility and authority evaporate.

As a congregational rabbi and leader of a large religious institution, I have learned over more than 35 years of service that the very worst thing I could do is to respond to anyone impatiently and in anger, because when I would do so my credibility is compromised and my moral authority diminished. I believe this is true about leadership in religious institutions, in all kinds of business, in non-profit organizations, in the arts, education, government, politics, and diplomacy.

With this in mind, I have been shocked by the angry, intemperate and hostile accusations leveled against Secretary of State John Kerry by Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz, Likud MK and Deputy Minister Ofir Akunis, and especially by Economics Minister and Jewish Home party chairman Naftali Bennett who recently called Secretary Kerry an anti-Semite. US National Security Advisor Susan Rice was quick to respond, and properly so, by defending Secretary Kerry’s integrity, friendship to the state of Israel, and sincere motivations in his peace efforts, as did Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli President Shimon Peres.

As if these extremist and intemperate remarks weren’t enough, at the same time an orthodox Israeli Knesset member David Rotem, who serves as the chairman of the Knesset Law, Constitution and Justice Committee, said that the Reform movement “is not Jewish. It is another religion.” In response Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the President of the North American Union for Reform Judaism, and Rabbi Gilad Kariv, Executive Director of the Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism, called on the Israeli government to censure MK Rotem and remove him from his leadership roles.

At the very least, full and sincere apologies from these leaders are in order.

It is my position that a leader of the state of Israel who continuously insults United States officials and dismisses the legitimacy of a major religious movement of the Jewish people should be dismissed from his/her leadership duties.

Tradition says that Moses ultimately lost his dream to enter the Promised Land because in anger at the people he struck a rock with a stick instead of speaking to it as God had commanded him.

The Talmud reminds us that “When a person loses his temper – If he is originally wise, he loses his wisdom, and if he is a prophet, he loses his prophecy.” (Babylonian Talmud, Pesachim 66b).

If Moses could be so diminished by his anger that God would deny him his most cherished dream then so too should leaders of the Israeli government lose their positions when their words are insulting and intemperate.

“Israeli Supreme Court Petition Stops Illegal Funding to ultra-Orthodox Draft Dodgers”

10 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by in Ethics, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History, Social Justice, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

This Hiddush headline from this past week was a pleasant surprise given the fact that in recent years the ultra-Orthodox political parties have grown in political influence and successfully kept their yeshiva students out of the Israeli Defense Forces while also directing millions of Israel shekels to their synagogues and yeshivot, moneys that no other community receives. The headline suggests that there is a return to fairness for all Israeli citizens regarding mandatory military service on the one hand, and the appropriate use of tax-payer shekels for all Israeli citizens on the other.

Hiddush is an organization committed to the separation of Church and State in Israel and to freedom of worship and conscience as guaranteed in Israel’s Declaration of Independence.

The following excerpts explaining this High Court ruling are taken from Hiddush’s announcement (for the entire story, see http://www.hiddush.org/article-2609-0-Hiddushs_Supreme_Court_petition_stops_illegal_funding_to_ultraOrthodox_draft_dodgers.aspx

“The petition… challenged the legality of continued State subsidies to yeshiva students who should be required to serve in the army or national service. The petition maintained that the legal basis for continued State funding for the yeshiva students ended as soon as the Tal Law, which granted yeshiva students mass exemption from military/civil service, was annulled by the Supreme Court. The Tal Law facilitated mass exemptions of 14% of the annual conscription, which is close to 60,000 yeshiva students who are of military service age. The law was annulled by the court almost two years ago, but the Knesset is debating a new law to replace it, and still hasn’t applied the legal draft requirement…

The Haredi [ultra-Orthodox] and general media are full of statements describing the court decision as a declaration of war by the Supreme Court against the Torah and Haredi Judaism, claiming that it once again proves the illegitimacy of the [Supreme] Court and its prejudice against ultra-Orthodox Jews. United Torah Judaism (UTJ) MK Rabbi Israel Eichler went as far as to claim that the Justices were bribed by the Reform Movement, and MK Rabbi Moshe Gafni (also from UTJ) has called to respond with war against the petition and its supporters.”

The Shas Party also reacted in a way that pits the democratically elected members of the Knesset and the Israeli High Court against the authority of ultra-Orthodox rabbis:

“We regret that the High Court joined the persecution of Torah Jewry tonight by crudely intervening into the sensitive legislation procedure that is being discussed these days in the legislative body. … The decision to impose economic sanctions is solely intended to join the assault and incitement against Torah scholars in Israel.” (The Yeshiva World News, February 4, 2014)

Hiddush was sited in that same press release by The Yeshiva World News:

The High Court clarified to the Knesset that even its infinite patience has a limit and the court will not permit the flow of hundreds of millions of shekels against the law. Since the cancellation of the Tal Law 18 months ago the state has been violating the law by not recruiting the yeshiva students. It adds insult to injury when it finances their remaining elsewhere. The High Court placed a border on the scandal. Hopefully the politicians will come to their senses and take action in the coming days to complete the share the burden equality law so another appeal will not have to be filed with the High Court.

The founder of Hiddush, Rabbi Uri Regev, has scored a major victory for democracy and fairness in Israeli society. For more information and news on the work of Hiddush, see http://www.hiddush.org/

Why I Joined as a Plaintiff in a Law Suit Against Los Angeles County

07 Friday Feb 2014

Posted by in American Jewish Life, American Politics and Life, Ethics, Jewish-Christian Relations, Social Justice

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

When the Board of Supervisors took a vote at its January meeting to restore a religious cross to the Los Angeles County Seal I was shocked, stunned and alarmed.

There are ten million citizens of Los Angeles County of whom 3.8 million are Christian, 564,000 are Jewish, 93,000 are Muslim, 70,000 are Buddhist, 73,000 are Hindu, and 4 million do not identify with any religious faith. However, by a vote of 3 (Antonovich, Knabe and Ridley-Thomas) to 2 (Molina and Yaroslavsky) the cross was ordered returned to the LA County seal, a blatant violation of the first amendment of the US Constitution that prohibits government endorsement of religion.

Ten years ago (2004) the correct decision was taken by the Board of Supervisors in a vote of 3 to 2 to remove the cross because it is a universally recognized religious symbol that is unique and special for people of Christian faith.

In response to the January Board of Supervisors vote, the ACLU invited me along with eight other religious leaders including Rabbi Harold Schulweis of Valley Beth Shalom Synagogue in Encino, UCLA Professor of Jewish History David Myers, the Reverend Peter Laarman of Progressive Christians Uniting,  Father Ian Davies of St. Thomas the Apostle Episcopal Church in Hollywood, the Reverend Ed Bacon of All Saints Church in Pasadena, Shakeel Syed, Executive Director of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, Rabbi Amy Bernstein of Kehillat Israel Reconstructionist Congregation in Pacific Palisades, and the Reverend Tera Little, Consulting Minister of the First Universalist Parish of Pasadena, to join as plaintiffs in this case. We all willingly agreed as religious leaders and as citizens living in LA County.

For us, our position (as opposed to that taken by Supervisors Antonovich, Knabe and Ridley-Thomas) is the true pro-religion position because we believe that by preserving the separation of church and state, we in fact preserve a safe, neutral space for followers of all religions to practice their faiths unhindered, without the implied endorsement and intimidation from an action signifying that government prefers, even symbolically, one religious denomination over others.

No child, no woman and no man should ever feel in the United States that he or she is marginal in matters of faith. America is NOT a Christian nation according to the US Constitution, nor is it a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, or any other kind of nation based on a specific faith tradition.

Since the case was filed yesterday, Supervisor Mike Antonovich has equated the ACLU with “Storm Troopers” and thereby slandered an organization the sole purpose of which is to defend the United States Bill of Rights, a cornerstone of American democracy. The Supervisor’s language is especially offensive to me as a Jew because I associate “Storm Troopers” with Nazism. By choosing both to put the cross back on the seal and using such inflammatory language, Mr. Antonovich has made this issue particularly divisive. Rather than help to unite this county Mr. Antonovich has chosen to insult and injure decent people and thereby divide us.

I join with my co-plaintiffs and co-counsel at the ACLU and at the law firm of Caldwell, Leslie and Proctor in demanding that the Board of Supervisors reverse its January decision and save the County from spending any time and sources on this matter when so many other urgent needs are confronting it, including 50,000 homeless individuals, rising hunger and poverty, a dysfunctional foster care system, inadequate health care, and a corrupt Sheriff’s Department.

​

The Yin-Yang of Prophetic and Priestly Leadership – D’var Torah Tetzaveh

07 Friday Feb 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

,

Thirty times does Aaron’s name appear in this week’s Torah portion, while the name Moses is completely absent, except by inference three times using the second person pronoun “You.” Moses’ absence is explained by commentators in a number of ways, and this one (my favorite) is found in a famous midrash emphasizing Moses’ selflessness in defense of the people at the sin of the golden calf.

As God prepared to destroy the people, Moses told the Almighty that he ought to be destroyed too and that God should remove him from his “Book” because he, Moses, could not live without his people.

God appealed to his prophet, “Could you really stand to have your name taken out of this Book?”

“Yes, if it would save my people.”

So God took the name of Moses out of this one sidra to test whether Moses could stand it or not. Moses passed the test, continued working, and God, seeing that his prophet was resolute, selfless and sincere, relented and forgave the people of their greatest sin.

Regardless of the actual reason that Moses’ name is missing completely in this parashah, the emphasis this week is on Aaron as High Priest and not on Moses as prophetic leader, thus giving us an opportunity to reflect on the unique nature of Aaron’s exalted role.

The brothers represent, in truth, two distinct and different kinds of leadership; one as charismatic prophet and the other as an institution-bound High Priest.

Moses needs no special clothing or external signs to establish himself as leader. Aaron wears the “sacral vestments” thereby defining him in his priestly dignity.

Though loved by the people, Aaron’s leadership is encumbered by institutional constraints. Contained, measured, conservative, conventional, and non-reactive, Aaron’s priestly world changes slowly, if at all. Ritual defines time and occasion. Disorder is shunned, chaos anathema, the breaking of rules unacceptable.

Moses, despite his role as lawgiver and chief magistrate, is by nature and temperament Aaron’s opposite. Windswept and inspirational, the prophet reaches for the stars and communes with God. Consumed in divine light, he is a dreamer who establishes a new world order by smashing the past’s idols. He ventures alone into the desert, his hair and beard turned white and he transcends human convention.

Society needs both a Moses and an Aaron, prophet and priest, the yin and yang of ancient Biblical life. Without Aaron there would be little stability and societal order, and public life would succumb to the worst excesses in the human condition. Without Moses’ prophetic zeal, there would be little vision and hope for change towards a more inspired and just social order.

One important lesson for us as we reflect on how Moses and Aaron complemented one another is that shared leadership and multiple leadership styles are preferable over the leadership of the one. A division of power not only prevents the principle leader from experiencing burn-out, as Jethro taught his son-in law in Exodus 18, but decentralization of responsibility creates a system of checks and balances that can contain zealotry, prevent rigidity and enable progress.

The three times in this portion when God actually addresses Moses with the pronoun “you” we glimpse three specific modes in which the wise leader ought to respond to the needs of the community.

The first comes at the beginning of the portion; “V’atah t’zaveh et b’nai Yisrael… – You shall command the children of Israel…” (Exodus 27:20)

Here we see that a strong leader must be confident enough to command (i.e. take control) when  necessary. However, if he does so constantly and in every instance he runs the risk of straining his authority and losing his followers.

The second time God addresses Moses is in the next chapter – “V’atah hakrev eleicha et Aharon achicha v’et banav ito mitoch bnei Ysirael l’chahano li…  – You shall bring close to you Aaron your brother and his sons with you into the midst of the children of Israel…”. (Exodus 28:1)

In this instance we see that the leader ought to undergo a selfless act of tzimzum (contraction) and delegate responsibilities to others. Even as the leader contracts, however, he enables by contraction to draw others closer to him thus maintaining authority.

And the final instance in which God addresses Moses is “V’atah t’dabeir et kol chochmei lev asher mileitiv ruach chocham… – And you shall speak to all those wise in heart and filled with the spirit of wisdom…” (Exodus 28:3).

The leader has to presume wisdom in others, and that dialogue and persuasion are necessary in bringing everyone along to desired ends.

Moses’ and Aaron’s examples suggest that great leadership requires not just vision and moral rectitude, but love of truth, love of humanity, wisdom, humility, respect for the dignity of every individual, and a commitment to enhance the common good.

Shabbat shalom!

 

 

 

Cynicism and Middle East Peace

03 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by in American Politics and Life, Book Recommendations, Ethics, Health and Well-Being, Israel and Palestine, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

I have discovered a small little book written by William George Jordan in 1898 that I recommend. It is called “The Majesty of Calmness” (published anew by Empowered Wealth, 2004). It is an elegantly written 62-page essay in which Jordan (a late 19th century early 20th century essayist and editor) opines on the meaning of failure and success, happiness and doing one’s best at all times regardless of age and circumstance.

I came across this little volume because it was favored by Coach John Wooden early on in his career and was a significant influence on him as he developed his educational philosophy and “Pyramid of Success.” Coach Wooden of the famed UCLA Bruins basketball team, has been called the greatest coach in any sport (college and professional) of the 20th century, but mostly he considered himself a teacher and a man of deep faith.

The following passage from “The Majesty of Calmness” is not only true for the individual, but is true in the world of international relations and diplomacy.

William George Jordan’s comments about the “cynic” and “cynicism” are particularly cogent and applicable to those within Israel and the Palestinian community who have been so hardened by fear, suffering and ideology that they cannot fathom an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement and the normalization of relations between our two nations and peoples, despite the fact that contemporary history is filled with examples of reconciliation between former enemies (Germany, Japan and the West following WWII, etc.).

William George Jordan writes:

“A cynic is a man who is morally near-sighted, and brags about it. He sees evil in his own heart, and thinks he sees the world. He lets a mote in his eye eclipse the sun. An incurable cynic is an individual who should long for death, for life cannot bring him happiness, and death might. The keynote of Bismarck’s lack of happiness was his profound distrust of human nature [Note: Bismarck famously said – “During my whole life I have not had twenty-four hours of happiness.”]

-William George Jordan, The Majesty of Calmness, (1898) published by Empowered Wealth, p. 57

“Jew-Free Palestine” – “Tension in Israeli Coalition” – “Israeli Manners” – “My Promised Land”

02 Sunday Feb 2014

Posted by in American Jewish Life, American Politics and Life, Book Recommendations, Ethics, Israel and Palestine, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History, Jewish Identity, Social Justice

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

News, commentary, criticism, and reaction about the Kerry-Israeli-Palestinian Peace Mission are being written in great volume from every perspective within Israel and amongst the Palestinians. Among the most important pieces in recent days are these three that I recommend you read:

1. A Jew-Free Palestine – by Rabbi Donniel Hartman, Times of Israel

A superb and thoughtful analysis of the meaning of the West Bank settlements and their role in the future of the state of Israel. Rabbi Hartman says that Israel must now decide whether it wishes to be a Jewish democratic state or not.  http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-jew-free-palestine

2. Tension Builds in Israeli Coalition at a Critical Juncture in Peace Talks, by Jodi Rudoren, NYT

Where is Prime Minister Netanyahu vis a vis a two-state solution? Though his rhetoric is clearly in favor, his taking the hard decisions necessary to effect a concrete agreement will necessarily alienate his historic political allies. If he is serious, his compromises will reveal the extent of his political courage, which most Israelis do not believe he has. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/world/middleeast/israel.html?src=rechp

3. Israel Needs to Learn Some Manners – by Avi Shlaim, NYT

Avi Shlaim is an Iraqi-born British/Israeli historian and emeritus professor of International Relations at the University of Oxford. He is part of a group of Israeli scholars who have put forward critical interpretations of Israel and the history of Zionism (per Wikipedia). Shlaim takes Israeli right-wing government officials to task for their blatant, arrogant and dangerous treatment of Israel’s most important ally saying that these Israeli leaders (e.g. Defense Minister Yaalon, Likud leader Danon, and Bayit Hayehudi leader Bennett, among others) give chutzpah a bad name. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/31/opinion/israel-needs-to-learn-some-manners.html?src=rechp

Finally, I recommend “My Promised Land – The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel” by Ari Shavit (see review – Tuesday, January 14).

Shavit’s in-depth consideration of key events and phenomena that have shaped the history of Zionism and the state of Israel constitutes the most important and honest book to come out of Israel in the last 25 years. This volume will inform and provoke you, inspire you and break your heart. After reading it, your understanding will be far deeper about the meaning of the Jewish democratic state of Israel in modern Jewish history. In addition, his book will challenge your identity as a Jew, whether you live in Israel as a citizen of the state or in the Diaspora.

Creating Tabernacles of the Heart and Community – D’var Torah T’rumah

31 Friday Jan 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

Three of our greatest Jewish philosophers and scholars of early 20th century German life were Martin Buber, Franz Rozenzweig and Benno Jacob, and all noticed the parallel between the story of the Creation in the Book of Genesis and the building of the Tabernacle in the Book of Exodus, the latter of which is the focus of this week’s Torah portion, Trumah. Here are some of those parallels:

“Thus the heaven and earth were finished and all the host of them.” (Genesis) – “Thus was finished all the work of the Tabernacle at the tent of meeting.” (Exodus)

“And God finished on the seventh day all the work of divine creation.” (Genesis) – “And Moses finished the work.” (Exodus)

“And God made the firmament.” (Genesis) – “And let them make Me a sanctuary.” (Exodus)

“And God rested on the seventh day.” (Genesis) – “And the seventh day God called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud and Moses entered into the midst of the cloud.” (Exodus)

“And God saw everything that God had made.” (Genesis) – “And Moses saw all the work.” (Exodus)

“And God blessed the seventh day.” (Genesis) – “And Moses blessed them.” (Exodus)

Comparing verses from the narratives shines a light on the co-relation between Creation and the structure that would house the tablets of the law during the period of wandering, the Tabernacle. We soon learn the purpose of this sacred structure: “V’asu li mikdash v’shachanti b’tocham – Make for me a Sanctuary and I will dwell amongst them – lit. in them.”(Exodus 25:8)

The Kabbalah sees hints of deeper truths about the Mishkan (the in-dwelling Place of God amongst the people) using number symbolism. For example, the verb “asah – makes” appears ten times in the Genesis creation narrative, and twenty-two times in the story of the building of the Sanctuary (Exodus 25).

The number ten is commonly associated with the Ten Commandments, but also it points to the Ten Emanations (S’firot) of God in the Kabbalistic picture of the universe.

The number twenty-two are the number of letters of the Hebrew aleph bet that rabbinic tradition teaches are the basic building blocks of language and of the created world.

Adding ten and twenty-two brings us to thirty-two, (Lamed-bet – or “Lev”), meaning “heart”. In Jewish mystical literature, the “heart” is the place of intuitive wisdom, and Kaballah teaches that there are 32 pathways to wisdom, that is, to God’s own heart.

Heady stuff all! So, what does it mean for us in real-world terms?

The purpose of the Mishkan isn’t just to house God’s Name. The greater purpose is tikun (the healing of a human life – tikun hanefesh – and the restoration of the world – tikun haolam).

During the period of wandering the Mishkan became a traveling Mt. Sinai. Eventually the structure was carried to the City of David and eventually rested above in the new Temple of Solomon. Following the destruction of both Temples, the Mishkan, holding the sacred scroll of the law, was carried into exile so that whenever Jews read Torah publicly they would be spiritually transported to Sinai again, as at the beginning when God first appeared on the mountain.

The Mishkan, therefore is the Place of God and the community’s place, of transcendence and engagement, of vision and ethical responsibility, of love, compassion, justice, truth, and peace.

Synagogues today are our Mishkenot. Each human life is a Mishkan. Our purpose, is to become a holy vessel, as Rebbe Nachman of Bratzlav explains:

“The Divine presence is always flowing into the world, but we need an inner vessel to receive it. That’s created through the act of giving (t’rumah), because when the heart opens to give freely….a vessel is made.”

The act of giving not only sustains a community, it creates a community of like-minded people bonded together who care about the greater purposes for which we as Jews live. Building sanctuaries for the Jewish people, sustaining our fellows (Jews and everyone else as well) in all the ways that they need, supporting causes that advocate for peace, promote knowledge, education, medical care, and and basic human decency, all are included in this greatest of all commandments – “V’asu li mikdash v’shachanti b’tocham – Make for me a Sanctuary and I will dwell amongst them – lit. in them.”(Exodus 25:8)

Shabbat shalom!

On Fear in the Rabbinate to Support the Kerry Mission

30 Thursday Jan 2014

Posted by in American Jewish Life, American Politics and Life, Ethics, Israel and Palestine, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History, Jewish Identity

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

I am an avid reader of a restricted list-serve called RAVKAV that includes 2500 Reform Rabbis living and working in North America, Israel and around the world. Our conversation covers every possible theme. Most recently, the discussion has focused on the rabbinic and cantorial petition in support of Secretary Kerry’s Middle East Peace mission co-sponsored by the J Street Rabbinic Cabinet, T’ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights and Americans for Peace Now. I posted the petition in this space on January 26 (“For Zion’s Sake, We Will Not Be Silent” – Rabbis and Cantors Speak Out.)

A rabbi living Israel posted this comment, “The people aren’t buying the J Street solution to the Middle East.”

Disturbed by this misinformation, I posted the following:

The facts are otherwise. The recent Pew Research Center survey reveals that fully 61% of US Jews believe that prospects for peace with the Palestinians ending in an independent Palestinian state and peaceful co-existence with Israel is possible while 33% say it is not possible, which the survey says is more optimistic than the US general public (50% yes vs. 41% no) and the Israeli public (50% yes vs 38% no).     

My colleague notes as well that many of our colleagues are afraid for their jobs. I understand the fear, and if it is legitimate I do not judge any other colleague who chooses to keep his/her own counsel.

However, I ask how we congregational rabbis, in particular, can justify our not speaking out on perhaps the most important issue facing the Jewish people in our generation, whether Israel remains Jewish and democratic if it does not settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even PM Netanyahu knows that a two-state solution is the only way to do so. Though reports indicate that he is under enormous pressure from his right-wing coalition to maintain the status quo, surveys of Israelis indicate that a two-state deal with adequate security for Israelis would be accepted by 80 members of the Knesset and by a similar percentage of the Israeli public in a national referendum.

This joint statement by J Street, Americans for Peace Now, and T’ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights will demonstrate the support of large numbers of the American rabbinate and cantorate for Secretary Kerry’s peace efforts, and that will send an important message to the Obama administration and Congress that, in addition to the results of American Jewish opinion as reported in the Pew survey, that American rabbis and cantors also do not agree with the politics of the major American Jewish Organizations that have supported the more right wing position of parts of the Israeli government coalition.

One final thought to our more fearful colleagues – Rabbi Israel Salanter said it best: “A rabbi whose community does not disagree with him[her] is no rabbi. A rabbi who fears his[her] community is no mensch.”   

It is one thing to fear losing our jobs and quite another to fear the wrath and criticism of some of our congregants. If it’s the latter and my colleagues agree with the essence of the petition, I ask them to transcend their fear and sign on.”

My post, of course, did not pass without comment. The two sharpest critiques are these:

[1] J Street should stay out of making foreign policy.

[2] Rosove ought to cease calling colleagues ‘cowards’ (or not menschen) if they do not speak out.

In response to critique #1 – J Street is no different than AIPAC in advocating for the security and future of the state of Israel. If J Street has engaged in influencing American foreign policy then certainly AIPAC has done so for much longer. As American citizens, we have the right and duty to speak out, and as Jews we have the moral responsibility to do so.

Saying nothing about policies pursued by the Israeli government that we believe are contrary to Israel’s own security interests and democracy gives a pass to American Jews who advocate strongly that we should support everything the Jewish state does.

In response to critique #2 – Rabbi Israel Salanter was among the most important orthodox ethicists in 19th century European Jewry. In my RAVKAV post I acknowledged the difficulty in speaking out for those rabbis who legitimately fear for their positions and I do not judge them. However, when a rabbi simply fears upsetting some congregants and provoking criticism and remains silent, especially on matters of major Jewish and ethical significance, to me his/her own menschlechkite (per Rabbi Israel Salanter) is compromised.

I did not call any such rabbi a coward. It would be intemperate and unkind for me to do so.

 

Talking About Sex with Our Teen-Age Children – Another Difficult Conversation

28 Tuesday Jan 2014

Posted by in American Jewish Life, Ethics, Health and Well-Being, Life Cycle, Women's Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

One of the most uncomfortable conversations that parents of teen-agers have with their children, if indeed they have this conversation at all, is about sex. Far too many parents avoid the subject altogether out of embarrassment, ignorance or confusion, and assume that their kids will figure it out the way they did or get information from school psychologists and counselors.

Leaving this sensitive and vital area of a young person’s life to others, however, is a missed opportunity for parents to help their teen-age children navigate through rough waters while at the same time keeping open the lines of communication as their children enter young adulthood.

What does Judaism have to teach us about sex that we can discuss with our children, and what thoughts about sex might parents share with their teen-age children that can be helpful to them in our liberal age?

It is one thing for traditionally religious Jewish parents to discuss these issues with their children and quite another for secular liberal Jewish parents to discuss them. I encourage parents to speak with their rabbis, educators and development specialists if they are at a loss about what they should say and how they should say it.

Many traditional Jewish values are affirmed by all the religious streams including Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstructionist, and Reform Judaism, though the concrete behaviors relative to those values differ between the traditional and liberal approaches to Jewish tradition.

All the religious streams affirm the principle that the human being is created “B’tzelem Elohim – In God’s image” (Genesis 1:26-27) thereby endowing each person with infinite value and worth. As such, our bodies are to be appreciated as far more than millions of atoms and chemicals, flesh, bones, and blood. We are, each of us, a k’li kodesh (holy vessel) infused by the n’shamah (divine soul).

Other classic Jewish values embraced by the whole of Judaism, though understood differently by each religious stream, are tz’niyut (modesty) and anavah (humility). Ostentatious display of and exploitation of our bodies, and public sexual behavior are contrary to both liberal and traditionally religious virtues of modesty and humility.

Classic Judaism affirms essentially three purposes for sex – procreation, the establishment of loving and enduring relationships, and pleasure. Though traditional Judaism does not accept the legitimacy of homosexuality, liberal Judaism does, and it regards committed heterosexual and homosexual unions (for orthodox families heterosexual sex within marriage and for liberal families heterosexual and homosexual sex before and after marriage) as opportunities to fulfill Judaism’s three purposes of sex.

What about teen sexuality?

The most common question teens ask is: ‘How will I know when I am ready for sex?’ Planned Parenthood articulates clear and appropriate criteria in assessing a young person’s sexual readiness. It defines a healthy sexual relationship as having seven basic qualities: respect, honesty, equality, good communication, trust, fairness, and responsibility. Further, Planned Parenthood recommends that teens ask themselves these questions before they become sexually active:

  • Do each of you have the other’s consent?
  • Have you been pressured to give consent?
  • Are you honest with each other?
  • Do you treat each other as equals?
  • Are you attentive to each other’s pleasure?
  • Have you protected each other against physical and emotional harm?
  • Have you guarded against unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection?
  • Are you clear with each other about what you want to do and don’t want to do?
  • Do you respect each other’s limits?
  • Have you accepted full responsibility for your actions?

I do not believe that most young teens (i.e. 13 to 18 years of age) are ready for sexual intercourse even if they are able to answer in the affirmative all these questions. Most are too emotionally immature to cope with the power of their sexual feelings and the meaning and consequences of sexual intimacy.

Parents ought to be the first to advise their children to exercise caution by discussing Jewish and family values and by encouraging their teen-age children to ask the above questions about their sexual readiness. Our children need to feel, as well, self-confident that they are able to refuse sexual activity if they feel in any way unready, uncomfortable, embarrassed, demeaned, exploited, or pressured.

Finally, our teen-age children need to understand that they are still very young and that their time will come when becoming sexually active feels and is right.

Note: This is one in a series of blogs I am writing about difficult conversations that come up in families, among friends and in the workplace that we sometimes avoid or do badly. For a complete list, see my blog entitled “Difficult Conversations – January 17, 2014.”