So what did we decide in Mexico City vis-à-vis the Ordination of Homosexuals? Ultimately, after a good deal of debate, the Rabbis in attendance, some 350 of us, voted to back the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards. It was the Law Committee, keeping with its history, that wanted a simple majority for a vote on a major issue like this one. True, they were upping the total needed from just 6, but they felt that a simple majority of 13 would reflect some consensus. It was the Executive Committee of the Rabbinical Assembly that had argued for the 80% threshold. We voted to support our Law Committee and its request for a simple majority when it came to approving the papers on this particular topic.
The issue is not settled by a long shot. First of all, as I mentioned earlier, the papers need to be reworked and resubmitted to the Law Committee as a whole. This will take some time. Second, there is the issue of the constitution of the Rabbinical Assembly itself. As I understand it, the Executive Committee made the 80% policy in spite of the fact that the constitution only requires 6 votes. Such a constitutional change cannot be taken lightly, as so many R.A. members have pointed out to them. In addition, I wonder whether we, the Rabbis in Mexico City, had the power to make a change in policy that contradicts the constitution, no matter how well intentioned we were!
My guess is that we will really have to wait for the final editions of the 4 papers to be made public before anything moves forward. In this issue, I find myself being a “constitutionalist”. I believe that the original intent of those who drafted the R.A. constitution was indeed to make a low threshold for accepted opinions. We should keep it that way. Let the individual Rabbis study the decisions, look inward, then look at the congregations they serve, and make decisions based on all these factors.
Besides, once this first hurdle is overcome we will get into the real, practical issues of implementing policies that will meet the needs of the caring, committed, gay Jewish community. Will we be sanctioning commitment ceremonies? How will they be understood from the standpoint of Jewish law? What aspects of a traditional wedding ceremony might apply? Can they be done in states that do not recognize gay marriage? Lots of issues to address, but we need to move forward.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Conservative T'shuvot on the Web
In response to my last post, Jamie mentioned renewed interest on the part of many of our members in Rabbinic Responsa, known in Hebrew as T’shuvot. Many of the T’shuvot of the Rabbinical Assembly’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards can be found on their website. You can access it by clicking here: www.rabbinicalassembly.org/law/teshuvot_public.html
As you can see from a sampling of the papers, many, if not most, would not have passed if an 80% majority was needed. On one hand, that would have made Conservative Judaism more uniform, but on the other hand, it would have drastically slowed our ability to relate as Conservative Jews to the changing world around us. Reading through the T’shuvot gives a sampling of the broad spectrum of practice in Conservative synagogues today.
As you can see from a sampling of the papers, many, if not most, would not have passed if an 80% majority was needed. On one hand, that would have made Conservative Judaism more uniform, but on the other hand, it would have drastically slowed our ability to relate as Conservative Jews to the changing world around us. Reading through the T’shuvot gives a sampling of the broad spectrum of practice in Conservative synagogues today.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Raising the Bar
To further our discussion on pluralism… Initially, years ago, the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards validated an opinion presented by a Law Committee member with only one or two votes in favor. Such a small endorsement did not make it a “policy” of the Movement, but rather an opinion based on which Rabbis could make their decisions for their own congregations. Since 1970, the number of votes needed to recognize an opinion has been raised until it reached the current number of 6. Again, I believe that is as it should be. There is a consensus with 6 even if it is not a majority. Still, all along, the membership of the Rabbinical Assembly wanted opinions to represent some sort of consensus.
The question of consensus, however, has been taken, in my opinion, to an unreasonable level in requiring 80% of the RA Law Committee to approve a paper as a recognized opinion. This to my mind, (and that of most of my colleagues at Mexico City) negates the concept of true pluralism by requiring an unreasonably high level of agreement in a Movement that prides itself on fostering disagreement “L’Shem Shamayim”, “For the Sake of Heaven.” Furthermore, this high bar of consensus has never been required before. This seems patently unfair, as well as unconstitutional vis-a-vis the R.A. rules of governance. The Constitution of the R.A. says that 6 votes gives a T’shuvah the status of recognized opinion. (Period)
Some, however, argue that this particular issue is of such weight that it has assumed the status of “Takanah”, an edict, so to speak. The concept of “Takanah” is troublesome for a couple of reasons. First, the label seems to necessitate a super-majority whereas a simple “T’shuvah” would not. Some would argue that this is more than mere semantics. They would say that we are dealing with an issue of greater weight than those that came before. In this labeling controversy I, like others who have posted, see a delaying tactic that keeps us from addressing the true issue of equal participation regardless of orientation. (See comment on previous post). Second, few, if any of the colleagues know the true status of a “Takanah”. Does it mean that I, as a Conservative Rabbi would be forced to abide by it? That, to my mind, is not true pluralism.
And so, because we have introduced the language of “Takanah”, the Committee of Jewish Law and Standards has another layer of complexity to deal with. Are they comfortable legislating practice for a Movement that prides itself on pluralism? I hope not. Although I personally want the decisions to ultimately grant equal rights and participation to all, I do not want the Law Committee expelling those who do not agree with their (or my) position. Beth El, more than most Conservative shuls, truly values diversity and pluralism. It is a point of pride with us. Now the definition of diversity and pluralism is being widened. I hope that ultimately it will lead to a bigger tent, filled with more caring and committed Jews.
The question of consensus, however, has been taken, in my opinion, to an unreasonable level in requiring 80% of the RA Law Committee to approve a paper as a recognized opinion. This to my mind, (and that of most of my colleagues at Mexico City) negates the concept of true pluralism by requiring an unreasonably high level of agreement in a Movement that prides itself on fostering disagreement “L’Shem Shamayim”, “For the Sake of Heaven.” Furthermore, this high bar of consensus has never been required before. This seems patently unfair, as well as unconstitutional vis-a-vis the R.A. rules of governance. The Constitution of the R.A. says that 6 votes gives a T’shuvah the status of recognized opinion. (Period)
Some, however, argue that this particular issue is of such weight that it has assumed the status of “Takanah”, an edict, so to speak. The concept of “Takanah” is troublesome for a couple of reasons. First, the label seems to necessitate a super-majority whereas a simple “T’shuvah” would not. Some would argue that this is more than mere semantics. They would say that we are dealing with an issue of greater weight than those that came before. In this labeling controversy I, like others who have posted, see a delaying tactic that keeps us from addressing the true issue of equal participation regardless of orientation. (See comment on previous post). Second, few, if any of the colleagues know the true status of a “Takanah”. Does it mean that I, as a Conservative Rabbi would be forced to abide by it? That, to my mind, is not true pluralism.
And so, because we have introduced the language of “Takanah”, the Committee of Jewish Law and Standards has another layer of complexity to deal with. Are they comfortable legislating practice for a Movement that prides itself on pluralism? I hope not. Although I personally want the decisions to ultimately grant equal rights and participation to all, I do not want the Law Committee expelling those who do not agree with their (or my) position. Beth El, more than most Conservative shuls, truly values diversity and pluralism. It is a point of pride with us. Now the definition of diversity and pluralism is being widened. I hope that ultimately it will lead to a bigger tent, filled with more caring and committed Jews.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Opinions - NOT Positions
In my last post I discussed the process of writing opinion papers for the Committee of Jewish Law and Standards. The four papers on homosexuality are currently under review and rewrite. People think that ultimately, one of those papers will be voted on, and if approved become a standard for the Conservative Movement. That’s not, however, the way this works. The Law Committee does not legislate the standards for the Conservative Movement.
That’s because we are pluralistic. What the Law Committee does, on any matter of Jewish law that it addresses, is write opinions. Opinions, not positions. When a paper that has been written by a member of the Law Committee is approved by 6 of the 24 voting members, it becomes an “opinion” of the Law Committee. Conservative Rabbis in the field (like me) can then decide whether to abide by and implement the opinion, or not. Essentially, the Law Committee functions for the Rabbis, not for the Movement as a whole. For instance, an opinion paper was written on aspects of women’s participation in services. Some, (in fact, most) Conservative Rabbis used these opinions as the basis for implementing change in their congregations. I was guided by these opinions when I brought Beth El to egalitarianism. However, other Rabbis did not implement these changes because they did not “buy into” the opinions. That’s why some Conservative shuls remain non-egalitarian.
Pluralism might be a tough concept for some folks to grasp. People would like to say, “This is what the Movement stands for.” When it comes to individual positions and practices this is tough because we lack true uniformity. Ours is a Movement that doesn’t just tolerate, but encourages diversity. But, to my mind, this is as it should be. We are a Movement made up of modern individuals who take Jewish Law seriously. How that translates into practice will vary from shul to shul depending on the direction the Rabbi chooses to lead. His or her leadership, in turn, will be very much a reflection of the dedicated Jews he or she serves. These new opinions, if adopted, will contribute to even greater diversity. The issue at hand pushes the definition of diversity even further, perhaps further than it’s ever been pushed before, and that’s what makes it so controversial. But I, for one, hope that our Movement widens the spiritual space beneath our great tent enough to make room for all dedicated Jews, regardless of sexual orientation.
That’s because we are pluralistic. What the Law Committee does, on any matter of Jewish law that it addresses, is write opinions. Opinions, not positions. When a paper that has been written by a member of the Law Committee is approved by 6 of the 24 voting members, it becomes an “opinion” of the Law Committee. Conservative Rabbis in the field (like me) can then decide whether to abide by and implement the opinion, or not. Essentially, the Law Committee functions for the Rabbis, not for the Movement as a whole. For instance, an opinion paper was written on aspects of women’s participation in services. Some, (in fact, most) Conservative Rabbis used these opinions as the basis for implementing change in their congregations. I was guided by these opinions when I brought Beth El to egalitarianism. However, other Rabbis did not implement these changes because they did not “buy into” the opinions. That’s why some Conservative shuls remain non-egalitarian.
Pluralism might be a tough concept for some folks to grasp. People would like to say, “This is what the Movement stands for.” When it comes to individual positions and practices this is tough because we lack true uniformity. Ours is a Movement that doesn’t just tolerate, but encourages diversity. But, to my mind, this is as it should be. We are a Movement made up of modern individuals who take Jewish Law seriously. How that translates into practice will vary from shul to shul depending on the direction the Rabbi chooses to lead. His or her leadership, in turn, will be very much a reflection of the dedicated Jews he or she serves. These new opinions, if adopted, will contribute to even greater diversity. The issue at hand pushes the definition of diversity even further, perhaps further than it’s ever been pushed before, and that’s what makes it so controversial. But I, for one, hope that our Movement widens the spiritual space beneath our great tent enough to make room for all dedicated Jews, regardless of sexual orientation.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
Back From Mexico
I got in very late Thursday night from a wonderful Convention in Mexico City. I’ll write later about some of the sessions as well as the vibrant Jewish community that hosted us. But first, I’ll talk about the issue of Ordination of Gay and Lesbian Rabbis, which was the hot topic. In spite of what you might read in the paper, the Conservative Movement is not dodging the issue. It was reported that the Law Committee did not want to vote on the position papers. It was reported that the Law Committee wanted to have 80% approval of a paper for it to be accepted as a recognized opinion. False and False. (I'll take on the first "False" in this post).
Here’s what’s really happening. First, some background on process: When a “She-aylah”, a question of Jewish law, is sent to the Movement’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (made up of 24 Rabbis noted for their skill in legal matters) , the Law Committee must first decide if it is one that merits full inquiry. Once that is established, a subcommittee is assigned the task of doing the research and writing papers on the matter. They work, independently, to trace the issue through Jewish legal sources and whatever other extra-legal sources they deem relevant. This can take many months. When the papers are ready for a first reading, they are presented to the entire Law Committee (which also has 5 non-voting members from the United Synagogue and one rep. from the Cantors Assembly).
At that meeting, the full body discusses each paper in detail. They offer criticism of both the content and reasoning and often send the authors back to the sources. Papers are never voted on at the first reading. The meeting of the Law Committee that occurred last month was for the first reading of four position papers regarding the ordination of gay and lesbian Rabbis. No vote was taken because it would have been premature and inappropriate to do so. These papers have not been distributed – not to the Rabbis and not to the public. The papers were critiqued and sent back for rewrites. THAT’S WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. At the next meeting, the reworked papers will be presented. At that point, the usual process is for the committee to offer more critique, and, where possible, encourage the authors to coalesce their varied papers into one or perhaps two cohesive opinions. This too will take some time. Inevitably, those who want positions stated quickly and unequivocally will want a rapid vote, but in all likelihood the Committee will urge the authors to further refine their positions. That is, to my mind, as it should be.
In my next couple of posts I’ll talk about what we accomplished in Mexico City, which quite frankly, given the fact that deliberations and rewrites are ongoing on the papers, wasn’t much. I’ll also write about the debate over what a Takkanah is as well as what I think it might mean for the Movement, but I thought at this point it’s best to have some context for the discussion. Stay tuned.
Here’s what’s really happening. First, some background on process: When a “She-aylah”, a question of Jewish law, is sent to the Movement’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (made up of 24 Rabbis noted for their skill in legal matters) , the Law Committee must first decide if it is one that merits full inquiry. Once that is established, a subcommittee is assigned the task of doing the research and writing papers on the matter. They work, independently, to trace the issue through Jewish legal sources and whatever other extra-legal sources they deem relevant. This can take many months. When the papers are ready for a first reading, they are presented to the entire Law Committee (which also has 5 non-voting members from the United Synagogue and one rep. from the Cantors Assembly).
At that meeting, the full body discusses each paper in detail. They offer criticism of both the content and reasoning and often send the authors back to the sources. Papers are never voted on at the first reading. The meeting of the Law Committee that occurred last month was for the first reading of four position papers regarding the ordination of gay and lesbian Rabbis. No vote was taken because it would have been premature and inappropriate to do so. These papers have not been distributed – not to the Rabbis and not to the public. The papers were critiqued and sent back for rewrites. THAT’S WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. At the next meeting, the reworked papers will be presented. At that point, the usual process is for the committee to offer more critique, and, where possible, encourage the authors to coalesce their varied papers into one or perhaps two cohesive opinions. This too will take some time. Inevitably, those who want positions stated quickly and unequivocally will want a rapid vote, but in all likelihood the Committee will urge the authors to further refine their positions. That is, to my mind, as it should be.
In my next couple of posts I’ll talk about what we accomplished in Mexico City, which quite frankly, given the fact that deliberations and rewrites are ongoing on the papers, wasn’t much. I’ll also write about the debate over what a Takkanah is as well as what I think it might mean for the Movement, but I thought at this point it’s best to have some context for the discussion. Stay tuned.
Friday, March 17, 2006
Off to Mexico
This will likely be my last post for about a week as I am departing early Sunday for the Rabbinical Assembly Convention in Mexico City. Why Mexico? Weather alone would not draw us. Rather, we go to Mexico to show our support for the Latin American Conservative Jewish community. Over the last 20 years our Movement has really taken off in the Southern Hemisphere and we now have a Rabbinical School in Buenos Aries.
Among the hot topics at the Convention will, of course, be the ordination of Gay and Lesbian Rabbis by our Movement. Much has been and will be written on the topic. The issues go far beyond homosexuality. Very few among the leadership or laity of the Movement wish to marginalize the gay community. There is deep and abiding respect for all Jews, for no one is more sensitive to what it feels like to be treated like The Other than Jews. The question is how to reconcile the Torah, which expressly forbids homosexuality, and the hearts and souls of homosexual Jews who want and deserve a comfortable place in our Movement. If we were part of a Movement that did not see Jewish law as binding, the issue would be fairly irrelevant as the Torah’s laws would no longer be compelling. If, on the other hand, we saw Jewish law as immutable, the topic would be moot as well. But because we are part of a Movement that sees Jewish law as both binding and evolving, the issue is more complicated.
Some see this process as moving too slowly. Some attribute this to a lack of resolve, or worse, some back room politics designed to keep the gay community at bay. That’s not the way I see it. I believe the Law Committee of the Movement is taking the deliberations seriously, not just because it is challenging an explicit statement of Torah, but because it is looking at the larger issue of what it means to be a Movement. On one hand we have people who say, “If we are a Movement we must be clear and unequivocal on where we stand on the issues.” It is for this reason that the Rabbinical Assembly Law Committee advocated an 80% majority for statements on issues of tremendous importance, like this one. Others see our Movement as a Big Tent, with room for lots of opinions and practices. They would argue that if a position paper receives the necessary 6 votes of the Committee, thus making it an accepted opinion, that would be enough. Some Rabbis would accept the opinion and some would not. It would not be seen as a Movement wide statement. We could not use it to say “The Movement stands for…” but it would successfully address the issue at hand with both scholarship and compassion.
This subtlety seems lost on some. In our world today people want quick and easy answers for just about everything. We want a Movement that speaks with one voice and yet we want that voice to be all-inclusive. Can it be done? We’ll have to wait and see. In the meantime, I think we should take the Talmud’s advice “Dan L’chaf Zechoot” and give the leaders of the Conservative Movement “the benefit of the doubt”. They are good people with caring hearts and bright minds who are trying to guide us through fog to the light of a new day.
Among the hot topics at the Convention will, of course, be the ordination of Gay and Lesbian Rabbis by our Movement. Much has been and will be written on the topic. The issues go far beyond homosexuality. Very few among the leadership or laity of the Movement wish to marginalize the gay community. There is deep and abiding respect for all Jews, for no one is more sensitive to what it feels like to be treated like The Other than Jews. The question is how to reconcile the Torah, which expressly forbids homosexuality, and the hearts and souls of homosexual Jews who want and deserve a comfortable place in our Movement. If we were part of a Movement that did not see Jewish law as binding, the issue would be fairly irrelevant as the Torah’s laws would no longer be compelling. If, on the other hand, we saw Jewish law as immutable, the topic would be moot as well. But because we are part of a Movement that sees Jewish law as both binding and evolving, the issue is more complicated.
Some see this process as moving too slowly. Some attribute this to a lack of resolve, or worse, some back room politics designed to keep the gay community at bay. That’s not the way I see it. I believe the Law Committee of the Movement is taking the deliberations seriously, not just because it is challenging an explicit statement of Torah, but because it is looking at the larger issue of what it means to be a Movement. On one hand we have people who say, “If we are a Movement we must be clear and unequivocal on where we stand on the issues.” It is for this reason that the Rabbinical Assembly Law Committee advocated an 80% majority for statements on issues of tremendous importance, like this one. Others see our Movement as a Big Tent, with room for lots of opinions and practices. They would argue that if a position paper receives the necessary 6 votes of the Committee, thus making it an accepted opinion, that would be enough. Some Rabbis would accept the opinion and some would not. It would not be seen as a Movement wide statement. We could not use it to say “The Movement stands for…” but it would successfully address the issue at hand with both scholarship and compassion.
This subtlety seems lost on some. In our world today people want quick and easy answers for just about everything. We want a Movement that speaks with one voice and yet we want that voice to be all-inclusive. Can it be done? We’ll have to wait and see. In the meantime, I think we should take the Talmud’s advice “Dan L’chaf Zechoot” and give the leaders of the Conservative Movement “the benefit of the doubt”. They are good people with caring hearts and bright minds who are trying to guide us through fog to the light of a new day.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Cliches
I heard a story on the radio today about clichés. The word comes from the time when type was set by hand. Typesetters began to find that there were certain phrases that were repeated time and again in story after story. Rather than set the type each time, they left these phrases in blocks and popped them in when needed. Actually, they did not pop them into the rest of the type; they “clicked” them in. Cliché is French for “click”.
After a while, those same phrases, though readily employed, began to lose their meaning. Rather than chose the right world to fit the idea, the typesetters used the familiar words (clichés) even if they were not perfect. Hence the modern meaning for cliché: an idea or expression deficient in originality, used or occurring so often as to have lost interest, freshness, or force.
The Rabbis of our tradition remind us time and again that we must never let our prayers, our faith, our lives, become cliché. We are not to walk through life routinely, but rather to bless each day for its unlimited potential. As Rabbi Lawrence Kushner wrote in his Book of Words, “Blessings keep our awareness of life’s holy potential ever present. They awaken us to our own lives. Every blessing says, “I am grateful to be a creature and to remind myself and God that life is good.”
After a while, those same phrases, though readily employed, began to lose their meaning. Rather than chose the right world to fit the idea, the typesetters used the familiar words (clichés) even if they were not perfect. Hence the modern meaning for cliché: an idea or expression deficient in originality, used or occurring so often as to have lost interest, freshness, or force.
The Rabbis of our tradition remind us time and again that we must never let our prayers, our faith, our lives, become cliché. We are not to walk through life routinely, but rather to bless each day for its unlimited potential. As Rabbi Lawrence Kushner wrote in his Book of Words, “Blessings keep our awareness of life’s holy potential ever present. They awaken us to our own lives. Every blessing says, “I am grateful to be a creature and to remind myself and God that life is good.”
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Rabbi Morris Dembowitz z'l
Tomorrow, Wednesday, I will be taking part in the funeral of my teacher, colleague and friend, Rabbi Morris Dembowitz, who passed away Monday night, on Purim. Rabbi Dembowitz served many congregations throughout his long career, in addition to working for the Seminary developing Jewish educational opportunities across the country. He was a bright man with a warm smile and a wonderful sense of humor. He was a born teacher.
For the last several years, he and his wife Lee have lived in the Towers of Windsor and I have had the good fortune of davening with him in our Chapel many, many times. Few people know this but he had a special prayer book that he kept in the closet in our Chapel called “Otzar T’fillot”. It is not your typical siddur. Not only does it give you the prayer text, it is an encyclopedic commentary on the prayers as well. Rabbi Dembowitz would study and pray at the same time, shifting his gaze from the top to the bottom of the page. When he found something that he thought might interest me he would lean over, tap me on the shoulder and point to the phrase. It was always engaging. When I would look up after carefully considering the text, he would inevitably be smiling broadly.
And that is what I’ll always remember about Rabbi D. He showed me that one prays first, delves into the words second, and then shares with others the joy of the spiritual encounter just had. Live life fully, examine its meaning, and share your enthusiasm with others. Although he did not have an easy life and fate was not always kind to him, this simple prescription gave Rabbi Dembowitz more than 90 fruitful years. May his memory be a blessing.
For the last several years, he and his wife Lee have lived in the Towers of Windsor and I have had the good fortune of davening with him in our Chapel many, many times. Few people know this but he had a special prayer book that he kept in the closet in our Chapel called “Otzar T’fillot”. It is not your typical siddur. Not only does it give you the prayer text, it is an encyclopedic commentary on the prayers as well. Rabbi Dembowitz would study and pray at the same time, shifting his gaze from the top to the bottom of the page. When he found something that he thought might interest me he would lean over, tap me on the shoulder and point to the phrase. It was always engaging. When I would look up after carefully considering the text, he would inevitably be smiling broadly.
And that is what I’ll always remember about Rabbi D. He showed me that one prays first, delves into the words second, and then shares with others the joy of the spiritual encounter just had. Live life fully, examine its meaning, and share your enthusiasm with others. Although he did not have an easy life and fate was not always kind to him, this simple prescription gave Rabbi Dembowitz more than 90 fruitful years. May his memory be a blessing.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Drinking on Purim
Drinking alcohol has been part of Purim observance for thousands of years. The source of the custom is from the Talmud in the tractate known as Megillah: “Rava said: A man is obligated to drink on Purim until he does not know the difference between ‘Cursed Haman’ and ‘Blessed Mordechai.’”
This passage has been widely misinterpreted. Few would advocate taking it literally. Why? See last post – Is Pasht Nisht – it’s beneath your honor.
Unlike Islam Judaism thinks a little alcohol isn't a bad thing. They just want us to know what we are doing. The Talmud had no breathalyzer, but they did have a system to measure levels of impairment: First is “Sheetooee”. I would translate this as “slightly buzzed.” How buzzed? He/she shouldn’t really be davening, but if he does, it’s OK. Why? Because the sages say he’d be O.K. to approach a King. Likewise the King of Kings.
Second is “Sheekur” (like the Yiddish “Shikker”). Here a person is too drunk to daven, but is still held responsible for his actions. His business deals stick. He is still bound by halacha (Jewish Law).
The 3rd level is “Shikrootoe Shel Lot” – as drunk as Lot, Abraham’s nephew (see Genesis 19:31-39). Lot was clearly drunk out of his mind. A person this smashed is not held reliable for halacha, business dealings, or just about anything else. He’s out of control.
Is this the kind of drinking Rava was talking about? Hardly! Judaism is all about self control! So what’s it all about?
It’s not talking about drinking at home or in a bar. It’s talking about celebrating Purim with your family and friends in a Jewish communal setting. Letting loose (within moderation) is good for you if it allows you to see past initial impressions. Letting your guard down within the community setting is healthy, from time to time. It’s hard to hold a grudge on Purim – and maybe that’s the whole idea.
This passage has been widely misinterpreted. Few would advocate taking it literally. Why? See last post – Is Pasht Nisht – it’s beneath your honor.
Unlike Islam Judaism thinks a little alcohol isn't a bad thing. They just want us to know what we are doing. The Talmud had no breathalyzer, but they did have a system to measure levels of impairment: First is “Sheetooee”. I would translate this as “slightly buzzed.” How buzzed? He/she shouldn’t really be davening, but if he does, it’s OK. Why? Because the sages say he’d be O.K. to approach a King. Likewise the King of Kings.
Second is “Sheekur” (like the Yiddish “Shikker”). Here a person is too drunk to daven, but is still held responsible for his actions. His business deals stick. He is still bound by halacha (Jewish Law).
The 3rd level is “Shikrootoe Shel Lot” – as drunk as Lot, Abraham’s nephew (see Genesis 19:31-39). Lot was clearly drunk out of his mind. A person this smashed is not held reliable for halacha, business dealings, or just about anything else. He’s out of control.
Is this the kind of drinking Rava was talking about? Hardly! Judaism is all about self control! So what’s it all about?
It’s not talking about drinking at home or in a bar. It’s talking about celebrating Purim with your family and friends in a Jewish communal setting. Letting loose (within moderation) is good for you if it allows you to see past initial impressions. Letting your guard down within the community setting is healthy, from time to time. It’s hard to hold a grudge on Purim – and maybe that’s the whole idea.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Honor
On Shabbat morning I had the privilege of addressing 57 Beth El 3rd graders as they celebrated Aleph Consecration and Kellman Academy convocation. I decided to speak to them about honor. I said that I hoped that all of them would carry the new siddurim (prayerbooks) they were receiving with honor. In front of their families and friends I asked the kids if they knew what honor was. One boy raised his hand and said, “It’s when you feel proud of yourself.” Another said, “It is something special that is given to you when you have earned it.” Right On!
I asked them to define honor because it seems, aside from the military, it’s not a term you hear much about. Somehow honor has become hard to define. But it’s not that difficult… Being honorable means living with a sense of respect for what you believe is right. It is living by the virtues and values that guide your life, even when they bring you into opposition with others around you. When you are being honorable you never need to be ashamed of the choices you make. As an old Jewish axiom has it, “Where there is no honor, neither is there disgrace.”
In Yiddish there is an expression, one that we don’t hear quite enough, “Is Pahst Nisht” – which I will translate as, “It is beneath your honor.” In the age of reality TV, (whose theme seems to be “How low will you go?”), our tradition reminds us that without defining what constitutes our honor we will always be less than the person Gd knows we can be.
I asked them to define honor because it seems, aside from the military, it’s not a term you hear much about. Somehow honor has become hard to define. But it’s not that difficult… Being honorable means living with a sense of respect for what you believe is right. It is living by the virtues and values that guide your life, even when they bring you into opposition with others around you. When you are being honorable you never need to be ashamed of the choices you make. As an old Jewish axiom has it, “Where there is no honor, neither is there disgrace.”
In Yiddish there is an expression, one that we don’t hear quite enough, “Is Pahst Nisht” – which I will translate as, “It is beneath your honor.” In the age of reality TV, (whose theme seems to be “How low will you go?”), our tradition reminds us that without defining what constitutes our honor we will always be less than the person Gd knows we can be.
Friday, March 10, 2006
Definition of Sacrifice
Shabbat Zachor – the “Shabbos of Remembering” starts tonight. It’s the same root as the word “Yizkor” – the memorial service.
In my Thursday morning minyan breakfast class we are studying Psalms. Yesterday, we looked at a passage of Psalm 20 recited during the weekday morning prayers. “May He remember all your offerings and accept all your sacrifices.” Originally, of course, it referenced the Temple. We could analogize to today and say “May Gd take note of all the good you do in the world and all the sacrifices you make for others, thereby serving Him.”
But there’s more to it than that. The Hebrew uses a phrase that refers to a particular “remembrance” of sacrifices called “Terumat Ha-Deshen”. Every morning the Kohen would take a handful of the ash from the previous day’s sacrifices and put it on the altar to accompany the new sacrifices of that day. Curious, no?!
What’s a sacrifice? Simply: It’s giving up something precious in order to get something more. Short term “loss” for long term gain. True for all relationships: to friends, family, vocation, fitness, you name it. The Psalm seems to be suggesting that much of the values and ideals that lead us to make sacrifices in our own lives come from the sacrifices made by those who came before us. In the same way, we set paradigms for sacrifice for those who will follow our lead in years to come.
Shabbat Shalom!
In my Thursday morning minyan breakfast class we are studying Psalms. Yesterday, we looked at a passage of Psalm 20 recited during the weekday morning prayers. “May He remember all your offerings and accept all your sacrifices.” Originally, of course, it referenced the Temple. We could analogize to today and say “May Gd take note of all the good you do in the world and all the sacrifices you make for others, thereby serving Him.”
But there’s more to it than that. The Hebrew uses a phrase that refers to a particular “remembrance” of sacrifices called “Terumat Ha-Deshen”. Every morning the Kohen would take a handful of the ash from the previous day’s sacrifices and put it on the altar to accompany the new sacrifices of that day. Curious, no?!
What’s a sacrifice? Simply: It’s giving up something precious in order to get something more. Short term “loss” for long term gain. True for all relationships: to friends, family, vocation, fitness, you name it. The Psalm seems to be suggesting that much of the values and ideals that lead us to make sacrifices in our own lives come from the sacrifices made by those who came before us. In the same way, we set paradigms for sacrifice for those who will follow our lead in years to come.
Shabbat Shalom!
Thursday, March 09, 2006
A Cure for Loneliness
According to a study I heard about today on the radio, more than a third of adults are lonely. Interestingly, people in their forties suffered the highest levels, according to a study published in the latest Journal of Clinical Nursing.
The study, by a team of UK and Australian researchers, showed that 35 per cent of the 1,289 people who took part in 30-minute telephone interviews were lonely. “Understanding what makes people lonely is very important as loneliness can increase the risk of health conditions, such as heart disease and depression, and other problems such as domestic violence” says Professor William Lauder from the University of Dundee, Scotland, who spent two years working in Australia.
You might think that the older you get the more lonely you get, but it’s not true. “One of the most interesting findings of this study is that it challenges the belief that retirement is linked to diminished social contacts and that people get lonelier as they get older,” said the doctor.
My guess is that people in their 40’s who are working so hard to support their families, and focusing all their free time on taking their kids to various programs, have little time for community building activities. Older folks have broader horizons and take time widening their circle of contact.
But, to me, the most interesting part of the research was the finding that, “People with strong religious beliefs were far less likely to be lonely.”
Hmmm… Makes you wonder… If you could find a way of combining family time, community time, and expression of religious beliefs…. You’d come to shul! (Maybe that’s why so many feel so good when they do.)
The study, by a team of UK and Australian researchers, showed that 35 per cent of the 1,289 people who took part in 30-minute telephone interviews were lonely. “Understanding what makes people lonely is very important as loneliness can increase the risk of health conditions, such as heart disease and depression, and other problems such as domestic violence” says Professor William Lauder from the University of Dundee, Scotland, who spent two years working in Australia.
You might think that the older you get the more lonely you get, but it’s not true. “One of the most interesting findings of this study is that it challenges the belief that retirement is linked to diminished social contacts and that people get lonelier as they get older,” said the doctor.
My guess is that people in their 40’s who are working so hard to support their families, and focusing all their free time on taking their kids to various programs, have little time for community building activities. Older folks have broader horizons and take time widening their circle of contact.
But, to me, the most interesting part of the research was the finding that, “People with strong religious beliefs were far less likely to be lonely.”
Hmmm… Makes you wonder… If you could find a way of combining family time, community time, and expression of religious beliefs…. You’d come to shul! (Maybe that’s why so many feel so good when they do.)
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Jews Do Not Bless Destruction
Yesterday I wrote about remembering what had been done to our people over 60 years ago. Tradition tells us that we are supposed to remember back a lot further than that. In fact, it is a commandment (one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah) to remember what the Amalekites did to us in the desert when we left Egypt.
What did they do? They attacked from the rear, killing the slow walkers – the young and the infirmed. We have a special Shabbat – (this one 3/11) – where we add this Torah story (Deuteronomy 25:17-19) to the regular portion. We take out a 2nd Torah just to read about and remember their evil. It's a mitzvah to remember.
Interestingly, even though it is a commandment to remember the Amalekites, we do not say a blessing (like: “Blessed are You… who has commanded us to remember the Amalekites…”) before we read this special portion. Why not? Because Jews do not bless destruction.
Remember when, according to tradition, the angels wanted to sing to Gd as the Egyptians drowned in the Red Sea? Gd said, “No! How can you sing when My creation is drowning?” We are forbidden to celebrate destruction – even if we know the enemy deserves it. Judaism is different. We don't parade in the streets when others suffer. Our Faith prohibits this. It's just not who we are.
What did they do? They attacked from the rear, killing the slow walkers – the young and the infirmed. We have a special Shabbat – (this one 3/11) – where we add this Torah story (Deuteronomy 25:17-19) to the regular portion. We take out a 2nd Torah just to read about and remember their evil. It's a mitzvah to remember.
Interestingly, even though it is a commandment to remember the Amalekites, we do not say a blessing (like: “Blessed are You… who has commanded us to remember the Amalekites…”) before we read this special portion. Why not? Because Jews do not bless destruction.
Remember when, according to tradition, the angels wanted to sing to Gd as the Egyptians drowned in the Red Sea? Gd said, “No! How can you sing when My creation is drowning?” We are forbidden to celebrate destruction – even if we know the enemy deserves it. Judaism is different. We don't parade in the streets when others suffer. Our Faith prohibits this. It's just not who we are.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Springdale Farms
Is it just me or does that guard tower out in the field behind Springdale Farms look like its from WWII?! Driving by yesterday I had this knee-jerk reaction that I had seen it before – at Majdanek! Majdanek was a concentration camp in Poland where 100,000s of Jews died. Unlike Trblinka which was deep in the woods, Majdanek was 4 kilometers from the center of Lublin, a big city. Like Springdale Farms it was in the suburbs, on farm land, and easily seen from surrounding houses and those driving by on the road. And yet, amazingly, “no one” knew what was going on behind those guard towers!
Seeing that tower brought me right back to the cold winter day, years ago, when I was visiting that camp. It sent a shiver up my spine. I thought about the words of Richard von Weizsaecker the former President of the Federal Republic of Germany, (who served a rare double term from 1984-1994). In admitting German responsibility for the war he wrote, “There were many ways of not burdening one's conscience, of shunning responsibility, looking away, keeping mum. When the unspeakable truth of the Holocaust then became known at the end of the war, all too many of us claimed that they had not known anything about it or even suspected anything."
We Jews have long memories – and our own way of looking at the world. One foot in the present, one foot on the past, eyes focused on the future.
Seeing that tower brought me right back to the cold winter day, years ago, when I was visiting that camp. It sent a shiver up my spine. I thought about the words of Richard von Weizsaecker the former President of the Federal Republic of Germany, (who served a rare double term from 1984-1994). In admitting German responsibility for the war he wrote, “There were many ways of not burdening one's conscience, of shunning responsibility, looking away, keeping mum. When the unspeakable truth of the Holocaust then became known at the end of the war, all too many of us claimed that they had not known anything about it or even suspected anything."
We Jews have long memories – and our own way of looking at the world. One foot in the present, one foot on the past, eyes focused on the future.
Monday, March 06, 2006
Jews and the Oscars
At the Academy Awards last night, host Jon Stewart ribbed director Steven Spielberg for "Munich," the film about Israeli soldiers in pursuit of the men who killed Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympic Games. "From the man who also gave us 'Schindler's List... " he said. " 'Schindler's List' and 'Munich.' I think I speak for all Jews when I say, 'I can't wait to see what happens to us next!' Trilogy!"
That comment made me think once again about the depiction of Jews in Hollywood, both film and T.V. Far too often we are either depicted as victims, like Schindler’s list and those slaughtered in Munich. Or, we are seen as people to be laughed at – like Larry David in Curb Your Enthusiasm. We are SO much more than that. But will the viewing public ever get to see, to understand that?! It will be a new day when Jews are seen as people dedicated to living good and moral lives, leading by example; trying to make the world a better place. For thousands of years we Jews have been the conscience of the world.
Some of that moral conscience came through when Stewart gave Hollywood both barrels: "I'm from New York and I've been here a week and a half. A lot of people say this town is too liberal. Out of touch with mainstream America. A modern day beachfront Sodom and Gomorrah. A black hole where innocence is obliterated. An endless orgy of sexual gratification and greed. I don't really have a joke here...and I just thought you should know a lot of people are saying that."
To my mind, he’s not that far off. But agree with him or not it’s that kind of social criticism that has set Jews apart since the time of the Bible. It doesn’t always make good T.V. but the next generation is not going to want to devote their lives to being victims or the butt of jokes. But if they could see themselves as helping to grow humanity, of contributing to our nation’s moral evolution…
That comment made me think once again about the depiction of Jews in Hollywood, both film and T.V. Far too often we are either depicted as victims, like Schindler’s list and those slaughtered in Munich. Or, we are seen as people to be laughed at – like Larry David in Curb Your Enthusiasm. We are SO much more than that. But will the viewing public ever get to see, to understand that?! It will be a new day when Jews are seen as people dedicated to living good and moral lives, leading by example; trying to make the world a better place. For thousands of years we Jews have been the conscience of the world.
Some of that moral conscience came through when Stewart gave Hollywood both barrels: "I'm from New York and I've been here a week and a half. A lot of people say this town is too liberal. Out of touch with mainstream America. A modern day beachfront Sodom and Gomorrah. A black hole where innocence is obliterated. An endless orgy of sexual gratification and greed. I don't really have a joke here...and I just thought you should know a lot of people are saying that."
To my mind, he’s not that far off. But agree with him or not it’s that kind of social criticism that has set Jews apart since the time of the Bible. It doesn’t always make good T.V. but the next generation is not going to want to devote their lives to being victims or the butt of jokes. But if they could see themselves as helping to grow humanity, of contributing to our nation’s moral evolution…
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Gays and Conservative Judaism
Congregation Beth El offers Family Membership to Gay and Lesbian couples. In this regard we are ahead of the curve. Our Conservative Movement is about to readdress the issue of homosexuality in Jewish law. The law committee will take up the issue at a meeting next week. I'll be going to the Rabbinical Assembly's annual convention in Mexico City in two weeks and this promises to be a hot topic. To read about the controversy in THE FORWARD click here: http://forward.com/main/article.php?ref=siegel200603011107
A Fool Gives
"A fool gives and a wise man takes" - That's the Rabbis' explanation of why Parsat Terumah begins with the statement, "Take for Me a portion (Terumah) from all those whose heart is willing." (Exodus 25:2). Why doesn't Gd say "Give to Me"? Because by giving you are actually taking more than you imagine! It is the fool who thinks that what he gives has more lasting value for the other person than it does for him. One who has shared from his heart knows that what he has gained by opening up inside far exceeds whatever short term loss he might feel by parting with something precious. In our materialistic world, a world in which success is judged by amassing "things" - Torah teaches us otherwise...
Like Churchill once said: "You make a living by what you get. You make a life by what you give."
Like Churchill once said: "You make a living by what you get. You make a life by what you give."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
