More snow in Jerusalem!

Snow in Jerusalem!

A Thanksgivukkah Manifesto

A Thanksgivukkah Manifesto
By MISHAEL ZION (Hartman institute, Jerusalem) A once in a century holiday is upon us. The menurkey will soon sit at the table with thepumpkin pie and the latkes. Let us not underestimate this moment for the American Jewish community. Thanksgivukkah is here. Jews have always loved Thanksgiving. Now that their favorite American holiday finds itself face to face with America’s favorite Jewish holiday – Hanukkah – the encounter can say an enormous amount about the American Jewish collective story. In other words, Thanksgivukkah tells us something important about what Jews are doing in America. It starts with good timing. When Hanukkah falls on Christmas, it highlights Judaism as a religion, a fair contender on the scene of American denominations. But Thanksgivukkah yanks the carpet from under the convenient Christmas-Hanukkah dichotomy. The Thanksgiving of today grew out of its religious roots. The same could be said of the Judaism of many Americans. Thanksgiving is about America, but not in a celebration of patriotic triumphalism. It’s about America as a promise, an idea, a project. If, any other year, most American Jews sideline Judaism and celebrate Thanksgiving simply as Americans, this year’s calendar demands owning up to the Jewish take on the American story. In Thanksgivukkah this generation of Jews might just have found their model holiday. Indeed, if there is an “American Project”, Jews have been some of its most avid contributors. As narrators, critics, troubadours and activists, they took care of themselves while making plenty of room for others. To be sure, America is far from the only contemporary Jewish story. Jews have not one, but two Promised Lands: Israel and America have become the yin and yang of the Jewish people. As Hillel might have put it: “If I am not for myself – who will be for me?” – such is the Israeli project. “And if I am only for myself, what am I?” – the American Jewish project. “And if not now, when?” Thanksgivukkah brings home some of the challenges of a Jewry so invested in America. For the most part, American Judaism has failed at being a homemade identity, outsourcing the task to synagogues, Hebrew schools, Bnai Brith or AIPAC. Yet Hanukkah leaves the synagogues orphaned. With all due respect to public square Menorahs, any halakhist will tell you it’s the Menorah in the home that counts. Thanksgiving is the same: it is a homemade celebration of Americanism; it convenes the family in a feast of gratitude. Pilgrimages by air, track and road attest to the home’s centrality. Thanksgiving is a much needed model for an increasingly secular American Jewry. Where “cultural Judaism” is often “soft” and “optional”, Thanksgiving has an undeniably “commanding” presence. Who doesn’t come home for Thanksgiving, from wherever that may be? Who doesn’t have a turkey at the table, even if it’s made of tofu? Thanksgiving is an unapologetic model for a cultural identity being a commanding presence in one’s life. But Hanukkah one-ups Thanksgiving – it turns family time into story time. When asking where the Bible commanded us to light the Hanukkah candles, the Talmud responds: “We learn that we must light candles from the Biblical verse: ‘Ask your father, he will tell you’.” The candles set the stage for a story. Yet in those rare moments where a family Thanksgiving allows for a discussion, it is often of a “here and now” gratitude. Hanukkah’s gratitude, on the other hand, is rooted. A Thanksgiving-style family meal with Hanukkah-style stories ask us to place the individual narrative on a longer trajectory – why did we come here, how did we achieve the things for which we are grateful, and where do we – individuals, community and country – go from here. That is what Thanksgivukkah should be. It should turn a generation of immediate gratification into one of rooted gratitude. It’s not about religion or musty history, but about the power oflocal family stories. America and Judaism each face severe struggles adapting to a flat world. Both are undermined by an increasingly divided base. They need their stories more than ever. Ask your mother; she will tell you. For an American Jewish community increasingly consisting of families of both Jewish and non-Jewish members, Thanksgivukkah is a moment that allows for a diversity of stories at the table. Hanukkah’s Jewish coat over Thanksgiving’s American jersey throws us back to the vision of America as a series of cultural pluralisms. Thanksgivukkah asks us to keep telling the stories that go beyond America. Thanksgivukkah is an invitation to celebrate the places where Jewishness enriches America, and where America enriches the Jewish people. Jews have always preferred stories to dogma and ritual to creed. This November American Jews are invited to sit down at the Thanksgivukkah table and tell stories of rooted gratitude. Let’s make sure this happens more than just every 70,000 years. Happy Thanksgivukkah.

Rabbinate's discrimination of Orthodox rabbis abroad prompts emergency Knesset meeting

Rabbinate's discrimination of Orthodox rabbis abroad 

prompts emergency Knesset meeting

Conservative and Reform movements increasingly demanding recognition of their 

conversions and marriages in Israel.

By Yair Ettinger | Nov. 13, 2013 | 

The Knesset’s Religion and State lobby will hold an emergency meeting on Tuesday on what it describes as the “split between Israel's Chief Rabbinate and the Jewish Diaspora,” which is worsening with the exposure of the Rabbinate’s policies against moderate Orthodox rabbis overseas.Rabbinate officials have, in recent years, questioned the Jewish legal authority of a number of these liberal

 Orthodox rabbis abroad, and refused to recognize the conversions they have conducted. The latest case,
 involving prominent New York Rabbi Avi Weiss, has fueled suspicions that the Rabbinate maintains a secret
 "black list" containing the names of Orthodox rabbis from overseas.
The Knesset meeting was preceded by letters and protests from rabbis and various organizations in Israel,
such as the Tzohar group of rabbis, the religious Zionist Ne’emanei Torah Va’Avodah, the Shalom Hartman
Institute and ITIM, an organization that helps people navigate the religious authorities’ bureaucracy in Israel.
It will take place amidst increasing demands of the Conservative and Reform movements abroad for
recognition of their conversions and marriages in Israel, a central issue on the agenda of the General
Assembly of the Jewish Federations of North America, being held this week in Israel.
In the most recent case that sparked the anger of both Israeli rabbis and prominent American Jews, the
Rabbinate cast doubt on the authority of Rabbi Avi Weiss, a well known and influential liberal Orthodox
rabbi from New York. It rejected a letter by Weiss vouching for the Jewish credentials of an American couple
 seeking to wed in Israel (the Rabbinate routinely requires a letter from an Orthodox rabbi certifying one’s
 Jewish identity in cases of non-Israelis seeking to immigrate or marry in Israel). The couple was asked to
bring a letter from a different rabbi.
Weiss, the spiritual leader of the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale and founder of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah,
 has been the subject of controversy in recent years for pushing the envelope when it comes to ordaining
Orthodox women as clergy. After learning that his credentials were being challenged by the Rabbinate,
Weiss penned an opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post earlier this month, calling on Israel to end the
Rabbinate’s “monopoly on religious dictates of the state.”
The case added to suspicions that the Rabbinate has a black list of Orthodox rabbis from overseas, whom
 they consider too liberal or improperly ordained - including rabbis who belong to mainstream Orthodox
 organizations such as the Rabbinical Council of America. Weiss left the RCA - some say he was forced to
 leave - after being criticized for ordaining the first woman as an Orthodox community rabbi.
Prominent law professor Alan Dershowitz asked President Shimon Peres to intervene in the case of the
 apparent blacklisting of Weiss by the Chief Rabbinate. Dershowitz, a practicing criminal and constitutional
 lawyer, wrote to Peres on Monday saying: “Rabbi Weiss is one of the foremost Modern Open Orthodox
rabbis in America and one of the strongest advocates anywhere for the State of Israel. As a person – I am
deeply saddened by the pubic shaming of my friend, Rabbi Avraham Weiss, the leader of a flagship
Orthodox congregation.
“As a Jew – I understand that today more than ever before there is a chasm between the Jews of the United
 States and the religious institutions in Israel. This is clearly expressed in the rejection of the most
elementary and fundamental testimonies and confirmations. I am disturbed by this, and by its
 ramifications, and call upon the leaders of Israel to first understand that there is a serious problem
which demands attention, and to understand that they mustn’t bend to baseless religious tyranny," wrote
Dershowitz.
“As a lawyer – I am forced to see yet again how basic rights, such as the right to marriage, the right to
self-definition and the right of religion, are trampled by none other than the Israeli democracy we value
 so. This is yet another result of the rather unsuccessful fusion of religious law and Israeli law, and the
problem seems to only intensify over time."

New civil marriage bill could land bride, groom and rabbi in jail for two years

New civil marriage bill could land bride, groom and rabbi in jail for two years

New bill expands existing clause barring ceremonies outside the Rabbinate, rendering hundreds of thousands of Israelis potential criminals.

By Tomer Persico | Nov. 5, 2013 | 1:34 PM

Family law in Israel is a bit like Frankenstein, constructed in a patch-like manner, limb by limb, with a law here and a High Court ruling there. Before one realizes it, the impressive legal entity we are faced with is an entire body. The facts speak for themselves – ever-increasing numbers of Israel’s Jewish citizens opt to wed outside the rabbinical framework. While running for the chief rabbi’s office, Rabbi David Stav warned that one third of secular couples today find other ways of getting married. The subsequent election of two conservative chief rabbis will presumably strengthen this growing trend.

Last week, a flash of light flickered in the darkness. A law calling for the expansion of registration zones and easing up on restrictions was passed by the Knesset, and every citizen will now be able to choose the religious council in which his marriage will take place. Theoretically, this will allow one to find more tolerant officials, such as ones who won’t insist on the bride producing a note confirming her dipping in a mikve. This is a positive development, making things easier, but it doesn’t really solve the problem. We are still bound by law to get married exclusively by Orthodox rabbis. We can console ourselves with the hope that we might find a nice rabbi.

However, this wasn’t the only change to the law that was enacted last week. In addition to increasing the number of registration offices, there was a change to the clause which penalizes those who marry outside the Chief Rabbinate. While the original law stated that anyone "who does not register a marriage or divorce at the Rabbinate will be charged according to the amendments to clause 99 of the Ottoman criminal code," the new amendment stipulates that in addition to the couple getting married the officiating rabbi will also be charged. Instead of the breezy reference to the old Ottoman law, the new legislation stipulates that both husband and wife and the rabbi performing the ceremony will be subject to two years’ imprisonment.

Don’t rub your eyes in amazement. You read it correctly. Anyone who dares to get married outside the official framework of the Rabbinate will end up in jail for two years. It should be noted that the law in its previous form was never enforced, and couples marrying outside the fold were not prosecuted. However, there is no valid reason for turning hundreds of thousands of Israelis into criminals.

One should remember that among those who wed outside the Rabbinate there are many who do so for lack of choice. There are currently more than 300,000 people in Israel, mainly veteran immigrants from the former Soviet Union, who are not considered Jews according to Orthodox Jewish law, preventing them from marrying within the rabbinical framework. The new law adds to this injustice. The fact that they cannot marry in their own country is scandalous enough. Now, if they hold a ceremony not through the Rabbinate, which in any case will not be recognized by the state, they are breaking the law and are liable to be imprisoned for two years. Maybe they have to stay single forever.

In addition to this group, other people who are ineligible for marriage by Orthodox Jewish law, such as ‘bastards’ born out of wedlock (mamzerim), divorcees, Cohanim, will all become fugitive criminals if they try and arrange a chuppa (wedding canopy) for themselves, after being rejected by the state. Israel is the only democracy in the world in which family law is subject to a religion. It is now taking a fundamentalist step forward by joining the small number of states in which transgression against a religious law is punished by a jail sentence. Indeed, a light unto the nations!

The process is as clear as it is pitiful. In its attempts to maintain an orthodox monopoly in the public sphere, the state of Israel must run faster and faster just to stay in one place. The ancient phobia directed at assimilation and bastards is creating ugly hybrids of religious law and bureaucracy, monsters of religious coercion roughly put together, presenting an ugly visage. There is nothing like the threat of imprisonment that emphasizes the bankruptcy of the Chief Rabbinate in its values and image, no better sign of its impending collapse.

After I got married three years ago I joined a group that arranges civil, secular wedding ceremonies as part of the ‘Havaya’ organization. I wanted to join the effort to establish an alternative to marriage within the Rabbinate for two Israeli populations: those hundreds of thousands who are forbidden from getting married in their country, and those hundreds of thousands who are permitted to but for whom the last thing they wish for is a ceremony conducted by an Orthodox rabbi who doesn’t share their values.

I’ve conducted several ceremonies since then, which I obviously did not register at the Rabbinate. I and my friends will continue with this sacred work, from now on specifically challenging this law, which uses the power of the state for religious coercion, and which stands in contrast to democratic principles.

The writer is a researcher of contemporary religions at Tel Aviv University.

No skullcap will cover this gaping gash in our collective act

The sorry incident at the Yad Vashem Holocaust museum reflects an exceptionally unfortunate mishmash concocted by Israeli culture.

By Avirama Golan | Oct. 13, 2013 

An embarrassing incident happened at Yad Vashem last week during a visit by the Prime Minister of Greece, Antonis Samaras. Like every state leader who visits Israel for the first time, Samaras took a tour there — and surprised his hosts by refusing to cover his head with a skullcap.

His hosts chose to let it go, but their reservations and humiliation at the act were evident. The Greek prime minister’s refusal to wear a skullcap at Yad Vashem was seen as a show of contempt for the honor, or the sanctity, of the place and for the Holocaust in general. Israeli officials responded the same way in 2005 to the absolute refusal of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Only the significance of the relations between Israel and Turkey prevented a scandal then, as well.
It is hard to assume that Samaras, who arrived here several days after outlawing the Greek neo-Nazi movement Golden Dawn, and who is interested in stronger relations with Israel, intended any insult. Actually, it is not clear what was unreasonable about his behavior. With all due respect to the countless number of world leaders who were photographed wearing the black skullcaps of yeshiva students from Brooklyn, or the white skullcaps of bar mitzvah boys in Kfar Sava, the ceremony of having guests put on a skullcap at Yad Vashem is odd, and mainly uncultured.
What sort of skullcap are they thinking of? Jewish law does not explicitly require men to wear a skullcap, which is a fairly new custom. The custom of covering the head in public goes back to Rabbi Joseph Caro’s ruling in his work, the Shulhan Arukh, that “a man should not walk four cubits bareheaded,” but aside from covering one’s head in the synagogue or during prayer there is no ruling on the matter. Any rabbi who is asked about it over the past few years answered that it is an “attribute of piety” — in other words, it is a personal choice motivated by one’s own conscience. In addition, it is a symbolic act that expresses identification with the religious way of life.
More than anything else, the skullcap — whether black or crocheted in all sorts of colors and sizes — is the identifying mark of a particular religious community, just as the streimel, or fur hat, is the identifying mark of another Jewish community. Why, then, should Antonis Samaras, the head of a country for whom the Greek Orthodox Church is one of its main national and cultural symbols, have to dress up as a group leader of the Bnei Akiva youth movement?
The justifications offered for why the guests must wear skullcaps are just as bizarre. According to Yad Vashem officials, since the ashes of Jews who perished in the Holocaust are buried there, Yad Vashem has the status of a cemetery, and the army rabbinate even sanctified the place. It’s true that in the past few decades everything sounds logical, but what on earth does the military rabbinate have to do with the victims’ ashes, and what authority does it have to “sanctify” the museum commemorating the Holocaust? Even if we say that Yad Vashem has the status of a cemetery, what obligates anyone to wear a skullcap there except during prayer services (an act that obligates only observant Jews, while others are invited to wear it out of respect for the service, not out of respect for the place)?
That being the case, the story of the skullcap reflects the moral mishmash concocted by Israeli culture, in which the memory of the Holocaust mixes with national feeling and the army, and the only thing gluing them together is a hollow, ignorant, ceremonial religiosity. It seems that Israel has completely lost confidence in the story of its life and existence. If that were not true, it would not engage in a schmaltzy, Hollywood-style mourner’s prayer, and force its guests to play a role in it that detracts from their honor. It certainly would not do this at Yad Vashem, that absolutely unsanctified but impressive place, whose importance is second to none.

It’s time to get over ourselves: The lessons of the Pew survey

Facts rarely shape or change our opinions. We prefer to select the facts that mirror and justify that which we already hold. The release of the recent Pew survey, A Portrait of Jewish Americans, with its treasury of facts and figures, has caused a tsunami among Jewish leadership and social media as we all scramble to locate the facts that can serve our preexisting individual or institutional purposes and cherished “truths.” 

This process has a celebratory and self-congratulatory feature. For example, many Israeli voices find in the survey the proof that they have been searching for to justify the Zionist claim of the unviability and unsustainability of Diaspora Jewish life. Some within Orthodoxy find evidence to the unviability and unsustainability of a liberal Judaism. Many voices within other denominations find evidence proving the superiority of their approach. The discourse around the survey invariably takes on a form of “I told you so.” When one frees oneself from one’s ideological and institutional loyalties, however, the survey provides important information and insight into the nature of our people and future directions which may warrant consideration.

One interesting fact exposed by the survey is the scarcity of movement from less to more observance. People leave their denominations to become increasingly Jewish without religion, but rarely increase their commitment to tradition with its consequent faith and required practices. The fundamental lesson to be learned is that we all have to get over ourselves. Whether our denomination or belief “fares better” in the commitment of its adherents to Judaism, raising children Jewishly, and to the State of Israel, it is simply irrelevant. The less or differently observant are not going to change, if change means accepting religious presuppositions and categories which are at present alien or absent in their lives.

Diversity is not the product of failed education or the lack of exposure of one group to the truth and beauty of the other. We differ Jewishly because as people we have different notions regarding the essence of our tradition, and different approaches to what makes a life, a life of value. The plurality of Judaisms which are evident, are the result of an ideological gap and not a lack of knowledge.

The fundamental challenge we face regarding the future vitality of our people’s Jewish identity and commitment is how to create ideas and experiences internal to each conceptual and ideological framework which are capable of garnering greater excitement and depth of commitment. In the end, “victory” will not be achieved through the withering away of those who disagree with me nor through the proven sustainability of my approach. As I said above, we have to get over ourselves. Victory will be attained when ever-increasing numbers of Jews, regardless of their affiliation or lack thereof, will feel more deeply connected and committed to their Judaism.

In this process, it is critical to distinguish between that which is a core and essential feature or reality of a particular Jewish ideology, denomination, or sociological classification and from that which is a current manifestation and expression alone. The facts which shed light on the latter provide insight for educational responses and new programmatic possibilities; the facts that shed light on the former obligate us to reshape our definitions of ourselves as a people.

Thus, for example, even if living in Israel, being Orthodox, or not intermarrying increases the chances of one’s children being Jewish, this is merely a statistical fact as to the new reality of contemporary Jewish life and not one with educational or programmatic significance. North American Jews on the whole are not going to move to Israel, abandon their liberal sensibilities, nor stop marrying fellow Americans who embrace them and want to marry them. These are not current manifestations of 21st century Jewish life, but ongoing and core features of this reality. The key question for the future of Jewish life is not whether one can change this reality, but what one must do to change the seemingly detrimental consequences of this reality for the future of Jewish identity. Accepting this is one of the greatest challenges of leaders and ideologues – to work within a given reality in order to improve it instead of fantasizing about shaping it in one’s image.

An interesting, important, and as yet open question is whether the move away from institutions and denominations as identified in the survey, is a new reality or merely a current manifestation. That Jews see Judaism and Jewish identity increasingly in terms that are less religious, I suspect is a reality. Here, paradoxically, North American and Israeli Jewry are becoming similar. The religious-secular divide of Israel is increasingly an appropriate lens with which to view North American Jewry as well. But as we have been learning here in Israel over the last decade or so, the categories of both religious and secular are neither monolithic nor one-dimensional.

For example, secular does not mean less Jewish but differently Jewish. While most secular Israeli Jews believe in God, the essence of their secularity is not determined by their faith but by the fact that they do not see in the worship of God and the rituals it entails, an essential part of their Judaism. Jewish secular Israelis can have a robust Jewish life which entails commitment to Jewish values, observance of the Jewish calendar and lifecycles, participation in Jewish culture and learning, and loyalty to the Jewish people and their well-being. Many of these features are or can be defining aspects of a future, vibrant, “less religious” North American Jewry.

The open question is whether Jewish institutions and denominations can adapt and continue to serve as important vehicles for deepening Jewish identity and connections. It is my hope that what we are seeing is merely a contemporary manifestation and not a new reality. Our institutions will require new thinking as they reimagine their roles, but I believe we will do a huge disservice to our future if we believe that we will be better served without them. The human being is still a social animal in need of community, particularity, and individual connections. We are still in need of partners, friends, services, assistance, guidance, and leadership at different moments of our lives. We still experience moments when a connection to our past is a source of strength and inspiration. An innovative and courageous educational, religious, and lay leadership are capable of providing the above, so long as we are open to rethinking the way we approach our tasks and define our goals.

One of the important features of our tradition’s understanding of Jewish identity is that it is a national one and not merely a religious one. One becomes Jewish through birth, conversion, or marriage and remains so regardless of faith and practice. Consequently, sociological data about the Jews are not merely descriptive but definitive as to who we are. Modernity and in particular, life in Israel and North America have changed the rules of the game. The question is how we are going to play.

By Rabbi Dr. Donniel Hartman - President of Hartman Institute, Jerusalem

On laws that must be broken

On laws that must be broken By Ilana Hammerman | Sep. 24, 2013 Haaretz

When laws are being legislated by a parliamentary majority whose express ideology is a system of injustice, these laws demand one response: Civil, nonviolent revolt.

"Legally mandated destruction." That is how Haaretz's editorial on Sunday described the destruction of the village of Khirbet Makhoul in the Jordan Valley. “The structures in question are unlawful and were built without construction permits. The structures were demolished in the wake of the Supreme Court’s rejection on August 28, 2013, of the petition that had been filed against their demolition.” That is how a spokesman for the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories responded to a report in last Friday’s paper on the destruction by Gideon Levy and Alex Levac.

For 46 out of its 65 years of existence, Israel has implemented military laws on an occupied civilian population; what is the law here and what is the High Court of Justice? And what is the validity of laws of this type and what is the word “justice” doing at all in such circumstances, which in international law were intended to be temporary yet have become permanent here, to the point that they’ve become the very essence of the State of Israel? After all the personal and collective damage to property and persons, which has been conducted systematically all these years on hundreds of thousands of people; these are serious, extreme violations of the law, also of the Basic Laws of the State of Israel. These basic laws, and even standard criminal law, are violated regularly, starting with denial of freedoms and ending with torture and killing. Many of these violations and crimes are done under the patronage of the High Court of Justice.

But there are very few Israeli citizens who think about this with complete seriousness and internal honesty, then reach the dire conclusion: These laws must be broken. Moreover, at this late stage of deterioration, when Israel’s laws are now being legislated by a parliamentary majority whose express ideology is this very system of injustice, then these laws demand one response: Civil, nonviolent revolt.

This rebellion cannot be carried out by the residents of the destroyed village of Khirbet Makhoul. They are without rights, without property, helpless before the orders forced on them with the power of weapons. They are few and weak against the many and strong. The citizens of Israel are responsible for the fate of the residents of the village of Khirbet Makhoul and the other Palestinian residents of the Jordan Valley, who have been harassed for years by the lack of permits for houses and schools, and the destruction of buildings that were built nonetheless; by the denial of the supply of water and by their expulsion - alongside the cultivation of the neighboring Jewish settlements, which are being built and are prospering under the auspices of the very same system of laws. The actions and reality that have been created are clear to see: Every Israeli citizen speeding in his car on Route 90 through the Jordan Valley can see it. Those responsible for the expulsion and destruction and the decree of annihilation by thirst on this burning region of the country are Israel Defense Forces soldiers - in other words, citizens of Israel serving three years as soldiers in its army and acting as the operational arm of the state’s political and legal institutions.

This is the logic of things and there is no other beside this logic, distorted and despotic: From the time it was set it motion, this logic has acted with enormous dynamism, moving forward unrestrained in front of our eyes. Only the blind and the brainwashed, and mostly those who do not want to see or know, place here on the other side of the scale the conflict between the two peoples and the right of the Jews to a sovereign state. For a long time it hasn't been so.

So despite the brainwashing from childhood through old age, Israel still has thousands of citizens who know this and their hearts are crushed. But with this knowledge they need not just to read with an angry soul the heart-breaking articles from the Levy and Levac’s "Twilight Zone," but to show up themselves there with their bodies. Not just one or two but hundreds of thousands must stand up there with determined spirits and empty hands to face the bulldozers and soldiers coming to destroy. To tell them: In our names do not do this. And if only the village of Khirbet Makhoul was an allegory: No high court of justice ever created was entitled to deny people the right to remain where they live and make a living, all in the name of the right of “firing zones" to be there instead.

A civil society that after so many years does not have people who are just and courageous enough to arise for such a civil rebellion - this is a society that is gradually losing its ability to defend its civil existence. And without that, it will not be able to survive over time. Many of us know that too, and are standing by the side. How have we become so spineless?

Yom Kippur Sermon 2013

שנה טובה,

¹⁵ “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, ¹⁶ in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in God’s ways, and to keep God’s commandments, statutes, and judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the Lord your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess. ¹⁷ But if your heart turns away so that you do not hear, and are drawn away, and worship other gods and serve them, ¹⁸ I announce to you today that you shall surely perish; you shall not prolong your days in the land which you cross over the Jordan to go in and possess. Deuteronomy 30:15-18 (NKJV)

This is this morning’s Torah Portion – classic verses that convey the main narrative of our holy Bible. This portion is quoted on Yom Kippur as reminder that the world is symmetrical – doing  good, which is what God tells us to do – will be rewarded.  This is a recurring theme in the Bible and the Jewish prayer books.  This message establishes our expectation that there is a link between the way we live our lives – and the quality of our lives.  This may be the core and heart of the Bible – perhaps a stronger message than the belief in monotheism, the message that this world is marching to the drumbeat of reward and punishment.

However, this is not the only voice in our Bible. The Torah and the Bible do not speak in one monolithic voice; there are many beliefs and narratives expressed in our Bible, many ways to find your path to God.

The prophet Isaiah describes the relationship between God and the world with the following words: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things (Isaiah 45:7)

This verse has been incorporated in the prayer book, but it is the only verse from the Bible that is misquoted on purpose. The theology conveyed in it is difficult, the idea that God is not only the creator of the good but also created evil; the editors of the prayer book ‘corrected’ it to be: “who makes peace and fashions all things”.

פאוזה

For Isaiah, God created all, thus created also evil, Isaiah reminds us that believing there is only one God means that the one and only God is the source of all things, good and bad.

In light of this, we need to ask how can we worship the God that is also the source of all evil in our world? What kind of God are we praying to?

Monotheistic religions convey the message that God is a morally perfect deity. This is perhaps one of the basic, crucial assumptions of monotheism, that the commanding God is also perfect from the moral sense of point; this is why we succumb and accept God’s demands, and give up our personal, human sense of judgment. This is, assumingly the definition of religion.

As we might expect – this is not the only definition of our religion and our belief. Going back to the source, to the Torah, we can find voices that denounce God’s moral perfection, and contest God’s moral judgment.  Not only that – these voices are not heretics or blasphemy, rather these are profoundly religious voices. These voices express an authentic religious cry demanding God to see us as partners, believing that otherwise it will be bad for the world and bad for God, as we and God are profoundly morally imperfect and need each other’s help striving for perfection.

One exemplary story recounts Abraham contesting God’s decision to punish the sinners of Sodom.  After God declares the ruination of all Sodom’s people, women and children included – Abraham rebukes God and says: “Far be it from you to do such a thing--to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?" Genesis 18:25

This is a story where clearly the roles are changing – instead of God warning and reproaching Abraham – the reverse is happening.  Abraham teaches morals to God and attempts to convince him to spare the innocent.

A similar story is recounted later in the Torah, in relation to the story of the Golden Calf. God notifies Moses of his plan to annihilate the people of Israel as punishment for the worshiping of the golden calf – men, women and children.
As happened with Abraham – Moses too is arguing with God and says: Exodus 32:32

‘But now, please forgive their sin--but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written."

Moses puts an ultimatum to God – forgive the people or I am not your partner any more, and God makes a compromise and pardons part of the transgression of Israel.

The Talmud refers to this controversy. It quotes God’s request to Moses to allow God to wipe out the people of Israel: Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation." Exodus 32:10

The Talmud quotes Moses answer: “Moses sought the favor of the LORD.’ ‘LORD," he said, "Why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand?’” Exodus 32:11

The Talmud explains: Rabbi Abahu said: ‘Were this verse not written, it would be impossible to say it. This teaches that Moses seized the Holy one blessed be God, like a person who seizes his friend by his garment, and said to God, Master of the universe! I shall not release You until you forgive and pardon them!

According to the Talmudic narrative, Moses literally holds God from killing Israel.

Moses will repeat similar criticism when God will want to annihilate us after the sin of the scouts, and again in the story about Korach when Moses challenges God saying ‘will you be angry with the entire assembly when only one man sins?’  (Numbers 16:22).

פאוזה

Jewish tradition has clearly created heroes who can argue with God and contest the righteousness of God’s decisions. This has radical implications – the Jewish theological center of attention has been moved over from God – onto us. The moral responsibility has been shifted away from God to human beings – and a true hero is one who can contest God, and won’t automatically abide to God’s will.

We would like to believe in what we read in the Torah this morning, a simple, symmetrical narrative of crime and punishment, good deeds and rewards.  A world were fulfilling God’s commandments ensures immediate rewards. But we understand that such a world doesn’t and cannot exist, a world when a mitzvah is immediately rewarded, and a crime is punished automatically.

 Only when we realize that God and the world God has created are far from perfect, we can start believe in ourselves, in mankind. Then, we can demand ourselves to take responsibility. Theodicy – trying to justify every act of God and everything God has created – actually takes away from us.  Taking responsibility is where the term ‘Tikum Olam’ has emerged – the idea that we are empowered, and it is on us, to make this a better world. The power is transformed from God to us, because I am dissatisfied with the world that God created, I have criticism on the world and on God. Only then I can help make this world better. This is what Hassidics call a Sacred Hutzpah – the guts to stand before God and ask for better terms, for a better world.

The Divine promise we read in the Torah this morning actually makes it harder to accept the world as it truly is and to understand reality. When we finally discover that God is not perfect and has created an imperfect world, then we can begin to cope with all the hardship in our lives and in our world and even try to make the world a better place.

 Let us pray for a Shana Tova, a good year – a year of success and health, a year of love and happiness, of prosperity and peace, Shalom. Let us make this world, and our congregation of friends and families, to be a better place, and let us say –

 Shana Tova!

Israel Should Allow Freedom of Jewish Faith to All - Is Israel Jewish Enough?

Israel Should Allow Freedom of Jewish Faith to All

Is Israel Jewish Enough?

Freedom to Choose: Israel won’t be truly Jewish until it allows all its citizens to practice religion as they see fit.

By Tamar Elad-Appelbaum

Published September 07, 2013, issue of September 13, 2013.

Last June, Jane Eisner participated in a private roundtable discussion at the Israeli Presidential Conference in Jerusalem about Israel’s Jewish identity. What came out of the talks was the sense that Jews in Israel and in the Diaspora face a similar challenge — how to be a modern people in a modern world while holding onto ancient tradition. This is the continuation of that discussion.

Jewish life in Israel is often measured in quantities: How many Talmud pages did we conquer? How many mitzvot did we perform? How many times did we say “Baruch Hashem” in one sentence? How many Jewish children did we bring into the world? How wonderful is it that here in the State of Israel we have more yeshivas and rabbis than we ever had before, and more Jewish state laws than we ever dreamed of?

We live in a state of quantity, as if Jewish civilization is solely a matter of how much we do, as if quantities are a guarantee against the extermination of our ancient heritage. Is this true?

The accumulation of quantity, a known human weakness, is also an inevitable consequence of a miracle called Israel, where for the first time in Jewish history we exercise our heritage in the modern bureaucratic state, dealing with everything through the lens of the mass. Yet, essentially, to be truly Jewish is to engage in a higher quest: the religious quest to be personally called, to choose carefully one’s quality of life and then commit and practice it in community with others.

In order to make this choice of a religious life, one needs a will. A will that enables a person to choose to live rather than survive. In order to grow that will, one needs freedom. Freedom to question, to answer, to exercise different approaches to Torah and life, to find a place within the ancient covenant and commit, to add one’s voice to a nation ever-standing at the foot of Sinai and to hearing a voice.

The State of Israel might be full of people who were born Jewish, but as long as it doesn’t provide freedom to grow such a will, it is not yet a Jewish state.

I dread the thought that this magnificent moment in Jewish history might turn out to be a tragedy for the Jewish condition and its calling in the world. I dread the thought that Jews in Israel and around the world will count on the strength of what seems like an everlasting state, physically built, while neglecting, abandoning, an ancient trust in the transparent realm of theruach, the spirit, the deepest power in human life. The built State of Israel entered the delicate void of thousands of years yearning, and the task of this generation is to ask how we make way for the challenges of embodying ruach in Jerusalem. This is our task.

What we really need is to recuperate the natural instinct of freedom here in Zion. We can’t wait for the status quo to be changed; it will not be changed easily, and we are losing precious time, precious generations. In a world in which the new Jew is the Haredi Jew, what we need is to deepen the grassroots movement of Jewish freedom — individuals and communities exercising a Jewish life of their choice: marrying, celebrating, mourning, learning to translate modern autonomy of the individual into a life of shared values and deeds. We need more Jewish thinkers leading such a life; declaring that they do so; sharing their thoughts, practices; making way for others by their own quest to weave their unique personality into that of a community in its state.

“If Ben-Gurion, in the peak of his leadership days, would choose to go to a Reform community on Yom Kippur instead of sitting home, reading Spinoza or Aristotle, he could have given with his great authority legitimacy to another possibility of religious authority,” A.B. Yehoshua wrote in 1984. “There is no hope for real normalization of the Jewish people without deeply treating questions of our heritage. If we want to see a significant change in 100 years, we need to plan it now. We need to make sure that secular Jews are deeply involved in these questions…. Orthodoxy (as an ideology) does not want the change; the change will come only by creating new centers of Jewish authority.” And I, too, think to myself, if Shimon Peres, in the peak of his presidential days, would have asked for a blessing or prayer of six different Jewish (and non-Jewish, of course) leaders from different schools of thought in one evening, what a gate he would have opened to our people.

What I write here is a plea, that we demand every Jewish leader we know exercise and speak words of freedom, and continue to fight for state laws that enshrine that freedom. The coming 65 years should be dedicated to this pursuit of pluralism, and the more Jews involved, Israelis and partners from all around the world to whom this place belongs, the more of a chance we will have to live in a truly Jewish state.

Abbas has proven he's a partner for peace

With a series of important, courageous statements, Mahmoud Abbas has made clear that the Palestinians have a pragmatic leader who is offering Israel a chance not to be missed.

Haaretz Editorial | Aug. 25, 2013

The meeting in Ramallah on Thursday between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and a Meretz party delegation once again underlined the fact that Israel does have a partner for peace talks. With a series of important, courageous statements, Abbas proved that the Palestinians have a pragmatic leader who aspires to a peace agreement and is willing to take meaningful measures in order to create a new and better situation in the region.

Abbas did not avoid any topic; he expressed clear positions on issues that are considered controversial. He emphasized that a Palestinian declaration of the end of the conflict would be part of the peace agreement. “People say that after signing a peace agreement we will still demand Haifa, Acre and Safed,” he said. “That is not true. Signing the agreement will signal the end of the conflict.”

The Palestinian president further clarified that in any peace settlement the Palestinian state would agree to be demilitarized. “We don’t need planes or missiles. All we need is a strong police force,” Abbas said. He even revealed that during earlier negotiations with then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, there was an agreement to station American soldiers in the West Bank.

Abbas said the Palestinians would accept changes to the 1967 borders as part of land swap agreements, saying, “Let’s lay down a map and start marking the borders.” He also did not reject the possibility that some Jewish settlements could remain under Palestinian sovereignty after the signing of an accord.

Regarding the Israeli desire for an interim agreement, Abbas emphasized that while his goal was to reach a final agreement that would thwart the "various elements looking for ways to sabotage things and derail the process," he was "willing to implement the process in stages ... just as you did in the agreement with Egypt over the withdrawal from Sinai."

The positions laid out by Abbas underline the fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu must not treat the entire process as if it were a tax that must be paid to Uncle Sam. "We wanted the meetings between negotiating teams to take place every day or every other day, and not once a week or every 10 days like the Israelis want," Abbas told the Meretz delegation, adding that he had no objection to meeting with Netanyahu and claiming that no progress has been made in the talks so far.

"Without peace there will be tragedies here. There is an opportunity now. Look at what’s happening all around us. Everything is in turmoil. Now is the time to reach an agreement," Abbas said.

Netanyahu's silence must not be the response to these wise remarks of Abbas. The chairwoman of the Labor Party, MK Shelly Yacimovich, is also duty bound to give the prime minister the support needed to advance the peace process. Today there is a unique opportunity to reach a historic agreement.

Just be a human being

How can we reconcile the terror-filled daily lives of Russia's gays and lesbians with the 

celebration of sports?

By Ravit Hecht | Aug. 21, 2013 

The Russian parliament passed a law this year prohibiting “homosexual propaganda” among minors.
 This is a continuation of the aggressive legislation in various parts of Russia, for example a law the governor
of St. Petersburg signed in March, that coming publicly out of the closet as gay is a criminal offense. These
laws, even if they do not sentence gays and lesbians to death or imprisonment, are a crime against human
beings, which no individual or democracy-loving country can stand for. These are laws that crudely and
ignorantly differentiate between one person and the next, which confines masses of people to a limited
 existence, which automatically sentence a certain group whose only sin is the desire to choose who to
live with — to the shame of being second-class citizens.
That same Russia was the recent venue for the World Athletics Championships. The world’s best athletes
 showed off to spectators and viewers around the globe the wonders of the human body and spirit, which
constantly stretch the limits of their abilities. That same Russia is also to host the 2014 Winter Olympics,
which will attract hundreds of athletes and tens of millions of spectators and viewers.
How can the contradiction be resolved between the ordinary, terror-filled daily lives of Russia’s gays and
 lesbians and the extraordinary celebration of sports, which crosses cultures, peoples and countries? Such
 a contradiction cannot be resolved — the hesitant condemnation by U.S. President Barack Obama, who did
 not boycott the Winter Olympics, and the confused attempts of the International Olympic Committee to
 create some sort of compromise with regard to gay and lesbian athletes, show this.
Such a contradiction cannot be resolved because something as damaging as Russian homophobia empties the
 Games of their significance. The pole vaulter Yelena Isinbayeva, who astounded fans when she retired in
perfect style with a gold medal at the World Championships, was asked shortly thereafter about the recently
enacted laws in her country. In broken English and embarrassed body language, she mumbled that in Russia
“we just live boys with women, girls with boys,” and that she supports the laws of her country.
In her response, Insinbayeva exposed the scam: She stands on the podium, tallest of all, closest to heaven
and to God, but she is neither a giant nor an outstanding figure. She is just a young woman who can jump
 higher than other young women.
It was, in fact, the defiant kiss of the Russian team’s relay racers, Kseniya Ryzhova and Tatyana Firova,
 who are less well known and whose achievements have not made them “living legends” in athletic terms,
 which will be remembered from the World Championships in Russia as a wonder of humanity, a symbol
of the human spirit that remains undaunted in immoral human surroundings.
Like the historic salute by athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico
 protesting discrimination against blacks in the United States, an act that would later be said to overshadow
 any of their athletic achievements, the Russian women will be remembered for their kiss of protest against
 the homophobic fascism of President Vladimir Putin. No one will remember Insinbayeva’s pole vault.
It was just a jump.
In a place where people are deprived of their natural rights, one cannot pole vault or figure skate and win
some prize. In a place where fascist principles permit, even indirectly, the protection of the law to be
 withdrawn from a group of people only because of who they are — the greatest human achievement is
simply to be a human being. To show solidarity with others, to fight for their natural rights and to oppose
any initiative, governmental or popular, based on mass, blind injustice. That is true for Russia, and it is
 also true for Israel and any place under the sun. If it doesn’t exist, all the rest is meaningless.

Israel and the Constancy of Change

Israel and the Constancy of Change

In our everyday discourse the belief that change is possible, that people's characters and attitudes can fluctuate with time, is an attribute usually associated with naïveté. The wise and seasoned among us know better.

What is astonishing is that the pull of determinism remains strong even when evidence of change is all around us. As parents, our children grow and change before our eyes, and yet at each stage of their development we can find it hard to imagine them transitioning to the next. We are often drawn to seeing our current job, or our family life, or our emotional state, as fixed in stone even if our own very life experience points to the contrary.  

When we look at the Middle East the same dynamic is often at play. In the last years we have watched the region undergo unprecedented change, and yet many find it hard to accept that more is yet to come. With each transition, many quickly persuade themselves that things have settled permanently into place.

Not too long ago Bashar Assad was considered the unquestioned and stable ruler of Syria. Today, the civil war that threatens his rule is seen by many as a tragic and fixed part of the landscape. In Egypt, few predicted the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, fewer still its fall from power in such short order. Hardly anyone anticipated these changes. And yet, amazingly, there are still those who speak with conviction about the nature of the Middle East when the only thing that it seems possible to say with certainty is that we do not know what will come.

Our discourse and understanding of Israeli society can be similarly distorted by our pre-conceptions about the (im)possibility of change. In parts of the Jewish world the sense that Israel's democracy is imperiled is seen as a constant. But despite the insistence that "it was always thus" it is hard to deny the evidence that Israeli society has become more democratic and pluralistic with each passing decade.

We forget too that Israel's search for peace and security has known different phases. There have been times of utter despair, but also moments of justified hope; there have been times of more and of less security. The pollsters tell us that many in Israel have grown deeply skeptical about the prospects of peace, but in years to come this may be described as a period through which we passed, not a permanent state of being. After all, pollsters give us a glimpse of what people think today, but they tell us little about how they may change tomorrow.

This is not to say that everything changes all the time, that change happens quickly or that it necessarily occurs in a positive direction. Some features of our existence are deeply entrenched and exceedingly difficult to uproot. Hostility towards Israel is one of these features. But while the nature of Israel's challenges can be similar over time, the way we adapt and respond to them does not have to be.

Our resistance to embracing the unpredictability and frequency of change may come in part from the fact that there are elements in our environment that can appear immovable. But it also stems from a psychological need to feel in control, from a basic human yearning for stability. Perhaps also by discounting the possibility of change we can avoid responsibility for our role in directing events. Ultimately, though, permanence is an illusion. And we need to be aware of how our attraction to it can warp what we see, what we think, and the decisions we take.

What we must resist is the view that real change is impossible; that somehow Israel's present predicament is also its permanent one. This is a particularly dangerous illusion for it prevents us from asking the right questions. How does change happen? How can we identify the signals that it is coming? How can we shape events in our favor? And how do we influence hearts and minds? If we are trapped in the mindset that there is nothing new under the sun, we forfeit the capacity to be agents of change ourselves, and we hand it to others.

In our Jewish calendar, we have just entered the month of Elul: the period leading up to Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur where our focus is on Tshuva - on the opportunity to renew and re-create ourselves. A tradition in which the concept of Tshuva is so central, is a tradition which rejects determinism. It is a tradition which recognizes that being blind to the reality and possibility of change is immeasurably more dangerous and more impoverishing for our individual and collective existence, than is the fear and volatility associated with change itself.

Our Judaism, not just our lived experience, tells us to be conscious of the pitfalls of the chimera of permanence. It tells us to leave a space for the possibility of the presently unimaginable. It tells us that change is coming, the only question is whether we will be a part of it.

Doctor Tal Becker, is a research fellow at the Hartman Institute, Jerusalem and Deputy Legal Adviser of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Israel's spectacular suicide

New construction in Judea and Samaria is now proceeding at the highest pace in seven years. If this continues, the Netanyahu-Lapid-Bennett government will put an end to the two-state solution, the Jewish democratic entity, and the Zionist dream.

By Ari Shavit | Jun.13, 2013 | 3:26 AM |

Few people paid attention to the news that during the first quarter of 2013, there were 865 housing starts in the settlements. That was a 176 percent increase over the parallel quarter last year and a 355 percent increase over the fourth quarter of 2012. Although settlers are only four out of every 100 Israelis, of every 100 housing starts this year, 8.5 were in the settlements. While in sovereign Israel the scope of new construction is slowing, new construction in Judea and Samaria is now proceeding at the highest pace in seven years.

The trend is clear: Within a short time the number of settlers will increase dramatically, as will their ability to block any attempt to divide the land. If it continues this way, the Netanyahu-Lapid-Bennett government will put an end to the two-state solution, the Jewish democratic entity, and the Zionist dream.

This is not a question of peace. In the coming years there will be no peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Nor is it a question of total and immediate withdrawal. In the coming years Israel will not be able to hand over the West Bank to the Palestinians in the same hasty way it gave them the Gaza Strip. But it is a question of survival. Will Israel, at the last minute, stop flooding theoccupied territories with settlers? Will the Zionist enterprise retain the option of going back to being a moral enterprise? Will the Jewish state choose life, or become unwittingly dissolved in an occupation that is becoming eternal?

As of now the answers are clear: No, no, and no. The Likud of Danny Danon prefers the Land of Israel over the State of Israel. Naftali Bennett’s Habayit Hayehudi (“The Jewish Home”) is determined to drown the Jewish national home in the swamps of colonial decay. Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid (“There is a future”) is turning out to be the party of opportunistic ambiguity, turning its back on the Zionist future. It’s just as Labor chairman Shelly Yacimovich said last week in the Knesset, that the national camp of Labor-Meretz-Kadima is now sitting in the opposition, while it’s the government of right-right-right that is on the verge of establishing a binational reality that will be irreparable.

From the settlers’ perspective, everything’s fine. Their situation has never been so comfortable. The international community is slowly internalizing the fact that the fundamental problem in the Middle East is not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but the pathological political culture of the Arab world. The United States and Europe are too tired to confront the intense determination of the heirs of Gush Emunim. Israel can sell a navigation app for a billion dollars at the same time that it has lost its way. Right now there is no power within Israel, nor any power outside Israel, that can force Israel to save itself from its settlers. The most important minister in the government − Housing and Construction Minister Uri Ariel − can continue the momentum that began in the first quarter of the year. The government of no future will allow him to continue to break records in settling Judea and Samaria. While 20 ministers are engaged with all sorts of nonsense, the housing minister is burying Zionism in the hills.

Thus, from the Israelis’ perspective things are not good. They are not good at all. True, soon there will be a budget and soon there will a “sharing of the burden,” and it’s going to be a great summer. The restaurants along the coast will be full and the nightclubs will be full and Tel Aviv will be as lively as ever. But the fact that in 2013 Israelis still haven’t found a sane political party that will protect them sanely from the settlements, means that even as they are partying, they are dying. Even as they are winning, they are committing suicide. This country has, in the past, seen a few group suicides. But never has it seen a suicide so spectacular and so sweet and so unnecessary as the quiet suicide it is committing now.