The Rabbi's Study

High Holiday Sermons Are Now Online

2012-11-28T21:10:20Z

As much as I love being a pulpit rabbi, I have to admit the demands on my time do prevent me from doing everything I want as often as I want. As my blog entries tend to be longer than short blurbs, I blog less frequently. In the meantime, my sermons from the past High Holidays are now on line on my synagogue's web site. The link to the site itself appears below.

If you want to go to the page with links to all five sermons, click here.

To read "How to Write Your Own Eulogy," click here.

To read "How To Be a Success in Life," click here.

Please click here to read about Advocating for Israel. It's very important.

To read "Honor Your Father & Your Mother," click here.

Finally, to read "You Have No Memories, & You Have No Soul," click here. This one might be my personal favorite of the five.

I hope you will leave comments, sharing your own thoughts on these topics. As always:

Click here to follow me on Twitter.

Click here to visit my synagogue's website, Congregation Shaarey Tefilla.

Click here to read my sermons online.

Until next time, Shalom!

Speak To You Tomorrow, Mr. President

2012-09-14T01:49:18Z

I have to admit that I am somewhat excited. I'll be on the telephone tomorrow with the President of the United States. Without regard to party or policy, my respect for the office of POTUS makes any sort of contact with anyone who has held the office during my lifetime an exciting honor. Ironically, the only exception to this is the man for whom I cast my first Presidential vote, Jimmy Carter, who has done more harm to the United States and the world than any ex-President in history. He builds houses for the poor with Habitat for Humanity, and God bless him for that. But his book, the title of which I will not state but which accuses a wholly decent democracy of apartheid, is evidence of a man whose moral compass has ceased to function.

Let's get back to my phone call with President Obama. It will not just be the President and me on the line. This is the first time I have participated in a pre-Rosh Hashanah conference call with the President and American rabbis. I will be one of approximately 1,000 rabbis on the call.

The conference call required advance registration. On the reservation form, there was an opportunity to submit a question to the President. Mathematically, there is an X in 1,000 chance that my question will be chosen (with X being the total number of questions chosen). In real life, I would give my question no chance of being asked, but I believe it may be one of the most important questions in the world at this time. I sat down to write this post only to share the question with my readers. If there is any followup to report, have no doubt that I will do so before Shabbat tomorrow night.

Here is what I submitted to President Obama (there was a limited number of characters allowed):

Mr. President, President Kennedy said that a missile strike from Cuba anywhere in the Western Hemisphere would be regarded as an attack on the USA by the USSR, requiring a full retaliatory response. Are you willing to say the same about an Iranian attack on Israel?

That is my question. I do not think it will be answered. If it is answered, I pray it will only be answered verbally, not by the action or inaction of the United States after the window of opportunity has closed, and Iran has, God forbid, made good on its threats against the State of Israel.

Dear Linda Hirshman: Shut Up!

2012-08-12T22:36:33Z

Be surprised if you are reading these words. I'm writing them while I am infuriated. Usually when that happens, I save my work as a draft and come back to it later, in a calmer frame of mind. I then usually soften my rhetoric. If you're reading this, you'll know when I returned after settling down, I decided my outrage was justified.

I am proud to be a Conservative rabbi. Unlike Charles "I'm Not A Role Model" Barkley, I do try to comport myself in public in a manner befitting a rabbi. Right now, however, I cannot help but be somewhat unrabbinic when I say that I think Linda Hirshman should shut the h-e-double-hockey-sticks up.

Who is Linda Hirshman? Excellent question! I never heard of her before today. She wrote a book I never heard of, called Victory: The Triumphant Gay Revolution. I only know of her now because for reasons I cannot fathom, in its August 6 edition, Newsweek Magazine chose to publish a piece she wrote criticizing Sally Ride, may she rest in peace, for having the temerity to keep her private life, including her sexuality, private.

Writes Hirshman: As the Ride flap reveals, lesbians and gay men have the option of living in the closet. What's wrong with that? Some acts are not morally required; in normal times, coming out, like like acknowledging cancer, which Ride also kept private, seems like a personal decision. Ride, however, did not live in normal times. The twenty-seven years she lived with her "partner" (quotation marks hers) were critical to the triumphant gay revolution. As activists around her made the world better, her world got better, too. But instead of pulling her weight, she was free riding. Worse, as a celebrity and role model, she denied the movement a valuable asset.

I have given a great deal of thought as to how I want to respond to the above. I can do no better than paraphrase comedian Artie Lange: "Waaaaaaah! Some of us came out but Sally Ride didn't. Waaaaaaah!"

Hirshman's critique is vile on more than one level. Could Ride's fellow cancer victims have drawn strength from the knowledge that she suffered from it, too? That seems reasonably possible, but Hirshman is magnanimous enough to grant Ride her right to privacy regarding her cancer. She only had no right to privacy regarding her sexuality.

As for the right to privacy itself, I'm going to go out on a limb. This is not a piece on abortion, but Roe v. Wade is based on the premise that there is an inherent right to privacy in the Bill of Rights. My guess is that Hirshman supports that reading of the Bill of Rights, even as she denies Sally Ride's right to privacy.

And why is it that Sally Ride had no right to privacy? Because she was gay. In one belch of words, Hirshman criticizes not only Sally Ride, but every gay person who chose not to come out of the closet when Hirshman decided they should have. Yes, Ride's culpability is higher because of her fame, but Hirshman writes "Revolutions will always have their opponents; they should not have to carry their own as free riders." Translation: when some brave activists first started to come out of the closet, every other gay man or woman lost the right to their own privacy. They became free riders. That's as discriminatory a statement as I have ever heard about gay people.

Linda Hirshman's piece is articulate drivel. Guess who seems to know that? None other than Linda Hirshman. At the end of her article, she writes, "Maybe "free rider" is too harsh. But even if Sally Ride didn't do something wrong, she missed the chance to do something right."

What? After readers slog our way through your rant, our reward is watching you attempt the infamous but impossible feat of reverse micturation? Well, you're right. Free rider is too harsh. And Sally Ride did not do anything wrong. She didn't even fail to do what is right. She only made a choice that was different from your own. I truly admire the courage it took for you to come out when you did. At the same time, I loathe your eagerness to malign the memory of a dead woman for opting to keep her sexuality to herself.

Maybe shut up was too harsh of me, Ms. Hirshman. But lighten up, OK?

Click here to follow me on Twitter.

Click here to visit my synagogue's website, Congregation Shaarey Tefilla.

Click here to read my sermons online.

Until next time, Shalom!

The Most Important Verse in the Bible

2012-08-10T21:59:17Z

There is a famous story about a pagan who asks two Jewish sages to teach him the entire Torah while standing on one foot. Standing on one foot is a literal translation of the Hebrew, and it may be the correct translation. It is also possible to read it as meaning something like "distilled down to a single premise." At any rate, one of the sages chased him away, while the other, Hillel, said the entire Torah is what is hateful to you, do not do to others. The rest, he said, was commentary. He concluded by telling the pagan to go study the commentary, an important piece of the story that is often omitted.

I have never felt comfortable saying that I think Hillel was wrong, but I think Hillel was wrong. If you ask me, the entire Torah is "You must be holy ones, for I, Adonai your God, am a Holy One (my translation). This is Leviticus 19:2, which would be my answer to the question of what is the most important verse in the Bible.

Dennis Prager does not think the most important verse in the Bible is Lev. 19:2. He makes a compelling case for his choice, and I am happy to invite him back as a virtual Scholar-In-Residence to share his thoughts with you. I am sure you will enjoy this five minute Prager University course called "The Most Important Verse in the Bible."

So what do you think? It's fine if you just want to read and watch, but I hope you'll leave a comment! Do you agree with Dennis, Hillel, me, or do you have your own choice for most important verse in the Bible?

Click here to follow me on Twitter.

Click here to visit my synagogue's website, Congregation Shaarey Tefilla.

Click here to read my sermons online.

Until next time, Shalom!

Am I Friends With Lena Dunham: Communicating in the 21st Century

2012-08-10T21:55:47Z

This is something that came up before my planned next post was ready. While I continue to work on that, I would like to share the following.

A few introductory notes might be of use. Lena Dunham is a young filmmaker and screenwriter. I saw her film, Tiny Furniture, and became interested in her work. Something I read about her mentioned that she described herself as feeling "very culturally Jewish," which also interested me. I started watching her new hit show on HBO, Girls. I became one of her followers on Twitter, which brings me to my next explanation for the uninitiated: Tweeting is now something that humans can do between one another. It is the exchange of some sort of content that can be expressed in 140 characters or less. Finally, the word favorite is now a verb as well as an adjective. It it possible to favorite something—a Tweet, for example, having nothing to do with the sound made by birds, but with the 140 character message I mentioned before.

Lena Dunham sent a Tweet to her 200,000 + followers that began precisely as follows: "Oh my G-d!" I was intrigued by her use of G-d, so I sent her a message asking if that was her usual practice, and if it had a religious basis. I did not expect a reply, but I got one! I responded by thanking her for replying, and she favorited my thank you Tweet (formerly known as a thank you note). I also sent her a funny Tweet which she retweeted with the editorial comment, "The Best!" In the past, I have favorited some of her Tweets.

To summarize, Ms. Dunham and I have now Tweeted each other, and we have favorited each other, neither of which is prohibited by the Torah even though I am married.

At this point in the discussion, Facebookers are likely to point out that I have only written about Twitter, and no discussion of online relationships can avoid the gold standard of online friendship: being "friended" by someone on Facebook. That's another new verb: to friend. We already had the perfectly good term befriend, but it didn't make it in the Facebook lexicon. I don't think Lena Dunham has her own Facebook page, and if she does, we are not Facebook friends. So in our twenty-first century social networking society, what's the bottom line? Am I friends with Lena Dunham?

If we use traditional definitions, Ms. Dunham and I are not even acquaintances. We've never met, never spoken to each other. Still, an exchange took place between us that is important to me.

I do not want to use this blog, or my Twitter account, or my Facebook page, as vehicles to share my personal problems like no matter how many socks are in my drawer, no two match. I don't even want to use them only to share matters of substance and interest. I want to use them to get my followers and friends exchanging ideas, having virtual online conversations, not passively reading some sort of high tech bulletin board.

That's why I'm writing about the exchange with Lena Dunham. She wrote something that made me curious, I asked a question, she responded—there was, briefly, a relationship that existed only in cyberspace, but that nevertheless made the exchange of thoughts possible.

The Rabbi's Study has a way to leave comments, and many readers have done so on various pieces. Thank you! Please keep sharing your thoughts with other readers and me. Facebook has an easy way to leave comments. Twitter allows for direct responses to the Tweets of others. I have even linked Twitter and Facebook so that every Tweet shows up on my Facebook page. I then sought out interesting nuggets of grist for the discussion mill, posted them, and waited for the discussions to begin.

Do you know what I got back? Bupkes I got back. I put out some very interesting things:

A C.S. Lewis quote followed by this question: Do we need more God and less rabbi in our services? No response.

Another great C.S. Lewis quote: "You do not have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." That got some "Likes," but no discussion.

I got a few responses for "What was the best compliment you ever received?" (Mine was "You remind me of your mother.") But by far the most discussion was triggered by my observation that perhaps social media like Facebook are not the best forums for discussion.

Most of the comments were against using social media for discussion. Several pointed out the opportunity for misunderstanding because of the lack of cues like tone of voice and facial expression. The point is true enough, but it is not new. Even when elegant, handwritten notes were written with pens filled from inkwells on fine linen papers, there were no nonverbal cues and people seemed to communicate pretty well.

Another point was that once you put something out on the Internet with your name on it, you are linked to that post forever. Perhaps, but even Facebook allows you to delete posts, although I don't think you can take back a Tweet. (Update: Wrong again. You can. How? Do what the rest of us do. Ask a kid.)

Still, I have a vision of my flesh and blood congregants exchanging ideas and opinions with one another and with my virtual communities of Twitter followers and Facebook friends. No, I don't see or want it to replace sitting at a table with a study partner and a stack of books with real words printed on real pages, but I do know this: our young people are developing new ways to network and communicate. Rabbis who want to reach this demographic will have to learn to play by their new rules. At the same time, there is no reason why these digital forms of expression cannot enhance—not replace, but enhance—the way the rest of us share ideas.

I am happy to say that it is actually starting to happen. I'm throwing things out via Twitter and Facebook and getting responses. Sometimes just a Like, but many times actual, thoughtful responses. These are interactions that would not have happened without today's social networking tools. And maybe the best part (OK, not at all the best part but still kind of nice) of this new way to communicate is that someday, when Lena Dunham wins the Emmy Awards for which she has been nominated, I'll be able to say to the people watching on TV with me, "See that woman? Lena Dunham? Yeah, well, we've Tweeted." And I can even say so in front of my wife.

P.S. Since this was originally posted, Ms. Dunham was gracious enough to do something very kind for me through the mail. I cannot say we are friends in the traditional sense, but I can now say that I am her "favorite (and only) rabbi pal." I was thrilled. We have some sort of a relationship. Without Twitter, it would never have happened. And my wife wants to start watching Girls with me!

Click here to follow me on Twitter.

Click here to visit my synagogue's website, Congregation Shaarey Tefilla.

Click here to read my sermons online.

Until next time, Shalom!

Read Me in the Indiana Jewish Post & Opinion

2012-07-03T20:47:56Z

As I continue to work on my next piece for The Rabbi's Study, I offer you an opinion piece that is appearing in the July 4 issue of the Indiana Jewish Post & Opinion. In this piece, I respond to Alice Walker's decision not to release a new edition of The Color Purple in Hebrew because she considers Israel an apartheid state. I believe I make a far more compelling case than the Pulitzer Prize winning Walker. Please click right here to read the article. The article begins on page 8. Feel free to post comments on it here!

Click here to follow me on Twitter.

Click here to visit my synagogue's website, Congregation Shaarey Tefilla.

Click here to read other sermons online.

Until next time, Shalom!

Problem Resolved!

2012-06-28T15:08:41Z

It is Thursday, June 28, and it appears that our problems are resolved and our links are live again. We'll be watching to make sure that does not change!

So once again:

In this sermon, I spoke about my belief that wearing a kippah full time makes me be a better person.

Here is my sermon for Veteran's Day, and I have to admit I think it is one of my better efforts.

Finally, what I think was a very moving sermon about compassion, which you can read here.

I hope you find them meaningful.

Click here to follow me on Twitter!

Click here to visit my synagogue's website, Congregation Shaarey Tefilla.

Click here to read other sermons online.

Until next time, Shalom!

Please be patient

2012-06-28T01:31:48Z

Dear Readers,

As of June 27 at 9:30 EDT, a temporary server problem is interfering with the links in the post below this one. We are aware of the problem and are working to have it resolved. In the meantime, I thank you for your patience.

What's Coming, and Something While You Wait

2012-06-27T18:42:54Z

Dear Readers,

I am sorry that so much time has passed since my last entry. Thank God, it has only been for good reasons. My small but vibrant congregation keeps me rather busy, which is good. I can also share the following good news with my readers: I will be serving as the rabbi of Congregation Shaarey Tefilla for another five years. I am deeply honored to be able to do so.

My next blog entry will be on the afterlife, or what we tend to call in Judaism "the world to come." It will also address the question of when, if ever, belief becomes synonymous with knowledge. This is not writing I want to rush, but I will make every effort to post it as soon as I can.

In the meantime, I have been catching up with putting my sermons online. I'm trying to get one month's worth up each week. I think I had some good ones in November of last year, and I want to share them with you as I work on my next post.

In this sermon, I spoke about my belief that wearing a kippah full time makes me be a better person.

Here is my sermon for Veteran's Day, and I have to admit I think it is one of my better efforts.

Finally, what I think was a very moving sermon about compassion, which you can read here.

I hope you find them meaningful.

Click here to follow me on Twitter!

Click here to visit my synagogue's website, Congregation Shaarey Tefilla.

Click here to read other sermons online.

Until next time, Shalom!

Merry Christmas, Rabbi!

2011-12-27T03:53:50Z

Moving from Philadelphia to southwest Florida involved some Jewish culture shock. From the difficulty in getting kosher meat to Barnes & Noble being the best (read only) Jewish bookstore in town, it was a different world. Some of those changes were expected. Others were not.

For example, Jewish rabbis. Certainly in Philadelphia, all the rabbis I knew were Jewish. What could be more obvious than a rabbi being Jewish? But the Jewishness of Philadelphia area rabbis went unstated. Not in southwest Florida. There, non-Jews always introduced me to other non-Jews as "a Jewish rabbi." I am not complaining, mocking them, or taking offense in any way. I am simply pointing out a difference between the two cultures. Perhaps the term was not so redundant. There were several "messianic Jews" who called themselves rabbis in southwest Florida. Maybe it was a good thing I was acknowledged as an authentic, Jewish rabbi.

Many friends of mine were not familiar with the word synagogue, so they would ask me how things were going at the church. Truth be told, that did not bother me any more than synagogues being called temples, which is a pet peeve of mine.

I do have to admit that one thing I found very surprising was when I was wished a Merry Christmas by people who knew that I am a Jewish rabbi. There is probably not a Jew in America who has not been wished a Merry Christmas, but I think very few have heard the words, "Merry Christmas, Rabbi!"

How does one respond to that? My response of choice was, "Thanks! Merry Christmas to you, too!" I know that some Jewish people will not like how I responded. Some would say I should have politely indicated that I do not celebrate Christmas. Others would be more confrontational and claim that they would have said "Happy Chanukah" in response. I have some strong feelings about Jews inadvertently being wished a Merry Christmas. I am going to share them below, and I invite your comments and opinions.

Eighty-three percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians. If you play the odds and wish random Americans a Merry Christmas, chances are 83% that you'll be talking to someone who does celebrate Christmas. I have no desire for my non-Christianity to dampen the holiday spirit for that eighty-three percent. I have no problem playing a Christmas concert with the Zionsville Concert Band, even if there is no Chanukah music on the program (which, in fact, there was). I don't want Wal-Mart to instruct their greeters to say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas so as not to offend my fellow non-Christians and me. Governor Chaffee in Rhode Island does not need to pretend the state Christmas tree is merely a holiday tree for my sake. In fact, as a religious Jew with more in common with religious Christians than with secular Jews, I am all for putting more Christ back in Christmas, despite the fact that it has absolutely nothing to do with my own Jewish theological beliefs.

I know many Jews could not disagree more with me. I have a theory as to why that is so. I urge you to respond with your evaluation of the Sendrow Doctrine.

The Sendrow Doctrine states that one's displeasure at being wished Merry Christmas is in inverse proportion to the richness of one's Jewish life. In other words, the richer your Jewish life, the less it bothers you if someone—gasp—wishes you a Merry Christmas. You understand it is well intentioned act of friendliness that applies to the vast majority of Americans. But if your life has little or no Jewish content, your primary identification with Judaism is that you are not a Christian. Therefore, when wished a Merry Christmas, a blow has been struck at the very core of your Jewishness: your non-Christianess. No wonder that someone feels the need to assert that he does not celebrate Christmas, thank you very much.

I do not want the Jewish community specifically nor the non-Christian community in general to trump the 83% of Americans who celebrate Christmas. I want more of America's Judeo-Christian heritage to be part of the fabric of our society, not less. Yes, that means that Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christians will sometimes be subjected to a Merry Christmas wish. With regard to that, I have one question: so what?

Click here to follow me on Twitter!

Click here to visit my synagogue's website, Congregation Shaarey Tefilla.

Click here to read my sermons online.

Until next time, Shalom!

Penn State Fumbles the Ball

2011-11-10T17:52:30Z

Joe Paterno is the winningest coach in the history of college football. CBS sports wrote that it would be "impossible to overshadow Paterno's achievements in the sport over his Hall of Fame career." I can agree that almost nothing could do that. Overshadowing his success would take something horrific like looking the other way as his defensive coordinator, Jerry Sandusky, molested young boys. Lo and behold, that's exactly what Paterno did.

Penn State could never have had the success they did on the field if they fumbled the football to the degree that they committed moral fumbles:

Fumbles 1 & 2: In the fall of 2000, a janitor observed Sandusky molesting a young boy in the locker room shower. He told the other janitors and his supervisor. The supervisor instructed him with whom to file a report, which the janitor never did. When he witnessed the incident, there was only one correct action for the janitor to take: call the police. He did not. Fumble, Penn State! When the supervisor was told of the incident, there was only one correct action for him to take: call the police. He did not. Fumble, Penn State!

Fumble 3: Two years later, a graduate assistant witnessed Sandusky raping a boy in the showers in the locker room. He told his father. The next day he told Paterno. There was only one correct action for the graduate assistant to take: call the police. He did not. Fumble, Penn State!

Fumble 4: Paterno reported the incident to Tim Curley, Penn State's Athletic Director. There was only one correct action for Paterno to take: call the police. He did not. Fumble, Penn State!

Fumble 5: Curley informs Penn State's Senior Vice President for Finance and Business, Gary Schultz. There was only one correct action for Curley to take: call the police. He did not. Fumble, Penn State!

Fumble 6: Curley and Schultz meet with the graduate assistant about the incident. They promise to investigate. There was only one correct action for them to take: call the police. They did not. Fumble, Penn State!

Since that time, Curley and Schultz have surrendered to police on charges of failing to report the incident. Paterno should also be charged. He is guilty of the same crime.

Yesterday, November 9, 2011, Coach Joe Paterno and Penn State President Graham Spanier were fired. Paterno's illustrious career ended in disgrace. It should also end with criminal charges. To CBS Sports, nothing can diminish the Paterno legacy as the winningest college football coach of all time. To this rabbi, his winning record means nothing. Joe Paterno is just another piece of human scum who looked the other way as young boys' lives were ruined by a sexual predator. Let Paterno and Sandusky have the rest of their lives to reminisce about their national championships from the inside of a prison cell.

Until next time, Shalom!

Click here to follow me on Twitter!

Click here to visit my synagogue's website, Congregation Shaarey Tefilla.

Click here to read my sermons online.

My Rabbinic Self: Changing Over the Years

2011-11-09T19:03:01Z

I still remember the conversation I had with my rabbi, Rabbi Howard Kahn, alav hashalom, to tell him I wanted to become a rabbi. The first thing he said was, "I'm going to tell you the same thing I told my son. Find something else. Be the president of a synagogue and drive the rabbi crazy, but find something else."

He was serious, but so was I. I told Rabbi Kahn that I was committed to becoming a rabbi. He said, "So you'll go to Yeshiva University and get smichah (rabbinic ordination)." Yeshiva University is an Orthodox institution. Rabbi Kahn was ordained an Orthodox rabbi at the yeshiva Torah v'Daas. Our synagogue was Conservative, but the kind of Conservative synagogue that was jokingly referred to as Conservadox. I said to Rabbi Kahn that I did not think Yeshiva University was for me because I was not an Orthodox Jew. Interestingly, the Jewish Theological Seminary, which would have been the obvious choice for me, was not on his radar screen. So he told me that he had a friend who taught in a rabbinical school in Philadelphia. In a nutshell, that's how I ended up a student at the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College. Perhaps I will flesh out that story in another entry.

I received a very good education at the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College. I certainly had to confront issues there with which the Conservative movement had not yet begun to grapple. But I was not a good fit in the Reconstructionist movement. Reconstructionist congregations did not want rabbis like me who believed in halakha (Jewish law) and rejected the vast majority of their innovations like being Jewish through patrilineal descent. Thus far in my nineteen year career, I have served two congregations, both of which are egalitarian Conservative congregations. I have been a member of the Rabbinical Assembly (meaning I have officially been a Conservative rabbi) for well over fifteen years.

Before I was ordained, many of my classmates and I wrote articles for a magazine about our rabbinic goals. Unlike many of them, I was not out to recreate or reconstruct Judaism. I wrote about becoming a link in the same chain as my beloved mentor, Rabbi Kahn. I was out to perpetuate that with which I had fallen in love.

At that time, my first love was Jewish ritual. I was enthralled with how Jewish ritual brought a sacred rhythm to life. I loved how Jewish ritual brought beauty to life, a beauty that was as unique to Judaism as the rituals themselves. I wrote about my goal of showing others the power and beauty of Jewish ritual, and how I hoped to help them enhance their own lives as Jewish ritual had enhanced mine.

Over the years, my focus has changed. I still love being a link in the same rabbinic chain as Rabbi Kahn, especially since he has passed on. I still love Jewish ritual. I find it as powerful and life enhancing as I ever did. But now I have a rabbinic vision and mission that is even more important than sharing and teaching Jewish ritual. It is the sharing, teaching, and living of Jewish values.

Las Vegas has done clergy a great service with its advertising slogan "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas." It provides us with a perfect foil. I frequently say "If what happens in synagogue stays in synagogue, synagogue is a waste of time." What we learn in synagogue must be carried out into the world on a daily basis.

All of Judaism's beautiful rituals are a means to an end, not the end itself. Every ritual commandment, whether keeping kosher or observing the Sabbath or not mixing wool and linen in the same garment, are there to teach us something about how to be better people. And the non-ritual teachings of Judaism, the values contained in the Torah, the rest of the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible), and the other holy books of Judaism are the heart and soul of our religion. If Judaism provides us with a beautiful, ritual filled life but does not make us better people, it has not done its job. I will expand on this in subsequent posts, but I will conclude this entry with one of my favorite Jewish teachings.

It comes from a tractate in the Mishnah called Pirkei Avot, Chapter 3, mishnah 15. I will not quote the entire mishnah here, but I do promise that I have not taken anything out of context.

For our Hebrew readers, here is the original text:

.רבי אלעזר המודעי אומר... המלבין פני חברו ברבים... אין לו חלק לעולם הבא

And in English:

Rabbi Elazar the Moda'ite says…one who humiliates his fellow in public (literally "who causes his face to blanche white")…has no share in the World to Come.

Imagine that. Judaism takes shaming another person so seriously that it teaches the penalty for the offender is to lose his place in the World to Come, or in more colloquial terms, the offender does not go to Heaven. How much better would this world be if everyone avoided shaming others as if it would cost the offender his eternal life?

Who is the better Jew: one who eats pork and treats everyone with as much kindness as possible, or one who keeps kosher and treats others with harsh unkindness? I hope you read this question as rhetorical. I do.

We shall return to this theme in other entries. Until next time, Shalom!

Click here to follow me on Twitter.

Click here to visit the website of my congregation, Shaarey Tefilla.

Click here to read my sermons online.

Fifteen Minutes to Middle East Expertise

2011-10-31T15:56:04Z

Later this month, the United Nations Security Council will vote on the Palestinian Authority's petition to have a state declared in the West Bank. The results of that vote are not in question. It is highly unlikely that the resolution will pass. If it does, the United States will exercise our veto. It is not that the United States is opposed to the two state solution. Both the US and Israel favor the two state solution. But the future Palestinian state must come after the Palestinians make peace with Israel. Instead, Mahmoud Abbas has decided to try to have a state established without making peace with Israel. Do not be duped into believing that Israel is the problem. Remember that former Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat virtually everything he wanted, including a capital in East Jerusalem. Arafat did not even bother to say no, let alone make a counteroffer. He simply escalated terrorism against Israel.

It is so important to have clarity on the Israel-Palestinian issue that I have invited a virtual Scholar-in-Residence to The Rabbi's Study. Dennis Prager is a writer, thinker, teacher, and broadcaster. He is sometimes described as a "conservative talk show host." Some readers may be leery of "conservative talk show hosts." Please be open to what I am offering you here. Israel is not a left v. right issue, and Dennis will give you an understanding of the issues with a clarity that is all too rare today. We begin our Scholar-in-Residence program with an explanation of the Israel/Palestinian conflict:

In less than six minutes, you now have more clarity about the cause of the Israel/Palestinian conflict than many so-called experts. The only thing I wish Dennis had made explicit in the lecture is that the Six Day War was started by Egypt closing off Israeli access to the Straits of Tiran. President Lyndon Johnson called this an act of war under international law.

Our second lecture from our Scholar-in-Residence addresses the charge made famous by a former U.S. President who used it in the title of his book. It is now one of the claims made by Abbas to the United Nations. Is Israel, like South Africa was, an apartheid state?

Again, in less than six minutes, it should be crystal clear that the charge of Israel being an apartheid state is nothing more than a lie. Watching these two lectures took less than twelve minutes. Assuming another three minutes to read my text, you have achieved clear expertise on the Middle East in just under fifteen minutes.

There are more fine courses on many subjects that you can view at Dennis's latest online project, Prager University.

I also hope you will click on this link to follow me on Twitter.

Thank you for visiting The Rabbi's Study for this Scholar-in-Residence event with Dennis Prager.

Until next time, Shalom!

The Release of Gilad Shalit: Achieving Clarity

2011-10-26T19:34:58Z

On October 12, one of my Bat Mitzvah students arrived for her lesson very excited. She said, "You know that guy you're always talking about?" I didn't know whom she meant (it could have been anyone from a world leader to a Philadelphia Phillie), so she was more specific. "That soldier. They're letting him go."

We went to my computer and confirmed the news. Gilad Shalit, after five years as a prisoner of Hamas in Gaza, was indeed to be released. I was overjoyed and beside myself with excitement.

Readers might recall that two other soldiers were kidnapped on the Lebanese border at the same time Gilad Shalit was kidnapped in Gaza. Israel released imprisoned terrorists in return for Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, may they rest in peace. They were returned home to Israel in pieces, so that their body parts could receive proper burials.

Thank God that was not to be the fate of Gilad Shalit! Imagine the joy of his family, who did everything in their power to bring their son home. They even lived in a tent outside the home of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu so that every person who entered or left the residence was reminded of their son's captivity. They spoke to heads of state, including the President of the United States. They were not even sure their son was still alive. Hamas released a video to prove he was alive, but that was two years ago. Gilad had not been permitted even one humanitarian visit from the Red Cross. It was possible he had been murdered.

As time went on, the other side of his release became clear. Of course Hamas was not releasing Gilad as a humanitarian act. There was to be a prisoner exchange. Over 1,000 prisoners would be released. Many were serving life sentences for their roles in murderous bombings, including some of the most infamous attacks like the one at the Dolphinarium disco in Tel Aviv. Their impending release did not diminish my joy over Gilad coming home, but it added to my joy an equal measure of dread.

The following Friday night, I spoke to my congregation about the situation. I shared with them how torn I felt. I told them that most of my colleagues whose feelings about this were known to me were also torn. I told them that I, someone with a passion for clarity, had no clarity to offer. All I could tell them was that if they felt torn, then welcome to the club.

Since that Friday night, I have achieved clarity. It was not easy. It was painful, but I have achieved clarity.

My religion is the source of my values. My religion considers the rescuing of captives, פדיון שבויים (pidyon shevuyim in Hebrew) to be a mitzvah, which means a commandment. (Using mitzvah to mean a good deed is a popular colloquialism, but it is not the true meaning of the word.) Judaism commands us to rescue or ransom captives.

Do you remember Operation Thunderbolt, the historic raid at Entebbe? On a date rich with symbolism for liberty, July 4, 1976, Israeli commandos accomplished one of the most miraculous military rescues in history. They flew to Uganda, taking with them an exact replica of the personal vehicle of Ugandan dictator Idi Amin, and rescued 102 passengers of Air France Flight 139 who were being held by Palestinian terrorists. Of the soldiers and the prisoners, there was only one casualty in the raid itself. Yonatan Netanyahu, the brother of the current Prime Minister, was killed. In his memory, many now refer to it as Operation Yonatan. Dora Bloch, a prisoner who had been released to a hospital, was later murdered.

We needed an Operation Yonatan for Gilad Shalit. There was an attempt to locate and rescue him in 2006, but conditions were very different. In 1976, it was known where the prisoners were being held. All we knew about Gilad was that he was somewhere in Gaza. A second Operation Yonatan was not possible.

At this point, we must consider the limitations that Jewish law puts on the commandment of pidyon shevuyim. In the Mishnah, we read the following in Tractate Gittin, Chapter 4, mishnah 6: "We do not redeem captives for more than their value, for the sake of repairing the world." What does it mean not to redeem captives for any reason for "the sake of repairing the world?" If we turn the statement around, it becomes clear. If we redeem captives for more than their value, we do damage to the world. How so? By making clear that kidnapping is a crime that pays, and pays well.

One may well ask how we determine the value of a captive. We're really asking how to determine the value of a life. It is a fair question without an easy answer. It is also something that is done all the time. When a plaintiff wins a wrongful death case, a monetary value is placed on the lost life. We all know it is impossible to do that, but when necessary, we do the best we can.

One thing we can do is look at the numbers. Over 1,000 prisoners for one prisoner seems clearly exhorbitant, but let us not stop there. We must also consider who these 1,000 plus prisoners include. As was said above, some of the most notorious, murderous terrorists in the world are going to be released. That certainly runs afoul of the Mishnah's warning that we do not act on behalf of captives in a way that will cause harm to the world.

As happy as I am for Gilad Shalit and his family, this prisoner exchange will, in all likelihood, cause harm. Palestinians in Gaza have already held demonstrations, chanting "We want another Gilad." Hamas, still committed to the destruction of Israel, has made clear that they will continue the practice of kidnapping Israelis. The Torah says in Numbers 15:39 "…do not go around after your heart and eyes, because you whore after them." In other words, our hearts are not reliable in determining what is correct. As much as my heart is filled with joy for Gilad Shalit and his family, I have achieved clarity and now believe that this prisoner exchange was wrong. It is likely to result in more kidnappings, more bloodshed, and more grieving families in Israel.

A few final points must be made. First, Israel is a democracy, not a theocracy. As a rabbi, I turn to classic Jewish texts to guide me. Jewish law may well have a voice in Prime Minister Netanyahu's thinking, but it is not a trump card.

Second, I have written nothing about the potential dangers of this prisoner exchange that the Prime Minister does not know and would not have weighed heavily in his decision to proceed. Why, then would he have made the deal? I can only assume that the Israeli government believes the exchange can be made while keeping Israelis safe. I pray they are correct, and perhaps they will be correct. The security fence, about which the world yelled and screamed in protest, has been extremely successful in reducing terrorists bombings to almost zero. The biggest threat from Gaza now is the rockets fired into southern Israel, not bombs smuggled into Israel. Also, we may be overestimating the life expectancy of the most vicious of the released prisoners. Who knows what accidents might befall them, like the exploding cell phone of the infamous terrorist Yahya Ayyash?

I will conclude with the following. This is the motto of Hamas: "We love death as much as the Jews love life." May God bless Israel with an abundance of what Jews love most, and may Hamas and other terrorists experience firsthand what they profess to love.

Until next time, Shalom.

Click here to follow me on Twitter

Rabbi Ben is Coming Back Online

2011-04-10T18:58:00Z

After an extended hiatus, I will be resuming my blogging at RabbiBen.org. However, I have not been completely inactive since my last blog article. My new congregation, Cong. Shaarey Tefilla of Carmel, Indiana, has a great web site. You can read my Shabbat evening sermons on the there. In the meantime, keep watching RabbiBen.org for future blog posts.

To read my CST sermons, click here. You can also follow me on Twitter here.

Thanks for being here. Until next time, Shalom!

America, Bless God

2009-07-03T21:12:00Z

On the eve of America’s highest holiday, I thought to write about God and public expressions of religion. To do so, I began to collect some references to God by American Presidents. For example:

President Obama, in his Inaugural Address, referred to “that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.”

President Kennedy’s Inaugural Address said, “…let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.”

President Lincoln’s second Inaugural Address invoked God frequently, including this memorable description of the pro-slavery and abolitionist camps: “Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."”

Perhaps you know that the Constitution requires that an incoming President swear the following oath: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Where are the words “so help me God?” They are not in the Constitution. They were spontaneously added by George Washington when he took the oath, and to my knowledge, they have been repeated by every President since.

Finally, I planned to conclude with my favorite line from my favorite Inaugural Address, which is a return to the address of President Kennedy, who, in my opinion, captured the very essence of America when he said, “…the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.”

As I typed the words “the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God,” I had a flash of insight. I went to my briefcase and pulled out a small copy of the Constitution that I keep there, and read the Bill of Rights with a fresh eye. I realized that eight of the ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights do not bestow any rights upon Americans at all. The only exceptions are the Sixth Amendment, which grants certain right to a citizen accused of a crime, and the Seventh Amendment, which preserves the right to a jury trial in any dispute in which the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars. The other eight amendments give us no rights whatsoever.

If that is so, then what is the purpose of the other eight amendments? They prevent the federal government from taking rights away from us. What is the source of the rights we have, upon which Congress may not infringe? The question leads us directly to the quote from President Kennedy: “the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.” Of course! How could I not have paid more attention to this until now, I who speaks so frequently about this concept being uniquely American, I who believes that banning God and religion from the public square is contrary to the wishes of our Founding Fathers?

It is now so clear to me, and makes so much sense. Why did our forbears sever ties with the English crown? Because, they explained, they believed certain truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal—in other words, that King George did not rule as a Divinely appointed sovereign, and further, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

In other words, the Founding Fathers were magnificently consistent. They declared that human rights are God-given, not granted by the government. Later, in the Bill of Rights, they did not presume to grant human rights, but instead sought to insure that unlike the Crown, their new government would be based on the idea that government cannot revoke the rights bestowed on the human race by God Himself.

With this fresh in our minds, look what happens to the religion clause of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

It becomes crystal clear that it is not the role of government to say what we cannot do with regard to religious expression any more than it is the role of government to legislate what we must do. It is we the people who hold that right, a right given us by God.

Perhaps it is the will of the American people that God have no place in our schools. But for the most part, Americans do not object to the Pledge of Allegiance in schools, despite addition of the words “under God” to the pledge. Perhaps it is the will of the American people that the Ten Commandments not be displayed in schools nor in courts, despite the fact that the words “so help me God” were, and perhaps in some jurisdictions still are part of the oath sworn by those giving testimony. If it is the will of the people, then so be it. But if it is merely the opinion of a majority of Supreme Court justices, then it is not enough. The government cannot remove God from the public square. Has the government done so anyway? I believe that the answer is that to a great extent, yes they have. So it is we the people who must restore God to His place in American society—a place governed not by the government, but by the governed themselves.

On this Independence Day weekend, let us remember the beautiful words of Irving Berlin: God bless American, land that I love. Stand beside her, and guide her through the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the praries, to the oceans white with foam, God bless America, my home, sweet home. My hope and prayer is that these words be true whether they are read from left to right, or from right to left. Indeed, God bless America. But just as importantly, America, bless God.

Until next time, Shalom.

The False God of Education: A Baccalaureate Address

2009-06-05T15:37:00Z

The following is an excerpt from a talk I gave at the Baccalaureate Service for Canterbury School in Fort Myers, Florida:

The first Jewish President of the United States is on the phone with his mother. He wants her to visit the family in the White House. No, she says, I can’t get to the airport. A limo will take her to Air Force One. No, she says, you’re too busy to pick me up at the airport. She will land on the South Lawn in a chopper No, she says, why should the First Lady have to cook for her? The White House has a kitchen staff. No, one of the kids will have to sleep in the living room on a couch. The White House has nothing if not plenty of rooms. She will have the Lincoln bedroom. Reluctantly, the President’s mother agrees to being picked up by limo, flown to Washington on the President’s plane, choppered to the White House in the Presidential helicopter, and staying for a week in the Lincoln bedroom.

When she hangs up from the President, she calls a friend. “I’m going to spend a week at my son’s house.”

“How nice! Which son? The one who’s a doctor?”

“Nah. The other one.”

The grain of truth around which this pearl of humor has grown is that we are often guilty of the sin of idolatry, idolatry in the sense that it is what can happen when we make one of our values, other than goodness and related things, values in and of themselves. We do that in many ways. One way is when holding a certain degree, or being in a certain career, becomes the most important thing in life. Grandmothers do it when they respond to inquiries about the ages of their grandchildren with “the doctor is four and the lawyer is two.”

Graduates, you have invited me here tonight to talk to you on the eve of a momentous occasion in your academic careers. I assure you, I do not merely congratulate you on your graduation, but in many ways, I am humbled in the face of what you have achieved. I know what it means that your diploma is from Canterbury School.

You will each leave Canterbury for another campus, each to your own choice. At your university, you will find education and knowledge in great abundance, and you should absorb every last bit of it you can. You should look not through a telephoto lens at what your university offers, but with a wide angle lens, expanding your field of view. A friend of mine spent his medical career as a professor of pediatrics, and he told me that if a student had an opening in his schedule and wanted to put in some extra science, he as the student’s advisor would not sign off on it. He insisted that it be used for something else, almost anything else, history, literature, music or art appreciation—anything, as long as it broadened the student’s education. I urge you to do the same. You will have opportunities during these next years that you may never have again. Just understand that what you become from this exposure is educated. We consider that a worthy goal in and of itself—in other words, we have made education a value in and of itself, and that, my friends, I am calling idolatry. Now I have to make the case for doing so.

My case is simple. Education is analogous to a gun. Take it and put it into the hands of a highly trained police sniper, and that gun will be used to protect and defend innocent lives. Put it into the wrong hands, it is used in precisely the opposite way. Give a man a medical education, and sometimes you get a Jonas Salk. Or, sometimes, a Josef Mengele.

Society’s highest value must not be to produce educated people. Our highest value must be to produce good people. Then we can put a high value on educating them. But we ignore the following at our own peril: the correlation between a person’s level of education and degree of goodness is, to quote the classic film Animal House, zero point zero.

Knowledge alone is insufficient to make good people. What must accompany knowledge is wisdom. My friends, please understand that you will glean much knowledge from your education, but not wisdom. Wisdom comes from another source.

To aid you in beginning a life-long pursuit of wisdom, let me offer you the following verse from the Book of Psalms:

Wisdom begins with awe of God.

Here is what it means. Science has taught us a great deal about the origins of the universe. I accept and embrace this secular knowledge of how the universe came to be, but I have a question that science cannot answer: for what purpose did the universe come into being? I think that question demands an answer, and I cannot accept that the answer is it just plain happened for no purpose at all. The intricacies of the universe lead me to conclude it could not be the result of randomness. There is too much structure and order not to have been the result of a design of some sort. I call the source of that design God. I believe that God’s design of the universe included certain moral absolutes. I stand in awe of that God.

That is the beginning of the wisdom needed to decide between right and wrong, or even between right and right. It is the idea that certain things are wrong in and of themselves, not because you say so or I say so or the community says so, but because they were defined so by the Creator of the Universe. This is the stuff of wisdom—ethics, morality, good and evil. And although one might choose to use one’s talents, gifts, and education to make some piece of this world a little bit better, wisdom that begins with awe of God leads to the realization that we are obliged to do so.

My friends, go to your universities and soak up knowledge like Larry the Cable Guy soaking up sausage gravy with buttermilk biscuits. While you are there, ponder the difference between knowledge and wisdom, and the quotation Wisdom begins with the awe of God. Ask yourself if you believe the universe is merely a happy accident. See if your own inner wisdom leads to you the conclusion there was a Creator. Consider the idea that reaping the benefits of the Creator’s world obligates each of us to contribute something back to it. Grow in knowledge, and grow in wisdom. And then, my friends, make it so that the world is better off because you, a person both educated and wise, are part of it.

With that challenge now before you, I return once again to the Biblical text, and conclude with these words:

May God bless you and watch over you;

May God’s light shine upon you and may God be gracious unto you;

May God look upon you and grant you peace.

Evolution and Religion

2009-03-04T15:51:00Z

Did you see the quote from a Vatican Cardinal in today's newspaper? Cardinal William Levada, head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said the Church does not reject scientific reality, and that it is absurd to assert that acknowledging evolution precludes belief in God as Creator of the universe. "We believe that however creation has come about and evolved, ultimately God is the Creator of all things," he said. He's right.

I was delighted to read the Cardinal's words. He said in his way what I have believed and taught for years, which is the more we learn through science about how the universe came to be, the more we know about how God did it.

The Torah is not a scientific book about the origins of the universe. One might say the Torah is the answer to the post-creation question "Now what?" Nevertheless, I am fascinated by the nature of Chapter One of Genesis. Unlike previous pagan theologies, Torah has no account of the origins of God. God transcends time. God always was. The creation story could depict this omnipotent God bringing the universe into existence in countless ways. Torah depicts God as doing it in stages, in a process one might describe as evolutionary. Certainly life begins in non-human form, and the creative process culminates in the emergence of human life.

Today, we have an especially intriguing possibility to ponder. Do you remember how the creation story begins? God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. The light mentioned cannot be the light of the sun. The Torah defers the creation of celestial bodies until Day Four, thus eliminating the possibility of them being seen as partner gods and creators. To what light, then, does Genesis refer? Throughout history, it has been understood to be the Light of the Divine Presence. But we live at a time in which we can speculate whether Genesis somehow managed to refer to the Big Bang. Amazing.

Cardinal Levada is saying that evolution was God's way of creating the universe. Tov dibarta, Cardinal. Well spoken.

Until next time, Shalom.

Is Blogging a Jewish Thing To Do?

2009-03-02T21:41:00Z

Welcome to my Blog and Podcast site. I am glad you are here, and hope that you will return frequently.

I would like to open my Blog with the question of whether blogging is something a rabbi, or any Jew, should do. Why would it not be? Much of Jewish wisdom literature advocates a demeanor that seems inconsistent with blogging. For example, the Jewish sage Shammai taught in the Mishnah, "…say little, but do much." (Pirkei Avot 1:15) Shammai might have said that blogging is a way of doing the opposite, not doing much but saying a lot. The same tractate of the Mishnah also emphasizes that one should be a humble person. The Talmud too puts great emphasis on humility, and humility is considered to be one of the great virtues of Moses.

But there is something about the modern rabbinate that calls for some moderation in humility. Congregational rabbis deliver sermons, give Divrei Torah (talks about things in the Torah), and write. All of these activities require the rabbi to believe that s/he has something worth saying, writing, hearing, or reading. Too much of even a good thing becomes a bad thing. Like all rabbis, I must strike a balance between my tradition's emphasis on humility, and the demands of the rabbinic role as teacher and leader of a congregation.

As you see, I have decided that I do have some thoughts worth sharing. I hope that after reading some blog entries, and listening to or viewing some podcasts, you will find what I have to say worthwhile. That does not mean you will always agree with me, but hearing points of view that differ from your own is more important that hearing someone else articulate what you already think yourself. So I will blog and podcast, and I hope you will read and listen regularly. As you may know, you can subscribe to podcasts so they come to you automatically.

As for the issue of my own humility, worry not. The words of the great Golda Meir will prevent me from becoming too full of myself. What did she say that will do that for me? She said, "Don't be so humble. You're not that great."

Until next time, Shalom.