An Ongoing Debate: Transformation or Tradition

I just returned from an energizing meeting of Conservative rabbis, brought together by JTS Chancellor Arnold Eisen as his Rabbinic Leadership Council. This advisory group is one of many avenues the new JTS leader has created to promote dialogue and positive energy within the movement. We exchanged views on how best to revitalize the movement, and, as always, Eisen exuded an air of optimism, about JTS, the movement and American Jewry as a whole. He is working on some marvelous new initiatives, like the movement-wide "Mitzvah Initiative" and some others that will be announced shortly.

Innovation is the order of the day across the denominational spectrum, especially regarding prayer. A new Orthodox prayer book was recently published by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks and has been featured widely in the media, including some claims that it intends to supplant the not-so-old Artscroll siddur as the prayer book of choice. Meanwhile, a New York GLBT synagogue just published a new siddur of its own.

All this innovation brings us right back to one of the great discussions of modern - and not so modern-modern Jewry.

Nothing new about the ongoing debate among those who favor more innovation in Synagogue life and those who lean more heavily on the side of tradition. Nothing new, but check out Synagogue 3000: A Concurring Dissent; Or, Of Babies and Bathwater to see the debate unfold in clear (if rather lengthy) detail. Rabbi Gerald Skolnik takes the position of Jewish practice as being "rooted in the idea of hiyyuv… the sense that said practice is obligatory," while the prevailing cultural focus is on the autonomous "sovereign self," who must be lured into the pews with liturgical bells and whistles. Ron Wolfson and Lawrence Hoffman respond on behalf of Synagogue 3000, STAR and similar think tanks.

I don't want to oversimplify their arguments - and in fact there are many points of agreement between them and Skolnik. In some respects it comes down to Wolfson's question, "Should we alter the davenning or “alter” the davenners?" Hoffman looks historically at how even in medieval times, there was plenty of variety in liturgical expression. That argument resonates with me. I can recall a time not too long ago when a traditional congregation let a cantor go becaused he used a new melody for Adon Olam.... instead of the "traditional" one that originated in a German beer hall.

Wolfson's final two paragraphs drive the point home:

Another “red herring” in this debate is the use of musical instruments on Shabbat. We have never suggested this as “the answer” to increasing the vitality of the worship experience. The issue is not instrumentation; it is what we used to call in our synagogue youth groups and camps “ruach” – spirit; a prayer experience that lifts up participants through a variety of means: participatory singing, serious text study, a challenging message, the warmth of a welcoming community, the celebration of lifecycle moments.

Personally, I wish more Jews felt a sense of “hiyyuv.” But, unless you are lucky enough to have grown up with this sense, I am convinced we need to continue to think of ways to invite the “sovereign self” Jews in, to ignite the spark of spirituality that I believe is just underneath the surface of most human beings, and to engage them in the life of the community in a much deeper way when they do decide to join our membership ranks. Otherwise, I fear we will see more and more empty seats in our pews, even on the High Holy Days (a phenomenon many rabbis report to us).

While I have long supported the innovative work of such think tanks as S3K and STAR (which will not surprise those who know me), this is a debate that needs to continue; it is one that can energize the Conservative movement and American Jewry as a whole.

The Early Results: Obama 1, Extremism 0

One could make an argument that the most important election in Israel's history will be taking place this Friday, and not a single Israeli will be casting a vote.

I'm happy to say that we can already evaluate President Obama's Cairo speech as a smashing success. The first results are in, from Lebanon, and while we can't draw definitive connections between the speech and the results, the fact is that the pro American ruling coalition did much better than they were expected to do just, well, five days ago.

A Lebanon controlled by Hezbullah would have had severe consequences for Israel's security. Were Iran to go in the same direction in its elections on Friday (a longer shot in a far less democratic environment), we might rightly claim that Obama has changed more than the mood - he's changed the map.

And it could happen. (See the NY Times blog: Red vs. Blue in Iran, and an excellent analysys, Elections in Iran – Part II from MEMRI)

Given all that, and especially if Iran votes out Ahmadinejad this week or in a runoff later, maybe this would be the time for Israel to give the US President a limited, six month, window to work more of his magic. A six month settlement freeze would seem like a huge gesture, given the Likud government's right wing proclivities. It actually would be a great political risk for the PM. But it would be a small price to pay for the chance to see if Obama is able to bring about serious forward movement from Arab countries on upgrading relations with Israel and to build consensus in removing the Iranian nuclear threat. Obama has given Netanyahu the perfect shield from the internal dissent (who wants to diss America), and now, some results to boot.

All that makes lots of sense from these shores, but will it be enough to shift Israeli opinion, which is now split right down the middle. The settlements are no longer the symbols of the Zionist pioneer spirit that they used to be, at least for the secular majority, but the right wing has become increasingly vocal, chauvinistic and anti-Arab.

That phenomenon is being felt even here in the US among Jews. See Rabbi Sidney Schwarz's piece in last week's Jewish Week on what he witnessed at the recent Salute to Israel parade in New York.

Then a band launched into a rousing rendition of Am Yisrael Chai. I spent more than 25 years as an activist for Soviet Jewry. This was our theme song signaling solidarity both with the history of our people and with all those oppressed Jews in the world whose cause we championed. A group of young men in their 20's with kippot and tziztzit were right in front of me dancing in a frenzy. But they alternated the verse that meant "the people of Israel lives" with "all the Arabs must die." It rhymed with the Hebrew. Given the way all joined in, it was clear that this was not the first time it was sung.

I leaned over to a young man who was next to me, also wearing a kippah and tzitzit. I nodded at the dancers and asked: "Does this song bother you?" He looked at me with a suspicious look and replied: "This is Zionism."

And even worse (if that is possible), read Moment Magazine's recent survey of rabbis representing different movements on the question, "How should Jews treat their Arab neighbors?"

The shocking response of the Chabad rabbi, Manis Friedman, became subject of an article in this week's Forward, Rabbi’s Comments on Treatment of Arabs Show a Different Side of Chabad .

To be fair, Friedman has tried to backtrack from his statements (see A Statement from Rabbi Friedman), but it is very hard to backtrack from his original response to the question:

I don’t believe in western morality, i.e. don’t kill civilians or children, don’t destroy holy sites, don’t fight during holiday seasons, don’t bomb cemeteries, don’t shoot until they shoot first because it is immoral.

The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle).The first Israeli prime minister who declares that he will follow the Old Testament will finally bring peace to the Middle East. First, the Arabs will stop using children as shields. Second, they will stop taking hostages knowing that we will not be intimidated. Third, with their holy sites destroyed, they will stop believing that G-d is on their side. Result: no civilian casualties, no children in the line of fire, no false sense of righteousness, in fact, no war.

Zero tolerance for stone throwing, for rockets, for kidnapping will mean that the state has achieved sovereignty. Living by Torah values will make us a light unto the nations who suffer defeat because of a disastrous morality of human invention.

Many people would agree to the zero tolerance part, but the biblical references are downright scary. While Chabad, like all movements, is not monolithic, there is an underlying belief that the State of Israel must become, ultimately a theocracy, and that the secular government is less than legitimate. In practice, it is problematic for many Chabad leaders to sing Hatikva, which expresses allegiance for the secular state.

There is no comparison, of course, between right wing, Arab hating Jewish extremists and the terrorism practiced by extremists who actually put these theories into practice by actually killing and maiming innocent civilians. I do not intend to equate the two. But President Obama has started a process that may lead to a rise of moderation and nuance in the face of all extremism. Those of us who believe that God speaks in a still small voice can only pray that he succeeds.

Obama's Cairo Speech: Early Assessments

Here' some of what the world press is saying about President Obama's landmark address in Cairo, plus my brief take.

My own feeling is that if the prime goal of this speech was to gain the confidence of the Muslim world, we'll soon know if he was successful. Iran and Lebanon face key elections over the coming couple of weeks. If the people of those countries are now more inclined than before to eschew extremism and pursue more a more pro-Western path, this speech will have more than served its purpose. It might, in fact, prove to be a watershed. That was his prime, immediate audience: the voters of Iran and Lebanon. Otherwise, why choose this week to deliver this speech? Plus, it is to the President's credit that he made a powerful argument for the existence of Israel and the abomination of Holocaust denial in front of this audience - and backing it up with a trip to Buchenwald today. I think we can say confidently that this is a President who would not go to Bitburg.

I am the first to cringe at the moral equivalence that is often drawn between Jewish and Palestinian suffering, but I do not think that's what Obama was trying to do here, an accusation leveled by some, including Abe Foxman of the ADL. One cannot draw that equivalence between say a suicide bomber and his victim; but one can say that the Palestinians have suffered greatly in general. Whether it is as much as the Jews have suffered is irrelevant here. What's important is to recognize that they have suffered. Most Israelis agree. Most would also add that the suffering has been caused, in large part, by their own leadership. But the fact of suffering is undeniable. So I'm not going to fault Obama for bringing that suffering up after having mentioned the Holocaust as a prime source of Jewish suffering. He didn't have to bring up tr Shoah at all, but he did, powerfully and unequivocally, in the very place where they need to hear it most, where the "Protocols of Zion is still a best seller, even and especially among the intellectuals and in the media.


Now for other opinions:

First, I highly recommend this analysis by Robert Satler of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Here is an excerpt with some of the key points:

Key Observations

Limited strategic objectives. Despite his often soaring rhetoric, the president actually outlined a strategic agenda for U.S. interests that is narrowly defined and limited in scope. On Iran, the president again focused on the limited objective of ensuring that Iran does not have nuclear weapons; no longer do senior Americans talk about preventing Iran from completing the nuclear fuel cycle, having a uranium enrichment capability, or even being able to develop a nuclear weapon. Additionally, in contrast to recent statements by Arab leaders, he made no reference to Iran's state-sponsoring of terrorist groups Hizballah and Hamas, including their activities against host-country Egypt. On Iraq, the president defined America's twin goals as building an undefined "better Iraq" and leaving Iraq to the Iraqis; he made no reference either to having democracy take root in that country or to aspirations for long-term U.S. alliance with a country that was a long-time adversary. Notably absent was any reference to Lebanon, viewed widely as a strategic fulcrum for both the current and the previous administrations, except for an odd reference to religious tolerance for Maronite Christians. And in terms of combating extremism, the president narrowly defined the objective as countering violence (i.e., counterterrorism), moving backward from the emerging consensus among professionals here and abroad that it is essential to compete against extremists far earlier in the process of radicalization (i.e., counterradicalization).

An implicit acceptance of political Islam. The president waded into heated political debate within Muslim societies and, either by design or by inattention, came down in favor of local Islamists, not local liberals or even anti-Islamists. Islamist parties across the region will cheer the fact that Obama cited only two benchmarks for U.S. recognition of Islamist parties, i.e., "peaceful and law-abiding," when the content of their message and the values they project -- including the imposition of sharia (Islamic law) -- can often be antithetical to our own. He made no reference to the frequent cooperation of autocrats and Islamists in denying political space to non-Islamist political parties, especially liberals who often do share American values. Most strikingly, no fewer than three times the president defended the right of Muslim women to wear the hijab, but at no point did he defend the right of Muslim women not to wear the hijab. (Indeed, immediately after the speech, the White House website put up a full-screen picture of a hijab-wearing woman, an eerie echo of an amateurish post-September 11 State Department brochure about Muslim life in America in which all American Muslim women were depicted wearing hijabs. Millions of Muslims -- including Muslim women -- will not be heartened by this message.

Lots of respect, not enough interest. In charting his proposed "new beginning," the president's words certainly emphasized the "mutual respect" part of his signature formula over the "mutual interests" part. His forceful words on terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and other difficult policy questions notwithstanding, the speech was notable for its often manufactured parallelism between blemishes in Muslim societies and blemishes in America and the West. From his opening refrain of decrying a "cycle of suspicion and discord," the president suggested that we are all equally at fault for bringing down the U.S.-Muslim relationship. This is problematic on two levels. First, this approach inflates the gravity of current problems and thereby aggravates the search for a solution; the reality is that America has excellent relations with numerous Muslim-majority countries, from Africa to Asia, and equally harmonious relations with hundreds of millions of Muslim citizens of those countries. Second, this approach equates heinous crimes in the name of religion -- e.g., the state-approved killing of apostates, adulterers, and others in some Muslim countries -- with laws adopted in Western countries for legitimate political and security objectives (e.g., France's law to ban headscarves in public schools or U.S. laws to prevent the illegal funding of terrorism via the cover of charitable organizations). More generally, in its appeal to "our common humanity" -- its recitation of largely discredited population statistics for Muslims in America and strikingly defensive declaration that "America and Islam are not exclusive" (who, after all, suggests this is the case?) -- the speech conjured up uneasy reminders of the "I'm OK, you're OK; we're all just moms and dads" speeches of previous failed attempts at public diplomacy.

This parallelism was perhaps most artificial in the president's discussion of the contours of the Arab-Israeli conflict. While no impartial observer can dispute the hardship of Palestinian life, it runs counter to history to suggest that Palestinians have "suffered in pursuit of a homeland," when, since 1937, Palestinian leaders have rejected no fewer than six proposals to achieve just that goal. Similarly, the president's statement about Palestinians who "wait in refugee camps . . . for a life of peace and security" says as much about Arab governments' indifference to their fate as the inability to reach a diplomatic solution with Israel. And the president's drawing of a connection from the Palestinian conflict with Israel to the fight for civil rights in America or the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa will be interpreted by many as an endorsement of the moral righteousness of the Palestinian cause, not -- as he apparently intended -- a call for strict nonviolence.

This focus on respect was not matched by a focus on interest. On no issue, except when discussing plans for economic development projects, did he go beyond generalities and offer specific policy initiatives or definitive positions. While the president said a lot, he also didn't say much, choosing to leave many critical questions unanswered: What is the U.S. view of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, for example, a party that may be peaceful (for now) but is not legal? What will be the U.S. position if the Hizballah-led alliance wins Lebanon's parliamentary elections? What will the United States do if Iran persists in its pursuit of nuclear weapons? What implications will there be for U.S. relations if Arab and Muslim autocrats do not move toward accountable, transparent, democratic rule? What will the United States do if Saudi Arabia, generally recognized as among the world's foremost violators of religious freedom, moves at glacial speed on its promised reforms? And, perhaps most importantly, how will the United States, as a global superpower, prioritize the various themes and interests the president outlined? On none of these issues did the president's speech reveal much.

What He Didn't Say

The Cairo speech was also notable for specific words the president did not say and references he did not make.

Most important was the absence of any reference to "the Muslim world" and a preference instead for the more accurate phrase "Muslim-majority countries." This recognition of the continued primacy of states and an implicit rejection of the Islamist objective of a global caliphate that unites all Muslims in a single, supranational entity is a major step forward and should be commended.

Now that "Muslim world" has been banished from the lexicon, the next textual improvement he should make is to distinguish between his defense of Muslims and defense of Islam. While the U.S. government has a strong interest in preserving and protecting the rights of Muslims to live freely and practice their religion, as we have done in Bosnia, Iraq, and elsewhere, it is unsettling for any president to suggest that "partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't." First, America partners with peoples and governments, not religions; second, the president executes the U.S. Constitution, he doesn't interpret the Quran. President Bush made the mistake of donning the mantle of "Imam-in-chief" when he applauded certain Muslim religious edicts (e.g., fatwas against violence) over edicts he didn't like (e.g., fatwas calling for resistance to U.S. forces in Iraq); President Obama risks the same mistake with language that suggests a relationship with a religion, rather than its adherents.

Surprisingly, in the capital of one of only two Arab countries at peace with Israel, the president made no reference to the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, which celebrated its thirtieth anniversary this year, no reference to the courage and vision of Anwar Sadat, nor even a reference to the role of courageous leadership as an essential element of peacemaking. This was a lost opportunity and will be celebrated by some as a nod to Islamist antagonism toward Sadat.

On the Middle East peace process, the president notably avoided announcing a new plan to translate the Arab Peace Initiative into an operational process that would incentivize Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy through actions and commitments of Arab states. While he did make an important plea for Arab states to stop exploiting the conflict with Israel "to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems," he did not appear to press the matter or to demand clear and speedy action. Vagueness on this issue (and the president was very vague in this part of the speech) suggests he did not get from Saudi king Abdullah substantive commitments that could form the basis of a truly new approach.

Also on the peace process, the president roundly criticized Israeli settlement activity, but did not use the Cairo platform to repeat the specific demand to end "natural growth," perhaps the most contentious aspect of U.S. policy on the issue. Whether that suggests a willingness to engage with Israel on the issue is unclear.

In a discussion of tolerance and religious freedom, the president missed an opportunity by failing to celebrate the success of Muslims in India, home to the world's third-largest Muslim population.

Phrases Pregnant with Implication

As officials, diplomats, and scholars pore over the speech for hints of policies yet to come, two passages deserve special scrutiny:

In the peace process section, Obama said the following on Jerusalem: "[We should all work for the day] when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad (peace be upon them) joined in prayer." This sentence is a prima facie rejection of Israel's position that adherents of all faiths currently enjoy freedom and access in Jerusalem and, by its invocation of a Quranic vision of Jerusalem, will be interpreted in Muslim capitals as tilting toward an Arab/Muslim view of Jerusalem's eventual disposition.

On nuclear issues, Obama made a veiled reference to Arab charges of a U.S. double standard in focusing on Iran's nuclear ambitions while overlooking Israel's existing weapons. Some have cited a recent statement by a U.S. State Department official calling for Israel's inclusion in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as a sign that the Obama administration intends to address this issue directly, in a way certain to provoke tension with Jerusalem. In Cairo, however, Obama offered a different vision, suggesting that addressing Israel's nuclear capability falls under the heading of "America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons." Israelis can happily live with that worthy -- and long-term -- goal.

Conclusion

Cairo marks President Obama's fifth major message to the world's Muslims -- following his inaugural address, early al-Arabiya television interview, Iranian New Year greetings, and speech to the Turkish parliament. Debates about the content of these remarks notwithstanding, no one can contest the fact that he has fulfilled a personal commitment to make "engagement" with Muslims a high priority. If there is any meaning to the phrase "mutual interest and mutual respect," America can now rightfully expect to hear and see what Muslims -- leaders and peoples -- say and do in response.

Now, here are some additional commentaries, as summarized in the Daily Alert:

The Cairo Appeal - Editorial
President Obama's address in Cairo offered an eloquent case for American values and global objectives - and it looked to be a skillful use of public diplomacy in a region where America's efforts to explain itself have often been weak. Mr. Obama uttered verses from the Koran, spoke about the success of U.S. Muslims, debunked extremists' claims and defended the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians. Mr. Obama's challenge will be to prevent Arab leaders from diverting the broad engagement he proposed into the narrow alley of the Mideast "peace process." Though the president warned against using the issue "to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems," some were already at it: "Arabs are waiting for pressure to be exerted on Israel," said Iraq's government spokesman. Mr. Obama's initiative will fail if Israel's compliance with U.S. demands becomes the stick by which Muslims measure the "new beginning" he offered. (Washington Post)

See also The Cairo Speech - Editorial (New York Times)

Obama in Cairo - Max Boot
Should Obama have summarized the real - as opposed to the air-brushed - history? Probably not. His point wasn't to settle historical accounts but to put the best face forward to the Muslim world. I thought he did an effective job of making America's case to the Muslim world. No question: He is a more effective salesman than his predecessor was. Which doesn't mean that his audience will buy the message. (Commentary)

Muslims Respond to Obama's Cairo Speech - Michael Slackman
Muslim listeners said they were struck by how skillfully Obama appropriated religious, cultural and historical references, including four quotations from the Koran and used Arabic greetings. "He spoke really like an enlightened leader from the region, more than like a foreigner," said Mustafa Hamarneh, the former director of the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan. (New York Times)

Using New Language, President Shows Understanding for Both Sides in Middle East - Glenn Kessler and Jacqueline L. Salmon
There was no mention of "terrorists" or "terrorism," just "violent extremists." In an Arab capital, he spoke of America's "unbreakable" bond with Israel and condemned anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, an apparent repudiation of the anti-Israeli rhetoric that periodically emanates from Iran. Yet he also seemed to draw an equivalence between Jewish and Palestinian suffering. The president said: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements." Not since Jimmy Carter has a U.S. president in his own voice declared the settlements to be illegal, but Obama tiptoed very close to the line. Obama deftly referred to a "Jewish homeland," slightly different from Israel's demands that it be considered a Jewish state. (Washington Post)

Obama's Age of Moral Equivalence - Jonathan Tobin
To be Barack Obama is to be, as he says, a person who can see all issues from all sides. But the problem with the Arab-Israeli conflict is not that both sides won't listen to each other or give peace a chance. That might have been a good point to make prior to the signing of the Oslo peace accords in 1993 when Israel recognized the legitimacy of Palestinian aspirations and began the process of handing over large portions of the area reserved by the League of Nations for the creation of a Jewish National Home for the creation of a Palestinian equivalent. But Israel offered these same Palestinians a state in virtually all of the West Bank and Gaza as well as part of Jerusalem in 2000 and again in negotiations conducted by the government of Ehud Olmert just last year. So, the problem is not that the Israelis don't want the two-state solution that Obama endorsed in Cairo. Rather, it is, as Mahmoud Abbas said in Washington only a week ago, that the Palestinians aren't interested in negotiating with Israel. Even more obnoxious is his comparison of the Palestinians' plight to that of African-Americans in the U.S. before the civil rights era. Israelis have not enslaved Palestinians. The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians rests on the latter's unwillingness to come to terms with the former's existence. The plight of Palestinians in Gaza is terrible, but it is a direct result of their own decision to choose war over peace, not a lack of understanding on the part of the Jews. (Commentary)

Do Obama's Words Reveal His Middle East Sympathies? - Peter Wallsten
With his speech in Cairo, Obama is laying bare more of his sympathies and inclinations in the volatile area of Middle East politics. Obama spoke, for example, of Palestinian "resistance" - a word that can cast Israel as an illegitimate occupier. Moreover, in his defense of Israel's legitimacy, Obama cited the Holocaust and centuries of anti-Semitism, but not the belief of some Jews that their claim to the land is rooted in the Bible and reaches back thousands of years. Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said Obama's remark that Jewish aspirations for a homeland were "rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied" was incorrect and "legitimizes the Arabs who say Israel has no place there." Several Jewish leaders described Obama's stance toward Iran's nuclear ambitions as too soft. (Los Angeles Times) See also Obama in Cairo - Melanie Phillips (Spectator-UK)

G-dcast for Naso

Parshat Naso from G-dcast.com

More Torah cartoons at www.g-dcast.com

From Israel 21c

From Israel 21c

Using PlayStation to heal severe burn trauma
An Israeli researcher is prescribing the Sony PlayStation EyeToy as a tool to help burns victims come to terms with their new appearance.

Israel's boxing league a champ at promoting coexistence
Can an ancient art of war help promote peace in Israel? Leaders of Israel's boxing association certainly think so.

With Israel's BriefCam 24 hours passes in a minute
An Israeli video surveillance company has developed technology that allows users to watch hours of recorded activity in seconds, helping battle crime

TODAY'S VIDEO-ONLY NEWS FEATURE
A wealth of talent and a treasure trove of stories are making Israeli documentary films increasingly popular worldwide.

TBE Bar/Bat Mitzvah Commentary: Rachel Katz on Shavuot and Ruth

A few weeks ago, I surveyed my friends and family, asking them the first thing that comes to mind when I say ‘Judaism.’ I got some interesting responses. Some of them include: the Torah, being Kosher, pride, and bagels and lox.

After learning about the story of Ruth, which was read earlier this morning, and very nicely done, Cantor, I think my answer would be kindness. On a holiday that talks about the Torah, one might think that the focus is all about laws and how important it is to obey the commandments.

However, Ruth teaches us that what’s most important is kindness. Two words that appear several times throughout the story are ‘Chesed’ and ‘Chen,’ both of which mean “kindness.” In the book there are many examples of people who do incredible things for others. Ruth chooses to stay with Naomi, her mother in-law, even after Ruth’s husband dies, when she could have gone back to her own home and family, instead. Ruth says to Naomi, “Where you go, I will go; your people shall be my people, and your G-d my G-d.” This act of commitment was the first form of conversion to Judaism, and shows that it’s not about what you’re born into, but how you choose to live. If you choose to be Jewish, then what counts the most is being kind.

Another example of kindness in the Book of Ruth is when Boaz lets Ruth glean barley from his field, and eventually, marries her. Here is where it gets interesting. Boaz and Ruth have a child, who has a child, who has a child who happens to become a KING, King David. According to tradition, the Messiah will be a descendent of David. Any math teacher could tell you, that this also means that the Messiah will be a descendent of Ruth. Ruth, not Moses, not Aaron, sorry Aaron. While Moses and Aaron’s lives were centered around law and justice, Ruth was all about kindness. In the end, kindness is the most important Jewish quality of all.

Knowing that, I looked for some way to bring more kindness into the world. For my mitzvah project, friends of mine and I knit over 100 hats and sent them to newborn children all over the world. Some of the countries include Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Bolivia, and other African nations. Just thinking about giving these babies their first experience of human kindness and warmth makes me smile.

I also knit some more hats and brought them to patients at the Norwalk Cancer Center. I talked to two women and I gave them each a hat that I made. One even offered me money, but I told her I was just glad that she would have the hat.

That experience of giving the hats really showed me how important it is to be kind, because that is what being Jewish is all about.

TBE Teens on the Go: Kulanu Graduation

Last night's Kulanu graduation was particularly moving for me, as Ethan was one of the dozen seniors honored for their five years of involvement in our community Hebrew Shigh School. Half of the graduates were from TBE. We're proud of all of them, along with 10th grader Jackie Schechter, winner of the writing award given annually in memory of Rabbi Alex Goldman.

Some photos of our graduates and other students, along with a video montage (click to enlarge).

TBE Teens on the Go: Canada

Our TBE USYers had a fantastic experience in Toronto last weekend, planned by our Jewish Life Educator Al Treidel. They also stopped off at Niagara Falls. See the photo album here. Here are a few selections (click to enlarge)

Everybody's a Little Bit Jew-ISH (The Jewish Week, 5.28.09)

(Special to the Jewish Week by Joshua Hammerman - For related stories: Read more about Crypto Jews in these JTA stories: "Secret Jews of the Southwest" and "So you think you're a Crypto-Jew?"Also be sure to read Dina Kraft's report on efforts to turn Crypto-Jews in Spain into foot soldiers for Israel advocacy and Ben Harris' story on a Colombian native with Jewish roots who went from almost becoming a monk to being ordained as a Conservative rabbi.)

For ages we’ve been obsessed with the question, “Who is a Jew?” Perhaps we need to be asking instead, “Who isn’t?”

A team of geneticists has uncovered explicit evidence of mass conversions of Sephardic Jews to Catholicism in 15th- and 16th-century Spain and Portugal. The study, based on an analysis of Y-chromosomes and reported first in the American Journal of Human Genetics, indicates that 20 percent of the population of the Iberian Peninsula has Sephardic Jewish ancestry. That’s about 10 million people. While anti-Semitism remains pervasive and the Jewish population microscopic, there is a deep fascination with all things Jewish. “We’ve gone from a period of pillaging the Jews and then suppressing and ignoring their patrimony to a period of rising curiosity and fascination [about them],” said Anna Maria Lopez, the director of Toledo’s Sephardic Museum in a New York Times interview.

So while there are almost no Jews left in Spain, a residue remains, literally in their DNA. Everyone’s a little bit Jew-ish, even if almost no one is a Jew.

The suffix “ish,” indicating approximation, is increasingly popular among today’s youth, according to the language forum, “Wordreference.com.” Kids are constantly tossing it about: A movie is “creepish,” he looks “Europeanish,” the dress is “greenish” and the meeting begins at “five-ish.” In an age where fluidity is the norm, and everything, from the national debt to Arlen Specter’s party affiliation, is a moving target, we all need to learn how to go with the flow. Fortunately, we Jews are uniquely prepared to do just that: We already have “ish” in our name.

The Pew Foundation’s latest survey on the American religious landscape, called, “Faith in Flux: Changes in Religious Affiliation in the U.S.,” notes that Americans change religions almost as often as they change their underwear, with over half abandoning their childhood faith-group, usually before the age of 24.

Meanwhile, Synagogue 3000’s latest survey indicates that American Jews are foregoing secular and ethnic identification in favor of a more “spiritually oriented” — and therefore more fluid — self-definition. The survey notes that the presence of Christian, or formerly Christian, members in many Jewish households has led to a greater comfort level with spiritual ideas and language. While there are some forms of spirituality that are innately Jewish, the category lends itself to a blurring of boundaries between faiths. In the S3K report, Rabbi Rachel Cowan states that spirituality “helps me see that I’m not the whole story here, that I’m just part of something much bigger.” Bigger even than Jewish peoplehood.

Prior Pew surveys have shown how Jews have been more successful than other groups in stemming the tide of assimilation. But with sectarian lines dissolving rapidly, in a century or two, how many more millions of non-Jewish Americans will be searching their family trees for Jewish ancestry? On the other hand, how many non-Jewish seekers will stop off for a nosh at a Shabbat Kiddush on the road to Damascus and never leave?

Theodore Herzl was one of the most important Jews of all time. Yet none of his three children was Jewish and only one descendant, a grandson, was a Zionist — and he committed suicide. Nancy Pelosi has Jewish grandchildren. Eight of Moses Mendelssohn’s nine grandchildren were baptized. Thomas Jefferson reportedly had Jewish ancestors and African-American descendants. We’ve become the La Guardia Airport of faith traditions; so many coming in, so many going out.

Fiorello La Guardia had a Jewish parent, in fact, as does Sean Penn. There’s a cottage industry out there identifying famous half-Jews, including Web sites like www.halfjew.com and www.half-jewish.net. Who knew?

The Herzl family history was tragic, but no more so than the ancestry of King David. His great grandmother was Ruth, a Moabite, whose on-the-fly conversion following the tragic deaths of her husband and brother-in-law will be recalled on Shavuot this weekend. It is likely that Ruth’s simple loyalty oath would not be recognized as a conversion by the Israeli rabbinate today, which would place David’s Jewish identity into question as well. Since tradition holds that the Messiah will come from David’s seed, though, even the Israeli rabbinate would hesitate to go there.

A Midrash states that every Jew was present at Sinai, including all future generations. If David and Ruth were there, what about Fiorello, Sean and Jefferson? What about 10 million Iberians, whose only crime was that their ancestors were forced to convert? We can’t retroactively crop them out of the Sinai family picture.

I subscribe to traditional standards in determining Jewish identity, but the world has become far too complicated to ignore everyone else. So, yes, there are Jews, the ones who fall within normative halachic parameters; and then there are those who are Jew-ish, a group that includes many millions more.

The basis for Ruth’s avowal of loyalty was “chesed,” an unconditional love going beyond the letter of the law. We need to employ lots of chesed in reaching out beyond the scope of those who are Jews, to include also those who are generations removed from their last Shavuot blintz, to those who are Jew-ish.That’s because they need us. Judaism does have something unique to offer, something that goes beyond survival and adaptability. We are the ones, after all, who invented chesed.

As a census year approaches and we ponder how to tally our people, let’s think bigger — much bigger than simply counting those at the core or even those at the so-called periphery. Let’s look way beyond that farthest fringe, to those millions of once-were Jews, whose spiritual search will inexorably lead them back to our doors.

They may not be Jews ... but they are all Jew-ish. It’s in their DNA.

And all of them were at Sinai.

The Israeli Art Renaissance

Check out this latest creative venture from old friend of TBE's Edoe Cohen.

Who Cleans Up the Mess?

From Joseph Telushkin's "Jewish Ethics Project" Facebook group:

What ethical obligations exist for customers regarding service workers?

Some examples: is it morally permissible to leave trash at one's seat when leaving the movie theater, since someone is being paid to clean the theater between showings? Is it morally permissible to leave one's table a mess at a sit-down restaurant? This dilemma was prompted by an example provided by group member Brian J. Young, who asks in another discussion board topic: do you return your shopping cart to the official cart return area at the grocery store?

What other examples can you think of in which a customer service dynamic creates ethical quandaries? And how should those quandaries be resolved?

Join the conversation at http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=56295256706&topic=8766

And let me know what you think as well...

Israel, Iran and the US: Sh'ma Online

This month, the journal Sh'ma goes digital. This digital edition gives you all the features available in our print version plus faster delivery, live links, an ability to search and send copies of articles to friends and colleagues; you can flip through the magazine and personalize your reading options—all only a click away. Sh'ma chose this moment to go digital because the May issue focuses on Iran, which is much in the news these days as the U.S. and Israel try to figure out how to think about a potentially nuclear Iran, strategically and diplomatically.

This May issue of Sh'ma features a roundtable with historian Kenneth Stein and a number of Middle East foreign policy experts in which they explore the delicate nature of Middle East geopolitics. It also includes essays on Iran in the Middle East; the expressions of Islam practiced in Iran—the differences between Shi`a and Sunni Islam; Persian Jewish life in Los Angeles; the history and culture of Persian Jews; and some discussion of the condition of Iranian Jewish life today. While some argue that Jews continue to fare well, others insist that they enjoy at best second-class citizenship and are muzzled by a repressive regime.

Click here to access your digital issue.

Below are a few examples of what you’ll find inside the May issue of Sh'ma.

Iran.: A RoundtableIn a conversation with Daniel Levy, David Menashri, and Gary Sick, Kenneth Stein explores Iran as a regional player in Middle East policy; the domestic and foreign policy objectives that the Iranian government has held over the years; and finally, the contemporary issues that pertain to U.S. foreign relations.FULL STORY

The Ghost of Cyrus: Persian Potential for Reform in the Nuclear Age Marc Gopin - Over the past 25 years Gopin has developed relationships across the Middle East; in Syria, specifically, over the past five years. While he traveled as a peacemaker, he would emphasize his role as a professor and only reveal that he was a rabbi when it felt safe. FULL STORY”

Ipkha Mistabra” & the Iranian Question - Ruth Lande For thousands of years, the Jewish people have known strife, hardship, and persecution. For thousands of years, "Jewish diplomacy" has found innovative, creative, and "out-of-box" solutions for untold problems. Currently faced with complexity and challenge, the State of Israel and the Jewish people are once more called upon to demonstrate ingenuity and wisdom. FULL STORY

Memories Are the Cornerstone of Stories- Dora Levy Mossanen - My grandfather, Habib Levy, was a renowned historian of Iranian Jews; he left me with a legacy of fascinating familial, cultural, and historical events that continue to supply fodder for my stories. FULL STORY

TBE Bar/Bat Mitzvah Commentary: Lauren Schechter on Naso

Today is Memorial Day, a day to commemorate the soldiers who have given their lives defending our country. These men and women have demonstrated remarkable qualities, such as courage, loyalty and most importantly, leadership.

Leadership: what does it really mean?

In this week’s parsha, Naso, we read about the gifts brought by the leaders of each tribe when the Mishkan was dedicated. Interestingly, the Hebrew word for leader, Nasi, comes from the same root as the title of the parsha, Naso. In modern Hebrew, Nasi means President.

What makes these tribal leaders special? Unlike Moses and Aaron, they aren’t really known at all, but they stand out in a different way.

According to the Midrash – they became leaders because in Egypt, they were taskmasters and they refused orders from their supervisors to whip the slaves, so they themselves where whipped. Because of their loyalty to their people, they were seen as worthy to become the leaders of Israel.

In the desert, it came time to bring the voluntary gifts at the celebration of the dedication of the Mishkan. Strangely enough, each Nasi brought the exact same thing: a silver plate, a silver bowl, and a gold spoon filled with sifted flour, along with a lamb, a bull, and a ram. The Torah then goes on to repeat this twelve times, once for each tribe.

Why does the Torah repeat the exact same thing? Each of these leaders gave with all his heart, and that spirit of generosity and love cannot be measured or compared to another person’s.
In addition, each gift was the only one that came on that given day. So on that day, that person’s gift was special. In fact, that day became a holiday for the tribe.

We also learn that leadership is not always about making a big splash, but about making a difference, even when you seem identical to everyone else.

On Memorial Day, we think of the soldiers and how they look when they are standing together, dressed in exactly the same uniform. But each brings a unique love for the country and a gift that no one else can bring - his own spirit, personality, and life. They give all of this but do not get a lot of credit, and today we give them that.

What the soldiers and tribal leaders teach us is that the best kind of leader is one who can simultaneously blend in and stand out.

Another person who fits that description is Nancy Drew. As you might guess, I’m a big fan of the Nancy Drew series. Most of the time she seems like a normal girl, but when someone is in need of help, she’s the first one to volunteer. She always tries her best but never looks for the credit.
As I become bat mitzvah, I’ve learned that I should try to become the kind of person Nancy or the tribal leaders would be proud of, someone humble, but never afraid to help.

Those who are involved in cancer research are much like the Nesi’im. They work behind the scenes to save lives, but their accomplishments are rarely recognized. For my mitzvah project, I made Hanukkah gift bags and sold them to raise money for cancer research. In addition to this, today during the party, in the lobby, there will be a table where people can decorate bags that hold aero-chambers and Epi-pens. These are medicines that kids like me, with asthma and allergies have to carry around wherever we go. The bags will be given out to underprivileged children in clinics at Montefiore Hospital.

TBE Bar/Bat Mitzvah Commentary: Jonathan Rich on Naso

My portion’s name, Naso, means “to lift.”

It’s a very appropriate portion for someone whose family has been involved in the moving business. But I found out that it means much more than just that. Because this is the portion where moving is a mitzvah. You see, the portion begins by describing how it was the special job of the Levites to carry the ark of the covenant which contained the two tablets with the ten commandments.

The ark was very heavy. One commentary says that it was so heavy that it took the strength of many men even to budge it. But then, the story continues, once they lifted it, it carried the carriers. A Hasidic rabbi once said, regarding a very heavy torah scroll that he was lifting, “Once you’ve picked it up, it is no longer heavy.”

Over the past several months, I have been volunteering at the Stamford Nature Museum for my bar mitzvah project. The first day I got there, I was a little scared and did not know what to expect. I even told my mom that I didn’t want to go. When I got home, I told her how much I enjoyed it. At first, cleaning out the animals’ living spaces was hard. After a little while, I got the hang of it. When I first saw the animals I was scared, because they were wild. Try cleaning out the stall of a Clydesdale horse – with the horse there! Still today, I am a little uneasy around the bigger animals, but it’s gotten a lot easier and a lot more fun. Just a few weeks ago, 12 lambs and two goats were born. Now I feel comfortable picking them up and holding them – I even named one. “Bo” the goat. I gave him that name after he put up a fight while he was getting de-horned.

The nature center is not the only place where doing a mitzvah might have been hard at first, but got easier and easier as I went along. The same is true at Hospice. Following in my brother Jeffrey’s footsteps, I’ve gone there several times. I was a little nervous at first seeing the residents in end of life care. But after a couple of my brother’s events, I got used to it and now I really enjoy talking to the patients. In fact, part of my mitzvah project is that I am selling bracelets to raise money for hospice. Again, just like carrying the ark, once you get the hang of something, it is no longer heavy.

When I was younger, I used to be scared of my brother David’s fastball. As we played more and more, I started even being able to hit home runs against him. And speaking of lifting heavy burdens, I want to pay tribute to David and all who are serving this country on this Memorial Day weekend.

Finally, what’s true about carrying the Torah is also true about reading it. When I first got my binder, I looked into it and said to myself, “I’m never going to be able to do this!”

Within a few weeks, I knew lots of the Hebrew and now I can even read out of the Torah.

So next time you think you can’t do something, try it a couple of times, and you’ll amazed how quickly you make progress. My portion’s title might speak about heavy lifting, but once you get the hang of it, there is no mitzvah that’s too difficult to do.

TBE Bar/Bat Mitzvah Commentary: Ross Lang on B'midbar

My d’var Torah is about the most neglected person in all of human history: of course I’m talking about…. the middle child.

Through all of Jewish history, either the oldest or youngest child gets all the attention – never the middle one!

Today we begin the book of Numbers, and when it comes to birth order, numbers count. My

Torah portion of B’midbar describes a census that was taken of the Israelites while they were wandering in the Wilderness. In that report, the tribe of Reuben is listed first, because he was the eldest son of Jacob. In the Torah, the oldest usually inherited from the father.

The oldest comes first, but in the Torah, it is the youngest child who usually ends up as the winner. When you think about it, all the younger children end up on top: Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, Moses over Miriam and Aaron.

Meanwhile, the special Haftarah that we read today, on this day before Rosh Hodesh, is about David, before he became king. David was the youngest of eight brothers. Some say it was seven, but either way, he was still the youngest.

So either the oldest or the youngest always wins. So what about the middle child????

The subject of my being a middle child comes up a lot in my house.

My family thinks I use my birth order as an excuse to get attention. There may be some truth to that, but if you were in my position, you would too.

But now that I am a bar mitzvah, I need to get over it. I’ve now matured to the point where I can publicly admit that there are benefits to being a middle child.

Yes, it’s true.

So, in the spirit of the book of Numbers, here are a number of reasons why:

1) As someone who is both younger and older than his siblings, the middle child is very flexible and learns to shift roles very quickly. We also can see both sides of many issues, because we’ve grown up looking at see things from all perspectives. Middle children make excellent peacemakers. Moses’ brother Aaron, for instance, was considered a real man of peace - and he was a middle child.

2) Because of our ability to adapt, middle children usually make friends very quickly and often reach outside the family for significant relationships. I’m close to my family, but I’ve always been able to make friends easily at school. Whenever a new kid comes into the school, I try to become his friend.

As a certified middle child expert, I’ve come up with some suggestions on how to survive as a middle child. Again, I’ll list them by number, in honor of my portion.

1) Make trouble! That will get you lots of attention… but seriously…

2) Do what you can to stand out – in a positive way. Do chores around the house. I’m really good at that.

3) If you find yourself really lacking in attention, keep on asking for what you want until you become very annoying. Usually it takes about 25 minutes of whining to get an iTunes download, and up to a few months for a go cart. I think I’m wearing them down for that go-cart, though!

4) Be funny! Middle children usually make great comedians. When you are stuck between two siblings, having a good sense of humor really helps. Did you know that David Letterman is a middle child?

5) Don’t give up hope of standing out some day! Other famous Middle Children include: J.F.K., Madonna, Donald Trump, Barbara Walters, Bill Gates and Rabbi Hammerman. (He asked me to mention that – he needs the attention). Each of these people is an example of just how successful middle children can become.

But seriously, there are people in this world who really do need attention. Some of them are children in hospitals. That’s why for my mitzvah project, I will be donating toys to the children’s unit of Stamford Hospital.

In the end, I’ve learned that it’s not about the amount of attention your receive; what matters most is the amount of attention you give others. As I become a bar mitzvah, that’s something that I will try to do more and more.