Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Thursday, November 15, 2012
If He Only Knew
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
The case of Anat Hoffman: arrested at the Kotel for saying the Shema out loud. Arrested for being a Jew who wants to pray at our holiest site. Arrested for being a woman in a man’s world. I have a great respect for all Jews and I respect their right to worship as they wish. From Orthodox to Reform, Jews have many different ways to serve God. What is most important is that we share the same goals- to do Mitzvot and to better the world. As someone who chose to be Jewish I have always cherished the idea that as a religious community we have more in common than the things that divide us into the various modern denominations.
In the last week many people have spoken out against the unfair treatment women receive when they pray at the Kotel. Like many things, this situation will never be resolved until the State of Israel recognizes the pluralistic nature of modern Jewish religious life. That will never happen until there is a coalition government that does not need the support of the religious parties. One of the paradoxes of the State of Israel is that all Jews are welcome but, because of politics, not all kinds of Judaism are welcome.
The arrest of Anat Hoffman is an embarrassment to me. It also makes me feel like a hypocrite- after all the complaining that all of us do about the way Islam treats women as second class people look what we have done. No, I am not comparing the Israeli Rabbinate to Mullahs- Islam could learn from us for a thousand years and still not catch up- but I am comparing the situation that leads to needless unequal treatment. No, Anat Hoffman will not be flogged or put in prison but she did have to agree to stay away from the Kotel for 30 days. Why should any Jew be denied the right to worship there?
Anat Hoffman and the group known as “Women of the Wall” are making an important statement: the Israeli Rabbinate cannot ignore the religious rights of women nor can they exist in a vacuum that ignores the religious sentiments of Diaspora Jewry. Maybe the most positive lesson that we can glean from this situation is to appreciate and praise an overlooked segment of the Israeli population. Perhaps the greatest spiritual heroes are those individuals who, though not Orthodox, choose to live in Israel because of their religious convictions. Conservative and Reform Jews who make aliyah often do so with the “religious” deck stacked against them. Their services will be held in schools and rooms, their “rabbis” will not be sanctioned to perform many life cycle events, yet they go to Israel to fulfill the Mitzvah of Aliyah. Anat Hoffman and many such men and women are the true heroes- fighting to make Medinat Yisrael a place for all Jews.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Things That Will Never Disappear
Follow Up On Iran
YT: Could you please comment of Dershowitz’s comment on J Street. Will J Street “have blood on its hands?”
DW: J Street has never advocated for or advised the administration to take the military option off the table. To say that is false and a misrepresentation of J Street’s position. J Street believes that Iran obtaining nuclear weapons would pose a very serious threat to American and Israeli interests and to peace and stability in the Middle East and around the world. We therefore lobby for a combination of tough, targeted sanctions and diplomacy to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. We have also set forth the case that it is those like Dershowitz encouraging the U.S. government to rattle sabers and beat the war drums who are undermining President Obama's diplomacy. There is a big difference between leaving all options on the table while pursuing a permanent diplomatic resolution, and actively threatening military action. And while it is prudent for the United States military to prepare under existing authority for a contingency with Iran, as it already has, it is reckless to mistake that contingency for sound strategy.
YT: What is J Street doing that sets it apart from that “old style” of Jewish American advocacy for Israel?
DW: J Street believes that only a two-state solution will preserve the Jewish and the democratic nature of Israel. In the past, other American pro-Israel organizations have advocated for whatever the Israeli government set as policy. J Street reserves the right to differ with the Israeli government on issues of policy that do long-term harm to Israel as a Jewish democracy.
YT: What, then, is the main goal of J Street?
DW: To advocate for the two-state solution. That is the only policy that will insure that Israel remains Jewish and democratic.
YT: Could you explain what you mean?
DW: Without two states, one Jewish and one Palestinian, demographics tell us that the Arabs will soon be the majority population between the Mediterranean and the Jordan. That means that Israel will face a choice: either it will have to give all people living under its rule the same political rights, in which case, Jews will be a voting minority and Israel will cease to Jewish, or Israel will deny full political rights to the non-citizen majority, in which case it will cease to be a democracy. J Street argues that a state that is both Jewish and democratic represent the Zionist dream. Without both of these, the dream fails.
YT: What is the “ideal” outcome to resolve the Iranian situation then?
DW: The ideal outcome would be a negotiated outcome that would allow Iran to retain a civilian nuclear program but with the strongest monitoring possible. This is because permanent Iranian compliance with its nuclear obligations is only likely to come about if it is allowed to exercise its right under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, and because unprecedented monitoring of that program would give us the best assurance that Iran will not be able to develop nuclear weapons.
YT: What, then, is your opinion about the threat of military action against Iran?
DW: J Street contends that war talk is counter-productive in several ways. First, the talk of impending war only tells Iran that they must decide quickly to develop nuclear weapons. Both Israeli and American intelligence agrees that Iran not yet decided whether build a nuclear weapon. Secondly, as I have argued in an article in Foreign Policy, loose talk of war only causes the Iranian people to rally around the government to fight an enemy, strengthening the hand of the mullahs. This undermines the sanctions, which are working by causing terrible inflation in Iran- this causes the people to blame the government. It goes without saying that the threat of war also raises the price of oil. Although Iran is selling less oil than ever the jump in prices will produce a near-record income for Iranian oil this year, which they can apply to their nuclear program.
YT: How, in your view, will these issues with Iran be resolved?
DW: J Street has supported President Obama’s policy—from its outset-- of using a combination of sanctions and diplomacy as the best approach for preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Heeding the President’s warning about loose talk of war, we have joined American and Israeli security experts in combating efforts to ratchet up war talk and tie the President’s hands in dealing with this grave threat to Israeli, U.S. and global security. If cooler heads in Washington and Jerusalem prevail, the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran can be halted once and for all, most likely through a staged drawdown of Iran’s illicit nuclear activities in coordination with international partners led by the United States.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Iran: The Need for Consensus
Thursday, August 9, 2012
More Precious Than Gold
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Why Is History Such A Hard Subject?
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Iran's Latest Attack
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Ancient Jewish Proverb Says
Sunday, June 10, 2012
On Line and Learning
Monday, May 14, 2012
A Review of "The Horse Adjutant"
Darwin Knocking
Interview With Arnold Eisen of JTS
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Sitting Down With Mr. Food
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Digital God?
Friday, April 6, 2012
Passover and Israel's Security
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Monday, April 2, 2012
The Longest Story Ever Told
Too Much News to Print
Sunday, March 18, 2012
We Need A Sense of Humor
This video tells the story of a boy who dreams of winning his dream girl but she thinks his nose is too big! He gets a nose job but doesn't get the girl! It's funny- a punk parody. Dr. Michael Salzhauer hired the Groggers to produce a song for his practise. The video went viral and now the Dr. is facing a storm of opinions claiming that the video is hurtful and plays into anti-Semitic stereotypes. Friends, it's a parody! Watch the video and be the judge! You can watch my interview with Dr. Salzhauer on The L'Chaim Show on Jewish Life TV. The interview will air on Tuesday, April 3rd at 8pm. Check out JLTV.tv to find your local listing. In South Florida you can watch JLTV on Comcast 239, DirecTV 366. Jewish humor has always been a mirror turned inward- this is no different! Laugh, enjoy, and remember that in a world filled with real problems a nose job can still be funny!
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
This coming Shabbat has a special name. It is known as Shabbat Zechor (the Shabbat of remembering.) The day takes its name from a passage that is read from a second Torah making mention of the commandment to remember the attack of the Amalikites on the Children of Israel. We are commanded to remember this unprovoked attack on our ancestors and to keep the memory alive. Shabbat Zechor is always timed as the Shabbat before Purim. The rabbis said that Haman (of Purim infamy) was a descendant of the Amalikites and so the connection was made between Shabbat Zechor and Purim. It is another example of how the Jewish past is to inform every future generation.
We often, and correctly, speak of the gift of memory as being the gift that has kept Judaism alive. In many ways this is true- without knowledge of the Jewish past there is no orientation for the Jewish future. It would be as if we were dropped off in a wilderness without knowing which way to go. All too often, however, we find that the gift of memory is a bitter pill to swallow. “Memory” has taken on a very negative connotation. At Purim we remember Haman and the word “remember” has, in the modern period, been permanently joined the memory of the Holocaust. While we need to remember the suffering of our people, and honor the memory of those lost, we cannot lose sight of the other aspect of the Jewish memory.
We, as a people, have suffered at the hands of countless enemies. It was a part of our past and is still a sad part of our present. We would be blind to miss the parallels between the threats to our ancestors and the threats that are all around us today. We, better than any other people, know that to forget the past is a tragic mistake. Just as this Shabbat we are commanded to remember the past, I remind you that we are also commanded to look beyond it. Is the glass half empty or half full? Is the history of our people a long litany of suffering or a glorious record of triumph?
On Purim we not only recall the threat to an ancient community but we also celebrate their redemption, their victory. As a student of Jewish history I am sometimes overwhelmed by the many struggles that we have faced just to exist. Luckily, I can counter that by remembering that Jewish history never came to an end. Every threat was overcome, every defeat followed by a victory. To be a Jew who responds to the command “remember” means to remember everything- not just the bad but the good. Our sense of memory must be more than an instrument for mourning. It should be our inspiration to celebrate.
Published in the Florida Jewish Journal 2/28,12
Monday, February 20, 2012
Watch the L'Chaim Show On Jewish Life TV, Comcast Channel 239, Tuesdays at 8pm
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
A recent editorial in The Atlanta Jewish Times caused a storm of public reaction. The paper’s owner and chief-editor, Andrew Adler, wrote a piece concerning the possible policies that Israel could pursue against a nuclear-armed Iran. Among the possible reactions that Adler posited was the idea that Israel should assassinate President Obama. Adler has since resigned and is looking to sell the paper. Adler’s remarks caused a crisis in Atlanta- the Federation and other community agencies distanced themselves from the paper, a stand that they said that they would maintain until his resignation. Beyond this, the entire American Jewish community was embarrassed by these comments and now has to do damage control. As a journalist Adler embarrassed himself and the entire community. While he said that his comments were meant “to get reaction” from his readers, his comments about assassinating the president were irresponsible and, in a word, stupid. A journalist cannot write something like that and think that he is just eliciting reaction. As a journalist and as a Jew I am embarrassed by this episode. Reflecting on Adler’s poor judgment and irresponsible words made me reflect on my own role as a writer and community leader.
As a writer for this paper I feel a double sense of responsibility. As the rabbi of the Sunrise Jewish Center I am always mindful that my comments reflect on my congregation. Whether I am speaking from the pulpit or writing in this paper, I know that my words will be taken as more than just the opinion of one person. As a writer for this paper I am always mindful of the responsibility that I have to the readership and to the community. The Jewish Journal produces 160,000 copies every week. We have readers throughout all of South Florida. That means that the opinions and stories that appear here reach a large community. All of us who are involved with the paper must always realize the impact that our words and ideas can have. As a writer I don’t feel that I have to write something that everyone likes or agrees with but I do have to write an accurate and responsible accounting of my ideas. In the age of internet communication the truth is that anyone can write anything and put it out there for the world. On the internet true and false become relative. It seems like the crazier the idea the more attention it gets! I don’t know what you call that but it is not responsible journalism. The other side of that coin is a community based paper like the Jewish Journal or any other community based Jewish paper. Far from being anonymous like the internet, a community paper represents a specific readership. That is why every journalist needs to be very careful with every story.
It seems obvious that Mr. Adler forgot about his readership and decided to concentrate on the “shock value” of his message. Perhaps he was thinking that an outrageous statement can be good if it sparks a healthy public debate. Whatever the intention was it certainly backfired. A good column should spark debate and the exchange of ideas without a “hook” that creates a crisis. I am always very gratified when someone comes up to me and engages me about something that I wrote. That means they read it! That means they thought about it! A journalist should never, however, be tempted to write something just for a reaction- as we see that can lead to a very bad outcome. I take very seriously the trust that all of my readers put in me by reading my columns and I know that the entire staff at the Journal does as well.
All communication is based on trust- you wouldn’t talk to someone if you felt you could not believe him. You would not read an article that you knew contained less than the truth. That is why I must emphasis the responsibility of speaking (or writing) in the public forum. Mr. Adler’s article was a tragic mistake that touched many lives and hurt a community. The Atlanta Jewish Times will, I am sure, bounce back under new leadership. The damage done is another story. Words, once written or said, remain no matter how many times you apologize. It is the task of anyone who would speak on behalf of the community to always remember the trust the community puts in him or her.
This op-ed appeared in The South Florida Jewish Journal, February 1, 2012
Monday, January 23, 2012
There are currently two collections of Holocaust response available in English. Respona are questions of Jewish law (Halacha) that are submitted to a rabbi- responsa, the response, is the answer to the question. Rabbi Ephraim Oshry, himself a survivor, edited and translated questions that he received in the ghetto of Kovno, Lithuania. His volume is titled Responsa from the Holocaust. The second collection, Rabbinic Responsa from the Holocaust, was edited and translated by Robert Kirschner. This volume contains both responsa from the Holocaust as well as questions that deal with the aftermath of the war as well. Both authors are to be thanked for these important contributions that provide insights into the religious life, bravery, and faith of those who lived and died in the Holocaust.
While these responsa are available in English for the first time, two questions remain: Will people read them and, if they do, what will they understand to be the real message for their own lives? I am unable to answer the first question but I do feel compelled to attempt an answer for the second.
As a Jew I feel obligated to read these volumes carefully. As a human being I feel obligated to read them again. As a rabbi and teacher I feel that I should urge others to read them as well.
I think most readers will immediately perceive (at least to some degree) the human suffering that the responsa reflect, but I think many readers will react by finding the idea behind the responsa completely incredible. Under such circumstances how could anyone be “bothered” to ask a rabbi about ritual and religious obligations? When the world was falling down around them how they could be concerned with minor points of Halacha.
My first answer was “faith.” Yet, as I thought about it, I felt that an appeal to faith was an incomplete answer. Also I knew that a faith that was that strong was something that would demand explanation. How could “faith” serve as an explanation to those who could not imagine a situation in which that faith was the only possession left?
I offer these thoughts in order to share another path toward understanding and teaching these responsa to American Jews. It should be no surprise that I found the answer in the writings of a survivor, Dr. Viktor Frankl. A psychiatrist who survived Auschwitz, Frankl emerged from the Holocaust to found a new school of psychotherapy which he called Logotherapy. Frankl approach stressed the need for meaning in life. From his experience in Auschwitz Frankl made the claim that the individual can endure anything in life and overcome anything in life if, and only if, life itself has meaning. Freud would have predicted that, deprived of food, freedom, and even life itself, any person would abandon “normal” behavior and would do anything to stay alive. The attitude to life demonstrated in the response proves that Frankl’s “will to meaning” was stronger than Freud’s “will to pleasure.” Moreover, it provides us with a key to understanding the responsa as a struggle to maintain meaning through the observance of Jewish law. That key is the concept of “meaning” in Frankl’s sense of the word. Meaning is this sense of purpose in life, a goal higher than life itself.
Those who suffered during the Holocaust were denied everything that we would, under normal circumstances, consider to be meaningful. Every loved one, every possession, every bit of self-worth was robbed by the Nazis. These brave Jewish souls refused to surrender the very meaning of their existence. That meaning was rooted in the observance of Judaism and it stood firm and unyielding even in the face of a planned extinction. The Jewish soul refused to say that life was meaningless, that purpose and hope had been extinguished in the ovens of Auschwitz.
Perhaps the greatest problem confronting the reader of these response is the challenge to understand how and why a person robbed of all but his last breath would inquire into the status of wet matza or the use of tephillan that had not been checked by a scribe. These are the questions asked within these pages that explain why Jewish prisoners could survive with a purpose that could not be destroyed. As long as one could live as a Jew, even in the most unimaginable of conditions, life was ultimately meaningful and, therefore, worth living.
In his work Rabbi Oshry notes that only three cases of suicide occurred in the ghetto of Kovno. Only three Jews were truly conquered by the Nazis by admitting that life had lost meaning and, in Frankl’s terms, was no longer worth living.
We must read the Holocaust responsa not “simply” as documents attesting to punctilious observance of Jewish law (although that in it would be heroic.) Nor can we be satisfied to say that their faith was greater than our (although, no doubt, it was.) It was not the faith but the meaning of that faith that made the difference. There is an important lesson about survival that should not go unnoted. We stand silent trying to understand how anyone survived. We are at a loss to understand the suffering or the miracle of survival. One thing that we can do is to understand that at least one of the keys to survival was the finding of meaning even in a life that might, at any moment, end. Every survivor is a brave soldier who, in the end, defeated Hitler.
We must teach the facts of the Holocaust, but we must also try, in whatever small inadequate way, to explain what it all means. We must not only be shocked, appalled, and angry at the suffering of our people but we must also be inspired by the lives of those who stood against the Nazis without giving in to despair. We can never forget that Jews died because they were Jews, but we should never forget those who survived because they were Jews.
If we read the responsa as documents of meaning we begin to see a new definition of Jewish resistance. So often it is asked, “Why didn’t they fight back?” The truth is that they did fight back. Those who sought to continue living according to Jewish law were fighting back on the battlefield of life’s basic meaning and worth.
It was because of the meaning that life retained that so many survived conditions that would make death a blessing. The Holocaust responsa are treasures not only for what they teach about the Holocaust or about Jewish law. Their real worth is to be measured in what they teach us about what it “means” to be Jewish.
This article first appeared in the South Florida Jewish Journal