Sunday, December 14, 2014

HEY--STAY AWAY FROM THOSE HANUKKAH CANDLES!


These days, when I mention Rock of Ages, someone might think I’m referring to the hit Broadway musical or Hollywood film by the same name.  But long before the entertainment industry got its hands on a time-honored metaphor for God, Rock of Ages sat quietly on the page of the siddur containing the Hanukkah blessings.  It began the famous hymn Ma’oz Tzur yeshu’ati—

 

Rock of Ages, let our song praise Your saving power

You amid the raging throng were our sheltering tower.

Furious they assailed us, but Your help availed us.

And Your word broke their sword when our own strength failed us.

 

If only God’s words continued to break the actions of the enemies these days, we would all be a lot safer and happier.  No matter—Hanukah begins this week, the first candle to be lit Tuesday evening, and we’ll all be singing Ma’oz Tzur, Rock of Ages, the way it was meant to be sung.

 

Hanukkah, as the rabbis continue to remind us, is a minor holiday, but there is nothing minor about a prayer asking God to take care of those in this world who are intent on harming innocents.  Unlike the Maccabees, who took fate into their own hands, smashing the enemy themselves, we ask God to keep us from war and violence, and if there is a power beyond the sword that can spare us all, it would be the word of God. 

 

One of the rules of the lit menorah is to not interfere in anyway with the burning of the candles.  We are not to interrupt the flame or even use the flame to our advantage.  That’s a wide swath of no-nos, encompassing anything from using the lit candles to roast hot dogs to even reading by the menorah’s light.  Hanerot hallalu kodesh heim—these candles are holy, and as holy, we dare not touch them or use them in anyway except to publicize the miracle of Hanukkah.

 

Holiness demands caution and reverence.  We do not, for example, touch Torah parchment directly, or walk on Jerusalem’s Temple mount in that area where the Temple once stood, or take change for ourselves out of the Tzdakah box.  That which is holy is sometimes marked as such by becoming unusable, untouchable?  Why?  That’s a really good question for which, I am sure, multiple answers exist, though I will be so bold as to venture only one possible answer. 

 

Humans are, by nature, inquisitive, curious, and… invasive.  It is how we learn about the world and how we interact with it.  But when we establish a realm of holiness, a realm left untouched and undisturbed, it serves as a reminder that we are guests in a universe created by a power greater than ourselves, and faith in that power energizes and humbles, at one and the same time.  Maoz Tzur, the Rock of Ages has lived for eons before us and will continue to live for eons after us.  Ultimately, the criminals die, as do we all, but the spirit of God endures, so too the spirit of justice and compassion, the spirit of honesty and love.  Hanukkah is only a minor holiday, but it offers us some major philosophical latkas to munch on, the whole year through.  Bon appetite!

 

Thursday, December 4, 2014

WOULD DINA TOO ACCUSE BILL COSBY? VAYISHLAH, 2014 / 5775


Page through the Bible and the number of titillating or sordid sex tales are few and far between, but this week’s parashah, Vayislah, comes about as close as the Bible gets to the stuff of the National Inquirer.  The story goes that Dina, Jacob’s only daughter, wandered out of the comfy and secure tents of her father to interact with the ladies in the neighborhood.  Shechem, a Hivite prince, ran into her, and she into him, and he unceremoniously raped her.  But then, at least according to the text, Shechem fell in love with her, and moved his father to secure her for him in marriage.

To make a long story short, Jacob was none too happy with this development, his sons less so, and after a negotiation in which it would appear that Shechem consented to all the prerequisites for this match to take place, two sons of Jacob, Shimon and Levi, entered Shechem’s town and murdered all the males.   

In recent times, as our awareness of women’s issues has come into sharp focus, it has been noted that the one voice absent from this biblical narrative is Dina’s.  What was her read on this unanticipated relationship?  The text describes the initial encounter as a rape, but then goes on to describe Shechem’s love of Dina.  Rape and love are not a comfortable pair.  What did go on there?  Did Dina welcome Shechem’s forward advances?  Was Dina overpowered by a prince in the neighborhood who overstepped his bounds?  Dina is silent.  We can only wonder what her impressions were.

The absence of Dina’s perspective may not be, as some have suggested, the consequence of a male narrator uninterested in the female point of view.  And we can say this based on recent developments surrounding Bill Cosby, now that some 19 women have come forward to accuse him of a variety of sexual assaults.  But wait—when did these alleged encounters take place?  Women have accused Cosby of incidents that took place some 20, 30 and even 40 years ago.  Where were their voices up until now?

The fact is that unwanted sexual advances are not generated by love but by an opportunity to take advantage of someone who is either vulnerable or powerless to fend off the assault.  It takes a whole lot of courage to admit in public that one has been abused or taken advantage of.  It could be understood as an admission of failure, a confession of weakness—an unpleasant twist to a painful situation.  And there is always the real possibility that doubts about the story will arise, that someone will cast the accuser as a liar, and by this add insult to injury.  We can’t say for sure that Cosby is guilty, but we certainly cannot say that the extensive time lapsed between crime and accusation is proof that the crime never happened. 

I hope Bill Cosby is innocent.  He’s brought a lot of laughter into our lives.  But I hope that the accusations against him are taken seriously, no matter how much time has lapsed between the alleged assault and the accusation.  It takes a lot of guts to accuse a powerful person, in public, of a crime committed against oneself. It may take 10 or 20 or 30 years for the abused to summon the courage to speak.  And as for Dina, she has remained silent for over 3,000 years.



 

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

WHERE MULTICULTURALISM ENDS

 
In the 1800’s, British governors in India faced a difficult decision about a social convention that they found abhorrent. It seems that there was a practice in India, in vogue for centuries, in which a widow would willingly throw herself upon the funeral pyre of her recently deceased husband so that the two would die together. The practice, known as Sati, was relatively widespread, with statistics in the early 1800’s recording some 500-600 culturally approved suicides per year. The British decided to outlaw it. It took decades to make it a crime throughout the Indian provinces but so they did.  I can only imagine how such a practice evolved in the first place. It sounds like one part romanticism, one part grief, one part misogyny, and seven parts “this is how we take care of a widow whose sole financial support is now gone.” Whatever it was, the British approach was culture be damned—Sati is barbaric and we’re going to do our best to eliminate it from a world in serious need of modernization.

Over the past several decades, multiculturalism as an idea or social philosophy has grown in popularity. The idea that western European white culture should somehow take precedence over every other culture, or that no other culture is worth preserving or even studying, is no longer taken seriously. There has been an explosion of academic departments on campuses both in North America and Europe that have welcomed the study and promotion of cultures vastly different from the western European one familiar to us all. This expansion of the university’s fields of study has brought a color and diversity, a richness to new generations of thinkers that should make for greater tolerance, if not appreciation, for the vast diversity of cultural expressions that make up society.

But as the world grows smaller, the value placed on multiculturalism will be challenged. The almost total and embrace of multiculturalism should bring us to the uncomfortable and politically incorrect question of whether there is a limit to our tolerance of what the other culture offers. That we must simply accept what the other culture defines as normal or good should be regarded as unreasonable and anti-intellectual. Intelligence, in part, is being able to critique an idea, comparing it with what we know to be true or good and then coming up with some compelling argument as to whether it’s appropriate to either pomote the idea or reject it. That would be the opposite of multi-culturalism, or at least place a definitive limitation upon it.

Social media has played a dramatic role in shrinking the earth for us and today, vastly different cultures from around the world are bumping into each other in rude and shocking ways. Cultures in which religion and politics occupy separate domains rub up against cultures where the two are hopelessly entangled. Cultures that allow for homosexual unions are bumping into cultures where there is no homosexuality (remember Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad telling his Columbia University audience that “In Iran we don’t have homosexuals like in your country.” The auditorium erupted in laughter). Cultures that allow women to be visible, if not seductively exposed, are staring wide-eyed at cultures that kill daughters for suspected infidelity. Cultures that allow for security and safety of its citizens are starkly contrasted with cultures where violence is a common tool in controlling political enemies. As long as we didn’t have to face these cultures, we could idealistically claim that the world is a tapestry of different ideas and innocuous conceptions of what it means to be human. But now that social media has thrown us all into the same chat room, we may just end up like the British in the 1800’s expressing horror over what we see, and seeking ways to stop it.

The Islamic world has given us suicide bombers, young men and women who hope to advance their cause by turning themselves into living bombs and thus killing as many innocent by-standers as possible. And though we should hold no regard for them, our greater sense of outrage should be directed against the elderly cowards, whether religious or secular leaders, who have so encouraged young people to sacrifice their lives in this ineffective and counterproductive tactic. These young people have been promised riches in the world to come as if they were a guarantee from the local department store. It’s outrageous.

Reading through the Hamas Charter of 1988, I came across Article eight which stipulates the slogan of Hamas. The slogan is: “Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Qur’an its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief.” Death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief? The passage almost immediately gave rise to a memory of the movie Patton, when the great and utterly driven American general of World War II addressed his troops in his flagrantly vulgar style: “Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor bastard die for his country.” Patton, no saint by any stretch of the imagination, was not one to promote death. No leader of any moral stature would. But the culture of life and the culture of death have finally met face to face; surely they will never be able to live side by side.

Multiculturalism is useful, but only as a basis for creating an openness to explore each other’s cultures. But having explored and having witnessed what the other culture offers is not to say we must accept it. To the contrary, we may just find something worthy of damnation. And should we find it impossible in our hearts, should we lack the courage to actually damn what is damnable, then we become complicit in the burning of widows, the objectives of the suicide bombers, and all other behaviors that should be considered an affront to both God and humanity. Unless we are willing sacrifice our own culture, we must conclude that there are limits to multiculturalism. May we all be blessed to recognize the superiority of the Culture of Life and do our best to make the other universally illegal.

 

Saturday, November 15, 2014

ARE OUR PRAYERS WORKING?

Of the many prayers that the Jewish people recite during the course of the day, there is no prayer dearer to us than the prayer for shalom, peace. The rabbis taught us that all prayers must end with a prayer for peace, which would explain why, at the end of the Amidah or the end of Kaddish, we sing with great gusto Oseh Shalom—May the One who makes peace in the Heavens above grant peace onto us and onto all Israel. It is for that reason that we might legitimately ask whether our prayers are actually working, for dear as the prayer for peace may be to us, the world around us seems to be sinking further and further into violence and anarchy.
Mr. Bashar al-Assad of Syria has struck out against his own subjects in order to quash all reform efforts. United States officials estimate that some 10,000 have been tortured and killed over a two year period. Boko Haram, a group of militant Islamists, has kidnapped 200 high school girls and forced them to convert, as part of their terrorist tactics against the Nigerian government. An estimated 5000 people have been murdered at their hand over a three-and-a-half year period. The term “Boko Harum” is typically translated as “Western Education is a Sin.” A new radical group known as ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) is effectively ruling major territory in both Syria and Iraq and has done so via beheadings, crucifixions, and mass executions. Mr. Putin of Russia has had no qualms in walking into Crimea, violating another country’s sovereignty, and granting financial and military support to the pro-Russian separatists. His ill-advised tactics led to the tragic downing of Malaysian Airline Flight 17, killing all 283 passengers and 15 crew members. And even closer to our own hearts, we have witnessed the tragic loss of life in Israel and Gaza, as that area of our beloved MidEast has erupted into war again.
All this brings us back to the original question: are our prayers for peace working?
In answer to that question, another more fundamental question must be asked: what is it that we actually expect prayer to do? If our expectation is that upon petitioning God, God will either grant our request or deny it, then there’s good reason to believe that our encounter with God will sometimes leave us satisfied and other times leave us disappointed. But suppose the encounter with God through prayer galvanizes the pray-er to some new insight or bold action. Then the effects of prayer bcomes a whole different dynamic. It might be helpful to think of prayer like this: a means by which we are strengthened to move in the very direction we have asked God to move. Are we praying for health? A good prayer will move us to live healthfully. Are we praying for wisdom? An effective prayer will move us to seek the sources of wisdom and learn from them. Are we praying for peace? A great prayer will move us to promote peace, in our own words and actions. Are our prayers working? I fear that we have too often prayed with the expectation that God will do the work for us. But that’s exactly how it doesn’t work. Humankind is the agent of God on earth. We pray to further understand God’s will in the Heavens above that we may carry it out, as God’s agents, on the earth below.
C.S. Lewis (1898-1963), the English poet, academic and lay theologian wrote, “There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says ‘all right, then, have it your way.’” It is during the darkest hours that the possibility of salvation is greatest. These days, the world is very dark. The world may have come to that point when the power hungry, parading about in religious garb, have tightened their grip mercilessly on the common folk. It is not easy to stand in opposition to these demagogues for one does so at great personal risk. Thus prayer: a means by which we are strengthened to move in the very direction we have asked God to move, even in the face of tremendous evil and moral turpitude. If our prayers have not worked up until now, maybe we need to change our expectations of exactly what it is prayer is to do. We pray to God not in order to move God. We pray to God that God be so inclined as to move us. Yehi ratzon…May it be Your will God that you so move us, and may we be instrumental in the establishing of peace on earth as capably as You establish peace within the heavens above us.

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

MAKE NO APOLOGIES FOR BEING A ZIONIST, YOM KIPPUR SERMON, 5775 / 2014






Shanah Tovah—A Good New Year, Everyone and Tzom Kal, an Easy Fast to All.

                God’s blessings pour down upon us daily, but the angels are not always satisfied with the good Lord’s work.  Around the time of the founding of the State of Israel, the angels challenged God for what seemed to them a terrible injustice.  “Unfair,” they protested, “for so much of the world You bless with ordinary blessings but for the Jewish people you grant them a land flowing with milk and honey, rich in dates and olives, wheat and barley.  You bless the people with genius and talent such that they will win many Nobel prizes and excel in the arts, sciences and business.  Is it right for the Lord to show such favoritism to one people?”  To which the good Lord replied, “Just wait ‘till you see what I give them for neighbors.”

                Thinking back on how often the subject of Israel is discussed in synagogue, I realize that the subject comes up a lot during the course of the year, but rarely on a Yom Kippur.  Yom Kippur, after all, is a day of asking for forgiveness and granting forgiveness.  It’s a day when we think of how we are to repair our lives and live more fully, more ethically, more spiritually.  These are themes that readily apply to our personal lives, but do not necessarily or easily apply to modern day sovereign states.  But this year may be different.  After this horrible summer of war in the MidEast, the time has come for us to reflect on what it means to be a Jew in a world that so often spews hatred at us, and what it means to be a supporter of a country that is among the most maligned nations in the world, at least judging from the deliberations of the United Nations’ General Assembly. 

                I want to begin by taking a trip to Rome.  We’re all going to visit the Vatican, the chief residence of the pope, where we will walk into the brilliant Sistine Chapel.  We are all familiar with the Sistine Chapel.  The Sistine Chapel existed long before the great Italian Renaissance artist, Michelangelo, was commissioned to paint its ceiling, but it really is his ceiling that steals the visual show of that particular sacred space.  The ceiling is dramatic, and perhaps best known for its depiction of the Creation of Adam, where the hand of God and that of Adam reach toward each other and just barely touch.  But that fresco does not contain the largest figure in the room.  There is another, much larger figure.  It is that of a very muscular man, his head is thrown back and his legs dangle over an edge.  He looks heavenward as a large fish nibbles at his thigh.  And who has Michelangelo blessed with the largest dimensions in the room but the prophet Jonah, swallowed by a large fish in his attempt to escape the charge of the Lord to bring news of imminent punishment to the wicked people of Nineveh. 

I have heard two interpretations why Michelangelo was so fascinated with Jonah.  One is that Jonahs’ story is parallel to that of Jesus’.  Jonah spends three days and nights in the belly of the fish and Jesus, following his death, spends three days and nights in a tomb.  Jonah is spat out by the great fish and Jesus is resurrected so Jonah and Jesus’ lives are parallel.  But that interpretation, compelling though it may be, is not the only one explaining Michelangelo’s admiration of the prophet Jonah.  The other interpretation has more to do with Michelangelo’s subtle criticism of the papacy.    Rabbi Benjamin Blech, professor of Talmud at Yeshiva University and co-author of “The Sistine Secrets: Michelangelo’s Forbidden Messages in the Heart of the Vatican,” claims that Michelangelo identified with Jonah.  Like Jonah, he was forced into a mission he did not desire, leaving his beloved Florence to work in the Vatican.  Michelangelo disapproved of what he perceived was the hedonism and excesses of the Church, and Jonah, more than any other Jewish prophet, was a prophet sent to preach to the gentiles, not the Jews.  Jonah is the prophet that bears a message to all humankind—we are held accountable for our deeds to an authority higher than ourselves and someday we will be brought to judgment for those deeds so prepare for the tomorrow’s Day of Judgment by changing your ways today. 

                It’s such an interesting theory.  And if you think about it, the story of Jonah, read in the afternoon of Yom Kippur, is odd in its focus on the non-Jewish world.  Isn’t Rosh Hashanah a Day of Judgment for the Jews?  Maybe not.  Consider the words from the famous Unetaneh tokef prayer:

This day all who walk the earth pass before You as a flock of sheep

And You determine the life and decree the destiny of every creature…

So actually, Yom Kippur is not a Day of Judgment for Jews alone, but a Day of Judgment for all humankind, a day for all humanity to pause and listen to the prophecy of Jonah.

                Nineveh, the city God commands Jonah to go to, was an Assyrian city full of wickedness.  Nineveh no longer exists but its modern day replacement, Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq, does.  For many years, Christians and Moslems would make pilgrimage to Mosul, to a place just outside of where the gates of Nineveh once stood, to a mosque purported to be the burial place of Jonah.  On July 25th of this year, ISIS blew it up.  They claimed it to be a place that was un-Islamic.  This was a direct affront to Christians.  ISIS knows how Christians understand the prophet Jonah within the context of their own sacred mythologies.  But given Rabbi Blech’s thesis, that Jonah is a message to all humankind to divorce themselves from hatred and sin, it is curious and frightening all at once that ISIS would blow up the very symbol of that universal message.  As with anyone one or any group that arrogates to itself direct knowledge of God, ISIS is going to do whatever it wants to do, and no one is going to tell them otherwise, and that includes God.

                After James Foley, the American journalist and video reporter was brutally murdered by ISIS this past August, President Obama waxed theological as he spoke before the nation and said:

So ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents. No just god would stand for what they did yesterday and what they do every single day. ISIL has no ideology of any value to human beings. Their ideology is bankrupt. They may claim out of expediency that they are at war with the United States or the West, but the fact is they terrorize their neighbors and offer them nothing but an endless slavery to their empty vision and the collapse of any definition of civilized behavior.

What the president failed to say is that not only are their victims overwhelmingly Muslim, but the perpetrators themselves are overwhelmingly Muslim.  The western world, the United States included, has been reluctant to call the enemy by name.  And this is in part for fear of labeling all Muslims as the enemy or terrorists, which they are not.  But the fact that there may be many Muslims who wish to live in peace with the rest of the world does not reverse the fact that the terrorism we face today is a product of a virulent mixture of politics and Islamic jihad.  The target of their wrath is the western world, the United States, Christians to some extent, and the one group for whom it reserves its deepest loathing is, of course, the Jews.

                One of the subjects I hate to talk about is anti-Semitism.  First of all, I don’t like giving it a lot of play on a festival or a Shabbat when we should be focused on the positive and the beauty within the world.  Secondly, I think that anti-semitism is too often used as a means for rallying the Jewish people to a deeper sense of identity.  That strikes me as wrong.  Our tradition and our heritage are far more compelling than the words of anti-semites.  And yet, it would be foolish to ignore the resurgence of anti-semitism around the world for we have seen it throughout the MidEast and Europe.  Protestors in Dortmund and Frankfurt Germany were heard chanting, “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the Gas!”  A group of Parisian Jews were trapped in a synagogue by pro-Palestinian demonstrators and had to be rescued by police.  In central London, an anti-Israel group descended on a grocery store, thus triggering the manager to remove all kosher products from its shelves.  The grocery store, part of a supermarket chain, later apologized. 

That’s Europe.  What about here in the United States?  We have had our share of anti-semitic incidents but it hurts most when it comes from people who ought to know better.  Perhaps you have heard that here in New York City, the Met has decided to stage an opera known as “The Death of Klinghoffer.”   Do you remember Leon Klinghoffer?  Mr. Klinghoffer was a disabled Jewish American who had the misfortune of being on a cruise when the ship, the Achille Lauro, was taken over by Palestinian terrorists back in 1985.  The hijackers demanded the release of 50 Palestinians from Israeli prisons.  During this terrifying ordeal, Mr. Klinghoffer, wheelchair-bound, was murdered by the terrorists and his body thrown overboard into the sea.  The Met is scheduled to stage this opera beginning Monday, October 20.

This opera is designed to show both sides of the story, the horrible nature of terrorism and the plight of the Palestinians, but it really doesn’t.  The opera begins with a chorus of exiled Palestinians singing, “My father’s house was razed—In nineteen forty-eight—When the Israelis passed—Over our street.”  So the first thing we hear in the opera is the Israelis being compared to the Angel of Death who destroyed the firstborn of Egypt.  One of the hijackers who is nicknamed Rambo has these words to say of Jews:  “Wherever poor men—Are gathered they can---Find Jews getting fat—you know how to cheat—The simple, exploit—the virgin, pollute—Where you have exploited—Defame those you cheated—And break your own law—with idolatry.”

                Are you kidding?  This is what passes for high culture worthy of a performance at the Met?  This is the kind of stereotyped, anti-semitic rant that has been in the mouths of ignorant thugs for centuries, and it was this kind of virulent anti-semitism, repeated decade after decade for centuries, that culminated in the Holocaust.  This opera may be about the death of Klinghoffer but the historical event was about the murder of Klinghoffer, the cold-blooded murder of Mr. Klinghoffer—so why not call it exactly what it was?  Unless the librettist was confused as to exactly what it was.  Wait—I’ll make it worse.  The librettist is a woman by the name of Alice Goodman.  She is an Anglican priest serving in England, but that’s not how she was raised.  She was raised a Reform Jew (in Minnesota).

                I dislike censorship and the Met is going to make its decisions about its seasonal repertoire based on the artistic merit of the pieces, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t let them know how deeply disappointed we are in an opera that seeks to humanize the inhuman.  If you are asked to sign any letters of protest to Peter Gelb, general manager of the Met, to let him know how revolting you find this particular choice in operas, sign the letter and send it off.  Hijackers have no claim to the moral high ground.  Terrorists have no ethical objective they are striving to achieve.  At the time of their violence, they themselves become legitimate targets on the basis of self-defense.  The motives behind their actions become irrelevant, the justification for their violence is immaterial, the rationalization of their methods is inconsequent, and the attempt to humanize what they do, to try to understand it, to be open-minded about it is a license for them to do it again, and again, and again, and again.  The only moral response to terrorism and hatred is a policy of zero tolerance for those actions, and when terrorists find support for their tactics in the unwitting open-mindedness of so-called cultured people, it only encourages them to murder others.

                I told you that I was going to talk about Israel, and I am, but I haven’t gotten there yet.  First, I want to talk about Palestinians.  I am not speaking about them as members of a political party or members of this or that organization.  I am speaking only of people who are mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, young and old, healthy and ill—I am speaking about people who happen to identify themselves as Palestinians.  The Torah has something to teach us about people who are our enemies.  Beyond the fact that the Torah teaches us that we are all created in God’s image, and beyond the fact that the Torah teaches us to never hate an Egyptian, our oppressors, because we were once guests in the land of Egypt, the Torah teaches us this:

When you see the donkey of your enemy lying under its burden

and would refrain from raising it,

you must nevertheless raise it with him (Exodus 23:5)

The Torah teaches us to never pass an opportunity to reconcile with an enemy.  Your enemy is in a difficult situation, your enemy’s donkey is stuck—it’s like saying his car is backed into a snow bank or otherwise trapped—you cannot pass up that opportunity to assist.  And if that is what you must do for the enemy’s donkey, how much more so for the rest of your enemy’s life.

                I feel badly for most Palestinians and I think we all should.  Their lives are dictated by a leadership that is misguided in its objectives, violent in their tactics, and impervious to what most people want in life which is a job and a home and a family and a future.  I have tremendous sympathy for the Palestinian people; I have far less sympathy for the Palestinian leadership, and for Hamas, I have none.  I need feel no sympathy for a political or military group whose charter calls for the destruction of my people and my state.  The Palestinian leadership is forever crying about their miserable lot in life because of Israel.  They say they have no resources for schools or hospitals or the simple amenities in life.  Israel has kept all this from them.   But they have money to dig over 30 tunnels, and the tunnels required manpower to excavate, and cement to line its walls, and electrical wiring for illumination, and they have money to fill those tunnels with rocket propelled grenades, anti-tank armaments, motorcycles, weapons and explosives in order to infiltrate Israel and either kill or kidnap citizens for ransom.  So it’s not as if the Palestinian leadership is actually working in behalf of its citizens in need of jobs and homes and family and futures, but it’s pursuing a hate-filled agenda of getting rid of the wrong people who moved into the wrong neighborhood.  What the Hamas leadership is really doing is robbing its own people, taking money given to them for humanitarian purposes and using it for “inhumanitarian” purposes.  That’s why I have great sympathy for the Palestinian people and virtually none for its leadership.

                There are people in this country who would sooner criticize the Obama administration than say a bad word about Hamas, as if that ingenious group were a bunch freedom fighters.  They are no freedom fighters.  They have encouraged martyrdom, suicide, they are guilty of the murder of their own people when they use innocent civilians, particularly babies as human shields, or when they use schools and hospitals and mosques as the launching sites for their missiles.  As the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu put it, and I paraphrase:  The problem is that we use weapons to protect our people, but they use people to protect their weapons.  It’s a perverse logic, it’s a culture of hatred, it’s an ideology of death and the only moral response to it is a policy of zero tolerance.  And if the rest of the world doesn’t have the guts to tell that to Hamas or tell it to Abbas who formed a coalition government with them, then thank God for Israel who did.

                I want you to watch a movie.  It’s on Netflicks.  If you don’t see it, you can wait until I show it at Monday Night at the Midway Movies, which by the way, is a free night of movies understood and interpreted from a Jewish perspective and this past year—we served free popcorn (sorry for the mention of a food item today).  The movie is “The Butler.”  The film is fiction but it’s based loosely on the true story of Eugene Allen who was an African-American butler at the White House for 34 years and saw eight administrations make historic decisions about race relations in our country.  It really is a fascinating study of the evolution of black-white relations. It’s directed by Lee Daniels.  It stars Forest Whitaker as the butler who gives an outstanding performance.  Oprah Winfrey plays his wife—and she is really a great actress.  And beyond that, it’s sort of an all-star cast which usually ends up as a hodge-podge in so many films, but not in this case.  It’s very well done.  Anyway, this sounds like I’m giving a film review here, which is not my intent, but I want to quote from two parts of the movie and I’m going to ask your forgiveness right now because I’m going to quote from a very tough part of the movie, a very disturbing part of the movie, but two parts of the movie which are incredibly powerful.

                The scene is the cotton fields of Macon, Georgia, maybe 80 or 90 years ago.  The butler is portrayed as a little boy, maybe eight or nine years old, his film name is Cecil Gaines, and he is out in the fields working with his father.  One of the white owners of the plantation has just raped Cecil’s mother—he wouldn’t know that, but he knows something bad has happened—and Cecile’s father, beginning to protest, is shot dead right before the little boy.  One of the white women of the plantation comes over to Cecil with a certain degree of sympathy knowing what this kid just saw and says, [and this is the offensive part because she is going to use the N word which I won’t repeat but you’ll know where it is when I say “N”] “Stop crying.  I’m gonna have you in the house now.  I’m gonna teach you how to be a house nigger.”  And those are her words.  So this woman teaches him the art of serving, of being a servant, the etiquette required.  She teaches him an important skill which will be of use to him professionally, but it’s also a position in which he has to remain subservient, invisible, secondary, tamed, controlled, like some kind of pet who has been well trained.  When Cecil grows to be a teenager, Cecil runs away from the plantation, and life deteriorates.  He’s cold, he’s wet, he’s homeless, he’s hungry, and eventually he breaks into a kind of Bake Shop just to eat some pastry displayed in a window.  A kind-hearted black man who works in the store, Maynard by name, discovers him and takes him in, and in the course of conversation, the young man describes what he does.  He says, “Back in Macon, I’m a house nigger, a good one.”  Maynard hears this, slaps him across the face and says, “Don’t you ever use that word son.  That’s a white man’s word, it’s filled with hate.  Didn’t your father ever teach you any better?

                When I listen to the anti-semitism in this world, especially the anti-semitism of so-called smart people, the sophisticated people, I don’t hear them saying—I wish you Jews were dead.  I hear them saying—O, it’s fine that you’re Jewish.  Just don’t be too Jewish.  Don’t be so visible.  Don’t be so loud.  And you know, stop weeping about the Holocaust.  You can be Jewish, that’s ok, but do you really need Israel?    Why don’t you move somewhere else where you will be more welcomed, like France.  And stop defending yourselves—you have edge over the Palestinians anyway.  Be good little Jews. Be subservient, be secondary, be tamed, be invisible.  And you know what—for centuries we were just those things in a world with a deficit of love but a surfeit of hatred until Theodor Herzl came along in the late 1890’s and slapped us all in the face.  And said in so many words—don’t you dare adopt the stature of what a bigoted and hateful world wants you to be.  Their hatred is their problem.  We are a people chosen for a mission on an earth that is horribly confused about the difference between right and wrong.

                  The Zionist movement is the most exciting historical development in 2000 years of Jewish history.  It is a movement of Jews who dared to say that we are a people in more than just name.  It is a movement of Jews who set out to reclaim the land that we were kicked out of, and though it was a wasteland back then, they were determined to turn it into a Garden of Eden tomorrow. We are part of that movement.  To be a Jew today is to have some degree of Zionist aspiration within our hearts.  And when so-called enlighten people claim only to be anti-Zionist but not anti-semitic, it’s no different from what bigoted whites wanted of African Americans when they were brought into the house and trained to be invisible.  

Others do not define us.  We define ourselves.  We will not be subservient or secondary or obsequious or weak or retiring or anything else that others may want us to be.  We will be proud.  We will be a nation that is democratic.  We have to be because we disagree with each other so often.  But when we disagree, we will be in a safe space where we can disagree with one another in the evening and still go to shul with each other the next morning.  And we will be a nation of law and justice which means that even when a president or a prime minister fails us, we will prosecute them and punish them (which is the reason today there is a former president and a former prime minister in jail in Israel).  We believe that everyone is responsible for their actions and no one is above the law.  We believe in an ethical and moral relationship with everyone, and even if we fail as we will at times, that doesn’t mean we’ve abandoned the ethical, but only that we need to try harder. 

Our synagogue participates in the Celebrate Israel Day parade in Manhattan.  Our involvement really is rather tepid and I wish more of us would march because it really is a great event, a lot of fun, and you know—Israel could use a little TLC from its North American family now and then.  The times that I have walked the parade have been the best mile I have ever walked except for one block.  There is this one block lined with protestors—the anti-Israel contingent.  I have always been struck by this one block of protestors who stand on the sidelines decrying the State of Israel.  There are the Palestinian sympathizers with their outrageous irrational signs equating Zionism with Nazism.  And standing together with them are ultra-Orthodox Jews, the Neturai Karta as they are known, in their black garb and broad-brimmed hats, declaring the State of Israel an embarrassment and a sacrilege before God.  They all deserve to be slapped in the face.  I do believe that they are serving a higher authority in their lives, but it can’t possibly be God.  Since the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, we have lived under the thumb of others until Zionism showed us a way out of the plantation.  We should all be Zionists.  We should proclaim our Zionism loudly before all.  We need ask no forgiveness for our Zionist aspirations.  May we all have the guts to defend the Land of Israel and the State of Israel with all our hearts, with all our souls, and with all our might.  On this night of asking for forgiveness and granting forgiveness, never, Ever, EVER make any apology for your Zionistic feelings or your pride in the State of Israel.

Gemar Hatimah Tovah—May we all be blessed in finishing off this Tenth Day of Repentance sealed into the Book of a Blessed Life.   

Monday, September 29, 2014

CAN WE TALK? ROSH HASHANAH 5775, SEPTEMBER 25-26, 2014




                So good to see the congregation gathered on this Rosh Hashanah.  L’shanah Tovah Tikateivu— May we all be inscribed into the Book of Good Health and Peace, Prosperity and Goodness in the New Year, for all of us and for our families.              
The story is told of the famous Sherlock Holmes and his trusted aide Watson who had to leave London en route to solve a particularly difficult case in the North.  They were travelling by horse-drawn wagon when night fell and it was time to set up camp on the road.  They erected a tent, ate dinner, and the two turned in for the night.  In the middle of the night, Sherlock Holmes awoke with a start and looked about.  He nudged Watson out of a deep sleep and said, “My dear Watson—Look about you and tell me what you see.”  Watson, rubbing his eyes and allowing them to adjust to the darkness gazed up into the heavens and replied, “Well, Sir, I see planets and stars, I see distant galaxies, I see the transcendence of the universe and the majesty of eternity.”  Sherlock Holmes replied, “Watson, precisely.  Someone has stolen our tent.”
                If God ever came to me and asked, “So, what do you think of my Bible?  Give Me an honest appraisal.  As a work of literature, how would you rate it?”  How’s that for a question that should inspire a little fear and trembling.  Tell the author, and in this case it would be an author with a capital “A,” exactly what you think of His creation.  And when it comes to conversing with the Lord, deception is not a prudent strategy.  “Well, Lord, now that you’ve asked, I can tell you that I think that there are many passages where the Hebrew soars poetically, and the drama is first-rate, and the laws are demanding and thought-provoking, and it is a miracle just how much is conveyed using words as sparingly as You do.  “Rank,” the good Lord would say, “I hear a ‘but’ coming so on with it.  What would you change?”  “Well, Lord, I don’t think it’s really a ‘but’ per se, but if You ever consider a rewrite, You might want to throw in a joke here and there.  You know, lighten it up.  Put people at ease.  I think humor is really important.”  And that’s what I would say to the good Lord, Author of the most read, studied and pondered piece of literature for the past two millennia.
                Assuming I actually could survive a conversation of that nature, God might just point to the funniest guy in the Torah as proof that the Bible is not divorced of humor.  And who would that be?  It would be Isaac, Yitzhak, whose name literally suggests “laughter.”  There is a passage in the Torah that speaks of a famine, forcing Yitzhak and Rivkah to move to Gerar, a city in Philistine territory.  And fearing for his life and the life of his beloved Rivkah, he tells the residents of Gerar that Rivkah isn’t really his wife, only his sister.  But then one day, the king of the Philistines, Avimelekh, spies Yitzhak and Rivkah through their window and what does he see…
 [he] saw Isaac [doing something with]  his wife Rivkah (Genesis 26:8)
Now, the Torah doesn’t actually say “doing something with,” it uses a verb “m’tzahek” which is difficult to translate.  It has been variously and sensuously translated as—Isaac was caressing his wife, sporting with his wife, playing with his wife, fondling his wife, and so forth.  There are many different ways the translators have chosen to translate the term m’tzahek,” but the translation I like best is one I heard from my revered teacher, Rabbi Harold Kushner, who suggested that we translate the verse simply as:
Isaac was making his wife, Rivkah, laugh…
It really is a translation that works beautifully and it takes our most maligned patriarch Isaac, who too often is written off as silent, passive, victimized, and gives him a new and more appealing character.  Isaac is the patriarch with a sense of humor.  He makes Rivkah laugh.  What a wonderful human activity: making each other laugh.  When we forget how to laugh, we lose a part of what makes us human.
                This past year, 5774, was about as unfunny a year as they get.  And that’s not to say that there weren’t some positives.  There were.  The stock market has been pretty good.  But on the other hand—we had a tough winter; Malaysia Airline Flight 370 just disappeared from the face of the earth; another one of its planes was shot down over Crimea; gun violence continued to disrupt the nation, the outbreak of Ebola in Africa; and then, of course, there was the kidnapping and murder of the three yeshivah students in Israel: Eyal (Yifrah), 19 years old; Gilad (Shaer), 16; and Naftali (Fraenkel), 16 years of age.  I don’t think there’s a congregation around the world that won’t hear the names of these three boys mentioned during Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur.   
                It has been a long time since the American Jewish community has been as galvanized as it was this summer having received news of their murder.  It was just so senseless, so pointless, so perfectly wasteful of human life.  It was an action that served no one’s interests—not the Israelis, certainly not the Palestinians.  I wanted the Plainview, Syosset, Jericho, Woodbury, Bethpage, Westbury communities to convene.  We needed a vehicle by which to express our outrage and our sorrow, our solidarity with Israel, and with the help of the Mid-Island Y JCC, we got together, and we drew on at least a 350, perhaps 400 person crowd.  We filled the gym at the Mid-Island Y. 
                It was a very Jewish meeting.  We lit candles, we said kaddish, we listened to some speeches and afterwards we talked.  The only thing missing was food.  But here we were, on a week day, drawn together by a common concern, the fate of the Jewish State.  It was an evening of sorrow but also an evening of triumph because that evening everyone knew that we had a purpose in this world, and the purpose was to stand up against injustice and insanity.  We were there because we were Jews, and I know that for those who could not be there, they were proud of all of us who could be there.  It’s amazing how powerful just showing up can be.
                There’s a professor at the Harvard Business School by the name of Clayton M. Christensen.  And he tells a very interesting story about an exchange with a Marxist economist who was finishing up a Fullbright fellowship in Boston.  This economist was from China.  And he asked the economist if he had learned anything startling during his stay in America and the economist said he had.  What he found so surprising was the role that religion played in the functioning of democracy and capitalism.  He was astounded by the fact that people would listen to a minister or a priest instruct them about rules to abide by that were not necessarily in their own self-interest, and then willingly abide by them.  And this economist saw a connection between the ethical and moral commitments of religious faith and the success of our democracy and our American form of capitalism.  Christensen, who is himself a Mormon though I have no idea how devout, reflected on the waning influence of religion on the general population and suggested that as religious commitment declines, the very foundation of democracy is at stake.  There will never be enough police to keep people in check who believe that they owe no allegiance to any power greater than their own selves.  Neither of them really addressed the issue of ritual or prayer, sacred rites of passage, though they must have been thinking of them as well.  But their focus was more on the internalization of sacred principles, ways of looking at the world that define what it means to be a person of conscience and integrity, what we would otherwise refer to as a mensch
                I love this story and I love what the professor had to say about religion.  This idea—religion is that which moves you to be a better businessperson, a better human being, a better proponent of democracy—is one I want to believe in, even if we can find instances where religion seems more a toxin than an antidote.  But let’s be real.  Religion sometimes is unfairly given a bad rap.  There’s no noble discipline in life, whether medicine, the law, politics, or religion that can’t be abused or used for disreputable purpose.  I want to be more specific about religion.  I want to say that it is our Judaism, when understood and practiced with clarity and creativity that actually makes us better human beings.
                And yet, I always cringe when I hear myself differentiate between being better Jews and better human beings.  Not that I don’t wish that—I obviously do!—but it’s as if our Jewishness and our humanity occupy separate realms of reality.  Witness Person X—he’s a wonderful Jew, but a terrible human being.  Witness Person Y—she’s a wonderful human being, but a terrible Jew.  This divorce of our Jewishness from our humanity makes no sense.  How can Jewishness be divorced from humanity?  If I had a dog and only fed her kosher food, I could say, she’s not a very good human being, but a terrific Jew.  There’s a reason why we think that our Judaism and our humanity occupy different realms of reality, but getting into that will take us too far afield.  Suffice to say that we do think like this and because we do, our Jewishness having been separated from the issues that concern us most. 
Is it any wonder that synagogues today find themselves under tremendous pressure?  Membership dwindles and programs no longer capture the attention of the community as they once did.   And it’s not, as some might argue, that Jews don’t want to be Jews—they do.  But they are, and I would dare say, we all are seeking a Jewishness that is integral, not peripheral, to our lives.  The less our Judaism speaks to us about life—our lives lived everyday and in real time--the lower a value we will place on that kind of Judaism.  And the lower the value we place on our Judaism, the less likely we are to associate with an organized Jewish community.
                A brief quiz:  Who was it who used to get up on a stage, turn to the audience and ask, “Can we talk?”  That’s right.  It was Joan Rivers, alehah hashalom—she should rest in peace.  It was her signature question.  Public speakers sometimes have these telltale phrases that identify them, like Rodney Dangerfield when he would say, “I get no respect.”  But I was thinking about Joan Rivers and asking myself why did we think that question was funny.  Maybe we thought it was funny because it was a signal that we were going here something outrageous come out of her mouth.  Maybe it was funny because it was a way that this petite woman, only five foot two, could immediately draw thousands within an audience into her confidence.  Maybe it was funny because it had an innocently stereotypical Jewish ring to it.  Suddenly, you were sitting in her kitchen or living room and you’re going to hear a juicy story.  Whatever—she pulled it out of her tool box of jokes and captured our attention for however long she was going to keep us laughing.
                You know, we all like to laugh and we all like to talk.  And when something funny is going on, we all like to listen, which is the reason why I would have had God tuck a few more jokes into the Torah.  On the other hand, the Torah is Five Books worth of conversation.  God doesn’t quite say, “Can we talk?” but we get hundreds upon hundreds of verses that begin either with Vaidaber God spoke or  Vayomer God said.  I always chuckle when I walk into a synagogue with a sign that reads:
It is forbidden to speak during prayer
Really?  I hope not, because the predominant form of Jewish prayer is speech.  Were we to stop people from speaking during prayer, the entire prayer service would come to a screeching halt.  We don’t have the Ten Commandments, at least not in the Hebrew, we have the Aseret haDibrot the Ten Speakings.  We even have a way of identifying types of conversation dividing them into Divrei Kodesh Words of Holiness or Sihat Hullin Ordinary Discussion.   Jews are talkers.  We all have differing levels of skill, when it comes to communication, but it is, for all of us, the principal way that we interact with each other, touch one another, console one another, encourage one another, educate one another, enlighten one another, and it’s also the way we make each other laugh.
                I was once interacting with a group and I said that I was going to make a bold assertion that there wasn’t a topic in the world that didn’t have some Jewish spin to it.  So I challenged the group to stump me by shouting out a random topic.  So someone shouted: Craps.  OK.  So what do we learn from this?  We learn the rabbi should never say, Stump me.  But ok—is Craps the topic?  Fine.  Actually, let’s broaden the topic.  Let’s talk about gambling.  And we did.  Why do people gamble?  Well, it’s fun.  It’s okay to indulge yourself in a dream of being a multi-millionaire.  Hey—you never know!  Then again, do you know any gamblers who have an addiction to gambling?  I’ve known a couple in my time and in both cases, they lost thousands of dollars, they lost their jobs, and their marriages ended in divorce.  The addiction led them to lie about money, lie about where they were, and eventually create enough debt in the family as to generate the kind of distrust and anger that places substantial strains on the marriage, and in the cases I’m thinking of, the marriage did not survive.  The Jewish spin?  It should be clear to all that any addiction is dangerous, not only what it can do to you but what it can do to the loved ones around you.  Once gambling is above the truth or above one’s marriage, then it’s legitimate to question whether one’s priorities are in order.  The sacrifice of love and security in favor of wealth and riches is something our tradition will question.  And you notice I’m not saying that gambling as entertainment is in some way wrong.  I think we would be hard pressed to make that argument.  But if asked, both Moses and God would have something to say about Craps.  It’s a Jewish topic.
                This group I spoke with had not gathered to study Torah.  It was more of a spontaneous gathering.  They weren’t necessarily regular shul-goers—some were.  They weren’t necessarily observant—though some were.  But they were all Jews who were fascinated by the idea that an ancient tradition, one they had presumably inherited, one they could call their own because it was their own, could in some way guide their lives today in spite of it being over 2,000 years old.  And we weren’t talking about anything peripheral to their lives.  We were talking about people whose decisions lead them to financial and marital ruin.
If I told you that I walked away thinking that this was one of the more successful, effective, powerful sessions in Torah study, would you agree with me that we were studying Torah?  We really were.  And it all happened surrounded by some really good nosh, casual conversation, and a lot of laughter.  I think the humor allows us to touch on subjects that make us uncomfortable or sad or anxious in a safe way. 
Sometimes, it’s the funniest people in the world who are perhaps struggling the most with inner demons.  How sad were we when we learned about Robin Williams and how he ended his life.  We were shocked—right?  How could someone so talented and so funny be so desperate as to end his life so abruptly?  I’m not going to suggest that he needed a friend or a community to talk to, (he may have had both of those, I don’t know, and perhaps his situation was such that no one could have helped him), but I do know that the people who have friends, confidants, a community that they can turn to when life becomes tumultuous fare better than those who do not.  People need people with whom they can talk and talk with honestly. 
Who was the funniest character in the Torah?  Isaac—he made his wife laugh.  At another time and another place, maybe Isaac would have been a stand-up comedian getting up on the stage and saying “Can we talk?”  Wait, that’s Joan’s line; Isaac would need something else.  And eventually his fame would grow and he’d be interviewed and the reporter would say, “Isaac, what in your background gives you the emotional energy to get up on the stage and be so funny?”  And Isaac would say, “Well, it really comes down to anger.  You see, when I was a kid, my father tried to kill me.”    “Wow,” the reporter might say, “that must have been traumatic.”  “Yea—that was traumatic!”  The interviewer might press him a little bit more on this matter and ask, “How do you cope with the awareness that your father tired to do this to you?” and here let us suspend our imagination in favor of the actual words of Torah when we read of Isaac:
And Isaac went out into the fields, as evening fell, to talk…  (Genesis 24:64)
That’s what Isaac did.  Isaac might say, “I talk a lot with people who love me and care for me.”  Actually, the rabbis read this line to mean that Isaac went out into the fields to pray, specifically Minhah, the afternoon service, which is ideally recited as evening falls.  And maybe Isaac did both.  Maybe his talking to friends in the field was a sort of spiritual encounter in which the burden of his heart was made lighter.  Maybe he could at some point come to the realization that his father did try to kill him, but that was long in the past, and though it still hurt, he is now the father of two children and married to a wonderful woman with whom he speaks all the time.  He makes her laugh and she makes him laugh and over time he’d been able to work through the deepest anxieties and troubles of his heart.  Of the three patriarchs, Isaac lived the longest, passing from this world at the age of 180. 
It’s the friend, the confidant, who challenges your thinking—gently I would hope—questions your conclusions, offers alternative perspectives, deliberates on whether there is another logical approach to the issues you face, who is among our most precious assets in our lives.  We may come upon the truth ourselves but we are more likely, after multiple conversations with others who help us refine our thinking and dispute our conclusions, to finally arrive at the truth.  And the truth about who we are and the path we need to take in life is always the most compelling form of Torah.
 I have a few questions.  With whom do you talk?  With whom would you like to talk?  What would you like to talk about?  Is there something that’s either troubling you or something that’s puzzling you that you would want to share with a few other people troubled or puzzled by the same issue?  It could be anything really.  It could be issues as varied as how to say No to my teenager without the roof caving in; how to cope with a parent suffering from dementia; how to navigate through a relationship that has become unstable and tumultuous; how to deal today with a past that has included some form of physical or emotional abuse; how to deal with an addiction, your own or that of a loved one; how to survive the Bar and Bat Mitzvah year; how to love kids who have drifted from you; techniques for being a good grandparent; following a diet that is reasonable and balanced; Jewish meditation; Jewish yoga; I could go on but the point here is not to enumerate an exhaustive list of what to talk about.  It is rather to get you thinking about what you would want to talk about with other like-minded individuals, with the understanding that the synagogue is a place where our Judaism and our humanity coincide, and an ancient wisdom exists which can offer us insight in how to live our lives today.  But in order to do that, we have to start a conversation, with a little bit of nosh, some coffee or tea, among trusted friends or people we can learn to trust, in some safe space.  The issues to talk about would be the issues closest to your hearts and you are the only ones who can tell me what those issues are.
Over the past year, I’ve been speaking to a very talented and bright group of people who comprise what has become known as the Whole Health and Wellness Committee.  We’ve been talking about what a congregation would look like were it to focus on the issues that mattered most to the members who belong.  We have a vision of people getting together, maybe once-a-month, maybe once every six weeks, to talk about these critical issues.  They could meet at the synagogue, or perhaps in each other’s homes, or maybe at Bagel Boss or Starbucks.  The location of the meeting could be anywhere, but it’s the topic that would matter most, because it would be the topic that mattered to you most.  I call this group the Whole Health and Wellness Committee, because the ultimate goal of the committee is to use the congregation, our Jewish tradition and background, as a tool for promoting greater health and wellness.  It is a concrete plan to follow one of the Torah’s most fundamental mitzvot: Choose Life.  So here comes a little assignment I’d like to give you:  I’m asking you to write to me and tell me what’s on your mind.  You’ve got my e-mail address.  I’ve been sending you e-mails every day.  Let me know the issue that is your deepest concern.  And let me know if you want a group organized or if you already have a group of friends with whom you would want to meet.  Let’s get together and talk, and nosh, and think, and laugh.  The laughter is really important.  There is always a certain joy in coming closer to the truth.
                Joan Rivers once said, “I hate housework.  You make the beds, you do the dishes, and six months later you have to start all over again.”  If our Judaism is something that appeals to us only a handful of days during the year, we’re going to end up hating it.  For years now, the Jewish leadership around the world has been staring at the planets and the stars and galaxies without the guts to say that the tent is missing.  So here I am to say:  the tent is missing.  There is something missing from our Judaism and it should have been obvious but we get too distracted by non-essentials.  We always hear that Conservative Judaism is doing poorly.  You know what: Judaism the world over is doing poorly. A tradition this old and this rich should hold greater sway over the people it supposedly serves.  Our Judaism and our humanism need to reconnect, and they can, but only if we start talking about the stuff that really touches us.  We will soon discover how the wisdom of the ages as found in our sacred texts can put us back onto the path of righteousness.  I look forward to hearing from you this week.
                Shanah Tovah, everyone.