June 14, 2013 | 9:22 am

Sinai and American Efforts for Peace - D’var Torah Hukat

Posted by Rabbi John Rosove

In this week’s Torah portion Hukat, Miriam dies and the people complain bitterly that there’s no water (Numbers 20:3-5). God tells him to take his rod and order the rock to produce water. But Moses, old and weary, instead of ordering the rock, strikes it with his rod. Though the people drink God punishes Moses from ever entering the Promised Land.

Talmudic sages said that Moses’ faith wasn’t strong enough, that because he failed to sanctify God in the sight of the people God deemed him unworthy to lead them into Canaan.

RAMBAM explained that Moses lacked compassion, that because the people were on the verge of death from thirst he should have spoken kindly to them instead of with words of rebuke.

Others say that in losing his temper Moses lost his moral authority to be leader.

And some say that because Moses claimed credit for the miracle of the water without acknowledging God, the Almighty denied him what he dreamed for most.

And there’s yet another explanation.

Earlier at Massah and Meribah (Exodus 17) the people also had complained of their dire thirst. Similar to our portion God told Moses to take his rod, but this time to hit the rock instead of speaking to it.

Why? What was different then vs now?

The answer is that Sinai intervened between the two events. There, at that lowly mountain God sought a new way for the people, to erase the experience of slavery, to create a new people in which force would yield to reason, physical strength to law, violence to dialogue and compassion.

God intended that a new age was to begin, the messianic age, and Moses was to be the Messiah. However, when Moses hit the rock instead of speaking to it, he showed the people that Sinai had actually changed nothing, that God was just a more powerful Pharaoh with bigger magic and greater violence.

In a modern midrash on the “Waters of Meribah,” Rabbi Marc Gelman writes movingly of what God intended for the people, then and now (Learn Torah with…Vol. 5, Number 16, January 30, 1999, edited by Joel Lurie Grishaver and Rabbi Stuart Kelman):

"When my people enters the land you shall not enter with them, but neither shall I. I shall only allow a part of my presence to enter the land with them. The abundance of my presence I shall keep outside the land. The exiled part shall be called my Shekhinah and it shall remind the people that I too am in exile. I too am a divided presence in the world, and that I shall only be whole again on that day when the power of the fist vanishes forever from the world. Only on that day will I be one. Only on that day will my name be one. Only on that day Moses, shall we enter the land together. Only on that day Moses, shall the waters of Meribah become the flowing waters of justice and the everlasting stream of righteousness gushing forth from my holy mountain where all people shall come and be free at last."

Turning to the present, we ask how we can apply the message of Sinai to the most challenging problem facing the Jewish people - the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Sinai teaches that the power of the fist must give way to a vision of Oneness, and that vision requires us as American Jews to publicly support our own American effort led by President Obama and Secretary Kerry to help the Israelis and Palestinians resolve their conflict diplomatically in two states for two peoples living side by side in peace and security.

The status quo in which Israel occupies another people is morally, religiously and practically unsustainable. Israel will lose its soul, its democracy and/or its Jewish majority if it continues to occupy millions of Palestinians.

Israel must be helped to choose and the Palestinians must be helped to choose a new way that leads our two peoples and two nations towards acceptance of the other and a peaceful resolution of this conflict. The extremists on both sides need to be contained and controlled. Each side will need to make significant compromises for the sake of peace.

It will not be easy, but that, I believe, is the greater meaning of Sinai and we ignore it at our own peril.

Theodor Herzl said more than a century ago when envisioning a State for the Jewish people -  Im tirtzu, ein zo agadah – If you will it, it is not a dream!

If Israel and the Palestinians will it, peace is also not a dream.

June 11, 2013 | 7:31 am

Vocally Support the American Effort to Reach a Two-State Solution Now

Posted by Rabbi John Rosove

Those who say that PA President Abbas' constant refusal to sit down with PM Netanyahu without preconditions to restart negotiations for a two-state solution is an indication that he and the Palestinians are not able or willing to make peace is not the entire story.

When Israeli government leaders like Likud MK Danny Danon make statements that the government of Israel does not support a two-state solution, we have to understand that the Palestinians can legitimately argue that Israel too (at this point) is not a real partner for peace despite Bibi saying he is for a two-state solution.

Further, When PM Netanyahu insists that the Palestinians accept Israel as a "Jewish state" (which raises all kinds of problems internally including what "Jewish" means and who decides, and that such a designation excludes 20% of Israel's non-Jewish population) as opposed to the "Democratic state of the Jewish people" (which includes all Jews and every other non-Jewish citizen) Palestinians can legitimately argue that he is throwing obstacles in the way of finding a two-state solution.

Remember that no Israeli Prime Minister before Bibi ever made the demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a "Jewish state." The PLO and PA have recognized the state of Israel, but not with any more specificity than that - and why is it even necessary if a secure two-state deal can be reached? Israel will define itself. All that is necessary from the outside is that it recognize Israel - and that has already occurred and it will be affirmed when a two-state deal is made.

The Palestinians claim that they have no partner for peace in the Israeli government. Some Israelis claim they have no partner for peace among the Palestinians. There is truth in both claims. It is a mistake to lay all the blame on one side.

There has been a powerful silence among all American Jewish organizations in support of the Obama-Kerry mission except the Union for Reform Judaism and J Street. Why is that? I suggest that far too many of our organizational leaders are being led by cynicism and fear.

That negativity will not bring us closer to a secure two-state solution, which is in America's best interest, Israel's best interest, and the Palestinian's best interest. Rather, we need to be supporting Secretary Kerry vocally, letting the Obama administration as well as our senators and congressional representatives know of our support (call and email them all) and let the American effort take its course. Indeed, we will know in the next 2 to 4 weeks what success, if any, this American effort will have.

Even former Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has said that Israel cannot afford for this American diplomatic effort to fail.

I ask that those who have already decided that a two-state solution is not possible to ask themselves what is the alternative - one state that loses Israel's Jewish character or an endless occupation that loses Israel's democratic character?

Time is not on Israel's side, and the only way to secure Israel's future as a democracy with a Jewish majority is in a two-state solution. If you love Israel as a democracy and the state of the Jewish people, this is the ONLY alternative.

Let your representatives know how you feel and support everything the American government can do to promote a diplomatic and peaceful resolution to this age-old conflict that results in two states for two peoples.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

June 7, 2013 | 9:35 am

The Inner Korach - Then and Now

Posted by Rabbi John Rosove

The Wall Street Journal/NBC News published a poll this week reporting on the public’s approval rating of President Obama with special focus on his administration’s honesty and integrity in light of the Benghazi investigation, the IRS scandal and Drone attacks. The President currently enjoys a 48% approval rating and 47% disapproval, about what it was two months ago, largely along partisan lines but indicating a drop in approval among independent voters.

Sadly, there are many others in Washington who do not do nearly as well in the polls. The approval ratings for members of Congress as a whole have suffered dramatically in recent years into the low double digits not only because that august body has become so dysfunctional, but also because too many of our representatives refuse to compromise and find solutions to the nation’s many problems. Rather, they act more consistent with the laws of the jungle and abide by the philosophy that ends justify means, might makes right, cynicism trumps hope, and power is an ultimate “good.”

There are, of course, many decent servant-leaders in Washington and around the country who, despite formidable obstacles, seek to do well and work diligently on behalf of the common good.

This week’s Torah portion Korach considers both kinds of leaders as it tells the story of a major rebellion led by Korach and 250 Israelite leaders. 

Korach was the first cousin of Moses and Aaron (Ex 6:18-21), a member of the priestly class and part of the ruling elite. The leaders around him are described as “Princes of the congregation, the elect men of the assembly, men of renown.” (Numbers 16:2) The Talmud says of them “that they had a name recognized in the whole world.” (Bavli, Sanhedrin 110a).

Despite his elevated status Korach wasn’t satisfied. He challenged Aaron’s exclusive right to the priesthood, and his cohorts Dathan and Abiram questioned Moses’ leadership. Korach's goal was to unseat the divinely chosen leaders, and he appealed to the people to overthrow them using religious language and espousing the importance of rotating leaders in office, all of whom were equally worthy.

“And they assembled themselves together against Moses and … Aaron, and said [to them], ‘You take too much upon yourself, seeing that all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them.’”

In actuality, Korach and his minions were not democrats at all; they were demagogues who manipulated and incited the masses for their narrow self-interests.

Rabbi Moshe Weiler, the founder of liberal Judaism in South Africa, has written that “Theirs [i.e. Korach and his cohorts] was the pursuit of kavod, honor and power, in the guise of sanctity and love of the masses.”

Onkolos (2nd century C.E.), in his Aramaic translation of the two opening words of the portion, Vayikach Korach (“And Korach took”) wrote It'peleg Korach (“And Korach separated himself”), suggesting that he did not consider himself to be one with the people nor was he interested in serving their interests.

Korach sought power for power’s sake and he ignited a controversy based on ignoble motivations and nefarious goals leading to the devastation of the community. In the end, the earth swallowed the rebels alive and sent them to Sheol in a spectacular inferno. (Numbers 16:31-35)

Korach’s eish ha-mach’loket (“fire of controversy”) became an eish o-che-lah (“a devouring fire”) that augured doom.

“The Sayings of the Sages” (5:21) reflects upon Korach’s rebellion and distinguishes between two very different kinds of controversy. The first is healthy and useful, pursued for the sake of heaven (l’shem shamayim) that brings about blessing and a stronger community. The second is a pernicious fight not based on lasting values and brings about disunity and destruction. Hillel and Shammai (1st century BCE) embodied the former, and Korach and his legions the latter.

Korach was essentially a cynic. Moses was the opposite, the humble servant-leader.

Who are we? Do we resonate with the voice of Korach or the spirit of Moses?

Who are our leaders? Are they interested only in power or in the common good?

Rabbi Rachel Cowan opines that though every individual may, indeed, aspire to be like Moses, Korach lives within our hearts too.

In thinking about ourselves and our leaders, the words of Maimonides remind us of the importance of pursuing higher virtue:

“The ideal public leader is one who holds seven attributes: wisdom, humility, reverence, loathing of money, love of truth, love of humanity, and a good name.” (Hilchot Sanhedrin 2:7)

Shabbat shalom!

0 Comments — Leave your comment

June 6, 2013 | 7:13 am

Secretary Kerry’s Speech and J Street’s Open Letter to the American Jewish Community

Posted by Rabbi John Rosove

Earlier this week, Secretary of State John Kerry gave a powerful and important speech at the American Jewish Committee conference, calling on American Jews to make their voices heard in support for negotiation efforts and a two-state solution. The speech was not given much attention from Jewish groups, but I, as a co-chair of the J Street Rabbinic Cabinet, believe that it is important to elevate Kerry’s call and to make sure that our community is vocally supporting Kerry’s efforts in the Middle East.

In that vein, J Street has released an open letter to the American Jewish community, which I hope will be circulated and read by many in an effort to galvanize support for a reinvigorated peace effort. The text of the letter can be found here.

The next few weeks provide a critical window of opportunity to do all that can be done to ensure that negotiations move ahead. I urge you to use this open letter as a jumping off point to encourage to your rabbis, synagogue leadership, friends and communities to vocally and actively support Secretary Kerry’s efforts.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

June 5, 2013 | 10:13 am

Blessings For Beloved Pets - Part II

Posted by Rabbi John Rosove

This past week I posted a blog on whether Jews should say the Mourner's Kaddish for a beloved pet. I have received many responses to that blog both in agreement with me that distinctions must be made between human beings and pets and that the Mourner's Kaddish is meant for mourners to say for parents, spouses, siblings, and children only, and in disagreement that since the Mourner's Kaddish affirms God in life that it is appropriate to say the Kaddish for a pet. Though I do not agree with this position, I am sympathetic, which leads me to post now these two blessings.

The first is my blessing when a beloved pet dies. The second was written by the famed scientist and humanitarian Albert Schweitzer.

A Blessing on the Death of a Beloved Pet

Eternal God of Creation:
I am grateful to have enjoyed the gift of _______ (pet name)
Now that he/she has passed from this life.

Give me the strength and courage to cope with my heart-ache and loss.
Despite my grief, I am thankful that my beloved companion no longer suffers.
________ will live in my heart and memory as a dear companion of my soul.
As he/she enriched my life with love and devotion,
May I show similar care for the lives of all your creatures.

May he/she be at peace. Amen.

A Blessing to End the Suffering of Animals - by Albert Schweitzer

Hear our humble prayer, O God,
for our friends, the animals,
especially for those who are suffering;
for animals that are overworked,
underfed, and cruelly treated;
for all the wistful creatures in captivity,
that beat their wings against bars;
for any that are hunted or lost or deserted,
or frightened or hungry.

We entreat for them all
Yours and our compassion,
and for those who deal with them,
we ask a heart of mercy
and gentle hands and kindly words.

Make us, ourselves,
to be true friends to animals
and so to share
the blessings of the Merciful.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

June 2, 2013 | 7:44 am

A Poem About “Love”

Posted by Rabbi John Rosove

I have read this wondrous poem very infrequently at weddings over the years. I offer it only to couples who I sense have attained a special depth of camaraderie uncommon even for those who feel great love for each other.

The poem reflects a depth of generosity, humility, gratitude, kindness, tenderheartedness, acceptance, and understanding of oneself in relationship to the "Other" that could well be the standard towards which every individual aspires with his/her beloved. Though some young couples attain such a relationship by the time they come to the chupah, it often takes many years to realize and understand the poet’s deeper sentiments.

This is among my most favorite wedding poems. I have cited its origins as written in Wikipedia below. 

I love you
Not only for what you are,
But for what I am when I am with you.

I love you,
Not only for what you have made of yourself,
But for what you are making of me.

I love you
For the part of me that you bring out;
I love you
For putting your hand into my heaped-up heart
And passing over all the foolish, weak things
That you can't help dimly seeing there,
And for drawing out into the light
All the beautiful belongings
That no one else had looked quite far enough to find.

I love you because you
Are helping me to make of the lumber of my life
Not a tavern but a Temple,
Out of the works of my every day
Not a reproach but a song.

I love you
Because you have done more than any creed
Could have done
To make me good,
And more than any fate could have done
To make me happy.

You have done it
Without a touch,
Without a word,
Without a sign.

You have done it
By being yourself.
Perhaps that is what
Being a friend means,
After all.

From Wikipedia on the origins of this poem and the “poet” named “Roy Croft.”

"This poem, which is commonly used in wedding speeches and readings and is quoted frequently (attributed to Roy Croft), is nearly identical in meaning to a German-language poem titled Ich liebe Dich ("I Love You") and composed by Austrian poet Erich Fried; the main difference is that Croft's version stops at the third-from-last line of Fried's poem, with the effect that Fried's poem contains two final lines for which Croft's version has no equivalent. Croft's version appears without further attribution in The Family Book of Best Loved Poems, edited by David L. George and published in 1952 by Doubleday & Company, Inc., then of Garden City, New York.

The poem "Love" was included in a 1936 anthology entitled "Best Loved Poems of American People" edited by a Hazel Felleman, and published by Doubleday. This would seem to imply that regardless of the origins of Mr. Croft, that Erich Fried in fact appropriated the poem himself and translated it into German, as he would have been only 15 in 1936. Seeing as the book was a compilation of best loved American poems, it is hard to see how he could be the author."

0 Comments — Leave your comment

May 30, 2013 | 4:09 pm

Should Jews Say Kaddish For A Pet?

Posted by Rabbi John Rosove

Photo by Wikipedia.

It is estimated that there are 70 million dogs in American homes today, in addition to millions of other animals Americans have taken into their hearts like members of their families. These pets are our companions and friends, and though they are not human beings, their significance cannot be underestimated in the lives of those who love them.

As a dog-lover myself, I understand the depth of connection and love that we can experience with a pet, as if souls are touching souls, and hearts are touching hearts, sweetly, purely, singularly, constantly, and joyfully. Therefore, when a beloved pet dies, I understand the sadness and grief that comes with the loss.

Last week a member of my congregation had to "put down" his very sick cancerous dog of 14 years, and he was devastated. He came to Shabbat services and asked me if it was appropriate for him to say the Mourner’s Kaddish publicly for his dog. This is how he described that unique relationship in his life:

“He was not only my friend and companion; my dog was an integral part of my family and, at times, my only family. When I first saw him in his litter, he was the puppy who got the most excited and wanted to come home with me. He was like a child, and I always felt that he looked at me not only as his master and caretaker, but as a parent. He trusted me as a puppy, as a dog in his prime, and in his last months when he suffered most from his cancer. Putting him down was extremely difficult, and I mourn him deeply.”

Please understand what I am about to say, especially if you have a relationship with a pet like my congregant’s relationship with his dog. Pets are not human beings. They are not our “children.” Yes, they are companions and dear to us (as my dog is to me), but there obviously are significant distinctions between human beings and the rest of the animal kingdom.

Judaism places high value on the compassionate treatment of animals. Beginning in Genesis, tradition affirms that animals, like humans, have a “soul” (i.e. nefesh chayah) though they lack a “higher soul” (i.e. n’shamah). In the Talmud there is a category of law called Tzaar Baalei Chayim (“Concerning the suffering of living creatures”) the main focus of which is to prevent the suffering of animals and to treat them kindly and with dignity and respect.

Understanding that many of us feel strongly about our pets and some feel more connected with their pets than they do with people, the Mourner’s Kaddish is meant to be said in memory of human beings, not animals. To say Kaddish out loud the way we would for a deceased parent, spouse, sibling, or child blurs distinctions between us and the rest of creation and is not a Jewish response no matter how liberal we may be.

And so I gently told my congregant that it is inappropriate to say Kaddish publicly for his dog. If he wishes to remember his dog when Kaddish is said, he should do so, but privately.

That being said, people whose pets die have a legitimate need to mourn and grieve their loss. There are many appropriate ways of doing this. Mourners can arrange for burial of their pet in a pet cemetery. Friends and family should reach out with sensitivity and love to mourners. Mourners might contribute charity to shelters that sustain animals until owners can be found, or contribute to organizations that advocate on behalf of the humane treatment of animals.

To my friend, I expressed my sorrow and understanding.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

May 29, 2013 | 10:15 am

The Kotel in 1911 Had No Mechitzah

Posted by Rabbi John Rosove

A member of my congregation, Peter Marcus, has shared with me film footage taken by his uncle, Murray Rosenberg, a newsreel photographer, in 1911 when he visited Palestine. The entire film is worth watching, but the relevant footage at the Kotel (Western Wall in Jerusalem) begins at about the 19 minute mark (the film is courtesy of the Spielberg archive).

The film shows clearly that men and women prayed side by side at the Kotel a hundred years ago, without controversy.

The Western Wall was never considered an "orthodox synagogue" until the late 1960s when the plaza was cleared and a mechitzah (divider between men and women) was erected.

The most recent behavior of the Hareidim against "Women of the Wall" (WOW) who wish nothing except to pray and read Torah on Rosh Hodesh (the orthodox spit on the women, throw chairs, scream slanderous epithets, and behave like spoiled toddlers) is a source of shame to the Jewish people at this holiest site in Judaism.

0 Comments — Leave your comment