Support for Anat Hoffman & Women of the Wall

In Jerusalem, at the Western Wall aka the Kotel, a Jewish woman was arrested last week for the crime of singing the Shema, i.e., praying. Her name is Anat Hoffman. She is currently the Director of the Israel Religious Action Center aka IRAC.

Click to learn what is actually illegal according to Israeli law

Background to the issue of a pluralistic group of women praying at the Wall may be found here.
There is also a 2009 story in the NY Times here.
An American perspective from the Jewish Journal may be found here.

Here are some links to the latest part of the struggle for egalitarian status in prayer at this site:

Why I was arrested for praying at the Western Wall via Huffington Post
Anat Hoffman after arrest in Haaretz
Police shackle Anat Hoffman for saying Sh'ma at the Kotel by Debra Nussbaum Cohen in the Jewish Daily Forward

Rabbi Laura Geller talks about Anat and Henrietta Szold
A view from the Velveteen Rabbi
Who has the right to pray at the Western Wall by Rabbi Daniel Brenner
What is the textual source of Kol Isha? by Rabbi Judith Abrams

There was a live webcast with Anat this evening. The most popular question for her was - how may we help to support her and the work of Women of the Wall? She replied with the following suggestions:

1.  sign the petition to liberate the Wall on the IRAC website.  The link is here.
2.  visit the Women of the Wall website
3.  buy the WOW tallit - Anat used some of the funds to pay her legal fees, and said that she loved the idea that the subversive act of wearing a tallit also supports the struggle in Israel
4.  Organise a Rosh Chodesh service outside the Israeli consulate in your home town
5.  Write your sentiments in the Jewish and the Israeli press
6.  Persuade your Israeli relatives to vote for measures to change the situation in Israel
7.  Donate financially whatever you can!

@kungfujew18 trawled the Twitterverse for us to bring this selection of Tweets sent during the webchat

You can join in also via projects such as
Hear O Israel: The Global Sh'ma Flashmob
Reclaim and Liberate the Kotel

btw, there were two other women arrested alongside Anat!

It Gets Better!

My friends and I at KeshetUK spent most of yesterday filming and editing some vids to add to the collection under the banner of 'It Gets Better'. We were talking specifically to LGBT Jews, but I do hope the message speaks to many more. Here is my contribution:

Have a look at the others too ... and more will be uploaded as we receive them. It really does get better!

scratch my back and i'll scratch yours?

last week in the weekly column of john allen jr posted on the national catholic reporter conversation cafe, he interviewed cardinal francis george from chicago. one of the highlights allen notes from the discussion that took place on the second of october was:

"George said the American bishops have asked for clarification from the Vatican as to whether the pre-Vatican II rite can be used during Holy Week, a question made acute by a controversial Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews; If the old rite can be used in Holy Week, George said, a more positive prayer for the Jews from the new liturgy will "probably" be substituted for the old one - though at the same time, George said, this discussion could also be an occasion to ask Jews to renounce unflattering depictions of Jesus in the Talmud"

actual excerpts from the interview follow, which you may read here. they include some discussion of the recent broadening of permission the pope has given for the celebration of the pre-vatican ii latin mass. this includes the liturgy for good friday which has a prayer in it calling for the conversion of the jews. the part of the cardinal's response that stands out for me is this:

"Of course it can be done (changing the text of the prayer), and I suspect it probably will be, because the intention is to be sure that our prayers are not offensive to the Jewish people who are our ancestors in the faith. We can't possibly insult them in our liturgy … Not that any group has a veto on anybody's prayers, because you can go through Jewish texts and find material that is offensive to us. But if we're interested in keeping the dialogue strong, and we have to be, we should be very cautious about any prayer that they find insulting. 'They,' however, is a big tent. What my Jewish rabbi friend down the block finds insulting is different from what Abraham Foxman [national director of the Anti-Defamation League] finds insulting. Also, it does work both ways. Maybe this is an opening to say, 'Would you care to look at some of the Talmudic literature's description of Jesus as a bastard, and so on, and maybe make a few changes in some of that?'"

apples and oranges for me. in the cause of interfaith relations, there may be a place for some discussion of jewish terms for jesus in the talmud. however, those passages in the talmud are not public prayers that are part of the liturgy of a worship service. we do not sit in synagogue and refer to jesus as a bastard. in fact, if it were not for the unfortunate history between our two faith traditions, we would not refer to jesus at all since he is utterly irrelevant to either our theology or our philosophy. so i think the cardinal's response is a bit disingenuous. it tries to shift the focus of the issue away from the public catholic religious practice of a particular prayer that denies the jewish people the right to their own identity.

then there is the lovely headline in today's telegraph: Call for Jews to stop calling Jesus a bastard. hmmmmm.

same-sex unions in the ukraine

i cannot find the link anymore, but i saved this article from the jta:

ACROSS THE FORMER SOVIET UNION
Jewish community leader in Ukraine resigns over issue of same-sex unions
By Vladimir Matveyev

"Ukraine, Oct. 3 (JTA) —- The resignation of a longtime leader of one of the largest Reform congregations in Ukraine has thrown the spotlight on a bitter controversy over homosexuality within the post-Soviet Reform movement. Boris Kapustin, 70, founder and chairman of the Reform congregation in the Crimean town of Kerch, quit his post in September. While Ukrainian Reform leaders cite Kapustin’s age and health concerns as reasons for his resignation, Kapustin told JTA his resignation stemmed from his opposition to the movement’s acceptance of same-sex commitment ceremonies.

“I don’t want to participate in a movement that has organized a chupah for lesbians, which happened in Moscow this year,” Kapustin said. He was referring to Rabbi Nelly Shulman, who officiated at an April 2 commitment ceremony for a lesbian couple. It is believed to be the first Jewish, same-sex commitment ceremony in the former Soviet Union. A strong backlash greeted the move by Shulman, who insisted she officiated at the ceremony on her own private initiative and was not backed in any way by her group, OROSIR, the umbrella organization of Reform Judaism in Russia. In a strongly worded statement, the Chabad-led Federation of Jewish Communities, the largest stream in the former Soviet Union, urged a boycott of the Reform movement.

There were also repercussions within the Progressive movement, as Reform Judaism is referred to in the region. In late April, Zinovy Kogan resigned as chairman of the movement’s Moscow-based umbrella group. In August, a Reform congregation in the Ukrainian town of Pavlograd wrote to all Reform synagogues in the country, urging them to “renounce all religious contacts with the people who committed that crime,” a reference to the lesbian ceremony. Responding to the wave of criticism from their communities, the six Reform rabbis working in Ukraine, Russia and Belarus have agreed to ban such ceremonies for the time being, saying that post-Soviet citizens, including Jews, are not yet prepared to accept the Reform movement’s liberal approach to homosexuality.

Homosexuality was only decriminalized after the fall of the Soviet Union 15 years ago. According to a recent poll, 37 percent of Russians still believe gays and lesbians should be criminally prosecuted.

Rabbi Alexander Dukhovny, the Kiev-based leader of the Reform movement in Ukraine, said that Reform Jews who criticize the ceremony “completely misunderstand Reform Judaism, which teaches tolerance and respect toward the choice of each and every individual.” Nevertheless, when Dukhovny is approached by same-sex couples who want to arrange such a ceremony, “I tell them that neither our community nor society is ready for this.”

Esfir Mikhailova, recently appointed as Kapustin’s successor in Kerch, refused to speculate on this aspect of Kapustin’s resignation. “At our board meeting, Kapustin told us he decided to retire because of his age and problems with health,” Mikhailova said. Dukhovny praised Kapustin’s role in building a “strong congregation” in this Crimean town of 160,000.

The Kerch Progressive congregation, which Kapustin founded in 1997, has 1,000 members, virtually all the town’s Jews and their families. It is considered a leading light among the 70-odd Reform communities in the former Soviet Union. A retired Soviet navy officer, Kapustin is credited by many local Jews with building a strong and unified Jewish community. That is a rarity in a region where Jewish life is often plagued by infighting among Chabad, non-Chabad Orthodox and Reform groups. Also rare is the congregation’s monopoly over local Jewish life. Kerch is one of a handful of Reform communities anywhere in the former Soviet Union that owns its own building, a 19th-century synagogue returned to them as part of a government program of religious property restitution. The community restored the building and reopened it in 2001. Chabad does not have a presence in the town. “This is one of the largest, and the best functioning, congregations in Ukraine,” said Alexander Gaydar, executive director of the Association of Progressive Jewish Congregations of Ukraine. The congregation runs religious and cultural, educational and charitable programs, youth and women’s clubs, a senior center, a family Sunday school, a Jewish museum and a theater group, with funds from the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee.

Almost everyone in the Kerch community credits Kapustin’s leadership for their congregation’s success. Kapustin’s son, Rabbi Mikhail Kapustin, 26, was ordained a year ago at the Leo Baeck College in London. The youngest of the six Reform rabbis in the former Soviet Union, he serves the Reform congregation in Kkarkov, Ukraine’s second-largest city. Neither he nor Reform Jews in Kerch believe the elder Kapustin’s resignation will harm the congregation he built. “Boris Kapustin has retired, but he built a good basis for the congregation, which will continue to develop,” Dukhovny said."

The Jewish school where half the pupils are Muslim

Just found this article in today's Independent newspaper. King David is a parochial school, and all the students learn Hebrew and say the Shema every day. The food is kosher and the educational standards are high, and Muslim parents are moving into the catchment area to give their children a chance of attending. The article ends with a quote from a local rabbi:

""King David School is amazing," says Rabbi Tann. "The reason I think it works well is that racism is engendered entirely by adults. Children don't have it within themselves. Their natural mode is to play happily with everyone. It's only when adults say, 'Don't play with him, he's black, or don't have anything to do with him, he's Muslim, that troubles begin.'

"We never have any racial or inter-faith problems at all. Not ever. In 20 years here, it's simply never happened in any significant way. We teach that if you don't like someone, you avoid them. Don't play with them. Go to the other side of the playground. I believe that if more people followed the lead of King David School, we'd have a much more peaceful world.""

Is it so simplistic to think that this kind of thing may be part of the answer?

the 'sky torah'

can't believe i missed it - the party at jfk to welcome the first ever torah that will travel the sky. unfortunately, i was just finishing a therapy session and was far too vulnerable and too far away. here is one version of the pr release:

" Israir Airlines Introduces the 'Sky-Torah'

First Ever Torah Scroll to Fly the Skies - Grand Welcome Parade and Celebration at JFK

VALLEY STREAM, N.Y., Dec. 27 /PRNewswire/ -- Israir Airlines will soon become the first airline to maintain an authentic Torah Scroll on board its aircraft. The "Sky-Torah," handwritten according to Jewish custom by a professional Jewish Scribe especially for the airline, is the first of its kind. The Torah will enhance the prayers of those who are in the skies, praying in the closest place to God in the world. Keeping a traditional Torah Scroll*, on an aircraft is the idea of Rabbi Shlomo Elharar, Chief Rabbi of Colombia, South America. After years of hard work towards this dream, the Torah is finally ready to be installed permanently on board one of Israir's aircrafts.

The Torah will be completed December 27 in Aventura, Florida, and will be escorted to JFK Airport in New York for a welcome celebration, and then to Israel. The Torah will be welcomed on its way to Israel with a grand celebration in JFK Airport, Terminal 4, December 28, 12:00 pm. The Torah will be carried under a traditional "chuppah," with singing, dancing, live music, children and important Rabbis and dignitaries in attendance. The Torah is dedicated to the Chief Rabbi of Colombia and to the fallen soldiers of Israel, and those still in captivity."

why have a scroll on a plane? yahoo says:

"The Torah will be housed in a compartment on the plane and will be accessible through a flight attendant."

do you think people are going to read from it? i'd be interested to see hakkafah, hagba and glilah at 35,000 feet :-)

a little teshuvah from the conservative movement

the latest news from the conservative movement of judaism in the usa is that it has accepted a teshuvah permitting same-sex ceremonies and the ordination of lesbian/gay people.

WOW!
&
HURRAH!!

a perspective from ha-aretz newspaper as an early response:

"Rosner's Blog
Shmuel Rosner Chief U.S. Correspondent
The abomination debate: Jewish conservatives on the verge of a new era

Twenty-five Conservative rabbis began a thorny debate yesterday on the place of homosexuals in their movement. The debate will continue today, in the hopes of reaching a decision, but regardless, a press conference has been called for noon. Rabbi Joel Meyers, executive vice president of the Rabbinical Assembly, said he finds it hard to believe that a decision will once again be postponed, as it was when the assembly first discussed the issue several months ago. The rabbis must decide: Can homosexuals become Conservative rabbis and cantors? Can Conservative rabbis conduct same-sex commitment ceremonies? (Update: the Movement's Committee on Jewish Law and Standards allowed the Movement's seminaries to ordain openly gay and lesbian rabbis and cantors)

The Conservative Movement - once the largest Jewish movement in America, but now steadily shrinking - has been debating the issue for some time. In 1992, it rejected proposals for homosexual equality, but since then, the pressure has intensified. The problem, explained one Rabbinical Assembly member, is how to explain rabbinic decisions to Conservative laymen, many of whom "don't understand the halakhic issues involved. They live in a liberal society, and they simply want us to change the laws, just as America changed its laws to give homosexuals equal rights."

Anne Kaiser is one of those who favor such a change. Not that she wants to be a rabbi - she likes her job as a Maryland state legislator, to which she was reelected last month as an avowed lesbian. And she said that her rabbi gave her to understand that she and her partner could hold a commitment ceremony in the synagogue, regardless. Nevertheless, she would like to see it official.

For opponents, however, such a radical break with tradition is not only unacceptable, it could also even be grounds for leaving the movement. This is the most divisive debate the movement has experienced since its debate 30 years ago over equality for women.

Rabbi Joel Roth, who formulated the movement's 1992 opinion against any change in the status of homosexuals, said at the time he simply could not identify any halakhic loophole that would permit such a change - and because the Conservative Movement defines itself as a halakhic movement, such a decision would require some basis in the religious sources.

"An inability to legitimate homosexuality halakhically makes no negative claim whatsoever about the humanity, sanctity, worth and dignity of homosexuals," he stressed in a lecture on the subject. But the Torah's blunt statement on homosexual relations - that a man lying with another man as he would lie with a woman is an "abomination" (Leviticus 18:22) - leaves no wriggle room, say Roth's adherents.

The Rabbinical Assembly's Committee on Jewish Laws and Standards that will vote today in New York, however, is not that of 1992: Only nine of its 25 members are the same. Meyers said the current committee maintains a balance between "liberals" and "conservatives," but acknowledged that the generational change might also have changed the meaning of these terms, which in turn could result in a different outcome at today's vote.

Opponents of Roth's view argue that the Torah prohibition, as well as subsequent rulings by the rabbis, related to a different time and a different type of homosexuality. The Torah, they say, banned what existed then, but could not have banned today's homosexuality, because the current incarnation of same-sex relations is an invention of the modern world.

"Sex, in antiquity, was an activity, not an orientation," explained Rabbi Bradley Artson, one of the advocates of this view. "The meaning of the activity was determined by its context. In the case of same gender sex, that context was always one that treated a human being as an object, or [one] of oppression." And that, he argues, differs from today's model of consensual, caring, same-sex relationships.

"The rabbis were never at a loss for ways to transform or circumvent a biblical institution when later on it came to be viewed as ethically unjustifiable," added Rabbi Howard Handler.

Five different rabbinical opinions have been submitted to the committee for consideration, ranging from no change through limited rights to complete equality for homosexuals. This gives the panel some room to maneuver, and the prevailing view is that it will opt for a compromise: It will adopt one opinion that forbids homosexual ordination and same-sex commitment ceremonies, and another that permits them.

The rules make such an outcome possible: The committee requires a majority of 13 to adopt a binding ruling, but only six votes in favor are needed to adopt a "responsum" - defined as one possible interpretation of a halakhic issue, but not the only one. Thus the committee is widely expected to adopt two contradictory responsa but no binding ruling. That way, each Conservative congregation could decide for itself. "

a slightly later report from the houston chronicle has more details:

"Conservative Jewish leaders ease gay rabbi ban
Three differing policies leave the final decision to local synagogues

By RACHEL ZOLL
Associated Press

NEW YORK — A panel of rabbis gave permission Wednesday for same-sex commitment ceremonies and ordination of gays within Conservative Judaism, a wrenching change for a movement that occupies the middle ground between orthodoxy and liberalism in Judaism.

The complicated decision by the Conservatives Movement's Committee on Jewish Law and Standards leaves it up to individual seminaries whether to ordain gay rabbis and gives individual rabbis the option of sanctioning same-sex unions.

Like many Protestant denominations, Conservative Jews are divided over homosexuality: torn between the Hebrew scriptures' condemnation of it as an "abomination" and a desire to encourage same-sex couples to form long-lasting, monogamous relationships.

Reform Judaism, the largest branch of the faith in the U.S., has ordained gay men and lesbians since 1990 and has allowed rabbis to perform same-sex commitment ceremonies since 2000. Orthodox Judaism does not countenance same-sex unions or the ordination of gays.

After years of discussion and two days of intense debate behind closed doors at a synagogue on Park Avenue, the law committee accepted three teshuvot, or answers, to the question of whether Jewish law allows homosexual sex. Two answers uphold the status quo, forbidding homosexuality.

But a third allows same-sex ceremonies and ordination of gay men and lesbians, while maintaining a ban on anal sex.

Four of the law committee's 25 members resigned in protest of the decision.

It takes the votes of six panel members to declare an answer to be valid. Thirteen members voted in favor of allowing gay ordination and same-sex ceremonies, and 13 voted against — meaning that at least one rabbi voted for both positions."

the worst of times

what issue brings together jews and muslims? according to the times today it is homophobia:

"Jews and Muslims unite against homosexuals

By Tim Butcher in Jerusalem
Last Updated: 2:24am GMT 07/11/2006

Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem have found common ground in their fierce opposition to a gay rights rally due to be held in the city this week.

Ultra-orthodox Jews burn rubbish yesterday during a protest against the rally in Jerusalem in support of homosexuals’ rights
Leaders from both faiths have united to denounce the parade, which has prompted nights of street protest by ultra-orthodox Jews, who regard homosexuality as an "abomination", and death threats against those taking part.

After Israeli police found and defused a bomb bearing the message "sodomites out", orders were given for 12,000 officers to deploy across Jerusalem during the march, which is planned for Friday. Last night, lawyers from both sides were wrangling at the High Court over whether the parade should be allowed to take place and, if so, where. With the court expected to convene another hearing today, it appeared that the parade would take place but at a new location near the parliament, a safe distance from orthodox neighbourhoods.

The issue of the parade is generating more media coverage than the Israeli military incursion into Gaza, which has left more than 50 Palestinians dead.

The city's Islamic leadership is opposed to the parade, with Tayseer Tamimi, the head of the Palestinian supreme council of Sharia litigation, leading Muslim opposition. "This march tries to destroy the moral and spiritual values for youths," he said. "All religions discredit gays because it is against the decent human nature created by God."

Ultra-orthodox Jews have protested for three nights, setting up burning barricades and throwing rocks at police. Thirty protesters were arrested and six policemen hurt as water cannon was deployed to put out fires and disperse crowds.

"This isn't the gay pride parade but the disgrace parade," said Yaakov Cohen, an MP from the United Torah Judaism party. Ben Yizri, an MP for the ultra-orthodox Shas party, part of Israel's ruling coalition, said: "We believe God will be very upset."

Homosexuality was legalised in Israel 18 years ago, but gay rights campaigners said many homosexuals were intimidated by Jerusalem's strongly homophobic atmosphere. Noa Satath, of Open House, the group planning the parade, said it marked an important step in bringing homosexuality "out of the closet" in Jerusalem."

kol hakavod to those who will march, and prayers for their safety. to find out more about the jerusalem open house, click here.

a bit of hope ...

... so after writing my depressed post, i went trawling around my links. do please go look at treppenwitz - he has taught me a lot about tolerance. he might appear to be the kind of jew at the furthest end of the spectrum away from me and towards the right, yet his mind and heart are open. because of this, i am able to listen to him, instead of intolerantly dismissing him immediately.

anyway, this snippet really cheered me up. there is a second story in the post, but you'll have to go to his site to read it :-) the link is on the right.

"Monday, October 16, 2006

Small acts of kindness

[Setting: Standing on line in a bakery on Friday afternoon, casually eavesdropping on two women having a conversation behind me]

Woman 1: I'm running really late today... I wonder if they've already locked the cash registers.

Woman 2: 'Locked the cash registers?' What does that mean... they won't take our money?

W1: Yeah... basically. 30 - 45 minutes before they officially close, the owner goes around to each cash register and locks the drawers... and then goes home. The cashiers have instructions to tell anyone coming after the drawers are locked that they have no way to accept money so whatever the customers have picked out is free.

W2: I don't get it... why would the owner do that?

W1: Don't you see... it's just like in Machane Yehuda [the open air produce market in Jerusalem] where a lot of the vendors who sell perishables slash their prices an hour before closing for shabbat. That way the poor people can 'buy' the things they need for shabbat with dignity... and the vendors basically give things that can't be stored over shabbat to a worthy cause. And because some of the people doing last minute shopping really are simply running late, there is no shame for the poor because nobody knows who is who.

W2: Wait, so you're telling me it's an open secret that poor people come here during the last hour before closing and they get their baked goods for free?

W1: Exactly, only everyone's dignity is protected by the fact that some shoppers are actually running late... and by the owner's little charade of the locked cash registers. This way everyone wins; The owner of the bakery performs a 'hesed' [roughly translates as an act of kindness]... the cashiers get to take part in the act... and the recipients can just as easily be genuinely running late as poor... so there is no embarrassment to anyone at being on the receiving end of the act.

W2: [after a brief pause] Y'know... sometimes I love this country!

[Author's note: Me too!]
Posted by David Bogner on October 16, 2006"

first rabbis ordained in germany since ww2

our friend ruth gledhill writes in the times this week about the ordination of new rabbis by the abraham geiger college.

i know very little about this seminary, and thus can make no comment about it. the article is headed by a fine picture of my godmother, and ends with quotes from an advance copy of the speech she was to make. what jumped off the screen at me was this paragraph:

“Perhaps we will once again see that extraordinary German Jewish symbiosis. Perhaps once again, with these new rabbis, this rebirth, we will see talent spring forth and a capacity for cultural and intellectual endeavour to find a modus vivendi with a religious life that is not orthodox but is demanding.”

o i could cry at that. that is what we grew up with (julia and i). those were the rabbis and the teachers and the relatives and friends that we knew and loved. they are the reason we do what we do today, or try to.

there was a comparable stratum in the american reform movement, but most of them also now are dusty hardbacks sitting on low shelves in synagogue libraries used as dumping grounds for books that don't fit in the house but cannot be thrown away.

o yeah? how many of these guys have you heard of, and what do you know about them?

(randomly picked as first that come to mind) kaufmann kohler? isaac mayer wise? ok, a bit more recently ... abraham cronbach? jacob petuchowski? steven schwarzschild? alex schindler? arnold jacob wolf? eugene borowitz? a. stanley dreyfus?

actually, the first that came to mind for me was my father, but i didn't want to show off *blush*

this is rather depressing, actually. julia gave up the congregational rabbinate many years ago. i can hardly wait to see her next month and talk about the choices i need to be making.

in any case, good luck to the newly-minted ones.

leviticus

thinking about the ways that people interpret the torah after reading about the possibility that the conservative movement in the us might actually start to accept g/b/l/t rabbis, i then came across the following bbc world service broadcast written by my dear father:

"More than thirty years ago, I shared a bed with a Catholic priest and a Methodist minister. It was a small bed-and a long night. Just the same, I would not have forgone that experience for all the tea in China. And we didn't even have tea in that small cottage in Selma, Alabama. We had spent the night in the black ghetto of that town in order to join in the Civil Rights March from Selma to Montgomery. The next morning, I would walk alongside Martin Luther King, the Nobel Prize Laureate Ralph Bunche, and my own teacher and friend Professor Abraham Heschel. It was all part of a statement of support for the persecuted black community in the United States which would be heard and seen throughout the world. But, the night before, we discovered solidarity and religious faith in the family bed of our hosts who insisted that they would sleep on the floor. It meant so much to them to have us as their guests. And it was important to us as well.

What can a rabbi, priest, and minister discuss together on a night like that, when sleep is almost impossible? We should have talked about the shared dream, the hopes to achieve full civil rights for dispossessed and persecuted minorities. Or we could have talked about dangers: during the afternoon, some rifle shots had been sent in my direction. The rednecks roaring by in their car had only intended to scare me; and I could have assured them that they had succeeded in this. But what DID the three of us talk about that night? We talked shop, of course-about the Bible, and how to interpret the sacred texts.

Oddly enough, one text we did discuss was read in our synagogues this week: Leviticus 19. The first words in it define all of that text: kiddoshim t'h'yu 'You shall be holy, because I the Lord your God am holy'. The three of us, clergymen in different traditions, strive after holiness. As a rabbi, I had less problems than the others. Rabbis are not really holy. When I am not in town, any lay-person in my congregation can take the service, read from the Torah, give the sermon and pronounce the blessings. Rabbi means 'teacher', not a holy man. In any event, the three of us, interpreters of that shared sacred text, knew that we could find a definition of holiness in these lines. The text is very clear here. It turns to the Ten Commandments, and lists them with new interpretations which make us aware that to be 'holy as God is holy' means to be compassionate and merciful and to spend our lives in ethical actions. That is the only way to acquire holiness, although my colleagues on that night could disagree with me to a certain extent. 'A hermit in the desert, a monk or a nun in an enclosed order can be very holy', was their argument. In the end I suggested that this training might make them holy-but only if they then served the community and the world.

But there were subtleties in the Biblical text which all of us enjoyed. 'You shall not curse the deaf, or put a stumbling block before the blind' is an absolutely marvellous text. We could argue that a deaf person is not damaged by a curse he or she will never hear; and that a blind person will stumble over an obstacle on an unfamiliar road without realising that it was not bad luck but malice which caused a fall. But the key to the passage is the final sentence: "v'ahavta rea-cha kamocha, ani adonai", 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself; I am the Lord.' God reaches out to every human being; and we are taught to see others as ourself, to recognise each human being as an aspect of God. Then, ethical actions unite us, and we become like God: HOLY.

In the morning we went out to march with Martin Luther King towards freedom."

why, she cried in a fit of naivety, why is it so hard not to do to each other what is hateful to us? gut shabbes

conservative judaism to lift ban on gay rabbis?

a report i just read on yahoo. a snippet to whet your interest:

"Rabbi Joel Roth, a leading religious scholar and a member of the Conservative Law Committee, questioned whether people with traditional Jewish views on sexuality will stay, even if the panel allows synagogues leeway to accept or reject gay relationships. Roth said he has been "demonized" for saying that he interprets religious law as barring same-gender sex.

"I know the law as it stands causes pain," he said. "But pain is not to be equated with immorality."

Rabbi Elliot Dorff, vice chairman of the Law Committee and also a respected scholar, supports ordaining gays, saying "it is simply not natural" to demand that they remain celibate.

"We have to interpret God's will in our time," Dorff said."

a walk in the wilderness - the mikva

ok, so i should write about my shabbat this past weekend at the women's weekend at elat chayyim. before i say anything, please look here to see the velveteen rabbi's take on her experiences at this jewish renewal retreat centre.

first of all - why did i go? short answer is that h. was going and asked if i'd like to go to and i thought why not - it'd be nice to spend shabbat as a congregant.

i also thought that it would be healthy for me to be a little uncomfortable and push my boundaries a bit and the main thing to do that was the mikva that would begin shabbat. although i have witnessed for many women in the mikva, i have never actually been dunked myself. the reason has nothing to do with religion or theology or anything like that. the reason has always been that i am ashamed to be naked in front of a stranger. look, i grew up in england which means i haven't seen myself naked since i was small enough to share a bath with my sister; and i'm hung up about being fat - two strikes to start with.

i got there about an hour before the mikva, and wandered around emanating anxiety. when we finally gathered, those of us with body-image issues gravitated to each other and discussed whether or not we would be disrobing. meanwhile, i had noticed that the women who were leading and guiding us had badges saying 'kohenet', and i figured they had been there for the whole week and had volunteered to help us integrate into the group. they then began to smudge us. i decided not to have this done as i wanted the mikva to be my method of purification and the mikva alone. it was the mikva i feared (not to mention the thirty naked women who were about to share the swimming pool with me). we were told to find a partner so we could witness for each other. the woman standing next to me offered herself and so it began. everyone was disrobing, so i did too. once i took my glasses off, i couldn't see anyone else, and so of course they could not see me. my partner asked me how i was doing, and i said i was in complete denial. she asked if she should tell me i was naked and i said no thank you i do know that why don't we get into the water?

gosh it was cold. a couple of the kohenets were cavorting in the deep end, while the rest of us inched gingerly along until the water covered our naughty bits. a few of us went deeper, and squealed when our nipples hit the water. nu - we held hands in a big circle, and shared some of the things we wanted to wash away. nobody mentioned anger. (when i told d. that she just said, 'liars!') once i was in the water everything was fine. i have now been dunked. afterwards one of the women for whom it was also the first time said that she was disappointed that it wasn't a more spiritual experience. i told her that i had not looked for that - for me the important thing was actually, finally doing it.

i guess it was kind of like virginity, or treif food - a taboo that seems scary to violate but if and once you do, it turns out to be rather nice :-)

later i hope to write about kabbalat shabbat, and shabbat morning, but i am a bit tired. laila tov.

ps am wondering who it is in the burg who pops into the blog every now and then. say hello my virginia friend!

350 years of jews in england

here is today's op-ed from the daily telegraph online. i am pasting the whole thing because i want you to read it all and because i want to remember it. the last two paragraphs are the ones that i think relate to us all.

"How Cromwell gave us Joan Collins and other luminaries
By Charles Moore
(Filed: 17/06/2006)

Exactly 350 years ago, we began to be a multi-racial society. 1656 marked the return of Jews to England. They had been driven out by an edict of Edward I in 1290. In the intervening centuries - known as the Middle Period - Jews quite often came to this country on business, but they were not permitted to reside here or practise their religion. Their status, in fact, was that of Christians (and Jews) in Saudi Arabia today. In 1656, Cromwell let 300 of them return, and Jews have been here ever since.

Among the eventual consequences of this re-admission have been Benjamin Disraeli, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Yehudi Menuhin, Peter Sellers, Joan Collins, Arthur Koestler, Alan Sugar, Nigella Lawson, Lucien Freud, Tom Stoppard and Sid James.

And why not add Max Perutz, Ali G, Ernst Chain, Jimmy Goldsmith, Miriam Rothschild, Melanie Klein, Alfred Brendel, Bernard Lewis, Emeric Pressburger, Harold Pinter, Sigmund Warburg, Keith Joseph, George Weidenfeld, Karl Popper, Ronald Harwood, Ernst Gombrich, Simon Schama, Jonathan Miller, Philip Green, Rachel Weisz and Robert Winston?

Or Isaiah Berlin, Jacob Bronowski, Rosalind Franklin, Harold Abrahams, Alexander Korda, George Solti, Denis Norden, Muriel Spark, Siegfried Sassoon, Jacob Epstein, Daniel Day-Lewis, Nigel Lawson, Janet Reger, Marjorie Proops, Sam Mendes, Stirling Moss and Bernard Levin? It is even claimed that David Beckham, if not technically a Jew, is, as the old joke has it, Jew-ish.

(And since into each life a little rain must fall, one might also note Michael Winner, Esther Rantzen, Eric Hobsbawm, Jerry Springer, Edwina Currie and Robert Maxwell on the debit side of the ledger.)

Anyone who has ever studied at a university, needed good doctors, shopped at Marks & Spencer or Tesco, benefited from scientific invention, listened to classical music, sought accountants or lawyers, watched a film, bought a book or needed his head examined, has gained from Cromwell's decision. The Jewish contribution is so great that it pervades almost all aspects of British society.

I have named individual Jews deliberately because, though it is always dangerous to generalise, even favourably, about race, it does seem to my gentile eyes that there is more prodigious ability and energy per Jew than per the rest of us. The community here has never been enormous - at present, it is somewhere between 250,000 and 400,000 - but it has achievements out of proportion to its size. I like Herbert Samuel's claim that "The Jews are the same as everybody else, only more so".

But the interesting thing for British society today is to ask why such a people have been able to overcome prejudices that at first excluded them absolutely and later accepted them only on qualified terms (Jews could not sit in Parliament until the mid-19th century, for example). The answer could be useful for everyone.

The key, perhaps, is to be found in one of the earliest reports of Jews in England after their return. On October 14, 1663, Samuel Pepys found a way of visiting a synagogue in London (something very unusual for a Gentile at that time). In his diary, he described the service which he witnessed. He did not like it ("I never… could have imagined there had been any religion in the whole world so absurdly performed as this"), but he also noted that the Jews said a special prayer for the King. In other words, they accepted the civil power.

The Jews did not do this just to save their skins by sucking up to Charles II: they did it because it was part of their religious duty. It still is. No believing Jew will obey a civil law that forces him to disobey his religious law - eat pork, for example. But if there is no conflict, his religion teaches him that he must obey the law of the land. In the Talmud, the question arises of whether you should pay taxes to a secular king. Yes, comes the answer, because "The law of the kingdom is the law". In the standard collection, called Ethics of the Fathers, which brings together rabbinical wisdom over the centuries, Jews are told: "Pray for the welfare of the government, for, without the fear of it, people will swallow one another alive."

Even the most cursory study of Jewish life shows that it is full of disputes. There are splits between orthodox and reformed Jews, and within orthodoxy. There are thousands of secular Jews who feel very Jewish, but refuse to have their Jewishness defined by religion. There is ceaseless, often angry argument: when you read the Christian Gospels, you find that one of the most common scenes is of learned men quarrelling. That is still the case in Jewish culture.

But because of this basic agreement among Jews about the status of the secular law, the effect of these quarrels on the wider society is minimal. It is significant that virtually no one reading this article will have heard of Dayan Chanoch Ehrentreu. He is the chief justice of the Beth Din, the Chief Rabbi's court which adjudicates on the endless delicate points of Jewish law, often relating to diet or Sabbath observance, which come up within the community.

If Judaism were an aggressive religion, seeking to lay down its law for all mankind, then this supremely learned old gentleman could acquire menacing power. Like the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran after 1979, Dayan Ehrentreu could tell people to kill in the name of God. Instead, his effect is the opposite. By policing so meticulously the difference between the precise duties of Jews and the duty to society at large, this scholar helps define the space necessary for people with beliefs quite at variance with those of the majority to live harmoniously among them. In this sense, people can be "fundamentalist" and yet perfectly at home in a society which is not. For 2,000 years, Jews have developed a subtle understanding of the difference between the ideal society that would exist if God's laws prevailed everywhere and the world as it is.

Without this understanding, people do indeed "swallow one another alive" and - one might add in the era of suicide bombings - swallow themselves in the process.

With this understanding, a minority community can develop enough confidence and win enough acceptance to do good beyond the confines of itself. The Jewish concept of mitzvah, on which David Cameron dwelt when he made a speech celebrating the 350 years last week, means a good deed done for its own sake. Such deeds are visible in the importance that Jews attach to charity and to education. British society needs a lot more mitzvahs. There is also the idea of "chesed", man's kindness to all men, as first shown by Abraham when he entertained angels unawares. Thus does a potentially very closed community open itself out. The difference between majority and minority is very real - but not antagonistic.

In the past half-century, Muslims have come where the Jews came earlier, and in much larger numbers. Like such Jews, they have sometimes experienced the unhappiness that comes when one's religion is misunderstood or derided. Unlike the Jews, too many of their leaders tend to teach them that such slights must be avenged, that existence as a minority is just a temporary misfortune, not a state to be lived with, and that the law of England is virtually no law at all. If that attitude continues, society is reduced to a conflict about who will swallow whom alive. To avoid that is a huge and urgent task.

and you shall love

in the book of deuteronomy, chapter 6, verse 5, the torah says:

"v'ahavta et adonai elohecha
and you shall love adonai your god"

in our liturgy, these words follow the shema, and continue with a description of practical ways to work on one's relationship with adonai. i have been thinking about this verse quite a lot recently, especially the first word.

when i work with bar & batmitzvah students, it is important to me that we discuss the meaning of the prayers as well as perfect the reading of them. of course they don't have to agree with or believe in anything i or the prayerbook say. i do, however, insist that we talk about the whys and why nots. a parrot could read the prayers. i do not want my students to be parrots.

nu - i ask my student: "what does it mean - and you shall love?" they usually answer very properly: "you're supposed to love god." or something like that. "so *do* you love god?" "well, er, yeah, i dunno, i suppose, whatever ..." etc.

here's the thing ... when i think about love in my life - the people i love and who love me - it doesn't just happen overnight. when i was born, all i knew was waaaah hungry waaaaah wet waaaaah poohy waaaaah tired. i had to learn about trust and caring and kindness; and whence they came. as i got older i had to learn how to be trustworthy and kind myself. in any relationship we may have an initial attraction/connection, but what makes it healthy and lasting is working on it and developing it. why should it be any different with god or the divine or whatever your name is for the energy that i choose to refer to as god?

so i talk with the kids about their parents and how their relationship has developed over the last few years. and then i ask - why should it be any different with god? i say that in my experience many people assume that "v'ahavta - you shall love" is a command ordering you to do this. but love can't be commanded. respect may be commanded, but not love. so what might this word mean?

when you look at the hebrew (apologies to my dikdook klassi teacher yossi that i no longer remember the correct grammatical phrases) the verb 'to love' is the second person singular past tense, but the vav in front of it turns it into a future tense. what's the big deal? you *shall* love, i.e, in the future, i.e., as the relationship develops. it is the beginning of a process, and the rest of the passage lists a number of practical actions one may do to that end.

when the students realise that, rather than being a demand to do something that currently makes no sense to them, this is actually a suggestion that may guide them to find some meaning in their religious tradition, they think it's pretty cool. i do too.

impossible question

a friend taking a melton class told me they just did the unit on why do people suffer. since it was a judaism class, it centred mostly on the torah interpretation, i.e., punishment for non-compliance with commandments, human minds not able to encompass the bigger picture.

knee-jerk response ... i think it splits into 2 areas - the suffering humans cause directly and indirectly, e.g., lack of care and concern for each other in our daily relationships, plus a similar lack for the consequences of our actions. and then there is that suffering that we cannot explain, e.g., natural disasters, and incurable diseases.

i see religion as a system developed and organised by humans to help engender ethical behaviour and to give explanations and meanings to our lives. i believe that it needs a contemporary context - to connect with the teachings in our scripture (for me - using the torah as my example) it helps to make them relevant to the current community. my liberal jewish way of doing this is to try and extract the essence of the text, and apply it to today.

NEVERTHELESS this is all human beings working with their human minds and hearts in their human experience. i hope i do the best i can. i also believe and feel that i must accept there are things beyond my ken that make no sense to me and do not feel fair.

so what do i do with that?

i can blame god. i can say that a god who lets these things happen is not a very good god. i can damn religion and refuse to take part in it.

i can be angry. i can be angry with god. and the world. and myself. and people. i can be sad. i can be miserable. i can be depressed. i can be cynical.

interestingly enough, however, all these things are all about me. ME. that does not mean that i am not stricken on behalf of someone i love who is going through chemo, or sick at the news from darfur. i am not a bad person.

the thing is - maybe i need to switch the focus. instead of feeling powerless - is there something i may do to make a difference?

the first choice is to try and fix the situation at hand. that may not be possible. i cannot cure my friend's cancer. i cannot stop wars and corruption on the other side of the world.

what then can i do? NUMBER ONE IS TO HAVE HOPE. it ain't over 'til it's over

number two is to do something. there is no quick fix for the ills of the world. it took a long time for us to mess it up like this, and it will take a long time to make it better. perhaps, if we were not so attached to the need to see the results of our actions, we would find it easier to act. yet we harvest and eat fruit planted by those who never enjoyed that fruit themselves. so why do we balk at following their example?

that's all very well and noble, you may say, but what about my sick friend? what about the evil and corruption in the world far and near?

my answer is that we do the best we can. we love and comfort and care for our dear ones. we live the values to which we aspire. we work to improve the world by speaking up for those values, by being active within the forces for change.

if you believe in a god or divine presence, then perhaps you may draw some of the strength you need from this faith. if you do not, then it is up to you. the point is, the power is in our own hands to do something. it is a cop-out to blame anything or anyone else. if you don't like it - do something about it! it may take baby steps at first, but if you don't start, you'll not get anywhere.

ps yanks 9 runs down tonight after one and a half innings and the radio guy saying this is embarrassing. guess what - they just won in the bottom of the 9th with 2 out. they didn't give up :-)

past and present celebrations

er, just found out that the post-prandial pesach puking is actually an official holiday of sorts called Maimouna. tried to type link but my html is a bit poorly and the link is so long it wouldn't fit. what can i tell you about it? hang on a sec - let me do a bit of cut-and-paste ...

"Maimouna: A Post-Passover Celebration
An exuberant Sephardic custom whose origins are the subject of debate
By Lesli Koppelman Ross
(on mylearning.com)

The Moroccan Jews are known for Maimouna, the exuberant festival held on the evening and day after Pesach, and whose origins are unclear. According to one explanation, it is the yahrzeit (anniversary of the death) of Maimon ben Joseph, the father of the great Jewish philosopher Maimonides (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, also known by his acronym Rambam), a scholar in his own right who lived in Fez (Morocco) and wrote on Jewish-Islamic relations. He died around 1170.

Others say Maimouna is derived from the Arabic word for wealth and good fortune (literally "protected by God," ma'amoun). Since Pesach is the beginning of the new agricultural year, when the world is judged for produce, it is a time to pray for plentiful crops, symbolic of general prosperity.

Still others connect Maimouna with the word emunah ("belief"), claiming it celebrates belief in Israel's redemption. Along the same lines, there is also support (said to be traced to Maimonides' explanation) for the word being an Arabic adaptation of the phrase Ani ma'amin (I believe), the classic expression of faith in the coming of the messiah (ana for ani, placed after the verb ma'amin, as is common in Arabic, yielding ma'amin ana, which becames maimouna in the local Judeo dialect). It may have been a greeting exchanged to bolster one another's disappointment that Passover had come and gone without the long-anticipated return to Jerusalem.

Dining tables were decorated with flowers, wheat stalks, and sometimes live fish in bowls (this time symbolizing birth and fertility). Golden rings were hidden in a bowl containing flour, suggesting hoped for wealth or blessings. A dairy meal of buttermilk, sweets, and special pancakes called muflita served with honey was accompanied by singing, dancing, and visiting with friends.

The Libyans made a challah-likeround loaf with a hard-boiled egg secured in the center with strips of dough. Single men and women received blessings that they would be married in the year ahead. Women wore their fanciest clothes, girls donned white, and children dressed in costumes like the Berbers (native North Africans) and Arabs who shared their celebration and provided flowers, milk, butter, honey, wheat, and other produce for the Jews."

i'm pretty sure we have sefardi roots ... those german ancestors that went east from spain in the fifteenth century. of course we cannot trace anyone back before 1815 ...

ah well - that was today (or yesterday really). now for tomorrow (or today). the queen has her actual 80th birthday. read some lovely tributes in the telegraph and the times. and - don't tell - i sent her a congratulatory e-mail via her web-site. got sent to a page which told me that she had told her web-site people to thank me on her behalf ;-) . hey - i may have been born in the usa, but my mother was born in england, so at least half of me can wish the queen well!

turn turn turn

this is some stream of consciousness musing, or perhaps just a first page of exploration. the question under consideration? well, it began with the case of terri schiavo, who is likely to die in the next few days. on the one hand, i really need to think about how to respond to congregants asking me about the jewish position on such a subject. this means checking out the responsa, which look at jewish law, and attempt to present an ethical position. already, i am swimming in water deeper than any i've dipped into before (and o do i miss my daddy - no more can my first response be to ask him what he thinks and feels). definitions of law, and ethics, and morals ... and how they relate to each other. and that leads to the second part. frank rich wrote in the ny times today:

"At a time when government, culture, science, medicine and the rule of law are all under threat from an emboldened religious minority out to remake America according to its dogma"

the rights of the individual within the rules of the community. what is the best case scenario, i.e., individual views differ, and how does the community make a rule that all must obey, e.g., pro or anti abortion. in the usa, i thought the separation of church and state (synagogue, mosque, temple, etc ... let's not go there just now) was an inspired way to deal with some of those problems. i agree with mr. rich that there is a threat, but am currently at a loss regarding how to deal with it.

back then to the jewish teaching with regard to the current question whether or not terri schiavo should be allowed to die by removing the tubes that feed and hydrate her. i turn to the central conference of american rabbis responsa. before reading this, i had a pretty strong view that if someone has made it clear that if they are brain dead they do not wish to be kept alive, then their wish should be respected. as a chaplain working in a hospital, i have counselled patients interested in creating a living will/advance directive. I know (and just checked it again on the phone yesterday) that this is my mother's wish.

so here's a question: what shall i do when the responsum clearly indicates a position different to the one i currently hold? as a rabbi, a jew and a human, am i required to adapt my thinking? is this a kind of teshuva, where i must turn my stiff stiff neck?

the responsum begins with the affirmation of the inviolability of human life, that it belongs to god, that we have no right to take it and god has the final say in its disposal. we do not "own" our lives. thus, suicide and euthanasia are prohibited.

so what if someone is dying already? the rabbis say that they still deserve all appropriate care. what is appropriate? since the law states that it is forbidden to take any action that will hasten death, and if you do so then it is considered murder, then it would appear that sustenance is required, and pain relief a bit of a grey area since morphine for example may hasten death. but sustenance is required.

at this point, i begin to feel the stiffness of my neck. terri schiavo is not actually terminal. therefore, all the more so should she not have sustenance removed. but this has me agreeing with the bushes and all sorts of people whose beliefs i abhor. ow. my neck is sore.

but i am a reform jew ... and a rabbi ... is there not another way to interpret the teachings? the responsum states:

"As Reform Jews, of course, we consider ourselves free to ascribe "new" Jewish meanings to our texts, to depart from tradition when we think it necessary to secure an essential religious or moral value. In this case, though, we fail to see why we should do so. We see no good reason, first of all, to abandon the traditional Jewish teaching concerning the inestimable value of human life. If the doctrine of life's essential holiness means anything at all, it means that we must stand in reverence before the very fact of life, the gift of God that renders us human. And this reverence does not diminish as human strength declines, for the dying person still possesses life, a life stamped indelibly with the image of God until the moment of death. It is an awesome and awful responsibility we take upon ourselves when we determine to kill a human being, even when our intentions are good and merciful. Such an action is the ultimate arrogance, for it declares that we are masters over the one thing--life itself--that our faith has always taught must be protected against our all-too-human tendency to manipulate, to mutilate, and to destroy."

i do not want to agree with the demonstrators and the religious right and the bushes but ow my neck i don't wish to be arrogant either. note - i am not talking here about stopping treatment, turning off machines, etc. jewish law allows that one may remove an impediment from nature taking its course. i am trying to turn myself towards the acknowledgment that to remove nutrition is to starve someone to death.

i hope the link works, so you may read the rest of the responsum yourself. i am off to think some more, and to get a neck rub!

lev

It began with a dream. It may not, however, have been a dream. I don’t know, and it doesn’t really matter. I thought it was real at the time, because I was sitting on the sofa in my office listening to my cellphone. I heard a voice on the other end, and I knew it was him. “Daddy!” I said. “No,” he replied. I know his voice, I’ve heard it all my life. “Albert?” “I am not Albert,” he said, “my name is Lev.” There was interference on the line, as a text message tried to arrive, and he began to fade out. I tried to get his number, but wasn’t quick enough. “We’ll talk again,” I heard him say. And then Penny the book-keeper woke me up. I was on the sofa in my office.

The thing is, I don’t dream like that. I’m a bit of a smart-arse, and am pretty sure that if this experience came from my subconscious it would have been much more clever. “I am Martin Buber!” the voice would’ve said, and sent me to the bookshelves in search of I-Thou. I would then figure out the subtle meaning, ponder upon the concept of connection, and be pleased about how smart I am. But things are different now. Albert is dead. And he said his name is Lev. He named it all with that one word: Heart. Not my style at all. It was, however, a message for me.

******************

I am a rabbi, and have been for almost ten years. My father, too, was a rabbi. I asked him now and then if he believed in God. He did. I wished I could believe like he did.

When I applied to rabbinical school, nobody asked if I believed in God. It was not until an elective in advanced homiletics in the fourth year that the question arose. Rabbi Malino had palsied hands and spoke quite slowly. One might think that taking his class would yield three easy credits. At the beginning of the first class he asked us: “How many of you believe in God?” We looked around at each other, uncertainly. We all raised our hands, haltingly. “Nu,” he continued, “what does that mean? What is God to you?” We sat in silence. One student spoke boldly: “God is my Rock!” she exclaimed. “And what does that mean?” the rabbi responded, “that you sit on Him?” The following week, more than half the students did not return to the class.

Now I sit at the table with the bar and bat mitzvah students. 150 students this year. 182 next year. I have thirty minutes to connect with each one, to suggest what it means to be a child of commandment in the world in which she lives. The conversation focusses on the potential and strength that she has, and what she may do with this power. “What is the purpose of the mitzvot?” I ask. “A lot of people think they are the Jewish rules telling the Jewish things that Jewish people do to be Jewish.” The student nods. “Actually,” I continue, “that’s not what it’s about at all. Actually,” I say, “they have one main purpose, and that is all. We pay attention to the commandments because they will teach us how to be a mensch. You know what is a mensch?” The student shakes her head. I ask the parent. She says, “a person you can count on.” I bang my fist on my chest. She continues, “a person with a good heart.” “Exactly!” I cry. “Look around at the people you know - in school, at camp, wherever you go. Some are good at math, and others stink at it. Some run really fast, and others can’t. Some are really musical, and others aren’t. You can always work hard to improve yourself, but there doesn’t seem to be any logical reason why some people get to be gifted and others do not.” The student nods again. “The thing is,” I say, “there is one thing that everybody gets the same. It doesn’t matter how rich or poor you are. It doesn’t matter what colour your skin is, or where you are born, or in which religion they bring you up. Everyone gets a heart. Everyone. And everyone gets the power to develop it into a good heart. You only lose that power if you let go of it. Tell me,” I say, “ do you know the difference between right and wrong?” “I think so,” she says. “Do you understand that there are consequences to your choices and your actions?” “Yes,” she says firmly. “Then you are ready,” I say. “It is time for you to accept the responsibility for the continuing development of your heart, to become a bat mitzvah, and a mensch.

I wish I had more time. If the next student doesn’t show up, perhaps we may go on to talk about God. What will I say? “Let’s talk about air!” I may say. “When you woke up this morning, were you glad to see the air was still there? Before you went to bed last night, did you worry in case the air would be gone in the morning?” I'll talk about how we know that without air we die, yet, unless we are underwater, or going into outer space, we assume that it will be there. We cannot see, nor smell, nor hear, nor taste, nor feel it; yet we know it is there and that our bodies live because of it. We do not question this. What then of our souls? Whoever decided that they don’t need nourishment and maintenance also, just like our bodies? A hebrew word for the soul is neshama. The same word also means breath. Could it be that God is to our souls like air is to our bodies? Our senses cannot detect God, yet without God our souls would be dead. Why do we question this?