Sunday, August 23, 2020

3 Elul, 5780

 Rabbi Harry Rosenfeld

This time of year we are called on to reflect back. So, I have.


With the pandemic, I haven't gotten a haircut or beard trim since mid-February. My hair is as long as it was back in the late 60's and '70's and my beard is longer still. Yes, most of my hair evaporated over the years. The remainder morphed from reddish brown to white.


Seeing my hair this long and this white, I have taken to comparing the me of then to the me of now. "Back in the day" I boycotted school to end a war. I lobbied for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. I watched as the National Guard patrolled streets being consumed with protests against racism. I mourned the murder of four students at Kent State University by that same National Guard.


Today we are still at war.  We continue the fight for women’s rights.. We confront our personal racism and its pervasiveness in our communities. Federal forces are again being sent to put down anti-Racism protests.


And I reflect: Can we ever change? Yes, we can!


This season of reflection and repentance fills me with its message of hope. We each ask; Where do I continue to fall short and how do I move forward? How have I grown through the years and what have I learned that can make my community and my life better for all? If not now, when?


Friday, August 21, 2020

Elul Thoughts 5780

 The Hebrew month of Elul is the last month of the Jewish year. As such, it is considered a month of spiritual preparation for the High Holy Days. Special meditations are added to the daily service for some, known as S’lichot, or penitentiary prayers. (*The Saturday before Rosh Hashanah is also known as S’lichot, and it is used as a night of contemplation and study.) For several years, a group of Reform rabbis and educators has collaborated on a series of Elul Thoughts, shared with our congregations in a daily email, and accompanied by a daily Tweet. 


This year’s Elul Thoughts include contributions from:

Rabbi Heidi Cohen, Hanefesh, Orange County, CA

Rabbi Matthew Cohen, Congregation B’nai Israel, Galveston, TX

Rabbi Benjamin David, Adath Emanu-El, Mount Laurel, NJ

Rabbi Brad Levenberg, Temple Sinai, Atlanta, GA

Rabbi Eric Linder, Congregation Children of Israel, Athens, GA

Rabbi Alan E. Litwak, Temple Sinai, North Miami Beach, FL

Rabbi Larry Malinger, Temple Shalom, Aberdeen, NJ

Rabbi Nancy Rita Myers, Temple Beth David, Westminster, CA

Rabbi Harry Rosenfeld, Congregation Albert, Albuquerque, NM

Rabbi Benjamin Sharff, The Reform Temple of Rockland, Upper Nyack, NY

Rabbi Michael Sommer, Har-Shalom Synagogue, Northbrook, IL

Rabbi Charlie Cytron-Walker, Congregation Beth Israel, Colleyville, TX

Rabbi Michael Weinstein, Temple Israel, Tulsa, OK

Rabbi David N. Young, Congregation B’nai Tzedek, Fountain Valley, CA


You can follow any of us on Facebook or Twitter.


If you have missed any of these daily emails or want to go back and remember something from earlier in Elul, feel free to read them all at https://tinyurl.com/elulthoughts.


Elul 1-2, 5780/August 21-22, 2020

Welcome to Elul Thoughts 5780!


Every year a group of rabbis collaborates on a series of emails intended to get us ready for the High Holy Days. These are intended to be brief thoughts about the themes of the High Holy Days, because just like when we exercise we cannot jump in and grab the heaviest weights, so too when working on the self-improvement involved with the act of Teshuvah, we should not begin with the heaviness of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. Our souls need time to warm up to this most sacred moment on the Jewish calendar.


In that light, we offer these Elul Thoughts to our congregations as a spiritual warm up to get us ready for the High Holy Days.


On Fridays, we give you a double portion of our Elul Thoughts so that we can all take a rest from our electronics on Shabbat. Enjoy!



Rabbi Alan Litwak

Moses In Isolation  

The High Holy Days are not two distinct holidays with services for us to attend and then return to our lives until next year.  The Yamim Nora’im - 10 Days of Awe - are part of a continuum that began on Shavuot when Moses ascends Mt. Sinai to receive the Torah.  Alone, he remains for 40 days, while the people grow restless and build a golden calf.  When Moses descends on the 17th of Tammuz and sees the wrongdoing, he smashes the tablets of the Ten Commandments.  He ascends for another 40 days to carve another set of tablets and ask God to pardon the people.  Moses returns to the people, but God does not grant forgiveness.  On the first day of Elul (today), Moses ascends the mountain a third time and remains for another 40 days.  After three attempts and 120 days of isolation, on the 10th of Tishrei - Yom Kippur - God grants forgiveness and Moses returns to the community.  

I do not see the coronavirus and months we have quarantined and physical-distanced as a punishment by God.  Yet, it has been a period of self-reflection.  The next 40 days is an opportunity to do even greater reflection - to approach the High Holy Days not as services to attend, but as a transformation to go through; not as a sprint, but a marathon; not as one big fix, but as a series of many tiny tikkunim/repairs to ourselves and our communities. 


Rabbi Michael Sommer

God put you here for a reason. The month of Elul is a reminder to focus on our reason for being and recenter as we prepare for the new year.


Wednesday, October 9, 2019

Politics and Judaism (Yom Kippur 5780)

“Don’t be political.”

“Stick to the Judaism. We’ll watch the news if we want politics.”

“You should really focus on the Jewish aspect of our lives and stay out of politics.”

These are actual quotes from emails I have gotten in just the last year when I have mentioned things in sermons that people deem as, in their words, “too political.” So often I am told by congregants, “Don’t talk politics.” I am asked to steer clear of political commentary and stick to Judaism. If I speak on a topic that breaches the boundaries with which people are comfortable, I know exactly who will be sending me emails over the next few days. Don’t talk politics, stick with Judaism.

Here’s the thing, though. Judaism is politics.

The word politics comes from the Greek politika, which means, “of, for, or relating to the people.” We usually use the word politics to mean governance, and policies made by those in power, whether we agree or disagree with them. But really politics is about the needs of the citizens. So when people ask me not to speak on politics, I hear them asking me to avoid addressing the concerns of the people.

That would not be the Jewish way.

The Talmud, in Pirkei Avot, reminds us of Hillel’s words, al tifrosh min hatzibur, “do not separate yourself from the community” (Pirkei Avot 2:5). This rather well-known teaching reminds us that as Jews we thrive in community. We seek out others, usually who are similar to us, to form groups living in society together. The instruction not to separate from it is a reminder that the affairs of the people are the concerns of all the people.

In the next chapter, Rabbi Chaninah teaches us to “pray for the welfare of the government, for were it not for the awe it inspires, a person would eat his neighbor alive” (ibid. 3:2). That’s a bit of a morbid way to put it, but Maimonides has a similar teaching. He writes that if a tiny business man tells a giant beggar to get out of his face, and he listens, you know that there is government in power. Knowing that there is a system concerned for the wellbeing of all people creates a mode of behavior that, in general, makes a city with a governing body a good place to live.

In Tractate Meilah, Rabbi Reuven ben Isterobeli is credited with thwarting laws the Romans tried to impose on the Jewish people that would forbid them to observe Shabbat and Brit Milah, which he did by disguising himself as a Roman and participating in their policy discussions. How did he disguise himself as a Roman? He cut his hair in the Komei style, which was how the Romans did it. This meant he had to shave the sides of his head (Meilah 17a). Shaving the sides of his head was a direct violation of the Biblical prohibition against shaving the corners of his head, but in order to participate in politics, they allowed him to shave. So participating in politics was so important that the rabbis allowed violation of certain commandments in order to have a voice in the discussion.

To repeat: it was permitted to violate a commandment to participate in politics.

On the other hand, Pirkei Avot also has Rav Shemayah’s dictum, “do not become a familiar friend of the government” (Pirkei Avot 1:10). This may seem contradictory to the instruction to bless the government, but really it is a warning to not become overly involved with the people who make up the government. The phrase for “do not become a familiar friend,” is lo titvada. Titvada shares its root with l’da’at, “to know.” This kind of knowing is exactly what I hope you think it is. Perhaps a more colloquial translation would be, “do not become bedfellows with the government.” So while we are instructed to bless our leaders, we should not become beholden to them. For any reason. It is not particular people to whom we should be aligned, but it is all people about whom we should be concerned. That is what politics really means, and that is what Judaism is all about.

As Jews we have no problem with arguing. We love it. The Talmud even gives examples of good arguments and bad arguments. The classic good argument, known as b’shem shamayim, “for the sake of Heaven,” is between Hillel and Shammai. Hillel and Shammai were turn-of-the-first-century rabbis who regularly had differing opinions regarding how to interpret Jewish law. Because they were arguing so that the Jewish people would be informed in all of their decisions, their arguments are categorized as b’shem shamayim. The classic bad argument is that of Korach, who argued with Aaron in the book of Numbers, asking who he was to be the priest when they were of the same blood, same family. Aren’t they all as good as Aaron and his sons, they asked. While it might have been a good point, Korach was arguing for the sake of self-promotion, not good for the community.

Lately, as Americans, we have confused politics with partisanship, and we have maintained loyalty to personalities and parties rather than to our nation. This is exactly what Rav Shemayah warns against. We are becoming too familiar with those in power. We are allying ourselves with people and with parties instead of slinging ourselves with the governing we have hired them to do. 

Of course, there are some exceptions.

Justin Amash is a Michigan congressman born in the US to Palestinian refugees. His father fled to America at 16, and America provided opportunities for his family that they would never have had in the Middle East. His parents were enthusiastic Republicans, and he was elected to congress as a Republican in 2011. In July this year, he left the Republican Party, and he now serves as the only Independent in the House of Representatives. In his words, “In recent years...I’ve become disenchanted with party politics and frightened by what I see from it. The two-party system has evolved into an existential threat to American principles and institutions.”

In other words, his motivation is the mitigation of the power of the duopoly that exists in the United States Government. A duopoly exists when an industry gets run by two behemoths. The one that dominated as it grew to power in the 80s was in the soda industry. Coke and Pepsi control 70% of the soda market, and as often as we might drink Dr. Pepper or A&W Root Beer, Coke and Pepsi dominate the supermarket aisles, soda machines, and convenience stores. 

The main difference, and the very problem between the soda industry and the government industry is that we have created a duopoly between Republicans and Democrats, and allowed them to control nearly 100% of the active market. There are independents like Justin Amash, but I could only find six senators and eight representatives in congress since 1970. That’s a total of thirteen people in almost 50 years, thirteen because Bernie Sanders is on both lists. Only three of the thirteen were elected as independents and remained independent throughout their terms.

Katherine Gehl, CEO of Wisconsin dairy company Gehl Foods, and Michael Porter, Harvard Business Economics Professor, recently published a Harvard Business School Report called, “Why Competition in the Politics Industry is Failing America.” Their report shows that current political parties have made it very hard to compete if people are not playing by their rules. It would be one thing if they were taking care of their customers (us), yet they are much better at creating revenue and jobs for itself. Customer satisfaction is at historic lows. Fewer than 25% of Americans say they are satisfied with how things are working. In terms of popularity, the government ranks below every industry, including cable TV, health care, and even airlines. For these industries, when customer satisfaction gets so low, we usually see new competitors or products like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime. In politics we do not see any new entrants except for Democrats and Republicans. Why? Because they work really well in one arena: colluding with each other to keep new parties out of government (Freakonomics, Season 8, Episode 10, "America's Hidden Duopoly").

Government today has become less about politics, the concerns of the people, and more about beating the opponent. They strengthen their stranglehold on the market by catering only to the extremes. All they have to do to win an election is show that they are this much less hated than the other person. The political industry that gets people elected runs independent of the issues they are supposed to be taking care of in our nation. This is not politics. This is partisanship.

What is worse is that the parties are the ones who set rules that benefit from the duopoly, not the people. In the American duopolistic model, polarization is a feature, not a bug. It is a feature created to cater to the wealthy, the special interests, the lobbyists, etc. As late as the 70s and 80s, landmark legislation was passed by both parties. The Social Security Act of 1935 had 90% Democratic support, and 75% Republican. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had 60% of Democrats supporting it, and 75% of Republicans. Today, landmark legislation can only pass if the party pushing it through has enough votes to carry it by themselves. The Affordable Care Act passed in 2010 with 0% Republican votes. Trump’s 2018 tax reform bill passed with 0% Democrat votes (ibid).

Why is it that this is happening more and more as we tread this path in the life of American politics? Because we are losing sight of the other in order to try to promote our own agenda. Because we are paying scant heed to the good of the community in order to make offerings to the cult of personality. Because on the rare occasions when we do try argue b’shem shamayim, we use logical fallacies instead of providing counterpoints. Because we give all the attention to those who would insult their political rivals rather than engage with them.

Gehl and Porter suggest a way out of this spiral of social destruction. Part of their plan includes non-partisan, single-ballot primaries in which all candidates for office would be on one ballot, with the top four vote-getters advancing to the general election. This would be followed by ranked choice voting. We would vote for these four candidates in order of preference, ranking them one through four. If no candidate gets more than 50% of the votes, the lowest ranked candidate is dropped, and those votes are re-allocated to the voters’ second choice until one candidate reaches over 50% (ibid).

As unlikely as it would be for their solution to come to fruition, their idea would give a candidate the need to appeal to a larger group of voters. They would have to hope that they could garner the second choice of voters who would not choose them first. This would require them to talk about the issues instead of just talking at each other. It would require real care about the good of the people, the politics, and not just allegiance to partisanship.

In today’s Torah reading we are commanded by God to choose. It says, hachayim v’hamavet natati lefanecha habrachah v’haklalah; uvacharta bachayim l’ma’an t’chiyeh: “I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Choose life, that you will live.” The idea of choosing good over evil, blessing over curse, and life over death sounds easy. The problem is, as I have mentioned many times, these choices are never labeled. Like being in the voting booth, we usually make our decisions based on subtle distinctions. This choice may be slightly less bad, and this choice may be slightly more acceptable. And what is good for us may be bad for the person next to us. Usually our decisions are way more important than Yanni or Laurel, and we saw how bothered everyone got over that.

It would be great if we had some sort of guide to help us make the subtle decisions. It would be wonderful if there was some text, something written down and cherished for generations that had instructions for how to tell the blessing from the curse. [LOOK AT THE TORAH] Oh, wait a minute!

In the Torah portion we read this afternoon, we will hear the holiness code. It begins with God telling Moses to tell the Israelites that they should be holy because God is holy. Let’s be honest, that seems like a tall order at first. It almost feels impossible to make our choices from this morning based on God’s holiness. But then Moses breaks it down for the Israelites. What does being holy actually mean? Simple things at first. Honor your parents, keep Shabbat, don’t steal, don’t worship idols, make proper sacrifices, don’t harvest your field’s corners. Then it gets into bigger social issues. “Do not curse the deaf nor place a stumbling block before the blind.” Judge fairly. Do not spread slander. Respect our elders. Be honest in judgment. Treat strangers as if they are already citizens, because we were strangers. If that doesn’t sound like a political platform, I don’t know what does.

Of course, we could talk about any one of these statements for hours, but I am just giving you the straight text today. Right out of the Torah: Judge fairly. Do not spread slander. Respect our elders. Be honest in judgment. Treat strangers as if they are already citizens, because we were strangers.

Striving for holiness means that holiness should imbue every aspect of our life. When we are here in the sanctuary or at home. Whether we are at work or driving on the highway. Whether we are shopping or having dinner with friends and family. Whether it is Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish year, or election day. We are commanded to be holy, and we can demand that holiness from everyone, from the people we lead to those who lead us. We should demand it from our own leaders.

Our American duopoly is far from holy, and it is getting farther and farther by the minute. Every negative ad, every bit of mud slung, every tweet brings us out of the holy and into the profane. When we say nothing about it, we are giving it permission to grow and thrive, to infect our political system and our daily lives. Judaism permits us—or rather it commands us—to engage in the welfare of the people. It commands us to be politically active, and to do so in a manner that shows our love for our neighbor as well as for our nation.

Justin Amash, Katherine Gehl, and Michael Porter get it. There are current political candidates who get it. There are plenty of politicians and candidates who do not get it. We are surely stuck with the current system of gerrymandered electoral districts for the foreseeable future, but we still have the obligation to vote, and to participate in the political process—without becoming bedfellows with any person or party, and without insulting or scorning those who disagree with us. Being holy means we argue b’shem shamayim, for the sake of Heaven and for the good of the people. Being holy means we treat our neighbors with respect, no matter their political leanings. This is our mandate, direct from our sacred texts. 


Judaism IS politics. Politics should be holiness. It is up to us to take part—to write to our senators and representatives; to speak out when we witness the injustices of the current system; to blow the whistle on lashon hara from our leaders; to let them know that we will only support those who strive to be holy, for we are holy.

Tuesday, October 8, 2019

Israel and the Zionist Congress (Kol Nidre Sermon)

The Jerusalem Post recently posted a quiz on line titled, “How much do you know about Israel’s Knesset?” Knesset is the governing body of the State of Israel, and also refers to the building in which it houses its headquarters. The questions were all about the building. I got 2 out of 7 correct. None were about Israel’s government itself. So I thought I would give you a little seven-question quiz about the government itself.

How many seats are there in Knesset? (120)

Which version of Knesset is it right now? (22nd)

How long has it been in power? (Five days)

Which party has the majority? (None, but Kachol V’lavan—Blue and White—has one seat more than Likud)

How many parties are there in Israel? (There are ten with seats in Knesset, 20 others that received votes but did not break the 3% threshold to be represented in Knesset, and another dozen or so that did not get enough votes to register on polls, like the Pirate Party.)

How long was the previous Knesset? (Five Months)

Who is the incoming Prime Minister? (We don’t know)

As a bonus, here is a little trivia that I love about Israel: Election day is a national holiday. Schools are closed, businesses are supposed to be closed, and if a business is open the employees are not supposed to come to work until after they have voted. And if you think about it, it’s the only holiday for Israelis that is an actual holiday where they have no other religious obligations or national ceremonies to attend. After their 15-minute commitment at the polls, it’s a true holiday.

But currently, Israel is facing a problem that could be described as electile dysfunction.

The 22nd Knesset was sworn in on Thursday. Elections were held on September 17 to determine the shape of Israel’s parliament, and there is still no telling what the government will look like in the coming years. 

The 21st Knesset was sworn in five months ago. In September, 17 new members of Knesset were elected, and 15 members of Knesset had 5-month terms.

In Israel, the citizens vote for a party, not for a person. Voting is done in an envelope that voters place into the ballot box that has one card in it, and a letter code on the card in big Hebrew letters tells the ballot-counters which party they voted for. The Prime Minister is the head of the party with the most seats IF that party can form a coalition government. A coalition is formed by getting 61 seats to vote yes to the structure set by the leading party. As the 21st Knesset was convened, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, head of the Likud party, believed he had enough votes to form a coalition, but Avigdor Lieberman, Knesset Member and head of the Yisrael Beiteinu party, pulled his five votes at the last minute. Netanyahu was not able to form a coalition, and therefore called another election. This election produced a lead for Benny Gantz’s Blue and White party, but only by one vote.

If everything were to stay status quo, meaning the same parties who vote together will keep voting together, Blue and White should get one fewer for their coalition than Likud. But still neither party is able to cross that 61-vote threshold. This is largely due to the Joint List, an alliance among four Arab-Israeli parties, who never vote with a coalition, and who have acquired 13 seats—more than they have ever had. It is a part of their platform to abstain from coalitions. Abstentions or no, they still need 61 votes, and there is almost no math that would allow that to happen.

Enter Reuven Rivlin, the President of Israel. Usually, the president of Israel holds little more than ceremonial responsibilities. He gives awards at high schools and military presentations, stands in front of the presidential residence on national holidays, and sign laws, though he does not have the same kind of veto power an American president has. Natalie and I even met President Rivlin when we lived in Israel. The president there is really not that big of a deal.

Until last week.

One of the president’s duties is to decide who gets the first chance to form a coalition government. This usually goes to the party with the most seats, but with Blue and White’s one-seat lead and Likud leading 55-52 lead in coalition votes, each side argued that they should be first. So last week President Rivlin hosted a two-hour meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Benny Gantz to try to figure out who would get first crack.

But Rivlin suggested something different. That the two parties form a coalition with each other, with one party selecting the Prime Minister, and the other selecting a Deputy Prime Minister with actual powers and responsibilities in the government. This is a position that, until this proposal, does not exist in Israel. Together the two parties hold 65 seats, which would create no need for any other party to be involved in the creation of the government. It would also cancel out any possibility Avidgor Lieberman, the Ultra-Orthodox Shas, or any other small party holding sway over any coalition. This novel concept has been suggested for years when parties have had disputes after elections. This time, however, it presents both realistic possibilities as well as new problems.

The first problem is who would be Prime Minister first? They are both demanding that they should be the first to serve. Gantz says he refuses to give up the lead, referring to the elections, and Netanyahu is not one known for relinquishing any power. There is a risk that Netanyahu could be tried for corruption charges in December, according to most political analysts. Israel’s courts will not likely try a sitting Prime Minister, so if Gantz is sitting at the helm and Netanyahu is convicted, Gantz will be the de facto Prime Minister without the need to switch with Netanyahu. However, if Netanyahu goes first, there are many who fear the expert politician that he is will find many ways to not relinquish the station. Though the proposal assumes that once Netanyahu is stripped of his ministerial duties, he would maintain the title until he is exonerated if he is exonerated. 

The most novel part of the proposal is that Netanyahu would surrender his powers, even temporarily, if he is indicted. Keep in mind, this kind of idea of temporarily abdicating one’s own governmental powers has not been tried since US President Jebediah Bartlett gave up all presidential powers to Republican Speaker of the House Glenn Allen Walken. At that time the president’s daughter was in the hands of terrorists and he knew he was unfit to act in the best interests of the country. Maybe we should call on Aaron Sorkin to solve all of Israel’s problems.

Back to non-fiction, the idea would be this new government would start with Netanyahu as Prime Minister and Benny Gantz as Deputy. Netanyahu has said in an interview with IDF Radio that he would relinquish power if he is indicted. So the question is, do Israelis trust him to do so if he is indicted. Most Jewish Israelis favor the idea of a unity government, but trust is an essential part of doing the work of government. The idea of a deputy Prime Minister who is not in a temporary position could make for a partnership unlike we have ever seen before.
As of right now, we are still in limbo. We do not know what is going to happen with Israel’s Knesset, and we do not know who will be Prime Minister, if there will be a deputy, or even if the 22nd Knesset will last longer than the 21st.

Who will run Israel is a matter of great concern to American Jews, especially Reform Jews, because the last few years have been turbulent in Israeli-American Jewry relations. The most recent escalation was over women’s and egalitarian prayer at the Kotel, but this was not an isolated issue. In the words of Rabbi Uri Regev, 
“Since the 1970s, every decade has seen a conflagration over ‘Who is a Jew?’ prompted by ultra-Orthodox parties’ attempts to exclude from recognition under Israeli law most American ‘Jews by choice’ and the rabbis who convert them. One of the reasons for the short-lived 21st Knesset was the demand made — once again — by the ultra-Orthodox Shas party to pass a law to preempt an anticipated Supreme Court ruling in favor of non-Orthodox converts” (Jewish Journal, Sept 11, 2019).
In other words, they are trying to nullify any conversions officiated by Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, and even Modern Orthodox rabbis. Converts under their laws would not be accepted as Jews in the State of Israel, which has major implications when it comes to the Law of Return.

With Israel’s ensuing leadership as well as Israeli progressive Judaism in flux, it is even more important to do our part to support Israel’s future: by participating in our own vote. This coming year we will have the opportunity to vote in the World Zionist Congress. 

Established by Theodor Herzl in 1897, the Zionist Congress (as it was originally known) was the legislative body of the World Zionist Organization (WZO), a non-governmental entity that promotes Zionism. 

The WZC, also known as the Parliament of the Jewish People, comprises 500 delegates and meets in Jerusalem every five years. It enables delegates to exert ideological influence on both Israeli society and the global Jewish agenda, as well as allocate financial and other resources to various organizations – including the Reform Movement – in Israel. 

The 38th World Zionist Congress is scheduled to meet in Jerusalem in October, 2020, and the elections will determine the size of the various delegations to the Congress and are scheduled to be held from January 21 to March 11, 2020. Participating in the World Zionist Congress elections is the only way North American Jews can weigh in democratically about issues in Israel.

Currently, the United States has 145 delegates in the WZC, the largest single delegation outside Israel. Thanks to a robust turnout in the 2015 elections, 56 of the 145 delegates (39 percent) represent the Reform Movement and, as a result, have been able to ensure that more than $4 million a year is being directed to the Israeli Reform Movement. By comparison, the Israeli government annually provides nearly 4 billion shekels ($1.1 billion) to Orthodox and Haredi institutions in Israel.

A strong election turnout among North America’s Reform Jews and our supporters and allies will ensure that financial resources will continue to flow to our Israeli movement – including Reform congregations and institutions. It also will allow us to fill leadership positions in some of Israel’s national institutions, including the World Zionist Organization, the Jewish Agency for Israel, and Jewish National Fund.

And yet, because of the turnout expected by the Reform Movement, Shas and the UTJ, the political parties representing ultra-Orthodox, Chasidic, and Haredi Jews, have been mobilizing to generate votes in the hope that they can regain control over Israeli policy, and revert to a pro-Orthodox agenda in Israel.

We must maintain a strong presence in the World Zionist Organization. To do this, you can vote. The easiest way for an American to vote is to become a member of ARZA. In the beginning of the secular year you will get a form in the mail from ARZA, through CBT. By filling out the form and becoming a member of ARZA, we will add our numbers to the vote of the World Zionist Organization and keep Reform strong by keeping Israel pluralist and democratic.

Over the past few years we have seen increasing support for Progressive Judaism. If we want this to continue, we must vote.

If we want marriages and divorces performed by non-Orthodox rabbis to be recognized in Israel, we must vote.

If we want egalitarianism to get a foothold in Israeli society, we must vote.

If we want LGBT rights to continue to be supported by Israel’s government, we must vote.

If we want conversions done under Reform, Conservative, and even Modern Orthodox supervision to be recognized in Israel, we must vote.

If we want businesses to stop being punished for operating outside of Orthodox norms, we must vote.

If we want to stop the corruption in Israeli government that stems from kowtowing to the Ultra-Orthodox, we must vote.

If we want to strengthen Israel’s ties to America, we must vote.

If we want the world to know that Reform Jews support Israel, we must vote in the upcoming World Zionist elections, so Israel will continue as a bastion of democratic, Jewish values in the Middle East.


Israeli politics can be very confusing. Our relationship with Israel does not have to be. All we have to do is register with ARZA at the turn of the secular year, and vote. Im tirzu ein zo aggadah. If you will it, it is no dream.

Monday, September 30, 2019

Rosh Hashanah 5780

Isaac is mentally challenged.

This is not to make fun of him or try to insult him in any way. Isaac has something about him that makes him different. I don’t like calling anyone “on the spectrum” because if it’s a spectrum we’re all on it, and that phrase is therefore not descriptive at all. Yet the text points to a non-specific mental or social disability that makes him different from everyone else. So much so that when we studied this section of the Torah in our Saturday morning class in my first year here, I had taken to calling him, “Special Needs Isaac.” Something about Isaac does not feel like he is like the other characters in Genesis.

Today we are reading the Akeidah, the story of the binding of Isaac. It is a terrible story of Abraham being asked by God to take his son up to a mountain and sacrifice him. Abraham says yes, and goes up to the spot God shows him with Isaac. The he binds Isaac—giving the name to this section, since Akeidah means binding, and raises the knife to sacrifice him, only to be stopped by an angel who tells him that it was all a test. Abraham did not withhold his son from God, and therefore he will be blessed by becoming as numerous as the stars in the sky and the grains of sand on the beach.

The rabbis of the Talmud and the commentators throughout the centuries have struggled with many parts of this text. One of the things that gets their hackles up is the questions of how old Isaac is at this point. If he is younger than 13 it makes sense that he might be overpowered by his elderly father. But the rabbis do not like that math, and they want him to be older—sometimes as old as in his 30’s. But if he’s older, wouldn’t he fight back and not let his aged father tie him up? Something about it does not fit.

Looking back at Isaac’s life, he is never given a voice before or after the Akeidah. They speak about him a lot, but Isaac does not speak for himself. When God tells Abraham that he and Sarah will have a son, Abraham wonders how a man of a hundred and a woman of ninety could possibly have children together, and he laughs. Sarah has the same reaction later when the angels tell her that she will have a child. They both laugh—va’yitzchak for Abraham and vatitzchak for Sarah. For their laughter, they are told they will name their son Isaac, Yitzchak, which shares its root with the laughter they display. 

Even acknowledging that numbers in the Torah are not math, they laugh because they are an elderly couple. They have spent years living together, building a life together, building a faith together. They have done far too much for them to be young. Abraham’s laughter in Genesis 17 and Sarah’s in Genesis 18 are both about how old they are and how silly an idea it is that they could bear children. Isaac’s own name means laughter, and comes from the reaction these two have. So suffice it to say they are comically old for childbearing.

A study was done in Israel in 2006, looking at 132,000 families. Is showed that men who conceive in their 30s are 1.6 times as likely to have a child with a disability as men under 30. Men in their 40s have a sixfold increase in risk. Since then, 5.7 million families have been studied in Denmark, Sweden, here in California, and elsewhere. Nearly all of this research has shown an increased prevalence of mental disability among the children of older fathers.

Clearly the writers of the Torah were not aware of this study, but perhaps they knew the simple truth that older parents were more likely to produce children with disabilities. The Torah wants us to understand that Isaac is mentally different.

We often understand that for their laughter they beget laughter, but what if the laughter they beget is not a friendly laughter, but one of teasing, making fun, and mocking?

Once Isaac is born, he grows up and is weaned. It happens in one verse in the Torah, Genesis 21:8, which says exactly that: “The boy grew and was weaned.” At the weaning feast, a common custom of the ancient world, Sarah sees Ishmael with Isaac, and he is m’tzachek. The word m’tzachek can mean a few different things. It is surely there at least in part because m’tzachek shares its root with Yitzchak, Isaac’s own name. But it can be playing, making sport of, jesting, or toying with. It could be innocent—two brothers playing—or it could be sinister if Ishmael is picking on Isaac.

What further confuses the scene is that we do not know how old either brother is. We know Ishmael is 13 when he is circumcised, and Isaac is born around a year later. So the boys are probably about 14 years apart in age. But we have no idea how old Isaac was when he was weaned. Evidence suggests that societies at the time stopped nursing their babies between 2 and 5 years of age. So if we assume Isaac was weaned around three years old, and that Ishmael is around 18, perhaps Ishmael is playing a little rough for Sarah’s liking. We have likely seen much older siblings or cousins who play a little rough for the comfort of a new mother. It happens.

Or maybe Ishmael m’tzachek with Isaac is a kind of teasing that we would never tolerate today. Perhaps he is making fun of Isaac’s disability. || Until very recently, that was the way people with disabilities were treated—with teasing and a complete lack of understanding and compassion. It also explains why Sarah was infuriated enough to demand that Ishmael and his mother leave their home. She was defending her son, who would not have have been able to defend himself.

Abraham may not have shared her sentimentality over Isaac’s issues. Today’s reading of the Akeidah suggests that Isaac may also have needed defending from his own father. The Akeidah begins with a charge. God says to Abraham, “Take your son, your special son, the one you love, Isaac.” 

The midrash Bereshit Rabbah imagines a conversation between God and Abraham.

God says, “Take your son.”

Abraham responds, “I have two sons. Which one?”

“Your special son.”

“Both sons are special. They are unique in their own way.”

“The one you love.”

“I love both of my sons.”

“Isaac.”

No question when God uses his name. The conversation the midrash creates suggests that Abraham has love for Ishmael as well as Isaac, which is wonderful. It also might miss something. Perhaps Abraham needed to be convinced that he also loves Isaac. 

Imagine the conversation without Abraham’s interjections. Internally, Abraham might be think that God is finally accepting Ishmael as Abraham’s heir. At least until the last word. Take your son, your special son, the one you love, Isaac.

Perhaps at that moment Abraham thinks, “Isaac? I love that kid? But he’s so....different.” Men can have a hard time accepting a son who is different, so for God to tell him, “Abraham, I know you love your son, perhaps more than you realize, and it is time to accept him,” can be a very powerful moment. 

Years after the Akeidah, several chapters after today’s reading, Abraham tells his servant to get a wife for Isaac. He sends him on a journey where he meets Rebekah and invites her to his master Abraham’s home. She agrees, and goes to meet her husband to be, who is sitting alone in a field.

What is interesting is that Isaac needs someone else to get a wife for him. Abraham does not need an intermediary to marry Sarah. Jacob finds Rachel on his own, and though he is tricked into marrying Leah, he agrees to have children with her. Every other biblical character finds their own spouse. Only Isaac has an intermediary sent for him. Perhaps this is due to his lack of mental prowess for negotiating a bride price, or perhaps simply just his lack of ability to have a conversation with another person.

When Rebekah first sees him and he is sitting alone in that field, the rabbis of the Talmud credit Isaac with davening Ma’ariv, reciting the evening prayers, but this anachronistic commentary ignores the likelihood that this is just where he either preferred or was forced to spend his time. Many people with autism, for example, simply like to be away from other people. They find socializing difficult, and do not adhere to social norms. In ancient times, adults with mental challenges were often pushed to the side, told to go away if they could not handle being with the others. Whatever challenges Isaac had, being alone in the field makes sense for him as a character. He was likely out there a lot.

Looking at Isaac as mentally challenged, we might understand Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son, even when we do not agree with it. He was a man of the ancient world—powerful, wealthy, a leader in his community, successful in every way except one. Then he conceives a son with disabilities. Isaac could be a constant source of disappointment for Abraham. Though we no longer share Abraham’s feelings of shame over a son like that, we can acknowledge it likely existed in the ancient world for having a son viewed as less-than. A son who, at the time, did nothing but give people something to laugh at.

So in the Torah portion we read this morning, when Abraham is told by God, “Take your son up the mountain,” Abraham’s speedy acquiescence makes sense. But it still does not make it right.

So often we look at this pivotal moment in our Torah and we point out the fact that Isaac and Abraham never speak to each other again. What we neglect to mention is that they have never spoken to each other before this part of the story, either. Their relationship has always been strained, they have never been close. They just go through the motions. Maybe it gets worse after the Akeidah, but it is not a complete sea change.

Recognizing Isaac as mentally challenged, we may learn how we should behave when we have special needs people in our lives, our community, our family. Not like Abraham. He was the denying, angry father. Disappointed and feeling inadequate about the son he and his beloved Sarah produced, he goes through the motions of circumcising him, finding him a wife, setting him up with property and a good life. Sarah dies shortly after the Akeidah and does not even see him married, but even in his early life she was perhaps over protective of him. She shuns anyone who would treat him different, kicking Ishmael and his mother out of their home. Really, neither of these is an acceptable way of treating someone who is different from us.

The rabbis in tractate Berachot of the Talmud actually do teach us how to deal with them. They put Isaac in our prayers every day, three times a day. They credit him with inventing the evening service because of his practice of sitting alone in the field at the end of the day. They say his name along side his father Abraham and son Jacob. We talk about the generations that begin with seven amazing people, the avot and imahot, and we have never swayed from putting Isaac’s name right at the top.

They even point out things that could be seen as indicative of his mental difficulies and laud them as successes. They are excited that he is the only patriarch to have only one wife. They extoll him as the only patriarch to never set foot outside of the land of Canaan. We could easily point to these things as being related to his mental disabilities. Someone without strong social skills would naturally not venture away from their familiar surroundings, nor would they seek more companions when they prefer to be alone. Instead of blaming his condition as the reason he never strives for more, the rabbis compliment him, saying it is his strength of character that grants him the blessing of faithfulness to the land and to Rebekah.
Trying to learn from our longstanding acknowledgment of the blessing all people bring, I worked with a few different B’nai Mitzvah with challenges over the years. In Miami one boy held the Torah and recited Shema. As a severely Autistic young man, that was the most he could do, and it was a beautiful moment. Another Bar Mitzvah we worked with was very musical, and he actually made up the cantillation on the spot, even though he had practiced flawlessly. When he wasn’t singing, it took all of our focus to keep him on the bimah, as his tendency was also to wander off when he fancied.

Here at CBT I have worked with several students of different abilities, too. Hopefully nobody would even notice. Part of instituting our B’nai Mitzvah Revolution is allowing students who do not thrive in an academic arena can still show us what their strengths are. Not everyone can read Hebrew or even English out loud. Not everyone can deliver a D’var Torah. Yet everyone can be celebrated. Everyone can show us their Jewish passions and accomplishments. Everyone can become B’nai Mitzvah in their own style.

This is our responsibility as a community, as a people. When someone is different from us, we do not chastise them, bully them, or tease them for their differences. At the same time, we do not coddle them or keep others away from them because they are different. We learn to work with them. We support them. We learn from them. We take what we would see as a weakness, as less-than, and treat it as normal. Or better, we treat it as a blessing. We support and help strengthen the skills and abilities they do have, and give them the tools they need to be a success in our community.

May we look deep into our ancient texts and learn from the examples of our ancestors. May we continue to reach out to those who are different. May we truly live up to our reputation as a welcoming community by openly welcoming people of all abilities. May find the opportunity to let people with special needs know that they are just that: Special to us and to our community.