Saturday, May 30, 2009

Broken Bridge--Commentary

    Broken Bridge by Lynne Reid Banks is about a fourteen-year-old boy named Glen who had come with his cousin, Nili, to visit Israel.  Instead of the wonderful time she envisioned Glen would have, as she had in London when she met with her Uncle Noah and Cousin Glen, Glen is murdered by an Arab within hours of their arrival in Israel.  As the story unfolds, the family is already divided.  There was Noah's first wife and children.  Then, there was his sister and her family, and his parents who all live in Israel.  In addition, Noah and his second wife and children were living in Canada.  They are divided in their feelings about Israel and the expansion of Israel's borders during the Six-Day War in June 1967. Israel's borders were by conquering land from the Arabs.  In the years to follow, Jews and Arabs fought.  Whenever the Arabs attacked, the Jews fought back in self-defense to protect Israel's borders.  Glen had never been to Israel before, but because of what he had heard and read about in the news, about all the fighting, his vision of Israelis was that they were all Barbarians who did nothing but kill.  Nili, on the other hand, felt kinship ties to Israel and its people.

    When the news of an Arab attacking an Israeli was broadcast on television, Nat and Miriam, Noah's parents, argued the merits of having expanded Israel's borders in 1967.  Nat felt expanding Israel's borders caused problems with Israeli troops retaliating against Israeli demonstrators, but Miriam disagreed.  She felt Israeli troops had to defend Israel at all cost.  Nili was questioned by police a few days later about Glen's murder, but she refused to identify one of the culprits named Mustapha in a police line- up. Even though Mustapha and his nephew, Feisal, were the assailants, Nili refused to identify Mustapha among the various photos because she believed he had saved her life.  Feisal needed to complete a loyalty test in order to belong to the Palestinian resistance.  His task was to kill the first Jew who came close to the alley he and his uncle hid in.  The first Jew was Glenn.  Feisal was crazed with killing and wanted to kill Nili but Mustapha insisted Nili be left unharmed.  Yonatan, Noah's son from his first marriage with Donna, had been in the army, fighting Arabs who were shooting and throwing rocks at him and the rest of the Israeli troops.  Nimrod, Nili's brother, had heard nothing but bad things about Arabs.  Yocheved, Nili's aunt, had contempt for Arabs.  Israelis were often killed by Arabs and Yocheved immediately accused an Arab of having committed the murder even before it was confirmed whom the assailant was.  An Arab village was located near Yocheved's home. She felt Israel's borders were rightfully expanded.  The neighborhood Yocheved lived in was originally occupied by Jordan.  Lesley did not feel that expanding Israel's borders was right.  Valerie, Noah's second wife, came to Israel with their eight-year-old daughter to meet with Noah and his family and for Glen's burial. Valerie shared Glen's sentiments about Israel and it residents being barbaric.  Like the police officers that interviewed Nili, some of her relatives felt Mustapha never saved Nili's life.  All they could focus on was the fact that Glen was murdered.  In fact, Nimrod was so angry with Nili for refusing to identify Mustapha as the culprit that he refused to speak to Nili for awhile.  Nili's other relatives, such as her mother, Lesley, Shalom, Yocheved's son, and Lev, Nimrod's friend, remained neutral in their opinions regarding Nili's decision.  They supported her in whatever Nili decided to do.  Lesley did not realize one of the killers of Glenn was the Arabic man she had met some twenty-five years ago.  At that time, both of them were teenagers.  He was a vendor, selling nuts, and she often bought them from him.  Despite Mustapha's contempt for Jews, he still talked to her from time to time back then, but they never became close friends.  If Lesley felt Mustapha should have been re-arrested, she did not show it because she wanted to be supportive of Nili.  Shalom on the other hand, was torn.  On the one hand, he understood Israel's right to defend its borders, yet he felt Arabs did not deserve to be shot at or be accused of crimes if they were innocent.  After all, he had a coworker and friend named Ali who invited him to his house for dinner.  They also did favors for each other.  Meanwhile, Lev, Nimrod's friend who had just immigrated from Russia, had not heard anything good or bad about Arabs, therefore, he was not influenced by majority or minority opinion about Nili's decision.  In the end, Ali was drunk and trusted his friend Shalom with confidential information.  Shalom relayed Ali's story to the authorities.  It was about a person hiding in the next-door house acting strange and being the possible murderer.  Although Shalom did not want to break Ali's trust, he wanted the mystery solved.  He did not want to be accused of treason.  He also did not want to carry the guilt of having not told authorities what he knew, especially if the possible person Ali had spoke about might commit another murder.  In addition, it was his way of doing what Nili was supposed to have done; that was to identify and convict Mustapha.  Feisal, who had been living in house to house was captured, and Mustapha was killed by a land mine while trying to cross over the Jordan River to his old village on the West Bank.

    Even though this book was published back in 19942, the war between Israeli troops and Palestinians continue to this day.  Likewise, the same issues are debated among Jews and Arabs in the Diaspora.  As Micaiah ben Malachi and I were reading this book together, we thought of the same issues outlined in the book, and how it rang home in our personal lives.  In 1994, Micaiah was attacked by Black separatist gang members in broad daylight on a street corner in a metropolitan city as he was heading back home from a video rental store.  A Muslim man came out of his store and rescued Micaiah, bringing him into the store until the police arrived.  Eleven years had passed since then.  Micaiah and I had moved from a large town into a quiet, small community.  One of our neighbors told us about a store that sold tobacco products much cheaper than the other stores in town. Micaiah and I decided to shop at that store.  Upon walking into the store, Micaiah and the clerk who greeted us froze.  Naturally, I thought something was terribly wrong only to learn the man Micaiah had been telling me about was the same man running the new store our neighbor referred us to.  I became elated and thanked the man for saving Micaiah's life.  I did not care that he was an Arab or that he was a Muslim. The fact that he had saved my future husband's life was all that mattered.  If the man had not rescued Micaiah, then I would have never met him.  Three and a half years have passed and the two of us tried to build a relationship with the Muslim man and his family. His family showed us much warmth and acceptance as people who were strangers as they were in town.  We learned over time the family was Israeli Arabs who lived in Jerusalem.  Some of his family lives in the United States while others remain in Jerusalem.  Still, the fact that he was an Arab and a Muslim did not bother Micaiah or I.  The man's generosity and kind personality was foremost in our minds.  In the first year of the re-established relationship, I vouched for his children's character at our local public library so that they could get a library card because the clerk viewed them with suspicion and contempt.  We also hired his son to help us with work in our yard, we ate meals with him and his family at the store and in our house, and one of his older sons confided to us some things about the family background.  However, when Hezullah attacked Israel on July 25, 2006 and war broke out between Hezbullah and Israeli troops, our relationship with the Israeli Arab man became more distant.  Despite our efforts not to make the battle an issue, the Arab man remained aloof and mistrusted us.  He was still kind to us, but he would not say much whenever we asked him how his relatives in Jerusalem were fairing.  All he would say was, "It is very bad."  That following school year, an altercation took place at our local high school in which one of the man's sons was accused of attacking a White student for no reason.  Upon investigating the situation, police stated the Arabic boy was "out of control" and "he was like an animal". The Arabic boy was defending himself as any street fighter would.  It was evident the White student was the instigator.  However, none of the White students or teachers defended the Arabic boy.  The boy was arrested and had to appear in court.  We gave the man legal advice in preparation for the court hearing.  No matter how hard we tried to connect with the Arab man through our actions and assurances our religious differences and views about Israel vs. Palestinians was not an issue in our relationship with him, he was still determined to maintain the separation between Micaiah and I as Jews, and he and his family as Muslim Arabs.  Needless to say, Micaiah and I were deeply hurt.  We felt he and his family were the only ones in this small town we could be close friends with.  Micaiah and I stopped at the man's store for a visit while out on our Shabbat walk.  The man was gone, but two of his sons were there.  We talked and ate.  Our conversation was fun and lots of jokes, and other part serious.  We learned their father has always hated Jews.  The children, on the other hand, had wanted to maintain a friendship relationship with us. We were told we were different from all the other Jews they had encountered when they lived in Israel.  Since that meeting, most of the man's children have gone back to Israel.  Two of them did return earlier this year and opened a new store.  We have seen them in passing, but the closeness we had with the family seem to be no more.

    Our relationship with his children was similar to Shalom and Ali's.  We were surprised when one of his sons pulled up in his car across the street from us a month ago to greet us.  I was so overjoyed I almost ran through traffic just to hug him.  Unfortunately, he did not have much time to talk, and I feared being hurt again if he was made to go back to Israel by his father.  When Shalom addressed his dilemma in the book, Micaiah and I could not help but think about our relationship with the Arab man and his family.  If we suspected or knew that one of his sons had killed another Jew, would we turn the son in, or would we just turn our back simply because we knew the son and saw the good qualities he had before he became a murderer?  For me, my decision to turn him in would have nothing to do with whether he was a Jew, Christian, or Muslim.  It would be difficult because I knew him before he murdered somebody, but the fact that he committed murder would be enough for me to turn him in.  Micaiah differs with me, though.  If he gave is word to keep information confidential, it would remain so regardless of the situation. Micaiah would advice the murder to turn himself in rather than break an oath.

 

Makedah bat Leah.

 

 

Broken Bridge by Lynne Reid Banks; Copyright 1994; Published by Morrow Junior books, New York.

Friday, May 22, 2009

Fw: Eilu V'eilu: Volume 38, Week 3

Just thought you might find this interesting. There is two parts. I am sending them each.

Micaiah b. Malachi
Makedah b. Leah
Minnesota
Reform Judaism

PS: Your comments would be appreciated, if you can find the time.
----- Original Message ----- To: EILU@SHAMASH.ORG
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 11:26
Subject: Eilu V'eilu: Volume 38, Week 3


Eilu Banner

May 19 , 2009

Volume 38, Week 3

25 Iyar, 5769

What are the standards for Reform Jews?

Rabbi Arnold Gluck

Dave Abbey from Temple Israel/Congregation Iyr HaMelech in Ottawa/Kingston, ON Canada
writes:

...I don't mind standards of behavior for Reform Jews ... but I find the move towards 'rigid standards' tends to make those of us who may not wish to adhere to these standards, feel less 'worthy' as Jews.

Michael Kaplan, a member of Lakeside Congregation for Reform Judaism in Highland Park, IL writes:

I enjoyed reading the commentary from both Rabbis. My question is whether they have any practical, as opposed to theoretical, advice for dealing with the set of issues we confront when dealing with various mitzvot.

I want to assure our readers that they need not worry about Reform Judaism imposing standards upon our members. The reality of our modern context is that all religious observance is voluntary, even Orthodoxy, and that is not about to change. Nor is it in anyone's interest to be making judgments as to who is a good or worthy Jew. My favorite definition of a good Jew is anyone who aspires to be a better Jew. There are many ways to accomplish this, just as there are many different ways to serve God. For some, their service is focused on pursuit of justice. For others, it is through learning and teaching. Some Jews find the greatest fulfillment through ritual observance. Reform Judaism does its members a service in my opinion when it articulates ideals of Jewish life and practice to guide our members in their personal Jewish choices, and our congregations in crafting their communal practice.

As for the concern about rigidity, I believe that Jewish life should be filled with love and joy, and not be onerous or burdensome. Our tradition teaches us that God gave us Torah and mitzvot out of great love, like parents who give direction to their children to help them reach their full potential. Seen in this light, mitzvot are more opportunities for growth and fulfillment than obligations. Below are some concrete examples of the ways in which we can be enriched by our observances.

Shabbatot and chagim are sacred meeting times. They draw us close to one another and enable us to create communities of love and caring in which to share the joys and sorrows of our lives. A rich Jewish life includes observing and celebrating Shabbat and holy days.

Worship gives voice to the longings of our hearts, renews our vision of the world, allowing us to examine our lives from a God's-eye view. When we join our voices to those of our friends and family we lift each other to a higher spiritual place as we "serve God with joy" (Psalm 100:2). Regular worship is an indispensible element of Jewish practice.

Torah study opens our minds and hearts to the sacred and gives us access to the accumulated wisdom of our people. It lights a path to God and teaches us how to walk in God's ways. Those who aspire to be good Jews will find Jewish learning to be essential.

Performing acts of kindness, g'milut chasadim, brings us into loving and caring relationships with others, giving us the great joy of righteous living. As the psalmist said, "Light is sown for the righteous and joy for the upright in heart" (Psalm 97:11).

For further practical guidance I strongly recommend Rabbi Mark Warshofsky's book, Jewish Living, as the best reference available on contemporary Reform Jewish practice. Above all, I urge all Jews to engage in Jewish learning in order to decide on the standards that will be right for them. This was the advice the great Rabbi Hillel offered when a gentile asked to be taught the entire Torah while standing on one foot. Hillel said, "What is hateful to you do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah, all the rest is commentary, go and learn" (Talmud Shabbat 31a).

Any Reform Jew who wishes to know how to live a meaningful religious life need only follow Hillel's advice: "go and learn." Come and learn with us. Come experience the joy of Jewish life with us in our synagogues. Because, to paraphrase the words of our siddur, knowing and understanding, learning and teaching, leads to observing and fulfilling with love all the teachings of Your Torah.

Rabbi Michael Sternfield

Michael Kaplan, a member of Lakeside Congregation for Reform Judaism in Highland Park, IL writes:

I enjoyed reading the commentary from both Rabbis. My question is whether they have any practical, as opposed to theoretical, advice for dealing with the set of issues we confront when dealing with various mitzvot.

Mary Hofmann of Congregation Etz Chaim in Merced, CA writes:

I'd be interested (very!) in a follow-up to this presumably philosophical discussion with one that is more operational in content. It seems, at least from the initial Eilu V' eilu discussion on standards that it's going to be a general discussion . . . one that deals more with whether standards exist than with what those standards may or may not be.

Micaiah b. Malachi from Adat Achim Synagogue in Sunny Isles Beach, Florida writes:

As a Reform Jew, I take offence at the notion that Reform Jews make up Judaism as we go. I agree with both rabbis to an extent. Yes, Reform Judaism is built on the ever changing perception of Torah and other halachah interpretations. We thrive on consensus. That is the major reason I and my partner chose Reform over the other branches of Judaism. The attractiveness of the Reform branch over the Orthodox branch does not lay in a reduction of rules, but rather a deeper understanding of the "why" instead of following traditions and laws "because".

The readers' responses to our discussion express a desire for specific practical standards for Reform Judaism. While I appreciate their wishes for specificity, I doubt that there can be a concise answer that would cover the entire range of contemporary Jewish practice. The excellent responsa of Rabbis Solomon Freehof, and Mark Washofsky and the Responsa Committees of the CCAR offer specifics on a wide range of individual concerns and deal with both ritual and ethical matters. Rabbi Freehof's multiple volumes of responsa remain remarkably cogent and fresh even though most were written several decades ago. There is little with which I would disagree, particularly since all of the responsa provide excellent historical and rabbinic perspectives.

On the other hand, I must re-state my original premise that Reform Judaism needs to be understood in the context of moral relativism. Of course, I am not alluding to the core moral precepts of Judaism. I am referring to changing attitudes of our society vis a vis Reform Judaism. Gender issues truly stand out as key examples of how relativism comes into play: Same-sex marriage, female equality in the synagogue, freedom of choice concerning abortion, birth control, non-marital sex, the recognition of homosexuality as a natural condition rather than an illness: these are only a few of the serious ethical matters that have undergone transformation in Reform Judaism. I would add to this list the status of the non-Jew and their children in the synagogue as truly momentous concerns that are being re-thought in light of our changing world.

I applaud Reform Judaism's flexibility while acknowledging that, for some people, the absence of a Shulchan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law) for Reform Judaism and for all times just is not possible or desirable. Our movement will continue to struggle with new issues and new realities and we will continue to come up with new responsa that will guide and instruct us, but they will never exactly tell us what we must do or believe. This is what makes us Reform Jews and this is one of our greatest strengths.

This volume of Eilu V'eilu is the last that was scheduled prior to receiving reader input. Our next volume will focus on a suggestion from our readers.

Stay involved in the discussion by emailing your questions to Eilu@urj.org. For more information click on the links below.


Bios

Resources

Archives

Eilu V'eilu is produced by the URJ Department of Lifelong Jewish Learning. Visit our website for more information.



The EILU mailing list is hosted by Shamash: The Jewish Network a service of Hebrew College.

Join Shamash's Groups on Facebook and LinkedIn.

To unsubscribe email EILU-unsubscribe-request@SHAMASH.ORG
For other options go to: http://listserv.SHAMASH.ORG/

Fw: Eilu V'eilu: Volume 38, Week 2

 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 08:49
Subject: Eilu V'eilu: Volume 38, Week 2

Eilu Banner

May 12 , 2009

Volume 38, Week 2

18 Iyar, 5769 

 

What are the standards for Reform Jews?

Rabbi Arnold Gluck

Moral relativism is anathema to Judaism. The Torah begins with God creating a morally grounded universe in which human beings are created in the Divine image knowing right from wrong and capable of fulfilling God's demand that we "do what is good and right in the eyes of God (Deuteronomy 12:28)." God condemns Cain for killing Abel (Genesis 4:8-12), sends the great flood to destroy the world because of human lawlessness (Genesis 6-7), and calls Abraham to enter into a covenant with the expectation that Abraham would "instruct his descendents to keep the way of God by doing what is just and right (Genesis 18:19)."

We humans often struggle to understand what is right and what God expects of us in a given situation, but our faith tells us that some things are right and some are wrong, and something—namely, God—makes it that way. To embrace moral relativism is to grant legitimacy to the perpetrators of unspeakable evil. For if all truth is relative, who is to say what is right and what is wrong? What makes the incineration of garbage different from the burning of human flesh in the crematoria? In a morally neutral universe there is no basis other than the preponderance of human opinion. Rabbi Sternfield may disagree with the Pope's condemnation of moral relativism; I do not.

Religious relativism, like moral relativism, is also incompatible with Judaism. The core Jewish concept of "covenant" means that we have entered into a relationship with God. Like all true relationships, be they marital, communal, or ecclesiastical, this covenant makes demands upon us that we must accept in order to maintain the relationship. We cannot do whatever we want. We have covenantal responsibilities, otherwise known as mitzvot, that define the nature and boundaries of our lives as husbands and wives, as members of communities, and as Jews.

This does not mean that we relinquish our individuality or cede our conscience. By definition, a covenant must be mutual, and thus cannot be absolutist. This is why, in Genesis 18, God informs Abraham of the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorra. God expects Abraham and his descendents to practice justice and righteousness, so God invites Abraham to examine God's justice. And Abraham does not disappoint. He challenges God, demanding that the innocent be spared: "Shall not the judge of all the earth deal justly? (Genesis 18:25)"

To be a religious person means to willingly constrain our autonomy, our will, to enter into a relationship with God. To be a religious Jew means to accept God's will as binding upon us by embracing the mitzvotas part of the covenant of Israel.

In the context of Reform Judaism, this explains why the Union for Reform Judaism rejected an application for membership from a secular humanist congregation some years ago. Reform is pluralistic; it allows for a variety of understandings of our religious duty. But as a form of religious Judaism, denial of God is beyond the ken. Were Reform relativistic, the URJ's ruling in this case would have been indefensible.
It is equally wrong to characterize halachic Judaism as absolutist. The very name of this forum, Eilu V'eilu, comes from a protracted Talmudic debate between the schools of Hillel and Shammai, which ends when a voice from heaven declares, "Eilu v'eilu divrei Elohim chaim." "These and these are both the words of the living God, but the law is according to Hillel. (Babylonian Talmud Eruvin 13b)" If the law is according to Hillel, why declare both positions to be the word of God? Jewish law is filled with nuance; the Talmud records both majority and minority opinions because Judaism is a multi-vocal tradition. It is open to a range of legitimate interpretations, and today's minority might become tomorrow's majority.

Rabbinic Judaism, of which Reform is a liberal variety, has always had a dynamic quality. It has been able to evolve and change with the needs of different times and circumstances. If this were not the case, Judaism would never have survived the destruction of the 2nd Temple in 70 CE. It did survive, thanks to the bold creativity of the Sages who taught the Oral Law (which became the Mishnahand theTalmud), replaced sacrifice with prayer, and crafted the Passover seder. They found ways to revitalize Judaism that were neither absolutist nor relativist, and so can we. 

I believe that Judaism in our day is diminished by absolutism at both ends of the religious spectrum. On the liberal side is what Rabbi Sternfield calls "relativism." This approach to Judaism elevates individual autonomy to a degree that leaves little if any room for a sense of covenantal obligation. When neither God, nor tradition, nor community make any compelling claim upon us—when we "make things up and call them Judaism"—we have turned away from our religious heritage. On the far right side of the spectrum are forms of Jewish fundamentalism that stifle the pluralistic dynamic of rabbinic Judaism. I disagree with Rabbi Sternfield when he paints all forms of Orthodoxy with this brush, but I believe he is right in characterizing some of them as absolutist.

Those whom Rabbi Sternfield labels as "traditionalists" in the Reform movement are neither absolutists nor relativists. Neither do we have any interest in becoming Orthodox or Conservative Jews. We are pluralists who seek to live committed Jewish lives in vibrant Jewish communities where Jewish observance is valued, Jewish learning is passionate, and Jewish values guide our daily lives.

Rabbi Michael Sternfield

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to my respected colleague, Rabbi Gluck. His essay concerning the matter of standards for Reform Judaism is an excellent reflection of current mainstream Reform Judaism. He is correct that our movement, through the responsa of its rabbis and the documents of the Union for Reform Judaism, attempts to bring some order to the undeniably diverse observances of both individuals and congregations. However, unlike in other religious groups that take their orders from the top down, Reform Jews are a free-thinking lot. Even the most revered Reform schlolar's responsum would be unlikely to carry the day, strictly on "say-so."  Incidentally, this is the way it has always been throughout Judaism. Jewish practice evolves over a long period of time. The rabbis offer their learned opinions, but in the long run, the people decide.

Rabbi Gluck's states: "I would argue that the disparity between Reform Jewish vision and practice is far too great, for both our movement and the Jewish people as a whole." He is correct, but perhaps not exactly for the reasons he suggests. He postulates:"Too many of our members join our ranks because of the perception that Reform requires very little Jewish commitment." I see it differently. It is my view that many people identify with Reform Judaism because it closely parallels both their mind-set and their lifestyle. Reform Judaism's emphasis on liberal Jewish values, its commitment to rational faith, the primacy of social justice over ritual, and perhaps most important of all, the right of each Reform Jew to decide for himself/herself in matters of religious practice:  these are what have made Reform Judaism into the dynamic faith community that it is.

Reform Judaism's great strength, and also its admitted weakness, is that we are pro-choice, to borrow an overused phrase. If there are overarching standards for Reform Judaism, it is that each of us is obligated to choose, based both on knowledge and personal preference. Certainly, it is the responsibility of the rabbis and the institutions of Reform Judaism to educate our people about Jewish values and traditional observances. It is then the responsibility of the individual to make an informed choice. Rabbi Gluck is correct when he states; "Even those who feel bound to live out our covenantal relationship with God by observing the mitzvot must decide which mitzvot are incumbent upon us and which are not." However, the very way in which he expresses this principle is very telling. If the mitzvot really are religious obligations as conveyed by God in the Torah, then there should be no matter of deciding. However, Reform Judaism has never accepted that all 613 commandments in the Torah are God-given, let alone that halachah also is of Divine origin. He adds: "The time has come for a shift in Reform religious consciousness to place a higher value on Jewish observance as mitzvah, as personal religious obligation." In stating this, Rabbi Gluck makes a gigantic leap into the past, along with many of today's Reform rabbis and leaders. In my opinion, the neo-traditionalism that has been embraced by much of the Reform movement is out of synch with the lives and minds of many Reform Jews. The bifurcation between home and synagogue is undeniable. Rabbi Gluck acknowledges this. The synagogues are embracing greater tradition, as evidenced by the new Reform siddur "Mishkan T'filah," while home observance continues to erode.

We have all heard various Jews describe themselves as "very Reformed," [sic.] meaning that they are almost completely non-observant. This cliché is likely to be repeated even more frequently as the Reform movement attempts to impose more and more traditional standards, which are unlikely to be followed in private.

I must add this: To tell today's Reform Jews that they should observe this or that because it is tradition is really no answer at all. Traditions are various practices that people do because they have been done in the past. However, just because certain practices were done in years past is no justification for their continuation or reinstatement. I will provide only a single example. Reform Judaism, since its inception, has stressed the importance of worshiping in the language which we understand. In the United States, Reform services have been predominantly in English. And yet, with every passing year, the services offered in many Reform congregations are more and more in Hebrew, a language sacred to all Jews, but understood by very few Reform Jews. The rationale often provided for the trend back to Hebrew is tradition, which I regard as a non-reason. Apparently, our movement has decided to dispense with thoughtful worship in favor of traditionalism. In doing so, it has discarded one of the most important principles of our movement.

We certainly should have no objection to rabbis and congregations attempting to raise the bar on personal and public observance. However, these attempts need to be expressed as options, not as obligations and must always be accompanied by answering the question "why?" To say that certain practices are to be embraced because they are more traditional does not answer the question. There is no easy solution, but I believe we are most true to the cherished values of Reform Judaism by stressing both knowledge AND the right of the individual to decide.

This volume of Eilu V'eilu is the last that was scheduled prior to receiving reader input.  Our next volume will focus on a suggestion from our readers.

Stay involved in the discussion by emailing your questions to Eilu@urj.org. For more information click on the links below.


Bios

Resources

Archives

Eilu V'eilu is produced by the URJ Department of Lifelong Jewish Learning. Visit our website for more information.

Please save May 11 – 13, 2009 (and budget ahead) for an interdisciplinary conference, "Midrash & Medicine: Imagining Wholeness". This event, to be held at the beautiful Asilomar Conference Center in Pacific Grove, California, is being convened by the Kalsman Institute on Judaism and Health at HUC-JIR together with the Bay Area Jewish Healing Center.

 


The EILU mailing list is hosted by Shamash: The Jewish Network a service of Hebrew College.

Join Shamash's Groups on Facebook and LinkedIn.

To unsubscribe email EILU-unsubscribe-request@SHAMASH.ORG
For other options go to: http://listserv.SHAMASH.ORG/