Kaddish for Conservative Judaism

There have been many changes in the top leadership of the Conservative Movement recently. First was the commencement of the Arnie Eisen era at the Jewish Theological Seminary. With the beginning of Arnie Eisen's chancellorship also came the change in leadership at the Seminary's rabbinical school with Rabbi Daniel Nevins as the new dean. Second, came the change in leadership at the Rabbinical Assembly with Rabbi Julie Schoenfeld taking the RA's top job. Yesterday marked the confirmation of Rabbi Steven Wernick (right) as the CEO and executive vice president of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, the arm of the movement representing the congregations.

It seems as though all the players who have the potential to put the Conservative Movement on the right course have taken the field. It will be interesting to see what the future will bring.

The Conservative Movement has done a very good job of staying in the news recently. Unfortunately, not all news is good news. The latest round of infighting and hand wringing within the ranks of the Conservative Movement has been prompted by the emergence of two groups of movement leaders.

One group, Hayom: Coalition for the Transformation of Conservative Judaism, is made up of the rabbis and board presidents of the largest congregations in the country (here's a link to the list of group members which has recently opened up membership to the leaders of congregations of all sizes). The second group, calling itself "Bonim" is a grassroots coalition of fed-up lay-leaders from approximately forty congregations threatening to leave the Conservative Movement. Both of these groups have made headlines with their allegations toward the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. Essentially, they have formalized the complaints from member congregations that have been informally articulated over the years. Add to this the Canadian congregations that have left the Conservative Movement to form a new organization in response to the decision to admit gays and lesbians into the rabbinical and cantorial schools at the movement's seminaries

But, perhaps what has produced the most headlines about the Conservative Movement in recent weeks was an interview with Rabbi Norman Lamm (left), Yeshiva University luminary and a modern Orthodox scholar.

In the interview with the Jerusalem Post which took place in Israel, Lamm prophesied that the time has come to say "Kaddish" for Conservative Judaism. He included Reform Judaism as well in his premature obituary. "With a heavy heart we will soon say kaddish on the Reform and Conservative Movements," said Lamm, head of the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary at Yeshiva University. He went on to add that the "Conservatives are in a mood of despondency and pessimism. They are closing schools and in general shrinking."

Lamm's pronouncement prompted many responses from Conservative Movement leaders. All criticized Lamm for his inappropriate comments and most found aspects of Conservative Judaism to be proud of. Rabbinical Assembly executive vice president Rabbi Julie Schoenfeld (right) penned an articulate response in which she underscored the authenticity of Conservative Judaism and mentioned some of the recent changes she has already implemented in her new position. [I can personally vouge for her hard work and initial success by way of example. Rabbi Schoenfeld has convened a subcommittee, on which I serve, to help improve the technological resources available through the Rabbinical Assembly and in only a couple months, much has been accomplished.] She also remarked that at the recent AIPAC Policy Conference, the majority of the rabbis in attendance were members of the Conservative Movement’s rabbinic group.

Rabbi Julie Schoenfeld also underscored the popularity of the Hekhsher Tzedek initiative. She writes, "many of Rabbi Lamm’s Orthodox constituents who are in agreement with my colleague, Rabbi Morris Allen's call that we take ethical mitzvot as seriously as ritual ones in the preparation of kosher food. The message we are hearing loud and clear is that the American Jewish community is quite literally hungry to lead lives where the ritual is bound up in the ethical underpinning."

Rabbi Andrew Sacks of the Masorti Movement, Conservative Judaism's Israeli branch, fired back writing a response to Rabbi Lamm in the Jerusalem Post in which he took him on point by point. Richard Moline, the director the Conservative Movement's college outreach program Koach, wrote an op-ed piece for JTA encouraging Conservatives to look in the mirror and shoulder the responsibility rather than blaming the institution. My favorite response was by one Conservative rabbi who questioned which "Kaddish" Rabbi Lamm proposed be said for Conservative Judaism: Full Kaddish, Rabbi's Kaddish, or a Mourner's Kaddish?

The most scholarly and perhaps the most convincing rebuttal of Rabbi Lamm’s comments came from the preeminent scholar of Modern American Judaism, Prof. Jonathan Sarna (left), who reminded Lamm of the predictions in the 1950s that the demise of Orthodox Judaism was an inevitable reality. In the Forward, Professor Sarna wrote:

Lamm's triumphalistic prediction has, unsurprisingly, elicited strong and angry responses from Conservative and Reform leaders who consider their movements youthful and vibrant. For a historian, though, the prediction cannot help but call to mind earlier attempts to divine American Judaism’s future.

When Lamm was young, those who followed trends in Jewish life expected to say Kaddish for Orthodox Judaism. A careful study in 1952 found that "only twenty-three percent of the children of the Orthodox intend to remain Orthodox; a full half plan to turn Conservative." The future of American Jewry back then seemed solidly in the hands of Conservative Jews.

Years earlier, in the late 19th century, Reform Judaism expected to say Kaddish for other kinds of Jews. The great architect of American Reform Judaism, Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise, titled his prayer book "Minhag Amerika" — the liturgical custom of American Jews — and given the number of synagogues that moved into the Reform camp in his day, his vision did not seem farfetched. Many in the mid-1870s believed, as he did, that the future of American Judaism lay in the hands of the Reformers.

Before then, of course, those with crystal balls expected to say Kaddish for Judaism as a whole in America. One of the nation's wisest leaders, its then attorney general, William Wirt, predicted in 1818 that within 150 years, Jews would be indistinguishable from the rest of mankind. Former president John Adams likewise looked to the future and thought that Jews would "possibly in time become liberal Unitarian Christians."

All these predictions made sense in their day. All assumed that the future would extend forward in a straight line from the present. All offered their followers the comforting reassurance that triumph lay just beyond the horizon.

And all proved utterly and wildly wrong. Lamm’s prediction is unlikely to break this depressing streak of failures.

Well, I certainly find Lamm's suggestion that it is time to say Kaddish for Conservative Judaism to be both inappropriate and narrow-minded. He was looking to be controversial. Before reacting to his comment, it is first necessary to make the distinction between Conservative Judaism (an ideology) and the Conservative Movement (an institutional denomination).

Conservative Judaism is a centrist ideology of Judaism. It promotes an understanding of Judaism that retains the authority of the Torah (tradition) while also remaining open to modern innovation (change). It leaves enough room for its adherents to choose various options with regard to the authorship of the Torah, from divine authorship with revelation at Mt. Sinai to human authorship over time, with several options in between.

Conservative Judaism is a viable ideology of Modern Judaism. It is the centrist position situated between the Reform ideology on the left and Orthodoxy on its right. It is the Conservative Movement that is in trouble. The movement found its heyday in the middle of the last century. It was growing by leaps and bounds with the largest Hebrew schools, high holiday services overflowing into social halls and school gymnasiums, and youth groups with expanding memberships. The movement took this success for granted. At the time, it was the movement that had the congregations that people found to be the perfect balance between the Orthodoxy they were raised in and the liberalism that they desired. With the rise of intermarriage, many flocked to the inviting and more tolerant Reform congregations. Others drank the Kool-Aid at Camp Ramah and moved to the right of the Conservative Movement by embracing a modern Orthodox lifestyle and joining an Orthodox shul.

Yes, there are still programs with the Conservative Movement seal for which movement members should take pride. The Ramah camping program is a clear success, but to be fair so are the Reform movement camps. Jewish summer camping in general is a success story. And I can speak of the local success of the new consolidated Hebrew High School program here in Metro Detroit. ATID (Alliance for Teens in Detroit), a weekly after-school informal Jewish high school program, is a collaborative effort by the Conservative synagogue's in town. It is a program for which the Conservative Movement should be proud.

The real complaint about the Conservative Movement is not really with the movement. It certainly isn't with Conservative Judaism as a way of practicing the Jewish faith either. It is with United Synagogue as an organization. And that's actually a good thing because it is much easier for an organization to change (and I wish Rabbi Wernick the best of luck because it will be an uphill climb). The allegations are that Conservative synagogues have been paying hefty dues to the United Synagogue (headquartered in Manhattan) without seeing much value in return. When the economy was stronger, the congregations paid their dues knowing that if they didn't they would have trouble getting a rabbi or cantor placed at their congregation and their youth would be barred from attending youth group conventions. Times have changed. Every dollar counts and congregations have begun to withhold these dues until they get more (and better) services in return. I think that's a valid demand.

Going forward, the Conservative Movement must be less concerned with numbers. It doesn't much matter how many families have left Conservative synagogues. Many of the families that have left likely shouldn’t have been there in the first place. Movement leaders also should be less concerned with how many synagogues are merging as there were likely too many shuls in the same geographic area before.

So, what should the leaders of the Conservative Movement be concerned about? For starters, they should promote the Conservative Judaism ideology and way of life. That would require a collaborative PR effort among all the arms of the movement including the seminaries, professional organizations, camps, youth groups, Schechter day schools, and the movement's Israel and overseas branches. The movement (read: United Synagogue) must do a better job of educating its members about its raison d'etre.

United Synagogue also has to do a better job of operating with less. That means taking the Reform Movement's lead and getting rid of the regional offices. (Note: this has already begun with plans to merge several USCJ regions). I would also recommend finding some less expensive office space, which might entail moving out of Manhattan.

Finally, I would recommend encouraging collaboration among member congregations. Use the ATID model if you'd like. It is what happens when a few Conservative congregations that spent decades competing with each other were able to come together collaboratively for the sake of their teenage populations and Jewish education. USCJ should urge and facilitate the merger of two struggling Conservative congregations in the same area. If handled correctly, it will benefit both parties. The movement should also merge its Israel trips for high school youth. It is redundant to send teens to Israel through both United Synagogue Youth and Camp Ramah.

Does the Conservative Movement need to look in the mirror more? Probably. It's a good practice for all of us. But more than anything, movement leaders should stop caring what old, retired Orthodox university scholars are saying and begin moving forward into the future together with pride. Time is of the essence.

Shavuot: The Power of Community

Originally published as a guest blog post at Religion Transcends.

Tonight begins the festival of Shavuot, the holiday in which the Jewish people celebrate the revelation of the Torah at Mt. Sinai. Perhaps, the questions about the revelation of the Torah (when, what, how, if, and to whom) are the questions that divide the Jewish people today more than any other questions. The divisions among the modern denominations of Judaism all stem from the question of how the Torah was revealed to the Jewish people. The way in which individuals in the Jewish community consider the event that occurred at Mt. Sinai several millennia ago has vast implications for their approach to the Jewish faith. The sheer magnitude of that event, however, should force us all to transcend denominational differences and feel the power of community – whichever community we choose.

Never has the spiritual force of revelation affected me more than it did on the early morning of May 31, 1998. I had recently graduated college and was spending Shavuot at a local synagogue, where I served as the youth director. The assistant rabbi decided that the congregation would offer an all-night Tikkun Leil Shavuot (study session) and then a dawn service just before 5:00 in the morning.

It was a memorable night with many opportunities for Torah study with several wonderful teachers including three eighth-grade day school students. With delicious snacks and caffeinated beverages, about thirty of us managed to stay up the entire night. We decided to hold the minyan outdoors in the courtyard so we could enjoy the sunrise while we prayed.

The Torah service that morning took on new meaning for me. The Torah was paraded around and I had the sense that we really were at Sinai claiming what God had lovingly gifted to us. As I stood at the Torah for my aliyah, the sky began to get dark again. The Torah reader pronounced, “On the third day, as morning dawned, there was thunder, and lightning…” As the words “thunder” and “lightning” were uttered, a huge thunderstorm ensued. The Torah reader managed to get out a few more words, chanting “…and a dense cloud upon the mountain, and a very loud blast of the horn; and all the people who were in the camp trembled. Moses led the people out of the camp toward God, and they took their places at the foot of the mountain.”

At that point, the sky opened up and the heavy rains began. We grabbed the Torah and ran inside where the Torah reading was completed. As I wiped the raindrops from my glasses, I remember thinking that this must be divine revelation. This was the epitome of holiness. This existential experience was full of awe and majesty, thunderclaps, and lightning bolts. Best of all, it was shared with community.

This was a liminal moment in my life. That experience has had a lasting effect on my life in the decade since. Being shaken by the thunder, seeing the lightning, and hearing the words of our Torah convinced me that I really did stand at Sinai. We were all there together. As a community.

That was my revelation. What was revealed to me? The power of community. Was I really at Mt. Sinai several thousand years ago? Maybe not physically there, but with this community, during that early morning storm it was as if I were there. And that is the message of Sinai. A community gathered to receive a gift from God. How that gift is interpreted thousands of years later should not take away from the magic of that moment.

At a time when some segments of the global Jewish community do not recognize other segments as Jewish, let us put aside our denominational differences and hearken back to Sinai. One Torah was given to the entire community. Let us stand again at Sinai with our brothers and sisters, and feel the power of community.

Conservative Movement in DC

The Reform Movement, under the sage guidance of Rabbi David Saperstein, has always taken the lead in domestic politics. Saperstein, voted Newsweek Magazine's most influential rabbi, heads the Reform Movement's Religion Action Committee (RAC). The RAC's website states that it "has been the hub of Jewish social justice and legislative activity in the nation’s capital for more than 40 years. The RAC educates and mobilizes the American Jewish community on legislative and social concerns, advocating on issues from economic justice to civil rights to religious liberty to Israel." Similarly, the Orthodox Union has the OU Institute for Public Affairs.

The Conservative Movement has never had a Washington Office or a "man in D.C." Until now. Recently, the Rabbinical Assembly tapped Rabbi Jack Moline (right) to be its first director of public policy. Moline says the position will be an extension of the political advocacy and activist work he's been doing as an individual rabbi for the last 25 years, and he's anxious to use the connections cultivated in Washington to advance the agenda of Conservative rabbis.

I ran into Jack Moline when I was in Washington recently for the AIPAC Policy Conference. I was headed to dinner at the Kosher restaurant "Eli's" with two other Conservative rabbis from Detroit. Jack offered to drive us from the Washington Convention Center to the restuarant which gave us an opportunity to both congratulate him on his new appointment and to ask him some questions. The bottom line is that it is too bad the Conservative Movement waited this long to create a director of public policy in Washington, but it is wonderful that Jack Moline will serve in this position. He's the perfect choice. In his initial statement on public policy, Jack wrote:

The goal is to bring as much added value to public policy discussions as possible, especially by the inclusion of perspectives that reflect the Jewish values that flow from the ethos of Conservative Judaism. Of necessity, I will rely on colleagues from the OU and the RAC, JCPA and UJC, but our advocacy will not be an automatic echo of either one. Effective advocacy is a matter of finding common ground – in a sense, p’sharah – not merely proclaiming ideals. As such, we will sometimes find ourselves in coalition with groups with whom we will other times disagree: Roman Catholics, Evangelical Christians, Muslims, atheists and a host of Protestant denominational groups.

Already, one notices the Rabbinical Assembly finding its voice when it comes to matters in Washington. Only days before the AIPAC Policy Conference, it was announced that Michael Oren was being considered for the position of Israeli Ambassador to the United States. The Rabbinical Assembly wasted no time in issuing a press release to commend the appointment.

The RA noted in its statement that Oren is the product of a Conservative Jewish upbringing in New Jersey. Further, Dr. Oren spoke at the RA convention in 2004, following the publication of his book, Six Days of War.

Rabbi Julie Schonfeld, the incoming executive vice president of the RA terms Michael Oren an "iconic figure whose intellect and communication abilities are without peer in contemporary political life. No one today can argue the case for Israel in quite the way that he can," she reiterated. "Whether in his IDF uniform in front of CNN’s cameras or on the pages of the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times, Michael Oren has been acting as a de facto ambassador for Israel for quite some time."

At the AIPAC conference, Dr. Oren spoke at a luncheon for rabbis. The RA also noted in the press release that "the overwhelming majority of rabbis who were in attendance [at the luncheon] are Conservative." To be fair, Oren explained that his Judaism has roots in many movements. In fact, he explained that he was raised in Conservative Judaism but dropped out of his Conservative synagogue's Hebrew School. He's also had religoius experiences with Chabad and was a member in the Reform "Kol Haneshama" in his Jerusalem neighborhood.

Oren is a great choice for the ambassador position. I've heard him speak several times and I've been impressed on each occasion. He will certainly have company in Washington with other political and economic leaders who have roots in Conservative Judaism, including Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

Pope in Israel

My first exposure to Catholicism was as a teenager. I was the assistant to a photographer who photographed several Catholic weddings. I found it fascinating to be in these beautiful churches and watch the religious rites of the Catholic tradition. I joked that, at the time, I had been to more Catholic weddings than Jewish weddings. That quickly changed.

My next experience with anything Catholic was in rabbinical school when I was selected to participate in an interfaith dialogue program called Seminarians Interacting. The now defunct program brought Christian, Jewish, and Muslim theological students (future priests, rabbis, and imams) together in a setting of mutual engagement and exchange. It was sponsored by the National Conference for Community and Justice (formerly known as the National Conference for Christians and Jews). The program was hosted at a large, beautiful Catholic seminary in Baltimore. Again, I learned a great deal about Catholics and noted several similarities between their religion and Judaism.

The summer following Seminarians Interacting, I served a chaplaincy internship at Beaumont Hospital in Royal Oak, Michigan. The Clinical Pastoral Education program was made up of two rabbinical students, three future Catholic priests, and about a half-dozen other future religious leaders. My interactions with the three Catholic seminary students led to wonderful friendships. The program was geared toward pastoral education, but our informal conversations during lunch and in the hospital corridors were about our respective religious tradition. We spoke of personal faith, our families, and the stress of our future positions. These coreligionists responded candidly to me about their individual decisions to join the priesthood and live a life of chastity. They explained the hierarchy of the priesthood to me, helped me understand the importance of Vatican II (Pope Paul's 1965 proclamation of Nostar Aetate), and taught me the symbolism behind the Eucharist (Holy Communion). Of course, their curiosity about Judaism led to many enjoyable Q&A sessions as well. I remember driving to the Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit with one of the future priests to play racquetball (racquetball courts in the Seminary dorms -- I was jealous!). On the way, he played a CD for me with the most beautiful Mass service.

Recently, with the Pope's visit to Israel, I have been thinking much about Catholic-Jewish relations and my own interfaith relationships. This past March, as news of the Israel visit by Pope Benedict XVI was growing, an article in the Jerusalem Post explained that the rabbi of the Western Wall, Shmuel Rabinovitch, said that it is not proper for him to come to the Kotel wearing a cross. He said, "My position is that it is not fitting to enter the Western Wall area with religious symbols, including a cross." He said he feels the same way about a Jewish man walking into a church wearing a tallit and t'fillin. Not that it matters since he would never set foot in a church. It's also a silly analogy because tallit and t'fillin are religious articles used during prayer. Wearing a cross around ones neck is akin to wearing a Star of David or a Chai. While several rabbis responded to Rabbi Rabinovitch, I thought my colleague Rabbi Andrew Sacks put it best. In the JPost blog, he told the following story:

It seems that back in the 18th century, a Christian asked Rabbi Moses Mendelssohn "how can your religion be correct if my religion is correct?" His response was that there is one pasture, but many gates. Or as your scripture puts it, "In my father's house there are many rooms." Let the many "gates" to the Kotel, the "gates of righteousness," be open to all.

This week's Time Magazine has an interesting article on Catholic-Jewish relations, "Pope Benedict and the Question of Judaism". It addresses the Pope's first visit to Israel, but underscores the tension he has caused due to several missteps in his relationship with the Jewish community. In reversing the 1988 excommunication of four bishops of an ultra-traditionalist Catholic group called the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), he included the Holocaust denying Bishop Richard Williamson who believes the Nazi gas chambers never existed. Further, in a 2006 speech at Auschwitz, he failed to mention anti-Semitism, instead contending that "ultimately the Nazis' motive in killing Jews was to tear up the taproot of the Christian faith." He also reintroduced a prayer in the Mass calling for Jews to convert.

Last month, I joined several local Detroit-area rabbis for a luncheon with the new Archbishop of Detroit, the Most Reverend Allen Vigneron (right). He spoke openly about which aspects of Judaism have influenced his Catholic beliefs. Perhaps, most impressive, he did not hesitate to speak about the recent controversies of the pope with regard to the Jewish people. Rather than seek to defend the pontiff, Archbishop Vigneron, who is likely to named a Cardinal, expressed his deep desire to further dialogue with the Jewish community. I was very impressed of his knowledge of Judaism and his making Catholic-Jewish relations a priority.

It should be no surprise that the Pope's arrival in Jerusalem yesterday has already caused a fuss. News is circulating around the Web that Pope Benedict walked out on a sheikh delivering an anti-Israel diatribe yesterday in a meeting of interfaith leaders. Rabbi Barry Leff was there and wrote on his blog about his take on what happened. He wrote:

Sheikh Taysir al-Tamimi, chief Islamic judge of the Palestinian Authority, delivered a rant at the gathering at the Notre Dame center in Jerusalem. I don't speak Arabic -- and I presume the Pope doesn't either -- so at the time all I could tell was that the Sheikh was very animated. At one point whatever he said received some modest applause from the Arabic-speaking crowd. According to the Jerusalem Post report, here's what he was saying: 'In an impromptu speech, delivered in Arabic at the Notre Dame Pontifical Institute in Jerusalem, Sheikh Tayseer Tamimi, chief Islamic judge in the Palestinian Authority, launched a 10-minute tirade against the State of Israel for confiscating Palestinians' land and carrying out war crimes against the residents of Gaza." He also called for the immediate return of all Palestinian refugees, and called on Christians and Muslims to unite against Israel.

The entire text of the Pope's speech is available here.

Rabbi Leff adds that the Pope quoted from the Torah portion Lech Lecha, saying: "God said to Abram, 'Go from your country, your kindred and your father's house for a land I shall show you."

No matter what the current Pope does or says, the relationship between Catholics and Jews is an important one. All interfaith relations are fragile in nature. I believe we should look positively on the Pope's visit to Israel and use it as a springboard toward making dialogue between Jewish leaders and Catholic leaders a priority.

Connected Community of Wired Jews

Yesterday, Israel celebrated its 61st year of independence. When detailing all that this little nation has to be proud of, modern technology always ranks at the top of the list. After all, this is the country responsible for the popularity of instant messaging on the Internet (ICQ was first developed by the Israeli company Mirabilis).

I think that modern technology and the new forms of digital communication are wonderful advances that improve our world in general, and the global Jewish community in particular. They have caused borders to virtually fade into nonexistence. In my college senior thesis (The Globalization of Judaism), I argued that the Internet has (and will continue to) change the global Jewish community religiously, culturally, and educationally. As the online virtual community has grown, the actual Jewish community seems smaller and the proverbial borders have disappeared.

There are many who argue that the new communication tools are a hindrance to our community. They complain that our ability to always be connected is an intrusiveness in modern life. I propose that our embrace of social networking changes our cultural community in wonderful ways. To be interconnected within our global community can lead to positive advances in all realms.

My colleague, Rabbi Aaron Bergman (right) of Adat Shalom Synagogue in Farmington Hills, Michigan, wrote a very nice article in this month's congregational bulletin on the subject of always being "in touch" through modern communication technology. Rather than complaining about the intrusiveness of modern life, Rabbi Bergman writes that he embraces it. He acknowledges that through his Blackberry, Facebook page, and Twitter account, he is "able to communicate with people with common interests from around the world". He appreciates being able to reconnect with old friends and stay in regular communication with people (his congregants) when he's not sitting at his office desk.

While some complain that the new technologies alienate people from each other, Rabbi Bergman theorizes that our embrace of social networking is actually a reaction to feeling alienated, not the cause of it. I agree.

There are enough individuals who are negative about our society's connected lifestyle in the 21st century. Many of the same people who once railed against cellphones, now use them incessantly. Those who couldn't understand the necessity of PDAs, Blackberrys, and iPhones now can't live without them. And those who scoffed at social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter as a silly waste of time have set up their own accounts.

The future is here and we are still figuring out how to best utilize the new technology. I'm glad to see rabbis like Aaron Bergman embrace these new communication tools. Many rabbis are resistant because they have yet to discover how to best capitlize on them.

Together with a couple other rabbis, I've been asked by Rabbi Julie Schoenfeld, the new Executive Vice President of the Rabbinical Assembly, to consult the RA on technology issues. Together, we are trying to figure out how rabbis can best make use of these advances in modern communications. Every rabbi now uses e-mail daily, participates in e-mail listservs, and posts sermons to the synagogue website. Now, the time has come to help rabbis take the next step: using a blog to communicate with their congregants, setting up a Facebook page, teaching bits of Torah through a Twitter account, posting their sermons and lectures on YouTube, and teaching through Podcasts.

My teacher, Rabbi Hayim Herring (for whom I'm honored to be mistaken - see here), is writing a book to be published by The Alban Institute entitled Tools for Shuls: A Guide to Make Over Your Synagogue. On his blog, which functions as a virtual labratory for his book, he has a section called "Digital Dreaming: Using Technology Wisely". In it, he writes that the new communication tools and the environment are ripe for experimentations in creating new virtual Jewish communities. In fact, they are already happening. We've come a long way since my first Talmud teacher at the Jewish Theological Seminary, Rabbi Avi Reisner, raised the question of whether a virutal minyan (prayer quorum of ten) would be "kosher" if it were assembled through the virtual realm of the Internet. His teshuvah (Jewish legal responsum), "Wired to the Kadosh Barukh Hu: Minyan via Internet", is available here.

There are pros and cons to our new modes of communication. But we must try to discover how to best utilize them for success. We should also get to know them well enough that we will determine their negative effects and navigate our way around those. One example of this is Liel Leibowitz's analysis of Twitter, the microblogging networking site. In his article in the Forward, "Communication Breakdown: Dispatches from the Virtual World", Leibowitz argues that the condensing of our communication to 140-character messages is not a very Jewish concept. After all, we are the People of the Book! He imagines the scene from Mount Sinai in which a modern-day Moses reaches the apex of the mountain, pulls out his iPhone and communicates to the Israelite nation via Twitter. "The people, he knows, will be blogging about this moment for ages to come". Leibowitz opines:

Examining this thinning of language — these starved forms of communications that favor the quick and the inconsequential while remaining unsuited for thoughts that may take space to unfold and time to read — it is easy to succumb to a technologically deterministic depression and declare the end of intelligent civilization near. But since Jews have been forever defined — even constituted — by our relationship with the book and, as a result, with the written word at large, we must pay special attention to these winds of change. Without being unduly alarmist, one can say that the Internet may be killing off the Jewish mind.

Whether or not, this form of communication bodes well for the Jewish people, Leibowitz is correct to assess it. We must all do this. Instead of avoiding the new technology available to us, let us find the applications that will work to our advantage and then improve our communities (synagogues, schools, organizations, etc.) for the future. There are ways to exploit new communication technology and new networking applications that will greatly enhance our global Jewish community.

What are some ways in which you're doing it?

Intermarried Rabbinical Students

The student-run journal New Voices has published some thought-provoking and quite provocative articles in recent issues. Their current issue takes on a theme I don't think has been discussed much. Is it acceptable for rabbinical students to intermarry? This is certainly not an issue in the Orthodox world and I don't remember it ever really being discussed at JTS (Conservative). However, in the more liberal rabbinical schools (namely the Reform's Hebrew Union College, the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College, and the new non-denominational Hebrew College), I guess this has been an issue.

One of my classmates at JTS was dating a non-Jewish woman, but she converted to Judaism early on in our six-year course of study and it was a non-issue.

The New Voices article, "The Coming of the Intermarried Rabbi", by Jeremy Gillick opens with the story of David Curiel (right), who decided to become a rabbi in the summer of 2008. Curiel was shocked when Hebrew College told him he would not be welcome at its seminary because his wife was not Jewish. In the "it's a small world" category, Curiel is from Metro Detroit and is the brother of a Hebrew High School classmate of mine from Adat Shalom Synagogue.

The author explains that the "Conservative movement's Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS), the Reform movement's Hebrew Union College (HUC) and the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College (RRC) all refuse to admit or ordain students in relationships with non-Jews".

The policy at the Reform Movement's seminaries reads: "Because we believe in the importance of Jewish family modeling, applicants who are married to or in committed relationships with non-Jews will not be considered for acceptance to this program".

Rabbi Dan Ehrenkrantz, dean of the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College in Philly said "The bedrock of what it means to be Jewish is to belong to the Jewish people. Leaders of the Jewish community, who model to others what Jewish life can be, should themselves be in homes that are fully Jewish".

There are some intermarried rabbis out there. "In 1992, Rabbi Zalman Schachter-Shalomi, a founder of the neo-Kabbalistic Jewish Renewal movement, ordained Tirzah Firestone, making her the first intermarried rabbi on record. In her memoir With Roots in Heaven: One Woman's Passionate Journey into the Heart of Her Faith, Firestone recounts how her husband inspired her return to Judaism, but that their marriage ultimately fell apart because of his faith."

According to Rabbi Marcia Prager, the dean of ordination programs at ALEPH (Renewal), Firestone's experience informed the school's approximately 10-year-old policy to evaluate students with non-Jewish partners on a case-by-case basis. When ALEPH does admit such students, it does so with the hope that the non-Jewish partner will one day "join the tribe".

What do you think? Leave your comment about whether it is appropriate for rabbinical schools to refuse to admit intermarried candidates into their ordination program.

Baseball and Holiday Conflicts

The Detroit Tigers' 2009 home opener is this Friday afternoon at 1:05 p.m. I would get tickets and attend if it weren't the second day of Passover. According to T.S. O'Connell, sports historian and the editor of the Sports Collectors Digest, Jews shouldn't be the only religious group upset with the date of the Tigers' home opener this year. On his blog, The Infield Dirt, O'Connell writes:

I saw a news item recently that said the Detroit Tigers were taking a bit of heat because of the scheduling of their home opener on April 10, more precisely noting that some Catholics were upset that the 1:05 p.m. start time came during the noon to 3 p.m. period when traditional Christian belief holds that Jesus was hung on the cross.

O'Connell then writes how this news item caused him to wonder how this particular conflict (opening day an Good Friday) hadn't come up before. He waxes nostalgic about the 1965 decision by Sandy Koufax to forgo pitching in the World Series opener against the Minnesota Twins because it fell on Yom Kippur. He writes:

I was just a 15-year-old kid, frantically following the approaching World Series in the New York Daily News, and I was just awestruck that somebody (actually my favorite pitcher) could take a pass on what I regarded as a secular assignment with near-religious overtones. Mostly it just impressed me with the seriousness of the Jewish faith; the decision only enhanced my view of Koufax, aided neatly by the later developments that saw the Dodgers win in seven games. By my way of thinking, it was no harm, no foul. I also found it fascinating to learn years later as I became something of an amateur baseball historian that there was never really any major decision involved for Sandy. He had long since made it clear to the Dodgers’ brass that he would not play on Yom Kippur, so when the prohibition coincided with one of the holiest days in the baseball world, it was what we would later call a "no brainer." That same thirst for reading about baseball history would lead me to Hank Greenberg’s decision to skip a game during the 1934 pennant race for the same reason.

What a statement it would make if Mike Ilitch, owner of the Detroit Tigers, told the commissioner of baseball that the Tigers would have to reschedule their opening day game at Comerica Park because of Good Friday and Passover. Of course, with my luck, they'd reschedule the game to Shabbat and I still wouldn't be able to go!

On the same subject, I laughed when I read an email circulating about the Boston Red Sox home opener this year. Here it is:

The Red Sox home opener this year will be postponed for Passover.

Red Sox general manager, Theo Epstein announced that the Boston Red Sox home opener will be postponed to April 14 to avoid the eight days of the Passover holiday. He noted, because three of his starters (Kevin Youkilis, Gabe Kapler and Adam Stern) are Jewish as are his box seat holders, he was forced to make this change in scheduling. There have been several complaints from fans, who are enraged at Epstein's decision. In fact, protests are being tendered to the commissioner of baseball's office. However, Bud Selig, commissioner of baseball, will not be able to address these protests; mainly due to a scheduling problem. This has been caused by the family seders he and Mrs. Selig will be attending.

Also, unable to attend the opener: Al Gore and Tipper will be unavailable as they will attend a seder at their son in law's home. Bill and Hilary Clinton will be attending the seder at the home of their daughter Chelsea's boyfriend. In addition, former mayor of NYC, Rudy Guiliani, whose wife will be busy preparing their seder. And finally the Obamas will be out of town enjoying a seder at Michele’s cousin's house, Rabbi Capers Funnye.

Capers Funnye and America's Next Top Rabbi

I had already heard about Rabbi Capers Funnye when I looked at Congregation Ahavas Israel's monthly newsletter a few months ago. The only Conservative synagogue in Grand Rapids, Michigan advertised their upcoming scholar-in-residence weekend on the front page of their congregation's bulletin.

This past November, they invited Rabbi Capers Funnye, the head rabbi of the mostly African-American 200 member Beth Shalom B’nai Zaken Ethiopian Hebrew Congregation in Chicago (He also serves as a senior research associate for the Institute of Jewish and Community Research in San Francisco). The Black rabbi spoke at the Grand Rapids shul on Shabbat and then at a local church on Sunday. The only thing that surprised me about seeing this upcoming program was: Why hadn't other synagogues thought of this? After all, this is First Lady Michelle Obama's cousin!

Well, this certainly wasn't to be Rabbi Funnye's last time speaking in a white suburban congregation. As my friend Zev Chafets reports in this weekend's New York Times Magazine ("Barack Obama's Rabbi"), Rabbi Funnye and his wife chose to celebrate Martin Luther King Day at the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue, a mainstream NYC Reform congregation, rather than attend pre-inauguration festivities in D.C. for Funnye's relative Barack Obama.

Chafets writes an enlightening article about Rabbi Funnye and the Black Judaism that he embraces. Just how close are the Funnye's and Obama's? Well, as Chafets writes, they seem to have reunited at Barack and Michelle's wedding. And due to their "common interest in community organizing in Chicago, they saw each other often, socially and professionally". Capers and Mary Funnye also had VIP reserved seats during President Obama's inaugural speech when they sat among Oprah Winfrey, Steven Spielberg, and close family members.

When the news of Michelle Obama's black rabbi cousin broke, there were many in the Jewish community who weren't sure what to think about this revelation. Was it a secret? Is he close with Barack? Is he really a rabbi? Is he really Jewish? I think the NYT Magazine article by Chafets will clear that up once and for all, especially considering the title of the piece: "Obama's Rabbi".

And there are a couple other rabbis who may lay claim to being the rabbinic advisor to the Commander in Chief. Rabbi Jack Moline, a Conservative rabbi in Alexandria, Virginia is probably the most well-connected rabbi in the Beltway with the exception of Rabbi David Saperstein of the Reform Movement's RAC (Religious Action Committee). Moline's close ties to Rahm Emanuel could certainly put him in the running to be Obama's rabbi in D.C. And Rabbi Asher Lopatin (left), Rahm Emanuel's rabbi in Chicago, could also get President Obama's ear when he wants it (at least indirectly through the Chief of Staff).

So, with three rabbis with close connections to the president, it is surprising that none of these rabbis (Funnye, Moline, or Lopatin) made Newsweek's list of the most influential rabbis for 2009. The recently released list is made up of most of the usual suspects who have graced the list since its inception in 2007, as well as some newbies.

Maybe Rabbi Capers Funnye is too "outside the mainstream" to be included in the list one might say. Well, to that I offer Yehuda Berg (#13), the head of the "cultish" Kabbalah Center in Los Angeles, who includes non-Jews Madonna, Lindsey Lohan, and Ashton Kutcher among his balabatim and offers a free lucky red-string to visitors of his website.

While Rabbis Moline and Lopatin didn't make the list either (probably because they are not based in LA or NY), there are a few influential rabbis on the list for the first time who are quite deserving. It was nice to see Rabbi Jill Jacobs (right) of Jewish Funds for Justice and Rabbi Elie Kaunfer (founder of Mechon Hadar and Kehillat Hadar) on the list for the first time. It was not surprising to see that Rabbi Menachem Genack, the head of the Orthodox Union's kosher division, made the list this year. However, Rabbi Morris Allen (Hekhsher Tzedek) was notably absent. I was also happy, but not surprised, to see that Rabbi Steve Gutow (Jewish Council for Public Affairs) made the list at #20 this year.

I was thrilled to see Rabbi Daniel Brenner on the list for the first time. I worked with Daniel at CLAL, when I served an internship there in 2001. He is now the director of Birthright Next, a program that keeps tabs on alumni of the Taglit-Birthright Israel program and helps these young people get more involved in the Jewish community. Daniel is a very talented guy and very deserving of this honor. Other CLAL figureheads on the list this year include Rabbi Irwin Kula (#7 in 2008; #12 in 2009) and Rabbi Brad Hirschfield (moving from #39 to #42).

Each year this list comes with the usual kvetches from the Jewish community. It's a silly list everyone argues. And it probably is a bit silly since there are no statistics one can use to measure the influence of rabbis in our country. It's also difficult to compare all these rabbis who have such different functions within the community (academics, fundraising, community organizing, kashrut policing, book publishing, etc.) But, as always, it makes for interesting conversation and debate.

Blog post on the 2008 Newsweek list of America's Most Influential Rabbis

Blog post on the 2007 Newsweek list of America's Most Influential Rabbis

Madoff and Pilot Sully

Rabbi Avi Shafran (right) never ceases to amaze me. He is the director of public affairs of Agudath Israel of America and the unofficial spokesman for Orthodox Judaism. Shafran is skilled, yet dangerous, with the pen. He has made a career out of writing op-ed pieces that defend Orthodoxy and delegitimize the non-Orthodox.

His latest op-ed piece is sure to shock. It is shocking in the way that the self-proclaimed "King of All Media", Howard Stern, says outrageous and sensational things. People will do a double-take at the first sentence alone.

In his editorial for the JTA, "Bernie, Sully and Me", Shafran writes:

Something tells me I won't make any new friends (and might even lose some old ones) if I confess to harboring some admiration for Bernard Madoff.

And to make things worse, I can't muster much for Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, the pilot who safely landed a full commercial airliner in the Hudson River back in January.

Let me try to explain. Please.

Mr. Madoff committed a serious economic crime on an unprecedented scale for such wrongdoing, and in the process ruined the financial futures of numerous people and institutions, including charitable ones, worldwide. There can be no denying that.

Rabbi Shafran makes the point that at least Bernie Madoff did teshuvah. He ceased his Ponzi scheme (after decades), confessed his sins, apologized, and will now serve prison time. Shafran finds Madoff's contrition to be admirable and can't understand how folks who were bilked by the Ponzi schemer, like Elie Wiesel, get off calling for horrific punishment for his sins. Shafran cites Jewish law which does not differentiate between one who steals a small amount of money ("pilfering a dime") and a thief like Madoff who scammed people out of billions of dollars. Shafran seems to say that halakhically (according to Jewish law), Madoff is no worse than one who cheats on his taxes thereby "defrauding 300 million of his fellow citizens".

Shafran then takes up the issue of whether Chelsey "Sully" Sullenberger, the U.S. Airlines pilot who miraculously landed his doomed plane in the Hudson River, is a hero. He writes:

No such sublimity of spirit, though, was in evidence in any of the public acts or words of Mr. Sullenberger. He saved 155 lives, no doubt about it, and is certainly owed the gratitude of those he saved, and of their families and friends. And he executed tremendous skill.

But no moral choice was involved in his act. He was on the plane too, after all; his own life depended on undertaking his feat no less than the lives of others. He did what anyone in terrible circumstances would do: try to stay alive.

Shafran even goes so far as to criticize Pilot Sullenberger for not acknowledging God ("the One Who instilled such astounding abilities in His creations") for the miracle or for granting him his piloting skills. That's a harsh critique right there, but Shafran continues. He chastises Sullenberger for signing a $3 million book deal with HarperCollins and agreeing to a second book of inspirational poems, while Bernard Madoff will languish in jail for the rest of his life.

Shafran poetically concludes his essay declaring that he is "unmoved by the pilot, and, at least somewhat, inspired by the penitent".

Okay, because he is a fine writer, Shafran is able to explain why he draws inspiration from Madoff and why the hero pilot doesn't do anything for him. But, we should take this editorial for what it is: sensational journalism.

According to Maimonides, Madoff hasn't even done teshuvah yet. Has he been in a position to commit the same crime again and chose not to? I don't think we know the answer to that. With regard to Sullenberger, I suppose it's true that he was on the plane too and his own life depended on undertaking his feat. But it was both his skill as a pilot, and his ability to perform under such pressure, that make him a hero. No one should try and take that away from him. And if he chooses not to publicly acknowledge his Creator, well, that's his prerogative. And only someone like Rabbi Shafran would go the extreme of publicly admonishing him for this omission.

My conclusions: 1) Avi Shafran is a good writer; 2) Avi Shafran likes to make sensational statements that attract attention; 3) Bernie Madoff is still evil; 4) Pilot Sully is still a hero.

Update: On April 6, Avi Shafran issued an apology for his essay. Shafran wrote:

My recent Am Echad Resources essay "Bernie, Sully and Me" has generated substantial criticism from many readers, including people whose opinions I deeply respect. I have come to the conclusion that that there were errors in both the content and tone of the essay, for which I apologize. My main goal in publishing these essays is to help people understand eternal Jewish truths. Unfortunately, here I chose unsuitable examples for the concepts I sought to impart, failing to accomplish that goal and offending many people in the process. I am grateful, as always, for the constructive comments and feedback I received from my readership, whose confidence I hope to retain going forward.

JTA reported that both Rabbi Eric Yoffie (president of the Union for Reform Judaism) and Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb (head of the Orthodox Union) wrote blistering op-eds in response to Shafran's views. Yoffie wrote that "Shafran completely misinterprets Jewish teachings on repentance" and his views demonstrate "ignorance of Jewish tradition".

Indie Minyans Revisited

I last took up the subject of independent minyanim (or "Indie Minyans") on this blog in January 2008. What prompted me to blog about these minyanim (prayer services) for the 20- and 30-something crowd was the coverage in the mainstream press. The New York Times article (November 28, 2007) opened with the following line: "There are no pews at Tikkun Leil Shabbat, no rabbis, no one with children or gray hair."

At the 2004 UJC General Assembly in Cleveland, I attended a session in which my colleague Elie Kaunfer (founder of Kehilat Hadar) was one of the panelists. He was challenged about what happens in the future when these young, progressive members of the indie minyans need a nursery school for their toddler or a rabbi for their son's bar mitzvah. He theorized that many of these young adults would move out to the suburbs and join established synagogues as they got married and had children. His caveat was that they would shake up the establishment at these congregations. Time would tell.

Well, it's now been about a decade since the founding of indie minyans like Hadar and those original members are now in their mid-thirties with spouses and children not too far off from the bar and bat mitzvah track. But many of them are doing what they did ten years ago. They're founding new minyans and recognizing that DIYJ (do it yourself Judaism) can extend to their families too (Who says you need a rabbi to officiate at a bat mitzvah?).

This doesn't bode well for the Conservative Movement where most of the indie minyan adherents were brought up and educated. Rabbi Jerry Epstein (right), the outgoing head of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, was banking on the idea that these "best and brightest" young people could be lured back to Conservative synagogues. As any study of the American Jewish population will tell you there are far fewer Conservative synagogues than there were when these indie minyan alumni were teenagers in USY and their synagogues are much thinner now membership-wise (at least the ones that haven't merged with other synagogues).

Rabbi Epstein writes that these young Conservative Jews "live precisely as we told them to [at Camp Ramah and in USY], but paradoxically they practice their Judaism outside our movement. They perceive that there is no place for them and their Judaism in the Conservative synagogue. If we want to grow in numbers and strength, if we want to inspire passion and commitment, we have to welcome those Jews who live our values and ideology outside of our synagogues to do it inside our synagogues instead."

This is no surprise to me. The Conservative Movement in general, and its affiliated synagogues in particular, got fat and lazy during the movement's heyday (1950-1990). They took their market share for granted and didn't progress or modernize. They also neglected to look behind them as the Reform, Modern Orthodox, Reconstructionist, and Chabad movements were gaining ground. Many of my contemporaries who were active in the movement's youth program (USY) and at the movement's various Ramah camps had a choice to make: become a Conservative rabbi or affiliate with Modern Orthodoxy. The Jewish Theological Seminary, the theory went, was the only place in the Conservative Movement where one could actually live out the ideals of Conservative Judaism. The young person who became more observant within the framework of the Conservative Jewish ideal was made to feel unwelcome in the Conservative synagogue. Is there any doubt why they packed up and moved to Orthodoxy or helped create a new non-denominational minyan community?

So what is the Conservative Movement's strategy for drawing in former members who have left for the indie minyan movement? Bribery!

Rabbi Epstein has some $2,500 checks to give out to entice some of these minyans to forge relationships with the Conservative Movement. The amount is relatively insignificant when you consider that Kehilat Hadar's annual operating budget is $160,000 and they have received six-figure grants recently from the Covenant Foundation and the Harold Grinspoon Foundation (where selling out isn't a prerequisite to getting the funding). I can't imagine a couple thousand dollars forcing any indie minyan to lose its independence and hook up with the establishment that was the impetus for its initial creation.

Ben Harris, in a JTA article (Figuring out why promising Conservative alumni set up 'indy minyans'), explains what has happened in the aftermath of these grants from USCJ: "More than six months later, the organization has handed out six grants. At least two went to minyanim that already had relationships with a local Conservative synagogue. One minyan founder in New York said his group's connection to the movement had changed little since it received the grant. "

The discussion about indie minyans and the Conservative Movement's desire to reconnect its best and brightest young people to the established Conservative synagogues they fled has been taken up at the Jewschool blog under the title "Same story in two movements". Several young Reform Jews have remarked that the pattern is similar in the Reform Movement as well.

David Wilensky writes on his Reform Shuckle blog that this is "the same challenge that I and many of my friends face with our own Reform movement. The Reform world has educated some of us so well and so effectively taught us how to be engaged in some sort of active personal reformation and now we're so into it that all the 'normal' Reform Jews think we're nuts."

Justin, a commentor on the Jewschool site, wrote "I also think that what Epstein et al fail to understand, coming from a future Conservative ordained rabbi who was the gabbai of an indy minyan, is that it is PRECISELY being engaged with the movement that is the problem. If we can pursue egalitarian, halakhically inspired and influenced communities without paying dues, and manage to have successful prayer communities, why do we need the movement at all? In my opinion, and this is overtly crass, movement folk want to keep their movement jobs and they view us as a threat. Hence the USCJ donating grants to indy minyanim willing to have relations with Conservative shuls. I think they believe that when people need religious school and day-care they will join a shul. For now this may be true, but I am sure eventually indy minyanim will be able to figure out how to provide that for their own communities similar to what the havura movement was able to do in some instances in the 70s."

I agree with Justin. I think that as these emerging communities and indie minyanim came on the scene, the thinking from the establishment was that these were transient communities for Jewish young people in the post-college (Hillel) and pre-family (religious school and bar mitzvah) part of life. Well, that does not appear to be the case.

It looks like the indie minyan that starts with a dozen grad students turns into a havurah and and then eventually the type of ideal synagogue community these "best and brightest" Conservative Movement dropouts have been dreaming about but the established Conservative Movement, with its status quo thinking, cannot provide for them.