fbpx

December 14, 2000

Sibling Rivalry

I have three sisters, two older and one younger. My youngest sister, Debbie, was born when I was 8 years old. In the months leading up to her birth, I remember clearly the anxiety I felt over the possibility that it might turn out to be a boy and I might end up with a brother.

I suppose most 8-year-old boys would be thrilled at the possibility of having a younger brother to play with, boss around and teach the important ways of boyhood. So I must not be like most young boys. For months I had been telling my parents that if my mother gave birth to another boy, I was moving out and leaving the family! I was definitely not up for any competition in the boy department of my family — sorry, that job was already taken.

So, when the fateful day arrived on Oct. 9, 1957, I recall the anxiety and anticipation with which I greeted the arrival of my yet-to-be-known sibling.

I was sitting in class when a call came in asking that I be sent down to the principal’s office. I knew immediately it must have something to do with the impending birth of my sibling, so I raced down to the office, where I found my father waiting for me and my sister Candy, who was in another class at the same school. When, with a big smile, our dad informed us that we had a new baby sister, I was thrilled and couldn’t wait to welcome Debbie into the family.

But as the years went by, reality set in, and I became convinced every time my parents let Debbie do something that they would never have allowed me to do at the same age, that it must mean they loved her more — and I was jealous.

I even recall teaming up with an older sister to bring our “grievances” to the attention of our parents so we could enlighten them as to how unfair they were being and how unequally we were being treated. And I remember how deep the feelings could be.

So when I read this week’s Torah portion reminding us about the intense sibling rivalry between Jacob and Esau, and how fearful Jacob was of meeting up with his brother once again, knowing how he had abused and mistreated him, I thought back with great sadness on my own misplaced childhood jealousies and insecurities.

The fact is that too often parents do love their children differently, showing preference for one over the other and letting them know in a hundred different ways that no matter what they do, they will never really measure up. I see it in my work as a rabbi all the time, and every time I do it breaks my heart, knowing how fragile children’s egos really are.

In Vayishlach, we catch a glimpse of something remarkable, something redemptive in the human soul. When Jacob finally meets up with Esau bringing along his childhood fears and vulnerabilities, “Esau ran to greet him. He embraced him and, falling on his neck, he kissed him; and they wept” (Genesis 33:4). And Jacob, startled and awed by the open love of his brother, sweeping away decades of hurt and fear, replied, “To see your face is like seeing the face of God” (Genesis 33:10).

Would that we could all be as generous of spirit as Esau. Perhaps our real challenge from the Torah this week is to embrace the spiritual gifts of both brothers — from Esau to learn generosity of spirit, and from Jacob to look into the eyes of everyone we meet and have the vision to see the face of God.

Sibling Rivalry Read More »

Rescuing the Spiritual Elite

The Response of Orthodox Jewry in the United States to the Holocaust: The Activities of Vaad-Ha-Hatzala Rescue Committee, 1933-1945,
Efraim Zuroff,
Yeshiva University Press, 316 pages, $39.50

Efraim Zuroff is Israel’s preeminent Nazi-hunter, the best of the younger generation. Less of a detective or clandestine operative than his predecessors, he uses his considerable skills as a scholar and his diligence as a researcher to identify the perpetrators. He will be the last of the great Nazi hunters, because time is taking its toll on his potential targets, the youngest of which are now in their late 70s.

Those familiar with Zuroff’s work know that he has another passion: in articles and conference papers, he has chronicled the efforts of Orthodox Jews in the United States to rescue their brethren during the Shoah. More scholarly, less polemical and less reticent to consider discordant evidence than other researchers in the field, Zuroff writes with the precision of a seasoned scholar, carefully differentiating evidence from opinion and letting the documents tell the story.

It’s a little-known but important story of American Orthodox efforts to rescue yeshiva students and their teachers, facilitate their transport to Shanghai, and sustain them throughout World War II so that they could continue their studies even in the worst of times.

When the Germans invaded Poland on Sept. 1, 1939, several prominent heads of Polish yeshivas quickly evacuated themselves and their students to independent Lithuania in the hopes of escaping the Nazi onslaught. Penniless and almost without resources, they gradually reconstituted their institutions to continue their Torah studies. Their safety was short-lived; on June 15, 1940, the Soviet Union ended Lithuanian independence. German domination endangered the physical lives of the students, while Soviet domination doomed their religious life and the institutional survival of the yeshivot.

Due to the efforts of the honorary Dutch consul Jan Zwartendijk and of the Japanese consul Chiune Sugihara, transit visas via Japan were secured toward the eventual settlement of these scholars in Curacao, which technically required no visa.

Nevertheless, Zwartendijk helped create a document that was both authentic and official and secured the passage of these students through the Soviet Union. Visas were issued until the very moment these counselor officials were forced to depart Lithuania. They were expelled by the Soviet Union at the end of August, and thereafter visas could be secured only in Moscow. Each visa became a lifeline, the difference between a difficult journey and almost certain death. Zuroff captures the drama of their efforts.

Most Orthodox rabbis in the United States were immigrants, many of whom had studied or even taught in the Polish yeshivas. In response to pleas from their friends and mentors, they founded an committee known as Vaad HaHatzala (“the Rescue Committee”) designed to raise funds and to secure the safety of the scholars forced into exile.

Their goal was to save a population that they considered as essential to Jewish survival as soldiers or Zionist pioneers. They believed in a hierarchy of values in which Torah study stood supreme. Their faith had stood the test of time and would be severely tested during this most awful of Jewish tragedies.

Zuroff, whose own sympathy for these values and these rabbis is apparent, narrates the ongoing tension that existed between the efforts of the Vaad HaHatzalah to raise funds and the general campaign efforts of the Federations. Orthodox rabbinical pleas for special treatment for the yeshiva elite fell on deaf ears. Most Jewish organizations, their resources stretched to the breaking point, were guided by other important values to save all Jews; officials desperate to feed everyone in the community were not quite sensitive to the plea for special treatment.

Zuroff also treads into uncomfortable territory for some Orthodox Jews by exposing the fallibility of these holy men. Some of the roshei yeshiva misjudged their circumstances. They refused to move, they stayed put too long, they refused to let their institutions be broken apart, mirroring many other European Jews who misperceived their plight.

Because he challenges the doctrine of the infallibility of “da’at Torah,” a doctrine now accepted as revealed truth by many in the charedi community, Zuroff has been reviled by the very community whose work he so competently examined. Perhaps I may be reading too much into the tensions between centrist Orthodoxy and its right-wing religious rival, the charedim, but Zuroff will be honored this week by Yeshiva University with the Samuel Belkin Literary Prize for outstanding work by a Yeshiva University alumnus.

In their zeal to save the Jewish future, the rabbis of the Vaad threatened and cajoled, lobbied and circumvented established processes of Jewish organizations from the Federation to the Joint. Some institutional leaders attempted to limit their fundraising opportunities; others tried to pacify the rabbis by offering them some modest support. Still others sought to restrict their efforts to Jews who were not giving to the general campaign, or to times in the year when the broader fundraising campaign was not in full swing.

As the war progressed, Orthodox leaders worked against and with the same organizations. They countered the call of the World Jewish Congress and the American Jewish Committee for “quiet diplomacy” rather than direct confrontation, but they supported the World Jewish Congress’ efforts to place a bill of particulars on the Jewish question to President Roosevelt and sided with the American Jewish Committee against public demonstrations.

How are we to know when Jewish officials truly grasped the urgency of what was happening? For secular officials, with such knowledge came a willingness to pull out all the stops, even to contemplate the violation of American law to engage in the politics of confrontation. For Orthodox Jews, with such knowledge came the willingness even to violate the Sabbath, for saving lives overrides the Sabbath. One is startled by how early some rabbis understood the plight of those they left behind.

Zuroff describes the clash of values accurately and fairly, his scholarship respectful yet penetrating. He does not debunk or dismiss but challenges and explains. Time and again he demonstrates that despite claims to the contrary and a lack of cooperation with the Orthodox rabbis, the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee was responsible for the bulk of the funds used to rescue the yeshiva students. The Vaad supplemented the resources of the JDC and other organizations, and often there was resentment on the part of the rest of the Shanghai community of the additional resources that were devoted to this elite.

Lawrence Langer once described the plight of the victims as one of choiceless choices, “where crucial decisions did not reflect options between life and death but between one form of abnormal response and another both imposed by a situation that was in no way of the victim’s own choosing.” Those who attempted to save them also faced choiceless choices. Should the limited resources for sustenance and rescue be distributed evenly among all the Jews who could be reached, or unevenly, helping those who could make the greatest contribution to the Jewish future? These are unenviable choices, but they had to be made.

Zuroff has written the first of what must surely be two books. The bulk of his work concentrates on the years 1939-43, treating only in passing the pivotal year 1944 and the deep clashes within American Jewry over ransoming Jews.

He suggests how important the yield of future research may be and how permanent the changes in American Orthodoxy that the trauma of the war triggered, not only in the Americanization of European rabbis and the increasing cooperation of lay and rabbinical authorities, but also in the uneasy cooperation between the Jewish establishment and the sectarian communities.

He concludes with a critique of that very sectarianism. “Had the Vaad joined forces with the Joint, the overall results would probably have been more beneficial to the Jewish people than those achieved individually by each organization. And this too is a lesson that should be learned from the Holocaust.”
It is a lesson that is yet to be learned.

Rescuing the Spiritual Elite Read More »

Briefs


Panel ‘Won’t
Point Fingers’

The leader of an international panel probing the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian violence said the panel plans to visit the region several more times before issuing its report. “It’s not our intention to inflame the situation,” former U.S. Sen. George Mitchell said Tuesday after meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo. “We are not going to be pointing fingers.”


Russian Jewish Leader
Arrested

Spanish police arrested a Russian media magnate who also heads the Russian Jewish Congress. Vladimir Goussinsky, wanted in Russia for alleged fraud, claims the charges against him are politically motivated. Arrested early Tuesday morning at a beach resort in southern Spain, Goussinsky is slated to face an extradition hearing soon.


Extremist Defeated in
Romania

Former Communist Ion Iliescu defeated extreme nationalist Corneliu Vadim Tudor in runoff elections for president in Romania.

Prior to Sunday’s vote, the Romanian Jewish Federation had issued a statement saying Tudor had been “a staunch enemy of the Jews” in Romania for many years.

Tudor’s publications have repeatedly published anti-Semitic and xenophobic articles.


‘Hogan’s Heroes’ Star Dies

Werner Klemperer, who escaped from Nazi Germany with his family and later played a Nazi colonel on the U.S. television show “Hogan’s Heroes,” died Dec. 6 at the age of 80.

Klemperer earned two Emmy Awards for his portrayal of the bumbling Col. Wilhelm Klink on the show, which ran from 1965 to 1971.


Doctors Cleared for Circumcisions

Israel’s Health Ministry agreed that hospitals can offer circumcision services provided by doctors, not just by ritual mohels certified by the Chief Rabbinate. The decision reverses a decision by former Health Minister Shlomo Benizri, a member of the fervently Orthodox Shas Party.


Israel Seeks Hostages’ Release

An Israeli official confirmed that contacts are under way to try to secure the release of three soldiers and a businessman held by Hezbollah, but he said there have been no breakthroughs.

Israel is “attempting through a number of channels to bring the captives home,” Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh said Monday on Army Radio.

Sneh downplayed reports, mostly from Lebanon, of progress in negotiations with Hezbollah that could lead to the release of the four Israelis in exchange for 19 Arabs held by Israel.
All briefs courtesy of Jewish Telegraphic Agency.


AP Photographer Gets Apology

The Israeli army formally apologized to an Associated Press photographer shot by a soldier in Bethlehem last month.

The army said last Friday that the soldier, who thought the photographer was a Palestinian rioter, went against army rules of engagement, which require that a soldier be in immediate mortal danger before shooting live ammunition. The army also said it would punish the soldier.


Army Gives Soldiers Videocams

The Israel Defense Force is equipping some of its soldiers with video cameras so they can document what happens during clashes with the Palestinians, the Jerusalem Post reported.

The move comes as part of the public relations battle the two sides are fighting in parallel to the violence on the ground.

All briefs courtesy of Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

Briefs Read More »

Setting the Agenda

When George W. Bush moves into the White House next month, his most difficult task will be to rally a fractured electorate and Congress around his presidency and his agenda.

Even though domestic issues dominated his campaign, the 43rd president may find more consensus on foreign policy issues, including the Middle East, an area he may have no choice but to confront.

“When presidents need to look presidential, they turn to foreign policy, because it is where they can act unilaterally,” said Lester Munson, spokesman for the House International Relations Committee.

Bush may want to leave foreign policy to others, but “he may not have the option in light of the tumultuous events in the Middle East,” said Howard Kohr, executive director of the pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Kohr recalled the elections of former President George Bush and of President Clinton, when people speculated that neither one would become very involved in foreign affairs.

But, reacting to events in the Middle East, both ultimately became key foreign policy players. Bush led the country in the Gulf War in 1991, and Clinton became a major figure in the Middle East peace process.

George W. Bush, too, may be forced to take a proactive role, given the current situation in the region: an all-but failed peace process and a mounting death toll from the Palestinian uprising.

For Jewish groups focused on Israel and the Middle East, such as AIPAC, that focus would be welcome.
Others more involved with domestic concerns are strategizing how to get their issues on the agenda as Bush and a new, deeply divided Congress figure out a way to work together.

A new administration “doesn’t change our agenda; it might change our strategy,” said Reva Price, Washington representative for the Jewish Council of Public Affairs (JCPA).

Officials of the umbrella organization huddled Tuesday to debate which parts of their agenda could make it to the floor of the U.S. Congress, given the anticipated congressional gridlock.

In light of the anticipated gridlock on domestic issues, JCPA officials discussed focusing on foreign policy issues, including support and aid for Israel, traditionally a bipartisan issue, and anti-terrorism measures, Price said.

Still, JCPA and other Jewish groups here do not intend to abandon their issues, only perhaps reprioritize.
On the domestic front, Price said JCPA may focus on education issues, an area Bush has set as a priority. JCPA will seek more federal money for education programs and more help for failing schools.

United Jewish Communities (UJC), the umbrella organization of local federations and the central fundraising and social services agency for the Jewish community, is also carefully studying its own agenda and attempting to match up what is most workable with a Bush administration.

There are issues that Jewish groups and Bush agree on, said Diana Aviv, UJC’s vice president of public policy.

Bush is sympathetic toward immigration reform, for example, and UJC would “be able to do business with him,” she said.

UJC has been a strong advocate of restoring immigrant benefits that were lost under welfare reform legislation in 1996 and of easing the process of attaining legal status for undocumented residents, including Jews from the former Soviet Union.

Aviv also said her group would focus on legislation providing prescription drug coverage for seniors, because that is an area Bush has indicated as a priority.

The issue is not as important to UJC as other issues, such as home health care for seniors, Aviv said, but “we want to be practical and realistic.”

There are still a lot of factors that need to play out before a formal strategy becomes clear for Jewish groups, including Bush’s appointment of cabinet positions and the remaining actions of the lame-duck Congress.

The appointment of former members of Congress who have good working relationships with Jewish organizations may help tailor the strategy for dealing with the new administration.

Price said, for example, if Rep. Rick Lazio (R-N.Y.) is named to head the Department of Housing and Urban Development, JCPA may put more focus on issues such as elderly housing.

In any case, few expect major initiatives in the early days of the new government.

“The mandate from the voters is to do modest things and don’t get carried away with anything,” said Munson, the House committee staffer.

Setting the Agenda Read More »

A Tough Transition

Presidential transitions are tough even in the best of circumstances. And with the outcome of this year’s political brawl delayed by weeks of legal and political maneuvering, the 2001 transition will be tougher than most.

That could play out in dangerous ways in the seething Middle East and produce new strains on relations between this country and Israel, which this week entered its own political no-man’s-land with the resignation of Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

And the difficult transition could have dangerous consequences in other key foreign policy and domestic areas, including an economy that many analysts see as entering a new and much more volatile period.

Usually, an incoming administration uses the entire two-and-a-half months between the election and the inauguration to assemble the basic governing infrastructure and much of the first year to round out the team.

New personalities fill top political and policy posts; hundreds of lower-level appointees, who do the bulk of the heavy lifting of government, must be selected and trained in the intricacies of their jobs.

Top political appointees have to be vetted through FBI clearances before their nominations can be submitted to the Senate for confirmation. In recent years, conflict between the White House and Congress has made the process even slower and more contentious.

Today, the creaky transition machinery has been slowed further by the bitter, all-consuming fight over the election results.

Many top White House aides for the new Bush administration have been selected, but the process of filling out the bureaucratic hierarchy has hardly begun.

The top lieutenants in the Bush campaign, who normally would be up to their eyeballs in transition minutiae, were focused mostly on the fight over the vote in Florida.

Transitions are never smooth, but the predictable policy hiccups usually don’t make a big difference.
But the equation will be different in 2001, when a handful of crises could demand strong, assertive leadership at precisely the moment when leadership in Washington is at its weakest.

At the top of the list is a dangerous, deteriorating situation in the Middle East.

This week the Palestinian intifada continued to produce a grim body count, and Israel was plunged into new uncertainty with the resignation of Prime Minister Ehud Barak and the political resurrection of the man he beat less than two years ago, former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

These factors are likely to be at a high boil on inauguration day.

It could be that Barak’s gamble will jolt Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat back to the peace table and to a quick agreement that will win the approval of Israel’s citizens in a vote Barak wants to be a referendum on the peace process.

If that happens, closing a deal may require sophisticated American diplomacy by the incoming Bush administration.

The Mideast generalities of the campaign trail provide little preparation for the tough, clear-headed diplomacy that could be demanded of Washington within days of the arrival of the Bush team.

The other scenario is this: Arafat does not call off the current intifada, and by the time the inauguration rolls around, the violence is even worse.

The Bush administration will have to grapple for new ways to stem the violence. More importantly, it will have to craft policies to keep it from spreading across the region.

A flareup along the Israel-Lebanon border seems increasingly likely; Israel has already made it clear it would go after Syrian targets. Iraq has been making threatening moves for months; U.S. relations with Egypt are troubled.

And there is the looming threat that Persian Gulf nations could be pressured into cutting their oil supplies, which would have a massive impact on the precarious U.S. economy.

The deteriorating Israeli-Palestinian situation is only one of a number of foreign policy flashpoints that will whack the new administration on the head on inauguration day.

Sanctions on Iraq are falling apart, largely because of ineffective U.S. leadership, and Saddam Hussein is reacting predictably — with threats and worrisome moves by his military.

Then there’s Russia, whose leader, President Vladimir Putin, is eager to reassert his country’s dominant role in world events, a role that apparently includes selling more arms to Iran.

Domestically, the U.S. economy seems on the cusp. There are many signs that the record boom of the ’90s could be nearing an end; analysts are now speculating mostly on whether it will be a hard or soft landing.
In any event, it will take a steady hand and sober policies by the Bush administration to keep things from getting untracked — and not just the glib tax-cut-in-every-pot promises of the campaign.

These are problems that would test the mettle of the most experienced administration. For a brand-new White House team, coming to power after an abbreviated and troubled transition period, the challenge will be particularly daunting.

Bush exerted unprecedented effort in winning the job. On Jan. 21, he may have good reason to regret that investment.

A Tough Transition Read More »

Establishing Boundaries

For those who look up to the American Jewish clergy, it has not been a good year.
Last week, one of the Reform movement’s most prominent rabbis was suspended from the movement’s rabbinical association for past sexual misconduct.

Shortly after his suspension from the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR), Rabbi Sheldon Zimmerman, widely respected as a Jewish thinker and teacher, resigned as president of the movement’s Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion.

The news about Zimmerman came on the heels of several other widely publicized incidents involving Jewish clergy:

A Reform rabbi in Cherry Hill, N.J., faces a possible death sentence for allegedly hiring people to murder his wife in 1994.

A Conservative cantor in the Chicago area was arrested over Thanksgiving weekend for alleged involvement in a prostitution ring.

The Orthodox Union has just received a report investigating its handling of allegations that a New Jersey rabbi working for the movement’s national youth group sexually harassed and molested teens. The report’s findings and recommendations will not be made public until late this month.

The wave of incidents is refocusing attention on an issue that has come into public view only in recent years.

In the past, rabbinic misconduct — particularly sexual misconduct — was rarely discussed publicly. Many advocates for victims complained that rabbinical associations were more interested in protecting their members than the people they hurt.

Today there are stirrings of change. Leaders of the rabbinic organizations say misconduct remains rare, but during the past five years, three of the four denominations have developed new guidelines or modified old ones for addressing misconduct.

In addition, some rabbinic seminaries are raising the issues for rabbis-in-training, both before and after ordination.

It is unclear what overall impact such changes are having, since no one appears to be tracking the issue or monitoring how the new guidelines are affecting the number of complaints or the actions taken against rabbis.

While some believe that recent high-profile cases may encourage victims to come forward, others worry that the pendulum may swing too far.

They worry that fear of false accusations or misunderstandings are leading rabbis to become nervous about even innocently hugging congregants in need of comfort or counseling people behind closed doors.

One result from all the publicity is a growing awareness of the issue, which many expect will lead to less tolerance for misconduct.

“The wall of silence around clergy misconduct is being taken down,” said Susan Weidman Schneider, editor of Lilith, a feminist Jewish magazine.

In 1998, the magazine published an article about women who said they were sexually harassed by the late charismatic Orthodox leader, Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach.

Rabbi Debra Orenstein, a fellow at the Wilstein Institute in Encino, Calif., who has been an advocate on this issue in the past, said, “People are less skittish and afraid of saying this happens with rabbis and are therefore more willing to deal with it.”

Rabbinic sexual misconduct is an extraordinarily complex issue.

It ranges from more obvious transgressions, such as sexual harassment and inappropriate touching, to more ambiguous cases in which a rabbi has a seemingly consensual relationship with a congregant or staff person, but which is questionable because of the power dynamics involved.

It is difficult to know how prevalent misconduct cases are or what percentage are reported.

As Rabbi Joel Meyers, executive vice president of the Conservative movement’s Rabbinical Assembly (RA), put it, “I can never guarantee there are not things that happen that don’t get taken care of.

“Obviously someone has to lodge a complaint,” he said. “My office is not a police force, and we’re not on witch hunts.”

It is also difficult to assess how fairly cases are handled, since rabbinic ethics committees — in order to protect both the accuser and the accused — operate in secrecy.

That secrecy “by its very nature makes it difficult to evaluate the process at all,” said Rabbi Shira Stern, chairwoman of the Reform movement’s Women’s Rabbinic Network.

The Conservative, Reconstructionist and Reform rabbinical associations have created or modified policies concerning sexual misconduct within the past five years.

The Conservative movement’s guidelines, in the works for several years, have not yet been printed and distributed to rabbis but are expected to be completed in June 2001.

The Orthodox rabbinical association has not modified its procedures in more than 50 years, according to Rabbi Steven Dworken, the group’s executive vice president.

But the group’s president, Rabbi Kenneth Hain, said the process may be re-examined if that is recommended in the Orthodox Union’s new report on the handling of the youth abuse case.

The movements vary in how explicit their guidelines are about procedures for inquiry and punitive measures. The Rabbinical Council of America (RCA), which is Orthodox, and the Reform movement’s CCAR made their guidelines available, while the Conservative and Reconstructionist associations gave overviews but would not distribute actual policies.

All the ethics committees request complaints in writing and give an opportunity for the accused rabbi to respond in writing. They then interview both parties and other sources, where appropriate, in order to ascertain what happened and how to respond.

When rabbis are found guilty, the responses range from a reprimand to suspension to expulsion from the association, depending on the misconduct and the assessment of the ethics committee.

Some of the movements require therapy and a process of teshuvah (repentance) in order for the charged to pursue their rabbinic careers.

In addition, the Reform movement informs any future employers of that rabbi about that rabbi’s past transgressions and rehabilitation process.

None of the rabbinic associations could provide data prior to 1995, but since then, three Reform rabbis have been suspended for sexual misconduct and two Conservative rabbis have been found guilty but not suspended.

Both Conservative rabbis were required to undergo therapy and be monitored by the ethics committee, and one was forbidden from taking any rabbinic post other than teaching adult education courses.

Meyers said the RA’s ethics committee is currently wrestling with a case in which a now 86-year-old rabbi is being accused of something he did 30 years ago, raising the question of whether rabbis should be disciplined for transgressions that occurred long ago.

Officials of the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association would not disclose how many cases it has reviewed or what disciplinary action it took, and the Orthodox’s RCA said it did not know of any cases of rabbinic sexual misconduct.

Rabbi Baruch Lanner, the Orthodox rabbi accused of sexually harassing and molesting scores of youth in the Orthodox Union’s youth group, was not a member of the RCA, which is composed primarily of congregational rabbis.

Some do worry that the movements’ guidelines may be so stringent that rabbis and other Jewish professionals may not be able to do their jobs.

“At my son’s camp, the counselors weren’t allowed to check them for ticks after they come back from hikes,” said Rabbi Stephanie Dickstein, assistant dean of the Jewish Theological Seminary’s rabbinical school.

“Where’s the line? We’re in a world where touching is so dangerous that people are lonely,” Dickstein said.
Another difficulty in preventing misconduct is identifying the type of personality prone to overstepping the boundaries.

“Confidence, willingness to reach out to people — all the things that make people good rabbis also make them susceptible to inappropriate behavior,” Dickstein said.

“When you realize how much power you have with vulnerable people, sometimes you might be tempted to take advantage.”

The added scrutiny on the rabbinate, and the fear that one misstep can ruin one’s career and reputation, may add more pressures to an already demanding career.

“You have to be so many things to so many people — what I call the multifarious P’s: pastor, preacher, pedagogue, politician, public relations expert, pronouncer, priest, prophet and pal,” said Rabbi Jeffrey Salkin, spiritual leader of the Community Synagogue of Port Washington on Long Island, N.Y., and author of a recent book on Jewish masculinity.

Salkin, who is Reform, urges his colleagues to seek regular therapy and speak more openly with each other about the issues they face.

“I think rabbis stray because they need intimacy, they need affirmation and more than that, it’s what Judaism calls the ‘yetzer hara,’ the not-so-good inclination that’s within us.”

Rabbi Jacob Staub, vice president for academic affairs at the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College, said most rabbis and prospective rabbis think that “this is someone else’s problem — you have to be bad. But you can be operating from the noblest of motives and from what you think are the best of values, and you still could be tripped up.”

What most rabbis fall into is not “what we’d call pathological or criminal” — sexual harassment, sexual molestation or nonconsensual sex — “but human foible,” said Staub, who coordinates RRC seminars that deal with these issues.

Like the RRC, other rabbinical schools also now offer some seminars in which sexual misconduct and other related issues are addressed.

Rabbi Arthur Gross Schaefer, a law professor and spiritual leader of two Los Angeles-area congregations who has written extensively on issues of rabbinic misconduct, would like to see more.

“We need programs at seminaries and out in the field to remind them that sex and power and excitement are very real. And if you do any counseling at all, emotions are going to be there and, like therapists, we need to be aware of what’s happening and ensure that synagogues remain safe places.”

Establishing Boundaries Read More »

The Next Battle

The next chapter in the struggle for normality in Judaism on the part of gay men and lesbians will take place within Conservative Judaism over admission to rabbinical school.

Conservative Judaism defines the final battlefield for full equality because it forms the vital center of American Judaism, between Orthodoxy’s aspirations for Torah authenticity and Reform’s commitment to acute contemporaneity. And out of the Jewish Theological Seminary beats the lifeblood of Conservative Judaism through its rabbinical school.

Why the urgency? Because the sides are hardening, the issues passing from chronic to acute day by day. On the left, Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism and their far-out competition (“New Age Judaism”) have ordained openly gay and lesbian rabbis for years. On the right, integrationist Orthodoxy finds ample halachic reason to reject the proposition, and self-segregationist Orthodoxy stonewalls the issue altogether.
The University of Judaism, through its dean, spelled out the present policy of Conservative Judaism: “One who says he/she refrains from gay or lesbian sex for halachic reasons would be considered for admission to rabbinical school (just as would the Orthodox rabbinical schools).”

That policy — the theological counterpart to the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” — hardly promises a long-term, stable response to what is, in Judaism, an unprecedented aspiration. It is, quite simply, the demand to serve like anyone else on the part of practicing gay young men and women.

I see three reasons why “don’t ask, don’t tell” will not provide a long-term solution to the question of homosexuality in the Conservative rabbinate. First, because the centrist position is unstable. Second, because the political realities in this country have shifted, and liberal and left positions have redefined sexual attitudes and policies. Conservative Judaism’s position on homosexuality is inconsistent with its political liberalism.

Third, and most important, the human realities have changed. A generation has come along that will not stand still, that insists upon admission, and that will not be denied.

A colleague told me of a student on campus who wears a kipah, keeps kosher, davens every day, and is pursuing a degree in advanced Jewish studies. He is a campus leader, smart, kind and humble. In conversation, the young man mentioned that he would be in Israel in the summer to help plan a gay pride event in Jerusalem.

My colleague said he had never before met such an impressive, spiritual and pious person who spoke openly and unashamedly of being gay. The young man said he wants to become a Conservative rabbi. To be admitted, though, he would have to pledge celibacy. And he was not willing to accept those terms. He insisted on complete equality.

Such a story indicates that Conservative Judaism is turning its back on a self-defined minority of its own faithful who seek acceptance in terms of respect and dignity.

Don’t get me wrong. This is not a halachic issue. After all, the vast majority of Conservative Jews are not halachic to begin with. At stake is religious public policy: the formation of a consensus that, in due course, will percolate upward into halachic formulation in the Conservative context (whatever that formulation yields).

I am nearly 70, so I well remember, three decades ago, when it was a sensation for a woman to be accepted into Hebrew Union College, the Reform seminary. The second woman to go there was a student of mine at Brown University. She came for advice and asked if I thought she would make a good rabbi. I told her she would be spectacular. And she was, and is.

Over the next decade I was able to help at least one woman a year realize her aspirations to become a rabbi. By 1980 we stopped counting, as it was no longer noteworthy. So Conservative Judaism followed in the path of HUC, but only after a battle that ripped open the fabric of the movement and cost the seminary some of its best faculty.

This is going to happen again. But the coming battle for Conservative Judaism will certainly end with doors open to professing gay and lesbian young people to enter the rabbinate. Notice I don’t say, “to gays and lesbians.” They have been there all along. The only question is, will gays and lesbians enter openly and proudly, or surreptitiously and on sufferance?

Will the Jewish Theological Seminary put gays and lesbians through the crucible of self-denial that Jews in the Ivy League went through two generations ago, or will they come along normally and routinely and make the enormous human contributions that are theirs, perhaps uniquely, to make? The clock is ticking.

Jacob Neusner is research professor of religion and theology at Bard College, Annandale-on-Hudson, New York, and a 1960 graduate of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America.

The Next Battle Read More »

Human Sacrifice

The government of Israel has wisely chosen to cooperate with a U.S.-led international commission that began investigating Israeli-Palestinian violence this week. Led by former U.S. Sen. George Mitchell, the commission hopes its work will reduce the violence in the region and lead the parties back to the negotiating table.

By cooperating, Israel can have greater input into the commission’s agenda. Here, for example, is one area for the investigators to consider: whether Palestinian parents are recklessly endangering the lives of their children by allowing them on the front lines of the conflict.

The images of Palestinian children confronting Israeli soldiers have by now become symbolic of Intifada II. They are standard fare on nightly news programs and have turned up in full-page ads taken out by the Arab-American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee as evidence of Israel’s excessive use of force.But though the ADC ad and the news broadcasts evoke the lone Chinese protester facing a tank in Tienenman Square in 1989, there is one big difference: the Chinese protester was an adult. In the ADC ad, the protester is Fares al-Uda, age 14.

The Israeli human rights group B’tselem, which has monitored human rights violations by all sides in the conflict, criticized the Palestinian Authority last month for urging Palestinian youths to confront Israeli troops. According to the ADC, since the beginning of Intifada II, 258 Palestinians have been killed, 68 of them under the age of 18. Among the dead is Fares al-Uda, killed days after his photo was taken.

Children under 18 years of age are not old enough to know what’s worth dying for. Are they aware, as Palestinian and Israeli leaders are, that the war they are fighting on the streets can only lead back to the negotiating table?

Do Palestinian children racing out of the house to join in protests know their deaths are merely chits to be cashed in when Yasser Arafat and the Israelis once again sit down? Do they know their young lives may feed a propaganda machine but will hardly change Israel’s negotiating position? After all, Israeli children have also been victims of Palestinian terror.

Around the world and throughout history, children have been used to fight adult wars, and the Middle East is no different. These Palestinian children are taught to hate the Zionists, and they are egged on by adults who should know better. Caught up in the violence, they become victims.

There is something cruel and cynical about allowing children to place themselves in harm’s way, but that seems to be part and parcel of the Palestinian strategy. To people who accept the inevitability of a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians — and this includes a majority of Israeli and American Jews — the martyrdom of Palestinian children is mystifying. Why are these children anywhere near Israeli guns?In Los Angeles, concerned pediatricians have spoken out against such child sacrifice (see page 11), but Palestinian spokesmen say it is Israeli military policy that accounts for the exhorbitant child death toll. In a recent report, Amnesty International took Israel to task for using “excessive force” against demonstrators, but it also criticized Palestinian leadership for not doing enough to keep children away from the violence.Perhaps Mitchell’s commission could help distribute the blame more evenly, and maybe even save young lives in the process.

Human Sacrifice Read More »

Junk Mail

There is no Editor of cyberspace, and that’s too bad. The latest e-mail craze to spread like the Melissa virus through the cc: box of various e-mails is the report of a man named Joseph Farah.

Farah is an Arab-American journalist who has cashed in on some Jewish Americans’ willingness to believe exactly what they want to believe. His report, called “Myths of the Middle East” has ricocheted from e-mail to e-mail. It has arrived at our offices dozens of time, usually preceded by the sender’s imploring, “You MUST read this!” or “Bet you don’t have the GUTS to print THIS!”

Farah’s “Myths” passes itself off as a set of “courageously” told “truths,”which, taken together, purport to prove that there is no Palestinian people, no Palestinian claim on land in the Middle East and no Muslim claim on Jerusalem.

Let’s forget for a minute that no serious Israeli leader believes this hooey. Better to look at who Joseph Farah is. He is a writer for a range of garden-variety outlets of the Christian far right. As Gershom Gorenberg reported in The Jerusalem Report (12/12/00), a Columbia Journalism Review piece on Farah documented his past as a former publisher of the ultra-conservative Sacramento Union and founder of the Western Journalism Center, which promoted dark theories on the death of White House deputy counsel Vincent Foster.

On Farah’s WorldNetDaily, you can read his similarly insightful pieces on how President Bill Clinton ran an international crime syndicate from the White House, why guns reduce crime, and the evil of Steven Spielberg, whom Farah calls “a capitalist pig.” Cc that.

You can also peruse his article, “Jerusalem: The Burdensome Stone,” in which Farah cites chapter 14 of Zechariah “in the standard fashion of Christian fundamentalists who see Israel as a sign that the End is near,” writes Gorenberg. WorldNetDaily is full of links to works that envision a Middle East in which Israel rebuilds the Temple and Jews convert in vast numbers to born-again Christianity on the eve of the Second Coming.

It is sad and true that the same people who would slam the door on Farah if he came peddling his wares in person eagerly forward his Internet “scholarship.” The Palestinian problem is real, and Joseph Farah’s mythologies can only make it worse.

Junk Mail Read More »

Rules for Today’s Dating Game

Dating Scenario 1: You meet a Ben Stiller look-alike at a friend’s party. He’s cute, funny and intelligent. You think he could be your leading man until he asks you out for Tuesday night bowling instead of Saturday night for dinner and a movie. You think he just wants to be your buddy. What you don’t know is that he liked you so much he didn’t want to wait until Saturday to see you.

Dating Scenario 2: You’re an environmental lawyer working 80 hours a week. You’re about to join the ‘dateless in despair’ until an activist whose screen name is eco-Babe responds to your online personal. Four weeks later, when the online romance moves offline, she confesses she’s really just a secretary for a politician.

If these misadventures sound familiar, chances are you’re out of touch with the latest rules on how to play today’s dating game. Then again, your date may be a “Rules Girl” while you’re a new-millennium kind of guy, taking your cues from “Kosher Sex,” a book by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, JDate’s matchmaker-in-chief, who has debated “The Rules” authors Ellen Fein and Sherrie Schneider. And don’t forget that TV addicts may take their dating tips from popular shows such as “Sex and the City” and “Ally McBeal.”

Playing by two different sets of rules — whatever they may be — can generate some serious confusion and mixed signals. Things can get so mixed up that it seems as if you’re stuck inside the “Twilight Zone” of love — where one date is more bizarre than the last. In desperation to find someone “normal,” maybe you’ve tried positive imaging. Unfortunately, when you think about your love life, all you see is a big jigsaw puzzle with a piece perpetually missing.

Whether you’re searching for romance in cyberspace or at a SpeedDating event, the rules can be complicated and downright frustrating. Should you religiously adhere to the three-day waiting period to dial her digits? If the guy wants to go Dutch treat on a first date, will that seal his fate as a cheapskate? Or when you meet your match, do the rules suddenly cease to matter? Here’s the scoop on no-nonsense rules that real singles have used to navigate this brave new world of dating.

Rule No. 1: If you think you’ve found The One, ignore the three-day waiting period.

On a Saturday night in October 1998, Gordon Schwartz, a Young Leadership Division (YLD) member, made a connection with Dawn Sidney (now Mrs. Schwartz). Dawn, a television producer, had just relocated to Chicago from New York and didn’t know anyone. The first phone call she made was to the Jewish Federation. That same day, YLD’s Mr. Social, John Schulman, invited her to a party at Liquid, a Chicago nightclub. She and Schwartz totally clicked. The big question for Schwartz, 33, was how long to wait to call. While some guys might wait a week, he waited less than 48 hours. “I like to think I follow my own book of rules,” said Schwartz. “If you really know someone is The One, you don’t want to let her get away. I really wanted to call [Dawn] the next day, so that’s what I did. We talked for five hours. We got engaged after nine months.”

“I was blown away,” said Dawn, 32. “A guy in New York would never call you the next day. He’d wait a week. You wouldn’t know if you had a good time with him.”

Rule No. 2: Asking a woman out for a Saturday night date is a big deal.

If you ask some women out for a Monday or even a Thursday evening, beware. You could have the phone receiver slammed in your ear. “A woman takes it very seriously when she is not asked out on a Saturday night,” said Dawn. “She has a different attitude. She thinks the guy doesn’t think she’s special.”

Rule No. 3: Fools shouldn’t rush in.

To Shawna Gooze, 23, a human resources assistant, it doesn’t matter what day of the week a guy wants to see her. What happens after the date is more important. “I went out with a very good-looking, nice guy I met at a bar, but he started e-mailing me so much after the first date, it was a turn-off,” she said. “In the beginning, it’s better not to rush a relationship or come on too strong.”

Rule No. 4: Give long distance love a chance.

There’s probably another rule somewhere that says if you enter into a long-distance relationship, you must be meshuge. In May 1998, YLD board member Dan Lichtenstein, 30, saw Liora Gabay, 29, of Kiryat Gat dancing at the Israeli wedding of a mutual friend. When he returned to Chicago, he couldn’t get her off his mind. Six months later when he returned to Israel for a Partnership 2000 site visit, Lichtenstein learned Liora was unattached, so he called her. They went on five dates during Lichtenstein’s 10-day stay in Israel.
“When some of my friends learned I was dating a woman from Israel, they said, ‘Dan, are you crazy?'” he recalled. Not crazy, just head over heels and determined not take the little time he spent with Liora for granted. “When I dated people in Chicago, I followed certain procedures. I saw the movie ‘Swingers’ [the 1996 flick with the “cool guy” lingo] — that’s where I learned my lessons,” he said. “They all flew out the window when I met Liora. I couldn’t just drive 10 minutes to see her.”

Distance made their hearts grow fonder. In June 1999, Liora moved to Chicago. She left behind her family, friends, a job as a social worker, and the Tel Aviv apartment she shared with her sister. On May 25, 2000, Dan and Liora tied the knot in Ashkelon, Israel. Almost a year after the move, Liora reflects, “I still miss my family, but my husband is worth it.”

Rule No. 5: When you move an online romance offline, go public.

When trying to find a date in cyberspace, a set of unwritten rules applies, and some online daters simply make up the rules as they go along, according to Leslie Zimmer, 40, who works for a Lakeview synagogue and has tried several Jewish online dating services.

Zimmer, whose online dating odyssey has most been both frustrating and humorous, followed two main rules. First, she didn’t disclose personal information such as home address, telephone number or work location. Second, she met an online date at a public place such as a coffee shop or restaurant. She also chose to have a few “phone dates” with an online dater before meeting him in person.

Hoping to attract a Jewish Travolta, she began her personal ad with, “Shall we dance?” One guy responded with a cute, clever message that discussed their common interest in dancing. For their first date, they agreed to meet at the 95th Aero Squadron to show off some fancy footwork.

“There was definitely a chemistry,” she said. “We spent three hours dancing, talking and laughing. “After we danced, he just said, ‘Goodnight.’ I was dumbfounded. I happen to have a lot of moxie, so I e-mailed him. He e-mailed back that he just didn’t feel any chemistry. I thought, when he finds someone with chemistry, it must be like an explosion!”

Rule No. 6: If you’re a woman seeking cyberromance, don’t be afraid to initiate the first cybercontact.
The anonymity of online dating makes it easier to sever a bad connection, said Michael Slater, 25, a regional sales manager for MovingStation, a Chicago-based corporate relocation company. In other ways, it’s leveled the playing field by making it acceptable for a woman to initiate cybercontact. “I know from several friends using JDate.com that women are e-mailing guys and asking them out,” he said.

Rule No. 7: Seek advice from a trusted friend if you’re stuck in the dating doldrums.

While it’s clear the Internet has changed the rules of dating, some things never change. Singles still seek advice and support from friends and family, said Slater, who is currently attached. “Sometimes a friend will ask me what I think of a woman’s profile, and I’ll say, ‘You’re not going to know unless you try.’ They just need an extra boost to click that “send” button,” he said. “I don’t want to be known as a yenta (matchmaker), but I just give my friends a push in the right direction. They’ve done the same for me.”

Rule No. 8: Unfortunately, there are no hard-and-fast formulas that guarantee romantic success — except maybe to love as if you’ve never been hurt before and to be yourself.

For helpful hints on the do’s and don’t’s of online dating, check out the SephardiConnection (sephardiconnect.com), which features a discussion forum for Jewish singles.

Jennifer Brody is associate editor of JUF News in Chicago.

Rules for Today’s Dating Game Read More »