fbpx

September 22, 2011

Rabbi John Rosove: An urgent call to work for a better future for Israel and the Palestinians

The High Holy Days are a time when we are enjoined to reflect on old behavior and look to new ideas, to reach out within and beyond our communities to find healing, not just for ourselves or the Jewish people, but for the entire world.

What we are enjoined not to do, is remain mired in the mistakes of the past.

For decades, the American Jewish community has had but one prism through which we view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: That of a zero-sum game, in which what’s good for the Palestinians is bad for Israel. And the results, frankly, speak for themselves: continuing bloodshed, generations of despair, no settlement and no peace.

The fates of the people of Israel and the Palestinian people are bound together – one cannot thrive while the other does not. As a community for whom Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state is of primary importance, American Jews need to acknowledge the truth and to support those who strive for a two-states for two-peoples resolution of the conflict, a State of Israel that is the homeland of the Jewish people, and a State of Palestine, a homeland for the Palestinians.

As former Internal Security Minister and Member of Knesset Avi Dichter recently said “[a]Palestinian state is a national Israeli interest, not less than it is a Palestinian one” – but even though we’ve come to understand that only a two-state resolution can bring real peace, too few of us have grasped that such a peace requires more than hopeful words coupled with zero-sum thinking.

Indeed, recent weeks have seen frantic diplomatic and advocacy activity surrounding the Palestinian statehood bid at the UN, with a dispiriting if unsurprising return to entirely predictable positions.

We hear the chorus of voices calling for a cut to Palestinian aid, in Congress and among leading members of our community, as if this will serve Israel. There is blindness here, an unwillingness to understand that aid to Palestinians serves as a bulwark against extremism, and according to American and Israeli security experts, has served to create an decade-long low in terrorism.

A small cross-section of American Jews understand this. Last week, groups ranging from The Israel Project to J Street came out in support of continued aid, as have influential figures such as David Makovsky and Elliot Abrams. In the course of my career, I’m not sure how often I’ve seen those names all on the same page.

And of course, they’re not all on precisely the same page: Some are focused on the Palestinian security apparatus, others on the connection between humanitarian crisis and extremist activity. But all have come to see that the line between Israel’s fate and that of the Palestinians’ is much thinner than we had supposed, and that if we want what’s best for Israel, we must also want what’s best for a future Palestinian state.

It is upon us who see what is really happening in the Middle East to call on President Obama to reinvigorate diplomatic efforts, and work vigorously to provide public, bi-partisan support for such efforts.

It is also upon us to make clear to Congress that across the board, the American Jewish community stands behind the two-state for two-peoples solution, and shares a powerful concern that such a solution is in danger of being over-run by history.

This requires a concerted effort on our part. The Jewish community’s advocacy must move beyond merely calling for direct negotiations to actively promoting the sustained and meaningful engagement of the American government in an urgent and relentless effort to achieve a two-state for two-peoples solution.

The challenge to honestly assess mistakes of the past and make new choices is part and parcel of the holiday season for every Jew – but in the case of Israel, the consequences are monumental. We stand at a crossroads. The opportunity to build and maintain a strong, Jewish, democratic state is quickly passing from us.

If we want to see Israel not only survive but thrive as the homeland of the Jewish people, if we want to see it live up to the values of pluralism and egalitarianism on which it was first established – then we have to move, and move quickly. We have to recognize that Israel’s future is tied to that of the Palestinians, and that a two-state for two-peoples solution has to mean just that: An actual resolution of the conflict, with two viable, successful states living side by side.

This is what the Psalmist meant by “Seek peace and pursue it.” We cannot expect peace to simply happen. It is upon us to take action to make it happen.

It’s absolutely vital to Israel’s future that the rest of us step in and provide all the support we can. I fear the conversation we will have next Rosh Hashanah if we fail to do so.

Rabbi John L. Rosove is Senior Rabbi of Temple Israel of Hollywood, Los Angeles. He writes here as an individual. He is also a member of the Rabbinic Cabinet of J Street.

Rabbi John Rosove: An urgent call to work for a better future for Israel and the Palestinians Read More »

Rob Bell leaving Mars Hill Church

With an eye on the broader church, ” title=”have the story”>have the story:

Flickering Pixels author Shane Hipps will take over for Bell during spring 2012 after Bell finishes his series on Acts in December.

The church released the following statement on its site:

Feeling the call from God to pursue a growing number of strategic opportunities, our founding pastor Rob Bell, has decided to leave Mars Hill in order to devote his full energy to sharing the message of God’s love with a broader audience.

It is with deeply mixed emotions that we announce this transition to you. We have always understood, encouraged, and appreciated the variety of avenues in which Rob’s voice and the message of God’s tremendous love has traveled over the past 12 years. And we are happy and hopeful that as Rob and Kristen venture ahead, they will find increasing opportunity to extend the heartbeat of that message to our world in new and creative ways.

Last spring, Bell stirred a real storm with the publication of his latest book, “Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived.” Here I discussed whether Bell was a Rob Bell leaving Mars Hill Church Read More »

To call or not to call – that is the question…

My phone rings.  I answer.

– Hello Ma’am.  My name is Blah Blah (I’m not good with names, can’t remember what the hell he said) from Avis Heating and Air conditioning.  I’d like to talk to you about your heating system.  Would you be alright with that?

– Sure, I would be alright with talking to you about my Hot Box, as long as you would be alright with a $1,000 fine for talking to me about it, since I’m on a “Do Not Call List” and all…

Long pause.

– Um, no Ma’am I would not be alright with that.  And I didn’t call about your “hot box”, I called about your Heating system.

– Oh no?  Well, maybe you should have thought about checking that list before calling me.  See the thing is that I’m usually very nice to telemarketers especially when I have the time to listen to them, but now you pissed me off.

– How did I piss you off Ma’am?

– Well, you did it again just now; you called me Ma’am.

– I called you Ma’am?

– Yes, you called me Ma’am.  Did you forget?  Not sure if you are aware but I am a very young and energetic young lady who enjoys life, dancing and long walks on the beach preferably with a very hot, young thing who is not wearing a shirt.  Or pants.  I am not very picky.  I would prefer a shirt and no pants, but I can roll with anything.  I know that’s typically what a girl wears in all those chick flicks, a long men’s shirt and no pants, but I kinda think a hot guy would look good like that also.  What do you think?

– Ma’am, I mean Miss… I am not sure why you are telling me this, and I probably should be going now…

– Why?  Do you have something more important to do besides listen to a crazy chick fantasize?

– Well…

– No, no Paul.  Now you will listen to me.

– My name is Blah Blah.

– OK, Peter.  I guess I better let you go.  My Hot Box is making some strange sounds, need to check it out.

– It’s Blah Blah, Miss.

– Shut up.

Click.

To call or not to call – that is the question… Read More »

Opponents slam Durban III at rallies, counter-conference

At rallies, a counter-conference and “dialogue tents,” opponents of the Durban III conference portrayed the U.N. proceedings as hypocritical and deeply flawed.

The Hudson Institute and Touro College hosted a counter-conference titled “The Perils of Global Intolerance: The United Nations and Durban III” at a hotel near the United Nations building in New York. The Zionist organization StandWithUs held a circus-themed rally that drew about 200 protesters to stress that the presence of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the United Nations makes a mockery of democracy.

The Jewish Community Relations Council of New York and the Israeli Consulate in New York held several “open dialogue tents” for New Yorkers to talk about the issues riveting the United Nations. Israel’s minister of public diplomacy and Diaspora affairs, Yuli Edelstein, spoke in one of the tents.

Anne Bayefsky and Elie Wiesel answering reporters’ questions during a break at The Perils of Global Intolerance: The United Nations and Durban III Conference in New York, Sept. 22.

Also near the United Nations, thousands of Iranian-American pro-democracy campaigners protested the Iranian government. Along with prominent speakers, the Jewish-backed group Iran180 held a mock wedding between effigies of Ahmadinejad and Syrian President Bashar Assad; they were married under a chuppah.

Speakers at the counter-conference included Ron Lauder, the president of the World Jewish Congress; former U.N. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton; Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel; former New York City Mayor Ed Koch; and the current and former Israeli ambassadors.

Many of the speakers offered an insider’s look at what transpired at the original Durban conference, in South Africa in 2001. Wiesel recalled his resignation from the Durban committee and described the United Nations as a “great idea that has been perverted.”

“It has become a forum far from the aspirations of its founders,” he said.

The speakers seemed divided on the continued significance of the Durban process. Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Ron Prosor, described it as a continued danger, but Koch and others argued that its time has passed.

A demonstrator at the Durban 3-Ring Circus, a protest hosted by the nonprofit organization StandWithUs, distributes clown masks of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Sept. 22

“Durban III has been a flop,” Koch said. “There is no media. People on the street aren’t interested. They have failed in their efforts and their PR strategy.”

Koch called President Obama’s speech Wednesday at the U.N. General Assembly extraordinary.

“I think he got the message,” the former Democratic mayor said, referring to his attempt to “send a message” to the White House by supporting the Republican candidate in the recent special congressional election in New York to fill the seat vacated by Anthony Weiner. 

Representatives of Iran, Cuba and Lebanon blasted Israel at the Durban Review Conference on Thursday.

While some speakers in the morning session made reference to what Iran’s representative called “the stonewalling behavior” of a few nations—the more than a dozen countries that are boycotting Durban III out of concern for anti-Israel bias—most speakers used the session as an opportunity to herald the progress of their own countries in combating racism. That included, for example, the representative from Zimbabwe, who called his nation “a tolerant and peace-loving country.”

In his own remarks at the session, Amnesty International’s representative, Jose Luis Diaz, accused many participating countries of being in a “state of denial” about human rights abuses and racism in their countries, saying nations were using the conference to “score political points.”

Opponents slam Durban III at rallies, counter-conference Read More »

Pope meets with German Jewish leaders in Berlin

Pope Benedict XVI met with leaders of Germany’s Jewish community while on a visit to his homeland.

Benedict, who arrived Thursday in Berlin to visit his native Germany for the third time since becoming pope, met the Jewish leaders in a closed-door meeting in the Reichstag after addressing the German parliament. The meeting lasted about 25 minutes.

Benedict was forced to join the Hitler Youth as a teenager. He has come under fire from the Jewish community for his work to beatify Pope Pius XII, the wartime pope who many accuse of not defending the Jews against the Nazis.

Pope meets with German Jewish leaders in Berlin Read More »

It’s Ok To Ignore His Words

In the dating world, girls spend a lot of time trying to interpret men.  And way too much of that time in my opinion is spent going over what he said.  Does he not want me to come him with to the company party?  Does that mean his mom just thinks I’m a friend?  Does he think she’s prettier than me?  Does that mean we’re over or he’s going to call in two days?  I kind of think the answer to all these questions is guys just say a lot of dumb gibberish a lot of the time.  I don’t mean any disrespect to men but they don’t seem to put as much meaning or thought into every word the way girls do when talking about dating stuff.  But we transpose our way of communicating on to them and so we’re constantly imbuing every word he said with more meaning than Shakespearian dialogue.  Just accept that we live in a casual society where people play fast and loose with their words and men especially say a lot of things they don’t really mean.

Back in February, on my second date with Mr. Dreamboat, when I was in a very vulnerable place figuratively and literally, Mr. DB told me he didn’t want to be in a relationship.  I was silent and I remained motionless on his bed, afraid that if I moved my face would reveal my shock and hurt.  He went on to say that he had just gotten out of a relationship (I would find out later, that literally the week in between our first conversation and our first date was when he ended it) and he just wanted to be upfront and honest with me.  I was fuming inside but didn’t want to give him the satisfaction of knowing that, so I said something like ok sure and he took me home soon after.  I kissed him goodnight and genuinely thanked him for a great evening so that he wouldn’t get a whiff of any caring inside me whatsoever.  I went into my apartment and promptly deleted his phone number from my phone.

Who the hell does he think he is?  How dare he say that to me?  Anyone would be lucky to have me deign to be in a relationship with them!

I was hurt.  We had only been out twice but I knew I liked him and instead of admitting he had the power to hurt me, I chose outrage.  And I really lived it up.

I called all my girlfriends the next day.  Can you believe this?  In the history of my storied dating career, not one single man has ever said that to me!  The nerve of this guy!

And why would he assume I want a relationship?  I never said I did!  I couldn’t possibly have time for a relationship now anyway!
I really believed this when I said it because it was bad timing for me and I was so busy but let’s face it, that wouldn’t have mattered if the right guy came along.

One thing I notice about girlfriend advice is whenever it’s being given in a situation like this, we all give the hard line female empowerment rules.  We could practically punctuate each sentence with girl power!  All my friends did exactly what I would have done in their shoes, saying I should forget him, look for a man that really deserves me, move on, don’t waste my time with a guy that doesn’t treat me right, blah blah blah.  Yet, none of us ever live out these girl-powered ‘He’s Just Not That Into You’ fantasies.  We break our own rules all the time, we just hate to admit it.  When was the last time someone said to you, he probably isn’t good enough for you, and you’re just going to get hurt, but give him another chance?  And so I must admit, despite my pledge to never speak to him again I saw him the next weekend.

And to what do I attribute this change in heart when he texted me a few days later?  My dad.  Yeah, it’s surprising to me too.

My dad and I never talked about dating.  About once a year he would ask if I was seeing someone and I would answer “no one special” and then we’d talk politics.  It just so happened that two days after I deleted Mr. DB’s number, I met my dad for dinner and he asked me his annual if I was dating anyone question.  I said that I had met someone that I really liked but I wasn’t sure if I was going to see him again.  My dad was surprised to hear that I actually liked anyone and so he asked what had happened and I uncomfortably admitted the truth, he said he doesn’t want to be in a relationship.

Tamara!  No man wants to be in a relationship.  Until, one day they’re just in one.  And especially no 28 year old man wants to be in one.   Maybe this is obvious to you, but to me it was kind of shocking.  I was going out with 28 year old men all the time – and none of them wanted to be in a relationship?  This turned out to be sage advice as four weeks later, Mr. DB was the one saying to me I have no problem committing to a relationship and by the way can I take you to Mexico next weekend?

But at the time, I was really torn – was I just being used by a guy who was clearly telling me he didn’t want a relationship or did I just have to give him a chance and trust that if he really liked me, he’d step up to the plate. The next few weeks were hard.  I expended way too much mental energy analyzing it all.  Looking back, I wonder if I also was a bit excited by the challenge of it all.  Sort of like, he thinks he doesn’t want a relationship, oh I’ll show him.  But mostly, I just felt embarrassed about it all.

I reported back to my friends on my dad’s advice.  Beth said I don’t believe that.  Some men do want a relationship and those are the ones you should be focusing on.  But my gay friend Sal was on my dad’s side.  Sometimes men just say words that don’t mean anything and girls pay to much attention to them.  Maybe this was the key.  For the next four weeks, I held onto the advice I had gotten from the men in my life and ignored my girl-power urges.  I could feel us getting closer, and our relationship deepening, and I could even feel how much he liked me.  I wanted to trust what I felt but everyone kept reminding that if I got hurt it would be my own fault.  He warned you he didn’t want a relationship. But maybe he was just being too honest.  Maybe on our second date he didn’t think he wanted a relationship but maybe he was just waiting for the right person.

It was hard and it hurt my pride.  But it made me realize something about the fundamental differences in the way men and women communicate.  Communication doesn’t come as naturally to men as it does to women.  So in this world where we keep coaching men to talk more and communicate more, some men communicate by over-communicating.  In other words, by getting it all out there, he will get his point across eventually and no one can say he wasn’t honest.  Women’s words in a relationship are motivated by feelings and we usually have a clear purpose for saying what we do.  Men are more ready to just let words out without thinking about them.  Unfortunately, that’s why sometimes when they say they’re going to call, they don’t mean it.  It’s just easier to let those words roll off their tongue than explain why they’re not going to call.  So cut them some slack.  Stop analyzing what they said.  And thank god men don’t spend the same time trying to figure out what we really mean when we say it only cost around 100$ or you’re only my third or I used to date him but it was never that serious.  Some words are just better left unexplored. 


Tamara Shayne Kagel is a writer living in Santa Monica, CA. To find out more about her, visit” title=”@tamaraskagel.” target=”_blank”>@tamaraskagel. © Copyright 2011.

It’s Ok To Ignore His Words Read More »

American historian Oscar Handlin dies

Oscar Handlin, one of the foremost American historians of the 20th century, has died.

Handlin, who taught at Harvard University for more than half a century, died Tuesday of a heart attack at his home in Cambridge, Mass. He was 95.

He was one of the first generation of American Jews to enter the discipline of American history, and the first Harvard historian to take an interest in the history of American Jews.

Handlin served as the Carl H. Pforzheimer University Professor and then Carl M. Loeb University Professor emeritus at Harvard. He was university librarian from 1979 to 1984 and acting director of the Harvard University Press in 1972. He wrote more than 30 books on an array of topics such as family, education, race, freedom and historiography.

The Brooklyn native was the son of Russian immigrants. He entered Brooklyn College at the age of 15 and four years later began graduate school at Harvard, according to the Boston Globe.

Handlin joined the Harvard faculty in 1939 as an instructor and remained there until his retirement.

American historian Oscar Handlin dies Read More »

Yom Kippur: It’s fourth and long

Yom Kippur, the fourth quarter of the High Holidays, is coming and time is running out. Our seats are waiting, the gates are closing.

Each year we look for a new way to prep for the day: Could football offer a strategy?

Though Yom Kippur certainly is no day for sports, like football it does have a time limit, sundown and a playbook, the machzor. There is even a halftime and cheerleaders—liturgical cheerleaders, that is.

It’s a day when the liturgy seems to ask: Are you going to run, pass or pray?

Football is in the air at Yom Kippur time, but the holiest day of the Jewish calendar need not compete with a sacred Saturday or Sunday. Teams will change game dates to avoid a Yom Kippur conflict and allow fans to observe the day. The Jets did so in 2009, and the University of Toledo moved its homecoming game this year.

On Yom Kippur, our ultimate game day, we can apply football’s well-known pattern of timed territorial struggle to the personal struggle being played out for our attention, intention and understanding.

Here’s the play by play:

First quarter: Yom Kippur morning, it’s You vs. the Machzor. Almost fumbling the opening play, you remember that the book opens backward. Turning to “Mah Tovu,” “How goodly are your tents,” you are welcomed into the venue.

One of the first plays in the book is the morning blessings, including “Blessed are You … who girds Israel with strength.” A good call; you’re going to need it.

The night before on Kol Nidre, a kind of big sunset pep rally, you made a major pledge to the team: You decided to fast. So no Gatorade or any food aids this game day.

Besides, if University of Wisconsin greats Matt Bernstein and Gabe Carimi could fast on Yom Kippur and even play later in the day, why can’t you?

Even so, by the end of the first quarter, you’re beginning to feel it.

Second quarter: Let the day’s Torah reading get you back in the game. The portion, from Leviticus, in part is about Azazel, a sacrificial goat, a sort of temporary mascot upon whom the high priest confesses all the sins of Israel.

How does it end? Let’s just say that Azazel really takes one for the team.

The quarter closes with a haftarah by Isaiah, quite a player in his day, who reminds every new generation of players that true repentance involves helping the hungry and the afflicted, and changing your ways.

Halftime: With the concession stands closed, you really need some inspiration. It’s time for the coach, usually a rabbi, to present a rousing locker-room speech. Yes, you’ve heard it all, but sometimes Coach rallies the team by introducing a new move called teshuvah. It means turning or returning.

Teshuvah is tough. Here’s where a good coach becomes a cheerleader. On Yom Kippur you need it.

Seems that both on and off the field, Coach wants you to confess all your bad plays, like “harsh speech,” “wronging a neighbor,” “being obstinate”—unteamlike play they say can keep you from making it into the end zone.

Halftime closes with Yizkor, where we solemnly remember all those in our personal halls of fame who are no longer with us.

Third quarter: It’s time to move toward the goal with musaf. The key play here is a piyyut called Unetaneh Tokef, “Let us now relate the power of the day’s holiness.” It was written by a liturgy Hall of Famer named Rabbi Amon of Mainz about a thousand seasons ago.

It’s a play that gives the other half of the coaching team, the cantor, a chance to really belt out audibles. In Unetaneh Tokef, the whole team is likened to a flock of sheep, and as they pass before the heavenly host’s staff, they are counted and considered, and a verdict is written.

We are reminded that some of us just won’t make it to next season, with some passing by water and others by famine.

It sounds like third and long, but hope is the play here. With “repentance, prayer and charity,” we might be given a shot at the Book of Life and a new season.

Fourth quarter: It’s long and Neilah. Here is where we are asked to grind it out for the victory. So many in this final frame are punchy and prayed out, but ignoring our kvetching, Coach tells us to get off the bench and stand. In our minds the chain gang comes out to measure; we’re only pages from the goal.

In the sky, it’s only inches till sundown. There’s only time for one more play.

Coach makes the call: “Avinu Malkeinu,” “Our Father our King.”

We pray that all the hard calls that have gone against us during the year are reversed, that our adversaries fade into the background, that the team avoids injuries (sickness), and that we be remembered, be given another playbook for a good life.

With time running out, and only seconds left, the horn sounds. Hopefully we have scored.

Edmon J. Rodman is a JTA columnist who writes on Jewish life from Los Angeles. Contact him at {encode=”edmojace@gmail.com” title=”edmojace@gmail.com”}.

Yom Kippur: It’s fourth and long Read More »

Hugo Boss apologizes for its forced labor under Nazis

The German fashion house Hugo Boss has apologized for mistreating forced labor at a uniform factory during World War II.

Revelations about how company founder Hugo Boss employed forced workers at his clothing factory, which was contracted to make Nazi uniforms, have appeared in a book about the history of the company during the Hitler years.

The book, which was financed by the fashion house, makes clear that Boss was a loyal Nazi. Orders for uniforms from the National Socialist Party after Boss joined in 1931 saved the factory from bankruptcy. Boss died in 1948.

The factory used 140 Polish and 40 French forced workers; most were women.

“Hugo Boss, 1924-1945: A Clothing Factory During the Weimar Republic and Third Reich” was written by Roman Koester, an economic historian at the Bundeswehr University in Munich.

The company said in a statement on its website that it expressed “profound regret” to the forced workers who suffered while working at the factory during the war.

Hugo Boss apologizes for its forced labor under Nazis Read More »

The surprising appeal of Kol Nidre

On his way to converting to Christianity, philosopher Franz Rosenzweig attended Yom Kippur services and was so moved that he decided to remain Jewish. One look at the most famous prayer for the occasion makes it hard to believe that he did not abandon Judaism all the quicker.

Kol Nidre actually is no prayer at all. Rather it is a legal formula in Aramaic that delineates obscure categories of vows and oaths known to the Bible and the rabbis, and then solemnly proclaims that we are free of them.

The origin of this concern was our ancestors’ anxiety over reneging on promises sworn in God’s name. The Talmud permitted such oaths to be canceled, but only one by one and in the presence of a talmudic sage. The idea of a blanket nullification was anathema to rabbis who first heard of it in the eighth and ninth centuries and denounced it as “a foolish custom.” But no one listened.

The prayer had emerged alongside a parallel practice of smashing clay pottery on which a formula to annul vows had been engraved, the idea being that your enemy might have conjured evil spirits and forced them magically to promise you harm. Breaking the bowl would free them from their promise.

Here, then, is a superstition-laden prayer that was condemned by rabbinic authorities but stuck anyway. Its final version reflects a 12th century substitution of “vows made in the future” for “vows made in the past,” so as to do away with its obvious disregard for talmudic law. Even so, it hardly represented Judaism at its moral best. In the 19th century it fueled German anti-Semitism to the point where Jews were hauled into court and forced to swear that they would be held answerable for the truth of any oath they took there.

Despite all this, Kol Nidre persisted, eventually supplied with unforgettable music and the choreography of a courtroom trial held before God. Jews were chanting it is as far back as 11th century France; 14th century German cantors were prolonging the melody to make sure latecomers got to hear it. Polish Rabbi Mordecai Jaffe (1530–1612) sought in vain to change the text because cantors resisted coupling the age-old melody to new lyrics. Nineteenth- and 20th-century rabbis tried to substitute Psalms or write a new prayer altogether.

A more successful subterfuge was to play Kol Nidre on a musical instrument without words or to chant the prayer but omit the words (especially in translation) from the prayer book.

What attracts us to this strangely haunting ritual of Kol Nidre? Is it the music? Surely. Is it also the high drama of the occasion — Torah scrolls dressed in white and held stunningly in full view of the congregation throughout the chant? Yes, it is that as well. But it is more. “All These Vows: Kol Nidre” (Jewish Lights: $24.99) assembles the thoughtful and moving answers of more than 30 people — rabbis and cantors, artists and thinkers — the world over. My own view is that Kol Nidre connects us with the sacred.

Since the 19th century we have been on a road toward greater secularity — not necessarily a bad thing, if by “secular” we mean the discovery that the world is devoid of magical forces and that everything runs by an immutable set of scientific laws. But we have paid a price. Secularization is the process of yanking at the curtain of the universe and discovering there is no wizard micromanaging it. But a universe that operates by natural law can still have mystery. We pilgrims on the yellow brick road strive to be secular, scientific and savvy without giving up on God and the certainty that life still matters. On Kol Nidre eve, it is as if nothing has eroded that certainty because energy runs high, memories go deep and some things seem not to have changed in a thousand years or more.

People mistakenly think that they cannot pray because they cannot believe. The reverse is true. Prayer compels belief, not the other way around. For a very brief moment, as Kol Nidre is chanted, we are in touch with the sacred and with our finitude; with those we love and with the broader human universe; with our own better selves and with the God we are not even sure we believe in.

Rabbi Lawrence A. Hoffman, a professor of liturgy, worship and ritual at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, is the author most recently of “All These Vows: Kol Nidre” (Jewish Lights).

The surprising appeal of Kol Nidre Read More »