Category — Reform

Rabbi Eric Yoffie critiques Israel’s school system, and asks,

Would we not all agree that every Israeli child should be prepared for the workplace and taught to embrace democratic values?

The rabbi is clearly a self-hating Jew.

J Street has really disappointed a lot of us. We were so enthusiastic that a new organization was challenging AIPAC’s dominance. We thought an organization had emerged to represent the mainstream Jewish community’s position on Israel.

But instead of counter-acting the Likud-style, Israel-Firstniks of AIPAC with a moderate organization that empathized with the Jewish state from a realist perspective that does not conflate American interests with Israeli interests, we instead are witnessing an organization that cannot seem to fathom the problem of a rogue Islamicist government that doesn’t want to negotiate with Israel, but rather, prefers to terrorize Israel’s civilian population.

But don’t take my word that J Street is out of touch and too far left to represent the mainstream Jewish community. Let’s take a look at what the leader of the Reform movement has to say.

Rabbi Eric Yoffie writes in the Forward,

A second J Street statement was worse by far. It could find no moral difference between the actions of Hamas and other Palestinian militants, who have launched more than 5,000 rockets and mortar shells at Israeli civilians in the past three years, and the long-delayed response of Israel, which finally lost patience and responded to the pleas of its battered citizens in the south. “Neither Israelis nor Palestinians have a monopoly on right or wrong,” it said, and it suggested that there was no reason and no way to judge between them: “While there is nothing ‘right’ in raining rockets on Israeli families or dispatching suicide bombers, there is nothing ‘right’ in punishing a million and a half already-suffering Gazans for the actions of the extremists among them.”

These words are deeply distressing because they are morally deficient, profoundly out of touch with Jewish sentiment and also appallingly naïve.

[…]

And as long as the thugs of Hamas can act with impunity, no Israeli government of the right or the left will agree to a two-state solution or any other kind of peace. Doves take note: To be a dove of influence, you must be a realist, firm in your principles but shorn of all illusions.

As a reality check for my views, I did what I normally do in these circumstances: I checked with my closest Israeli friends, who are all left of center, haters of war and ferocious opponents of the West Bank settlement movement. In virtually every case, they saw the action in Gaza as tragic but necessary and were astounded by the opposition of American doves. “What did they think,” one of them asked me in bewilderment, “that we would just sit there forever while Hamas fired rockets into our cities?” And they pointed out that most politicians on the left support the offensive, as do more than 80% of all Israelis, according to polling data.

As some of you probably know, I descend predominantly from moderate-left, not liberal-left, stock. My mom was (and sort of still is) a feminist. But a moderate feminist. Now you might ask, “what is the difference between a moderate feminist and a regular feminist?” Well, it depends when and where. A moderate feminist in say, the early 70s, might have just started her own local chapter of N.O.W. But a moderate feminist (in say, the early 70s,) might also have left her chapter of N.O.W., the very same chapter she created, because she felt that the crowd that had gathered was, “a bunch of radical, men-hating dykes.”

Now to be sure, the social liberals are not at all the same as the radicals. But they are more…on the cutting edge.

My point, dear readers, is to explain that sometimes, Reform Jews face dilemmas that you and I do not. Take last names, and changing them. And what to do with your own hyphenated last name, when you are a Reform dude(!), and getting married.

For those of us in the moderate-left, the reality usually is the woman keeps her last name professionally if she wants (for awhile), but often drops even that once the kids start growing. This is still different than in the moderate-right world, where even the toughest business woman cannot wait to jettison her last name to show she closed the biggest deal of all…one with a ring!

But dcc has a stickier situation. In today’s crazy world, when one Reform Jew marries another Reform Jew, that can be a lot of names to negotiate. His sister suggested taking a last name which incorporates all of their four last names. Social-liberalism has its own baggage.

Last names didn’t really mean all that much to Jews traditionally. We were forced to assume them over time. In order to avoid the czar’s army, many of our families had more than one. My own family name was once Onikelsky, but we think we had it for about five minutes, and took the name here, because we were possibly from Jonikelish, a shtetl in Lithuania.

And perhaps dcc’s current dilemma suggests that in some ways, last names still don’t mean all that much for Jews.

Anyway, if you know someone who is Reform/hyphenated, you may want to guide them to dcc’s post. And maybe wish both dcc and his fiancé a mazel tov.

Mazel tov, dcc and Abby.

Sometimes, you want to see what’s on the other side. How the right-wingers live.

So JanetheWriter decided stepped to step outside her comfort zone, and decided to see how the frummies spend shabbat. So she went hardcore. To the JTS, the Conservative movement’s theological seminary.

These are excerpts from her tell all report on RJ.

Along the way, Jeanne told me that JTS students are required to be shomer shabbos. Before we entered the building on Broadway, therefore, I shut off my cell phone.[...] After brief introductions all around and blessings over wine and challah, we enjoyed a traditional Shabbat dinner — chicken, rice, vegetables and salad, all prepared by Jeremy, following his Friday classes.

Janetthewriter kept her personal religious identity hidden.

Although I followed only a few threads of the philosophical and intellectual discourse, I picked up enough to sense that among some within this group there existed deep disdain for Reform Judaism and its dismissal of halacha . Nonetheless, I disclosed to Aviva, the young woman across the table from me, from whence I came, and she in turn told me that she works part-time at Congregation Rodeph Sholom, and was surprised at how “traditional” a congregation she’s found it to be.

She further disclosed that she “can’t do the imahot,” and we chatted about the wide spectrum that is Reform Judaism, the autonomy of individual congregations, and the trend toward more traditional practice within the Movement. As is often the case, I was proud to be a Reform Jew.

Following dinner we “benched” – the familiar birkat ha-Mazon sandwiched (no pun intended) between seemingly endless text and melodies that were wholly unknown to me. I found it nearly impossible to keep up without losing my place in the bencher despite a transliteration of the prayers. Not since early in my first semester of college, when I attended a kabbalat Shabbat service sponsored by Hillel at Lafayette, had I felt such a blush of shame at my Jewish illiteracy. And yet, my sense of having entered sacred time was palpable. There was no urgency, no rushing, no gotta-get-it-done frenzy. Rather, a joyful calm filled the lounge and all of us in it.

As Jeanne and I made our way back to the subway a short while later, I pulled out my cell phone. Ready to turn it back on, I remembered the lounge — and that joyful calm – and, still off, put it back into my bag. Whatever messages it contained could certainly wait until the morning.

In “Making the Cut“, Rabbi Shafran, the spokesman of Agudath Israel, an organization that fought hard to help keep metzitzah b’peh—the holy blood-sucking of a baby’s newly circumcised penis by a chassid–legal in NY, offers some reasons why liberal and Reform Jews continue at this time to practice brit milah.

My father told the story to demonstrate the innate Jewish desire to enter Abraham’s covenant of circumcision, or brit mila, a most fundamental Jewish obligation. He speculated that, no doubt, an 8-day-old Jewish infant, in some inchoate way, likely also senses the depth of the commandment’s import, and that his soul, pure and new, pines to undergo the procedure. And so, my father suggested, perhaps that idea informs the blessing traditionally called out by those present at a circumcision ceremony – “Just as he has entered the covenant, so may he enter Torah, marriage and good deeds.” The blessing may bespeak a hope that the same deep and pure desire to be holy that inheres in a new soul should later motivate him, when grown, to study Torah, become a husband and perform righteous acts.

This is pure, unadulterated fantasy bullshit. This is the kind of thing you say when you have nothing normal to say.

That circumcision remains practiced among Jews who have allowed other Jewish observances to lapse – or who have outright jettisoned them – has always been remarkable. If any commandment could be expected to be shunned by Jews who view the Torah as mere “inspired” words of mortals and not as G-d’s sacred commandments, one would imagine that cutting the body of a baby would be it.

And yet that is not the case. Reform Magazine recently (Fall, 2008) published an article “Why Reform Never Abandoned Circumcision,” whose author, Reform Rabbi Mark Washofsky, makes his movement’s case for brit mila. While the article’s title was somewhat inaccurate – circumcision was indeed rejected by Reform leaders in the early 1800’s – it is certainly true that the contemporary Reform movement encourages brit mila. The article tries to express why, even though Reform “has done away with a number of ritual observances that conflict with our contemporary cultural and aesthetic sensibilities… this practice remains.”

Rabbi Washofsky’s explanation is that… it is “a tribal rite” and that “that’s why we do it…” Which rather begs the question, of course. But if it satisfies his intellect, who am I to quibble?

It will not hold up if the circumcision rate in the U.S. continues to fall. The reason the circumcision rate continues to hold up in the Reform movement is solely because the American population has not rejected it wholeheartedly, and the Reform only challenge rituals in Judaism when the dominant liberal culture forces the question. Not a moment before.

But that moment is coming. Just look at Rabbi Shafran’s fantastic nonsense to see why. As circumcision becomes increasingly recognized as a form of mutilation — something Judaism does not dispute — do you think this is going to hold up under the weight of child rights?

The BBC reports,

A community in eastern Uganda has banned the deeply rooted practice of female genital mutilation (FGM), an official has said…

Kapchorwa district chairman Nelson Chelimo said it was “outmoded” and “not useful” for the community’s women.

“The community decided that it was not useful, that women were not getting anything out of it, so the district council decided to establish an ordinance banning it,” Mr Chelimo told AFP news agency.

He said there was a local belief that women who married without circumcision would be stricken by illness, but that this was “really outmoded”.

See, Uganda figured this out, but ask the Orthodox Union to say that Metziza b’ peh–the holy sucking of baby penis blood following the circumcision which the chassidim still practice–should be made illegal in NYC, and they won’t say it. Can’t say it. Musn’t say it. Instead, a few babies will die, and more will suffer brain damage as a result of spreading the herpes virus and God knows what else.

Tradition…..Tradition!

But see, if Uganda had been like the oh-so-progressive Reform movement, they would have continued FGM, but they would have allowed men to participate. That sure would have solved the gender problems of FGM, right? And as for the health benefits, instead of saying, “You’re right!” they would do what Reform’s Berit Milah Board and other do: blatantly lie, and do so knowingly. Right, Rabbi Donni Aaron? She sure does lie for the sake of continuing circ, doesn’t she?

Some people believe that circumcision negatively affects sexuality. However, doctors have no indication that circumcision has negatively affected a man’s sexual ability.

Liar!

The Reform and others on the Jewish left that pride themselves as the chosen ones to help make “Tikkun Olam.” Maybe instead of spreading their social justice to the rest of the world, they themselves should strive to be a little more like Uganda, and a little less like Somalia.

Tell Rabbi Donni Aaron and the Berit Mila Board to stop lying about the actual research and science on circumcision.

As I think most of you reading this today will agree, 2nd Yontiff is stupid. And the Reform Movement thinks so too. So I will turn it over to an erudite young scholar, BZ of Mah Rabu, (and Jewschool), who has a whole series of essays on the subject of why 2nd Day Yom Tov is stupid.

Dr. Carol Gerson

This is a case of the latter. A case not of moderate feminism, not of those seeking egalitarianism, but of an invasive, castrating brand of feminism that Jews are somehow expected to gush and exclaim, “Oh, that’s so wonderfully inclusive!”

{Greps}

Meet Dr. Carol Gerson. Mother. Doctor. Penis slicer.

She circumcises boys – apparently more whose parents are in non-traditional situations, it seems from this article – and

Almost immediately, as word got out that there was a new mohelet in town, Gerson received dozens of phone calls and e-mails from parents who wanted to use her services. She said many mothers were surprised to find a mohelet and wanted a women’s [sic] touch.

To be clear, we are talking about cutting off a perfectly good and useful part of a baby boy’s penis. And always, always, the reporters feel obligated to note the clearly positive addition of a “woman’s touch” on stories about the local Mohelet. I think they all use one template, and change the names and pictures. At the very best, Margaret Ramirez is not a very original writer.

Though Gerson has performed several circumcisions, she said the experience is so powerful she sometimes has trouble controlling her emotions and feels tears welling up in her eyes.

Maybe if she stopped doing this to babies, she would stop crying all the time.

She trained with two physicians in Evanston and Vancouver, performing the procedure on 65 babies in three days.

The woman is a psychopath.

“I think liberal Jews are looking for something that maintains the tradition but understands today’s world,” said Rabbi Julie Pelc, director of the Brit Milah Program of Reform Judaism in Los Angeles.

This has nothing to do with “today’s world.” This is a ancient East African ritual. Most there still practice it (and feminists, there are corresponding cutting rituals for, the ladies), though a minority have other very meaningful ritual rites of passage for their youth instead, like teeth removal.

As is common with feminists of her ilk, Gerson points to the “innovative” resources of Ritualwell, which includes one of the most vicious and hateful diatribes upon male sexuality you will ever read anywhere. But it’s by a feminist rabbi, so it’s okay. It’s progressive! Remember, only men can be hateful; only men can be contemptuous.

And to think that Liberal Judaism has been having such trouble retaining men.

Why oh why don’t more men want to stick around for this party?

There is much to discuss about Rabbi Yoffie’s essay, “Orthodoxy’s Kosher Crises,” in this week’s Forward. I highly recommend reading the whole thing.

But I want to focus on an important point that I believe concerns Rabbi Yoffie among other issues about the Rubashkin scandal.

Over the course of the past five months, the American Jewish community has observed with dismay the gradual unfolding of the Agriprocessors scandal. Agriprocessors may be a private corporation, but as the nation’s leading producer of kosher meat, it is one that operates under the Jewish communal banner.

Its actions have been followed closely, not only by Jews such as myself who observe kashrut, but by all Jews — not to mention many in the broader American public.

There are two points here, and they are connected. First of all, while many liberal Jews do not keep kashrut like Rabbi Yoffie does, certainly some do. Additionally, many Jews who do not keep kosher the way the Orthodox understand it still keep some form of kashrut. This may mean a lot of different things. For instance, some Jews will eat things outside of the home that they do not bring into the home. Others, like my maternal grandmother, may she rest in peace, may also prefer to buy kosher products even if they aren’t necessarily committed to only kosher products. For instance, when my grandmother made chicken soup, she would seek out “a nice chicken.” A “nice” chicken was a kosher chicken.

Rabbi Yoffie wants to preserve and build on this. He wants Jews to have some association in their lives with kashrut.

Additionally, many liberal Jews have a general sense of striving to be “a light unto the nations.” When terrible things are tolerated in the kashrut industry – labor abuses that people like my social-democratic ancestors fought long and hard to eradicate in this country – this harms how Judaism is perceived by others. This in turn precipitates a deleterious effect on liberal Jewish identity and faith. Just as kashrut becomes difficult to defend, never mind champion, so do other aspects of Judaism connected to it. A mitzvah becomes an embarrassment.

It is Orthodox Judaism that is primarily responsible for our system of kosher supervision. And Orthodox Jews represent the largest single consumer base for the kosher meats produced by Agriprocessors. Therefore, the Orthodox community and its leaders have a particular responsibility for addressing the troubling questions that have been raised and for working to repair the damage that has been done[...]

In the meantime, the Jewish community faces a public crisis of major proportions. The scandal has raised basic questions about the ethical foundations of our religious tradition, about undue deference to the wealthy and about Jewish indifference to injustice in our midst.

Why didn’t the Orthodox care about the damage they were facilitating?

[Read more →]

Once again, the cycle of brutality repeats. There are ultra-Orthodox abusers, this time Rubashkin,. Again, the Orthodox Union is the enabler, as well as the Jewish community. Instead of the abuser being justified by kiruv, he is being protected and enabled on the grounds of kashrut. And while the mainstream Jewish community is visibly upset, once again, the mainstream non-Orthodox Jewish community seems helpless in crafting a coherent response.

So it is comforting to see the Reform finally taking an aggressive stance.

The Reform have long argued that the Orthodox get so lost in the Talmudic and halachic minutia, that they lose the big picture. The Orthodox will counter that kashrut has nothing to do with treating people or animals with kindness, nor does it have anything to do with honesty. The problem with such an insistence is that we see what it leads to.

As Donald Cohen-Cutler writes on RJ (News and Views of Reform Jews),

While this food is technically kosher, its production violates a thousand other Jewish values, and, in my opinion, far more important values than how we salt our meat. One can trick himself to believe that the business of kosher food production is ethical, however if he takes a look at the track record, he will find that many of the major producers of kosher meat stuffs are not following the rules – rules from on High and from a more local source.

His solution is strange.

These folks enjoy eating this food and feel connected to tradition when they make these choices, they say. I feel as if they are supporting a corrupt monopoly that hides behind faux-piety. How does one enjoy kosher meat and stay true to her liberal Jewish values?

One eats locally.

ddc also points to the Heksher Tzedek movement as an important development.

But a larger question is, and I mean no disrespect, but isn’t this whole debacle proof that the Reform were right–from their perspective–to reject the traditional understanding of kashrut?

ddc allows that with eating locally,

Granted if you believe that glatt kosher meat is a must this won’t work and you may have to trade your values for your brisket.

But isn’t that going to be the case usually? So why not just take a stand against kashrut generally? What is the gain to the Reform of ever eating kosher meat (never mind glatt!), under these circumstances?

Why would the Reform want to support the “kosher-nostra”?