Shma: Letters to the Editor

The education of a Jewish child begins at birth. Experiencing Jewish time and space, engaging in Torah for living and learning, a sense of belonging to the Jewish people and connecting with Israel and Hebrew is all part of forming the identity of a young Jewish child. Why then was early childhood Jewish education not mentioned in your February- March publication focused on the teaching of Israel? (with the exception of a brief nod to early childhood Hebrew immersion programs in the article by Stein, Grinfas-David and Hartman)

Early childhood Jewish education is one of the earliest gateways for Jewish families to engage in life long Jewish learning and connections.

There are currently many early childhood Jewish programs that have made a conscious effort to incorporate Israel and Hebrew into their curriculum all year long. They have dedicated professional development for their teachers to gain more knowledge about Israel and methods of teaching it to the young child. There are many early childhood Jewish communities that have exchange programs with the early childhood community in Israel. There are even Israel trips specifically designed for families with children under 5.

Jewish identity is inextricably connected to Israel, the land, the people, the language. It holds physical, mental and emotional links to who we are, how we pray and how we live our lives. This is Jewish identity and it begins at birth.

When the national Jewish leadership examines the way we teach Israel, we suggest that they begin with the young family, the young children and the early childhood Jewish educators who teach them. The possibilities are phenomenal and the benefits and rewards are great and enduring.

Please hear my voice joined to those of Marci Lenk and Yehudah Mirsky ("Letter to the Editor: A Response about Charismatic Leadership," Sh'ma March/April2007). I decided to subscribe to Sh'ma several months ago, after I saw online that your upcoming issue would focus on leadership in light of the "Gafni affair." While I could appreciate the integrity and high quality of Sh'ma's articles and format, I was very disappointed by the absence of any expression of compassion for the women who, as girls over twenty years ago, suffered once through abuse by Gafni, and then again as adults, as say saw him embraced and promoted in so many Jewish venues. As one of these women said to me a few years ago, "I just can't go anyplace where I know they've hired him."

After what happened last May in Israel, I had expected those leaders, here in the United States, who had chosen several years ago to trivialize the contents of the reports they heard about Gafni, and those who conducted an investigation that was half-hearted at best, to at least now come forward and express regret for having taken the issue as lightly as they did. Yet to date, none of them has acknowledged their past mistakes or made Teshuvah with regard to these women.

Instead, once again, they complicate and impede these women's slow and painful process of healing.

The focus for some of these leaders seems to be protecting their own reputations and institutions. Some have begun to publicize, through Sh'ma and other publications, their current, proactive stance on abuse of leadership power. While any steps to prevent future abuse are

While we and many others genuinely appreciate the action taken against Mordechai Gafni by the leadership of Bayit Chadash, after his years of predatory and abusive behavior, it is hard to appreciate the frankly self-congratulatory tone of Jacob Ner-David's recent article, "Genug: Time for a Change." While Ner-David acknowledges that he was warned about Mordechai over the years, he argues that he took the moral upper hand in not paying attention, not wanting to give merit to the "rumors or hearsay." Those who wanted to believe in Mordechai, he writes, "checked him out." What does that mean? Did they speak to his victims? Or did they only speak to others who had their own personal interest in keeping Mordechai going?

The leadership of Bayit Chadash must have known that widespread and credible reports of flagrantly abusive behavior, sexual and financial, in Israel and the U.S., had been trailing Gafni for many years. Their willingness to go on supporting him for as long as they did, merits a degree of introspection and cheshbon ha-nefesh that goes deeper than is evidenced in Ner-David's article.

Moreover, the article does not acknowledge that if the Bayit Chadash leadership had paid attention to the warnings, those who suffered would not have had to go through what they did. We are deeply troubled by the sense among many in the Jewish community that if one has not heard about the problem directly from a victim, it should be dismissed as "rumors and hearsay." While not every rumor is true and Jewish tradition urges us to judge others in a favorable light, why should women who have already suffered at the hands of a particularly slick and self-promoting guru, bear such an onerous burden of proof in the face of such a charismatic abuser? Why should it be their responsibility to repeat their humiliating stories over and over?

The individuals and organizations that did pay attention to the warnings about Mordechai, and did not allow him to be involved in their activities, were vilified by Gafni and his supporters. Those who stood by him for so long bear their own share of personal responsibility for the damage wreaked by Mordechai during all the years that they facilitated his career.

We write this not out of personal animus but out of a desire fully to clear the air so that we can all begin anew.

ALEPH is keenly aware of the dangers and limitations of charismatic leadership. We have worked to contain its potential for abuse from our inception. Our formal ethics policies create opportunities for addressing significant issues. Ombudspeople successfully address informal complaints on the spot at events. List serves, event evaluations and continuous monitoring have all served to almost entirely prevent this negative potential from materializing.

In addition, Reb Zalman's teachings about the "rebbe within" represent only the tip of the iceberg in our work to create a model of shared leadership, as our cadre of over one hundred spiritual, institutional, and congregational leaders attests. Importantly, Reb Zalman sees his role in Jewish Renewal as transitional, from an old paradigm to a still emerging frame. There will be no successor.

A major learning grew from the episode that Dr. Chava Weissler discussed in the December issue of Sh'ma -- the need to educate and empower our members so they do not find themselves beguiled by unsavory characters who could take advantage of them. ALEPH formed a committee that has already strengthened our relevant policies and procedures and developed a "Participants Bill of Rights." It is now compiling theological materials, drafting a curriculum for several workshops, and developing rituals for healing.

We remain firmly committed to the many sensitive souls who seek transcendent experiences. The safety and well being of all will forever be in the forefront of our work.

Rabbi Gillman and Dr. Ross live in different but overlapping Jewish worlds. Both want to live as committed Jews without compromising their sense of theological integrity. Rabbi Gillman's plea for a new midrash or a new mythology [in the sense of a self-defining narrative] is critical. Those trained in Ancient Near Eastern studies realize that the ancient geography had heaven, the abode of Divinity, above, the world of life that humans inhabit on the surface, and Hades/Sheol/hell beneath us. We find this mythological structure in Genesis and the Revelation of John in the Christian Scripture. Almost no serious Jewish thinker espouses this divine geography in our time. Even Resh Laqish denied the existence of Hell, and was not excommunicated by either Satmar or Lubavitch for his "heresy." Rabbi Gillman's call for a convincing religious narrative in modernity is imperative. The conventional Orthodox narrative, which Dr. Ross rightly rejects, claims that the rights allowed by the Talmudic canon [women ritual access to kosher slaughter, reading megillah, holding a Torah, and studying Torah] have been systematically "reformed" by later, medieval Judaisms. By allowing Gedolim, or charismatic sages with inspired intuition, the right to rewrite Jewish norms, Orthodox Judaism has taken a gnostic turn, because Torah no longer belongs to the people, but to a self-select set and sect of individuals whom the culture invests with religious charisma and which sees those who oppose their inspirited subjectivity be representatives of the forces of secularity and "darkness."

The Torah law philologically understood is no longer binding or empowering. Women may not slaughter animals because we have not seen the act performed, never mind the explicit Talmudic license. Women may not study oral Torah because R. Eliezer did not like the empowerment, never mind tBerachot 2:12, which explicitly grants women access to unfettered Torah study, and this fact has been suppressed. To my mind, Dr. Ross's challenge is not a denial of Tradition, but its affirmation. God speaks in Torah, and human beings have no right to silence the Divine voice. Text trumps in Torah. It trumps because in some metaphoric sense, God does talk in canonical Torah texts. But the sounds are processed by human ears, hearts and minds. While I endorse R. Gillman's call for a new midrash and myth, I do fear the relativism that I sense in his idiom. A Judaism that in potential stands for everything ultimately will convince few adherents. And while I endorse Dr. Ross's call for cumulative revelation, I suspect that the metaphor will not resonate in the the hearts and minds of many Halakhically commited Jews. I do suggest that a new narrative be composed that creates an empowering reading of the sources, which command and forbid, and in silence carve out a space for licit, choreographic ritual that expresses the sensibilities of those for whom modernity is not a curse, but a blessing.

Rabbi Alan J. Yuter
Faculty
Institute for Traditional Judaism
Teaneck, NJ
Bnai Israel
Baltimore, MD

I agree with Andy Bachman that today's younger generations (perhaps many older as well) are both more demanding and more discerning spiritual seekers. While skillfully avoiding the trap that equates spiritual seeking with consumerism, he nonetheless makes a case that it is Gen X and Gen Y's desire for authenticity which drives their search.

I believe there are two kinds of authenticity, and that both must be present for the spiritual seeker to feel satisfied. One is rooted in tradition, imparting the sense that what is practiced is in accordance with Jewish values and rituals, and would be recognizable to others as such. This might be described as an authenticity of ritual . Sadly, in my experience working within the Jewish community for many years, I have found that many Jews can feel profoundly disconnected from a given service despite finding it $)A!.authentic.' I believe this stems from lack of the second type of authenticity.

Authenticity of self - in a sense, a kind of spiritual integrity - is critical to the spiritual seeker. This second type of authenticity is more personal, in which people pray what they mean and mean what they pray. It has great personal resonance; people can invest themselves in the words they're uttering, because they believe so strongly in the ideas they convey.

Only when both types of authenticity are experienced, can the spiritual seeker be satisfied.

As an academic who has studied Jewish leadership for more than a decade, and a former Jewish communal executive, I read with great interest the April 2004/Iyar 5764 edition of Sh?ma. Your efforts to explore the complexities inherent in the lay-professional relationship are both appropriate and long overdue. The decision to include the insights and observations of some of American Jewry?s leading thinkers on matters of communal organization and governance will no doubt go a long way to advancing a serious discussion of these matters.

My admiration for the initiative, coupled with the deep respect I have for many of the participants, notwithstanding, I am struck by what seems to be a significant omission from the deliberations, namely a serious consideration of Jewish sources and communal history relative to the issues under consideration.

It seems to me that any serious attempt to grapple with the lay-professional duality must begin by recognizing that these complex relationships are hardly unique to the modern era. Tensions between Jewish philanthropists and communal employees did not appear suddenly in the late nineteenth century with the creation of the first Jewish federation. Nor should we believe that resentments and discord between rabbis and trustees are the special province of twenty-first century synagogues.

Jewish communities throughout the millennia have struggled to find solutions for competing authorities, conflicts between leadership paradigms, and enmity amongst those who would don the mantle of communal governance. Tensions between the oligarchic few and those who would challenge the right of the wealthy to dictate policy have defined Jewish communal life for centuries. Similarly, animus between scholars and the community-at-large has been a central component of Jewish life as far back as the days of ancient Israel.

Jewish sources from the biblical period to our own day have grappled with many of the issues currently consuming contemporary communal experts. Questions regarding the exercise and abuse of power, the relationship between leaders and followers, the ability of a leader to separate self from role, adaptability in leadership, and the attributes of effective communal leaders, are woven throughout the fiber of classical, medieval, and modern Jewish writings. At the very least, these texts have something to add to any discussion purporting to be about Jewish leadership. When they are ignored (or relegated to the periphery for an occasional d?var torah) we lose the right to claim authenticity as Jewish communal leaders.

Today it has become exceedingly popular to apply the wisdom of ?best-practices? and the insights of prominent business school professors to the world of Jewish communal life. Such efforts are both useful and wholly consistent with Maimonides? injunction that we should consider the truth regardless of the source. It is ironic, however, in an era in which many Jews (and non-Jews) are coming to appreciate Judaism?s insights on a wide range of issues, that those focused on leading Jewish communities, fail to include classical Jewish teachings on power, authority, leadership and communal organization in the discourse. Sophisticated discussions about Jewish leadership must not ignore the historical record of actual Jewish communities, and the experiences of those who led them. Today?s lay and professional thinkers who devote so much of their time, energy, and treasure to improving the quality of Jewish life must be willing to consider the wisdom and applicability of Jewish leadership principles - honed and crafted over millennia of communal governance - to the very Jewish communities they wish to lead. Those who sit at the apex of the enterprise must, in fact, lead the way.

Dr. Hal M. Lewis is the Dean of Public Programming at Spertus Institute of Jewish Studies in Chicago, and the former President and Chief Executive Officer of the Columbus, Ohio Jewish Federation. He is the author of the recently released Models and Meanings in the History of Jewish Leadership (The Edwin Mellen Press, 2004).

Some musings on Thane Rosenbaum's essay about the lack of Jewish readers. Please send this on to him if you think he'll be interested and not yell at me in response. His essay has an angry and bitter tone (lean and hungry?). I assume this means, in part, his books aren't selling very well. I am a constant reader of Jewish books - fiction, history, politics, biblical studies. And yet, it's true, I've never read an of Thane Rosenbaum's books. Now I will try one.

However, I'd like to suggest this. That there's a [probably small but nevertheless significant] group of Jewish readers who avoid books about the Holocaust, particularly fiction about the Holocaust. Which, as far as I've been told, includes Thane Rosenbaum's work. I'd say that this group includes me and it includes two voracious Jewish reader friends of mine. Having spent the whole of my childhood in the 1950s obsessed with the "camps" I don't want any more experiences of it. I do read about one book a year about the Holocaust or less - in recent years Maus and The Reader. So... I'm just making this point, I have no particular conclusion. I don't go to Holocaust films either, ditto the above mentioned two friends.

Okay, my other thought is that I wonder if women Jewish writers are selling well and have a larger audience. In my experience, nowadays, there's something of an audience that mostly reads fiction by women. These readers used to be more catholic in their gender tastes than they are currently. Well - as I say - my sample is small - but these are some thoughts -

Michele Abramowitz Clark
Plainfield, VT

After reading your Sh'ma double issue on rabbinic training, I offer the following comments on: What a Rabbi Can Do.

The Rabbi of my youth, Meyer Heller, said that "a Rabbi deals with intangibles of the spirit. His business is the doing of mitzvahs. He seeks to teach Judaism to those who are interested and even to those who are not interested. He stretches himself and those about him to involve his people's participation. He gives of his heart and concern for the troubled, the sick, the bereaved, the lonely, the bereft, the old and the young." A rabbi's impact can be boundless, and his or her influence genuine and profound.

a rabbi can teach. We are trained to study the word of God, how it has been explained in subsequent generations, and how to best translate it to the age and time in which we live. Bringing the words of Torah to the modern age has been a rabbi's task for centuries. Our classes, our study groups, our ways of being can model Torah. Whether it's a Bar or Bat Mitzvah or an adult who never opened a book before, the sparks of Torah can fly and ignite a quest for continued growth and learning. Some of our students even go on to teach others, as we raise disciples along the way. Rabbi Leo Baeck, who entered the concentration camps with his people, taught that more than the message the Rabbi delivers, the Rabbi is the message.

a rabbi can speak. We are invested with a rare power: people actually do listen to us. Whether the occasion is a funeral or Kol Nidre eve, congregants, friends, family members, non-Jewish guests actually might think about the rabbi's sermon and take action. Rabbis can help a dysfunctional family begin its mending process by a carefully crafted eulogy, or by the way the family is involved at a simcha. The efforts of congregations in feeding the hungry or working at a center for the homeless can begin when a rabbi challenges people to care for the poor. From social justice to spirituality, a rabbi's words are invested with meaning.

a rabbi can offer compassion. Listening in a counseling session, holding the hands of a grieving widow, aching alongside a hospital bed with family members, being available when life hurts are unique features of the rabbinate. People may invite us into their homes and hearts for the happiest and saddest moments of their life's journey. It takes a great deal from each of us to handle the rollercoaster of emotions, but it offers us the amazing gift of relationship. Martin Buber taught that it is in a connection to others that we can perceive God.

a rabbi can offer a vision. Institutions need to set their sights on the far horizon to ascertain their direction. The rabbi who steers the ship of the Synagogue can't be swabbing the deck. If the spiritual leader's hands are cleaning the bilge, there is no opportunity to think about the proper bearing. On vessels, the captain obtains a vision of where the boat should go, and engages others in the process of arriving there. So it is with the institutions a rabbi leads. His or her job is to be looking out, checking the vistas, setting the agenda, moving forward, guiding others in the paths of Torah.

a rabbi can lead a search for answers. The world is rapidly changing due to the growth of new knowledge in technology and biotechnology. The ethical decisions that arise from genetic research, medical advances which prolong life, microchips which create an instantaneous global village, just to name a few, have us looking to gain perspective in a world we can't fully comprehend. Ultimate questions lead to the search for ultimate answers. The wisdom of Judaism, through a rabbi's eyes, can provide a framework of values, a sense of purpose, and a relationship to the transcendent that one may seek.

a rabbi can pray. Prayer is a medium through which people and God interact. To pray is to overcome distance, to heal the breech between God and the world, to reduce our pain and increase our joy. Rabbis can use the prayer experience to highlight a word, pattern, phrase, relationship to another prayer or text, explain the images of God, offer creative meditations, sing songs old and new, making the service unique and meaningful. Interpreting and explaining can get to the heart of a prayer and can lend relevance, thus raising the level of our spiritual connection.

There certainly is more that any Rabbi does, from attending meetings to shaping budgets, but those are only vehicles to attempt to achieve the goal of making the Jewish people a godlike community, built in the image of the Holy One. God is present wherever we let God in, whether examining spirituality in a classroom setting, in private counseling sessions, studying with a candidate about conversion, or helping someone find support and wholeness. What is most necessary is to express God in every aspect of Jewish life, from the pulpit to the hospital bed to the hospitality offered a guest to the honesty expressed in dialogue. Let the rabbis continue to do their holy work: to inspire, guide, and motivate; to innovate, establish, and preserve; to reach, teach, and touch; to comfort counsel, uphold, and awaken. These are our tasks as Rabbis and our dreams and values as Jews.

Rabbi Morley Feinstein

I wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry upon reading the comment from R. Adam Chalo in the NiSh'ma section of the January issue of Sh'ma. He states that for a Rabbi to teach anything other than what he truly believes would be betraying Maimonides, even if what he believes is that the Torah in its entirety was not given by Moshe Rabbeinu.

It is simply not intellectually honest to claim that teaching one's personal belief is "Maimonidean" since Maimonides believed in the importance of truth -- when one's belief is in direct conflict with the basic foundations of our faith as codified by Maimonides himself!

The eighth of Maimonides' Thirteen Principles of Faith states that the entire Torah as we know it was given by Moshe Rabbeinu. Maimonides himself comments that one who believes anything less is a "perverter of Torah." So how can it be "Maimonidean" to teach otherwise? It can't. It's just a convenient rationalization.

Maimonides states that there is One G-d. If a Rabbi believes there are two, should he teach it because that is honestly what he believes? Is what he is teaching still Judaism? Where do we draw the line?

If a Rabbi wants to be "Maimonidean," he should adhere to Maimonides' Principles. If he does not truthfully believe in them, then at least he should leave Maimonides out of it.

Respectfully,
Rabbie Yosef Resnick
Sharon, MA

Rabbi Hayim Herring is correct when he points out that the rabbinate is one of the few professional fields that doesn't have a requirement for Continuing Education for professional accreditation. While it is true that rabbis are very likely to continue their study of rabbinic texts and/or history, such study doesn't help them deal with the day-to-day issues which beset and often ensnare their professional and personal lives.

What Rabbi Herring omits is that a method of continuing education already exists that addresses both the professional and personal demands of clergy - Clinical Pastoral Education. CPE is usually associated with training for the chaplaincy, but it can be beneficial for clergy serving in pulpits, too.

Working in small groups, usually consisting of men and women, Jews and non-Jews, students in CPE learn what they say or don't say can have an awesome impact on lay people. Writing out sample conversations (called verbatims) helps students to analyze their interactions with laity, helping them learn from their mistakes. Supervisors are trained to observe trainees in real-time situations. They are also skilled in helping students to deal with the emotional conflicts that result from helping people deal with their problems.

Best of all, CPE is available in every major city and in many small communities; it's also inexpensive. If congregations can't or won't cover the cost of such training, it is not prohibitive for most clergy persons. Engaging in CPE is time and money well spent. More rabbis should take advantage of it.

Rabbi James R. Michaels

I have been a subscriber to Sh'ma for many years and greatly value your tireless support of Jewish pluralism. Everyone is heard and read in your pages, which are open to many different Jewish opinions and views. I have never written a letter to the editor before, but I felt that Sh'ma would be the perfect forum to relate an incident which happened on a recent Shabbat.

I brought my own copy of the new Conservative Etz Hayim Torah commentary to my Orthodox synagogue, for personal use during the reading of the Torah. After the reading was completed, I placed it in my book box, which is under my seat in the shul. The next day, I came to morning minyan to discover that my Etz Hayim Torah commentary had been removed by the president of the synagogue and taken to his home, at the request of the rabbi. When I asked the rabbi to return my Humash, he responded that bringing a Conservative Torah commentary into an Orthodox synagogue is, in his eyes, like bringing a New Testament into the synagogue.

On Sunday, the president returned Etz Hayim to my home on condition that I never bring it into the synagogue again. I wonder if the rabbi realizes that the well-known Hertz Torah commentary, which, despite his extensive use of citations from Christian scholars, has been used in Orthodox synagogues all over the world for more than 50 years, was authored by a graduate of the Conservative Jewish Theological Seminary. As a modern Orthodox Jew and graduate of Yeshiva University, I am ashamed of this intolerance.

Yehudi M. Felman, MD

Dear Editor,

I read articles in the December issue with relish and hope the
subject will get more
and varied attention. Like Carol Levithan I straddle the fence between
academia and community work, being now more anchored in the latter, and this
is then the angle from which I view the subject at hand.
A wonderful education approach, called Reggio, talks of education happening
in the context of relationships, and relationships being a cause for
'contamination' (not intended negatively) of one's ideas, one's search for
meaning, impacting the process of constructing knowledge.

My thoughts at this moment are sparked specifically by Prof. Zipperstain's
article "Separate Tables" which I enjoyed and am sure describes well
significant aspects of the boundaries between academia and community. Taking
the liberty of playing with the same metaphor - it is my experience that
there are many like me who feasted at the tables of Jewish studies
departments, moved by passion and intelligence of teachers there and by many
books and articles and passages, old and new, that have made and continue to
make our worlds richer. We were sicced (sp) on the community or chose to
work within it. "You are what you eat", well that learning has become part
of us. "You teach with who you are" in turn we bring that experience before
the people we teach or learn with. While I am sure that much more needs to
be done to open the boundaries between Jewish studies departments and the
community (am aware of interesting local, Bay Area, efforts along those
lines) there is already a significant process in motion, many emissaries who
move between the two worlds.

Avital Plan

Professor Barry Latzer's response to the article," Skin Color: Still the Difference Between Life and Death," (Sh'ma, Oct. 2002, p. 9) is grossly misleading.

Although he agrees that defendants who kill whites are more likely to receive a death sentence than those who kill a black, Professor Latzer finds "completely unfounded" my statement that blacks are four times more likely to receive a death sentence than whites for similar crimes. While Mr. Latzer cites no studies that either support his contentions or contradict mine, virtually every major study conducted on race and the death penalty continues to show that cases involving a white victim and a defendant of color are most likely to result in a death sentence. Several academics have summarized and interpreted these studies. I cited several. Recent findings continue to highlight the point.

For instance, a June 2001 report released by the New Jersey Supreme Court found "... unsettling statistical evidence indicating that cases involving killers of white victims are more likely to progress to a penalty phase than cases involving killers of African-American victims," Appellate Division Judge David S. Baime, who released the study, said that the fact that more capital cases are considered in white, suburban neighborhoods should be examined by the attorney general's office.

To cite yet other recent data, researchers from the University of North Carolina, examining data collected from court records of 502 murder cases from 1993 to 1997, found North Carolina capital defendants whose victims are white are 3.5 times more likely to be sentenced to death than those with non-white victims. "The odds are supposed to be zero that race plays a role," said Dr. Unah. "No matter how the data was analyzed, the race of the victim always emerged as an important factor in who received the death penalty." (Associated Press, 4/16/01).

Professor Latzer states "blacks commit more than half the homicides in the U.S., so we would expect that they would comprise roughly half of the death row population." The more likely reason for the disproportionate representation of blacks on death row is socioeconomic: African Americans are more likely to be poor, and thus poorly defended. Blacks are 43% of those on death row, 35% of those executed since 1976, and although, as Mr. Latzer states, most murders are intra-racial, an astounding 81% of the victims of those on death row were Caucasians. The latter statistic suggests that it is indeed fair to conclude that the disparity is caused by a devaluing the life of black murder victims, rather than " mercy for black defendants" as Professor Latzer suggests.

Racial bias continues to infect our death penalty system. I reiterate: Until the time when our justice system is truly equitable and free of bias we should heed the words of Justice Blackmun and impose the death penalty --" not at all.

The article, "Skin Color: Still the Difference Between Life and Death," (Sh'ma, Oct. 2002, p. 9) is both inaccurate and misleading.

The statement that "blacks are nearly four times more likely to receive a death sentence than whites" for similar crimes runs counter to virtually every study I have seen on this issue. Most studies show that white capital defendants are disadvantaged relative to blacks; they are more likely to get a death sentence.

It is true that defendants who kill whites are more likely to get a death sentence than killers of blacks, but no one knows if this is due to deprecation of black victims or mercy for black defendants. Whichever is the case, because murder is overwhelmingly intraracial, this "white victim effect" translates into fewer death sentences for black killers. Reducing the racial disparity would mean (ironically) more executions of blacks (for killing other African-Americans).

As for the large proportion of African-Americans on death row -- way out of proportion to their numbers in the general population (around 12%) -- such a phenomenon does not demonstrate racism. Blacks commit more than half (51.5%) the homicides in the U.S., so we would expect that they would comprise roughly half of the death row population.

The case for a racist death penalty is equivocal at best.

Professor Barry Latzer

John Jay College of Criminal Justice &

The Graduate Center of the City University of New York

June, 2002
Dear Sh'ma Readers,

Sh'ma has received several letters that have registered shock about our decision to print Nathan Lewin's essay, "Deterring Suicide Bombers." Weighing the decision to print the piece sat heavily on my conscience, as Editor, for quite some time. Let me share with you some of the thinking that informed that difficult decision.

Several months ago, I asked Lewin to write a response to Alan Dershowitz' essay, "Rethinking Liberty in the Age of Terrorism," for inclusion in the book Living Words IV: A Spiritual Source Book for an Age of Terror (available www.JFLbooks). Rather than the piece I had expected, Lewin's essay on suicide bombers arrived in my email. Needless to say, I was truly shocked by his assertions, and knew immediately that the essay was inappropriate for Living Words. At that time I was putting together the May issue on Israel. I hadn't intended to look specifically at the question Lewin raised, but after several discussions with the publisher, Yosef Abramowitz, I came to feel that it was possible to print if it ran in tandem with a strong moral response.

I chose to include the essay, although I agree with many of our readers that Lewin's suggestion to kill suicide bombers' families is reprehensible, for several reasons. Given Mr. Lewin's stature in the Jewish community and his professional reputation, given the fact that Mr. Lewin, regardless of whether I agree with him or not, is not a lunatic but a respected Supreme Court litigator who sits on several Jewish communal agencies, and given the fact that his opinions, although reprehensible in my eyes, are being articulated - his voice deserved a place in the journal. It was my feeling that if these ideas were being articulated cogently, then it would serve our readers to put them on the table alongside a strong and moral response. Arthur Green supplied that with his forceful, articulate, values-based essay, "A Stronger Moral Force." It is my inclination to put ideas forward for discussion that are brewing in the backrooms. It is important for the Jewish community to know the scope and range of thoughts about Israel that Jews are thinking, and if challenged appropriately (which Green did), Sh'ma is an appropriate venue for that discussion. I would not have printed Lewin's piece on its own, and have ensured that it is linked to Green's essay on the website as well.

Sincerely,
Susan Berrin

I read with shock, outrage and dismay the essay entitled, "Deterring Suicide Killers" by Nat Lewin in the May 2002 issue of Sh'ma. I cannot believe that a journal that usually represents measured thinking, reasoned debate and strives to exemplify the moral imperatives that Judaism holds sacred would allow an article with such morally reprehensible suggestions (dis)grace its pages.
I would like to understand the thinking behind the inclusion of such an offensive piece.
Is it news that there are Jews that are in favor of slaughtering innocent men, women and children with completely specious and ridiculous claims of self-defense? Or did we just need to learn that Harvard-trained, prominent Jewish lawyers who argue before the Supreme Court are now advocating positions that resemble ideas that were previously endorsed only by the likes of people like Meir Kahane and his followers? I cannot believe that this article fits the standards of just enough morality and just enough pragmatism. Where is the morality in killing men, women and children who are, at worst, conspirators? The last time I checked, conspirators did not receive capital punishment in any civilized society. I understand the impulse to stimulate debate and print pieces that are provocative, but surely there are limits. Anyone is entitled to their opinion, but some are less valid than others and editorial judgment requires choosing between the unconventional and those that are beyond the bounds of Jewish morality and ethics. Perhaps you could disabuse me of my feeling that if the author were not such a well respected member of the Jewish community, such an article would have never appeared in your pages.
Is the Jewish responsibility to insure the survival of Jews at the cost of our ethical souls? If so, then Jewish responsibility is nothing more than mere tribalism and I am ashamed to be a member of such a tribe.

Shabbat shalom,
Daniel Petter-Lipstein
New York

The May, 2002 edition of Sh'ma has done us all a favor. It has created a wide enough canvas for Jews of every stripe to find a place from which to observe, and if so desired, to join the fracas expressed as the Palestine/Israeli Funk! The frustrations of fear and anger and hope dissipated seem at times to escape from the very pores, and American Jews are involved in an about face as some of us listened to a debate waging as to what was taking place in Germany in the 1930's. Life and death cannot be debated when the passions run to the caves of ethics while the victims of both sides hide, each side promising the worst, and fearing it, as well. It is time, as Ahad La'am suggests, to take the time to construct a Jewish values based curriculum. Naked survival for the state of Israel is not sufficient. A Jewish state must be more than a nation-state. Otherwise, the Holocaust survivors have found a way to battle their fellow prisoners in the way that the Nazis trained them to retaliate. Israel must not be allowed to fight that way?or even to die that way! The survivors of the Holocaust have a higher mission than to change places with their captors; Judaism, as well, cannot fight to win, unless it is willing to do so in a way that does honor to itself, to Moses, and to its God. Otherwise, "We will surely do that which is hateful to ourselves." It should be obvious that that is not good enough! A better solution is warranted.

Nathan Adler Rome, Ga.

This idea is so idiotic and reprehensible that it is hard to understand how it was allowed to be printed. It illustrates just how perveted the thinking of both sides in the conflict has become. The behavior of extremists on both sides is disgusting and should bring shame to decent people everywhere.

I don't know just how knowledgeable Arthur Green purports to be about the inner workings of "ultra-Orthodoxy" (Green's phrase, which many of the Jews to whom it's applied regard as inherently pejorative --- but that's for another day), but anyone intimately familiar with that segment of Jewry will recognize that Professor Green knows not of what he speaks.

Whether Nat Lewin's views on deterrence of terrorism are shared by, or are even intended to represent the opinion of, many fervently Orthodox Jews, is certainly open to question. This much, however, is beyond doubt: despite the generally conservative political bent of the fervently Orthodox community, to conflate its positions on the Arab-Israeli conflict with those of the Israeli hard right is a pat mischaracterization. When an assemblage of 50,000 Orthodox Jews, a majority of them of the Haredi stripe, gathered quietly in downtown Manhattan in April (if your sole news source is the New York Times, this may be the first you've heard about the event) it was to recite heartfelt prayers for peace; there was not the slightest hint of politics, let alone hostility or protest, in evidence.

It is a matter of long public record that the Haredi community, guided by leading rabbinic lights such as Rabbis Elazar Schach, o.b.m., and Ovadiah Yosef, has refused to exalt land, however hallowed, over lives, and has thrown its support behind numerous peace initiatives. Nor have extremist figures like Amir and Goldstein emerged from the yeshiva and chassidic worlds, whose leaders have excoriated their deeds in the strongest possible terms. Whatever the true views of this camp on Jew-gentile relations --- and they are far more complex than Green's caricatured description would suggest --- they are the product of intellectually honest study of millennia-old religious sources, not a reflexive adoption of prevailing political trends.

Professor Green, for his part, is saddened by Israel's abandonment of its proud tradition of "purity of arms." He believes that the bombings will be stopped only once Israel addresses their "root cause . . . the degradation and humiliation of the Palestinian people," which, after all, treasures a "very respect-based culture."

Let us put aside the fact that, a few short weeks ago in Jenin, Israel knowingly sacrificed a score of young husbands, fathers and sons for a level of "purity of arms" unequalled by any military force in the world. We might even pass in astonished silence over the breathtaking moral implications of Dr. Green's identification of the "root cause" of Palestinian terror, as if there exists an analog in recorded modern history to a nation systematically teaching its young to blow themselves up in crowds of young mothers with baby carriages, and all because of frustration at "endless checkpoint delays, bulldozing of homes, uprooting of trees [and] disrespecting of elders . . . ."

What is not merely astounding about Green's view, but truly dangerous, however, is its self-delusion about a half-century worth of Mideast facts, and the insufferable paternalism that springs therefrom. Some readers may well have nodded their heads in na?ve agreement with Dr. Green's words. But if Sh'ma were read in faraway Gaza, Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi would surely enjoy a deep belly laugh upon learning that the reason he sends teenagers to rip the heads off Passover Seder participants is not to achieve the eradication of the "Zionist entity," and the "descendants of pigs and monkeys" that populate it, from sacred Muslim land, but, rather, in Green's words, to end the "constant humiliations."

A final point: Professor Green sees fit to speak in one breath of (his erroneous understanding of) the "ultra-Orthodox" view and a recently published Saudi blood libel. When, some months back, the Orthodox writer Avi Shafran made similar rhetorical use of that very libel in another context, Jewish leaders across the spectrum veritably foamed at the mouth. It should be interesting to see whether Green's indiscretion evokes a similar response.

In the meantime, however, rather than tearing his garments in Waltham over Mr. Lewin's "obscene" remarks, perhaps Dr. Green ought to visit besieged Israel and do his rending, as is traditional, at the Kotel. He would thereby join the thousands of American Orthodox students who, at this moment, are in Israel studying texts in his chosen field, Jewish Thought, and, yes, praying for peace.

Eytan Kobre
New York

Nathan Adler
Rome, Ga.

Claude Levi-Strauss, the anthropologist, taught that human beings are the consummate myth makers. Rabbi Neil Gillman's personal theology teaches about and reconciles revelation and myth. Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel suggested that all Torah is midrash.

There are proponents and detractors of Rabbi Gillman's emphasis on teaching the usage of myth to help define revelation. Few are neutral. Some come bearing critical gifts in his behalf. Others bring no gifts at all. Some pray for his teachings while others pray against them. And some come to make war on his teachings while others will make war to defend them. From my practical personal teaching experience, I am prepared to make war to defend Rabbi Gillman's teachings.

I teach 35 twelve to fourteen year old students in three different Talmud Torah classes. My students have eaten lunch 37,000 feet above the ground while flying in excess of 500 miles per hour. They have visited Europe, Asia, Alaska, Egypt and Israel. They have used e-mail to speak with other people living in the far corners of the Earth and have gotten responses from them within minutes. They have seen humans and animals give birth in film in their biology classes. Without Rabbi Gillman's notion of myth the status of any epistemology and/or theology teaching within Judaism would be torn apart by my students and mocked and derided.

I teach students who seek learning that is relevant and logical and that makes sense to their young twenty-first century minds. They also seek spiritual guidance and the ability to learn to ask the questions which will help them make more cosmos and less chaos in their lives and in the world in which they live. They are in the process of learning and creating their own good myths, their own bad ones and the spiritual and secular myths that may help sustain them throughout life. Without using and emphasizing Rabbi Gillman's use of myth in my teaching my students would intellectually tear me apart and my classroom would rapidly deteriorate into intellectual irrelevancy and eventually chaos and ennui. Worst of all, my pre bar- and bat-mitzvah students would, to use a market term, "buy out" of their Jewish education even more rapidly than they usually do.

Using Rabbi Gillman's teaching of myth allows me to stretch my students? minds. It helps them to seek and to find a Jewish epistemology and rational explanations which otherwise would not be forthcoming. Most of all, it reinforces their desire to learn about their history and heritage, their Jewishness.

Teddy Zabb
New Rochelle NY

Thank you for an overall excellent issue following September 11th. I was chagrined though by some expressed currents. Vanessa Ochs writes that "the war of our vengeance has begun." And Dawn Rose shares, "Perhaps the most shameful line the Administration has generated is 'this is not a war against the Afghan people'." Surely vengeance is not to be taken lightly given the crimes committed. A military response is fully justified as an option that civilization is compelled at times to resort to for its very sake. The war is also liberating Afghanistan from the kind of oppression no one should tolerate.

In the midst of admittedly attendant complex and critical issues such as Israel's connection, civil liberties and security in the United States, fighting terrorism around the world including the Middle East, we ought be grateful for the reason and resolve to stand up to undisguised evil. Hillel's dictum applies in full " If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And if I am for myself only, what am I? And if not now, when?"

Rabbi Israel Zoberman
Congregation Beth Chaverim
Virginia Beach

As the president of the Cantors Assembly, representing over 500 professional Hazzanim, I was pleased that Sh'ma recently chose to devote an entire issue to K'lei Kodesh. But, having read this important edition of your magazine, I was dismayed that the role of hazzan as Klei Kodesh was barely mentioned.

While many cantors have difficulty communicating to non-Jews that Hazzanim are clergy, we would have thought your astute editors and writers would know at least what the Social Security Administration, Selective Service and Internal Revenue Service long ago acknowledged. Cantors are clergy.

Allow me to share some facts and observations with you and your readers.

Cantorial students at the Jewish Theological Seminary and Hebrew Union College spend five years in a graduate studies program, the same number of years that rabbis are enrolled in their respective institutions.

Many cantors are often called upon to officiate at life cycle events, including weddings and funerals, at times without a rabbi. Some cantors serve as chaplains, pastoral counselors and trained Mohelim.

Research of new initiatives on prayer, such as Synagogue 2000, have shown that music plays an increasingly important role in reaching the hearts and souls of today's worshipers. Many hazzanim are at the forefront of composing, developing and experimenting with new ways of making our services engaging and inspiring, while preserving traditional Nusach and Biblical chants.

Cantors are often the conductors of excellent Jewish choirs and even instrumental groups in our synagogues, schools and communities. Through music, we can touch the hearts of many listeners who may not even understand the Hebrew words.

Hazzanim are the transmitters of prayer in Hebrew Schools, Day Schools, Summer Camps, Nursery Schools and Adult Education programs. Cantors actively encourage and educate lay people to participate and lead worship services. The Cantors Assembly has produced outstanding recordings and "musical siddurim" to help teach our laity to be Baalei Tefillah.

While any knowledgeable Jew can deliver a D'var Torah, he or she wouldn't dare usurp the title "rabbi." Only one with the appropriate education, experience and qualifications is entitled to use that term. That is how it should be. How inappropriate it is, in contrast, that in some schools and synagogues, children and lay adults who chant the leader parts of services are sometimes referred to as "hazzanim" or "cantors."

We look forward, as hazzanim, to working together with rabbis, composers, educators, administrators and lay leaders to inspire and teach today's and tomorrow's worshipers. We desire to continue the sacred work of our tradition, to expand our liturgy and its music to meet the needs of contemporary congregants and communities. Hopefully, the day will soon come when cantors do not have to explain to anyone the importance and sanctity of their role.

Hazzan Sheldon M. Levin,
President of the Cantors Assembly

The most recent issue of Sh'ma arrived in the mail and I devoured it as though I hadn't eaten for a week - beginning with Joe Reimer's article on page one and progressing through the rest of the wise reflections. I mostly feel relief and pleasure that issues so pertinent to Jewish education for teens is being so well and so articulately addressed, which is why I am ordering extra copies to distribute to lay leaders, youth educators, funders, friends, and others.

Joe's article brought back a few memories of my own: I loved his metaphor of his river rafting trip on the Colorado. Being a river mama myself, navigating the Stanislaus, American, and Rogue Rivers over a decade ago, I could just picture Dusty telling Joe and his pals to jump in. Although I don't know what the Colorado feels like, I do remember the shockingly cold water of the Rogue when the air temperature was over 105 degrees when I found myself in the water in the middle of rapids. But here's where the metaphor stopped working--when I got bumped out of my raft the first time, I was already "educated" (from the lecture on safety) and knew that I needed to put my arms behind my head, with my hands intertwined supporting my neck, and that my feet (in sneakers) needed to be pointed down stream; that I might need to go over the rapids without the security of being inside the raft, but that they would pick me up afterwards in stiller waters.

I had learned this information in a formal presentation, and then I was prepared to experience the river in an informal encounter.

Going back even farther: When I was a 14 years-old at Camp Ramah in California, (generations ago) and learning with Ackie or David Lieber, in the sifriyah or under a tree, reading Erich Fromm or Rashi's commentaries, how might we describe those encounters? What made them either formal or informal? When I stood in front of a piece of sculpture at Lochamei Ha-Ghettaot during a tiyyul while spending my first year in Israel at age 17, I listened to Mike Rosenak lecture on a period of Jewish history. How would we describe what was happening during those moments of learning?

I strongly agree with the statement by Yehiel Poupko "There is no such thing as informal Jewish education; only Jewish education, " with Bethamie Horowitz's useful categorization of all Jewish education as voluntary and involuntary and with Raphael?s Zarum's pointed challenge to the world of informal Jewish education, "However, in the hands of under-educated informal Jewish educators, this approach masks an ignorance of basic bodies of Jewish knowledge, and tacitly justifies an inability to convey the depth and complexity of Jewish thought." Yes!!

As the Teen Initiative Director in the San Francisco Bay Area, it has become increasingly difficult to talk about Jewish education for teens as either strictly formal or informal. Maybe because teens can choose to participate or not, and are therefore voluntary learners, Jewish education during the high school years has much more in common with Jewish learning offered to adults. Our formal learning programs (community-based after-school midrashot) look like the best of the informal programs, and the informal Jewish experiential learning programs, use elements of what we associate with formal Jewish education: traditional text study and occasionally frontal, didactic presentations on a variety of subjects.

What I have found most useful in the past few years was presented as part of the Teacher Educator Institute, sponsored by the Mandel Foundation. We learned the organizing principle of the "Hawkins Triangle," in which teacher, learner, and content all need to relate closely and exquisitely balance each other. Each of the three points of this triangle must be studied carefully in order for solid learning to take place. Thinking in terms of the Hawkins triangle could be useful for an educator of Jewish teens whether she practices her art in the most formal of classrooms or on a backpacking trip through the wilderness. Then the lines of informal and formal may blur and even disappear.

Nechama Tamler
San Francisco

It was with great interest that I read the February edition of Sh'ma. I was disappointed, however, by the timidity of your contributors. They appeared almost defensive when they expounded the philosophy and values of Modern Orthodoxy.

Rather than staking out a position that Modern Orthodoxy is the only real answer for traditional Jews who wish to fulfill their divine given mission and be a "light onto the nations," they apologize for their modernism and their engagement with the secular world.

Any student of Jewish history must acknowledge that during periods of maximal engagement between the Jewish and non-Jewish worlds, Judaism has flourished. Examples such as the Jewish Golden Age in Spain abound. On the other hand, during those periods when Jews separated themselves from the common culture and isolated themselves from their environment, Jews and Judaism suffered greatly. Indeed, Jewish material success and the quality and quantity of Jewish learning go almost hand-in-hand.

The battle currently being engaged between Modern Orthodoxy and the separationist communities is over this very issue. Unfortunately, the spokespersons for Modern Orthodoxy are unwilling to challenge the separationist on their own turf and claim that only Modern Orthodoxy has the right answer. The net result is that they concede the separationist legitimacy while the separationist do not concede their legitimacy.

Asher Lopatin's article is instructive. While it is true that within the Muslim community the fundamentalists ultimately prevailed, it is likewise true that in the process they drove the Muslim world into the dark ages from which it has yet to emerge. The second, third and fourth rate status of Muslim nations today stands in sharp contrast to where they were in the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth and even fifteenth centuries when they were the most advanced countries in the world. If the separationists succeed today then we are probably doomed to another period of spiritual and material degradation for Jews and Judaism; one almost inevitably follows the other (see "Afghanistan"). This is the battle we are fighting today.

Daniel W. Krasner
New Rochelle, New York

Dear Friends at Sh'ma,

We have subscribed to Sh'ma for many eyars-we read it from cover to cover, for the most part, we enjoy what is written, and to different degrees, we have disagreed with some things written.

In thy January publication, we sorely disagree with the part og NiSh'ma written by Jo-Ann Mort. The "guest" workers who willingly and intentionally come to Israel to do menial labor; the author locks into thopse "workers from developing countries--become infact, indentured servants to their employers.

Israel has become one of the largest consumers of these "short workers" She would like them to enjoy the rights of citizenship-"they are often either replacing---Palestinian workers...."

This seems to be a time for Israel bashing. Those foreigners who come to do the "menial labor" in Israel are delighted for the opportunity. It raises their standard of living to a point that is unheard of for them in their mother countries. Just as the Palestinians who ususally do this work, but can not for the "security" of the Israelis -which seems of little importance these days. Would she like for the hoards of immigrants who come to Israel specifically for their jobs-without being lured by unfulfilled promises-to become citizens? What world is she in? Wouldn't it be lovely if "menial laborers" could suddenly live like those that hire them. Does she know of minimum wage in the U.S.? Yes, we would all be happier if all the world would have a standard of living like our middle class citizens-this would mean a drastic change in our economic system.'

The Israelis do the best that they can-the wrokers are not mistreated-but they are not treated like citzens-they cannot be compared as equal to those in other countries who "work under aborius conditions to profit manufacturers and retailers"

Please, things are so difficult at these Times in Israel-Do we need to picture Israeli's as demons? Have some sensitivity tot heir plight.

Sincerely,
Saul Gladstone

In response to the articles regarding the peace process in the Middle East in the issue of December 2000 (I received this February 2) I wish to add my personal opinion.

Israel conquered the areas in dispute, when it was attacked. It did not begin the war.

I have not heard that a territory conquered in war won was ever returned to the loser. Although I am saddened that all too many Palestinians suffer from this situation, I also feel that it is irresponsible that they expose their children to this conflict.

Unfortunately, much sympathy is expressed to the loss of Palestinian lives, but little mention is made of the lives lost by Israelis.

Many of the Palestinians now involved in the attacks might have stayed in Israel. They left by choice.

Also, I would like to point out that before Jews came to make Israel a flourishing country, much of it was a desert.

It would be questionable whether a Palestine would keep it that way. How soon would it again deteriorate?

And last but not least, after the worst persecution of Jews under Hitler don't we deserve a country of our own? Returning the territories in question would greatly weaken the country.

I think that the world at large, ought to consider these facts.

Many of the Arab States would be able to host those Palestinians who would not want to peacefully acknowledge Israel as a fact.

Sincerely yours,
Shalom
Hanna Cassel

Some years ago I mentioned to Eugene Borowitz that Sh'ma was really a Journal for "professional Jews", i.e. that large group of professionals whose occupation deals with some facet of Judaism. While he demurred, he seems to have kept that in mind during his tenure and broadened the palette. To be sure, the group mentioned is large today and influential in all matters connected with Judaism since the "laity" has become largely ignorant in these matters and abdicated the role its educated layer played in previous times. Given those facts we should certainly be glad that someone cares to be engaged full time in Judaism since voluntary community work has lost its badge of honor.

Having said all the above I fail to understand why Sh'ma devotes an entire issue (January 2001) appealing to recently elected President Bush to do "what is right." The "eminence grise" of George W. Bush's administration is James Baker, Chief of Staff in Bush Senior's cabinet. This is the man who said: "the Jews -- they never vote for us anyway." I think it is rank naivete to think that anyone in the Bush Administration would pay the slightest heed to a Jewish journal's appeals. What amazed me was to find Rep. Barney Frank, whose very person is anathema to Bush stalwarts like Ashcroft, among the contributors. There must be some Jewish topics of general interest that we "Amchah" Jews would enjoy reading, aren't there?

Albert Feldman
Seattle, WA

In the recent discussion in Sh'ma on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, I was particularly moved and troubled by the essay, "Peace, but Not Now," by Hephzibah Levine. Having grown up in the turbulent 60s, I am always heartened to find 20 somethings who are filled with "utopian dreams," interested in studying Arabic and fantasizing tasting hummus in Ramallah with like-minded Palestinians. It is so disturbing that, "a few days was all it took to shatter that utopia." Levine clearly has a selective memory for human tragedy that is understandably more deeply sympathetic to the horrors of the holocaust than the devastation of the Arabic Al Nakbah or the massacres of Sabra and Shattilla. She is horrified by the gruesome lynching of Israeli soldiers but doesn't seem to be as aware of the effects of the longstanding brutality of Israeli occupation, collective punishment, torture without trial, home demolitions, closures, restrictions to travel, work and water.

She has bought the idea that Oslo was a real step towards peace, rather than a bankrupt plan that has dramatically worsened the lives of most Palestinians, creating isolated, tightly controlled islands surrounded by mostly hostile Israelis, without viable economic or democratic possibilities under the guidance of corrupt local leadership, directed and abetted by US interests and CIA training.

Despite her heartfelt beliefs as a human rights activist, she refers to Palestinians with Israeli citizenship as Israeli Arabs, using the language of the Israeli government to dissociate these citizens from their brothers and sisters in the West Bank, Occupied Territories and refugee camps. While their lives are much better than those under occupation, to say that they "enjoy full citizenship rights in Israel" flies in the face of their experiences as second-class citizens and the willingness of Israeli soldiers to turn against them as well.

Ultimately, Levine retreats to a position of Jewish self defense against a hostile world, of Israel as the underdog, possibly being "dragged into war" without a "partner for peace." There is nothing like the screech of bullets to make the most idealistic run for cover. Somehow she has forgotten that Israel is one of the world's strongest military powers and that it has been an active partner in creating the current disaster. Like many, she sees Israel as a perpetual victim.

Clearly these are immensely difficult and sobering times, but if the Israeli left is to creatively rise up out of this latest Intifada, perhaps there are other more painful lessons to be learned.

1. In its current position of power, Israelis need to take responsibility for the displacement of the Palestinian population, the brutality of occupation, and the devastation created by the terms of Oslo.

2. These historical experiences, combined with events such as the militant settler movement, the unwillingness to share Jerusalem, the popular support of Sharon, have served to fuel the fires of hatred and anti-Semitism and have created a generation of young men who feel that they have nothing left to lose.

3. Understanding the sources of violence does not condone it, but may lead to solutions that build a long lasting peace based on negotiations between peoples with equal rights and aspirations.

I wonder, where in Levine's narrative does she explore Rabbis for Human Rights, LAW, B'tselem, Gush Shalom, and Women in Black? Where are the Palestinian intellectuals who eloquently addressed the Israeli people before they were silenced by their repressive regime? Where is the Israeli Physicians for Human Rights who have documented the deep inequities in health care and are working to bring care to isolated and beleaguered Palestinians? Where is the Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions and Neve Shalom/Wahat Al-Salem where Jews and Palestinians are struggling to build coexistence and support? Perhaps in these dark and difficult days, we need to be nurturing these tiny buds of hope, rather than building deeper and deeper trenches which may only serve as symbolic and virtual burial grounds for the dreams of refugees past and present, Jewish and Palestinian.

I think Henry Bassman's recent letter misunderstands the perspective represented by the current issue of Sh'ma, and misstates what it means to think about contemporary issues as "a Jew and an American".

1. Nothing in the call for letters, nor in the articles in Sh'ma, imply that there is a "monolithic Jewish political community". Such a claim would be false, bordering on the silly. But that does not mean that Judaism has nothing to say about contemporary political issues. Just because serious Jews disagree with each other doesn't mean that serious Jews should refrain from speaking, as Jews, about the issues of our day. Our tradition has much to say, for example, about poverty and wealth, caring for resident aliens, leadership, and the environment. While it does not point unequivocally towards a particular vote or petition, faithful Jews of all stripes would sell our tradition short if we simply ignored those aspects of our teachings which embody values directly relevant to these issues.

Our conclusions and positions may differ, but that does not make them un-Jewish. Some would argue that the differences would make our positions profoundly Jewish, precisely in their diversity.

2. I did not understand the current issue of Sh'ma to make any claim about Jews being a "special-interest" group--a term which carries with it a political charge and connotations which are themselves contested. Mr. Bassman may not choose to apply the teachings of his tradition to the positions he advocates, just as another Jew may choose not to apply Jewish teachings about dietary restrictions or ritual observance to her life. But when someone does bridge the connection between Jewish values and contemporary political life, they are--far from behaving in a parochial manner--participating in American democracy, embodying their heritage in the person of a loyal and thoughtful U.S. citizen with a particular background.

3. While it is true that Jews do not have an "exclusive or special perspective on civil rights" and a panoply of other issues (in the sense that we do not have an exclusive claim to a tradition which has something to say about those issues), surely we have something to contribute to the discussion! To say that Jewish tradition can be brought to bear on these issues does not deny that other traditions, faiths and peoples will, can, and should also engage in public discourse coming from their own particular positions. But we are Jews. And whether I call myself an American, a Jewish American, or an American Jew, I bring that background to the voting booth. How could it be otherwise? Would Mr. Bassman suggest that Jews actively ignore Jewish teachings on social issues in order to be good Americans?

4. Mr. Bassman is certainly right to caution us against "a kind of superiority complex that even some of the most ardent secular Jews seem to exhibit". No worthy campaign, or even individual choice, could be based on a claim that because it is carried out by a Jew or Jews it is inherently more worthy, more moral. But the opposite is similarly absurd--to make no claim to having anything particular to contribute to public discussions of morality and justice.

We should not push ahead with a sense of superiority, assured of divine sanction and communal appreciation for what we do because after all, it's Jewish, so it must be better. But neither should we ignore the potential for mining the rich teachings of our tradition and our people's history--even if we disagree about what we find, and what to do with it--in order to prove that we are loyal Americans and nothing more, cleansed of any ethnic or religious identification.

Sincerely,
Rabbi Susan P. Fendrick
Editor, SocialAction.com

I find your email message soliciting a letter to President Bush from the "perspective of a Jew and an American" troubling. Such expressions of an American Jewish perspective are both inaccurate and serve to reinforce the stereotypes of our enemies.

First, there is no monolithic Jewish political community. Jews have widely divergent political views from the far right to the far left. Trying to elicit a Jewish perspective on US policy only serves to reinforce the prejudiced stereotype that we are a monolithic community, most of which is comprised of liberal Democrats. It approaches giving credibility to the slurs in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Second, I refuse to be categorized as a special-interest or hyphenated American. I served in the military not as a Jew but as a U.S. citizen, I am active in local politics not as a Jew but as an American. I write to my Representatives and Senators not as a Jew but as an American.

Jews have no exclusive or special perspective on civil rights, jurisprudence, environmental issues or any of the entire range of political and social matters. We may have a special perspective on relations with Israel and the separation of Church and State because of our experience as a minority religion, our sensitivity to worldwide anti-semitism and our special emotional attachment to our historic homeland, but that is not a basis for a Jewish perspective on a wide range of domestic and international issues.

There is yet another reason I find such a letter writing campaign offensive. It assumes that Jews have some special moral perspective that others do not. It is a kind of superiority complex that even some of the most ardent secular Jews seem to exhibit. The fact is that Jews have no exclusive right to the moral high ground. We have our share of mobsters, stock manipulators, nursing home abusers and child molesters just as does any other group of people. We also have our share of highly moral and intelligent people just as does any other group. To take the position that we have some special ability to comment on government policy or philosophy exhibits extreme hubris.

I hope you post this letter on your Web site along with others you may receive.

Regarding the December 2000/Kislev 5761 issue on peace negotiations in the Middle East: I am concerned when the holiest site in Judaism -- in a journal of Jews talking to Jews -- is referred to as "the Noble Sanctuary" (Rabbi Richard Levy), and "the Haram al-Sharif" (Zachary Lockman).

I understand that the Muslims lay claim to that ground as sacred to their religion. That claim should be taken seriously. But surely that does not mean that we Jews should delete from our vocabularies the terms "Temple Mount" or -- one would think a rabbi might want to say -- "Har ha-Bayit."
We Jews, after all, also lay serious claim to that sacred place. It might be negotiated away, but must the very name be blotted out?

Sincerely,
Stephen Listfield

Reading the various articles in the November issue devoted to "Jewish Renaissance," I am struck by the similarity of thoughts and phrases used, which were previously heard when the concept of "Jewish Continuity" was first voiced. This was subsequently renamed "Renewal" and is now "Renaissance."

I am also struck by the similarity of what was written by the then-proponents of Continuity and Renewal and what is now being written about "Renaissance." It seems absolutely nothing new has happened.

The main authors gingerly touch on the subject of "some Jews" who may choose to relate to Judaism more "individually." This is a common theme in many of the articles but unfortunately not sufficiently developed by any writer.

It is this theme, which is the crux of the American, and indeed Diaspora problem. "Individual" is the euphemism which minimises and marginalises the vast silent majority - the secular Jews. The seculars have not - and will not - participate in Continuity, Renaissance, Renewal, or whatever else it might be called in the future, unless and until something is specifically done in the programmes and language to attract them. To do so, it must be meaningful in their life and consistent with their secular beliefs.

There is also a serious error in the article on "Jewish Renaissance in Israel" by Mr Ezrachi. Whilst he is quite right to say Israelis do not use the renaissance terminology now becoming popular in the North American Jewish community - but nor did they use "Continuity" or "Renewal." He then says that the "direction and energy are similar in Israel." This is absolutely incorrect. The development of programs for secular Jews in Israel is totally different to that in the Diaspora. In terms of secular Jewish education, Israel is aeons ahead of the Diaspora. Just look at Alma College's activities in Tel Aviv and on Israeli television and the vast network of teaching in secular Jewish schools, while not one secular Jewish day school exists in the US.

It is also a pity that the response to the articles did not pick up on this point and, on top of that, seems to be opposed to the one technique that most of us in this field - be they theistic or secular Jews - believe to be the best of all possible techniques to interest the children in Judaism, ie day schools. Indeed Mr. Moore is of the opinion that Jewish day schools create isolation and "effectively reduce our collective commitment to advance our civil society." Nothing could be further from the truth. A leading example is that many Jews with a Jewish day school education were active in the Civil Rights movement. In other words to question the idea that going to a Jewish day school could dull one's civic responsibilities and feelings is simply incorrect. The facts do not bear out such a statement.

Felix Posen
London, England

I thoroughly enjoy reading Sh'ma as it always discusses important matters succinctly and with many differing viewpoints. Yashar kochachem!

The recent issue on the "Jewish Renaissance was no exception. Worth reading, worth discussing. In glancing at the table of contents, I looked forward to reading Mik Moore's article as his seemed to be the one dissenting opinion. Though I think the "Renaissance" concept can be challenged, regrettably all I found in Moore's article was an attack on the day school alternative for the non-orthodox and a cry for a return to the liberalism of the 50s.

Moore is entitled to his opinion yet I wonder why he considers the day school alternative legitimate for the orthodox but not for the liberals. Is Jewish literacy to be confined to one stream of the Jewish People? Are the interpretations of our texts going to be solely from the Orthodox perspective as, if we follow Moore, they will be the only ones preparing future scholars? (I realize that the day schools are not the only source of Jewish scholarship but certainly a good basic education gives one a significant leg up in future pursuits.)

Mr. Moore may be interested in investigating why the most integrated cities and towns i. e. New York City, Teaneck, N. J., have a very high percentage of children pursuing their education in private or parochial schools. Another line of inquiry is why in the last election American Jewry seemed to vote against its parochial economic interests and instead opted for the populist, Al Gore. Finally it is too facile to equate Jewish values with political policies and shouting "tikun olam" as if it was a mantra doesn't mean that its true meaning is understood.

B'virkat shalom,
Philip Horn
West Orange, NJ

Your October issue on Day Schools was very one-sided. There was no article discussing philosophically whether day schools in the United States were or were not appropriate for our children. I am a firm believer in the American public education system. If we pull our Jewish students from the public schools, both the schools and we, as the Jewish people, will suffer greatly.

The schools will suffer by not having our bright, motivated students, and not having the support of their caring parents. Public schools will miss the diversity that this population has brought to the country (almost 10% of the new U.S. congress is Jewish).

And we will suffer because as we pull our children from the public schools we will leave a big unknown to the children that are left. Old prejudices can and will crop up again. A group that has a name and reputation but is not personally known, takes on a sense of "alien-ness." Do we want the Jews to again be considered alien to the mainstream population? Do we want to appear "holier than thou" by not being willing to have our children go to school with the children of the general population?

There must be a better way to have our children Jewishly educated, and have them stay committed Jews without pulling them and ourselves from our very important American public schools.

This is an important philosophical question and should be addressed.

Micki Miller
Mountain View, CA

Professor Robert Gordis, one of my late distinguished teachers at the Jewish Theological Seminary in the 1960s, once told us, "As the years pass, you will see that the rebirth of American Jewish life will be based in elite day schools that can compete with all the other prep schools. Several families related to members of my congregation were members of the havurot at Rabbi Harold Schulweis' synagogue in Encino. They raved to me about their havurot, which provided them with the "spirituality" of Judaism that they knew they needed.

After learning from my late uncle, Dr. Joel Geffen, how significant it was to meet individuals at their daily business locales rather than wait for them to come to the synagogue, I attempted to take his lesson to heart. In the 1970s, I forged several key spiritual friendships with congregants who rarely came to the synagogue. For example, with one, at his office, we studied the weekly Torah portion each Thursday for five years. With another, we read parts of Maimonides' commentary on the Mishna in English every other week.

Here are some ways renaissance has blossomed:

When day schools really began to proliferate after WWII, that was renaissance.

When havurot made their mark in the1960s and 1970s, that was renaissance.

When Art Scroll Press began to publish the basic books of Judaism in translation with commentaries, that was renaissance.

When the Conservative movement started Camp Ramah and the Leadership Training Fellowship, that was renaissance.

When the Lubavitsch Rebbe taught all of the movements about outreach, that was renaissance.

Bring renaissance to the target populations today by:

Giving free memberships in synagogues when couples are young, singles are young, families are young;

Exposing American Jews to the writers, who Professor Alvin Rosenfeld mentions, through a fund that will underwrite Anglo-Jewish newspapers with chapters from these author's works;

Get young Conservative and Reform rabbis on the street, in the bars, in the stores and offices and wherever Jews are found;

Let Jews know that Judaism cares about them and maybe they will begin to care about Judaism.

As one individual, I believe many of the elements of renaissance are in place. Sadly, the people to turn dormancy intro activity are still few. All of the initiatives of the Wexners, Shustermans, Steinhardts, Bronfmans and others are outstanding. Yet, if you take a look at the Forbes 400, there are a lot more Jews who could help make this 21st century renaissance more of a reality.

Rabbi David Geffen
Scranton PA

I found the negative reaction to humanistic Judaism surprising given the extent to which theistic Judaism has itself incorporated the best ideas, values, and practices of secular humanism over the last 200 years. At its best, secular humanism professes equality for all regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or nationality; either by referring to universal philosophical truths about the human condition (Kant's categorical imperative) or historical truths about the human condition (Hegel's "Reason in History"). Secular humanism achieves these higher, unselfish values, without referring to a deity, so it is a misconception that only theistic world views are capable of motivating people to act on behalf of others. Secular law also permits inviduals to take actions, but only so far as they comply with establshed social laws, laws that ideally are established through democratic communication. Individual will is free, but not unconstrained by social morality or ethics in secular humanism.

All branches of theistic Judaism have increasingly incorporated gender equality into their communities. Reform and Reconstruction have gone the furthest, but even Orthodox Jews in this country now permit women to be bat mitzvah'd. Where did this motivation to incorporate egalitarianism come from? One may find precedents and permission within the long halachic tradition to justify equal treatment of women, but the motivation to take these actions Now is due to the resonance the feminist insistence on secular humanistic equality in all aspects of life has had upon theistic Jews.

There is no doubt that the words and meanings secular, humanistic, Jews use to approach traditional texts and practices will differ from theistic Jews. Whether their effort remains within the Jewish community will not depend on their belief or disbelief in God. Rather, it will depend on the inclusiveness of theistic Judaism.

Larry Fenster
Washington, D.C.

Your June issue was a total surprise In the 9-10 years I?ve been a subscriber, I?ve come to expect in Sh?ma a valuable forum for Hillel-Shammai exchange for any and all types of controversy. But this last issue comes on like nothing less than an onslaught by the Jewish Secular Humanists. Even the one supposed "response" to it, ambiguously couched in the last paragraph of Riv-Ellen Prell?s contribution, seemed no response at all.

That the Holocaust did not bring down God?s intervention does not prove that there is no God; only that He?s not the kind of God we?ve naively been expecting him to be! If, in dispensing with God, Rabbi Wine looks to the works of intellectuals like Dubnow, Zhitlovsky, Achad Ha?Am, Tzernichovsky and Peretz to provide Jewish cultural continuity, he seems unaware that those works were a product of the vissisitudes of their religiosity in their various traditional backgrounds.

Without understanding that it was some form of the continuous serarch for God ? the very essence of Jewish continuity through the ages ? that informed these writings they dote on, Jewish Secular Humanists ignore the context in which they were written; and the bar/bat mitzvahs of their childen and grandchildren ? if devoid of that context ? must grow poorer in Jewish content until somewhere down the line, their issue will begin wondering why they need to stay Jewish.

A branch cut from the tree cannot expect continuity. Judaism cut from the search for some kind of God cannot long be called Judaism.

Shlomo Stillerman
Florida

As a result of the outpouring of Jewish ethnic identity in the aftermath of the 6 Day War in 1967, the Christian missionary strategy to bring Jews to Jesus had to change. Instead of asking potential converts to reject Jewish culture, they adapted Jewish culture to include Jesus.

It seems to me, as a non-academic, that Humanistic Judaism is the polar opposite of Jews for Jesus. While it says nothing about the decency of the individual secular humanist, to take God out of the equation of Judaism reflects a self worship of Western intellectuals that is hubristic.

Dennis Prager has often commented "Cultural greatness and moral greatness have nothing in common." Culture has to be seen as a goal to something higher than itself.

Last year after corresponding a few times by email with a "Jewish Humanist", I asked him if he at any time during the process of him and his wife having their child he did not step back and say "We made love, and a microscopic sperm and egg got together, and 9 months later my child was born, Yea right" then there was really no need to be conversing with one another. He never responded.

That humanistic Judaism has developed just confirms the challenges to organizations like CLAL to teach the Jewish world the beauty that our tradition has to offer. So while CLAL may want to give them a platform, please do not give them the legitimacy of a Judaism that includes God.

H. David Burstein
Toronto

Maybe it's me, but in all of the articles about Secular Humanistic Judaism I couldn't find a single sentence explaining how and why SHJ is compelling. Without a Commander and no Commandments, how is SHJ more than just personal choices that people make. Indeed, my questions to those like Yehuda Bauer who, in response to the Holocaust, must deny the existence of God is: if there is no God, why, ULTIMATELY, is it not ok for there NOT to be another Holocaust? Why, if there is no God to Whom we are accountable, is "might" not right, if that is what people choose? How, if there is no God, can there be a Right and a Wrong, Good and Evil, be that everyone is obligated to? Why are these not just "choices"? I choose to live a "moral life" because it is "personally meaningful", but if I choose not to, why is it not ultimately okay -- as long as I don't get caught?

And what, if there is no God, is the compelling reason that there should be a "Jewish people" anyway?

It would have been helpful if some of the articles would have dealt with these issues.

Rabbi Cary Kozberg
Columbus, Ohio

Your exceptional May issue on Jerusalem was a sorely needed antidote to the emotional and ideological deadlock that wreaks havoc with our ability to believe in a viable solution for the city's future. As a peace activist who was privileged to contribute to your journal when it honored Israel's 50th anniversary, I too, agonize over what befalls Jerusalem. Thank you for inspiring me anew.

Carmela Ingwer,
Forest Hills, NY
February 1, 2000
25 Shevat 5760

"Here is the answer!" I thought upon my first reading of Blu Greenberg's piece in Sh'ma 30/568. She said, "I now believe that distinctive roles can be compatible with equality and equal dignity, and that not everything in life can be taken to its logical conclusion ..."

"That's it," thought I, joyfully, "in a nutshell!"

Then came the "Now wait a minute," phase.

"You can't have separate but equal. It's oxymoronic. It wouldn't wash with school segregation and it can't work here, either."

Then came the second and third thoughts. "When it comes to the man/woman thing, and roles, it would be a very cold day in Florida before any woman can justify or be en