Jonah's Peradventure Unadventurous Adventures

Disrobing Gender & Becoming Nobody: Coming From Zero & Approaching One

2010-04-13T19:50:00.000-07:00

As I may have indicated once or twice before, I am currently studying Massekhet Sotah with Gabe Seed. The primary subject of this piece of the Talmud is, as presented in Chapter 5 in the Book of Numbers, the water ordeal for a sotah (סוטה), a woman suspected of sleeping with a man other than her husband.

In dealing with this subject, the Rabbis often attempted to protect the dignity of women in an ordeal that was certainly humiliating and painful. While not all Rabbis had progressive goals in mind, I am constantly fascinated by those Rabbis who realized the plight of women and tried to make things easier for them. On page 21a, the the Talmud offers a spiritual solution to the gender divide.

The text begins with reiterating a part of the relevant Mishnah (3:3/4):

אומר בן עזאי חייב אדם ללמד את וכו':

Ben Azzai says: A person must teach one's daughter Torah so that she knows the benefits gained from meritorious living--rather than sin.¹

ר' אליעזר אומר כל המלמד את בתו תורה מלמדה תיפלות

But Rabbi Eli'ezer says: A person who teaches one's daughter Torah teaches her lechery.

The editor of the Talmud, surprised by the harsh words of Rabbi Eli'ezer, talks back:

תיפלות

"Lechery?"

ס"ד אלא אימא כאילו למדה תיפלות

You really thank so? Maybe you can say instead "A person who teaches one's daughter Torah is almost like someone who teaches her lechery?"

But Rabbi Eli'ezer had long passed, and it was up to Rabbi Abbahu to defend the Mishnaic sage:

א"ר אבהו מ"ט דר"א דכתיב (משלי ח) אני חכמה שכנתי ערמה כיון שנכנסה חכמה באדם נכנסה עמו ערמומית

Rabbi Abbahu says: What's the reasoning of Rabbi Eli'ezer? Proverbs 8:12 says, "I, Wisdom, dwell alongside ערמה Ormah (literally: Shrewdness)"² because once Wisdom enters a person, ערמומית(Armumit: Subtlety) enters the person too.

Nice wordplay, but the Rabbis say that there must be another way, literally, to read this text.

ורבנן האי אני חכמה מאי עבדי ליה מיבעי ליה לכדרבי יוסי בר' חנינא

Our Rabbis taught otherwise: This phrase of "I, Wisdom..."--what can one make of it? It must be interpreted the way it's interpreted by Rabbi Yosei, in the name of Rabbi Hanina!

דא"ר יוסי בר' חנינא אין דברי תורה מתקיימין אלא במי שמעמיד עצמו ערום עליהן שנאמר אני חכמה שכנתי ערמה

Rabbi Yosei, in the name of Rabbi Hanina says: The words of Torah can only be fulfilled by a person who stands one's self up naked, upon the words of Torah--for it says, "I, Wisdom, dwell ערמה (arummah: naked)."²

It's an interesting thought, so Rabbi Yohanan picks up (and ends) the conversation.

א"ר יוחנן אין דברי תורה מתקיימין אלא במי שמשים עצמו כמי שאינו שנאמר (איוב כח) והחכמה מאין תמצא:

Rabbi Yohanan says: The words of Torah can only be fulfilled by a person who places one's self as if one is not--as Job 28:12 says, "But Wisdom, from naught, shall be found."³

End Sug'ya.

This is a curious turn of events. In review:

Ben Azzai says that daughters must be taught Torah (so that they know the good that comes from not sinning).
Rabbi Eli'ezer says that teaching Torah to one's daughters is immoral or, at best, frivolous.
A few centuries later, the editor of the Talmud finds discomfort with Rabbi Eli'ezer's words.
Rabbi Abbahu finds a verse in Proverbs that supports Rabbi Eli'ezer's argument against women studying Torah.
The Rabbis look for another interpretation.
A teaching attributed to Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Hanina says that the verse Rabbi Abbahu read has nothing to do with women studying Torah; if read correctly, they say, this verse teaches that one must "stand one's self up naked" in order to fulfill the words of Torah.
Supporting this, Rabbi Yohanan says that a verse in Job supports this by teaching that the Torah's wisdom can only be fulfilled by a person who negates their existence: that the Torah can be fulfilled only by someone who removes the layers of one's self and identity.

The text begins with an argument over whether or not women should be taught Torah, and the passage ends with a teaching that one must shake off one's persona in order to make Torah come alive. Although Rabbi Yohanan is too humble to come right out and say it, he disagrees with not only Rabbi Eli'ezer's interpretation of the verse, but he also disagrees with Rabbi Eli'ezer's teaching.

When we approach the study of Torah--formally or informally--we always come along with some baggage. We are Reform Jews; we are Conservative Jews; we are Orthodox Jews; or what have you. We love Torah, so we observe it; we love the Torah but don't observe it; we don't love the Torah, but we observe it anyway; or what have you. We are doctors; we are students; we are lawyers; or what have you. We are male; we are female; or what have you. But really: what have you? What baggage do we have, and why do we have it? Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Hanina say, "Whatever you're holding, drop it!"

Very often, we want to read a text "knowing" the outcome, or maybe we want to claim that the moral of the passage is ours and only ours. But the truth is that we must approach the Torah naked--we must take off those layers about us that stubbornly make false arguments in our own favor. We must approach Judaism realizing that, compared to what we are looking at, we are nothing; a century or so of the human life is nothing compared to an eternal Truth.

We are each born with different sets of eyes, and we each live different lives; we see things differently from each other, and we cannot forget that we will always view Torah with a lens that our family and friends will never use. While our individuality can assist us as we refine the contours of our personal Judaism--our studies and our observances--there is a universal Judaism out there that is far greater than anything any one person can imagine. When we approach a Judaism that is universal to all--Shabbat, Kashrut, prayer, ethics, Jewish garb, and the like--we cannot say that our eyes and nobody else's can see the Truth. We must become nothing.

If men study Torah only to declare that all public ritual is theirs and theirs only, and if women in a society ruled by men are taught Torah only to learn how to maintain a sacred sexual lifestyle, then we have arrived at the Torah wearing too many assumptions. The Torah, given to the entire Jewish people, must be recognized as offering all Jews--regardless of gender--one mythic history, one covenant, one set of laws, one set of blessings, one set of curses, and a passionate God whose name is One.

Rabbi Eli'ezer, notorious in Rabbinic literature for many legislations and sayings that are sexist, looked at the Torah through a lens of stereotypes that conquered his ability to see Torah. But this is not to say that he was not an otherwise brilliant scholar of Torah. In fact, he was a great scholar. In fact, his words here can be reread with a less misogynistic bend. Perhaps the Mishnah cared to quote him here because, even though Rabbi Eli'ezer probably never had the conversation with Ben Azzai,⁴ the Mishnah needed someone to talk back to Ben Azzai, whose teaching was also at fault. Perhaps the editor of the Mishnah was concerned why Ben Azzai says that women should not look at the totality of Jewish living offered by a Torah lifestyle, but they should be taught Torah for the sake of understanding only the scenario of the sotah. To this, the Mishnah's editor perhaps hoped, Rabbi Eli'ezer would say4 that teaching Torah to women for only this purpose reduces a the teaching of Torah to a lesson about debauchery. No matter how we read them though, Rabbi Eli'ezer and Ben Azzai⁴ are concerned more about their own tastes and biases--not the universal Torah that is beyond their scope of vision.

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Hanina say to Jewish men and women, "Denude yourselves of your assumptions if you want to see the real Torah." Meanwhile, Rabbi Yohanan goes further and says, "If you want to see the real Torah, don't be a man or a woman; just be naught." Rabbi Yohanan teaches that there is no point of studying Torah if the purpose of it is just to become a better man, and there is no point of studying Torah if the purpose is just to become a better woman. We have to start from zero if we want to get to the Truth of the One God.

Ultimately, the values of Judaism might turn us into better men and women, but these values may also turn us into artists, better bankers, better customers, better drivers, better electricians, and what have you. We must universalize the Torah by exploring, instead of those few ways we want to apply the Torah, all the ways in life we can apply Torah. And in order to do that, we have to take a moment and imagine ourselves without prejudices and ulterior motives; we must be nobody before God: as zero before the One.

NOTES:

1. This is not a literal translation of Ben Azzai's teaching. A more literal translation would read "A person must teach one's daughter so that, if she drinks the bitter waters, she knows שהזכות תולה (she-ha-z'khut tolah: that the merit suspends) the effects of the drink on her." One reading of this text would suggest that the waters do not have an immediately harmful effect on a woman whose זכות (z'khut: merit) is that she is innocent--she has not slept with a man other than her husband. Another interpretation says that the waters have no immediately harmful effect on her z'khut is her study of Torah, and still another interpretation says that there is no immediately harmful effect if her z'khut is her sons' study ofTorah. Furthermore, there's a question about what the word "תולה (tolah: suspends)" means; is a suspension a complete removal of the effects or a delay of the effects? What does no immediately harmful effect imply--never, or not yet? The text of the Talmud makes these translations difficult.

Because the translations of these terms are not completely pertinent to the discussion above, I have chosen not to translate this section literally.

2. The word "alongside" in the Rabbi Eli'ezer's interpretation is implied even though the Hebrew contains no such word. The Hebrew literally means "I, Wisdom, dwell Shrewdness." This reading though, by animating wisdom and shrewdness into the living characters of Wisdom and Shrewdness, makes no sense because a person cannot "dwell" a person; therefore, it must be implied that Wisdom dwells "alongside" Shrewdness.

The second interpretation the Talmud gives here though does not call for the personification of Shrewdness; the word ערמה Ormah is vocalized as arummah, meaning "naked," and it is possible for a character named Wisdom to "dwell naked." Hence, there is no "alongside" in the second interpretation.

3. The term מאין (me'ayin) can be translated in two common ways: (1) from where, or (2) from nothingness.

4. Ben Azzai lived later than Rabbi Eli'ezer. The Mishnah, as most rabbinic literature often does, records a dialogue that probably never happened in person but certainly took place in the grand scheme of things.

A Minor Announcement

2010-04-11T13:46:00.000-07:00

From now on, instead of reposting here any articles of mine that are published elsewhere, I'll just link up to those articles.

I'm finding it a little overwhelming to spend so much time copying and pasting and reformatting...

Bringing the Soul Back to the Body of Conservative Judaism: A History of Symptoms, and Some Working Prescriptions

2010-04-11T13:17:00.000-07:00

The article below was published in ShefaJournal 5770:1. I thank Nina Kretzmer for asking me to write this.

Bringing the Soul Back to the Body of Conservative Judaism:

A History of Symptoms, and Some Working Prescriptions

By Jonah Rank

Among the meditations recited upon waking up, the traditional Siddur (prayer book) includes a passage that begins, Elohai, neshamah shennatatta bi tehorah hi (“My God, the soul which You have given me is pure”). We may be familiar with a melody for these six words since modern Jewish musicians have often set these opening words to appropriately inspirational music, but less well known is the berakhah (blessing) that ends the passage: Barukh Attah Adonai, hammahazir neshamot lifgarim metim (“Blessed are You, LORD, who returns souls to their lifeless corpses”). We are well aware that our Neshamah or Nefesh (soul) is pure, but finding the pure Nefesh within our Guf (body) is a step in the process.

The Nefesh that is Conservative Jewish philosophy and the Guf that is, I would add, the population of Conservative Jewry, are inseparable. Conservative Jewish philosophy has, throughout its history, appealed mostly to a select minority of adherents who were taught the values of Conservative Jewish philosophy by its founders, or by those who learned directly from its founders. Conservative Jewish leaders must be Conservative Jews who do not just believe Conservative Jewish philosophy, but also act as a Rosh (head), a leader, who believes that s/he cannot act without the remainder of a body. Where is the Lev (heart) that pumps the blood of passion into the Guf? Where are the Zero’ot (arms) that embrace our values? And without Raglayim(legs), can we speak of a halichah (movement) within halachah (Jewish law)?

One of the greatest failures of Orthodox Judaism has been its abundance of insular communities, communities that don’t reach out to the unaffiliated and the unconvinced, but reach in and preach to the converted. Although the essence of this problem is apparent in Conservative Judaism, its caliber is heavier; Conservative synagogues and schools usually contain a preacher who can preach to her or his own “choir,” but—in most cases—that core group of believers makes up fewer than 5% of the synagogue membership.

Although “Not Orthodox and Not Reform” is an insufficient religious dogma, the truth is that most Conservative synagogues historically were founded on that very vague idea; for whatever reason, these Jews had had enough of Orthodoxy and had had enough of Reform. In the majority of these cases, the philosophies and beliefs (or lack of concern thereof) of the founders of Conservative synagogues was very much in line with that of the primary membership of Reform synagogues. With little regard for halacha, theology or philosophy, the early “Conservative Jews” maintained a certain respect for certain elements of traditional Judaism (understood as traditional, rather than obligatory) such as Kashrut, Passover, Shabbat, Hebrew prayer, or marriage between fellow Jews. Although these Jews did not practice Orthodoxy, they were uncomfortable in the Reform community where these traditions were seen as simply ignored rather than seriously re-evaluated. At heart, the founders of the Conservative synagogues were not Reform Jews, and they were not Orthodox Jews. But quite frankly, they might not have been Conservative Jews either.

Although the founders of Conservative synagogues may have been lucky enough to find clergy and educators who were trained in those theoretical principles of Conservative Judaism, the Conservative rabbi was faced with a task unlike that of their Reform and Orthodox colleagues. An Orthodox rabbi could step foot inside a synagogue composed of Jews who cared to know that their religious principles and actions were in line with the rabbi’s Piskei Halachah (halachic rulings). A Reform rabbi knew that the synagogue’s clientele cared to maintain the moral imperative and spiritual awareness which are inseparable from Judaism and, like the rabbi, these Jews needed something totally unOrthodox in the realm of rituals. On the other hand, a Conservative rabbi would walk into a synagogue wherein most congregants were sympathetic to Judaism but often not very actively engaged; even if they were more observant in ways than their Reform peers, they were not strict adherents to the principles of Conservative Judaism. A Conservative rabbi entered a synagogue where the congregants had limited knowledge of Hebrew and little interest in fulfilling Mitzvot; however, going to a shul and going through the motions of traditionalism had stayed important to them through the years. Yet making something new and meaningful out of “Conservative” Judaism was never the common goal among the majority of the earliest members of Conservative synagogues.

Three sociological problems seem to have resulted in the Conservative Judaism that will be remembered at the end of 2009: (1) because the majority of early Conservative shul-goers did not actively seek transformational experiences or rituals, they never demanded a practical definition of Conservative Judaism; (2) because Conservative Judaism was born out of studies at the Jewish Theological Seminary—and not out of a form of Jewish life that was practiced by an actual community per se—Conservative Jewish leaders who had studied with masters and founders of Conservative Judaism never saw a clear model of Conservative Judaism; and (3) because the majority of Conservative leadership spoke of but never effectively preached and inspired their communities to accept the principles of their theoretical Conservative Judaism, perhaps out of ineptitude or fear of controversy. The cerebral theory of Conservative Judaism never filtered out of the Rosh and spread properly through the rest of the Guf. Perhaps the Rosh did not speak clearly, or did not think clearly, or just did not chew up enough of Conservative Judaism so that the Guf could digest it.

Over a good number of decades, the Guf of Conservative Judaism has suffered the vicious cycle of theRosh becoming enamored with ideas for which the rest of the Guf simply was not prepared. So—if we’re going to make it, and I sincerely believe we can—what can we do about the uninitiated Jew? Initiate. Teach the uninitiated, and learn from the uninitiated. Inspire the uninitiated and be inspired by the uninitiated. Challenge the uninitiated, and let the uninitiated challenge us.

For as long as Jews are expected to enter a Conservative shul and to find inspiration solely from the music of prayer and the foreign words on the pages, the uninitiated will remain incapable and illiterate in the written languages of Judaism—uninitiated. For as long as Jews are just expected to enter a Conservative shulon Shabbat and to earn their entire weekly dosage of Torah study from the words of the rabbi, they will not feel encouraged to open a Tanakh (Bible) and to ask the questions that Jews must ask and to seek the answers that Jews must seek; the uninitiated will then remain uninitiated. And as long as Jews are expected to become the community of a Conservative shul without ever learning that Conservative Judaism is a new (and improved) Judaism, and that we each have to undergo some transforming in order for us to become honest and coherent Jews, the uninitiated will remain Not Orthodox and Not Reform and nothing more: uninitiated.

The Orthodox might give the radically right-winged answers, and the Reform might give the radically left-winged answers, but we will never find the middle-grounds if we cannot find the edges. True Conservative Judaism needs, as Pirkei Avot 4:1 prescribes, the Hakham (Wise Person): Hallomed Mikkol Adam (the Student of All Humanity). We must constantly balance the questions of the right with the answers of the left, and vice versa; however, though we might not each become a Hakham, we are all able to be Talmidim (Students) andTalmidei Hakhamim (Students of Wise People). It is insufficient to produce only a Hakham who adjoins the Roshof the Guf. It is time for the limbs of the Guf of Conservative Judaism to become Talmidei Hakhamim, and they can’t do it without an educated Rosh.

After the community learns that the Introduction to Judaism class is not where Jewish learning and living end, we must turn the Conservative Beit Tefillah (House of Prayer) into a Conservative Beit Midrash (House of Study). Though the task may sound overwhelming, it is a fine line that separates prayer and study. Rabbi Louis Finkelstein once said, “When I pray, I talk to God; when I study, God talks to me.” This understanding of prayer and study as the Eternal Jewish dialogue with the Divine is among the oldest principles of Judaism. Classical Rabbinic literature records Jewish prayer in the Beit Midrash and Jewish study in the Beit Tefillah, and Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jewry have often built a Beit Tefillah called a “Beit Midrash” and vice versa.

Fortunately, Conservative synagogues generally are comfortable finding a proper prayer quorum on a regular basis—even if it is not the traditional 3 times a day. And, though serious study of Jewish texts and principles is more rare in the Conservative synagogue, our communities are finding ways to become engaged in Jewish texts, principles and rituals. Difficulty with reading Hebrew and unfamiliarity traditional melodies or the rhythm of tefillah prevents many Jews from taking an active part in prayer services, so Cantor Jen Cohen of Temple Beth Sholom in Cherry Hill has been teaching classes on “How to Lead and Participate in a Shiva Minyan.” Because the Hebrew of tefillah—even when we can read it—might not mean much, Dena Bodian has been teaching “Hebrew of the Siddur” focusing on “basic grammar and common siddur vocabulary” at Anshe Emet Synagogue in Chicago. Since many Jews have never been exposed to the vast sea of rabbinic literature, Rabbi Martin Cohen of Shelter Rock Jewish Center in Long Island has been holding several classes at his shulwhere congregants can study Talmud, the words of Maimonides, Rashi’s commentary on the Torah, and more. Because study of Torah during the Torah reading services is never enough, the rabbis of Temple Aliya in Los Angeles, California lead a weekly Lunch and Learn to gain further insight into the weekly Torah reading. The ultimate goal of these projects cannot possibly be dependency, that Conservative shul-goers will forever rely on the Rosh. These programs all aim for independence. I am proud that my own shul, Midway Jewish Center, has recently purchased Hebrew-English sets of the Mishnah, the Talmud, and other Jewish codes and commentaries and has placed these sefarim (books) in a Chapel so as to annex one Beit Tefillah into a Beit Midrash. Though my shul may be a few years away from a clientele literate in Hebrew, we are not far from a community of Talmidei Hakhamim. All it will take is a Jew who opens a book and is able to ask and answer questions like a Conservative Jew.

Conservative Judaism exists outside of texts though. The social actions we take for Darfur or for Israel, the friendships we build through youth groups or havurot (social gatherings—for study, prayer and ritual life), the folksongs and children’s songs we have and pass on from generation to generation: these are all Conservative Judaism. Rabbi Harold Schulweis has spoken of the “Head Jew” (the intellectual Jew), the “Heart Jew” (the passionate Jew), and the “Hand Jew” (the active Jew). For too long, Conservative Judaism has been Head Jews stuck in the Rosh, and the Rosh has stuck to the Head Jews. The Rosh must now awaken the rest of theGuf.

When I recite Barukh Attah Adonai, hammahazir neshamot lifgarim metim, I am less concerned with my body than the bodies I see in shul. Everyday, I hope that the Jews—with or without kishkes—will not only remain Jewish, but I hope that the Conservative Jewish community, with God’s grace, will endow itself with the tools, the passions and the commitments of Conservative Jewish thinking: a Nefesh greater than the love of s’tam (simply) Yiddishkeit.

In Mishnah Yoma 1:5, we read that, when it came time to preparing the Temple for Yom Kippur, the High Priest was entrusted with a secret formula for performing the sacrificial rites through which Israel's sins would be cleansed from the soul of the people:

The Elders of the Courthouse passed the message along to the Elders of the Priesthood, and they had gone up to receive these words from the House of Avtinas. They swore to the House of Avtinas that they had the message straight, and the Elders left to go their way. The Elders would then say to the High Priest in the Temple, “My Master: the High Priest! We are messengers of the Courthouse, and you are both our messenger and the messenger of the Courthouse. We trust that you—sworn to the One whose Name dwells in this House—will not change a word from all that we have said to you.” The High Priest would depart and weep, and they too would depart and weep.

Conservative Judaism is not a secret formula of the Temple, but sometimes it feels like it. We have Elder-like masters trained by particular Houses (of Study) where the essence of Conservative Judaism is taught. In the days of the Temple, the High Priest was overwhelmed by the burden of the secret intricacies involved in purifying the soul of the people, and today the Rosh of our Guf can feel overwhelmed by the mission of giving our young Guf a Nefesh, for such a task takes an entire community—not just the Rosh.

Conservative Judaism is a young religion, and infants are subject to infirmities that doctors hope the young will overcome with proper treatment. It should be no surprise that, in a few years, we will outgrow the struggles of the Conservative Judaism of 2009. With proper dosages of education, experience and action, everything that has found a place in our Rosh will gradually digest and flow into the rest of our Guf. And when that happens, we will not need to pray that God returns the Nefesh to the Guf, but we can thank God for having returned the Nefesh to the Guf.

An Ancient Prohibition On the Dangers of Animals in Entertainment (Part One?)

2009-11-04T21:29:00.000-08:00

Two weekends ago, at a study session coordinated by the Jewish Theological Seminary and led by Jon Adam Ross, I was introduced to one text which I was shocked to have never encountered before in my studies of Judaism (and I am thankful to have finally been introduced to it).

In the 3rd century CE, Rabbi Yehudah Ha-Nasi, discouraging Jews from participating in a culture of Roman theater which the Rabbis associated with violence (as exhibited in gladiator matches) or idolatry (such as the dramas of Greek gods) recorded a law in the Mishnah (in Avodah Zarah 1:7) that begins with the following:

אין מוכרין להם דובין ואריות וכל דבר שיש בו נזק לרבים.

It is forbidden to sell them bears, lions or anything that has the potential to injure the public.

These words, read in their traditional context, don't sound necessarily like the words of animal rights activists. But, this statement--when read in the context of what we know about the inherent abuses and dangers in using animals in entertainment--is certainly compassionate towards animals.

The passage is concerned with the well-being of these animals. Our passage lists bears and lions specifically, but the passage doesn't identify those potential customers to whom we can't sell these animals! (Of course, we presume that the Rabbinic ban is on selling animals to entertainers, to businesspeople with stadiums and to any people who make it their business to put animals on stages.) Not only are Jews so discouraged in the Mishnah from participating in a culture that utilizes animals in violent means, but Jews are forbidden from making money from and from reaping the benefits of a culture that endorses this literally inhumane practice.

When it comes to that dangerous subject of animals in entertainment, this brief dictum is unwavering in the graveness of the sin: not only are Jews forbidden from supporting animals in entertainment, Jews are forbidden from being supported by animals in entertainment.

Although I usually like to have more to say on a subject, I am writing this blog post now because I did not want to forget this source. I hope to study this topic more in the near future and to have then a few more insights into the subject.

Also, for just a few mild introductory thoughts about the use of animals in entertainment, feel free to examine this site or this page.

The Album Art For The First Album Not Of My Own But Featuring Much of My Production

2009-09-30T15:35:00.000-07:00

Today, Osekre released the album art for his debut CD, for which I produced and mastered 13 tracks. You might have already seen the fake music video for No Turning Back From Here's first single "Fire and I."

Behind the scenes of my first music video?

2009-09-09T20:29:00.001-07:00

In case you haven't seen it yet, you can see an alternate and final take from the shoot for the first music video in which I'll be appearing (...I'm the keyboardist in case you can't tell...).

You can watch it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lBKvka3dUA

I had lost the ability at this point to play the right parts on the piano and to actually pay attention to the fact that there was necessarily an expensive camera rolling in front of me.

Download the first single by Osekre with 200 Passwords!

2009-08-30T07:14:00.000-07:00

So, you've probably heard me mention Osekre, whose debut album I spent 4 months producing. We created 13 wonderful tracks together, and the album will be gradually trickling into the public eye...

Well, you can take a taste of what we've done as long as you're among the first 200. Osekre has generated 200 passwords to let you download the first single "Fire and I" for free at http://osekre.bandcamp.com/yum. Below are the 200 passwords that Osekre generated. Since each password only works once, my advice is: choose a random password off the list. The first and last passwords will probably be the first to be chosen. Act fast!

Find a password below and download the single "Fire and I" for free now at http://osekre.bandcamp.com/yum!

6z7n-5dv8
k35x-7ct2
zv6j-vh3h
n9zr-g5dv
ly25-bfs8
ekmg-xqh2
gn8z-etpc
3dzn-u27w
djtv-jhm4
sgn6-keya
s2wt-gu27
vlvs-y3ky
6ege-346f
z7uf-cm8m
nmwm-wtb6
m8j6-hb4k
gkbu-5cv8
ynad-7wt2
ya9p-vx3h
26tb-ypdv
dynm-bns8
pta9-xmh2
6qlj-67qh
ubs6-yj65
lvh2-bktf
q9ed-xkum
f27c-v8m6
5x54-grky
ge6q-3l6f
yr37-cj8m
2mxv-wgb6
agq8-h34k
8tr2-5wv8
h9ng-kpta
h3dz-gf37
qxqz-umlv
f48u-j6p8
msnx-kg72
gjwp-6uqh
3bh8-yv65
wac3-39tf
p9jl-h9um
r3b4-vtm6
u6k7-gawv
xz3v-37c8
jya8-hv42
9u9t-5yec
nlt3-urfw
lpzm-j4v4
c629-kata
c3lk-gn37
edpk-ujlv
r462-jkp8
ac3d-ky72
uvx5-w8r6
v9e9-hrhk
6t7n-5dm8
zu5x-7dy2
z56j-vh2h
n8zr-gewv
wk2a-3uc8
eymg-xq42
g28z-e8ec
2lzn-u2fw
detv-jlv4
j6qx-x6nm
7nbs-jgv6
vdvs-y3zy
9jge-349f
zbuf-cqgm
nawm-wtr6
59j6-h2hk
gybu-5cm8
y2ad-7cy2
tm9p-vx2h
2gtb-g5wv
7h9n-j9e8
v42l-ktf2
6plj-6njh
n7s6-yj95
l5h2-b6yf
q8ed-xknm
bn7c-jyv6
5w54-grzy
8j6q-3l9f
tf37-cmgm
2axv-wgr6
uxz2-7b7w
xqta-vxm4
h8ng-65ya
4udz-gf27
qwqz-uqxv
fs8u-jze8
54nx-kgf2
gewp-67jh
27h8-yv95
dmc3-bkyf
p8jl-h9nm
kvgq-v43h
ugk7-gadv
xt3v-37s8
qka8-hjh2
939t-5ypc
ndt3-737w
wqzm-j4m4
cg29-kpya
sulk-gn27
plpk-umxv
rs62-j6e8
k73r-wv8m
u5x5-cyb6
v8e9-hr4k
9z7n-5sv8
z35x-7dt2
yv6j-vl3h
39zr-gedv
wy2a-3us8
pkmg-hvh2
8n8z-e8pc
2dzn-ur7w
xvsu-bztf
jgqx-xzum
72bs-jgm6
mlvs-ybky
9ege-bx6f
y7uf-cq8m
3mwm-w8b6
58j6-h24k
8kbu-5dv8
tnad-7ct2
ta9p-vh3h
jxpy-7vlv
7c9n-j9p8
vs2l-k872
9qlj-6nqh
nbs6-ym65
wvh2-b6tf
e9ed-x6um
b27c-jym6
ax5c-y3ky
8e6q-346f
tr37-cm8m
6n6k-5tec
uwz2-7bfw
xpta-vhv4
49ng-65ta
43dy-yu37
exqz-uqlv
b48u-jzp8
5snx-kt72
8jwp-67qh
2bh8-yj65
dac3-bktf
knvw-uwy2
k5gq-v42h
n6k7-gpwv
lz3v-3nc8
qya8-hj42
gu9t-5gec
3lt3-73fw
wpz5-vxv4
s629-kpta
s3lk-gf37
pdpk-umlv
6q6p-bh9f
kb3r-wjgm
nvx5-cyr6
m9eg-x3hk
9t7n-5sm8
yu5x-7sy2
y56j-vl2h
38zr-gawv
dk2a-37c8
pymg-hv42
828y-5yec
uf49-yq95
x5su-b9yf
q6qx-xznm
fnbs-jtv6
mdvs-ybzy
gjge-bx9f
ybub-wvgm
3awm-w8r6
a9j6-hrhk
8ybu-5dm8
t2ad-7dy2
hnlt-y727
jwpy-7jxv
fh93-vke8
m42l-k8f2
9plj-6fjh
37s6-ym95
w5h2-bzyf
e8ed-x6nm
rn7c-jgv6
aw5c-y3zy
xkum-3fs8
jz56-hqh2
626k-5tpc
nxz2-727w

Fun fact: The single features my mixing, mastering, producing, arranging, piano-playing and drum-programming.

The Sounds of God's Roars In Speechless Nature

2009-08-21T10:53:00.000-07:00

In trying to recall the times at night when the Priests in the Temple in Jerusalem would perform different Temple rites, the Rabbis of Massekhet Berakhot 3a debated how nighttime is divided up¹: should nighttime's 12 hours be divided into 3 night-watches of 4 hours each, or 4 night-watches of 3 hours each?

Amidst the arguments, the Talmud examines Rabbi Eliezer's position:

לעולם קסבר שלש משמרות הוי הלילה

Rabbi Eliezer has forever held that there are three watches in the night!

והא קמ"ל דאיכא משמרות ברקיע ואיכא משמרות בארעא

And he teaches us that there are watches in Heaven and watches on Earth.

דתניא ר' אליעזר אומר שלש משמרות הוי הלילה ועל כל משמר ומשמר יושב הקב"ה ושואג כארי

For it is taught: Rabbi Eliezer says, "There are three watches in the night, and at each watch, the Holy Blessed One sits and roars like a lion...

שנאמר (ירמיהו כה) ה' ממרום ישאג וממעון קדשו יתן קולו שאוג ישאג על נוהו

As it mentions (3 roars!²) in Jeremiah 25:30, 'God, from upon high, will roar and, from the base of God's holiness, will project God's roaring voice. God will roar over God's glory!'"

Rabbi Eliezer continues in his explanation:

וסימן לדבר

"God's roaring here is a symbolic matter:

משמרה ראשונה חמור נוער

At the first watch, a donkey brays...

שניה כלבים צועקים

At the second watch, dogs bark....

שלישית תינוק יונק משדי אמו ואשה מספרת עם בעלה.

And at the third watch, a baby nurses at the breasts of its mother as the woman speaks with her husband."

Of course, Jeremiah didn't give any direct acknowledgment of donkeys, dogs, or even humans in the excerpt Rabbi Eliezer quotes. But Rabbi Eliezer knows that, if he's going to take Jeremiah seriously, then he has to take Jeremiah metaphorically.

Rabbi Eliezer is listening for God's roar: God's promise of surveillance, of protection. Rabbi Eliezer tells us that, when he listens to the sounds of the night that surrounds him, he hears nature. He hears the bray of a donkey upon which he or a neighbor might ride to town or to the market. He hears the barking of dogs protecting their territory. And he hears a baby being raised by nurturing parents.

All these sounds that Rabbi Eliezer hears are wordless. Certainly the dog and the donkey have no words to share. And the baby does not even cry or produce a sound approaching the volume of a bark or a bray. The baby only feeds and gets the parents talking. It is only after that third night-watch has already begun though that nighttime has finally restored the words of life into women and men³.

That wordless donkey--assuring transportation and economic access to the market--and those inarticulate dogs--determined to safeguard the residential stability of home--work in tandem with the muted baby who promises us the future of human life.

Rabbi Eliezer listens for God's three roars each night, and he finds them in the wordless cries of nature. But only by way of the sounds of the mute and the speechless, Rabbi Eliezer is able to listen to God. Rabbi Eliezer's point is simple: we can hear God's promise most pronounced in the wordlessness of nature.

NOTES:

1. The classic Jewish calendar divides a day into 12 equal "hours" of nighttime and 12 equal "hours" of daytime. Hypothetically, if a day were dark from 8 PM until 4 AM and light from 4 AM to 8 PM, then each Jewish nighttime "hour" would be 80 minutes long and the Jewish daytime "hours" would be 40 minutes each. Because sunrise and sunset change everyday of the Gregorian calendar, the Jewish "days" begin and end at different times everyday on the Gregorian clock.

2. Rashi notes this in his commentary to this section.

3. Judaism has often valued speech as an indicator of life or existence (for both God and God's humans were enabled to speak, as the humans were made in God's image). Also, one ancient Jewish belief states that the human soul leaves the human body when the body sleeps and returns when the body wakes up. This idea is reflected even today in modern classical Jewish nighttime and daytime prayers.

4. Special thanks to Emily Winograd for studying this Sugeya with me.

Blind Faith? Eric Clapton Accepts God In an Autobiography

2009-08-07T10:53:00.000-07:00

WARNING: This content may be unsuitable for children under the age of 12. This text may contain adult content and refers to content with strong language.

A Modern Jewish Review of Clapton: The Autobiography

A SECULAR READ

As a musician and someone who loves to read non-fiction, I have a strong affinity for books like these. Though I've read a number of biographies of musicians, Eric Clapton's is the first musician's autobiography I've read, and I liked it a lot!

Written from a very honest and introspective viewpoint, Clapton very easily admits to a life full of vices. He tells us of the difficult but important lessons he had to learn in order to change his life for the better.

Eric Clapton was born out of wedlock in 1945 and was raised by his grandparents. Though he was bright in his youth, he admits now that he did not apply himself in his schooling and focused instead on the blues scene around him. Picking up the guitar and playing in bands when he was young, he also began drinking excessively while still a teen. All this was not long before he was declared a sensational young guitarist, and not long before he had also begun developing habits of excessive drug use. As his fame and fortune grew ever more prominent in his life, so did his substance abuse and his lust life. After several attempts at treatment and rehabilitation to cure his various forms of substance abuse, Clapton successfully became--and has since remained--sober since the late 1980s, several years after he had already become a father. During his life of juggling the imbalances of dysfunctional family lifestyles, drugs and drinking, he recorded hit albums in all sorts of uniforms: as the solo artist, as the pseudonymous bandleader, and playing in all sorts of bands where he always--sometimes against his wishes--shone through as the brilliant star lead guitarist.

Writing that he is seeking retirement now, Clapton, in his days of sobriety, has remained one of the most influential and high-selling musicians still performing and recording these days. But the book is not the story of how he came to be a rockstar. This autobiography is about how Clapton came to find the values that made him the family man he is today.

THE JEWISH READER
Like nearly any other life-story, Clapton is a tale of second (and third and fourth...) chances. It's a record of the wrong turns made and what eventually corrected these ways. This idea of turning or returning to proper paths in life, Teshuvah (literally, "returning"), is a key theme in Jewish living.

In this book, Clapton maps out his evolution from living a selfish and indulgent life to his finding a purpose in helping others: healing friends, family, music fans or substance abusers--each in different ways. In this review, I could do no justice in discussing from a Jewish perspective all of the ways in which Clapton bettered his life and helped those around him, but one particular change in his life really stood out to me as a Jewish reader: the acceptance of God.

KEEPING THE FAITH?
Based on the number of children Clapton bore outside of marriage, it is clear that Eric Clapton is not, by any means, a traditional conservative Christian.

On account of Clapton's non-dogmatic religious life, and on account of Clapton's moderate, sentimental nature, I find his relationship with a real God both fascinating and extremely inspiring. After the death of Eric's son Conor, Clapton writes:

I cannot deny that there was a moment when I did lose faith, and what saved my life was the unconditional love and understanding that I received from my friends and my fellows in the twelve-step program. I would go to a meeting and people would just quietly gather round and keep me company, buy me coffee, and let me talk about what happened. I was asked to chair some meetings, and at one of these sessions, when I was doing a chair on the third step, which is about handing your will over to the care of God, I recounted the story of how, during my last stay in [the rehabilitation center of] Hazelden, I had fallen upon my knees and asked for help to stay sober. I told the meeting that the compulsion was taken away at that moment, and as far as I was concerned, this was physical evidence that my prayers had been answered. Having had that experience, I said, I knew I could get through this.
A woman came up to me after the meeting and said, "You've just taken away my last excuse to have a drink." I asked her what she meant. She said, "I've always had this little corner of my mind which held the excuse that, if anything were to happen to my kids, then I'd be justified in getting drunk. You've shown me that's not true." I was suddenly aware that maybe I had found a way to turn this dreadful tragedy into something positive. I really was in the position to say, "Well, if I can go through this and stay sober, then anyone can." At that moment I realized that there was no better way of honoring the memory of my son. (pp. 245-246)

GOOD GOD!
Eric Clapton's twelve-step program may call for a relationship with God, but what kind of relationship with God does Clapton develop?

Recalling his second stint in a rehabilitation facility (before the death of his son Conor), Clapton writes of his first serious experience of speaking to God:

My second visit to [the rehabilitation center of] Hazelden was, on the face of it, much like the first, but on a deeper level it was very different. This time I had no reservations about why I was there--I had tried to control my drinking and failed... Also, my life had become very complicated and completely unmanageable during my relapse. I now had two children, neither of whom I was really administering to, a broken marriage, assorted bewildered girlfriends, and a career that, although it was still ticking over, had lost its direction. I was a mess.
...I kept coming back to the thought of Conor, the reality of his life and what it required of me, and the horrible possibility that if I didn't get it right this time, history would probably repeat itself. The thought of him going through all that was what finally made the difference. I had to break the chain and give him what I had never really had--a father.
Nevertheless, I stumbled through my month in treatment much as I had done the first time, just ticking off the days, hoping that something would change in me without me having to do much about it. Then one day, as my visit was drawing to an end, a panic hit me, and I realized that in fact nothing had changed in me, and that I was going back out into the world again completely unprotected. The noise in my head was deafening, and drinking was in my thoughts all the time. It shocked me to realize that here I was in a treatment center, a supposedly safe environment, and I was in serious danger. I was absolutely terrified, in complete despair.
At that moment, almost of their own accord, my legs gave way and I fell to my knees. In the privacy of my room I begged for help. I had no notion who I thought I was talking to, I just knew that I had come to the end of my tether, I had nothing left to fight with. Then I remembered what I had heard about surrender, something I thought I could never do, my pride just wouldn't allow it, but I knew that on my own I wasn't going to make it, so I asked for help, and, getting down on my knees, I surrendered.
Within a few days I realized that something had happened for me. An atheist would probably say it was just a change of attitude, and to a certain extent that's true, but there was much more to it than that. I had found a place to turn to, a place I'd always known was there but never really wanted, or needed, to believe in. From that day until this, I have never failed to pray in the morning, on my knees, asking for help, and at night, to express gratitude for my life and, most of all, for my sobriety. I choose to kneel because I feel I need to humble myself when I pray, and with my ego, this is the most I can do.
If you are asking why I do all this, I will tell you... because it works, as simple as that. In all this time that I've been sober, I have never once seriously thought of taking a drink or a drug. I have no problem with religion, and I grew up with a strong curiosity about spiritual matters, but my searching took me away from church and community worship to the internal journal. Before my recovery began, I found my God in music and the arts, with writers like Hermann Hesse, and musicians like Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, and Little Walter. In some way, in some form, my God was always there, but now I have learned to talk to him. (pp. 234-236)

WE ARE THE KNIGHTS WHO SAY KNEE!
Clapton may not have known to whom he was speaking at first, but he still directed whatever he was saying to Whoever would listen. Without a prior firm belief in a God, Clapton still had prayers to say, so he said them. Without a previous history of kneeling in classic Christian prayer, Clapton--born as a Christian--kneeled in his prayer.

In some ways, kneeling is very Christian-sounding, and in some ways, it is very Jewish-sounding. Of course though, much of Christianity is naturally very Jewish-sounding. The very idea of kneeling in prayer has become associated with Christian worship. However, the Hebrew words Birkayim ברכים ("knees") and Barukh ברוך ("blessed") come from the same root that, in Semitic languages, have become associated with both blessings and the movements of our knees. Although the exact choreography differs in the prayer services of each religion, Judaism, Christianity and Islam each have liturgical movements associated with the knees: whether we are bending the knees and bowing, kneeling, or lying flat on our arms and knees.

When Eric Clapton says that his "legs gave away," in some sense his legs also gave a way: a way for Eric Clapton to access God. Familiar with Christianity, Clapton's legs "choose to kneel".

For Clapton, to kneel is to be humbled. And of course, becoming physically humbled is key to prayer in the three Major Abrahamic religions: whether we are covering our heads, covering up our bodies, uncovering our heads, kneeling, lying flat on the ground, or expressing our humility through other phrases in our traditional body language.

HELLO? IS THIS THING WORKING?
The prayers worked. Eric Clapton says, "it works, as simple as that." Eric Clapton isn't speaking of a God who talks directly back to him or a God who is spreading seas and saving peoples. In fact, Clapton does not tell us exactly what God does do in the world. This God is not necessarily active in affecting our free will, but this God is real and so are the results of Clapton's prayers!

Clapton says that this relationship with God is more than "a change of attitude," for he found a special "place to turn to." God is hard to define, and, in Judaism, God goes by many monickers¹, among them Makom (מקום), the Hebrew word for "Place." A place does not literally speak, but the presence of a place may speak to one's heart. A place can become a sacred space for reflection, for connection, or for whatever activities with which we fill the void.

Where Clapton finds voids, Clapton prays to the God who listens and understands (but does not necessarily act!). After Clapton has poured out his heart, it is then up to Clapton himself to take responsibility for his actions: to put down the bottle, to quit smoking, to settle into a family and to learn daily lessons in life. But without his daily humbled prayers to God, Clapton's ego will destroy him.

Clapton's God may not directly solve Clapton's problems for him, but Clapton prays to God because "it works" for one to place faith in a power greater than one's self and then to act on one's own behalf daily: to admit and to submit to the humility of humanity².

DAY AND NIGHT
In the morning, Clapton seeks a goal in "asking [God] for help" and, at night, recalls what he's achieved by "express[ing] gratitude for... life and... sobriety." Checking in with God twice a day may suffice.

In the Rabbinic memory of the early Israelite religion, Korbanot (קרבנות) ("sacrifices," literally "approaches," the standard way of reaching out to God through burnt offerings) were required in the morning and afternoon: twice a day. Remnants of the Korbanot would be sacrificed at night. When the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed for the last time in 70 CE and prayer was instituted, prayer was assumed to be obligatory in the morning and afternoon, and, whatever energy people had left for prayer would be left for nighttime prayer. But, the Rabbis assumed that people would be engaged in Jewish liturgy at nighttime, for the Rabbis believed it was necessary to recite the biblical passages of the Shema in the morning and night³.

Clapton isn't trying to keep up with Judaism per se, but Clapton is in good hands when it comes to creating a lifestyle that is resonant with Judaism. He is praying twice a day, which is very Jewish on multiple levels.

DON'T FORGET TO HIT SAVE
Clapton prays and, though he's not a traditional guy, he follows some nice traditions. Clapton says it works. But, why does he have to pray to God specifically? Why doesn't he just think hard and carefully and act properly under his own volition?

It's tough for most people who pray to articulate the benefits of prayer, but Clapton himself sees gifts from God in the end. Most clearly, Clapton speaks of finding salvation or God in the music he hears or the music he makes. To hear God in music after praying to God must be to engage in a truly divine dialogue: to speak to God in prayer and to hear God respond in song.

Further, who knows what else God does or does not do in our lives? Clapton, the ego, must humble himself and know that there is much that he will never know. When he delved most deeply into his vices, Clapton could not control himself. He remembers a time in his life when he would

"jam and jam and jam and night would become day and day would become night... and [I] kept [myself] going with fryups and a cocktail of drink and drugs, mostly cocaine and... quite strong sleeping pills, but instead of letting them put [me] to sleep, [I] would ride the effect, staying awake by snorting some coke or drinking some brandy or vodka, and that would create a unique kind of high... God knows how [my] bod[y] stood it." (123)

Clapton claims not to be much of a talker or a writer, so it cannot be Eric Clapton's job to tell us exactly what it is that God did do for Clapton personally. But it is clear that Clapton realized that there may have been a force outside of his own body trying to keep him alive. Only after the realization of an external force though did Clapton learn to talk to God and to believe in and to appreciate God's favor: to become the benefactor of miracles.

Though his substance abuse could have killed him, something beyond his body kept Clapton going. Clapton, a former member of Blind Faith, began his "internal journey" as a practitioner of blind faith and, only then, gained the ability to open his eyes and see God.

A FEW LAST WORDS
Again, Clapton: The Autobiography, like any successful life-story is the story of Teshuvah, but what I found most fascinating in this book was this subplot of how God came into Eric Clapton's life. To hear of an impoverished child who grows into a philanthropist is certainly incredible. To read of the maladjusted schoolboy who finally finds his way to success in the world is almost inconceivable. To see an inconsolable, introverted drug addict kick the habit and become a family man is almost unbelievable. But I find most shocking here the miracle that, in a world where God is proclaimed dead and a world where religions are blamed for wars, a man named Eric, who had lost control and had succumbed to despair and near-suicide, found salvation and stability in an imperfect world just because he began to believe.

NOTES:
1. God having multiple names reflects the different understandings of God. This does not imply that there are multiple Gods necessarily. Similarly, some theologians argue that Hinduism, which preaches of many Gods, is preaching of multiple identities of one Deity. I personally do believe that God comes in many forms, in different forms, to different peoples and to different people.

2. One of my favorite Jewish adages, which I learned from Rabbi Dr. Stuart Grant, goes something like, "When I pray to God, I pray as if everything depends on God. When I act, I act as if everything depends on me." This Orthodox frame of mind realizes that nothing can be left to solely human or solely divine devices. In the big picture, both God and humanity must bring about the changes we need in life. Reconstructionist Judaism has often preached of God as--not a supernatural and divine being--but the collective goodwill or altruistic impulse of ourselves and our communities. I do believe that, like all streams of Judaism, Eric Clapton treads that fine line that distinguishes between human willpower and divine will. Yet, neither Clapton nor Judaism deny that our prayers are some of the most important steps we make on our quests to reach our goals.

3. "The passages of the Shema" broadly refers to Devarim (דברים) (Deutereonomy) 6:4-9 and 11:13-21 and Bemidbar (במדבר) (Numbers) 15:37-41. Mishnah Berakhot's rationales (1:3, 1:5) for the daily and nightly recitation are the recurrence of the phrase ובשכבך ובקומך ("when you lie down and when you get up") in the first two selections and the biblical command in Devarim 16:3 for Israelites to recall the exodus from Egypt (as mentioned in the third selection) during כל ימי חייך "the entirety of your days."

All Giving All for Wisdom

2009-07-13T21:50:00.000-07:00

In Massekhet Sotah 21b, I read with Gabe Seed the following excerpt tonight:

אומר בן עזאי חייב אדם ללמד את וכו' ר' אליעזר אומר כל המלמד את בתו תורה מלמדה תיפלות:
The Mishnah taught: Ben Azzai taught that men were obligated to teach Torah to their daughters. Rabbi Eliezer taught that anyone who teaches his daughter Torah is teaching her indecency.

תיפלות ס"ד אלא אימא כאילו למדה תיפלות
The Talmud teaches: "Indecency!?" I would think rather that--and I'd say--"is similar to having taught her indecency!"

א"ר אבהו מ"ט דר"א דכתיב (משלי ח) אני חכמה שכנתי ערמה כיון שנכנסה חכמה באדם נכנסה עמו ערמומית
Rabbi Abbahu taught: What's the reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer? It is written in Proverbs 8:12, "I, Wisdom, live with Ormah (Prudence)." When wisdom enters a person, Armumit (shrewdness) enters alongside it.

ורבנן האי אני חכמה מאי עבדי ליה מיבעי ליה לכדרבי יוסי בר' חנינא דא"ר יוסי בר' חנינא אין
דברי תורה מתקיימין אלא במי שמעמיד עצמו ערום עליהן שנאמר אני חכמה שכנתי ערמה
But our rabbis teach: This passage of "I, Wisdom..."--how does it play out? It must be interpreted in accordance with Rabbi Yosey in the name of Rabbi Chaninah. For Rabbi Yosey taught in the name of Rabbi Chaninah: The words of Torah can only exist in a person who stands one's self up arum (naked) upon the words of Torah because it is said "I, Wisdom, live with Ormah."

א"ר יוחנן אין דברי תורה מתקיימין אלא במי שמשים עצמו כמי שאינו שנאמר (איוב כח) והחכמה מאין תמצא:
Rabbi Yochanan taught: The words of Torah can only exist in a person who posits one's self she'eyno (as non-existent), because it says in Job 28:12, "But me'eyn (where) can wisdom be found?"

The Talmud teaches us that wisdom, synonymous with Torah, is married to ערמה (ormah), which has many meanings. That minority of rabbis who fear for the worst say that this word implies deceit: when we are wise, we may use our intellect for the worst. The majority of rabbis teach though that ערמה (ormah) is nakedness, what Rashi interprets as "שפירש עליה עני וחסר כל שמערים שיתקיים תורתו" ("when one impoverishes one's self to the point of lacking all; to strip one's self in order to uphold Torah"). But, Rabbi Yochanan gets the final word here and clarifies that living Torah can only be achieved with the humility of a nobody.

The id who loves wisdom can use that wisdom for corruption. Rather, to make use of wisdom righteously, we have to denude ourselves of our ulterior motives--or else our wisdom can become an offense. In order to become somebody through wisdom, we have to start off as nobody.

In the Jewish community, we should not worry about women studying Torah. We should worry about women not studying Torah. Similarly, we should worry about anybody who has ever been a nobody not studying Torah. At some point, whether in history or in our own lives, we have each been a nobody.

Being anonymous is a universal experience, and the best route for emerging from the unknown is our pursuit of wisdom together.

A Story of Salvation from Forks and Maps

2009-07-11T22:46:00.001-07:00

For a long time, I have wanted to blog about some of the Jewish teachings I like that I have come across in my studies: whether it be the studies I conduct on my own, or when I study with friends.

There is more truth in the world than I will ever know, but I would like to share the few and brief truths that I do learn.

I don't know how often I can show my findings here, but I'd like to do so whenever I have something worthwhile to share.

In Massekhet Sotah (מסכת סוטה) of the Babylonian Talmud (תלמוד בבלי) Page 21 Side A (כא:א), there is a story of a man traveling insecurely:

משל לאדם שהיה מהלך באישון לילה ואפילה ומתיירא מן הקוצים ומן הפחתים ומן הברקנים ומחיה רעה ומן הליסטין ואינו יודע באיזה דרך מהלך
A story of a person who was walking during the slumber hours of night and darkness, and he was afraid of thorns, of pits, of thistles, of nasty wildlife, and of thieves, and he didn't which way he was going:

נזדמנה לו אבוקה של אור ניצל מן הקוצים ומן הפחתים ומן הברקנים ועדיין מתיירא מחיה רעה ומן הליסטין ואינו יודע באיזה דרך מהלך
A ray of light appeared for him, and he was saved from the thorns, from the pits, and from the thistles; however, he was still afraid of nasty wildlife and of thieves, and he didn't know which way he was going!

כיון שעלה עמוד השחר ניצל מחיה רעה ומן הלסטין ועדיין אינו יודע באיזה דרך מהלך
When dawn came, he was saved from nasty wildlife and from thieves; however, he didn't know which way he was going!

הגיע לפרשת דרכים ניצל מכולם
He arrived at a parashat derakhim, and he was saved from everything!

The question that the medieval commentator Rashi (רש"י), the Talmud, my study partner Gabe Seed and I all had in common next was this: what does parashat derakhim mean?

Gabe's immediate thought was that parashat derakhim should be translated as "the splitting of the paths," or "crossroads," or "a fork in the road."

But, the root of the word parashat (פרש) can mean, aside from "separation" or "splitting," "explanation." So, I read this differently and said that parashat derakhim meant "an explanation of the paths" or "a map."

Rashi and the Talmud do not have a clear answer to the question, but they entertain multiple answers, each having to do with either observing or studying Torah: truth.

In short, the Talmud here teaches that we can find all sorts of benefits in nature to ease our worries about the physical world. But, when it comes down to finding direction in the world, we can only save ourselves by approaching the fork in the road, or by approaching the map. When we do not know where we are, our only answer is either a question or an answer.

Will we save ourselves by asking questions, or will we save ourselves by finding answers?

I say that we must do both.

A Modern Jewish Review of Female Chauvanist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture

2009-07-09T09:46:00.000-07:00

WARNING: This content may be unsuitable for children under the age of 12. This text contains adult content and refers to content with strong language.

A Modern Jewish Review of Female Chauvanist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture

A SECULAR READ

I found this book to be extremely important for understanding the moral issues surrounding the role that sexuality currently plays in American popular culture.

Ariel Levy makes a strong case for there being a problem of many American women giving in to expectations of male chauvanism and calling that giving in "empowerment." Levy ultimately brings the point home and shows that young girls are all too often confused and manipulated into conceding their sexual choices to the unrealistic and sexist expectations of male chauvanists. Levy examines both the hesitant girls who are pressured into being featured nude in Girls Gone Wild videos and the businesswoman in the TV and film industry who sell the images of women's bodies. Though these persons claim that offering these sexual conveniences to heterosexual males proves women's sexual liberation--because women are playing an active role in the creation of a sexual culture--Levy argues that women creating a sexual culture that portrays women as sexual objects is ultimately counterintuitive to the feminist goals of an egalitarian society. Levy proposes that, instead of creating a society in which men and women are equal, American women in the 21st century are just playing by the rules of (and attempting to enjoy) a sexist game designed by trashy sexual values.

THE JEWISH READER
Personally, as a moderate, observant Jew concerned with the clash between the demands of American sexual culture and Jewish ethics, I found the book to be a compelling re-evaluation of secular sexual values. My concerns as a Jew, with regard to American sexual culture, amount to three major things:
(1) non-marital sex (and other forms of non-marital sexual activity),
(2) fashions of dress (and their sexually provacative implications),
(3) and the equality of men and women (and those who may feel they do not classify as either men or women) in all parts of life.

The reason that these matter to me as an observant Jew, and not just as a human being, is that, historically, Judaism (unlike many religions) has seen sexuality as holy. Therefore, sexuality, the sacred expression of sensuality between God's creatures, is very personal and should be reserved as much as possible for only sanctified relationships. Judaism sees the benefits of immense sexual pleasure in holy relationships, but Judaism finds sexual pleasure gained through nonsacred relationships to be harmful to the sanctity of sexuality within a holy union.

I ABSTAIN
Hypothetically, sex only in the context of marriage might sound reasonable. But Levy writes that statistics show that abstinence-only education (teaching that sex must be preserved solely for marriage) does not work for most people. Levy argues instead that teens should be taught about birth control and the positive and negative effects of sexual activity. Since she is writing from a scientific and secular standpoint (and not a perspective of Jewish ethics), Levy acknowledges that consensual sex is a frequently pleasurable activity. Levy says though that, since statistics show that people do not naturally wait until marriage for sex, people who believe that sex should be preserved for marriage must recognize sexual activities that are not sex itself (i.e. masturbation, groping, etc.) as reasonable ways to hold off on sexual intercourse until marriage.

Since Judaism permits masturbation (and has traditionally interpreted the story of Onan in Genesis as a sin of coitus interruptus, sexual intercourse that began but did not end), Jews can listen to Levy's advice on masturbation. But is masturbation the only sexual pleasure that may be attained by Jews before marriage?

DO NOT TOUCH?
Many observant Jewish communities often observe Shemirat Negi'ah (refraining from touching a non-family-member of the opposite gender). From a very literal or traditional standpoint, this would imply that, when a Jewish male and female who observe Shemirat Negi'ah are dating, they will not hold hands, hug, kiss, or touch each other at all because they are not married. If they get married though, they can engage in regular sexual relations with each other (since they are still observing Shemirat Negi'ah with everybody else to whom they still aren't related).

However, it is important that modern observant Jews realize the excessively stringent and contradictory nature of Shemirat Negi'ah today. It would seem that the purpose of Shemirat Negi'ah is to avoid any form of touching between the sexes to be understood as sexual. But if the purpose of this traditional form of Shemirat Negi'ah is to avoid sexually arousing Jews, then the system does not work for Jewish homosexuals. Even if homosexuals were prohibited from touching non-family members of the same gender and unrelated heterosexuals of the opposite gender, then the only non-family members whom homosexuals would be able to touch would be homosexual non-family members of the opposite gender. As Judaism values Mar'at Ayin (how a situation appears to fellow Jews), the sight of an observant Jew who will only touch Jews of the opposite gender creates an awkward and uncomfortable social rift for homosexuals: a denigrating of homosexuals that is a violation of Kevod Ha-Beriyyot (honoring the dignity of one's fellow human beings). As Judaism welcomes people of all sexual orientations, Shemirat Negi'ah, in order to fulfill its intentions for a complete community that may include homosexuals (let alone bisexuals), would have to call for no touching whatsoever between any two Jews who are not related¹.

A Jewish community where no two unrelated Jews may touch each other would mean no handshakes, no hugs, no arms gathered in dance, no pats on the back, and no social pleasantries or rituals that would involve any sort of physical contact! This would create for a dead community, and I do not believe that any society can expect to operate under these conditions.

Yet, it is comforting to know that the intellectually honest Orthodox Jewish world is re-evaluating Shemirat Negi'ah. Rabbi Avi Weiss, founder of the Open Orthodox rabbinical school, Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, is known as a "hugger." As a "hugger," Rabbi Weiss will hug men and women as a simple greeting of "Welcome." Also, when I visited Yeshivat Chovevei Torah on May 18 2009, Director of Student Services Ruthie Strosberg Simon greeted me with a handshake upon meeting me in person. Beyond Rabbi Weiss's school, I know many observant (and many Orthodox) Jews who will shake hands, hug or high-five Jews of the opposite sex. The honest Jewish world knows that hugs and handshakes are not sexual, and they know that these gestures are extremely comforting to the strangers and friends among us.

TISSUE!? I HARDLY KNOW YOU!
As honest re-evaluation breaks down the stringency of Shemirat Negi'ah, the observant Jewish world must proceed to re-evaluate the permissive and prohibitive limits of non-marital sexual activity, most significantly in observant Jews who are dating. While permitting sex or even permitting oral sex, would be too close (if not absolutely identical) to sexual activities that observant Jews must reserve for marriage, I do not believe that kissing, hugging or hand-holding must be off-limits to a pair of observant Jews in a committed non-marital relationship. I believe that groping and similar activities that may be called "foreplay" may serve as a reasonable limit of sexual activity between two observant Jews². (On a technical and literal note though, these activities must be seen as premarital "peaks" or "limits", rather than premarital "foreplay" since "foreplay" would imply that the sexual arousal characteristic of foreplay is for the purposes of impending sexual intercourse.)

WHAT NOT TO WEAR (IN ACCORDANCE WITH JEWISH LAW)
Returning to Levy: though her book briefly discusses the effects and implications of fashion with regard to the remainder of American sexual philosophy, Levy makes very strong points in her intermittent comments on the sexual provokability of American fashion. Levy, aside from telling us her own thoughts, quotes a few ethnographic subjects (often teen girls or young adult women) who criticize modern fashions; for example, one girl refers to short skirts as "belts" since she feels that these skirts covered only about as much as belts would. Levy tells us of the problems feminism faces in the light of low-cut shirts, visible (and provacative) underwear (or lack thereof), low-riding jeans, and short skirts. The fact that feminists may be concerned that such clothes turn people into public sex products is not so different from the fact that observant Jews must be concerned that such clothes, when worn in public, are inclined to catch the sexual eyes of people outside of the kosher sexual relationship3.

The Jewish concern with dress, Tzeni'ut, demands that women wear skirts with lengths that differ from community to community, that men wear pants of lengths that differ from community to community, that both men and women wear shirts with sleeves of particular lengths that also differ from community to community--and all sorts of other demands that differ from community to community. Since the laws and traditions of Tzeni'ut are various and complicated, all I can recommend for the observant Jew is that he or she dress, when in public, in a way that comfortably does not reveal or invite examination of one's thighs, buttocks, genitalia, back, stomach, chest or shoulders. In line with Levy's vision of an egalitarian society, I believe that such "modest" dress helps guarantee a society in which people of all genders are respected for their internal character and judged less by their physique.

A FEW LAST WORDS
Ultimately, I believe that a society where heterosexual men do not expect heterosexual women to be sex objects (and vice versa) and where heterosexual women are not heterosexual men's sex objects (and vice versa) is a society wherein heterosexual men and women can be on equal footing: earning the same respect, enjoying the same social groups, learning the same intellectual truths, making the same money, and so on.

Similarly, just as Levy finds sexual debasement among homosexuals to be emulations of heterosexual debasement (most often of women), the creation of a truly egalitarian society among heterosexuals helps--and is necessitated by--a society wherein homosexual men or women do not expect the homosexual members of their fellow gender to be sex objects and will not be sex objects for each other.

Even though I saw her on The Colbert Report and she has been on NPR, I do not know whether or not Ariel Levy is the leading voice in feminism today. And even though you're reading this sentence, I do not believe that I am the leading voice in today's moderate, open, observant Judaism (and nobody has ever told me that I am). Yet, I believe that my Judaism is compatible with Levy's feminism in the end. I find that both Levy and I are interested in all of us building a society that preserves the integrity and exclusive intimacies of sexuality for the right times and places so that each of us can see one another as stronger people all the time.

NOTES:
1. While homosexual activity is often forbidden in traditional streams of Judaism, many traditional streams of Judaism do recognize homosexuality as a psychological inclination--..not just instances of sinful behavior. Whether or not a stream of Judaism has ruled against any homosexual behavior, nearly every stream of Judaism that believes homosexuality to be a psychological disposition calls for some form of dignified recognition of homosexuals in the Jewish community.

2. I believe that the sexual limits of a normative Jewish relationship is a limit that may be determined by the two dating Jews themselves or, if they feel uncomfortable designating a limit for themselves, by a Jewish authority whose advising they can comfortably seek. Some couples may be comfortable not kissing until the wedding, and some couples may be uncomfortable without groping before marriage.

3. The largest exception to my advice may be in beachwear. I have never seen a man choose trousers and a long-sleeved shirt as regular swimwear, and I've never seen a woman swim in a skirt and long-sleeved shirt. I believe that the permissibility of beachwear is a sub-category of Tzeni'ut that would require more knowledge on the subject that I can offer at the time of this writing.

Tolerating Rock Music and the Jews

2009-03-31T21:25:00.000-07:00

I just realized that I had the following recently published at http://www.koach.org/koc_5769_nisan_culture.htm of the Koach E-Zine:

My three favorite songs from The Doobie Brothers are "Listen to the Music," "Black Water," and "Jesus Is Just Alright"—not for their lyrical content though. "Listen to the Music" is a simple message, "Black Water" has a lot of grammatical errors (like "I ain't got no worries/I ain't in no hurry"), and I don't strongly agree with the theological undertones of "Jesus Is Just Alright." But I love classic rock, and The Doobie Brothers always put on great concerts.

When I was in middle school and just getting into classic rock, pop, and other music genres, I loved the tunes of "Jesus Is Just Alright," ELP's "I Believe in Father Christmas," and Elton John's "Step Into Christmas." The music didn't pull me away from Judaism and I'm sure that 70s-rock fans who proudly observe Christmas get kicks hearing Christian songs by their favorite artists. These songs are a win-win situation: good music for everyone and great lyrics for those with Christian pride. However, these Christian songs from secular-rock musicians made me wonder why there were so few Jewish songs from secular-rock musicians.

The question of why there were so few Jewish songs from secular-rock musicians made me really wonder: why were there so few secular rock-musicians—or, for that matter, professional performers of secular music—who are outwardly Jewish? We live in a free country where Christians can sing songs with Christian overtones. So, why would Billy Joel, a self-proclaimed "Jewish boy from Long Island", sing of Christmas in "She's Right On Time" or "Christmas in Fallujah"? Why has Neil Diamond—having sung "Kol Nidrei" in The Jazz Singer and "Havah Nagilah" in Keeping Up With the Steins—despite his proud Jewish heritage, released two Christmas albums? Why would Randy Newman—who speaks passionately of anti-Semitism he's faced and the uniqueness of his being a Jew—even write "Christmas In Capetown," or declare in his autobiographical "Dixie Flyer," "Christ, [we] wanted to be gentiles too/Who wouldn't out there? Wouldn't you?" Are so few musicians outwardly Jewish because it's more comfortable to be a gentile?

It's never been challenging to be Christian in the United States, but the ethnocentrism that comes so automatically to people—the assumption that everyone around us would, or should, have our own cultural values—has made Judaism, and other minority religions, hard to practice in a country where most citizens attend a Christian church. In the music industry, Christian music has always been possible to promote, but many Jews in the industry have found themselves in the position of a late 70s Bob Dylan—flirting with Christianity—or the position of Steely Dan's Walter Becker and Donald Fagen—severely hanging onto religious apathy, agnosticism or atheism and hardly recognizing their Jewish roots.

Today, Bob Dylan rarely sings definitely of Christianity. He's even been spotted in synagogue lately on High Holidays, so we know that "The Times They Are A-Changin'." In fact, when The Barenaked Ladies, They Might Be Giants, The LeeVees and other artists release the occasional Hanukah pop song, when singer-songwriter Peter Himmelman and, now, Leonard Cohen claim to observe Shabbat and when one of the biggest hip-hop acts in New York is Chassidic reggae star Matisyahu, it sounds like today's American Jews hardly live in the country where Randy Newman was born.

While I'm a full-time student in New York City, I'm also a part-time musician. It's been especially inspiring for me to be in touch with pianist/singer-songwriter Brian Gelfand and to play on a demo disc with bandleader and solo artist Avi Fox-Rosen, both of whom work professionally for Jewish communities in the tri-state area. In December, I was invited to the second installment of the Uptown Salon, hosted by singer-songwriters Andrés Wilson and Asia Mei, both of whom are also involved in the New York Jewish community. The Salon, a forum for presenting and discussing arts—poetry, visual arts, music, and more—has attracted the likes of other musicians involved in their Jewish communities, such as multi-instrumentalist extraordinaire C.J. Glass, pianist/singer-songwriter Scott Stein and others. Between musicians I've met at the Salon and knowing of so many other openly Jewish musicians—like Lara Torgovnik, Naomi Less, Michelle Citrin, and others—I'm excited to be part of a growing world of proud Jewish artists right in my very own town.

American Jews have come a long way just so they can be themselves. I find nothing ironic about making secular music and being Jewish, and the United States is becoming increasingly tolerant and welcoming of minorities. Being Jewish is just alright by me; just listen to the music.

Jonah Rank, recording his 3rd and 4th solo albums now, is a junior at the Joint Program of Columbia University and the Jewish Theological Seminary and works as a Gabbai at JTS.

The TRUE Truth About ABBA and JMJM

2008-08-30T18:43:00.001-07:00

I want to clear up something very, very important.

Recently, I released a satirical song titled "Genetic Test" that was the hypothetical ABBA song that would have been included in Mamma Mia! and would have resolved the plot of the show by virtue of a genetic test discovering in fact who Sophie's father is. In promoting this song, I made the mistake of claiming that this song was rejected by ABBA from me in 1973 back when I was their primary songwriter. However, this is not true. In 1973, I was neither alive nor a primary songwriter for any Swedish pop groups. Furthermore, I fabricated a letter from the members of ABBA in which the band rejected "Genetic Test". This fabricated letter was also never written by ABBA; furthermore, it was never read by ABBA. Initially, these went by largely unnoticed; however, after my song appeared on YouTube in the form of a fan music video from a non-existent fan, backed by the story of a band named JMJM that, despite having real human beings performing on the recording of "Genetic Test", was a band solely assembled initially for the recording of "Genetic Test", these tidbits became noticed. Although I included mention of my later date of birth in many of my webpages (and, now, in the information on the song's YouTube video), the information, by being located in separate sites, might not have been obvious to new listeners.

Yet, as I mentioned, I have unfortunately gone about promoting this song improperly, and I will be changing the fashion in which I'll be advertising this song in the future. And despite the controversy that this song has caused, I do hope that this song will appear more appropriately, promoted in a different light, on an upcoming comedy album which I am in the midst of recording.

To all those aware of the TRUE story of my song "Genetic Test", I apologize for any confusion or hard feelings that my improper promotion of this song may have caused.

A Few Notes Regarding Mamma Mia! the film

2008-08-05T07:41:00.001-07:00

NOTE (8/29/08): THE FOLLOWING IS NOT TRUE!

In yet a further attempt to deny my allegations that Benny Andersson and Björn Ulvaeus have taken the credit for years of work I put into writing the songs for ABBA, it seems that the film of Mamma Mia! changed certain facts around to hide further that I gave them the perfect song for the musical.

First off, Bill Austin became Bill Andersson: as if nobody would catch the heavy hand of Benny Andersson in that move.

Secondly: the date of August 15th was conspiratorially moved to August 11th.

Actually, that was the most that they had changed; though I didn't notice the first time that I saw the show that in fact Donna had a last name, as carved into the guitar with the initials D.S....

Don't give into the lies. The truth is clearly out, no matter what Benny and Björn say.

Untold stories: JMJM & ABBA

2008-07-07T13:40:00.000-07:00

NOTE (8/29/08): THE FOLLOWING IS NOT TRUE!

As we are eleven days away from the very sobering release of the film version of Mamma Mia!, it is hard for me to restrain myself from revealing the truth and telling the little-known story behind why Mamma Mia! has such little plot.

It all started in early 1970, when Mike Klein and I had begun to write songs for our local friends Benny Andersson and Björn Ulvaeus who were working on an album called Lycka, for which they wanted some original songs. At the time both Benny and Björn were going through a lull period of their songwriting careers, and they called upon Mike and me to write them a few songs that would fit their style. Mike and I each wrote a few songs and presented them to Benny and Björn, who fell in love with our songs. At the time it had not crossed either of our minds of that Mike and I should claim the copyrights to these songs, so we told Benny and Björn just to take these songs and consider them their own.

As neither Mike nor I were employed at the time, we just kept on writing more and more songs: all in a style that appealed to Benny and Björn specifically. As the songs piled up and we kept on giving them and their copyrights away to Benny and Björn, Mike and I had a realization: if we wanted to make it big in Sweden, we needed to be in a pop band with two female singers and two male singers whose first names’ first letters could form an acronym, and we needed more songs in English.

Acting upon our impulses, Mike and I hired Michal Mechlovitz and Jessie Winkler to sing our songs while Mike and I played guitar and piano respectively while singing very quietly in the background. In a burst of excitement, I knew I had to tell Benny and Björn the news of the potential success Mike and I were about to attain with Sweden’s biggest pop band with songs in English: JMJM! I wrote Benny and Björn a very lengthy and detailed letter explaining our theoretical formula for success. However, I did not hear back from either Benny or Björn for some time.

By the end of 1970, I knew that things would never be the same again between Benny and Björn, and Mike and me. I realized this one day when listening to a song of Benny and Björn’s on the radio, and I heard two female singers in the background. “Drat!” I thought. “They stole my idea of having two female singers in addition to two male singers!” However, I was contented that they had not stolen the ideas of having an acronym for a band name or having very many songs in English. Both of those were still trademarks of JMJM.

However, by 1973, I began to hear of Anni-Frid, Benny, Björn, and Agnetha being referred to as “ABBA”, and I noticed that more and more of the songs that they were singing were not only very familiar, but they also were in English. I knew that I should have stopped sending Benny and Björn the songs Mike and I were writing in English, but it was already too late. By September that year, Mike and I had already written and sent Benny and Björn every song that they were to record (and would claim to have written) over the next 34 years.

On the seventh day of October of 1973, I received a letter from Björn rejecting the final song I had sent him and Benny. This song was called “Genetic Test”, and it was the story of a young girl who wants her father to give her away at her wedding, but she needs a genetic test in order to find out who exactly her father is. (Although it is still unclear to me as to why this song was rejected, Björn’s letter regarding “The Missing Abba Song” has actually been reproduced in the last blog post on this website.)

Decades went by, ABBA nearly broke up, and neither Mike nor I had heard a word from Björn or Benny since the rejection letter from 1973. The first piece of news to come out that would interest me for a long time was the creation of Mamma Mia!, a musical with ABBA songs narrating a story about a young girl who, though she wants her father to give her away at her wedding, does not know who her father is. This query certainly could have been resolved with a genetic test, but as ABBA had rejected their one opportunity to include my song about a genetic test (namely, “Genetic Test”), there was no chance that the musical would have been able to resolve thusly the question of who the girl’s father was. For approximately a decade, I have remained silent and not offered my solution or the true story: that Mamma Mia! could have had a better resolution to the conflict in the story.

Yesterday, Michal, Jessie, Mike, and I reunited after a long hiatus of inactivity. The four of us recorded “Genetic Test” with newer technology than we did so many years ago (but we certainly gave it a bit of an older sound yesterday just for the fans!).

If you thought that there could have been so much more to the story of Mamma Mia!, then you are not alone. This international hit has been misunderstood and misrepresented throughout the world. However, the world need not wait any longer. The world can now appreciate JMJM’s gem: the missing ABBA song, “Genetic Test.”

Historical Proof of ABBA's Rejection of "Genetic Test"

2008-07-07T11:29:00.001-07:00

NOTE (8/29/08): THE FOLLOWING IS NOT TRUE!

My dear fans and friends:

Below is the authentic handwritten letter (reproduced here in the exact font most similar to Björn's very own handwriting) written to me several years ago from when ABBA collectively rejected "Genetic Test" (after having accepted so many of the other songs I had written them)!

Please do realize that had the band accepted this one song, Mamma Mia! would have had so much of a better and more sensible plot!

7 October 1973

Dear Jonah,

Say you forgive my errors in English in this letter. Writing from one Swede to another, there really should be no reason that you and I speak of business in English rather than Swedish, but I also do not know why we bother singing in English to begin with. Anyway, no time for crying about the Anglo-Saxon hegemonic state of the music business. Let's get started with my letter to the rock and roll band—namely yours, JMJM*.

Thank you for the music—for giving it to me. Benny "and the Jets" Andersson (that's what we call Benny nowadays) and I really like the melody for this song: not too many notes and not too musical either. And like you did before for our other songs, you arranged the song's ending such that it fades out. (I know Benny "and the Jets" Andersson didn't mind it, but I am offended when you write us up-tempo songs in Major keys that end with cadences rather than fade-outs; I can't stop myself from crying out loud whenever we go into the studio and try to record that "Boomerang" song you wrote us as I am so uncomfortable with the ending.)

Unfortunately, there is something different or in a way unique about this song. It's nothing special; in fact, it's a bit of a bore. And the song is funny but has no sense within the lyrics—that is to say, the lyrics make no sense. I really tried to make it out. I wish I understood. But, perhaps this could be none other than the final song in an incoherent musical about a young girl who needs to find out who her father is exactly. But that would be silly, for anybody could be that guy! Neither Benny "and the Jets" Andersson nor I have any use for a song of this type. If all history goes well, there never should be a need for such a song.

But, don't go wasting your emotion. I am not mad at you at all. Neither you nor I'm too blame when all is said and done. This "Genetic Test" song is neither a product of your adept craftsmanship as a songwriter nor our sincerest plagiarism as performers. It's time to forget this song, and I forgive you immediately for the best. This song you have sent me shall be known throughout Sweden and the hegemonic Euro-American world of pop music as "The Missing ABBA Song" if ever asked about.

Hasta manana,
Björn Ulvaeus

On behalf of myself, Benny "Hans Christian" Andersson**, Agnetha Fältskog and Anni-Frid Lyngstad

*Do send my best to Michal, Jessie, and Mike. I do also hope you change your names to form an acronym that will be found more euphonic and easier on the tongues and ears to the rest of the English-speaking world.

**Since beginning this letter, we have changed his nickname back to the old one.

Contemporary Music in Contemporary Hebrew for Contemporary Jews published by Koach

2007-09-23T08:14:00.000-07:00

I wrote the following article in August for the Tishrei 5768 edition of the Koach E-Zine. I have also published this article at my website, my WordPress, and my LiveJournal.

Contemporary Music in Contemporary Hebrew for Contemporary Jews

By Jonah Rank

One of my favorite parts of Talmud Torah, the lifelong commitment to Jewish study, is studying Jewish language. Today, Jewish language is more than the poetic language of rabbis; it is also the spoken language of the Jewish State. Today, it is just as important for us to be literate in the Hebrew we sing aloud or read in a siddur as it is to learn the Hebrew we’d speak in Israel.

Since 1948, many North American Jews have chosen to pronounce Hebrew the way Israelis pronounce Hebrew – no longer how 18th century Europeans would: many of us now say “Shabbat” (not “Shabbos”), “B’rit” (not “Bris”), “Etrog” (not “Esrog”), “Shavu`ot” (not “Sh’vuos”), and so on. Deciding to pronounce Hebrew as Israelis do also meant that we, like Israelis, now strived to understand the language of our ancestors.

Today, many of us now pronounce Hebrew more like Israelis than 18th Century German Jews, and many of us agree that we want to know what we sing about in shul – regardless of our level of understanding Hebrew. In spite of this changed frame of mind though, many of us still pray with tunes that, though we might not realize it, might no longer jive with a modern Jew’s attitude towards Hebrew prayer.

Many tunes we use for prayer today might make it hard for us to accent a word the way an Israeli would. For example, most tunes I know for “Lekhah Dodi” force me to sing “SHA-bat” (instead of “sha-BAT”, how Israelis pronounce “Shabbat”). These tunes were written for Jews who sang “Shabbos” (like “SHA-bos”) and emphasized that first syllable anyway, or these tunes were based on older tunes written for such Jews. In fact, this problem comes up with a good number of words in just about every other prayer – where we might sing “MIZ-mor” instead of “miz-MOR” or “le-HO-dot” instead of “le-ho-DOT” or all sorts of words that we unconsciously sing in an old-fashioned way.

Another pet peeve for the modern Jew: many of the tunes we use don’t reflect the prayers’ sentence structures. Take for example Psalm 29 (“Mizmor Ledavid: Havu Ladonay B’ney Elim…”). Nearly every tune I know for it has musical phrases that end in the middle of a sentence. In these tunes, the words “yecholel ayyalot”, for example, which are often connected to the next few words or marked with a comma, are sung as one would sing the end of a sentence. Though I always find the end of the musical phrase kind of catchy here, if the musical phrasing should match the phrasing of the actual words, then I have to admit that this music does not go with the flow of the language.

This past summer, in the midst of playing with my sound recording equipment (when I should have been doing work for summer classes), I decided that I would like to take up the prayer-language issues that I had only become aware of in the past few years.

In fact, I have begun composing new tunes: tunes where the words fit when pronounced in modern Israeli Hebrew; tunes where the musical and the grammatical phrasing match; and – most importantly – tunes that I hope the modern Jew would find catchy but not campy, didactic but not demeaning, and spirited, spiritual, and inspiring.

I have so far composed and written out sheet music for “Lekhah Dodi” and Psalm 29 (plus a few other prayer texts). My current plan is to finish setting all of Kabbalat Shabbat to new, modern tunes and, after recording them (to be released on CD by December 2008), to offer these modern tunes to all modern Jews interested, and to share the tunes with all of my own personal Tefillah communities.

Jonah is a sophomore at Columbia University and the Jewish Theological Seminary, where he studies music and Jewish music (respectively). Jonah's debut CD, Loud and Dumb, is available on iTunes. Jonah also prates at www.jonahrank.com almost daily.

Excerpt From The Writings of Mr. Scott A. Shay Discussing Conservative Judaism

2007-04-25T19:21:00.000-07:00

For a better visual presentation of this, please see http://www.jonahrank.com/article/368/excerpt-from-the-writings-of-mr-scott-a-shay-discussing-conservative-judaism

The following excerpt, from Chapter X of Getting Our Groove Back: How to Energize American Jewry by Mr. Scott A. Shay and published by Devora Publishing (December 1, 2006), has been reprinted with the permission of Mr. Shay and Devora

(Numbers in brackets refer to my footnotes ["fn"] at the bottom of the entry.)

The Causes for the Conservative Movement’s Decline

Conservative Jews feel that the Movement’s lack of effective leadership and institutional failings have caused the Movement’s decline. As Professor Susan Hodge writes, “It is a half joking, half bitter catchword among some of us that the Conservative Movement has contempt for Conservative Jews. The Movement also has self-perpetuating bureaucracies that are out of touch with us and don’t respect or even welcome us, the ordinary Jews living our lives.” Dr. Jacob Ukeles, a consultant to The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism[1], wrote after his involvement in a three-year effort to design a strategic plan to reorganize The United Synagogue’s twenty-two separate departments and fifteen regional offices that progress has been “glacially slow.” As of 2006, five years have passed since The United Synagogue[1] first identified the need for institutional reform, yet little has changed. The Conservative Movement bureaucracy makes the U.S. Department of Agriculture[2] appear positively dynamic. To put it bluntly, the leadership of Conservative Judaism is floundering in a bureaucratic quagmire.

The Conservative Movement’s recent failure to address the decline of Conservative Jewish education in a constructive way underscores the laity’s criticism of the Movement’s leadership. Because of a lack of vision and a spirit of frustration, some Conservative leaders have begun to gratuitously criticize the Movement’s flagship day schools, the Solomon Schechter[3] system. While correctly bemoaning the Conservative Movement’s failure to devote anywhere near adequate attention or resources to congregational schools, some have gone a step further by calling for an end to the “overemphasis on day schools.” Others have claimed it was a “massive failure to put the emphasis we do on day schools” and that “the damage done has been horrendous.” Rather than simultaneously accentuate the positive aspects of day schools and advocate additional focus on congregational schools, Conservative leaders are pitting one form of education against another needlessly. Tragically, this unnecessary fighting has contributed to the stagnation of Solomon Schechter Day School[3] enrollment and has led many of the Movement’s best and brightest leaders to focus solely on non-denominational community day schools. Moreover, none of this bickering has led the Conservative Movement to devote additional resources to Hebrew schools; rather, all recent additional resource allocations to Conservative Hebrew schools have come primarily from community organizations such as the UJA-Federation of New York[4] and groups of national unaffiliated philanthropists. The Reform Movement has contributed most of the new methods for teaching and organizing Hebrew schools. For many Conservative Jews, the fight over Jewish education is only the most recent example of the Movement’s lack of leadership.

There are also, to be fair, external reasons for the accelerating decline of the Conservative Movement. A fundamental reason for the Conservative Movement’s success from 1945 until the 1970s was that the Movement corresponded to American society’s general desire for “moderation” and “homogenization” and occurred at a time when Americans generally, and Jews specifically, moved to the suburbs. As Marshal Sklare argues, in his book Jews on the Suburban Frontier, the combination of these two phenomena created the perfect environment for Conservative Judaism to flourish. Sklare claims that the Conservative Movement was in a way tailor made for the “Lakeville” or suburban Jew. The 82% of Lakeville Jews who were born Orthodox but wished to flee Orthodoxy were looking for a synagogue environment that was comfortable and not so concerned with theology. These Jews were naturally drawn to Conservative synagogues, because they had a lot of Hebrew in the service, including all the traditional parts of the service (such as Musaf), and a Jewishly observant and devout rabbi. Conservatism’s primary virtue was that it did not fall under either “extreme” of Reform or Orthodox. In recent decades, however, American society has become more comfortable with diverse and more narrowly focused groups. Few people still feel the need to moderate their views to become more comfortable with diverse and more narrowly focused groups. Few people still feel the need to moderate their views to become part of a larger group, and emerging adults no longer need a “compromise synagogue” between their practices and the practices of their parents. Instead, young Conservative Jews today want a Judaism that focuses on their own spiritual needs. The result of this social shift has been the steady decline of Conservative Judaism over the past two decades.

Unfortunately, it seems as though the Conservative Movement leadership has deliberately ignored the societal changes around them. The Conservative Movement leadership can be compared to the character “Hem” in the widely read parable of “Who Moved My Cheese[5].” In this story two “little people,” Hem and Haw, discover that after many years of finding and enjoying cheese from one spot in a large maze, one day the cheese is suddenly no longer there. In fact, the cheese had been slowly diminishing over time; Hem and Haw had simply not noticed. But although Haw leaves his old spot – albeit with much tribulation and some self-doubt – and ultimately succeeds in finding a new spot with more cheese than ever, Hem refuses to leave. Instead, Hem nurtures his confusion and resentment about the possible reasons why there is no more cheese but takes no action. He just keeps blaming others for the movement of the cheese, and yet is still somehow comforted by being able to go to the same place where there used to be cheese even though it no longer offers any food. Although the parable holds out some hope, Hem presumably starves to death. Conservative Jews in the pews and working pulpit rabbis have been witnessing the slow decline in the Conservative Movement’s leadership for years and are understandably central organs. Others have just voted with their feet.

Additional Controversies that threaten the Conservative Movement

The Conservative Movement is currently grappling with two issues that threaten its ability to remain unified. These issues are the ban[6] on gays and lesbians entering rabbinical school and the coexistence of egalitarian and non-egalitarian congregations within the Conservative Movement.

Currently, the Conservative Movement is polarized between those who do and do not support the coexistence of egalitarian and non-egalitarian synagogues. In approximately 90% of North American Conservative synagogues, men and women participate equally in all aspects of prayers and Torah reading. These synagogues refer to themselves as egalitarian. In the other 10%, women’s participation is limited to some degree by traditional halachic constraints that relate to women leading services, being counted in the minyan and participating in the Torah service. Men and women sit together in all Conservative congregations. At the December 2005 biennial conference of the Conservative Movement, Rabbi Menachem Creditor[7] was both enthusiastically supported and bitterly resented for a speech that urged the Movement to expel non-egalitarian Conservative synagogues from the Movement. On the one hand, Creditor’s supporters feel that it is impossible to coexist with non-egalitarian synagogues as a matter of principle; on the other hand, Creditor’s critics, especially Canadian Conservative rabbis, who are the spiritual leaders of most of the non-egalitarian congregations, found it hard to comprehend that the Movement leaders were threatening their congregations with expulsion when they had been part of the Conservative Movement for decades and were practicing what was the normative Conservative Judaism of just a few decades ago. This particular rift not only involves a dividing line within American Conservative Jewry, but also highlights the split of American non-Orthodox Jewry from its international brethren on key issues. For example, Canadian Reform Jews have not recognized the American Reform position on patrilineal descent. Furthermore, Canadian Reform Jews have not been successful in getting the CCAR[8] to reexamine the issue. In the Conservative case, some American Conservatives are lobbying to expel the Canadians if they do not comply with the American view.

The second major issue threatening to split the Conservative Movement is the question of gay and lesbian rabbis. Although it seems clear that a decisive majority of both Conservative laity and rabbis endorse the acceptance of openly gay and lesbian individuals to Conservative rabbinical and cantorial schools as well as collegial assemblies, a change of policy in favor of gays and lesbians nonetheless faces very tough hurdles from a purely halachic perspective. And, while some Conservatives believe that halacha should simply be set aside on moral grounds, others who deeply believe in Conservative halacha contend that there are grounds for a revision of halacha known as a takana, and that this course of action must be pursued before any official pronouncement can be made. In the meantime, the current policy is that gays and lesbians are not admitted to Conservative rabbinical school[9]; however, if a Conservative rabbi post-ordination “comes out,” he/she may continue to be a member of the Rabbinical Assembly[10] and a practicing rabbi. Although the status quo has functioned in practice, the issue nevertheless threatens to split the current Conservative configuration, because advocates of both approaches to gay and lesbian clergy feel passionately that they will not be able to stay within the Movement if the decision goes against their view.

The narrowing of vision of the Conservative Movement has resulted in other departures from the Movement. Many of the offshoots of Conservatism were once some of the most exciting groups within the Movement. Groups such as the Union for Traditional Judaism[11], the Havurah[12] devotees, and the Reconstructionists are offshoots of Conservative Judaism, and new or revitalized synagogues are led by ordained Conservative rabbis who have either left the Movement of rounded new institutions pointedly unaffiliated with the Conservative Movement. Neither B’nai Jeshurun (“BJ[13]”) or Kehillat Hadar[14], both of New York, Shaar Hashamayim[15] of Montreal nor Ikar[16] of Los Angeles, could find a place within the Conservative Movement for their vibrant and rapidly growing congregations. These new offshoots are a boon to American Jewry, but a loss to Conservative Judaism.

Jewish Commitment among Conservative Jews

With all of the controversy and confusion about what it means to be a Conservative Jew, only half of Jews who call themselves Conservative actually belong to a Conservative Synagogue (or any synagogue for that matter). It is, however, critical to note that although the number of Conservative Jews who do affiliate with a synagogue[] continues to decline, their Jewish commitment is highly and arguably rising, if measured by their commitment to Jewish practices. The intermarriage rate among “synagogue” Conservative Jews was 17% from 1980 to 1990, and only 12% a decade later. This rate is far below the overall American Jewish average of 46% for 1991-2001. Thus, though the number of Conservative Jews is declining, their commitment to Judaism is increasing. The fundamental question for Conservative Jews should be: how can more Jews find Conservative Judaism meaningful? In my view, the Conservative Movement should review how the Reform and Orthodox Movements responded to existential challenges with radical solutions that enabled them to rebuild their bases.

Reform and Orthodox Responses to Existential Threats

Over the past century both Reform and Orthodox Jewry have responded to existential threats, resulting either from a decline in leadership or unresolved controversies, by allowing their constituents a margin of freedom. As a result, neither Orthodox nor Reform Jewry today is uniform; rather, both encompass a broad spectrum of practices within boundaries defined by the center. This response was revitalized both groups enormously.

Reform was able to avert demographic collapse by abandoning a fixed theology. During the 1930s and 1940s, the Reform Movement’s membership dwindled to fewer than 10% of American Jewry. (Reform’s crisis then was worse than today’s Conservative crisis.) In response to this drastic decline, the Reform Movement jettisoned its highly ideological and partisan Pittsburgh Platform of 1887 and replaced it with a framework for Reform Judaism instead of a fixed theology. This approach permitted Jews with very different theological stances to coexist within the Reform Movement and even the same synagogues. Moreover, during this period, Reform laity gathered the courage to completely change the way the Movement’s institutions were led. The laity called on leaders to honor different positions within Reform Judaism rather than making religious decisions binding on all Reform Jews. Thus, at the December 2005 Union of American Hebrew (Reform) Congregations[17] convention, the prayer services ranged from yoga-oriented silent prayer groups to a minyan that closely resembled a left-wing Conservative service. By abandoning a fixed theology, Reform has re-made itself into a vibrant, dynamic, and wide open movement that would be unrecognizable to a Reform Jew of the 1920s.

Orthodoxy’s incredible and unexpected revival in the past several decades has taken place for two principal reasons: first, its willingness to include more diversity under the umbrella of orthodoxy and second, a wider focus on day schools. Although some outside observers perceive Orthodox Jewry as monolithic, it is actually diverse and growing in its diversity. In addition to the four variations of the fervently Orthodox […], there are at least three other groups: Centrist Orthodox, Modern Orthodox and a nascent “Egalitarian-light” Orthodox. Each of these groups feels that their members are “commanded” by halacha and a passion for lifelong Jewish learning. At the same time, these groups also exhibit significant variations at the level of basic practice and regarding certain ideological foundations. For example, the Chasidic concept of “the Rebbe” differs greatly from the concept of “Rabbi” or “Rav” in other streams of Orthodoxy. A chasid is essentially born following a certain rebbe because a Chasidic devotee follows the rebbe of his clan. In all other streams, an adult individual presumes the right to select a rabbi whose approach to Judaism is consistent with his personal beliefs. These groups also vary considerably in the role of women within the synagogue service and within the community.

Orthodoxy today incorporates different roles for women. In all streams to the left of the Chareidim, women’s roles in formal prayer services and in learning have grown significantly. Women on the left wing of Orthodoxy have also been pushing for rabbis to revive formerly minority opinions that would enable Orthodox women to participate in the Torah service portion of prayers. Thirty years ago Orthodox women formed the first “women’s davening groups.” In these groups, women prayed separately from men and conducted the entire service, including the Torah portion, themselves. Some halachic adjustments were made to the standard service, but some Orthodox women felt spiritually invigorated by having “a service of their own.” Recently, a few left-wing Orthodox minyanim have adopted the hybrid regular service/women’s davening group for Shabbat morning first introduced by Congregation Yedidyah[18] of Jerusalem. In this service, men and women pray shacharit (the morning prayer) separated by a mechitsa and led by a male cantor. Men and women then go to separate rooms for the Torah service, both sexes come together again for mussaf. In the last few years, the search for halachic innovations to permit more women’s participation has lead to the Shira Chadasha[19]/Darchei Noam[20] style service wherein women actually lead prayers for some portion of the services (at the same time as men present on the other side of the mechitsa) such as Kabbalat Shabbat and Pesukei DeZimra. Women there also participate fully in the Torah service, with the men present on the other side of the mechitsa. Women’s learning has grown tremendously in all streams of Orthodoxy. In many streams, a year of post-high school Jewish learning for women has become as de rigueur as for men. Though a Chareidi man would find it anathema to pray at a Shira Chadasha[19] style minyan, and a woman used to Yedidyah[18] might be unwilling to attend a Chareidi service because she would find it unfulfilling, both of these Jews would consider themselves Orthodox and commanded by halacha. This lack of uniformity is played out in other areas, from dress to educational methods: there is no one Orthodox rabbinical organization that can claim to speak for all Orthodox rabbis. There are several meaningful Orthodox rabbinical associations, in contrast to the Conservative and Reform Movements, which each have only one.

This lack of uniformity has allowed the Orthodox to broadly delineate and differentiate what might at first glance seem like a small range of the Jewish denominational spectrum. All streams of Orthodoxy have embraced day schools […]. But more importantly, the intense drive for Jewishly educating children energized all parts of the movement. With this, Orthodoxy became by far the fastest growing movement in America over the last twenty years.

The Conservative Movement has the potential to undergo a similar radical transformation, if its members are willing to fundamentally reconceptualize their understanding of what it means to be a Conservative Jew and install an entirely new leadership. This transformation will make Conservatism the first post-denominational movement. While this may sound like a contradiction, upon closer examination it is not. Post-denominationalism is not the same as non-denominationalism. Non-denominational Jews are those who do not belong to any movement because they are simply less attached to Judaism. They may be Jews married to non-Jews, children of intermarried Jews or simply disaffected from Judaism. Most non-denominational Jews are on the exit lane from American Jewry. By contrast, post-denominational Jews may be highly interested in being Jewish but feel disaffected from the Movements as they are currently configured. Many of these Jews are lapsed Conservative Jews who have not found a new denominational home in which they are comfortable. Also, unlike non-denominational Jews, post-denominational Jews have core Jewish peoplehood values such as culture, an interest in Israel, a wish to perpetuate the Jewish people and a desire to educate their children Jewishly. At the same time, post-denominational Jews have a wide variety of narrow approaches to the religious part of being Jewish. The “Conservadox” have a somewhat expansive view of traditional halacha, but consider halacha binding. Other post-denominational Jews approach God through more purely spiritual practices. As important as Judaism is to them, these Jews do not view the strict observance of traditional halacha as a way to help them find meaning in their lives.

Reinventing Conservative Judaism

Because there is no way that the Conservative Movement can encompass the entire spectrum of post-denominational mini-Movements in a theologically consistent manner, it should stop trying to bind all of its members to one theology. Instead, it should create boundaries that leave room for a wide range of practices. Recent Conservative leadership feels encroached on by members on the left and the right only because it wants to resolve the differences between them by drawing a straight party line somewhere down the middle. The narrowness of the middle, however is only the result of the Conservative leadership’s own lack of imagination. As the case of vast variations within the Orthodox and Reform Movements demonstrates, the middle can also be wide. Consider the following analogy from the physical world. The length of any coastline such as the Costa del Sol, or the Cliffs of Cornwall, will vary considerably depending on how it is measured. If a surveyor measures the coastline by advancing 1000 yards per measurement, he would get a much different measurement than if he advanced up the coastline 10 yards at a time. In the latter case, more nooks and crannies would each become meaningful parts of the measurement, which would be substantially larger. The measure of the coastline would be larger still if the surveyor advanced one yard a time. For American Jews there are many meaningful crevices and nooks that are defined away by the leadership of the Conservative Movement when they try to measure their boundary as one straight line from top to bottom. Instead, the beauty of a theological landscape only becomes clear when each sub-peninsula (i.e. mini-Movement) on the coast displays its own texture and magnificence. When the Conservative Movement decides not to resolve major theological questions such as the gay/lesbian issue, the key women’s participation issues, the binding nature of halacha and Schechter Day School[3] versus Hebrew school controversy, the middle will become very large indeed.

In lieu of a uniform theology, the Conservative Movement must declare several boundary principles which are in the reach of practicing and non-practicing Conservative Jews as well as post-denominational Jews. I will propose a list of these principles, but such a list is obviously up to a new Conservative leadership to devise.

1. Observance of Shabbat, Jewish Holidays and kashrut in some form;
2. Weekly synagogue attendance;
3. Commitment to making Torah learning a life long endeavor;
4. Commitment to a serious Torah education for children, meaning day school or effective Hebrew school in conjunction with youth groups, camping and Israel programs;
5. Tzedakah, ethical behavior and social action;
6. Commitment to Israel;
7. Traditional determination of Jewish peoplehood (i.e., matrilineal descent or conversion).

This is not a large list and it is not particularly ideological. One can believe or not believe in halacha and embrace each principle; however, all new Conservative Jews should be able to recognize and appreciate the commonality of those who abide by these seven principles. Within the framework of these seven principles, there is a lot of room for variation. Some mini-Movements within the new Conservative umbrella will deem other additional principles to be binding. It may be that some Conservative Jews will not feel comfortable davening in another Conservative synagogue linked with a different mini-Movement; this should not be viewed as an obstacle, as it happens all the time among the Orthodox. Likewise, some Reform Jews don’t understand yoga minyanim while others do not like mostly Hebrew services. Perhaps different mini-Movements will want to establish their own rabbinical seminaries. That too is okay. The more seminaries there are, the more avenues to approaching Jewish learning there will be. Some mini-Movements will feel comfortable with openly gay and lesbian rabbis and some will not. Some on both sides can feel loyal to the common principles of the halacha. We can also hope the rancor over the binding nature of halacha, which is now largely theoretical, will quiet down as Conservative Jews press towards a common practice of the common denominators of Judaism.

The conservative Movement can flourish by creating a high-quality common infrastructure for a highly engaged community of Jews who have different beliefs yet also respect each other. The Conservative Movement must make its Hebrew schools engaging and effective […]. Conservative synagogues must also create a seamless integration of youth groups, summer camps and Israel programs for its youth. Everyone can agree on the imperative of these steps. The Law Committee of the Conservative Rabbinical Assembly[10], which presently issues opinions that are either ignored by the laity or which divide the Movement, should be abolished. In its place, a Fences Committee should be established to define the boundaries of the Conservative Movement. Each mini-Movement would establish its own Law or Practice Committee. These smaller Law Committees would be more responsive to their mini-Movements, which will hopefully lead their constituent members to actually take their rulings seriously.

The Conservative Movement should shift its focus away from theology toward creating comfortable places for Jews to express their Judaism. The overall Fences Committee should not be empowered to opine on the rightness or wrongness of the mini-Movement’s legal rulings; rather, it should only determine if a constituent mini-Movement has violated one of the fundamental principles or add a principle if there is a broad and deep consensus within the overall Movement to do so. Constituted as such, the new Conservative Movement will no longer have the urge to expel groups that do not express majority opinions, as long as they express authentically Jewish ideas and abide by the seven principles. By shifting away from ideology, theology and theoretical debate, Conservative Judaism will create comfortable places for Jews to express their Judaism. In short, all the streams of the new Conservatism can commonly support these comfortable places.

Some Conservative synagogues may offer multiple comfortable places which each have their own approach. A few avant-garde Conservative synagogues such as Ansche Chesed[21] of New York already offer several different minyanim on Shabbat morning and thus already function like a microcosm of what could be the new Conservatism. If different groups can and do happily coexist in the same physical space by focusing on being a community bound by practice as opposed to the purity of ideology, imagine how well they could live together within the same Movement. And, since the focus of the seven principles is to create a realistic common denominator, Conservative Jews who do not and would not want to keep all aspects of halacha can still find their place within the Movement. The goal of these principles is to eliminate the “contempt” that Jews in the pew currently feel from the elite intelligentsia of the Conservative Movement. A focus on practice would also end the present and embarrassingly ineffective push for “compliance,” and replace it with a push for cooperation, education and growth from wherever a Conservative Jew stands. Conservatism must change its attitude from shunning Jews to inviting them into the Movement.

In April 2006, the Conservative Movement took a step towards renewal by appointing a non-rabbinic chancellor to JTS who had no previous official tie to the Conservative Movement. Professor Arnold Eisen[22], previously of Stanford University[23], will assume his new post on July 1, 2007. This appointment carries much promise and some risk. Professor Eisen[22] is an outstanding scholar and passionate and engaging speaker who will bring a new spark to the Movement. However, since Professor Eisen’s appointment, the Law Committee is still moving forward on a global decision on the issue of openly gay clergy, thus demonstrating the Movement is continuing to make divisive decisions without first clarifying the core principles of Conservative Judaism. There is a great risk that leaders in the Conservative Movement might be tempted to think that they have made their bold move by appointing a non-rabbi as chancellor of JTS, and thus shy away from re-imagining the Movement, be it by synagogue members, the intermediate organization, or the rabbis. Any change in the Movement must embrace all disaffected segments of the Movement through an open architecture that is as expansive as possible.

On December 6, 2006, the Law Committee of the Conservative Movement once again created theological confusion for Conservative Jews. After lengthy deliberation, it approved three contradictory halachic (Jewish legal) opinions that both forbade and approved homosexual behavior. As a result of the decision, four members of the committee immediately resigned. These opinions have also laid an unclear road map for the ordination and acceptance of gay and lesbian clergy and may lead to a fatal schism for the Conservative Movement. This most recent failed attempt at creating a unified halachic framework for the movement demonstrates once again that the movement would be better off adopting boundary principles rather than trying to adopt unified theological or legal rulings on controversial issues. The Conservative Movement has just spent too much time trying to square circles. It is time to try something else.

Ideally, a new post-denominational Conservatism will link all of its tributary streams into one diverse Movement that links all Jews through “time and space. This new form of Conservatism will nurture Jews spiritually through practices that create powerful emotional sources and bolster, as Freud terms it, the “shared Jewish psychic structure” that supports a strong Jewish identity. If that can be accomplished, Conservative Jews can focus on theology later. The new leadership of the revitalized Conservative Movement can demonstrate that there is not just one meaningful and acceptable ideological stance between Reform and Orthodoxy, but an abundance of comfortable places along the spectrum. The new Conservatism would not be an ideology in the sky but an achievable set of practices that will dramatically strengthen American Jewry and challenge Orthodoxy and Reform to continue to grow.

* * *

The Conservative Movement is currently locked in a self-defeating cycle of self-criticism and introspection, which is focused on reconciling irreconcilable theological positions. The Conservative tailspin is further compounded by organizational and management failures. These developments have alienated rank and file members. American Jewry needs the Conservative Movement to reinvent itself as a broad-spectrum association based on practice, not theology. The new Conservatism can be a comfortable home to a host of mini-Movements, each offering a more personal meaning to its members. The focus of the broad new Conservative Movement should be on increasing Jewish practice and involvement in a way that will challenge its members to reach achievable goals. Through these efforts, Conservative Jews will pioneer and illuminate the vastness of the terrain between Reform and Orthodoxy[24].

I have arranged the following footnotes: links with relevant information or brief clarifications of specific ideas Mr. Scott A. Shay writes about in the above excerpt.

fn1. USCJ

fn2. USCJ

fn3. SSDA

fn4. http://www.ujafedny.org/site/c.ggLUI0OzGpF/b.1409301/k.BCC8/Home.htm

fn5. Likely a reference to Who Moved My Cheese? An Amazing Way to Deal with Change in Your Work and in Your Life

fn6. This piece was published before America’s JTS and the American Jewish University had announced their accepting of qualified homosexuals to their rabbinical and cantorial schools. Yet, the “ban” does still apply at the Conservative rabbinical schools in Argentina and Israel (as well as the rabbinical schools in Hungary and UTJ’s ITJ with historical Conservative Jewish connections.)

fn7. http://www.menachemcreditor.org

fn8. http://www.ccarnet.org/

fn9. This is still true for the Conservative Rabbinical schools outside of the United States[6].

fn10. http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org

fn11. http://www.utj.org

fn12. http://www.havurah.org

fn13. http://www.bj.org

fn14. http://www.kehilathadar.org

fn15. I believe that this is in fact a reference to Shaar Hashomayim

fn16. http://www.ikar-la.org

fn17. Now the Union for Reform Judaism (URJ)

fn18. http://yedidya.org.il

fn19. http://www.geocities.com/shira_hadasha/ or http://www.shirahd.org.il

fn20. I believe that this is in fact a reference to Manhattan’s Darkhei Noam

fn21. http://www.anschechesed.org

fn22. http://www.jtsa.edu/chancellor/writings/index.shtml

fn23. http://www.stanford.edu

fn24. For my own brief thoughts in reaction to the entirety of this article, please see my post at http://www.jonahrank.com/article/367/Thoughts-of-mine-in-response-to-How-to-Energize-American-Jewry

Thoughts-of-mine-in-response-to-How-to-Energize-American-Jewry

2007-04-25T19:18:00.000-07:00

My response to the above excerpt from Mr. Shay's Getting Our Groove Back: How to Energize American Jewry in brief:

Starting with a minute point (a nitpicking which might be picking apart a mere mistake of phrasing or typing), I wish that Mr. Shay had phrased as a principle “at least weekly synagogue attendance.” The written phrasing of “weekly synagogue attendance” conjures, in my mind, a Judaism in which the obligation to pray is fulfilled by praying once a week rather than three times a day. In my own perception of an ideal Conservative mini-Movement, prayer could be obligated to men three times a day and to women at least once a day. (While I’d be fine accepting that some Conservative Jews would, according to their mini-Movement, be not need to observe Jewish law, I personally would like to see some Conservative Jews who, in accordance with mini-Movement, observe Halakhah [i.e. Jewish law].)

If both Conservative and non-Conservative Jews can come to recognize Conservative Judaism as being the collection of movements above and beyond the idea of Jewish denominations conceptually "between" Orthodoxy and Reform, then perhaps Jews currently affiliated with the small movements of UTJ, Reconstructionism, the Masorti movement, the Neolog Movement in Hungary, and others will be able to unite in the great coalition that Conservative Judaism can be.

For the meantime, I do believe it is intellectually accurate to describe Conservative Judaism as a Coalition of Jews of non-Orthodox and non-Reform Jews (and perhaps non-Reconstructionist Jews, etc.). In Coalitions, people leave (as UTJ and many others have done). In Movements, people move together. Moving together in a pluralistic Movement that evolves in multiple directions is impossible though. There are multiple Movements of people moving similarly in the Conservative Jewish Coalition currently; therefore, we are not a single Movement. However, for the purposes of speaking simply, I am willing to settle to call the Conservative Coalition a "Movement" and the Conservative movements individual "mini-Movements."

I would personally be fine accepting a Conservative Coalition that includes different schools and different schools of thought in each school. Here’s something I can see: the externally highly “traditional” school in Budapest, the extremely liberal school in Philadelphia once associated with Kaplanism, a spiritually inclined Los Angeles school, an academically intensive JTS in NY, an egalitarian but traditional school in Jerusalem, a very traditional school with women clergy in Argentina, a traditional non-egalitarian school in New Jersey, and who knows what else.

On a side-note, I have a lot of faith in JTS’s Chancellor-Elect Arnold Eisen, and there are a lot of great thinkers out there. I hope that more great energetic thinkers can come together to reform Conservative Judaism. I hope that Chancellor-Elect Arnold Eisen (with the help of everyone necessary) will set the movement in its proper place.

And a note on another detail: I believe that patrilineal descent is an issue that the Conservative Jews (a population currently existing and to exist in greater numbers with the reformation of the movement) will come to be more noticeably divided about.

Another final detail: a Law Committee might be unnecessary in at least one individual mini-Movement. I would like to see some Conservative Jews, who according to their mini-Movement, accept the notion that each individual rabbi is the authority deciding the law of her or his own community.

probably wont bother updating this blog anymore

2007-03-30T13:59:00.002-07:00

i probably wont bother updating this blog anymore.

go to www.jonahrank.com or http://jonahrankdotcom.livejournal.com for my real blogging.

probably wont bother updating this blog anymore

2007-03-30T13:59:00.001-07:00

i probably wont bother updating this blog anymore.

go to www.jonahrank.com or http://jonahrankdotcom.livejournal.com for my real blogging.

Blogging? The internet is now reliable?

2006-12-05T17:06:00.000-08:00

It seems to me that there's a lot of trustworthy and intelligent things on the internet these days.

But, hey, if you don't trust the internet, why trust the above statement?

Anyway, I just enjoy posting food for thought here.

Or maybe I don't.

After all, everything on the internet is not necessarily reliable.

(You get five points if you find something inconsistent in this logic.)

(You get six points if you wonder why I bother blogging here and seven points if you go to my realer blog at www.jonahrank.com .)

On second thought, let's not go to Columbia. 'Tis a silly place.

2006-11-13T06:31:00.000-08:00

This is actually not much of a meaningful blog post. I am just curious to see if this thing is real.

I have a far more interesting blog at www.jonahrank.com (relatively).