Ruthy Talansky, Tiela Chalmers 12/31/98 0:45
Shaar Zahav, San Francisco, CA
We could not agree more with Rabbi Levy on his 10 principles for Reform Judaism. It is not a return to Orthodox Judaism, (which is one of our backgrounds), but rather a new look at reforming Judaism. Just as the original creators of Reform Judaism realized that we needed to re-study Judaism in the 1800's, we too, now need to look at Judaism and our families, our spiritual connections and our relationship to God and the world God created and reconnect to being Jewish in todays world with an ancient religion as our guide.
We noticed 2 trends in the comments weighing in against the proposed principles. First, a fear that increased spiritual observance will somehow bring us to right-wing orthodoxy, and second a bristling that Rabbi Levy is directing us to be observant in a particular way. The second of these fears is misplaced; a careful reading of the principles demonstrates that all they do is call for us to find the traditions and observances that bring us closer to our community and to God. Rabbi Levy is not advocating or directing us to keep kosher; he only lists that as one illustration of a way to bring a sense of kedushah into our lives. If that particular tradition is troubling to you, find another way.
The first fear is more alarming. If we conceded spiritual connection and observance to the right-wing orthodox movements, then we truly have given them enormous power. While it is true that many orthodox groups use observance as a way to distinguish themselves, and contend that they are better, we cannot give credence to this claim that the world of spiritual observance and our tradition belong to them alone. Our Jewish tradition and heritage belong to all of us. The fact that others try to claim our heritage as theirs alone, does not take away our obligations as Jews, nor should it take away our joy at exploring and expressing our relationship with God and our community.

"Elmer Berger" (addendum) 12/27/98 5:34
Louis Wolsey Synagogue, Diaspora, USA
I apologize but the insert below was left out of my response. It falls between the discussion on visiting Israel and our sheparding of all creatures great and small.

Moreover the
current leadership of the Reform movement seems to be out of touch with
the laity as well, if this is the kind of thing we are supposed to take
as a matter of serious discussion.
When the last elections for the WZO were to occur, there was a great
deal of publicity in the Jewish presses, and in letters to congegants at
Reform and other congregations, to cast one’s vote. The price of
casting the vote was a mere two dollars. In spite of all of the
publicity, money and time spent, less than 2% of all eligible Jewish
voters in North America bothered. Was it lack of commitment? Was it
indifference? Or was it the statement at the bottom of the ballot that
said “recognizing the centrality of the State of Israel to Jewish
life”? A friend of mine, who is very active in the Reform movement, who
attended Brandeis University as a young adult, who is the author of two
books on Judaism, one a best seller, and who has contributed articles to
Reform Judaism magazine, Moment magazine, and Tikkun magazine said to me
with regard to this vote, “Not even for the two bucks, Elmer. Did you
see that statement at the bottom? It smacks of idolatry, and I’m not an
idolator.”

In his Ten Principles, Rabbi Levy mentions God ten times. He never
bothers to define what God is, which I would think is a major
philosophical conundrum that many Reform Jews have, with regard to their
relationship to a supernatural essence outside the realm of time and
space. Unless of course we fervently believe in the God as presented in
the Tenach, which I doubt many Reform Jews do.

In the Preamble Rabbi Levy speaks of how we seek “to deepen our
relationship with God”. I honestly have no clue as to what that is
supposed to mean. Except for mentioning in the first principle that
“Reform Jews conceive of God in many different ways”, the reader is left
to his own imagination as to what God means to Rabbi Levy.
I would think from what Rabbi Levy writes, that he assumes a more
literal interpretation than most. In part one he even gets it wrong.
The Jewish people did not have three great encounters with God, unless
of course, we are to assume that Adam and Eve and their offspring were
Jews, which according to the same book they were not. Not even Noah was
a Jew. Abraham was the first Hebrew, as legend has it, but he wasn’t
the first Jew.(Parenthetically, it seems that according to Rabbi Levy,
we are to assume that these Bible stories actually occurred in history,
rather than being merely fables passed down to mostly illiterate and
semi-literate herders and nascent agriculturalists)
The first Jew was someone from the tribe of Judah. The northern
Israelites were just as Hebrew as the southern Judeans, and the Levites
who tailed along later with fables of their
ancestor Moses, and took on the role of shamans in the communities were
also Hebrews.
Rabbi Levy speaks of the redemption from Egypt as if it actually
occurred, yet no mention of the emigration of 600,000 plus people from a
country is mentioned in any contemporary texts of any of the surrounding
civilizations, much less Egypt. There is also no archeological evidence
(which would have kept quite well in the arid climate of the desert)
that this “Exodus” ever occurred. There is no evidence that any of the
Patriarchs or Matriarchs ever existed except as tribal memories, but I
suppose this is where we enter the realm of faith over rationality and
reason, something stressed by the founders of Reform but now to be
discarded in the face of a worldwide trend toward fundamentalism.

The underlying fear of the Zionists, is not that Judaism will disappear,
but that there will be less Jews in the United States for political
reasons. Judaism has already disappeared for the majority of Jews living
in Israel. With the notable exception of Aden Steinsaltz’s translation
of the Talmud, the majority of scholarly contributions to the religion
of Judaism have occurred outside of Israel. This point is noted, almost
unwittingly, in attorney Alan Dershowitz’s book “The Vanishing American
Jew”. In his introduction, Mr. Dershowitz states that “The good news is
that American Jews - as individuals- have never been more secure, more
accepted, more affluent, and less victimized by anti-Semitism” One
wonders if Abe Foxman will have anything left to do in light of this,
except rale on 60 MINUTES against reparations that surviving individuals
of Nazi slave labor in such places as the Volksvagen factory, and in the
secret tunnel where the V2 rockets were being constructed under the
careful supervision of SS Colonel Werner vonBraun, are entitled to. Mr.
Foxman, head of the ADL is concerned about a resurgence of anti-Semitism
as a result of this. Mr. Dershowitz, who appears as a duck out of water
in this recent tome of his, should stick to what he’s good at, like
getting OJ Simpson off the hook. He continues “the bad news is that
American Jews -as a people- have never been in greater danger of
disappearing through assimilation, intermarriage, and low birthrates.
The even worse news is that our very success as individuals contributes
to our vulnerability as a people”.
Why Dersh? Is the underlying fear that AIPAC will no longer be able to
influence the United States government to the extent that it has? The
United States people as individuals under the law, not as a collective.
He continues, “American Jews have achieved everything we ever wanted:
acceptance, influence, affluence, equality.” And am I to assume that
this is a bad thing? Would it be preferable to return to the shtetls of
the Pale of settlement and the ghettos of western Europe, where the
Jewish masses were at the mercy not only of the “divine right of kings”,
but also at the mercy of their own clergy? If Judaism is of value, if
Reform Judaism is of value, it will survive. If it is not of value it
will not survive. I hate the term “social darwinism” but that’s the
truth. I for one believe it will survive, but not if one follows the
prescriptions of Rabbi Levy and others allied with him.

"Elmer Berger" (continued and end) 12/27/98 3:41
Louis Wolsey Synagogue, Diaspora, USA
Recent studies show that the ability to communicate and make tools are not restricted to humans, but that our closest living relatives, genetically, the Chimpanzees (Gorilla,gorilla,pan), also have that capability, and are also quite social (and also display the chimpanzee version of homosexuality).

In his Sixth Principle, Rabbi Levy relates that “we may feel called to other mitzvot new to reform Jewish observance”, “beliefs and practices which may seem outdated in one age may be redemptive in another”. Although I addressed this contention previously, it is worth reiterating that if one is uncomfortable with Reform, one is free to choose another denomination in which those “mitzvot” are practiced as a matter of course. The Lessers in their response of 11/30/98 have decided not to renew their membership in a Reform congregation, as a result of the “new innovations”. We quit two years ago. We still feel we are Reform Jews. We feel that we did not leave the movement, rather the movement left us. It is only now that we are in the diaspora. A new diaspora that theologian Marc Ellis speaks of which is an internal diaspora.

To paraphrase Asher Ginsberg (Ahad Ha’am), if these proposals are meant to bring forth the messiah, I do not wish to see his coming.

"Elmer Berger" (continued) 12/27/98 2:57
Louis Wolsey Synagogue, Diaspora, USA
Why should this surprise anyone. A vacation is a time for rest and relaxation, not the time to enter a war zone. Inspite of what the leadership says, there is an integral wisdom in the people most of whom will not entertain a trip to that part of the world until there is a true peace. Indeed the vast majority of Jews have never visited Israel, and it is not even in the top five on their list of places to go on vacation. The idea of living there permanently to most acculturated Jews, is a thought they view as so absurd as to be laughable. When Ben-Gurion was shocked that Jewish-Americans didn’t instantly hop on the first boat to The Jewish State, he was appalled. Ok he said, at least send the kids.
He had a very poor understanding of the American ethos. Moreover the current leadership of the Reform movement seems to be out of touch with the laity as well, if this is the kind of thing we are supposed to take as a matter of serious discussion.

In his Ten Principles, Rabbi Levy mentions God ten times. He never bothers to define what God is, which I would think is a major philosophical conundrum that many Reform Jews have, and their relationship to a supernatural essence outside the realm of time and space. Unless of course we fervently believe in the God as presented in the Tenach, which I doubt many Reform Jews do.

In the Preamble Rabbi Levy speaks of how we seek “to deepen our relationship with God”. I honestly have no clue as to what that is supposed to mean. Except for mentioning in the first principle that “Reform Jews conceive of God in many different ways, the reader is left to his own imagination as to what God means to Rabbi Levy.”
I would think from what Rabbi Levy writes, that he assumes a more literal interpretation than most. In part one he even gets it wrong. The Jewish people did not have three great encounters with god, unless of course we are to assume that Adam and Eve and their offspring were Jews, which according to the same book they were not. Not even Noah was a Jew. Abraham was the first Hebrew, as legend has it, but he wasn’t the first Jew.
The first Jew was someone from the tribe of Judah. The northern Israelites were just as Hebrew as the southern Judeans, and the Levites who tailed along later with fables of their
ancestor Moses, and took on the role of shamans in the communities were also Hebrews.
Rabbi Levy speaks of the redemption from Egypt as if it actually occurred, yet no mention of the emigration of 600,000 plus people from a country is mentioned in any contemporary texts of any of the surrounding civilizations, much less Egypt. There is also no archeological evidence (which would have kept quite well in the arid climate of the desert) that this “Exodus” ever occurred. There is no evidence that any of the Patriarchs or Matriarchs ever existed except as tribal memories, but I suppose this is where we enter the realm of faith over rationality and reason, something stressed by the founders of Reform but now to be discarded in the face of a worldwide trend toward fundamentalism.

In his Third Principle Rabbi Levy speaks of “all the creatures God entrusted to our care”.
Perhaps God should have entrusted not only the creatures but the planet itself to someone else, maybe some advanced reptile, for we’ve managed especially in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries to virtually cause the extinction of some of the most magnificent species on earth. That we are the penultimate of creation is a human temerity. We are an undifferentiated bipedal mammal belonging to the class Primate. Because of fortuitous circumstances our brain capacity has increased over the several million years of our development to the point of being able to communicate, make tools, and develop agriculture, and the other trappings of civilization.

(continued)

"Elmer Berger" 12/27/98 2:51
Louis Wolsey Synagogue, Diaspora, USA
TEN PRINCIPLES OF REFORM JUDAISM RESPONSE

Before beginning my own opinion of the Ten Principles laid down by Rabbi Levy, I would first like to commend Erwin and Sima Lesser for their remarks of 11/30/98, those of Ted Fleischaker of 12/23/98, Mike Jacobson of 12/25/98, and especially the cogent deconstruction of Rabbi Levy’s remarks by Roger M. Palay on 11/28/98.
It might be construed as flippant, but accurate to tell Rabbi Levy that I know a nice
Conservative Synagogue in my town that he might feel more comfortable in.
While acknowledging that the movement is Reform and not ReformED, as many mistate it, implies that the movement is open to constant revision and change, one must ask whether that change is progressive or recidivist. As with most changes of FORM and not SUBSTANCE, recently, in the Reform movement, the changes proposed here, in my opinion are recidivist. They are changes which will alienate those for whom classical (or sometimes referred to as radical) Reform, was the answer to their prayers. For those who found no meaning in attendance at other Jewish denominations, Reform was a place of religious meaning. It was a place where, rather than mouthing prayers in a foreign language which to them was meaningless, they could understand in their own vernacular, the subtance of those prayers, the spirituality (whatever that means) behind them, and thus an ability to maintain a connection with Judaism consistent with their personal beliefs of what constitutes God and the relationship of man to God (if any). This essence for most required no tontines, no signs and symbols, no kepot, no taleisim, and certainly no complicated dietary rules devoid of any modern meaning or logic.
The substantive changes that Reform undertook in recent years; the full acceptance of women in all aspects of synagogue life and in Jewish life in general, the acceptance of patrilineal descent in the counting of “who is a Jew?”(which is perfectly logical considering that 50% of a child’s genome comes from the father, and therefore to accept one’s Jewishness as stemming only from matrilineal descent, is inconsistent with not only biology, but with ancient texts. Moreover, since in the post-industrial advanced societies, which is where the vast majority of Jews now live, raping and pillaging of towns and shtetls have gone out of style, one is certain in the overwhelming majority of cases, who the father is. Therefore, there is no reason to favor the sex of one parent over another if it has been agreed to raise the child within Judaism as opposed to another religion.), the (theoretically ) open acceptance of gay males, lesbians and bisexuals who are Jewish, within the mainstream community, and even in the clergy, the bold stand taken by Reform with regard to equal civil rights for sexual minorities within the overall community, and the publishing by the CCAR of a document in favor of civil marriage for same gender couples, which anticipated an editorial favoring just the same in The New York Times by one week; are all positive reforms, which though not realised at the time of the Pittsburgh Platform, were inherent in its intent.
Rabbi Levy’s proposals harken back to the days of classical Judaism, which was self-segregating and chauvanist in intent. Indeed his statments in the interview that “I think there are positive aspects to separation. We separate ourselves from non-Jews in all sorts of ways”, and that the “problem” of patrilineality (one must first assume that it IS a problem) “is that only one part of the Jewish community accepts it” belies the underlying theme of his proposals to turn back the clock.
The title of his remarks to the UAHC Board of Trustees in Memphis - Toward Principles of and Diversity - is therefore disingenuous. With regard to only the two quotes above (and I could cite many, but Mr. Palay did an excellent job in that regard),
Separation, by it’s very nature promotes insularity, and not a universal message. That other denominations within Judaism do not accept patrilineal descent is irrelevant. Reform does not have to placate Orthodoxy or even Conservativism, if we truly acknowledge the integrity of our own position. This last aspect of course, is the underlying unspoken theme of the entire proposition.
I am personally greatly disturbed by the direction in which Rabbi Eric Yoffie has attempted to take Reform after the retirement of the remarkable Rabbi Alexander Schindler who understood what substance was about, during his tenure. Rather than being concerned with the vitality of Reform Judaism in parts of the world other than the sovereign nation of Israel, which purports to speak on behalf of all Jews everywhere, as if we are some supranational nation, a concept to which I strenuously object; it seems to me that Rabbi Yoffie has spent a considerable amount of his time, trying to convince the State of Israel that Reform Jews are “just as Jewish”, as Orthodox Jews who were given de jure jurisdiction over the affairs of Jews in Israel by it’s first prime minister. Thus the sham which was the Ne’eman commission came to naught, and was dropped from the front pages. Recently a bone was thrown, and Orthodox rabbis were ordered by the Israeli court to allow rabbis of other denominations, to sit on the rabbinical council in Jerusalem. Thank you very much. I would like to know by what right does ANY state have, to tell me how I should or should not believe, how I should observe, or what restrictions with regard to that observance I should place on myself.
I wonder how many also experience the same feeling that I do when I hear the words “The Jewish State”. I wonder if they catch in their throat, as they do in mine, when they hear the Rev. Pat Robertson of the Christian Coalition, or Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, categorically declare that the United States of America is a “Christian Nation”, and that the wall of separation between church and state should be torn down. Moreover the recent pandering of some segments of the Jewish religious community to these groups, which are overtly anti-semitic (read what they say), is startling. The most egregious examples of this trend are Rabbi Daniel Lapin, who was a keynote speaker at several Christian Coalition conventions, and is their “Jewish poster boy”, and his best friend and alter-ego, film critic Michael Medved, with whom he has founded a group known as Toward Tradition, and with whom he shares time on a right wing radio station in Seattle, Washington. To get a glimpse into what these men and those in their movement believe, take a look at the August 1996 issue of Commentary magazine. I fear that Rabbi Levy’s proposals are taking us down a slippery slope to those positions. If it comes to pass that it is deemed a requirement to wear kipot, wear taleisim, keep the laws of kashrut, remember the sabbath day and keep it “holy”,observe the “mitzvot”, as opposed to the prior concept of reform, including “the mitzvot of making aliyah”, where does it stop? At some future date will it be deemed “progressive”, to reinstitute the mikveh for women, because they are “unclean” during their menstrual cycle, an ancient and medieval superstition based on the fear of loss of blood from the body? Will it be deemed “progressive” to one’s spirituality to lay teffilin during weekly prayers? Will it be deemed “progressive” to have females sit separate from males in the sanctuary, so as not to “arouse anyone’s evil inclinations”, during service? I think not.
Moreover, what is this about it being the obligation of each and every Jew to attempt to make “aliyah” , a loaded word co-opted from a religious honor, to the State of Israel.
Rabbi Yoffie made a statement to that effect over a year ago, and now Rabbi Levy reiterates it. Have either of these two esteemed gentlemen made aliyah? Or are we to go with the old joke that a Zionist is a Jew who raises money to send another Jew to Israel?
I object to the term aliyah on philosophical grounds. Aliyah means literally to ascend (originally to ascend the bima to have the honor of reading from the Torah), and thus making aliyah to Israel, as opposed to mere immigration there, is something praiseworthy as opposed to living a miserable existence in the “galut” of the United States. The term used for emigration out of Israel (which has been undertaken by close to half a million Jewish-Israelis, a statistic which the government of Israel keeps under lock and key), is “yordim” to descend, as if psychologically these folks are going to a place less worthy.
I object to this beckoning, as did the vast majority of Reform rabbis and prominent lay leaders did back in 1919 in a letter to President Woodrow Wilson. Their reasonings in that lengthy document could be taken now to be prophetic. The document was submitted as a Statement to the Peace Conference after WWI, and was signed by three hundred prominent Jewish-Americans of the time, including Congressman Julius Kahn of Ca., Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, Adolph S. Ochs, publisher of The New York Times; Attorney General of NYS, Simon Rosendale who was a founder of the Jewish Publication Society of America and the American Jewish Historical Society; Professor Morris Jastrow Jr., at the time acknowledged to be one of the premier scholars on semitic languages and the middle east; twenty eight rabbis, including Rabbi
Henry Berkowitz, first secretary of the CCAR; and Rabbi David Philipson a founder and past president of the CCAR, as well as many prominent captains of industry, college professors, judges, attorneys, physicians, and others active in the Jewish community of the time.
Some of the salient points of that statement were:
(1) “Objection to the organization of a Jewish State in Palestine as proposed by the Zionist
societies in the U.S. and Europe and to the segregation of the Jews as a nationalistic unit in any country.”
(2) “We are all the more opposed to the Zionists, because they, themselves, distinctly repudiate the solely ameliorative program [of a haven for Jews living in countries in which they are oppressed]. They demand and hail with delight the “Balfour Declaration” [note:Arthur James Balfour was a notorious anti-semite-eb] to establish “a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine,”i.e, a home not merely for Jews living in countries in which they are oppressed but for Jews universally. No Jew, wherever he may live, can consider himself free from the implications of such a grant.” [i..e, dual loyalty accusations-eb]
(3) “[Since the intent of the Peace Conference is to put into practice fundamental principles of democracy], that principle which asserts equal rights for all citizens of a state, irrespective of creed or ethnic descent, should be applied in such a manner as to exclude segregation of any kind, be it nationalistic or other. Such segregation must inevitably create differences among the sections of the population of a country. Any such plan of segregation is necessarily reactionary in its tendency, undemocratic in spirit and totally contrary to the practices of free government, especially as these are exemplified by our own country. We therefore strongly urge the abandonment of such a basis for the reorganization of any state.”
(4) OBJECTIONS TO SEGREGATION OF JEWS AS A POLITICAL UNIT
(a) “to our minds[a double allegiance] i is necessarily implied in [the Balfour Declaration] and cannot by any logic be eliminated from the establishment of a sovereign State for the Jews in Palestine.”
(b) ‘We object to the political segregation also of those who might succeed in establishing themselves in Palestine. The proposition involves dangers, which, it is manifest, have not had the serious consideration of those who are so zealous in its advocacy. .... the claims to various sections of this territory would unquestionably evoke bitter controversies...To subject the Jews to the possible recurrence of such bitter and sanguinary conflicts which would be inevitable, would be a crime against the triumphs of their whole past history, and against the world-embracing visions of their great prophets and leaders.”
(c) “...We protest against the political segregation of the Jews...whether Jews be regarded as a ‘race’ or a ‘religion’ [because] it is contrary to the democratic principles for which the world war was waged to found a nation on either or both of these bases. ...All of the most
advanced nations of the world are composed of representatives of many races and religions. Their glory lies in their freedom of conscience and worship, in the liberty of thought and custom which binds the followers of many faiths ...in the common bonds of political union. A “JEWISH STATE” involves fundamental limitations as to race and religion, else the term “Jewish” means nothing. To unite Church and State, in any form, as under the old Jewish hierarchy, would be a leap backward of two thousand years.”
(d) “The rights of other creeds and races will be respected under Jewish dominance,” is the assurance of Zionism. But the keynotes of democracy are neither condescension nor tolerance, but justice and equality. All this applies with special force to a country like Palestine...filled with an extraordinary number of different ethnic groups [therefore] Palestine should be reorganized on the broadest possible basis.”
(e) “We object to the political segregation of the Jews because it is an error to assume that the bond uniting them is of a national character...if the basis of reorganization of governments is henceforth to be democratic, it cannot be contemplated to exclude any group of people from the enjoyment of full rights....we ask that Palestine be constituted as a free and independent state, to be governed under a democrtic form of government recognizing no distinctions of creed or race or ethnic descent, and with adequate power to protect the country against oppression of any kind. We do not wish to see Palestine, either now or at any time in the future, organized as a Jewish State.”

These opinions, expressed by not only prominent Jewish thinkers and leaders, but by prominent Jewish Britons as well was by far the majority opinion of Jews from Reform to Orthodoxy until the advent of the Nazis, when the incalculable horrors of the Nazi genocide of an estimated six million Jews of Europe, as well as other “undesirables” according to their racist philosophy; gave the Zionists the opening they needed to advance their program of a Jewish State in Palestine. Inspite of the undeniable veracity of this tragic period, the words written in 1919 still hold true as events since 1948 have shown, and as current events in that area make crystal clear.

And yet there is an underlying yet unspoken theme in Rabbi Levy’s Ten Proposals, as well as some statements in his interview that seek to further the hold that Zionism (which I frankly regard as a Jewish heresy, perhaps even worse than that of the followers of the false messiah Shabbtai Zevi) has taken not only on the Reform community, since the ascendancy of Rabbis Stephen Wise and Abba Hillel Silver, but on the entire Jewish community as a whole, except for the Satmar Chasidim and the Neturei Karta Chasidim.

Thus in line with this, we see the call for exclusiveness in Proposal number 7:
“Members of the am segulah, a people meant to be a treasure to the world”. - I was raised to view everyone as an individual, and to evaluate that person on that basis, and not as a member of any group. By what philosophy, except for a skewered view of “chosenness”, is this valid? There are movements within Judaism that have abandoned the idea of chosenness for very sound reasons. That a belief in the tenets of Judaism is our way, in no way implies that it is a better way than the beliefs of other groups. Fundamentally, when one looks at the core beliefs of all religions, the parts pertaining to how one should treat one’s fellow human being are the same, and in the end, that’s what matters.

Thus in line with this, we see an affirmation of the Zionist idea in Proposal number 8:
“After 2000 years of statelessness, the restoration of Am Yisrael, the people of Israel, to it’s ancestral homeland in Eretz Yisrael, the Land of Israel, represents an historic triumph of the Jewish people and of modern Zionism, which created Medinat Yisrael, the State of Israel. We wish to help create a State which promotes full civil, human and religious rights for all it’s inhabitants.”

Several comments: With regard to the last sentence - lot’s of luck. It can’t be done until as the learned gentlemen from 80 years ago realized, Israel de-Zionises. At the current time Israel is an apartheid state, a theocracy, and democratic only if one is Jewish.
Israel Shahak, perhaps the latest if not last of the great prophets, professor emeritus of chemistry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, born in Warsaw in 1933 and a childhood survivor of Bergen-Belsen has the following to say in his brief but cogent book “Jewish History-Jewish Religion”:

“The widespread misconception that Israel, even without considering its regime in the Occupied Territories, is a true democracy arises from the refusal to confront the significance of the term ‘a Jewish State’ for non-Jews. In my view, Israel as a Jewish state
constitutes a danger not only to itself and its inhabitants, but to all Jews and to all other peoples and states in the Middle East and beyond.
Let me begin with the official Israeli definition of the term ‘Jewish’, illustrating the crucial difference bvetween Israel as ‘a Jewish state’ and the majority of other states. By this official definition, Israel ‘belongs’ to persons who are defined by the Israeli authorities as ‘Jewish’, irrespective of where they live, and to them alone. On the other hand, Israel doesn’t officially ‘belong’ to its non-Jewish citizens, whose status is considered even officially as inferior.
The State of Israel officially discriminates in favor of Jews and against non-Jews in many domains of life, of which I regard three as being most important: (1) residency rights
(2) the right to work and (3) the right to equality before the law.

(1) Discrimination in residency is based on the fact that about 92% of Israel’s land is the property of the state and is administerd by the Israel Land Authority according to the regulations of the Jewish National Fund (JNF), an affiliate of the World Zionist Organization (WZO). In its regulations, the JNF denies the right to reside, to open a business, and often also to work, to anyone who is not Jewish, only because he or she is not Jewish. At the same time, Jews are not prohibited from taking residence or opening businesses anywhere in Israel. If this happened against Jews in another country, it would instantly and justifiably be labeled anti-semitism.
(2) The Denial of the Right to Work means that non-Jews are prohibitred officially from working on land administered by the Israel Land Authority according to the JNF regulations.
(3) Non-Jewish citizens of Israel do not have the right to equality before the law. This discrimination is expressed in many ways, and the terms Jewish and non-Jewish are not explicitly stated as they are in the crucial Law of Return, in which ONLY persons officially recognized as Jews have an automatic right of entry to Israel and of settling in it. Other laws substitute the more obtuse expressions “anyone who can immigrate in accordance with the law of return” and “anyone who is not entitled to immigrate in accordance with the law of return”. Depending on the law in question, benefits are then granted to the first category and systematically denied to the second. The routine means for enforcing discrimination in everyday life is the ID card WHICH EVEYONE IS OBLIGED TO CARRY AT ALL TIMES. ID cards list the offical ‘nationality’ of a person which can be
‘Jewish’, ‘Arab’, ‘Druze’ and the like WITH THE SIGNIFICANT EXCEPTION OF
‘ISRAELI’. Attempts to force the Interior Minister to allow Israelis wishing to be officially described as ‘Israeli’ or even ‘Israeli-Jew’ in their ID cards have failed. Those who have attempted to do so have received a letter from the Ministry of the Interior stating tht ‘it was decided not to recognise an Israeli nationality’. The letter does not specify who made the decision or when.”

The words Am Yisrael, Eretz Yisrael and Medinat Yisrael are often confusing to outsiders and even to Jews, and the obfuscation in my opinion is deliberate.

Moreover the assertion that the Jews have been stateless for 2000 years is false as well.
Anytime anyone mentions Khazaria they are shouted down, and yet in the Atlas of Jewish History, edited by Martin Gilbert and published in the third edition in 1985 there are two maps with inscriptions on pages 24 and 25. On page 24 in bold letters at the top it says
THE KHAZAR JEWISH KINGDOM 700-1016AD. The map on this page shows an area in black encompasing much of the southern part of the former USSR extending from the Ukraine to the western border of the Aral Sea, to the north approaching present day Moscow and on the south stradling the Black Sea and completely including the Crimea, across the northern border of present day Iraq to encompass the northern two thirds of the Caspian sea and then up to the western border of the Aral sea. The caption above this says: “The Khazars were a heathen nomad people from central Asia. In about 700 AD their king, Bulan, was converted to Judaism. A later king, Obadiah, greatly strengthened Judaism, inviting rabbis into his kingdom and building synagogues. The supreme court consisted of seven judges: 2 Jews 2 Christians, 2 Muslims and a Heathern. Religious toleration was maintained in the kingdom’s 300 years.
On Page 25 the same map is represented showing that Khazaria proper had spheres of influence beyond their proper borders extending in the north to the headwaters of the Dneiper, the Don and the town of Bulgar on the Volga, and on the west extending into present day Bulgaria, with a settlement on the Danube river about the size of Palestine during the mandate period in an area that is present day Hungary, known as Pannonia starting in the year 800. The map also shows movement of Jews into Khazaria from Greece{Byzantium) in 723, and from areas of present day Kuwait and Iraq largely from the town of Susiana at the head of the Persian Gulf. Trade was conducted by sea routes from the Black Sea towns to western cities of Carthagena, Valencia, Marseilles, Algiers and Tunis, as well as Constantinople. Military aide included sending 40,000 soldier to help theByzantine Emperor in his war against Persia; and to the Magyars in their conquest of Hungary, as well as excursions into border states.
The caption at the top states: In 970 the Russians began attackkng the Khazars and drove them into the Crimea. In 1016 a joint Russian-Byzantine expedition finally destroyed the Khazar kingdom. The Khazar Jews dispersed into Russia, Byzantium and the Mediterranean ports.
Martin Gilbert edited a more elaborate Atlas entitled The Illustrated Atlas of Jewish Civilization, 4000 years of Jewish History, which our rabbi gave to my older son upon his bar mitzvah. Page 57 of that book has a full page color map covering a greater area of the region and naming the main cities and towns which were now part of 1914 Russia, and whose “Jewish communities had already been established before 1219. Those on the Black sea had been in existence since 300 BCE. Those around the Caspian and Aral seas were settled by Jews from Persia and Mesopotamia before 700CE.” So to say that there was no area of Jewish soveriegnty for 2000 years until 1948 is simply false.
Moreover, in my collection of books on Judaism is one entitled Kitar Al Khazari written
in the middle ages by Judah Halevi translated from Arabic by Hartwig Hirschfeld in 1905 and republished by Schocken Books in 1964. Most of the book is taken up in a Platonic dialog by the king of the Khazars and a rabbi.
The quick denunciations of the popular book , The Thirteenth Tribe, by those for whom the revelations of the Khazar kingdom, did not square with their ideological perceptions, are now shown to be without merit.

Rabbi Levy continues in Proposal 8:
“While Israeli and Diaspora Jewry are both vibrant and interdependent communities, we encourage ALIYAH, immigration to Israel, in fulfillment of the MITZVAH of YISHUV ERETZ YISRAEL , settling the Land of Israel in a manner consistent with our reform commitments, and to strengthen an indigenous Progressive Judaism that can help transform MEDINAT YISRAEL.”
Now I seem to recall somewhere on the website a mention of the Book by Dennis Prager and Rabbi Joseph Telushkin entitled “The Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism”.
My first reply to that is “only nine?” My second reply is that (and correct me if I’m wrong) neither Mr. Prager nor Rabbi Telushkin are Reform Jews. Moreover I and others have a personal problem with Mr. Prager’s insidious and often ad hominem displays of homophobia, something which the Reform movement is taking an active role in trying to eliminate.
In their book both men advocate aliyah. They further state on p. 169, that “Only if there are many committed Jews living in Israel will we be able to fulfill the Jewish role in the world, the creation of a Jewish society to serve as a moral model” Well, one of the last things you could say right now about the state of Israel is that it is a moral model for anything. They continue “go live in Israel. Just as a Norwegian can lead the most authentically Norwegian life in Norway, a Jew can lead the most authentically Jewish life in Israel.”

Now, what does that mean? Aside from the fact that neither of these two gentlemen have made aliyah to the best of my knowledge, here we have another case of Jews telling other Jews what is best for them. What, by the way, is an authentically Norwegian life? Should all of the people of Scandinavian heritage living in the northern Midwest move back to Norway and Sweden so they can be more authentic? Is there a religion called Norwegian?
What is an authentic Jewish life? I would say, and I don’t think I’d get much objection, that the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson lived an authentically Jewish life according to the precepts of that sect of Judaism, and he never set foot in Israel. The vast majority of Jews living in Israel, show contempt for Judaism even on the High Holidays when many of them go to the beach resorts in Tel Aviv and Eilat. Living on a particular piece of land does not make one Jewish. Judaism makes one Jewish and the unique genius of Judaism is it’s portability, without which there would be no Jews today. I feel pretty authentic, speaking only for myself. I’m observant of the rules of Judaism which I feel are relevant to the style of life we choose to lead. I don’t consider myself to be in any kind of exile.

In Principle Nine Rabbi Levy addresses the speciality of Hebrew. In reply to that contention, I say this:

The underlying notion in the thrust to get American Jews to learn Hebrew is to foster communication between Jewish-Americans and Jewish-Israelis, whose cultures over the course of a half-century have diverged to an extent consistent with spatial separation, and a rather ordinary and normal phenomenon, to anyone with a basic understanding ecology and population studies. As far as Hebrew being essential for understanding one’s prayers, even the Catholic Church has abandoned Latin in favor of the vernacular to bring it’s congregants closer to the meaning of their religion. It would seem to me that comprehension of what one is doing is of far more import than increasing the use of Hebrew, if the majority of the laity finds the service more meaningful in the vernacular.
Should the rabbi give his sermon in Hebrew or English? Sometimes the sermon is the most provacative portion of the entire service. The ultra-orthodox of course say the prayers in Hebrew (rather rapidly) and then if it is done, the fabrengen is given in Yiddish.
But the Zionists rejected Yiddish as contemptible and a factor contributing to the degeneration of “the Yid” as Vladimir Jabotinsky so contemptuously put it.

What is arguably one of the most moving prayers each week is Kaddish, which is written not in Hebrew but Aramaic. Anyone out there speak fluent Aramaic?

Language is nothing more than a way for a group of people to understand one another, no language has any special quality over another, although some might sound more musical to the ear, for instance French sounds “nicer” to some ears, than the Germanic languages such as German and Dutch which are more gutteral.

If the leaders of the Reform movement think that placing more emphasis on what for some has become the worship of a place - Israel, as being more important than prophetic Judaism, then they are going to be losing more membership than they already are at the present time. Although few Jews dare to articulate it (because the past has shown that those who do become subject to blackmail and an inability to obtain employment, as was the case with the theologian Marc H. Ellis, and is the reason I am writing under a pseudonym which is the name of a rabbi whom I had known and admired - Rabbi Elmer Berger who was the head of the American Council for Judaism, who died last year.) they have been voting with their feet. Inspite of all the efforts at promoting Israel as a place to go for a vacation, much less to live there; it has mostly fallen on deaf ears.
(to be continued)

Ed Magidson 12/26/98 22:33
Shir Tikvah, St. Paul, Minnesota
(representing my own opinions, not those of our shul...)

Fascinating discussion. But in his position, I believe rabbi Levy has overstepped his bounds. He may feel free to write a minifesto of what works in Reform Judaism FOR HIM, or what he might reocmmend to HIS congregants.

But Reform is a much much bigger tent than he would make it out to be. And that is precisely why so many Jews find their way back to Jewish life through Reform -- because our "system" appeals to the intellect, to the conscience, to the symbolic identification, to the emotional and spiritual needs as we bear the responsibilities of adulthood.

So many of us rejected Judaism when we were 18 and knew everything. Now that we are older, and have become more humble, we have re-opended the doors to a live infomred by faith and by conscience.

But that is a far cry from a life directed by Rabbinic Judaism. Much good and much evil has taken place in the world since those times. How much better to confront those issues directly.

Easy example: Kahsrut, a dietary proscirption of the 900's, is outlandishly out of date. What passes for "humane" in a kosher slaughterhouse--oy where is Upton Sinclair when you need him? I wish we could focus on the millions of gallons of water and the thousands of pounds of grain we could feed people with, instead of that old saw of seething the kid...really just a modern rationalization for eating a well-marbled steak which we neither need nor can afford, as 5% of the worlds people consuming 45% of the resources, for very much longer.

Tougher example, cited by a post above: isn't our survival through the Holocaust as significant as the Exodus ? Yet who will teach, who will interpret modern events in light of our traditions, if we retreat and steep ourselves only in the Judaism of the 14th century?

Rabbi Levy's points are meaningful at a point in one's life, but they are far from universal. While they are valid for a particular set of people and circumstances, they are not comprehensive or includisve enough to be called a course which our wonerful, diverse, appealing religious movement can follow into the 21st century.

IMHO, of course :^)

Susan Turitz Cooper 12/26/98 17:36
Temple Emanu-El, Dallas, TX

Reform Judaism Magazine

I have grown up to respect the wisdom and scholarship of our Rabbis. However, as an observant, tallit-and-kippah-wearing Reform Jewish woman, I have many opinions and am very glad to have the opportunity to express them in this manner and, even better, to know that the Reform Movement respects and welcomes the opinions of the laity.

It is wise for the Reform Movement to have a statement of faith and observance, just as the Conservative Movement has issued its statement of belief, Emet Ve-Emunah.

I have read with interest and some trepidation the Ten Principles and Rabbi Levy's interview in Reform Judaism Magazine. Although his interview and explanations of the Ten Principles sound very good at first reading, with all due respect to the Rabbi, I differ with him or question him on several points.

Fourth Principle, the observance of Shabbat. I have a feeling that this is leading us toward becoming shomer Shabbat in the manner in which the Orthodox and Conservative define the observance of Shabbat.

With the giving of the Ten Commandments, we are commanded to remember or observe the Shabbat.

However, Shabbat morning services, Junior Congregation, afternoon study and Havdalah have all been placed "on the back shelf" in many Reform congregations. It is important that Shabbat observance become personal and family tradition. Coming together to socialize and being together because it is Shabbat is pleasant. Family outings, even if they involve using the car or even paying for admission tickets, bring the family together because it is Shabbat. (Shabbat outings are our own family tradition.)

We Reform Jews need to be aided in returning to Shabbat observance in ways that are in keeping with Reform belief and practice. There are wonderful and very valid ways of observing Shabbat besides being shomer Shabbat or nothing!

Sixth Principle, re. Kashrut: In the same line, is Rabbi Levy suggesting that observing Kashrut is an
all-or-nothing arrangement, as in the Conservative or Orthodox definition of the dietary laws?

We are commanded not to "seethe the kid in its mother's milk," to avoid consumption of animals such as swine and shellfish, and not to eat of animals that have been killed in a heartless manner, like hunting. Yet, it seems to me that there are many shades of observance of Kashrut without it becoming an all-or-nothing concept.

For example, even if we do not keep two sets of dishes, and yet remember that animals gave their lives for our nourishment, is this awareness and appreciation not a form a Kashrut?

If we eat in restaurants or buy our beef and poultry from supermarkets but never eat cheeseburgers or lobster, is this not a form of Kashrut?

If the meals we serve are all "flaishig" or all "milchig," even though the meat is from the supermarket, is this not a form of Kashrut?

If we say a Brachah before every meal and are truly grateful for everything on our plates, is this not a form of Kashrut?

We need to be guided through the many levels and possibilities of Kashrut so that we make informed and meaningful decisions toward observance.

Sixth Principle, re. the Mikvah: Is this a trend toward the Orthodox practice of women going to the Mikvah after their menstrual cycle? If it is, I strenuously object, because such a practice reflects back to the Biblical tameh and tahor of the menstrual cycle.

I have never considered my menstrual cycles impure. I have always felt that this is part of the awesome mechanism with which G-d has blessed us so that we could conceive and bear our beautiful children.

To be considered impure at this time of the month is deeply insulting!

Eighth Principle, re. Aliyah: Aliyah is essential for those who feel that they must live in Israel. It is certainly essential for those who need to seek refuge in Israel.

Every Jew should have the opportunity to visit Israel, volunteer for Israel, or even live there for a while because of our historical and spiritual connection with Eretz Yisrael.

However, it is not realistic or even advisable for all of us Jews to make Aliyah. Israel is small, and it should be available for those who must seek refuge there.

I feel very blessed to be living in the United States. This nation welcomed my grandparents, my husband and my mother. Even with my spiritual connection to Eretz Yisrael, the United States is my home!

Furthermore, how can we be or ha-goyim, a light unto the nations, unless we live among them?

Ninth Principle, re. praying in Hebrew: There should be a meaningful balance between praying in Hebrew and in the languages in which we speak and think every day. Although it is incumbent upon all of us to learn Hebrew, we should also understand it as a vehicle of personal communication with G-d. Otherwise, there is the possibility of rote recitation of prayers without true understanding and spiritual connection to G-d.

The magnificence of strength of Reform Judaism is that our Movement recognizes that there are many paths of communication with G-d. "The L-rd is near to all who call upon Him, to all who call upon Him in truth." May we each find it in our hearts to seek the truth with all of our hearts.

Thank you for considering my questions and concerns. Yasher Koach to Rabbi Levy for making us think about who we are as Reform Jews and about our relationship with G-d.

Susan Turitz Cooper

hans stargardter 12/25/98 14:05
farmington valley jewish con.emek shalom, simsbury CT

The ten Principles for Reform Judaism by Rabbi Richard Levy, presented in the winter issue of Reform Judaism, is offered as a basis for
discussion to revitalize our Movement.
Reform Judaism places much importance in the relation of eternal values but only as they are interpreted by the state of the art and our
understanding how we fit into our world.
During the last 100 years science has forced enormous changes in how we understand the world around us and, as Reform Jews, we must
reevaluate our beliefs in that context. Whether we like it or not we are aiming at a moving target.
The first three principles teach that the basis of Reform Judaism rests on three great encounters with God. Creation, our redemption from
Egypt, and our standing together at Sinai.
This asserts that nothing of fundamental value has happened since then. Of course there cannot be any quarrel with Creation. But there
are several other events that are of equal value and importance than the latter two.
Abraham comes to mind first. His encounter gave us the one God, a monumental step in the civilization of man.
Second is the destruction of the Temple and the subsequent Diaspora, and our miraculous survival over 2000 years as a small minority in
many places, often under circumstances more difficult than those in Egypt.. Why is this less important than the biblical exodus from
Egypt?
Third and closely related to the second one is our survival of pogroms culminating in the holocaust of our century. Our understanding of
a personal God in the presence of these catastrophes cannot be ignored in the formulation of any religion. The ten principles ignore this
but must address this troublesome dilemma. The old story we were told as children that "the God's ways are mysterious and we cannot
understand them" is not good enough. Neither is the explanation of "why do bad things happen to good people" If there is no answer or
the answer does not fit into our ten principles let us say so very clearly. Let us not be afraid that we do not have a good answer or even a
bad one. Nobody else has one either.
Fourth is Israel.
The Fourth Principle deals with Shabbat. Here the purpose of the Ten Principles comes into sharp focus. Are we offered a position of the
way things should be or is it a guideline of a way of life that is for all of us? It is clearly written by a rabbi and in the ivory tower of
rabbinic isolation.A clearheaded observation of reality becomes important. The call for a strict observation of Shabbat, even in the more
relaxed requirements of Reform, is just not facing the fact that the vast majority of Jews just do not follow the rules. We play tennis or
golf. We rake our lawn.We go shopping. We go to the movies. Many even work normal hours. What is the percentage of congregation
members that attend Shabbat services? Here we need Salomon to keep the sanctity of our gift to mankind; but also fit that into what most
of us are doing every week.


Why are the stakes much higher in 1998 than in 1976. That is meaningless rhetoric analogous to the fare we get fed every election year.
The demand that Reform become an equal power to the orthodox in Israel is wonderful but unless we can point to a way to get there it
becomes just whining and impotent rage at a status quo.
Kashrut has some romantic appeal but it contradicts the touted relation of Reform Judaism to the scientific state of the art . It makes us
look inconsistent and backward looking. Accept it as a tradition but don't make it look rational. Rituals, whether personal such as
wearing tallith or kippah, or congregation wide such as when to read the torah, should be left to the local or personal discretion. Mikva is
an alien concept to most Reform Jews. Let's keep it that way.
Equality of and for women is right and we must fight for it. It is almost the same dificult position we have with our rights in Israel. I
have a hard time with same sex unions but realize that I must keep an open mind.
Patrilinear descent is right and it makes sense. The issue here is diplomacy and negotiation with the other two movements. After all the
Conservatives have accepted women. If we plug away at the concept that fathers are OK we may get some compromise eventually.

Mike Jacobson 12/24/98 15:30
Temple Sinai, Stamford, CT
As a 54-year-old lifelong Reform Jew (and lifelong American), I find Rabbi Levy’s “10 Principles” disturbing and disheartening, and I hope they will not be adopted by the CCAR.
Yes, there is an admirable piety in Rabbi Levy’s “principles”, and this latest draft is considerably less objectionable than the earlier version I read in Reform Judaism magazine. Yet, fundamentally, the purpose of these principles is questionable, and I feel they will ultimately do us no good, and quite possibly, do us harm.
What I find most disturbing about these principles is their overall focus. Rather than reaffirming core principles of Reform Judaism, the real focus is to renounce those core beliefs and principles. The true intent is to move us back towards Orthodoxy. (That they would not take us all the way back is hardly relevant.) In a true sense, they are reactionary.
To illustrate what I mean, let me address one specific issue: the language of prayer. One of the core principles of Reform Judaism, I believe, is that the common language (English for us) should be used in prayer. Obviously this allows those of us whose Hebrew is either weak or nonexistent, to pray in a way that will have meaning for us. The liturgical use of English enables many individuals, including members of my own family, to participate in prayer and services, and not feel left out.
I realize that Rabbi Levy’s “10 Principles” are an extension of a trend that has been going on for quite some time. And since I’ve seen the handwriting on the wall, I have myself been attempting to learn Hebrew ... in fact, I enjoy reading Hebrew. But learning it has been slow and somewhat tedious, and I don’t have that much time to devote to the study. To force everyone to make that effort in order to participate in the Jewish religion is I believe a very grave mistake; and a renunciation of a core Reform principle. There needs to be a branch of Judaism for Jews who are not fluent in Hebrew.
What’s more, despite my now being able to intone some of the Hebrew prayers, the impact of prayer in English remains stronger, more genuine, more direct ... because the meaning of the words is always crystal clear to me. Simply put, while I love the sound of the Hebrew prayers, in English I get the message. Because I am a Reform Jew, prayer in English is more meaningful, and more religious, for me.
No statement of “principles” is necessary to affirm that it’s perfectly alright if an individual chooses to study Hebrew, to keep kosher, to cover the head, even to wear a tallis. Of course it’s OK, and all that should go without saying. The danger is that by stating this as a “principle”, the implication can quickly become that these customs somehow make one a “better Jew.” That implication is totally against Reform Judaism, and must always remain so!
Let me finally address what I consider the most objectionable of Rabbi Levy’s proposed principles: the Hebrew word “Aliyah”, which I take to mean something like “Jews should renounce their American citizenship, and become Israelis.”
When my grandparents left the “shtetls” of Eastern Europe at the beginning of this century, they came to America full of hope for the promise of a new life in the New World. They eagerly accepted this new world, and their children eagerly adopted its culture. My parents chose to be Reform Jews, because they knew that a fundamental principle of Reform Judaism was the complete lack of conflict between being a good Jew and a good American.
Today, there is admittedly a widespread disillusionment with our American society, especially with its unrelenting commercialism. I myself find much in it that deserves criticism, much that needs change and improvement. Because of this, many people, both Jews and Christians, are turning towards a fundamentalism that manifests itself in the Christian right as well as in Jewish Ultra-orthodoxy, As a progressive, Reform Jew, I feel this tendency must be resisted. I feel it is our duty, both as Jews and Americans, to address what we think is wrong with our society, and work towards changing it for the better.
This means a real commitment to the future of our country, and to the future place of Jews in it. Rabbi Levy would, on the other hand, have me forsake my country, the land where my grandparents are buried, the land where I hope my grandchildren will grow up intelligent, involved, strong, and happy. This I find totally unacceptable.
I could go on, but let me just repeat in closing that I fervently hope that these “10 Principles” are not endorsed by the CCAR. I fear their endorsement will cause a great many Rerform Jews to leave their synagogues, and if they can’t find suitable alternatives, to be left stranded, with no place left to worship. That would be a very great tragedy.
If the CCAR deems that the beginning of a new Christian millennium is an appropriate time to formulate new principles of Reform Judaism, I hope they will turn this task over to women and men who are less parochial, more inclusive, more progressive ... and who have a wider vision.

Jeffrey Schwartz 12/24/98 12:47
Temple Shalom, Succasunna, NJ
I am pleased to see that traditional rituals are being opened up to us once again. While reform Judaism should not mandate these practices, neither should it discourage their practice. We should be educated in them so we can make choices of the heart as to their meaning for us.

Ted Fleischaker 12/23/98 18:49
Indianapolis Hebrew Congregation, Indianapolis, Indiana
I feel that nothing needs changing, except for the ever-stronger push of Reform Judaism back toward what I feel is unwanted Orthodoxy. My family is clasic Reform, I am classic Reform. As such, I already feel greatly disenfranchised in the current Reform structure. As a Reform Jew since birth, I am shocked and disappointed at many of these "suggestions" as they smack of yet a further return from the Judaism which I have chosen to support for my entire 48 years. I feel that this is hardly the religion Isaac M. Wise started and I feel these steps would go a long way to putting the final nails in the coffin. This would most likely drive me, and my spouse, who now attend services 1-2 Shabbos evenings a month, totally out. Already, I sit there and find that the service is more and more like the Conservative ones I visited in my younger days. It makes me have a feeling of alienation, and if you will, hate, toward things for changing back to what I, and my grandparents and parents before me, had hoped we'd left behind---forever. A better alternative would be a return to the more Reform principles of the first Pittsburgh Platform....not something which even suggests Kashruth, the more Orthodox idea of Shabbos and certainly not the crazed support for Hebrew and Israel which I see in the suggested changes. I am not a Zionist and never will be. My parents weren't. My grandparents weren't. I feel that any tie between Reform Judaism and Israel should be treated just as the Israelis themselves would like it to be---not existing. I see no reasn to push our way into a country that has never and shows no signs of ever accepting us, our marriages or principles. I know this sounds radical, but again I am Classic Reform and make no apologies for the way I am, was raised and how I think. For Reform Judaism to try to embrace Israel is, to me, a total herasy and something I oppose always. Finally, I feel that as we attempt with this proposed platform to change Reform Judaism, we are failing to respect our roots as REFORM Jews. We need to look at what we came from and where we are, not try to emulate our Conservative or Orthodox brothers. I am already repulsed by the "return" of such items as bar/bas mitzvahs, Hebrew/Israeli melodies instead of the "old Red Hymnal" and the latest prayerbooks which deface the God I have worshiped by removing his gender and trying to be so politcally correct as to nauseate. We do not need to follow this up with a platform which encourages and further takes us from what Reform Judaism was meant to be. I'd like to suggest that the folks like Rabbi Levy who want these radical changes consider becoming Orthodox or Conservative....it is they who should change...not us!

David S. White 12/23/98 17:33
Beth David, Canton, MA
I deserted my Conservative Judaism for about 20 years it was Reform that brought me back. Specifically, what was for me so attractive was the notion that ethics and morality were most important and that traditions, kashruth, forms of dress, etc. were a matter of choice and that one should do and use what one found of benefit. I have flourished as a caring and active Jew with this mindset. It was with horror that I heard a Reform Rabbi in another congregation proclaim a while ago that kashrut was essential to being Jewish. The Torah is aytz chayim, a tree of life, adn as such I believe our understanding of it constantly changes with one's own growth and changing times. I'd hate to see us take a steop back from this broadmindedness.

David S. White 12/23/98 17:28
Beth David

Alan Tepper 12/22/98 7:30
Temple Israel, Staten Island, New York
In reading the Ten Principles and the responses to them, I am struck by two thoughts.

1)For the first I need to thank Mr. Alan Slootsky. From my point of view the one attribute that separates Reform from the other movements is its emphasis on beliefs, principles and philosophies. Practice, ritual and - for lack of a better term - a "Contemporary Halacha" derive from belief; they cannot stand alone! We must not ignore the fact that the creation of the Talmud involved the examination and evaluation of the literal Torah. I believe that the great lessons to be learned from the Talmud are as much lessons of process as of content. I can't commit to a "how" before I understand the "why".

2) The second point is that, for many Jews - myself and my family included - Reform is a Judiasm of last resort. I have spent many years examining my Jewishness to determine why, after rejecting my Orthodox Upbringing, I still considered myself Jewish. Only upon joining a Reform Temple I have begun to find an answer. I still do not understand completely. I do know that I have found a movement that understands and embraces my doubts and confusions and allows me to be a Jew on my own terms. In the final analysis only GOD can determine whether I have been a good Jew. In reform I have a place that accepts that point of view.

My deepest concern is in Rabbi Levy's 10 Principles these 2 points of view will be lost.

Ralph Loeb, Jr. 12/19/98 23:05
Temple Beth Or, Montgomery, Alabama
Coming from a "Classic Reform" background, I am not in agreement with most of Rabbi Richard Levy's Draft Proposal, and almost in total agreement with Rabbi Robert Seltzer"s views. I am much more in agreement with the 1885 Pittsburgh Platform than with Rabbi Levy. I feel that if his proposals are adopted as written, it will be a giant step backward for Reform Judiasm.

Ralph Loeb, Jr. 12/19/98 22:53

Rabbi Bruce E. Kahn 12/18/98 12:16
Temple Shalom , Chevy Chase, Maryland
I admire Rabbi Levy and Rabbi Seltzer for many reasons, as do so many of us who either know them or their work. They have given us the impetus to face clearly where we are as individuals and as a community and to uncover together whither shall we go.

Rabbi Levy's comments about embracing the sacred myths of Torah concern me. He seems to be saying at one and the same time that we don't believe these events occurred but that we will treat them in our conversations on religion as though they did occur. He speaks of the commanding nature of divinely revealed mitzvot while maintaining that we are not speaking of all the mitzvot. Which are mandatory upon us from the 613 in the written Torah? How is that decided? From where does the authority derive to determine what is automatically incumbant upon us to believe and do in order to be considered knowledgeable and committed Jews?

If we get in the habit of talking about our sacred mythology as though it were history, what do we do with the history?

Rabbi Levy knows that there are two creation stories in Genesis and that neither is historical, though scientific discovery suggesting the purposeful generation of life, an intentional big bang and some of the imagery in Genesis chapter one seem increasingly compatible.

He knows that there were no Jews at the time the exodus is supposed to have happened. He knows that there may have been a group of Hebrews or their forebearers, but, as the EJ says, the twelve tribes did not derive from patriarchal roots. He knows the Israelite community were not slaves in Egypt and did not go into the wilderness with 6000,000 plus men who could bear arms accompanied by who knows how many women, children, elderly folks and Levites. He knows the story of Sinai is filled with mystery and inspiration and is connected with some of the most important wisdom every produced. However he also knows that the story is comprised of numerous, varying accounts of what was supposed to have happened there. He believes Torah was written by people over a very long time. He believes all of this and so do the vast majority of educated Reform Jews. If that is so, what do we do with all this knowledge?

I for one welcome much of what Rabbi Levy has to say but not based on the same premises he provides. Torah is the greatest repository of sacred mythology we possess. It is a constant, rich source for wisdom, insight, problem-solving. It is a great place to go to build one's spiritual strength and to encounter God's power and love and presence in our midst. But it is not history. I worry about pretending that it is.

Let Reform Judaism remember its affirmations and through informed choice learn to live them more competently. Let us engage the text and one another to build fully our Jewish lives.

Rick Diamond 12/16/98 21:04
Anshe Chesed- Fairmount Temple, Cleveland ,Ohio
One of my concerns with the Reform movement has been the desire to constantly change almost for changes sake, more than charting a direction of its own. clearly, traditional Judaism has stood the test of time because it has maintained core values and behavoir, believing these laws to be
divinely inspired. As such, though modifications have been introduced over the course of time, the spirit of the law has not changed.
My opinion is that the spirit of Reform Judaism has drifted drastically from many of the
beliefs upon which are vital to our ongoing existence. There is no question that there is a longing within our Reform movement to instill more meaning into its members lives, to help give our lives a more spiritual essence,something I strongly believe our movement now lacks.
We have lost too many of our people to assimilation because we have not given them enough reason to stay. I believe it is incumbent upon those so anxious to disregard much of our heritage to instead become involved in learning what makes the Jewish people the "chosen people" and in doing so will find comfort in Rabbi Levy's principles.

Travis Channell 12/14/98 9:30
Temple B'nai Israel, Oklahoma City, OK
I think that Rabbi Richard Levy has some very good points. I think that a Reform Jew can follow the mitzvot just as well as a Conservitive Jew and yet still remain Reform.

I believe that Reform Jews can still have autonomy and still practice the mitzvot.

I was inspired to see Rabbi Levy's comments to the question of "How do you propose to link ethical behaviors with ritual mitzvot?" There are some very inovative ideas and I think it would do us well to take a deep look at them, possibly practicing one mitzvot at a time.

However, I am saddened by the fact that the Reform movement has not made a stand for gay and lesbian commitment ceremonies. If the Reform movement has equality between men and women...why can there not be equality between heterosexuals and homosexuals in regard to marriage ceremonies? If Reform Judaism is going to practice equality I think there should be equality clear across the board. We need to stand up for our beliefs.

Michael Schwarz 12/13/98 7:12
Congregation Kol Ami, Flower Mound, Texas
It was with disappointment that I read version 4 of the 10 principles. It seemed to take a strong statement in version 3 and water it down, in my opinion.

I agree with the increase in ritual and following mitzvot. What reminds us every day that we are Jews? What is daily prayer? Is it a remininder that God is with us and we are not alone?

What are the laws of Kashrut. Aren't they a reminder at eevery meals that we are children of God?

Why can't we take place in modern society and be practicing Jews, too?

Discard version 4 and accept version 3.

Michael Ross 12/12/98 20:01
Beth-El, Fort Worth, TX
I have just finished reading some of the prior comments. Wow, a lot to read. Will keep my comments short:
1) send Mr. Roger Palay to the next meeting of the CCAR!
2)item 3, can we not describe the Jewish historic experience without mentioning Egypt? How does an Egyptian interpet that sentence? In an era in which we would like to see peace finally come to the Middle East, why keep giving the Egyptians the finger?
3) item 8: Hebrew "holy?" Seems unnecessarily chauvinistic to me. Is Hebrew more "holy" in G-d's eyes that English, Polish, even Arabic?? Our mother tongue perhaps, or the language of Israel that binds us, but "better" than other people's language??
4) Many of the very thoughtful comments with reservations about the proposed ten points are very insightful. I think the CCAR better go back to the drawingboard!

Bob Rosin 12/12/98 19:18
UAHC
UAHC has posted a webpage that links to the latest version of Ten Principles as well as commentary at
http://uahc.org/tenpri.html

Bob Rosin for UAHC

Charles Raskin 12/12/98 15:22
Cong Bethel, Sudbury,Ma
Our Hevra discussed the Ten Principles in RJ.I'm sorry that we did not have the analyzes prepared
by Joel Soffin--as written the princples appear to be overly burdened with words.Soffin zeros-into the material--From my prospective,our congregation
has been putting rungs on the ladder for quite some time.
has long since

Anonymous 12/12/98 13:22
Reform Judaism: Where is it really going?

Rabbi Richard Levy has drafted a new platform for the Reform movement which, at first glance, seems to be reinstating most of the traditional Jewish trappings that were vigorously thrown out when Reform Judaism was first instituted back in 1885. Rabbi Robert Seltzer points out that Rabbi Levy is "turning Reform Judaism into Conservative Judaism Lite". Rabbi Seltzer wants Reform to continue a "conscious sifting through the tradition, choosing practices that are consistent with the canons of rational thought, the best of modern knowledge", and to remain "at the center of modern Western society." Perhaps Rabbi Seltzer hasn't really looked at modern Western society lately. We are on a major search for the spiritual, and in the process, disavowing the rationality of the past century. And Reform Judaism is finding itself in the center of this search.

Rabbi Seltzer admits that Reform synagogues are filled with emotional and enthusiastic worshippers wearing tallesim and kipot, actually employing Hebrew in their prayers to G-d. He is very correct in noticing that this is definitely not Reform Judaism here. But what is it, then?

Reform Judaism, in creating a new religious platform many years ago, established a Judaism that can be altered at will to suit its practitioners. At that time, the desire was to blend into America. No more kipot, peyot, "different" garb, customs and mitzvot to embarrass and point one out as different, as a Jew. Allowing the world to see one's Jewishness inevitably brought on discrimination and anti-Semitism. Reform Judaism allowed its adherents to join the new religion of the intelligentsia -- rational thought and science -- perhaps still not on an equal footing with the gentile, but a lot closer to acceptance than they were before.

Today, Rabbi Levy, reminding us that change is still allowed, wants to bring back the traditions of the old Judaism. Because of a climate that is much more open to one's differences, be it in religion, race or lifestyle, one can now walk down the street wearing a kipah without having to hear the epithets (or worse) of years ago. Many Reform worshippers are eagerly accepting these traditional practices because of a tremendous thirst for a spiritual, not a rational Judaism, which Rabbi Levy clearly recognizes. Perhaps he and other Reform Rabbis feel that if nothing is done to address this need, there will be nothing to counter the inroads made by movements such as the Lubavitchers, who offer spirituality with orthodoxy to Reform Jews who are tired of the sterile English liturgy in their temples, and a religion that bears no relation to the mystical Jewish experience they seek. A much greater problem, of course, are those leaving Judaism altogether to find their spirituality in Eastern religions and within the New Age movement.

Orthodox Judaism says that one cannot have a spiritual experience without performing the mitzvot, the commandments of the faith. If one goes to the ancient texts, one finds that spirituality and mysticism are always ensnared in mitzvot. Reform Jews have access to English translations of these texts, and Reform Judaism can no longer officially discount what is written as "outdated, and not applicable to modern rational thought" when their flock believes otherwise. There is a great interest in Kabbalah and a belief that Hebrew is the holy language of G-d. One can even meditiate on its letters to have a mystical experience.

Reform Judaism now has to change again, but not into Conservative Judaism, nor into Orthodoxy. Rabbi Levy seems to be on the right track. Tradition is better, but only if their is implied spirituality in every mitzvah. If there is a desire in the heart to be closer to G-d with each mitzvah, then we can have tikun olam. Reform Judaism has within it the power to bring all of Judaism to its highest spiritual level, retaining much of the ancient wisdom, but coupled with a most careful observance of the highest mitzvah -- V'Ahavta L'Reyecha Komocha -- love your neighbor as yourself. "We shall strive to help all the peoples of G-d fulfill their divine potential to contribute to a world transformed...."

Anonymous 12/12/98 13:08
Reform Judaism: Where is it really going?

Rabbi Richard Levy has drafted a new platform for the Reform movement which, at first glance, seems to be reinstating most of the traditional Jewish trappings that were vigorously thrown out when Reform Judaism was first instituted back in 1885. Rabbi Robert Seltzer points out that Rabbi Levy is "turning Reform Judaism into Conservative Judaism Lite". Rabbi Seltzer wants Reform to continue a "conscious sifting through the tradition, choosing practices that are consistent with the canons of rational thought, the best of modern knowledge", and to remain "at the center of modern Western society." Perhaps Rabbi Seltzer hasn't really looked at modern Western society lately. We are on a major search for the spiritual, and in the process, disavowing the rationality of the past century. And Reform Judaism is finding itself in the center of this search.

Rabbi Seltzer admits that Reform synagogues are filled with emotional and enthusiastic worshippers wearing tallesim and kipot, actually employing Hebrew in their prayers to G-d. He is very correct in noticing that this is definitely not Reform Judaism here. But what is it, then?

Reform Judaism, in creating a new religious platform many years ago, established a Judaism that can be altered at will to suit its practitioners. At that time, the desire was to blend into America. No more kipot, peyot, "different" garb, customs and mitzvot to embarrass and point one out as different, as a Jew. Allowing the world to see one's Jewishness inevitably brought on discrimination and anti-Semitism. Reform Judaism allowed its adherents to join the new religion of the intelligentsia -- rational thought and science -- perhaps still not on an equal footing with the gentile, but a lot closer to acceptance than they were before.

Today, Rabbi Levy, reminding us that change is still allowed, wants to bring back the traditions of the old Judaism. Because of a climate that is much more open to one's differences, be it in religion, race or lifestyle, one can now walk down the street wearing a kipah without having to hear the epithets (or worse) of years ago. Many Reform worshippers are eagerly accepting these traditional practices because of a tremendous thirst for a spiritual, not a rational Judaism, which Rabbi Levy clearly recognizes. Perhaps he and other Reform Rabbis feel that if nothing is done to address this need, there will be nothing to counter the inroads made by movements such as the Lubavitchers, who offer spirituality with orthodoxy to Reform Jews who are tired of the sterile English liturgy in their temples, and a religion that bears no relation to the mystical Jewish experience they seek. A much greater problem, of course, are those leaving Judaism altogether to find their spirituality in Eastern religions and within the New Age movement.

Orthodox Judaism says that one cannot have a spiritual experience without performing the mitzvot, the commandments of the faith. If one goes to the ancient texts, one finds that spirituality and mysticism are always ensnared in mitzvot. Reform Jews have access to English translations of these texts, and Reform Judaism can no longer officially discount what is written as "outdated, and not applicable to modern rational thought" when their flock believes otherwise. There is a great interest in Kabbalah and a belief that Hebrew is the holy language of G-d. One can even meditiate on its letters to have a mystical experience.

Reform Judaism now has to change again, but not into Conservative Judaism, nor into Orthodoxy. Rabbi Levy seems to be on the right track. Tradition is better, but only if their is implied spirituality in every mitzvah. If there is a desire in the heart to be closer to G-d with each mitzvah, then we can have tikun olam. Reform Judaism has within it the power to bring all of Judaism to its highest spiritual level, retaining much of the ancient wisdom, but coupled with a most careful observance of the highest mitzvah -- V'Ahavta L'Reyecha Komocha -- love your neighbor as yourself. "We shall strive to help all the peoples of G-d fulfill their divine potential to contribute to a world transformed...."

Eric Simon 12/11/98 16:41
Beth El Hebrew Congregation, Alexandria, VA
This post is one that supports Version 3 of the 10 Principles. Some of what I have to say is not directly relevant to Version 4 -- but it still speaks to a possible future direction of Reform Judaism.


I think Rabbi Levy (at least in version 3) seems to be taking Reform in a slightly different direction -- although I happen to agree with it, for many reasons.

First of all, I want to take issue with some of what others have said. let me quote from the Preamble (of both Version 3 and 4):

"We do not attempt to legislate a code of belief or conduct for Reform Jews, nor presume to advocate a single mode of religious expression for all."

OK. That said, The 10 Principles, at least version 3, seem to be following a minority Reform/Liberal Judaism view that goes back, at least, to Franz Rosenzweig in the early part of this century, and carried further by Emil Fackenheim after Rosenzweig's death. (I will refer to them as R&F)

Their idea, in a simplified form, is this:

They start off in a manner that, indeed, sounds Orthodox: that Judaism is defined by halachah, and we must accept that as a given, for it is the only way to once again be in dialog with Hillel, Rashi, Maimonides, etc.

But, and here is where they break with Orthodoxy, they posit that for the modern person, not everything is do-able. As described by Sacks in "One People?: Tradition, Modernity, and Jewish Unity":

"Neither thinker is willing to lay down criteria in advance for what commands can be done and what left undone. That would have been wholly at odds with their philosophical purpose. They believed this question could only be answered by the individual. Even the same individual would give different answers at different stages of his or her religious development....Rather than taking the autonomous self or the ethics of the age as their central values, they would instead ask the question: how much of tradition can be actualized by this individual or this congregation, at this moment? ... Halachah would exist as an ... ideal, but the existential situation of contemporary Jewry would, at the same time, be granted its own integrity." They grant that Judaically speaking, the times are out of joint, that "Sinai is only imperfectly heard in the atmosphere of individualistic culture" and that "the modern Jew live in the relativities of his time."

The modern Jew does what he/she can, but aspires to do more. The rest is "not yet" rather than "not ever."

Indeed, this is also proposed today by such writers as Telushkin and Prager in, e.g., "The Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism" (required reading for the UAHC pre-conversion "Introduction to Judaism" courses).

Both T&P, as well as Sacks, point out that this "not yet" philosophy can equally apply to everyone from the ultra-Orthodox to those who have just begun to incorporate Judaism into their lives. Indeed, this phlisophy can be a major unifying idea between Reform and Orthodoxy. (Imagine reducing the internecine wars between us!)

Why? It is a well known strain of Jewish thought (usually talked about around the High Holidays) that one who stands still, one who is not growing, is wasting their lives terribly. We always need to be growing, moving. Traditional thinkers, as well as some current Reform rabbis, have drawn the analogy of Judaism as a 613-step ladder, and explain that it doesn't matter where you are on the ladder, as long as you are moving in the right direction. This, indeed, fits R&F's view -- but not the current dominant Reform view which simply rejects halachah as binding.

What is remarkable about Rosenzweig is that he was totally non-observant, literally on his way to the baptismal font, when he developed these concepts. They enabled him personally to reverse his prior course, and to become virtually fully observant while still retaining the integrity of his modern temperament and philosophical sophistication. Fackenheim noted this, and found Rosenzweig's path richly suggestive not only for individuals, but also for large sectors of Jewry as a whole.

OK. So back to the 10 Principles. Levy, like R&F, leaves off the "if it has meaning to you", i.e., "informed choice." I'd like to argue that his view, the heretofore minority Reform view a/k/a the R&F view, is, perhaps, a direction that is better for Reform than the "informed choice" view.

Informed choice is "a joke." (Gasp!) It is not I who made that denunciation, nor some Orthodox rabbi attacking us. That assertion was made by none other than Rabbi Sheldon Zimmerman, the current Dean of HUC-JIR (the Reform rabbinic school). Why is it a joke?

For one, it presumes a decent degree of Jewish literacy. And yet Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the president of the UAHC, claims that we're the *worst* Jewishly literate generation in history. In history! So, how can be exercize "informed choice" if we're not informed.

Secondly, and even more importantly, do we want to leave ethical behavior to "informed choice"? Let's not forget that the mitzvot include ethical ones, not just ritual ones. Let's not forget that when we recite the list of sins that we are atoning for on Yom Kippur, there are almost no ritual ones, but almost all ethical ones. (And, in fact, the largest category of sins are ones that have to do with speech!). Let's not forget that, according to the Talmud, the first question we are asked by the Heavenly Court when we die has nothing to do with ritual observance, but, rather, were we "fair in our business dealings."

Regardless of how one evaluates the Rosenzweig-Fackenheim perspective, one thing should be very clear. The "recovery of Halakha" as a possibility for non-Orthodox Jews cannot simply relate to ritual issues, but must encompass interpersonal and social-communal ones as well. Why do we squabble _only_ over Kashrut, Hebrew in services, Shabbat regulations, and similar issues? Why aren't we fighting over the Halakhot that govern proper speech, that prohibit one from wasting a merchant's time by getting product information from him only to go some place else for a cheaper price (known tellingly as "Geneivat HaDaat", or "Theft of the Mind"), over taking interest for loans (or even allowing a borrower to do us a favor)?

Why have we totally abandoned these areas of Halakha while claiming that we follow the "ethical law", an "ethical law" that we have let gather dust. And "law" in these areas must be accepting as binding. It makes no sense to have "informed choice" regarding the permissibility of slandering someone, regarding rejection of dishonest business practices, regarding prohibition of fraud. Here, even more than in ritual matters, communal consistency and uniformity are the bedrock of sound practice.

Thirdly, this "I'll do it only if it has meaning to me", has the potential of perverting Judaism to self-centered "me-ism". It demands a self-centered view -- rather than asking the question "does this practice in any way help/support/give meaning to the Jewish community."

Fourth, "I'll do it only if has meaning to me" is contrary to how we act anyway! Let's face it, we all do many things that don't have meaning to us, but we do them anyway because we are supposed to. (Many, e.g., attend services on high holy days even though it has little meaning, or mouth prayers. Some place little meaning on attending a seder, or eating matza during Pesach, but they do it anyway).

And finally, while there are some of us who take "informed choice" seriously, there are too many "lazy Jews" that are attracted to Reform because they think that Reform means "I don't have to." And the Jewish standard of too many synagogues are dragged down by this majority.

I applaud Rabbi Levi's attempt at moving Reform Judaism away from a clear rejection of halachah and from 'informed individual choice' to a path that says: halachah exists, it's a ladder, and we should try to climb the ladder -- at our own individual speed.

======

Now, all that said (about Version 3) -- Version 4 is a watered version of it. I presume that since I support version 4 then how much more so would I find nothing objectionable in version 4 (except as compared to version 3). But I need to read it more carefully.

In the meantime, I hope the above, even if it is not relevant to version 4, is food for thought regarding the future direction of Reform Judaism.

Eric Simon
VP, Beth El Hebrew Congregation
(but speaking only for myself)

Karen Kahn 12/8/98 14:30
Congregation Beth Elohim, Brooklyn, New York
I read with some alarm Rabbi Levy's proposed "Ten Principles." I believe their adoption would severely damage some of Reform Judaism's greatest strengths that I have come to value most: its progressive, inclusive and welcoming character; its ability to make a rich Jewish community life accessible to families of mixed religious backgrounds and diverse life choices; and its creation of a living, evolving Judaism, whose essential values can remain meaningful and important to thoughtful, rational people living predominantly secular lives.

It was a great relief to turn to Rabbi Seltzer's response, and to the discussion taking place in this forum, and realize that there were others who shared my concerns and who could articulate far more compelling alternative future directions for Reform Judaism.

Clearly, the CCAR needs to prepare to meet the very real challenges posed by changing cultural, demographic, political and economic trends as we approach the 21st century...by devising more effective ways for Reform Jews to pursue social justice and create a better world, by reaching out to strengthen the ties between the growing number of intermarried families and the Jewish community, and by helping Reform congregations to fully and joyfully include gay and lesbian Jews in all aspects of Jewish community life. In the face of such important challenges, the existing principles of Reform Judaism still seem to me to be quite robust, and questions of personal ritual practices seem less than urgent.

Thank you for providing this opportunity to consider a wide variety of perspectives on these issues and to add my own comments to the dialogue.

12/7/98 18:57

12/7/98 18:57

Peter B. Stein 12/6/98 13:15
Mt Zion Hebrew Congregation, St Paul, MN
I find myself in fundamental agreement with Rabbi Seltzer's critique.

In particular, I am troubled by the following unspoken themes inherent in the tone and substance of the Ten Principles: Jews need to be protected from outside influences; assimilation (in the form of "fitting in with" and interacting with contemporary Diaspora culture) necessarily must result in the destruction of the Jewish people and in the termination of meaningful and genuine Torah centered Jewishness as we know it; and, that adherence to the cultural trappings of the Eastern European schtettel has intrinsic religious significance.

I am not sure, but I am afraid that I detect some of the same ethnic and cultural hubris in the Ten Principles that some would say are to be found in the ways of American White Christian evangelical fundamentalism.

In my experience our evagelical Christian neighbors tend to be very, very nice people who run very, very nice Christian day schools that teach, among other things, very proper and appropriate universal values, values that some say have been lost in our popular "in your face" culture. Our evangelical neighbors do undeniably good works in their communities. I interract with these very nice people from time to time, primarily through youth athletics. They are very, very nice people espousing principles of universal applicabity within a Christian theological framework. Harmless, right?

Wrong. Some would say that our evangelical neighbors suffer from apparent paranoia about the outside world (with particular emphasis on a fear of Blacks). And some would say that the more separate they become, the more paranoid they are likely to become.

And some might even say the same things about some of the families that have chosen to have their children educated in full time Jewish day schools....

Where will all this lead? Who knows...

Paranoia about our neighbors is never harmless. It is the first step on a short flight of steps down to prejudice, hatred and worse.

It would be a shande for Reform Judaism to embrace Principles whose tone suggests that we need to enclose ourselves from our neighbors, and whose substance actually suggests that it is fine to celebrate being seperate from our neighbors.
This is a form of unintended cultural arrogance that is uncalled for.

It also flies in the face of the lessons of recent history.

What history, you may ask? It is the history that inevitably has flowed from the following seemingly immutable law of human nature. Once we enclose ourselves in the walls of the schtettel, human nature on both sides of the wall being what it is, ignorance and paranoia will flourish on both sides and we will lose our ability to be part of the cultural mainstream, and once we do that, we will start down the same path that history teaches us, again and again, ultimately results in some form of violent anti-Semitism.

(In the law we call the argument that I just stated a "floodgates" argument; if you do thus and so, it will "open the floodgates" etc. etc. But as one of a mere handful of surviving offspring of my father, his siblings and his sixty four cousins, most of whom perished in the Holocaust, I call it family history.)

I applaud the Principles' emphasis on Jewish pluralism and on giving new consideration to practices that the earlier Pittsburgh Platform had rejected. To do so is merely to acknowledge the reality of the fact that such consideration is already widespread and that Classical Reform is no longer the norm in many congregations.

But, if the Principles must be adopted, I urge that the tone be altered to address the concerns voiced above.

I prefer that they not be adopted at all at this time, and I urge that the recommendations of Rabbi's Seltzer's critique, which I have not sought to fully restate in its entirely here, be followed.

Thank you for this opportunity to be heard.

Dan Herschler 12/5/98 22:51
Orlando, FL
The 10 principles reflect a much-overdue recognition that personal autonomy can include acts of piety. If these become part of the Reform platform, I may be able to become a member of Reform...a Reform that speaks not only to my mind but also to my soul!

M. lamb 12/5/98 16:34
New York
I think it is wonderful to add "optional" traditional practises to reform ideology. For too long, reform has been isloated from the other branches of Judaism by the rejection of "emotional" traditions. Many Jews are turned off by some in the reform movement who preach political ideology in place of religious practise. Why not bring God and Torah back into our lives?

Alan Slootsky 12/5/98 15:59
I was some how cut off.. but I will continue later Sloots@AOL

Alan Slootsky 12/5/98 15:18
Temple Beth El, Boca Raton, Fla.
I agree with both Rabbis. I think the time is overdue that we have an open forum about the direction we would like our movement to take. Rabbi Levy has certainly gotten the ball rolling. And I agree with Rabbi Seltzer's comment that we need to do the "hard work of analyzing, synthesizing, and integrating what we hold to be true...

But what is it that we hold to be true as Reform Jews? For me, before any discussion of ritual and observance takes place, we first need to focus in to our philosophy/theology of Reform Judaism as a Religion. Religion implies a belief system based on a God concept. A belief or faith implies that one can not prove or diprove the premise. Therefore, I would like to see the discussion center around the concept of TEN AFFIRMATIONS OF REFORM FAITH or TEN PRINCIPLES OF REFORM BELIEF.

I believe that one's philosophy dictates one's actions, and not the other way around. I realize that as Americans (and others in a democratic society) we revere our freedoms. We did such a good job with freedom of religion, that it has extended to FREEDOM FROM RELIGION!! However, all relationships require us to relinquish some choices. We forfeit some autonomy when we enter a relationship with our spouse, Reform Judaism, and God. If we don't know how our faith differs from others, than it doesn't. And that being the case, why shouldn't a good secular Jew marry a good secular Christian?

Dershowitz in THE VANISHING AMERICAN JEW

Helaine K. Robinson 12/5/98 12:06
Indianapolis Hebrew Congregation, Indianapolis, Indiana
The proposed ten principles move us in the right direction for me. Anything less risks that Reform Judaism will lose many of its Jewishly-committed members to Conservative or Reconstructionist Judaism.

Also, I'm glad that the principles actually talk about God - something we didn't do when I was a child.

Les Scharf 12/4/98 15:26
Congregation Schaarai Zedek

Les Scharf 12/4/98 15:25

Les 12/4/98 15:24

Monica Cellio 12/4/98 12:00
Temple Sinai, Pittsburgh, PA
Applause, applause.

The traditional observances have meaning for many of us (as you can see by looking around the synagogues of today); what is so wrong with encouraging people to explore them? Rabbi Levi isn't trying to tell you that you have to do anything new; these aren't proposed *requirements*. The hostility I see among some of the responders to these mere suggestions disturbs me. Aren't these reactions counter to the very foundation of Reform? How can we say "seek personal meaning" on one hand and then sneer at those who do just that and encourage others to do the same?

Les Scharf 12/4/98 10:20
Schaarai Zedek
My initial reaction to Rabbi Levi's proposal is very negative. I will try to organize my thoughts and post them if I think it would be constructive.

Lori Ubell 12/3/98 20:59
Oakland, CA
I have to make one more comment. Rabbi Levy, in his interview, states:
>By the '60s, the Reform movement had made its >name as a defender of social justice. The issues >were clear then; we had
>championed the labor, civil rights, and >anti-Vietnam war movements. In 1998 the issues >are not as clear-cut. Even the issue of
>poverty is segmented. For years most Reform Jews >opposed changes in the welfare bill, but recently >we've been startled to see
>that some good things have been happening in >communities with certain kinds of workfare >programs.

>One of the problems is that Reform Jews have been >perceived as making politics the major focus of >our religiosity. In fact, this
>has been less true than it has been perceived, >but I do believe we need to make more of an >effort to understand and articulate
>how spirituality and social justice go hand in >hand. Expanding dietary concerns to include >environmental issues and concern for
>farmworkers, broadening our attention to clothing >and housing in order to act on our concern for >garment workers and the
>homeless are some ways of integrating social >justice as part of our daily religious lives.

I am extremely angered by this statement. The issues are still clear cut. There is still poverty, racism and warmongering in this culture. It seems that Rabbi Levy would have us do political action by wearing (or not wearing) particular clothing or eating (or not eating) particular foods. Of course, boycotts have always gone hand in hand with political action, but they are not the be-all and end-all, and certainly don't replace *working* for justice for all. In truth, he is advocating a more passive form of social action than many Jews followed in the past, but I believe it is not because the issues are not clear-cut, but because they are more *difficult* for us as Jews. There is a well-known and publicised animosity between Jewish and African-American groups which did not exist in the 60s; if we are committed to tikkun olam, then we must work to change this state of affairs. But the underlying issues have not changed, merely our perception of them. If workfare seems to be working it is because the economy is expanding. What will happen in a recession to the poorest in our midst?
Already in the most liberal city of America, San Francisco, people are referring to the homeless as human garbage and refuse; this is the type of de-humanizing terminology used by the Nazis against *us*. If I choose not to eat veal, an expensive luxury food, how does that help a hungry person who can't even buy bread or put a roof over her head????

W. Gunther Plaut 12/3/98 8:44
Holy Blossom, Toronto, Canada
How can the reader access the 3 platforms? It says "Forbidden"!

Ginny Ruder 12/2/98 20:27
Westchester Reform Temple, Scarsdale, NY
After reading the articles I do agree with Rabbi Selzter that the 10 Principals Rabbi Levy proposes are a bit too rigid.
One thing I have enjoyed over the past 10 - 15 years is the return to some of the tradition, but this has been a learning process of my own choice. One problem I am currently having at WRT is that the Rabbis are beginning to leave out more English translations of the prayers that are read in Hebrew. There is still a need to read the prayers in a language that is spoken and understood. I've always thought that was a basic premis of the Reform movement. I have never heard the Shema in English at WRT and now there are other prayers that are not being translated. Most of the songs we sing are also sung in Hebrew. If you are trying to include mixed marriages and new members, they need to understand the prayers.

Education is the key to tradition, but choice is the issue that has always been important to the Reform congregation. Let's not forget why we have chosen to stay in Reform temples, and not Conservative synagogues.

Lori Ubell 12/2/98 19:58
Oakland, CA
I am pleased to see that so many people registered their disapproval of the "Ten Principles". When I read the article in Reform Judaism, I was quite distressed. I agree wholeheartedly with Rabbi Seltzer, and would like to add that I have always believed Orthodox practice to be fundamentally *wrong*. The obsession with mitzvoh borders on idolatry. They have made a god out of kashrut, out of correctness, out of torah (witness the kissing of the torah at orthodox services...and now at many reform services also!!!)It is far easier to worship a book, or rules, or a method of eating than an unknowable god who demands much and gives little other than life...
I am currently not a member of any congregation, as my previous congregation is allied with Reform in name only.If the Ten Principles pass, I see a split in the movement, and then I will eagerly join a congregation that is proud to be classically Reform.
In sum, I do not think a return to superstition and irrationality is the correct response to the new millenium...

Gabrielle Sigel 12/2/98 16:19
Congregation Solel, Highland Park, IL
I understand that a fourth draft of the Ten Principles has been issued. If so, it should be posted on the web site, too. Also, I would like to see more information about the process of creating the platform - who decides what Reform Judaism is? What is the process for getting feedback? I also would like to know what role the CCAR President plays? Is he the chief rabbi for Reform Judaism? In that vein, what role is CCAR supposed to play in constructing policy for Reform Judaism? Is it supposed to be the chief policy-making organization? If so, what process does CCAR engage in to incorporate and weigh the views of Reform Jews who are not members of CCAR? What deliberative process is engaged in before a new Platform is adopted? Once adopted, what role does a CCAR platform play in the way Reform textbooks, prayer books, and other publications are written? What role does the CCAR platform play in the way Reform Judaism are trained for the rabbinate? Not only am I concerned about the substance of the proposed platform, I am very concerned about the process of creating a platform. If CCAR does not have significant buy-in from Reform Jews, a new platform will have the effect and impact of a Papal edict, which I see often causing more dissension than compliance.

Back to Winter 1998

Back to UAHC home page