I was very surprised to read in the morning news that Bibi Netanyahu now backs the two state solution, in large part because I don’t believe him. Netanyahu reconciled this with his previous statement of “No Palestinian state on my watch” by saying that a Palestinian state will not come about until “circumstances change” and there are “real negotiations with people who are committed to peace.” I believe most readers, like me, see this as a two-faced approach: say one thing to get the right-wing voters to support you getting reelected and another once having the majority of Knesset seats to try to do damage control with the United States. Yassir Arafat was the primary master of the “two faced approach” and while he used it for far worse purposes than Netanyahu (after all he told his people to commit Jihad and drive the Jews into the sea!) I am nevertheless uncomfortable with this approach. I truly believe that Netanyahu, like many politicians, will say whatever it takes to get elected rather than speaking with authenticity and sincerity.

Let me be clear that I still believe Netanyahu is on target with Iran and that only harsh sanctions will get Iran to change its ways. I supported Netanyahu speaking before Congress despite the resistance and icy cold response by the Obama administration. At the same time, I think Netanyahu’s double speak with regard to the Palestinian state is harmful to Israel and will ultimately hurt him. The left and much of the center already did not trust Netanyahu and now will do so even less. The right, some of whom switched their vote for Netanyahu after he proclaimed “No Palestinian State on my watch,” are likely now having second thoughts about their vote. While manipulation is at times necessary for all politicans, no one likes someone who goes back on his word three days later.

I congratulate Netanyahu on his victory and am glad in the sense that he’ll be tough on Iran but concurrently I am concerned about the future of US-Israel relations with Netanyahu in power (I am also concerned about its future with the Obama administration in power). I also disagree with the scare tactics that Netanyahu uses-in particular to vote to counter the Israeli Arabs who were coming out to vote “in droves.” There are many legitimate threats out there but an Israeli Arab democratically voting for his Prime Minister is not one of them. Now that the election is over I pray that Israel can be united in its quest to move forward for a better future rather than being preoccupied in the negative campaigning and sinat hinam of the past couple months.

In a last-ditch attempt to win right-wing voters away from Naftali Bennett and Avigdor Lieberman, Bibi Netanyahu forcefully proclaimed there will be no Palestinian state on his watch. He also spoke in Har Homa, across the green line, stating that without that city there would be a “Hamastan” established in East Jerusalem. Netanyahu is clearly desparate for last second voters as recent polls have shown him behind the Zionist Union party of Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni.

While I happen to agree with Netanyahu on Iran, I’m starting to feel that regarding the election Netanyahu is using scare tactics without offering a viable alternative. True there is no viable Palestinian peace partner, but to boldy proclaim that there will be “No Palestinian state” no matter what without offering a viable alternative as to what there will be will not, in my opinion, sway the majority of Israeli voters. The right-wingers are already committed to Bennett and Lieberman, the left-wingers want a change and those in the center will most likely vote with their pocketbooks for a change in the Israeli economy as opposed to concerns of national security.

Late this afternoon we will see what the verdict is. Keep in mind, however, that even if Netanyahu’s Likud does not have the most seats, he could remain in power if the Zionist Union is unable to form a coalition. I remember too well 2008 when Tzipi Livni’s Kadima had won the most seats but she was unable to form a coalition, so Netanyahu stayed in power. If Netanyahu is able to form the coalition, the status quo, for better or worse, will remain in effect. This means no negotiations, a hard line on national security and a struggling Israeli economy for everyone who is not rich.

When I think of the red heifer I think of the former kosher restaurant in Washington DC that I did not have a chance to attend.  I also think of a cow that will be slaughtered, have its ashes mixed with water and sprinkled on someone’s forehead to atone for his/her sins.  This is the function of the red heifer that we read about in the Bible and on which I focused an extended portion of my preparatory year of rabbinical school with Masechet Hagigah.  Why do we have such a tradition and why do we repeat it every year in the third of the four special Shabbatot before Pesach?

In Numbers 19:2, we read about the taking of “a red cow without blemish, in which there is no defect and on which no yoke has been laid.”  This cow would be slaughtered, and its ashes would be mixed with water and then sprinkled on the person who committed the transgression.  That person would then be atoned for his/her sins.  It was reserved for the most serious sins and also for someone who had become טמא (impure) due to exposure from a dead body.  This concept is difficult to take in an age where many of us do not wish for a return to animal sacrifices and can hardly fathom sprinkling ashes on someone as a means of atonement.

Why does this concept of the red heifer matter to us?  After all, with the destruction of the Temple, we all are considered טמא.  The red heifer does have great significance to a group who would like to create a third Temple.  As shown in the recent TV series DIG, such a group is working on genetically engineering red heifers in order to make priests טהור (pure) so that they will be able to resume their sacrificial functions.  So far every heifer that has been created has had a blemish making it unfit to be used for sacrificial purposes.  It is only a matter of time, however, before there will be a creation of an unblemished red heifer at which point they might take other steps towards ensuring that their dream of a Third Temple becomes a reality.  For these people, the red heifer is not some metaphor or abstract concept but a tangible entity that can be used in a reactionary move towards Temple times.

For most of us, the idea of restoring the Temple and returning to sacrifices is undesirable to say the least.  However, I believe we cannot ignore this idea, as uncomfortable as it might be for us.  We need to come up with a modern theology for understanding the role of the red heifer in order to counter the traditional idea that it is needed to restore us to a state of purity.  To do this, I would argue that we need to determine what the red heifer means to us.  Perhaps it means a society where everyone is judged as pure and where we can all be at peace with one another.  Maybe it is the ideal to which we want to aspire, especially considering the existence of a red heifer is a rarity.  For some of us, the red heifer might symbolize the entity that is most precious and valuable to us, as that is what it was to our Israelite ancestors.

Whatever the case may be, it is crucial that we ascribe some significance to this creature which has its own special Shabbat devoted to it.  It may not have the literal significance that it had for our ancestors or that is still has for some Jews but since it is in our holy corpus it must be imbued with some form of meaning to us in the present day.

We have examined a topic that is troubling to some of us, the red heifer, which was used to purify those in the greatest states of impurity.  This animal still has much meaning for fundamentalists in Israel, who are working on engineering red heifers for the creation of the Third Temple.  We looked at different meanings that the red heifer can have for us as liberal Jews in the modern day.  It is understandable that some of us might still prefer not to address the red heifer altogether either because it is so foreign to the form of Judaism that we practice or because it does not seem relevant.  Nevertheless, I feel that it is important to develop a way that the red heifer fits into one’s Judaism, even if it is strictly metaphorical, because it is a part of our religion and we come across it year after year.  May God give us the insight to figure out a personal connection to this valuable piece of our tradition.  Ken Yhi Ratzon-may it be our will to do so.

I have not previously entered into the foray of accusations of police brutality, stemming from Michael Brown and Eric Garner. Though I was appalled by both deaths and the subsequent acquittals of the police officers, I did not personally speak out-other than doing a moment of silence before a congregational sermon. Seeing that there was recently another incident, resulting in the death of Tony Robinson in Madison, Wisconsin, I have decided to speak out.

I am angered by the fact that men of color are being killed by police officers (or by vigilantes as in the case of George Zimmerman) who are being acquitted of any wrongdoing. It makes me feel rightly or wrongly that we have not come so far from 50 years ago, when African Americans were beaten with billy clubs on a march from Selma to Birmingham to protest their being denied the right to vote. While each of the cases I cited (as well as all the numerous others of police brutality) should be examined on an individual basis, there is clearly a disturbing pattern: black men dead, white officers acquitted. I feel strongly that our justice system must be examined as well as our training of police officers. I strongly believe an element of race enters into officers’ treatment of the victims and this must be eliminated.

At the same time I am incensed by the murder of Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu solely because they were police officers. These men were victims, killed in the line of duty, and outrage needs to be expressed at their murder.

Unfortunately I believe that the era of police brutality (and the subsequent retaliation) is not going away any time soon. It was a hot topic when I was in high school forensics (Speech and Debate) in 2000-2002 and unfortunately not much has changed. I respect the police officers who keep me safe each and every day, yet I am aware that many African Americans do not have the same positive relationship with police officers, being pulled over in racial profiling and at times being needlessly detained. I pray that we work every day to repair the tarnished relationship between police officers and those who they serve.

As a rabbi I have the necessary 3 e-mail addresses: one for work, one for my rabbinic network (RAVNET) and one for personal use. I also have an old e-mail address that those from college and my time at JTS use. Now I exclusively differentiate between my work and personal e-mail addresses but in my previous job I used them interchangeably. In light of the news about Hillary Clinton doing work business on a personal e-mail account, I wonder if my previous behavior was ok.

Why did I use my accounts interchangably? The same reason Hillary Clinton did: out of convenience. I am not the most technologically advanced person and I did not know how to upload my work e-mail address on my mobile device. I was shown, however, how to receive my work e-mail on my personal e-mail address, and I did so. Therefore, when congregants contacted me when I was out of the office, it forwarded to my personal e-mail address, and I replied to them using my personal e-mail address. Now I wonder if this was proper behavior or if I should have notated it, waited until the next time I was in the office and replied to it then.

As many friends and congregants can attest to, I am (unfortunately) addicted to my phone and to e-mail, and I reply to e-mails as soon as I am able (sometimes too soon, without thinking out the possible ramifications of what I am writing). Thankfully now I can access my work e-mail on my phone and reply from that address. However, if I was unable to do so, would it be a problem to reply from my personal e-mail? Is it a breach of work protocol to do so, even if I was just replying to work business rather than (G-d forbid) some covert, clandestine operation? Was the fact that Hillary Clinton was using a personal e-mail address for work a problem in and of itself, or is it only a problem if she was using it for covert government business?

In college I had the option of going on a free trip to Buenos Aires, Argentina. I generally am on top of things but a lot was going on in my life, and I missed the deadline. Because of this, when I saw there was a trip run by UJA-Federation, I quickly signed up to go. I signed up at the same time that Prosecutor Alberto Nisman was found dead after accusing Argentina President Christina Fernandez of covering up a deal to shield Iran from responsibility in the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires.

Corruption in Argentinian politics is nothing new. The country went through numerous scandals and leadership transitions in the 1990s. The January 18 mysterious death of Nisman as well as the alleged relationship between the Argentinian government and Iran got me to thinking as to whether I made the correct choice to join the Federation mission. Will seeing the good work that the Federation and Joint Distribution Committee does in Buenos Aires outweigh going to a country with massive government corruption and thinly veiled Anti-Semitism, as well as the country that was the refuge for numerous Nazis? I believe that it will and I look forward to reporting on my experiences during the mission.

Having worked in Arizona and New York, the concept of a right-to-work state is nothing new to me. I am used to the idea that most employees have no contract and can be let go at any time on the spot. The way our employment system works is you do the job or if not we’ll find someone else to do it; or perhaps we’ll find someone younger or cheaper to do it. Thankfully I have never been faced directly with this situation, having had contracts in my previous two jobs. However, the concept of right-to-work or “at will” still makes me very uneasy because I know how many people are affected by it.

When I read that the state in which I was born would be joining the line of “at will” states, with Governor Walker is signing a bill, it frustrated me. I think of all those people who have been doing their jobs for years who now can be fired at a moments notice without benefits to get someone younger or cheaper in the door. I think is this the reality in which we want to live, where people are disposable and replaceable at the snap of fingers? Do we want a world in which people will be fired simply because they disagree with their boss or joined a union? Is this really capitalism at its finest or is this the exploitation of the working class?

When bus driver Jerry Papa said (as quoted in Newsday) “it’s going to take 25 to 40 years to correct problems Scott Walker’s done in 4.5 years” my sole disagreement is that I don’t believe these problems will ever be corrected. Unfortunately we are heading to an age where unions are being dismantled (as Walker began 4 years ago) where it will be every man for himself. I believe capitalism, like every system, should have its limits-for if it does not, we will continue to advance towards an era where workers are exploited and where jobs are outsourced just to make a few more bucks. Some might disagree, saying we live in a world of “survival of the fittest” but if that means that we throw devoted workers onto the street after 30 years on the job it is a world in which I want no part of. The eugenics movement also believed in “survival of the fittest” and we see where that got us. We’ll see if the rest of the country agrees or disagrees with me when Walker runs for President.

I remember my first AIPAC Policy Conference in 2004 when Republican Congressman Tom DeLay spoke. He had a way with words and brought the crowd (Republicans and Democrats) to a standing ovation numerous times. I had always seen DeLay as a champion for Israel. In 2006, however, I was uncertain whether to applaud DeLay for being so pro-Israel or heckle him for his implication in a scandal with Jack Abramoff, in which Abramoff provided DeLay with trips, gifts and donations in exchange for favors to his clients. As one who tends to vote Democrat, it was easier for me to side against DeLay.

I have the same dilemma after hearing Democratic Senator Robert Menendez speak at the 2015 AIPAC Policy Conference. Menendez stole the show with his defense of Israel and his accusations against Iran. He proclaimed, “Give Iran the choice of nuclear weapons or the welfare of its people.” However, just five days later I read in Newsday about a scandal with Menendez and Salomon Melgan, in which Menendez defended Melgen against Medicare, after Melgen overbilled them. In return, Menendez received gifts and vacations from Melgen. http://www.inquisitr.com/1905024/senator-bob-menendez-corruption-scandal-bye-bob-petition-drive-launched/ In addition, Menendez is accused (separately) of hiring underage prostitutes  in the Dominican Republic. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/03/06/democrat-senator-bob-menendez-to-be-indicted-on-corruption-n1966815 

What does this teach us, besides the fact that corruption can be found within both parties? For me it demonstrates all the more so the danger in believing politicians’ claims. If someone comes out in support of an issue, are they really just saying it to “buy votes”? Did Menendez co-sponsor a bill to increase Iranian sanctions because he believed in it or was it a political ploy to back a donor? Can I take Menendez at face value for what he said in his AIPAC speech on Monday (and what he has said at previous conferences)? Do Menendez’s words mean less now that his corruption has become evident? Once again I have more questions than answers.

Based on my post on Friday, one might correctly surmise that I strongly disagreed with Susan Rice’s calling Bibi Netanyahu’s speech “destructive” to the US-Israel relationship. I believe that such a speech was necessary given the grave dangers of a nuclear Iran, and I am glad that Bibi gave it. With that being said, I find deplorable the ad that “America’s Rabbi,” Shmuley Boteach, took out in the New York Times saying “Susan Rice has a blind spot: genocide.” How can a rabbi make such an outrageous accusation?! Susan Rice’s statement has NOTHING to do with perpetuating genocide against the Jewish people. Susan Rice did not stop Bibi from speaking nor is the administration’s attempt to make a deal singlehandedly going to lead to a nuclear Iran. Rabbi Shmuley went far over the line with this statement, and in my opinion anything he issues henceforth is to be discredited.

Because I lived my childhood in the Midwest, New Yorkers often have the misperception that I am from farmland, surrounded by cows.  In the past I have been teased about having a “pet cow” or about waking up at the crack of dawn to milk the animals even though I live a good 15 minute drive from the closest farm.  As I thought about this week’s Torah portion, however, I reflected on what it would mean to be in an agrarian society where cows were the main animal and resource in one’s life.

This Shabbat we see a cow of infamous mention: The Golden Calf.  When Moses was on Mount Sinai, the Israelites worried about him not coming down and threatened mutiny, stating “Make us a god who shall go before us.”  Therefore, Aaron took all their jewelry and formed it into a golden calf.  The Israelites sang and danced, bowing to this calf and saying “This is your god, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt!”  This incident infuriated Moses so much that he shattered the 10 commandments by throwing them to the ground.  God sent a plague to punish the Israelites for the sin of the golden calf.

Rabbis have stated that this story shows the impatience and lack of belief that our ancestors have, which led them to sin.  Rather than trust in Moses’ return, they panicked and created an idol to become their replacement leader.  Similarities have been pointed out between the golden calf and the Egyptian bull which represented the Egyptian god El.  What interests me, however, is one line in particular: Exodus 32:4.  Whereas the common translation of this line reads “This is your god, O Israel, who brought you out of the Land of Egypt,” the correct translation is “These are your gods, O Israel.”  Since there is only one calf, why is there plural language?

A story from First Kings 12 might help us answer that question.  This section comes after the 12 tribes conquered portions in the land of Israel under Joshua and created a unified kingdom under David.  David’s grandson Rehoboam was ruling, and he afflicted the Israelites with hard labor.  10 of the tribes chose to separate under a new king, Jeroboam.  Jeroboam was concerned that the members of these tribes will continue to pilgrimage to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices, so he created two golden calves, one in Dan and the other in Bet El, and said “You have been going up to Jerusalem long enough.  These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.”

The second line of Jeroboam’s statement is exactly the same as the one in our portion!!!  His reasoning, however, is completely different: the golden calves are not created for idolatry but are rather for Jeroboam’s political goal of diverting the Israelites away from Jerusalem.  Many contemporary biblical critical scholars think that this was the original context of the golden calf and the Exodus story in our Torah portion was a later insertion.  If this is the case, it indicates that things are not what they seem: the golden calf is not an alternative god but rather a symbolic representation of the Israelite God which demonstrates that God can be found in alternative locations to Jerusalem.  The calves in Bet El and Dan are emanations of the very same God that took the Israelites out of Egypt as the God whose Temple is in Jerusalem: they exist solely to show that God can be worshipped outside Jerusalem.

The lesson that each of us can take from the golden calf is that things are not always what they seem.  What seems like an idol representing an alternative god might instead be a symbolic representation of God created for political reasons.  Similarly, what sounds foreign to us (a statue of a calf) may not have been foreign to our ancestors, as cows were the primary sacrificial object as well as the main animal utilized in their agrarian lifestyle.  While a legitimate claim can be made by saying that our ancestors were idol worshippers, a deeper look and comparative approach reveals that not everything we consider an idol might have been an idol to them.  It is easy to jump to conclusions or take the traditional line, but I would urge each of us to step back, reexamine situations or texts with a critical lens and make our own conclusions.  We may continue to feel that our original conclusion is correct yet it is important that we take the time to carefully examine what we read and what we hear rather than taking it at face value.