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.

I had the privilege of hearing Bibi Netanyahu speak on Monday at the AIPAC Policy Conference before he addressed the joint session of Congress. I did not post on this originally because I had conflicting views. On the one hand I felt Boehner made a mistake in not consulting Obama and that this was a serious breach of trust. On the other hand I felt that Bibi’s message was extremely important to convey and I’m glad he did despite pressure not to. I strongly agree with him that Iran cannot be trusted and can see them making an agreement while covertly continuing their stockpile of uranium to make a bomb.

Bibi’s “speech of a lifetime” was extremely compelling to me. The alternative that he gave, that sanctions for Iran will have to be ratcheted up in order to cripple the regime, would work, as sanctions is what brought Iran to the table in the first place. At whatever the cost, this government, which threatens to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, must be eliminated. There is no alternative if we want to maintain stability in the Middle East.

One could argue against me that Bibi insulted the United States by coming to “lecture.” It’s not that I fault US intelligence, which alongside Israel’s is second to none. It’s that I believe that negotiating with someone who wants an Islamic caliphate and who wants to destroy Israel is a grave mistake. Yassir Arafat illustrated to us the dangers of “double speak”: saying one thing at the negotiating table and quite another to your own people. I am afraid that is being amplified here, that “playing nice” at the negotiating table will lead to buying time to create a nuclear weapon.

One could also argue that Bibi’s speech was an “election ploy” for Israel’s March 17 elections. Perhaps that is the case. However, Bibi did not choose to come before Congress two weeks before Israel’s elections: he was invited in what he was told was a bipartisan invitation to address Congress. We will have to wait and see if the timing (which clearly was opportune for Bibi) will impact the Israeli elections.

Being one of 16000 members and 700 rabbis at the AIPAC Policy Conference March 1-3 was an incredible experience. I had the opportunity to hear Bibi Netanyahu, Robert Menendez, Mitch McConnell, Samantha Power and Susan Rice, as well as to lobby Senators Chuck Shumer, Kristen Gillibrand and Congressman Steve Israel. I heard Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird speak about how he turned Canada from voting anti-Israel to pro-Israel. There was also a major concert featuring Rita, David Broza and Matisyahu.

One of the most moving sessions for me was a breakfast with Donniel Hartman where he shared with us that the lesson of Purim is not to become Ahashverus. Ahashverus was indifferent to the fate of the Jewish people, letting Haman do his will with them. Very few of us have the danger of becoming Haman and vindictively deciding to annihilate a people. We do have the danger of becoming Ahashverus,of being indifferent to the plight of people.

What I love about AIPAC is its bipartisan nature. You can be a Democrat or Republican, a progressive or a conservative, and find a place to AIPAC (as a matter of fact there is a progressive track at AIPAC). AIPAC’s focus is keeping our Congress informed and passionate about Israel no matter who has the Congressional majority. This is done through regular lobbying and relationship building between Congressmen and their constituents.

I plan to be back in Washington DC for the 2016 AIPAC Policy Conference next March.

In last week’s Maftir we read about the obligation for every Israelite to give half a shekel, regardless of how wealthy or poor they are. This week we read about a different kind of gift for which our Torah portion is named, the terumah. The terumah was a voluntary contribution that each person gave to the Tabernacle according to “how their heart moved them.” And these were not the dregs-the gifts people brought included gold, silver and copper!

What would motivate someone to give of their resources towards the building of the Tabernacle? Even more so, what would motivate them to give so much that Moses will have to tell them “Stop Giving” four portions later. The commentator Kli Yakar writes that the gold that the Israelites gave towards the Tabernacle atoned for the gold that they used to make the golden calf. Similarly, Baal HaTurim notes that the word for “taking” the Terumah offering is in plural. Why? Because you give Terumah not as an individual but in the context of a community. The Israelites recognized that they were giving to something greater than themselves: the creation of a House for God.

We gain even more appreciation for the gifts of the Israelites when we look at Terumah from a rabbinic context. During Temple times, Terumah was the portion of one’s crops that s/he gave to the priests. One gave 1/50^th of his/her crops to the Kohanim, and this portion was designated as Terumah. Similarly, one gave 1/10^th of his/her crops to the Levites, known as m’aaser or me’eser (one out of ten), and a portion of this went to the Kohanim as well. Total this equated to given 12% of one’s estate. The job of the Kohanim and Leviim was to serve God in the Temple, not to plant crops and harvest the land, and as a result the community gave them food. The Kohanim provided the spiritual nourishment for the Israelites-the other tribes provided their physical nourishment. Not only that but the giving of the Terumah was an item of spiritual significance in and of itself. Masechet Berachot, the Talmudic Tractate dealing with blessings, begins “What is the time at which one can begin to say the evening Shema? Rabbi Eliezer says ‘From the time that the Kohanim go in to eat their Terumah until the end of the first night watch.”

While this form of Terumah was halachically required to be given, I would argue that it serves a similar purpose as the Terumah from our portion: it enables people to be part of something larger than themselves. It is too easy to feel that what we produce is ours and ours alone-as opposed to utilizing our resources towards a greater spiritual purpose. Imagine what would happen if everyone gave 12% of their resources to spiritual organizations. The rabbis mandate that we give between 10 and 20% of our income to Tzedakah. I will acknowledge how hard it is to give this amount-and that I am not at a stage where I give it. However, in hearing Rabbi Elie Kaunfer at the Schechter Night of Jewish Learning, I was inspired to give more and get closer to reaching the 10% threshold required of Jewish law.

What is going to be your Terumah, your voluntary contribution, to our spiritual house of worship over the course of the next few months? For some it might be to take a leadership role in our congregation; for others it might be to increase your financial contribution to our synagogue; for others it might be to help me with outreach, getting the word out about the exciting things that our congregation is doing to the greater community. I hope that each of us will voluntarily contribute to the Jericho Jewish Center in a significant way, so that we can feel that our spiritual home is a place where God is dwelling amongst us each and every day. Requirements don’t work in our day and age-we are in a century of choice, where time is the most finite resource and where we are pulled in so many directions. I hope and I pray that each of us will proactively make a significant Terumah through your involvement and your contributions to our congregation in the days ahead. Shabbat Shalom.

Yesterday I had the pleasure of hearing the Chief Rabbi of France, Haim Korsia, speak to at Park East Synagogue. The program began with children from Park East Day School singing the French, Israeli and American national anthems. Rabbi Arthur Schneier next spoke about being freed from Auschwitz in 1945 and about the importance of preserving that freedom.

The line that stood out most to me in the Chief Rabbi’s remarks was “There are no minor crimes”-in other words, any attack against a people must be responded to. The Chief Rabbi also spoke about dreaming of a better France. His speech was very heartfelt and helped give me hope for the future of the French Jewish Community.

After Rabbi Korsia spoke, 5 children from Park East Day School said words to him in French and gave him a special gift. Then Mayor DeBlasio gave an address, proclaiming that “no Jewish community in Europe should have to beg for protection.” DeBlasio also commended President Hollande and especially Prime Minister Valls, who said “if the Jews leave, France will no longer be France.” DeBlasio also called on European leaders to take after the example of New York City, which despite being the most diverse city in the world has had people learn to get along.

It was a powerful event that demonstrated to me that while anti-Semitism is on the rise, the Jewish community is not without friends.

Never one to shy away from controversial topics, Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu urged French Jews to move to Israel. The question is was he right to do so? Last month our congregation raised $1250 which we gave to the Jewish Agency for Israel specifically for French Jews who were making Aliyah. However, this money was to be used for French Jews who had already chosen to make Aliyah, as opposed to actively pushing for French Jews to leave. Is there a difference between the two?

One could argue that French Jews are no longer safe due to the vitriolic anti-Semitism that has pervaded France. Unfortunately, France is not the only place facing anti-Semitism. As my former classmate and roommate Phil Weintraub sent me, there was just an anti-Semitic outbreak in Madison, Wisconsin: http://tabletmag.com/scroll/189042/anti-semitism-spikes-in-the-badger-state?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=post&utm_content=Anti-Semitism+Spikes+in+the+Badger+State&utm_campaign=feb2015.

The question is does the anti-Semitism that Jews are facing throughout the world justify the urging of Jews to move to Israel. On one hand, Israel is our Jewish homeland where one can safely walk around wearing a kippah or Jewish star. On the other hand, Israel faces its own dangers from its Arab neighbors. There is no truly safe place to live as a Jew.

Should we actively raise our voices for European Jews to move to Israel or is that hutzpadik to do? Your comments are appreciated.

I used to lead services with my friend Yoni Stadlin at the Jewish Home and Hospital in Manhattan.  One of the songs he led was called The Giving Song, as it is about the benefits of giving to others. The song goes “Deep inside my heart I got this everlasting light it’s shining like the sun it radiates on everyone.  Cuz the more that I live the more I’ve got to give; it’s the way that I live it’s what I’m living for.”

Songs like Yoni’s emphasize the importance of providing for others and correlate to the emphasis on giving within our tradition.  General practice according to the Bible is “to give what your heart desires,” as we read next week in Parshat Terumah (Exodus 25:1).  There is no limit on what one can give mentioned when talking about providing for the stranger, orphan and widow.  Therefore I find interesting our Maftir for this week, where everyone is commanded to bring the same amount (half a shekel) as an offering to God upon being counted in the census (Exodus 30:12-15).  What is significant about the bringing of the half a shekel is that everyone had to bring exactly that amount: no more and no less.  In a religion that emphasizes giving to such a degree, why set a limit on how much you can give?

In the Book of Exodus, there is a tension between having everyone give the same amount versus give whatever they are able to.  In a few weeks we will see that the Israelites were allowed to give whatever they wanted to construct the Tabernacle.  It turns out that they were so zealous in their gifts that Moses had to tell them to stop.  People came to Moses and exclaimed that “the people are bringing more than is needed for the tasks entailed in the work that God has commanded to be done” (Exodus 36:5).  After this, Moses informed the people “Let no man or woman make further effort toward gifts for the sanctuary!” (Exodus 36:6).

This example of the Israelites giving so much of their resources for a communal structure is astounding.  However, the difficulty with allowing people to give as much as they desire is that people do not always have the means by which to give.  I imagine that some Israelites had taken more gold from Egypt which they could donate to construction of the Tabernacle.  God did not want to embarrass those who had lesser means and thus in this week’s Maftir, God requested that every person give half a shekel-no more and no less.  This had two purposes: it made everyone an equal contributor in the construction of the Tabernacle and reminded everyone that they had an equal stake in the community.  The latter purpose is exuded by the rabbinic principle kol yisrael arevin zeh bazeh, that all of Israel has an equal responsibility in the construction of the Tabernacle.

The idea of communal responsibility is one that is not so easy to fulfill in modern times.  With so many familial needs: grandchildren’s schooling, health care, house mortgage, etc. it becomes difficult to provide for the community as well.  There are people blessed in their resources who make generous donations year after year to communal causes.  If we are not in that situation, however, than how can the notion of the Israelites providing for communal needs transfer into our lives?  I will start out with an extreme example and then touch on one that I believe can work for our larger community.

Occasionally, I get to read examples of great altruism.  One an article from the New York Times, entitled “A Donor Match over Small Talk and Coffee,” talks about a kidney donation that will be made by Starbucks employee Sandie Anderson to Annamarie Ausnes.  In small talk, Anderson discovered that Ausnes was in need of a kidney and she was a perfect match.  On March 11^th 2008, the two women underwent surgery for Ausnes to receive the kidney.  The fact that a Starbucks employee offered to donate a body part to someone she did not know is an amazing act of selfless kindness, demonstrating to us that acts of great altruism exist in our society.  However, while these opportunities are awe-inspiring to hear about, it would not be feasible to do something like this on a regular basis.

A small but far-reaching way that we can work to create a community which emphasizes giving of oneself to others is to be in dialogue with the other members of the community to get to know them personally.  Part of this is learning what makes them unique and part is discovering what their concerns are.  Through a Community Organizing class at JTS, we set up a House Meeting drive brought students from each of the 5 academic schools there in dialogue with members of the faculty and administration regarding common concerns and ways to make the community stronger.  Through the drive, I heard people share similar concerns which they previously believed were theirs alone.  I also discovered that people had the desire to pool their individual resources to help one another.  Through a one hour conversation, we set the ground to create a vibrant community.  This is not the same degree of altruism as Sadie Anderson offering her kidney to Annamarie Ausnes, but it is a way on a larger scale to create a community of responsibility.

One of the great things about being part of the Jericho Jewish Center is that we have feelings of responsibility for one another, as evident by the large turnouts at Shiva Minyanim or by people inquiring about others’ well-being. However, I feel that we can take this further by reflecting on what is the contribution that each of us will give individually to strengthen our synagogue. For some it might be volunteering to serve on a committee or on the board; for others it might entail helping to plan an event and for others it might be giving of financial resources to help our congregation.

In conclusion, we have examined the tension between allowing people to provide whatever they wanted versus the universal requirement of giving half a shekel.  The giving of half a shekel ensured equal responsibility and an equal stake in the community.  It is difficult to create a community of responsibility when we each have so many needs.  At times there might be the opportunity to do an act of extreme altruism, like donating a kidney, but a more regular approach is to meet people you don’t know and get to know them as a full person: what makes them unique, what are some of their greatest ambitions and what they are concerned or afraid about (what keeps them up at night).  This is a difficult task and it is a bit idealistic.  However, by setting up a community where people can relate to one another in a personal and meaningful way, we can fulfill the maxim of kol yisrael arevim zeh bazeh to create a community whose members look out for one another and which lives based on the principle of giving to others.

Interfaith couples are underserved and in some cases even shunned by the community. It is not uncommon for interfaith families to close themselves off to organized Jewish activities. At the same time, the lack of receptiveness of many branches of the Jewish community has left a large number of interfaith couples looking to find some way to belong, on their own terms. There are so many interfaith couples who are not connected to any Jewish organization, at times because of previous bad experiences that have led to feelings of shame and inadequacy. As a Jewish community, we are making a mistake by pushing such couples away. Instead, we need a sensitive approach to outreach that welcomes and nurtures new connections with the Jewish community. We need to show these families that there is a place for them in our community, that our tent doors are wide enough for them to be welcomed and embraced.

How do we do this? My congregation, the Jericho Jewish Center, is creating a networking group for interfaith families. We are also creating individualized learning opportunities to address each couple’s individual needs. Our goals in this regard are to provide opportunities to for interfaith couples to interact with other couples who might be experiencing similar things as well as to create a personalized program of exploration of Judaism for each couple which is non-threatening to the non-Jewish partner. 

If you are part of an interfaith relationship and you feel “out of place” in the Jewish community, you need not any longer. Join us for an introductory meet-and-greet on Sunday March 8^th from 6:00-7:30 pm at City Cellar Wine Bar & Grill (1080 Corporate Dr in Westbury) with other interfaith couples in a welcoming, supportive and non-judgmental group setting. RSVPs are encouraged to 516-938-2540 or at  rabbi@jerichojc.org. Can’t make that Sunday but would like to participate? Please give me a call at the above number. I would be happy to meet with you, hear your story and demonstrate how welcoming our Jewish community truly can be.

On Thursday we had our first Jericho Jewish Center Alumni Event in the city, at Hudson Commons Bar in Hell’s Kitchen. Despite the frigid weather, 12 JJC Alumni came out and had a blast. For some it was a Hebrew School Reunion; for others, an opportunity to meet fellow JJC graduates. The attendees were anywhere from early 20s to mid 50s. It was a wonderful opportunity to meet those who grew up at JJC and learn about their interests.Thanks to Allison Gluck and Dana Arschin for helping me organize. We will have our second JJC Alumni Event after Passover at an outdoor beer garden. Stay tuned for further details.