Rabbi Cooper's Letters

December 10, 2018 / 2 Tevet 5779

Dear Friends,

Emotions ran high in the wake of the shootings at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh. Most of us were numb with disbelief that such a dastardly and heinous anti-Semitic attack could take place at all, let alone in this country. In its wake, we gathered together instinctively to mourn, to cry and to lean upon one another. We also invited to join us others in the community, non-Jews, ministers and priests, as if to say: We need to know who is with us in this time of trouble. The outpouring of communal support was heartening, meaningful and helpful.

The Pittsburgh shootings, however, reminded us of more than anti-Semitism. We were reminded that our society and our world remain deeply divided. Hateful words and actions seem to have greater license to be expressed. So when responses from around the world were received, we tried to listen carefully to ascertain if the response came from one of “us” or from one of “them.”

This brings me to the response of the Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi of Israel, Rabbi Abraham Lau. What was reported by Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) that when asked to comment about the Pittsburgh shootings, the Chief Rabbi responded by saying that it is a tragedy whenever Jews are killed. The interviewer pressed the Rabbi about the fact that the site of the shooting was a Conservative synagogue. Would the Chief Rabbi call the place of the shooting a synagogue? And the report that emerged noted that the Rabbi refused to use the word “synagogue.”

That was how the exchange was first reported. When I read it, I shook my head at the blatant, divisive and hurtful word of the Chief Rabbi: Here, as we suffer, he continues to drive a wedge between Jews. Never a great fan of this Chief Rabbi or the Israeli Rabbinate, this report fit nicely into my own negativity regarding Israel’s Orthodox establishment. But that is not the end of the story.

Here is the follow-up story that appeared as a retraction by JTA:

According to the full interview with Lau... he appeared at pains to separate the Pittsburgh tragedy from that ongoing controversy (between the Orthodox and non-Orthodox in Israel). In response to the interviewer’s question, Lau said, heatedly,

“What bearing does that have on this? That is irrelevant. We are talking about Jews who were killed just for being Jews. What is the question? There is nothing to discuss about their affiliation. They were killed because they were Jews! Does it matter in which synagogue they pray in or what text they use?” (In Hebrew, the last phrase is “Zeh m’shaneh b’eizeh beit knesset o nusach hem mitpalelim?” Beit knesset, or “house of assembly,” is the standard Hebrew word for a synagogue.)

Lau continued in this impassioned vein after the interviewer noted that the Haredi media won’t use “synagogue” to refer to a Reform or Conservative house of worship. Lau said he doesn’t speak for the Haredi media, and that he often disagrees with what they do and write. Then he added:

“I repeat and say: We are speaking about Jews and we need to not take advantage of the situation to raise our painful differences. I have an ideological dispute with them about Judaism, about the past and the future of the Jewish people throughout the generations.” He then said, rhetorically, “But because of this they are not Jewish?”

There is a lesson to be learned from Pittsburgh and from the exchange with the Chief Rabbi. In a world so divided, we thirst for companionship and for simple acts of humanity, kindness and compassion. We have also become cynical, ready to revert to our own bifurcated thought processes that categorize those speaking as irrevocable members of one group or another. Either they are with us or not. Pittsburgh teaches us that this is not always the case.

We can disagree on a host of issues, substantive or trivial, fundamental or superficial. Yet when we relate to each other as one person to another, the philosophical divide disappears and the categories in which we have placed each other with ease and certainty may not in fact be meaningful or helpful.

When the first report about Rabbi Lau appeared, I was happy to retain my disappointment and disagreements with the Chief Rabbi. Now, I must apologize. At the moment in which he was called upon for support, he gave it. He dismissed, as divisive and hurtful, the attempt to draw him into that discussion. I appreciate the Chief Rabbi’s response.

As we grapple with the divisiveness of the Jewish world and of American society and politics, one would be well advised to wait for all of the facts to emerge. What was really said? What really happened? These questions must be answered before we respond. Stated differently, it is important to know the facts before we can decide if they support our theories.

Rabbi Neil S. Cooper