As We Begin -- 9/6/74

With this posting, a sermon entitled As We Begin, we ironically come to the end of this centennial tribute to the life and words of Rabbi Sidney Ballon. I hope these selections have captured the depth and breadth of his lifelong message to the congregations he served. Sidney Ballon loved Judaism—its principles, its history, its people. He was passionate about the State of Israel. He was deeply concerned about the future of the Jewish people, wanting to preserve it, as much as for any other reason, to sustain its unique set of values.

What follows is not his final sermon, though it was delivered only weeks before his death. His last evening in the pulpit and presumably the last sermon he delivered was November 8, 1974. In his remarks that night he commemorated the centennial of the birth of Chaim Weizmann, the Zionist leader and the first President of the State of Israel. It was a scholarly depiction of an historic Jewish figure. Nonetheless, rather than reproduce those words here, I have chosen the first sermon that Rabbi Ballon delivered at his new “retirement” pulpit in Brunswick, Georgia. These were his thoughts as he set out on a new, albeit short and final chapter of his life. He was filled with hope and optimism, and beautifully expressed some of his basic values to introduce himself to his new community.

As we begin, let us resolve to come to this place often, to pray devotedly, to study faithfully and to be inspired by community togetherness. May this synagogue be for all a source of strength as the synagogue has always been the strength of our people in the past, and in the words taken from the Torah reading this evening, “May God command His blessing upon us— b'chol mishlach yadecha—upon all that we put forth our hands to do.”

==================================================== 

Rabbi Levi Yitschak of Berditchev[i] was a saintly rabbi of the 18th century. The story is told that just after the morning service in his synagogue had been concluded, he shook hands with several of the participants and spoke to them saying, “Shalom aleichem, shalom aleichem,”  and he greeted each one of them as though they had just returned from some faraway place. These congregants were puzzled and looked at him with a questioning expression on their face, and he said to them,

Why are you so surprised? Anyone could see that you were just now far away. You, my friend, were thinking about a vacation. And you were in the marketplace. And only when the prayers ended were you all back again. You had returned from your mental journeys, so naturally, I welcomed you with shalom aleichem.

Like Levi Yitschak I greet you all now with “Shalom aleichem,”[ii] however, not for the same reason. I do not at all mean to imply that your minds were wandering during the service. But you have now returned for your first gathering for worship after the inactivity of the summer and this is the first service I conduct as your rabbi, so it is appropriate for all of us to greet each other with shalom aleichem. Greetings! And may these new beginnings develop into a meaningful experience and a happy relationship through the coming year.

As we begin together, it is only natural also to raise the questions, “What are our expectations? What are our objectives?” The answers are not difficult to find. The synagogue throughout the ages, wherever it has been located, has had three traditional functions that we want to fulfill here in Brunswick also, to the best of our ability, even though the community be small. These three functions have been indicated by the three separate terms with which Jews have always referred to the synagogue. One of these terms that have been applied to all synagogues in general, you have even used as the specific name for your synagogue here, Beth Tefilla, House of Prayer. In so doing, it has, perhaps, been indicated that the founders of this congregation put a special emphasis on the need to assemble in the synagogue for prayer, even though, I am certain, that they did not at all intend the other two functions to be neglected. This emphasis on prayer is, perhaps, not as strong today as it once was. Many Jews today do not pray as often or as fervently as their fathers or grandfathers did, but the importance of prayer remains.

The significance of prayer becomes clearer when we analyze the meaning of the word. In Hebrew, the word to pray is l'hitpalel. The root of this word is closely related to another Hebrew word, nafal, meaning to fall. Thus prayer is quite naturally connected with prostration and bowing and kneeling. It indicates reverence for the power above upon whom we are dependent. But the Hebrew word to pray is also related to another Hebrew word, palal, which means to judge. What is most interesting of all is that the word to pray in Hebrew is a grammatical form, peculiar to Semitic languages, which indicates a reflexive action. Thus the root palal means to judge, but the word to pray, l’hitpalel, is a reflexive verb meaning literally to judge one's self. Thus the Hebrew concept of prayer is that it is an act of self-judgment. Approaching the High Holy Day season, as we do now, it is pertinent to point out that every time you pray, it is as though a touch of the High Holy Days is involved. In prayer one articulates goals and ideals and measures himself against their standard. He compares himself as he is to what his conscience tells him he ought to be. He speaks to himself as much as to God, and the answer to his prayer comes in the extent to which he betters himself and comes closer to the ideal. Samuel S. Cohon,[iii] for many years, professor of theology at the Hebrew Union College wrote, "Prayer makes our shadowy ideals shine forth like radiant stars... and shows us the role we are to play in life. We learn to judge ourselves in the light of these ideals."

Sherwood Eddy,[iv] a Christian theologian was of a similar opinion. "Prayer is not to change God," he wrote, "but our own ignorant and sinful hearts. It is like the pull of a rope from a small boat upon a great ship at anchor. It is not the ship that moves but the little boat."

Thus, the implication is that prayer is not to be considered as a request for supernatural intervention in behalf of our personal wants, but rather the effort to lift ourselves above selfish concerns and to reach up toward the highest and finest ideals with which we would like to be identified. The objective of Temple Beth Tefilla as a Bet Tefilla is to develop that reach.

The synagogue has also been called the Beth Hamidrash, the House of Study. In Jewish life study was also a form of worship. In the Ethics of the Fathers we are told that an ignorant man cannot be a pious man.[v]  The Jew without knowledge was always considered to be a contradiction in terms. Being Jewish was never a matter of blind faith in the Jewish conception of God. Being Jewish involves an awareness of the Jewish past, and hopes for the future. Being Jewish involves knowledge of procedure and conduct, which one gains from the study of Jewish texts. Being Jewish is like being in a profession. We would never expect a physician or an attorney to practice without adequate background in medicine or law. So also is background essential to Jewishness. Take all the virtues and put them together, said the rabbis, and “talmud Torah k’neged kulam— Jewish knowledge equals them all.”[vi]

The poet Bialik[vii] paid a beautiful tribute to the synagogue as a house of study when he wrote, in part,

If thou wouldst know the mystic fount from whence

Thy tortured brethren drew in evil days their strength of soul

If thou wouldst know the fortress whither bore

Thy sires to haven safe their Torah scroll

Go then into the House of Study grown old...

Thy heart will tell thee then

That thy feet tread the marge of our life's fount.

That thine eyes behold the treasures of our soul.

It is our hope also that this synagogue will continue to be for us a source of strength of soul, a storehouse of spiritual treasure.

And the third title the synagogue has carried is as the Beth Knesset—the house of assembly. The implication of this term is that the synagogue is the center and the rallying place for every activity of Jewish interest. It is the institution through which we find fellowship with other Jews and best express our Jewish identity. True, there are other organizations and institutions through which individuals may engage themselves in a Jewish activity, but it is interesting to note that in a community such as this, our other organizations have not taken hold. Only the synagogue has maintained itself. That is because the synagogue is an historic institution deeply rooted in the past and represents all the eternal values of Judaism and not merely certain specific, immediate projects. The synagogue provides not only a means of association with our Jewish neighbors of the community in which we live, but also a spiritual unity with all of the Jewish people throughout the world and throughout all time—past, present and future. The common loyalty of Jews to the synagogue is the strongest force which binds Jews to one another and makes for Jewish survival. Therefore, Jews of Brunswick and vicinity must look upon this synagogue as a place where we seek out our fellow Jews and associate with those who share our common heritage. We seek here to give inspiration to one another and to strengthen each other in our Jewish loyalties.

Of course, we have all undoubtedly met with individuals who say they can function very well as Jews without finding their way to the synagogue. They tell you they can pray in the corner of their home, and it is just as meaningful. They can read their own books and gather knowledge in private. They can find their fellow Jews, if they want to, in secular activities. And what they say is partly valid. Jews are certainly not discouraged from praying privately in their homes, but Judaism does make a special virtue of public prayer. It has always been considered preferable to pray with a minyan. The Talmud says, "One who does not attend the synagogue to pray, if there is one in his town, is not a good neighbor.” Maimonides, likewise, offered the opinion that it is necessary for every person to join with a congregation in prayer as long as there is the opportunity to join in community worship.

Nor are Jews discouraged from studying by themselves, but the Ethics of the Fathers advises, “Asay cha rav uknay l’cha chaver—get yourself a rabbinic teacher and acquire a companion”[viii] against whom to sharpen one's wits. One learns more in a good setting with a teacher and companions than by relying on oneself alone.

And, of course, we can find our fellow Jews in secular Jewish organizations as well as religious, if there are any in our community, but Jewish activity which does not recognize our basic character as a religious people and the motivating power of the religious ideal, is lacking a basic element of Jewishness. If we want to be complete Jews, if we have any concern for a Jewish future, we must turn to the synagogue for direction and staying power.

We now approach the High Holy Days and it is a time for serious thoughts. The fact that you and I also begin tonight a new period in the story of this congregation adds to the significance of this Sabbath. As we begin, let us resolve to come to this place often, to pray devotedly, to study faithfully and to be inspired by community togetherness. May this synagogue be for all a source of strength as the synagogue has always been the strength of our people in the past, and in the words taken from the Torah reading this evening, “May God command His blessing upon us— b'chol mishlach yadecha—upon all that we put forth our hands to do.”

Amen

---

[i] Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev, Ukraine (1740–1809), was a Hasidic rabbi and one of the most beloved leaders of Eastern European Jewry. He authored the Hasidic classic Kedushas Levi, which is a commentary on many Jewish religious books and laws, and is arranged according to the weekly Torah portion.

[ii] Shalom aleichem is a greeting in Yiddish and Hebrew, meaning "peace to you." It is first found in Genesis 43:23. Only the plural form is used even when addressing one person. A religious explanation for this is that one greets both the body and the soul.

[iii] Samuel Solomon Cohon (1888-1959), Reform rabbi, former chair of theology at the Hebrew  Union College -Jewish Institute of Religion. His writings include What We Jews Believe (1931) and The Theology of the Union Prayer Book (1928). He edited the Revised Union Haggadah (1923), the Rabbi's Manual (1928) under the auspices of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, and the Union Prayer Book (1945).

[iv] Sherwood Eddy (1871-1963) was an American Protestant missionary, author, administrator and educator. He served as a traveling evangelist from India, China, Japan, and the Philippines, through the Near East to Turkey, Palestine, Iraq, Egypt, and then to czarist and later to Soviet Russia.

[v] Pirkei Avot - Ethics of Our Fathers: Chapter 2:6, Hillel used to say: “A brutish man cannot fear sin; an ignorant man cannot be pious, nor can the shy man learn, or the impatient man teach. He who engages excessively in business cannot become wise. In a place where there are no men strive to be a man.”

[vi] "Talmud Torah k'neged kulam—the study of Torah is greater than them all." (Mishneh Peah 1:1, Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 127a): These are duties whose worth cannot be measured—honoring one’s father and mother, acts of love and kindness, diligent pursuit of knowledge and wisdom, hospitality to strangers, visiting the sick, celebrating with bride and groom, praying with sincerity, consoling the bereaved, making peace where there is  strife, and the study of Torah leads to them all.

[vii] Chaim Nahman Bialik (1873 –1934, was a Jewish poet who wrote primarily in Hebrew but also in Yiddish. Bialik was one of the pioneers of modern Hebrew poetry and came to be recognized as Israel's national poet.

[viii] Pirkei Avot - Ethics of Our Fathers: Chapter 1:6, Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Perachya says, "Make for yourself a teacher and acquire for yourself a friend, and judge each person favorably."

Rabbis Debate Mixed Marriages -- 1/14/72

In an otherwise evenhanded and rational exposition of the merits of both sides of a controversial issue, Rabbi Ballon not only reiterates his stand against performing mixed marriages, he also drops an “H-bomb.” For many, it is quite painful to hear the suggestion that mixed marriages are akin to doing “Hitler's work.” Moreover, thinking among the Jewish community has evolved in recent times, providing a more welcoming attitude toward mixed marriages, often seeing the glass half full when some Jewish identity is preserved. With apologies to those who find his choice of words painful, I nonetheless felt compelled to include this sermon as an important component of Ballon’s philosophy of that era.

There are compelling arguments on both sides and no rabbi believes that the weight of the argument is 100% in his favor, but the majority of us do believe that there must be standards in Jewish life and that we cannot countenance an attitude that almost anything goes even in an all-Jewish marriage.

==================================================== 

The Association of Reform Rabbis of New York and Vicinity had a double length meeting this past week, in the course of which several speakers presented papers directed to the question, “Shall Reform rabbis officiate at mixed marriages?”—a very delicate subject. This program was scheduled because of what happened at the last meeting of the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR), the national body of the Reform rabbinate. There the proposal had been made by the outgoing president that the Conference go on record as opposing the mixed marriages and, being opposed, also to any of its members performing a mixed marriage. By mixed marriage or inter-marriage, another term that is used, is meant the marriage of a Jew to a non-Jew, who has not converted. If the partner to the marriage who was originally non-Jewish has converted to Judaism, then there is no problem involved. Both parties are Jewish, and it is a Jewish marriage in all respects. The question applies only when the non-Jew does not convert.

When this matter came up before the last conference, it was voted that no statement be passed at that time, in order to avoid hasty action. It was suggested that the matter be held over for the next conference and that in the meantime it be discussed during the year at the various regional meetings that members of the Conference hold throughout the country. And so it was done. And so it came to pass that we in this area devoted a special session to the subject this past week.

The question has a history. This was not the first time the matter had been brought up at a session of the Conference. In 1909 the Conference had considered the matter, and the following resolution was adopted: “The CCAR declares that mixed marriages are contrary to the tradition of the Jewish religion and should, therefore, be discouraged by the American rabbinate.” The matter was again brought up at least twice in subsequent years. There have always been those who wanted the Conference to say bluntly that a rabbi ought not to officiate at such a marriage rather than merely tried to discourage. But each time after discussion, a change was rejected and the 1909 resolution remained the official position of the Conference.[i]

It is interesting to note that in 1947 a committee report recommended there being no change in the Conference stand and said that:

…if the Conference were to state that no rabbi ought to officiate at a mixed marriage, it would imply that rabbis actually do officiate at a considerable number of such marriages and that we are trying to put an end to an evil situation. But that is not so. It rarely happens that one of our colleagues officiates at such a marriage. When it does happen it is under unusual circumstances. What should we do when under unusual circumstances which seem justifiable to him? One of our colleagues does officiate at a mixed marriage. Would we expel him from our conference, or in some other way discipline him? Surely it is sufficient if the Conference declares its unequivocal opposition to mixed marriages and calls upon its members to discourage them.

The question arises again, however, in the 1970s because some new changes are taking place in American society. The statement just read that it rarely happens that one of our colleagues officiates at such a marriage is no longer true, even if it were true then. There is an increasing incidence of mixed marriages and more rabbis perform them, possibly as much as a fourth or even a third of the Reform rabbinate. According to one estimate, mixed marriages have increased as the American Jewish community has become more acculturated and such marriages are less objectionable to non-Jews than they used to be. There have been increased opportunities for young people of different faiths to meet. In years gone by mixed marriages more often involved a Jewish boy and a girl of lower social and economic level, and she was generally agreeable to conversion to satisfy the boy’s family. More recently there is no difference in social and economic level, and more frequently Jewish girls are marrying non-Jewish boys. There seems to be less pressure for conversion. The non-Jew often does choose to convert but not necessarily because pressured into it. More and more also there is a desire on the part of young people themselves to have a religious ceremony even though there is no conversion. They do not want a civil ceremony and so many come to a Rabbi. Another significant change today has been in the attitude of the Catholic Church. The church now permits mixed marriages without any prior conditions, and even welcomes other clergy to stand with a priest in performing the ceremony. This is quite different from what used to be, and it applies pressure to the rabbinate. Previously it was more or less accepted that rabbis would not perform a mixed marriage. Neither did the Catholic priests, but now because the church has yielded the public feels that rabbis ought to yield also. And something else seems to be happening in some places. Whereas previously it was the rabbi who performed a mixed marriage, who was considered out of step, today, some congregations are actually specifying to the rabbinic placement committee that they want a rabbi who will perform next marriages. It is not the rabbi who performs the mixed marriages who is on the defensive. It is the rabbi who does not, who is often called upon to defend his stand.

In view of what has just been indicated, there are some in the Conference who would like to make the Conference statement on mixed marriages a bit stronger. They want to make the fact of opposition clearer and to forbid members of the Conference to perform such ceremonies. This really would not make much difference to the individual rabbi who still wants to perform such a ceremony because the Conference has no binding authority, but it would strengthen the hand of those who do not perform the ceremony. If there should be some conflict with congregations. Congregational members would understand that the rabbi’s position is not an on justifiable rigidity on his part but is the standard of the Reform rabbinate.

What is the reasoning for and against? First of all, it must be pointed out that both sides agree that it is preferable that Jews marry within the faith, and both sides are realistic enough to know that in an open society such as we presently live in a certain number of mixed marriages are inevitable.[ii] Where there is frequent social contact, and our college campuses, in particular, revived such contact, then it is inevitable that such contacts, leads to marriages, some of which will cross religious lines. Both sides agree that the perpetuation of the Jewish faith and the Jewish people is a desirable goal and that mixed marriages threaten this perpetuation. I think also that both sides agree that the chances for a happy marriage are greater if husband and wife, from a similar background. The disagreement is which course of action with regard to appreciating best serves these purposes and to whom the rabbi has a greater responsibility, to the individuals concerned or to the Jewish people at large.

Those who would perform mixed marriages suggest that to say that mixed marriages are contrary to Jewish tradition is no real argument for Reform rabbis. We do go contrary to tradition in many other ways. How, therefore, can we appeal to tradition on this point. I am inclined to agree with this. The very nature of Reform is such that it is guided by tradition but not bound to it. Therefore, to say that we must do anything solely because it is traditional has no force. We have gone against tradition in other important respects, such as kashrut or the wearing of the hacked at services or the use of the kit tuba at a wedding and if deemed advisable we could choose to go against tradition in this matter as well. It is further suggested that we may gain more for Judaism by performing the ceremony that by refusing. The non-Jew who is willing to be married in a Jewish ceremony is already somewhat receptive to Judaism, and it may be that after marriage and after more contact with Jewish life, the non-Jew will come forward voluntarily and ask for conversion. We would be helping a couple maintain a relationship with the Jewish community rather than sending, perhaps, into the church, for their ceremony. If conversion is demanded in advance of the ceremony, it is argued, we are taking advantage of the non-Jew by making conversion the price of the ceremony and bringing about a conversion under pressure, which in the long run may prove meaningless. It may be something ignored immediately after the ceremony because there was no sincerity in the first place. We, as rabbis, if there is a conversion may be therefore helping someone violate his own integrity. If we refuse to marry without conversion we may be driving away a couple from Judaism who otherwise might have become part of it. Most rabbis who do perform mixed marriages do demand that a promise be made that the children will be brought up as Jews. Some do so without any conditions. But by asking that the children be brought up as Jews, the rabbis who asked for this promise feel that they are assuring Jewish survival and fulfilling their obligation to the Jewish future.

Rabbis who refused to officiate at mixed marriages look at it differently. It is recognized that any individual has the right to arrange his life as he chooses. If he chooses to marry outside of the faith that is a decision the individual has a right to make, but if he does so, he must accept the consequences and not ask a rabbi to give it his blessing and thereby imply that nothing contrary to Jewish standards or Jewish interests has taken place. The rabbi is not denying marriage to such a mixed couple, only a ceremony according to a religious procedure which one of the partners to the marriage does not accept. In this country a couple may have recourse to civil marriage, and those who choose to go against their religious norms may avail themselves of it. When a rabbi performs a ceremony, he gives the impression that what he is doing is completely acceptable from a religious point of view. The function of the rabbi is to preserve Judaism and by his own life to set an example of what is best for Judaism. He ought not do what he believes in the long run is harmful to the preservation of the Jewish people. The rabbi may know that such a stand, to be realistic, will not stem the tide of mixed marriage and he may have the utmost sympathy and understanding for individuals who find themselves in love and are impelled to enter into a mixed marriage. He knows that not every such marriage represents a loss to Judaism but he is a rabbi. He has a responsibility to Judaism in general and he must fulfill this responsibility in the manner he deems best. By asking for conversion in advance of a ceremony one does not necessarily contribute to hypocrisy. Conversion is after study and it is hoped that after studying Judaism, the non-Jew may come to a sincere acceptance. The rabbi who feels that he is fulfilling his responsibility to the future merely by asking that the children be brought up as Jews has no more assurance that this will be done sincerely than the rabbi who asks for conversion. As a matter of fact they non-Jewish parent will surely make it psychologically, if no other way, more difficult to raise a child as a Jew then would a unified household. And surely to ask a non-Jewish groom to say to a bride or to ask a Jewish groom to say to a non-Jewish bride, behold, thou art consecrated unto me in accordance with the laws of Moses and Israel is also to run the risk of hypocrisy.

As you are no doubt aware my own position in this matter is with those who do not perform mixed marriages. I confess to you that it is not an easy decision to make. No rabbi makes his decision as to where he will stand without deep thought, and even pain. There are compelling arguments on both sides and no rabbi believes that the weight of the argument is 100% in his favor, but the majority of us do believe that there must be standards in Jewish life and that we cannot countenance an attitude that almost anything goes even in an all-Jewish marriage. We are pained by the seeming disintegration of Jewish life in America, by the great apathy that exists among Jews with regard to their Jewishness. What Hitler failed to do under Nazism, what Russia is trying to do under communism, we are doing to ourselves in a democracy. As rabbis we feel that we cannot even indirectly seem to give it our acquiescence.

What kind of statement the CCAR will make at its next meeting is uncertain, but one thing is certain. The Conference is in for a very warm session.

---

[i] July 3, 2012  “The movement has “moved away from the debate of whether we should or should not officiate,” said Steven Fox, chief executive of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the rabbinic arm of the Reform movement that represents 1.5 million Reform Jews in North America. “It's part of the world we live in. The question is how do we engage these families into our synagogues,” he said. CCAR does not have statistics on how many of its 2,000 Reform rabbis in North America officiate at intermarriages, but when pressed, Rabbi Hara Person, director of CCAR Press, said it's about half.

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/07/03/3099801/an-evolution-in-the-reform-movement-as-more-rabbis-agree-to-officiate-at-intermarriages

[ii] According to the General Social Survey, 15 percent of U.S. households were mixed-faith in 1988. That number rose to 25 percent by 2006, and the increase shows no signs of slowing. The American Religious Identification Survey of 2001 reported that 27 percent of Jews, 23 percent of Catholics, 39 percent of Buddhists, 18 percent of Baptists, 21 percent of Muslims and 12 percent of Mormons were then married to a spouse with a different religious identification. If you want to see what the future holds, note this: Less than a quarter of the 18- to 23-year-old respondents in the National Study of Youth and Religion think it's important to marry someone of the same faith.

According to calculations based on the American Religious Identification Survey of 2001, people who had been in mixed-religion marriages were three times more likely to be divorced or separated than those who were in same-religion marriages.

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/04/AR2010060402011.html?sid=ST2010060404322