Filed under
18 Responses to “Mishegaas”
Leave a Reply
If your comment does not immediately appear, do not freak out and repost your message a dozen times. Please note that all new visitors must have their first comment approved by the editor, and you must provide a legitimate e-mail address and use the same username for the system to "remember" you. The editor maintains the right to refuse comments deemed inappropriate or unhelpful. Users who repeatedly delve into ad hominem attacks or other troll-like behavior will be banned.
Trackback (Right-click & 'Copy Link...') | Comments RSS
Ok, so for the overall rabbis list, the criteria include “media presence”, “political/social influence”, etc. We may disagree with whether those criteria are relevant, but at least those criteria make it easier to generate a list, since there is a limited number of rabbis with a media presence and such.
But as for the pulpit rabbis list, where the criteria include “Ability to inspire congregation through scholarship and oratory”, “Ability to meet spiritual and personal needs and goals of his/her congregation”, how the hell can they gather sufficient data to compare the thousands of pulpit rabbis in the country? Most of the rabbis on the list are in major metropolitan areas, but how do they know that there aren’t equally inspiring rabbis in places where the Newsweek people have never been?
—BZ · April 14th, 2008 at 2:33 am
And once again they haven’t done the most basic research to get the appropriate denominational labels. E.g., Michael Lerner is labeled has “Reform”, but in fact has rabbinical ordination from an independent beit din headed by R. Zalman Schachter-Shalomi. It took one Google search to find this out.
—BZ · April 14th, 2008 at 2:38 am
Only vaguely related to the above item, some Canadian shuls are threatening to split from the Conservative movement.
It does seem kind of imperialistic that US-based organizations run the whole movement worldwide.
—BZ · April 14th, 2008 at 2:48 am
Hi Danya,
Now I really AM wondering why they don’t write a similar list for the Episcopal church or Protestantism or American Islam or (etc). I could go anywhere from “Its just a masked form of the old-school fear of Jewish influence in world power structures” to “we are such a caring and social-justice oriented religion and that naturally puts us further out there in the realm of, and in the interests of the secular world.” In some sense thats 2 sides of the same coin. Or perhaps a more modified version, “’secular episcopalians’ might not care what happens in the organized episcopalian world as much as secular Jews would care about what happens in the organized Jewish world.”
Anyways, it sounded like you had some thoughts in mind that I’m not sure I’ve been able to fully guess. I’d be interested to hear them!
Best,
Jon
—JL · April 14th, 2008 at 3:16 am
The whole thing is bizarre- BZ, I”m guessing that they knew that, but had no idea how to label it ( not pithy! to say “rabbinical ordination from an independent beit din headed by R. Zalman Schachter-Shalomi” -also let’s face it, significantly less impressive, especially if one actually knows the history, which is that he didn’t actually go through a course of study to get his ordination - because he was leading a community, and was considered talented at it, he was just given it. That happened a *lot* in the renewal movement, which is why its ordinees tend not to be taken extremely seriously by those who aren’t part of it).
Secondly, I agree that it’s completely ridiculous to measure people by ability to inspire and to meet personal needs along with media savvy and movement leadership - since, let’s face those things pretty much don’t go together well. For example
David Wolpe (not that there’s anything wrong with this, or with him), while known for his interesting sermons and his books, is also known as a pretty private person.
And how are they going to measure people who are below the radar because they’re working in small pulpits? Which, by the way, automatically reduces the number of women available to be included in the count.
But, hey they did include a whole five women.
—KRG · April 14th, 2008 at 8:43 am
OOPS, I’m wrong; just four!
—KRG · April 14th, 2008 at 8:45 am
“Renewal” would be a more accurate one-word label.
—BZ · April 14th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Oh, yeah, and don’t EVEN get me started on including Yehuda Berg the former salesman (well, actually not so former),- and as Orthodox! Please!
—KRG · April 14th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Basically this list feels like a great excuse for lots of Lashon HaRa.
—Simon Firestone · April 14th, 2008 at 10:11 am
The Conservative Movement world-wide isn’t run by US-based organizations. North American Conservative Judaism is coordinated through offices in New York, but with a regional system that gives the same (dis)advantages to Canadians as it does to any other regions outside of the New York metro area. There are separate organizations in South America, Europe, Israel, and perhaps elsewhere that coordinate Conservaitve/Masorti Judaism in those parts of the world. (Coordination among the different international bodies, if it exists at all, remains a mystery to me.)
—dlevy · April 14th, 2008 at 10:15 am
The label that i found the most surprising was Art Green–Renewal. Art graduated from JTS, was active as a founder of Havurat Shalom, and served as the president of RRC for quite a while. It would seem more appropriate to label him as Conservative, Havurah, Recon, Transdenominational, or Post-Denominational. Renewal seems sorta silly.
Sharon Kleinbaum is another possibly miscategorized figure. She was ordained by RRC and is a member of the RRA and CCAR. Labeling her as Reform rather than Recon or Recon/Reform seems odd.
Also, why use Conservative, Reform, and Hassim rather than Hassidic?
Lastly, though I think they should have added this to their criteria, size of congregation has an impact on ability to inspire (etc) a large number of people and hold a broader influence. Over time, the most talented rabbis tend to move to urban congegations and attract attention. cetainly many rabbis do amazing things in places where other folks don’t take much notice, but over time those rabbis tend to apply for and get jobs closer to the spotlight. thought there is a certain trend, there is a definite lag.
—zt · April 14th, 2008 at 11:01 am
The label that i found the most surprising was Art Green–Renewal. Art graduated from JTS, was active as a founder of Havurat Shalom, and served as the president of RRC for quite a while. It would seem more appropriate to label him as Conservative, Havurah, Recon, Transdenominational, or Post-Denominational. Renewal seems sorta silly.
The rabbis who founded synagogues didn’t get labeled “Synagogue”, so it doesn’t make sense to label Art Green as “Havurah”. Otherwise, I agree completely with this paragraph.
Sharon Kleinbaum is another possibly miscategorized figure. She was ordained by RRC and is a member of the RRA and CCAR. Labeling her as Reform rather than Recon or Recon/Reform seems odd.
And her current congregation isn’t affiliated with a denomination.
—BZ · April 14th, 2008 at 11:09 am
“Over time, the most talented rabbis tend to move to urban congregations and attract attention. certainly many rabbis do amazing things in places where other folks don’t take much notice, but over time those rabbis tend to apply for and get jobs closer to the spotlight. thought there is a certain trend, there is a definite lag.”
Depends on what you mean by “talented.” That’s true when they’re male, but doesn’t so much hold for women. MOreover, it would require “talented” to mean “gives good sermons” or “attracts media attention” rather than “serves the needs of their congregants.”
Even then, it’s not necessarily true.
—KRG · April 14th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Practically every rabbi on that list will claim that it’s wrong to rate rabbinical skills through specious media “lists.”
And practically every rabbi on that list will add to their biography the fact that they’re on the list.
—EV · April 14th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
The Canadian bit is, well, annoying to say the least. This article is not about “Canada” but rather about “Toronto.” There might be some similar notions of discontent in Montreal (and possibly in Winnipeg, Halifax, and even Ottawa), but this is decidedly not about Canada, as a whole, being more conservative than the Conservative in the US.
—feygele · April 15th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Also, speaking to some non-Canadian executive director types, it sounds like this dispute is really about the inability of USCJ to provide much of anything to synagogues, a problem not unique to Toronto, or Canada…
—dlevy · April 15th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
[...] not threatening any more: this month, two Toronto-area “traditional Conservative” congregations have [...]
—Jewschool » Blog Archive » No longer a threat · April 28th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
[...] has published a list of 50 influential rabbis. And, like last year, it’s very geographically skewed and gender-biased. And, like last year, it doesn’t [...]
—Newsweek makes another list | Jewschool · April 5th, 2009 at 2:42 pm