Jewish Relationships Initiative

Blog

  • This Is Not a Security Problem

    (This Essay was published in the Jewish Exponent on July 27, 2026 and reprinted here)

    Each time I enter the Weitzman National Museum of American Jewish History, I stop at the security checkpoint. The guards may recognize me from previous visits, but I still empty my pockets and remove my belt. Beyond the checkpoint, I put myself back together. Inside this special space, I am safe. Located on Independence Mall, across Market Street from the Liberty Bell, the museum acknowledges the Jewish community’s extraordinary place in the United States. But that specialness also makes it a target. Just two weekends ago, someone defaced the sculpture outside the Weitzman, and someone else violated the sanctity of New York’s Central Synagogue.

    I won’t tell you how to feel about it. Anger, fear and grief are valid responses to these and many other assaults. We are deeply saddened that our country harbors hatred that betrays the great promise we believe in. Yet anger, fear and grief can be paralyzing. Paralysis becomes silence, and silence is the goal of those responsible for these heinous, cowardly acts. I will not give them what they want.

    There is a phrase in the Talmud that I keep returning to, Kol Yisrael arevim zeh bazeh: all of Israel is responsible for one another. Arevim shares its root with eiruv, the boundary that turns separate private courtyards into a shared domain on Shabbat, so that carrying between them becomes simply what neighbors do. Arevim is about creating community. It is about refusing to treat your neighbor’s doorway as the limit of your concern.

    Here is what I think a lot of us get wrong about that phrase. We hear “all of Israel” and assume it’s drawing a line: our people, not others. I don’t think that’s what it’s teaching; instead, it’s teaching that responsibility has to start somewhere concrete before it can go anywhere. For us, it starts here with us. It was never supposed to end there.

    This is not a security problem. It is a relationship problem disguised as a security problem.

    Let me be plain. I am not minimizing guards, locks, magnetometers, or cameras. =The Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia has invested real money through its community security initiative to harden facilities and keep a bad Saturday morning from becoming a funeral. I’ve sat in briefings and learned what a trained guard and a hardened building can prevent. If you give to Federation, some of what you gave helped build that. You should know it, and you should give more this year because the need did not go down this month. It went up.

    But there is more for each of us to do than write a check. It’s an extension of believing we are part of a larger society, invested in each other’s safety, not just our own. We tend to treat interfaith friendship as something for calmer times: a shared meal, a joint text study, or a panel discussion with refreshments afterward. I want to suggest we have that backward. The friendships built during calm times are the real infrastructure that concrete barriers can’t replace. The guard who might recognize me at the Weitzman is not Jewish. Neither is my friend who will stand beside me and publicly declare that we support each other. Those relationships did not happen because of a program. They happened because we showed up enough times to become people to each other, not categories. Some weeks, that feels like a small thing next to everything else rabbis are supposed to do. This week, it doesn’t feel small at all.

    I also want to be honest about something closer to home. The Board of Rabbis of Greater Philadelphia, which I have the honor of leading, brings Orthodox, Reform, Reconstructionist, Renewal and Conservative rabbis into the same room, even though we disagree about enormous things. Areivut does not ask us to resolve those disagreements before we act together. It asks us to act together anyway, because responsibility supersedes disagreement. If that’s true inside our own house, it has to be true at its borders, too.

    So here is what I am asking of Philadelphia Jewish Exponent readers, who are already inside the tent, already connected enough to a Jewish institution to hold this publication in your hands. Call your legislators. Not an email, but an actual voice on the phone, so a staffer has to hear it and take a name. Ask what they are doing to fund security at houses of worship, ours and our Muslim neighbors’ alike, because we are both targets of the same hatred. Increase what you give to Federation’s security fund and say why.

    Then do the harder thing. Think of one person outside this community, a neighbor, colleague, or parent from your kid’s soccer sideline, and call them. Share what happened at the Weitzman. Tell them what it would mean if they showed up outside your synagogue some Saturday morning, not to do anything, just to be there. They will not know you want this until you ask.

    Finally, show up yourself. This Shabbat, go to shul and be counted. It costs only getting dressed and going, and it matters more than every paragraph I’ve written here. An empty sanctuary tells whoever did this that their plan worked. A full sanctuary, with a few unfamiliar faces near the door because you asked them to come, tells them something else entirely.

    My email tagline says, “God’s miracle is not in the thunder and lightning. It’s in people sheltering each other from the storm.” I believe this more than ever, not because it is easier to believe now, but because I watched what happens when a community decides to test whether it is true. Areivut is not a slogan on a wall. It is your presence. It is a phone call you have not yet made.

    Who is it to?

    Rabbi David Levin is president of the Board of Rabbis of Greater Philadelphia and founder of the Jewish Relationships Initiative.

  • Shabbat Shalom

    We are to tell our story as an act of gratitude.  “Ki Tavo commands us to bring our first fruits and tell our story — not as boasting but as gratitude. Andra Day rises because the story she carries demands it.” 

    Shabbat Shalom

    עוֹשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם בִּמְרוֹמָיו הוּא יַעֲשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם עָלֵינוּ וְעַל כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעַל כָּל יוֺשְׁבֵי תֵבֶל וְאִמְרוּ אָמֵן

    Oseh shalom bimromav, hu ya’aseh shalom aleinu, v’al kol Yisrael, v’al kol yoshvei tevel v’imru amen.

    May the One who makes peace in the high places, bring peace upon us, and upon all Israel, and all humankind, and let us say: Amen.

  • The Night They Rewrote the President’s House

    In the middle of the night this past July, National Park Service crews removed the panels at the President’s House on Independence Mall and replaced them with a different version of the story. No announcement. No public unveiling. That was probably the point.

    In the musical Gigi, there is a song called “I Remember It Well.” Two former lovers recall the same night, and their memories don’t agree on a single detail. Neither is lying. They illustrate what history frequently does too: the story we tell ourselves is often incomplete and rarely matches what actually happened.

    We like our history tidy and uncomplicated, an unblemished hero, and an easily understood meaning. History, like most human stories, is not a record of what happened. It is processed and filtered, then handed back by the storyteller/redactor as meaning.

    In 2010, a new exhibit titled “Freedom and Slavery in the Making of a New Nation” opened at the President’s House. It told two stories at once: the birth of the presidency and the story of the nine people Washington enslaved in that same house while he governed. He led a nation founded on the proposition that all men are created equal, yet he owned slaves. This fuller, more honest story is both complex and ironic.

    In March 2025, a presidential executive order directed the National Park Service to remove exhibit content that portrayed our founding in a negative light. Last January, the Park Service removed the panels at the President’s House. Philadelphia sued to have the original panels restored and lost. This is a fight over the manner we understand history, including whether we can hold two truths about the same man at the same time.

    George Washington was a brilliant general and a remarkable first president. He nobly and voluntarily walked away from power when he could have kept it. He was also a slaveholder who relied on enslaved labor to run his household while building a nation on the language of liberty. All of this is true. Nothing cancels the other. A history that tells only the first part isn’t protecting Washington for us; it’s attempting to protect us from him and from what his contradiction asks us to see in ourselves.

    I don’t think the answer is to tear him down or to build him up. Our responsibility is harder than either: to let him stand as he was, admirable and implicated at once, and to ask what that implies for us.

    Washington is not a special case. Shlomo Carlebach rewired how a generation of Jews sang and prayed, and he used his standing to harm women who trusted him. Richard Wagner composed music that can move people to tears and also wrote antisemitic tracts that the Nazis later claimed as their own. Genius and leadership often come with their shadow.

    Do we dismiss a person’s achievements because of their faults? Or do we hold the gift and the fault together, refusing to let either erase the other? That is the real work before us, at the President’s House and whenever someone or something we admire also carries the inexcusable.

    The comfortable version of history asks little of us. We may learn some new facts, but otherwise it essentially confirms what we already believe and sends us home unchanged. The complicated version asks us to sit with imperfect people, including our ancestors and even ourselves, who were capable of both nobility and cruelty in the same lifetime.

    Some see this as a weakness in the story; I believe it is the story itself.

    What would it mean to let the fault sit right beside the gift, in Washington, in Carlebach, in anyone on whom we’ve built an inheritance, not as a footnote but as part of the story? What would it mean to do the same with our own history, our own families, or our own choices? We don’t get to answer that question once and be done. We have to keep answering it, generation after generation, argument after argument.

    That is where learning from history truly lives, not in the tidy version but in the argument we’re still willing to have.

     

  • You’ve Made It- a message of Ki Tavo

    You’ve made it.

    I remember standing in a robe I’d never worn before, waiting for my name to be called at ordination and receive my Smichah. Five years of arduous struggle with text and new learning, self-doubt and yearning, brought me to a door with a new life just on the other side of the threshold.

    Ki Tavo opens on the same threshold: the name means “when you come” or “when you enter.” After forty years of a life lived one day’s manna at a time, B’nei Israel is told what happens on the other side of the wandering. Stand half the tribes on Gerizim, half on Ebal, and hear the blessings and curses called out across the valley. Near the parsha’s close, Moses says something startling: “Until this day, the Lord has not given you a heart to know, or eyes to see, or ears to hear.” (Deut. 29:3)

    Rashi, citing the Talmud, calls the sojourn a forty-year apprenticeship: a student doesn’t fully grasp a teacher’s wisdom while still living within it. Freedom and despair held the whole trek, neither ever defeating the other. The same generation that walked out of Egypt upright, unowned for the first time in memory, kept begging to go back, the terror of the open desert outweighing whatever freedom was supposed to feel like. Both built the organs Moses says only now work.

    I am sure you also remember the Wizard of Oz: the Wizard sends Scarecrow off with a diploma and Tin Man off with a heart-shaped watch. I used to read this as a secret they always had. They didn’t. Scarecrow learned to solve real problems along their journey, badly at first, better as the miles went on. Tin Man ached for Dorothy until the ache became, undeniably, a heart. The diploma and the watch mark the end of the apprenticeship. Moses closes one too, forty years later, on the plains of Moab.

    I have a deeper appreciation now of what I didn’t know in that robe. The Smichah didn’t hand me anything. It marked the point where five years of study and work had built enough of a rabbi to be trusted with the door. The building continued, with no ceremony, the following Monday.

    Which may be why Ki Tavo doesn’t let the forging stop at the border. It follows its own graduation line with a list: honest weights, field corners left for the hungry, a tithe handed over before you’ve decided you can afford it. None of it is glamorous. All of it is the forty years continued in miniature: a heart needs exercise to stay strong, and it gets that on ordinary days, not mountaintops.

    Ki Tavo’s list is not merely a set of ledger entries, God tallying rewards for the obedient and punishment for the defiant. I buried that pediatric theology long ago, when a good man’s chart recorded things his heart hadn’t earned. Good people lose everything; careless people prosper for decades, and no verse explains it away. What I trust is quieter: what we do in the small, unwatched hours still matters, and it adds up.

    The freedom didn’t turn into relief once they crossed, and the despair didn’t lift either. That may be why the mountains remain two, standing across from each other, neither ever collapsing into the other, both still true today. I know people who believe in a zero-sum game think a finite pile means grabbing first, before the next person can, treating others as threats rather than neighbors. I know others, driving across town with food for someone they’ve never met, paying a cost that isn’t theirs because someone had to. Gerizim hasn’t canceled Ebal. They’re both still standing, and so are we, somewhere between them.

    I have a heart to know now, more than I did years earlier, that it was built the way B’nei Israel was: not handed over but earned over years, with no one else watching. Ki Tavo isn’t really asking whether we possess it. It’s asking what we do with it on the Tuesdays after the ceremony ends, when no one is watching, and every day thereafter.

    Which mountain are you standing on today?

     

  • Shabbat Shalom

    As we welcome Shabbat and read from Ki Tetzei, the musical connector is Lecha Dodi.  Based on a verse from Isaiah, we are told “Dont be ashamed” despite the trials of the week, welcome the comfort of Shabbat.

    David Sasso brings Lecha Dodi to us with Bluegrass.  Using this genre is a metaphor about reaching out to others and creating relationships wherever they may be.

    Shabbat Shalom

    עוֹשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם בִּמְרוֹמָיו הוּא יַעֲשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם עָלֵינוּ וְעַל כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעַל כָּל יוֺשְׁבֵי תֵבֶל וְאִמְרוּ אָמֵן

    May the One who makes peace in the high places, bring peace upon us, and upon all Israel, and all humankind, and let us say: Amen.

  • The Kippah on My Head Is Not a Target on My Back

    Should I take off my kippah?

    I first asked myself that question years ago, before a trip to Hungary. Viktor Orbán was reaching for power by invoking an old script, the anti-Semitic tropes his country knows too well, and I did not want to become a small, portable target for whatever that script might awaken in a stranger. I was not traveling alone. My wife would be beside me, and the fear was not only for me. If my kippah made me a target, it made her one too.

    I brought the question to my friend and teacher, Rabbi Brad, a man with a cooler, wiser head than mine. He didn’t answer it. He asked me to ask a different question. For many people I would meet, he said, I might be the first Jew they had ever stood beside in the flesh. Perhaps, he suggested, the kippah wasn’t a liability to manage. Perhaps I was being handed an assignment, an unlikely diplomat to a community that might be more curious than cruel.

    I took his advice, and it opened doors I could not have imagined from the outside. Jews who had spent decades in hiding found me because I was visibly, unmistakably one of them, and that visibility told them it was safe to speak. I heard survival stories that had never been spoken aloud before that day. None of it would have reached me if I had made myself smaller, safer, and harder to see.

    This is not just a piece of personal history. It’s an argument for a claim I still believe: the kippah was never a challenge thrown at the world. It was a door held open.

    I did not expect to be asking the same question again, this time about New York City, in 2026. Yet here I am.

    Here are the people I encounter on an ordinary day here. The cab driver who gets me to the airport. The man behind the bodega counter who knows my order before I say it. The woman at the pushcart serving food from a country I couldn’t find on a map, standing beside another cart from a country nowhere near it. The subway platform at rush hour, where I can stand for four stops and watch a whole world get on and off around me, no two people from the same place, all of them going somewhere.

    New York was never the melting pot we were taught to sing about, where everyone’s edges dissolved into sameness. It is a stew, every ingredient still itself, still recognizable, simmering together anyway. It is a city built, whatever its failures, on the idea that a person gets to wear who they are without flinching, on that platform, behind that counter, and everywhere between.

    I won’t pretend the danger people are naming is imaginary. There is an angry rabble here too, and a hateful mob, and, worse, the lone wolf who needs no crowd at all to do harm. And I won’t pretend that taking off the kippah wouldn’t make me a slightly harder target to find. It would. Hiding works, a little, the way hiding always works. But safety was never the only question worth asking, and it cannot be the only one we let ourselves ask. Playing it smart is real; each of us has to make our own honest reckoning about when a threat is truly a threat, and I won’t tell another Jew what their reckoning should be.

    However, a life organized entirely around that reckoning isn’t a life. It’s a retreat dressed up as caution. We need a north star that isn’t fear. Something better. Something that still believes the man at the bodega counter, the driver, the woman at the pushcart, might be capable of curiosity instead of contempt—because most days, they are.

    I learned this from my rabbi and friend, standing at a doorway to Hungary, years before I understood what he had truly given me: the kippah on my head was never a target on my back. It was always, and continues to be, an invitation. I won’t let anyone—not history, not a headline, not a lone wolf’s shadow—convince me to fold it up and put it away.

  • What Happens to the Stragglers? Parsha Ki Tetzei

    Why does a portion overflowing with civil law stop, in the middle of everything else, to tell you how to build your roof?

    When you build a new house, Torah says, put a ma’akeh, a guardrail, on the roof, so no one falls. It sits in Ki Teitzei almost an afterthought among dozens of other laws: return the lost ox, pay the worker before sundown, leave the gleanings for the poor. But ma’akeh is the right word for the whole portion. Every law here is a guardrail, a protection for those who could fall or be pushed.

    We build guardrails because we don’t fully trust each other, and a society honest about that protects people exactly where power tends to slip: the wife accused without evidence, the son a father wants to disown, the worker whose wages could vanish if no one were watching. Ki Teitzei is guardrail after guardrail, each one placed where someone could fall.

    Madison wrote the same instinct into the Constitution: if men were angels, no government would be necessary, and since they are not, government must be given enough power to govern and then be obliged to control itself. Checks and balances in our government are guardrails by another name, built because we know what power does when no one is watching or nothing is stopping it.

    What they were built to keep out has a name: Amalek. Torah tells us exactly what he did. He attacked from the rear, cutting down the stragglers, the elderly, and the exhausted, too weak to keep pace after Egypt. The Hebrew for it is zanav, to tail. And Torah adds one line about why: he did not fear God. Fearing God, in this text, means knowing something stands above you, that your own strength is never the final word. Amalek feared nothing greater than himself, and a man who fears nothing greater than himself decides soon enough that the weak exist for his convenience.

    Hubert Humphrey put it plainly, dedicating a federal building: the moral test of government is how it treats those at the dawn of life, the children; those at the twilight of life, the aged; and those in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped. Society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable. Those are exactly Amalek’s targets.

    I recognize that fault line right now, and it does not belong to another country. Those same guardrails, due process, the courts, a Congress willing to check power rather than defer to it, get treated as obstacles rather than as boundaries. Immigration raids treat frightened, exhausted people the way Amalek treated the stragglers, as targets of opportunity rather than as human beings owed protection. Settlers in the West Bank, claiming to act in the name of my own tradition, terrorize Palestinian families with brutality that has everything to do with Amalek’s logic and nothing to do with Torah. When the government looks away from these or blesses them outright, I no longer consider them legitimate by the standards of our tradition.

    Ki Teitzei commands us to erase Amalek’s memory precisely because that instinct never fully leaves: the appetite for treating a guardrail as an inconvenience rather than a covenant. What do we do when the stragglers being picked off are visible right now, on the news, at the border, in cities, villages, and olive groves? It is one of Moshe’s final charges to his people before he dies: make sure we are never mistaken for Amalek, or for the government, or for the neighbor who lets him operate unchecked.

    I have no program to offer, no plan for how a rabbi in Philadelphia moves the world’s cruelty. But I know what my tradition asks of me before I know what to do about it: let the stragglers, wherever they are this week, be people I am responsible for, not a category I have learned to tolerate.

    What would it cost you to do the same?

  • Shabbat Shalom : Justice – Shoftim,

    “The most urgent imperative in Devarim: justice, justice — pursue it. Dylan has been asking the same question his entire life. So has Torah.

    This Shabbat, both voices together, with the artistry of Peter, Paul and Mary.

    Shabbat Shalom

     

     

    עוֹשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם בִּמְרוֹמָיו הוּא יַעֲשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם עָלֵינוּ וְעַל כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעַל כָּל יוֺשְׁבֵי תֵבֶל וְאִמְרוּ אָמֵן

    Oseh shalom bimromav, hu ya’aseh shalom aleinu, v’al kol Yisrael, v’al kol yoshvei tevel v’imru amen.

    May the One who makes peace in the high places bring peace upon us, and upon all Israel, and all humankind, and let us say: Amen.

  • One Honest Email

    I was on a gurney, waiting to be wheeled into surgery. My doctors were confident, and the odds were strongly in my favor, but even good odds are not certain, and my mind knew the difference. My wife, Naomi, had just stepped out of the room. Into that ordinary gap came a thought that would not leave my mind: what if that was it? What if “I’ll see you soon” turned out to be the last thing I ever said to her?

    I have spent years teaching people how to write an ethical will, the document that carries not your assets but your values, the things you want your family to know before it is too late to say them. I tell people this work should not be put off. And there I was, realizing I had done exactly what I counsel everyone against. I had a computer full of drafts and reflections, an actual ethical will years in the making. And I realized that Naomi did not even know the password to unlock my laptop.

    It struck me as darkly funny. I had spent years building something meant to carry my meaning forward, and I had built it where she couldn’t reach it.

    There was no time to fix that properly, so I reached for my phone instead. In the minutes before they rolled me in, I typed. I won’t share what the email said, except that it wasn’t “I’ll see you soon.” It was only part of what I intended to say; time and fat fingers limited how much I could fit in. But I know the lessons marriage and life teach you over the years are rarely said out loud because you assume there will be a better moment. And my moment was now. I learned that the iPhone lets you delay delivery. I set it for 9:00 that night, timed for whichever version of that evening was coming: the one where I would explain the email away, or the one where it would have to explain me.

    There is a teaching in Pirkei Avot: repent one day before you die. A student asks the obvious question: How is anyone supposed to know which day that is? The rabbi’s answer: You don’t. So live each day as though it might be that one.

    I know this text. I teach it. I did not expect to feel it from the inside, with only a few minutes left to say what mattered.

    The surgery went well. I am healing, grateful, and mostly back to my routines. Which is its own quiet warning, since routine is exactly what lets the mundane swallow the sacred again. When I woke, Naomi was there. I picked up my phone and deleted the email before she saw it.

    I have thought about that deletion more than almost anything else from that day. I am glad “I’ll see you soon” turned out to be true. But part of me wonders whether I should have sent it anyway. Not because I was dying, but because it was true regardless of whether I lived.

     

  • Why does justice have to be chased? Parshat Shoftim

    Tzedek tzedek tirdof, says Moses in this week’s Parshah, Shoftim. Justice, justice shall you pursue. Not achieve. Not establish. Pursue, tirdof, the same root you’d use for chasing something running from you.

    I keep circling the doubling. Rashi reads it as ends and means: one can’t justify the other. True, but not enough. Justice never holds still long enough to be caught in one hand: the justice of the letter and the justice of the spirit, what the law permits and what it should permit. Say it once, and you’ve named half of it. Say it twice, and you’ve admitted the whole thing is bigger than any single verdict.

    Moses gets specific: appoint judges and officers, gather two witnesses, investigate meticulously, take no bribe, “for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous.” Then, almost without transition, a line that should unsettle us: in every generation someone will interpret this law for you, and you are not to deviate, right or left.

    Read plainly, that’s a demand for total deference. The Talmud makes it stranger, not simpler. Rosh Hashanah 25b insists this applies “even if the judge before you is Yiftach,” a flawed, minor judge from the book of Judges, “in his generation as though he were Samuel in his generation,” the greatest judge Israel ever had. The law itself hasn’t changed. But the period and society in which it is interpreted have.

    That should unsettle us more than it comforts us. A judge can be wrong, or bought, or certain he holds all of justice in his hand when he’s holding half of it. But a judge can also be persuaded, and this is less a flaw than the whole point.

    We call ourselves a nation of laws, one that holds together only if it applies to everyone alike. We build precedent so no single ruling carries that weight alone. But precedent moves too: we watched the Supreme Court overturn nearly fifty years of it, reversing Roe v. Wade. Whatever you believe about the merits, Shoftim already taught the deeper lesson: no court of last resort is anything but some version of Yiftach. We can appeal upward, term after term, but the appeal ends somewhere, and we are bound to comply, whether we agree or not. A shared law is only shared if it binds the people who lose the argument too.

    I remember waiting for test results, my wife beside me, the room dark and lonely, my imagination filling in what the doctor hadn’t said yet. The doctor could have been wrong about the diagnosis, about the treatment. What I noticed was how little the verdict had to do with the anguish. It was the not-knowing whether whoever held my chart was seeing me or processing me. Lo takir panim, the Torah tells judges: do not recognize faces. It’s a warning against favoritism, and equally a demand to see the face in front of you clearly enough to recognize the humanity looking back. You cannot do that with a law no one is left to interpret in the present moment.

    We are handing more of our judgment to systems that can never be Yiftach in any generation: built once, unable to say, “the letter of the rule does not serve the person in front of me.” Risk-assessment algorithms in sentencing. Automated denials in insurance and benefits. A frozen rule can’t be bribed, nor does it tire at the end of a long docket. But Torah already knew that a system incapable of being persuaded isn’t the same thing as a just one. Tzedek tzedek tirdof describes a pursuit, and a pursuit requires someone alive enough to be moved.

    When was the last time I let a rule be argued with? When was the last time I trusted a person in front of me more than the process built to replace them? Tirdof doesn’t promise you’ll catch it. It only takes stopping off the table.

    Shabbat Shalom.