Grandma Rhoes (“Rose”) once rode an elephant.
My wife’s grandmother was a remarkable woman in many ways. She was a key figure in my wife’s upbringing — supporting and guiding her in countless and pivotal ways. She provided loving encouragement during difficult times, and she was a source of spirited and inspired guidance.
One gem from years ago was when, in reaction to others telling my wife to marry a doctor, Grandma Rhoes told her that she could be a doctor if she liked, and that she should marry whom she loved. Forward-thinking for a woman born in 1910.
An annual tradition for Grandma Rhoes was to try something new for her birthday. At the age of 90, she traveled to Paris so that she could take in the view from the top of the Eiffel Tower.
When she was 78, despite a stroke having temporarily taken away her ability to walk, Grandma Rhoes decided to try golf — swinging from her seat in the golf cart.
The elephant ride came at the youthful age of 75. Grandma Rhoes traveled to Tibet to seek this experience.
My wife and I were in Philadelphia in August 2002. It was the day prior to Grandma Rhoes’ funeral that we learned that our prayers for another pregnancy were fulfilled.
In keeping with Grandma Rhoes’ special nature, those who gathered to say goodbye as she was lowered to rest next to Grandpop’s grave watched as two butterflies (two souls?) came from different directions, landed on the casket, reunited for a time, and then flew together heavenward. I’ve rarely been as moved as then.
We thought it fitting to honor Grandma Rhoes nine months later by naming our new son, “Ross.”
Maintain the tradition
I found myself thinking about Grandma Rhoes, her birthday tradition, and my son’s birth as my own recent birthday approached. I decided that I would carry on the tradition — that I, too, would try something new.
I considered various sports and hobbies, but my thoughts shifted towards Judaism. I’ve always been invested in Judaism; but since a recent move to Milwaukee, I’ve become all the more involved in its practice, observance and learning.
I thus called a friend and rabbi I’d met through the Milwaukee Kollel-Center for Jewish Studies and through the organization Judaism Without Walls, Rabbi Yosef Schlussel. I told him about Grandma Rhoes’ tradition, and I asked his thoughts about putting it into practice in a Jewish way.
Consistent with his character, Schlussel immediately offered to “learn together” (a polite way of offering to teach me, while suggesting that he might gain a bit from it at the same time).
I purchased a coffee cake from a kosher bakery and brought it to the Kollel. We davened Mincha wth the others who were there. Schlussel and I then said the bracha and enjoyed a snack together while he told me to get ready to stretch my mind.
We got down to business. Sitting across from each other over a copy of the Talmud, we lost track of time while we discussed the nuances and layers of meaning involved in a passage relating to laws of Yom Tov.
We learned about whether or not meat could be cut upon a specific object during a Yom Tov (holiday). However, Schlussel led me to understand that the ultimate answer of whether this is allowed was not the primary, or at least the only point.
What we worked more to learn were the ways of the complex and seemingly contradictory commentaries. We looked at why our sages, such as Rashi, made statements that 9=8at first appeared odd or off point.
Only with time and concentration was I able to start to grasp the depth, respect and love of G-d’s word that were inherent in Rashi’s and the others’ comments.
Depth, respect, and love. Learning and new experience. These were reminiscent of Grandma Rhoes.
As Schlussel and I were parting for the day, he said, “I hope that you enjoyed your elephant ride.”
Craig Abrams is a Milwaukee-based psychologist.
‘Me, too!’ on Israel is no help
By James D. Besser
Here’s the good news about the 2008 presidential campaigns: With exceptions on the fringes of both parties, all the announced candidates are strongly supportive of Israel, and not just because they want Jewish campaign dollars.
Here’s the bad news: What they’re dishing out are warmed-over slogans designed to establish pro-Israel credentials without saying much of anything.
This represents the triumph and tragedy of the pro-Israel effort in American politics. Candidates across the political spectrum are eager to express their support, but we’ve made it risky for them to go beyond pro-Israel talking points.
Biased analysts like former President Jimmy Carter say it’s because of Jewish money or the iron grip of the pro-Israel lobby. In reality, the situation is much more complicated.
It has to do with partisan politics and the perceived lack of options for advancing peace in the region, as well as lobbying. Why go out on political limbs when a terror group runs the Palestinian Authority?
One result: Pro-Israel voters will cast their ballots in primaries and on Election Day 2008 without knowing where the candidates really stand. And moribund U.S. policy in the region won’t benefit from the open exchange of ideas that elections are supposed to generate.
Short on policy
Recently, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) went before an American Israel Public Affairs Committee crowd in Chicago and read a speech that — at least most of it — could have been written by the pro-Israel lobby group.
He wasn’t the first and he won’t be the last. Last month, it was Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). Other candidates in both parties are talking to Jewish advisors and looking for opportunities to speak before pro-Israel crowds.
Like Obama and Clinton, their speeches will be long on praise for Israel, warnings about Iran and criticism of the Palestinians; and short on policy.
Some, like Obama (and candidate George W. Bush before him) will mention the eye-opening effect of helicopter trips over tiny Israel. None will suggest how Washington might help Israel work out a secure peace so that geography won’t seem so scary.
Part of this political silence is, in fact, the result of pro-Israel groups that can mobilize an army of grass-roots activists and big campaign donors. Supporters are rewarded in myriad ways, opponents punished and those who question current policy are treated warily, at best.
But power lobbying and campaign finance are only part of the story. A lot has to do with the situation in the Middle East, where Palestinian and Arab moderates are an endangered species.
The late P.A. President Yasser Arafat was never an attractive ally for American politicians. The terrorist Hamas leaders that followed his death, with their bitter anti-Americanism and continued calls for Israel’s destruction, are even less so.
Even Jewish peace groups are having a hard time finding creative suggestions for reviving the long-comatose peace process. Why should we expect politicians on the stump to do any more?
And there is naked partisan politics. More and more, opponents less interested in Israel’s future than in finding new cudgels to use on their foes are holding candidates to rigid standards of pro-Israel orthodoxy.
The Republicans have led the way by tarring all Democrats for the infractions of a few. The mere hint that Israel, as well as the Palestinians, might have to make some compromises for peace can produce blizzards of attack ads and accusations of being anti-Israel.
Genuinely pro-Israel politicians who might have creative ideas for advancing peace are afraid to speak. That means the only ones who are talking are those with clear anti-Israel bias — like Carter, who seems to think Hamas’ desire to destroy Israel is a pose.
With almost every candidate from both parties essentially reading from AIPAC talking points, it’s safe to assume that we don’t really know what any of them really think or how they will act if victorious in 2008.
Pro-Israel leaders seem content with broad pro-Israel slogans and boilerplate promises they know politicians won’t keep, such as the recurring promise to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
It also means that there is a strong disincentive for politicians who might have some new and useful ideas about the Middle East mess.
U.S. policy is stuck — in part because of the situation in the region, in part because the Bush administration, distracted and increasingly beset by crises, has shown almost no interest in finding new solutions.
Almost all candidates in the 2008 race support Israel, a testament to AIPAC’s successes. None will offer any clues about how they might help Israel reach the peace its citizens crave because new ideas are just too risky.
That may please some pro-Israel leaders, who see it as a mark of their effectiveness, and it helps protect against ill-conceived U.S. peace plans.
But ultimately it could work against Israel’s interests as it seeks a way out of the current deadly stalemate.
Former Madisonian James D. Besser has been Washington correspondent for the New York Jewish Week and Baltimore Jewish Times since 1987.
Loading ...
