Kol HaKavod! Another wonderful experience with sensitive, caring rabbis. I too am comfortable with either version as expressed in Mishkan T’filah.

But more importantly, I too hope.

One of the things I hope for is the “filter” Rabbi Danziger described. Yes, I hope my parents see the wonderful twin boys and beautiful little girls who carry their names as well as the two young women, one of which they both knew and loved. I hope they see that the parents of all these beautiful children, their grandsons, have grown into caring, loving fathers who provide so very well for their families.

One of the things I hope for is that God will provide the same filter for me. And one of the things I hope for is that we all have hope!

B’Shalom,
Sandee Holleb
Congregation B’nai Jehoshua Beth Elohim
Glenview, Illinois

To Rabbis Zecher and Danziger,

Both statements are beautifully worded but both statements justify a Column A/Column B straddle on a major point of religious contention. One statement uses “metaphor” as its wedge and the other uses “hope” but both lead us to a land of wishful thinking.

The Sadducees were right on m’chayeih hameitim. They recognized it was a Persian concept foreign to the Torah. The Pharisees and the Essenes took a side track and gave us a rescue fantasy which in turn led to Christianity.

Judaism has m’chayeih hameitim well covered with its Conservative and Orthodox traditions. Reform has little to gain by giving it even Column B status. This can only blur differences and weaken our reason for being.

Respectfully,
Arthur M. Rosen

Dear Rabbis,

Your discussion in Eilu V’Eilu has remarkably struck a resonance with thoughts and feelings that have been flooding my mind for the past year. As a Reform Jew I had never really dealt with the issue of immortality in any depth. I had shelved the concept of rebirth like so many other issues that deal with the omnipotence of our God into a classification of general acceptance or that are beyond my comprehension. Then little Joey was born about a year ago. This little grandson was the first boy born to my children. His parents named him after my father of blessed memory—not just his full Hebrew name, but also his full English name!

A small bit of new humanity. During his b’rit I was blessed to hold him as sandak. The baby had been properly prepared and obviously was not experiencing any pain. He looked up at me. Our eyes met, such a deep black opening into his soul. I swear I saw my father in this baby. Our eyes remained locked throughout the procedure and I definitely felt that my father was approving of the whole situation. Since then, whenever I have seen this child our eyes will lock, he will stop crying and now even smile. No words need to be exchanged because we both communicate at what must be a spiritual level. This is a level of communication that I have never felt except perhaps when chanting the Torah. I am truly convinced that this baby hold my father’s soul and somehow knows it!

This is a bit different than the classical meaning of m’chayeih hameitim, but why not? After reading your arguments I wanted to share this with you. Thank you for your insights.

Joel L. Seres, MD

Thanks to Rabbis Zecher and Danziger for their thoughtful responses to the questions raised by readers. I am thrilled by the inclusion of both hakol and hameitim. I only wish that Mishkan T’filah also included some of the second paragraph of the Sh’ma, though I appreciate the very thoughtful process that went into the decision to keep it out of MT.

Abbe Lyons
Congregation Tikkun v’Or
Ithaca, New York

(Editors’ Note: For more information on the new Reform siddur, Mishkan T’filah, see the website www.urj.org/miskan and the article by Rabbi Richard Sarason, PhD titled “The Three Paragraphs of the Sh’ma.”)

Dear Rabbi Zecher,

I appreciate your comments on the addition of m’chayeih hameitim in our new prayer book; in particular, the idea of a metaphoric understanding is especially meaningful.

I am a member of the Reform Wise Temple in Cincinnati. However, in my morning prayers I use an Art Scroll edition of the Elohi Neshamah, which ends with hamachazir n’shamot lifgarim meitim, Who restores souls to dead bodies.

A few weeks ago, upon reading this, I thought: “Do I really want to say this?” Upon reflecting about how I was feeling physically, emotionally and spiritually—very low (or “dead”), I remembered that often when I feel that way in the morning, I get better and better as the day goes by. Suddenly that part of the prayer became a hopeful symbol for me, reminding me that God would restore me to well being. It has been so ever since.

Thank you.
Leah Sauer

I much agree with Rabbi Danziger. I like to pray for what I believe in, hence I will continue to say m’chayeih hakol as quite sufficient to cover every version of meaning, and I certainly would not pray for the reinstitution of animal sacrifices. If that ever happened in a Reform service, I would walk out.

I enjoy Eilu V’Eilu—it helps to clarify Reform thinking, since it is currently in flux.
Cordially,
Stuart Rosenberg

Both Rabbi Zecher and Rabbi Danziger accept the propriety of the Orthodox working (and I use that designation deliberately). To me, both have sidestepped the reason it is objectionable. God’s “reviving the dead” is not just a poetic or metaphorical “inspiration of our souls.” It is also a statement right out of Christianity. The association is too strong for me to accept the phrase in my religious service. It is impossible for me to hear it without being assaulted by two millennia of Christian theology, antithetical to any Jewish system I can construct. I sincerely hope that the Reform rabbis will remove it from the liturgy.

Frank J. Alpert