Comments for Embodied Torah

Comment on Divre Harav/Words from the Rabbi – September, 2012 by Rabbi David Krishef

Rabbi David Krishef — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 18:16:57 +0000

I suggest that the synagogue has to be larger than the rabbi, and both are responsible to the mission of the organization. There will be decisions of the community that individuals might strenuously disagree with, but I would hope that the community is open to hearing both sides of the disputed point and welcoming both to remain under the larger tent of the synagogue mission.

Comment on Divre Harav/Words from the Rabbi – September, 2012 by danny c.

danny c. — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 17:39:55 +0000

Agree with your words David, but what happens when a synagogue or Rabbi in a community fail in their mission. I would argue that there are a fair number of Jews(including myself) who find themselves outside of (and not really desiring)a synagogue community. Your answer might be to find another community, but this doesn’t work for everyone either. It is time for Jews to build new communities that don’t include the synagogue and rabbis at the center. Communities that are home-based perhaps as Judaism really begins and ends in the home, not the synagogue.

Comment on Why My Blind Son is Returning from Camp Ramah in Canada a Month Early by Ramah’s Blind Spot Fuels Inclusion Debate | Any Faith Church

Ramah’s Blind Spot Fuels Inclusion Debate | Any Faith Church — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:30:50 +0000

[...] angry dad, Rabbi David Krishef, wrote about the incident on his personal blog, noting that among the reasons given were, “Sol takes too long eating his [...]

Comment on Why My Blind Son is Coming Home on Sunday, part 2 by The Collective Consequence When Inclusion is Perceived as Optional | eJewish Philanthropy: Your Jewish Philanthropy Resource

Tue, 24 Jul 2012 07:20:31 +0000

[...] story. This situation which was brought to our collective attention by the heartfelt blog (here and here) of a dad who is also a rabbi highlights the consequences to all of us when the wider Jewish [...]

Comment on Why My Blind Son is Returning from Camp Ramah in Canada a Month Early by The Bigger Picture | Matan

The Bigger Picture | Matan — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 23:49:46 +0000

[...] has been a challenging week in the world of Jewish Special Education, as news of a blind camper asked to leave Camp Ramah in Canada spread at lightening speed over social media and other outlets. Though Matan has been following [...]

Comment on Why My Blind Son is Returning from Camp Ramah in Canada a Month Early by Why My Blind Son is Returning from Camp Ramah in Canada a Month Early | Strengthening Jewish Women,. l'dor v'dor | Scoop.it

Sun, 22 Jul 2012 23:47:32 +0000

[...] For the rest of the story, see part two of this post here. My almost-16 year old blind son, Solomon, was supposed to spend 8 weeks in the second-oldest Aidah (age group) at Camp Ramah in Canada, a … [...]

Comment on Why My Blind Son is Coming Home on Sunday, part 2 by Andrea

Andrea — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 19:58:49 +0000

I am very impressed by your whole family’s maturity in this situation. However, I am still saddened by how much public scrutiny it took to get the camp, and Ron in particular to rectify the situation. It makes me wonder whether his “change of heart” came about because he realized he had made a mistake or because he was feeling immense public pressure to ‘save his own butt’. Clearly if it had only been a matter of clarifying Sol’s needs, a conversation and maybe 1 page of written directives would have aided him trying to keep Sol at camp to begin with rather than finding reasons why he should have to leave. This raises a huge flag regarding how Ron and the camp’s administration deals with difficult situations.
I give Sol major credit for his decision to come home on his terms. I wouldn’t want to stay somewhere knowing I wasn’t wanted there either. You should be very proud of your son. I hope he chooses an even greater experience like going to Israel next summer.
-Andrea, OT, M.S.W.

Comment on Why My Blind Son is Coming Home on Sunday, part 2 by sistertamala

sistertamala — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 19:40:32 +0000

I have been reading these comments and thinking about social media. I understand why people use social media to get their point heard. I realize Rabbi that you felt that you needed to quickly make your voice heard and to reach the right people to undo the damage that had been done to your son.
Unfortunately, the anger and vile which your message unearthed in people, renders its message pointless. Instead of becoming a story about the particular situation, which happened to your son, it has become a forum for chastising many, most of them well intentioned. Some of them who make mistakes.

It needs to be remembered that when you send your child to summer camp, for the most part, you are sending them to be cared for by teenagers. Yes, those teenagers may have some training, but there comes a point where they cannot handle every child that comes to them.

I too have a special needs child, and I chose to send her to a Jewish special needs camp. I knew that the counsellors were a bit older and that their focus was on what my child needs. My child is hard to deal with, not impossible but draining, but I do not expect a teenager, many of them just out of the role of “chanich” themselves to be able to do what I struggle with day in and day out.

I wonder in situations such as these, when a blog degenerates into so much vilification of an individual and an institution, whether the writer, long down the road, looks back and says, I wish I had found another way to deal with this.

Comment on Why My Blind Son is Coming Home on Sunday, part 2 by anon1

anon1 — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 19:37:49 +0000

Paula Simons’ comment pn Facebook
I’ll tell you what I wouldn’t do as a parent. I wouldn’t embarrass my son by posting this story on line with all the names of the people involved, including his. As a newspaper columnist, I often struggle with incorporating family anecdotes into my column while still protecting the privacy of my nearest and dearest. But I endeavour never to use my column to settle personal scores. I understand why this father is angry. We all want to protect our children. And I’m sure in this case, where the son has a disability, that urge to protect is especially strong. But it would surely have been more respectful of the son and his privacy not to launder all this dirty linen in public. Is this about protecting the best interests of the child? Or about using the blog as a tool to exact public revenge? For parents – and I’m guilty of this too – who see their children as extensions of their selves, a perceived attack on a child is seen as an attack on the parent and a blow to the parent’s ego. When people approach me at the paper and want me to write pieces about terrible unjust things that have allegedly happened to their children, I always ask them – and myself – how will publishing this make the kid’s life better?

Comment on Why My Blind Son is Coming Home on Sunday, part 2 by rich

rich — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 19:19:59 +0000

I am happy that Ramah claims to prioritize the value of inclusion. Very much so. I am also thrilled to see programs such as Tikvah thrive at Ramah. I also sympathize with their concerns of privacy.

Would it be too much, however, to present a public statement of apology? Dr. Polster managed to do this in private, but the camp cannot publicly admit error? “We understand the sadness and pain” is not exactly “We’re sorry,” not even remotely close. They cannot say, publicly, that they will strive to improve? Whose privacy, exactly, is violated by such a statement?

Let’s not pretend that Rabbi Cohen can’t comment at all; after all, the 3rd paragraph is a veiled attack on Rabbi Krishef (I’d like an explanation as to how Rabbi Cohen can assert that Rabbi Kirshef created a “false impression of injustice” without even attempting to back up that assertion), and the 4th paragraph not only references the case and the blog, but appears to attack the notion that it’s public at all — even though, as events unfolded, it became plainly evident why the publicity was both appropriate and necessary.

To read the letter, would have one believe that Ramah is already perfect when it comes to inclusion, need apologize to no one, and is entitled to conduct all its affairs with no publicity whatsoever. It is, in a word, the very definition of entrenched.

Dr. Polster made a mistake, and to his credit he has worked to correct it (as best he can) and learn from it.

But as a Ramah advocate, former camper and staff member, andparent, I am very disappointed with the official statement. They appear to have learned nothing. Rabbi Cohen does not represent my views.