Rabbi Shael Speaks...Tachles

Twinkies

2012-01-23T11:25:00.000-06:00

The summer of 1956 was a watershed summer in that I was presented with the first of my nisionot (nisionos for yeshivisha pronunciation) in how deep my commitment to Jewish observance ran. Not that I want to compare myself to Abraham’s 10 nisionos, which he passed with flying colors, nevertheless and unlike father Abraham I was truly challenged with this first one because of the sheer will power demanded of me. It was expected of me by generations of Jews who came before me who martyred their lives “leshem shamayim” (for the sake of heaven), to withstand the temptation to eat a Twinkie knowing that it was my god given right and that of every American kid to snack on them. Some other products at the time, which hadn’t had hechsherim, you could get away with, because everyone knew that the products were kosher, like Hershey’s Chocolate. Even the name sounded Jewish. Twinkies, on the other hand sounded American, looked treif and in fact was glatt treif. There was no away around this, no rationalization, no excuse. It was universally accepted that they were treif. There was no dissension on this, not even from the most modern of the rabbanim in Albany Park. Animal fat listed in the ingredients, which undoubtedly made them irresistible hardly came from a kosher slaughtered bovine creation.

I was only nine years old and like any other cosmopolitan kid living in Albany Park I had been to the local soda stores, news stands and groceries where Twinkies were readily available. They were always positioned next to the other iconic Hostess product: Hostess Cupcakes. But it was always the Twinkies that winked at me as I stood a foot away staring at the packaging, wondering what that first bite would taste like. To tell the truth, the Hostess Cupcakes never tempted me. They always looked plastic, too perfect, too smooth, evenly lined up with their paper lining, never, ever spilling over, like the sumptuous cupcakes that were home baked -- uneven, textured and too voluminous for the paper lining. Every time I saw a Twinkie, my mouth started watering, wondering why it had to be treif. As difficult as it was to turn away from the food stand where they were so prominently displayed, it wasn’t impossible. Avraham Avenu would have been proud – although I often wandered which of his ten tests would have been comparable. Perhaps it would have been number 5 according to Rashi or number 3 according to the Rambam. Either way I felt my commitment was up there.

To my horror the real test didn’t come till I went to the Eugene Field day camp the summer of 1956 with my secular Jewish neighbor Jerry, who lived a few doors down. We used to bike around the neighborhood, but this would be our first excursion across Lawrence Ave down Ridgeway in the direction of Foster where the field house was located. Lunchtime on that first day at camp was the nisayon of my life, which I would rank up there with Avraham’s number 10 according to both Rashi and Rambam. On a park bench, my friend scarfed down his salami sandwich with a carton of milk, which seemed infinitely more appealing than my tuna fish sandwich. The shock came however when Jerry pulled out from his brown bag a package of Twinkies. I looked down at my dessert, which was a measly couple of home made chocolate chip cookies wrapped in left over creased aluminum foil that looked like it had been recycled for the past month. Then I looked over to Jerry’s Twinkies and my mouth began to water. He offered me one of his Twinkies and for a moment that seemed like an eternity I was tempted to reach out as Adam reached out and bit into the forbidden fruit. It was a painful moment, but in my youthful naïveté I understood that if I wouldn’t be able to withstand this major test I’d never be able to withstand any future temptation.

The summer of 1956 was indeed a watershed, an apt introduction into the world where choices are presented and decisions made. I never ate a Twinkie, but the irony of it all is that I was disturbed by the news last week that Hostess Company has filed for bankruptcy and the future of the Twinkies product is uncertain. My entire conscious life has been hitherto accompanied by certain guideposts that have provided me with comfort zones as I move through life. These iconic images and products that have accompanied me through my journey are slowly disappearing which incidentally casts a shadow on my own mortality. From the time I was nine years old till today I could enter any super market anywhere in America and eyeball a package of Twinkies. It makes me feel good, comfortable and safe even though I never ate one. Its something like the Israeli meat product “loof” (equivalent to American spam), a staple of the army field rations that has been around since before the establishment of the State, giving it an iconic status. That, too, has disappeared to my great consternation. Perhaps it could be said what Israelis feel about the loss of loof I feel about the imminent disappearance of Twinkies from the American culinary landscape. America without Twinkies is like Israel without loof. It just can’t be!

Get It Right

2012-01-12T18:18:00.001-06:00

Kana-us, the corrupted Hebrew word for kana-ut or zealotry has taken Israel and the Jewish community worldwide by a storm creating unprecedented blowback. The proverbial straw that broke the camels back causing a robust and muscular backlash was the incident in Beit Shemesh the last week of December 2011 where an eleven year old modern orthodox girl was spat upon and derided with opprobrious behavior and language due to her lack of acceptable deportment as per the standards of a deviant haredi community, traumatizing her to the point where she became apoplectic. This misogynistic attitude is nothing new in the haredi community. Hitherto it has been camouflaged with a lot of double speak seeking ways by which they can eat their cake and leave it whole. Praying for centuries the morning prayer “...shelo asani isha,” a sure recipe for subliminal brainwashing, tucking women away behind an almost impervious wall for services, dictating the nature of their clothing, and their head covering is the potent ingredients for applied kanaus. The majority of haredim who were offended by the actions of the zealots over the past few weeks were surprisingly offended to see the fruit of their labor. It isn’t clear that their rejection of kana-us was principled or that they wished to distance themselves from a politically unpopular position. Once they saw and felt the swift, sharp backlash they may have realized that their time hadn’t yet arrived. Perhaps these putative moderate haredim will have to wait another generation when their demographic numbers have swollen to the point of critical mass in Israeli politics and public opinion to effectuate putting women in their rightful places (in the back of the bus and designated sidewalks).

Kanaus is firmly entrenched in the psyche of the haredi community and the question, which begs to be asked, is when did kana-us become a mainstay in the haredi mindset? In a recent article written by a haredi journalist troubled with the recent outbreak of kana-us J. Rosenblum references Rabbi Chaim Shmuelevitz that “only one filled with Aaron’s quality of pursuing peace and overwhelming love of every Jew can fill the role of kanai. Anyone who does not act out of that closeness to Hashem or lacks the quality of being a rodef shalom is a murderer pure and simple.” The difficulty with this is that kana-us becomes laudable if it is applied and executed by a person with the right qualifications. That’s why, according to this warped reasoning Pinchas was able to run a javelin through the genital area of Zimri and Kozbi; considered a hero by some and used as a standard for kana-us. The xenophobia demonstrated in biblical text as well as the misogyny are two key ingredients which molded some within the haredi community into some of the worst human beings within the collective Jewish community.

Another ingredient that goes into the making of kanaus is the concept of daas torah. Several years ago I wrote an essay on the damage daas torah has inadvertently wrought on the haredi community:
“The concept of Daas Torah is firmly rooted in the recognition that Hashem ‘looked into the torah and created the universe’ (Breishis Rabbah 1:1). The torah provides history’s agenda, past, present and future, and encompass the world’s every secret. Those who have merited to acquire Torah thus possess the best credentials for effectively addressing the world’s problems, and those who doubt the Torah leader’s ability to ‘understand politics’ thereby redefine the meaning of Judaism.”

This comment presumably self-explanatory wouldn’t have been so stunningly audacious, had it been said by a naïve yeshiva bachur or a disillusioned kollelnick. Unfortunately, this was written years ago by the late Rabbi Sherer of Agudas Israel as part of an article entitled Torah in the Proper Place, which I stumbled over while researching the theme of authority and dissent in Jewish tradition.

Daas Torah, a term of fairly recent origin, is understood to mean that through intense Torah study and the rigorous practice of the mitzvoth, one will have a greater understanding of God’s will. Daas Torah can be a compelling ethos for people in search of guidance, when they voluntarily seek it out. However, when dissenting opinions aren’t tolerated as in Rabbi Sherer’s vision and description of Judaism and the stature of the gedolim, than we have the makings of a cult, controlling people through peer pressure and charismatic leadership. Sherer says in the same article that “it is the responsibility to remind ourselves and others of the fact that our gedolim are the foremost experts not only in matters of Jewish law, but in social and political issues as well.”

So the question then becomes, which gadol is the one who sets the gold standard. Why ought it not be a gadol who believes literally that “shelo asani isha” means precisely what it says without parsing words? Why can’t it be the gadol who believes that misogyny is the express intention of our sacred text as understood by that gadol without the need for further elaboration? As odious as it may feel or sound daas torah is determined by a gadol who has a following and is recognized as one steeped in Torah, regardless of whether one agrees with him. Why should these zealots give any credence to the daas torah of more moderate and perhaps less intellectually honest gedolim? Certainly the moderate gedolim have been compromised as Jonathan Rosenblum writes in Mishpacha Magazine, December 21, 2011:
“A few years ago, I asked a gadol whether he had addressed certain socio-economic problems …on contemporary issues. He told me that he could not do so because if he did the kanaim would say he was not really a gadol. In other words, he could not address pressing issues because if he did he would become so discredited that no one would listen to him anyway.”

It would appear that this gadol was more concerned about being undermined and preserving his own status than shouting out the truth from the rooftop of his kloiz. Unfortunately the kanaim have it up on the moderates because they have no need to spin or parse words. They call it as they understand, and this, for them is daas torah.

Kana-us will continue to plague the Jewish people and pose a threat to the fabric of democracy in Israel unless the moderate haredi community stops spinning when kana-us is a good thing, and rejects it in toto. It is never good. Kana-us leads to blood shed. Pinchas, in his kana-us murdered two people and was responsible for a blood bath that made St. Valentine’s massacre child’s play. Furthermore, the mainstream haredi community must stop any social/religious practice that smacks of misogyny (and re-examine the appropriateness of "shelo asani isha as did R’ Abraham Farissol, a 15th century Italian rabbi who wrote a siddur replacing shelo asani isha with “she-asatani isha ve-lo ish) or xenophobia (spitting on Greek Orthodox priests). For the moderate haredi community to prevail they will have to get it right.

Zealots Gone Wild

2012-01-01T11:05:00.003-06:00

Growing up as part of a minority has its advantages – sometimes. There is a certain convenience in being able to point the finger at “them;” blaming them for everything that’s wrong--after all they are the majority and majority rules. Being educated in a parochial Jewish day school reinforces those feelings and more: that we are “the chosen;” that we aren’t capable of perpetrating the evils that Christians have done to us and to others. We were raised to believe that it is “them versus us,” we naturally being the good guys and could do no wrong. Even the Jewish history texts that we studied carried that theme as the thread running through our history; the common denominator uniting Jews throughout the world, Ashkenazi and Sepharadi against them. Heinrich Graetz the preferred orthodox historian of choice in those years reinforced the idea that we Jews suffered prodigiously by the gentile hand, which was true; but never suggested the proposition that perhaps we too could be responsible for the suffering of “others” if only we had the opportunity, motive and power, if only we would one day become the majority.

There were enough classical texts that should have clued me in to the possibility that we Jews could be as dangerous, venomous and vindictive as the Christians. Apparently and coincidental of this Chanukah season we seem to have a tendency for zealotry, causing the suffering of others for the greater glory of God. The earliest examples of that is the carnage perpetrated by Dina’s brothers Simeon and Levi following her rape by a Canaanite prince. Another incident was that of Pineas murdering Zimri and Cozbi during our 40 year sojourn in the desert trying to develop a spirituality that would draw us closer to God. We experienced our first Jihad when Joshua conquered the “Promised Land,” which God showed him and commanded him to liberate from the infidels. Centuries later when King Saul didn’t liquidate the Amalakites as commanded Samuel denied him the continued kingship.

The eons that we were in the proverbial desert, exile, we were powerless and to be sure victimized. That didn’t mean that we didn’t have the potential to bring harm and suffering to others; we may have had the motive but not the opportunity; Purim, the exception to the rule, is the annual joyful, almost ecstatic retelling in detail of our first pogrom with the ‘other” being on the receiving end. And while we celebrate the Chanukah story let us not forget that the Maccabees were zealots and in the commission of their vision they slaughtered Jews that were comfortable with and adapted well to Hellenistic culture. One wonders whether zealotry is in our DNA.

Where we didn’t have the opportunity to bring harm to “others” we unfortunately exploited opportunities where we intentionally turned on our own and brought immeasurable and irreversible harm to them. While not wishing to drudge up the sordid details of our remarkable history a few examples will suffice. Hassidic courts over the centuries in Europe sought means by which they could exercise greater power. Power in a hassidic court was measured in numbers of followers as leverage, a means to influence governments. The larger the court: the greater the power. Most hassidim weren’t attracted to a court because of the rebbe’s spirituality but because he had the potential of providing work for them. A powerful court was a court that could win royal charters, such as selling liquor, making candles, operating inns, etc. Lords were inclined to grant these royal charters to hassidic leaders who demonstrated control over large communities of Jews. When hassidic courts were threatened by others rebbes encroaching on their territory, turf warfare wasn’t uncommon and sometimes it was brutal. An example was the turf war between the Belzer and Satmar hassidim during the interwar period when due to the outcome of the war the boarders were rearranged. Followers of court became problematic as the new borders redefined the influence a rebbe could have. If half his community now lived under communism and unable to cross over to his rebbe a 5th column was created in the other rebbe’s “backyard. This precipitated warfare among the competing hassidic groups which invariably led to violence, acrimony and jail sentences for members of a court found guilty of trumped up charges made by, suborned and perjured by the competing hassidim. As a footnote, the Belzer Rebbe, Aharon Rokeach, so obsessed with the possibility of loosing power if his hassidim left Europe in flight from the Nazis implored them to stay put, not to leave for the godless America or Palestine, while he escaped later on.

The Misnagdim, too had their wars as well. Many of theirs was fought in an attempt to contain the spread of hassidut, which was believed to have contributed heavily to the deterioration of the Kehilla and the breakdown of the family unit. The Vilna Gaon went so far as to put them into Herem. One of the more toxic examples of zealotry gone wild was that between Rabbi Jonathan Eybeschutz and Rabbi Jacob Emden. Neither of them were small time rabbis; each was notable in their own right. Eybeshutz was a child prodigy in Talmud who settled in Prague was the head of a well-known yeshiva and was considered second only to their dayan, avid Oppenheim. Because of his quick rise to fame in Prague many of the rabbis there accused him of being a Sabbatean. Because of these vicious rumors he only was appointed a dayan, but not the chief rabbi of Prague. In 1750 he was elected rabbi of the “three communities”, Altona, Hamburg & Wandsbek. He was considered a genius but had the rare quality as well of being charismatic. At about this time Rabbi Jacob Emden, known as the “Yavetz” was a leading German rabbi who made his career on fighting the Sabbateans. He published 31 books and Moses Mendelssohn had an intellectual affinity to Emden. He held no official post, lived in Altona and made his livelihood by publishing books. Emden accused Eybeschutz of being a secret Sabbatean basing his accusation on the interpretation of amulets that Eybeschutz crafted. At the time that he was appointed chief rabbi of the “three communities” the controversy reached its peak. Emden, a zealot accused Eybeschutz not only of being a Sabbatean but also having an incestuous relationship with his own daughter. Most condemned Emden and even after the council labeled him a slanderer he continued his philippics against Eybeschutz. Refusing to leave Altona as ordered to do by the council relying on the king’s charter. Ultimately he left for Amsterdam where he continued his fight at the court of Frederick V of Denmark which found in Emden’s favor, and fining the council. Emden moves back to Alton where the fight continued for another 5 years, in the process destroying reputations and livelihoods.

These are mere examples of zealotry when we weren’t in positions of power, when we were for the most part minorities in host countries or a minority in our own. Imagine what our track record would look like had we been in power for the past two thousand years. Well we are now, and zealotry, judging from current events (Price Tag, haredi intimidation of women, etc.) is alive and well. Ironically, these zealots are once again a minority in a democratic Israel. Dare to imagine if they were the majority?

Two Tough Questions

2011-12-19T13:45:00.002-06:00

Its been said that all an average student needs to become excellent is to be fortunate enough to experience one outstanding teacher. That relationship will provide the inspiration for a lifetime. In fact many of us have had such singular encounters that has left an indelible mark on our lives: I was lucky enough in the 60’s to have encountered a teacher in Camp Moshava (Wild Rose, Wisconsin). Avraham Nuriel z”l, a shaliach to our community (later became a professor of Jewish Thought at Bar Ilan University) spent the summer in Moshave teaching us the geography and history of Israel, but special was the daily class on the teachings of Harav Cook. Those informal learning experiences sparked discussion among the campers and it’s those conversations especially that have accompanied me all these years. I’m not always aware of those discussions, but invariably something triggers those memories recounting those conversations, which bring me back to Avraham Nuriel and his understanding of Harav Cook.

The two burning issues that concerned us young Zionists in the years just prior to the 67 war were two hypotheticals: What if America and Israel would no longer be allied and their interest were at cross purpose, where would our loyalties be? What if Israel was no longer a democratic state becoming something other than democratic i.e. fascistic or theocratic, would we still chose to live there? Would we still support Israel assuming that we lived in America? At the time these were merely hypothetical, given to mental gymnastics, because no matter what we said, it really didn’t matter. Israel was a secure ally of America enjoying support from Congress, the Executive branch and Israel was the darling of the media. I never imagined then that those two rather simple questions would haunt me a half century later. Nor would I be recalling those heady intellectual conversations sitting under a tree while Avraham helped us work through what I understand now to be extremely complex issues.

There is a side of me, the youthful traces which wants me to believe that these two questions ought to be consigned forever to undisturbed memory, stored there for another time. No need for concern, certainly no need for panic. President Obama may lean toward the Palestinians but Congress has our back. Besides, even if Obama wins another 4 years, Israel can stonewall him until his term ends. The damage he can do while significant may be reversible with a more even handed president. Regarding democracy, my still youthful, optimistic shadow believes that Jews have embedded within our DNA democratic values. We are an “am kishe oref” (stiff necked people), argumentative, not given to indulge others, brutally honest, demanding of our government, with a history of cut throat journalism that is the backbone of a true democratic system.

The other side of me, the more seasoned mature side that has seen life in its beauty and ugliness is skeptical about our future as a democracy and as an ally of the United States. Less concerning for the moment is the issue of our relationship with America because; as long as Israel is a strong democracy there will be support for Israel. If however we begin a tailspin that undermines democratic values then our nexus with American Jews and ipso facto America will wane. I wince at the thought that while we are not in a tailspin yet there are undemocratic trends, which ought to flag our attention and concern. The fact that Hillary Clinton made her remark in a private setting expressing her concern for the marginalization of women within Israeli society ought to be taken seriously. There are other glaring examples many of them emanating from the religious communities whether haredi, hardal or any other flavor. It appears as though the haredi community less tolerant of secular Israel is trying to impose its way on the majority. To wit: a lecture at a community center in Haifa had haredi ushers direct women in (in spite of their reluctance) to the back of the hall, assuring that the men and women were separated. It oughtn’t be open season on Muslims or secular Jews because there is a strong haredi coalition in the Knesset. The bus incident with Tanya Rosenblit makes me wonder if she will become the new Rosa Parks of Israel.

The West, including Israel is hyper critical of the Muslim penchant for their fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran with the exponent that their women are treated like chattel. I am beginning to sense the same tendencies within the hyper-religious community who happen to be the loudest and most visible with Israeli society and who occupy seats in the Knesset thus highly influential on multiple levels. This trend will continue and will slowly erode the matrix of Israeli democracy unless the governing body in its wisdom draws a line between church and state.

Israel will do well if it learns from Greece. The Greeks too are closely aligned with its religion, Greek Orthodoxy. Because Greek orthodoxy is interwoven into the fabric of society there is no separation of Church and State. One can hardly be Greek and not be Greek Orthodox. Their way out of this conundrum are the dictates of the European Union which are enforcing certain steps to untangle the state from the Church. Israel ultimately will have to do the same thing if it wishes to safeguard its democratic values.

As hard as I find it to imagine Israel living under a non-democratic system of government I can’t fathom what it would do to American Jews. Probably the ultra religious ties with Israel would grow tighter as the ties with the liberal communities in America would grow weaker. Concomitantly, liberal lobbying for Israel would curtail, as would philanthropy: the American Jewish community turning inward, marshalling its resources to service their own needs.

Perpetuating the Myth or Recasting Chanukah

2011-12-08T09:55:00.002-06:00

Every year as Cheshvon slides into Kislev I begin again pondering the meaning of the Chanukah story, its legacy, what we should be taking away from the story and its celebration. Insight and understanding change over the years, depending on perspective and context but what has been consistent over the years is my reluctance to accept the miracle of the oil as the prima facie reason for celebrating Chanukah. According to the story, the rebelling party under the flag of Judah the Maccabee having restored the Temple to its previous sanctity weren't successful in finding a significant supply of uncontaminated sacramental pure oil to light the Menorah for more than one day. Miraculously the oil lasted for a week; thus celebrating this miracle and the rededication of the Temple. In Judaism there are no true miracles other than events that happen in nature but out of time sequence. Jesus walking on water has about as much currency as a one-day supply of oil turning into an eight-day supply.

As a matter of fact there are no primary sources in our cannon referencing the oil story other than a brief tertiary source: a Talmudic reference with the classic argument between Hillel and Shamai as to how we light the Menorah. The only reliable primary source is the Book of Maccabees I rendered illegitimate by those who canonized our sacred texts. Naturally the Talmudic reference to the story is suspect because of the pharisaic political ax to grind with the Sadducees. It is for this reason as well that R' Yochanan Ben Zachai conveniently excluded the Book of Maccabees I from inclusion into the canon.

Simply put, the Pharisees and their exponent, rabbinic Judaism refused to credit the Sadducees with any relevance. In effect the intention of the rabbis and Sages was to write out of history the important contributions the Sadducees made towards the development of the Jewish people. The Talmudic version of Chanukah was no more than a ruse to thwart attention away from the Sadducees and to give undue credit to the Pharisees in their fight against the Greeks. The Book of the Maccabees l, however tells the true story. It is an accurate account (as accurate as possible) of the fighting and the history of the period, never, however, mentioning God or the sanctity of the battle. In a sense it is similar to the notable battles fought in Israel in the modern period. There may be those who feel comfortable ascribing our victories to god and the effort of yeshiva students learning and praying. The preponderance of Jews however would ascribe the victory to the power of the IDF, the superb training of its soldiers and its legendary acumen in field improvisation as well as maximizing the uses of equipment, and perhaps its ally, the United States.

The unvarnished story of Chanukah is a story about the military victory of the Hashmonayim against the occupying power, an empire that swallowed up Judea. The Hashmonayim were an amalgam of Sadducees, the priestly class and Pharisees who initially wouldn't take up arms on Shabbat because of the injunction against hill Shabbat. It was the Pharisees who were commingled with the Sadducees in the fight against the Greeks that decided to continue the good fight on Shabbat due to pichuach nefesh (mortal danger), the same rabbinical dispensation used today by the IDF; nationally security trumps Shabbat observance.

The Pharisees had another problem as well. There were many Jews who adopted the celebration of lights, imported and popularized by the Greeks to celebrate the winter solstice. Sounds familiar? The Pharisees the forerunners to rabbinic Judaism ingeniously incorporated the lights into the Chanukah story, thus co-opting Jews into a massive celebration and at the same time cutting the legs out from under their rivals, the Sadducees (Constantine did the same thing by incorporating the pagan Christmas tree into Christmas celebration thereby co-opting the pagans). This technique was used as well by them when they incorporated the notion of the “world to come” (olam haba). By so doing they were able to recruit more conscripts to their cause by promising them a reward greater than any other.

So where does this leave us on the eve of Chanukah when we prepare to light the candles and celebrate the miracle of the oil? And what about our children. Do we perpetuate the myth? How ought we approach this holiday? Should we approach it the same way we celebrate the miracle of the Six Day War?

Initially the aftermath of the Six Day War was accompanied by a national euphoria. More than that Jews from all over the works were able to lift their heads high for the first time ever with pride in being Jewish and part of something much bigger than them. But the euphoria slowly began to ebb and the realization set in that perhaps we need to address the repression of the Palestinians. We didn't do enough then nor have we done enough since. The Chanukah story too, was initially accompanied with great euphoria, but not enough attention was placed upon tolerance of - namely Jews who sought to live within a broader culture context, which was anathema to the Hashmonayim. These weren't tolerated and children were circumcised with or without parental permission.

This kanaut, zealotry, a thread running throughout our history must be in our DNA because today, as I right this I am witness unfortunately to intolerance once again in Israel. Making a bracha on the Chanukah is a bracha l 'vatalah (for naught) if we can accept the teachings of Safed's chief rabbi Shmuel Elyahu who believes that Jews should drive Arabs out of Akko or that of another illustrious rabbi Eliezer Melamed who want the Christians expelled from Har Beracha who said that "when we came to live in a religious community, we never imagined that one of these days we would be forced to live alongside people of a different religion, which doesn't match our faith and lifestyle." Sounds like nineteenth century Eastern Europe. Painful and disconcerting. Perhaps we should perpetuate the myth.

Mistress of the Tribe

2011-11-30T09:40:00.000-06:00

"As the book goes so goes the Jewish People" references our rich past and possibly illuminates what the future holds in store for us. For Judaism the term "People of the Book" (Am HaSefer) was used to refer to our commitment to the Biblical text and the wider canon of written Jewish law (including the Mishnah and the Talmud). For more than a millennium formal, higher education by host countries in Europe was closed off to us; the only available education was the study of Jewish (sacred) texts, primarily those books in the cannon but more specifically the Talmud and its commentaries. In later generations the term People of the Book stuck because of the unique bond between higher education and us. Even when prevented from matriculating into European universities (prior to the enlightenment in Western Europe and later in Eastern Europe) our tenacity for studying text went beyond the classic format of regurgitation. Innovative as we were we sought new methods in approaching Talmudic text ranging from the 14th century Pilpulistic style to the Brisker method of analyzing text, defining and redefining concepts. These razor sharp methodologies which formed the intellectual matrix for thousands of yeshiva students in Eastern Europe prepared us for the Enlightenment and the next stage, academia; the study of mathematics, sciences and the humanities. The descriptive clause, People of the Book had not only a literal ring but also revealed a startling truth: the Book, along the continuum of history became the mistress of the tribe. Ultimately, God who introduced us to the book and helped cultivate our appreciation for it was cuckolded.

Initially study of text was designed by our wise and judicious sages to serve as a substitute to the Temple cult and animal sacrifice that was no longer. Its intent was to help supplement our transition from a temple-centered nation to a book centered people. As a book centered nation the text offered us more than just the knowledge contained in its volumes. It carved out for us a sense of commonality, community, and purpose. A means by which to center our activities, build community, synagogue life and all the support systems necessary to enhance our lives. Ultimately, however, God was cuckolded because He gave us the greatest gift that man has ever had - not the Book as much as our appreciation for knowledge and the curiosity by which to pursue that gift. Even though most Jews are no longer religious they have inherited the lust for knowledge.

For 21st century members of the tribe the pristine concept of People of the Book is quickly becoming a misnomer. The book rapidly being replaced by cutting edge technology creating the Kindle, iPads and the Tablet are the new books, replacing the old mistress. True, they represent books to be read, but they also represent a sea change, a slow moving but gargantuan tsunami from the printed word to electronic micro technology and Internet usage. Up until the past decade or so the book was the means whereby classical knowledge was transmitted. This is no longer the case. Books are published digitally and read as eBooks, whether they are novels, textbooks, sacred texts or technical manuals. Books are becoming “virtual,” as one page after the other disappears into cyberspace once read. This lack of physicality is beginning to duplicate itself in community building around virtual synagogues too. This dfference is significant: it’s like making the distinction between surgery performed traditionally by a surgeon or by a robot. The surgery is being done, but the technology has created an important contrast. Do you want human hands performing the procedure or the robot directed by the physician? Some prefer the surgeon, others the robot because they assume there is less chance for human error. Some like touching the pages of the book or newspaper they ware reading. Others, especially those born after 1990 prefer eBooks.

Group or private study hitherto inaccessible to a segment of the Jewish community isolated from Jewish centers of learning are now a click away and no longer dependent on the limitations set by the local market place. One no longer has to have a "belly full of shas" and wait till the age of 40 to study Kabbalah: it can be accessed over the computer in any language one is comfortable in at any age. Today through the internet classes can be attended on line from virtual yeshivot and other master Torah teachers. But where is all of this taking us?

Over the next couple of decades virtual Judaism will become more the norm than the exception. It already is taking root in a whole host of ways. Currently there are study programs on line where one can pick and choose teachers rather than be hostage to the supply and demand of their community. Imagine someone living in Peoria with hardly another like-minded Jew to study with. Until a decade ago he would have been at a loss. For the less traditional communities there is a virtual synagogue by which one can attend services in the comfort of their home. This has limitations for the orthodox community but ultimately will force them to define the issue and revisit old ones:
What constitutes electricity? What constitutes a minyan? Can a quorum be virtual? Can a minyan be considered valid for purposes of Torah reading or saying kaddish if they are in attendance via computer hook--up. There is already anecdotal evidence pointing to the need to resolve these issues: many young Jewish people born to orthodox parents after 1990 and who define themselves as orthodox use the cell phones on Shabbat, redefining what they consider halachically permissible.

The need to solve this and other problems for the vanguard orthodox will become pressing as the generation of the 1990’s take over leadership of the Jewish community in the years ahead. Institutes recognizing these challenges in Israel are already providing alternative solutions for the IDF and more will proliferate as we progress. But the orthodox are a small percentage of the Jewish community. What about non-orthodox but seriously committed Jews who are marginally members of synagogues or live in areas where there are no synagogues and driving is impractical. They too will benefit through virtual synagogue affiliation. Synagogue rabbis and cantors will become less necessary as more people affiliate through virtual communities. Like those who prefer the hand of the surgeon there will always be those who want to feel the pew and experience the contact with the rabbi. It is a win-win situation and unlike other illicit relationships this redesigned, redefined tribal mistress will captivate the hearts and minds of the Jewish people.

Of Rabbinic Hacks and Clerics

2011-11-21T09:29:00.000-06:00

The Ministry of Religious Affairs or more accurately the Chief Rabbinate is back in the cross hairs once again. The Ministry of Religious Affairs did it once again by abolishing Tzohar as an option for couples seeking to marry in Israel by an orthodox rabbi other than the standard cleric who is nothing more than a ‘pakeed” with a black hat and tinted glasses. Eventually they were reinstated, but there is a lingering concern that this incident may repeat itself. Tzohar was founded by rabbis with a religious Zionist background sensitive to the religious polarization in Israel with an aim at outreach. They offer a full panoply of social and spiritual programs including pre marital counseling as well as performing the wedding ceremony. The Ministry of Religious Affairs, not able or willing to compete with rabbis who are actually educated and trained as clergy, ministering to the needs of the community and the individual, understood that unless they eradicate the competition they would be out of business. They can't compete against professionally trained and religiously committed rabbis other than by fiat. They no longer have a raison d’ etre and are virtually illegitimate.

Reading of this episode of Tzohar brought me back 27 years when my fiancé and I presented ourselves to the Rabbanut in order to register for a marriage license. It was a nightmare and ultimately it was the attitude of the Ministry of Religious Affairs, which drove me over the brink, seeking a much easier, and more pleasant experience. The rabbi with whom we met was concerned solely with our pedigree and setting a marriage date based on my fiancé's menses. The atmosphere in that office was stultifying and oppressive with the distinct impression that we were intentionally humiliated. Rather than feel spiritually uplifted with the knowledge that we were going to marry and become another proverbial link in the magnificent Jewish chain, we felt deflated. Rather than feel optimistic about a future with the potential of creating a new generation we felt as though we need to rethink the entire enterprise.

Marrying in America by a rabbi, a personal friend who performed the service out of an act of love rather than, as part of his job description was what we needed and wanted. It was a breath of fresh air. No one was raking over our proud lineage, and no one was getting that personal with my fiancé’s reproductive cycle without first having developed a relationship with her, creating a comfort zone with and for her so that any questions asked weren't the result of prying, but because it was in the name of our revered tradition, laws and customs.

Our wedding, small and intimate as it was, composed of barely more than a minyan of men, family and a few dear friends was a truly spiritual moment in our lives, as it should be. After all our marriage wasn't intended to legalize k'dat Moshe v'yisrael a union, but to solemnize the union of two souls whose merger would create joy and fulfillment hopefully bringing forth offspring. When I recollect those moments and the feeling of satisfaction that I had with the decision to shrug off conventional wisdom and at the last minute run off to America to solemnize our love I am happy but also a little sad. Twenty seven years have passed since that monumental decision producing two wonderful Jewish adults, committed to their heritage as well as their moledet, and with so much change in our world there is one constant. The corrupted Ministry of Religious Affairs whose oversight is managed by a chief rabbinate as corrupt as the politicians who occupy Knesset seats.

While politicians are concerned with aggregating power and exercising influence for unholy motives rabbis ought to be free of that temptation. The only way to do avoid this trap is to remove the odious political thorn from their area of civic responsibility. Ironically, in this upcoming season of Chanukah when we retell the Hashmonayim story we need to recall more than just a contrived miracle or victorious battle but lost war. We need to note the break, the revolt of the Pharisees with the Hashmonayim and King Alexander Janneus (103-76 BCE) who wished to aggregate political power and merge it with the priesthood and the holy responsibilities of serving God in the Temple. The Pharisees knew that power corrupts and therefore insisted on separation of "church and state". The chief rabbis of Israel, by far, less wise than our ancestors, the Hashmonayim wouldn't dream of relinquishing political influence.

The chief rabbinate is, unfortunately myopic, suffering from the tunnel vision of those Hashmonayim who sought power, even at the spiritual expense of their wards as well as their own loss of spiritual innocence. In the end they lost: in spite of the fact that we light candles for eight days celebrating a hollow victory made meaningful with the artificial infusion of a miracle story. The chief rabbinate lost the war, the day they defined their power in terms of political aggrandizement instead of spiritual independence and authenticity. Our young people are running at every opportunity from their batei knesset, avoiding the rabbinic hacks and clerics, seeking alternative marriage ceremonies at every opportunity, starting their marriages and beginning their families with little spiritual direction and assistance from what could have otherwise been a spiritually blessed beginning of holy matrimony.

Hazon Ish: Visionary or Short Sighted

2011-11-14T09:03:00.001-06:00

Being complex people living in extraordinarily complicated times I am flummoxed by the attempt at some scholars to offer simplistic answers to some very convoluted questions. How is it possible that the haredi community in America and Israel bounced back with a roar when only 60 years ago they were written off as relics of the past, relegated to the collective and perhaps nostalgic memory of the Jewish people. Benjamin Brown in his recently published book, The Hazon Ish: Halakhist, Believer, and Leader of the Haredi Revolution, based upon his doctoral dissertation puts forth the thesis that Rabbi Avraham Karelitz, known by the moniker the Hazon Ish, single handed breathed life and vigor into the haredi "she'ereet hapleyta" (remnant survivors) having barely survived the holocaust. Brown points to several indicators that led him to this dubious conclusion. The Hazon Ish, he points out set the tenor for the Haredi revival in Israel in that they didn’t accept nor reject the Zionist movement. Unlike extreme haredi subgroups such as the Neturei Karta, they would exploit what the Zionist state had to offer and through their indifference towards the state would create their own subculture through a network of yeshivas and kollels. Brown believes that had they not assumed this middle ground they wouldn’t have grown nearly as powerful as they have. In addition he believes that Karelitz successfully strategized against Ben Gurion in 1949 winning the exemption of the then 400 yeshiva students in Israel, setting the pattern for the current day exemption of 62,500 yeshiva students. These strategies plus others formulated and executed by the Hazon Ish are what set into motion, according to Brown, the proliferation of the haredi sub culture in the post World War II Jewish community.

Brown's analysis is interesting but because it is tailored to conform to his thesis, many questions either go unanswered or aren’t addressed, leaving the impression that his approach leaves much to be desired resulting in providing a simplistic answer to a complicated issue. Not enough emphasis was placed on some of the stellar rebbes emerging at the time, not to mention the political clout of Agudas Israel. He ignores the development of the American haredi community, as well as the incredible intellectual power and leadership of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein. Instead, he presents the Hazon Ish as being responsible for the revolution of the haredi community, Referring to the resuscitation of the Haredi community in the same triumphal tenor that haredim have always presented their cause; even when they were being decimated throughout the centuries by the hands of antisemites their message was one of triumphalism. To enhance that message the truth was subordinated to the cause. To wit, the 4th Belzer Rebbe encouraged his followers to remain in Nazi Europe. Not to do so the Belzer rebbe maintained would be traitorous to their ancestors. Not to do so and emigrate to America would be to capitulate to a godless country. Not to do so and go to Israel would be to surrender to the Zionist vision. The Belzer Rebbe, however forsook his community of believers and escaped to Israel, beardless. Asking a Belzer hassid today about the story would find him apoplectic because this wouldn’t fit in with their triumphal perception of their chosen place in god’s eyes.

Part of the phenomenon of triumphalism is the notion that “its us against the non believers” and because god is on their side they will ultimately prevail. Because god is on their side they will be victorious as David was in his battle to defeat Goliath. This was the attitude of the Hazon Ish, according to reports, on the eve of his meeting with Ben Gurion. In truth The meeting between Ben Gurion and the Hazon Ish was a fateful one, not because the Hazion Ish was able to outmaneuver the savvy politician and statesman, but because of Ben Gurion’s sentimental approach to Rabbi Karelitz, his misreading of history, and Karelitz’s lack of understanding and appreciation for history. Karelitz considered it a victory to have won the exemption of 400 students. Ben Gurion considered it a bone with no great consequence assuming that the army was better off without the headache of yeshiva bochrim, thinking that they would ultimately integrate into the general society. Undoubtedly he would never have agreed to a blanket exemption had he known the number would balloon. Karelitz hadn’t a clue nor the vision that one day the 400 would grow exponentially into 62500. Had it not been for the political acumen of Agudas Israel, Karelitz’s putative victory wouldn’t have amounted to anything.

Interesting and revealing however is the attitude of Karelitz and his acolytes around the planning of that meeting which was flavored with triumphalism: Moshe Sheinfeld, in an editorial in Digleinu (Aguda Israel newspaper) cast the meeting as one between the “heart of Israel” and the “ruling fist.” Ben Gurion is mentioned in the same sentence as Vespasian casting the upcoming meeting between the “holy side” and the “other side” (sitra achra). Sheinfeld went on to say that the Hazon Ish removed his glasses at the meeting so that he wouldn’t have to look “in the villain’s face.” Ben Gurion, on the other hand, summed up the meeting in his diary by referring to the Hazon Ish as a humble Jew, referencing his wise and "beautiful eyes." Quite a difference in attitude and approach.

The reality is that the Hazon Ish was far less effective than his acolytes would ever admit. The revival of the haredi community in Israel and America had nothing to do with the Hazon Ish. It was a matter of biological reproduction by those whom survived, clinging to their ways, without learning from their past experience: namely that one can’t depend on god but only upon ones own energy and determination. The haredi community whether in Israel or America certainly has proliferated and they inhabit large, dense, confining neighborhoods spending their time in yeshivas eschewing the very notion of productive lives. Rather than learning from their ancestors about living humble lives with a sense of love of all god’s creations they have unfortunately taken up spitting on Greek Orthodox priests, acting out violently towards Jews who don’t share their life style and who may have accidentally crossed over into their holy space, and have a sense of entitlement fueled by a triumphalist flawed theology.

Perhaps this was the legacy of the Hazon ish: to spread intolerance of anyone not sharing in their lifestyle. After all, if what Sheinfeld wrote was true, than the Hazon Ish really wasn’t a visionary but another zealot who took advantage of Ben Gurion’s good will. If Sheinfeld is to be believed, Karelitz removed his glasses at the meeting with Ben Gurion in order not to “look into the villain’s face” referring to the Zionists as camels without a load (a metaphor for secular Jews without Torah), suggesting they were second class citizens. Did this attitude set the pattern for the future or was Karelitz simply reflecting the intolerance that he may have learned from his elders? Either way, it is nothing to be proud of.

Chazeer Fissel Kosher

2011-11-01T08:38:00.000-05:00

On the day after the release of Gilad Shali, the New York Times ran an editorial (Gilad Shalit’s release, October 18, 2011) excoriating Bibi Netanyahu for being able to close a deal with Hamas, “which shoot rockets at Israel”, but unwilling to negotiate seriously with the Palestinian Authority, which “Israel relies on to help keep the peace in the West Bank. Reading this editorial brought me back to my days as a yeshiva student and in particular to a brilliant and demanding rebbe who on rare occasion went off on a tangent, discussing current events. At the time there was much discussion on the future of the reform and conservative movements vis a vis intermarriage and assimilation. My rebbe made a startling statement. He claimed that he preferred dialogue with Reform rabbis rather than engage with Conservative rabbis. I was flummoxed. After all, the Conservative movement had a much closer affinity to Orthodox Judaism than the Reform movement since they subscribed to the halachic process, denouncing among other things the performance of mixed marriages by their rabbis. When I asked my rebbe, “mah pesher hainyan”? what do you mean and how can you possibly justify this position he responded with a pithy, terse, three word answer: “chazeer fissel kosher”!

“Chazeer fissel kosher” is a clever yiddish expression, which chides the pig for trying to pass itself off as kosher when in fact it is as treif as it gets. For an animal to be rendered kosher it first has to meet the fundamental criterion of having split hooves and chew its cud. The pig having cleft hooves and obvious to the eye tries to present itself as kosher, since chewing its cud isn’t a noticeable and an obvious characteristic. But the wiliness of the pig doesn’t go unnoticed and is reminded that it would be kosher had it chewed its cud. To my rebbe, the Conservative movement (rightly or wrongly) was like the proverbial pig. The movement tried to pass itself off as committed to the halchic process but in fact misrepresented itself by concealing the fact that they weren’t totally committed to it in the same fashion that was of the Orthodox. As the pig didn’t chew its cud neither did the Conservative movement conform to halachic Judaism. The Reform movement on the other hand, called a spade a spade. Their modus opperendi was to be clear as to where they stood in respect to halacha. They weren’t looking for acceptance among the halachic community. They rejected halachic Judaism and would perform intermarriages without the necessity of seeking loopholes or fictitious conversions, as the Conservative rabbis were wont to do.

My rebbe’s answer, simplistic as it seemed was actually profound and taught me a lesson on how to view the world. Had our rabbis learned this lesson well perhaps they would have had different take on the personality differences between Isaac and Essau. Essau was what he was. There was no mistaking him for anything but a hunter. He was taken advantage of by Jacob who presented himself to Essau in a kind and gentle light, not revealing his true intent. While Essau knew no guile, Jacob was a master of deception, knowing how and when to exploit a situation to his benefit. Thus when it was time to present himself to his blind father for the blessings it was without compunction that he disguised himself in animal skins to take on the physical characteristics of his brother. Who was Jacob? It is difficult to really know the man Jacob and what he represented at that particular moment in history.

Bibi, (unlike the New York Times editorial board) apparently learned long ago the very same lesson that my rebbe taught me. Hamas is our sworn enemy and they don’t try to sugar coat their ultimate aim to obliterate us. The Palestinian Authority on the other hand isn’t willing to reveal its intent although we know too well what their real intentions are. Bibi understands this and in his own vernacular probably refers to the PA as the chazeer fissel kosher. Too bad the New York Times hasn’t learned this lesson.

Ethics of the Jewish Left

2011-10-24T09:08:00.001-05:00

There are two guiding axioms regarding American Jews that can be said with relative certainty: Jews tend to list to the liberal left and have certainly been a force within the political left since the days of FDR and American Jews, regardless of Israel’s political proclivity to socialism have always been supportive. While American Jews did have their misgivings about the Kibbutz and socialized medicine, they treated those phenomena as a curios, non threatening concepts, political ideas that could be studied from a distance and visited on occasion. The support for the political left in America was a genteel flirtation with left wing concepts. Political ideas such as socialism weren’t, for the most part, within that purview of Jewish left wing American politics nor would it be tolerated. Entitlement programs yes, economic safety nets yes, socializing the country including health care, no. It was ok in Israel; after all, Israel was far away, and American Jews weren’t going to settle there any time before the Messiah beckoned them. So it appears there was an inconsistency, a double standard between what was ok for the Jews in Israel and what was acceptable for the Jews in America. The American Jewish left supported Labor government and their programs which launched and supported a social democratic society, preferring socialized medicine but this same standard of care was unacceptable for American Jews. They believed that the American capitalistic system was the best and its medical/health system was the finest in the world. In the eyes of the American Jews it was ok for Israelis to compromise their health system for the benefit of the masses, but not ok for Americans to follow suit.

Over the past decade this picture has changed considerably offering on the one hand a more consistent approach by the American Jewish community to standards appropriate for Israel as well as for Americans giving a new understanding to that aphorism “what is good for the goose is good for the gander”. On the other hand this has opened up a series of existential concerns that are more relevant to American Jews than Israelis. Ironically this developing existential threat to the American Jewish community has balanced the scales by which both communities face existential threats: Israel from without and American Jews from within.

The twenty first century has dawned with a subtle but focused shift in how Americans view the world. Americans see things less through the prism of countries and nationalities, viewing our challenges on a much more massive scale: a global scale. Our economics have become global and so has our understanding and approach to politics. Americans no longer see themselves as “exceptional” Americans but as members of a “One World” community. The butterfly effect once the provenance of meteorological and mathematical theories can now be applied to global politics and sociology: what affects someone in a small African village will ultimately affect many people in across the globe. Jews have fallen in step with this reasoning as well. The more left of center one is, the more apt one is to fall into lock step with this approach. On the surface one would think that this global vision is relatively benign: the more we view our challenges as global the more effective and comprehensive the solutions will be. But in reality it is an inverse ratio. The more one sees the world as “One World”, one community, a global community, the less one sees his own people as special, unique and worthy of special treatment. This is what is happening in the United States. Exceptionalism used to be the guiding light of the American dream. It was understood by its citizens that America being blessed was a very unique place to be a part of. It was a privilege to be a citizen and defend the country when called upon. The liberal left has slowly but surely chipped away at America’s view of itself as exceptional, deriding it at every opportunity, preferring to place America on equal footing with every other country, apologizing for its past sins of excellence.

The American Jewish left, in sync with the rest of the American left has crafted for itself a new Judaism, a Judaism that can fit the times, a Judaism bowdlerized of the uncomfortable words of “asher bochar banu” (choseness), replacing it with “tikkun olam” (social justice). In so doing they have corrupted the idea and concept of those words to mean global social justice rather than internal soul searching and self-correction as it was intended by the kabbalists. By denuding Judaism of its sense of “choseness” left wing Jews have pared down the unique qualities of Judaism putting it on the same footing of the latest progressive theories of social workers, community activists, union organizers and the like.

This is a Judaism that is hardly recognizable, reinvented to suit the whim of a new global generation. This past week a woman chided me in not having any grounding in fundamental Jewish knowledge claiming that it was incredible how I didn’t know that one of the primary tenets of Judaism is social justice! To be sure Judaism has always had a place for tikkun olam but it has always been fraught with intellectual tension. Like everything else in classical Judaism, nothing is simple.This tension was best highlighted by Hillel who stated a profound truth: “If I am only for myself, who am I?” and “If I am not for myself, who will be for me”? In laying down this truth, Hillel was recognizing both the universalistic drive we ought to have as human beings but at the same time acknowledge the particularistic nature of our people, if we wished to endure as a people. American Jews need to be cognizant of this polar tension that exists within the ethical matrix of the Jewish people. We can’t afford the luxury of adopting the message of the left which promulgates a universalistic message without compromising the integrity of the Jewish people. By co-opting into that message the American Jewish community risks the danger of trivializing its own identity for the greater good of the global community. The logic of the continuum makes perfect sense. If the concern is for the universal man, than the personal needs of the particular become overshadowed, blended in, ultimately loosing its unique identity and unrecognizable from the rest.

Kaniuk’s Ongoing Conundrum

2011-10-17T14:36:00.000-05:00

Yoram Kaniuk won this past month in the TA District Court when they recognized his right to be registered in the Misrad Hapenim (Ministry of Interior) “without religion”. For Yoram Kaniuk this was a pyrrhic victory since he wanted to exchange his religious identification to a new one “Israeli,” thus listing as “Israeli” his identity. Instead he is listed as “without religion”. The courts are correct. Kaniuk’s error in this whole imbroglio is that he has fallen into the same trap as so many others including many liberal and secular Jews and of course, Palestinians, who refuse to identify Israel as a Jewish state. They, as Kaniuk, assume that Judaism, or being Jewish is a religion. It isn’t and it never was.

Unlike Christianity and Islam being Jewish isn’t about faith and beliefs but about a shared narrative and a collective destiny. Judaism has no dogmas or articles of faith that are critical to salvation. Jews can be agnostic, atheist, deist or pantheists and still rendered part of the Jewish corpus. Being part of the Jewish People means that you are part of a historical narrative, a culture that you may or may not believe in god that continues to play a role in your life. Its like asking: can Frenchman be French without being Catholic. Of course, but he also understands that France was built with Catholic tradition. We are taught that a Jew, even if guilty of apostasy remains a Jew. This is what we mean by Jewish Peoplehood.

Jewish culture isn’t based upon one’s relationship with god but upon his relationship with his people. If we do pray, we pray in the plural, since we first and foremost identify as a people and not as an individual of faith. There is a joke of Jake coming to the synagogue and is spending all his time talking to Marvin. The rabbi approaches him later and politely asks him to stop the conversation. Jake replies: Its possible that you come to synagogue to talk to god. I come to talk to Marvin.

All this spells out Jewish Peoplehood. Others such as Mordechai Kaplan, the founder of Reconstructionist Judaism believes that Judaism is, in and of itself a civilization, with the requisite component parts of a civilization: language, art, history, land, rituals, literature and religion being one component of the composite picture. Thus an individual can tinker with the elements. That individual may not subscribe to the religious element, but he remains a Jew. In the story of Ruth she declaims “your people are my people, before she says your god is my god. The message there is clear. Nor do we always choose to be Jewish. We are born into it although one can join through a religious process, which bears a contradiction.

Another contradiction: although we aren’t a religion but a “people”, (an “am”) or a nation (“am kohanim v’goy kadosh”), our primary and core source for who we are, is dependent on the religious /ritual aspect of Judaism – the Bible. Here Kaniuk has a problem: If he claims Israel as his nationality he can only do so by dint of his religious roots: The promise, according to the Bible that god made to our forefathers. Otherwise the Palestinians are right and legitimately do not have to recognize Israel as a Jewish State. Without the Bible and the promise god made to our forefathers what claim have we to the land? We might as well be in Uganda. Kaniuk’s conundrum is ongoing and defies resolution.

Days of Awe

2011-10-03T11:58:00.000-05:00

Once again we are in the midst of the Days of Awe accompanied by my annual emotional turmoil. Even the name “Days of Awe,” a rough translation of
“Yamim Noraim” puts me into a perplexed state, a condition of suspended spiritual animation where like a pendulum, I swing between the extreme of good and bad karma. I understand the stated intent of these Days of Awe between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur: we fragile, mortals stand before the awesome, omniscient, omnipotent Hakadosh Baruch Who, with great humility implore him for another year of life, happiness, good fortune and blessings for the universe; where we humbly admit that we are but clay in His hands and powerless. As part of the process we submit ourselves before the Melech HaOlam and beseech His forgiveness. In theory it is a wonderful process purging us of our hubris, but knowing that it is as ephemeral as last years New Years resolutions. What I don’t understand is why that process is so time consuming, repetitive, monotonous and at times tedious to the point of being painful, especially when the cantor seems to drag it out and the rabbi’s sermon never ends? Why is it that the service is layered with piyutim (poems) that no longer resonate and repetitive prayers that go on and on “ad infinitum” all saying the same basic thing? How many ways can you say god is great? Why the need to repeat it hundreds of times during these Days of Awe? Surely we are sophisticated enough to understand that repetition won’t convince “Hamakom” that He ought to give us another opportunity, nor are we convinced that our imploring formulae works.

There was a time when spending a full day in the synagogue was a way of life, absent of anything more important to do and that repetitive prayer was “de rigueur”. But that was before the modern mind was corrupted by the speed of technology. It was before the age of computer technology where Google would provide pithy explanations and interpretations in nano seconds, replacing the need for cumbersome time consuming research. It was a time when people actually revered their rabbi, holding him in great esteem and deferring to his judgment and rulings, probably because he was the most educated and the most informed in the community. It was a time when hearing a cantor was the only entertainment available in the shtetl and probably wouldn’t have another opportunity for this kind of performance till the following year. In short, the way we approach these Days of Awe fly in the face of who we have become and what we have morphed into.

I am not the first one to have reached this conclusion. Ever since I was a kid, I remember adults coming to shul loaded with books, journals, and magazines, analgesics to numb the boredom of a drawn out davening, a poorly conceived and delivered sermon, or to blunt a very winded chazores hashatz that would take literally hours. That was a time when people were still respectful of tradition and normative behavior within the synagogue and community. It was a time before there was an official medical diagnoses accepted by insurance companies known as Attention Deficit Behavior.

Attention Deficit Disorder, known as “ADD”, is an interesting medical condition. It didn’t exist when I was a kid. ADD became popular in the 1970’s as the new excuse for a lot of hitherto unexplained behaviors. Interesting though is that the condition isn’t necessarily consistent. A youngster suffering from it may present ADD symptoms in the classroom but not on the ball field. A youngster may show ADD symptoms at bar/bat mitzvah lessons but not in music classes. I suspect that there are many adults unknowingly suffering from ADD confined to synagogue services, which may be the reason why they can’t sit through services running for 6-8 hours of abstract concepts, especially when they haven’t the foggiest idea about what it is that they are mumbling. Unless it is an unusual orthodox synagogue attended by scholars, it is safe to say that they don’t know what it is they are reading, other than having a vague notion that God is wonderful and all-powerful. It gets worse. Even if they have some notion about what the piyut is about they haven’t the time to focus on it before the cantor belts out the concluding ending verse and moves on to the next in rapid fire.

Another issue with the Days of Awe is the long hours between meals. If you follow the prescribed ritual, breakfast is verboten and eating is generally forbidden until at least after kedusha for the Shacharit service (where one could then sneak a light snack). That’s a long time. When the stomach begins to growl most people, even those not suffering from this form of ADD find it difficult to focus on anything but satisfying their hunger. Granted, our grandparents were different. They were disciplined and immediate gratification wasn’t part of their psyche. But for many of us, denial comes with a price tag. Couple that with so many of us suffering from ADD of the synagogue and you have a new appreciation for the Days of Awe.

Hillel and Shammai Revisited

2011-09-27T09:07:00.002-05:00

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel were the two premier schools of thought in the century that encompassed the destruction of the second Temple. These schools stemmed from two great thinkers, one strident, the other more insightful, emerged out of the chaos created in the dissolution of the Sanhedrin by Herod. While their relationship was collegial both contributing to the halachic discourse and enrichment of the community their progenitors as expected, had a more difficult time adjusting to a world where there was no Temple. These two schools of thought different as they were from each other in practice and philosophy had the community’s interest at heart. But beyond that each of them based their halachic positions on a principled understanding of text as well as a passionate love for their people. I mention this to set the record straight for those who may have read Shmaryahu Rosenberg’s op-ed in the Forward (“A Rabbinic Tea Party Precedent”, September 23, 2011) in which the School of Shammai was portrayed as a collection of delinquents and hooligans.

Rosenberg’s op-ed did a great injustice to the School of Shammai. He has interpreted the actions of that school through the lens of contemporary American politics, comparing the School of Shammai to the Tea Party movement associated with the Republican Party. If nothing else, the School of Shammai was committed to halachic solutions to real problems effecting real people who witnessed the annihilation of their spiritual center. Politics was not on the agenda, nor were they reacting to a groundswell of opinion or a popular movement. They were principled in their decisions, so much so that the Talmud suggests that until the bat kol (heavenly voice) is heard their point of view is as valid as the School of Hillel. Great scholars were supportive of the School of Shammai as evident by the support of the acclaimed sage Rabbi Tarfon. The Talmud Bavli (Shabbat 25b) in discussing who is considered a rich man sites Rabbi Tarfon of the School of Shammai who declaimed without chagrin that a rich man is ”one who has a hundred vineyards and a hundred fields and a hundred servants to work them”. This was quite different than the School of Hillel who believed a rich person was one who was satisfied with his lot, however small. The school of Shammai had no ulterior political or tax motives for saying this, but a sincere literal and lucid understanding of what it meant to be wealthy. The School of Hillel, being more politically correct perhaps of course, saw wealth as a metaphorically. Needless to say the School of Hillel never defined “rich”, rather defined what it means to be fulfilled or content.

Both approaches were acceptable to the sages and it is for this reason that they said not once that “elu v’elu divrei elohim chaim” (both this and that are the words of the living god), meaning that neither Hillel or Shammai have a monopoly on halachic interpretation. The use of “elu v’elu” referring to both schools would rule out the notion that the School of Shammai were extremists as Rosenberg would have us believe. Ultimately the School of Hillel superseded the School of Shammai perhaps because the bat kol finally came out in Yavne after 70CE in favor of Hillel. Perhaps however there was another reason. The School of Shmmai was noted as understanding text literally while Hillel saw text only through the prism of interpretation, reasonableness and creativity. Thus when the Torah informs us to read the prayer “shema” when “you lie down and when you rise up” the School of Shammai understood it literally. They believed it should be read in a prone position at night, while the School of Hillel understood it to mean that before you go to sleep read the shema and when you wake in the morning. One doesn’t have to be in a prone position to read the “shema” according to the School of Hillel but Rabbi Tarfon agreed with Shammai’s rendering of the text and would lie down before reading the “shema”.

The difference then between the two Schools was the following: The school of Shammai understood the text literally without the need for interpretation. The School of Hillel, more creative and imaginative, wished to probe deeper into what the text really meant and what its adherents were supposed to get out of the text. None of this meant that the School of Shammai was abusive or applied physical force to have their way. Rosenberg’s portrayal of the School of Shammai as intolerant and prone to hooliganism as evidenced by one famous instant that he sites is ridiculous. Of the 350 controversies between the two schools only once was there recorded behavior unbecoming of Talmudic scholars which they were.

The two schools emerged as an answer to the vacuum left when under Herod the Sanhedrin was disbanded as stated previously. In addition and no less important, the battles between the Sadducees and the Pharisees were coming to a close with the destruction of the Temple. The use of the word Pharisee was discouraged and ultimately dropped from usage because of its connotation; the rabbis wishing to end the in fighting known as “sinat chinom” (hateful for no reason) as well as any other forms of derisive behavior. The School of Shammai was part of this effort and to suggest otherwise is misreading Jewish history. Rosenberg’s reading of Shammai is flawed when he says “what Shammai didn’t understand is that the process of democracy itself has a value far beyond the laws decided through it, and circumventing it leads to extremism and disaster”. Perhaps Shammai didn’t grasp the value of a democratic system “a la” Western Democracy. Of course not. They were living in the Middle East two thousand years ago in the shadow of a destroyed Temple with hardly any infrastructure left and unprecedented carnage their lives in shambles without a clear grasp of what was to become of them. Their interest wasn’t democratic process; their concern was the very survival of the Jewish people.

Minoritarianism

2011-09-15T11:31:00.000-05:00

There is a rather interesting halacha on the books which refers to “tircha d’tzibur” (inconvenience caused to the general public). Its narrow application would refer to synagogue service where additional non-obligatory devotional prayers are eliminated in order to avoid undue hardship for the community. Although this halacha is fairly limited in its scope it ought to be broadened to encompass situations where as a result of the minorities insistence on marginal halachic adherence to “humras” (unreasonably strict interpretation and application of a Jewish law) and where the general public will suffer, the halacha should be trumped by the concerns of the public. Let us not forget that when these and other halachot were codified Jews weren’t living with the general public, but among themselves, either in forced ghettos or in self contained communities. Those responsible for the development of halacha in this new age, where there is an independent State of Israel and where in the Diaspora most Jews live and work among the general non Jewish population, hasn’t the focus, the keen understanding and awareness, and will to adjust halachic mores and values to fit in to this new paradigm.

Precisely because the Jewish community has developed into a new and unparalleled model where a sea change has engulfed the way we live and think it ought to be obvious to the leading lights of the rabbinical academies that in spite of what 19th century French philosopher and political thinker, Alex De Tocqueville feared the tyranny of the majority the opposite has happened: the tyranny of the minority known as Minoritarianism.

One of my pet peeves with ultra Orthodox Judaism is its rigid adherence to unreasonably strict halachic standards regardless of the consequences to others. Typically ultra orthodox Jews who haven’t cloistered themselves away and feel enlightened enough to mix with the general public still manage to alienate themselves from the public, due to their insistence on following their rigid understanding of halacha regardless of the handicap this will cause to the general public. A classic example of this is the recent brouhaha in the IDF where a fine officer is being asked to resign because of the manner in which he enforced the IDF’s sense of honor and respectful behavior. The incident involves a haredi soldier (cadet) “being forced” to attend a performance where a woman performer was singing, allegedly contrary to Jewish law. The soldier abruptly walked out of the performance because of the halacha proscribing him from listening to a woman singing (kol isha) resulting in his dismissal from the officer’s training course by the commanding officer. The soldier is appealing and asking for the dismissal of the commanding officer claiming that "the reason I joined the army and this particular regiment was my desire to serve in the IDF and contribute to the people of Israel, while maintaining Jewish Law without any compromises”.

The operative word in this quote is “compromises”. In truth, compromise is certainly permitted under Jewish Law. As a matter of fact the sages believed that there are only three things that one has to die for: adultery, murder and idolatry. Everything else can be negotiated or compromised. Everything is subject to interpretation, negotiation and compromise. Our sages were not rigid as so many of the discussions and arguments between Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai will attest to. Hearing a women’s voice isn’t a cardinal law within the hierarchy of the “taryag” (613) mitzvoth and is barely on the radar screen, but picked up by the ultra orthodox as a humra.

The problem is that haredi Jews are living in a bubble where they think that they don’t have to compromise. They believe that they ought to force the majority to their will. In a way it isn’t that much different than the Muslim communities mission to have every soul bend to the will of Allah. In our case there is a haredi desire (mission) for everyone to bend to their interpretation of halacha.

Certainly this particular situation demonstrates that compromise should have been encouraged by the rabbis in order to ensure the discipline necessary within the IDF isn’t compromised. No one was asking this haredi soldier to eat prohibited foods or to desecrate the Shabbat. In question is a problematic and dubious prohibition, which many orthodox Jews don’t subscribe to or abide by. The irony in this is that where de Tocqueville was worried about the tyranny of the majority we have the reverse where a small minority is terrorizing the majority.

Ghetto in a Ghetto

2011-09-01T09:45:00.000-05:00

The security wall soon to be completed around Jerusalem conjures up Ghetto and having come back from Israel recently I have had this ghetto obsession. I realize, of course, that Israel isn’t a ghetto in the conventional sense of the European ghettos that our ancestors lived. We aren’t herded into a confined area, nor are gates locked and a curfew maintained nightly. We are an independent country, enforcing our own laws and enter as well as exit the country when we please. As an independent nation we are masters of our own collective destiny. When necessary, to protect our citizens and our independence we raise hell with our Muslim neighbors. Nevertheless, I keep on wondering whether Israel has become another ghetto, but this time larger, self sufficient and more potent than our previous experiences as ghetto dwellers, thus giving the word ghetto a new meaning. I can’t help but think that if it were true it would be one of the cruel ironies of Jewish history. After all, the whole point of the Zionist enterprise was to free us from the ghetto mentality, to build the new Jew in a new land. Yet, when coming back from my past visit I couldn’t shake this intuitive feeling that I just experienced what my ancestors must have felt in the European ghettos.

In the European ghettos we were locked in at night, subjected to horrific indignities and intolerable discrimination at the hand of the government and good Christian neighbors. Sometimes, and not infrequently, Christian neighbors ganged up on us, a “free for all” by the “pogromchiks” when they decided to have some fun with us on our own turf. They would storm our villages, pillage, rape and murder, and then recede for a while until the next time. But you all know that. What you may not realize however is that a similar pattern has unfolded in the moledet. We aren’t at liberty to pass passport control at any of the exit points to travel to the immediate neighborhood without special entry visas to the Palestinian territories. We can’t travel at will to neighboring countries which border Israel, underscoring our minority status in a very hostile environment as we were once before in Europe. Add to that the constant barrage of rockets from Gaza and we have pogroms operated through remote control. When we go in to clear out the “pogromchiks” we are condemned by the world with a resounding: “shut up Jew, stop complaining, be happy you’re allowed to breath.”

That’s the macro ghetto, the nation of Israel living daily in the shadow of an angry and cruel neighborhood and an antisemitic United Nations. But then I wonder about the micro ghetto, you know, the ghetto within the ghetto. The ultra orthodox communities haven’t yet reconciled itself to joining the larger community and seek to separate itself socially, physically and culturally from the greater corpus of the Jewish people. It seems that the greatest of the culprits is non other than in Jerusalem.

Interestingly, the new tram that will be starting operations shortly has been shrouded in controversy from its very inception. There were those that claimed that it wouldn’t meet the transportation needs of a significant Jerusalem population and therefore the budget wasn’t justified. Others maintained that it would destroy the businesses in the city center since it would shift population away from the commercial center that has been ensconced there for a hundred years. These arguments had merit and were worth consideration. Now however, a new and totally unnecessary controversy has arisen around the tram. Will the tram provide the necessary separation between men and women, and will there be provisions for public prayer? So when the municipality made arrangements that the last car would be designated as the haredi car where only men would be seated the question arose if it was appropriate for them to have the second car, which meant that they would be seated behind women! Pathetic and insulting to a country that prides itself in being counted among the enlightened West.

And if this wasn’t enough, Jerusalem haredim are seeking to establish a new market place because the classic and historical one, the Shuk Mahane Yehudah sponsored the Balabasta Festival, which according to the rigid Puritanical standards of the haredim wasn’t halachically appropriate, not measuring up to the standards of the “Badatz” sniff test. The new and improved market will have separate shopping hours for men and women. Frankly it sounds quite colorless, and a significant deviation from Jewish religious standards – even haredi standards.

In my youth I lived in Jerusalem having attended university there and was well integrated in this universal city. Then, it was a cosmopolitan city, an intellectual magnet for students, artists and professionals. It wasn’t a ghetto. It attracted the best and the brightest from all over America and Europe. Since those halcyon days, Jerusalem has been slipping backward with no end in sight, preferring the backwater flavor of a shtetl, a ghetto, where there is little room for intellectual curiosity and growth beyond which is offered in a yeshiva. A ghetto within a ghetto.

Mesirah Madness

2011-08-18T10:46:00.001-05:00

On the backdrop of the Levi Aron case (abducted and murdered Leiby Kletzky, July 12, 2011) the messy business of Mesirah has surfaced again, this time pointing to the sharp philosophical and principled differences between Agudas Israel and the Rabbinical Council of America. According to Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky of Agudas Israel, a rav (rabbi) has to be consulted prior to informing the police of a suspect in abuse, otherwise it might be considered a case of mesirah. Only a rav can adequately assess whether there is validity to the claim, according to Kamenetsky. The RCA, on the other hand, in a statement released by them confirms that if there is a suspected pedophile in the community they are obligated to be report it to the secular authorities immediately without consulting with a rabbi. Rabbi Shmuel Goldin, president of the RCA believes that if one has to err, it should be in favor of the potential victim. The two opposing views reveal the philosophical and substantive differences between the two parties.

Before getting to these differences, it would be beneficial to review the halachic sources and definition of a moser. Mesirah in Jewish law consists of informing or turning over another Jew to the non-Jewish authorities. The informer is referred to as a moser, something like a whistleblower. There is a severe prohibition against mesirah. Even if the moser is a religiously observant Jew, meticulously observing halachic practice, by being a moser he demonstrates his rejection of klal yisrael and is treated as an akum (oved chochavim, an idolater, Yoreh Deah 281:3 / Rambam Hilchot Teshuvah 3:11). However, like everything else in Jewish law, the laws of mesirah aren’t clear-cut. If a non-Jewish government official suspects that the Jewish community is withholding a suspect or vital information about a suspect this is considered a chilul hashem. In addition, if there was a criminal hiding within the Jewish community, rather than have the entire community seen as complicit by covering for him, the community is allowed to inform the authorities (Choshen Mishpat 388:2). Mesirah was treated more severely during stress periods such as during the Spanish Inquisition and in medieval Europe where survival depended on avoiding contact with government, regardless of how benign . Even if one were guilty of a crime, but because the government was anti-Semitic the fear was that the criminal would be treated harsher than what he actually deserved either by receiving a longer, harsher punishment, or abused by other inmates, turning him in would be considered mesirah. Today, however, where justice is delivered free of anti-Semitism, the rules governing mesirah have certainly changed and if there is someone within the Jewish community that is harmful or has become a public nuisance he can be turned over to the authorities at least according to the Choshen Mishpat 388:45.

This being the case the question is by what standard has Agudas Yisrael claimed that before turning a suspect over to the authorities one first has to consult with a rav. What possible insights or wisdom could a rabbi possibly have in making a determination than anyone else? I have often argued that one of the motivators of the orthodox rabbinic establishment, impotent as it is, is trying wherever possible to find a wedge by which they could increase their power. For the most part, much of their power has been eviscerated (through the empowerment of federations, social service agencies, communal leaders as well as an educated lay community) and the little power and influence remaining is being manipulated, even at the expense of possible victims. Their rational is that it protects the innocent under a troubled system that claims one is innocent until proven guilty but in fact is judged by the court of public opinion before the facts are in. Furthermore they claim that there is too much reliance on circumstantial evidence and too much plea-bargaining that provide incentives for false testimony.

While all this may or may not be true, the picture is broader and larger than their community. We no longer live in homogenous communities and people, including pedophiles are mobile and move from place to place, community to community and country to country (Abraham Monderovitz, is an example of a wondering Jew, fleeing from New York to his hometown Chicago and ultimately to Israel). We can no longer afford to foster a parochial vision of community but must see the wider implications of this irresponsible behavior. Agudas Israel operates with this myopic and parochial mindset while buttressing the power of their rabbinate that seem to have the unique and intuitive ability to reach a better determination than the layperson suspecting the abuse. What makes the rav any more competent to assess the claim than the claimant? He isn’t. Agudas Israel however is more concerned with maintaining the power of the rav within the community than they are concerned about protecting their followers from danger and harm. It appears that the RCA is more concerned with protecting the wider public from the possible harm of a suspected individual while Agudas Israel, less interested in the public, is more concerned with protecting the individual from the damage he might suffer from the legal system.

The Three Weeks: A Muse

2011-08-08T12:47:00.001-05:00

On July 19, 2011 I flew El Al to Israel. It was a remarkable flight not only because it was less than half full but also memorable because of the musings it generated during the flight. For many this date is significant because it happened to coincide with the 17th of Tamuz, a fast day marking the beginning of the “three weeks”, culminating with the 9th of Av, a day that has gone done in infamy in Jewish history. The 9th of Av (better known as Tisha B’Av) marks the final destruction of the two Temples as well as numerous calamities that the sages claim happened on the 9th of Av, including expulsion of the Jewish community from Spain in 1492. Because of these historic calamities and the initializing of the Diaspora on this date, it would have been poetic justice had I left Israel on the Tisha B’Av.

In reality, Tisha B’Av is an anachronism in the Hebrew calendar. The other holidays on the Hebrew calendar are religious in nature reaching back to our scared texts, based upon ritual practice as practiced during and around the Temple service. Chanukah and Purim, which are post biblical, are celebratory in nature and have become part of the calendar because of the religious nature assigned to them by the rabbis and sages. With the exception of the Fast of Gedaliah, the17th of Tamuz and the 9th of Av aren’t positive religious experiences but rather are national calamities that point to the negative national, social and religious impact on the people. These two fasts then, bracketing the “three weeks” were and are national in character and thus making the rabbis as uncomfortable about them as they were about celebrating Chanukah as a national holiday rather than as a religious event. In line with this reasoning the rabbis texturized this three-week period with overlays of religious practice and detailed halachic proscriptions.

The conundrum in observance of these two fast days is that by marking these days essentially we are celebrating powerlessness. The destruction of the two Temples was the ultimate and supreme expressions of what powerlessness can bring. The destruction of the two Temples and our two thousand year sojourn in the Diaspora was the result, the rabbis argue of “sinat chinom”, unjustified and unqualified hatred, the balkanization of the Hebrew nation in to factious groups with the inability to stand united (The first Temple was destroyed according to the sages because of the flagrant violation of three principle sins: adultery, murder and idolatry). In fact however, the destruction of both Temples were as a result of the Commonwealth’s loss of political power. In both cases the Temples were corrupted long before they were destroyed; their priests were unfit and in fact no longer met the needs of the people they were ostensibly there to serve. Thus to mourn the destruction of the Temples is to mourn the destruction of a corrupt political/religious system which was powerless and existed only at the mercy of other regional powers. By marking these two days as seminal markers of our peoples destiny by fasting and self flagellation, we are in fact praying for the restoration of a Temple service that was not only corrupt but didn’t meet the national/religious/social needs of its citizens. The sages knew this, thus allowing for the Pharisees too wrestle power away from the Sadducees, the keepers of the Temple and the ritual associated with it.

These were some of my thoughts while flying to Israel on the17th of Tamuz, the seat of Jewish power and the arbiter of our fate as a people. Unlike the two previous Commonwealths this State actually has the power to decide its future regarding its foreign policy as well as determine what kind of a state it wishes to be. It has the democratic tools, governmental and non-governmental institutions available to make intelligent decisions regarding the welfare of its citizens. It is a country that gives full expression and meaning to the idea of “peoplehood” by virtue of its independence in its homeland.

There are those of the opinion that living in the Diaspora and observing Jewish ritual, including observing the halachic minutiae of the Three Weeks in some way brings them in line with the trajectory of Jewish history. It’s the opposite: By celebrating these two fasts and everything bracketed in between is a rejection of the modern State of Israel, and at best believing the State can be greatly improved upon by prayer and fasting for the reestablishment of the Temple service. It would appear that these people haven’t learned the lessons of history, thus placing themselves on the wrong side of history.

d

Circumcision Circumscribed

2011-07-11T10:56:00.000-05:00

The San Francisco initiative to ban circumcision has been lauded by many within the liberal Jewish community as forward thinking and has gained enough legitimacy that it has been promoted in the Forward (July 10, 2011). Ironically these foreskin advocates are reminiscent of the Neanderthals who needed that protective sheath in order to maintain the integrity of their glans when roaming through the wilds, foraging and hunting in their state of nakedness. It seems we’ve come a long way, or have we? Perhaps we have and we long for the days when men were real men. Making believe we are hunters again by driving a SUV just doesn’t cut it—neither does cutting foreskin. The San Francisco initiative also brings to mind the Hellenized Jews of the 3rd and 4th centuries BCE of which the Macabees fought against and prevailed. At least one could argue, that the Hellenized Jews had a feeble excuse in that their initiative to mimic the Greeks (by avoiding Periah—removal of prepuce) predated normative Judaism. Judaism was in a flux, and although the mitzvah of milah (circumcision) was crystal clear, normative Judaism as it came down to us through the pharisaic/rabbinic tradition was only in its infancy.

There are Jews in America who have done whatever possible to undermine normative Judaism from declaring the legitimacy of patrilineal descent in defining the religious pedigree of offspring to lobbying for the deligitimization of circumcision that has been the sine qua non of the male rite of passage into the tribal fold; an inviolable fundamental right and rite of the Jewish community. If an individual seeks not to circumcise that ought to be his individual right; the male child still considered a member of the tribe. But the tribe has its rites and rights of self-definition and determination. It is because we have exercised these rites for thousands of years in spite of adverse conditions, we have forged a mighty character that has served us well.

Jews have survived and thrived with our unique customs and laws. Oddly enough, it’s those Jews that have clung to their traditions are the ones who ultimately thrived and survived. The ones that sought to undergo Hellenization are the ones who disappeared. Assimilation is nothing new to us. We have experienced break off groups over the centuries that, because of their interpretation (or lack there of) have ultimately become cults, splintering off from the corpus of the Jewish people. We are small, tough, nimble and we are rather selective of who we admit, and because of that we have prevailed. For many of us traditional Jews, the idea of eating meat while downing a glass of milk is absolutely nauseating. The idea of having sex with a foreskin intact is equally nauseating (so I’ve been told). As in all societies there are taboos and in ours, male foreskin happens to be one of those taboos. If you don’t like it, you may choose not to follow. But do not try to ruin it for the preponderant community of Jews (regardless of denomination) that subscribe to normative Judaism and the taboos that it engenders.

This dastardly, narcissistic and self-serving attempt to rationalize the banning of circumcision by siting Mishnaic/Talmudic sources that the sages themselves weren’t certain as to what truly constitutes circumcision; milah (circumcision) with or without periah (removing the prepuce) is disingenuous. It reminds me of the old Yiddish expression “chazir fissel kosher,” the pig presents himself as kosher because he has split hoofs! The bottom line is, just as the pig doesn’t chew its cud and therefore not kosher, milah without periah isn’t milah. The interpretive guidelines of the sages are precisely what makes and defines normative Judaism. To negate that is to negate the basic, core fundamental structure of normative Judaism. It is those interpretive guidelines that have formed the Jewish laws and customs to which we subscribe to collectively, as a people, even though individuals may opt to not observe them. Thus, a kosher household isn’t one that follows the dietary laws of the Pentateuch, for that kind of household would be deemed non kosher by normative Judaism. A household that follows the dietary laws as defined by the sages and rabbis over thousands of years has become the gold standard, with perhaps variation as a result of technology and cultural modifications.

Similarly the Biblical injunction “An Eye for an Eye” if followed literally would mean that we would behave barbarously toward our adversaries rather than solving disputes by rule of law, as our tradition requires. That rule of law is embedded in the wisdom of the sages who ultimately fashioned for future generations normative Judaism. Without their wisdom we would understand justice as poking out eyes (probably how the uncircumcised Neanderthal settled disputes), sitting in the dark on Shabbat, witch hunting and “killing non-believers in your midst” (Deuteronomy 13:12-16). Periah too falls into the very same line of reasoning. If you accept the wisdom of the sages in interpreting our laws then how can you cut out the law of periah that defines authentic and proper milah?

On second thought, these enlightened Jews may have it right. As some Hellenized Jews opted for a painful procedure of covering the glans, mimicking a foreskin and/or avoiding circumcision altogether then maybe we could do the same. Perhaps America’s talented plastic surgeons can do a reverse “circumcision plasti.” It isn’t so unreasonable. If plastic surgeons have developed the famed and sought after “vaginal plasti,” why not a “glans plasti” making us men again, real men who can hunt and fish just like our Neanderthal ancestors who preferred poking out an eye rather than resorting to the sophistication of a justice system.

Torah or Technology

2011-06-27T14:37:00.000-05:00

An obsessive preoccupation among many modern orthodox rabbis and educators is dealing with the slackening of Sabbath observance among many of its member’s progeny. Not surprisingly many young modern orthodox people today are using electricity on Shabbat, perhaps not in the traditional sense of turning lights on and off, or operating electrical equipment but text messaging. For many of these young people, staying connected in this manner is a life style choice that they choose not to disconnect from, even on the Shabbat. Many of them not wishing to see themselves as desecrating the Shabbat refer to their observance of “half Shabbat” rather than “whole Shabbat,” mitigating the ostensible sin (I am aware of half hallel and half kaddish, but half Shabbat is something new). Some community psychologists aware of this phenomenon treat it at an addiction thereby relieving the young people of their responsibility, as well as minimizing the failure of the educational/religious institutions. The fact that this has become an issue within the modern orthodox community is indicative of the continued erosion of their viability.

For years modern orthodoxy has been unfortunately but unavoidably on the denouement. Its apex was from 1960 through the early 1980’s, with a downward trajectory from the mid 1980’s onward. This was inevitable because within modern orthodoxy were the seeds of its own destruction sown unwittingly by its founder, Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik. By suggesting that one can be fully engaged in society as a halachically observant Jew and at the same time embrace secular education is a prescription for conflict and failure. The two value systems are mutually exclusive and cannot with any integrity dovetail.

If the purpose for attending college is solely to gain a profession with never the intention to engage in the peripheral arts and humanities available than the conflict is at a minimal. But then again, if that is all the person is coming away with is a profession, than how is that person different than a tailor, plumber or butcher of the pre war Eastern European shtetel. He’s in effect a tradesman, because his skills are limited, lacking the critical intellectual skills necessary for understanding the wider world. On the other hand, if one enters university with the intent of acquiring a profession but in addition wishing in earnest to be exposed to the full panoply of western culture than he is subjecting his modern orthodox value system to challenges that may not be able to withstand the probing questions arising from critical analysis.

A student fully engaged in western ideas and values is proscribed from fully embracing the demands of torah values. These two value systems are tectonic plates butting up against each other with only one able to gain primacy. They clash because each one represents different, incompatible and irreconcilable value systems. Orthodox Judaism rests fully on faith in a creator, the divinity of the Torah as well as the oral tradition. Western value systems rest on philosophic and scientific inquiry where every assumption can and will be tested and examined from every possible angle. It is a value system, which traded faith for science and philosophy; it is the combination of scientific and philosophical inquiry, which has given us this prosperous society, bestowing upon western man, increased dignity, healthier living, and quality of life.
This then is the legacy of western civilization, which modern Orthodox Judaism is hopelessly struggling to engage. For the custodians of modern orthodoxy to preoccupy themselves with youth texting on Shabbat is missing the point entirely. Texting on Shabbat is merely a symptom of a much greater problem these young people are struggling with: the awareness that they have arrived at the threshold of understanding the clash between two societies, two irreconcilable world views, two tectonic value systems pitted against each other.

The true issue isn’t texting or whether they are observing half or whole Shabbat as much has the underlying realization that these young people are products of the 21st century, a generation of children raised totally on and by technology, who not only value it but embrace it. Texting is no more of an addiction than reading used to be an addiction. It isn’t fair to expect from our young people to remain in a state of suspended animation, dangling out there, paralyzed with the inability to choose between the old and the new, Torah or technology. To be sure many will be packed of to yeshivot in Israel for their gap year: some will return home super religious, others will struggle with their faith. What isn’t clear is the percentages. What is clear is that Modern Orthodoxy is on the steady continuum of decline.

Flatlining Tikun Olam

2011-06-21T17:09:00.000-05:00

Guilt seems to be a character trait embedded in the DNA of Ashkenazi Jews (whether or not this is the case in the Sephardic community is debatable). Personal experience and keen observation over the past several decades has led me to believe that deeply engrained guilt coupled with other social/political circumstances has created a Jewish democratic scrimmage line dividing it from other emigrant communities who have realized the American dream and moved on to the republican party. Jews however are stuck in the liberal/Democratic tradition justified by a distorted notion of tikun olam. They can’t break free of this gordian knot and in spite of some of the recent but complex theories put forth by Norman Podhoretz (Why Are Jews Liberals) the answer is quite simple. Jews are driven by guilt. Jews feel guilty if there is any hunger in the world, disease, natural catastrophes, economic dislocation, war etc. The converse doesn’t apply however. When Jews are in a “tight spot” as we were too many times in the past and even today, there aren’t too many liberals coming to our aid or defense. It must be, the reasoning goes, that we brought it on ourselves or that we are guilty of violating the human rights of others. There have even been theologians who have explained away the holocaust as the will of God wishing to punish his chosen for not being obedient to His law.

Jews have a Christ complex. We are constantly sacrificing ourselves for the redemption of mankind. What we do and how we behave is for the good of the world. And we have our Talmudic and prophetic sources. “Whoever saves one person its as though he saved an entire world”, declaims Ethics of Our Fathers, or Isaiah or Jeremiah castigating the Jews for not living more ethical, moral lives. Our liberal rabbis love quoting from prophets because it tends to fit neatly into their liberal worldview of social justice buttressed by their hijacking of tikun olam, which never had anything to do with social justice. We Jews feel guilty that African-Americans are still on the bottom of the socioeconomic heap. Surprisingly black leadership doesn’t feel nearly as guilty as Jews do. Jews have had nothing to do with the plight of the black man nor were we ever responsible for him being sold as a slave 400 years ago. Yet we have taken ownership for this and a myriad of other social issues weaving them into our narrative of Judaism and the words of our prophets. The idea of tikun olam has been subverted and hijacked by the liberal rabbinate through the manipulation of guilt as a means by which to exercise its control and authority over its community.

For a long time I too bought into the agenda of the greater liberal democratic Jewish community that had social justice as its priority until I realized that our tradition rests on three legs: torah, neveim (prophets) and ketubim (wisdom books). The liberal rabbinate and their constituents seemed to have mined the torah and the neveim for the message and charge of social justice. However, absent were the teachings of the third leg – ketubim. That noticeable absence has been responsible for the distortion of Jewish teachings, creating only a partial portrait of Jewish values. In my study of the wisdom books one thing became abundantly clear: the message of the prophets wasn’t shared by the sofrim (writers of wisdom books) who were more interested and concerned with the development of the individual than the community. Now I began to understand why the liberal rabbinate so conveniently ignored the teachings of these wisdom books: Prophetic teaching were concerned with the larger community while the message of the ketubim was directed at the individual. The spiritual/intellectual development of the individual trumped the development of the community. The message of the ketubim didn’t fit into their neat little world of communal power and the exercise of authority. The guilt factor is totally absent from the ketubim, seen no longer as a tool of control.

Ecclesiastes is one example of a wisdom book which if anything dispels the notion of social justice or as many would call it tikun olam. While Hebrew prophets were concerned with social iniquity the sofrim were accepting of life as it was even with the absence of social justice. They were aware of evil but not motivated to modify those conditions. While the prophets saw redemption in the world to come, the sofrim were formulating their own ideas of individual fulfillment and gratification in the here and now. The sofrim for the most part members of the landed gentry were content with the status quo and although might have been aware of social injustice wished to maintain the status quo. Unlike the prophets who denounced corrupt monarchs such as Nathan and Elijah attacking the crimes of royalty, we have conservative positions from the sofrim such as this quote from Proverbs “My son, fear the Lord and the King. And do not become involved with those who seek change”(24:21). How’s that for tikun olam. Or “for the kings word is all-powerful and who can say to him what are you doing”(8:2).

The Ketubim are no less important and just as weighty as the prophets and Torah, After all they were canonized at the Council of Yamnia in the first century CE. The ketubim were no doubted canonized for later generations to study and learn from, as were the prophets. It would mean then that notions of guilt and its exploitation as a means of control aren’t necessary for those who subscribe to the teaching of the sofrim. It would behoove the liberal rabbinate and their followers to contextualize prophets and begin taking to heart the teachings of the sofrim. Perhaps they will be able to redeem themselves from a lifetime of guilt.

Desperately in Need of Tikun

2011-06-13T09:40:00.000-05:00

In reading JJ Goldberg article “As Bibi Slouches Toward September” this past week (Forward, June 3, 2011) I was struck at the visceral hate oozing out of his words; daggers aimed at the heart of Israel and its political establishment. Goldberg, like many American Jewish liberals can’t tolerate the fact that there are leaders in Israel with a clear vision for Israel’s future, unwilling to compromise with the core values that are essential for survival. It so happens that it is those leaders who hold a majority through coalition building and therefore speak for the majority of Israelis. One would think that a liberal like Goldberg would respect the political will of the people. Nor could Goldberg accept with magnanimity Benjamin Netanyahu acceptance and warm welcome by Congress not as a politician but as statesman addressing them as an equal offering his vision for peace and Israel’s future.

Instead Goldberg writes that “Bibi slouches toward September”, the negative imagery of a tired man, bent dragging himself to the inevitable defeat that September will bring at the United Nations. According to Goldberg, Bibi won the battle, but he lost the war because of his arrogance. Because of his unyielding position based on what he considers principles and core values essential for a future where Israel can flourish, Goldberg has portrayed Bibi as a megalomaniac. Goldberg can hardly wait for September to arrive. He’s chomping at the bit, salivating like a ravenous dog, restrained only by a choker from a slab of red meat, straining to pounce on it:
Now when the roof falls in on Israel in September, he can be the tough guy who told them to bring it on…And make no mistake, the roof will fall in. The Palestinians will overwhelmingly win recognition as an independent state in the United Nations General Assembly…”

The venomous language of Goldberg when he says, “he can be the tough guy who told them to bring it on” is intended to remind us of George Bush so reviled by the left and cleverly applied here. Goldberg writes of the terrible times facing Israel: economic sanctions, boycotting, divestment and where it will be difficult for Israel to get fuel or spare parts for their military juggernaut. He writes as though he were a prophet of old, sagacious, but with the unfortunate distinction that he writes with glee rather than sorrow in his heart.

If that doesn’t work the Palestinians, according to Goldberg will take their case to the World Court, the international Criminal Court, the European Credit Markets and universities, while tens of thousands of Palestinians march on the borders was Israeli troops machine gun them down in cold blood.

These are the scenarios of JJ Goldberg, editor of the Forward. What a lovely liberal, but unfortunately a miscreant, a Jew desperately in need of “tikun”, whose allegiance isn’t to his people but to the Socialist International. Goldberg, the galus Jew is worried that Israel’s position might cause tension within the State Department and the CIA spilling over into the media and causing people to ask why is America involved in the Israel/Palestinian conflict? He’s afraid of the discomfort it might cause him and his liberal friends. Tsk.Tsk.Tsk. It appears as though Goldberg is more concerned with Goldberg than he is with Israel!

Criticism over Israel’s policies is legitimate and in taking a position inconsistent with Israel’s policies is in the spirit of democratic values and the exchange of ideas. But Goldberg’s tone and nuance crossed the line from helpful and instructive to malevolent and self-indulging. Over the years I could never understand why Goldberg obsessed over Israel’s position vis a vis peace. Then it dawned on me after reading this article: global human rights trumps Israel’s right to exist. Nothing would make Goldberg happier than to see Israel’s security edge sacrificed on the altar of global human rights.

Looks Like A Duck

2011-06-06T09:55:00.001-05:00

For those not satisfied with their lives, for those still feeling unfulfilled, and for those yet in search of happiness I am here to tell you that there is a second chance, an opportunity for redemption. You don’t have to repent, you don’t have to fast, meditate or self flagellate, and most of all you don’t have to become haredi. All you need to do is connect to secondlife.com and you can live out all of your fantasies. I read about secondlife.com a few years ago and went on-line to explore the possibilities. On secondlife.com you can take on a whole new fantasy persona. If you never like being a bald, nearsighted, effeminate, physically underdeveloped male Jew, you now have the opportunity to assume a new image and identity, transforming yourself into a tall, muscular adventurous stud. Similarly if you are an over weight, out of shape, faded middle age Jewish mother you can now have the chance of assuming a Barbie look alike, available to party with unending possibilities of trysts. The question is: does living a virtual life equal to living a real life? Does robbing a bank as an avatar on secondlife.com translate into being a felon, arrested and prosecuted? Does having multiple affairs on secondlife.com for a married man constitute adultery to be adjudicated by the legal system? In England, the courts ruled that a man living a virtual life and having a virtual affair in secondlife.com constituted adultery and grounds for divorce, even though it was only a virtual affair by a avatar in relationship with another avatar.

The courts in England understood the concept behind adultery and interpreted it to mean that the intent was consistent with actual adultery. In Jewish law there is a concept in “dinei ishut” of machshava lo k’maaseh”, that the conjured thought doesn’t constitute the act itself. Thus if a married man fantasizes making love to a woman other than his wife he wouldn’t be guilty of adultery. But what if he didn’t imagine it, but played it out on-line in an intricately woven fantasy world in which he was an avatar seeking out an affair. Would Machshava Lo K’maaseh” be applicable? Perhaps the courts in England may have helped the halachists along by nudging them in a different direction. Plotting out a relationship with another avatar may be adulterous since the intent was real (albeit fantasy), no longer living only in the imagination but in another dimension – a virtual dimension.

All of this brings me to the subject of this musing and that is the virtual (kosher) bacon products that are on our food shelves and rendered kosher by the mainstream koshering agencies that filter out the things we ought not eat. J&D Food Company has a line of products, which are bacon flavored but are vegetarian. They are considered kosher by the OU as well as other agencies such as Kof-K. On the surface it would seem to be kosher, but then I am reminded of the ruling in the London courts regarding the adultery committed by a virtual liaison in secondlife.com. There actually wasn’t any physical contact between the two consenting adults but the intent was to consummate the relationship, and lacking physical presence they settled for virtual sex. Desiring to taste and eat the bacon isn’t halachically permissible but then there is the next best thing – virtual bacon. That is, something that appears to be bacon: it looks like bacon and tastes like bacon.

The bible prohibits consuming the flesh and bi products from that curious animal that doesn’t chew its cud but does have split hooves. However, the halachists maintain that the Bible doesn’t say we can’t mimic the taste of the swine (in fact doesn’t midrash tell us that the Israelites were able to ascribe to the manna any flavor they so imagined). That then is the loophole of the halachists. However if we look beyond the written law to the spirit of the law, as did the courts in London, another picture emerges. While we do not have conclusive reasons for the dietary laws and forbidden animals, we do know that to a large degree these laws were enacted to differentiate us from the extant culture. The intent was to develop a different culture, a new and unique one, to be a light unto others, to be apart from (am kohanim v’goy kadosh), different than the other cultures. (This too is partially the reason why we aren’t supposed to imbibe wine (stam yeinam) that isn’t kosher. The intent was to prevent us from closely mixing socially with the gentiles. To be separate, apart and different was the intention). By creating virtual bacon that looks, tastes and smell like the real thing aren’t we defeating the purpose and intent of the law. After all if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s a duck. Thanks to our halachists we can now sprinkle bacon on our salads, season our food with it and serve steak with mock buttered potatoes. Does life get any better?

AIPAC and its Aftermath

2011-05-30T10:09:00.000-05:00

It was the first AIPAC conference that I ever attended and it was probably one of the most talked about ones in the press, and in capitals around the world, leaving me speechless, not because I had nothing to say, I just didn’t know how to articulate the state of flux I was left in. The conference limned President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu but before either of them appeared at the conference they were engulfed in controversy stemming from the Obama State Department speech on the Arab Spring as well as Netanyahu’s rebuttal the following Friday morning. The presentations of Obama and Netanyahu each represented contrasting views of Jewish history, Zionism and the Jewish psyche as well as highlighted the polar differences within the Jewish community. The issues surrounding the approach to the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians as expressed by these two tectonic leaders crystallized two different worldviews.

I was stunned at the emotional whirlwind I found myself in during the two and a half day policy conference and its powerful undertow in its aftermath. There were times that I understood and appreciated what Obama was trying to present, believing in his sincerity and genuine will to be the peacemaker who brought the struggle between two people to a reasonable conclusion requiring great sacrifice on both sides culminating in a two state solution. The current status quo is unsustainable and Israel is becoming more and more isolated. At other times I was a convinced that Bibi’s approach, that which required Israel to hang tough even at the displeasure of the president was the wiser path: it was the path that a determined people who suffered indignation, rejection and persecution at the hand of its neighbors and enemies for too long would no longer suffer again by being placed in such a tenuous and precarious position. Never mind that the status quo was unsustainable, our righteousness would prevail. Perhaps we would suffer from isolation but that too was temporary: the world we live in is so fluid, changing from minute to minute. Perhaps world opinion would shift once again in favor of Israel due to other yet unknown world circumstances. Who would have predicted one year ago the nature of the Arab spring of 2011; and we aren’t even sure of its outcome and how that will impact on the Middle East? Thus crucial life and death decisions affecting the state ought to be decided upon by principles not expediency.

On each side of these two contrasting world visions the Jewish community has chosen sides. In a fairly simplistic way one could say that those more conservative, less trusting and more obsessive with Israel’s security were those that support Benjamin Netanyahu’s position. Those who tend to be left of center, concerned with Israel’s security but willing to try hard compromise because of their need to be champions of social justice and global human rights lined up behind Obama. Anyone desperate for peace at any cost, wishing to satisfy their urgent obsession for social justice couldn’t resist the Obama approach. On the other hand those that are less trusting of other governments and promises are more concerned with Israel’s survival, stand firmly behind Netanyahu not discount human rights, but believing that Israel’ security is foremost and trumps human rights.

While AIPAC’s role isn’t to take sides but to lobby for Israel’s security, one couldn’t help but take sides at a conference where the issues were so clear-cut. For those people with a clear vision of how the future should look the issues are fairly straightforward. It is those caught in between who have the most difficult finding a pathway that would bridge these two competing views. The issues for this group are the following: The status quo isn’t sustainable simply because of the demographic time bomb resulting from the high growth rate among Arabs versus Jews who are experiencing low birthrate. The status quo isn’t sustainable because they can’t justify Israel as occupiers, ruling the lives of millions of people in the absence of a democratic process applied to them. The status quo isn’t sustainable because the painful prospect of seeing Israel isolated more every day is detrimental to her existence; a manifestation of this isolation will be the vote in the UN this September, which will encourage those seeking BDS.

At the conference it was clear to me that Benjamin Netanyahu received enormous warm support as opposed to Obama whose reception was tepid. Add to that the support that Congress afforded to Netanyahu was a repudiation of the Obama approach. On the other hand, when I turned to the Israeli press I was smitten once again with the doubt of the wisdom of Bibi’s approach. The arguments coming out of the Israeli press was compelling to say the least, limned by the fact that these opinions were being proffered by those who had the most to loose – Israelis living in the land. One of the most compelling arguments put forward was that it didn’t really matter who was right and who was wrong. Nor did it matter if our security was a little better or a little worse. What mattered was that if we were to maintain our edge as a country rooted in what was right, ethical and moral, it was up to us to find the creative means by which to offer the Palestinians a pathway to peace that would sustain both countries. It was our responsibility, not the Arabs; it was us that had to take the higher ground. Not because we would be accepted by our neighbors, or liked more by the Europeans but because it was the right thing to do.

These arguments reminded me of the message of the prophets of old which has been echoing in my mind as the strong undertow in the aftermath of the conference continued to flummox me. How can one argue with such a message? It seemed therefore that Obama’s approach was one that took the higher moral ground, the one espoused by our prophets versus the one articulated by Netanyahu: a message evoking cynicism and mistrust. But with all the good intentions of the prophets, the first commonwealth came to an ignominious end, as did the second commonwealth. Does history have anything to contribute to the issues? How are we to understand history and what are we to learn from it?

I haven’t the answers to these questions unfortunately, however I do have an observation regarding the left’s quick rush to social justice and global human rights at the expense of Israel: It would appear that we Jews have a genetic predisposition that has been the seeds of our destruction at times, and at other times have actually helped us prevail when the odds were against us. Our sense of social justice in some quarters tends to trump our own survival. Thus there are rabbis in the liberal community that fast for the downtrodden Gazans being crushed under the Israeli boot and support BDS. On the other hand there were times that our sense of social justice was precisely the cause that gave us hope and inspiration, to transcend and to be transformed. The trick today is to determine which is it for us?

Kaniuk’s Conundrum

2011-05-21T20:46:00.000-05:00

He doesn’t have the same name recognition to American Jews as Amos Oz, Etgar Keret, A.B. Yehoshua, David Grossman or Aharon Applebaum, but Yoram Kaniuk is considered one of the most gifted writers in Israel and recognized internationally. His books have been translated into twenty languages and he is the recipient of prestigious awards such as Prix de Droits de l’Homme, Bialik Prize, as well as the celebrated Prix Mediterranee Etranger. It is for these reasons that I was deeply pained and perplexed to have read in Haaretz on May 15, 2011 that he requested from the Ministry of Interior to change his religious status from “Jewish” to “Without Religion”. This isn’t the first time he has requested this from the Ministry of the Interior. In a previous request (which was refused by the ministry) he commented that he didn’t want to be associated with a “Jewish Iran”, or what is today understood as the “religion of Israel”. My initial reaction was to write him off as a “self hating Jew”. How can an intensely serious Jew (no matter that he isn’t ritually observant), I asked myself, recant his Jewish identity? It seems so perfidious! But upon stepping back and reconsidering Kaniuk’s maneuver I began to understand his profound frustration with living in a democratic state but having to cope with decisions and outcomes of a despotic rabbinic superstructure that acts and behaves as though the enlightenment and emancipation never happened.

Kaniuk’s gambit reflects the sentiments of many Israelis. He maintains, as so many others believe that the rabbinate in Israel hijacked the religion from the “amei haaretz”, from the people. His own grandchild is registered with the Ministry of Interior as “Without Religion” since the child is, in fact, not Jewish due to Kaniuk’s wife not being Jewish (and therefore technically, the offspring aren’t either, halachically). And perhaps this is the conundrum for Kaniuk as it is with so many others: His children who are Israeli citizens and served in the military and fought in defense of their country are relegated to a second-class status halachically. They are a subclass of people who although are versed in Jewish history, culture and Tanach and willing to die for their people can’t marry them or be interred in a Jewish cemetery. Kafkaesque! There is something fundamentally wrong with the way its citizens are treated and for that matter the manner in which Israel functions on a religious level.

Yet, Kaniuk is thoroughly Jewish, inside and out. He thinks like a Jew and feels like a Jew. In one of his articles commenting on Nakba Day he limned that although we won the war of Independence the “enemy was not a geometrical unknown, but rather a people that still exist…the Nakba fighters fought heroically, but we fought better…” Being sympathetic to the Palestinians even though Kaniuk fought in the war of Independence and was severely wounded is supremely Jewish. After all, we are taught not to gloat over the demise of our enemies. Kaniuk bemoaned the fact that he hopes that while he is still alive Israel will be turned into a Jewish state not one populated by zealots, but rather by the kind of Jews we once were: “a state where we respect those who fought against us and were defeated.” Kaniuk seems to be rejecting the Judaism that is reinforced in the Haggadah when we chant “shfoch chamotecha”. That is the Judaism polluted and diminished by the exile and our unfortunate European sojourn. It isn’t the Judaism of Kaniuk who envisions an Israel in the spirit of the prophets. In another article he derides the mistreatment of foreign migrants by the rabbinic establishment referencing the Story of Ruth as the model by which foreigners ought to be treated. Although he overstated his case, his unabashed derision of the rabbinate’s prejudice towards non-Jews is ironically and clearly a Jewish position. He dreams of the day when enlightened clerics will apply Jeremiah’s message in place of those who are mired in the culture of medieval Europe.

Clearly Yoram Kaniuk, a principled and committed non-religious Jew is authentically Jewish in his critique of current day Israeli society deeply influenced and manipulated by an ignorant rabbinate. But forfeiting his Jewish identity (on a registry in the Ministry of Interior) is an overreaction with little or no positive outcome. Reneging on his Jewish identity won’t change who he is or how people view him. A Jew by any other name is a Jew. The narrative of our history is inextricably linked with our religious praxis and accompanying idiosyncrasies. To deny them or to deny one’s Jewishness would alter the integrity of our narrative. Kaniuk realizes this but wishes to make an issue out of the fact that Israel has no definition or sense of nationality without religion as its defining quality. And here Kaniuk stumbles into his conundrum: Judaism isn’t a religion, it is a state of being; it is peoplehood.

Perhaps by diminishing the role of religious ritual, trappings and their offshoots, and by removing religious clerics from the state apparatus Israel would go a long way in sculpting a state where Jeremiah’s message would ring out and at the same time maintaining the integrity of our narrative.

The Perfect Storm

2011-05-16T09:29:00.001-05:00

Anyone reading my postings is aware of my qualified antipathy toward the liberal Jewish denominational movements. On the one hand they have become hollow husks, empty of traditional Jewish value systems, lacking the contextual reference points along the continuum of Jewish history, diluted by the high rate of intermarriage and led by self serving arrogant rabbis lacking standards. Gary Rosenblatt, editor of the Jewish Week wrote an interesting editorial “Where Have All the Rabbis Gone” (Jewish Week, April 27, 2011) in which he points to the growing ranks of unemployed rabbis endemic now in the liberal movements. His description of this state of affairs is impeccable and his analysis poignant, attributing however, much of the shortage of rabbinical positions to the problematic economy that has plagued America for the past five years. Some even say that the convergence of economic factors created the perfect storm, which severely crippled the financial infrastructure of the Jewish community.

While I agree with Mr. Rosenblatt’s that the economic maelstrom, which has no end in sight, continues to play a role in the dearth of liberal rabbinical assignments available that isn’t, by far, the fundamental reason for their growing malaise. To wit, the orthodox community, affected by the same economic downturn is bursting at the seams, with a growing demand for more rabbis. The liberal movements have been in decline for decades, perhaps not in the numbers game but substantively-and that was bound to catch up with them, sooner or later.

Buried deep within the liberal movements were the seeds of their own destruction. The rate of intermarriage is soaring and has past the Rubicon of sustainability. Many temples have more gentiles in attendance than Jews. The Conservative movement has now added a new class within their movement, the K’rov Yisrael (about which I have written in previous posts), gentiles opting not to convert but wish to be active partners in the Jewish community and participate fully in services. There are some rabbis in a quandary as to how to pitch their sermons on the high holidays expecting a high number of gentiles at services and fear being politically incorrect. Heaven forbid that the rabbi might say something offensive resulting in loss of membership. Membership is key, because it generates the income that funds their bloated salaries and high overhead.

The large temples built over the past five decades with their staggering overhead requiring synagogue administrators, a senior rabbi, two and three assistant rabbis, a cantor and music director each receiving attractive compensation packages has effectively stifled the original purpose of the community – spirituality. These temples, as they were conceived never had in them long term sustainability. Intermarriage has been rampant since the 1970’s. New sources of income were needed to replace those that opted out of membership. The need to capture the potential source of income from the intermarried couples fueled the out reach programs. This too has reached its apex and we are witnessing the slow and insidious implosion of liberal Judaism.

The problem is exacerbated by the sentiments of a large and growing number of their membership led by their rabbis who have marginalized Israel, offering her up on the altar of international law and human rights. Rabbi Richard Jacobs was nominated recently to replace Rabbi Eric Yaffe in the top spot in the Reform Movement and this has further accentuated the problem, making it more acute than ever before. Jacobs sits on the rabbinic cabinet of J Street, which is no friend of Israel To add insult to injury he is a proponent supporting in part the BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) initiative against Israel.

He isn’t alone in his aspirations to weaken and compromise Israel’s security. Other rabbis in the liberal movements are doing their best to give aid and succor to the Palestinians at the expense of Israelis. There are rabbis who now fast monthly on behalf of the human crises in Gaza, and pummel Israel at every opportunity from the pulpit and in the press. Their rabbinical students will not buy religious articles that are made or produced in Israel. Some of their students (according to face book entries) when on a year study in Israel prefer to spend their free time with Palestinians rather than with Israelis. What a promising picture of the future leadership of the liberal movements!

It would appear that the liberal movements are headed south, but haven’t hit rock bottom yet. It is not a result of the weakened and bland economy, creating in the words of one rabbi, “the perfect storm” that has caused this deep malaise in the liberal movements. Rather the perfect storm has been the confluence of the soaring rate of intermarriage, unsustainable synagogue infrastructures and the embrace of international human rights at the expense of Israel that has wrought havoc on them.

Caught, in the Headlights

2011-05-11T10:40:00.000-05:00

I was appalled by the mad dash of rabbis to explain away the inexcusable behavior of the Yiddish newspaper Der Tzeitung when they altered the White House situation room (raid on Bin laden’s lair) photo removing Hillary Clinton from the picture. In their apology for violating the rules, which forbade the altering of the picture, Der Tzeitung said the following:

The allegations that religious Jews denigrate women or do not respect women in public office, is a malicious slander and libel…. The Jewish religion does not allow for discrimination based on gender, race, etc.

The fact of the matter is that their excuse/apology errors in several ways. For one thing, Der Tzeitung doesn’t represent or speak for the Jewish people. No allegation was made that “religious Jews denigrate or do not respect women”. The majority of the Jewish people do not denigrate women nor do they discriminate against them. This is evidenced by the fact that women in the broader Jewish community take their place as equals among men in the professions, business and communal / synagogue life. Der Tzeitung, and those whom they represent however, systematically discriminate against women as evidenced by the fact that they consistently cut women out from every facet of civil life except for housework, and bringing in the rent money, while their men sit in kolel. This time, however, they were caught, like a deer in the headlights.

Discrimination against women in the haredi (including Hassidic) community does exist and is systemic. They do discriminate and do denigrate women. Women have traditionally been treated as second-class citizens. While I can understand the use of a mechitza during tefillah there is no reason on earth why they should be ushered to the sidelines at public events, ceremonies and simchot, not to mention the fact that they cannot hold positions of public leadership within the community. I don’t recall seeing or hearing about haredi women in the free professions, i.e. medicine, law, engineering etc. Their dress is appalling, colorless and shapeless, nearly resembling Muslim women in their traditional burka. It would indeed be convenient to excuse it all by referring to modesty, as they do. But they would be hard pressed to find primary sources that would support the treatment of women as chattel.

The haredi community has every right to discriminate within their community assuming that this is consensual and doesn’t compromise civil law. Thus, one can understand them supporting the use of private bus companies that separate between men and women, boys and girls. One can understand the design of separate school systems along gender lines. One can even tolerate the conspicuous absence of women leadership in communal affairs. While these prejudices are based upon an erroneous understanding of Jewish law it is excusable, since they are consenting adults and are entitled to spin religion to their liking. No one is forced into their community; people have a right to join or to disavow them; to move in or move out. They do not however, speak for or represent the Jewish people. If anything they are an anomaly, an anachronistic leftover from the nineteenth century Austro-Hungarian Empire.

What I fail to understand are the rabbis trying to make excuses for a factious group of Jews who do not require anyone’s defense. There are no legitimate excuses and any given ring hollow. For example, Rabbi Potasnik of the New York Board of Rabbis explained that Hillary was removed along with Audrey Tomason because they were in close proximity to men. So what! They aren’t Jewish and laws of modesty aren’t incumbent them! Assemblyman Dov Hikind explained that the editorial policy of the paper is not to print photos with women. Therefore removing Hillary wasn’t disrespectful to her. He’s right – it’s disrespectful to all women and is discriminatory. I defy any rabbi to point to any primary sources that would indicate even remotely that women should be excised from public life as they are in the haredi community.

In Pursuit of Happiness

2011-05-09T09:08:00.001-05:00

Why is it that ultra orthodox Jews (vis a vis the rest of the human race) assume a sanctimonious posture, extolling the virtues of Orthodox Judaism as if they and their belief system are at the center of the universe? Other times I wonder if their obsession to promote their lifestyle is a response to their own deep-seated sense of self-doubt. Judging from what I read and hear one would think that to be an orthodox Jews is the be all and end all and the answer to man’s quest for complete fulfillment and happiness. Jonathan Rosenblum who writes for the ultra orthodox Mishpacha Magazine seems to believe that tired mantra. In extolling the virtues of living the “torah true life” Rosenblum has a compulsion to attack any life style that doesn’t jive with his. His argument is flawed because he chooses to contrast the “torah true life” with the hedonistic happiness pursued by epicurians: comparing the hedonistic pursuit of pleasure with those in pursuit of kavod. Naturally, Rosenblum doesn’t take note of the fact that so many frum Jews actively pursue kavod; that kavod is part and parcel of the religious culture including synagogue life within the “frum” community.

On a typical Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur eve (Kol Nidre) the typical “frum” synagogue will sell honors (keebudim) ranging from opening the ark to aliyot, haftarot and everything in between but the kitchen sink. Just about everything is up for sale, not in the name of charity but in the name of kavod. Had charity been the focus, then they could, like so many non-ultra Orthodox synagogues conduct silent bidding or fund raising drives prior to the holiday. As it is, entering a “frum” shul on Kol Nidre eve is like entering the market place, with the hubbub and din surrounding the bidding for the honors. I only mention this to remind Mr. Rosenblum to keep a balanced perspective and not be so dismissive of other lifestyles in spite of the polls that he cites. Polls as we know are dubious to say the least and subject to any interpretation that we wish to ascribe. According to the polls U.S. Jews should have been extinct by 1960, at the latest by 1980. According to the polls Israel ought to have been eradicated by now. So much for the polls.

However, if you wish to insist on polls I’d like to refer Rosenblum and his readership to Ynet (April 24, 2011) “Israel Ranks 7th in Happiness Index”, where the Gallup shows that 63% of Israelis are satisfied with their lives and beat out the United States and Britain. I doubt if the 63% cited are “frum”. The happiness list was headed by Denmark, Sweden, Canada and Australia. None of these have huge “frum” communities that would have skewed the polls, yet all these “goyim” seem to be genuinely happy, absent of living “torah true lives”, nor is it reasonable to believe that they define their happiness on the scale of hedonistic pleasures!

The two points that Jonathan Rosenblum ought to understand is the following: Religion may work for some, but isn’t the answer for everyone. It may be a source of happiness and fulfillment for some people but a source of unhappiness for many others. The millions of people worldwide who have suffered in the name of Jesus or Allah would agree with me. Unfortunately, I would have to add that there is a growing number of Jews who agree that “torah true Judaism” is a source of unhappiness since it attempts to control their lives – whom they marry and where they are buried. There is a growing number of quasi Jews whose conversions are questioned by the ‘torah true” establishment and they too would join the community of people who believe religion to be oppressive. I suspect that had Judaism’s right wing religious establishment had the political upper hand and wielded unfettered power the suffering at their hands would be no different to that of the Islamist who seek the establishment of a global caliphate or the Church that sought to enforce god’s will.

The second point is its time for Rosenblum and his ilk to respect other cultures and lifestyles. I don’t mean that in a perfunctory way but to genuinely recognize that every culture has its intrinsic and unique qualities. Each of us can learn from others and in so doing we gain wisdom insight knowledge and fulfillment. We Jews do not have a monopoly on happiness, fulfillment or wisdom. Reaching a modicum of happiness or fulfillment isn’t predicated on god, religious rites and ritual. It’s about the individual being able to find his voice and give expression to his creative skills endowed by nature. It’s about the individual pursuing his own dreams. Fulfillment is a long process with no prescribed uniform formulary but is dependent upon the individual to seek out his own personal fulfillment based upon his own unique soul print.

Professor Zev Naveh, z”l

2011-05-01T12:11:00.001-05:00

In marking my father in law’s shloshim (30 days since his burial) I would like to share the following remarks:

Twenty-six years ago we came into each others life. We looked at each other at the fist introduction on erev Pesach – each assessing the other. At the time I had no idea what impression, if any I made on Zev, Saba Zev but the impression he made on me was remarkable. If his daughter, Semadar was a whirlwind who blew me away with her charm and persona, Zev, Saba Zev was a tsunami, a man larger than life, a man of gravitas, an aura of dignity enveloping him as his shroud does today.

Over the years as I became more perceptive of his fine qualities as a husband and father he influenced my own understanding of manhood and fatherhood. He was unabashed and at the same time unassuming. Comfortable in his own skin, proud of who he was and what he was made him an outstanding husband, father and paradigmatic model for me. Passion was his middle name, and infused it in everything he did-making him a wonderful husband who loved Ziona deeply and profoundly. His passion was infectious, transmitting to his children a zest for living, curiosity and the compulsion to explore the world we inhabit. His passion for travel was so apocryphal that he would have traversed life with both feet off the ground, save for Ziona who managed to keep him grounded. His love of knowledge was infectious, curiosity never abandoned him and both Semadar and David are the better for it and the fortunate beneficiaries of such an unusual man. These and other gifts are part of his legacy his grandchildren, Keren, Inbal, Nili & Tami are benefitting from and will continue in the years ahead as they establish their own households.

He was a student of science and a master of the humanities. He didn’t just love the humanities, he lived it by loving people and his preoccupation with their welfare. In living it, he became larger than life. While some people fill a room with their sheer volume or ego, Zev, Saba Zev, filled space with his compassion and love for people. He made everyone who came in contact with him comfortable and at the end of the encounter, they were both enriched, uplifted.

He was a 19th century enlightened intellectual, an intellectual for all times, all seasons. He was this towering intellectual, spanning the centuries that prompted me to embrace him not only as Zev, but Saba Zev. For decades I flirted with calling him Abba. I felt so, so close to him and loved him like a son loves a father. But I couldn’t bring myself to utter the word Abba and every time I tried I stumbled. How can a son have two fathers? So I began calling him Saba Zev – I never knew my grandfathers.

He wasn’t just Saba Zev to me – he was “Saba Yisrael” (Yisrael Saba). For those of you familiar with rabbinic literature, the sages referred to the generations of sages preceding them as “Saba Yisrael” (Yisrael Saba). “Saba Yisrael” (Yisrael Saba), the rock of ages, unmovable, grounded in values, with principles running so deep and wide that they cut through the sediment and detritus that befuddles and confuses the essential truths and core values that ought to be crystal clear and that which govern our lives. This was Zev, Saba Zev, a man of values, pristine, principled, informed and willing to put forth his vision even when unpopular for those seeking a better, more just world. To borrow from the lyrics of Simon & Garfunkel, “he was a most unusual man”.

I am honored and one of the most fortunate to have basked in his presence, taking shade under his expansive branches of love, compassion and wisdom. At some point, Zev must have intuited that his labor here, with us, was coming to a close. His cup was full; it was overflowing. He had a charmed and blessed life: He had loved Ziona deeply, had brought forth, loved and nurtured two amazing people, David and my soul mate, Semadar; was the grandfather of wonderful and devoted granddaughters, Keren, Inbal, Nili and Tami. He committed his wisdom to the books he authored as well as completing his autobiography. And while he reared generations of student they will never be able to fill his shadow. Mi Chamocha, Saba Zev? Who can pick up where you left off? There are no more Nifilim, giants in the land. You were the last of a very special breed of unique men sent here to guide us. You will always be Saba Zev to me but you have subtly, sublimely and most assuredly transitioned into Yisrael Saba, assuming your place of honor and with the greatest of dignity, alongside the sages of Israel who have come before you. May you be a source of continued blessing to all of us.

Two People – Not One

2011-04-11T17:11:00.000-05:00

I was amazed at the op-ed by Jonathan Sarna and Jay Ruderman entitled “Education is key in a changing US Jews –Israel relationship” (JTA April 4, 2011). The main thrust of the op-ed is that the Israeli educational system needs to introduce classes in high school and higher education about the American Jewish Community, which the average Israeli knows nothing about. For decades, the authors assert, the American Jewish community taught its students about Israel – its history, culture and current events. However, because the American Jewish community is no longer in lock step with Israeli policies or its politics, the relationship between the two needs to be recalibrated. Israelis, the article insists, needs to understand the US Jewish community so that they can better handle issues such as Who is A Jew, military actions and its impact on the American Jewish community.

The op-ed is stunning for its audacity to equate the two communities as equal. The fact of the matter is that Israel has never been on par with the American Jewish community. They may be wealthier but on another level they are impoverished. They may have a higher standard of living but Israelis have a substantively higher and deeper quality of life. Israel has fed the imagination of the American Jews since its inception. American Jews live vicariously through Israel and continue to do so. For decades, they reduced Israel to a third world country in dire need of American Jewish largesse. The PR coming out of federations depicted Israel as a country in difficult straights were it not for the beneficence of the American Jewish community. And the money poured in – as long as it was tax exempt.

They have diluted themselves into believing the big lie that we are “one people”. The sad fact of the matter is that we aren’t one people and haven’t been for a long time, perhaps beginning with the audacious bold move of the reform movement recognizing patrilineal descent. That was the first major crack in the foundation causing irreparable damage by using patrilineal descent as the line in the sand.

Its incredulous how this liberal American Jewish community on the doorsteps of utter assimilation, recognizing patrilineal descent, takes umbrage with the rabbinical establishment in Israel defining Jews through the halachic standards that have withstood the test of time. Bu the crack is widening progressively especially with the liberal rabbinical seminaries ordaining rabbis who refuse to wear a tallit made in Israel. Many of these putative rabbinical students are supportive of divestment. Why would Israelis need to incorporate in their curriculum courses on the American Jewish community when the resentment to Israel is so sharp? Recently Daniel Gordis in an article “Of Sermons and Strategies” (Jerusalem Post April 1, 2011) cited deliberations of a liberal rabbinical student (that appeared on face book), compiling a list of relevant historical moments to be added to the Tisha B’av extant list of woes. This particular student wished to add the creation of the State of Israel to the list of such events like the Destruction of the Temple (1&2), Spanish (Catholic Church) Inquisition, etc. Another rabbinical student in his first year abroad program as part of his rabbinical education chose to celebrate his birthday in Ramallah where he toasted the violence of his “brothers” against Israel. These weren’t isolated incidents of assimilated self-hating Jews, but “rabbinical” students who, in a few years will assume have the power of the pulpit and use it to spew anti-Israel rhetoric. They will naturally receive approbation because they are speaking from the pulpit wrapped in rabbinical robes.

We are not one people. We haven’t been for a long time, but we choose to live the lie. Its good for fundraising. We are two people growing farther apart as a result of very different conceptual approaches to our Jewish future. Israel sees its future through the prism of Jewish history, continuity and survival. American Jews, now in their denouement define their future through the lens of assimilation and its inevitability. So, I ask Sarna & Ruderman what is it that prompts you to suggest that Israelis ought to give priority in their curriculum to understanding the American Jewish community which is on its way out?

Who Remembers the Ford Pinto

2011-03-28T09:10:00.000-05:00

I never met Rabbi Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto nor have I ever attended his shiurim. I am however aware of his reputation and depending on whom you ask will determine whether he is the incarnate of Rasputin or the Baal Shem Tov. I am aware of the anecdotal lore of how the powerful and wealthy, real estate moguls, captains of industry and the sports elite seek his advice and counsel before making their final business/investment decision as though he had a crystal ball. I believe King Saul committed a similar kind of sin when he sought out a seer in the hope of communicating with Samuel. I have never bought into the idea of seeking out b’rachot because theologically, from a Lithuanian, non-Sephardic, non-Hassidic, non-kabbalistic, but Maimonidian perspective I was taught to depend on intellect rather than arbitrary b’rachot. Study and keen intellect was the antidote to the talisman, amulets and shaman of the traditional mystics and mekubalim and baalei shem tov. Seekers of b’rachot is akin to those who would consult their horoscopes prepared by trained, well-known astrologers. Believing in the likes of baalei shem tov and those like Rabbi Pinto is akin to believing in homeopathic medicine versus traditional science based medicine. Homeopathy doesn’t really do any good and may even be harmful if misused. In a word, Pinto may not be as benign as he appears to be.

The Wall Street Journal as did the Forward carried an interesting article (Forward, March 25 2011, “Revered as Business Guru, Rabbi Faces Questions About His Organization’s Finances”) which raises question about the good rabbis enterprise. Why am I not surprised? After all, our Jewish past is checkered with charismatic rabbis who had a talent for exploiting the foibles of the community. Just to name a few there was Jacob Frank and Shabtai Tzvi who by dint of their charisma and the need for people to believe in something uplifting managed to scam a sizeable number of the communities that they reached. More recently, Mordechai Gafni, although on a smaller scale managed to scam thousands of Jews and Jewish leadership as well, through his charisma and warped ego; had he not gone unchecked he would probably have morphed into a rebbe dispensing b’rachot.

I am not suggesting that Rabbi Pinto is a con man, chalila v’chas nor is my intention to impugn the ‘mekubalim” who have a revered and honored place within our tradition. These are saintly men who while not necessarily charismatic, or seek out the adulation of the masses and their wealth, have a profound spiritual centeredness that is influential amongst a small but important segment of the Jewish community, Sephardim included. Because of their profound spiritual grounding they have traditionally spurned the “gashmius” as negative energy as opposed to their positive energy, “ruchnious”. Unfortunately many who seek out these mekubalim are in search of simple answers rather than taking the difficult approach of “hasmadah”, requiring hard work and significant investment in time, and because they have chosen a shortcut financed by money, they are ultimately the worse for it. Nothing beats the long hard journey of learning, development and self-awareness, not even the b’racha of a mekubal.

There are others of course, looking for an angle and a way to capitalize on this niche market have given a bad name to the mekubalim. Rabbi Yirael Abuhatzeira whose photograph hangs in my study was a saintly man revered by the Moroccan community in Israel and abroad and fondly known as the Baba Sali. In the tradition of those who came before him, he never sought notoriety, wealth or comfort. His son, Baruch, an ex con, on the other hand saw some good possibilities and when his father died assumed the mantle as Baba Baruch. So much for the saintly scholars pouring over archaic esoteric texts for the sole purpose of enriching those in need of his special insights rather than vice versa.

Behold, another Tzadik appears on the scene, Rabbi Pinto (related to the Baba Baruch / Abuhatzeira family on his mother’s side), who may or may not be a serious mekubal. Red flags however, do pop up when perusing his profile. Pinto is known as an advisor to real estate moguls, yet Pinto’s personal business interests and investments are shrouded in questionable dealings and foreclosures. In addition, while Mekubalim trend towards modest lifestyles due to their spiritual centeredness, this man’s flamboyant lifestyle raises many more questions. As in all religious institutions his too is a non-profit, never mind the fact that his Manhattan townhouse valued at 6.5 million dollars is facing foreclosure. Although the institution is not for profit it doesn’t carry the elementary, but legally required workers compensation insurance. His CFO speaks no English and has no idea how many employees they employ. None of this meshes with his reputation as a business “iluy” or the “hard sell” strategies for fund raising they use. For example, the rabbi will send via messenger an expensive religious article i.e. silver candlesticks (originally a gift to the rabbi who passes it on as a gift) to a new potential follower (donor) explaining that the rabbi has blessed the candlesticks. A day or two later there is a visit by one of his staff asking for a donation of a specific amount i.e. 10,000.00 dollars. When Pinto travels to and from Israel he flies first class. The list goes on and there really is no precedent for this kind of cavalier behavior by past reputable mekubalim leaving one to question his veracity.

When I consider the richly textured legacy of our past spiritual leaders whether Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Misnaged or Hassidic the seam of “ruchnious” runs so deep and so wide, penetrating the soul of our people that there is virtually no space left for the “gashmius” that Pinto seems to crave. It wouldn’t be that disturbing other than the fact that he is so public about it and flamboyant that it is worth noting. Unfortunately and regrettably when I think of Rabbi Pinto one of the first thing that come to mind is the Ford Pinto of the 1970’s, which appeared like a bat out of hell; in its first year selling over 100,000 cars – a real winner. The intention of the Ford Motor Co. was to design a car to compete with the popular Volkswagen and the Toyota. Toyota and Volkswagen are still here, selling well. Who remembers the Ford Pinto?

Tunnel Vision

2011-03-14T09:11:00.000-05:00

In an atmosphere and time when there is little civility between competing ideas, and ideologies I attended a remarkable conference honoring Professor Eliezer Berkovits who committed his life to bridging the gaping abyss that divide Jews on a myriad of theological issues. Ahead of his time he introduced new approaches to the pressing issues of conversion and agunah with the intent of closing the gap and creating understanding and unity. He engaged all the streams of Judaism with the respect dignity and civility that they deserved. Each of the presenters at the conference illuminated a different facet of his life, writings and teachings, creating an uplifting transcendent experience that gives me hope that there exists other like minded souls working to achieve similar goals, engaging and persuading with equanimity, civility and respect.

Not too long ago another conference was held in Israel regarding the pressing, dire issue of conversions; attempting to develop consensus among the various religious ideologies within the orthodox stream. Poignant and compelling was the lecture presented by Aryeh Edri, professor of law at Tel Aviv University who is among other things a scholar of halacha and its development. What impressed me beyond his erudition of the laws of conversion and the responsa through the ages was his approach, which in many ways paralleled Professor Eliezer Berkovits.

Both men sought a mechanism by which the conversion candidate would enter into a process that was embracing and nurturing, resulting in a modality that would enhance ahavat yisrael and contribute to achdut ha’am. As it is, the rabbinate responsible for conversions has subverted these lofty goals, causing irreversible damage to the fabric of our society and culture. One example is the recent incident of a chayal, killed in the line of duty, defending his country that was appropriately buried in the local cemetery with military honors. When the rabbanut discovered that his conversion wasn’t valid as per their standards the chayal was disinterred and buried in a gentile cemetery, traumatizing the family, causing unnecessary pain, emotional stress and scarring. It was an act unfitting for a civilized person, unbecoming of a Jew, much less a rav. It was barbaric and uncouth revealing an undercurrent of contempt and disdain for anyone not in tandem with their way. It was the determination of a rabbinate long ossified, buried up to their eyeballs in arcane, pilpulized and corrupted halachic minutiae resulting in a class of rabbis numb to humanity and the people whom they serve. For anyone who takes these developments seriously it seems as though these putative spiritual leaders are living in a dark noxious cave, of which one of the by products is tunnel vision; as though they never experienced the crucible of the renaissance.

Aryeh Edri’s lecture was the burst of fresh air needed to expunge the toxicity of the cave dwellers. His well-crafted presentation cited relevant responsa, each, a point of light and combined illuminating a pathway out of the morass. Using the Rambam as a springboard he referenced his position regarding kabbalat mitzvoth as secondary in the conversion process. Important isn’t the kabbalat mitzvoth as much as the renunciation and rejection of the candidate’s current religious beliefs and practice. Edri pulls from Harav Shlomo Dichovsky who referenced the Ritva maintaining that kabbalat mitzvoth are of secondary importance. Interesting and informative was the intuitive approach of early nineteenth century Rav Kluger (1785-1869) who suggested that the critical elements of conversion was the tevila and the mila stipulating that kabbalat mitzvoth ought to be the result of a positive conversion, not a condition.

Another interesting consideration that rabbis concern themselves with is the motivation behind the conversion. Conventional wisdom held that the motive had to be pure; converting for the convenience of marriage was unacceptable. Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodensky (1863-1940) didn’t concur with this position and approached the issue with amazing sensitivity. Confronted with the situation of a woman seeking conversion while married civily to a secular Jew revealed the boldness of his p’sak. He maintained that kabbalat mitzvoth weren’t to be understood as literally fulfilling the mitzvoth but rather to be understood as agreeing in principle to those mitzvoth without necessarily keeping them. With that assumption in mind he assessed the conversion candidate as a “choteh l’teavon”, a person who understands that the mitzvoth are essential, but due to habit and weak character aren’t able to fulfill them. Harav Kook, according to Edri concurred with this approach stating that there are no thought police in Judaism; someone declaring that they accept the idea of kabbalat mitzvoth is sufficient without demonstrating their fulfillment of the mitzvoth. Harav Unterman (1886-1976), a past chief rabbi agreed with Grodensky and Kook stating that the candidates intent of honoring the kabbalat mizvot is sufficient for the process of conversion to go through to completion.

The list of poskim over the generations confronted with these weighty problems is numerous. What is new is the manner in which the conversion process is being handled today. Many poskim of previous generations sought solutions that would maintain the integrity of halacha but at the same time enhance shalom bayit and achdut. Today there seems to be posturing among competing factions to see who can be more machmir and thus more divisive. What is difficult to accept is this parochial position which has become the norm in light of the fact that there is enough halachic case precedent for the current rabbinate to seek solutions that are halachically sound but reflect the best in us as a people: love of humanity and love of Israel.

It was achdut that guided Eliezer Berkovits, seeking to build consensus rather than to engage in derisive confrontation. To be certain, there are legitimate poskim who disagree with these conciliatory approaches to conversion. In previous generations when poskim displayed sensitivity to these issues of conversion, it was on the sociological background of a society that experienced limited exposure to intermarriage. Our generation’s problems have become more complex because of the staggering rate of intermarriage, the exploding rate of assimilation and the fact that we have an independent state with the influx of hundreds of thousands of immigrants who were disenfranchised from normative Judaism for generations. We can’t afford the luxury of being confrontational and divisive especially in view of the fact that Israel isn’t the shtetl, and in consideration of the personal tragedies experienced daily as a result of an uncaring, corrupt rabbinate whose piskei halacha are enveloped in corrupt politics. Every generation has its challenges; we have ours today and it becomes our collective responsibility to navigate these troubled waters as best we can.

Shtiebel Yidden

2011-02-28T08:58:00.001-06:00

Surfing the news during the past few weeks I kept on tripping over an unfamiliar term “Indie Minyans”. It seems as though these Indie Minyans have been popping up all over like mushrooms after a summer rain. I had no idea what an Indie Minyan was. True, I could have googled it sooner than later and I would have filled another gap in my education. Disappointedly I learned that Indie Minyans (minyanim would be grammatically correct) was no more than an independent minyan; a start up minyan that I’d been witness to (and in some cases helped start) all my life. Succumbing to reading several articles on the subject I was a bit perplexed with the thought that the subject was being treated with as much gravitas as one would treat the possible fallout from the Egyptian junta. As I understand it the Indie Minyan, may or may not be affiliated with a movement, denomination or umbrella synagogue. Each one is unique in their makeup, hashkafa (if I may use the term), ritual and tradition. Some may be egalitarian, others more traditional. The most important thing however is that it is the story of people of like mind and kindred spirits coming together to daven. They have intentionally started their indie minyan because the trappings of the classic synagogue structure that include the paid professionals aren’t really necessary or essential for their purpose.

The Indie Minyanim are an expression of a Jewish renaissance after the excesses of the past few decades that resulted in a gaping spiritual lacuna after the heady spiritual days of the 1960’s-1970’s that had given birth to the chavurot. What happened to the chavurot is the subject of another posting, but what interests me regarding the Indie Minyanim is the lack of perspective surrounding these minyanim. To be sure, most of the Indie attendees are plugged in to Jewish life, and Jewishly educated. Perhaps what was lacking was the spiritual connection that rounded out their Jewishly lived lives. They sought out and obviously created that spiritual vortex, accompanied with the warmth, friendship and kindred spirits that only an Indie Minyan can provide. I am flummoxed because there is nothing new in this. Its been going on for generations.

Many of the participants have the mistaken notion that the Indie Minyan is something novel, groundbreaking, and perhaps even reactionary. One blogger’s description of the concern of the affiliated Jewish community is that “those who participate in Indie Minyans are living off the grid of Jewish life.” It seemed that she agreed with that assessment. I can understand the concern of the establishment because in truth they are loosing some of the precious and scarce market share – the best of that market share. They are loosing the rare, knowledgeable and committed Jews, the ones that care. What remains then of the market share are the three day a year Jews, those not as committed, those perhaps not as intellectually challenged by the issues confronting the Jewish world today. Like any retail establishment assessing their competition, they are deeply troubled with diminishing revenue, the grist that fuels there overinflated overhead, whopping salaries and mega mortgages. They are looking at the questionable future sustainability of their monolith, given the success of their competition and their diminished membership rolls.

But I take exception with those bloggers who agree that they are living off of the Jewish grid. On the contrary; they are living on the grid. They are smack dab in the middle of the grid where they belong. They are the Shtiebel Yidden of the 21st century. The shtiebel yid has always been part of the Jewish spiritual experience and was never assessed as being off the grid. Where I grew up there was a plethora of Indie minyanim, shtieblech, each with their own customs and traditions. Some were hassidish others were litvish. What they all had in common were the kindred spirits that peopled these small intimate sites, gathering there three times daily.

Entering a shtiebel in 1955 was probably different than entering an Indie Minyan of 2011. However they shared the same impulse to opt out of the mammoth, overpowering, architecturally flat buildings run more like corporations than intimate spiritual space where one can feel his Jewish neshama hyper-beating, aching to express itself. Stepping into a shtiebel in 1955 was like stepping into a time warp, my grandfather’s litvishe world. Participating in an Indie Minyan is reaching out to community of like-minded seeking its nexus to history while at the same time staying connecting to the present tense.

The proliferation of Indie Minyanim gives me hope that the tension between Keva and kavanah is being addressed with resolution happening for some already. But to secure that resolution will require more than the mushrooming of ad hoc Indie Minyans. It will require the serious commitment of Jewish leadership to rethink the current way the Jewish community is structured, its funding and allocation priorities.

Dying: A Postmortem

2011-02-22T09:19:00.001-06:00

Rabbi Gil Student recently hosted a symposium on his blog Hirhurim on the “Ethics of Brain Death and Organ Donation”. I am grateful for his effort because it brought renewed focus on a very sensitive area that few of us are familiar with. The intricacies of Jewish Law, which come into play, are varied and nuanced; presenting the issues are important since ultimately we are all affected. Apparently he invited eight scholars to contribute to the discourse and after reading them it became apparent that while it was interesting, unfortunately it didn’t present any earth shattering new information in the field. Most of the participants referenced the known recognized halachic stars and poskim of the 20th-21st century, i.e. Rabbis S.Z.Auerbach, E.Waldenberg, A.Soloveitchik, Y. Elyashiv, J.D.Bleich and others. Some of the contributors were more articulate than others, none of them really zeroed in deftly on the ethical questions involved. There were two however that triggered some red flags when they slid into the area of “give-get”, but that I’ll get into later. Another concern was clarifying the real purpose and intention of the symposium. After all this has been a dead issue since at least 1986 when The Chief Rabbinate Council of Israel on Transplants ruled and again in March 2008 when a law was passed in the Knesset regarding the matter. Another disappointment in these scholars was their avoidance of ethical considerations, while relying upon halacha as though it existed in a vacuum.

My assumption is that the recent deliberations and report of the RCA Vaad Halacha, (committee on Jewish Law) on whether BSD (brain stem death) is an halachically acceptable standard regarding organ donation was what preempted the symposium. Troublesome isn’t the content of the report, but the fact that there was any need to issue a report. After all, the RCA isn’t a hareidi rabbinic organization, and has usually been in tandem with the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. I would assume that if the decision of the Chief Rabbinate going back to 1986 was to accept BSD as an halachic criteria for death than the issue ought to be laid to rest for at least that community of centrist and modern Orthodox rabbis. Oddly however was the fact that some of the respondents in the symposium were of the right wing, including Agudah apparatchiks who would never agree with the Chief Rabbinate of Israel – on anything.

The other issue I have is with the few who risked wading into the area of medical ethics and the ethical decision-making process. Frankly I was shocked at the temerity and lack of sensitivity of two of the scholars who exploited the proverbial halachic loopholes in order to benefit from the transplants while at the same time ruling that BSD can be ruled on not only as murder but double murder. Rabbi Avi Shafran, Dir. Of Public Affairs for Agudath Israel of America reasoned the following: “Can a potential recipients religious beliefs…constitute valid grounds for penalizing him…? Legally speaking, denying someone a transplant simply because joining an organ donation system would force him to dishonor his religious beliefs would…amount to curtailing his constitutional rights….”

Shafran’s ethical standard on the subject leaves something to be desired. In a society where organs are in short supply and limited, and people are asked to participate on a “give-get” basis, it would stand to reason that those who do participate ought to benefit before those who refuse to participate. No one is being coerced, and no ones religious freedoms are being trampled upon. However, the decisions we make do have consequences. Choosing to live apart, for whatever the reason, whether it is personal convictions or religious belief doesn’t entitle one to reap the same benefits as those who choose to participate and contribute. If one decides not to participate in “give-get” he ought to be prepared to forego a possible transplant, isn’t that what standing on principles really mean: to talk the talk and walk the walk. The ethics of “give-get” become even more convincing when we also consider the normative halachic practice in Israel where BSD is an accepted clinical criterion of declaring someone dead. In spite of the responsible and sagacious advise of the Chief Rabbinate, if one decides to choose to listen to his local rabbi and opt for the heartbeat criteria instead of BSD, the consequence ought to be clear.

Heartening was the revelation that there were some excellent contributors to the symposium where their input helped clarify some of the issues. Disheartening was the fact that there are still those out there that can’t accept direction, leadership and cues from the established and recognized weighty rabbinical courts in Israel that reflect the consensus of the mainstream rabbinate and the backing of the Knesset and majority of Jews. The missed opportunity of fulfilling Isaiah’s words of Ki Mitzion Tezeh Torah (Isaiah 2:3); their application in real time, here and now is disappointing. Disheartening, of course are those participants who while they are seen as poskim haven’t honed and refined one of the tools that make the difference between a good posek and a great posek: the ability to arrive at halachic decisions not only by mastering text, but by integrating their cognitive / analytical halachic skills with a sensitivity to the ethical teachings unique to living and dying Jewishly.

K’rov Yisrael: A New Hybrid

2011-02-14T08:30:00.001-06:00

In 1984 Rueven Bulka, a well respected orthodox rabbi wrote “The Coming Cataclysm” in response to the game changer of the Reform Movement recognizing as Jews those offspring from patrilineal descent. Bulka predicted a growing chasm between those who followed matrilineal descent (as halacha dictates) and those that accepted patrilineal descent. The Jewish community would be forever fractured with a fissure so deep and so wide that it would be all but impossible to bridge. That cataclysm of which Bulka spoke never came to fruition: we are still one people (participating in the same organizational institutions that navigate Jewish communal life and advocating for Israel) with periodic adjustments made for accommodation. Most cities with a federation have a board of rabbis whereby the Orthodox rabbis participate alongside the Reform Conservative and Reconstructionist for the common good and welfare of the Jewish community, patrilineal Jews not excluded (some of these rabbis may not even be halacically Jewish). From their point of view the Reform Movement’s decision was smart and justifiable. Concerned with increasing intermarriage and dwindling synagogue membership and participation they sought ways of inclusion. The patrilineal option seemed the way to go. That, together with proactive programs and an agenda of inclusion and out reach to the intermarried might staunch the bleed.

Apparently the hemorrhaging in the liberal community hasn’t been cauterized, even with the seemingly extreme maneuver of instituting patrilineal descent; on the contrary, it’s intensified. While not accepting patrilineal descent the Conservative Movement has hit on a somewhat unique and creative response to dwindling membership: the creation of a hybrid Jew known as a K’rov Yisrael. The K’rov Yisrael is somewhat of an avatar: a shadow figure. He has the perks of being married to a Jew without any of the responsibilities incumbent on a Jew. He’s got the best of both worlds: a shadow like figure he can phase in and out depending on the circumstances. Like a chameleon there are times when he will pass as Jewish and other times morphs back into the gentile. The K’rov is a gentile married to a Jew, having opted not to convert yet desiring to take advantage of and participate n the full life of the Jewish community. He has no halachic status: he is a gentile with no claims of Jewish descent either from the mother or father. He isn’t a crypto Jew, claiming Jewish-Spanish descent. He is a gentile married to a Jew, who when desires, can attend services and receive the honors associated, such as aliya latorah and other honorifics.

My initial reaction was to negate this initiative, considering it a worse “fix” than Reform’s patrilineal descent approach. Patrilineal descent initially seemed a greater threat to the integrity of the Jewish community because it tended to shade the legitimate halachic identity of Jews. Belonging to a reform Jewish community and intensely living the Jewish life with a Jewish father but gentile mother would blur the identity: he could “pass.” The K’rov, on the other hand makes no claim of being Jewish. However, his association, presence and participation gives the distinct impression that the person is Jewish. Apart from that, creating the category of K’rov sends a clear message that one doesn’t have to convert. Why go through the effort (and difficulties, including emotional distress) of conversion if one could opt for the status of K’rov? On the other hand, intermarriage with or without conversion is an accepted fact of Jewish life and no initiative will staunch the hemorrhaging of the community, and no matter what initiative the liberal community takes the issue will not go away nor will it be solved.

How we as a people welcome the intermarried will ultimately be a testimonial as to what kind of people we are. Pondering these issues, seeking some guidance I am reminded of three famous test cases that distills the essence of the issue: religion versus peoplehood. Brother Daniel, Benjamin Shalit and Shoshan Miller. While these three case refer to the Israeli Judicial system they nevertheless hone in on the issue that confronts what being a Jew means today: religion or peoplehood. In the 1960’s Benjamin Shalit, an Israeli married a non-Jewish Scottish woman. The children were recognized as Israeli, however Shalit wanted their identity cards to say “Jewish” for nationality but left blank for religion. The Ministry of Interior denied the request, however the Supreme Court ruled in Shalit’s favor: the children of a gentile mother and Jewish father were rendered Jewish. The court made a distinction between peoplehood and religion (the Law of Return unfortunately was subsequently amended to avoid this situation in the future).

If we separate our personal passions from the issue it might seem reasonable to allow this new hybrid Jew an opportunity to thrive. While the avatar doesn’t seek conversion the K’rov nevertheless demonstrates full association and identification with the Jewish community as Ruth the Moabite did. It won’t staunch the bleed but it might facilitate the integration of well-intentioned people into the Jewish community.

Signing on, as most of us have to a reasonably enlightened political/social philosophy and liberal life style has within it, unfortunately, the seeds of destruction. American Jews tend to be liberal in their weltanschauung. To be liberal is to be accepting. To be liberal is to be educated and open to new and fresh ideas. To be liberal is to allow others to learn more about who we are and what we are. Ultimately this leads to full integration, assimilation and intermarriage, not only of the liberal community but also the orthodox community. It is an unavoidable by product of being an educated Jewish American.

Men at Their Best

2011-01-25T04:04:00.001-06:00

Man at His Best was the title of an essay I wrote about a year ago reflecting on the depleted presence of men in Reform pews. The feminization of Jewish life has either neutered men or driven them to other safe harbors. It is the very same reason why hareidi men in Jerusalem are vociferous, aggressive and verbally abusive when it comes to the touchy subject of women prayer services (minyanim) at the wall. Religious ritual at the synagogue or the “kotel” happens to be the last bastion, the Jewish man’s last stand, and his last frontier where he can be a man. He really has no other place to go. Now, a study has come out on the status of Jewish men in the Conservative/ Masorati movement.

In this particular study certain assumptions were made which are disturbing. For one thing, the study underscores the positive outcomes resulting from the feminization of the Conservative movement, referring to themselves now as gender balanced or egalitarian. This study rejects the premise that men resisted this new “world order”. Had they objected the study asks why is it that these men didn’t fight back, thus concluding, “if men are becoming less visible…it must be for other reasons”. The author of the study misses the point. They didn’t fight back because they weren’t able to exercise their rights. They were neutered long before they were married, most likely by their mothers at the same time that they were circumcised by the mohel. Jewish men have been programmed to be more “sensitive”, more “compassionate” and less aggressive. In short the liberal agenda filtered down to the Jewish family, making it politically incorrect to assume a stance not consistent with liberal values and politics.

Another erroneous assumption made by the author is that men absent themselves from synagogue because of their “religious incompetence”. If men, the study suggests, are given the appropriate “tools” this too can change. The author oddly likens the unschooled Jewish male to an unprepared hunter about to forage in the woods for a kill. Before going out on the hunt the hunter has to check his list of tools (the author never refers to these tools as weapons). Fascinating it is, that the author compares the Jewish man to the hunter, which is odd, since Jewish men traditionally have never been hunters and almost runs counterintuitive to our Jewish DNA. We don’t hunt for sport (against Jewish law – tsar l’baalei chaim and bal tashchit), and reluctantly for sustenance since we were meant to be vegetarians.

One could even make the case that the author of this study seems to be subconsciously struggling with the degree of potency of his “male” identity and thus, not surprisingly chose the hunter as his metaphor. The hunter, in Jewish lore is the quintessential Esau, decried and discredited in the Bible as cunning, wily, aggressive, fearless and takes what he wants. This is the polar opposite of the early paradigmatic version of Jacob, understood as the delicate, sensitive spiritual figure decidedly scholarly, effeminate and dependent on others for physical sustenance.

No matter how many studies come out, the end result will be the same: the feminization of Judaism has led to the neutering of men driving him out from his place of gathering, his natural habitat, the beit kenesset (beit midrash). They have become passive aggressive, as manifested by their absence in the synagogue as well as other programs sponsored by the community. Hareidi men must hold out and keep at bay the feminization of their cultural enclave, the last frontier of the Jewish male. They are the last male Jewish hope.

Mixed Messages

2011-01-10T10:49:00.000-06:00

Guilt is an awful thing to bear. Sexual guilt is worse. Sexual guilt among adolescence in Israel was the subject of a recent study under the auspices of Bar Ilan University and presented at a conference on “Challenges in Jewish Education”. Imagine: a conference was held in 2011 about a subject that was beaten to death in the 1960’s and 70’s. Novel perhaps about this conference was the focus on the orthodox community. Apparently orthodox youth may be sexually conflicted and repressed. Apropos, when I was in high school, preference was to go out with girls from Bais Yaakov without of course the knowledge or permission of their parents. In retrospect it would appear that they must have been profoundly conflicted, but it never occurred to us when “in the moment”. The depth of conflict and the psychological stress was and still remains beyond my comprehension. This study certainly is revealing.

Disturbing were some of the observations underscored at the conference regarding the attitudes of adolescence to sex. For example researchers discovered that orthodox youth were disgusted by “porn” believing that god didn’t create people for their bodies to be on display, which although is a silly argument (by the same token I can argue that if god intended men to be circumcised we would have been born that way) reveals deep seated issues as expressed in their conflicts: being passionately and inexorably pulled to and attracted to natural sex, but feeling guilty about those lustful feelings.

None of this is surprising to me. It isn’t my intention to be dismissive of this community or treat them in a cavalier manner. However one of the glaring problems with this segment of the Jewish community are the mixed messages that the adolescent community receives from their parents and community. On any given Shabbat one can readily see these young adolescent girls in their shabbes best: decked out in suggestive outfits, spiked heels and coiffed like upscale call girls. You have to wonder how in the world did their parents let them step out of the house like that, unless of course they approve, which means they are enabling them and thus reinforcing the mixed message. A few years ago I posted an essay on the thrill of attending a frum wedding. The exaggerated smorgasbord was barely outdone by the over the top parade of nubile eligible (and not so eligible) women sauntering through the smorgasbord as though they were there on display and in competition with the roast beef.

Another unfortunate mixed message has begun to emerge from none other than the ultra orthodox spiritual leadership: the rabbinic establishment, which has recently begun to permit elective plastic, cosmetic surgery such as nose jobs, breast enhancement, tummy tuck, buttocks lift, liposuction etc. Hitherto it was the opinion of the ultra orthodox rabbinate that there was no need to improve upon god’s handiwork. Apparently chanting “eshes chayil” to an unflattering nose or underdeveloped bosom was inappropriate to many within the community. The rabbis, in their dubious wisdom modified their previous p’sak to now assume that god’s handiwork may be improved upon by a nip and tuck here and there. So this new and improved mother of thirty something transmorphing into a “Barbie” albeit with a sheitel, has now become the new and improved version of the “eshes chayil”, a woman of valor and the new role model for her nubile adolescent daughter.

Not surprisingly there is yet a new phenomenon among our young orthodox girls: eating disorders. In 1996 Dr. Ira Sacker studied ultra orthodox women and found that 1 out of 19 in his Brooklyn sampling had an eating disorder:

“Experts say the orthodox community is sending mixed messages to young women. Parents, matchmakers and potential mates want a svelte bride, but may shun a woman who divulged she has an eating disorder because of the stigma of mental illness. For arranged marriages among the ultra orthodox, the first question matchmakers ask is about physical appearance, including weight and the mother’s weight, which feeds the message that thinner brides are now more desirable, said Dr. Ira Sacker…”

It makes one wonder what the face of the ultra orthodox community will look like in another generation. After all, it is to the ”eshes chayil” the pillar of the Jewish family that we all look up to in holding together the values of “yisroel saba”. This study is indicative that they have embarked on a slippery slope and the matchmakers that Dr. Sacker referenced doesn’t help but rather hinders. Perhaps these ultra orthodox families ought to consider jdate.com or frumster.com or other social networking sites as alternatives to these misguided matchmakers. It makes you wonder if Mark Zuckerberg got it right when he developed face book?

Generation F

2011-01-03T10:47:00.000-06:00

The Jewish Week (Generation F, Steven Lipman, December 28, 2010) carried an interesting, thought provoking article about the generation of Jews in their 20’s and 30’s who seem to be in search of their Jewish identity. Profiling a young mother, a Park Slope resident, Sher, was interesting although nothing revealing or earth shattering struck me. As a matter of fact, not all that long ago, the young alienated Jews 70’s and 80’s, struggled with the same issues. Then as now young people, beginning their own households were in search of a direction by which their families would be defined Jewishly. Then, they were referred to as “seekers”. And they were! It was the age of the Jewish Catalogue and other self-help books on discovering Jewish traditions and how to “do” Shabbat etc. While there is nothing groundbreaking in this article it does give a new appreciation to the opening line of Ecclesiastes “ein chadsh tachat hashemesh”, there is nothing new under the sun. What is revealing is the realization that there are so many Jews out there who are still Jewish, in spite of their parent’s generation (seekers); a somewhat lost generation searching for Jewish meaning.

With all the good intentions the article is flawed. It typifies the way institutional Judaism, such as federations and the denominations understand Judaism, and how people like Sher define herself through the prism of Judaism. For Sher as for Institutional Judaism, Judaism is defined as a religion like any other religious faith based group. As those religions offer the possibility of spirituality so too is Judaism expected to do the same. Denominational rabbis, in particular the reform and conservative pattern themselves in the same way, even referring to their work as a “ministry”. Judaism however, isn’t faith based, nor is it a religion, nor is its foundations spiritual. Judaism is peoplehood and covenantal. We are a nation, which happens to have folded within it rites and ritual by which we can express our fealty to god (for those who believe in god) and community. Up through the mid 19th century Judaism was accepted and understood universally not as a religion but as a nation. The Reform movement seeking entry and acceptance to the world at large, redefined Judaism as a religion, as any other religion. By doing this, they denuded Judaism to little more than synagogue worship and ritual, and in so doing removed the thorny issue of dual loyalty from the concerns of the overall gentile community.

One doesn’t have to believe in god to be a good Jew and a pillar of the community. One doesn’t have to believe in or attend synagogue to be a good Jew and an upstanding member of the Jewish community. One only has to read nineteenth century Jewish thinkers like Simon Dubnow, Asher Ginsburg and Isaac Peretz who argued the merits of cultural Judaism as the sin qua non of Judaism. Unfortunately, people like Sher have been taught to believe that prayer (personal, private or otherwise) is the means of expressing one’s Jewishness. That simply isn’t the case! To be committed to the Jewish community and to identify with worldwide Jewry is to epitomize a wholesome Jew. To identify with the values of the Jewish community is to find expression as a Jew. To educate one’s children in the history, art, literature, Hebrew language and customs of Israel and the Jewish people is to be a committed Jew. Attending synagogue, praying in language and style that doesn’t resonate renders the worshiper restless. Praying to an objectified god as though He was in the business of doling out and calling in favors must leave one wondering if this is what Judaism is all about. Defining ones Jewishness by synagogue affiliation and membership invariably leaves one in the state of perpetual search.

The perpetuation of the myth that Judaism is a religion of faith serves no one but those directly benefiting from it: rabbis, cantors and synagogue administrators. It is no wonder that Chabad is so successful in their work: they have reduced synagogue worship and membership to one facet of living Jewishly. It is no wonder that Shlomo Carlebach z”l, in his time was so successful in generating as generation of Jews that saw and felt the larger picture. We are a people, a nation with half of us living in Israel, and the rest of us living in the Diaspora. We aren’t exclusively seekers of things spiritual, but also of things cultural, social and political. There are those seeking and not finding spirituality in Judaism turning to other practices such as eastern meditative practices, Buddhism and Hinduism. That needn’t exclude these same people from staying within the Jewish community identifying totally and wholesomely with all things Jewish.

Generation F is no different than the flower children of the 60’s and their spin-offs, the “seekers” of the 70’s and 80’s. Seeking and searching, because they had been robbed of their birthright: understanding that being Jewish was something greater than anything religion had to offer.

Asher Bochar Banu Mi’kol Ha’amim

2010-12-20T08:17:00.001-06:00

American Jewish religious affiliation trends toward the liberal movements (reform and conservative) and politically as social progressives. This makes perfect sense because their religious institutions buttress their social progressive positions. They feel comfortable in their milieu; their synagogues are in the forefront of social action, they support the Democratic Party and naturally, critical of Israel’s approach to the peace process as well as lambasting Israel’s relationship with the Muslim community in Israel. The liberal community’s neat religious/social/political package works well for them; they feel comfortable as one of the clear articulate voices calling for social justice.

Living in the Diaspora carries with it the disturbing psychological burden of maintaining an enlightened image of Judaism, as well as a profile of Judaism that is loyal to America and American values. A Madoff makes us feel uncomfortable; a Pollard makes us cringe and a Rubashkin makes us squirm. What will the gentiles think of us now? Will they see us as greedy, with questionable loyalty and exploitative of minorities? How uncomfortable is all that? But wait, what about the forty-seven rabbis signing a statement on December 7, 2010, quoting halacha (which has no borders) that it is forbidden to rent or sell property to a non Jew (Muslim) in Israel? Ouch! Rabbis aren’t supposed to be racist or intolerant and discriminatory. It makes the liberal American Jew squirm thinking that perhaps American Orthodox rabbis buy into the same halachic standard, conjuring up images of whites not renting to blacks not that long ago.

Apparently, these enlightened American Jews aren’t necessarily aware of the blessing their children chant on their Bar/ Bat Mitzva’s and forever after when called to the Torah: “Ashe Bochar banu Mikol Ha’amim”, that we are the chosen from all the other nations. You can’t get more racist than that. But their rabbis anticipating the discomfort in chanting this unique blessing gave new meaning, new understanding to these words. We aren’t “chosen” (heaven forbid), rather we are “different” was the new spin. American liberal Jews live in a bubble, a fictitious cocoon, a make believe world, a color by number world designed by their rabbis in order to give their communities a good, warm, fuzzy feeling about being Jewish.

The Jewish experience in Israel, like mostly everything else there, isn’t sugar coated. They don’t obsess over packaging, just the message: no spin. For the preponderant orthodox Jewish community in Israel “Ashe Bachar Banu …” means exactly what it says and what it intended to say: Israel is special, we are chosen. Unlike America where every child is a winner and every one is special in Israel there are winners and losers. We are as chosen today as Isaac was chosen over Ishmael and as Jacob was chosen over Esau several thousand years ago. We do not subscribe to Replacement Theology as much as the Church would like us to, nor do the rabbis in Israel spin “Asher Bachar Banu…” as the American liberal rabbis do.

In spite of this there is something very wrong, very malevolent with the statement made by these forty-seven rabbis in citing halacha as the reason for not selling or renting to non Jews in Israel. Israel is, after all a democratic state and not governed by theology or halachic rulings. These rabbis, like so many Israelis are being influenced by the fear that the majority of Jews in Israel will be eroded in time based upon the growing birth rate among Muslims as well as the looming threat of the “right of return” of Muslims as part of a peace deal. Hearing this argument however brings to mind the halachic question of whether one may disconnect a person in a vegetative state from a life support system. The rabbis ruled that if the person is not on yet on life support, there is no obligation to put him on it, if the diagnosis is dire without hope. However once he is on life support he can’t be disconnected because then his life is actively being terminated. The analogy here is that people living in Israel, regardless of race, religion or color ought to have equal rights before the law. They all live in Israel, and a democracy ought to be free of discrimination based upon color, religion, sex or beliefs. that ought to apply to all those living within the borders of Israel. On the other hand, as a responsible government Israel is mandated and obligated to control immigration so as to insure that there is a clear majority of Jews living within its borders: thus the refusal by Israel to accede to the “right of return” for Muslims, not yet admitted into the country. However, those living in Israel must be accorded all the rights as every other citizen, including the right to live wherever they so desire.

There was a time when I reasoned that Muslims are still backward, holding on to their prejudice and intolerance because they haven’t gone through the crucible of a renaissance as we did with the rest of Europe 400 years ago. In addition we have a rich oral tradition accompanying our written law that has promoted the “Socratic method” throughout our history: hence our creativity. Disturbing however, is that our own rabbis in Israel our lagging far, far behind. And even though they have been raised on the oral tradition where creative thinking was encouraged they have not taken advantage of this tradition. As a result they are mired in the same medieval slime that our Muslim cousins are stuck in. The statement of the forty-seven rabbis is another indicator that relying upon halacha as a viable option to govern ( as so many in the religious establishment would like), would be as bad as shariya law is in Muslim countries.

Keys to Gan Eden

2010-12-13T08:12:00.000-06:00

This past week the Village Voice (December 8, 2010) published a disturbing article “How Can a Religious Person Justify Being a Slumlord”, by Elizabeth Dwoskin. She interviewed people in Jewish leadership positions in an attempt to understand the apparent oxymoron: how can one profess to be religious and yet operate slum properties. These were interviews in futility because those in the ”know” either didn’t “know” or they weren’t totally forthcoming. What I found more upsetting was the entire subject of inquiry. Why would the Village Voice find this any more of a fascination than the cutthroat pricing of the 7-11’s run by Indians? For that matter why not run an article on Muslim owned grocery stores in black neighborhoods charging usurious prices. If the Village Voice was concerned with the nature of Jewish religious practice vis a vis its affinity to shady business the thrust of the article should have been: why is it that Ultra Orthodox Jews tend to drift into shady business dealings?

There have been much worse violations of the law by the ultra orthodox community than operating slum properties. Truth be told and while not defending these slum operating, so-called “religious Jews” I can imagine that they are caught between a rock and a hard place. Tenants in New York can do no wrong in the eyes of the law and if they do, it is virtually impossible to evict them from an apartment. Paying rent is almost unheard of in many of these apartment buildings. Judges aren’t wont to evict them, especially if children are involved, the elderly or winter. Yet, the municipal government expects the owner to keep the building in prime condition well heated in the winter even when rents haven’t been paid in months and where windows are left open in the winter. Tenants know how to work the system. If something is remiss they hotline the appropriate agency even though they are sorely delinquent in paying rent and the owner is cited with a building code violation. So the Village Voice article really isn’t balanced nor is its basic premise correct if based upon the inner workings of inner city slum properties. So the real question remains as stated earlier: why is it that Ultra Orthodox Jews tend to drift into shady business dealings?

There are physicians from the ultra orthodox community who while practicing their craft have the compulsive need to defraud the Medicare system. There are those like Rubashkin who rather than run a legal, profitable business break the laws for purposes of enrichment. And of course there are many ultra orthodox Jews who are in the Nursing Care business who have been under investigation for Medicare/Medicaid fraud. There are ultra orthodox Jews who have violated the trust off their own communities by disguising non kosher meats as kosher knowing full well that the products they were selling were non kosher. There are roshei yeshivot who have scammed the government out of money by inflating student census.

What all the above have in common is a fundamental disregard of the law (civil) by the ultra orthodox community whenever and wherever possible. Violation of trust doesn’t seem to be a moral issue within the community and the question is why. Many of the ultra orthodox Jews are not necessarily religious by commonly held societal definitions. The average Jew would be considered religious if he practiced mitzvoth ben adam lamakom (between man and god; ritual) and mitzvot bein adam lechavero (between man and man; civil). A Jew who dons a black hat and wears a beard is automatically assumed to be this kind of Jew, minimally. That of course is wrong. Just because someone wears a kapote or wraps a gartel around his waste at prayers doesn’t make him religious, nor does a woman wearing a sheitel make her religious as the Heidi-Mendy appearance in People’s Court will attest. What it states is that they are meticulous and sometimes compulsive about ritual.

Appearances are very important in this community because it is the community that provides emotional, social and financial support of its members from the cradle to the grave. Being in good standing with the community will determine whom you marry and whom your children marry. They can be the least scrupulous outside their community because at the core they really aren’t religious, but they must give the appearance if they want to reap the benefits of their community.

Community and belonging is the lifeline to this segment of the Jewish community. Being rejected is like being ejected from the Garden of Eden. Belonging is everything. The toddler is raised on the myths, folklore and history of the Jewish people as well as that of the micro community one’s ancestry came from. Everything else is outside their interest, purview and experience. Their schools and yeshivot reinforce those sentiments, as does the rigid life at home, resulting in the phenomenon of being alienated from the world outside the ghetto. To this community, the “other” is an outsider. That is why the Bet Din of Crown Heights ordered its Lubavitch followers not to talk to outsiders about crime: “no one shall bring to any media…information…that would lead to an investigation…by a law enforcement agency….” To the ultra orthodox, they are not only the outsiders, but the ultra orthodox are the chosen to the exclusion of everyone else. To many of this community the gentile was created to serve them and to help them fulfill god’s law, even if it as the expense of the gentile! In this sense they aren’t operating with the same value system that everyone else is.

Perhaps this was the rational for Heidi and Mendy, described as frum people trying to rob a poor dry cleaner appearing in People’s Court for allegedly ruining her $3000.00 sheitel. To them being religious is to punctiliously follow ritual. Ritual is sort of like a formula. There doesn’t have to be rhyme or reason; you just have to do what is commanded to do by force of divine history and ancestry. In their perverse idea of religion you don’t have to be honest, you have to follow the magic formula. One can even cheat the gentile system since they (gentile) were created to serve the Jews. Performance of the formula is your guarantee for reaping rewards. Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz, president of Uri L’ Tzedek (and who was quoted in the Village Voice article cited above) commented on the “Sheitl” scandal by commenting that it was a chilul hashem because the story was broadcast on national television. His reaction leads one to speculate that if it hadn’t been broadcast on national television it may have been swept under the carpet. However to Rabbi Yanklowitz’s credit he does question the values taught in yeshivot whereby mitzvot ben adam lamakom (between man and god; ritual) are emphasized and fails to internalize the mitzvoth ben adam lechavero (between man and man; civil): “Our kehilla has a serious problem…we can all be better about how we treat non-Jews in business…But even further we must watch every move we make. If we are given an extra coin at the register, as frum Jews we must return it. In business we must act honestly in all cases….If we don’t clean up our act, our kehilla is going to continue to be a source of …embarrassment… and chillul hashem.” His statement leaves one to conjecture if the motivation for treating people honestly is for altruistic or ulterior motives.

In western faith religions, the whole point of being religious is to be closer to God, to have a relationship with Him. This of course is predicated on respecting His creations. Dishonoring man is to dishonor God. To do so would indicate a disconnect between the so-called religious person and his behavior. There is no dissonance in the ultra orthodox community because their understanding of religion is different. Important to them are the rituals; it mechanics and formulae which are the keys to getting back into Gan Eden.

Mashiv Haruach U’Moreed Hageshem

2010-12-06T09:46:00.000-06:00

Prayer is one of the most ubiquitous practices we find in society but it is also the most misunderstood and malpracticed. Over the past several months I have followed the attempts of religious practitioners in Israel pray for the much-needed rain in Israel. The drought has been plaguing Israel for the last eight months and this past week, tragic and deadly fires raged in the Carmel, no doubt more damaging and ferocious because of the eight month drought. Religious practitioners have become so frustrated with the lack of results from the conventional prayers of “mashiv haruach u’moreed hageshem” that they have resorted to creative tactics such as interdenominational services with ministers and imams organized by Rabbi Menachem Froman of Tekoa. When that didn’t yield results Rabbis Menashe Malka and Reuven Deri went up on a hot air balloon to deliver prayers, as though God was hard of hearing and approaching the upper atmosphere might get His attention. It also assumed an objectified god, a god of Job proportions scheming alone or with ministering angels “up there” somewhere. When that didn’t work, world Bnei Akiva emissaries in 30 countries inserted into the liturgy a special prayer for rain by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel.

What all these and other attempts have in common is the misconceived notion that God is out there somewhere waiting to be beseeched in order to dole out favors at will. All you have to do is hit on the right formula at the right moment and presto, walla, your prayers will be answered. It is based on the assumption that god in the tradition of Job is the “grand puppeteer” manipulating humans at will for some cosmic satisfaction and it is up to us to beseech God into granting us a reprieve. This approach to God assumes that He isn’t omniscient, otherwise why would we have to ask Him for favors. Surely He knows that there is a drought. It also assumes that God plays favorites. After all there is a decades long drought in Africa and there are on going chronic droughts in parts of Asia as well. Why wouldn’t he help his children there, if the assumption were that if “one asks one gets”. This approach to God, this kind of prayer and its practitioners remind me of the classic medicine man of the North American Indian tribes, who performed a rain dance with special incantations and ritual as intercessors to the spirits in order that it rain.

Jewish prayer is different than that, it ought to be different than that. In its original form, prayer is not asking God for anything; it is not a request. It is as Eliezer Berkovitz wrote, “a cry, an elementary outburst of woe; a spontaneous call in need. It is a call of helplessness to God. So man brings his sorrow before God, knowing perhaps that although God isn’t changing his circumstances he needs the reassurance of His love and that He is near”. This is the essence of prayer. Interpreting the words of David “I pour out my complaint to Him, I declare before Him my trouble” the midrash comments “thus the men of faith declare their troubles before God”. To pour out one’s trouble before God means simply to tell God about one’s troubles; to make God the confidant of one’s sorrow. Man is able to do this because God is felt as being close to him and is the natural and most intimate confidant of man’s soul. Assuming this to be correct, prayer, Berkowitz maintains presents us with a conundrum: asking God for something is in reality self seeking. So whether we ask for wealth or health we are asking for ourselves. “This approach of “give - give” isn’t prayer and hasn’t the quality of prayer unless it comes out of intimacy with God”. If prayer is to have meaning and purpose it ought to be to redirect people, to have them focus not on what God can do for us, but what can we do for each other. The purpose of prayer is to strengthen man, to elevate him and cause him to be elevated, whereby man can transcend his current predicament and in the process resolve the issue.

Droughts have been one of the plagues of mankind since time immemorial. It is among the earliest documented climatic events, present in the Gilgamesh story and tied to the biblical story of Joseph's arrival in and the later Exodus from Ancient Egypt. Hunter-gatherer migrations in 9,500 BC Chile have been linked to the phenomenon, as has the exodus of early man out of Africa, and into the rest of the world around 135,000 years ago. Praying to God as the rainmakers of the North American tribes is really no different than a rabbi praying in an air balloon. What makes the rabbi think that his prayers will be more effective than the rainmaker? They can be if he uses prayer, not for beseeching, but for strengthening his resolve for solving the problem, not by fighting nature but understanding nature and working with nature. Israel is no more exempt from natural catastrophes than any other nation. Flooding, tsunamis, hurricanes are all the bane of humanity as is drought. They all wreak terrible damage to people and property, but standing there and praying won’t change anything.

Jews have been chanting “mashiv haruach u’moreed hageshem” for a very long time. Has it solved the problem? Drought is an incessant problem, not only for Israel, but also for countries throughout the world. So beseeching God for yet another favor doesn’t seem to work. I believe it was Einstein who commented that if you have made the same mistake a hundred times why would you think that by doing it one more time it would work? That’s not to say that one shouldn’t pray. It does mean however that prayer for it to be meaningful will have to be transformative to he who prays.

Transformative means that man understands drought in different terms than he did prior to transformation. In a post transformative mentality he understands that he has to conform his culture and its needs to his climate; what may work for other countries may not work for Israel. It may mean that while private houses with a garden is beautiful in climates that have little shortage of water, it may mean that in Israel private houses ought to be discouraged, as well as gardens and car washes. It may mean that hotels develop better, less wasteful ways to serve their guests. It may mean that technology devote more assets to developing a waterless society; i.e. waterless washing machines. There is no end to the possibilities to what a society can do when it is in a transformative mode, and here prayer can help.

Unfortunately, Israel today is in a gordian knot mercilessly applied by the Chief Rabbinate who themselves are drowning in the minutiae of rabbinic ritual and medieval custom having little meaning or relevance to the people whom they serve. In this environment it seems difficult to imagine a transformative culture that would make Israel soar to new heights.

Clear Thinking Jews

2010-11-29T09:45:00.000-06:00

Probably by this time everyone has seen the viral YouTube “Yeshiva Guy Says Over a Vort” in which the haredi “right” is being taken to task by the orthodox “left” by citing the Talmud Yuma (28b) as well as taking a pot shot at Rabbi Elyashiv. This YouTube making the case for the religious “right” at the expense of clear thinking and rational people brings to mind the fantastic midrash of Yeshivat Shem V’ever. According to midrashic sources this was a yeshiva established by Noach’s son and grandson Shem and Ever. Some sources have it being established in Tzfat, others in Ber Sheva. The story alleges that all the Avot studied there, something akin to American dynastic families studying at Harvard or one of the other Ivy League Universities. Surprisingly these sources are disappointingly sketchy about what Avraham and Isaac studied there, but gratefully more detailed regarding Jacob who studied there from the age of 63 for 14 years (Accordingly he was 77 when he finally got to Lavan’s ranch, then had to work 14 more years before marrying Rachel). Imagine that. According to the Midrash he knew he was going to Lavan’s house so he needed to fortify himself with special torah that would serve as a prophylactic to Lavan’s bad influences. Hard to fathom, but that’s what our sages would have us believe. Reviewing the midrashic sources on Yeshiva Shem V’ever one has to wander what the curriculum was like. What texts did they study? How did they manage to get the copies of the texts and in what format were they made available to the “bochrim”? Were there lectures or was it autodidactic? How long was the day of study? What did they eat and were there stipends? How much was tuition and were scholarships provided to all or just the needy. How many students studied there?

This midrash came to mind when I viewed the YouTube in which the protagonist challenges the “ben torah” with some very logical questions: If Jacob knew the whole torah then he shouldn’t have been upset when Joseph was sold to the caravan, because he knew the end before it unfolded? What’s more amazing then this sophisticated YouTube is the defensive posturing from the frum community. Their response is as phantasmagoric as the story of Yeshiva Shem V’ever. In actuality they can’t really mount a coherent defense against the thesis position of the YouTube. Attempting to do so is a failed attempt at weaving a web of obfuscation. One example of this is justifying Jacob’s marriage to two sisters (by dismissing the accusations) due to their conversion prior to the marriages. Utterly silly but should one inquire as to the nature of the conversion? Was it “kosher” according to all the sages or would there have been some reservations by some on the very far right. No clear thinking Jew can support this kind of approach to Torah or to our tradition.

Then there are others who because they consider themselves more enlightened and don’t understand these midrashim literally, but allegorically, sort of a means by which appoint has to be made. So the midrash might weave an incredibly outlandish story with the intention that a lesson is to be learned from it. There are many sages who held this position but somehow became muddled when they got into the details. For example how was it possible that the Avot observed all the commandments? These rationalists would say, perhaps not all the commandments were observed by the Avot but certainly all of the ethical commandments were? Really? And how did they know what the ethical commandments were? And did they observe only d’oreisah or also d’rabanan? Other “clear headed” sages suggest that the Avot observed the commandments only when in Israel. Not withstanding the issue of borders, they introduced an incredible and revolutionary position that the commandments were only given for use in Israel. Does that apply today too?

Clearly, this YouTube hit a raw nerve. Rather than reevaluate with some serious study some of their positions, the right wing assumed the following position:
“The overwhelming majority of Torah authorities, however, clearly and completely hold the maximalist position and this is the general position that should be taught in Torah institutions. When one is involved in kiruv or deals with people who have been raised in secular environments, it is the opinion of this author that all three positions should be presented.”
In other words perpetuate the absurd and obfuscate the truth by citing different positions of the sages: maximalist position, minimalist positions and midlevel positions. All of course cannot and do not address the concerns of clear thinking Jews. Beyond trying to sell a muddled message and vision to the clear thinking, when under attack they do what they know best: circle the wagons with more fences and double talk.

Jeremiah’s Comeback

2010-11-22T11:11:00.000-06:00

Ein chadash tachat hashemesh – there is nothing new under the sun. A powerful statement made in Ecclesiastes and probably true. True also is that lifestyles, trends, ideas and politics run in cycles, often times with different names but conceptually similar. For example, socialism isn’t a late 19th century political innovation, but has been around for hundreds of years under different names, and with variation. Ditto for communism. Messianic trends have had its moments when it was massively popular and at other times denounced by the dominant spiritual leaders. Substantive political theoreticians and social scientists no longer popular or appreciated tend to come back for a second reading a generation or two later. Political leaders not so popular when in office sometimes gain newfound respect and appreciation once history has been able to reassess their contribution. It would appear that having been in disregard, our prophets too, are being reconsidered and possibly reevaluated as valuable assets to our culture.

Jeremiah once an outcast, reviled and banned from the Temple for his depressingly doomsday message is being revisited and reassessed as a prophet with a valid timeless message. Jeremiah, the prophet of deep irreversible doom is slowly coming back into vogue having been ignored by the intellectual / Zionist community ever since Israel gained its independence. This is fascinating in light of the fact that so many young people today in Israel and abroad have little or no knowledge of the prophet and the historical/social setting in which Jeremiah prophesied. And it isn’t only the assimilated Jewish youth or the modern orthodox. It is the proverbial yeshiva bachur whether haredi or orthodox who rarely read or study prophets unless it is the selected Shabbat haftarah. Even then it isn’t certain that the text will be studied.

For decades Israelis shied away from highlighting Jeremiah because of his extreme positions regarding the fate of the Israelis prior to and at the time of the exile after the destruction of the first Temple. He believed that the people had gone beyond the point of “return” due to the total erosion of their moral fiber. Worse than that, he believed that the Jews needed to adjust to life in Babylonia because it was the will of God and that they weren’t returning to Israel. Since Babylonia was their new home, it made sense that they integrate themselves thoroughly. Jeremiah had no coherent vision for a return. Pretty extreme!!

Nineteenth century Zionists deeply resented Jeremiah for this harsh prophetic vision since it competed with their own vision of a people reclaiming and returning to their ancestral home. They preferred more uplifting prophets like Isaiah because of his optimistic prophecy that we will ultimately be vindicated and return to Israel. Thus, the Israeli curriculum barely references Jeremiah while giving much time and attention to Isaiah.

Perhaps the message that most attracts Israeli’s today and alienated them two thousand years ago was Jeremiah’s “Temple Sermon” where he attempted to appeal to the moral conscience of the people, placing it on equal footing with religious / ritual cult practice. Then, two thousand years ago, the kingdom was content with religious obeisance minus the social consciousness, not caring if people were starving in the streets. Today however, social consciousness or tikun olam has become the fashion, the rage among those wishing to express themselves Jewishly minus the religious / ritual observance.

Today in Israel as well as in many Diaspora communities, soup kitchens and safe houses are the new constructs and de rigueur of Jewish fulfillment as expressed by our prophets and epitomized by Jeremiah. The majority of American Jews, considered liberals (or progressives) seem to think that if we create universal health coverage on the backs of the taxpayers we will fulfill in some part the so called mitzvah of tikun olam. They mistakenly believe that if there is a redistribution of the wealth of the country and individuals we will approximate the vision of Jeremiah. Unfortunately these well-meaning progressives have corrupted the intent and meaning of tikun olam. An alternative to that vision ought to be “tough love” which is probably more in line with the intention of biblical Judaism (i.e. eved ivri)

Coddling was never a value in our system. A safety net provided for those in dire need, wasn’t regarded as entitlement nor intended as a permanent solution to economic/social problems. Our rabbis taught us that it was incumbent on every father to teach not only Torah but also a trade to their sons. Axiomatic of that was Maimonides hierarchy of charity; the highest being providing the opportunity to the recipient to receive an opportunity at a trade or business to assure a livelihood rather than money or goods.

Perhaps its time that those who want to see change in the social fabric of society abandon their corrupted understanding of tikun olam which encourages neediness, and adopt the saner approach of tough love. Coddling creates more dependency. The goal should be to wean people off of the dole, primarily the healthy and the young who ought to get off their duffs and find a job (I am not suggesting that the aged, physically and mentally infirm should rot in the streets). And yes, there are plenty of jobs – all the jobs that the illegal aliens take (as dish washers, buss boys and gardeners) that our inner city youth believe is beneath them. If tikun olam as understood by the yefe nefesh was the message of Jeremiah instead of tough love, than his vision may do us more harm than good; perhaps we’d be better off keeping his message relegated to the past rather that resurrecting him.

A Jew Is A Jew

2010-11-08T09:25:00.001-06:00

Netanyahu’s gambit to advance the oath of loyalty has pundits divided into two groups: those that question the democratic veracity of such an oath and those that dredge up the question and meaning of Mi Who Yehudi (who is a Jew). This latter, thorny question should have been taken up and resolved in 1948 when the Jewish Agency leadership under Ben Gurion declared the formation and independence of the Jewish State, the Medinah Yehudit. Then, many other issues were tabled for more pressing issues, such as survival and the in gathering of refugees from the “camps”, and the aliyot from Arab countries. The question has been festering since the Brother Daniel case in the late 1950’s coming to a head in 1962, when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State. The Supreme Courts decision however didn’t resolve the issue of “who is a Jew”. More recently the issue has percolated to the Israeli and Diaspora Jewish consciousness when the issue of conversion of Russian and Ethiopians became a hot button issue. Naturally, American reform and conservative Judaism have an interest that conversions made by the respective denominations ought to be recognized. Most Israelis would prefer a loosening up of the requirements for conversion as well.

The issue of conversion in Israel unfortunately is held hostage by the medievalists; rabbis who are committed to a halachic system, which for all practical purposes ceased developing in the medieval period. Interestingly, Maimonides who saw beyond the limited scope of the medievalists believed that a declaration of faith in the presence of a Beit Din, coupled with a general understanding their responsibility as Jews was enough for conversion. For Maimonides, the conversion of Ruth was certainly the test case and precedent for the declaration of faith being a sufficient qualifier fro conversion. The medievalists running and ruining Judaism in Israel have sought to bury conversion within a cocoon of halachic and meaningless mumbo jumbo that literally ties and confines any candidates into a knots so cumbersome that it is virtually impossible to convert.

Over the years Israel has witnessed tragic and heartbreaking stories of soldiers who have given their lives for the state only to be buried outside the confines of the Jewish cemeteries. For whom did they give their lives if not for the medina yehudit? Was not their supreme and ultimate sacrifice not as committed as Ruth’s? And what of all those converts who genuinely live Jewish lives but are informed by the rabbinate that their children cannot marry other Jews because their conversions were never true conversions, since they were performed by rabbis not on the select list of rabbis. So when the Netanyahu government wishes to assert the loyalty oath does not the state first have to define who is a Jew before applying this litmus test? Otherwise, what value has an oath where the very words have little or no meaning?

The fiasco of defining who we are hit home recently with a ruling by the interior ministry that denied Monique Martinek, a Swiss citizen, the status of an olah. Two years ago, Monique found out that her paternal grandmother, a Jew was killed by the Nazis. Prior to receiving this information she had no idea of her Jewish origins. Monique was able to document that her grandmother as well as her great grandmother were Jewish. However the courts ruled that halachically she didn’t qualify, because there was reference to the fact that the grandmother practiced Catholicism. Many Jews in order to survive the war assumed a Christian identity, that didn’t make them converts. Certainly, the Nazis understood that; they killed her because she was Jewish. She was Jewish enough to be murdered but not quite Jewish enough to pass on her legacy to her progeny! The medievalists, by ossifying Judaism by the layering of stringent halacha over the our peoplehood have practically eradicated the beauty and message that our ancestors intended too pass down to us. I would encourage Bibi that before he creates a tempest by insisting on this oath, they first define what and who is a Jew.

Gay Marriage

2010-11-01T09:31:00.000-05:00

Ever since Shimshon Raphaeal Hirsch, orthodox Judaism has tried to reconcile itself with the intellectual / secular universe running parallel to halachic Judaism. Hirsch, in the mid 19th century founded Torah Im Dersch Eretz (also referred to as neo-orthodox), believed that Jewish values will best be advanced when partnered with worldly involvement. Where Hirsch built his system in 19th century Germany, Joseph B. Soloveitchik, extended the Hirsch model to the American shores in the mid 20th century. Known as modern orthodoxy (instead of neo-orthodoxy), its axes was Torah Umadah, an exponent of Torah Im Derech Eretz of Hirsch. Even though Soloveitchik’s system had successes in the mid 20th century it began to fray at the edges by the last two decades of the 20th century and crumbling by the beginning of the 21st century. In retrospect one can see that this was destined to happen because inherent in his system is a deeply flawed theory that assumes that the halachic man can intersect with the man of reason while not compromising his religious integrity. Haredi Judaism, a resounding rejection of modern orthodoxy, exposing the flaws inherent in modern orthodoxy, has seen massive and unprecedented growth while modern orthodoxy has shrunk to a fraction of what its size was only thirty years ago.

Ironically, Shmuley Boteach, a former haredi and now closer to a modern orthodox profile has demonstrated the problem with modern orthodoxy when tackling the problem of the status of gays in the orhtodox Jewish community.

Boteach is quite clever in his approach and exploits the same tactics as other modern orthodox Jews seeking acceptance of gays, in his article No Holds Barred: The Jewish View of Homosexuality (Jerusalem Post, October 19, 2010). Steve Greenberg does it in his book Wrestling With God and Men but it doesn't pass the litmus test within the orthodox community. In fact, there are many within the orthodox community that takes exception with Greenberg being referred to as an orthodox rabbi or even orthodox. Boteach compares homosexuality to other abominations referred to in the bible such as eating non kosher foods or bringing a blemished sacrifice on the Temple altar is an abomination. He also references Proverbs that uses the term abomination when referring to envy, lying and gossip. Homosexuality within the biblical context however can’t be equated to envy, lying or eating non kosher food.

He then goes on to argue the differences between moral and religious sin:

“A moral sin involves injury to an innocent party. But who is being harmed when two, unattached, consenting adults are in a relationship? Rather, homosexuality is akin to the prohibition of lighting fire on the Sabbath or eating bread during Passover. There is nothing immoral about it, but it violates divine will”.

Homosexuality, according to the "orthodox ethos" is not akin to lighting fire on Shabbat or eating bread on Passover, as Boteach would have you believe but a cardinal sin. This is verified by the near universal agreement amongst the orthodox rabbinate, poskim, and rabbinic organizations.

Truth be told, Boteach shares the ethos of the sages as reflected in halachic texts and glosses, otherwise why would he be against marriage between two gays seeking to establish a Jewish home. To dismiss it because he doesn't wish to redefine marriage is a poor excuse. If he was so committed to his position he could surely find the ways and means to redefine marriage so as to be inclusive of the gay community.

Boteach, true to form isn't interested in controversy to the point of alienating his audience because that would run contrary to his never ending quest of seeking the love of the masses.

Alice Demo Dancing Under the Gallows H264 No TCB

2010-10-26T09:26:00.000-05:00

They Spoke Hebrew!!

2010-10-25T13:48:00.000-05:00

It’s Israel’s Fault!

2010-10-25T08:53:00.001-05:00

Historically anti-Semites have blamed the Jews for everything from deicide to the bubonic plague; from failed battles and lost wars to economic calamities. Over the past few decades we have experienced the morphing of classical anti-Semitism into anti Zionism, where Israel is blamed for the unrest in hot spots around the world. And as if this wasn’t enough, we now have a new phenomenon where Jews are now blaming Israel for the Diaspora’s exploding rate of intermarriage and assimilation. JJ Goldberg penned an opinion piece in the Forward (October 22, 2010) “Being Jewish Is Falling Out of Fashion”. The article was so incredulous that I had to read it a second time and then ask another person for their take on the article, just to confirm what I suspected.

He crafted the article in such a way that his main thesis was buried towards the end of the 13-paragraph essay. His zinger was located in the tenth laconic paragraph making it seem benign, but was actually a poison arrow aimed at the heart of the Jewish people, in the best tradition of our anti Semites; contending that the up and coming generations of Jews are being turned off by Judaism because of the aggressive nature of Israel:

“Kids in high school and college today don’t inhabit a world where being Jewish is high fashion. In their world, Jewish brings to mind Israeli helicopter gunships….The Jewish state has simply lost the argument among the trendsetters: Boycotts or not, one state or two, Israel plays the heavy in the drama”.

As a consequence, students prefer to shy away from any issues regarding Israel, because anyone who is a vocal supporter of Israel tends to be extremist. Being Jewish, according to JJ Goldberg’s take on the up and coming generation of Jews, requires them to navigate the “moral maze to stay sane”, is difficult and intimidating. He suggests that in twenty to thirty years their children may be spawning a whole new crop of Christopher Hitchenses.

What I find appalling in his specious argument is that Israel is the one point of light that has s parked the imagination of generations of Jews who grew up in America during the past fifty years. I would hazard to speculate that had there not been an Israel there wouldn’t have been much of a Jewish community. Let me qualify that. There would have been perhaps the regeneration of the haredi / hassidic communities; but they aren’t the future of the Jewish people, merely an extension of what was before the war – the past.

It is Israel that has given dignity and identity to millions of Jews living in the Diaspora. It is Israel that provided the historic framework by which post holocaust Jews were able to make sense out of history. While the American synagogue was reduced to spiritual sterility due to their bankrupt theology it was Israel gap year programs on kibbutzim, universities and yeshivot that provided what our Jewish and rabbinic leadership failed to provide. It was the shlichim from Israel who became the teachers of Hebrew language and counselors for our summer camp programs that provided content to an otherwise vapid Judaism.

Only a corrupted mind can assign blame to Israel for the high rate of intermarriage and assimilation in America. If there is blame to assign it ought to be hung where it belongs: on the lackluster, spiritually bereft Jewish leadership in our local communities and synagogues. Israel doesn’t have to taper its domestic or foreign policies around the sensitivities of Americans. Israel has to do what they believe is in their best interests. If the Forward editorial board has an issue with Israel’s foreign policy than they ought to change their address from the comforts of New York to the hot seat of Jerusalem. Living in Israel might give them some credibility.

This may sound trite, but I do believe that those who live in the Diaspora haven’t the legitimate justification of criticizing Israel’s policies when it comes to their future and security. Certainly Americans, with a very poor track record of 50% intermarriage, and that, after pouring in hundreds of millions over the past several decades to stem the hemorrhaging, have no right to proffer advice or criticism. We’re going down the tubes here, and Goldberg is placing the blame on Israel! Ingenious!

I always loved that line in “The Godfather” where the godfather declares that he likes keeping his friends close but his enemies closer. In that spirit I shall continue reading the reading the Forward as I continue culling Yated Neeman for news, because I need to know what my enemies are thinking.

A Case for Shaping Civil Society with Jewish Law?

2010-10-19T10:52:00.001-05:00

About a month ago I read an article in the Forward (September 24, 2010), “A Case for Shaping Civil Society with Jewish Law” by Jill Jacobs which infuriated me, so I put it out of site with the intention of picking it up again, rereading it with a calmer disposition. It didn’t help. Close to a month later I’m still upset by the lack of Jewish context exhibited by what appears to be a self-serving rabbi as well as her lack of having a smattering of understanding of Israeli social/political structure.

The rabbi tries to make the case that there ought to be room in Israeli society for the application of benevolent Jewish law to somehow shed light and shape society: “When people ask me whether I think that halacha, should govern civil law in the State of Israel, my response is ‘no, but given the current religious power structures in Israel, I shudder to think of the damage that might be done by haredi authorities”. You shudder to think of the damage that haredi rabbis would inflict? They have done so already. Where have you been for the past thirty years? The orthodox rabbinate has inflicted terrible damage, pain and hurt on women defined as agunot, as children classified as mamzerim, on issues of conversion, on ht shabby treatment of the gay community and on and on. And you come up with a marginal case citing the “Wisconsin Plan”.

The fact of the matter is that religion should be kept out of the public sector of government. Religion never had a long-term positive effect on society. Our behavior, when we had political and military power in biblical and post biblical history was no better, no worse than any other regional power. In fact the internecine fighting between the tribes and later the poor relationship between Judea and Israel wasn’t exemplary for anyone trying to make a case for turning to religion for guidance on running a benevolent society.

Religion was never benevolent, nor can it ever be. The fact that we were on the receiving end of religious persecutions for nearly 2000 years created among some quarters a romantic view of what religion could do for people if one only read the prophets. But the prophets isn’t the religion of the Jews, it is only a piece of it, a very small piece. The overwhelming influence is the halachic structure, which is stuck, in the medieval period, struggling for some daylight.

Rabbis from any quarter of Judaism are all guilty of the same mistake: assuming that religion is the arbiter of what defines being Jewish. Jews in Israel do not require rabbis, whatever their denomination or religious affiliation, to participate in the public sector. By interjecting religion into the public sphere a dangerous assumption is made. That people with a certain religious persuasion knows what is best for society. How can this be? In an enlightened culture, people ought to be free from the guilt upon which religion thrives. Religion assumes there is a god. As a rabbi you’re legitimacy stems from that assumption. How do you impose your value system on others who don’t share your worldview? The place of a rabbi ought to be in the synagogue who can preach and teach to those who have elected to enter.

Historically, religion has been toxic to anyone who didn’t buy into their system. Israel made an egregious error in 1948 when religious affiliation with the government was allowed. However, Israel wasn’t founded as a religious state but as culturally Jewish state. Thus, ideally, religion is an option – for those choosing it.

Beit Hillel vs. Beit Shamai: A Partisan Paradigm

2010-10-11T09:31:00.002-05:00

Mid term elections are right around the corner and the rhetoric is heating up and accompanied by negative campaigning to the extreme. As I follow the development of the Tea Party Movement and keep track of the daily polling I can’t help but be reminded of the great debates two thousand years ago, prior to and after the destruction of the Temple. The debates then, as now revolved around social issues critical to the nature and fabric of society. The mid term elections are a referendum on the changes that Obama and the democrats have brought to the country hitherto. Will there be more taxation and larger government with an emphasis on a European style of socialism, or will the republicans persevere hitting the reset button, redirecting the country back to its roots whose foundational values is anchored in capitalism.

As our election process is somewhat civil so too were the struggles between the Hillelites and the Shammaites. There were times however that these two tectonic plates weren’t as civil as Pirkei Avot would have us believe. Around the time of the revolt against Rome (66-70AD) there was a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer, a scholar par excellence and exponent of the school of Shammai and Rabbi Joshua ben Chananiah, distinguished rabbi and teacher from the Hillelite ideology. Rabbi Joshua taught that righteous non-Jews as Jews have a share in the world to come (Tosefta Sanhedrin 13:2). Rabbi Eliezer however, ruled that gentiles, no matter how righteous have not a place in the world to come. On the basis of this heated and irreconcilable disagreement the students of the School of Shammai physically attacked students from the School of Hillel (Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbat 1:4). Tempers ran high because all of this was on the backdrop of the destruction of the Temple at the hands of the gentiles. Imagine that a ruling was made whereby gentiles would have a place in the world to come, this after experiencing the destruction of the Temple. The intention of the Shammaites was to prevent a majority of Hillelites from attending the critical decisive session where this issue would be ruled on. By preventing the ascendance of a Hillilite majority the Shammaites were able to push through eighteen regulations some of which designed to further separate Jews from gentiles. Hillelites saw this day “as bad as the day the Golden Calf was forged” (Jerusalem Talmud 1:4).

Coincidental to these events, and on the backdrop of these tumultuous times one of the most interesting stories of the Talmud is credited to have taken place. Briefly the story relates that a heavenly voice, the bat kol, recognized that while the differing positions between the two schools of Hillel and Shmai both have merit, the ruling, according to the bat kol is with Hillel. The bat kol reasoned that the School of Hillel was kinder and more humble presenting a more reasoned approach (Eruvin 13b). The school of Hillel, before giving their rulings would study and consider the ruling of Shammai too. The beauty of Hillel was that they recognized that there isn’t one immutable truth because as the bat kol said “elu v’elu, divrei elokim chaim”. What gave validation and legitimacy to the Hillelites was their willingness to study the teaching of the other side and wherever possible to discover the “partial truths” of the opponent. Shamaites were arrogant, and unwilling to study the teachings of Hillelites maintaining that they had nothing new to offer and nothing to learn from them.

I am reminded of this interesting, albeit esoteric chapter of our history because of the tone and rhetoric beginning to infiltrate the campaigning across the country. People from both sides of the political spectrum seem to be tone deaf and incapable of listening and learning from the other side. Beit Hillel not only thrived but also ultimately morphed into normative / rabbinic Judaism, precisely because they were attuned to and respected differing opinions and ideas. Both political parties would benefit by giving heed to that bat kol heard two thousand years ago.

***************************************************************************************

A friend who has developed the following software program for bloggers asked me to post his latest software program:

Create topic-based mini-blogs where others can follow your thoughts from their mobile devices, including the BlackBerry, iPhone, Android, and Nokia.
Cliqtalk’s features include:

► Private blogs where others can follow your thoughts.
► Public blogs for collaboration.
► Private messages and group chat.
► Seamless blogging between mobiles and laptops.
► Subscription to news feeds.
► 4,000 character-long posts.
► File and photo sharing.

And a more elaborate description is at: http://awarenetworks.com/AwareNetworks/Applications.html

To start using Cliqtalk go to: http://cliqtalk.com

Denominational Judaism - Exposed

2010-10-04T09:44:00.000-05:00

Denominational Judaism has once again proven itself to be out of touch with American Judaism as well as underscore its corrupt nature by virtue of its need to focus first on the bottom line. The Jewish Week, a New York publication ran an article “JCC, Synagogues in Holy War in Boca”, September 1, 2010 that described the turf wars between the JCC’s in several communities and the respective synagogues. Apparently there are JCC’s out there more concerned with meeting the needs of their membership than they are placating the financial considerations of the local synagogues. For generations, synagogues have been more interested in selling tickets and membership packages than they are in meeting the spiritual needs of Jews. The JCC’s, on the other hand, have become sensitized to this growing number of unaffiliated Jews and have done the right thing by offering services as part of their larger basket of Jewish programming.

I remember growing up hearing about the local Conservative congregation stationing ushers at the doors of the synagogue, not letting anyone enter the sanctuary without presenting entrance tickets. It seemed then as now, more of an off, off, off Broadway production show, than services marking the holiest days of the Jewish year. Many of the unaffiliated aren’t interested in a “show”, nor are they interested in paying exorbitant prices for the privilege of hearing a rabbi pontificate on current politics, international or national with hubris of actually believing that they know more than the congregants. But the clergy (rabbis & cantors) have egos and their hyper-inflated salaries massage those egos to the point that when they are on the pulpit they assume the aura of Moses coming down from Horeb with the law. This is a once in a year opportunity for them. The rest of the year they are playing to an empty house (unless there is a bar/bat mitzvah), so they want to maximize their exposure when this once in a year opportunity presents itself. The larger the audience the more the clergy can justify their salary packages.

This is why Chabad, the JCC’s and other independent programs have made significant inroads in the Jewish community. No longer does one have to be members of synagogue in order to feel Jewish or to “belong”; one can attend services at Chabad for a minimal charge; attend services at the JCC or services provided by an independent organization. Chabad were the pathfinders in this approach many years ago, when they sensed that there were many unaffiliated Jews who opted out rather than attend services which were costly and lacking, to boot. Initially I was resentful about Chabad’s outreach programs. They smacked of missionary work, which I found distasteful. But they understood something that I hadn’t as of yet grasped. There were Jews out there who were interested to some degree or other in exploring their Jewishness, but not to the point of making a large financial commitment to their local synagogue where the lion’s share of membership dues went to infrastructure and the rabbi’s salary instead of into programming. Chabad came along and said, that we are more interested in your neshama than we are in your pocket book.

Chabad, the JCC’s and the “independents” are the big winner. The local synagogues and federations can’t blame Chabad for their approach because that is their express purpose – to be an outreach to the unaffiliated and disenfranchised; to spread Judaism to the four corners of the earth, including American suburbs. Furthermore Chabad doesn’t receive funding from the federation or any other agency. The local Chabad’s subsist on what they can raise by their own wit. JCC’s on the other hand are recipients of funds and operate within a political matrix, which include synagogues and other local federations as well as other agencies. Its bad politics to rock the boat – yet they are, and my hat is off to them. The process began many years ago when many of the JCC’s hired rabbis to serve as “scholars in residence” with the understanding that they wouldn’t be leading services in competition with the local synagogues. After all, the JCC’s wouldn’t want to be accused of undermining the membership drives of synagogues and thus impact on their bottom line. It didn’t take long for JCC’s to understand that they were remiss by not catering to that growing number of Jews who identified culturally as Jews but refused to pay inflated membership fees where they received little value for their money.

Small, independent groups and boutique synagogues are mushrooming around the country; a statement that the denominational synagogues just aren’t meeting their spiritual needs. And it’s obvious that they have made significant inroads; otherwise, why are rabbinic organizations hostile to these startups? Perhaps this will serve as a wake up call to these sterile synagogues and their leaders that unless they change the way they do business they will continue to loose membership to “start ups”, Chabad and JCC’s.

Kol Nidre: A Postmortem

2010-09-20T09:11:00.001-05:00

Confession: As a proud Ashkenazi and litvak to boot I take great pride in my heritage. However, over the years I have developed an appreciation for Sephardim for many reasons: They tend to have a healthier approach to religious practice with a keen sense of balance between ritual observance and modern living. For example, it isn’t unusual to see Sephardi young adults attending Shabbat services with their fathers, returning to their parent’s home for Kiddush and chamin, but extricating themselves in appropriate fashion so as to catch the soccer game. Sephardi rabbis who haven’t been brainwashed and programmed by Ashkenazi yeshivot are also much more tolerant and understanding of the secular community. In addition to the sublime of which I speak there is also the down and dirty reason for admiring Sephardim. They have a better genetic disposition: fantastic teeth, great hair, and much better physiques (men and women alike). It was for these reasons that we decided this year to attend Kol Nidre services at a local and well-established Sephardi congregation. And I couldn’t wait.

It was a lapse in judgment I told myself, as the service began. We arrived at the designated time, and fully prepared for a few preliminaries before beginning Kol Nidre. As the service progressed I realized that something was dreadfully wrong. It seemed as though it was Tisha B’Av. They chanted very, very, very slowly a four-page piyut lasting for a full forty-five minutes to a tune sounding like a funeral dirge with a Middle Eastern nasal affect, monotone with no variation in pitch or tune. It sounded like a broken record that never ended. By the time Kol Nidre was intoned (it was way past the traditional time of chanting Kol Nidre which is before sundown), it was night and I was exhausted. There was also mayhem regarding the removal of the Torah scrolls from the ark. All eight of their Torah’s were removed by men, tripping over themselves, who then stood around the Bima, as though they were getting ready for Hakafot of Simchat Torah. Traditionally, in Ashkenazi synagogues two scrolls are held at the Bima, on the left and right of the cantor. At this shul, while the eight scrolls were at the Bima in the center of the shul, the cantor was up at the Ark, praying into an empty, dark space. I wasn’t sure where to focus: on the Bima where the eight scrolls were assembled, or on the cantor at the Ark. It all seemed so incongruous.

To add insult to injury, prior to the chanting of the Kol Nidre, which was an identical tune to the dirge chanted previously, there was a public auction of all the honors (i.e. opening the Ark, removal of the scrolls etc), which took thirty minutes but was absolutely inappropriate for such a holy day. How can anyone get into the proper mindset of Yom Kippur when moments prior to the chanting of one of the most historically significant, remarkable prayers in our liturgy, Kol Nidre, the shul took on the disturbing atmosphere of a market place? I assumed that the purpose of the four-page piyut chanted earlier was purposeful, in that it’s intention was to set the right mood and mindfulness for Kol Nidre and all that followed. After all, Yom Kippur comes but once a year; it’s our one shot at approaching our history, and our lives with the humility that most of us lack all year long. And then the auction begins: it was like being drenched by a bucket of ice water in the midst of a fantastic dream? A total shock to the system.

There it was. After the auction, a procession of Torah scrolls wrapped in tawdry metal painted in cheesy gold and silver trim, reminding me of holiday popcorn packaged in kitschy tins that vendors ply to their customers around Christmas and New Years. There he was in all his glory, the chazzan, in an open collared shirt, no kitel, chanting Kol Nidre to a dark, empty cavernous Ark, prompting me to wonder if the attendees of the Yeshiva Shel Maalah were experiencing the same ennui of mortals such as myself in the Yeshiva Shel Matah?

Best Kol Nidrei

2010-09-17T08:25:00.000-05:00

Echoes of a Shofar

2010-09-15T08:20:00.000-05:00

Ragen’s Rant

2010-09-13T08:52:00.000-05:00

Naomi Ragen’s rantings, while extreme, is usually tolerable because there is typically some veracity to what she is screaming about. However this past week her rant over Time Magazine’s article about why Israel doesn’t want peace was way over the top and intellectually dishonest. I know because I too read the article. As a matter of fact I stopped reading Time Magazine thirty years ago when it became too critical of Israel’s policies, signaling their pro-Palestinian slant on the news. However, as I was rushing through the airport Time caught my eye and read it while waiting for my flight. When I began reading it I had an attitude, like Naomi Ragen. By the time I was half way through the wind was out of my sails; or to use an airport metaphor, the wind beneath my wings began to dissipate.

“Why Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace” (Time Magazine, September 13, 2010) by Karl Vick is a fairly accurate description of Israeli society in real time. His central thesis is that Israel for many years pursued peace but as a result of multiple disappointments has become disillusioned with the prospects of peace. Instead Israelis have a set of priorities typical of those in other Western cultures where quality of life, healthcare, education, economics and lifestyle trump the illusive peace. Peace for Israelis, according to Vick is very low on the list of priorities. This is all very true. So why is it that Naomi Ragen is so vituperative? Why can’t she get past her “galut mentality” which demands a knee jerk reaction every time someone says something that doesn’t place Israel in the shinning light of Isaiah’s vision?

Isaiah’s vision, was just that a vision. Most visions are rarely reflective of reality; in most cases prophetic visions were totally disconnected from reality. We happen to live in the here and now; most people, which includes Israeli are therefore concerned with the mundane things in life: economic growth, achieving the good life, leisure time, good healthcare and excellent education, not necessarily in that order. So what is Naomi Regan’s problem?

I admire Israel’s tenacity in seeking a national lifestyle where normalcy is the measure by which one ought to live. Why should Israelis obsess over peace, which has hitherto been illusive? They have learned to adjust their lifestyle to one where a state of war exists, the same way one with a crippling disease has learned to manage their pain and disability. One with a disability who obsesses over their misfortune is worse off by far from one with a disability who is focused on adjusting and enjoying life as much as humanly possible. Israel has learned to manage their disability, a perpetual state of war. Unlike in the past, they have seized obsessing over their misfortune, and lowered their expectations regarding this particular misfortune; setting their sights on things they can achieve, that is, things within their power. They have no control over the warped minds of the enemy, but they do have control over their economy, research and development, healthcare and education.

Karl Vick highlighted these points in his article. I have no issues with that. As far as I’m concerned, and based upon Vick’s assessment it would appear that the ball is in the Palestinian court. It’s up to them to prove to Israel that they are totally serious and committed to peace. As the Talmud says “hamotzee mechavero alev harayeh”!!

Berlin and Jerusalem: Two Capitals

2010-09-07T07:32:00.000-05:00

Visiting Berlin affected me more than I had ever imagined. Most visits to foreign countries are enjoyable but rarely have they left a lasting effect on me. Since returning from Berlin I haven’t been able to free myself of its pull. Beyond that my Berlin visit has put me in the uncomfortable position of comparing it to Jerusalem: one capital to another. There are those who would considered it irreverent and perhaps borderline sacrilegious. How can one compare the once profaned Berlin to the eternal holy city of Jerusalem? Worse than that: how can one, such as myself, who lived in and loved Jerusalem compare it to a symbol of the mass annihilation of European Jewry. It isn’t easy and as much as I resist, I am compelled to consider Jerusalem on the backdrop of Berlin, precisely because Berlin is today a seamless and united city, while Jerusalem is still struggling with existential issues. (Obviously, it wasn’t enough for Menachem Begin to declare that united Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish people. It might have been the ideal, but as reality has unfolded and revealed itself it is easier said than done).

Realizing of course that there is a fundamental flaw in trying to compare Berlin to Jerusalem for the same reason that it has been impossible for Jerusalem to realize a seamless unification: at the heart of the struggle are two people defined by polar religious beliefs. These beliefs are exclusionary and disallow for the space necessary for two peoples to live together. On the other hand, Berlin never had this problem. Their split was artificially constructed based upon geopolitics on the eve of the conclusion of World War Two by dividing of the spoils of war between the East and the West.

Having said that the question remains: are there any valid comparisons that can be made between the two? Both are capitals of great nations that were arbitrarily divided as a result of war. Both are currently unified. Both cities possess dazzling architectural and historical landmarks, and both are the seats of government. In both cities the populations tend to have an above average sophistication with an intellectual / cultural advantage over their countrymen. Because each is the seat of government lawyers, clerks and bureaucrats are over represented, while industrialists and entrepreneurs are underrepresented.

So much for the comparisons. Now for the differences: I can’t help escape the reality that Berlin happens to be a more beautiful city esthetically. It didn’t have to be this way. Berlin was devastated and in ruins after World war II compounded by decades of communist neglect. Jerusalem too was war torn and in shambles after the War of Independence and once again after the Six Day War. Jerusalem had the potential to be the most beautiful city in the world and was even referred to lovingly and poetically as the city of gold. But if one were to visit Jerusalem today one would find a city that is faded dreary and in desperate need of a facelift. This applies to west Jerusalem as well as to east Jerusalem. In west Jerusalem there are still pocket neighborhoods where the architecturally unique homes are well maintained with manicured gardens: those are in the isolated secular or modern orthodox, American textured neighborhoods. But the preponderance of west Jerusalem is haredi / ultra orthodox and the neglect in their neighborhoods is rampant. No pride of ownership. It sort of reminds me of the blue-collar neighborhood that I grew up in. You could always tell the frum homes from the gentile ones. The frum ones stood out due to their lackluster appearance, brown lawns, chipped paint on window and door frames and in general all the signs of neglect, while the modest gentile homes were well kept and manicured with much curb appeal. It’s pretty much the same thing when one tours the drab and depressing streets of haredi / ultra orthodox neighborhoods in west Jerusalem.

But the difference between east and west Jerusalem is much starker and palpable from architectural design to civil infrastructure of roads and sewerage; to the resentful eyes of the vanquished, still ever present. Berlin’s reunification was facilitated because of the will of west Berliners to divert the preponderance of taxes to develop the east at the expense of neglecting the continued development of the west. Had west Jerusalem had the same policy of diverting more money into east Jerusalem infrastructure one would have to wonder if that would have changed things on the ground and created the atmosphere for a truly united Jerusalem? If west Jerusalem had developed aggressive, strident programs in tolerance, embracing all its citizens as equals, as the west Berliners had, one has to wonder what impact if any, it would have made on the future of Jerusalem that is at the core of negotiating a peace with the Palestinians. As it is, the unification of Jerusalem is political fiction; waiting for an opportunity when perhaps wiser men can create an amicable peace where a shared Jerusalem might be the capital of two nations.

Koi Nidre by Johnny Mathis

2010-09-05T09:46:00.000-05:00

Ki Mitzion Tetzei Torah

2010-08-26T11:29:00.000-05:00

Years ago I stopped iterating the familiar, chanted prayer “ki mitzion tetzei torah”, having considered the weightiness of these words, in light of the current, uninspiring and derisive “torah” coming forth from Zion, the seat of the chief rabbinate. To the people of Israel, Am Yisrael, torah means different things to different people: Torat Kohanim, Torat Hamelech, Torat Korbanot, Torat Hateva, and Torat Imeinu, are but a few of the permutations of torah and its teachings. What most people, however would agree upon is that torah was never intended to be divisive, derisive, exclusive and encouraging prejudicial treatment of a minority seeking equality and inclusion under Torat Am Yisrael. Certainly, Isaiah’s intent when he uttered these words was that a strong moral and ethical message must go forth from Zion; not one laden with the politics of hate.

Over the decades and from the inception of statehood, Torat Am Yisrael has contributed enormously to the welfare of its citizens, placing them at the center of any social and welfare considerations. In many ways Isaiah would be proud of Israel’s accomplishments in the arts, sciences and humanities because of the manner in which these accomplishments have uplifted the human condition and spirit. However Torat Hashem that has been charged to the rabbinic leadership of Am Yisrael leaves much to be desired and if anything has sunk rather than uplifted the human spirit that Isaiah spoke of.

Recently the chief rabbi of Israel, Yonah Metzger (Ashkenazi) criticized the police for questioning Rabbis Yaakov Yosef and Dov Lior regarding their endorsement of the controversial book The Torah of the King. The book deals with the putative halachic position of killing non-Jews during wartime and the author of this inflammatory volume, Rabbi Yitzchak Shapiro is under police investigation for the incendiary content contained in this alleged metaphysically uplifting contribution to Jewish spirituality. Rabbi Metzger defended Shapiro claiming that the same standards, which apply to professors, protected by freedom of expression, ought to be applied to rabbis as well. Apparently, rabbi Metzger’s logic has been corrupted by the pilpulism shared by his acolytes, which graphically demonstrates the widening gap between the academic community and the medieval world he sojourns.

Academia is based not on the regurgitation of text and commentaries punctuated by inane interpretation, but on fundamental original research and thinking by which new ideas are germinated, tested and evaluated for their merit by scholars trained in critical thinking. Not every idea and theory has merit, but it is through consistent methodology, critical thinking and bold experimentation that have generated progress in the way we treat the human being and the world we live in. Haredi and ultra orthodox rabbis on the other hand, locked into medieval theological and halachic positions, have not the room or training to maneuver; intellectually smothered and rendered comatose very early in their development. It is for this reason that Rabbi Nosson Slifkin’s (haredi rabbi) theories and teachings about evolution were beaten back, his books banned, abused emotionally and verbally, as well as being victimized by character assassination in 2005. Original thought within the haredi/ultra orthodox community isn’t tolerated and so mired in anachronism that they can’t manage to move the furniture around in the room, much less replace it.
Rabbi Metzger knows as well as everyone else that the Shapiro book The Torah and the King is incitement to kill non-Jews in time of war. In the Haredi/ultra orthodox world there is a perpetual war raging against Amalek as currently personified by the Muslims. It was this type of incitement that got Yitzchak Rabin assassinated. By that standard, any academic that would incite to kill would be under a similar investigation.

There is no double standard, as Rabbi Shapiro would have us believe. What we do have is a colossal failure of the haredi/ultra orthodox community to study, analyze and critique text in a manner that would reflect intellectual honesty elevating all of us. Rather than ban Rabbi Slifkin’s books on evolution, (incorporating his teachings into the haredi/ultra orthodox curriculum which would have catapulted forward the haredi world into the modern age), they should be banning Rabbi Shapiro’s book, a throwback to the medieval period. By not doing so they have opted to remain suspended in the Middle Ages - the dark ages.

Feeling Guilty About Not Feeling Guilty: Reflections on Visiting Berlin

2010-08-18T13:43:00.000-05:00

One year ago a friend of mine called to let me know she was going to Berlin. My knee jerk reaction to her was ”couldn’t you find another place to visit”? That was a pavlovian reaction; my guilty conscience talking, not me. As a matter of fact I’ve been struggling with my putative guilty conscience regarding all things German since I was in my early twenties. Until the moment I bought a Karmann Ghia, (a two seater Volkswagen), I never considered the issue of whether or not to buy German products. It was a non-starter because I had never wanted or needed a foreign made product, at least none that I was aware of. But I wanted that car. Being in my twenties, with a mind of my own, a few bucks and the compulsion to live out my fantasies was all I needed to obsess over that green convertible Karmann Ghia, German or not! After all, the holocaust was history, I reasoned and the nefarious nazi murderers of Jews, thank god hadn’t directly impacted my family. Prior to buying the Karmann Ghia I had mentioned it to several friends and their reactions were universally the same: couldn’t you buy another car? Almost the same reaction I had when my friend told me she was going to visit Berlin forty years later. Interesting!

In examining my feelings then I noted no guilt in owning the car. Driving the Karmann Ghia was fun, especially with the top down, but something had been niggling away at me. Stepping into the car guiltlessly always aware of its German provenance I was concerned over my lack of guilt. Why wasn’t I feeling guilty about driving a German car? I should feel guilty –after all, six million of my people were murdered; whether they were my family wasn’t relevant. They were my people. Had I been in Germany or Eastern Europe immediately prior to or during World War II I would have surely been murdered. On the other hand I took note of the German reparations and the apparent ease by which Jews applied for and accepted the money. I also took note of the fact that Israel’s entire fleet of Egged buses were produced and manufactured by Mercedes and that most of the taxi fleet in around the country were Mercedes. It all boiled down to an awareness that I was feeling guilty about not feeing guilty. This was the kind of stuff turning over in my head until on one starry night my Karmann Ghia irreparably broke down and I settled for a Chevy.

Those feelings lay dormant for forty years until we decided to visit Berlin this past August. Interestingly I arranged my visit to Berlin with a visit to Israel first, notably Jerusalem, where I would conclave for 4 days with a very dear friend. Somehow flying to Berlin from Tel Aviv made more sense to me than flying from Chicago since doing so contextualize Berlin. Israel had become my security blanket noting that twice before, on trips to Austria, I arranged flying from Tel Aviv and not from some innocuous point of origination. To enter German or Austrian territory from any other point than Israel seemed sacrilegious. In other words, travelling to Germany or Austria via Israel somehow was ok, as though there was a hechsher. After all, if Israel has relations with Germany and Austria who am I too scoff at these countries?

I never liked Austria or the Austrians. I had been there on two separate occasions discovering that they weren’t a very friendly nation, nor did they care for foreigners, much less Jews. This observation was derived not on the basis of a quick, run through trip, but founded upon two lengthy stays, once in Vienna and the other time in Salzburg and its environs. Even the German I heard on the street was harsh sounding and evoked troubling images of the not too distant past. I felt good about these negative feelings because by having them I was sharing in the same feelings that so many of my people shared. I didn’t have to worry about not feeling guilty. Indeed it was comforting to be able to have an intense dislike for Austrians for no other reason than they had been instrumental in killing my people. Having had these negative feelings in Austria I was bracing for similar feelings in Berlin.

It was a shock to my system when after arriving in Berlin I didn’t experience any of the same feelings that I had in Austria. Berliners were open, friendly and embracing of foreigners and especially Jews and Israelis. During the time I was there I had nothing but positive experiences and good karma. German no longer seemed the harsh language of Nazis barking death orders to their compliant co-conspirators but an inviting, soft sounding language reminiscent of English. Ironically, this didn’t bode well for my complex Jewish psyche. I found myself once again seated in my Karmann Ghia with the top down, cruising Lake Shore Drive. Can life get any better? Yet niggling away at my psyche was the still small voice whispering about the bad things had happened to my people just a short while ago, robbing me of my ability to really enjoy myself. Here I was, sitting in a beergarten, drinking Berliner weisse beer desperately struggling with that small voice buried deep inside, always struggling to pop up and rob me of a good time. I was determined to keep it suppressed and enjoy the moment, knowing anyway that if I don’t feel guilty about celebrating life in Berlin, I will feel guilty about not feeling guilty.

Medieval Judaism - Uncorked

2010-07-19T08:00:00.000-05:00

Witnessing the spectacle of what has become known, as the “Emmanuel prisoners” was an opportunity to experience up close what it must have been like to be a Jew in medieval Europe. I’ve read about it, I’ve fasted and mourned the unspeakable atrocities committed against our people while paradoxically celebrating the ensuing mesirat nefesh and kidush hashem. In fact an entire culture, literature and liturgy justifiably grew out of folk tales of mesirat nefesh. Many of our piyutim introduced into the liturgy were written on the background of mesirat nefesh. But the collective psychological impact resulting from relentless persecution has taken its toll on our nation. Concepts like kiddush hashem and mesirat nefesh over the course of time took on new meaning and were redefined by our rabbis. Indeed the siege mentality, resulting partly from this redefinition was at times a legitimate defense mechanism but unfortunately contributed also to the distortion of the national psyche. An example of this is the recent 11-day imprisonment of the 35 for refusing a Supreme Court order to send their daughters to a non-hassidic elementary school.

The imprisonment and subsequent release of Krimalovski and the pack of 35 has been treated by the haredi community as deliverance; the guiding hand of god intervening once again in history ostensibly justifying their cause. As reported in the Jerusalem Post (July 9 2010), Krimalovski is quoted as saying “the most revered rabbis were coming up to me sobbing, saying how they wished they could take my place in prison, how they envied me the privilege of performing such a great sanctification of God’s word…”

The “Emmanuel prisoners” will be one more link in the long chain of kiddush hashem, representing a classic case of mesirat nefesh. The issue isn’t whether there was any racism on the part of the Ashkenazi haredi toward their Sephardi counterpart. That’s beyond doubt. It is so crystal clear that I defy anyone to seriously challenge that position. After all, racism is part of the culture of haredi Judaism. If enlightened Jews poured out of the ghettoes when the opportunity presented, the haredim preferred a self-imposed ghetto in order to justify their contempt. They are a closed contemptuous community, scorn being a characteristic of their collective nature: scorn for anyone not subscribing to their values, scorn for anyone not being a member of their community, scorn for anyone not having been born into their world, with a reluctance to accept outsiders much less converts. They have an intense dislike, bordering on a phobia for “goyim” viewing them as nothing more than a necessary nuisance to do the dirty work while they do god’s work. If this appears to be a generalization so be it; otherwise how can one explain the massive support of the haredi community in Israel and abroad? What’s fascinating is the prevailing “siege mentality” that has survived even 62 years after we were blessed with a state.

The State of Israel of course is the grist for the siege mentality. Haredim don’t like states or respect their laws unless it benefits their interests. That is why historically they preferred the ghetto. They were barricaded in, minimizing the possibility of a toeva, and contamination from infecting their lifestyle. For them, Israel is just another state. It is a state with laws that are aimed against them (unless of course they can extract money through political shenanigans), and in order to survive they will have to be moser nefesh. So reading about and following the proceedings against Krimalovski and the pack of haredi racists being cheered by their sycophantic acolytes upon their prison release reminded me of all the other “maisalach” tales of haredim being saved or redeemed from prison due to the benevolence of a prince or a miracle.

In light of the Krimalovski Episode my skeptical intuition has been further sensitized. As we pass tunnel through the nine days culminating with Tisha B’av followed shortly by chodesh Elul and its accompanying rich and nuanced liturgy texturing, our tefilot certainly during the Yamim Noraim will take on new meaning. I wonder whether the Krimalovski episode will in a generation or two receive a place of honor in haredi lore and perhaps find honorable mention in the mahzor.

Sour Grapes

2010-07-05T11:12:00.001-05:00

In this week’s Forward (July 9, 2010) Jay Michaelson makes an insupportable statement in his article Peoplehood Vs Israel, fallacious at its core and is the quintessential oxymoron. “In principle, the values of peoplehood and Israel are on a natural collision course”, he claims and then spends the rest of the article venting about the lack of inclusion of various interest groups around the Jewish table. This isn’t the first article published in the Forward in which Michaelson sacrifices Israel on the altar of narcissism and Jewish liberalism when his personal comfort level was threatened by a system that wasn’t particularly embracing of his values. Michaelson’s understandable frustration with not having the LGBT community well represented around the Jewish table in no way undermines their place within the community or threatens their place under the peoplehood tent. For him to say Peoplehood Vs Israel is sour grapes, to say the least.

Putting aside all the recent DNA research into Jewish peoplehood there is a litmus test that has been applied throughout the centuries before there ever was genetic research. Israel has always been the glue that kept the Jewish people together as a unified “am”, nation. Our prayers would have rung hollow without the centrality of the Temple and Jerusalem at the center. Our rabbinic literature, midrashic texts, medieval and modern literature would be bare and barely an echo without the centrality of Israel to our existence as a people.

Peoplehood is difficult to define but there are certain qualifiers at the heart of it that without inclusion would undermine the principle and definition of who we are. Peoplehood assumes that we are all bound together by certain common values that either we possess or aspire to. Land, language, culture, values, music, art and literature are but a few of those characteristics. They aren’t necessarily quantifiable nor is there a yardstick as to how much of any of these traits or qualities one needs to subscribe to in order to be a member of the tribe. For the most part, most Jews share some of these traits to one degree or another, either in theory or in practice. For example, the love of Israel isn’t quantifiable. In generations past there were those who merely gave lip service to the idea of the rebirth and reclamation of Israel. Others were passionate, but mostly all Jews recognized the centrality that Israel played in our culture.

Just as Michaelson is unhappy with the lack of voice appropriated to the LGBT community, many others and I are unhappy with the disproportionate voice given to the haredi community in Israel as well as the disproportionate amount of resources allocated to them. I do not however claim that as a result of the political architecture of Israel, which makes me uncomfortable, I am removing Israel from the Jewish equation. It smacks of the spoiled schoolyard kid who not liking to loose, picks up his marbles and goes home! Thus, one may disagree vehemently with a particular position of Israel’s politics, but one must also draw the line when Israel’s security is at the point of being compromised and Jewish life lost. To cavalierly submit that Israel’s position aren’t comfortable and therefore Israel needs to be conveniently (albeit uncomfortably) removed from the Jewish equation is vapid and narcissitic.

The American Council for Judaism formed in 1942, by reform rabbis was established for the express purpose of sanitizing Judaism by removing Israel from the equation. It can’t be done. Judaism isn’t a religion. We are a people, an “Am” (nation), as our bible says: “Asher bocah banu mechol ha’amim” we were chosen from all the other amim. And even if one doesn’t accept the Bible as divine, is irrelevant. The Bible, divine or otherwise, through historical imperative is one of our national literary treasures that has defined to a great degree who we are as a people. The ACJ wasn’t comfortable with having to deal with issues such as dual allegiance, as apparently Michaelson isn’t comfortable with either, perhaps for different reasons. But he is trying to put forth the same thing that was tried in the past and failed. It can’t be done, because we as a people refuse to let anyone, redefine who we are. For thousands of years gentiles and anti-Semites have tried to redefine us and failed; I doubt that those of Michaelson’s ilk will have the slightest success in debunking Israel by trying to manufacture a schism between Israel and her people. Instead of writing off Israel, Michaelson should persist in the righteous cause of lobbying on behalf of the LGBT community, because one day they will receive their rightful recognition and place under the big tent.

A Body Without a Soul

2010-06-28T14:09:00.000-05:00

There is a strange and cold wind blowing through the American Jewish community. I first took note of it during the presidential primaries when so many of our illustrious liberal Jews fell in love with Obama. Having at the time confronted several acquaintances who pledged their everlasting love and support to Obama I questioned them regarding Obama’s vague and sketchy position on Israel as well as his long-term association with that notoriously anti-Semitic putative reverend Wright. The answer I heard was disturbing: American interests trumped Israel. I should have understood that the winds of change were about to descend on the Jewish landscape in a way that would change forever Israel’s relationship with America as well as with Jews living in the Diaspora.

Recently I read a disturbing article in the New York Times, “American Jews Who Reject Zionism Says Events Aid Cause ” by Samuel G. Freedman, and was so infuriated that I decided to wait till the calm returned. I’m still waiting. That article confirmed my suspicions that indeed the winds of change are at our doorstep with a growing movement within the liberal Jewish community supported by their rabbis to eviscerate Israel from Judaism, the core, the heart of our peoplehood. Allan C. Brownfeld, a longtime member of the American Council for Judaism and editor of its magazine maintain that Jews are American by nationality and Jews by religion. In support of this anachronistic and fallacious statement he and others of his ilk have distorted Jewish history in order to buttress this position.

What is the American Council of Judaism? It is an organization of apologetic Jews founded in 1942 by a group of Reform rabbis preferring to adhere to the principles of the Pittsburg platform, rejecting the idea that Jews are a nationality (peoplehood) but merely a religious group. They opposed the Reform movements position that endorsed the support of a Jewish army in Palestine. This is the same organization that supported the efforts of William Fulbright to have the lobbyists for Israel in the United States register as foreign agents. Support for the organization came mainly from Jews of German decent, socialists and others uncomfortable with Judaism such as Hannah Arendt, Eric Fromm and Hans Kohn.

I was raised on the motto that the Jewish People without Israel is like a body without a soul. Everything in our history points to that regardless of those revisionist historians and theologians who seek to distort the truth in order to promote their political agenda. Some of our prayers dating back twenty five hundred years references Zion as the heart and soul of the Jewish people. Our Temples and significant sections of our Bible is testament to the centrality of Israel to Jewish life. And when we were sent into exile the significant portion of our collective soul was left in Zion and it wasn’t till 1948 that our soul was once again made whole.

There were some orthodox leaders who rejected Zionism. There may have been those who rejected secular Zionism but they didn’t reject the concept as evident by the fact that Agudas Israel as well as other right wing orthodox groups fought for certificates in order to enter Palestine. Some Hassidic courts rejected Zionism because of the control exercised by the secular leadership. But many courts such as Gur as well as Slonim were advocates of Zionism prior to World War II. One only has to study Jewish history to glean these facts.

The traditional Jewish community never ever rejected Israel as the heart and soul the Jewish people. The traditional Jewish community never, ever treated Judaism as a religion. We always identified ourselves as a people, with a land, language, religion and culture. It was only the reform Jews of Germany who, ashamed of what they were sought to be like their Christian neighbors and re-identified Judaism as a religion. They refashioned their synagogues to resemble churches and introduced the vernacular and sermons into the service to comport to the style of their Christian neighbors. They were intent on assimilating themselves into Germany and hadn’t wanted the albatross of dual allegiance around their necks. They were willing to trade away their peoplehood in exchange fro being accepted as Germans. They miscalculated.

They miscalculated then and they are miscalculating again. Some people never learn from history and they are destined to repeat it. Interestingly, those same Reform Jews ashamed of who they were, are at it again today. So intent are they to thoroughly assimilate into American culture they are willing once again to trade away their inheritance.

Troubled Waters

2010-06-10T15:32:00.002-05:00

These are troubling times for our tribe regardless of whether one is living in America or Israel (Jews living in Western Europe are further down the road and I don’t see a bright future for them either). Since Obama was elected President a cloud seems to be hovering over us, making me feel queasy. It’s not the kind of cloud that accompanied us in the dessert and over troubled waters, but a threatening cloud, one that doesn’t appear to be providing the kind of cover enjoyed by our ancestors. I don’t think I’m over reacting; I believe that I’m trying to decipher the writing on the wall.

What I find particularly worrisome however, are the trends within the putative Jewish community and the manner in which they have reacted to the goings on over the past several months. Their refusal to recognize the disturbing signs is deeply concerning. Commentary magazine has devoted an entire issue to this new phenomenon of Jewish support for a democratic president intent on causing Israel irreparable harm. Based upon the current polls over 50% of those Jews who voted for Obama in 2008 would vote for him again. Shocking, in view of Obama’s performance vis a vis Israel since entering office. Obama is apparently getting away with it which I find disheartening, to say the least. This past week I had a conversation with one of Obama sycophants who would vote for him again, a “committed Jew” and pro-Israel who is in his twenties and probably representative of Jewish liberals of his generation. His tenuous attachment to Israel is in the spirit of Obama: it has to make political and strategic sense. Challenging him he asserted that my position was antiquated and irrelevant to his generation. To this new generation of Jews who voted for Obama, the holocaust has no bearing, nor does our historic connections to the land of Israel have any true relationship to realpolitic on the ground, here and now in the twenty first century. He wasn’t perturbed in the least by Obama’s cavalier treatment of Benjamin Netanyahu.

Snubbing Netanyahu on his Washington visit Obama demeaned Israel and the broader Jewish community. An attitude seems to be gaining traction in Washington that the relationship between Washington and Jerusalem is no longer special. Israel is no different than any other ally and may even be considered a liability as evidenced by remarks made by General Petraeus last month. This attitude is becoming more manifest as was played out most recently over the ridiculous brouhaha resulting from Israel’s exercising her right to enforce a blockade against the rule of Hamas in Gaza and ending with Helen Thomas’ outrageous, hurtful and mean spirited remark that the Jews should move back to Poland and Germany.

Helen Thomas is no fool, nor is she senile. She may have assumed that Obama’s nuanced shift away from Israel gave her the license to stridently make her position clear. She obviously misread public opinion, forcicng her to end her career ignominiously. However, I’m beginning to think that perhaps we Jews have become too comfortable in America, too complacent and too secure. Judging from the blogosphere comments surrounding Thomas’ fall from grace there are a hell of a lot of people that agree with Helen Thomas. Perhaps her crude and coarse comment and reactions ought to serve as a wake up call to all the yefe nefesh in America.

A Zionist’s Guide To The World Cup

2010-05-21T08:55:00.004-05:00

My nephew Doug Klein(through marriage to Debra),an avid sportsman (and wrestler) asked me to post the following Guide to the World Cup:

A Zionist’s Guide To The World Cup

A famous non-Zionist, Leon Trotsky, once said: “You may not be interested in strategy, but strategy is interested in you.” Likewise, you may have no interest in international soccer (or “football” as those snooty foreigners call it), but you should. Not necessarily for the soccer, but for the politics.

Suffice it to say that the most important event for the majority of the world’s population for the calendar year 2010 will be next month’s FIFA World Cup in South Africa. The whole world will be watching, and every participating nation’s collective self-esteem will be at stake. As such, the eternal question arises: “Is it good for the Jews?” Quite simply stated, we want our friends to do well on the world’s biggest stage, and we want are enemies to suffer embarrassing and ignominious defeat by others wearing short pants and cleats.

(One note about methodology: democracies tend to be better for the Jews than authoritarian regimes.)

To that end, here is your convenient guide for whom to root for and for whom to root against.

Group A: South Africa, Mexico, Uruguay, France.

South Africa: The great struggle for freedom and against apartheid notwithstanding, the Republic of South Africa has been no friend of Israel in recent years. Moreover, it has been one of the strongest non-Arab supporters of the Palestinian cause. Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu, a strident anti-Zionist, is a national hero. The vote is no.

Mexico: On the whole, Mexico is a bit pareve on Israel issues, shading slightly in favor of the Arabs. On the other hand, Mexico boasts a vibrant Jewish community. The Mexicans are the arch-rivals of the USA, though, so probably best to take a pass on them.

Uruguay: Well, it’s never been much of a democracy and, like its neighbors, has played host to any number of escaped Nazi war criminals, so Uruguay is a no.

France: Traditionally, this would be a no-brainer. From the Dreyfus Affair to Francois Mitterand, France has been one giant bummer for the modern Jewish experience. The election of Nicholas Sarkozy, though, is a little bit of a game-changer. In this World Cup, better the French than the Brits (see below). Root for France to win the group.

Group B: Argentina, Nigeria, South Korea, Greece

Argentina: Even more ex-(and not-so-ex-)Nazis than Uruguay. Throw in the government’s apparent involvement in obstructing the investigation in the 1990s bombings of the AMIA headquarters and the Israeli embassy, and it becomes nearly impossible to ever root for Argentina in good conscience.

Nigeria: Typical for a Third World country, Nigeria generally takes the Arabs’ side in international forums. Add in the fact that the country is usually run by some form of authoritarian government. Take a pass on Nigeria.

South Korea: Aside from Jewish servicemen serving in Korea, there has not been much connection between Korea and the Jewish Question; therefore, Korea is the obvious choice for Group B.

Greece: The Jewish community of Salonika was almost totally wiped out by the Nazis during the Shoah. To this day, Greece has done little to come to terms with the near total destruction of its pre-war Jewish community. No. (Let’s not forget, either, that the Greek squad ended Israel’s best chance to qualify for the World Cup since 1970.)

Group C: Algeria, England, Slovenia, United States

Algeria: This is a no-brainer.

England: Also a no-brainer. The home of polite anti-Semitism and Vanessa Redgrave. Never mind that they speak English and David Beckham is into kabbalah.

Slovenia: Although Slovenia lacks the anti-Semitic reputation of its Balkan neighbor Croatia, this is probably because Slovenia historically possessed less Jews to hate. No.

United States of America: A.K.A. Sweet Land of Liberty. Of thee I sing. Let’s just hope that Landon Donovan can find a way to score two goals per game. Oh, yeah, and somebody to play left back. But I digress….

Group D: Australia, Germany, Ghana, Serbia

Australia: Home to one of the most vibrant Jewish communities in the world, the English tradition of disdain for all things Jewish was not entirely transported here with its convict-settlers. Besides, Mel Gibson is not really Australian. The Socceroos get the old okey-dokey.

Germany: While Germany has done more than any other European country to come to terms with its recent past, it is still Germany. I know it is not fair to visit the sins of the grandfathers onto their descendants, but seeing proud Germans singing their national anthem (which has the same tune as “Deutschland Uber Alles”) just doesn’t feel right. Oh well. Tough #$&%.

Ghana: Though there has been a history of positive diplomatic relations between Israel and this west African state, it remains a Third World country with an anti-Israel voting record at the UN. Nothing to see here, sports fans.

Serbia: One of the few countries in the world more unpopular than Israel. The Serbs deserve much credit for putting up such fine resistance to Nazi occupation during World War II. In doing so, many Serbian Jews managed to survive. Still, Serbia is a proud Slavic country, and that never seems to be good for the Jews.

Group E: Cameroon, Denmark, Japan, the Netherlands

Cameroon: (See Ghana, above.)

Denmark: Famous for saving most of their Jews during the Nazi occupation, Denmark is the only country in Scandinavia that allows shechitah. Also, the whole controversy about the cartoons of Muhammad originated here, so it can’t be all bad. No doubt, Denmark is home to a lot of snooty Nordic anti-Semites and anti-Zionists, but one could do much worse than root for them to win.

Japan: Bataan Death March…Sugihara. Sugihara…Bataan Death March. Japan is problematical, but from a Zionist perspective, ultimately okay.

The Netherlands: Yes, they have a huge problem of a growing indigenous Muslim population, but they know they have a problem. Root for them while you still can. Besides, it’s hard not to have a soft spot for the plucky Dutch after their Queen rode her bicycle during the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973.

Group F: Italy, New Zealand, Paraguay, Slovakia

Italy: Okay, so they were on the wrong side of World War II, the Italian Jewish community made out better than most communities in Allied countries, such as those in Poland, France, and Greece. Moreover, their President likes Israel almost as much as he likes attractive young women. Viva Italia!

New Zealand: On the one hand, the Kiwis have a snowball’s chance in Johannesburg of winning a match. On the other hand, the obsessively anti-Israel Helen Clarke and her Labor Party were voted out of office and replaced with the pro-Israel Conservatives. Okay to cheer for; just don’t expect them to win.

Paraguay: Nearly as many Nazi war criminals there as in Argentina. Absolutely no.

Slovakia: What? The more anti-Semitic half of the former Czechoslovakia? You must be joking.

Group G: Brazil, Ivory Coast, North Korea, Portugal

First, a note on Group G. Every World Cup has--in the pleasant, soothing terms of international soccer—a “Grupa Del Muerte”—a “Group of Death” so called where all four teams are good and anyone of them is capable of advancing. If one is talking solely about soccer, Group G is not the Group of Death, as Brazil should have a field day. It is a different story for us Zionists.

Brazil: Haven for ex-Nazis. Current President curries favor with the Iranians. Better they should lose.

Ivory Coast: Yet another member of the Third World bloc in the UN which routinely votes to condemn Israel. Also has a democracy deficit. The only reason to cheer for the Ivory Coast is that the other members of this group are such cholerias.

North Korea: A Stalinist dictatorship that sells nuclear weapons technology and Scuds to Syria, Iran, and other lovely places. I think not.

Portugal: Most people remember that 1492 was the year the Jews were finally expelled from Spain. 1493 was the year they were expelled from Portugal. May they merit an early exit from the World Cup.

Group H: Spain, Switzerland, Honduras, Chile

Spain: Anti-Semitic then, anti-Israel now. There is nothing new under the Spanish sun.

Switzerland: The Swiss did everything they could to profit from the Nazis both during and after their tenure in Germany. Now, they are attempting to do the same thing with our friends in Iran. No.

Honduras: No real history of anti-Semitism here and a history of cordial relations with the Zionist entity. They are the pick of the litter in Group H.

Chile: Although it has the strongest democracy and the best economy of any country in South America, it is still hard to cheer very much for countries from that region. Still, if you must, you may do so without much enthusiasm.

In the final cheshbon, let’s pull for a USA-Australia final. Enjoy!

A Muse: Shavuot 2010

2010-05-18T14:39:00.001-05:00

Historically the religious community in Israel and in the Diaspora associates Shavuot with the Giving of the Law, the standing of our ancestors at Sinai (or Horev) on Shavuot. It is a holiday marked as the culmination of the freedom process that began on Pesach, completing the cycle with the receiving of the Law. Our rabbis tell us that it is customary to decorate the synagogue with “greens” or flowers because Sinai was surrounded in shrubbery and flowering plants at the moment that the Law was given.

Upon closer examination it may appear as though there may have been a distortion made by our esteemed sages and rabbis as to the meaning of the holiday. In reality, Shavuot is a national festival celebrating the offering up of the “bikkurim” at the Temple. The holiday is centered on ownership of land and nationhood.

This makes sense. Passover is the freedom holiday marking the beginning of a trek through the desert to claim the land promised to the patriarchs, and reaffirmed at Horeb. It was at Horeb that God gives the charge to take possession of the land promised to the patriarchs. Shavuot then, is the culmination and fulfillment of the promise. It is on Shavuot that the Israelites can bring the “bikkurim” to the Temple; the time determined by the counting of 49 days from Passover. It is a mitzva t’luya ba’aretz; a mitzvah that can only be fulfilled when living on the land.

The sages and rabbis in their wisdom, not wanting the holiday to fall by the wayside attributed a new significance to Shavuot as a result of the new reality. Living in the Diaspora it became impossible to fulfill the biblical commandment of bringing the “bikkurim” to the Temple. Without the viability of the command, the holiday would have lost it purpose had the rabbis not made the new connection, the celebration of the giving of the Law.

A Letter to the World from Jerusalem

2010-05-10T15:19:00.000-05:00

In honor of Yom Yerushalayim I wanted to share with you this powerful message (written after the Six Day War by Eliezer ben Israel) that has accompanied me since 1970.

A Letter to the World from Jerusalem
By
Eliezer ben Israel

I am not a creature from another planet, as you seem to believe.
I am a Jerusalemite- like yourselves, a man of flesh and blood.
I am a citizen of my city; an integral part of my people.

I have a few things to get off my chest. Because I am not a diplomat, I do not have to mince words. I do not have to please you, or even persuade you. I owe you nothing. You did not build this city; you do not live in it; you did not defend it when they came to destroy it. And we will be dammed if we will let you take it away.

There was a Jerusalem before there was a New York. When Berlin, Moscow, London and Paris were miasmal forest and swamp, there was thriving Jewish community here. It gave something to the world which you nations have rejected ever since you established yourselves – a human moral code.

Here the prophets walked, their words flashing like forked lightening. Here a people who wanted nothing more than to be left alone, fought off waves of heathen would – be conquerors, bled and died on the battlements, hurled themselves into the flames of their burning temple rather than surrender; and when finally overwhelmed by sheer numbers and led away into captivity, swore that before they forgot Jerusalem they would see their tongues cleave to their palates, their right arms wither.

For two pain filled millennia, while we were your unwelcome guests, we prayed daily to return to this city. Three times a day we petitioned the almighty: “Gather us from the four corners of the world, bring us upright to our land; return in mercy to Jerusalem, Thy city and dwell in it as Thou promised.”

On every Yom Kippur and Passover we fervently voiced the hope that next year would find us in Jerusalem. Your inquisitions, pogroms, expulsions, the ghettos in to which you jammed us, your forced baptisms, your quota systems, your genteel anti-Semitism, and the final unspeakable horror, the Holocaust (and worse, your terrifying disinterest in it), all these have not broken us. They may have sapped what little moral strength you still possessed but they forged us into steel. Do you think that you can break us now, after all we have been through? Do you really believe that after Dachau and Auschwitz we are frightened by your threats of blockades and sanctions?
We have been to hell and back – a hell of your making. What more could you possibly have in your arsenal that could scare us?

I have watched the city bombarded twice. By nations calling themselves civilized. In 1948, while you looked on apathetically, I saw women and children blown to smithereens, this after we had agreed to a request to internationalize the city. It was a deadly combination that did the job:British officers, Arab gunners and American made cannons.

And then the savage sacking of the Old City: The willful slaughter, the wanton destruction of every synagogue and religious school; the desecration of Jewish cemeteries; the sale by a ghoulish government of tomb stones for building materials, for poultry runs, army camps – even latrines.

And you never said a word.

You never breathed the slightest protest when the Jordanians shut off the holiest of our holy places, the Western Wall, in violation of the pledges they had made after the war – a war they waged, incidentally against the decision of the UN. Not a murmur came from you whenever the legionnaires, in their spiked helmets casually opened fire upon our citizens from behind the walls.

Your hearts bled when Berlin came under siege. You rushed your airlift “to save the gallant Berliners.” But you did not send one ounce of food when Jews starved in besieged Jerusalem. You thundered against the wall which the east Germans ran through the middle of the German capital - but not one peep out of you about the other wall, the one that tore through the heart of Jerusalem.

And when the same thing happened twenty years later, and the Arabs unleashed a savage unprovoked bombardment of the holy city again, did any of you do anything? The only time you came to life was when the city was at last reunited. Then you wrung your hands and spoke loftily of “justice” and the need for the “Christian” quality of turning the other cheek.

The truth is – and you know it deep inside your gut – you would prefer the city to be destroyed rather than have it governed by Jews. No matter how diplomatically you phrase it, the age old prejudices seep out of every word.

If our return to the city has tied your theology in knots, perhaps you would better reexamine your catechisms. After what we have been through, we are not passively going to accommodate ourselves to the twisted idea that we are to suffer eternal homelessness until we accept your Savior.

For the first time since the year seventy there is now complete religious freedom for all in Jerusalem. For the first time since the Romans put the torch to the temple everyone has equal rights. (You preferred to have some more equal than others.) We loath the sword – but it was you who forced us to take it up. We crave peace – but we are not going back to the peace of 1948 as you would like us to.

We are home. It has a lovely sound for a nation you have willed to wander
over the face of the globe. We are not leaving. We have redeemed the pledge
made by our forefathers – Jerusalem is being rebuilt. “Next year” – and the year after, and after, and after, until the end of time - “in Jerusalem!”

The Times are Changing

2010-04-29T09:30:00.000-05:00

The last essay I posted was on March 15, 2010 and for good reason. Most bloggers have something to say and seek a platform and audience, reminding me of the legendary Bughouse Square which operated from 1910-1960. It was the most noted American outdoor venue for free speech featuring socialists and anarchists like Lucy Parsons and Ben Reitman. Then, there was no Internet and access to the media was limited as it is today. Thank God for the Internet because it provides a venue for bloggers to comment on what they consider to be noteworthy.

What I have hitherto considered worthy, spending countless hours crafting essays has begun to pale when contrasted to the events of the day. Over the past year or so I began to suspect that certain troublesome and possibly threatening patterns were developing globally which made anything I had to say insignificant. For that matter, most of the bloggers commenting on Jewish themes began to seem irrelevant and in some cases even absurd, when measured against the real issues, the existential ones facing not only the Jewish people but western civilization.

At first I thought that much of what I was hearing and reading over the past year were isolated and that things would right themselves in tandem with the global economy turning around. To my chagrin, however, they weren’t isolated incidents but really a serious of events linked together, presenting a pattern that doesn’t bode well for any of us. Consider the diplomatic impotence of America and the West in neutralizing Iran; the great difficulty Israel is having in dealing with it’s existential threat, Iran; the shifting paradigmatic relationship between Israel and the United States in spite of all the spin meisters; the growing American debt and a president hell bent on continuing to grow the government until we become another second rate power and the recent dire warning of Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the United States Federal Reserve warning that unless the United States reduces the national debt dramatically we will be in for some exceptionally hard times. In light of those concerns how important is the RCA ‘s decision on the women’s role in their version of orthodox Jewish life?

These are very uncertain times and don’t auger well for us and I like many others are confused. It shouldn’t be business as usual because I fear that life as we know it will never be the same again. Times are changing, and I’m worried. America’s special relationship with Israel is tarnished and can never return to what it was. There will always be this point of reference, when Obama dismissed Netanyahu in a cavalier manner, undermining Israel’s sense of security. And what about the “America of promise”, “the land of opportunity”, reduced to a country of high taxes and on the road to becoming a welfare state like our poor failed European cousins. This is the time that I remember and lean on my father’s advice. He counseled me that whenever I am confounded, perplexed and uncertain about the future I need to recuse myself temporarily, meditate or study and that would help me find clarity. Rarely have I felt the need to take him up on his advise, but this past March I began feeling that the time has come. And so I have taken his advise. One of the by-products is to stop concerning myself with the banal: disengage temporarily from blogging on the mundane and begin considering the bigger picture.

Over the past six weeks I have developed a study group with 4 other students of Jewish philosophy, all living in the “arba confot haaretz”, but with the aid of the Internet, distances separating us have disappeared and it has become an unbelievable experience. The five of us are able to conference call and skype, which makes the experience all the more meaningful and vivid. Because we treat this seriously, we have designed our course of study as though it were a graduate seminar. We are expected to do the readings, come prepared and present papers. The issues we are studying relate to the fundamental and core values of who we are as a People and as human beings. Is there a place for a libertine within ethical Judaism or do the social values of the prophets trump personal gain at the expense of the “zulat”? Is the Jewish God a personal one, guiding history, intervening at times in human history; or is He out there somewhere tending to other galaxies while leaving the Milky Way to fend for itself? Is there any purpose in remaining Jewish and committed to Israel when some of our own rabbis, teachers and leaders demonstrate ill regard for fundamental teaching of Judaism and see Israel as an embarrassing and bothersome stepchild?

There are no absolute answers and I certainly have no interest in eliciting responses, because I don’t think anyone has the answers. They may have small pieces of relative truths that are convenient for the moment and happen to fit their momentary quandary, but can be bent and realigned at a moments notice. So I shall continue slogging through the maze of questions, studying, asking, wondering and occasionally writing.

As I said, I’ve been at this for six weeks and haven’t found the clarity that I am seeking yet, nor do I expect to in such short order. Instead I have found only more confusion and more questions. Trying to get my arms around one question seems to open up a Pandora’s box with a plethora of more questions. Clarity? Not yet, but I am patient and determined to work this through. Besides, I believe in the wisdom of my father.

Disintegration of Modern Orthodoxy

2010-03-15T08:54:00.000-05:00

There are so many ways to describe the death throes of Modern Orthodoxy. Lets see now: there’s the Yiddish adage of nisht aheen v’nisht aher, there is the Israeli version of lo dubim v’lo y’ar and then there is the American version which, although slightly vulgar hits the nail on the head: s__t or get off the pot. Any one of these three would describe to a “T” the status of Modern Orthodoxy. It’s another Jewish invention like Traditional Judaism was in the 1960’s. Traditional Judaism was a “movement” of orthodox rabbis, backed and sponsored by the Hebrew Theological College with the purpose of staunching the incursion of Conservative Judaism in the Midwest. The rabbis hired by these synagogues had good intentions: to create and foster orthodox Judaism in cities and towns in the Midwest; to educate the young people in a culture that promotes orthodox values by associating with youth movements such as NCSY rather than BBYO and other liberal youth movements. To encourage young people to attend orthodox camps such as Moshava rather than the liberal camps like Ramah. These rabbis were on a mission – a noble one at that. They were deeply committed to orthodoxy and probably, had they been asked, would have defined themselves as Modern Orthodox.

The problem with these modern orthodox rabbis then as now is that they are masters of the art of compromise leaving the product half-baked. However, when it comes to ideology there should be no room for compromise. In the 1960’s those modern traditional orthodox rabbis serving traditional pulpits were presiding over synagogues with mixed seating and microphones. It took Rabbi Aron Soloveitchik to put an end to their hypocricy.

By definition Modern Orthodoxy, not being comfortable in their authentic skin, have created for themselves a series of problems. In the last few years modern orthodox rabbis have demonstrated their discomfort with the idea of exclusiveness with a unique mission, struggling with reconciling choseness with contemporary trends. Modern Orthodoxy has been obsessed with the notion of being accepted by their enlightened and to be loved by the progressive movements. They weren’t comfortable with the idea that the gay community wasn’t accepted within Orthodox Judaism, so a symposium was held at Yeshiva University to “air” the issues. And now, an activist rabbi, seeking his place in the sun wishes to ordain women rabbis and bestow upon them the title of “rabbah”.

As much as I hate to admit it, Agudas Israel is right on the mark when denouncing Rabbi Avi Weiss for his latest foray into his latest venture of attempting to liberalize Orthodox Judaism. The strength of Agudas Israel and the other right wing (conservative) groups is that they have become the party of “no”: No to watering down Jewish values, and No to caving in to trendy Jewish living. Truth be told, Rabbi Weiss ought to do the honest thing: disconnect from the RCA and modern orthodoxy-whatever that means, and form a new denomination. Call it Progressive Judaism or some variation thereof. But for heaven sake, they should stop referring to themselves as orthodox. After all, many right wing Conservative rabbis are as halachichally observant as Modern Orthodox rabbis sharing the same “hashkafah”. There is nothing orthodox about them, and that should be understood as a derisive comment.

The Moetzet Gedolei HaTorah is correct when saying that placing women in traditional rabbinic roles departs from Jewish traditional value system and can’t be called orthodox. The problem with Modern Orthodoxy is they want their cake and they want to eat it too, while the Moetzet Gedolei Hatorah isn’t interested in eating the cake, but preserving it!! And that is why they are so convincing. They talk straight, they are intellectually honest and having no reason to compromise their values on the altar of American political / social correctness.

Having said that I would find it difficult to live in a world where there weren’t the rich options available to choose from. Having to live in a Jewish world ossified by the stodgy stalwarts of conservative values would make me old before my time; casting a sepia tint on a world with otherwise innumerable possibilities and opportunities. On the other hand living in a world always looking over my right shoulder, trying always to placate, fearing a misstep, would hinder my ability to reach my full stride – and that would be awfully disappointing and frustrating.

Corruption of Tikkun Olam and Other Things

2010-03-01T10:17:00.001-06:00

Back in the day when I was a rabbinical student I had a very difficult and exacting teacher, Rabbi Zelig Starr (obm) who taught me a valuable lesson that has carried me through life: “know what you know and know what you don’t know”. For a student, that was a very difficult lesson to learn - after all students know it all. But ever since that time I had a diminished tolerance for anyone who spoke out without knowing what they were talking about. I noticed that in recent years whenever I heard the mantra of Tikkun Olam by my more liberal friends and rabbis, Rabbi Starr’s dictum began flashing in my frontal lobe. I understood their search for Jewish relevancy but I was conflicted: ought I let them dilute themselves into thinking and believing that they found the answer to their fading Judaism or should I call them out?

The ambivalence stems from the fact that they have good intentions. Their concern is to upgrade the practice of Judaism, to make it relevant to their lives and oddly enough to ensure that it is on par with their Christianity, which may be partially the source of the problem. I like the idea that our liberal community is fair minded and open to new ideas, contributing to the renewal of Jewish practice but I am nevertheless resentful of their ignorance resulting in the corruption of Jewish values.

Tikkun Olam, ironically, the new mitzvah of the decade has been propelled to center stage in the liberal Jewish community, overshadowing any and all Jewish practices. Everything seems to be measured by Tikkun Olam and where you stand on the fulfillment of this mitzvah. It’s ironic because reference to it is found in the Aleinu prayer, recited thrice daily and is far from being the enlightening liberating mitzvah that our liberal community believes it to be.

As we put our hopes in thee, o Lord our God, that we may soon see the glory of thy power, the earth rid of abominations and the idols cut down and the world repaired in the kingdom of God. (Letaken Olam Bemalchut Shadai)

Essentially, this rendering of Tikkun Olam discourages a pluralistic society where there are multiple approaches to spirituality and many formats of expressing belief in God. O you liberals, how do you feel about that?!!!!

The expression of Tikkun Olam is also found in the Mishnah where the phrase Mipne Tikkun Olam is used in a legal context. Here the understanding of the term is that although certain actions are not required by law, Mipne Tikkun Olam, one should behave in a certain manner in order to avoid potential promiscuity. For example, if a man sends a writ of divorce (Get) by messenger to his wife and changes his mind prior to her receiving it, technically he can cancel the Get without notifying her. The Rabbis, however, in their infinite wisdom, ruled Mipne Tikkun Olam, this isn’t advised. If she assumes that she is divorced she may have a relationship with another man. To avoid this, he must notify her of his change of mind.

It was only in the 16th century with the development of Lurianic Kabbalah did Tikkun Olam take on a more popular currency. Lurianic Kabbala gave absolutely no credence to “social” aspects of Tikkun Olam. The act of repairing to which they referred was cosmic in nature and implied no social action. Lurianic Kabbalist believed that the universe was in a shattered state and in need of repair and only by practicing mitzvot can the world be repaired. This act of aiding in the repair was intended to be accomplished by developing a deep personal and emotional relationship with God.

Michael Lerner, founder and editor of Tikkun Magazine, known for his Rainbow coalition politics and vicious attacks on Israel, exploited Lurianic Kabbala and gave new unlicensed expression to Tikkun Olam as a form of redemptive social action. Jewish Liberals hijacked Tikkun Olam; neither in its Mishnaic, nor Kabbalistic meaning was it ever intended as advocacy for social justice, environmentalism or redistribution of wealth.

This past month (March 2010) Commentary contributor Jack Wertheimer wrote an interesting piece on “The High Cost of Jewish Living”, commenting on the fact that we no longer contribute our money to Jewish interests but to global concerns based upon Tikkun Olam. The idea is that we will fulfill the mitzvah to a greater extent if we give our charity to non-Jewish causes. What a corruption of Tikkun Olam! And so there are now a plethora of so-called Jewish charities that focuses on the non-Jewish community. Forget the fact that so many Jewish families cannot afford day school tuition or membership to synagogues. Forget the high rate of intermarriage resulting from lack of Jewish education; it’s ok because we are on a mission of Tikkun Olam.

At the JTS convocation this past year the keynote speaker exhorted newly minted rabbis to nothing less than focus on eliminating world poverty even at the expense of the Jewish community. Ruth Messenger of the American Jewish World Services declared that “we embrace those with whom we do not share a faith or neighborhood, a country, a language…to help those most in need….” I’m trying to keep my cool as I review all of this in my head once again, and find it difficult to the extreme. Our liberal rabbis have become so corrupted that I wonder where it will all end. Rabbi Starr was so right when he said, “know what you know and know what you don’t know”. I miss him!

Purim 2010: Ashtor and Mardoch

2010-02-27T21:45:00.000-06:00

Another year and another moment when I sit in disbelief; when I can’t believe that once again my people, the intelligent ones, are going to make another b’racha l’vatalah. A b’racha before reading the Megilla as though it were the stamp of the “notorion” a notary public, authenticating the love story of Ashtor and Mardoch and their people. Actually the whole thing is charming, a plot to perpetuate a fictitious story as though it really happened. The big lie. Said often enough, by enough people, it becomes part of the national history and psyche of its people. And of course we authenticate it not by a notary’s stamp but by fasting, a seudat mitzvah and of course mishloach manot. There is so much ritual draped over the event itself that attention is focused on everything but the story. The rabbis were so neurotic about the details of when to fast, ther proper means of reading the megilla and how mishloach manot are to be delivered that attention was diverted from the story. If anyone were to really pay any critical attention to the story one would realize that it is but the imagination of a very repressed people still recovering from a terrible national blow impacting on its collective psyche to the point where it had to create fiction – an escape.

Deep down our sages realized this. They were definitely troubled by the plot, because it didn’t do justice to the Jews. We, after all needed to take the high ground, yet we stooped to the level of our tormentors. Contrast Vashti to Ashtor. Vashti told the king where to go when he wanted her to become the sexual object of his whims. Ashtor on the other hand became the sexual object of his whims and because of it she saved the Jews from a horrible fate. Our rabbis not happy with this depiction of Ashtor turned her into “karka olam” – a passive object of the king’s sexual whims. Ashtor, according to the rabbis never enjoyed the sex. She was a passive partner, allowing the king in just long enough to get the Jews out - of trouble. Great theater!!

And that is what it was supposed to be – great theater; revealing the inner most emotional turmoil of our people as a reaction to a national catastrophe. The whole thing was probably contrived as wishful thinking, understandably. However, we Jews, still recovering from one national disaster and then moving into another, lost our sense of humor and began believing the story as though it were apocryphal. And it picked up steam. Once the (Pharisees) rabbis got a shot at it they went to town. They buried it in volumes of halachot and managed to beat as much joy out of the carnival spirit that they could.

So one couldn’t celebrate Purim as a national carnival without of course fasting, fulfilling the mitzvah of a ridiculous “seudat mitzvah” and hearing the megillah, with a b’racha – and not once, but twice. On the other hand, thank god for the rabbis, because without them institutionalizing this holiday by encrusting it in halachot it might have disappeared from our calendar. Does anyone have any lingering doubts as to why we are so neurotic?

Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof

2010-02-22T10:33:00.000-06:00

This past week Martin Grossman was executed for the cold-blooded murder of Peggy Park. He had gone through the entire appeal process and he even had a little extra help that none of the other non Jewish, death row inmates have in any state of the union: the lobbying of Agudah and other Jewish organizations including a last minute plea from the Chief Rabbi of Israel to the Governor. Nothing helped. He was executed on February 16 by lethal injection in payment for a brutal murder committed on December 13, 1984.

Until a few weeks ago I had never heard about Martin Grossman. I took an interest in him like I take an interest in every other murderer sitting on death row. As a matter of fact I had just finished reading an expose on another gruesome murderer, Christian Longo (who murdered his wife and children) waiting for lethal injection that appeared in Esquire’s January 2010 issue. Funny thing, I don’t recall Chabad, Aleph or Agudah taking an interest in his case.

As a matter of fact, I can’t imagine any of these Jewish organizations taking a humanitarian stand for anyone unless they were Jewish. And there is the rub! Their credibility as principled petitioners for the sanctity of human life has been squandered, unlike Professor David Protess of Northwestern University who crusades against wrongful convictions, seeking out justice for those who have been victimized by the system.

Professor Protess is a very principled man. For the past twenty years he has been dedicated to crusading against those wrongfully sentenced to death first as the research director for the Better Government association and for the past eleven years as head of the Medill Innocence Project associated with Northwestern University. His efforts were probably responsible for Governor George Ryan to suspend the executions of all those inmates sitting on death row in Illinois until their cases can be reviewed thoroughly out of concern for the possibility of a wrongful execution.

Our illustrious rabbis representing Agudah, Chabad, Aleph, Young Israel and other Orthodox institutions flocked to Martin Grossman, not because he was innocent but because he was Jewish. Grossman admits to the murder and assumed full responsibility. The merits of the case were irrelevant to them. In their parochial minds the only thing that mattered was that he was Jewish and therefore entitled to some special consideration. Special because these same rabbis haven’t petitioned the Governor for anyone else who actually may be innocent, as Professor Protess would have.

What is disturbing in this entire sad chapter is that our rabbis have exhibited once again a strong affinity for the abstract rather than a deeper appreciation of text which could actually be applied to the here and now. Rather than be committed to the issues, they have concerned themselves with the superficial. They took up the defense of Martin Grossman for all the wrong reasons. He was Jewish, but he was a murderer nevertheless, an embarrassment to the Jewish community and the civilized world. On what basis does being Jewish entitle someone to special treatment? Rather than expend energy on a confessed murderer our distinguished rabbis ought to be joining ranks with crusaders like Prof. Protess and seek out justice where justice is lacking: “tzedek tzedek tirdof”.

Striking the Right Balance

2010-02-15T11:41:00.001-06:00

Not being a very patient person by nature, I have spent an inordinate amount of time and training developing that all too illusive quality that many of my yoga practicing friends seem to practice as routinely as breathing rhythmically. Patience and respect for those with whom I disagree with when it comes to understanding, appreciating and living their Judaism has paid off. For years I have been reading Jonathan Rosenblum and most of the time disagreeing with him. Those disagreements, while rarely visceral were never the less principled and therefore troubling; and I wondered why, if I disagree so fundamentally with his approach do I read him. I could never answer that question until recently.

Not long ago he ran an article in Mishpacha Magazine (January 20, 2010) entitled “Are We Asking the Right Questions”. Without going into the point of the article, he draws upon an event recorded in the B.Talmud (Yoma 23a-b) as a proof text to an argument he was making. The argument isn’t germane to this essay – what is however, is his interpretation of that tragic story retold in the Talmud. The Mishna tells of how two young Priests were in a race up the ramp of the altar to see who would perform the Temple service. In anger, the one who lost picked up the knife and mortally wounded the victor. Since the victor wasn’t dead but mortally wounded, the father declared that the knife, the “murder weapon” wasn’t rendered ritually impure. The Baraisa notes that apparently the impurity of the Temple vessels was more important in the father’s eyes than the spilling of blood. The Gemara of course trying to make sense out of the episode inquires: was life so cheap that murder was treated lightly or was murder a serious matter but so was their treatment of the Temple vessels.

The inquiry is interesting, and somewhat revealing of the sages dealing with the issue at hand. It is obvious to me that there isn’t much of an issue that really requires analysis and it puzzles me that our sages felt the need to analyze what should have been obvious. Regardless of whether the young priest mortally wounded was dead or not is to miss the point. We are taught that the temple was to be built with tools and instruments not fabricated from the available metals, because it was out of metals that weapons were fashioned. The Temple was supposed to symbolize and stand for peace, tranquility and the worship of god. It would have been an oxymoron therefore to use tools fashioned from the metals that are used to kill to build the Temple. The logical conclusion would be therefore that even if the priest wasn’t dead, the knife ought to be rendered unfit for further use because of the harm it had already caused, not only to the young priest but because the temple had been violated and soiled by a priest unfit to carry out the holy work of avodat hashem.

I am pleased that I practiced patience all these years (even if it is against my grain) and continued to read Jonathan’s articles because here is the ideal essay by which he succinctly makes the point I have been resisting for decades. If a balance isn’t struck between halacha and the spirit of the halacha than we risk distorting the meaning and intention of the law. J. Rosenblum’s article is precisely the example par excel lance to which I refer. It is the locking on to halacha like an android, without passion and without compassion, pilpulizing ad nausea the halacha and robbing it of its intent and purpose. I realize of course that I am treading on dangerous territory and that what I suggest is unacceptable to the Orthodox establishment. It is however, more important to clarify for those passionate about their Jewish practice that in order to keep it relevant and meaningful they can’t allow the intent of the law to be blurred by the ausbergian pilpulism of frustrated rabbis who have lost site of the purpose and intent of the law. When the Spinker Rebbe was sentenced recently, the judge gave him a reduced sentence because it was the judge’s opinion that while the Spinker Rebbe broke the law he did so not out of malice but with the naiveté that application of Talmudic logic was sufficient to guide his decision making. Obviously, his distorted view of the law was a result of pilpulism. The idea that one can intellectualize the law, but keep a clear focus on the intent is misleading. By intellectualizing and pilpulizing over centuries it is likely that we will internalize it individually and communally and ultimately distort the very thing we are trying to elucidate.

Hardcore Haredi Hypocracy

2010-02-08T08:17:00.000-06:00

Most of us were raised on lofty concepts such as “kol yisrael arevim zeh lezeh”, that each Jew has a responsibility to another Jew. Hillel’s golden rule, that if one were to have to sum up all of torah’s wisdom into a few words so that torah can be learned while “standing on one foot” would be “v’ahata l’reacha kamocha”, one should love his neighbor as himself. These and other ethical dictums gleaned from the wisdom of the ages crafted us into a people. It’s peoplehood above anything else that has guaranteed our survival over the ages.

It is this same sense of ethical treatment of our brothers and sisters, inculcated in us from time immemorial, which we have extended to others outside of the tribe with the same love and dignity that we extend tour own. It is no surprise that Jews have always been in the forefront of social issues, charity and fighting for the rights of those less fortunate than us. It was this state of mind and this sense of ethics that prompted the American Jewish community to join arms with Martin Luther King and other human rights activists to demonstrate, lobby and challenge a racist system. It is these teachings and values so entrenched in the psyche of the Jewish people, so fundamental to the core of Jewish teachings that has set off red lights and deep concern over an issue that has been going on for some time, but only coming to light recently.

The fervently orthodox Bais Yaakov School in Immanuel isn’t taking any measures against parents who are refusing to send their children (daughters) to school as a result of an order of the High Court of Justice to integrate Ashkenazim and Sephardim. Imagine that this school system, originating back in 19th century Poland, in the heart of anti-Semitic Europe where a Jew had no chance of an “even break” has been running hteir schools along a racial fault line, keeping the Sephardim (mizrachi descent) separate from the pristine Ashkenazim. To ad insult to injury the Independent Education Center had instructed the principal of the school, Rivka Stern not to take measures against those parents resisting the court decision. The basis for this was that doing so would render Rivka Stern a “moser”, which is a status rendered to a Jew giving up another Jew to a non-Jewish system. Imagine, they consider the High Court of Justice a gentile court system!! It appears that something is fundamentally wrong with these so-called Jews.

The twisted logic of the parents is that it isn’t as though they were racist but rather it was really a question of levels of religious observance. The hassidic girls were at a different level than the Sephardic girls and the parents wanted to keep them separate. This is a flimsy excuse because what does personal religious practice have to do with studying the same curriculum in a classroom? According to this logic there should be universal discrimination in Israel thus ending the fiction that we are one people in spite of our differences. The parents themselves underscore their racial bias when they admit as one parent put it “that Mizrachi students don’t feel a connection to the Hassidic track…the High Court and the Education Ministry have to recognize that these are two different worlds”.

No they are not two different worlds. They are no different than whites and blacks studying in the same classroom in the states. They are no different than Ethiopians studying with Ashkenazim in the same class or serving in the same army unit. There is no difference in the color of blood between a hassidic girl or a Mizrachi or an Ethiopian or a Yemini. To say anything else is racist – but worse than that it undercuts the notion of peoplehood, am echad, one people, one country.

“Lofty ideas like “am kohanim v’goy kadosh” really have no currency in Israel if left to the machinations of these truly twisted and sick minds. There isn’t much of a future for the Jewish people if this kind of discrimination becomes normative practice in Israel. Its bad enough that Jimmy Carter and other yeffe nefesh have accused us of running an apartheid state. Leaving education in the hands of these people would enhance this hitherto undeserved reputation.

Many years ago as a student, I lived in a neighborhood in the heart of Jerusalem that was decidedly a Sephardi enclave. When I wanted to enlist their cooperation in a project that would have enhanced our neighborhood they spray-painted on my wall the word “ashke-nazi”. When I asked them why they have so much hatred in their hearts they responded: “atem dofaktem otanu paam, achshav anu nidfak otchem”. Roughly translated it means “there was a time in the beginning of statehood when the Ashkenazi establishment screwed the Sephardic immigrants. Now its our turn to return the favor”. That was twenty-five years ago. Where are you today Hillel, when we need you!!

Man At His Best

2010-02-01T08:44:00.000-06:00

The axiom “that women’s mass entry into men’s professions will dilute the prestige of that profession” holds true in the haredi world and in the Reform movement. I first became acquainted with this axiom many years ago when I happen to notice that there was an inordinate amount of Russian women physicians in Israel and an enormous percentage of male Russian engineers. Consulting with an old Russian friend and classmate he enlightened me on the dynamics of the equality of sexes in communist Russia. Medicine had been a prestigious profession until women became dominant and once that happened there was a decline in its prestige, resulting in the mass exodus of men from the medical profession. Russian men seeking a profession with a reduced presence of women lending it more prestige, was engineering; thus, the inordinate amount of Russian male engineers exiting the former Soviet Union. I am not a misogynist, nor do I believe that I in any way relegate women to a secondary tier in comparison to men. However, as an observer of Jewish life in the 21st century it would appear that the paradigm of the old Soviet Union is not only still applicable but is the common denominator (and perhaps the link) between the haredi/fervently orthodox community and Reform Judaism.

Apparently there is a ratio of men to women that renders the institution or profession prestigious on a sliding scale of men to women. That would be one of the reasons why teaching on the primary or secondary level is considered one of the lesser prestigious professions; precisely because women dominate it. So it came as no surprise when a few years ago I began reading about the feminization of the Reform movement. The day they decided to open their seminary to women for ordination they signed their death warrant. Within a generation the Reform movement became dominated by women rabbis not only in synagogues but also within the hierarchy of the organizational chart. Fewer men become ordained rabbis resulting in less male rabbis leading congregations with the consequence of less male attendance at synagogues. Attending services in a reform temple is like going to a Hadassah meeting. All women. What man in his right mind would want to attend services where not only the attendees, but also the so-called klei kodesh are all women? So there is a push back, a mild and from what I understand a fairly impotent revolt whereby men within the reform movement are seeking all male services where there can be some spiritual moments as well as male bonding.

The same phenomenon is beginning to affect the haredi / fervently orthodox communities. I have maintained this for a long time and wrote about it not infrequently that the male image in traditional Judaism is defined by his central role in the synagogue / beis medrash, (as well as in performing particular functions such as mohel and shochet) the hub of the traditional community. Diminishing the male role and his influence would effectively render him neutered. So it comes as no surprise that there is so much fuss about women at the wall or the push for separate sex bus service in certain haredi neighborhoods.

The real issue for these 19th century throwbacks isn’t whether women can or cannot don a talis at the wall, or travel with men on the same bus without a mechitza imagined or otherwise (see p’sak of R’Moshe Feinstein). The real issue for these men is the fight for the very heart and soul of how they understand their role within the community. Just as there are sayagim around torah and mitzvot, the “guardians of the faith” have set up there own sayagim as tradition would dictate. For them to renege, to capitulate on seemingly irrelevant issues that do not directly impact on them would suggest that a sayag has been deconstructed, and the threat to their hegemony within the world they understand, live and die by is under attack. Frankly, I sympathize with them and understand where they are coming from, especially when I observe the dwindling relevance of Reform Judaism to the male community and the ensuing backlash.

This mindset is precisely what Har Nof resident and rabble-rouser Zahava Fisher had in mind when she commented on Israel radio Reshet Bet. When asked why the male haredi community established the mehadrin bus line where men and women are separate she replied: “in order to elevate the status of men at the expense of women”. She punctuates this by asserting that on a haredi wedding or Bar Mitzvah invitation the women’s name never appears but is an appendage of her husband; the intent being to “make her disappear”.

It would appear that because haredi men are being harassed and viewed as relics of another age, survivors in a rapidly changing world, they are digging in, intent on demonstrating what the haredi man at his best is capable of and does best: man the barricades; reminding me of Sitting Bull’s final struggle against the onslaught of western man and his culture.

Revisiting Secular Judaism

2010-01-18T10:00:00.000-06:00

Secular Judaism isn’t anything new. Its been around since the early twentieth century, waned and then gained momentum again after the Six Day war, dipped again but is now on the rise once again. Secular Judaism was once a potent force in mid nineteenth century Eastern Europe. The Jewish enlightenment or the haskalah was a fabulous movement of fecund, effervescent intellectuals seeking to find Jewish expression outside of the confines of halachic Judaism. They understood that Judaism was more than a conglomerate of laws – of do’s and don’t’s, but a rich textured culture including language, arts, ethics, history, sacred text and literature and poetry. It was the haskalah that eventually gave birth and intellectual expression to Zionism, the civil religion of the Jewish people.

Along the way, and in particular in America the growth and development of denominational Judaism gained hegemony giving new definition to the Jewish community. Peoplehood gave way to religion. We were no longer seen as a people but as another religious community in America. But what happens if you don’t subscribe to religious practice? What happens if you don’t believe in God? Do you cease to be Jewish? The answer is clearly no. Believing in god is a faith commitment. Judaism isn’t structured on faith but centered on behavior as manifested through the performance of mitzvoth. Thus, secular Judaism has once again reinvented itself and come back stronger than ever with a message to the Jewish community that you don’t have to believe in god to be a good Jew. Perhaps secular Judaism will never rise to the prominence of the three major denominations (although it is probably competing with Reconstructionist Judaism, the 4th leg), but they have a refreshing integrity that we can all learn from.

The American Jewish community as per its development seems most comfortable as another faith system along side other Christian denominations. Just like the American Protestant pays lip service to its creed, so to, do our liberal minded Jews enjoy attending services on the High Holidays, proclaiming belief and faith in God (whatever that means) and then filing it away until the next time. Their rabbis, of course reflect the sentiments of their followers. It’s hard to put my finger on the true faith of the typical liberally trained American rabbi.

Do they believe in God? Who knows! Reconstructionist rabbis, as their organizational name suggests have reconstructed Judaism and redefined the God of the Hebrews. For them it isn’t a personal god as much as it is something akin to nature. Once you pull back all of the layered gobbledygook they are very similar to Humanistic Judaism which places a premium on ethics and the centrality of man rather than god. Reform and Conservative rabbis love evoking God in their sermons, but have a difficult time not sounding like their Christian counterparts. Did god give the Israelites the Ten Commandments or the Torah or was it just divinely inspired. A truly orthodox rabbi will without hesitation tell you that it was clearly Hashem who gave the “law” to the Israelites; it was Moses who merely transcribed that what Hashem directly dictated to him, and it was the voice of Hashem that was heard at Sinai. There is no hesitation in this answer, as incredulous as it may sound to many of us. I love hearing my friends echo and affirm this theological truth because they say it with deep faith.

I have never met a Reform or Conservative rabbi who bought into this theology. I do however, remember a reform rabbi while eating a non kosher pastrami sandwich at a neighborhood kosher style deli, tell me that that the sinaitic experience was an epiphany

So then what do they believe? I don’t know. Moreover, I don’t think that they know, although they will never admit to this. There was a time when their predecessors, the first generation graduates of Central or Eastern European yeshivot, founders of their movements, had a clear and unequivocal answer. What I am convinced of is that most of them do not subscribe to a personal God defined as “hashgacha pratit”, where God intervenes in history and in the lives of people in a direct way. In a sense then there is an innate dishonesty in these movements.

As I see it there are only two honest choices: either you subscribe to orthodox Judaism and buy into the notion that the Torah is divinely given (not inspired) and you live as an halachic Jew, or you subscribe to Secular Judaism that opts away from God centered Judaism to man centered.

What Secular Jews and Orhtodox Jews have in common is that they take the study of text seriously and there is a consistency between what goes on at home and how they live their lives. While Orthodox Jews treat the texts as sacred with divinity attributed to them secularists treat the text as sacred because they are the national treasure of the Jewish people. The difficulty I have with the new breed of Secular Jews is that they have traded their tribal identity for a global one. Thus, for them Israel is no longer a critical component of the equation as it was with their ancestors the maskilim who gave birth to secular Judaism. I suspect that as some maskilim who became communists and turned to Moscow rather than Jerusalem ultimately learned – a Jew can never turn his back on his people.

Culture Warriors

2010-01-05T10:22:00.000-06:00

Ever since the issue of Women at the Wall presented itself for the upteenth time on December 4, 2009 I started connecting the dots between that and other issues that gnaw at the religious sensitivities of the haredi community whether in Israel or abroad. A series of issues have presented themselves that all share in common one thing: the haredi revulsion and rejection of western values, preferring to live in the dark ages as their Muslim cousins have chosen. Issues like the parking lot open on Shabbat in Jerusalem, Intel conducting business on Shabbat, gays living openly and proudly in Israeli society, the spitting on Greek and Armenian Orthodox priests in Jerusalem by haredi pedestrians, women shoved violently into the back of the bus on certain lines and non-recognition of any conversion other than the corrupted brand of the haredi rabbinic leadership.

The issue for me is no longer who is right and who is wrong. The issue isn’t why there isn’t more tolerance, the issue is why have the haredi community reduced themselves to the level of their Muslim neighbors who are still living in the dark ages.

Interestingly, Muslim and haredi men tend towards misogyny and treating their women like inferiors. It’s at moments like this that I am deeply ashamed of certain segments of my people. “Blessed are you the Lord for not having made me a woman”, chanted every morning by orthodox men. Not very flattering you may wonder? But wait. This was anticipated by our enlightened brothers and has been explained away in very placating words by Aish, Chabad and other tuchas licking groups seeking to ingratiate themselves to the non-religious with the hope of a fast conversion. BS. They are misogynists - and it isn’t surprising. Consider repeating the same prayer day in and day out over centuries. The message certainly does seep in through the natural process of osmosis. Couple that with other proscribed behavior of women by the community such as separate seating at social events, limiting the voice and political power of women within the kehilla, curtail women’s ability to serve in ritual capacities such as mohel, shochet and mashgiach (a few eked in through the back door recently) and you have the subliminal message reaching fruition in the minds of men that women are inferior. It isn’t surprising then that haredim have no compunctions about kicking them to the back of the bus. Americans did that to blacks under the Jim Crow laws.

These are some of the reasons why I find the women of the wall conflagration so interesting. Personally I find it very distasteful to see a woman in a tallit. It does nothing for them (or to me) and rarely does it ever compliment their clothing or enhance their figure. Having said that I respect their right to wear a tallit on the streets of Israel, the streets of Yerushalayim and at the kotel. For some reason the haredi community has a flawed notion that their brand of Judaism is the authentic one, the real thing, and everything else is ersatz. Not true. I’ve said it many times before – we are all authentic Jews. Any Jew identifying with the fate of the Jewish people is authentic regardless of level of shemirat mitzvoth; whether you wear a gartel or go bear headed (nezach yisrael lo yishaker). The wall belongs to the Jewish people. It is a national monument, holy and ought to be accessible to all Jews to pray in any way that they find appropriate. The argument put forth by the haredi community that it is offensive to see women in a tallit and that it offends “public sensitivities” is specious. Have the haredi community ever considered the fact that their appearance is offensive to much of the public in the streets of Israel and the United States? Should they be prohibited from walking the streets of Tel Aviv or visiting the museums and other cultural centers? Have they forgotten the Nuremberg laws of 1935?

Six months ago I had Shabbat dinner at he home of traditional Jews who happened to have befriended the local Armenian priest who happened to be invited to his first Shabbat meal. During the course of the meal he related that he studied in Jerusalem. I asked him how he liked it, but to my chagrin had few kind words to say. He made a point of telling me that he had been spit at on numerous occasions by haredi Jews. I didn’t believe him and challenged him politely at the Shabbat table. My wife reminded me that we were guests and that I was quickly approaching the line of good and bad manners. Until I read about the spitting at the Greek Orthodox in the Jerusalem Post several weeks ago I never would have imagined that my people were capable of this. Boy was I ever wrong. Once we were on the receiving end. Have we forgotten so quickly? Have we learned nothing since the 1935 Nuremberg laws? Apparently not …because our fervently religious spiritual brothers, claiming to be following in the steps of Avraham Avenu see fit to spit in the face of other human beings walking the streets of Yerushalayim. L’on heganu?

Nittal Nacht

2009-12-23T17:32:00.000-06:00

It’s that time of year again. I’m not sure what triggers the nostalgia; maybe it’s the winter solstice, short days long nights or perhaps it’s the impending New Year that stimulates morose thoughts. It’s been many decades since I thought about Nittel Nacht or Nittal Nacht, depending on your persuasion, but all this past week I’ve been obsessed with it. Nittel Nacht, a derivative of Latin means Christmas (coincidentally, the Ramah, Harav Moshe Isserles makes reference to it in Shulackan Aruch, Yoreh Dea 148:2 referring to the custom of giving gifts eight days after Nittel Nacht, celebrating the new year). In the Ashkenazi tradition it was referred to as Nittal Nacht, meaning, “taken” in Hebrew, referring to the “one” who was taken, arrested, and crucified (although this makes more sense in connection to Easter). Others believe that it refers back to the Hebrew word “nitleh” hanged, perhaps referring as well to being crucified.

Regardless of how one understands the etymology of the word what remains for those coming out of the yeshiva world is that December 24th-25th isn’t Christmas but Nittal Nacht. Ashkenazim weren’t united on how one should mark Nittal Nacht. Many chassidic Jews were predisposed not to study at all on Nittal Nacht but to be very vigilant of Christian intent to harm Jews. Exponents of the Lithuanian Yeshivot studied with vigor. Other quarters felt that it was important to recess from noon till midnight in order to deny Jesus the merit of Torah study on his birthday. Rabbi Nathan Adler of Frankfort saw it as a day of mourning for all the suffering and persecutions of the Jews by the Christians, to be treated like Tisha B’Av with a prohibition of learning Torah. His student, the Chasam Sofer, suggested that it was important to begin learning again after midnight to counterbalance the devout Christians who attended midnight mass. By the nineteenth century there were indeed practical reasons to continue this custom of closing the yeshivos – pichuach nefesh.

Hypothetically, if any of this made sense I would think that this last reason suggested made the most sense. As a Jew you never knew what to expect on Nittal Nacht. Sometimes it was a pogrom, other times it was blood libel accusations. Rarely did a Jew come away from Christmas untouched. It was never the happy time of year that Andy Williams or Bing Crosby sang about in their endearing Christmas tunes. I can only imagine the anxiety of our ancestors building up as the winter set in. Apart from dealing with the cold winter, illness, lack of medicine and sometimes food, there was one additional worry. Would there be a pogrom, when would it start, from what direction would it come, and how bad would it be. Chanukah couldn’t have been that festive, knowing that just around the corner was Christmas with the inevitable suffering. Imagine spinning the draidele, trying to infuse a little joy in your children’s life wondering when the pogrom would hit and who would survive. Very sobering.

But unlike the Christmas of my ancestors, in America it is, as the song goes “a very special time of year”. Party time and good cheer. The Christmas spirit, streets and homes lit up and stores buzzing with shoppers. Those are my memories of Christmas in America. Perhaps, I should feel guilty, but I’m don’t. I’m aware of our suffering especially around the Yultide, but I didn’t suffer, nor did my parents or even grandparents. Nevertheless I feel conflicted because although my immediate descendants didn’t suffer my people suffered

As it turns out, and to the credit of my yeshiva which had a Lithuanian / brisker orientation there was a slightly reduced seder on Christmas eve to make note of Nittal Nacht, but not enough to totally disrupt the seder in the beis medrash. As I said it was to the credit of the yeshiva because unwittingly they fed into my own conflicting feelings about the day. On the one hand bad stuff happened; on the other hand bad stuff doesn’t happen any more – thank god! Disturbing however, are those institutions that observe the customs / traditions of Nittal Nacht which today strike me as slightly pathological. They are basically arguing that by their own denial of study on Christmas Eve they are dismissing another faith as irrelevant. More disturbing than that however are all those young people today who never heard of Nittal Nacht.

Haredi Kulturkampf

2009-12-21T08:48:00.000-06:00

The postmodern world is really causing havoc in the haredi community. That you all know and appreciate: but rarely can we see a manifestation of this so obvious, so crystal clear. On December 7th 2009 posters (pashkevels) went up all over haredi Jerusalem asking for information on any yeshiva students that may be connected to the Internet for fear of a “toeva”. The posters are signed by the “Committee for Preserving Our Camps Purity”, (a division of the “modesty squad”, who last year was responsible for beating to a pulp someone who didn’t adhere to their modesty standards). Many of the leading “gedolim” in the mainstream haredi community are also against the use of the Internet because of the uncensored information coming through the information highway. Just recently the Belzer Rebbe and Rav Ovadiah Yoseph in separate announcements prohibited the use of the Internet.

What makes this uniquely intriguing is a Vaad Harabbanim advertisement currently running (December 2009) on the Internet that reads:

“World renown Rabbis, including Maran Harav Hagaon Yosef Shalom Elyashiv shlita, Rav Aharon Leib Steinman, shlita…. and Rav Ovadia Yosef, shlita…all donate their time to Vaad Harabanim assuring that Israel’s most desperate are taken care of….”

The Ad then goes on to invite those interested to call a toll free number or to visit them at www.vaadharabanim.com or to email them at contact@vaadharabanim.com. Obviously it’s ok for them to use the Internet.

What is particularly striking is the temerity of these “gedolim” on the one hand to publicly acknowledge their use of the Internet as it suits them while at the same time suppressing the use of the same technology by their adherents. But wait! The audacity doesn’t stop here! On erev Chanukah (December 11) a kol korei appeared in the newspapers backed by the gedolei hador exhorting their followers not to use even the haredi Internet sites because its content is inappropriate, being filled with “lies and abominations”. This past December 17, 2009, Hamevasser reported that there has been continued reaction to the kol korei, citing the additional kol korei of HaRav Yitzchak Tuvia Weiss warning of the perils of the Internet. As a result on December 18, 2009, a few “kosher” sites shut down with the negative impact on employees as YWN confirmed:

“This was a terrible thing that happened - I respect the rabbis and their wisdom, but there should have been some warning...On Thursday, I and 30 some co-workers at "Etrog" lost our jobs. Overnight, we have no means of income, and will join the ranks of the "poor chareidim". I am sure employees of other sites are facing the same reality.

We had a vision of providing a kosher site for anyone who happened to be online anyway - that is all over now.

I wonder what will happen to all the yeshivos, chessed organizations, and even chareidi publications that have websites. This decision is meant to protect our souls, but is seriously harming our livelihood. The Internet helped unify and unite the worldwide Jewish community - now we will once again be left to fend for ourselves, in our own locales. Cut off from the rest of the world, cut off from each other. And in my case, at the mercy of the chessed organization in my community, that will now have to help us put food on the table until I find another job.

Why?

Again, I am not criticizing the gedolei hador. I am just trying to understand what alternative they have in mind for us. Chareidi people everywhere are learning professionals that require Internet use. Will that be banned too? Where will the cut-off be?

I am glad this site (YWN) is still here, so I can share my thoughts.”

What we have here is a mini kulturkampf prompted perhaps by the weekly Shabbat demonstrations, the latest which was against Intel. They’re loosing the fight and their frustration is projected through the pashkevels, and kol koreis that are nothing more than face saving maneuvers. Beyond that, however, is the mixed message of the haredi leadership who still, in spite of the kol koreis insist on using the Internet when it serves their purpose.

Their use of the Internet suggests, however, an acknowledgement that it is really impossible, whether we like it or not to conduct business or educational programs without the use of this technology; while at the same time revealing arrogance that sorely weakens their case against use of the Internet.

Over the Top

2009-12-14T09:44:00.000-06:00

It’s one thing to enter into a relationship with our Christian neighbors for the purpose of political support on important Jewish agenda items like the State of Israel, but it is another thing to pander to their charitable side by degrading the Jewish community. This is what appears to be happening on an infomercial-aired daily, morning and evening on cable TV sponsored by the International Federation of Christians and Jews, starring Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein and non talking parts by elderly people portrayed as babushka wearing bobies and toothless zaidies.

The International Federation of Christian and Jews founded by and presided over by Rabbi Yichiel Eckstein has been a controversial organization from its inception. The organization hasn’t been that well received by the Jewish communities in America or Israel. This is certainly true for the haredi and the right wing contingency of the modern orthodox community. Going back several generations the right wing orthodox community forbade any theological discussions to take place with the Christian community. Apart from the theological issue there is also the emotional component that so much of the Jewish community is sensitive to. It isn’t easy to forget the suffering of the Jewish communities of Europe at he hand of Christians sanctioned by their clergy. Nor do we forget the unrelenting efforts at missionary work, even today, of some evangelical groups. So it is totally understandable why the right wing orthodox community has a difficult time dealing with the Christian community. That coupled with halachic decisions by torah scholars to prohibit this kind of interaction is enough to dismiss this organization even if Eckstein’s intentions were “l’shem shamayim”.

We Jews are ambivalent and have a hard time sitting down with Christians, considering that our history with them has not been sterling. Among the left wing of the orthodox community Eckstein’s organization was mildly distasteful and certainly controversial. In line with the theory that the modern orthodox community is determined to connect with the world outside it would stand to reason that they would entertain the idea of not only tolerating but embracing the work of organizations that fosters the understanding of each other as well as support an organization that is totally behind Israel. However, having seen the infomercial I’m beginning to understand the sentiments expressed in a daf yomi shiur a few years ago.

Until I saw this infomercial aired ad nausea, I too was ambivalent about the organization, but was inclined to give Eckstein a pass. Being acquainted with Rabbi Eckstein, a committed Zionist and a devoted Jew I was convinced that he wouldn’t have a hand in any organization that wasn’t completely righteous. That is, until I had the misfortune of viewing the IFCJ infomercial where he had the staring role.

The infomercial is not only degrading to those Jews who are suffering in Russia but demeans the entire charitable enterprise of the Jewish People. The subliminal message of the infomercial is since the Jewish community can’t and won’t take care of our own he has to turn to Bible belt Christians in TV land and appeal to their Christian conscience. “It is the festival of lights”, so goes the text of the infomercial, “and its time that light be brought to these neglected holocaust survivors”. He couldn’t resist using the holocaust card. A cheap shot! What a slap in the face it is to all the sacred work done throughout the Jewish communities of the United States, Europe and Israel in creating the programs whereby relief is available to all who wish to take advantage of those resources. Simply outrageous!

What is equally disturbing is the fact that apparently there are still poor and suffering Jews in Russia and other parts of Eastern Europe. One of JDC’s missions has been and is, to provide aid with dignity, to our unfortunate kinsmen. Perhaps the JDC and other Jewish charitable organizations aren’t doing enough. Apparently the IFCJ sensing the weak link took advantage of the situation. The portrayal of the needy Jews in the infomercial was humiliating, embarrassing and shameful to say the least. The message is clear: we have to take care of our own; we have to do more; and we have to do better.

Reform Judaism – American Style

2009-12-07T09:32:00.000-06:00

In the December 4th issue of the Forward, Jacob Neusner wrote an interesting piece on his journey from classical reform Judaism to conservative Judaism and then back to Reform Judaism. Usually I enjoy Neusner’s articles because they are well thought out, cerebral yet understated and with sophisticated humor. This piece however was somewhat different and my reaction to it was viscerally negative.

My acceptance of all formats and approaches to Jewish practice has no limits (although I reject Jewish practice as defined by denominational [Reform, Conservative & Orhtodox] affiliation). I have said many times that there are multiple portals into Jewish practice as well as an equal number of egresses out of Judaism as well. Judaism, in our tradition is a large tent where all are invited in, as Abraham demonstrated early on in his own journey of religious discovery. Our tradition confirmed this much later when the Passover Seder was formalized and with the incorporation of text that would certainly suggest the welcoming of all kinds of Jewish belief as attested to by the reading of the kol dichfin (kol dichfin yasei uyachal kol ditztrich yasei vifsach).

Neusner presents several arguments why he moved from Reform to Conservative and then back to Reform. It would appear that his preeminent argument is that Reform Judaism is uniquely American saying that “if Reform Judaism didn’t exist today, American Jews would have to invent it”. He got that wrong from a factual point of view. Conservative Judaism is a purely American experiment (failing) and Reform Judaism was an exponent of the “German Jew” attempting to emulate the Protestant German culture. He goes on to say that the proof is in the pudding: the demographic preeminence can be explained by its wide appeal and relevancy. The error in Neusner’s reasoning goes to the core of what he believes Judaism to be.

According to Neusner and many others like him Judaism is a religion. Ironically, it was the Reform movement in Germany that successfully reformulated and redefined Judaism from a comprehensive culture encompassing religious practice to a religion exclusively. It was their way of gaining acceptance and entry in to German society. Judaism was never a religion, but seen and understood as a great culture in exile with a rich history and tradition. So for him to say “I affirm Reform Judaism as the American Judaism” sounds as though he is seeking a Jewish answer to American Protestantism.

The Jewish world according to Neusner is divided between segregationist and integrationists. I couldn’t agree more as I have written on many occasions and most recently in my last essay on November 30, 2009, A Sate of Mind. However that is no argument for Reform Judaism or any movement for that matter. Being an integrationist and an involved and committed Jew are not mutually exclusive. There are many successfully integrated Orthodox Jews as well as Conservative Jews who could certainly be seen as integrationists.

Neusner’s Jewish worldview flawed as it is, erroneously is an attempt at bolstering his movement by suggesting three planks (Why is it that programmatic suggestions seems to always come in threes, like the three legged stool that Obama often times refers to when explaining the way to rebuild the economy or a country). The third plank affirms the tradition of individualism, validating the individual conscience, which syncs well with his second plank that halacha should be a voice but not a veto (when was it anything else in Reform Judaism?) as he suggests “I was brought up to affirm what I found personally meaningful and to dismiss as irrelevant what did not fit”. This strikes me as though he sees his Judaism as nothing more than silly putty: fun to play with, but when it ossifies and no longer does what you want it to do, it is abandoned. Somehow it seems too chaotic, too convenient, too American. In that sense he is right. Reform Judaism is an American expression. It reflects the American culture, a disposable culture. When something is no longer useful or relevant dismiss it. It’s something like the sprawling American suburb, where Reform Judaism is so comfortable; with single use buildings put up overnight and dismantled when they have outlived their use. Reform Judaism-American Style.

A State of Mind

2009-11-30T08:55:00.000-06:00

This past week the JTA featured an article by Amy Klein, in which she pointed out the phenomenon of younger orthodox Jews focusing on social action. Newsworthy is the fact the hitherto social action was in the purview of Reform Judaism, while orthodox Jews focused more on the performance and fulfillment of mitzvoth within the framework of the immediate Jewish community. So while there were institutional frameworks for “gemilot chesed”, they weren’t inclusive of the broader, global community where social action claimed predominance. Apparently, according to this noteworthy article there has been a paradigmatic shift within the modern orthodox community.

The significance of this shift is more significant than what the article would lead you to believe. According to the article it appears as though the modern orthodox community as embodied by the younger generation of x’s and y’s have a world view much less confined and myopic than their predecessors. Hitherto, the orthodox community was defined as insular while struggling with finding their place in the larger community where they could aspire to greater professional satisfaction as well as financial gratification. Much of modern orthodoxy pivoting on this, found their voice in Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik who was the manifestation of this modern orthodox phenomenon that gained prominence in the1950’s and1960’s.

Modern Orthodoxy’s fecund days are in the past. Their seeds of destruction were sown the moment their adherents began to find ways to compromise and reconcile their orthodox life style with the secular world that was offering opportunity and advancement. During the past two decades the modern orthodox community stabilized and plateaued especially as a result of the pull to the right by many of its adherents but is now picking up momentum once again. It’s sort of like a huge glacier that creeps at a very slow pace, a centimeter a year, but every once in a while because of other global confluences pick up traction and increase the pace. So while at times it doesn’t appear as if there is motion at other times due to physical events the pace picks up and the distance travelled becomes noticeable. Modern orthodoxy seems to follow this pattern. The matrix that has been somewhat fixed for the past 15-20 years seems to once again have picked up the momentum of earlier years, moving inexorably away from the influence of the orthodox camp into the sphere of influence of the liberal movements which place a premium on social action as the quintessential practice of a Jew and of the Jewish community. Students at yeshiva high schools, colleges and post college programs are drawn to programs of social justice, aiding the poor where there were natural disasters. Last year students at Yeshiva University attended Darfur rallies and missions to Nicaragua. Rabbi Sapperstein, director of the reform movement’s Social Action Center in Washington claims that this phenomenon is a result of globalization and the awareness of it among the modern orthodox.

Social action or tikkun olam is one barometer by which the drift of the Jewish community can be measured. Basically, Judaism can be portrayed under two broad headings: insular or global; inner or outer; internal or external. It’s really a question of philosophy and there is no right or wrong answer. It comes down to how you view yourself vis-à-vis the global community. The more insular one is the greater the chance that that person will remain within the orthodox community. The more one strays from the tribe in the direction of the larger, cosmopolitan community the greater the chance that that person will become alienated from the tribe and link into the cosmopolitan community, ultimately severing ties with the orthodox community.

That is the current trend of the modern orthodox community. This is a very slow moving tendency, as slow as the movement of a glacier that is almost imperceptible to the eye. That is why I was surprise to have read a posting by my dear friend Rabbi Harry Maryles, Defining Charedim and Modern Orthodox Jews, where he conveniently links haredim and modern orthodox as two sides of the same coin. His contention is that while modern orthodox may not share certain components of the haredi community, in effect they are both linked by the same fastidious observance of halacha and hasmadah. This still may be true but there are the tell tale signs that there are significant fissures in this foundation that Rabbi Maryles feels comfortable with.

There is a profound divide separating the haredi community from the modern orthodox. The chasm that I am speaking of can’t be bridged by adherence to halacha or hasmadah. The wide gap between these two communities is characterized by the huge difference in their state of mind. The state of mind of the haredi is to maintain their insular way of life while the modern orthodox is attracted to the global community. While the haredi prefers the beis medrash, the modern orthodox Jew increasingly prefers the challenge of tikun olam (whatever that means). Because this revolves around a state of mind it won’t be long before the tenuous common denominators that bridge the two communities will dissipate, leaving each one independent of the other: the haredim continuing in their insular life style while the modern orthodox will continue their slow, tedious drift until they dock with the liberal community.

Eric Hoffer’s Prescient Premonition

2009-11-24T10:34:00.000-06:00

A dear friend of mine sent me this essay, accompanied with this short introduction of Eric Holder. Finding this so prescient, fascinating and timely as well, I wanted to share this with as many people as possible:

THIS WAS WRITTEN IN 1968 -- 41 years ago!
You probably don't remember the name Eric Hoffer. He was a longshoreman who turned into a philosopher, wrote columns for newspapers and some books.
He was a non-Jewish American social philosopher.

He was born in 1902 and died in 1983, after writing nine books and winning the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

His first book, The True Believer, published in 1951, was widely recognized as a classic.
Eric Hoffer was one of the most influential American philosophers and free thinkers of the 20th Century. His books are still widely read and quoted today.

Acclaimed for his thoughts on mass movements and fanaticism, Hoffer was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1983. Hopewell Publications awards the best in independent publishing across a wide range of categories, singling out the most thought provoking titles in books and short prose, on a yearly basis in honor of Eric Hoffer.
Here is one of his columns from 1968 -- 41 years ago! Some things never change.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ISRAEL'S PECULIAR POSITION...by Eric Hoffer - LA Times 5/26/68
The Jews are a peculiar people: things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews.
Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it, Poland and Czechoslovakia did it.
Turkey threw out a million Greeks, and Algeria a million Frenchman.
Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese and no one says a word about refugees.
But in the case of Israel, the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees.
Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single one.
Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis.
Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms.
But when Israel is victorious, it must sue for peace.
Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world.
Other nations, when they are defeated, survive and recover but should Israel be defeated it would be destroyed.
Had Nasser triumphed last June [1967], he would have wiped Israel off the map, and no one would have lifted a finger to save the Jews.
No commitment to the Jews by any government, including our own, is worth the paper it is written on.
There is a cry of outrage all over the world when people die in Vietnam or when two Blacks are executed in Rhodesia .
But, when Hitler slaughtered Jews no one demonstrated against him.
The Swedes, who were ready to break off diplomatic relations with America because of what we did in Vietnam,
Did not let out a peep when Hitler was slaughtering Jews.
They sent Hitler choice iron ore, and ball bearings, and serviced his troops in Norway.
The Jews are alone in the world.
If Israel survives, it will be solely because of Jewish efforts. And Jewish resources.
Yet at this moment, Israel is our only reliable and unconditional ally.
We can rely more on Israel than Israel can rely on us.
One has only to imagine, what would have happened last summer [1967] had the Arabs and their Russian backers won the war,
to realize how vital the survival of Israel is to America and the West in general.
I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us.
Should Israel perish, the Holocaust will be upon us all.

Guess Whose Coming to Dinner

2009-11-23T09:20:00.001-06:00

Many years ago there was a sensational movie “Guess Whose Coming to Dinner” which was intended as a social commentary on the racial divide in America. The United States has come a long way since the heady days of the 60’s, when Jews locked arms with social activists and black leadership, joined at the hip protesting the political and social establishment that had denied fundamental human rights to African Americans. The Jews have come a long way too. But we all know that! Most surprising however is how far the modern orthodox Jewish community has come.

There was a time not too long ago that an orthodox Jew not only didn’t marry gentiles but also didn’t date non-Jews . Without reviewing statistics suffice it to say that it was hitherto atypical for an orthodox Jew to marry a non-Jew twenty years ago. It still isn’t typical, but it also is no longer anecdotal. Less than a decade ago, there were several members of the modern orthodox shul that I was affiliated with, who were intermarried. Notable however was that in all those cases the Jewish partner was an FFB (frum from birth), an alumnus of Jewish day schools and high schools as well as orthodox / Zionist camps.

I was fascinated as well as puzzled: how does it happen? If you’re an FFB with all the educational and support systems in place how does it come about that a Jew becomes so heavily involved with a non-Jew that the logical outcome is marriage? No system is perfect and there are exceptions to every rule, or as Forest Gump says: shit happens! It would also appear that these aren’t isolated examples either, because if it happened in my community I can only assume that it has happened in others as well. But we don’t make a big deal out of it because it’s no longer unusual. Rarely do I read a comment in the press remarking on the unique character of an orthodox Jew marrying a non Jew albeit with a conversion (excluding Noah Feldman who, although was raised in a modern orthodox home no longer identifies as an orthodox Jew).

As a matter of fact the Forward of November 6, 2009 carried the nuptial details of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, an Orthodox Jew. For a moment I was saddened at the news of this intermarriage but as soon as I read that the conversion was orthodox and that the mesader kiddushin (officiating rabbi) was non other than Rabbi Lookstein I felt better, much better.

The Forward reassured its readers that we have come a long away. The Forward article took note of the fact that the New York Times was very casual about the entire affair indicating that not only has the “wasp” establishment come a long way in accepting Jews into their families, but that Orthodox Jews have come a long way as well. Not only do Jewish people marry non-Jews but it’s even become socially acceptable for a non Jew to marry a Jew! There is, as the Forward suggests a “relative nonchalance” to this kind of pairing reflecting a sea of change in the American Jewish community.

We Jews ought to feel good about ourselves now. Finally after all these years, after all of our struggles, we have risen to the level in which the gentile finds us acceptable! And not only have we found acceptance among them but we have also embraced them into the bosom of our Jewish families. As the article suggests there is a significant and pronounced shift in attitude among young Jews. “Young people today while embracing their Jewish culture reject the “us” and “them” worldview of their elders”. At first I thought, to my chagrin, that Sylvia Barack Fishman who authored the article missed the entire point because this marriage isn’t between Ivanka Trump and some assimilated Jew who has no idea what a siddur looks like. Jared Kushner is an Orthodox man educated formally and otherwise in an orthodox environment who benefitted from the best that the Jewish community has to offer. Orthodox people I reasoned don’t date non-Jews. It might happen that two people meet under unusual circumstances, unexpectedly by default and fall in love. Bu this would be totally anecdotal. So I thought.

Sylvia Barack Fishman has put under the spotlight a new phenomenon developing apparently in the modern orthodox Jewish community: normative intermingling between Jew and gentile, dating and exogamy as a logical outcome. It isn’t clear if this is becoming an emerging pattern, but the tone of the article gives me pause and concern that this may be a sign of things to come.

Hipsters and Shatnez

2009-11-16T09:46:00.000-06:00

Pollsters are challenged when it comes to predicting the direction and future of the Jewish people. As I had commented in an earlier posting, History’s Lesson (October, 2009), Look Magazine addressed the future of the America Jew in their seminal cover story The Vanishing American Jew in the1960’s. There was a genuine concern that the American Jewish community wouldn’t be viable by the 21st century. As I posted then, we are not only here, but we’re alive and well looking ahead to the coming decades with vigor. The American Jewish community is prodigious and prolific in its Jewish institutional life, formal and informal educational projects with a proliferation of day schools, yeshivot and colleges of advanced studies. Israel is fecund in its flourishing, robust, multifaceted culture and indeed has laid the foundations for a promising future well into the 21st century and beyond. So much for predictions.

What the pollsters also couldn’t predict was the emergence of a new kind of Jew, a different breed of Jew that began surfacing during the past decade but only now coming to full term; a band of Jews in search of their Jewishness seeking their own unique formulation and imprimatur. An early 19th century rabbinic authority, Rabbi Moshe Sofer (the Rav of Pressburg [Bratislava] also known as the Chasam Sofer) penned the expression “chadash asur min hatorah” (innovative ideas are prohibited by the Torah) in response to encroachments of the enlightenment and developing nationalism (Zionism) and the reform movement. Was he ever off the mark. At the time, on the eve of the emancipation, Judaism was perceived in very parochial and religious terms: the faith of their fathers that hadn’t made concessions to “progressive” ideas. Men like Rabbi Sofer were intent on maintaining the status quo. Surprisingly, in a sense not all that much has changed in establishment, denominational Judaism. Each of the movements are ever watchful of their turf, protective not because of ideology as much as good politics, having carved out their spheres of influence.

A generation ago establishment Judaism encompassing all the recognized movements (Orthodox Reform and Conservative) sacrificed on the altar of expediency a generation of young people in search of their cultural/spiritual roots. Generations of Jews were lost because of the apparent vapid nature of institutional Judaism; stiff rabbis in sterile sanctuaries mimicking Protestant America. Rabbis interested more about serving and placating those that paid their inflated salaries than concern over the tentative Jews, the dangling souls, Jews on the move and in search.

Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach understood the shortsightedness of men like Rabbi Sofer and their successors, and understood that the alternative denominations were void of depth, sincerity and spiritual authenticity. He came to fill a void, created by a huge black hole sucking up the best and the brightest. Rabbi Shlomo was on the march, a pied piper in search of Jewish souls. To staunch the hemorrhaging of Jewish young souls he introduced a new spin to Judaism, opening up new portals by which lost Jews were able to find a place at the table. He rejected ideas like “chadash asur min hatorah” and created new rhythms, a new spirit, alternative approaches, a means by which the unaffiliated, disaffected and marginalized Jews could grasp on to something that resonated with spirit and meaning.

As the Passover hagadah alludes to, every generation has the responsibility of rediscovering Judaism. For every Jew not floundering there are at least one hundred young Jews in search of their identity. The proof is in the variety of organizations that have sprung up over the past two decades like Jumpstart, Punk Torah, Mechon Hadar and magazines like Zeek and Heeb. They are definitely “chadash”. I hardly recognize their Jewish character, but for the fact that like everything Jewish, they are seething with intellectual curiosity, experimentation and the intense desire to give Jewish meaning to their lives by finding their own portals into Judaism.

I find their intellectual energy contagious and seductive, and encourage them and others to explore, test, probe and push the envelope as far as they can as long as they remain within the acceptable boundaries of a Jewish value system. The Jewish value system will mean different things to different people; Judaism is organic, fluid and malleable and that is why it has survived throughout the generations. The basic guideline however is that we define Judaism not as a religion but as a culture, as peoplehood. Our behavior has to be such that it isn’t a threat to the survival of the group. Thus to undermine the credibility of its underpinnings could bring irreversible harm to the corpus of the Jewish people. Since Judaism ought to be seen as a culture, there ought to be room for experimentation, constant probing encouraging and promoting growth and expansion in directions that enriches the community.

The reverse should to be discouraged. For example, there are those who find body art the means by which they can express their Jewishness. To negate this as a valid Jewish expression because it is forbidden in the Torah is without merit. How many mainstream Jews observe the law of shatnez? Who other than a sliver of Orthodox Jews ever heard of shatnez, let alone fulfill the commandment. Both tattoos and shatnez are forbidden, yet we don’t hear much about shatnez! Tattoos are associated with blue collar America, the déclassé, stereotyped as the art form of bums and drunken sailors or stigmatized by many of us because of the holocaust. Tattoos make a bold statement it screams out at you. To have permanently inscribed on one’s forearm the word “emunah” is not only an attention getter but also an indelible lifetime statement. Tattoos appear to be challenging and threatening to the status quo, shatnez is innocuous.

Treating Judaism, as a large tent by which we are all invited to participate in ways that are meaningful to the individual ought to be encouraged but at the same time disallow behaviors that threatened the group. So for a small minority “at the table” to promulgate questionable programs of social justice such as Rabbis for Gaza or Richard Goldstone, (author of the scathing and flawed report indicting the IDF for war crimes) ought to be censured, in the parlance and jargon of the Jewish people. They have pushed the boundaries beyond the accepted limits, crossing the scrimmage line and endangering the integrity of the Jewish people. Allowing them to continue to “sit at the table” with impunity does more harm than those young Jewish hipsters in search of meaning. I’ll bet that when the Jewish demographers did their most recent studies they neglected to log into the equation the long-term damage those seekers of social justice will do to the viability of the Jewish people.