Had anyone other than a Jew penned what I am about to write he might be referred to as an anti-Semite. There may even be people out there, referring to this essay as anti-Semitic. For a long time, I have been living with fear that the day will come when Israel will cease to be the country that I and so many millions of others know, admire and love. I have feared for a long time that the Zionist songs of the chalutzim (founding pioneers), reflecting an ethos and vision that I was weaned on would be forgotten by a new holy but indifferent generation, recalled perhaps by only a few on Yom Ha’atzmaut. I fear that eventually Israel and her citizens will morph back and regress into the “old shtetl Jew,” in spite of all those heroes that came before and dreamt of forging a new Jew, a strong, powerful and proud Israeli. I fear that all the brilliance of the “genius hayehudi” that has made universal strides in the sciences, technology, medicine, history, literature and culture contributing to the global wealth of knowledge unparalleled in human history, captivating the imagination, envy of so many, would unravel, leaving the “genius hayehudi” to degenerate and wallow in the morass of yeshiva pilpulism originally cultivated for and by Diaspora Jews with little hope for a better future. I fear that the strides Israel has made in advancing minority and women’s rights will be set back generations because of the occluded political atmosphere which has all but destroyed the matrix upon which the Zionist founding fathers dreamt. I fear that the Israeli urban centers, those galactic intellectual loci teeming and seething with intellectual rigor will retrograde back into the dessert sands upon which it was originally built together with the artificially induced fertile and fecund lands that have become the eighth wonder of the agricultural world conceptualized, designed and engineered by Israeli scientists and farmers.
All these nightmares are coming to fruition in my own lifetime, before our very eyes here and in Israel giving new meaning to the words uttered by the Egyptian leadership when they commented in Exodus 1: 8-10:
“A new king arose over Egypt, who did not know of Joseph. He said to his people ‘behold the people, the Children of Israel, are more numerous and stronger than we. Come let us outsmart it lest it become numerous and it may be that war will occur, it too, may join our enemies and wage war against us and go up from the land.’”
The traditional understanding of the text takes on new meaning when we substitute the Children of Israel for haredim. I feel today the way the ancient Egyptians felt when reviewing their security concerns. Fear that in numbers the Children of Israel would alter the way in which the Egyptians lived. Fear of numbers was at the heart of their concern that they are of a different culture and would ultimately seek to impose their values on the Egyptians. The Egyptian response was probably the expected response. It was one of self--preservation. Ultimately, the Children of Israel left Egypt and the Egyptians were able to get back to their lives without fearing a takeover by strangers. In our time it is the haredim that are proliferating exponentially creating demographic facts on the ground that will in a few short years redefine the nature and culture of the State of Israel. Democratic values will be replaced by halacha where things like tzinius and shemirat mitzvot will be the standard, expected normative behavior of every good citizen. Israeli democracy according to Benny Katzover (veteran settler leader) should be dismantled and in its place a halachic state should be established. Katzover, the past head of the NGO (non—government organization) Committee of Samaria Settlers believes that Israeli democracy is in constant conflict with its Jewish identity, thus it needs to be dismantled.
True it is a stretch to compare the situation of the Children of Israel in Egypt to that of the haredim in Israel. The Children of Israel were foreigners, outsiders in a host country. The haredim in Israel are citizens of Israel and are Jewish. However, it could be said that even though they are Jewish and citizens of Israel, they are still outsiders, rejecting the prevailing culture, and whose loyalty is not to Israel but to the god of Jewish history.
If the State of Israel does nothing, the haredi community will burst at the seams leaving a minority of traditional / secular Israelis who will have no place with Israeli society, or what’s left of it. According to current statistical extrapolations, by 2049 the haredi community will make up 40% of the population. That will be enough to vote in a haredi majority in the Knesset and to vote out democracy replacing it with a halachic system of governance. To put one’s head in the sand reasoning that by then the haredi community will have moderated and integrated themselves into Israeli society and cultural values is ridiculous. If the haredi value system and state of mind survived and even persevered through the enlightenment and haskala why would anyone assume that the benign and benevolent Israeli culture will be able to do what has never been done before?
Perhaps the Egyptians 5000 years ago knew something we have yet to learn and perhaps the only answer is to learn from history. In a speech this past week at the Herzliya Conference the Governor of Israel’s Central Bank, Stanley Fischer expressed deep concern for the proliferation of haredim and their drain on society. His message regarding this troublesome community was to stop having so many babies and start working. Rather than proposing to “outsmart them” conquering them with fear and force he suggested a wiser course “come let us put them to work” with the conviction that a path to productive lives will be mutually beneficial.
Showing posts with label haredi Judaism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label haredi Judaism. Show all posts
Monday, February 6, 2012
Monday, November 14, 2011
Hazon Ish: Visionary or Short Sighted
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.
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.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Minoritarianism
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.
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.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Ghetto in a Ghetto
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.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Mitzvot Linked to the Index
Jonathan Rosenblum wrote a follow up essay in Mishpacha “In Praise of Fiction”, September 4, 2008 on the impact of poverty in the haredi community. It isn’t difficult to understand his concern although I am less sympathetic for reasons expanded upon in my essay “Give me-I’m Entitled”, September 8, 2008.
What emerges from his essay is a striking declaration that “there is no comparing our society to that of Eastern Europe a hundred years ago”. This is a troubling statement coming from an articulate member of the haredi community. After all, the underpinnings of the haredi community is grounded on precisely the premise that they are closely and inexorably linked with those past generations and revere almost to the point of avodah zarah the Eurpean experience. Even our own rabbinic sages commented that “nitkatnu hadorot” that as we progress in time, the succeeding generations becoming smaller relative to the previous generations regarding their quality and values and shemirat mitzvoth. The point of reference is the past, a pivotal principal within the haredi community.
Europe was and has been the focal point for the haredi community and it ought not be dismissed out of convenience when confronted with disturbing social issues. Chaim Nachman Bialik in his landmark poem “haim yesh et nafshecha” addressed the phenomenom of our obsession of referencing everything to our glorious (inglorious at times) past. Harav Hutner, in the sefer “Meshulchan Gavoha”, commenting on parshat Re’eh as to why we observe a year of mourning for a parent but only a month for the loss of a child is very compelling and demonstrates our fixation on referencing our lives to past generations. Rabbi Hutner believes that the year of mourning is not so much for the parent who has passed, as much as it is for the fact that another link from Sinai has been broken – forever.
There are things we can learn from our Eastern European ancestors. Rosenblum is correct when he asserts
“formal chinuch ended for almost all boys before they ever reached bar mitzvah age, and at that point they were apprenticed out to learn a trade or start working. Torah education was an unaffordable luxury for all but the very brightest and wealthiest.”
The model sighted above (with exception of the absence of girl’s education) strikes me as one that ought to be adopted in the haredi community. A yeshiva student who doesn’t demonstrate unusual gifts of scholarship ought to be channeled into productive trade schools where they will acquire technical skills appropriate for competing in the 21st century market place, thus avoiding the scarlet letter of becoming a burden on the community. Those gifted students should be adequately prepped not only in Torah, but in leadership training to make them effective rabbinic leaders, dayanim, and community leaders.
There may be something else to be learned and borrowed from the crucible of the European experience other than a depressing dress code. They lived by a set of values and ethics that weren’t up for sale. They understood that sacrifice was necessary if one wished to live the life of a model Jew. Mesirat nefesh was a value, not to be inflated or deflated depending on the strength of the Index or the stock market. Today, a haredi, according to Rosenblum places his value in the strength of the market place. He’s more concerned with a “good shiduch” for the bachur than being true to those values that were precious to yisrael sava. Why should living a life of mitzvoth be linked to the Index? Are haredi values so cheap?
What emerges from his essay is a striking declaration that “there is no comparing our society to that of Eastern Europe a hundred years ago”. This is a troubling statement coming from an articulate member of the haredi community. After all, the underpinnings of the haredi community is grounded on precisely the premise that they are closely and inexorably linked with those past generations and revere almost to the point of avodah zarah the Eurpean experience. Even our own rabbinic sages commented that “nitkatnu hadorot” that as we progress in time, the succeeding generations becoming smaller relative to the previous generations regarding their quality and values and shemirat mitzvoth. The point of reference is the past, a pivotal principal within the haredi community.
Europe was and has been the focal point for the haredi community and it ought not be dismissed out of convenience when confronted with disturbing social issues. Chaim Nachman Bialik in his landmark poem “haim yesh et nafshecha” addressed the phenomenom of our obsession of referencing everything to our glorious (inglorious at times) past. Harav Hutner, in the sefer “Meshulchan Gavoha”, commenting on parshat Re’eh as to why we observe a year of mourning for a parent but only a month for the loss of a child is very compelling and demonstrates our fixation on referencing our lives to past generations. Rabbi Hutner believes that the year of mourning is not so much for the parent who has passed, as much as it is for the fact that another link from Sinai has been broken – forever.
There are things we can learn from our Eastern European ancestors. Rosenblum is correct when he asserts
“formal chinuch ended for almost all boys before they ever reached bar mitzvah age, and at that point they were apprenticed out to learn a trade or start working. Torah education was an unaffordable luxury for all but the very brightest and wealthiest.”
The model sighted above (with exception of the absence of girl’s education) strikes me as one that ought to be adopted in the haredi community. A yeshiva student who doesn’t demonstrate unusual gifts of scholarship ought to be channeled into productive trade schools where they will acquire technical skills appropriate for competing in the 21st century market place, thus avoiding the scarlet letter of becoming a burden on the community. Those gifted students should be adequately prepped not only in Torah, but in leadership training to make them effective rabbinic leaders, dayanim, and community leaders.
There may be something else to be learned and borrowed from the crucible of the European experience other than a depressing dress code. They lived by a set of values and ethics that weren’t up for sale. They understood that sacrifice was necessary if one wished to live the life of a model Jew. Mesirat nefesh was a value, not to be inflated or deflated depending on the strength of the Index or the stock market. Today, a haredi, according to Rosenblum places his value in the strength of the market place. He’s more concerned with a “good shiduch” for the bachur than being true to those values that were precious to yisrael sava. Why should living a life of mitzvoth be linked to the Index? Are haredi values so cheap?
Monday, September 8, 2008
Give Me – I’m Entitled
This past week two articles appeared in my in-box from two opposite ends of the social/religious/political spectrum, but triggered in me a singular pavlovian response. One article appearing in Mishpacha, a haredi weekly, entitled Can We Talk Seriously About Poverty by Jonathan Rosenblum, and the other appeared as an op-ed essay picked up by the JTA entitled Jews Justice and the Workplace by Stuart Applebaum.
While the latter article, written by the president of the Jewish Labor Committee undoubtedly isn’t haredi, the former is written by a haredi for a haredi paper. The former was written on behalf of American workers the latter written on behalf of the haredi community in Israel who spurn work, opting to spend their productive years in the study of Torah.
These two interest groups, separated by continents, mind sets, language and culture are also on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Undoubtedly, Applelbaum represents unions and is thus leaning to the left end of the political spectrum. Rosenblum’s readership is probably on the political right and socially conservative. These two groups have little in common, do not share the same values and certainly do not think in the same language – figuratively and literally. What they do have in common is a world view, a philosophy of living that “it’s coming to me”, for similar and different reasons. Union members feel that the employers “owe” them, and the haredim feel that everyone owes them because they are engaged in the study of Torah.
Entitlement has become the bane of western civilization and knows no borders, but possesses the universal language “give me – I’m entitled”. Both groups believe that they are entitled to share in a larger portion of the wealth although their contribution isn’t commensurate with their demands. Let’s take a birdseye view of each of their claims.
Applebaum claims that the employees of Rite Aid have the right to unionize and perhaps they do. The JTA however turned it into a Jewish issue by linking it to Deuteronomy 24: 14-15 “you shall not abuse a needy destitute laborer, whether a fellow Israelite or a stranger in one of the communities of your land”. The text references destitute laborers. That is a far stretch to label workers under the protection of federal and state agencies as destitute, especially when they are earning above minimum wage and have other benefits. Destitute laborers were the employees of Agriprocessors, who were allegedly physically and sexually abused, taken advantage of precisely because they were undocumented. Social justice is certainly a significant concern of the Bible, but that doesn’t necessarily assume that the Bible supports union shops. On the contrary, one can argue that union shops are counterintuitive when wishing to achieve social justice. Unions seek to get rich on the back of their members. Enriching the coffers of the union at the expense of their members is standard fare. Union demands of employers have created unrealistic economic expectations to the point where companies preferred to move overseas. In the end the only ones hurt were the employees. In other situations, employers chose to shut down rather than continue to witness the rape of their companies by unreasonable union demands. Unions have sucked the creative entrepeneuring spirit out of many because the price is too high. Fascinating, that so many unionists wanted a larger piece of the pie without assuming any additional responsibility or financial liability and certainly exhibit little or no gumption in creating their own opportunity, but content themselves with living off of others.
Living off of others is what haredim know best, other than living in the past and regurgitating inane chidushim suggested by others in past generations. Rosenblum an articulate journalist is on the wrong side of this issue. He sites government statistics that 18% of the Israelis that are living below the poverty line are haredi. The poverty he argues, is a major cause of family dysfunction, lack of shalom bayis challenging their “ehrlikheit” and ultimately negatively impacting on the prospects of good shidduchim for their children. There are, he says three solutions: greater government support; increased contributions from rich Jews from abroad – somewhat like the old chalukah; and adopting a simpler life style.
At least two of the three assume entitlement. Rosenblum admits that he doesn’t have any real solutions. What I do know is that continuing on the current path will lead to economic and social disaster for the unfortunate progeny of those determined to live off of entitlement programs. It is humiliating, diminishing ones self esteem, grinding one into the ground, with little hope for a better opportunity for one’s offspring. Acquiring skills, trades and professions is the only answer. Eliminating the idea of entitlements from their vocabulary as well as their cousins on the other end of the spectrum will be their only yehoshua.
While the latter article, written by the president of the Jewish Labor Committee undoubtedly isn’t haredi, the former is written by a haredi for a haredi paper. The former was written on behalf of American workers the latter written on behalf of the haredi community in Israel who spurn work, opting to spend their productive years in the study of Torah.
These two interest groups, separated by continents, mind sets, language and culture are also on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Undoubtedly, Applelbaum represents unions and is thus leaning to the left end of the political spectrum. Rosenblum’s readership is probably on the political right and socially conservative. These two groups have little in common, do not share the same values and certainly do not think in the same language – figuratively and literally. What they do have in common is a world view, a philosophy of living that “it’s coming to me”, for similar and different reasons. Union members feel that the employers “owe” them, and the haredim feel that everyone owes them because they are engaged in the study of Torah.
Entitlement has become the bane of western civilization and knows no borders, but possesses the universal language “give me – I’m entitled”. Both groups believe that they are entitled to share in a larger portion of the wealth although their contribution isn’t commensurate with their demands. Let’s take a birdseye view of each of their claims.
Applebaum claims that the employees of Rite Aid have the right to unionize and perhaps they do. The JTA however turned it into a Jewish issue by linking it to Deuteronomy 24: 14-15 “you shall not abuse a needy destitute laborer, whether a fellow Israelite or a stranger in one of the communities of your land”. The text references destitute laborers. That is a far stretch to label workers under the protection of federal and state agencies as destitute, especially when they are earning above minimum wage and have other benefits. Destitute laborers were the employees of Agriprocessors, who were allegedly physically and sexually abused, taken advantage of precisely because they were undocumented. Social justice is certainly a significant concern of the Bible, but that doesn’t necessarily assume that the Bible supports union shops. On the contrary, one can argue that union shops are counterintuitive when wishing to achieve social justice. Unions seek to get rich on the back of their members. Enriching the coffers of the union at the expense of their members is standard fare. Union demands of employers have created unrealistic economic expectations to the point where companies preferred to move overseas. In the end the only ones hurt were the employees. In other situations, employers chose to shut down rather than continue to witness the rape of their companies by unreasonable union demands. Unions have sucked the creative entrepeneuring spirit out of many because the price is too high. Fascinating, that so many unionists wanted a larger piece of the pie without assuming any additional responsibility or financial liability and certainly exhibit little or no gumption in creating their own opportunity, but content themselves with living off of others.
Living off of others is what haredim know best, other than living in the past and regurgitating inane chidushim suggested by others in past generations. Rosenblum an articulate journalist is on the wrong side of this issue. He sites government statistics that 18% of the Israelis that are living below the poverty line are haredi. The poverty he argues, is a major cause of family dysfunction, lack of shalom bayis challenging their “ehrlikheit” and ultimately negatively impacting on the prospects of good shidduchim for their children. There are, he says three solutions: greater government support; increased contributions from rich Jews from abroad – somewhat like the old chalukah; and adopting a simpler life style.
At least two of the three assume entitlement. Rosenblum admits that he doesn’t have any real solutions. What I do know is that continuing on the current path will lead to economic and social disaster for the unfortunate progeny of those determined to live off of entitlement programs. It is humiliating, diminishing ones self esteem, grinding one into the ground, with little hope for a better opportunity for one’s offspring. Acquiring skills, trades and professions is the only answer. Eliminating the idea of entitlements from their vocabulary as well as their cousins on the other end of the spectrum will be their only yehoshua.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Shelo Asani Isha
Recently while going to the supermarket a woman in a burka caught my eye. She wasn’t in the typical burka but the real McCoy; the kind where you are covered from head to toe in black with just eye slits. She sort of looked like a mummy. What was interesting however was the burka had style to it. Down the sleeves was a strip of glittery material and there was a slit on the side revealing what appeared to be pink slacks. Even though I couldn’t see her face or get a read on her figure I was beginning to obsess over her. And then I saw a sheitled frummie walking down an isle in her frumpy ankle length skirt and gym shoes and realized that the Muslims got it right. In both cases there is the diminution of the status of women, but the Muslims are more up-front about it. And as a result of this compulsive need to demean women these two faith communities are the less for it.
The morning bracha “shelo asani isha” said by every God fearing religious Jew has troubled me for decades. At some point on the road of my spiritual and intellectual journey I realized the misogynistic message implied in that bracha, but I still treated it as something benign, there, ever present but harmless. Sort of like yoga. When practicing yoga, one may, in the midst of an exercise be bothered by an itch or some other discomfort. We are trained to think about it for a moment, consider it and then dismiss it from our consciousness. It takes practice, but it works. So too, with my difficulty with this bracha. As in yoga, I would consider the implications and meaning for a moment while chanting the words and then dismiss it.
I’ve dismissed these words as harmless for decades. I often times found it entertaining and humorous when various keruv groups would rationalize the disparity between the bracha and western civilization’s perception of women. Western civilization has made great strides over the past century to ensure women’s full equality whether it is in politics, the work place or the corporate world. While there may still be some inequities, they are quickly disappearing. So how does a keruv rep. explain the disparity between men and women in Orthodox Judaism? They audaciously offer us a reversal of the paradigm, inverting the triangle and balancing it on its “shpitz” by insisting that women aren’t inferior – on the contrary, it is the men who are the inferior b’riya (creation). Because she is superior she isn’t obligated in certain mitzvot as men are who are in need of more control (via mitzvoth) because of their inherent flaws. Where men lack discipline women are on a higher spiritual level. This is buttressed by a letter to the editor in the Forward (August 8, 2008) where the writer comments on the separation of men and women on specific bus lines running through certain religious areas in Israel because “the community believes that the practice prevents men from occupying their minds with inappropriate ideas, thus reserving their brain power for holy subjects”. (The obsessive attention to sexual innuendo within the haredi community is a subject within itself).
One would never realize this based on the reading of Mishle (Proverbs) 31 (see my essay Her Price is Beyond Pearls). In this hymn the woman is depicted as a work horse, the meal ticket, the quintessential “sugar daddy”, so that her husband can sit in the beit midrash and “learn”. She’s glorified for this. She is praised for sacrificing her spiritual and intellectual development for her husband. The recognition she receives for her arduous work is her husband chanting this hymn to her on Friday evening after a tough week in the beit midrash.
Women in Orthodox Judaism are inferior in status to men. That is a fact. No amount of spinning will change that. No truly orthodox shul has as its president a woman. No genuinely orthodox shul employs a woman rabbi, nor would her semicha be recognized. There are no women mohels or shochtim (ritual slaughterers). If they aspire to any of these leadership positions they exist in the shadows.
This message isn’t comfortable when trying to present to the non frum world a rosy and progressive picture of yiddishkeit that comports to western values. So in order to present a more acceptable image they will provide rationalizations as was mentioned above. But why does the fifth commandment read “kabed et avecha v’et imecha” Why not reverse the order and have the mother precede the father? I am aware of the myriad interpretations, but that doesn’t change the text. The text stands as it is! Elokei Avraham, Elokei Yitzchak, V’Elokei Yaakov. What happened to the matriarchs? They were conveniently deleted. Yet they had a profound connection and understanding of God-each one in her own right! They too are in the shadows.
I’ve recognized these inconsistencies and inequities for a long time but saw it as benign and innocuous – until now.
Recently leaders of the haredi rabbinate in
So there you have it. To insult Jewish women by having them demeaned is Mehadrin. I’m sure that the Mehadrin committee of the Haredi community led by the nefarious Rabbi Yitzchak Meir Shafranovitch has another zinger in the wings: mummifying our women in burkas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
