Twinkies

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

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

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

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

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

"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

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

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.