Rabbis for Jewish Rights

Let’s get one thing straight. Judaism isn’t a religion, nor should its rabbis be viewed as priests or ministers. We are a people, with a cultural identity and value system, part of which has a religious component. If we take our text seriously one could even say that Judaism is about culture, language and borders. It isn’t faith based, but “deed”oriented. Rabbis shouldn’t present themselves as though they were Jewish ministers and priests turning the other cheek and spreading love to the world.

Rabbis were intended to be teachers, and based upon our mesorah one who had achieved the degree of Jewish knowledge and wisdom qualified for Semicha. The degree of semicha conferred on a talmid chacham assumed that apart from mastering the required knowledge base, one was also in complete and total identification with his people. Thus being a rabbi carries with it an awesome responsibility. It is more than appearing rabbinic. It is more than giving a good sermon or appearing to be politically correct.

Being a serious rabbi is about being a teacher and leader among his people. It means that you have to be able to competently read a sacred text, understand its context and be able to derive from it a lesson on how we need to conduct our lives under certain circumstances. It requires a rabbi to be a leader even when it may not be necessarily popular – even when it isn’t politically or socially correct. There are many rabbis who fit this description, but after reading Rabbi Forman’s article “Rabbis for Human Rights – the 20th Anniversary” (Jerusalem Post, August 29, 2008) he clearly isn’t one of them.

It is abundantly clear to me today that Arabs and Jews cannot live together in the same country. Jews see their manifest destiny as living in Israel with Jerusalem as its capital, and so do the Arabs. They, as us are intractable. They aren’t willing to compromise, but for some unexplainable reason the Rabbis for Human Rights are willing to compromise with the fate of the Jewish People. They preach human rights and good will towards those who wish us harm, basing it on our sacred text.

Rabbi David Forman quotes cherry picked texts to further his argument but ignores other texts as well as our history which flies in the face of everything he stands for. Yes, we ought to be an or lagoyim, a “light unto the nations”, but that doesn’t mean by inflicting pain and injury upon ourselves. Israel is a “light unto the nations”, spreading science, health, technology to the world, not to mention the abundant Jewish scholarship in our rabbinical seminaries and universities. And we are a sterling example regarding ethical behavior on the battlefield, whether it is to protect enemy civilians at the expense of our own soldiers or providing medical help to those wishing to harm us. Israel has set a moral example to the rest of the world long ago; we will trade hundreds of terrorists in exchange for returning home one chayal, dead or alive.

In view of this I was alarmed at the fact that Rabbi Forman wrote:
“In a country where Judaism is often associated with intolerant and uncompromising beliefs and actions, RHR teaches an alternative understanding of the Jewish tradition, one that emphasizes Judaism’s humanistic and universal side.”
Rabbi Forman has the idea that Judaism believes in turning the other cheek. He believes that human rights abuse is incompatible with the Jewish tradition of moral responsibility and sensitivity and the biblical concern for “the stranger in your midst The strangers that the bible is referring to are a small minority of neighbors that shouldn’t be taken advantage of, nor should they be abused; but ought to be treated with respect. But that is a far cry from what has happened in Israel. These Arabs aren’t a “stranger in our midst”; they consider us the stranger, and are intent on driving us off the land. ”. In my tradition haba l’horgecha hashkem v’hargehu, (if someone is intent on killing you, rise up and kill him first) trumps everything.

Furthermore, our prophets that he quotes so conveniently, he misunderstands. Micah and Isaiah were concerned with social injustice committed by Israelites against their own. When referring to the “stranger in their midst” they are referring to benign neighbors. Understanding him contextually he wouldn’t have preached turning the other cheek, certainly not under circumstances where our neighbors are our enemies and wish us not only harm but extinction. They do not wish to live side by side; they wish to take over the entire land that we call Israel and reduce us to the sand under their sandals. And they would achieve this if left to the yefeh nefesh and Rabbis for Human Rights.

Betwixt and Between

“Hamakom yinachem otecha betoch shaarei avelei Zion V’yerushalayim”, is the customary departing words to be said when leaving the home of a mourner, and I thought I would leave the home of this unfortunate mourner having said them. These are powerful century old words, a formula for helping us in our desperate time of need which contextualizes death and mourning. It is a means of connecting new mourners with all the other mourners in the community of Israel, whether they are mourners of today or a thousand years ago; whether they are in America, Israel or Europe; we are all mourners. The loss of a loved one is part of the natural process, and in our community we help compensate for this loss by chanting these words as well as by the recitation of mourners kaddish. It is a formula developed over the centuries by our people to help and aid us get through the loss of loved ones. But on second thought I decided that here, in this particular house of mourning it was out of place. Besides, I felt queasy about uttering these emotionally laden words in the environment that I found myself in.

That was a few weeks ago. Fast forward three weeks. I was invited to the same house, this time for an engagement party. Greeting me at the door were the parents of the chatan. By this time I had almost forgotten that he, the father of the groom was a mourner. He appeared at the door with a bearded face which took me by surprise. Jokingly I commented to him that the three weeks hadn’t yet begun and that he was obviously a bit premature. He had no idea what I was talking about but had an honest rejoinder. He said he was observing shloshim and therefore, didn’t shave. Reflecting quickly back on that evening I was in his home to visit him as a mourner I couldn’t help but chuckle, thinking he was joking. Beside, if he was in shloshim, why was he hosting a party?

He appeared insulted by my callous reaction. Sensing it, I explained that when I entered his house when he was “sitting shiva” it was as lively and festive as the engagement party, something akin to an Irish wake. It had all the markings of a Bar Mitzvah reception, minus the hard alcohol, however there was wine being offered. So I explained to him my difficulty in reading the cues and knowing how to act appropriately. What was most disarming was the fact that no one else felt as I did with the exception of one elderly gentlemen who called me after the visitation and asked me if that was an appropriate Jewish display of mourning.

Had someone asked me as a riddle to guess what kind of background did this person have, I would have guessed a baal teshuvah. I don’t mean to be insulting to B.T.’s but it is conceivable that they have family and perhaps friends who haven’t a clue as to how one is to behave in the Jewish house of mourning. I never would have assumed that this was the home of a chiloni Israeli. Even chilonim understand the basic customs and traditions of a Jewish home. They may not be aware of the finer detailed ritual of the holidays or the synagogue, but I would have assumed that they understood appropriate deportment in the home of a mourner. Especially those Israelis who are middle aged and were raised in “Jewish” homes – that is, parents whose roots were European.

Many will tell me that I can’t have my cake and eat it too. That I shouldn’t expect the non dati Israelis to be versed in traditional Jewish living but at the same time shun religious living. What did I expect? After all, this is what happens to a state where the “zioynim” and the “shmootznikim” have control over the educational institutions. This is what happens when people like Shulamit Aloni were allowed to be the ministers of education. This is what happens when there is no respect for yisrael saba. This is what happens when for decades it is the chilonim who run the country and set the rhythm of living in a secular environment.

Since experiencing this unfortunate conundrum I couldn’t rest. Having mulled it over many times I have come to a different conclusion than the frum naysayers who would first accuse all the chilonim and “ziyonim” for having polluted the mayanot of Torah. I believe that it is because of them we find ourselves in this kind of problem where Israelis, good people, good Jews aren’t familiar with appropriate custom, tradition and Jewish mores of behavior.

Over the decades it has been the frum community who has tried to coerce their secular countrymen into observing halachic standards which they weren’t willing to accept and for good reason. The means they used other than fascistic tactics was the gross perversion of parliamentary and democratic procedure, relying on a weak coalition in order to further their narrow and parochial interests which weren’t in the interests of the state.

Instead of offering alternative approaches of Jewish practice for those not willing to buy into a talibanesque form of Jewish living, they presented a Jewish lifestyle that was rigid, distorted doctrinaire and colorless, ultimately pushing away many secular Israelis interested in a spiritual approach to Jewish living. It was the highroad or no road. There was no possibility of compromise or finding a road that was in between the “ratzui and matzui”, the optimum and the minimum, the betwixt and between. The result isn’t good for anyone, much less the future of the Jewish people whether they be in America or Israel.