Rabbi Gil Student recently hosted a symposium on his blog Hirhurim on the “Ethics of Brain Death and Organ Donation”. I am grateful for his effort because it brought renewed focus on a very sensitive area that few of us are familiar with. The intricacies of Jewish Law, which come into play, are varied and nuanced; presenting the issues are important since ultimately we are all affected. Apparently he invited eight scholars to contribute to the discourse and after reading them it became apparent that while it was interesting, unfortunately it didn’t present any earth shattering new information in the field. Most of the participants referenced the known recognized halachic stars and poskim of the 20th-21st century, i.e. Rabbis S.Z.Auerbach, E.Waldenberg, A.Soloveitchik, Y. Elyashiv, J.D.Bleich and others. Some of the contributors were more articulate than others, none of them really zeroed in deftly on the ethical questions involved. There were two however that triggered some red flags when they slid into the area of “give-get”, but that I’ll get into later. Another concern was clarifying the real purpose and intention of the symposium. After all this has been a dead issue since at least 1986 when The Chief Rabbinate Council of Israel on Transplants ruled and again in March 2008 when a law was passed in the Knesset regarding the matter. Another disappointment in these scholars was their avoidance of ethical considerations, while relying upon halacha as though it existed in a vacuum.
My assumption is that the recent deliberations and report of the RCA Vaad Halacha, (committee on Jewish Law) on whether BSD (brain stem death) is an halachically acceptable standard regarding organ donation was what preempted the symposium. Troublesome isn’t the content of the report, but the fact that there was any need to issue a report. After all, the RCA isn’t a hareidi rabbinic organization, and has usually been in tandem with the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. I would assume that if the decision of the Chief Rabbinate going back to 1986 was to accept BSD as an halachic criteria for death than the issue ought to be laid to rest for at least that community of centrist and modern Orthodox rabbis. Oddly however was the fact that some of the respondents in the symposium were of the right wing, including Agudah apparatchiks who would never agree with the Chief Rabbinate of Israel – on anything.
The other issue I have is with the few who risked wading into the area of medical ethics and the ethical decision-making process. Frankly I was shocked at the temerity and lack of sensitivity of two of the scholars who exploited the proverbial halachic loopholes in order to benefit from the transplants while at the same time ruling that BSD can be ruled on not only as murder but double murder. Rabbi Avi Shafran, Dir. Of Public Affairs for Agudath Israel of America reasoned the following: “Can a potential recipients religious beliefs…constitute valid grounds for penalizing him…? Legally speaking, denying someone a transplant simply because joining an organ donation system would force him to dishonor his religious beliefs would…amount to curtailing his constitutional rights….”
Shafran’s ethical standard on the subject leaves something to be desired. In a society where organs are in short supply and limited, and people are asked to participate on a “give-get” basis, it would stand to reason that those who do participate ought to benefit before those who refuse to participate. No one is being coerced, and no ones religious freedoms are being trampled upon. However, the decisions we make do have consequences. Choosing to live apart, for whatever the reason, whether it is personal convictions or religious belief doesn’t entitle one to reap the same benefits as those who choose to participate and contribute. If one decides not to participate in “give-get” he ought to be prepared to forego a possible transplant, isn’t that what standing on principles really mean: to talk the talk and walk the walk. The ethics of “give-get” become even more convincing when we also consider the normative halachic practice in Israel where BSD is an accepted clinical criterion of declaring someone dead. In spite of the responsible and sagacious advise of the Chief Rabbinate, if one decides to choose to listen to his local rabbi and opt for the heartbeat criteria instead of BSD, the consequence ought to be clear.
Heartening was the revelation that there were some excellent contributors to the symposium where their input helped clarify some of the issues. Disheartening was the fact that there are still those out there that can’t accept direction, leadership and cues from the established and recognized weighty rabbinical courts in Israel that reflect the consensus of the mainstream rabbinate and the backing of the Knesset and majority of Jews. The missed opportunity of fulfilling Isaiah’s words of Ki Mitzion Tezeh Torah (Isaiah 2:3); their application in real time, here and now is disappointing. Disheartening, of course are those participants who while they are seen as poskim haven’t honed and refined one of the tools that make the difference between a good posek and a great posek: the ability to arrive at halachic decisions not only by mastering text, but by integrating their cognitive / analytical halachic skills with a sensitivity to the ethical teachings unique to living and dying Jewishly.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Monday, February 14, 2011
K’rov Yisrael: A New Hybrid
In 1984 Rueven Bulka, a well respected orthodox rabbi wrote “The Coming Cataclysm” in response to the game changer of the Reform Movement recognizing as Jews those offspring from patrilineal descent. Bulka predicted a growing chasm between those who followed matrilineal descent (as halacha dictates) and those that accepted patrilineal descent. The Jewish community would be forever fractured with a fissure so deep and so wide that it would be all but impossible to bridge. That cataclysm of which Bulka spoke never came to fruition: we are still one people (participating in the same organizational institutions that navigate Jewish communal life and advocating for Israel) with periodic adjustments made for accommodation. Most cities with a federation have a board of rabbis whereby the Orthodox rabbis participate alongside the Reform Conservative and Reconstructionist for the common good and welfare of the Jewish community, patrilineal Jews not excluded (some of these rabbis may not even be halacically Jewish). From their point of view the Reform Movement’s decision was smart and justifiable. Concerned with increasing intermarriage and dwindling synagogue membership and participation they sought ways of inclusion. The patrilineal option seemed the way to go. That, together with proactive programs and an agenda of inclusion and out reach to the intermarried might staunch the bleed.
Apparently the hemorrhaging in the liberal community hasn’t been cauterized, even with the seemingly extreme maneuver of instituting patrilineal descent; on the contrary, it’s intensified. While not accepting patrilineal descent the Conservative Movement has hit on a somewhat unique and creative response to dwindling membership: the creation of a hybrid Jew known as a K’rov Yisrael. The K’rov Yisrael is somewhat of an avatar: a shadow figure. He has the perks of being married to a Jew without any of the responsibilities incumbent on a Jew. He’s got the best of both worlds: a shadow like figure he can phase in and out depending on the circumstances. Like a chameleon there are times when he will pass as Jewish and other times morphs back into the gentile. The K’rov is a gentile married to a Jew, having opted not to convert yet desiring to take advantage of and participate n the full life of the Jewish community. He has no halachic status: he is a gentile with no claims of Jewish descent either from the mother or father. He isn’t a crypto Jew, claiming Jewish-Spanish descent. He is a gentile married to a Jew, who when desires, can attend services and receive the honors associated, such as aliya latorah and other honorifics.
My initial reaction was to negate this initiative, considering it a worse “fix” than Reform’s patrilineal descent approach. Patrilineal descent initially seemed a greater threat to the integrity of the Jewish community because it tended to shade the legitimate halachic identity of Jews. Belonging to a reform Jewish community and intensely living the Jewish life with a Jewish father but gentile mother would blur the identity: he could “pass.” The K’rov, on the other hand makes no claim of being Jewish. However, his association, presence and participation gives the distinct impression that the person is Jewish. Apart from that, creating the category of K’rov sends a clear message that one doesn’t have to convert. Why go through the effort (and difficulties, including emotional distress) of conversion if one could opt for the status of K’rov? On the other hand, intermarriage with or without conversion is an accepted fact of Jewish life and no initiative will staunch the hemorrhaging of the community, and no matter what initiative the liberal community takes the issue will not go away nor will it be solved.
How we as a people welcome the intermarried will ultimately be a testimonial as to what kind of people we are. Pondering these issues, seeking some guidance I am reminded of three famous test cases that distills the essence of the issue: religion versus peoplehood. Brother Daniel, Benjamin Shalit and Shoshan Miller. While these three case refer to the Israeli Judicial system they nevertheless hone in on the issue that confronts what being a Jew means today: religion or peoplehood. In the 1960’s Benjamin Shalit, an Israeli married a non-Jewish Scottish woman. The children were recognized as Israeli, however Shalit wanted their identity cards to say “Jewish” for nationality but left blank for religion. The Ministry of Interior denied the request, however the Supreme Court ruled in Shalit’s favor: the children of a gentile mother and Jewish father were rendered Jewish. The court made a distinction between peoplehood and religion (the Law of Return unfortunately was subsequently amended to avoid this situation in the future).
If we separate our personal passions from the issue it might seem reasonable to allow this new hybrid Jew an opportunity to thrive. While the avatar doesn’t seek conversion the K’rov nevertheless demonstrates full association and identification with the Jewish community as Ruth the Moabite did. It won’t staunch the bleed but it might facilitate the integration of well-intentioned people into the Jewish community.
Signing on, as most of us have to a reasonably enlightened political/social philosophy and liberal life style has within it, unfortunately, the seeds of destruction. American Jews tend to be liberal in their weltanschauung. To be liberal is to be accepting. To be liberal is to be educated and open to new and fresh ideas. To be liberal is to allow others to learn more about who we are and what we are. Ultimately this leads to full integration, assimilation and intermarriage, not only of the liberal community but also the orthodox community. It is an unavoidable by product of being an educated Jewish American.
Apparently the hemorrhaging in the liberal community hasn’t been cauterized, even with the seemingly extreme maneuver of instituting patrilineal descent; on the contrary, it’s intensified. While not accepting patrilineal descent the Conservative Movement has hit on a somewhat unique and creative response to dwindling membership: the creation of a hybrid Jew known as a K’rov Yisrael. The K’rov Yisrael is somewhat of an avatar: a shadow figure. He has the perks of being married to a Jew without any of the responsibilities incumbent on a Jew. He’s got the best of both worlds: a shadow like figure he can phase in and out depending on the circumstances. Like a chameleon there are times when he will pass as Jewish and other times morphs back into the gentile. The K’rov is a gentile married to a Jew, having opted not to convert yet desiring to take advantage of and participate n the full life of the Jewish community. He has no halachic status: he is a gentile with no claims of Jewish descent either from the mother or father. He isn’t a crypto Jew, claiming Jewish-Spanish descent. He is a gentile married to a Jew, who when desires, can attend services and receive the honors associated, such as aliya latorah and other honorifics.
My initial reaction was to negate this initiative, considering it a worse “fix” than Reform’s patrilineal descent approach. Patrilineal descent initially seemed a greater threat to the integrity of the Jewish community because it tended to shade the legitimate halachic identity of Jews. Belonging to a reform Jewish community and intensely living the Jewish life with a Jewish father but gentile mother would blur the identity: he could “pass.” The K’rov, on the other hand makes no claim of being Jewish. However, his association, presence and participation gives the distinct impression that the person is Jewish. Apart from that, creating the category of K’rov sends a clear message that one doesn’t have to convert. Why go through the effort (and difficulties, including emotional distress) of conversion if one could opt for the status of K’rov? On the other hand, intermarriage with or without conversion is an accepted fact of Jewish life and no initiative will staunch the hemorrhaging of the community, and no matter what initiative the liberal community takes the issue will not go away nor will it be solved.
How we as a people welcome the intermarried will ultimately be a testimonial as to what kind of people we are. Pondering these issues, seeking some guidance I am reminded of three famous test cases that distills the essence of the issue: religion versus peoplehood. Brother Daniel, Benjamin Shalit and Shoshan Miller. While these three case refer to the Israeli Judicial system they nevertheless hone in on the issue that confronts what being a Jew means today: religion or peoplehood. In the 1960’s Benjamin Shalit, an Israeli married a non-Jewish Scottish woman. The children were recognized as Israeli, however Shalit wanted their identity cards to say “Jewish” for nationality but left blank for religion. The Ministry of Interior denied the request, however the Supreme Court ruled in Shalit’s favor: the children of a gentile mother and Jewish father were rendered Jewish. The court made a distinction between peoplehood and religion (the Law of Return unfortunately was subsequently amended to avoid this situation in the future).
If we separate our personal passions from the issue it might seem reasonable to allow this new hybrid Jew an opportunity to thrive. While the avatar doesn’t seek conversion the K’rov nevertheless demonstrates full association and identification with the Jewish community as Ruth the Moabite did. It won’t staunch the bleed but it might facilitate the integration of well-intentioned people into the Jewish community.
Signing on, as most of us have to a reasonably enlightened political/social philosophy and liberal life style has within it, unfortunately, the seeds of destruction. American Jews tend to be liberal in their weltanschauung. To be liberal is to be accepting. To be liberal is to be educated and open to new and fresh ideas. To be liberal is to allow others to learn more about who we are and what we are. Ultimately this leads to full integration, assimilation and intermarriage, not only of the liberal community but also the orthodox community. It is an unavoidable by product of being an educated Jewish American.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Men at Their Best
Man at His Best was the title of an essay I wrote about a year ago reflecting on the depleted presence of men in Reform pews. The feminization of Jewish life has either neutered men or driven them to other safe harbors. It is the very same reason why hareidi men in Jerusalem are vociferous, aggressive and verbally abusive when it comes to the touchy subject of women prayer services (minyanim) at the wall. Religious ritual at the synagogue or the “kotel” happens to be the last bastion, the Jewish man’s last stand, and his last frontier where he can be a man. He really has no other place to go. Now, a study has come out on the status of Jewish men in the Conservative/ Masorati movement.
In this particular study certain assumptions were made which are disturbing. For one thing, the study underscores the positive outcomes resulting from the feminization of the Conservative movement, referring to themselves now as gender balanced or egalitarian. This study rejects the premise that men resisted this new “world order”. Had they objected the study asks why is it that these men didn’t fight back, thus concluding, “if men are becoming less visible…it must be for other reasons”. The author of the study misses the point. They didn’t fight back because they weren’t able to exercise their rights. They were neutered long before they were married, most likely by their mothers at the same time that they were circumcised by the mohel. Jewish men have been programmed to be more “sensitive”, more “compassionate” and less aggressive. In short the liberal agenda filtered down to the Jewish family, making it politically incorrect to assume a stance not consistent with liberal values and politics.
Another erroneous assumption made by the author is that men absent themselves from synagogue because of their “religious incompetence”. If men, the study suggests, are given the appropriate “tools” this too can change. The author oddly likens the unschooled Jewish male to an unprepared hunter about to forage in the woods for a kill. Before going out on the hunt the hunter has to check his list of tools (the author never refers to these tools as weapons). Fascinating it is, that the author compares the Jewish man to the hunter, which is odd, since Jewish men traditionally have never been hunters and almost runs counterintuitive to our Jewish DNA. We don’t hunt for sport (against Jewish law – tsar l’baalei chaim and bal tashchit), and reluctantly for sustenance since we were meant to be vegetarians.
One could even make the case that the author of this study seems to be subconsciously struggling with the degree of potency of his “male” identity and thus, not surprisingly chose the hunter as his metaphor. The hunter, in Jewish lore is the quintessential Esau, decried and discredited in the Bible as cunning, wily, aggressive, fearless and takes what he wants. This is the polar opposite of the early paradigmatic version of Jacob, understood as the delicate, sensitive spiritual figure decidedly scholarly, effeminate and dependent on others for physical sustenance.
No matter how many studies come out, the end result will be the same: the feminization of Judaism has led to the neutering of men driving him out from his place of gathering, his natural habitat, the beit kenesset (beit midrash). They have become passive aggressive, as manifested by their absence in the synagogue as well as other programs sponsored by the community. Hareidi men must hold out and keep at bay the feminization of their cultural enclave, the last frontier of the Jewish male. They are the last male Jewish hope.
In this particular study certain assumptions were made which are disturbing. For one thing, the study underscores the positive outcomes resulting from the feminization of the Conservative movement, referring to themselves now as gender balanced or egalitarian. This study rejects the premise that men resisted this new “world order”. Had they objected the study asks why is it that these men didn’t fight back, thus concluding, “if men are becoming less visible…it must be for other reasons”. The author of the study misses the point. They didn’t fight back because they weren’t able to exercise their rights. They were neutered long before they were married, most likely by their mothers at the same time that they were circumcised by the mohel. Jewish men have been programmed to be more “sensitive”, more “compassionate” and less aggressive. In short the liberal agenda filtered down to the Jewish family, making it politically incorrect to assume a stance not consistent with liberal values and politics.
Another erroneous assumption made by the author is that men absent themselves from synagogue because of their “religious incompetence”. If men, the study suggests, are given the appropriate “tools” this too can change. The author oddly likens the unschooled Jewish male to an unprepared hunter about to forage in the woods for a kill. Before going out on the hunt the hunter has to check his list of tools (the author never refers to these tools as weapons). Fascinating it is, that the author compares the Jewish man to the hunter, which is odd, since Jewish men traditionally have never been hunters and almost runs counterintuitive to our Jewish DNA. We don’t hunt for sport (against Jewish law – tsar l’baalei chaim and bal tashchit), and reluctantly for sustenance since we were meant to be vegetarians.
One could even make the case that the author of this study seems to be subconsciously struggling with the degree of potency of his “male” identity and thus, not surprisingly chose the hunter as his metaphor. The hunter, in Jewish lore is the quintessential Esau, decried and discredited in the Bible as cunning, wily, aggressive, fearless and takes what he wants. This is the polar opposite of the early paradigmatic version of Jacob, understood as the delicate, sensitive spiritual figure decidedly scholarly, effeminate and dependent on others for physical sustenance.
No matter how many studies come out, the end result will be the same: the feminization of Judaism has led to the neutering of men driving him out from his place of gathering, his natural habitat, the beit kenesset (beit midrash). They have become passive aggressive, as manifested by their absence in the synagogue as well as other programs sponsored by the community. Hareidi men must hold out and keep at bay the feminization of their cultural enclave, the last frontier of the Jewish male. They are the last male Jewish hope.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Mixed Messages
Guilt is an awful thing to bear. Sexual guilt is worse. Sexual guilt among adolescence in Israel was the subject of a recent study under the auspices of Bar Ilan University and presented at a conference on “Challenges in Jewish Education”. Imagine: a conference was held in 2011 about a subject that was beaten to death in the 1960’s and 70’s. Novel perhaps about this conference was the focus on the orthodox community. Apparently orthodox youth may be sexually conflicted and repressed. Apropos, when I was in high school, preference was to go out with girls from Bais Yaakov without of course the knowledge or permission of their parents. In retrospect it would appear that they must have been profoundly conflicted, but it never occurred to us when “in the moment”. The depth of conflict and the psychological stress was and still remains beyond my comprehension. This study certainly is revealing.
Disturbing were some of the observations underscored at the conference regarding the attitudes of adolescence to sex. For example researchers discovered that orthodox youth were disgusted by “porn” believing that god didn’t create people for their bodies to be on display, which although is a silly argument (by the same token I can argue that if god intended men to be circumcised we would have been born that way) reveals deep seated issues as expressed in their conflicts: being passionately and inexorably pulled to and attracted to natural sex, but feeling guilty about those lustful feelings.
None of this is surprising to me. It isn’t my intention to be dismissive of this community or treat them in a cavalier manner. However one of the glaring problems with this segment of the Jewish community are the mixed messages that the adolescent community receives from their parents and community. On any given Shabbat one can readily see these young adolescent girls in their shabbes best: decked out in suggestive outfits, spiked heels and coiffed like upscale call girls. You have to wonder how in the world did their parents let them step out of the house like that, unless of course they approve, which means they are enabling them and thus reinforcing the mixed message. A few years ago I posted an essay on the thrill of attending a frum wedding. The exaggerated smorgasbord was barely outdone by the over the top parade of nubile eligible (and not so eligible) women sauntering through the smorgasbord as though they were there on display and in competition with the roast beef.
Another unfortunate mixed message has begun to emerge from none other than the ultra orthodox spiritual leadership: the rabbinic establishment, which has recently begun to permit elective plastic, cosmetic surgery such as nose jobs, breast enhancement, tummy tuck, buttocks lift, liposuction etc. Hitherto it was the opinion of the ultra orthodox rabbinate that there was no need to improve upon god’s handiwork. Apparently chanting “eshes chayil” to an unflattering nose or underdeveloped bosom was inappropriate to many within the community. The rabbis, in their dubious wisdom modified their previous p’sak to now assume that god’s handiwork may be improved upon by a nip and tuck here and there. So this new and improved mother of thirty something transmorphing into a “Barbie” albeit with a sheitel, has now become the new and improved version of the “eshes chayil”, a woman of valor and the new role model for her nubile adolescent daughter.
Not surprisingly there is yet a new phenomenon among our young orthodox girls: eating disorders. In 1996 Dr. Ira Sacker studied ultra orthodox women and found that 1 out of 19 in his Brooklyn sampling had an eating disorder:
“Experts say the orthodox community is sending mixed messages to young women. Parents, matchmakers and potential mates want a svelte bride, but may shun a woman who divulged she has an eating disorder because of the stigma of mental illness. For arranged marriages among the ultra orthodox, the first question matchmakers ask is about physical appearance, including weight and the mother’s weight, which feeds the message that thinner brides are now more desirable, said Dr. Ira Sacker…”
It makes one wonder what the face of the ultra orthodox community will look like in another generation. After all, it is to the ”eshes chayil” the pillar of the Jewish family that we all look up to in holding together the values of “yisroel saba”. This study is indicative that they have embarked on a slippery slope and the matchmakers that Dr. Sacker referenced doesn’t help but rather hinders. Perhaps these ultra orthodox families ought to consider jdate.com or frumster.com or other social networking sites as alternatives to these misguided matchmakers. It makes you wonder if Mark Zuckerberg got it right when he developed face book?
Disturbing were some of the observations underscored at the conference regarding the attitudes of adolescence to sex. For example researchers discovered that orthodox youth were disgusted by “porn” believing that god didn’t create people for their bodies to be on display, which although is a silly argument (by the same token I can argue that if god intended men to be circumcised we would have been born that way) reveals deep seated issues as expressed in their conflicts: being passionately and inexorably pulled to and attracted to natural sex, but feeling guilty about those lustful feelings.
None of this is surprising to me. It isn’t my intention to be dismissive of this community or treat them in a cavalier manner. However one of the glaring problems with this segment of the Jewish community are the mixed messages that the adolescent community receives from their parents and community. On any given Shabbat one can readily see these young adolescent girls in their shabbes best: decked out in suggestive outfits, spiked heels and coiffed like upscale call girls. You have to wonder how in the world did their parents let them step out of the house like that, unless of course they approve, which means they are enabling them and thus reinforcing the mixed message. A few years ago I posted an essay on the thrill of attending a frum wedding. The exaggerated smorgasbord was barely outdone by the over the top parade of nubile eligible (and not so eligible) women sauntering through the smorgasbord as though they were there on display and in competition with the roast beef.
Another unfortunate mixed message has begun to emerge from none other than the ultra orthodox spiritual leadership: the rabbinic establishment, which has recently begun to permit elective plastic, cosmetic surgery such as nose jobs, breast enhancement, tummy tuck, buttocks lift, liposuction etc. Hitherto it was the opinion of the ultra orthodox rabbinate that there was no need to improve upon god’s handiwork. Apparently chanting “eshes chayil” to an unflattering nose or underdeveloped bosom was inappropriate to many within the community. The rabbis, in their dubious wisdom modified their previous p’sak to now assume that god’s handiwork may be improved upon by a nip and tuck here and there. So this new and improved mother of thirty something transmorphing into a “Barbie” albeit with a sheitel, has now become the new and improved version of the “eshes chayil”, a woman of valor and the new role model for her nubile adolescent daughter.
Not surprisingly there is yet a new phenomenon among our young orthodox girls: eating disorders. In 1996 Dr. Ira Sacker studied ultra orthodox women and found that 1 out of 19 in his Brooklyn sampling had an eating disorder:
“Experts say the orthodox community is sending mixed messages to young women. Parents, matchmakers and potential mates want a svelte bride, but may shun a woman who divulged she has an eating disorder because of the stigma of mental illness. For arranged marriages among the ultra orthodox, the first question matchmakers ask is about physical appearance, including weight and the mother’s weight, which feeds the message that thinner brides are now more desirable, said Dr. Ira Sacker…”
It makes one wonder what the face of the ultra orthodox community will look like in another generation. After all, it is to the ”eshes chayil” the pillar of the Jewish family that we all look up to in holding together the values of “yisroel saba”. This study is indicative that they have embarked on a slippery slope and the matchmakers that Dr. Sacker referenced doesn’t help but rather hinders. Perhaps these ultra orthodox families ought to consider jdate.com or frumster.com or other social networking sites as alternatives to these misguided matchmakers. It makes you wonder if Mark Zuckerberg got it right when he developed face book?
Monday, January 3, 2011
Generation F
The Jewish Week (Generation F, Steven Lipman, December 28, 2010) carried an interesting, thought provoking article about the generation of Jews in their 20’s and 30’s who seem to be in search of their Jewish identity. Profiling a young mother, a Park Slope resident, Sher, was interesting although nothing revealing or earth shattering struck me. As a matter of fact, not all that long ago, the young alienated Jews 70’s and 80’s, struggled with the same issues. Then as now young people, beginning their own households were in search of a direction by which their families would be defined Jewishly. Then, they were referred to as “seekers”. And they were! It was the age of the Jewish Catalogue and other self-help books on discovering Jewish traditions and how to “do” Shabbat etc. While there is nothing groundbreaking in this article it does give a new appreciation to the opening line of Ecclesiastes “ein chadsh tachat hashemesh”, there is nothing new under the sun. What is revealing is the realization that there are so many Jews out there who are still Jewish, in spite of their parent’s generation (seekers); a somewhat lost generation searching for Jewish meaning.
With all the good intentions the article is flawed. It typifies the way institutional Judaism, such as federations and the denominations understand Judaism, and how people like Sher define herself through the prism of Judaism. For Sher as for Institutional Judaism, Judaism is defined as a religion like any other religious faith based group. As those religions offer the possibility of spirituality so too is Judaism expected to do the same. Denominational rabbis, in particular the reform and conservative pattern themselves in the same way, even referring to their work as a “ministry”. Judaism however, isn’t faith based, nor is it a religion, nor is its foundations spiritual. Judaism is peoplehood and covenantal. We are a nation, which happens to have folded within it rites and ritual by which we can express our fealty to god (for those who believe in god) and community. Up through the mid 19th century Judaism was accepted and understood universally not as a religion but as a nation. The Reform movement seeking entry and acceptance to the world at large, redefined Judaism as a religion, as any other religion. By doing this, they denuded Judaism to little more than synagogue worship and ritual, and in so doing removed the thorny issue of dual loyalty from the concerns of the overall gentile community.
One doesn’t have to believe in god to be a good Jew and a pillar of the community. One doesn’t have to believe in or attend synagogue to be a good Jew and an upstanding member of the Jewish community. One only has to read nineteenth century Jewish thinkers like Simon Dubnow, Asher Ginsburg and Isaac Peretz who argued the merits of cultural Judaism as the sin qua non of Judaism. Unfortunately, people like Sher have been taught to believe that prayer (personal, private or otherwise) is the means of expressing one’s Jewishness. That simply isn’t the case! To be committed to the Jewish community and to identify with worldwide Jewry is to epitomize a wholesome Jew. To identify with the values of the Jewish community is to find expression as a Jew. To educate one’s children in the history, art, literature, Hebrew language and customs of Israel and the Jewish people is to be a committed Jew. Attending synagogue, praying in language and style that doesn’t resonate renders the worshiper restless. Praying to an objectified god as though He was in the business of doling out and calling in favors must leave one wondering if this is what Judaism is all about. Defining ones Jewishness by synagogue affiliation and membership invariably leaves one in the state of perpetual search.
The perpetuation of the myth that Judaism is a religion of faith serves no one but those directly benefiting from it: rabbis, cantors and synagogue administrators. It is no wonder that Chabad is so successful in their work: they have reduced synagogue worship and membership to one facet of living Jewishly. It is no wonder that Shlomo Carlebach z”l, in his time was so successful in generating as generation of Jews that saw and felt the larger picture. We are a people, a nation with half of us living in Israel, and the rest of us living in the Diaspora. We aren’t exclusively seekers of things spiritual, but also of things cultural, social and political. There are those seeking and not finding spirituality in Judaism turning to other practices such as eastern meditative practices, Buddhism and Hinduism. That needn’t exclude these same people from staying within the Jewish community identifying totally and wholesomely with all things Jewish.
Generation F is no different than the flower children of the 60’s and their spin-offs, the “seekers” of the 70’s and 80’s. Seeking and searching, because they had been robbed of their birthright: understanding that being Jewish was something greater than anything religion had to offer.
With all the good intentions the article is flawed. It typifies the way institutional Judaism, such as federations and the denominations understand Judaism, and how people like Sher define herself through the prism of Judaism. For Sher as for Institutional Judaism, Judaism is defined as a religion like any other religious faith based group. As those religions offer the possibility of spirituality so too is Judaism expected to do the same. Denominational rabbis, in particular the reform and conservative pattern themselves in the same way, even referring to their work as a “ministry”. Judaism however, isn’t faith based, nor is it a religion, nor is its foundations spiritual. Judaism is peoplehood and covenantal. We are a nation, which happens to have folded within it rites and ritual by which we can express our fealty to god (for those who believe in god) and community. Up through the mid 19th century Judaism was accepted and understood universally not as a religion but as a nation. The Reform movement seeking entry and acceptance to the world at large, redefined Judaism as a religion, as any other religion. By doing this, they denuded Judaism to little more than synagogue worship and ritual, and in so doing removed the thorny issue of dual loyalty from the concerns of the overall gentile community.
One doesn’t have to believe in god to be a good Jew and a pillar of the community. One doesn’t have to believe in or attend synagogue to be a good Jew and an upstanding member of the Jewish community. One only has to read nineteenth century Jewish thinkers like Simon Dubnow, Asher Ginsburg and Isaac Peretz who argued the merits of cultural Judaism as the sin qua non of Judaism. Unfortunately, people like Sher have been taught to believe that prayer (personal, private or otherwise) is the means of expressing one’s Jewishness. That simply isn’t the case! To be committed to the Jewish community and to identify with worldwide Jewry is to epitomize a wholesome Jew. To identify with the values of the Jewish community is to find expression as a Jew. To educate one’s children in the history, art, literature, Hebrew language and customs of Israel and the Jewish people is to be a committed Jew. Attending synagogue, praying in language and style that doesn’t resonate renders the worshiper restless. Praying to an objectified god as though He was in the business of doling out and calling in favors must leave one wondering if this is what Judaism is all about. Defining ones Jewishness by synagogue affiliation and membership invariably leaves one in the state of perpetual search.
The perpetuation of the myth that Judaism is a religion of faith serves no one but those directly benefiting from it: rabbis, cantors and synagogue administrators. It is no wonder that Chabad is so successful in their work: they have reduced synagogue worship and membership to one facet of living Jewishly. It is no wonder that Shlomo Carlebach z”l, in his time was so successful in generating as generation of Jews that saw and felt the larger picture. We are a people, a nation with half of us living in Israel, and the rest of us living in the Diaspora. We aren’t exclusively seekers of things spiritual, but also of things cultural, social and political. There are those seeking and not finding spirituality in Judaism turning to other practices such as eastern meditative practices, Buddhism and Hinduism. That needn’t exclude these same people from staying within the Jewish community identifying totally and wholesomely with all things Jewish.
Generation F is no different than the flower children of the 60’s and their spin-offs, the “seekers” of the 70’s and 80’s. Seeking and searching, because they had been robbed of their birthright: understanding that being Jewish was something greater than anything religion had to offer.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Asher Bochar Banu Mi’kol Ha’amim
American Jewish religious affiliation trends toward the liberal movements (reform and conservative) and politically as social progressives. This makes perfect sense because their religious institutions buttress their social progressive positions. They feel comfortable in their milieu; their synagogues are in the forefront of social action, they support the Democratic Party and naturally, critical of Israel’s approach to the peace process as well as lambasting Israel’s relationship with the Muslim community in Israel. The liberal community’s neat religious/social/political package works well for them; they feel comfortable as one of the clear articulate voices calling for social justice.
Living in the Diaspora carries with it the disturbing psychological burden of maintaining an enlightened image of Judaism, as well as a profile of Judaism that is loyal to America and American values. A Madoff makes us feel uncomfortable; a Pollard makes us cringe and a Rubashkin makes us squirm. What will the gentiles think of us now? Will they see us as greedy, with questionable loyalty and exploitative of minorities? How uncomfortable is all that? But wait, what about the forty-seven rabbis signing a statement on December 7, 2010, quoting halacha (which has no borders) that it is forbidden to rent or sell property to a non Jew (Muslim) in Israel? Ouch! Rabbis aren’t supposed to be racist or intolerant and discriminatory. It makes the liberal American Jew squirm thinking that perhaps American Orthodox rabbis buy into the same halachic standard, conjuring up images of whites not renting to blacks not that long ago.
Apparently, these enlightened American Jews aren’t necessarily aware of the blessing their children chant on their Bar/ Bat Mitzva’s and forever after when called to the Torah: “Ashe Bochar banu Mikol Ha’amim”, that we are the chosen from all the other nations. You can’t get more racist than that. But their rabbis anticipating the discomfort in chanting this unique blessing gave new meaning, new understanding to these words. We aren’t “chosen” (heaven forbid), rather we are “different” was the new spin. American liberal Jews live in a bubble, a fictitious cocoon, a make believe world, a color by number world designed by their rabbis in order to give their communities a good, warm, fuzzy feeling about being Jewish.
The Jewish experience in Israel, like mostly everything else there, isn’t sugar coated. They don’t obsess over packaging, just the message: no spin. For the preponderant orthodox Jewish community in Israel “Ashe Bachar Banu …” means exactly what it says and what it intended to say: Israel is special, we are chosen. Unlike America where every child is a winner and every one is special in Israel there are winners and losers. We are as chosen today as Isaac was chosen over Ishmael and as Jacob was chosen over Esau several thousand years ago. We do not subscribe to Replacement Theology as much as the Church would like us to, nor do the rabbis in Israel spin “Asher Bachar Banu…” as the American liberal rabbis do.
In spite of this there is something very wrong, very malevolent with the statement made by these forty-seven rabbis in citing halacha as the reason for not selling or renting to non Jews in Israel. Israel is, after all a democratic state and not governed by theology or halachic rulings. These rabbis, like so many Israelis are being influenced by the fear that the majority of Jews in Israel will be eroded in time based upon the growing birth rate among Muslims as well as the looming threat of the “right of return” of Muslims as part of a peace deal. Hearing this argument however brings to mind the halachic question of whether one may disconnect a person in a vegetative state from a life support system. The rabbis ruled that if the person is not on yet on life support, there is no obligation to put him on it, if the diagnosis is dire without hope. However once he is on life support he can’t be disconnected because then his life is actively being terminated. The analogy here is that people living in Israel, regardless of race, religion or color ought to have equal rights before the law. They all live in Israel, and a democracy ought to be free of discrimination based upon color, religion, sex or beliefs. that ought to apply to all those living within the borders of Israel. On the other hand, as a responsible government Israel is mandated and obligated to control immigration so as to insure that there is a clear majority of Jews living within its borders: thus the refusal by Israel to accede to the “right of return” for Muslims, not yet admitted into the country. However, those living in Israel must be accorded all the rights as every other citizen, including the right to live wherever they so desire.
There was a time when I reasoned that Muslims are still backward, holding on to their prejudice and intolerance because they haven’t gone through the crucible of a renaissance as we did with the rest of Europe 400 years ago. In addition we have a rich oral tradition accompanying our written law that has promoted the “Socratic method” throughout our history: hence our creativity. Disturbing however, is that our own rabbis in Israel our lagging far, far behind. And even though they have been raised on the oral tradition where creative thinking was encouraged they have not taken advantage of this tradition. As a result they are mired in the same medieval slime that our Muslim cousins are stuck in. The statement of the forty-seven rabbis is another indicator that relying upon halacha as a viable option to govern ( as so many in the religious establishment would like), would be as bad as shariya law is in Muslim countries.
Living in the Diaspora carries with it the disturbing psychological burden of maintaining an enlightened image of Judaism, as well as a profile of Judaism that is loyal to America and American values. A Madoff makes us feel uncomfortable; a Pollard makes us cringe and a Rubashkin makes us squirm. What will the gentiles think of us now? Will they see us as greedy, with questionable loyalty and exploitative of minorities? How uncomfortable is all that? But wait, what about the forty-seven rabbis signing a statement on December 7, 2010, quoting halacha (which has no borders) that it is forbidden to rent or sell property to a non Jew (Muslim) in Israel? Ouch! Rabbis aren’t supposed to be racist or intolerant and discriminatory. It makes the liberal American Jew squirm thinking that perhaps American Orthodox rabbis buy into the same halachic standard, conjuring up images of whites not renting to blacks not that long ago.
Apparently, these enlightened American Jews aren’t necessarily aware of the blessing their children chant on their Bar/ Bat Mitzva’s and forever after when called to the Torah: “Ashe Bochar banu Mikol Ha’amim”, that we are the chosen from all the other nations. You can’t get more racist than that. But their rabbis anticipating the discomfort in chanting this unique blessing gave new meaning, new understanding to these words. We aren’t “chosen” (heaven forbid), rather we are “different” was the new spin. American liberal Jews live in a bubble, a fictitious cocoon, a make believe world, a color by number world designed by their rabbis in order to give their communities a good, warm, fuzzy feeling about being Jewish.
The Jewish experience in Israel, like mostly everything else there, isn’t sugar coated. They don’t obsess over packaging, just the message: no spin. For the preponderant orthodox Jewish community in Israel “Ashe Bachar Banu …” means exactly what it says and what it intended to say: Israel is special, we are chosen. Unlike America where every child is a winner and every one is special in Israel there are winners and losers. We are as chosen today as Isaac was chosen over Ishmael and as Jacob was chosen over Esau several thousand years ago. We do not subscribe to Replacement Theology as much as the Church would like us to, nor do the rabbis in Israel spin “Asher Bachar Banu…” as the American liberal rabbis do.
In spite of this there is something very wrong, very malevolent with the statement made by these forty-seven rabbis in citing halacha as the reason for not selling or renting to non Jews in Israel. Israel is, after all a democratic state and not governed by theology or halachic rulings. These rabbis, like so many Israelis are being influenced by the fear that the majority of Jews in Israel will be eroded in time based upon the growing birth rate among Muslims as well as the looming threat of the “right of return” of Muslims as part of a peace deal. Hearing this argument however brings to mind the halachic question of whether one may disconnect a person in a vegetative state from a life support system. The rabbis ruled that if the person is not on yet on life support, there is no obligation to put him on it, if the diagnosis is dire without hope. However once he is on life support he can’t be disconnected because then his life is actively being terminated. The analogy here is that people living in Israel, regardless of race, religion or color ought to have equal rights before the law. They all live in Israel, and a democracy ought to be free of discrimination based upon color, religion, sex or beliefs. that ought to apply to all those living within the borders of Israel. On the other hand, as a responsible government Israel is mandated and obligated to control immigration so as to insure that there is a clear majority of Jews living within its borders: thus the refusal by Israel to accede to the “right of return” for Muslims, not yet admitted into the country. However, those living in Israel must be accorded all the rights as every other citizen, including the right to live wherever they so desire.
There was a time when I reasoned that Muslims are still backward, holding on to their prejudice and intolerance because they haven’t gone through the crucible of a renaissance as we did with the rest of Europe 400 years ago. In addition we have a rich oral tradition accompanying our written law that has promoted the “Socratic method” throughout our history: hence our creativity. Disturbing however, is that our own rabbis in Israel our lagging far, far behind. And even though they have been raised on the oral tradition where creative thinking was encouraged they have not taken advantage of this tradition. As a result they are mired in the same medieval slime that our Muslim cousins are stuck in. The statement of the forty-seven rabbis is another indicator that relying upon halacha as a viable option to govern ( as so many in the religious establishment would like), would be as bad as shariya law is in Muslim countries.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Keys to Gan Eden
This past week the Village Voice (December 8, 2010) published a disturbing article “How Can a Religious Person Justify Being a Slumlord”, by Elizabeth Dwoskin. She interviewed people in Jewish leadership positions in an attempt to understand the apparent oxymoron: how can one profess to be religious and yet operate slum properties. These were interviews in futility because those in the ”know” either didn’t “know” or they weren’t totally forthcoming. What I found more upsetting was the entire subject of inquiry. Why would the Village Voice find this any more of a fascination than the cutthroat pricing of the 7-11’s run by Indians? For that matter why not run an article on Muslim owned grocery stores in black neighborhoods charging usurious prices. If the Village Voice was concerned with the nature of Jewish religious practice vis a vis its affinity to shady business the thrust of the article should have been: why is it that Ultra Orthodox Jews tend to drift into shady business dealings?
There have been much worse violations of the law by the ultra orthodox community than operating slum properties. Truth be told and while not defending these slum operating, so-called “religious Jews” I can imagine that they are caught between a rock and a hard place. Tenants in New York can do no wrong in the eyes of the law and if they do, it is virtually impossible to evict them from an apartment. Paying rent is almost unheard of in many of these apartment buildings. Judges aren’t wont to evict them, especially if children are involved, the elderly or winter. Yet, the municipal government expects the owner to keep the building in prime condition well heated in the winter even when rents haven’t been paid in months and where windows are left open in the winter. Tenants know how to work the system. If something is remiss they hotline the appropriate agency even though they are sorely delinquent in paying rent and the owner is cited with a building code violation. So the Village Voice article really isn’t balanced nor is its basic premise correct if based upon the inner workings of inner city slum properties. So the real question remains as stated earlier: why is it that Ultra Orthodox Jews tend to drift into shady business dealings?
There are physicians from the ultra orthodox community who while practicing their craft have the compulsive need to defraud the Medicare system. There are those like Rubashkin who rather than run a legal, profitable business break the laws for purposes of enrichment. And of course there are many ultra orthodox Jews who are in the Nursing Care business who have been under investigation for Medicare/Medicaid fraud. There are ultra orthodox Jews who have violated the trust off their own communities by disguising non kosher meats as kosher knowing full well that the products they were selling were non kosher. There are roshei yeshivot who have scammed the government out of money by inflating student census.
What all the above have in common is a fundamental disregard of the law (civil) by the ultra orthodox community whenever and wherever possible. Violation of trust doesn’t seem to be a moral issue within the community and the question is why. Many of the ultra orthodox Jews are not necessarily religious by commonly held societal definitions. The average Jew would be considered religious if he practiced mitzvoth ben adam lamakom (between man and god; ritual) and mitzvot bein adam lechavero (between man and man; civil). A Jew who dons a black hat and wears a beard is automatically assumed to be this kind of Jew, minimally. That of course is wrong. Just because someone wears a kapote or wraps a gartel around his waste at prayers doesn’t make him religious, nor does a woman wearing a sheitel make her religious as the Heidi-Mendy appearance in People’s Court will attest. What it states is that they are meticulous and sometimes compulsive about ritual.
Appearances are very important in this community because it is the community that provides emotional, social and financial support of its members from the cradle to the grave. Being in good standing with the community will determine whom you marry and whom your children marry. They can be the least scrupulous outside their community because at the core they really aren’t religious, but they must give the appearance if they want to reap the benefits of their community.
Community and belonging is the lifeline to this segment of the Jewish community. Being rejected is like being ejected from the Garden of Eden. Belonging is everything. The toddler is raised on the myths, folklore and history of the Jewish people as well as that of the micro community one’s ancestry came from. Everything else is outside their interest, purview and experience. Their schools and yeshivot reinforce those sentiments, as does the rigid life at home, resulting in the phenomenon of being alienated from the world outside the ghetto. To this community, the “other” is an outsider. That is why the Bet Din of Crown Heights ordered its Lubavitch followers not to talk to outsiders about crime: “no one shall bring to any media…information…that would lead to an investigation…by a law enforcement agency….” To the ultra orthodox, they are not only the outsiders, but the ultra orthodox are the chosen to the exclusion of everyone else. To many of this community the gentile was created to serve them and to help them fulfill god’s law, even if it as the expense of the gentile! In this sense they aren’t operating with the same value system that everyone else is.
Perhaps this was the rational for Heidi and Mendy, described as frum people trying to rob a poor dry cleaner appearing in People’s Court for allegedly ruining her $3000.00 sheitel. To them being religious is to punctiliously follow ritual. Ritual is sort of like a formula. There doesn’t have to be rhyme or reason; you just have to do what is commanded to do by force of divine history and ancestry. In their perverse idea of religion you don’t have to be honest, you have to follow the magic formula. One can even cheat the gentile system since they (gentile) were created to serve the Jews. Performance of the formula is your guarantee for reaping rewards. Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz, president of Uri L’ Tzedek (and who was quoted in the Village Voice article cited above) commented on the “Sheitl” scandal by commenting that it was a chilul hashem because the story was broadcast on national television. His reaction leads one to speculate that if it hadn’t been broadcast on national television it may have been swept under the carpet. However to Rabbi Yanklowitz’s credit he does question the values taught in yeshivot whereby mitzvot ben adam lamakom (between man and god; ritual) are emphasized and fails to internalize the mitzvoth ben adam lechavero (between man and man; civil): “Our kehilla has a serious problem…we can all be better about how we treat non-Jews in business…But even further we must watch every move we make. If we are given an extra coin at the register, as frum Jews we must return it. In business we must act honestly in all cases….If we don’t clean up our act, our kehilla is going to continue to be a source of …embarrassment… and chillul hashem.” His statement leaves one to conjecture if the motivation for treating people honestly is for altruistic or ulterior motives.
In western faith religions, the whole point of being religious is to be closer to God, to have a relationship with Him. This of course is predicated on respecting His creations. Dishonoring man is to dishonor God. To do so would indicate a disconnect between the so-called religious person and his behavior. There is no dissonance in the ultra orthodox community because their understanding of religion is different. Important to them are the rituals; it mechanics and formulae which are the keys to getting back into Gan Eden.
There have been much worse violations of the law by the ultra orthodox community than operating slum properties. Truth be told and while not defending these slum operating, so-called “religious Jews” I can imagine that they are caught between a rock and a hard place. Tenants in New York can do no wrong in the eyes of the law and if they do, it is virtually impossible to evict them from an apartment. Paying rent is almost unheard of in many of these apartment buildings. Judges aren’t wont to evict them, especially if children are involved, the elderly or winter. Yet, the municipal government expects the owner to keep the building in prime condition well heated in the winter even when rents haven’t been paid in months and where windows are left open in the winter. Tenants know how to work the system. If something is remiss they hotline the appropriate agency even though they are sorely delinquent in paying rent and the owner is cited with a building code violation. So the Village Voice article really isn’t balanced nor is its basic premise correct if based upon the inner workings of inner city slum properties. So the real question remains as stated earlier: why is it that Ultra Orthodox Jews tend to drift into shady business dealings?
There are physicians from the ultra orthodox community who while practicing their craft have the compulsive need to defraud the Medicare system. There are those like Rubashkin who rather than run a legal, profitable business break the laws for purposes of enrichment. And of course there are many ultra orthodox Jews who are in the Nursing Care business who have been under investigation for Medicare/Medicaid fraud. There are ultra orthodox Jews who have violated the trust off their own communities by disguising non kosher meats as kosher knowing full well that the products they were selling were non kosher. There are roshei yeshivot who have scammed the government out of money by inflating student census.
What all the above have in common is a fundamental disregard of the law (civil) by the ultra orthodox community whenever and wherever possible. Violation of trust doesn’t seem to be a moral issue within the community and the question is why. Many of the ultra orthodox Jews are not necessarily religious by commonly held societal definitions. The average Jew would be considered religious if he practiced mitzvoth ben adam lamakom (between man and god; ritual) and mitzvot bein adam lechavero (between man and man; civil). A Jew who dons a black hat and wears a beard is automatically assumed to be this kind of Jew, minimally. That of course is wrong. Just because someone wears a kapote or wraps a gartel around his waste at prayers doesn’t make him religious, nor does a woman wearing a sheitel make her religious as the Heidi-Mendy appearance in People’s Court will attest. What it states is that they are meticulous and sometimes compulsive about ritual.
Appearances are very important in this community because it is the community that provides emotional, social and financial support of its members from the cradle to the grave. Being in good standing with the community will determine whom you marry and whom your children marry. They can be the least scrupulous outside their community because at the core they really aren’t religious, but they must give the appearance if they want to reap the benefits of their community.
Community and belonging is the lifeline to this segment of the Jewish community. Being rejected is like being ejected from the Garden of Eden. Belonging is everything. The toddler is raised on the myths, folklore and history of the Jewish people as well as that of the micro community one’s ancestry came from. Everything else is outside their interest, purview and experience. Their schools and yeshivot reinforce those sentiments, as does the rigid life at home, resulting in the phenomenon of being alienated from the world outside the ghetto. To this community, the “other” is an outsider. That is why the Bet Din of Crown Heights ordered its Lubavitch followers not to talk to outsiders about crime: “no one shall bring to any media…information…that would lead to an investigation…by a law enforcement agency….” To the ultra orthodox, they are not only the outsiders, but the ultra orthodox are the chosen to the exclusion of everyone else. To many of this community the gentile was created to serve them and to help them fulfill god’s law, even if it as the expense of the gentile! In this sense they aren’t operating with the same value system that everyone else is.
Perhaps this was the rational for Heidi and Mendy, described as frum people trying to rob a poor dry cleaner appearing in People’s Court for allegedly ruining her $3000.00 sheitel. To them being religious is to punctiliously follow ritual. Ritual is sort of like a formula. There doesn’t have to be rhyme or reason; you just have to do what is commanded to do by force of divine history and ancestry. In their perverse idea of religion you don’t have to be honest, you have to follow the magic formula. One can even cheat the gentile system since they (gentile) were created to serve the Jews. Performance of the formula is your guarantee for reaping rewards. Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz, president of Uri L’ Tzedek (and who was quoted in the Village Voice article cited above) commented on the “Sheitl” scandal by commenting that it was a chilul hashem because the story was broadcast on national television. His reaction leads one to speculate that if it hadn’t been broadcast on national television it may have been swept under the carpet. However to Rabbi Yanklowitz’s credit he does question the values taught in yeshivot whereby mitzvot ben adam lamakom (between man and god; ritual) are emphasized and fails to internalize the mitzvoth ben adam lechavero (between man and man; civil): “Our kehilla has a serious problem…we can all be better about how we treat non-Jews in business…But even further we must watch every move we make. If we are given an extra coin at the register, as frum Jews we must return it. In business we must act honestly in all cases….If we don’t clean up our act, our kehilla is going to continue to be a source of …embarrassment… and chillul hashem.” His statement leaves one to conjecture if the motivation for treating people honestly is for altruistic or ulterior motives.
In western faith religions, the whole point of being religious is to be closer to God, to have a relationship with Him. This of course is predicated on respecting His creations. Dishonoring man is to dishonor God. To do so would indicate a disconnect between the so-called religious person and his behavior. There is no dissonance in the ultra orthodox community because their understanding of religion is different. Important to them are the rituals; it mechanics and formulae which are the keys to getting back into Gan Eden.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Mashiv Haruach U’Moreed Hageshem
Prayer is one of the most ubiquitous practices we find in society but it is also the most misunderstood and malpracticed. Over the past several months I have followed the attempts of religious practitioners in Israel pray for the much-needed rain in Israel. The drought has been plaguing Israel for the last eight months and this past week, tragic and deadly fires raged in the Carmel, no doubt more damaging and ferocious because of the eight month drought. Religious practitioners have become so frustrated with the lack of results from the conventional prayers of “mashiv haruach u’moreed hageshem” that they have resorted to creative tactics such as interdenominational services with ministers and imams organized by Rabbi Menachem Froman of Tekoa. When that didn’t yield results Rabbis Menashe Malka and Reuven Deri went up on a hot air balloon to deliver prayers, as though God was hard of hearing and approaching the upper atmosphere might get His attention. It also assumed an objectified god, a god of Job proportions scheming alone or with ministering angels “up there” somewhere. When that didn’t work, world Bnei Akiva emissaries in 30 countries inserted into the liturgy a special prayer for rain by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel.
What all these and other attempts have in common is the misconceived notion that God is out there somewhere waiting to be beseeched in order to dole out favors at will. All you have to do is hit on the right formula at the right moment and presto, walla, your prayers will be answered. It is based on the assumption that god in the tradition of Job is the “grand puppeteer” manipulating humans at will for some cosmic satisfaction and it is up to us to beseech God into granting us a reprieve. This approach to God assumes that He isn’t omniscient, otherwise why would we have to ask Him for favors. Surely He knows that there is a drought. It also assumes that God plays favorites. After all there is a decades long drought in Africa and there are on going chronic droughts in parts of Asia as well. Why wouldn’t he help his children there, if the assumption were that if “one asks one gets”. This approach to God, this kind of prayer and its practitioners remind me of the classic medicine man of the North American Indian tribes, who performed a rain dance with special incantations and ritual as intercessors to the spirits in order that it rain.
Jewish prayer is different than that, it ought to be different than that. In its original form, prayer is not asking God for anything; it is not a request. It is as Eliezer Berkovitz wrote, “a cry, an elementary outburst of woe; a spontaneous call in need. It is a call of helplessness to God. So man brings his sorrow before God, knowing perhaps that although God isn’t changing his circumstances he needs the reassurance of His love and that He is near”. This is the essence of prayer. Interpreting the words of David “I pour out my complaint to Him, I declare before Him my trouble” the midrash comments “thus the men of faith declare their troubles before God”. To pour out one’s trouble before God means simply to tell God about one’s troubles; to make God the confidant of one’s sorrow. Man is able to do this because God is felt as being close to him and is the natural and most intimate confidant of man’s soul. Assuming this to be correct, prayer, Berkowitz maintains presents us with a conundrum: asking God for something is in reality self seeking. So whether we ask for wealth or health we are asking for ourselves. “This approach of “give - give” isn’t prayer and hasn’t the quality of prayer unless it comes out of intimacy with God”. If prayer is to have meaning and purpose it ought to be to redirect people, to have them focus not on what God can do for us, but what can we do for each other. The purpose of prayer is to strengthen man, to elevate him and cause him to be elevated, whereby man can transcend his current predicament and in the process resolve the issue.
Droughts have been one of the plagues of mankind since time immemorial. It is among the earliest documented climatic events, present in the Gilgamesh story and tied to the biblical story of Joseph's arrival in and the later Exodus from Ancient Egypt. Hunter-gatherer migrations in 9,500 BC Chile have been linked to the phenomenon, as has the exodus of early man out of Africa, and into the rest of the world around 135,000 years ago. Praying to God as the rainmakers of the North American tribes is really no different than a rabbi praying in an air balloon. What makes the rabbi think that his prayers will be more effective than the rainmaker? They can be if he uses prayer, not for beseeching, but for strengthening his resolve for solving the problem, not by fighting nature but understanding nature and working with nature. Israel is no more exempt from natural catastrophes than any other nation. Flooding, tsunamis, hurricanes are all the bane of humanity as is drought. They all wreak terrible damage to people and property, but standing there and praying won’t change anything.
Jews have been chanting “mashiv haruach u’moreed hageshem” for a very long time. Has it solved the problem? Drought is an incessant problem, not only for Israel, but also for countries throughout the world. So beseeching God for yet another favor doesn’t seem to work. I believe it was Einstein who commented that if you have made the same mistake a hundred times why would you think that by doing it one more time it would work? That’s not to say that one shouldn’t pray. It does mean however that prayer for it to be meaningful will have to be transformative to he who prays.
Transformative means that man understands drought in different terms than he did prior to transformation. In a post transformative mentality he understands that he has to conform his culture and its needs to his climate; what may work for other countries may not work for Israel. It may mean that while private houses with a garden is beautiful in climates that have little shortage of water, it may mean that in Israel private houses ought to be discouraged, as well as gardens and car washes. It may mean that hotels develop better, less wasteful ways to serve their guests. It may mean that technology devote more assets to developing a waterless society; i.e. waterless washing machines. There is no end to the possibilities to what a society can do when it is in a transformative mode, and here prayer can help.
Unfortunately, Israel today is in a gordian knot mercilessly applied by the Chief Rabbinate who themselves are drowning in the minutiae of rabbinic ritual and medieval custom having little meaning or relevance to the people whom they serve. In this environment it seems difficult to imagine a transformative culture that would make Israel soar to new heights.
What all these and other attempts have in common is the misconceived notion that God is out there somewhere waiting to be beseeched in order to dole out favors at will. All you have to do is hit on the right formula at the right moment and presto, walla, your prayers will be answered. It is based on the assumption that god in the tradition of Job is the “grand puppeteer” manipulating humans at will for some cosmic satisfaction and it is up to us to beseech God into granting us a reprieve. This approach to God assumes that He isn’t omniscient, otherwise why would we have to ask Him for favors. Surely He knows that there is a drought. It also assumes that God plays favorites. After all there is a decades long drought in Africa and there are on going chronic droughts in parts of Asia as well. Why wouldn’t he help his children there, if the assumption were that if “one asks one gets”. This approach to God, this kind of prayer and its practitioners remind me of the classic medicine man of the North American Indian tribes, who performed a rain dance with special incantations and ritual as intercessors to the spirits in order that it rain.
Jewish prayer is different than that, it ought to be different than that. In its original form, prayer is not asking God for anything; it is not a request. It is as Eliezer Berkovitz wrote, “a cry, an elementary outburst of woe; a spontaneous call in need. It is a call of helplessness to God. So man brings his sorrow before God, knowing perhaps that although God isn’t changing his circumstances he needs the reassurance of His love and that He is near”. This is the essence of prayer. Interpreting the words of David “I pour out my complaint to Him, I declare before Him my trouble” the midrash comments “thus the men of faith declare their troubles before God”. To pour out one’s trouble before God means simply to tell God about one’s troubles; to make God the confidant of one’s sorrow. Man is able to do this because God is felt as being close to him and is the natural and most intimate confidant of man’s soul. Assuming this to be correct, prayer, Berkowitz maintains presents us with a conundrum: asking God for something is in reality self seeking. So whether we ask for wealth or health we are asking for ourselves. “This approach of “give - give” isn’t prayer and hasn’t the quality of prayer unless it comes out of intimacy with God”. If prayer is to have meaning and purpose it ought to be to redirect people, to have them focus not on what God can do for us, but what can we do for each other. The purpose of prayer is to strengthen man, to elevate him and cause him to be elevated, whereby man can transcend his current predicament and in the process resolve the issue.
Droughts have been one of the plagues of mankind since time immemorial. It is among the earliest documented climatic events, present in the Gilgamesh story and tied to the biblical story of Joseph's arrival in and the later Exodus from Ancient Egypt. Hunter-gatherer migrations in 9,500 BC Chile have been linked to the phenomenon, as has the exodus of early man out of Africa, and into the rest of the world around 135,000 years ago. Praying to God as the rainmakers of the North American tribes is really no different than a rabbi praying in an air balloon. What makes the rabbi think that his prayers will be more effective than the rainmaker? They can be if he uses prayer, not for beseeching, but for strengthening his resolve for solving the problem, not by fighting nature but understanding nature and working with nature. Israel is no more exempt from natural catastrophes than any other nation. Flooding, tsunamis, hurricanes are all the bane of humanity as is drought. They all wreak terrible damage to people and property, but standing there and praying won’t change anything.
Jews have been chanting “mashiv haruach u’moreed hageshem” for a very long time. Has it solved the problem? Drought is an incessant problem, not only for Israel, but also for countries throughout the world. So beseeching God for yet another favor doesn’t seem to work. I believe it was Einstein who commented that if you have made the same mistake a hundred times why would you think that by doing it one more time it would work? That’s not to say that one shouldn’t pray. It does mean however that prayer for it to be meaningful will have to be transformative to he who prays.
Transformative means that man understands drought in different terms than he did prior to transformation. In a post transformative mentality he understands that he has to conform his culture and its needs to his climate; what may work for other countries may not work for Israel. It may mean that while private houses with a garden is beautiful in climates that have little shortage of water, it may mean that in Israel private houses ought to be discouraged, as well as gardens and car washes. It may mean that hotels develop better, less wasteful ways to serve their guests. It may mean that technology devote more assets to developing a waterless society; i.e. waterless washing machines. There is no end to the possibilities to what a society can do when it is in a transformative mode, and here prayer can help.
Unfortunately, Israel today is in a gordian knot mercilessly applied by the Chief Rabbinate who themselves are drowning in the minutiae of rabbinic ritual and medieval custom having little meaning or relevance to the people whom they serve. In this environment it seems difficult to imagine a transformative culture that would make Israel soar to new heights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
