Why is it that ultra orthodox Jews (vis a vis the rest of the human race) assume a sanctimonious posture, extolling the virtues of Orthodox Judaism as if they and their belief system are at the center of the universe? Other times I wonder if their obsession to promote their lifestyle is a response to their own deep-seated sense of self-doubt. Judging from what I read and hear one would think that to be an orthodox Jews is the be all and end all and the answer to man’s quest for complete fulfillment and happiness. Jonathan Rosenblum who writes for the ultra orthodox Mishpacha Magazine seems to believe that tired mantra. In extolling the virtues of living the “torah true life” Rosenblum has a compulsion to attack any life style that doesn’t jive with his. His argument is flawed because he chooses to contrast the “torah true life” with the hedonistic happiness pursued by epicurians: comparing the hedonistic pursuit of pleasure with those in pursuit of kavod. Naturally, Rosenblum doesn’t take note of the fact that so many frum Jews actively pursue kavod; that kavod is part and parcel of the religious culture including synagogue life within the “frum” community.
On a typical Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur eve (Kol Nidre) the typical “frum” synagogue will sell honors (keebudim) ranging from opening the ark to aliyot, haftarot and everything in between but the kitchen sink. Just about everything is up for sale, not in the name of charity but in the name of kavod. Had charity been the focus, then they could, like so many non-ultra Orthodox synagogues conduct silent bidding or fund raising drives prior to the holiday. As it is, entering a “frum” shul on Kol Nidre eve is like entering the market place, with the hubbub and din surrounding the bidding for the honors. I only mention this to remind Mr. Rosenblum to keep a balanced perspective and not be so dismissive of other lifestyles in spite of the polls that he cites. Polls as we know are dubious to say the least and subject to any interpretation that we wish to ascribe. According to the polls U.S. Jews should have been extinct by 1960, at the latest by 1980. According to the polls Israel ought to have been eradicated by now. So much for the polls.
However, if you wish to insist on polls I’d like to refer Rosenblum and his readership to Ynet (April 24, 2011) “Israel Ranks 7th in Happiness Index”, where the Gallup shows that 63% of Israelis are satisfied with their lives and beat out the United States and Britain. I doubt if the 63% cited are “frum”. The happiness list was headed by Denmark, Sweden, Canada and Australia. None of these have huge “frum” communities that would have skewed the polls, yet all these “goyim” seem to be genuinely happy, absent of living “torah true lives”, nor is it reasonable to believe that they define their happiness on the scale of hedonistic pleasures!
The two points that Jonathan Rosenblum ought to understand is the following: Religion may work for some, but isn’t the answer for everyone. It may be a source of happiness and fulfillment for some people but a source of unhappiness for many others. The millions of people worldwide who have suffered in the name of Jesus or Allah would agree with me. Unfortunately, I would have to add that there is a growing number of Jews who agree that “torah true Judaism” is a source of unhappiness since it attempts to control their lives – whom they marry and where they are buried. There is a growing number of quasi Jews whose conversions are questioned by the ‘torah true” establishment and they too would join the community of people who believe religion to be oppressive. I suspect that had Judaism’s right wing religious establishment had the political upper hand and wielded unfettered power the suffering at their hands would be no different to that of the Islamist who seek the establishment of a global caliphate or the Church that sought to enforce god’s will.
The second point is its time for Rosenblum and his ilk to respect other cultures and lifestyles. I don’t mean that in a perfunctory way but to genuinely recognize that every culture has its intrinsic and unique qualities. Each of us can learn from others and in so doing we gain wisdom insight knowledge and fulfillment. We Jews do not have a monopoly on happiness, fulfillment or wisdom. Reaching a modicum of happiness or fulfillment isn’t predicated on god, religious rites and ritual. It’s about the individual being able to find his voice and give expression to his creative skills endowed by nature. It’s about the individual pursuing his own dreams. Fulfillment is a long process with no prescribed uniform formulary but is dependent upon the individual to seek out his own personal fulfillment based upon his own unique soul print.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Professor Zev Naveh, z”l
In marking my father in law’s shloshim (30 days since his burial) I would like to share the following remarks:
Twenty-six years ago we came into each others life. We looked at each other at the fist introduction on erev Pesach – each assessing the other. At the time I had no idea what impression, if any I made on Zev, Saba Zev but the impression he made on me was remarkable. If his daughter, Semadar was a whirlwind who blew me away with her charm and persona, Zev, Saba Zev was a tsunami, a man larger than life, a man of gravitas, an aura of dignity enveloping him as his shroud does today.
Over the years as I became more perceptive of his fine qualities as a husband and father he influenced my own understanding of manhood and fatherhood. He was unabashed and at the same time unassuming. Comfortable in his own skin, proud of who he was and what he was made him an outstanding husband, father and paradigmatic model for me. Passion was his middle name, and infused it in everything he did-making him a wonderful husband who loved Ziona deeply and profoundly. His passion was infectious, transmitting to his children a zest for living, curiosity and the compulsion to explore the world we inhabit. His passion for travel was so apocryphal that he would have traversed life with both feet off the ground, save for Ziona who managed to keep him grounded. His love of knowledge was infectious, curiosity never abandoned him and both Semadar and David are the better for it and the fortunate beneficiaries of such an unusual man. These and other gifts are part of his legacy his grandchildren, Keren, Inbal, Nili & Tami are benefitting from and will continue in the years ahead as they establish their own households.
He was a student of science and a master of the humanities. He didn’t just love the humanities, he lived it by loving people and his preoccupation with their welfare. In living it, he became larger than life. While some people fill a room with their sheer volume or ego, Zev, Saba Zev, filled space with his compassion and love for people. He made everyone who came in contact with him comfortable and at the end of the encounter, they were both enriched, uplifted.
He was a 19th century enlightened intellectual, an intellectual for all times, all seasons. He was this towering intellectual, spanning the centuries that prompted me to embrace him not only as Zev, but Saba Zev. For decades I flirted with calling him Abba. I felt so, so close to him and loved him like a son loves a father. But I couldn’t bring myself to utter the word Abba and every time I tried I stumbled. How can a son have two fathers? So I began calling him Saba Zev – I never knew my grandfathers.
He wasn’t just Saba Zev to me – he was “Saba Yisrael” (Yisrael Saba). For those of you familiar with rabbinic literature, the sages referred to the generations of sages preceding them as “Saba Yisrael” (Yisrael Saba). “Saba Yisrael” (Yisrael Saba), the rock of ages, unmovable, grounded in values, with principles running so deep and wide that they cut through the sediment and detritus that befuddles and confuses the essential truths and core values that ought to be crystal clear and that which govern our lives. This was Zev, Saba Zev, a man of values, pristine, principled, informed and willing to put forth his vision even when unpopular for those seeking a better, more just world. To borrow from the lyrics of Simon & Garfunkel, “he was a most unusual man”.
I am honored and one of the most fortunate to have basked in his presence, taking shade under his expansive branches of love, compassion and wisdom. At some point, Zev must have intuited that his labor here, with us, was coming to a close. His cup was full; it was overflowing. He had a charmed and blessed life: He had loved Ziona deeply, had brought forth, loved and nurtured two amazing people, David and my soul mate, Semadar; was the grandfather of wonderful and devoted granddaughters, Keren, Inbal, Nili and Tami. He committed his wisdom to the books he authored as well as completing his autobiography. And while he reared generations of student they will never be able to fill his shadow. Mi Chamocha, Saba Zev? Who can pick up where you left off? There are no more Nifilim, giants in the land. You were the last of a very special breed of unique men sent here to guide us. You will always be Saba Zev to me but you have subtly, sublimely and most assuredly transitioned into Yisrael Saba, assuming your place of honor and with the greatest of dignity, alongside the sages of Israel who have come before you. May you be a source of continued blessing to all of us.
Twenty-six years ago we came into each others life. We looked at each other at the fist introduction on erev Pesach – each assessing the other. At the time I had no idea what impression, if any I made on Zev, Saba Zev but the impression he made on me was remarkable. If his daughter, Semadar was a whirlwind who blew me away with her charm and persona, Zev, Saba Zev was a tsunami, a man larger than life, a man of gravitas, an aura of dignity enveloping him as his shroud does today.
Over the years as I became more perceptive of his fine qualities as a husband and father he influenced my own understanding of manhood and fatherhood. He was unabashed and at the same time unassuming. Comfortable in his own skin, proud of who he was and what he was made him an outstanding husband, father and paradigmatic model for me. Passion was his middle name, and infused it in everything he did-making him a wonderful husband who loved Ziona deeply and profoundly. His passion was infectious, transmitting to his children a zest for living, curiosity and the compulsion to explore the world we inhabit. His passion for travel was so apocryphal that he would have traversed life with both feet off the ground, save for Ziona who managed to keep him grounded. His love of knowledge was infectious, curiosity never abandoned him and both Semadar and David are the better for it and the fortunate beneficiaries of such an unusual man. These and other gifts are part of his legacy his grandchildren, Keren, Inbal, Nili & Tami are benefitting from and will continue in the years ahead as they establish their own households.
He was a student of science and a master of the humanities. He didn’t just love the humanities, he lived it by loving people and his preoccupation with their welfare. In living it, he became larger than life. While some people fill a room with their sheer volume or ego, Zev, Saba Zev, filled space with his compassion and love for people. He made everyone who came in contact with him comfortable and at the end of the encounter, they were both enriched, uplifted.
He was a 19th century enlightened intellectual, an intellectual for all times, all seasons. He was this towering intellectual, spanning the centuries that prompted me to embrace him not only as Zev, but Saba Zev. For decades I flirted with calling him Abba. I felt so, so close to him and loved him like a son loves a father. But I couldn’t bring myself to utter the word Abba and every time I tried I stumbled. How can a son have two fathers? So I began calling him Saba Zev – I never knew my grandfathers.
He wasn’t just Saba Zev to me – he was “Saba Yisrael” (Yisrael Saba). For those of you familiar with rabbinic literature, the sages referred to the generations of sages preceding them as “Saba Yisrael” (Yisrael Saba). “Saba Yisrael” (Yisrael Saba), the rock of ages, unmovable, grounded in values, with principles running so deep and wide that they cut through the sediment and detritus that befuddles and confuses the essential truths and core values that ought to be crystal clear and that which govern our lives. This was Zev, Saba Zev, a man of values, pristine, principled, informed and willing to put forth his vision even when unpopular for those seeking a better, more just world. To borrow from the lyrics of Simon & Garfunkel, “he was a most unusual man”.
I am honored and one of the most fortunate to have basked in his presence, taking shade under his expansive branches of love, compassion and wisdom. At some point, Zev must have intuited that his labor here, with us, was coming to a close. His cup was full; it was overflowing. He had a charmed and blessed life: He had loved Ziona deeply, had brought forth, loved and nurtured two amazing people, David and my soul mate, Semadar; was the grandfather of wonderful and devoted granddaughters, Keren, Inbal, Nili and Tami. He committed his wisdom to the books he authored as well as completing his autobiography. And while he reared generations of student they will never be able to fill his shadow. Mi Chamocha, Saba Zev? Who can pick up where you left off? There are no more Nifilim, giants in the land. You were the last of a very special breed of unique men sent here to guide us. You will always be Saba Zev to me but you have subtly, sublimely and most assuredly transitioned into Yisrael Saba, assuming your place of honor and with the greatest of dignity, alongside the sages of Israel who have come before you. May you be a source of continued blessing to all of us.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Two People – Not One
I was amazed at the op-ed by Jonathan Sarna and Jay Ruderman entitled “Education is key in a changing US Jews –Israel relationship” (JTA April 4, 2011). The main thrust of the op-ed is that the Israeli educational system needs to introduce classes in high school and higher education about the American Jewish Community, which the average Israeli knows nothing about. For decades, the authors assert, the American Jewish community taught its students about Israel – its history, culture and current events. However, because the American Jewish community is no longer in lock step with Israeli policies or its politics, the relationship between the two needs to be recalibrated. Israelis, the article insists, needs to understand the US Jewish community so that they can better handle issues such as Who is A Jew, military actions and its impact on the American Jewish community.
The op-ed is stunning for its audacity to equate the two communities as equal. The fact of the matter is that Israel has never been on par with the American Jewish community. They may be wealthier but on another level they are impoverished. They may have a higher standard of living but Israelis have a substantively higher and deeper quality of life. Israel has fed the imagination of the American Jews since its inception. American Jews live vicariously through Israel and continue to do so. For decades, they reduced Israel to a third world country in dire need of American Jewish largesse. The PR coming out of federations depicted Israel as a country in difficult straights were it not for the beneficence of the American Jewish community. And the money poured in – as long as it was tax exempt.
They have diluted themselves into believing the big lie that we are “one people”. The sad fact of the matter is that we aren’t one people and haven’t been for a long time, perhaps beginning with the audacious bold move of the reform movement recognizing patrilineal descent. That was the first major crack in the foundation causing irreparable damage by using patrilineal descent as the line in the sand.
Its incredulous how this liberal American Jewish community on the doorsteps of utter assimilation, recognizing patrilineal descent, takes umbrage with the rabbinical establishment in Israel defining Jews through the halachic standards that have withstood the test of time. Bu the crack is widening progressively especially with the liberal rabbinical seminaries ordaining rabbis who refuse to wear a tallit made in Israel. Many of these putative rabbinical students are supportive of divestment. Why would Israelis need to incorporate in their curriculum courses on the American Jewish community when the resentment to Israel is so sharp? Recently Daniel Gordis in an article “Of Sermons and Strategies” (Jerusalem Post April 1, 2011) cited deliberations of a liberal rabbinical student (that appeared on face book), compiling a list of relevant historical moments to be added to the Tisha B’av extant list of woes. This particular student wished to add the creation of the State of Israel to the list of such events like the Destruction of the Temple (1&2), Spanish (Catholic Church) Inquisition, etc. Another rabbinical student in his first year abroad program as part of his rabbinical education chose to celebrate his birthday in Ramallah where he toasted the violence of his “brothers” against Israel. These weren’t isolated incidents of assimilated self-hating Jews, but “rabbinical” students who, in a few years will assume have the power of the pulpit and use it to spew anti-Israel rhetoric. They will naturally receive approbation because they are speaking from the pulpit wrapped in rabbinical robes.
We are not one people. We haven’t been for a long time, but we choose to live the lie. Its good for fundraising. We are two people growing farther apart as a result of very different conceptual approaches to our Jewish future. Israel sees its future through the prism of Jewish history, continuity and survival. American Jews, now in their denouement define their future through the lens of assimilation and its inevitability. So, I ask Sarna & Ruderman what is it that prompts you to suggest that Israelis ought to give priority in their curriculum to understanding the American Jewish community which is on its way out?
The op-ed is stunning for its audacity to equate the two communities as equal. The fact of the matter is that Israel has never been on par with the American Jewish community. They may be wealthier but on another level they are impoverished. They may have a higher standard of living but Israelis have a substantively higher and deeper quality of life. Israel has fed the imagination of the American Jews since its inception. American Jews live vicariously through Israel and continue to do so. For decades, they reduced Israel to a third world country in dire need of American Jewish largesse. The PR coming out of federations depicted Israel as a country in difficult straights were it not for the beneficence of the American Jewish community. And the money poured in – as long as it was tax exempt.
They have diluted themselves into believing the big lie that we are “one people”. The sad fact of the matter is that we aren’t one people and haven’t been for a long time, perhaps beginning with the audacious bold move of the reform movement recognizing patrilineal descent. That was the first major crack in the foundation causing irreparable damage by using patrilineal descent as the line in the sand.
Its incredulous how this liberal American Jewish community on the doorsteps of utter assimilation, recognizing patrilineal descent, takes umbrage with the rabbinical establishment in Israel defining Jews through the halachic standards that have withstood the test of time. Bu the crack is widening progressively especially with the liberal rabbinical seminaries ordaining rabbis who refuse to wear a tallit made in Israel. Many of these putative rabbinical students are supportive of divestment. Why would Israelis need to incorporate in their curriculum courses on the American Jewish community when the resentment to Israel is so sharp? Recently Daniel Gordis in an article “Of Sermons and Strategies” (Jerusalem Post April 1, 2011) cited deliberations of a liberal rabbinical student (that appeared on face book), compiling a list of relevant historical moments to be added to the Tisha B’av extant list of woes. This particular student wished to add the creation of the State of Israel to the list of such events like the Destruction of the Temple (1&2), Spanish (Catholic Church) Inquisition, etc. Another rabbinical student in his first year abroad program as part of his rabbinical education chose to celebrate his birthday in Ramallah where he toasted the violence of his “brothers” against Israel. These weren’t isolated incidents of assimilated self-hating Jews, but “rabbinical” students who, in a few years will assume have the power of the pulpit and use it to spew anti-Israel rhetoric. They will naturally receive approbation because they are speaking from the pulpit wrapped in rabbinical robes.
We are not one people. We haven’t been for a long time, but we choose to live the lie. Its good for fundraising. We are two people growing farther apart as a result of very different conceptual approaches to our Jewish future. Israel sees its future through the prism of Jewish history, continuity and survival. American Jews, now in their denouement define their future through the lens of assimilation and its inevitability. So, I ask Sarna & Ruderman what is it that prompts you to suggest that Israelis ought to give priority in their curriculum to understanding the American Jewish community which is on its way out?
Monday, March 28, 2011
Who Remembers the Ford Pinto
I never met Rabbi Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto nor have I ever attended his shiurim. I am however aware of his reputation and depending on whom you ask will determine whether he is the incarnate of Rasputin or the Baal Shem Tov. I am aware of the anecdotal lore of how the powerful and wealthy, real estate moguls, captains of industry and the sports elite seek his advice and counsel before making their final business/investment decision as though he had a crystal ball. I believe King Saul committed a similar kind of sin when he sought out a seer in the hope of communicating with Samuel. I have never bought into the idea of seeking out b’rachot because theologically, from a Lithuanian, non-Sephardic, non-Hassidic, non-kabbalistic, but Maimonidian perspective I was taught to depend on intellect rather than arbitrary b’rachot. Study and keen intellect was the antidote to the talisman, amulets and shaman of the traditional mystics and mekubalim and baalei shem tov. Seekers of b’rachot is akin to those who would consult their horoscopes prepared by trained, well-known astrologers. Believing in the likes of baalei shem tov and those like Rabbi Pinto is akin to believing in homeopathic medicine versus traditional science based medicine. Homeopathy doesn’t really do any good and may even be harmful if misused. In a word, Pinto may not be as benign as he appears to be.
The Wall Street Journal as did the Forward carried an interesting article (Forward, March 25 2011, “Revered as Business Guru, Rabbi Faces Questions About His Organization’s Finances”) which raises question about the good rabbis enterprise. Why am I not surprised? After all, our Jewish past is checkered with charismatic rabbis who had a talent for exploiting the foibles of the community. Just to name a few there was Jacob Frank and Shabtai Tzvi who by dint of their charisma and the need for people to believe in something uplifting managed to scam a sizeable number of the communities that they reached. More recently, Mordechai Gafni, although on a smaller scale managed to scam thousands of Jews and Jewish leadership as well, through his charisma and warped ego; had he not gone unchecked he would probably have morphed into a rebbe dispensing b’rachot.
I am not suggesting that Rabbi Pinto is a con man, chalila v’chas nor is my intention to impugn the ‘mekubalim” who have a revered and honored place within our tradition. These are saintly men who while not necessarily charismatic, or seek out the adulation of the masses and their wealth, have a profound spiritual centeredness that is influential amongst a small but important segment of the Jewish community, Sephardim included. Because of their profound spiritual grounding they have traditionally spurned the “gashmius” as negative energy as opposed to their positive energy, “ruchnious”. Unfortunately many who seek out these mekubalim are in search of simple answers rather than taking the difficult approach of “hasmadah”, requiring hard work and significant investment in time, and because they have chosen a shortcut financed by money, they are ultimately the worse for it. Nothing beats the long hard journey of learning, development and self-awareness, not even the b’racha of a mekubal.
There are others of course, looking for an angle and a way to capitalize on this niche market have given a bad name to the mekubalim. Rabbi Yirael Abuhatzeira whose photograph hangs in my study was a saintly man revered by the Moroccan community in Israel and abroad and fondly known as the Baba Sali. In the tradition of those who came before him, he never sought notoriety, wealth or comfort. His son, Baruch, an ex con, on the other hand saw some good possibilities and when his father died assumed the mantle as Baba Baruch. So much for the saintly scholars pouring over archaic esoteric texts for the sole purpose of enriching those in need of his special insights rather than vice versa.
Behold, another Tzadik appears on the scene, Rabbi Pinto (related to the Baba Baruch / Abuhatzeira family on his mother’s side), who may or may not be a serious mekubal. Red flags however, do pop up when perusing his profile. Pinto is known as an advisor to real estate moguls, yet Pinto’s personal business interests and investments are shrouded in questionable dealings and foreclosures. In addition, while Mekubalim trend towards modest lifestyles due to their spiritual centeredness, this man’s flamboyant lifestyle raises many more questions. As in all religious institutions his too is a non-profit, never mind the fact that his Manhattan townhouse valued at 6.5 million dollars is facing foreclosure. Although the institution is not for profit it doesn’t carry the elementary, but legally required workers compensation insurance. His CFO speaks no English and has no idea how many employees they employ. None of this meshes with his reputation as a business “iluy” or the “hard sell” strategies for fund raising they use. For example, the rabbi will send via messenger an expensive religious article i.e. silver candlesticks (originally a gift to the rabbi who passes it on as a gift) to a new potential follower (donor) explaining that the rabbi has blessed the candlesticks. A day or two later there is a visit by one of his staff asking for a donation of a specific amount i.e. 10,000.00 dollars. When Pinto travels to and from Israel he flies first class. The list goes on and there really is no precedent for this kind of cavalier behavior by past reputable mekubalim leaving one to question his veracity.
When I consider the richly textured legacy of our past spiritual leaders whether Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Misnaged or Hassidic the seam of “ruchnious” runs so deep and so wide, penetrating the soul of our people that there is virtually no space left for the “gashmius” that Pinto seems to crave. It wouldn’t be that disturbing other than the fact that he is so public about it and flamboyant that it is worth noting. Unfortunately and regrettably when I think of Rabbi Pinto one of the first thing that come to mind is the Ford Pinto of the 1970’s, which appeared like a bat out of hell; in its first year selling over 100,000 cars – a real winner. The intention of the Ford Motor Co. was to design a car to compete with the popular Volkswagen and the Toyota. Toyota and Volkswagen are still here, selling well. Who remembers the Ford Pinto?
The Wall Street Journal as did the Forward carried an interesting article (Forward, March 25 2011, “Revered as Business Guru, Rabbi Faces Questions About His Organization’s Finances”) which raises question about the good rabbis enterprise. Why am I not surprised? After all, our Jewish past is checkered with charismatic rabbis who had a talent for exploiting the foibles of the community. Just to name a few there was Jacob Frank and Shabtai Tzvi who by dint of their charisma and the need for people to believe in something uplifting managed to scam a sizeable number of the communities that they reached. More recently, Mordechai Gafni, although on a smaller scale managed to scam thousands of Jews and Jewish leadership as well, through his charisma and warped ego; had he not gone unchecked he would probably have morphed into a rebbe dispensing b’rachot.
I am not suggesting that Rabbi Pinto is a con man, chalila v’chas nor is my intention to impugn the ‘mekubalim” who have a revered and honored place within our tradition. These are saintly men who while not necessarily charismatic, or seek out the adulation of the masses and their wealth, have a profound spiritual centeredness that is influential amongst a small but important segment of the Jewish community, Sephardim included. Because of their profound spiritual grounding they have traditionally spurned the “gashmius” as negative energy as opposed to their positive energy, “ruchnious”. Unfortunately many who seek out these mekubalim are in search of simple answers rather than taking the difficult approach of “hasmadah”, requiring hard work and significant investment in time, and because they have chosen a shortcut financed by money, they are ultimately the worse for it. Nothing beats the long hard journey of learning, development and self-awareness, not even the b’racha of a mekubal.
There are others of course, looking for an angle and a way to capitalize on this niche market have given a bad name to the mekubalim. Rabbi Yirael Abuhatzeira whose photograph hangs in my study was a saintly man revered by the Moroccan community in Israel and abroad and fondly known as the Baba Sali. In the tradition of those who came before him, he never sought notoriety, wealth or comfort. His son, Baruch, an ex con, on the other hand saw some good possibilities and when his father died assumed the mantle as Baba Baruch. So much for the saintly scholars pouring over archaic esoteric texts for the sole purpose of enriching those in need of his special insights rather than vice versa.
Behold, another Tzadik appears on the scene, Rabbi Pinto (related to the Baba Baruch / Abuhatzeira family on his mother’s side), who may or may not be a serious mekubal. Red flags however, do pop up when perusing his profile. Pinto is known as an advisor to real estate moguls, yet Pinto’s personal business interests and investments are shrouded in questionable dealings and foreclosures. In addition, while Mekubalim trend towards modest lifestyles due to their spiritual centeredness, this man’s flamboyant lifestyle raises many more questions. As in all religious institutions his too is a non-profit, never mind the fact that his Manhattan townhouse valued at 6.5 million dollars is facing foreclosure. Although the institution is not for profit it doesn’t carry the elementary, but legally required workers compensation insurance. His CFO speaks no English and has no idea how many employees they employ. None of this meshes with his reputation as a business “iluy” or the “hard sell” strategies for fund raising they use. For example, the rabbi will send via messenger an expensive religious article i.e. silver candlesticks (originally a gift to the rabbi who passes it on as a gift) to a new potential follower (donor) explaining that the rabbi has blessed the candlesticks. A day or two later there is a visit by one of his staff asking for a donation of a specific amount i.e. 10,000.00 dollars. When Pinto travels to and from Israel he flies first class. The list goes on and there really is no precedent for this kind of cavalier behavior by past reputable mekubalim leaving one to question his veracity.
When I consider the richly textured legacy of our past spiritual leaders whether Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Misnaged or Hassidic the seam of “ruchnious” runs so deep and so wide, penetrating the soul of our people that there is virtually no space left for the “gashmius” that Pinto seems to crave. It wouldn’t be that disturbing other than the fact that he is so public about it and flamboyant that it is worth noting. Unfortunately and regrettably when I think of Rabbi Pinto one of the first thing that come to mind is the Ford Pinto of the 1970’s, which appeared like a bat out of hell; in its first year selling over 100,000 cars – a real winner. The intention of the Ford Motor Co. was to design a car to compete with the popular Volkswagen and the Toyota. Toyota and Volkswagen are still here, selling well. Who remembers the Ford Pinto?
Monday, March 14, 2011
Tunnel Vision
In an atmosphere and time when there is little civility between competing ideas, and ideologies I attended a remarkable conference honoring Professor Eliezer Berkovits who committed his life to bridging the gaping abyss that divide Jews on a myriad of theological issues. Ahead of his time he introduced new approaches to the pressing issues of conversion and agunah with the intent of closing the gap and creating understanding and unity. He engaged all the streams of Judaism with the respect dignity and civility that they deserved. Each of the presenters at the conference illuminated a different facet of his life, writings and teachings, creating an uplifting transcendent experience that gives me hope that there exists other like minded souls working to achieve similar goals, engaging and persuading with equanimity, civility and respect.
Not too long ago another conference was held in Israel regarding the pressing, dire issue of conversions; attempting to develop consensus among the various religious ideologies within the orthodox stream. Poignant and compelling was the lecture presented by Aryeh Edri, professor of law at Tel Aviv University who is among other things a scholar of halacha and its development. What impressed me beyond his erudition of the laws of conversion and the responsa through the ages was his approach, which in many ways paralleled Professor Eliezer Berkovits.
Both men sought a mechanism by which the conversion candidate would enter into a process that was embracing and nurturing, resulting in a modality that would enhance ahavat yisrael and contribute to achdut ha’am. As it is, the rabbinate responsible for conversions has subverted these lofty goals, causing irreversible damage to the fabric of our society and culture. One example is the recent incident of a chayal, killed in the line of duty, defending his country that was appropriately buried in the local cemetery with military honors. When the rabbanut discovered that his conversion wasn’t valid as per their standards the chayal was disinterred and buried in a gentile cemetery, traumatizing the family, causing unnecessary pain, emotional stress and scarring. It was an act unfitting for a civilized person, unbecoming of a Jew, much less a rav. It was barbaric and uncouth revealing an undercurrent of contempt and disdain for anyone not in tandem with their way. It was the determination of a rabbinate long ossified, buried up to their eyeballs in arcane, pilpulized and corrupted halachic minutiae resulting in a class of rabbis numb to humanity and the people whom they serve. For anyone who takes these developments seriously it seems as though these putative spiritual leaders are living in a dark noxious cave, of which one of the by products is tunnel vision; as though they never experienced the crucible of the renaissance.
Aryeh Edri’s lecture was the burst of fresh air needed to expunge the toxicity of the cave dwellers. His well-crafted presentation cited relevant responsa, each, a point of light and combined illuminating a pathway out of the morass. Using the Rambam as a springboard he referenced his position regarding kabbalat mitzvoth as secondary in the conversion process. Important isn’t the kabbalat mitzvoth as much as the renunciation and rejection of the candidate’s current religious beliefs and practice. Edri pulls from Harav Shlomo Dichovsky who referenced the Ritva maintaining that kabbalat mitzvoth are of secondary importance. Interesting and informative was the intuitive approach of early nineteenth century Rav Kluger (1785-1869) who suggested that the critical elements of conversion was the tevila and the mila stipulating that kabbalat mitzvoth ought to be the result of a positive conversion, not a condition.
Another interesting consideration that rabbis concern themselves with is the motivation behind the conversion. Conventional wisdom held that the motive had to be pure; converting for the convenience of marriage was unacceptable. Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodensky (1863-1940) didn’t concur with this position and approached the issue with amazing sensitivity. Confronted with the situation of a woman seeking conversion while married civily to a secular Jew revealed the boldness of his p’sak. He maintained that kabbalat mitzvoth weren’t to be understood as literally fulfilling the mitzvoth but rather to be understood as agreeing in principle to those mitzvoth without necessarily keeping them. With that assumption in mind he assessed the conversion candidate as a “choteh l’teavon”, a person who understands that the mitzvoth are essential, but due to habit and weak character aren’t able to fulfill them. Harav Kook, according to Edri concurred with this approach stating that there are no thought police in Judaism; someone declaring that they accept the idea of kabbalat mitzvoth is sufficient without demonstrating their fulfillment of the mitzvoth. Harav Unterman (1886-1976), a past chief rabbi agreed with Grodensky and Kook stating that the candidates intent of honoring the kabbalat mizvot is sufficient for the process of conversion to go through to completion.
The list of poskim over the generations confronted with these weighty problems is numerous. What is new is the manner in which the conversion process is being handled today. Many poskim of previous generations sought solutions that would maintain the integrity of halacha but at the same time enhance shalom bayit and achdut. Today there seems to be posturing among competing factions to see who can be more machmir and thus more divisive. What is difficult to accept is this parochial position which has become the norm in light of the fact that there is enough halachic case precedent for the current rabbinate to seek solutions that are halachically sound but reflect the best in us as a people: love of humanity and love of Israel.
It was achdut that guided Eliezer Berkovits, seeking to build consensus rather than to engage in derisive confrontation. To be certain, there are legitimate poskim who disagree with these conciliatory approaches to conversion. In previous generations when poskim displayed sensitivity to these issues of conversion, it was on the sociological background of a society that experienced limited exposure to intermarriage. Our generation’s problems have become more complex because of the staggering rate of intermarriage, the exploding rate of assimilation and the fact that we have an independent state with the influx of hundreds of thousands of immigrants who were disenfranchised from normative Judaism for generations. We can’t afford the luxury of being confrontational and divisive especially in view of the fact that Israel isn’t the shtetl, and in consideration of the personal tragedies experienced daily as a result of an uncaring, corrupt rabbinate whose piskei halacha are enveloped in corrupt politics. Every generation has its challenges; we have ours today and it becomes our collective responsibility to navigate these troubled waters as best we can.
Not too long ago another conference was held in Israel regarding the pressing, dire issue of conversions; attempting to develop consensus among the various religious ideologies within the orthodox stream. Poignant and compelling was the lecture presented by Aryeh Edri, professor of law at Tel Aviv University who is among other things a scholar of halacha and its development. What impressed me beyond his erudition of the laws of conversion and the responsa through the ages was his approach, which in many ways paralleled Professor Eliezer Berkovits.
Both men sought a mechanism by which the conversion candidate would enter into a process that was embracing and nurturing, resulting in a modality that would enhance ahavat yisrael and contribute to achdut ha’am. As it is, the rabbinate responsible for conversions has subverted these lofty goals, causing irreversible damage to the fabric of our society and culture. One example is the recent incident of a chayal, killed in the line of duty, defending his country that was appropriately buried in the local cemetery with military honors. When the rabbanut discovered that his conversion wasn’t valid as per their standards the chayal was disinterred and buried in a gentile cemetery, traumatizing the family, causing unnecessary pain, emotional stress and scarring. It was an act unfitting for a civilized person, unbecoming of a Jew, much less a rav. It was barbaric and uncouth revealing an undercurrent of contempt and disdain for anyone not in tandem with their way. It was the determination of a rabbinate long ossified, buried up to their eyeballs in arcane, pilpulized and corrupted halachic minutiae resulting in a class of rabbis numb to humanity and the people whom they serve. For anyone who takes these developments seriously it seems as though these putative spiritual leaders are living in a dark noxious cave, of which one of the by products is tunnel vision; as though they never experienced the crucible of the renaissance.
Aryeh Edri’s lecture was the burst of fresh air needed to expunge the toxicity of the cave dwellers. His well-crafted presentation cited relevant responsa, each, a point of light and combined illuminating a pathway out of the morass. Using the Rambam as a springboard he referenced his position regarding kabbalat mitzvoth as secondary in the conversion process. Important isn’t the kabbalat mitzvoth as much as the renunciation and rejection of the candidate’s current religious beliefs and practice. Edri pulls from Harav Shlomo Dichovsky who referenced the Ritva maintaining that kabbalat mitzvoth are of secondary importance. Interesting and informative was the intuitive approach of early nineteenth century Rav Kluger (1785-1869) who suggested that the critical elements of conversion was the tevila and the mila stipulating that kabbalat mitzvoth ought to be the result of a positive conversion, not a condition.
Another interesting consideration that rabbis concern themselves with is the motivation behind the conversion. Conventional wisdom held that the motive had to be pure; converting for the convenience of marriage was unacceptable. Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodensky (1863-1940) didn’t concur with this position and approached the issue with amazing sensitivity. Confronted with the situation of a woman seeking conversion while married civily to a secular Jew revealed the boldness of his p’sak. He maintained that kabbalat mitzvoth weren’t to be understood as literally fulfilling the mitzvoth but rather to be understood as agreeing in principle to those mitzvoth without necessarily keeping them. With that assumption in mind he assessed the conversion candidate as a “choteh l’teavon”, a person who understands that the mitzvoth are essential, but due to habit and weak character aren’t able to fulfill them. Harav Kook, according to Edri concurred with this approach stating that there are no thought police in Judaism; someone declaring that they accept the idea of kabbalat mitzvoth is sufficient without demonstrating their fulfillment of the mitzvoth. Harav Unterman (1886-1976), a past chief rabbi agreed with Grodensky and Kook stating that the candidates intent of honoring the kabbalat mizvot is sufficient for the process of conversion to go through to completion.
The list of poskim over the generations confronted with these weighty problems is numerous. What is new is the manner in which the conversion process is being handled today. Many poskim of previous generations sought solutions that would maintain the integrity of halacha but at the same time enhance shalom bayit and achdut. Today there seems to be posturing among competing factions to see who can be more machmir and thus more divisive. What is difficult to accept is this parochial position which has become the norm in light of the fact that there is enough halachic case precedent for the current rabbinate to seek solutions that are halachically sound but reflect the best in us as a people: love of humanity and love of Israel.
It was achdut that guided Eliezer Berkovits, seeking to build consensus rather than to engage in derisive confrontation. To be certain, there are legitimate poskim who disagree with these conciliatory approaches to conversion. In previous generations when poskim displayed sensitivity to these issues of conversion, it was on the sociological background of a society that experienced limited exposure to intermarriage. Our generation’s problems have become more complex because of the staggering rate of intermarriage, the exploding rate of assimilation and the fact that we have an independent state with the influx of hundreds of thousands of immigrants who were disenfranchised from normative Judaism for generations. We can’t afford the luxury of being confrontational and divisive especially in view of the fact that Israel isn’t the shtetl, and in consideration of the personal tragedies experienced daily as a result of an uncaring, corrupt rabbinate whose piskei halacha are enveloped in corrupt politics. Every generation has its challenges; we have ours today and it becomes our collective responsibility to navigate these troubled waters as best we can.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Shtiebel Yidden
Surfing the news during the past few weeks I kept on tripping over an unfamiliar term “Indie Minyans”. It seems as though these Indie Minyans have been popping up all over like mushrooms after a summer rain. I had no idea what an Indie Minyan was. True, I could have googled it sooner than later and I would have filled another gap in my education. Disappointedly I learned that Indie Minyans (minyanim would be grammatically correct) was no more than an independent minyan; a start up minyan that I’d been witness to (and in some cases helped start) all my life. Succumbing to reading several articles on the subject I was a bit perplexed with the thought that the subject was being treated with as much gravitas as one would treat the possible fallout from the Egyptian junta. As I understand it the Indie Minyan, may or may not be affiliated with a movement, denomination or umbrella synagogue. Each one is unique in their makeup, hashkafa (if I may use the term), ritual and tradition. Some may be egalitarian, others more traditional. The most important thing however is that it is the story of people of like mind and kindred spirits coming together to daven. They have intentionally started their indie minyan because the trappings of the classic synagogue structure that include the paid professionals aren’t really necessary or essential for their purpose.
The Indie Minyanim are an expression of a Jewish renaissance after the excesses of the past few decades that resulted in a gaping spiritual lacuna after the heady spiritual days of the 1960’s-1970’s that had given birth to the chavurot. What happened to the chavurot is the subject of another posting, but what interests me regarding the Indie Minyanim is the lack of perspective surrounding these minyanim. To be sure, most of the Indie attendees are plugged in to Jewish life, and Jewishly educated. Perhaps what was lacking was the spiritual connection that rounded out their Jewishly lived lives. They sought out and obviously created that spiritual vortex, accompanied with the warmth, friendship and kindred spirits that only an Indie Minyan can provide. I am flummoxed because there is nothing new in this. Its been going on for generations.
Many of the participants have the mistaken notion that the Indie Minyan is something novel, groundbreaking, and perhaps even reactionary. One blogger’s description of the concern of the affiliated Jewish community is that “those who participate in Indie Minyans are living off the grid of Jewish life.” It seemed that she agreed with that assessment. I can understand the concern of the establishment because in truth they are loosing some of the precious and scarce market share – the best of that market share. They are loosing the rare, knowledgeable and committed Jews, the ones that care. What remains then of the market share are the three day a year Jews, those not as committed, those perhaps not as intellectually challenged by the issues confronting the Jewish world today. Like any retail establishment assessing their competition, they are deeply troubled with diminishing revenue, the grist that fuels there overinflated overhead, whopping salaries and mega mortgages. They are looking at the questionable future sustainability of their monolith, given the success of their competition and their diminished membership rolls.
But I take exception with those bloggers who agree that they are living off of the Jewish grid. On the contrary; they are living on the grid. They are smack dab in the middle of the grid where they belong. They are the Shtiebel Yidden of the 21st century. The shtiebel yid has always been part of the Jewish spiritual experience and was never assessed as being off the grid. Where I grew up there was a plethora of Indie minyanim, shtieblech, each with their own customs and traditions. Some were hassidish others were litvish. What they all had in common were the kindred spirits that peopled these small intimate sites, gathering there three times daily.
Entering a shtiebel in 1955 was probably different than entering an Indie Minyan of 2011. However they shared the same impulse to opt out of the mammoth, overpowering, architecturally flat buildings run more like corporations than intimate spiritual space where one can feel his Jewish neshama hyper-beating, aching to express itself. Stepping into a shtiebel in 1955 was like stepping into a time warp, my grandfather’s litvishe world. Participating in an Indie Minyan is reaching out to community of like-minded seeking its nexus to history while at the same time staying connecting to the present tense.
The proliferation of Indie Minyanim gives me hope that the tension between Keva and kavanah is being addressed with resolution happening for some already. But to secure that resolution will require more than the mushrooming of ad hoc Indie Minyans. It will require the serious commitment of Jewish leadership to rethink the current way the Jewish community is structured, its funding and allocation priorities.
The Indie Minyanim are an expression of a Jewish renaissance after the excesses of the past few decades that resulted in a gaping spiritual lacuna after the heady spiritual days of the 1960’s-1970’s that had given birth to the chavurot. What happened to the chavurot is the subject of another posting, but what interests me regarding the Indie Minyanim is the lack of perspective surrounding these minyanim. To be sure, most of the Indie attendees are plugged in to Jewish life, and Jewishly educated. Perhaps what was lacking was the spiritual connection that rounded out their Jewishly lived lives. They sought out and obviously created that spiritual vortex, accompanied with the warmth, friendship and kindred spirits that only an Indie Minyan can provide. I am flummoxed because there is nothing new in this. Its been going on for generations.
Many of the participants have the mistaken notion that the Indie Minyan is something novel, groundbreaking, and perhaps even reactionary. One blogger’s description of the concern of the affiliated Jewish community is that “those who participate in Indie Minyans are living off the grid of Jewish life.” It seemed that she agreed with that assessment. I can understand the concern of the establishment because in truth they are loosing some of the precious and scarce market share – the best of that market share. They are loosing the rare, knowledgeable and committed Jews, the ones that care. What remains then of the market share are the three day a year Jews, those not as committed, those perhaps not as intellectually challenged by the issues confronting the Jewish world today. Like any retail establishment assessing their competition, they are deeply troubled with diminishing revenue, the grist that fuels there overinflated overhead, whopping salaries and mega mortgages. They are looking at the questionable future sustainability of their monolith, given the success of their competition and their diminished membership rolls.
But I take exception with those bloggers who agree that they are living off of the Jewish grid. On the contrary; they are living on the grid. They are smack dab in the middle of the grid where they belong. They are the Shtiebel Yidden of the 21st century. The shtiebel yid has always been part of the Jewish spiritual experience and was never assessed as being off the grid. Where I grew up there was a plethora of Indie minyanim, shtieblech, each with their own customs and traditions. Some were hassidish others were litvish. What they all had in common were the kindred spirits that peopled these small intimate sites, gathering there three times daily.
Entering a shtiebel in 1955 was probably different than entering an Indie Minyan of 2011. However they shared the same impulse to opt out of the mammoth, overpowering, architecturally flat buildings run more like corporations than intimate spiritual space where one can feel his Jewish neshama hyper-beating, aching to express itself. Stepping into a shtiebel in 1955 was like stepping into a time warp, my grandfather’s litvishe world. Participating in an Indie Minyan is reaching out to community of like-minded seeking its nexus to history while at the same time staying connecting to the present tense.
The proliferation of Indie Minyanim gives me hope that the tension between Keva and kavanah is being addressed with resolution happening for some already. But to secure that resolution will require more than the mushrooming of ad hoc Indie Minyans. It will require the serious commitment of Jewish leadership to rethink the current way the Jewish community is structured, its funding and allocation priorities.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Dying: A Postmortem
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
