Kaniuk’s Ongoing Conundrum

Yoram Kaniuk won this past month in the TA District Court when they recognized his right to be registered in the Misrad Hapenim (Ministry of Interior) “without religion”. For Yoram Kaniuk this was a pyrrhic victory since he wanted to exchange his religious identification to a new one “Israeli,” thus listing as “Israeli” his identity. Instead he is listed as “without religion”. The courts are correct. Kaniuk’s error in this whole imbroglio is that he has fallen into the same trap as so many others including many liberal and secular Jews and of course, Palestinians, who refuse to identify Israel as a Jewish state. They, as Kaniuk, assume that Judaism, or being Jewish is a religion. It isn’t and it never was.

Unlike Christianity and Islam being Jewish isn’t about faith and beliefs but about a shared narrative and a collective destiny. Judaism has no dogmas or articles of faith that are critical to salvation. Jews can be agnostic, atheist, deist or pantheists and still rendered part of the Jewish corpus. Being part of the Jewish People means that you are part of a historical narrative, a culture that you may or may not believe in god that continues to play a role in your life. Its like asking: can Frenchman be French without being Catholic. Of course, but he also understands that France was built with Catholic tradition. We are taught that a Jew, even if guilty of apostasy remains a Jew. This is what we mean by Jewish Peoplehood.

Jewish culture isn’t based upon one’s relationship with god but upon his relationship with his people. If we do pray, we pray in the plural, since we first and foremost identify as a people and not as an individual of faith. There is a joke of Jake coming to the synagogue and is spending all his time talking to Marvin. The rabbi approaches him later and politely asks him to stop the conversation. Jake replies: Its possible that you come to synagogue to talk to god. I come to talk to Marvin.

All this spells out Jewish Peoplehood. Others such as Mordechai Kaplan, the founder of Reconstructionist Judaism believes that Judaism is, in and of itself a civilization, with the requisite component parts of a civilization: language, art, history, land, rituals, literature and religion being one component of the composite picture. Thus an individual can tinker with the elements. That individual may not subscribe to the religious element, but he remains a Jew. In the story of Ruth she declaims “your people are my people, before she says your god is my god. The message there is clear. Nor do we always choose to be Jewish. We are born into it although one can join through a religious process, which bears a contradiction.

Another contradiction: although we aren’t a religion but a “people”, (an “am”) or a nation (“am kohanim v’goy kadosh”), our primary and core source for who we are, is dependent on the religious /ritual aspect of Judaism – the Bible. Here Kaniuk has a problem: If he claims Israel as his nationality he can only do so by dint of his religious roots: The promise, according to the Bible that god made to our forefathers. Otherwise the Palestinians are right and legitimately do not have to recognize Israel as a Jewish State. Without the Bible and the promise god made to our forefathers what claim have we to the land? We might as well be in Uganda. Kaniuk’s conundrum is ongoing and defies resolution.

Days of Awe

Once again we are in the midst of the Days of Awe accompanied by my annual emotional turmoil. Even the name “Days of Awe,” a rough translation of
“Yamim Noraim” puts me into a perplexed state, a condition of suspended spiritual animation where like a pendulum, I swing between the extreme of good and bad karma. I understand the stated intent of these Days of Awe between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur: we fragile, mortals stand before the awesome, omniscient, omnipotent Hakadosh Baruch Who, with great humility implore him for another year of life, happiness, good fortune and blessings for the universe; where we humbly admit that we are but clay in His hands and powerless. As part of the process we submit ourselves before the Melech HaOlam and beseech His forgiveness. In theory it is a wonderful process purging us of our hubris, but knowing that it is as ephemeral as last years New Years resolutions. What I don’t understand is why that process is so time consuming, repetitive, monotonous and at times tedious to the point of being painful, especially when the cantor seems to drag it out and the rabbi’s sermon never ends? Why is it that the service is layered with piyutim (poems) that no longer resonate and repetitive prayers that go on and on “ad infinitum” all saying the same basic thing? How many ways can you say god is great? Why the need to repeat it hundreds of times during these Days of Awe? Surely we are sophisticated enough to understand that repetition won’t convince “Hamakom” that He ought to give us another opportunity, nor are we convinced that our imploring formulae works.

There was a time when spending a full day in the synagogue was a way of life, absent of anything more important to do and that repetitive prayer was “de rigueur”. But that was before the modern mind was corrupted by the speed of technology. It was before the age of computer technology where Google would provide pithy explanations and interpretations in nano seconds, replacing the need for cumbersome time consuming research. It was a time when people actually revered their rabbi, holding him in great esteem and deferring to his judgment and rulings, probably because he was the most educated and the most informed in the community. It was a time when hearing a cantor was the only entertainment available in the shtetl and probably wouldn’t have another opportunity for this kind of performance till the following year. In short, the way we approach these Days of Awe fly in the face of who we have become and what we have morphed into.

I am not the first one to have reached this conclusion. Ever since I was a kid, I remember adults coming to shul loaded with books, journals, and magazines, analgesics to numb the boredom of a drawn out davening, a poorly conceived and delivered sermon, or to blunt a very winded chazores hashatz that would take literally hours. That was a time when people were still respectful of tradition and normative behavior within the synagogue and community. It was a time before there was an official medical diagnoses accepted by insurance companies known as Attention Deficit Behavior.

Attention Deficit Disorder, known as “ADD”, is an interesting medical condition. It didn’t exist when I was a kid. ADD became popular in the 1970’s as the new excuse for a lot of hitherto unexplained behaviors. Interesting though is that the condition isn’t necessarily consistent. A youngster suffering from it may present ADD symptoms in the classroom but not on the ball field. A youngster may show ADD symptoms at bar/bat mitzvah lessons but not in music classes. I suspect that there are many adults unknowingly suffering from ADD confined to synagogue services, which may be the reason why they can’t sit through services running for 6-8 hours of abstract concepts, especially when they haven’t the foggiest idea about what it is that they are mumbling. Unless it is an unusual orthodox synagogue attended by scholars, it is safe to say that they don’t know what it is they are reading, other than having a vague notion that God is wonderful and all-powerful. It gets worse. Even if they have some notion about what the piyut is about they haven’t the time to focus on it before the cantor belts out the concluding ending verse and moves on to the next in rapid fire.

Another issue with the Days of Awe is the long hours between meals. If you follow the prescribed ritual, breakfast is verboten and eating is generally forbidden until at least after kedusha for the Shacharit service (where one could then sneak a light snack). That’s a long time. When the stomach begins to growl most people, even those not suffering from this form of ADD find it difficult to focus on anything but satisfying their hunger. Granted, our grandparents were different. They were disciplined and immediate gratification wasn’t part of their psyche. But for many of us, denial comes with a price tag. Couple that with so many of us suffering from ADD of the synagogue and you have a new appreciation for the Days of Awe.

Hillel and Shammai Revisited

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel were the two premier schools of thought in the century that encompassed the destruction of the second Temple. These schools stemmed from two great thinkers, one strident, the other more insightful, emerged out of the chaos created in the dissolution of the Sanhedrin by Herod. While their relationship was collegial both contributing to the halachic discourse and enrichment of the community their progenitors as expected, had a more difficult time adjusting to a world where there was no Temple. These two schools of thought different as they were from each other in practice and philosophy had the community’s interest at heart. But beyond that each of them based their halachic positions on a principled understanding of text as well as a passionate love for their people. I mention this to set the record straight for those who may have read Shmaryahu Rosenberg’s op-ed in the Forward (“A Rabbinic Tea Party Precedent”, September 23, 2011) in which the School of Shammai was portrayed as a collection of delinquents and hooligans.

Rosenberg’s op-ed did a great injustice to the School of Shammai. He has interpreted the actions of that school through the lens of contemporary American politics, comparing the School of Shammai to the Tea Party movement associated with the Republican Party. If nothing else, the School of Shammai was committed to halachic solutions to real problems effecting real people who witnessed the annihilation of their spiritual center. Politics was not on the agenda, nor were they reacting to a groundswell of opinion or a popular movement. They were principled in their decisions, so much so that the Talmud suggests that until the bat kol (heavenly voice) is heard their point of view is as valid as the School of Hillel. Great scholars were supportive of the School of Shammai as evident by the support of the acclaimed sage Rabbi Tarfon. The Talmud Bavli (Shabbat 25b) in discussing who is considered a rich man sites Rabbi Tarfon of the School of Shammai who declaimed without chagrin that a rich man is ”one who has a hundred vineyards and a hundred fields and a hundred servants to work them”. This was quite different than the School of Hillel who believed a rich person was one who was satisfied with his lot, however small. The school of Shammai had no ulterior political or tax motives for saying this, but a sincere literal and lucid understanding of what it meant to be wealthy. The School of Hillel, being more politically correct perhaps of course, saw wealth as a metaphorically. Needless to say the School of Hillel never defined “rich”, rather defined what it means to be fulfilled or content.

Both approaches were acceptable to the sages and it is for this reason that they said not once that “elu v’elu divrei elohim chaim” (both this and that are the words of the living god), meaning that neither Hillel or Shammai have a monopoly on halachic interpretation. The use of “elu v’elu” referring to both schools would rule out the notion that the School of Shammai were extremists as Rosenberg would have us believe. Ultimately the School of Hillel superseded the School of Shammai perhaps because the bat kol finally came out in Yavne after 70CE in favor of Hillel. Perhaps however there was another reason. The School of Shmmai was noted as understanding text literally while Hillel saw text only through the prism of interpretation, reasonableness and creativity. Thus when the Torah informs us to read the prayer “shema” when “you lie down and when you rise up” the School of Shammai understood it literally. They believed it should be read in a prone position at night, while the School of Hillel understood it to mean that before you go to sleep read the shema and when you wake in the morning. One doesn’t have to be in a prone position to read the “shema” according to the School of Hillel but Rabbi Tarfon agreed with Shammai’s rendering of the text and would lie down before reading the “shema”.

The difference then between the two Schools was the following: The school of Shammai understood the text literally without the need for interpretation. The School of Hillel, more creative and imaginative, wished to probe deeper into what the text really meant and what its adherents were supposed to get out of the text. None of this meant that the School of Shammai was abusive or applied physical force to have their way. Rosenberg’s portrayal of the School of Shammai as intolerant and prone to hooliganism as evidenced by one famous instant that he sites is ridiculous. Of the 350 controversies between the two schools only once was there recorded behavior unbecoming of Talmudic scholars which they were.

The two schools emerged as an answer to the vacuum left when under Herod the Sanhedrin was disbanded as stated previously. In addition and no less important, the battles between the Sadducees and the Pharisees were coming to a close with the destruction of the Temple. The use of the word Pharisee was discouraged and ultimately dropped from usage because of its connotation; the rabbis wishing to end the in fighting known as “sinat chinom” (hateful for no reason) as well as any other forms of derisive behavior. The School of Shammai was part of this effort and to suggest otherwise is misreading Jewish history. Rosenberg’s reading of Shammai is flawed when he says “what Shammai didn’t understand is that the process of democracy itself has a value far beyond the laws decided through it, and circumventing it leads to extremism and disaster”. Perhaps Shammai didn’t grasp the value of a democratic system “a la” Western Democracy. Of course not. They were living in the Middle East two thousand years ago in the shadow of a destroyed Temple with hardly any infrastructure left and unprecedented carnage their lives in shambles without a clear grasp of what was to become of them. Their interest wasn’t democratic process; their concern was the very survival of the Jewish people.

Minoritarianism

There is a rather interesting halacha on the books which refers to “tircha d’tzibur” (inconvenience caused to the general public). Its narrow application would refer to synagogue service where additional non-obligatory devotional prayers are eliminated in order to avoid undue hardship for the community. Although this halacha is fairly limited in its scope it ought to be broadened to encompass situations where as a result of the minorities insistence on marginal halachic adherence to “humras” (unreasonably strict interpretation and application of a Jewish law) and where the general public will suffer, the halacha should be trumped by the concerns of the public. Let us not forget that when these and other halachot were codified Jews weren’t living with the general public, but among themselves, either in forced ghettos or in self contained communities. Those responsible for the development of halacha in this new age, where there is an independent State of Israel and where in the Diaspora most Jews live and work among the general non Jewish population, hasn’t the focus, the keen understanding and awareness, and will to adjust halachic mores and values to fit in to this new paradigm.

Precisely because the Jewish community has developed into a new and unparalleled model where a sea change has engulfed the way we live and think it ought to be obvious to the leading lights of the rabbinical academies that in spite of what 19th century French philosopher and political thinker, Alex De Tocqueville feared the tyranny of the majority the opposite has happened: the tyranny of the minority known as Minoritarianism.

One of my pet peeves with ultra Orthodox Judaism is its rigid adherence to unreasonably strict halachic standards regardless of the consequences to others. Typically ultra orthodox Jews who haven’t cloistered themselves away and feel enlightened enough to mix with the general public still manage to alienate themselves from the public, due to their insistence on following their rigid understanding of halacha regardless of the handicap this will cause to the general public. A classic example of this is the recent brouhaha in the IDF where a fine officer is being asked to resign because of the manner in which he enforced the IDF’s sense of honor and respectful behavior. The incident involves a haredi soldier (cadet) “being forced” to attend a performance where a woman performer was singing, allegedly contrary to Jewish law. The soldier abruptly walked out of the performance because of the halacha proscribing him from listening to a woman singing (kol isha) resulting in his dismissal from the officer’s training course by the commanding officer. The soldier is appealing and asking for the dismissal of the commanding officer claiming that "the reason I joined the army and this particular regiment was my desire to serve in the IDF and contribute to the people of Israel, while maintaining Jewish Law without any compromises”.

The operative word in this quote is “compromises”. In truth, compromise is certainly permitted under Jewish Law. As a matter of fact the sages believed that there are only three things that one has to die for: adultery, murder and idolatry. Everything else can be negotiated or compromised. Everything is subject to interpretation, negotiation and compromise. Our sages were not rigid as so many of the discussions and arguments between Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai will attest to. Hearing a women’s voice isn’t a cardinal law within the hierarchy of the “taryag” (613) mitzvoth and is barely on the radar screen, but picked up by the ultra orthodox as a humra.

The problem is that haredi Jews are living in a bubble where they think that they don’t have to compromise. They believe that they ought to force the majority to their will. In a way it isn’t that much different than the Muslim communities mission to have every soul bend to the will of Allah. In our case there is a haredi desire (mission) for everyone to bend to their interpretation of halacha.

Certainly this particular situation demonstrates that compromise should have been encouraged by the rabbis in order to ensure the discipline necessary within the IDF isn’t compromised. No one was asking this haredi soldier to eat prohibited foods or to desecrate the Shabbat. In question is a problematic and dubious prohibition, which many orthodox Jews don’t subscribe to or abide by. The irony in this is that where de Tocqueville was worried about the tyranny of the majority we have the reverse where a small minority is terrorizing the majority.

Ghetto in a Ghetto

The security wall soon to be completed around Jerusalem conjures up Ghetto and having come back from Israel recently I have had this ghetto obsession. I realize, of course, that Israel isn’t a ghetto in the conventional sense of the European ghettos that our ancestors lived. We aren’t herded into a confined area, nor are gates locked and a curfew maintained nightly. We are an independent country, enforcing our own laws and enter as well as exit the country when we please. As an independent nation we are masters of our own collective destiny. When necessary, to protect our citizens and our independence we raise hell with our Muslim neighbors. Nevertheless, I keep on wondering whether Israel has become another ghetto, but this time larger, self sufficient and more potent than our previous experiences as ghetto dwellers, thus giving the word ghetto a new meaning. I can’t help but think that if it were true it would be one of the cruel ironies of Jewish history. After all, the whole point of the Zionist enterprise was to free us from the ghetto mentality, to build the new Jew in a new land. Yet, when coming back from my past visit I couldn’t shake this intuitive feeling that I just experienced what my ancestors must have felt in the European ghettos.

In the European ghettos we were locked in at night, subjected to horrific indignities and intolerable discrimination at the hand of the government and good Christian neighbors. Sometimes, and not infrequently, Christian neighbors ganged up on us, a “free for all” by the “pogromchiks” when they decided to have some fun with us on our own turf. They would storm our villages, pillage, rape and murder, and then recede for a while until the next time. But you all know that. What you may not realize however is that a similar pattern has unfolded in the moledet. We aren’t at liberty to pass passport control at any of the exit points to travel to the immediate neighborhood without special entry visas to the Palestinian territories. We can’t travel at will to neighboring countries which border Israel, underscoring our minority status in a very hostile environment as we were once before in Europe. Add to that the constant barrage of rockets from Gaza and we have pogroms operated through remote control. When we go in to clear out the “pogromchiks” we are condemned by the world with a resounding: “shut up Jew, stop complaining, be happy you’re allowed to breath.”

That’s the macro ghetto, the nation of Israel living daily in the shadow of an angry and cruel neighborhood and an antisemitic United Nations. But then I wonder about the micro ghetto, you know, the ghetto within the ghetto. The ultra orthodox communities haven’t yet reconciled itself to joining the larger community and seek to separate itself socially, physically and culturally from the greater corpus of the Jewish people. It seems that the greatest of the culprits is non other than in Jerusalem.

Interestingly, the new tram that will be starting operations shortly has been shrouded in controversy from its very inception. There were those that claimed that it wouldn’t meet the transportation needs of a significant Jerusalem population and therefore the budget wasn’t justified. Others maintained that it would destroy the businesses in the city center since it would shift population away from the commercial center that has been ensconced there for a hundred years. These arguments had merit and were worth consideration. Now however, a new and totally unnecessary controversy has arisen around the tram. Will the tram provide the necessary separation between men and women, and will there be provisions for public prayer? So when the municipality made arrangements that the last car would be designated as the haredi car where only men would be seated the question arose if it was appropriate for them to have the second car, which meant that they would be seated behind women! Pathetic and insulting to a country that prides itself in being counted among the enlightened West.

And if this wasn’t enough, Jerusalem haredim are seeking to establish a new market place because the classic and historical one, the Shuk Mahane Yehudah sponsored the Balabasta Festival, which according to the rigid Puritanical standards of the haredim wasn’t halachically appropriate, not measuring up to the standards of the “Badatz” sniff test. The new and improved market will have separate shopping hours for men and women. Frankly it sounds quite colorless, and a significant deviation from Jewish religious standards – even haredi standards.

In my youth I lived in Jerusalem having attended university there and was well integrated in this universal city. Then, it was a cosmopolitan city, an intellectual magnet for students, artists and professionals. It wasn’t a ghetto. It attracted the best and the brightest from all over America and Europe. Since those halcyon days, Jerusalem has been slipping backward with no end in sight, preferring the backwater flavor of a shtetl, a ghetto, where there is little room for intellectual curiosity and growth beyond which is offered in a yeshiva. A ghetto within a ghetto.

Mesirah Madness

On the backdrop of the Levi Aron case (abducted and murdered Leiby Kletzky, July 12, 2011) the messy business of Mesirah has surfaced again, this time pointing to the sharp philosophical and principled differences between Agudas Israel and the Rabbinical Council of America. According to Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky of Agudas Israel, a rav (rabbi) has to be consulted prior to informing the police of a suspect in abuse, otherwise it might be considered a case of mesirah. Only a rav can adequately assess whether there is validity to the claim, according to Kamenetsky. The RCA, on the other hand, in a statement released by them confirms that if there is a suspected pedophile in the community they are obligated to be report it to the secular authorities immediately without consulting with a rabbi. Rabbi Shmuel Goldin, president of the RCA believes that if one has to err, it should be in favor of the potential victim. The two opposing views reveal the philosophical and substantive differences between the two parties.

Before getting to these differences, it would be beneficial to review the halachic sources and definition of a moser. Mesirah in Jewish law consists of informing or turning over another Jew to the non-Jewish authorities. The informer is referred to as a moser, something like a whistleblower. There is a severe prohibition against mesirah. Even if the moser is a religiously observant Jew, meticulously observing halachic practice, by being a moser he demonstrates his rejection of klal yisrael and is treated as an akum (oved chochavim, an idolater, Yoreh Deah 281:3 / Rambam Hilchot Teshuvah 3:11). However, like everything else in Jewish law, the laws of mesirah aren’t clear-cut. If a non-Jewish government official suspects that the Jewish community is withholding a suspect or vital information about a suspect this is considered a chilul hashem. In addition, if there was a criminal hiding within the Jewish community, rather than have the entire community seen as complicit by covering for him, the community is allowed to inform the authorities (Choshen Mishpat 388:2). Mesirah was treated more severely during stress periods such as during the Spanish Inquisition and in medieval Europe where survival depended on avoiding contact with government, regardless of how benign . Even if one were guilty of a crime, but because the government was anti-Semitic the fear was that the criminal would be treated harsher than what he actually deserved either by receiving a longer, harsher punishment, or abused by other inmates, turning him in would be considered mesirah. Today, however, where justice is delivered free of anti-Semitism, the rules governing mesirah have certainly changed and if there is someone within the Jewish community that is harmful or has become a public nuisance he can be turned over to the authorities at least according to the Choshen Mishpat 388:45.

This being the case the question is by what standard has Agudas Yisrael claimed that before turning a suspect over to the authorities one first has to consult with a rav. What possible insights or wisdom could a rabbi possibly have in making a determination than anyone else? I have often argued that one of the motivators of the orthodox rabbinic establishment, impotent as it is, is trying wherever possible to find a wedge by which they could increase their power. For the most part, much of their power has been eviscerated (through the empowerment of federations, social service agencies, communal leaders as well as an educated lay community) and the little power and influence remaining is being manipulated, even at the expense of possible victims. Their rational is that it protects the innocent under a troubled system that claims one is innocent until proven guilty but in fact is judged by the court of public opinion before the facts are in. Furthermore they claim that there is too much reliance on circumstantial evidence and too much plea-bargaining that provide incentives for false testimony.

While all this may or may not be true, the picture is broader and larger than their community. We no longer live in homogenous communities and people, including pedophiles are mobile and move from place to place, community to community and country to country (Abraham Monderovitz, is an example of a wondering Jew, fleeing from New York to his hometown Chicago and ultimately to Israel). We can no longer afford to foster a parochial vision of community but must see the wider implications of this irresponsible behavior. Agudas Israel operates with this myopic and parochial mindset while buttressing the power of their rabbinate that seem to have the unique and intuitive ability to reach a better determination than the layperson suspecting the abuse. What makes the rav any more competent to assess the claim than the claimant? He isn’t. Agudas Israel however is more concerned with maintaining the power of the rav within the community than they are concerned about protecting their followers from danger and harm. It appears that the RCA is more concerned with protecting the wider public from the possible harm of a suspected individual while Agudas Israel, less interested in the public, is more concerned with protecting the individual from the damage he might suffer from the legal system.

The Three Weeks: A Muse

On July 19, 2011 I flew El Al to Israel. It was a remarkable flight not only because it was less than half full but also memorable because of the musings it generated during the flight. For many this date is significant because it happened to coincide with the 17th of Tamuz, a fast day marking the beginning of the “three weeks”, culminating with the 9th of Av, a day that has gone done in infamy in Jewish history. The 9th of Av (better known as Tisha B’Av) marks the final destruction of the two Temples as well as numerous calamities that the sages claim happened on the 9th of Av, including expulsion of the Jewish community from Spain in 1492. Because of these historic calamities and the initializing of the Diaspora on this date, it would have been poetic justice had I left Israel on the Tisha B’Av.

In reality, Tisha B’Av is an anachronism in the Hebrew calendar. The other holidays on the Hebrew calendar are religious in nature reaching back to our scared texts, based upon ritual practice as practiced during and around the Temple service. Chanukah and Purim, which are post biblical, are celebratory in nature and have become part of the calendar because of the religious nature assigned to them by the rabbis and sages. With the exception of the Fast of Gedaliah, the17th of Tamuz and the 9th of Av aren’t positive religious experiences but rather are national calamities that point to the negative national, social and religious impact on the people. These two fasts then, bracketing the “three weeks” were and are national in character and thus making the rabbis as uncomfortable about them as they were about celebrating Chanukah as a national holiday rather than as a religious event. In line with this reasoning the rabbis texturized this three-week period with overlays of religious practice and detailed halachic proscriptions.

The conundrum in observance of these two fast days is that by marking these days essentially we are celebrating powerlessness. The destruction of the two Temples was the ultimate and supreme expressions of what powerlessness can bring. The destruction of the two Temples and our two thousand year sojourn in the Diaspora was the result, the rabbis argue of “sinat chinom”, unjustified and unqualified hatred, the balkanization of the Hebrew nation in to factious groups with the inability to stand united (The first Temple was destroyed according to the sages because of the flagrant violation of three principle sins: adultery, murder and idolatry). In fact however, the destruction of both Temples were as a result of the Commonwealth’s loss of political power. In both cases the Temples were corrupted long before they were destroyed; their priests were unfit and in fact no longer met the needs of the people they were ostensibly there to serve. Thus to mourn the destruction of the Temples is to mourn the destruction of a corrupt political/religious system which was powerless and existed only at the mercy of other regional powers. By marking these two days as seminal markers of our peoples destiny by fasting and self flagellation, we are in fact praying for the restoration of a Temple service that was not only corrupt but didn’t meet the national/religious/social needs of its citizens. The sages knew this, thus allowing for the Pharisees too wrestle power away from the Sadducees, the keepers of the Temple and the ritual associated with it.

These were some of my thoughts while flying to Israel on the17th of Tamuz, the seat of Jewish power and the arbiter of our fate as a people. Unlike the two previous Commonwealths this State actually has the power to decide its future regarding its foreign policy as well as determine what kind of a state it wishes to be. It has the democratic tools, governmental and non-governmental institutions available to make intelligent decisions regarding the welfare of its citizens. It is a country that gives full expression and meaning to the idea of “peoplehood” by virtue of its independence in its homeland.

There are those of the opinion that living in the Diaspora and observing Jewish ritual, including observing the halachic minutiae of the Three Weeks in some way brings them in line with the trajectory of Jewish history. It’s the opposite: By celebrating these two fasts and everything bracketed in between is a rejection of the modern State of Israel, and at best believing the State can be greatly improved upon by prayer and fasting for the reestablishment of the Temple service. It would appear that these people haven’t learned the lessons of history, thus placing themselves on the wrong side of history.


d

Circumcision Circumscribed

The San Francisco initiative to ban circumcision has been lauded by many within the liberal Jewish community as forward thinking and has gained enough legitimacy that it has been promoted in the Forward (July 10, 2011). Ironically these foreskin advocates are reminiscent of the Neanderthals who needed that protective sheath in order to maintain the integrity of their glans when roaming through the wilds, foraging and hunting in their state of nakedness. It seems we’ve come a long way, or have we? Perhaps we have and we long for the days when men were real men. Making believe we are hunters again by driving a SUV just doesn’t cut it—neither does cutting foreskin. The San Francisco initiative also brings to mind the Hellenized Jews of the 3rd and 4th centuries BCE of which the Macabees fought against and prevailed. At least one could argue, that the Hellenized Jews had a feeble excuse in that their initiative to mimic the Greeks (by avoiding Periah—removal of prepuce) predated normative Judaism. Judaism was in a flux, and although the mitzvah of milah (circumcision) was crystal clear, normative Judaism as it came down to us through the pharisaic/rabbinic tradition was only in its infancy.

There are Jews in America who have done whatever possible to undermine normative Judaism from declaring the legitimacy of patrilineal descent in defining the religious pedigree of offspring to lobbying for the deligitimization of circumcision that has been the sine qua non of the male rite of passage into the tribal fold; an inviolable fundamental right and rite of the Jewish community. If an individual seeks not to circumcise that ought to be his individual right; the male child still considered a member of the tribe. But the tribe has its rites and rights of self-definition and determination. It is because we have exercised these rites for thousands of years in spite of adverse conditions, we have forged a mighty character that has served us well.

Jews have survived and thrived with our unique customs and laws. Oddly enough, it’s those Jews that have clung to their traditions are the ones who ultimately thrived and survived. The ones that sought to undergo Hellenization are the ones who disappeared. Assimilation is nothing new to us. We have experienced break off groups over the centuries that, because of their interpretation (or lack there of) have ultimately become cults, splintering off from the corpus of the Jewish people. We are small, tough, nimble and we are rather selective of who we admit, and because of that we have prevailed. For many of us traditional Jews, the idea of eating meat while downing a glass of milk is absolutely nauseating. The idea of having sex with a foreskin intact is equally nauseating (so I’ve been told). As in all societies there are taboos and in ours, male foreskin happens to be one of those taboos. If you don’t like it, you may choose not to follow. But do not try to ruin it for the preponderant community of Jews (regardless of denomination) that subscribe to normative Judaism and the taboos that it engenders.

This dastardly, narcissistic and self-serving attempt to rationalize the banning of circumcision by siting Mishnaic/Talmudic sources that the sages themselves weren’t certain as to what truly constitutes circumcision; milah (circumcision) with or without periah (removing the prepuce) is disingenuous. It reminds me of the old Yiddish expression “chazir fissel kosher,” the pig presents himself as kosher because he has split hoofs! The bottom line is, just as the pig doesn’t chew its cud and therefore not kosher, milah without periah isn’t milah. The interpretive guidelines of the sages are precisely what makes and defines normative Judaism. To negate that is to negate the basic, core fundamental structure of normative Judaism. It is those interpretive guidelines that have formed the Jewish laws and customs to which we subscribe to collectively, as a people, even though individuals may opt to not observe them. Thus, a kosher household isn’t one that follows the dietary laws of the Pentateuch, for that kind of household would be deemed non kosher by normative Judaism. A household that follows the dietary laws as defined by the sages and rabbis over thousands of years has become the gold standard, with perhaps variation as a result of technology and cultural modifications.

Similarly the Biblical injunction “An Eye for an Eye” if followed literally would mean that we would behave barbarously toward our adversaries rather than solving disputes by rule of law, as our tradition requires. That rule of law is embedded in the wisdom of the sages who ultimately fashioned for future generations normative Judaism. Without their wisdom we would understand justice as poking out eyes (probably how the uncircumcised Neanderthal settled disputes), sitting in the dark on Shabbat, witch hunting and “killing non-believers in your midst” (Deuteronomy 13:12-16). Periah too falls into the very same line of reasoning. If you accept the wisdom of the sages in interpreting our laws then how can you cut out the law of periah that defines authentic and proper milah?

On second thought, these enlightened Jews may have it right. As some Hellenized Jews opted for a painful procedure of covering the glans, mimicking a foreskin and/or avoiding circumcision altogether then maybe we could do the same. Perhaps America’s talented plastic surgeons can do a reverse “circumcision plasti.” It isn’t so unreasonable. If plastic surgeons have developed the famed and sought after “vaginal plasti,” why not a “glans plasti” making us men again, real men who can hunt and fish just like our Neanderthal ancestors who preferred poking out an eye rather than resorting to the sophistication of a justice system.