An obsessive preoccupation among many modern orthodox rabbis and educators is dealing with the slackening of Sabbath observance among many of its member’s progeny. Not surprisingly many young modern orthodox people today are using electricity on Shabbat, perhaps not in the traditional sense of turning lights on and off, or operating electrical equipment but text messaging. For many of these young people, staying connected in this manner is a life style choice that they choose not to disconnect from, even on the Shabbat. Many of them not wishing to see themselves as desecrating the Shabbat refer to their observance of “half Shabbat” rather than “whole Shabbat,” mitigating the ostensible sin (I am aware of half hallel and half kaddish, but half Shabbat is something new). Some community psychologists aware of this phenomenon treat it at an addiction thereby relieving the young people of their responsibility, as well as minimizing the failure of the educational/religious institutions. The fact that this has become an issue within the modern orthodox community is indicative of the continued erosion of their viability.
For years modern orthodoxy has been unfortunately but unavoidably on the denouement. Its apex was from 1960 through the early 1980’s, with a downward trajectory from the mid 1980’s onward. This was inevitable because within modern orthodoxy were the seeds of its own destruction sown unwittingly by its founder, Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik. By suggesting that one can be fully engaged in society as a halachically observant Jew and at the same time embrace secular education is a prescription for conflict and failure. The two value systems are mutually exclusive and cannot with any integrity dovetail.
If the purpose for attending college is solely to gain a profession with never the intention to engage in the peripheral arts and humanities available than the conflict is at a minimal. But then again, if that is all the person is coming away with is a profession, than how is that person different than a tailor, plumber or butcher of the pre war Eastern European shtetel. He’s in effect a tradesman, because his skills are limited, lacking the critical intellectual skills necessary for understanding the wider world. On the other hand, if one enters university with the intent of acquiring a profession but in addition wishing in earnest to be exposed to the full panoply of western culture than he is subjecting his modern orthodox value system to challenges that may not be able to withstand the probing questions arising from critical analysis.
A student fully engaged in western ideas and values is proscribed from fully embracing the demands of torah values. These two value systems are tectonic plates butting up against each other with only one able to gain primacy. They clash because each one represents different, incompatible and irreconcilable value systems. Orthodox Judaism rests fully on faith in a creator, the divinity of the Torah as well as the oral tradition. Western value systems rest on philosophic and scientific inquiry where every assumption can and will be tested and examined from every possible angle. It is a value system, which traded faith for science and philosophy; it is the combination of scientific and philosophical inquiry, which has given us this prosperous society, bestowing upon western man, increased dignity, healthier living, and quality of life.
This then is the legacy of western civilization, which modern Orthodox Judaism is hopelessly struggling to engage. For the custodians of modern orthodoxy to preoccupy themselves with youth texting on Shabbat is missing the point entirely. Texting on Shabbat is merely a symptom of a much greater problem these young people are struggling with: the awareness that they have arrived at the threshold of understanding the clash between two societies, two irreconcilable world views, two tectonic value systems pitted against each other.
The true issue isn’t texting or whether they are observing half or whole Shabbat as much has the underlying realization that these young people are products of the 21st century, a generation of children raised totally on and by technology, who not only value it but embrace it. Texting is no more of an addiction than reading used to be an addiction. It isn’t fair to expect from our young people to remain in a state of suspended animation, dangling out there, paralyzed with the inability to choose between the old and the new, Torah or technology. To be sure many will be packed of to yeshivot in Israel for their gap year: some will return home super religious, others will struggle with their faith. What isn’t clear is the percentages. What is clear is that Modern Orthodoxy is on the steady continuum of decline.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Flatlining Tikun Olam
Guilt seems to be a character trait embedded in the DNA of Ashkenazi Jews (whether or not this is the case in the Sephardic community is debatable). Personal experience and keen observation over the past several decades has led me to believe that deeply engrained guilt coupled with other social/political circumstances has created a Jewish democratic scrimmage line dividing it from other emigrant communities who have realized the American dream and moved on to the republican party. Jews however are stuck in the liberal/Democratic tradition justified by a distorted notion of tikun olam. They can’t break free of this gordian knot and in spite of some of the recent but complex theories put forth by Norman Podhoretz (Why Are Jews Liberals) the answer is quite simple. Jews are driven by guilt. Jews feel guilty if there is any hunger in the world, disease, natural catastrophes, economic dislocation, war etc. The converse doesn’t apply however. When Jews are in a “tight spot” as we were too many times in the past and even today, there aren’t too many liberals coming to our aid or defense. It must be, the reasoning goes, that we brought it on ourselves or that we are guilty of violating the human rights of others. There have even been theologians who have explained away the holocaust as the will of God wishing to punish his chosen for not being obedient to His law.
Jews have a Christ complex. We are constantly sacrificing ourselves for the redemption of mankind. What we do and how we behave is for the good of the world. And we have our Talmudic and prophetic sources. “Whoever saves one person its as though he saved an entire world”, declaims Ethics of Our Fathers, or Isaiah or Jeremiah castigating the Jews for not living more ethical, moral lives. Our liberal rabbis love quoting from prophets because it tends to fit neatly into their liberal worldview of social justice buttressed by their hijacking of tikun olam, which never had anything to do with social justice. We Jews feel guilty that African-Americans are still on the bottom of the socioeconomic heap. Surprisingly black leadership doesn’t feel nearly as guilty as Jews do. Jews have had nothing to do with the plight of the black man nor were we ever responsible for him being sold as a slave 400 years ago. Yet we have taken ownership for this and a myriad of other social issues weaving them into our narrative of Judaism and the words of our prophets. The idea of tikun olam has been subverted and hijacked by the liberal rabbinate through the manipulation of guilt as a means by which to exercise its control and authority over its community.
For a long time I too bought into the agenda of the greater liberal democratic Jewish community that had social justice as its priority until I realized that our tradition rests on three legs: torah, neveim (prophets) and ketubim (wisdom books). The liberal rabbinate and their constituents seemed to have mined the torah and the neveim for the message and charge of social justice. However, absent were the teachings of the third leg – ketubim. That noticeable absence has been responsible for the distortion of Jewish teachings, creating only a partial portrait of Jewish values. In my study of the wisdom books one thing became abundantly clear: the message of the prophets wasn’t shared by the sofrim (writers of wisdom books) who were more interested and concerned with the development of the individual than the community. Now I began to understand why the liberal rabbinate so conveniently ignored the teachings of these wisdom books: Prophetic teaching were concerned with the larger community while the message of the ketubim was directed at the individual. The spiritual/intellectual development of the individual trumped the development of the community. The message of the ketubim didn’t fit into their neat little world of communal power and the exercise of authority. The guilt factor is totally absent from the ketubim, seen no longer as a tool of control.
Ecclesiastes is one example of a wisdom book which if anything dispels the notion of social justice or as many would call it tikun olam. While Hebrew prophets were concerned with social iniquity the sofrim were accepting of life as it was even with the absence of social justice. They were aware of evil but not motivated to modify those conditions. While the prophets saw redemption in the world to come, the sofrim were formulating their own ideas of individual fulfillment and gratification in the here and now. The sofrim for the most part members of the landed gentry were content with the status quo and although might have been aware of social injustice wished to maintain the status quo. Unlike the prophets who denounced corrupt monarchs such as Nathan and Elijah attacking the crimes of royalty, we have conservative positions from the sofrim such as this quote from Proverbs “My son, fear the Lord and the King. And do not become involved with those who seek change”(24:21). How’s that for tikun olam. Or “for the kings word is all-powerful and who can say to him what are you doing”(8:2).
The Ketubim are no less important and just as weighty as the prophets and Torah, After all they were canonized at the Council of Yamnia in the first century CE. The ketubim were no doubted canonized for later generations to study and learn from, as were the prophets. It would mean then that notions of guilt and its exploitation as a means of control aren’t necessary for those who subscribe to the teaching of the sofrim. It would behoove the liberal rabbinate and their followers to contextualize prophets and begin taking to heart the teachings of the sofrim. Perhaps they will be able to redeem themselves from a lifetime of guilt.
Jews have a Christ complex. We are constantly sacrificing ourselves for the redemption of mankind. What we do and how we behave is for the good of the world. And we have our Talmudic and prophetic sources. “Whoever saves one person its as though he saved an entire world”, declaims Ethics of Our Fathers, or Isaiah or Jeremiah castigating the Jews for not living more ethical, moral lives. Our liberal rabbis love quoting from prophets because it tends to fit neatly into their liberal worldview of social justice buttressed by their hijacking of tikun olam, which never had anything to do with social justice. We Jews feel guilty that African-Americans are still on the bottom of the socioeconomic heap. Surprisingly black leadership doesn’t feel nearly as guilty as Jews do. Jews have had nothing to do with the plight of the black man nor were we ever responsible for him being sold as a slave 400 years ago. Yet we have taken ownership for this and a myriad of other social issues weaving them into our narrative of Judaism and the words of our prophets. The idea of tikun olam has been subverted and hijacked by the liberal rabbinate through the manipulation of guilt as a means by which to exercise its control and authority over its community.
For a long time I too bought into the agenda of the greater liberal democratic Jewish community that had social justice as its priority until I realized that our tradition rests on three legs: torah, neveim (prophets) and ketubim (wisdom books). The liberal rabbinate and their constituents seemed to have mined the torah and the neveim for the message and charge of social justice. However, absent were the teachings of the third leg – ketubim. That noticeable absence has been responsible for the distortion of Jewish teachings, creating only a partial portrait of Jewish values. In my study of the wisdom books one thing became abundantly clear: the message of the prophets wasn’t shared by the sofrim (writers of wisdom books) who were more interested and concerned with the development of the individual than the community. Now I began to understand why the liberal rabbinate so conveniently ignored the teachings of these wisdom books: Prophetic teaching were concerned with the larger community while the message of the ketubim was directed at the individual. The spiritual/intellectual development of the individual trumped the development of the community. The message of the ketubim didn’t fit into their neat little world of communal power and the exercise of authority. The guilt factor is totally absent from the ketubim, seen no longer as a tool of control.
Ecclesiastes is one example of a wisdom book which if anything dispels the notion of social justice or as many would call it tikun olam. While Hebrew prophets were concerned with social iniquity the sofrim were accepting of life as it was even with the absence of social justice. They were aware of evil but not motivated to modify those conditions. While the prophets saw redemption in the world to come, the sofrim were formulating their own ideas of individual fulfillment and gratification in the here and now. The sofrim for the most part members of the landed gentry were content with the status quo and although might have been aware of social injustice wished to maintain the status quo. Unlike the prophets who denounced corrupt monarchs such as Nathan and Elijah attacking the crimes of royalty, we have conservative positions from the sofrim such as this quote from Proverbs “My son, fear the Lord and the King. And do not become involved with those who seek change”(24:21). How’s that for tikun olam. Or “for the kings word is all-powerful and who can say to him what are you doing”(8:2).
The Ketubim are no less important and just as weighty as the prophets and Torah, After all they were canonized at the Council of Yamnia in the first century CE. The ketubim were no doubted canonized for later generations to study and learn from, as were the prophets. It would mean then that notions of guilt and its exploitation as a means of control aren’t necessary for those who subscribe to the teaching of the sofrim. It would behoove the liberal rabbinate and their followers to contextualize prophets and begin taking to heart the teachings of the sofrim. Perhaps they will be able to redeem themselves from a lifetime of guilt.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Desperately in Need of Tikun
In reading JJ Goldberg article “As Bibi Slouches Toward September” this past week (Forward, June 3, 2011) I was struck at the visceral hate oozing out of his words; daggers aimed at the heart of Israel and its political establishment. Goldberg, like many American Jewish liberals can’t tolerate the fact that there are leaders in Israel with a clear vision for Israel’s future, unwilling to compromise with the core values that are essential for survival. It so happens that it is those leaders who hold a majority through coalition building and therefore speak for the majority of Israelis. One would think that a liberal like Goldberg would respect the political will of the people. Nor could Goldberg accept with magnanimity Benjamin Netanyahu acceptance and warm welcome by Congress not as a politician but as statesman addressing them as an equal offering his vision for peace and Israel’s future.
Instead Goldberg writes that “Bibi slouches toward September”, the negative imagery of a tired man, bent dragging himself to the inevitable defeat that September will bring at the United Nations. According to Goldberg, Bibi won the battle, but he lost the war because of his arrogance. Because of his unyielding position based on what he considers principles and core values essential for a future where Israel can flourish, Goldberg has portrayed Bibi as a megalomaniac. Goldberg can hardly wait for September to arrive. He’s chomping at the bit, salivating like a ravenous dog, restrained only by a choker from a slab of red meat, straining to pounce on it:
Now when the roof falls in on Israel in September, he can be the tough guy who told them to bring it on…And make no mistake, the roof will fall in. The Palestinians will overwhelmingly win recognition as an independent state in the United Nations General Assembly…”
The venomous language of Goldberg when he says, “he can be the tough guy who told them to bring it on” is intended to remind us of George Bush so reviled by the left and cleverly applied here. Goldberg writes of the terrible times facing Israel: economic sanctions, boycotting, divestment and where it will be difficult for Israel to get fuel or spare parts for their military juggernaut. He writes as though he were a prophet of old, sagacious, but with the unfortunate distinction that he writes with glee rather than sorrow in his heart.
If that doesn’t work the Palestinians, according to Goldberg will take their case to the World Court, the international Criminal Court, the European Credit Markets and universities, while tens of thousands of Palestinians march on the borders was Israeli troops machine gun them down in cold blood.
These are the scenarios of JJ Goldberg, editor of the Forward. What a lovely liberal, but unfortunately a miscreant, a Jew desperately in need of “tikun”, whose allegiance isn’t to his people but to the Socialist International. Goldberg, the galus Jew is worried that Israel’s position might cause tension within the State Department and the CIA spilling over into the media and causing people to ask why is America involved in the Israel/Palestinian conflict? He’s afraid of the discomfort it might cause him and his liberal friends. Tsk.Tsk.Tsk. It appears as though Goldberg is more concerned with Goldberg than he is with Israel!
Criticism over Israel’s policies is legitimate and in taking a position inconsistent with Israel’s policies is in the spirit of democratic values and the exchange of ideas. But Goldberg’s tone and nuance crossed the line from helpful and instructive to malevolent and self-indulging. Over the years I could never understand why Goldberg obsessed over Israel’s position vis a vis peace. Then it dawned on me after reading this article: global human rights trumps Israel’s right to exist. Nothing would make Goldberg happier than to see Israel’s security edge sacrificed on the altar of global human rights.
Instead Goldberg writes that “Bibi slouches toward September”, the negative imagery of a tired man, bent dragging himself to the inevitable defeat that September will bring at the United Nations. According to Goldberg, Bibi won the battle, but he lost the war because of his arrogance. Because of his unyielding position based on what he considers principles and core values essential for a future where Israel can flourish, Goldberg has portrayed Bibi as a megalomaniac. Goldberg can hardly wait for September to arrive. He’s chomping at the bit, salivating like a ravenous dog, restrained only by a choker from a slab of red meat, straining to pounce on it:
Now when the roof falls in on Israel in September, he can be the tough guy who told them to bring it on…And make no mistake, the roof will fall in. The Palestinians will overwhelmingly win recognition as an independent state in the United Nations General Assembly…”
The venomous language of Goldberg when he says, “he can be the tough guy who told them to bring it on” is intended to remind us of George Bush so reviled by the left and cleverly applied here. Goldberg writes of the terrible times facing Israel: economic sanctions, boycotting, divestment and where it will be difficult for Israel to get fuel or spare parts for their military juggernaut. He writes as though he were a prophet of old, sagacious, but with the unfortunate distinction that he writes with glee rather than sorrow in his heart.
If that doesn’t work the Palestinians, according to Goldberg will take their case to the World Court, the international Criminal Court, the European Credit Markets and universities, while tens of thousands of Palestinians march on the borders was Israeli troops machine gun them down in cold blood.
These are the scenarios of JJ Goldberg, editor of the Forward. What a lovely liberal, but unfortunately a miscreant, a Jew desperately in need of “tikun”, whose allegiance isn’t to his people but to the Socialist International. Goldberg, the galus Jew is worried that Israel’s position might cause tension within the State Department and the CIA spilling over into the media and causing people to ask why is America involved in the Israel/Palestinian conflict? He’s afraid of the discomfort it might cause him and his liberal friends. Tsk.Tsk.Tsk. It appears as though Goldberg is more concerned with Goldberg than he is with Israel!
Criticism over Israel’s policies is legitimate and in taking a position inconsistent with Israel’s policies is in the spirit of democratic values and the exchange of ideas. But Goldberg’s tone and nuance crossed the line from helpful and instructive to malevolent and self-indulging. Over the years I could never understand why Goldberg obsessed over Israel’s position vis a vis peace. Then it dawned on me after reading this article: global human rights trumps Israel’s right to exist. Nothing would make Goldberg happier than to see Israel’s security edge sacrificed on the altar of global human rights.
Monday, June 6, 2011
Looks Like A Duck
For those not satisfied with their lives, for those still feeling unfulfilled, and for those yet in search of happiness I am here to tell you that there is a second chance, an opportunity for redemption. You don’t have to repent, you don’t have to fast, meditate or self flagellate, and most of all you don’t have to become haredi. All you need to do is connect to secondlife.com and you can live out all of your fantasies. I read about secondlife.com a few years ago and went on-line to explore the possibilities. On secondlife.com you can take on a whole new fantasy persona. If you never like being a bald, nearsighted, effeminate, physically underdeveloped male Jew, you now have the opportunity to assume a new image and identity, transforming yourself into a tall, muscular adventurous stud. Similarly if you are an over weight, out of shape, faded middle age Jewish mother you can now have the chance of assuming a Barbie look alike, available to party with unending possibilities of trysts. The question is: does living a virtual life equal to living a real life? Does robbing a bank as an avatar on secondlife.com translate into being a felon, arrested and prosecuted? Does having multiple affairs on secondlife.com for a married man constitute adultery to be adjudicated by the legal system? In England, the courts ruled that a man living a virtual life and having a virtual affair in secondlife.com constituted adultery and grounds for divorce, even though it was only a virtual affair by a avatar in relationship with another avatar.
The courts in England understood the concept behind adultery and interpreted it to mean that the intent was consistent with actual adultery. In Jewish law there is a concept in “dinei ishut” of machshava lo k’maaseh”, that the conjured thought doesn’t constitute the act itself. Thus if a married man fantasizes making love to a woman other than his wife he wouldn’t be guilty of adultery. But what if he didn’t imagine it, but played it out on-line in an intricately woven fantasy world in which he was an avatar seeking out an affair. Would Machshava Lo K’maaseh” be applicable? Perhaps the courts in England may have helped the halachists along by nudging them in a different direction. Plotting out a relationship with another avatar may be adulterous since the intent was real (albeit fantasy), no longer living only in the imagination but in another dimension – a virtual dimension.
All of this brings me to the subject of this musing and that is the virtual (kosher) bacon products that are on our food shelves and rendered kosher by the mainstream koshering agencies that filter out the things we ought not eat. J&D Food Company has a line of products, which are bacon flavored but are vegetarian. They are considered kosher by the OU as well as other agencies such as Kof-K. On the surface it would seem to be kosher, but then I am reminded of the ruling in the London courts regarding the adultery committed by a virtual liaison in secondlife.com. There actually wasn’t any physical contact between the two consenting adults but the intent was to consummate the relationship, and lacking physical presence they settled for virtual sex. Desiring to taste and eat the bacon isn’t halachically permissible but then there is the next best thing – virtual bacon. That is, something that appears to be bacon: it looks like bacon and tastes like bacon.
The bible prohibits consuming the flesh and bi products from that curious animal that doesn’t chew its cud but does have split hooves. However, the halachists maintain that the Bible doesn’t say we can’t mimic the taste of the swine (in fact doesn’t midrash tell us that the Israelites were able to ascribe to the manna any flavor they so imagined). That then is the loophole of the halachists. However if we look beyond the written law to the spirit of the law, as did the courts in London, another picture emerges. While we do not have conclusive reasons for the dietary laws and forbidden animals, we do know that to a large degree these laws were enacted to differentiate us from the extant culture. The intent was to develop a different culture, a new and unique one, to be a light unto others, to be apart from (am kohanim v’goy kadosh), different than the other cultures. (This too is partially the reason why we aren’t supposed to imbibe wine (stam yeinam) that isn’t kosher. The intent was to prevent us from closely mixing socially with the gentiles. To be separate, apart and different was the intention). By creating virtual bacon that looks, tastes and smell like the real thing aren’t we defeating the purpose and intent of the law. After all if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s a duck. Thanks to our halachists we can now sprinkle bacon on our salads, season our food with it and serve steak with mock buttered potatoes. Does life get any better?
The courts in England understood the concept behind adultery and interpreted it to mean that the intent was consistent with actual adultery. In Jewish law there is a concept in “dinei ishut” of machshava lo k’maaseh”, that the conjured thought doesn’t constitute the act itself. Thus if a married man fantasizes making love to a woman other than his wife he wouldn’t be guilty of adultery. But what if he didn’t imagine it, but played it out on-line in an intricately woven fantasy world in which he was an avatar seeking out an affair. Would Machshava Lo K’maaseh” be applicable? Perhaps the courts in England may have helped the halachists along by nudging them in a different direction. Plotting out a relationship with another avatar may be adulterous since the intent was real (albeit fantasy), no longer living only in the imagination but in another dimension – a virtual dimension.
All of this brings me to the subject of this musing and that is the virtual (kosher) bacon products that are on our food shelves and rendered kosher by the mainstream koshering agencies that filter out the things we ought not eat. J&D Food Company has a line of products, which are bacon flavored but are vegetarian. They are considered kosher by the OU as well as other agencies such as Kof-K. On the surface it would seem to be kosher, but then I am reminded of the ruling in the London courts regarding the adultery committed by a virtual liaison in secondlife.com. There actually wasn’t any physical contact between the two consenting adults but the intent was to consummate the relationship, and lacking physical presence they settled for virtual sex. Desiring to taste and eat the bacon isn’t halachically permissible but then there is the next best thing – virtual bacon. That is, something that appears to be bacon: it looks like bacon and tastes like bacon.
The bible prohibits consuming the flesh and bi products from that curious animal that doesn’t chew its cud but does have split hooves. However, the halachists maintain that the Bible doesn’t say we can’t mimic the taste of the swine (in fact doesn’t midrash tell us that the Israelites were able to ascribe to the manna any flavor they so imagined). That then is the loophole of the halachists. However if we look beyond the written law to the spirit of the law, as did the courts in London, another picture emerges. While we do not have conclusive reasons for the dietary laws and forbidden animals, we do know that to a large degree these laws were enacted to differentiate us from the extant culture. The intent was to develop a different culture, a new and unique one, to be a light unto others, to be apart from (am kohanim v’goy kadosh), different than the other cultures. (This too is partially the reason why we aren’t supposed to imbibe wine (stam yeinam) that isn’t kosher. The intent was to prevent us from closely mixing socially with the gentiles. To be separate, apart and different was the intention). By creating virtual bacon that looks, tastes and smell like the real thing aren’t we defeating the purpose and intent of the law. After all if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s a duck. Thanks to our halachists we can now sprinkle bacon on our salads, season our food with it and serve steak with mock buttered potatoes. Does life get any better?
Monday, May 30, 2011
AIPAC and its Aftermath
It was the first AIPAC conference that I ever attended and it was probably one of the most talked about ones in the press, and in capitals around the world, leaving me speechless, not because I had nothing to say, I just didn’t know how to articulate the state of flux I was left in. The conference limned President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu but before either of them appeared at the conference they were engulfed in controversy stemming from the Obama State Department speech on the Arab Spring as well as Netanyahu’s rebuttal the following Friday morning. The presentations of Obama and Netanyahu each represented contrasting views of Jewish history, Zionism and the Jewish psyche as well as highlighted the polar differences within the Jewish community. The issues surrounding the approach to the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians as expressed by these two tectonic leaders crystallized two different worldviews.
I was stunned at the emotional whirlwind I found myself in during the two and a half day policy conference and its powerful undertow in its aftermath. There were times that I understood and appreciated what Obama was trying to present, believing in his sincerity and genuine will to be the peacemaker who brought the struggle between two people to a reasonable conclusion requiring great sacrifice on both sides culminating in a two state solution. The current status quo is unsustainable and Israel is becoming more and more isolated. At other times I was a convinced that Bibi’s approach, that which required Israel to hang tough even at the displeasure of the president was the wiser path: it was the path that a determined people who suffered indignation, rejection and persecution at the hand of its neighbors and enemies for too long would no longer suffer again by being placed in such a tenuous and precarious position. Never mind that the status quo was unsustainable, our righteousness would prevail. Perhaps we would suffer from isolation but that too was temporary: the world we live in is so fluid, changing from minute to minute. Perhaps world opinion would shift once again in favor of Israel due to other yet unknown world circumstances. Who would have predicted one year ago the nature of the Arab spring of 2011; and we aren’t even sure of its outcome and how that will impact on the Middle East? Thus crucial life and death decisions affecting the state ought to be decided upon by principles not expediency.
On each side of these two contrasting world visions the Jewish community has chosen sides. In a fairly simplistic way one could say that those more conservative, less trusting and more obsessive with Israel’s security were those that support Benjamin Netanyahu’s position. Those who tend to be left of center, concerned with Israel’s security but willing to try hard compromise because of their need to be champions of social justice and global human rights lined up behind Obama. Anyone desperate for peace at any cost, wishing to satisfy their urgent obsession for social justice couldn’t resist the Obama approach. On the other hand those that are less trusting of other governments and promises are more concerned with Israel’s survival, stand firmly behind Netanyahu not discount human rights, but believing that Israel’ security is foremost and trumps human rights.
While AIPAC’s role isn’t to take sides but to lobby for Israel’s security, one couldn’t help but take sides at a conference where the issues were so clear-cut. For those people with a clear vision of how the future should look the issues are fairly straightforward. It is those caught in between who have the most difficult finding a pathway that would bridge these two competing views. The issues for this group are the following: The status quo isn’t sustainable simply because of the demographic time bomb resulting from the high growth rate among Arabs versus Jews who are experiencing low birthrate. The status quo isn’t sustainable because they can’t justify Israel as occupiers, ruling the lives of millions of people in the absence of a democratic process applied to them. The status quo isn’t sustainable because the painful prospect of seeing Israel isolated more every day is detrimental to her existence; a manifestation of this isolation will be the vote in the UN this September, which will encourage those seeking BDS.
At the conference it was clear to me that Benjamin Netanyahu received enormous warm support as opposed to Obama whose reception was tepid. Add to that the support that Congress afforded to Netanyahu was a repudiation of the Obama approach. On the other hand, when I turned to the Israeli press I was smitten once again with the doubt of the wisdom of Bibi’s approach. The arguments coming out of the Israeli press was compelling to say the least, limned by the fact that these opinions were being proffered by those who had the most to loose – Israelis living in the land. One of the most compelling arguments put forward was that it didn’t really matter who was right and who was wrong. Nor did it matter if our security was a little better or a little worse. What mattered was that if we were to maintain our edge as a country rooted in what was right, ethical and moral, it was up to us to find the creative means by which to offer the Palestinians a pathway to peace that would sustain both countries. It was our responsibility, not the Arabs; it was us that had to take the higher ground. Not because we would be accepted by our neighbors, or liked more by the Europeans but because it was the right thing to do.
These arguments reminded me of the message of the prophets of old which has been echoing in my mind as the strong undertow in the aftermath of the conference continued to flummox me. How can one argue with such a message? It seemed therefore that Obama’s approach was one that took the higher moral ground, the one espoused by our prophets versus the one articulated by Netanyahu: a message evoking cynicism and mistrust. But with all the good intentions of the prophets, the first commonwealth came to an ignominious end, as did the second commonwealth. Does history have anything to contribute to the issues? How are we to understand history and what are we to learn from it?
I haven’t the answers to these questions unfortunately, however I do have an observation regarding the left’s quick rush to social justice and global human rights at the expense of Israel: It would appear that we Jews have a genetic predisposition that has been the seeds of our destruction at times, and at other times have actually helped us prevail when the odds were against us. Our sense of social justice in some quarters tends to trump our own survival. Thus there are rabbis in the liberal community that fast for the downtrodden Gazans being crushed under the Israeli boot and support BDS. On the other hand there were times that our sense of social justice was precisely the cause that gave us hope and inspiration, to transcend and to be transformed. The trick today is to determine which is it for us?
I was stunned at the emotional whirlwind I found myself in during the two and a half day policy conference and its powerful undertow in its aftermath. There were times that I understood and appreciated what Obama was trying to present, believing in his sincerity and genuine will to be the peacemaker who brought the struggle between two people to a reasonable conclusion requiring great sacrifice on both sides culminating in a two state solution. The current status quo is unsustainable and Israel is becoming more and more isolated. At other times I was a convinced that Bibi’s approach, that which required Israel to hang tough even at the displeasure of the president was the wiser path: it was the path that a determined people who suffered indignation, rejection and persecution at the hand of its neighbors and enemies for too long would no longer suffer again by being placed in such a tenuous and precarious position. Never mind that the status quo was unsustainable, our righteousness would prevail. Perhaps we would suffer from isolation but that too was temporary: the world we live in is so fluid, changing from minute to minute. Perhaps world opinion would shift once again in favor of Israel due to other yet unknown world circumstances. Who would have predicted one year ago the nature of the Arab spring of 2011; and we aren’t even sure of its outcome and how that will impact on the Middle East? Thus crucial life and death decisions affecting the state ought to be decided upon by principles not expediency.
On each side of these two contrasting world visions the Jewish community has chosen sides. In a fairly simplistic way one could say that those more conservative, less trusting and more obsessive with Israel’s security were those that support Benjamin Netanyahu’s position. Those who tend to be left of center, concerned with Israel’s security but willing to try hard compromise because of their need to be champions of social justice and global human rights lined up behind Obama. Anyone desperate for peace at any cost, wishing to satisfy their urgent obsession for social justice couldn’t resist the Obama approach. On the other hand those that are less trusting of other governments and promises are more concerned with Israel’s survival, stand firmly behind Netanyahu not discount human rights, but believing that Israel’ security is foremost and trumps human rights.
While AIPAC’s role isn’t to take sides but to lobby for Israel’s security, one couldn’t help but take sides at a conference where the issues were so clear-cut. For those people with a clear vision of how the future should look the issues are fairly straightforward. It is those caught in between who have the most difficult finding a pathway that would bridge these two competing views. The issues for this group are the following: The status quo isn’t sustainable simply because of the demographic time bomb resulting from the high growth rate among Arabs versus Jews who are experiencing low birthrate. The status quo isn’t sustainable because they can’t justify Israel as occupiers, ruling the lives of millions of people in the absence of a democratic process applied to them. The status quo isn’t sustainable because the painful prospect of seeing Israel isolated more every day is detrimental to her existence; a manifestation of this isolation will be the vote in the UN this September, which will encourage those seeking BDS.
At the conference it was clear to me that Benjamin Netanyahu received enormous warm support as opposed to Obama whose reception was tepid. Add to that the support that Congress afforded to Netanyahu was a repudiation of the Obama approach. On the other hand, when I turned to the Israeli press I was smitten once again with the doubt of the wisdom of Bibi’s approach. The arguments coming out of the Israeli press was compelling to say the least, limned by the fact that these opinions were being proffered by those who had the most to loose – Israelis living in the land. One of the most compelling arguments put forward was that it didn’t really matter who was right and who was wrong. Nor did it matter if our security was a little better or a little worse. What mattered was that if we were to maintain our edge as a country rooted in what was right, ethical and moral, it was up to us to find the creative means by which to offer the Palestinians a pathway to peace that would sustain both countries. It was our responsibility, not the Arabs; it was us that had to take the higher ground. Not because we would be accepted by our neighbors, or liked more by the Europeans but because it was the right thing to do.
These arguments reminded me of the message of the prophets of old which has been echoing in my mind as the strong undertow in the aftermath of the conference continued to flummox me. How can one argue with such a message? It seemed therefore that Obama’s approach was one that took the higher moral ground, the one espoused by our prophets versus the one articulated by Netanyahu: a message evoking cynicism and mistrust. But with all the good intentions of the prophets, the first commonwealth came to an ignominious end, as did the second commonwealth. Does history have anything to contribute to the issues? How are we to understand history and what are we to learn from it?
I haven’t the answers to these questions unfortunately, however I do have an observation regarding the left’s quick rush to social justice and global human rights at the expense of Israel: It would appear that we Jews have a genetic predisposition that has been the seeds of our destruction at times, and at other times have actually helped us prevail when the odds were against us. Our sense of social justice in some quarters tends to trump our own survival. Thus there are rabbis in the liberal community that fast for the downtrodden Gazans being crushed under the Israeli boot and support BDS. On the other hand there were times that our sense of social justice was precisely the cause that gave us hope and inspiration, to transcend and to be transformed. The trick today is to determine which is it for us?
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Kaniuk’s Conundrum
He doesn’t have the same name recognition to American Jews as Amos Oz, Etgar Keret, A.B. Yehoshua, David Grossman or Aharon Applebaum, but Yoram Kaniuk is considered one of the most gifted writers in Israel and recognized internationally. His books have been translated into twenty languages and he is the recipient of prestigious awards such as Prix de Droits de l’Homme, Bialik Prize, as well as the celebrated Prix Mediterranee Etranger. It is for these reasons that I was deeply pained and perplexed to have read in Haaretz on May 15, 2011 that he requested from the Ministry of Interior to change his religious status from “Jewish” to “Without Religion”. This isn’t the first time he has requested this from the Ministry of the Interior. In a previous request (which was refused by the ministry) he commented that he didn’t want to be associated with a “Jewish Iran”, or what is today understood as the “religion of Israel”. My initial reaction was to write him off as a “self hating Jew”. How can an intensely serious Jew (no matter that he isn’t ritually observant), I asked myself, recant his Jewish identity? It seems so perfidious! But upon stepping back and reconsidering Kaniuk’s maneuver I began to understand his profound frustration with living in a democratic state but having to cope with decisions and outcomes of a despotic rabbinic superstructure that acts and behaves as though the enlightenment and emancipation never happened.
Kaniuk’s gambit reflects the sentiments of many Israelis. He maintains, as so many others believe that the rabbinate in Israel hijacked the religion from the “amei haaretz”, from the people. His own grandchild is registered with the Ministry of Interior as “Without Religion” since the child is, in fact, not Jewish due to Kaniuk’s wife not being Jewish (and therefore technically, the offspring aren’t either, halachically). And perhaps this is the conundrum for Kaniuk as it is with so many others: His children who are Israeli citizens and served in the military and fought in defense of their country are relegated to a second-class status halachically. They are a subclass of people who although are versed in Jewish history, culture and Tanach and willing to die for their people can’t marry them or be interred in a Jewish cemetery. Kafkaesque! There is something fundamentally wrong with the way its citizens are treated and for that matter the manner in which Israel functions on a religious level.
Yet, Kaniuk is thoroughly Jewish, inside and out. He thinks like a Jew and feels like a Jew. In one of his articles commenting on Nakba Day he limned that although we won the war of Independence the “enemy was not a geometrical unknown, but rather a people that still exist…the Nakba fighters fought heroically, but we fought better…” Being sympathetic to the Palestinians even though Kaniuk fought in the war of Independence and was severely wounded is supremely Jewish. After all, we are taught not to gloat over the demise of our enemies. Kaniuk bemoaned the fact that he hopes that while he is still alive Israel will be turned into a Jewish state not one populated by zealots, but rather by the kind of Jews we once were: “a state where we respect those who fought against us and were defeated.” Kaniuk seems to be rejecting the Judaism that is reinforced in the Haggadah when we chant “shfoch chamotecha”. That is the Judaism polluted and diminished by the exile and our unfortunate European sojourn. It isn’t the Judaism of Kaniuk who envisions an Israel in the spirit of the prophets. In another article he derides the mistreatment of foreign migrants by the rabbinic establishment referencing the Story of Ruth as the model by which foreigners ought to be treated. Although he overstated his case, his unabashed derision of the rabbinate’s prejudice towards non-Jews is ironically and clearly a Jewish position. He dreams of the day when enlightened clerics will apply Jeremiah’s message in place of those who are mired in the culture of medieval Europe.
Clearly Yoram Kaniuk, a principled and committed non-religious Jew is authentically Jewish in his critique of current day Israeli society deeply influenced and manipulated by an ignorant rabbinate. But forfeiting his Jewish identity (on a registry in the Ministry of Interior) is an overreaction with little or no positive outcome. Reneging on his Jewish identity won’t change who he is or how people view him. A Jew by any other name is a Jew. The narrative of our history is inextricably linked with our religious praxis and accompanying idiosyncrasies. To deny them or to deny one’s Jewishness would alter the integrity of our narrative. Kaniuk realizes this but wishes to make an issue out of the fact that Israel has no definition or sense of nationality without religion as its defining quality. And here Kaniuk stumbles into his conundrum: Judaism isn’t a religion, it is a state of being; it is peoplehood.
Perhaps by diminishing the role of religious ritual, trappings and their offshoots, and by removing religious clerics from the state apparatus Israel would go a long way in sculpting a state where Jeremiah’s message would ring out and at the same time maintaining the integrity of our narrative.
Kaniuk’s gambit reflects the sentiments of many Israelis. He maintains, as so many others believe that the rabbinate in Israel hijacked the religion from the “amei haaretz”, from the people. His own grandchild is registered with the Ministry of Interior as “Without Religion” since the child is, in fact, not Jewish due to Kaniuk’s wife not being Jewish (and therefore technically, the offspring aren’t either, halachically). And perhaps this is the conundrum for Kaniuk as it is with so many others: His children who are Israeli citizens and served in the military and fought in defense of their country are relegated to a second-class status halachically. They are a subclass of people who although are versed in Jewish history, culture and Tanach and willing to die for their people can’t marry them or be interred in a Jewish cemetery. Kafkaesque! There is something fundamentally wrong with the way its citizens are treated and for that matter the manner in which Israel functions on a religious level.
Yet, Kaniuk is thoroughly Jewish, inside and out. He thinks like a Jew and feels like a Jew. In one of his articles commenting on Nakba Day he limned that although we won the war of Independence the “enemy was not a geometrical unknown, but rather a people that still exist…the Nakba fighters fought heroically, but we fought better…” Being sympathetic to the Palestinians even though Kaniuk fought in the war of Independence and was severely wounded is supremely Jewish. After all, we are taught not to gloat over the demise of our enemies. Kaniuk bemoaned the fact that he hopes that while he is still alive Israel will be turned into a Jewish state not one populated by zealots, but rather by the kind of Jews we once were: “a state where we respect those who fought against us and were defeated.” Kaniuk seems to be rejecting the Judaism that is reinforced in the Haggadah when we chant “shfoch chamotecha”. That is the Judaism polluted and diminished by the exile and our unfortunate European sojourn. It isn’t the Judaism of Kaniuk who envisions an Israel in the spirit of the prophets. In another article he derides the mistreatment of foreign migrants by the rabbinic establishment referencing the Story of Ruth as the model by which foreigners ought to be treated. Although he overstated his case, his unabashed derision of the rabbinate’s prejudice towards non-Jews is ironically and clearly a Jewish position. He dreams of the day when enlightened clerics will apply Jeremiah’s message in place of those who are mired in the culture of medieval Europe.
Clearly Yoram Kaniuk, a principled and committed non-religious Jew is authentically Jewish in his critique of current day Israeli society deeply influenced and manipulated by an ignorant rabbinate. But forfeiting his Jewish identity (on a registry in the Ministry of Interior) is an overreaction with little or no positive outcome. Reneging on his Jewish identity won’t change who he is or how people view him. A Jew by any other name is a Jew. The narrative of our history is inextricably linked with our religious praxis and accompanying idiosyncrasies. To deny them or to deny one’s Jewishness would alter the integrity of our narrative. Kaniuk realizes this but wishes to make an issue out of the fact that Israel has no definition or sense of nationality without religion as its defining quality. And here Kaniuk stumbles into his conundrum: Judaism isn’t a religion, it is a state of being; it is peoplehood.
Perhaps by diminishing the role of religious ritual, trappings and their offshoots, and by removing religious clerics from the state apparatus Israel would go a long way in sculpting a state where Jeremiah’s message would ring out and at the same time maintaining the integrity of our narrative.
Monday, May 16, 2011
The Perfect Storm
Anyone reading my postings is aware of my qualified antipathy toward the liberal Jewish denominational movements. On the one hand they have become hollow husks, empty of traditional Jewish value systems, lacking the contextual reference points along the continuum of Jewish history, diluted by the high rate of intermarriage and led by self serving arrogant rabbis lacking standards. Gary Rosenblatt, editor of the Jewish Week wrote an interesting editorial “Where Have All the Rabbis Gone” (Jewish Week, April 27, 2011) in which he points to the growing ranks of unemployed rabbis endemic now in the liberal movements. His description of this state of affairs is impeccable and his analysis poignant, attributing however, much of the shortage of rabbinical positions to the problematic economy that has plagued America for the past five years. Some even say that the convergence of economic factors created the perfect storm, which severely crippled the financial infrastructure of the Jewish community.
While I agree with Mr. Rosenblatt’s that the economic maelstrom, which has no end in sight, continues to play a role in the dearth of liberal rabbinical assignments available that isn’t, by far, the fundamental reason for their growing malaise. To wit, the orthodox community, affected by the same economic downturn is bursting at the seams, with a growing demand for more rabbis. The liberal movements have been in decline for decades, perhaps not in the numbers game but substantively-and that was bound to catch up with them, sooner or later.
Buried deep within the liberal movements were the seeds of their own destruction. The rate of intermarriage is soaring and has past the Rubicon of sustainability. Many temples have more gentiles in attendance than Jews. The Conservative movement has now added a new class within their movement, the K’rov Yisrael (about which I have written in previous posts), gentiles opting not to convert but wish to be active partners in the Jewish community and participate fully in services. There are some rabbis in a quandary as to how to pitch their sermons on the high holidays expecting a high number of gentiles at services and fear being politically incorrect. Heaven forbid that the rabbi might say something offensive resulting in loss of membership. Membership is key, because it generates the income that funds their bloated salaries and high overhead.
The large temples built over the past five decades with their staggering overhead requiring synagogue administrators, a senior rabbi, two and three assistant rabbis, a cantor and music director each receiving attractive compensation packages has effectively stifled the original purpose of the community – spirituality. These temples, as they were conceived never had in them long term sustainability. Intermarriage has been rampant since the 1970’s. New sources of income were needed to replace those that opted out of membership. The need to capture the potential source of income from the intermarried couples fueled the out reach programs. This too has reached its apex and we are witnessing the slow and insidious implosion of liberal Judaism.
The problem is exacerbated by the sentiments of a large and growing number of their membership led by their rabbis who have marginalized Israel, offering her up on the altar of international law and human rights. Rabbi Richard Jacobs was nominated recently to replace Rabbi Eric Yaffe in the top spot in the Reform Movement and this has further accentuated the problem, making it more acute than ever before. Jacobs sits on the rabbinic cabinet of J Street, which is no friend of Israel To add insult to injury he is a proponent supporting in part the BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) initiative against Israel.
He isn’t alone in his aspirations to weaken and compromise Israel’s security. Other rabbis in the liberal movements are doing their best to give aid and succor to the Palestinians at the expense of Israelis. There are rabbis who now fast monthly on behalf of the human crises in Gaza, and pummel Israel at every opportunity from the pulpit and in the press. Their rabbinical students will not buy religious articles that are made or produced in Israel. Some of their students (according to face book entries) when on a year study in Israel prefer to spend their free time with Palestinians rather than with Israelis. What a promising picture of the future leadership of the liberal movements!
It would appear that the liberal movements are headed south, but haven’t hit rock bottom yet. It is not a result of the weakened and bland economy, creating in the words of one rabbi, “the perfect storm” that has caused this deep malaise in the liberal movements. Rather the perfect storm has been the confluence of the soaring rate of intermarriage, unsustainable synagogue infrastructures and the embrace of international human rights at the expense of Israel that has wrought havoc on them.
While I agree with Mr. Rosenblatt’s that the economic maelstrom, which has no end in sight, continues to play a role in the dearth of liberal rabbinical assignments available that isn’t, by far, the fundamental reason for their growing malaise. To wit, the orthodox community, affected by the same economic downturn is bursting at the seams, with a growing demand for more rabbis. The liberal movements have been in decline for decades, perhaps not in the numbers game but substantively-and that was bound to catch up with them, sooner or later.
Buried deep within the liberal movements were the seeds of their own destruction. The rate of intermarriage is soaring and has past the Rubicon of sustainability. Many temples have more gentiles in attendance than Jews. The Conservative movement has now added a new class within their movement, the K’rov Yisrael (about which I have written in previous posts), gentiles opting not to convert but wish to be active partners in the Jewish community and participate fully in services. There are some rabbis in a quandary as to how to pitch their sermons on the high holidays expecting a high number of gentiles at services and fear being politically incorrect. Heaven forbid that the rabbi might say something offensive resulting in loss of membership. Membership is key, because it generates the income that funds their bloated salaries and high overhead.
The large temples built over the past five decades with their staggering overhead requiring synagogue administrators, a senior rabbi, two and three assistant rabbis, a cantor and music director each receiving attractive compensation packages has effectively stifled the original purpose of the community – spirituality. These temples, as they were conceived never had in them long term sustainability. Intermarriage has been rampant since the 1970’s. New sources of income were needed to replace those that opted out of membership. The need to capture the potential source of income from the intermarried couples fueled the out reach programs. This too has reached its apex and we are witnessing the slow and insidious implosion of liberal Judaism.
The problem is exacerbated by the sentiments of a large and growing number of their membership led by their rabbis who have marginalized Israel, offering her up on the altar of international law and human rights. Rabbi Richard Jacobs was nominated recently to replace Rabbi Eric Yaffe in the top spot in the Reform Movement and this has further accentuated the problem, making it more acute than ever before. Jacobs sits on the rabbinic cabinet of J Street, which is no friend of Israel To add insult to injury he is a proponent supporting in part the BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) initiative against Israel.
He isn’t alone in his aspirations to weaken and compromise Israel’s security. Other rabbis in the liberal movements are doing their best to give aid and succor to the Palestinians at the expense of Israelis. There are rabbis who now fast monthly on behalf of the human crises in Gaza, and pummel Israel at every opportunity from the pulpit and in the press. Their rabbinical students will not buy religious articles that are made or produced in Israel. Some of their students (according to face book entries) when on a year study in Israel prefer to spend their free time with Palestinians rather than with Israelis. What a promising picture of the future leadership of the liberal movements!
It would appear that the liberal movements are headed south, but haven’t hit rock bottom yet. It is not a result of the weakened and bland economy, creating in the words of one rabbi, “the perfect storm” that has caused this deep malaise in the liberal movements. Rather the perfect storm has been the confluence of the soaring rate of intermarriage, unsustainable synagogue infrastructures and the embrace of international human rights at the expense of Israel that has wrought havoc on them.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Caught, in the Headlights
I was appalled by the mad dash of rabbis to explain away the inexcusable behavior of the Yiddish newspaper Der Tzeitung when they altered the White House situation room (raid on Bin laden’s lair) photo removing Hillary Clinton from the picture. In their apology for violating the rules, which forbade the altering of the picture, Der Tzeitung said the following:
The allegations that religious Jews denigrate women or do not respect women in public office, is a malicious slander and libel…. The Jewish religion does not allow for discrimination based on gender, race, etc.
The fact of the matter is that their excuse/apology errors in several ways. For one thing, Der Tzeitung doesn’t represent or speak for the Jewish people. No allegation was made that “religious Jews denigrate or do not respect women”. The majority of the Jewish people do not denigrate women nor do they discriminate against them. This is evidenced by the fact that women in the broader Jewish community take their place as equals among men in the professions, business and communal / synagogue life. Der Tzeitung, and those whom they represent however, systematically discriminate against women as evidenced by the fact that they consistently cut women out from every facet of civil life except for housework, and bringing in the rent money, while their men sit in kolel. This time, however, they were caught, like a deer in the headlights.
Discrimination against women in the haredi (including Hassidic) community does exist and is systemic. They do discriminate and do denigrate women. Women have traditionally been treated as second-class citizens. While I can understand the use of a mechitza during tefillah there is no reason on earth why they should be ushered to the sidelines at public events, ceremonies and simchot, not to mention the fact that they cannot hold positions of public leadership within the community. I don’t recall seeing or hearing about haredi women in the free professions, i.e. medicine, law, engineering etc. Their dress is appalling, colorless and shapeless, nearly resembling Muslim women in their traditional burka. It would indeed be convenient to excuse it all by referring to modesty, as they do. But they would be hard pressed to find primary sources that would support the treatment of women as chattel.
The haredi community has every right to discriminate within their community assuming that this is consensual and doesn’t compromise civil law. Thus, one can understand them supporting the use of private bus companies that separate between men and women, boys and girls. One can understand the design of separate school systems along gender lines. One can even tolerate the conspicuous absence of women leadership in communal affairs. While these prejudices are based upon an erroneous understanding of Jewish law it is excusable, since they are consenting adults and are entitled to spin religion to their liking. No one is forced into their community; people have a right to join or to disavow them; to move in or move out. They do not however, speak for or represent the Jewish people. If anything they are an anomaly, an anachronistic leftover from the nineteenth century Austro-Hungarian Empire.
What I fail to understand are the rabbis trying to make excuses for a factious group of Jews who do not require anyone’s defense. There are no legitimate excuses and any given ring hollow. For example, Rabbi Potasnik of the New York Board of Rabbis explained that Hillary was removed along with Audrey Tomason because they were in close proximity to men. So what! They aren’t Jewish and laws of modesty aren’t incumbent them! Assemblyman Dov Hikind explained that the editorial policy of the paper is not to print photos with women. Therefore removing Hillary wasn’t disrespectful to her. He’s right – it’s disrespectful to all women and is discriminatory. I defy any rabbi to point to any primary sources that would indicate even remotely that women should be excised from public life as they are in the haredi community.
The allegations that religious Jews denigrate women or do not respect women in public office, is a malicious slander and libel…. The Jewish religion does not allow for discrimination based on gender, race, etc.
The fact of the matter is that their excuse/apology errors in several ways. For one thing, Der Tzeitung doesn’t represent or speak for the Jewish people. No allegation was made that “religious Jews denigrate or do not respect women”. The majority of the Jewish people do not denigrate women nor do they discriminate against them. This is evidenced by the fact that women in the broader Jewish community take their place as equals among men in the professions, business and communal / synagogue life. Der Tzeitung, and those whom they represent however, systematically discriminate against women as evidenced by the fact that they consistently cut women out from every facet of civil life except for housework, and bringing in the rent money, while their men sit in kolel. This time, however, they were caught, like a deer in the headlights.
Discrimination against women in the haredi (including Hassidic) community does exist and is systemic. They do discriminate and do denigrate women. Women have traditionally been treated as second-class citizens. While I can understand the use of a mechitza during tefillah there is no reason on earth why they should be ushered to the sidelines at public events, ceremonies and simchot, not to mention the fact that they cannot hold positions of public leadership within the community. I don’t recall seeing or hearing about haredi women in the free professions, i.e. medicine, law, engineering etc. Their dress is appalling, colorless and shapeless, nearly resembling Muslim women in their traditional burka. It would indeed be convenient to excuse it all by referring to modesty, as they do. But they would be hard pressed to find primary sources that would support the treatment of women as chattel.
The haredi community has every right to discriminate within their community assuming that this is consensual and doesn’t compromise civil law. Thus, one can understand them supporting the use of private bus companies that separate between men and women, boys and girls. One can understand the design of separate school systems along gender lines. One can even tolerate the conspicuous absence of women leadership in communal affairs. While these prejudices are based upon an erroneous understanding of Jewish law it is excusable, since they are consenting adults and are entitled to spin religion to their liking. No one is forced into their community; people have a right to join or to disavow them; to move in or move out. They do not however, speak for or represent the Jewish people. If anything they are an anomaly, an anachronistic leftover from the nineteenth century Austro-Hungarian Empire.
What I fail to understand are the rabbis trying to make excuses for a factious group of Jews who do not require anyone’s defense. There are no legitimate excuses and any given ring hollow. For example, Rabbi Potasnik of the New York Board of Rabbis explained that Hillary was removed along with Audrey Tomason because they were in close proximity to men. So what! They aren’t Jewish and laws of modesty aren’t incumbent them! Assemblyman Dov Hikind explained that the editorial policy of the paper is not to print photos with women. Therefore removing Hillary wasn’t disrespectful to her. He’s right – it’s disrespectful to all women and is discriminatory. I defy any rabbi to point to any primary sources that would indicate even remotely that women should be excised from public life as they are in the haredi community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
