בעקבות המפץ הפוליטי: איפה אנו עומדים?

 

 

במידה מסוימת, טלטלות הן טובות מכיוון שגורמות להערכת מצב מחדש. כשסוקרים את השטח, ושומעים את הדיונים בתקשורת, בכל זאת עולות לא מעט מסקנות חיוביות. האוכלוסייה היהודית בארץ יותר יהודית, יותר לאומית ויותר אתנית מאז שנים רבות. העובדה שמפלגות 'מרכז' חשות צורך שלא להיתפס שמאל/אנטי-יהדות (לא חשוב כרגע אם זהו פרצופן האמיתי) מלמדת המון על ציבור הבוחרים. זוהי תמורה מאד מבורכת (במיוחד עבור אלה ממנו הזוכרים את מערכת הבחירות ב-96 וב-99). לדעתי, יש אפילו להציע תיקון למסקנות שאותן העלו שמורל רוזנר וקמיל פוקס בספרם החדש (שהוא חובה לכל אזרח יהודי). הם מציינים מה שנראה להם כחילון משמעותי בחברה הישראלית (וברור לא הדתה, למרות קריאותיהם ההיסטריות של הפורום החילוני). ממצאיהם נראים נכונים, אולם משמעותן לא מוצתה. הרצף הדתי-לאומי בציבור היהודי שהם גילו מגשר (לפחות בפוטנציה) ומלכד את הציבור יותר מבעבר. העובדה ששיעורי היהודים בארץ המאמינים בקב"ה והרואים בתורה ובמצוותיה את הכילה הקדושה (Sacred Canopy) שבתוכה חיים (אפילו אם לא יקיימו קלה כחמורה) מהווה נשורה משמחת לקיימותה של הישות היהודית בארץ ישראל. מנעד או רצף עובר מצד לצד בקלות ובצורה בריאה. המגמה היא בסך הכל חיובית וב"ה על זה.

כרב, והאמת עמדתי מושפעת ממצאיי כהיסטוריון, אני מאמין שהתורה תעשה את שלה והזיקה למוסורת תתחזק.

המנעד הזה מאפיין את הציבור הדתי לאומי גם, ולכן זה לא מפתיע שהמגזר שלנו מפוצל (אם כי, יותר--- הרבה יותר סביב נושאיים דתיים/תרבותיים מאשר פולוטיים). אולי טוב שכך. מצד שני, מפחידה אותי השתלטותה הצפויה של החרד"לים על הבית היהודי והפיכת אינשיה לשופרה של הציונות הדתית. לרבים מבין האנשים האלה אין שמץ של מושג איך לתרגם את התורה לשפה המובנת ע"י היהודי המצוי ודבריהם מנכרים את הציבור המסורתי דווקא כשהוא מחפש תורה (עיין רמב"ם, מבוא לפרק חלק).

אולם, יש הבט יותר חמור, השתעבדותם של החרד"לים למונופול של הרבה"ר הרת אסון. הרבה"ר מזמן איננו מוסד ציוני, ממלכתי שאכפת לו מכל יהודי א"י (ומישהו חייב להזכיר לחרד"לים שהרב קוק זצ"ל נפטר לפני 83 שנים, ושלא הוא ולא מישהו נאמן למורשתו שולט שם). הרקורד האיום שלו בכשרות, בסרבני גט ובגיור הוא רק קצה הקרחון. [הייתי יכול כבר היום לצאת לפנסיה אם היה לי שקל עבור כל אימת שסטודנט חילוני אמר לי שהוא מכבד ואוהב את התורה, מאמין בקב"ה וסולד מהרבנות.]

אני מתרכז בנקודה זו, בגלל שהמרקם היהודי המחזק, התודעה והקיימות היהודיות המתעצמות חייבים להיות מבוססים על הסכמות בנושאים עקרוניים כמו יחסי דת וציבוריות וגם על הסדרת מעמדם של הלא יהודים מזרע ישראל (שמתווספים להם כל שנה אלפים נוספים בזכות הסוכנות היהודית). היכולת הבסיסית להתחתן אחד עם השני ולהכיר אחד בשני כיהודים היא חיונית לקיימותנו ומהווה שיקול בטחוני מובהק. ההיסטוריה מלמדת שפילוג פוקד את עמנו רק על רקע נושא זה. ודווקא כאן, נכנעו החרד"לים לחרדים (שממלכתיות איננה הקלף החזק שלהם) ותמכו בקיפאון הגיור והכרזת מלחמה נגד גדולי תורה המגיירים ע"פ דין (ע' שו"ת אחיעזר ח"ג סי' כ"ג). כדרכם בבלימת הגיור, כן דרכם נגד הרחבת הכשרות וטהרת הקדושה (דוגמת מיזם הכשרות של צוה"ר בראשות יד"נ הרב אורן דובדבני).

תו הנוגה המתנגן במפה הפוליטית מעלה את השאלה: מי יעמוד בפרץ? מי ייצג ציונות דתית שבצורה אחראית (כולל קווים אדומים ברורים נגד מגמות בציבור) יילחם בכנסת עבור אותה יהדות שתחשל את הציבור ותזכה את כולנו בברכת ד'?

האיחוד הלאומי? ממנו והלאה.

הימין החדש? לא נראה לי.

הליכוד? לא על סדר יומו (עם תלותו בחרדים)

זה מה שמדיר את עיניי משינה בלילות.

Modern Orthodox Imbalance

In preparing for last week's talk, Redefining Modern Orthodoxy in Israel, I had occasion to revisit Prof. Jack Wertheimer's essay, 'Can Modern Orthodoxy Survive?' and the responses too. [Full disclosure, I am a long time fan of Professor Wertheimer's writings. His latest book, The New American Judaism: How Jews Practice Their Religion Today, is a stunning tour de force...if very sobering.] The original article, and all of the responses save one, provided trenchant and fascinating food for thought about the present and future of the Modern Orthodox experiment. Somehow, reading Wertheimer's summation helped me to crystallize some of my ideas on the subject (and some of the points I presented to the Maccabean Society last week.)

In summarizing the responses to his essay, Wertheimer noted three primary concerns that were expressed. Primary among these was the explicit sense that Modern Orthodoxy is threatened by Ultra-Orthodox, or Haredi Judaism (and not so implicitly by the latter's influence upon putative Modern Orthodox institutions, such as Yeshiva University and the Orthodox Union).

This is a remarkable, and extremely problematic (if not dangerous), situation for any wing of a community that defines itself as Orthodox. 

To begin with, we must parse the nature of the Haredi 'threat.' If this is represented by moves to erase women from the media and the community; by the ceding of authority in critical areas (e.g. Divorce, Recalcitrants, Conversion etc) to Haredi rabbis then the concern is real and must be addressed. The Modern Orthodox Community must stand up for the advancement of women within and without its ranks (to the degree the Torah credibly allows, see below). The unparalleled and unjustified extremes to which the Laws of Modesty have gone must be rejected. The inequalities and perversions of justice that occur in the realm of divorce must be ameliorated. A credible model for conversion (which is more an Israeli than a Diaspora issue) must be adopted, and so on.

However, all too often 'Haredization' (aka 'Sliding to the Right') is identified with intensification of piety, increased Torah Study, along with greater precision and punctiliousness in the observance of God's commandments. Here, no community that strives to uphold Orthodox Tradition (i.e. the iteration of authentic Rabbinic Jewish Tradition of the past millennia) can but endorse such developments (never mind distance itself therefrom). The fact that ritual and moral piety were not always the hallmarks of the Modern Community (as embodied in the US by the so-called 'Young Israel type,' which parallels the Israel Mizrhnik) is not an excuse. Indeed, this type of spiritually shallow and ritually deficient type of behavior were precisely the reason that Rav Soloveitchik זצ"ל never self-identified as a Modern Orthodox Jew (while his son in law, Rav Aharon Lichtenstein זצ"ל adopted the Centrist moniker). I understand that the increase in observance, which often calls into question the integrity of previous generations, is uncomfortable and people like to do what they like to do. In addition, Freedom of Will is certainly given to all. However, to bemoan such trends officially is indefensible. 

On the other hand, it was still stunning (though not all that surprising) to read Wertheimer's observation that 'All but one seem to regard the haredim as the “other” with whom Modern Orthodoxy must contend; by contrast, the more liberal Jewish denominations barely register in these responses.' 

In my experience, there are two reasons for this. To start with, Orthodoxy has defied all of the predictions of its demise. Few can believe today that only fifty years ago, Marshall Sklare, the preeminent sociologist of American Jewry dismissed Orthodoxy as a fossil. Or that when Charles Liebman published his prescient study of Orthodoxy and its future resurgence, his colleagues thought his predictions risible. Today, the non-Orthodox denominations are at a serious cross road, as they try to survive in the wake of the trends unveiled by the PEW Report of 2013. So, from a formal, institutional vantage point, Non-Orthodox denominations do not really constitute a threat to Orthodox continuity.

However, it really is striking, that none of the respondents questioned (or even expressed some measure of discomfort) at the challenge posed to Orthodox Judaism by the (Post)Modern World with which Modern Orthodoxy purports to interact. This omission, which Prof. Wertheimer does not note in his summary, is fraught with serious consequences. Contemporary Western Culture, which denies Absolute Truth and advocates values and actions that cannot be squared with any form of credible Orthodoxy, does threaten Modern Orthodoxy with corrosion from within. This, however, depends upon the model on cultural interaction that one chooses.

If one assumes that (Post)Modernity must be coterminous with Judaism, along the lines that Medieval Jewish Philosophers posited (v. R. Sa'adiah's Introduction to the Emunot ve-De'ot or Guide to the Perplexed I, 71), then one eventually subjugates Judaism to the former and one often finds oneself using various tools, disciplines and arguments to accommodate the Torah to (Post)Modernity which is all too often uncritically embraced.

The result of such an orientation, is very problematic. As I wrote a number of years ago:

Making Judaism dependent upon external systems of thought and values, denies its integrity and, effectively, eviscerates it. The Torah, at this point, becomes a mere function of transient intellectual and cultural fashion; nothing more than a Jewish decoration (as it were) upon another culture. Anything that was originally part of Judaism that does not align itself with current norms will simply be dispensed with. Ultimately, the Torah itself is easily dispensed with. After all, if one’s central values lie outside of Judaism, why make the effort to maintain it, since sentiment alone is hardly strong enough to withstand the pull of a larger culture? The inevitable result, then, is assimilation, which is simply the exchange of one identity and value system for another.

In many cases, and I one can detect some of this among the responses to Wertheimer (along with some of the positions presented at the recent Progressive (sic!) Halakhah Conference at Harvard), this is precisely the model that is advocated. This model of Orthodoxy is deeply out of balance, tilting away from itself. Here, the example of the Non-Orthodox denominations does represent a plausible foil. For it was precisely this epistemological model that underlay Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionism. So, while the other movements might not pose an institutional challenge, their example should be a warning to those who wish to march Orthodoxy down that path (and they represent a not insignificant number).  

The healthier, and more responsible approach to cultural interaction assumes a judicial encounter of Judaism, possessed of its own integrity, with outside culture. Ideas and challenges, insights and questions, models and possibilities posed by the later can and should be explored and judged as to their appropriateness and possible adaptability to Torah and the worship of God. However, God and the words of the Torah have the final say and that say may well be 'No' or 'Partially Yes.'

As I noted in the above essay, which addressed the issue from the point of view of Rav Soloveitchik's epistemology:

At the same time, he definitely did not advocate a blind, ‘know nothing’ or fundamentalist stance toward the outside world and its culture, and their relationship to Torah. His epistemological model, which was beautifully mapped out by my teacher, Prof. Yitzhak Twersky z’l, assumed that one should courageously enlist the full panoply of Western culture for the explication and enhancement of Judaism. Judaism, in the Rav’s model, creatively engages and interacts with other systems of thought and value. It is enriched and our appreciation of it deepened by that interaction. It does not, however, subordinate itself to them, or makes its validity contingent thereupon.The core values and institutions of Judaism, rooted in the Talmud and its literature, control and balance the manner in which outside forces and ideas impact upon (and stimulate) it.  

Of course, this approach will likely be seen to be an anathema to many who are immersed of Western Thought today as it presumes Faith in God, Deference to His Will as expressed in the Written and Oral Law (although subject to a fair degree of responsible interpretation), Belief in Absolute Truth and a degree of Essentialism (which is, by the way, making a comeback of late.) In addition, it jibes better with the way that great sages and halakhists, leaders and thinkers have comported themselves in the past (though, Orthodox Judaism does not require the imprimatur of the academic). 

The future Modern Orthodoxy in the Exile (even as we, in Israel, strive to create a native Israeli version thereof) will be determined by the choice of model of interaction that its people choose.  

 
  

Rosh HaShanah 5779

Mori ve-Rabbi, Rav Yosef Dov Ha-Levi Soloveitchik זצ"ל: A Personal Reflections on his Twenty-Fifth Yahrzeit

It was a call that I was theoretically expecting and for which I was still totally unprepared. It was Thursday evening, April 8, 1993, the eighteenth of Nisan 5753 and I was sitting at my desk still trying to fathom the passing of one of my mentors, Ludwig Jesselson, the previous Shabbat. The phone rang. At the other end was Prof. Henry Lisman ז"ל, a dear friend and the Rav's brother-in law. His voice was soft and solemn. 'That which we most feared has finally happened,' he said. I knew immediately what he meant. The funeral would be Sunday, the eve of the last days of Pesach, in order to allow the members of the Lichtenstein family to arrive in the United States. We agreed that I would drive him and Mrs. Lisman (who was Rebbetzin Dr. Tonya Lewitt Soloveitchik ז"ל's sister) to Boston, along with one of the Rav's earliest star students, Rabbi Prof. Chaim Danishevsky זצ"ל and one other person. I hung up the receiver, and sat in stunned silence. 

Hazal, in describing the initial stage of mourning, speak of שעת חימום, a moment of intense, heated angst and pain (Moed Qatan 24a). It is that moment, according to Halakhah that generates the obligation/impulse to tear one's clothes. Strangely, I did not experience that moment of stabbing shock. I felt a deep, chilling and paralyzing ache that left me stunned and numb. I felt as if the Rav's departure from the world had torn a gaping hole in the fabric of my universe (even though he had been ill and withdrawn for over seven years, and the last time we had really talked was in February, 1985). Oddly enough, that yawning chasm remains with me to this day, twenty-five years later. 

This state of mind is very hard to explain to anyone who has not had the privilege of being the disciple of a great religious personality (the Rav's reminiscences of Rav Kook come to mind). Encountering such a personality is a transformative experience, especially when that personality instills in you a combination of Reverance and Deference to God and Torah, while pushing you to grow into an independent and courageous Servus Dei. Being the disciple of the Rav ushered us into a realm of existence wherein, as Rav Prof. Haym Soloveitchik put it in his unforgettable eulogy of his father, everything outside the Rav's Shiur (especially in Talmud, but also in Humash or Jewish Thought) was not only unimportant, it was insignificant. In those moments, we experienced a timeless passing on of Torah and Tradition, which was marked by Love and intense spiritual yearning and intellectual aspiration; and by the awareness, again formulated exquisitely by Prof. Soloveitchik, that the Rav and his disciples were bound to one another by the common shared awareness that without him, as our Rebbe, we were incapable of being what we were (or aspired to be), and that (as incredible as it still sounds to me) without us as talmidim, he could not have been who he was.

That sense of bonding remains very real for me, a quarter of a century later (and unites Talmidim who span the generations, when they meet and share ideas, interpretations and memories.) On the one hand, personally, I know that I have striven to develop into an independent person, and forge my way in the world of Avodat HaShem, of Talmud Torah and Shemirat Mitzvot.  My goal, sadly only partially realized, was to seek to realize the mandate/blessing he gave me the day before my wedding; viz. to become 'a lamdan in the widest sense of the term.' Certainly, there are positions and decisions I took with which he would have disagreed (though, I hope he would have respected them). Still, even when I reached such decisions, it was the Rav's teachings and method, and personal example that really grounded and oriented me throughout. In that, very deep and profound sense, I feel a contradictory reaction to his passing. On the one hand, I miss his availability. There is not a day that goes by that I do not wish I could write or speak with him to help me make sense of an increasingly neurotic. On the other hand, by studying and engaging his teachings I feel like my discipleship has never ended. [Indeed, it was my beloved, lamented friend, R. Dr. David Applebaum הי"ד who described the experience, after the passing of his Rebbe, Rav Ahron Soloveichik זצ"ל in 2001.]   

So, perhaps, that is why I felt no שעת חימום a quarter of a century ago. As Prof Soloveitchik said as he concluded his eulogy: 

 'And so, they bonded and have remained so even now that נפשו צרורה בצרור החיים.'

Ludwig Jesselson זצ"ל on his Twenty Fifth Yahrzeit

       Ludwig Jesselson (c. 1955) 

 About three and a half years ago, I was eating lunch at the Faculty Table at Yeshivat Har Etzion, and we were joined by Rav Aharon Lichtenstein זצ"ל. Rav Lichtenstein was in failing health, but he still made superhuman efforts to learn in the Bet Midrash, and to eat with the Ramim, as he had for over four decades. Usually, he listened to the discussion around the table, but did not participate. On this occasion, the conversation involved a significant amount of Jewish Geography, in which I participated intensely. At one point, Rav Aharon looked at me and asked: 'How is it you know so many people?'

I was surprised by the question (a result, I suppose, of a mix of reverence and inexperience --- since, of all of the members of the Rav זצ"ל's family, I had the least amount of interactions with him). After a few minutes, I walked over to him and simply said that God had blessed me with knowing many remarkable people. And it's true, I have been blessed not only to meet, but to be close to some of the most remarkable people, in many different walks of life. All of these have, to different degrees, left an impact on my life and taught me important life lessons. However, I only refer to a few of these as 'my teachers.'

One of these was Mr. Ludwig Jesselson זצ"ל, whose twenty-fifth yahrzeit was observed last Wednesday, 12 Nisan.

Mr. Jesselson (or 'Mr. J'---I would never have the audacity to presume to call him 'Luddy') was a legend in commodity trading (especially metals and their derivatives), who parlayed his firm, Phillipp Brothers aka Phibro, into a world giant during the 1970's and early 1980's (the details are here). Yet, it is not of that part of his life that I wish (or have the expertise) to write. 

I came to know Mr. Jesselson (and his wife and partner, Erica nee Pappenheim) when we moved to Riverdale in the Fall of 1984, as I assumed the position of Assistant Rabbi (and then, Scholar in Residence) of the Riverdale Jewish Center, where the Jesselsons attended (and which they had helped found). Almost from the start, we developed a long, warm and affectionate relationship. Our family became part of the Jesselsons' extended family. Mr. Jesselson attended every one of my Shabbat afternoon lectures, andd many others. He was passionately interested in History, and he was a voracious reader. I became a sort of resource person for him. We shared the same weltanschauung (Mrs. J preferred to use the term Hasqafa), and I was privileged to be involved in many project that the Jesselsons undertook to advance Modern Orthodoxy (a number of which, I have to confess, also involved positions where I might best develop my talents, and put them to use) In addition, he was a major source of encouragement regarding my plans for Aliyah. In a very understated manner (appropriate for German-Jews), I tried to express my feelings toward them in the introduction to my doctorate (1991).

Mr. Jesselson was an inspiration to untold numbers of people. After Mrs. J returned from Israel, following his passing a few days before Pesach, we sat together as she read through the hundreds of faxes that she'd received expressing shock and grief. As she read them, she kept reacting to one consistent theme: "How can so many people feel as if he was their best friend?'  And yet, that was Mr. Jesselson. He treated everyone with grace, respect, and concern...from the shoe shine man whom he took off of the street (and to whom he gave a job) to Rabbis, captains of industry, and Heads of State. 

Yet the Jesselsons did not confine their concern to words, or small gestures. They were, as many said at the time 'Princes of Philanthropy.' Mr. Jesselson was emphatic that if God blessed him with great wealth, it was for the sole purpose of helping others. And he helped others on a scale that beggars the imagination and, overwhelmingly, did so anonymously. In his philanthropy, which included both Jewish and non-Jewish causes and individuals, he was guided by the Torah's imperative to see every person as having been created in the image of God. That devotion to Torah guided many of the Jesselsons' philanthropic priorities. They were wholly committed to Modern Orthodoxy, to Torah uMadda, It is not a coincidence that the only buildings that bear their names belong to institutions that represent their highest values: SAR Academy, the Jesselson Wing of Shaare Zedek Hospital, and the Jesselson Institute for Higher Torah Studies at Bar Ilan University (which is not to understate his devotion to Yeshiva University, whose Chairman of the Board he was). 

Zionism, and support of the State of Israel, was a central part of Torah in the Jesselsons' world view. They supported countless Israeli cultural and religious institutions (Midresher Amaliah--named for his mother, the Israel Museum, the National Library, the IPO, Bar Ilan University and much more) and had lasting friendships with Israeli leaders and diplomats. (And in in the process, educated many of them about Shabbat and Hagim, Torah and Tradition--- all by dint of personal example.)
 

One person with whom Mr. J had a very close relationship was the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin ז"ל. And it is one episode of that friendship that I'd like to relate, as it says alot about Mr. Jesselson's lighter side (and as I was directly involved):

Sometime in the late 80's, I walked into the Riverdale Jewish Center on Shabbat Morning, and Mr. Jesselson came rushing over to me. With a mix of emphasis and exasperation, he said: 'I want you to help me. Yitzhak Rabin was at our house for dinner last night, and we had an argument.' I was somewhat taken aback. How,exactly, was I supposed to resolve this argument? And Mr. J explained: 'I said that there Feisal was the King of Syria after World War I and Rabin denied it; that Faisal was only King of Iraq. I want you to prove that I'm right' 

I tried to object that the Middle East in the early Twentieth Century was not exactly my area of expertise, but Mr. J was adamant: 'You're an historian. I know I'm right. Find me the proof.' So I was off. Now, this was during the years before the Internet, before Wikipedia. I started making inquiries, and always came up with same answer: After WWI, Abdullah was the Emir of Transjordan and Faisal was the King of Iraq. After a week, I saw Mr. Jesselson in Shul and reported my findings. He replied: 'Keep Looking.'

So, I kept looking. As it happens, my brother had trained as a Diplomat at SAIS under Majid Khaddouri and Fouad Ajami, so I phoned him. He was, at the time, working at the Port Authority of NY and NJ, which had a good library (I didn't have access to Butler LIbrary at Columbia). He checked and found that for four months, from March to July 1920, the British installed Faisal bin Hussein as King of Greater Syria, until he was evicted by the French who had received the mandate for Syria at the San Remo Conference that year. So, Mr. Jesselson was correct.  I asked my brother to xerox the relevant pages and mail them to me.

When the pages arrived, I called Mr. J's office and told the secretary, Mrs. Sarfati, that I had material for him. She informed me that Mr. Jesselson was in Alaska on a yacht, fishing. HOWEVER, there was a fax on board. So, if I could fax her the pages she would send them on. This was before faxes were common. I had access to one of the few machines in Riverdale, at the Riverdale YM-YWHA. I drove over, and faxed the sheets from the book to Mrs. Sarfaty. She, then, faxed them to the yacht, off the coast of Alaska. Mr. Jesselson had the fax number in Rabin's office at the Israeli Defense Ministry, and off went the proof. When I next saw Mr. Jesselson in shul, he was, needless to say, very pleased (as was I).

There is so much more that I could say. However, if the Jesselson's guarded anything, it was their privacy (and it is no coincidence that there is only one picture of him on the Internet). Despite being, by all accounts, the wealthiest man in the area, his home was incredibly modest. Modesty of character was one of his shining qualities, which won the hearts of so many, and my eternal affection, reverence and gratitude.

I started this post with the assertion that I consider Mr. Jesselson to have been one of my chief teachers. The lessons I learned from him, both in word and deed, were many. Among them: 1) Believe in yourself. 2) Know who you are, and who you are not. 3)The only bad news involves matters of Life and Death. everything else can be overcome.  4) Kiddush Levana is a very important mitzvah. It teaches us to have hope and overcome the darkness, based on the belief that the light will come. 5) God put us on earth, and gave us gifts in order to give back to Him, to the Jewish People and the world. That's why when we repay Him, we should not seek honor or glory in doing so.   

תהי נשמת משה אריה בן החבר שמואל זצ"ל

צרורה בצרור החיים ותהי מנוחתו כבוד

   

Seeing the Signs of the Times: A Thought for the Seder from Don Isaac Abravanel

Exactly 526 years ago tomorrow, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, their most Catholic majesties of Aragon and Castille, stood in the Al-Hambra Palace (once built for the Jewish Vizier of Granada, Samuel Ibn Negrela Ha-Nagid) and issued a decree expelling all professing Jews from their combined KIngdoms no later than July 31 (four months hence).

 

The Decree of Expulsion from Spain 

One of those who chose the staff of exile was the Royal Treasurer, Don Isaac Abravanel (whom our family is proud to call our ancestor). Over the years of wandering, he pondered the disaster that had befallen the Jews of Spain, whose glorious history ended in a combination of the Fires of the Inquisition, the Waters of the Baptismal font and the Bitter Waters of Exile. In his Hagaddah, which he finished some thirteen years after he left Spain, he expresses the despair that he and his generation felt.

              'What have we gained,' he asked, 'by leaving Egypt?' Perhaps we would 

              have been better off staying there than being exiled among the Christians 

              and the Muslims, free from the expulsions, the persecutions, the sword,

              captivity, and worst of all apostasy as a response to travail.

And yet, he adduced two lessons that he took away. 1) That there is no way to explain the Exodus except by Divine intervention.

2) In his commentary to Isaiah 49, Abravanel says that God inspired the Kings of Europe to expel their Jews (using the verb the Prophet uses to describe Cyrus), in order to being them ever closer to Eretz Yisrael. The message is, and Abravanel's generation actually failed here by either going West or stopping short, to read the signs of God's intervention in History and follow His lead.  

According to Hazal, 80% of the Israelites died during the three days of Darkness. I surmise that they didn't die physically. They died spiritually, and so remained in Egypt. They failed on both of Abravanels counts. They refused to believe that any power could defeat Pharaoh. They likely assumed that miracles weren't miracles, that everything is natural and that reasonable, sophisticated people wouldn't accept such things. In their uber-sophistication, they were blind to God's Hand in History. 

We've seen God's Hand in History, even when we don't understand it. Rav Yehudah Amital זצ"ל, himself a survivor who lost his entire family in the Shoah,  used to say that he saw God's Hand in the Shoah, when the Germans and their Henchmen ימ"ש harmed their own war effort to murder Jews. He just couldn't fathom what God was doing. Far be it from me to presume to say anything about the Holocaust. However, in our times we've seen God's Hand in History, when three years after Auschwitz, the State of Israel was born, against all political and military logic. We saw it when the great Soviet Empire came crashing down, and hundreds of thousands of Jews were freed from three generations of repression and persecution. In fact, for those who look closely, our continued existence, both of our country and our people, is due to one long series of miracles (whether hidden or revealed).

On Pesach, we thank הקב"ה for these never ending miracles, from the Exodus from Egypt until today and Please God, till the coming of משיח צדקנו בב"א

חג כשר ושמח!!!

 

פסח כשר ושמח!!!! Happy and Kosher Passover

Peter Berger and the Prospects for Judaism in Israel

Peter Berger, who passed away less than a year ago, was a world famous sociologist of religion. As with many others, his writings and insights had a profound impact on me, in both my professional and non-professional life. His book, The Sacred Canopy, played a critical role in my thinking about the way that value systems and mentalites envelop, sustain and guide religious societies (which is the central focus of The Fabric of Religious Life in Medieval Ashkenaz). 
 
 In the 1960's, Berger was deeply concerned by what he sensed was the decline (perhaps, the demise) of religion, in the face of the unrelenting onslaught of Secularism. He pushed back against the 'Death of God' Movement, and asserted the importance of belief in the Divine (in an acknowledged, Liberal Lutheran mode). Thirty years later, though, Berger was surprised (and pleased) to discover that despite his fears, Religion and Faith in a Supernatural God were thriving throughout the world (outside, perhaps, of Europe and the circles of the cognoscenti of Manhattan, Los Angeles and their acolytes. See here). In considering this development, Berger observed that there is an historical irony in the manner wherein religion can thrive in the contemporary world. Until relatively recently, religion was supported by the power of the State. In the Christian West, that is no longer the case, and religious affiliation is now a matter of personal conviction and purely voluntary. This changed circumstance, Berger averred, actually bode well for religion. Freed of  institutional constraints (and their dark side), Religion now must compete in the open market of ideas. Berger felt that this surprising resurgence of Religion was largely due precisely to the success of Religious Faith to effectively market itself to a spiritually hungry world (assisted, no doubt, by the intellectual and spiritual superficiality and flaccidity of secularism). 

There is, I am convinced, much in what Berger wrote that can be constructively and effectively (if judiciously and critically) applied to Jewish Life in the resurgent State of Israel.

First, it's important to note, that Berger (though, ironically, born a Jew) was writing in a Christian context. Since Christian religiosity begins (and often, ends) with one's own personal, internal faith commitment, its propagation can be left to intellectual 'market forces.' Such is not the case for Judaism. Judaism represents a unique blending of ethnicity (or, national identity) and religious, covenantal commitment. Jews are, as R. Saadiah Gaon noted, a nation by reason of our Torah, but Jews remain a part of that nation even when they fail to personally observe the overwhelming number of the latter's dictates (Cf. Sefer Ha-Emunot ve-ha-De'ot III s.v. וכיוון שהקדמתי and Resp. Rashi no. 171). Nevertheless, since the Torah regulates the life of the nation, and finds its fulfillment in the nation, a Jew's religious choices are not entirely his own. They impact directly upon the entire body politic of the Jewish people, to which he is obligated by Tradition. [Indeed, this point that lies at the center of the great divide between Orthodox and Traditionally committed Jews, and their Liberal brethren.] Hence, Traditional Judaism cannot function, cannot survive without some degree of institutionalization (Rabbinical Courts, Kashrut etc.). [This does not, however, mean monopolization. On the contrary, I think that regulated competition may be the best way of ensuring the maintenance of Jewish Law, but that is not for the present discussion.] 

However, despite the very real and very profound differences between Judaism and Christianity, Berger's basic insight is eminently appropriate. Legislation and coercion, force majeure and raised voices not only do not draw people to Torah,, they drive them away.

To begin with, Judaism never believed that belief or sincere affiliation could be commanded (see my discussion here). These can, and must, be cultivated. When Jews lived in traditional societies, this could be done implicitly, non-reflectively (part of what Prof. Haym Soloveitchik described as 'mimetically.') Today, the overwhelming majority of Jews (outside of Haredi enclaves, and even these are increasingly porous) live in the broader secular mainstream, just as Berger described. Factors that previously helped to preserve Jews' connection to Torah, are largely absent in Israeli society. Broad swaths of the Ashkenazi population lack the profound ethno-religio-cultural sentiment and traditional sensitivities that fueled the Zionist enterprise from the beginning; not to mention the fact that they also lack any scintilla of Jewish literacy (as borne out by the present frenzy among the cultural elites against 'religionization' [הדתה], which usually comes down to an agenda for abject Jewish ignorance.) Into the Jewish vacuum that has formed, flowed (without critical examination) the full flow of contemporary secularism, with its atheist-materialist dogmatic. Even Mizrahi Jews, who do retain a profound sense of religious belief and affinity for Tradition, have their dedication attenuated by an unchecked inundation of contemporary secularism.

This situation requires Judaism (and, for me, this means Orthodox Judaism, or at least a Traditional modality) to compete in the open market of ideas for the hearts and minds of the Nation that dwells in Zion. There is every reason to believe that Torah can, and will prevail in such a competition. This is not only because of my own personal conviction, and three millennia of Jewish survival. The renaissance of Judaism, the spiritual resurgence of the past twenty years, is proof enough of the thirst of the Jews of the Land of Israel for God and for Torah; of the fact that there is a population to which the Torah can be made accessible. 

However, There are two sides to this undertaking; and they must be done simultaneously. On the one hand, we need to teach Torah in a way that will demand people's assent, respect and (hopefully) consent. This requires judiciously adopting and adapting contemporary ideas, values and cultural modes to render Jewish ideals accessible. And, there are broad swaths of overlap between the Torah and ideals held dear by the contemporary West (the advancement of women, for one). Of course, this does not mean that the Torah should be coerced to conform to ideas and values alien to it. Judaism has always encountered other cultures in a mode of interaction. The encounter stimulates thinkers and scholars to see where and to what degree ideas it confronts resonate within the corpus of Jewish Tradition. The results enrich Judaism from within, by bringing to light dimensions of itself that were hitherto unseen, but on its own terms. The encounter also provides teachers of Torah with a language than can be appreciated by those outside its orbit. [Cf. Moreh Nevuhim III, 31, Rambam's discussion of the attitudes toward Agaddah in the Introduction to Pereq Heleq and my discussion here.]   

At the same time, competition in the market place of ideas means going on the offensive against those elements, especially the unstated assumptions, of secularism that are incompatible with Religious Faith and a Life of Torah and Mitzvot. The fallacies of the former, and the advantages of the latter need to be put forth in the language of secular society. [Chaim Navon has picked up this gauntlet, but there is much more to do.] To return to Berger, success in the market place requires proper packaging, demonstrating why the product is needed, why the alternative is harmful and all without sacrificing the integrity of the product.

The tragedy is that just when there is an upsurge in desire, a deepening in Jewish awareness, there are almost no men or women ready and willing, trained and dedicated who are available to enter into the lists. Training those men and women and developing the tools to fill this double mission are the most promising way of deepening the Jewish character of the State of Israel, ensuring not only its soul, but its body as well.

[To Be Continued]