Religious Zionism in Crisis (Part 2)

I am really gratified by the intelligent, respectful, and passionate responses to my posting on this subject. I would like to take the opportunity to comment on some of the observations made directly about my remarks (as the comments took on a life of their own).

1) There is serious difference between pegging the significance of the state to an imminent, unstoppable redemption and responding to a desire to advance the redemption. I was referring to the former, not the latter. Both can accomodate saying 'Reshit Tzmihat Ge'ulatenu.'

2) I am well aware that it was Agnon who coined this phrase, and that he did so in consultation with Rav Herzog. The issue is the valence that one attributes to the words, and it is here that I suggest that the crisis of faith faced by many members of our community may be found. By attributing absolute value (and not utilitarian value) to the government (as cogently pointed out by Rabbi Yosef Blau-whose participation I gratefully acknowledge) many of us have maneuvered ourself into a potentially tragic 'make or break' situation from a faith point of view.

3) Attributing absolute redemptive value to the State and acting based on deep Emunah and vision are not the same. Obviously, those who came here from the time of the Gra's disciples on were driven by an exalted vision. The Rov zt"l , whose Zionism was deeply religious and non-messianic, discusses exactly this dimension of the Jewish national revival in Fir Droshes (aka Hamesh Drashot and The Rav Speaks). [BTW, it is very true that the Rov's Zionism was decidedly Reines-like, thoug I seriously doubt whether he would have gone so far as to support Herzl's Uganda Plan, as R. Reines did. The Rov place too much emphasis on Eretz Yisrael to do so, IMHO.]

4) One can oppose Sharon's unilateral retreat without de-legitimizing the whole Zionist enterprise from a religious point of view.

A Great New Site!

My son, Avi, just came across this wonderful site about Israel and Zionism, About Israel. It's sponsored by the Inter-Disciplinary Center in Herzliya and it has a wealth of material, untinged by Post-Zionist Judische Selbst-hass.

Knowing When I Update...

I've been asked by a number of people if they can be notified when I update my blog. Evidently, blogspot does not have this feature. However, I just discovered Bloglines, which allows you to register the blogs you read and it will tell you when they're updated.

So, click here and enjoy.

R. Zekharia b. Avqulos Lives (Part Two)

My earlier posting about the crisis of Religious Zionism, reminded me that I hadn't finished discussing R. Zekharia b. Avqulos. As noted, most people know of him from the Qamtza/Bar Qamtza story in Gittin. However, there is another version of Q/BQ in Midrash Eikha Rabbah (Parsha 4 s.v. (3) ma'aseh). In that version, it turns out that R. Zekharia b. Avqulos was sitting at Qamtza's party and was a witness to the way Qamtza publically humiliated Bar Qamtza. The Midrash says that Bar Qamtza was deeply wounded by the serene way in which RZA and the others sat there and let Qamtza humiliate him when they could have protested the violation of the rabbinic injunction against humiliating another person. Hence, he decided to avenge himself on everyone.

I understand the Midrash to be conveying a very serious social message. Rabbis (and religious Jews, generally) are halakhically obligated to intervene to prevent others from being hurt; to object to verbal and physical abuse; and to take stands on social issues. If the Torah is reduced to ritual, it ceases to be the Torah (though the opposite is eqully true). The Qiddush HaShem that could be done if the RZ community were more involved in general social issues and more open about its Hesed activities, that Qiddush HaShem would go a long way to redeeming society, rejudaizing the country and really bringing the redemption closer.

Religious Zionism in Crisis (Part 1)

The hot topic in town is the religious crisis that the retreat rom Gaza is causing within the Religious Zionist Community. The buzz, which only confirmed what many had already known, was prompted by a conference under the auspices of Tzohar (itself one of the more positive developments in the Orthodox World in Israel).

Basically, our community is reaping the results of three generations of one-issue Judaism; i.e, settling Judea, Samaria and Gaza. This settlement activity was, in turn, predicated upon a clear messianic vision propagated by the Rabbis Kook (pere et fils). Generations of NR Jews have lived and/or been raised that the State of Israel is the first shoot of our redemption (a sentiment that I fully share), and is part of an irreversible process (a sentiment that I always found somewhat presumptuous. Be-hade Kavshe de-Rahmana lama li!). Now that it looks like Gush Qatif and (afterwards) much of Yesha is on Sharon's chopping block, this has (understandably) thrown large swaths of the community into crisis. The crisis is not religious (so far as I can see), but Zionist. Voices are being heard to stop the prayer for the State, to cancel the celebration of Independence Day etc. In addition, the recent governmental and judiciary blows against Judaism are leading to a growing sentiment that the State of Israel should be denied religious significance and that the classic Haredi response to the state was the proper one.

With all due respect, and despite my support of the settlement of Jews in our ancestral heartland, the crisis was very much foreseeable. Messianic expectation is a very powerful force, as is messianic disappointment. In addition, as I alluded before, no one ever had the right to assume that God would bring the redemption unconditionally. Eretz Yisrael has to be earned, and not just through settling there. Life here must conform to the Torah's moral, as well as its ritual, prescriptions. All you have to do is read the Book of VaYiqra from Ahare Mot on in order to know that. Indeed, I find the fact that there is a direct correlation between the transgressions mentioned in the Torah and events reported in the news media on a daily basis, very frightening. The religious community needs to start exerting greater social and moral leadership if it would see the redemption come.

What is more, why was it necessary to put all of our ideological eggs in one basket? Rav Kook was a Gadol Ba-Torah and a man of sublime vision. He does not, however, represent the sum total of Religious Zionist thought. One can thank God every day for the precious gift called Medinat Yisrael. One can regard it is the expression of Providence intervening in history. It does not have to be the Final Redemption (which, in any case, depends upon Teshuvah). That's what Rav Soloveitchik taught us. [I might add, this point of view does not require one to abdicate one's adament belief in the right to settle Yesha. The Rov never said there was a mitzva to give up territory. He said it was a theoretical possibility. In the present political, cultural and religious constellation in the Middle East I have no doubt that that posssibility remains theoretical.]

So, it's time not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Medinat Yisrael still has achieved much. The Religious Zionist community has its work cut out for it to assert religious leadership on pressing social issues, to re-judaize the Jewish population, to resolve the conversion crisis, to develop a real Israeli form of Modeern Orthodoxy and to simultaneously try to save what we can of the settlement of our country. It is a time of Heshbon ha-Nefesh, not a time for despair.

R. Zecharia b. Avqulas Lives

 

         One of the best known stories in the Talmud is that of 'Qamtza and Bar Qamtza' (Gittin 55b). The story is cited all of the time as an expression of the causeless hatred (sin'at hinam) that brought about the destruction of the Second Temple (cf. Yoma 9b). There is, however, another person who figures prominently in the story. His name was R. Zechariah b. Avqulas. [I addressed another aspect of this story here.] Little is known about R. Zechariah b. Avqulas, aside from his role in the Qamtza/Bar Qamtza story. Briefly, according to the Gemora, Bar Qamtza travelled to Rome and claimed that the Jews were in revolt against him. Nero chose to test the Jews by sending a sacrificial animal to be offered on his behalf in the Temple. If the Jews offered the animal, it was a sign that they remained loyal and if not, their refusal would be a clear declaration of rebellion. Bar Qamtza, however, owing to his deep resentment of a slight he felt he had received at the hands of the rabbis was intent upon proving the Jews to be in rebellion. Hence he sought to prevent the offering of the animal. This he achieved by splitting the lip of the animal, thereby rendering it unfit according to Halakhah. His choice of blemish was ingenious. For, while such a physical imperfection was recognized as such according to Jewish Tradition, it did not disqualify a sacrficial animal according to pagan lore. Hence, reasoned Bar Qamtza, the Jews would refuse to offer the sacrifice for reasons which Nero would take to be unsatisfactory at best and disingenuous at worst. In any event, Roman retaliation would be assured and Bar Qamtza's lust for vengeance satisfied. The Talmud recounts, that upon receiving the animal from Nero and the rabbis realized that Bar Qamtza had maneuvered them into a corner. They expressed their determination to offer the animal in any case in order to avert the Emperor's wrath. Only one man stood against them, R. Zekharia b. Avqulos. Eloquently he countered each and every argument marshalled in favor of offering the animal. The crux of his argument? Halakhah must stand pristine under any and all circumstances. No other considerations may prevent the precise implementation of an>established halakhic ruling. In a word, 'Let the Law bore through the mountain!' ( Yiqov HaDin et HaHar). And so, the animal was not offered. Rome attacked and the rest is history. I thought about R. Zechariah this morning when I heard two, ostensibly unrelated, news items. The first concerned the call by the former chief rabbi and the Yesha rabbinical council, for mass desertion from the army in order to prevent the retreat from Gaza. Now I personally oppose Sharon's unilateral withdrawal, which was approved in a thug-like fashion and is being carried out in the absolutely worst manner possible. Nevertheless, these rabbis are calling for the destruction of the army (and, by extension, of the country) in the name of ideological/halakhic purism. No thought is being given to the implications, both the security implications and those that relate to the social fabric of the country (or what's left of it). R. Zekharia b. Avqulos lives. The second news item related to the Supreme Court decision to recognize Conservative and Reform conversions performed in Israel, under the subterfuge that the final ceremony takes place outside of Israel. Interestingly, in this case, all sides involved betray characteristics of R. Zekharia b. Avqulos. The Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Aharon Barak, in the name of personal autonomy and post-modern liberal theory, consistently ruled against Tradition in the Israeli Public Sphere. Justice Barak's position is a principled one, but it contradicts the collective nature of Judaism and Jewish identity. Absolute individual liberty cannot co-exist with the demands of Jewish destiny and religio-tribal identity. Nevertheless, with a consistency that is truly stunning, Barak and his court have pushed their agenda so that, eventually, the Jewish character of the state will be expressed by some vague ideals related to prophetic Judaism (whatever that is). He's said as much himself. This decision is another step in that direction, and it bodes very badly for Israel's continued existence as a Jewish State. After all, it is the tribal nature of Jewish identity that holds us together. R. Zekharia b. Avqulos lives. The Conservative and Reform movements also act like R. Zekharia b. Avqulos. They promised to commit themselves to the truly landmark compromise known as the Neeman Commission Joint-Conversion institutes. However, despite that understanding, they continue to convert independently of the Neeman framework. In large part, this is out of a personal (potentially destructive) desire to being validated within the Israeli context. Their grievances are understandable. Their unwillingness to compromise is not. R. Zekharia b. Avqulos lives. Finally, the Israeli rabbinate is deeply tinged with the syndrome of R. Zekharia b. Avqulos. Consistently we hear that Reform and Conservative converts turned away from the rabbinate because of the shoddy way in which they were treated. The rabbinate will not even register people who were converted by the Neeman Commission schools or by R. Haim Druckman's Bet Din. These are both Orthodox frameworks (the first, de facto and the second, de jure). By adopting a R. Zekharia b. Avqulos position the rabbinate is directly aiding and abetting the division of the Jewish people into two (or three or four). R. Zekharia b. Avqulos lives. I think all concerned must keep in mind R. Yohanan's rueful observation that 'The punctiliousness ( anv'tanuto ) of R. Zekharia b. Avqulos destroyed our Temple, burned our Sanctuary and exiled us among the nations!'

Mikveh and the single Girl Redux

A few days ago, I started a discussion on the question on Mikveh for single Women and judging from the traffic yesterday, it aroused a not inconsiderable amount of interest. I'd like, now, to

Words of Wisdom and Dialogues of the Deaf

My friend, Maria, has asked me if I follow the blogger that goes under the pseudonym of Geviha ben Pesisa. At her suggestion I do check up on it occasionally (and was flattered to find myself 'linked'). Anyway, he just posted something that I thought was worth noting, especially since I've often argued that facts have no place in an inter-religious dispute. So here it is:

So, I've been thinking about this for a long time. It won't make a difference, but it makes me feel good. So....

The Arabs claim that our presence here is illegitimate. They deny the fact that Israwel was given by God to the Jews (though it says so in the Quran). They claim we must dismantle the State of Israel because we conquered them. OK. How did they get here? Well, the Arabs conquered Byzantine Palestine at the Battle of Yarmuk in 636 CE. The Byzantines, of course, were merely the Eastern Roman Empire. The Romans conquered Israel from the Hasmoneans in 63 BCE. The Jews, of course, had had autonomy under the Persian Empire, which conquered the Babylonians in 539 BCE. The Babylonians conquered Judaea from...the Jews, who had taken it (by divine mandate) from the Canaanites.

So, if conquest is illegitimate, so is theirs. If we move backwards, the only people who are identifiably original inhabitants and who were conquered are...the Jews. So, no matter how you cut it. Eretz Yisrael belongs to us.

Mikveh and the Single Girl

Recently, there has been a lot of discussion around the question of non-marital sexual activity among otherwise religious people who, for whatever reason, have delayed marriage and wish to continue to consider themselves Orthodox while ignoring the prohibitions against sexual contact. First, there was a written exchange on the subject on Ma'ariv's NRG site. segment of Sahra Blau's Erev Shabbat program that dealt with the issue. This was followed, last week, by an evening panel discussion at Ohel Nehama in Jerusalem, under the auspices of Ne'emane Torah vaAvodah. The even was held to mark the publication of the latest issue of Deot, the movement's journal, which devoted a three page article to the topic. The evening was covered in the press and has now engendered lively discussion on the various Jewish discussion lists.

The way the issue is being addressed here, one would think that this was an unprecedented development, (which it might be). It certainly, however, is not unprecedented on the North American Orthodox scene. Twenty five years ago, New York was all abuzz with talk of 'tefillin dates' and the wayward behaviour of the Upper West Side of Manhattan (the phenomenological equivalent of the Qatamon 'swamp.') In fact, not long after I received my first semikha (from Mori ve-Rabbi R. Gedaliah Felder, zt'l), I started receiving questions from various friends who had no access to rabbis. The second shayla I was asked was from an acquaintance from my Harvard days who wanted to go to miqveh in order to be with her boyfriend. I was still learning at YU, and I decided to moot the question. The results were interesting, to say the least.

The first person I asked thought that the question of mikveh for an unmarried woman was an open and shut one. True, the Rivash had intimated that this was a theoretcal possibility. Nevertheless, R. Hayyim Ozer Grodzenski, in Resp. Ahiezer, had stated emphatically that one does not violate lesser prohibitions in order to avoid more serious ones (le-hatzil me-yede hamurot). [Resp. Ahiezer, III:33. See, however, ibid. no. 26.]

To my surprise, however, a very senior member of the Kollel took strong issue with this interpretation of R. Hayyim Ozer. The case there involved a group of women who were unwilling to pare their nails (and ruin their manicures) in order to go to miqveh. They were perfectly willing to clean their nails, but unwilling to obey the added humra of removing one's nails lest there be an unknown hatzizah. This Talmid Hakham pointed out that Reb Hayyim Ozer's case represented a contradiction in the act of immersion. In other words, his ruling could easily be interpreted that one does not forego strictures in Hilkhot Tevila in order to save the immersion. In the case at hand, however, where the two perspective prohibitions (non-marital sex and an issur karet ) are independent of the tevilla, it may be that one does try to save a person from more serious transgressions.

A few days later, I received another response. He acknowledged that technically it might be possible to make allowances. Nevertheless, one does not allow someone to brazenly trample a Biblical prohibition in the interest of saving one from a more serious Biblical prohibition. [ Here I should add, that the general perception that the status of sexual contact that does not lead up to intercourse is a matter of dispute between Maimonides and Nahmanides, with the latter maintaining that it is Biblical and the latter, Rabbinic, in origin. This is not totally correct. If one looks at the Ramban's stricture against Rambam's Sefer Ha-Mitzvot [Neg. 353] it emerges that he notes two opinions. In the first, he does say it's rabbinic. In the second he assets it's a hatzi shi'ur of Gilui Arayot. In other words, it's also Biblical.]

This last offered opinion, over 25 years ago, is the most important one to be discussed. The question is not just legal, in nature. It is one of religious policy, which is also an halachic consideration. Furthermore, as opposed to the question that I was asked, the current discussion revolves around singles asking for an a priori and global license to ignore halakhic norms. This side raises issues that go far beyond the narrow issue of miqveh.

On the other hand, I am very much aware that this is not twenty-five years ago and the singles phenomenon has grown far beyond anything that I would have thought then. Men and women, religious men and women, are suffering in ways that we absolutely must take into consideration. On the other hand, it is also true that as opposed to years ago, people who find themselves on the wrong side of Halakha are not axiogically rejecting the whole Torah and realize they can do Teshuvah. The decline of the perfection or nothing view of Judaism is a welcome development.

In any event, every effort must be made by the community to encourage and support marriage. This is going to require a tectonic shift of values in our community, which I hope to discuss on the Orthodox Caucus website. At the same time, I fully agree that the topic must be discussed by rabbis, rashe yeshiva, psychologists and others. The question is: Where? As opposed to those who are cited in the De'ot article, this is most emphatically NOT a subject for public pronouncements or Television shows [see the aposite remarks in todays HaZofe]. It should be candidly, and discreetly, discussed by those involved. The leadership of the Orthodox community has to validate the issues facing unmarrieds (without endorsing behaviour that runs contrary to the Torah.) That's the nature of Halakha and of real modesty (as opposed to some of the extremes to which the latter has gone and, as a result, indirectly contributed to this particular situation.) This is a very sensitive topic and time in the life of our community. It's not one that can be answered, either with condemnations or liberal pronouncements.

Hakarat HaTov to the Conservative Movement

Gil Student recently highlighted the crisis that has presently siezed Conservative Judaism. In large part, JTS Chancellor, Dr. Ismar Schorsch, attributes the decline 'to the exodus of young Conservative Jews with strong religious educations.' In other words, despite the heavy emphasis upon scholarship that was the hallmark of JTS, the Conservative movement has remained, what it always was, a phenomenon driven by the laity, whose values are usually derived from whatever trends dominate American, liberal society and not from Jewish knowledge This was pointed out by the late Marshall Sklare, over forty years ago, in his classic study, Conservative Judaism. (Sklare, who I knew well, was a Life-long Conserrvative Jew.)

I wanted to highlight this angle of CJ's crisis, because I was an early example thereof. I grew up, in a 50's and 60's America wherein Conservative Judaism was viewed as the way of the future. Orthodoxy, I grew up hearing, was 'too much' and would be confined to the dust bin of history. Reform, on the other hand, was too 'goyish.' It was often said, with disdain, that Reform was just one step from assimilation, intermarriage and (as time went on, apostasy). It will be noted, that this was a CJ that heavily emphasized traditional ritual, and (more importantly) Jewish education. Here, it must be admitted, it could really excel (if it and the parents so desired). I went to an 'intensive Hebrew School' wherein we learned Hebrew, Hebrew Language, Hebrew Literature, History, Humash Navi, and Siddur. The goal of the program was to prepare the students for entry into the Prozdor of Boston Hebrew Teacher's College (now, Hebrew College). Of course, most kids didn't go this way. This path, however, was validated and offered. Day school was not yet respected as an option in Boston, since Boston Jews (my parents included), were doctrinnaire believers in the value of a public school education.

The knowledge that Hebrew School imparted, and (more importantly) the ability to attend the Prozdor and then Hebrew College, afforded me a broad Jewish education the like of which one is hard put to acquire anywhere in the world today. True, Torah she'b'al Peh was not taught in Hebrew School. However, the linguistic and textual tools we were given provided me with the basis that allowed me, at age eighteen, to start my nine and a half years of study with my beloved rebbe, Rav Soloveitchik, zatzal.

I started my way out of the movement not long after my Bar Mitzva, though the final break came when I was graduated from High School. Indeed, it was my years in USY that helped me to ease myself out, as it afforded me a context in which to assume Shemiras Shabbos.

In the end, I left because of the lack of authenticity I found in the leaders of the movement. I left because of the contempt and anger that rabbis had toward tradition and, especially, toward the Gemora. I left because, even then, I felt that the movement (to reverse an image by Tchernichovsky) strove to 'put tefillin on a statue of Apollo.' Tradition had no integrity in their eyes, and certainly none in the face of whatever transient modes of thinking or values were making their way through the American Jewish MIddle or Upper Class. It was at this crucial point in my life that three of my teachers at Hebrew College: Rabbi Dr. Arnold Wieder and Rabbi Dr. Isaiah Wohlgemuth introduced me to the world of Torah. More to the point it was Rabbi Wohlgemuth (tofether with Rabbi Dr. David Schapiro) who made it possible for me to enter the Rov's shiur, a moment that transformed my life forever.

Nevertheless, despite my thirty two year axiological opposition to and rejection of Conservative Judaism, and my sense of validation at their current brain-drain, I would be guilty of the most churlish form of ingratitude if I did not (at the same time) acknowledge that it was the education they provided that allowed me to find an authentic, Torah way of life. My wife, who's training to become an art therapist, offers that people need to own all of the parts of their lives. This is my way of owning mine.
.