Mesorah and Rav Soloveitchik זצ"ל: Part One

One of the central Foci in the great debate over the Ordination of Women, has been the position of my Master and Teacher, Rabbi Dr. Joseph B. Soloveitchik זצ"ל. This is altogether appropriate, as the Rav זצ"ל remains the preeminent Halakhic and Philosophic Authority and Legitimator of a vision of Orthodox Judaism that posits active engagement with General Culture and Society. [I am avoiding use of the term 'Modern Orthodoxy,' with which Rav Soloveitchik was less than happy.] Effectively, he was the teacher (and the teacher's teacher) of the overwhelming majority of Orthodox Jews who inhabit the Yeshiva University/Rabbinical Council of America orbit.

Ironically, the discussion of the Rav's position on Semikha for women has not been centered upon the Rav's expressed halakhic position against ordaining women. Rather, an extraordinary amount of attention has been paid to a speech that the Rav delivered in 1975 to the Rabbinic Alumni of RIETS. That address, which was partly programmatic and partly polemic, was occasioned by a controversial proposal by Rabbi Emanuel Rackman ז"ל to resolve the plight of contemporary Agunot. Rabbi Rackman, inter alia, suggested that the presumption (hazaqah) that a woman will 'settle' for almost any husband (טב למיתב טן-דו מלמיתב ארמלו) was predicated upon the inferior status of women in ancient society, and that it should no longer be invoked. Rav Soloveitchik lashed out, as much against the interpretation as against the proposal. He proceeded to anchor this behavioral presumption in the Female personality, based upon his interpretation of Gen. 3, 17; and attributed thereto eternal, transcendent validity. [Two points deserve to be noted. First, the Rav's interpretation is very extreme and among his leading disciples there has been great hesitancy to adopt it. Second, Dr. Aliza Bazak has recently demonstrated that in the past four centuries, Halakhic authorities have invoked this rule either in favor of the woman, or in order to exclude its use.] 

However, discussion of the Rav's harsh critique of R. Rackman's proposed interpretation has too often missed its basic point of departure. What earned Rav Soloveitchik's ire was not so much the status of a behavioral presumption per se, as the fact that R. Rackman's interpretation was fundamentally, and explicitly, historicist in nature. Rav Soloveitchik stridently objected to the fact that his opponent was reducing an halakhic concept to its presumed sitz im leben. This, he asserted, was a violation of the methodological integrity, and axiological autonomy of Torah, the process by which Torah is studied, and Halakhah applied. For this reason that the Rav prefaced his criticism of R. Rackman's proposal with a passionate, inspiring and highly repercussive description of the methodology of Torah Study, which he described as Mesorah (מסורה). The speech incorporated many themes of the Rav's other writings and must be carefully 'unpacked' in order to be fully appreciated. Here, I would like to zero in on one of the Rav's central points, as expressed in two key paragraphs. [I've used, and corrected, the transcript by Dr. Eitan Fiorino]:

What does קבלת עול מלכות שמים require of the לומד התורה, the person who studies Torah?  First, we must pursue the truth, and nothing else but the truth.  However, the truth in תלמוד תורה can only be achieved through singular Halachic Torah thinking, and Torah understanding. The truth is attained from within, in accord with the methodology given to Moses, and passed on from generation to generation. The truth can be discovered only through joining the ranks of the חכמי המסורה. It is ridiculous to say "I have discovered something of which the רשב"א didn't know, the קצות didn't know, the Vilna Gaon had no knowledge; I have discovered an approach to the interpretation of Torah which is completely new." It’s ridiculous. One must join the ranks of the חכמי המסורה  (חז"ל, ראשונים, גדולי האחרונים)-- and must not try to rationalize from without the חוקי התורה and must not judge the חוקים ומשפטים in terms of the secular system of values.  Such an attempt, be it historicism, be it psychologism, be it utilitarianism, undermines the very foundations of תורה ומסורה; and, it leads eventually to the most tragic consequences of assimilationism and nihilism; no matter how good the original intentions are of the person who suggested them. 

Second, we must not yield -- I mean emotionally, it is very important -- we must not feel inferior, experience or develop an inferiority complex, and because of that complex yield to the charm -- usually it is a transient and passing charm -- of modern political and ideological סברות.  I say not only not to compromise -- certainly not to compromise -- but even not to yield emotionally, not to feel inferior, not to experience an inferiority complex.  The thought should never occur that it is important to cooperate just a little bit with the modern trend, or with the secular, modern philosophy.  In my opinion, יהדות (Judaism) does not have to apologize either to the modern woman or to the modern representatives of religious subjectivism.  There  is no need for apology -- we should have pride in our מסורה, in our heritage.  And of course, certainly it goes without saying one must not try to compromise with these cultural trends. And one must not try to gear the halachic norm to the transient values of a neurotic society, which is what our society is.

One overarching concern emerges from this passage: the autonomy and integrity of Traditional Judaism as a faith that is rooted in the acceptance of Divine Revelation. Revelation, in turn, is incorporated in the Written and Oral Laws, as interpreted (again, by Divine mandate) by the outstanding scholars of the many generations leading back to Sinai, whom Rav Soloveitchik calls חכמי המסורה. Tradition is composed of two, mutually dependent elements: Content and Method. In the case of method, by dint of its Divine origin and the religious integrity of its expositors, the values and legal constructs that the Torah comprehends must, by definition, transcend time and geography. [Much the same can be said of methodology. It is, however, the first component that I wish to address here. I will, אי"ה, return to this point in the longer essay that I am preparing. Suffice it to say here that the Rav's remarks about the Rashba, GRA and Ketzos relates to the methodological assumptions that they share, not to specific ideas.]

It is in this light that the Rav's crescendo should be understood: 'One...must not try to rationalize from without the חוקי התורה and must not judge the חוקים ומשפטים in terms of the secular system of values.  Such an attempt, be it Historicism, be it Psychologism, be it Utilitarianism, undermines the very foundations of תורה ומסורה; and, it leads eventually to the most tragic consequences of Assimilationism and Nihilism.' 

It is important to note what Rav Soloveitchik is doing here, and that which he is not doing. 

He is forthrightly condemning the subjugation of Judaism to external systems of values; coercing it to conform thereto, in violation of its textual and interpretive tradition. Such reductionism makes Man the judge of God's Word whether because he thinks it is passe (Historicism), it doesn't fit what we now hold to be psychologically correct (Psychologism), or doesn't give the individual the personal satisfaction s/he was expecting (Religious Subjectivism). According to the Rav, one struggles to fulfill God's Word. One does not blithely dismiss it out of self-worth and intellectual hubris. (This is the actual central element of Rav Soloveitchik's famous critique of Korach.)

At the same time, he definitely did not (indeed, he could not) advocate a blind, 'know nothing' stance toward the outside world and its culture, and their relationship to Torah (as some have more than implied). His epistemological model, which was beautifully mapped out by מו"ר Prof. Yitzhak Twersky ז"ל, posited the courageous enlisting of the full panoply of Western Culture for the explication and enhancement of Judaism. Judaism, in the Rav's model (and in marked contrast to Maimonides), 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. 

This is not to suggest, however, that changes in social and historical circumstances do not affect Halakhah. Obviously, they do. However, the interaction between them (and the pace of that interaction) is predicated upon the tools that Tradition itself provides. That, I believe, is what lies behind the distinction that the Rav makes later in that address between 'change' and 'novel interpretation' (חידוש). 

The Rav neither believed in freezing Judaism in time, nor did he ignore the existence of historical change. While he was conservative in matters of Psak, especially in the area of synagogue ritual and function, he did not mechanically rule based merely on the basis of precedent (or the lack thereof). He issued rulings based upon his massive Torah scholarship, his heightened sensitivity to the responsibility of adjudicating God's Law, and a careful evaluation both of the needs of the questioner and the integrity of the Torah. (And he was, after all, the progenitor of the revolution of Torah Learning that has changed the face of Orthodoxy, for the good.) However, in all such cases, he responded to change in light of the built-in traditional methodology of Halachic interpretation and decision-making that spans the generations. How that methodology function, we will (אי"ה) address in a subsequent post.

Torah, Academia and Historicism

Forty years ago, I spent a riveting afternoon with one of the greatest Jewish historians of the second half of the twentieth century. I was then in the midst of a personal crisis; grappling with the question whether a key element of my chosen life's path, training as an academic historian, was worthwhile or religiously valid. This person graciously gave me an entire afternoon of his time to field my questions, listen to my concerns and share his hard won insights.It was an extremely memorable few hours, that was both formative and enriching.

In the course of our conversation, we touched upon the question of Biblical History and the academic approach thereto. Then, as now, this topic troubled me deeply. I offered that, then as now, I maintain that acceptance of many of the basic assumptions and conclusions of academic Bible scholarship (e.g. multiple authors, late composition, non-historicity of key events etc) is incompatible with any credible form of Orthodox Judaism. My interlocutor smiled, understandingly, and told me that as a graduate student he had been obliged to delve into this field and write a paper that was compatible with current research on the subject. He added that he prefaced his work with a disclaimer that he viewed the project as nothing more than a theoretical exercise. Afterwards, he tossed the paper in the nearest circular file.

'How could you do that?' I asked. 'It's a game,' he replied. You play the game according to the rules. When you're finished, you stop playing.' 

At the time, I thought that his answer was a bit flippant. Unfortunately, I didn't press the point and I never had the opportunity to clarify his words. I suppose I was satisfied by the fact that a person of impeccable scholarly integrity could dismiss the obliging force of academic Biblical historiography with such aplomb. Still, I've often thought about that exchange. Hazal famously observed that it takes one forty years before he understands the full implications of a teacher's words (Avodah Zarah 5b). Along those lines, forty years later, I think I finally understand what my interlocutor was saying.

A few days ago, someone sent me an article by Michael Cantrell, entitled 'Must a Scholar of Religion Be Methodologically Atheistic or Agnostic?' Cantrell's stated purpose is to question Peter Berger's assertion that 'every inquiry into religious matters that limits itself to the empirically available, must necessarily be based on methodological atheism' (P. Berger, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion, New York 1969, 110). In other words, by definition, the student of religion may not consider the Divine or the Sacred realms as factors in the development of religions, since there is no way of objectively proving their existence. Of course, some scholars are people of faith (as they are fashionably described today). However, since others are not believers, the more principled position is to deny (or suspend judgement) on the existence of the Sacred and to ignore it as a factor in one's researches. This, Berger (together with most social scientists) asserts is the most scientific and objective way to undertake one's researches. Berger calls his approach, 'Methodological Atheism.'

Cantrell engages Berger's position from a number of different angles (and I urge people to read his piece). What caught my attention was his contention that Methodological Atheism is not an assertion of scholarly objectivity. It is, de facto, an affirmation of secularism and a denial of the Sacred. It is not methodological atheism. It is atheism. [It reminds me of the argument that children should not be raised with religion, but allowed to choose when they reach adulthood. In fact, those parents effectively decide that their children should not have religion.] In academic terms, affirming methodological atheism is usually the equivalent of an affirmation of Secular Materialism, a position that is absolutely incompatible with a faith commitment (unless one has a weakness for Ibn Rushd).

For the person of faith, then, the academic study of religion without God is a game, because a major element of the scholarly calculus is missing. That is, I think, what my discussant was saying so long ago. In addition, Academic Biblical Scholarship is vulnerable for other reasons. To begin with, the archaeological and literary record is still very thin, subject to endless interpretations and highly speculative. But more to this, as with every scientific undertaking, academic findings are conditional. They only reflect the state of a field at a given time (and based upon whatever theoretical approach is then in fashion). They should, by definition, never claim to be definitive, because at any given time someone at the other end of the world may be upending the scholarly consensus with an unheard of finding. The most a scholar can say, or should say, is that 'such and such' is the most reasonable answer based on all we know at this time. Unfortunately, this is most decidedly not the case in the groves of academe; where dogmatic acceptance of the scholarly status quo is expected of both students and practitioners, and those who differ are suffered to absorb the slings and arrows of scholarly outrage.

As a practitioner of the academic method, I have no argument with my colleagues in Biblical Studies. They follow the rules and try their best to reach the truth, as best they can and as best they understand it. Furthermore, I am not arguing for a theistic approach to scholarship. In my own work, I do not write that 'such and such' occurred  because God willed it. I might not even think it, since it would raise serious issues of Predestination and Theodicy. I, too, try to explore the causes that lie behind intellectual and historical developments. As a medievalist, writing in a time of Deus Absconditus (הסתר פנים), such an approach is more comfortable. [I do maintain the importance of and the formative role played by the perception of the Sacred and the individual's experience of God in the understanding of Judaism and Jewish History. ]  

However, within the internal discourse of a faith community, there is no room for methodological atheism. Here, one must not play be the rules of 'the game.' God is the central portion of our calculus. Secular materialism, which drives Him from the universe and beyond, is an anathema to the person of faith. 

That does not mean that the findings of historians should be dismissed. Questions are valid. Doubt is a legitimate religious category. However, as with so many other matters, a person of faith must be sustained by his convictions that the historical record will ultimately confirm that which the Bible states; that the Divine authorship of the Pentateuch (and inspiration of the Prophets and Hagiographa) will be confirmed; and that the Tradition of the Written and Oral Law also transcend the exigencies of the contexts within which they first emerged. 

This is certainly the case when one considers that while scientists (and social scientists) may dogmatically affirm 'This is it,' at most all they can really say, is 'maybe this is how it is.' After all, the basis of the Scientific Method lies in the conditional nature of scientific conclusions (as Popper and Kuhn have taught us.). Hence, when the person of faith confronts academic findings, our Rabbis observation that ברי ושמא, ברי עדיף should obtain. It is both dishonest and wrong to make Judaism totally subservient to Secular Materialist Scholarship. Put differently, internal discussions of how Torah should be studied, interpreted and applied must posit that it has integrity as the veritable Word of God. Restricting Torah to the passing fashions of academic consensus, or to historicist reductionism, is totally unacceptable.   

The reader has every right to object, at this point: 'See to your own wounds, for you are a practitioner. Are you not?' Obviously, I am. After the above conversation, I went on to complete a doctorate at Harvard, followed by a two-year post-doctoral fellowship in Religion at Yale, and followed by twenty-three years as an historian of Halakhah and Jewish Intellectual History. In my research, I follow all of the canons of accepted academic procedure, with no pangs of conscience. In addition, I do believe that the study of Jewish History is a legitimate arm (if an ancillary one) of Torah. So, who am I to criticize?

I hope to address these issues in future posts.

Effacing Women

Shoshanna Keats-Jaskoll has recently called attention to the new extremes to which the aggressive erasure of women has gone in the Haredi World (and beyond). Frankly, I can't believe that this has gone as far as it has (again). Still, as Emerson put it, 'A Foolish Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Little Minds,' and there appears to be no lack of little minds about. 

Some voices of reason do decry such extremes, such as my friend Rabbi Yitzhak Adlerstein. On the other hand, some vociferous defenses of this practice have emerged from within the ostensibly Modern Orthodox Community. I have addressed the issue directly in the past (here and here). At present, I would simply like to protest that the banishing of women and girls from publications is a direct affront and attack on the integrity and piety of our sainted ancestors, both Ashkenazic and Sephardic. They saw NO problem in representing women in books, including Sacred Texts that were used in the Synagogue during Prayer.

Consider the following:

 Rothschild Miscelllany

 Rothschild Miscelllany

Darmstadt Hagaddah

The Golden Hagaddah

MS JTSA 8892 Italy 1492

I rest my case.

Talmud for Women (Redux)

Rabbi Mordechai Willig recently suggested that it might be time to reevaluate the inclusion of Talmud (and, by extension, Poskim) in the curriculum offered to women in Orthodox Jewish Schools. His remarks have, not surprisingly, engendered (no pun intended) intense' mostly negative, reactions. Initially, and predictably, these first appeared on Facebook and Twitter (and only now are appearing on various Jewish news sites). Also, predictably, the speed and intensity that so typify the world of social media prevented any type of calm discussion of Rabbi Willig's article. This is very unfortunate. It bespeaks lack of respect for Rabbi Willig (who is a tremendous תלמיד חכם, a compassionate and principled Rav, a wonderful mensch and the courageous leader who created the RCA Pre-Nuptial agreement, for those who might have forgotten). It also speaks poorly of many of those who chose to voice their disagreement in a manner that generated more heat than light . 

A careful reading of Rabbi Willig's article reveals that he is actually addressing two separate issues. The first is Torah Study for Women. The second is Ideological Challenge. He has chosen to combine the two. Upon reflection, however, it appears to me that the two are not mutually dependent. 

1. The case for providing women with a full Torah education, should they so desire it, certainly does not require my endorsement. It was set forth emphatically, by my rebbe (and Rabbi Willig's), the Rav זצ"ל. 

From: Community, Covenant and Commitment,

ed. N. Helfgot, New Jersey 2005

The Rav's reasoning for instituting full Talmud Study for girls at the Maimonides School, and for both supporting and delivering the opening shiur in the Stern Bet Midrash was consistent.

 Inaugural Shiur by Rav Soloveitchik at the

Stern College Bet Midrash (1976)

He maintained that women's educational attainments in Torah must not behind those in the multi-fold secular pursuits they undertake. In addition, as Rabbi Saul Berman stated in the Biographical Documentary The Lonely Man of Faith, Jewish women may be formally exempted from the formal requirement to study Torah. However, they are obligated to study Torah at the highest level in order to cultivate the Love of God that Torah Study engenders. As Rambam put it, (Hilkhot Teshuvah 10, 6): ועל פי הדעה תהיה האהבה אם מעט מעט ואם הרבה הרבה, to wit: The Love of God is directly proportionate to the Knowledge one acquires of Him. That knowledge and encounter with God is achieved solely through Torah Study (in, as the Rav זצ"ל, used to put it, the broadest sense of the term). [The Rav's most accessible, and moving, discussion of this point is here.] 

It has, albeit, been suggested that the Rav's enthusiasm and support for Talmud study for women was more nuanced, and far more restrained, than has been thought. Personally, I find such a position difficult to accept, especially in light of the explicit statements of Rav Aharon Lichtenstein זצ"ל, the חתנא דבי נשיא. In his conversations with Rabbi Chaim Sabato (מבקשי פניך, תל אביב 2011, 165-178), Rav Lichtenstein reiterated the Rav's belief in providing women with a full Torah education. In his telling, the Rav believed that women require Torah Study no less than men, given that they are exposed to the same spiritual and intellectual challenges as men (170). Rav Lichtenstein was firmly in favor of Women's Torah Literacy, and explicitly viewed himself as being faithful to his father in law's heritage, in that regard (as in so many others). He himself founded the Migdal Oz Bet Midrash for Women, at the head of which stands his daughter Rabbanit Esti Rosenberg, and in which he taught.

Rav Aharon Lichtenstein זצ"ל

I submit that with this, it is possible to put to rest the question as to the contemporary Halakhic propriety of women's study of Gemara, Rishonim, Aharonim and Poskim. The shoulders of the גדולי הדור, the Rav זצ"ל and Rav Lichtenstein זצ"ל are certainly wide enough to rely upon. Or, as Reb Moshe Feinstein זצ"ל reputedly told someone who asked about the opening of the Stern Bet Midrash: 'Your Rebbe does not require support or הסכמה from anyone.'

2. With all of the focus on Women's Talmud study, Rabbi Willig's other point (or points) have not received the attentiion that they deserve. These are, it seems to me, (1) the Goal of Torah Study and (2) the Autonomy (and Integrity) of Jewish Tradition.  

Both the Rav זצ"ל and Rav Lichtenstein זצ"ל emphasized that Talmud Torah is not only a mandated intellectual activity. It is, indeed it must be, an overwhelming encounter with God. It is a moment of intimacy with the Giver of the Torah; a moment enveloped in יראת שמים, in the Fear and Awe of Heaven. It is not, and it must not, be approached in the same manner as one might approach any other intellectual endeavor. When we studied Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim in my last year in the shiur, the Rav זצ"ל laid special emphasis on the the Talmud's statement (Baba Metzia 85a-b): 

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב: מאי דכתיב מי האיש החכם ויבן את זאת ואשר דבר פי ה' אליו ויגדה על מה אבדה הארץ, דבר זה אמרו חכמים ולא פירשוהו, אמרו נביאים ולא פירשוהו, עד שפירשו הקדוש ברוך הוא בעצמו. שנאמר ויאמר ה' על עזבם את תורתי אשר נתתי לפניהם. אמר רב יהודה אמר רב: שלא ברכו בתורה תחילה.  

Rab Judah said in Rab's name: What is meant by (Jer. 9, 11): 'Who is the wise man, that may understand this? and who is he to whom the mouth of the Lord hath spoken, that he may declare it, why the land perished?' This question was put by the Sages, but they could not answer it; by the prophets, but they [too] could not answer it, until the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself resolved as it is written, And the Lord said, Because they have forsaken my law which I set before them. Rab Judah said in Rab's name: [That means] that they did not first utter a benediction over the Torah [before studying it]. 

The obligation to recite a blessing before Torah study, transforms it from a purely intellectual gesture, to a profoundly spiritual one. The absence of that dimension endangers the Torah and its observance; threatening it with arid, detached intellectualism. That danger is very real, and Gedole Torah and Ba'ale Mussar strove against it throughout history; from the Court of R. Bahya Ibn Paquda in Saragossa to the Bet Midrash of R. Eleazar in Metz; from Regensburg of R, Judah He-Hassid to Prague of the Maharal and to Safed of R. Moshe Cordovero. The concern with preserving the deeply spiritual encounter with God was central to the teachings of those who are most identified with its intellectual side: R. Tam, Rambam, Ramban, GRA, R. Hayyim of Volozhin, and in our generation, the Maran the Rav זצ"ל.    

However one might look at it, the Rav and Rav Lichtenstein both predicated their strong support and advocacy of higher Torah studies for women on the importance (nay, the critical role) of that study for their Service of God, for Avodat HaShem. Prayer and Torah Study are, the Rav taught us, two complementary elements in the Worship and Service of HaQadosh Barukh Hu. Rambam himself, in defining the commandment of Avodat HaShem (Pos. 5), cites the Sifre that equates the two: והמצוה החמישית היא שצונו לעבדו יתעלה...ואעפ"י שזה הצווי הוא גם כן מן הציוויים הכוללים כמו שביארנו בשרש הרביעי הנה יש בו יחוד שהוא צוה בתפילה. ולשון ספרי ולעבדו זו תפילה. ואמרו גם כן ולעבדו זה תלמוד. It is in that connection that Rav Lichtenstein, in the above discussion with Rav Sabato, emphasizes how the atmosphere that reigns in the Woman''s Bet Midrash must be that of the Yeshiva and not that of the Seminar Room.[I strongly suggest that the reader download the chapter and read it very carefully.] 

3. Learning in a modality of Yirat Shamayim, by definition means entering into a dialectical stance of intellectual daring, on the one hand, and intellectual humility, on the other. The Rambam (Hil. Yesode ha-Torah 2, 1-2), identifies this ying and yang with the mitzvot to Love and be in Awe of God (a subject that I had the occasion to discuss here). 

Contemporary society lionizes intellectual daring, as it idolizes the individual and worships at the altar of human autonomy. It is, perforce, far less appreciative or understanding of humility. And yet, it was none other than Maimonides who demanded that in the search for rationales for the mitzvot, one must not (God Forbid) judge the Torah, nor offer half baked explanations for its commandments (Cf. Hil. Me'ilah 8, 8). One is better served living with a question, struggling with one's doubts, than facilely dismissing either the Torah or the accumulated wisdom of the Sages of the Oral Tradition. Now, that does not mean that the questions are not real or the struggles. However, in marked contrast to the present age, Torah is always seen sub specie aeternitatis. Simultaneous Daring and Deference, Creativity and Humility, are the hallmarks and watchwords of Torah Study.

This, of course, does not mean that the Torah freezes in time or that it doesn't engage any and all challenges. The Rav זצ"ל used to emphasize that there should be a Fourteenth Statement of Faith added to the Thirteen proposed by Maimonides, viz. that the Torah can deal with any challenge in any age. 

The critical word here, however, is 'engage.' Despite the fact that such a position is unfashionable in contemporary culture, Orthodox Judaism is 'essentialist.' It possesses its own integrity, and its Law and Lore possess an autonomy that transcends time and circumstance. Torah engages the world. It responds, and must respond, to challenge and need. It does so, however, by its own rules and its own integrated system of values. 

Changing circumstances do impact upon Torah. Such a process is very nuanced, text dependent and very much subject to patterns of evaluating outside culture that are a permanent moment in the history of Judaism. (Here I defer to important remarks made by Rabbi Professor David Berger on the subject). Assuming, as some of my colleagues do, that Judaism is nothing more than a reactive reflection of any given time or cultural nexus makes for problematic scholarship and certainly is unacceptable in terms of Orthodox Jewish discourse. By extension, subjugating the Torah to an external ideology and coercing it to conform thereto is absolutely beyond the Pale of any type of Orthodox or Traditional Judaism that I have encountered. It would constitute, to radically invert an image created by Shaul Tchernikhovsky, placing Tefillin on a statue of Apollo and calling it Judaism. 

If I read him correctly, it is precisely against that type of misuse of Torah learning that Rabbi Willig is inveighing in his article. If that is the case, then I think that he is absolutely correct. It is important, nay critical, to face and combat the deeply problematic methodological and philosophic undercurrents that appear in discussions of Torah and Halakhah within the Orthodox community.

Where, with all due respect, I beg to differ is his placing the onus on the study of Talmud by women. The type of surrender to intellectual and cultural fashion that he describes is found as much among men as among women (and perhaps more). At the same time, many of the most profoundly God-fearing and inspiring Jews I've encountered have been תלמידות חכמים who are products of Migdal Oz and Nishmat (all of whom, in their personal lives embody traditional Jewish Family roles, by the way). The Jewish People cannot afford to lose the contribution of such dedicated and remarkable women to Avodat HaShem and Harbatzat Ha-Torah. True, as Rav Lichtenstein זצ"ל noted at the end of his discussion with Rav Sabato, the birth of a generation of deeply learned and deeply pious women creates unparalleled challenges for Torah. There are also dangers, and there is a slope which irresponsibility can render slippery. In fact, I will leave the last word to him:

    

 

 And the last word? 'What will be in the future? I don't know. But what I do know is that today it is important that Jewish woman should know Torah, that they be devekot to the Torah. As to the rest, I can't say exactly. I can't know what God has in mind.'

The Famine

Over the course of the past week, my FB feed and E-mail Inbox have exploded with fevered and feverish discussions of Open Orthodoxy vs. Modern Orthodoxy; Reactions to Gay Marriage; Ordination of Women as Orthodox Rabbis and more. There are cries for schism and/or reform. Learned Discussions mix with Ignorant Discussions. Absolute Truth Claims (as to the Torah) clash headlong with Absolute Truth Claims (that each person creates his/her own Truth), On my FB feed, the discussions are Judaism is this or that.

One thing is missing.

No one, absolutely no one talks about God, the Giver of the Torah; not those who ostensibly represent the Torah and Tradition and certainly not those demanding that the Torah put the lie to itself in order to accommodate their desires and personal convictions. We are bidden to live in order to serve God. Service of the Holy One, blessed be He means trying to live according to His Will. This is no mean task, and must be rooted in the sincere, complex study of Torah.

However, first and foremost, the entire enterprise MUST be enveloped in intellectual and spiritual humility, in a tangible, palpable aura of יראת שמים. It must be predicated upon our willingness to accept the Yoke of Heaven, even if it is inconvenient, beyond our comprehension or even painful. The absence of the Fear of Heaven, on both sides, leads to Self Worship, and Self-Worship is a form of Foreign Worship--to עבודה זרה - which is the polar opposite of עבודת השם.

The Aramaic Targum on the Book of Ruth opens by saying that there will be ten serious famines prior to the coming of the Messiah. The last one will fulfill the vision of the prophet Amos (who lived not far from where I presently sit): הנה ימים באים נאם אדני יהוה והשלחתי רעב בארץ לא רעב ללחם ולא צמא למים כי אם לשמע את דברי ד or : 'Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but for hearing the words of God' (Amos 8, 11).

Apparently, judging from my Inbox and Facebook feed, far too many people are tragically unaware just how famished they are.

The Twilight of the (Children of the) Gods

A spectre is haunting Israel— the spectre of Judaism. All the descendants of Israel's Founding Fathers have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Academics and Intellectuals, Major Generals (ret.) and Winners of the Israel Prize, Socialist Ideologues and Post-Modern Cosmopolitans, Haaretz and Channel Two.
Few are the parties that have not decried as Fascist and Medieval, Benighted and Racist the upsurge in expressions of Jewish Identity and Spirituality that has marked this country in the past two decades (especially during the difficult days this past Summer). The Israel Democracy Institute convenes emergency conferences to deplore (and stop) the invasion of Public Space by Jewish Tradition, and and by references to God. The Council on Peace and Security has set out on a nationwide series of open meetings, and fora, in a desperate effort to stop the increased presence of Religious and Traditional soldiers in the army, lest they fomentb a putsch against the government. War hero, Lt. Col. Ofer Winter, has been passed over for promotion. His crime? He had the temerity of invoking God's Name in his battle orders, and for quoting the Bible. The latest spat over the Jewish State legislation (which is really much ado about nothing- as noted by Haviv Rettig Gur) is merely the latest lightening rod for a broader phenomenon. All told, the reactions to the spectre of Judaism verge on the hysterical.
Upon careful consideration, they have serious reasons for concern. The children and grandchildren of the Founding Fathers of our country are losing their grip. They no longer control the Knesset. They no longer have a lock on the media (though, they are doing everything to block competing voices, such as Israel HaYom and Arutz 20). From their redoubts in academia, culture, and the Justice system they still sally forth to protect their ideals and to declare that everyone has the right to their opinions. Anything that does not pass muster with them: Patriotism, Religious Faith and Observance, Jewish Historical Awareness, Jewish Literacy, is excoriated as jingoistic, regressive and (the ultimate condemnation): Destructive of Democracy. This latter is a brilliant tactic, by which a system of government is replaced by a specific set of unnegotiable values, dogmatically interpreted and applied. (I guess many have never read Ralph Waldo Emerson.)
In their hysteria, the children (and grandchildren) of the gods betray the fact that they are fighting a losing battle. There comes a time in the life of nations, that the founders cede dominance to others. It happened in the United States in the 1820's. In his magisterial study of Andrew Jackson, historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., describes how Virginians and (to a lesser degree) Bostonians strove mightily to maintain their control over the nation that they (and their fathers) had founded. They sought control of its resources, its policies, its values and its culture. They saw all of these being usurped by the uncouth pioneers on the western fringes of the country. These were represented by their bête noire, Andrew Jackson (himself, ironically, a Virginian). As Schlesinger notes, the declining elites made their last stand in the Supreme Court. In the end, they failed.
The Founders of our country achieved unbelievable things. We are beholden to them, and must cherish and value how they created a flourishing Jewish homeland after two millenia. They were able to do that, in part, because they were driven by a profound Jewish identity, that was rooted in Jewish Literacy and in loyalties they absorbed from the world of faith that they, themselves, rejected. Their achievements were predicated upon that rich identity. They did not think it necessary to instill the country's culture with that which they possessed (as Yaakov Hazan sadly noted). The resurgence of Jewish identity and spirituality that started in the nineties of the last century, that is borne by religious and traditional sectors of society, is a response to a deeply felt need that the founders failed to bequeath to the country they founded.
Their children filled that void with a different vision. The people want their roots. The people want to be Jews and Jewish Jews. Indeed, 85% of Israeli Jews believe in the same God that the above noted groups would banish from the scene (and who, tragically, is not well served by many who claim to represent Him). Fear of the spectre of Judaism is, thus, justified on their part.
The Jewish State, indeed, is on a powerful path to being more profoundly Jewish than ever before. With the help of God.

[First Published in the Times of Israel 28/11/2014]