The movie Fitna was removed from its original home due to death threats. Arutz Sheva and YouTube, however,are still hosting it (Hat tip: Richard):
Friday, March 28, 2008
Burka's Law
By now, the word of the arrest of the leader of the Burka women for child abuse of the most unspeakable and inexcrable sorts, is common knowledge. (If you're not in the know, see Sari Makover-Balikov's interview with her before the arrest; and the sordid details here, here, and here.) The responses one hears around (in shul, in the library, and the media) are a mix of schadenfreude and dismissiveness (as in 'They're crazy' or 'They're crazy בעלי תשובה').
Personally, after I heard the news, I felt more of the former than the latter. Indeed, the tendency among both Haredim and Dat'im to dismiss the Burka phenomenon and its denouement as the perversity of some crazy returnees is self-serving, irresponsible and malignant.
It is self-serving because it exculpates many in the Orthodox world who, while objecting to the Burkas (obviously the abuse is a pathology), have become increasingly obsessed with female modesty as the sole significant issue facing the Torah in contemporary society. (Men, evidently, need not be modest.) The solution to every social woe (Drugs, promiscuity, Gossip, Theft, and Talking in Shul) is always (as one therapist noted): 'Throw another smatte on the women.' In other words, the crazies simply read the signals that inundate the community and are constantly preached by rabbis, educators and others and took them to their logical (if absurd) conclusions.
It is irresponsible, by extension, because it means that the same obsessive behavior that is advocated by our modern day Torquemadas will not come under criticism.
It is irresponsible because it turns a blind eye to real, serious problems that gnaw away at the community.
It is malignant because it continues the self-congratulating posture, elitist attitude and foul discrimination that characterizes the attitudes of many 'Frum From Birth'ers to 'Ba'alei Teshivah.' The latter brag about the former. In the Haredi world, especially, however, they will not let them into their schools, play with their children or ( a fortiori) marry them.
Now, in light of the total break down of morality (sexual and otherwise) in Western Society, I understand why there is great concern for modesty as a means of saving the family as an institution and protecting our children from a myriad of מרעין בישין. Appropriate clothing is part of that struggle. It is not, however, the solution. It is only one small element thereof. [The same should be said of the Jim Crow buses, but I'll save that for another time.]
It is time that we take a closer look at the issues and the challenges. It is time we engaged them, rather than covering them up (תרתי משמע). If we don't, the Burkas will come back to haunt us.
Personally, after I heard the news, I felt more of the former than the latter. Indeed, the tendency among both Haredim and Dat'im to dismiss the Burka phenomenon and its denouement as the perversity of some crazy returnees is self-serving, irresponsible and malignant.
It is self-serving because it exculpates many in the Orthodox world who, while objecting to the Burkas (obviously the abuse is a pathology), have become increasingly obsessed with female modesty as the sole significant issue facing the Torah in contemporary society. (Men, evidently, need not be modest.) The solution to every social woe (Drugs, promiscuity, Gossip, Theft, and Talking in Shul) is always (as one therapist noted): 'Throw another smatte on the women.' In other words, the crazies simply read the signals that inundate the community and are constantly preached by rabbis, educators and others and took them to their logical (if absurd) conclusions.
It is irresponsible, by extension, because it means that the same obsessive behavior that is advocated by our modern day Torquemadas will not come under criticism.
It is irresponsible because it turns a blind eye to real, serious problems that gnaw away at the community.
It is malignant because it continues the self-congratulating posture, elitist attitude and foul discrimination that characterizes the attitudes of many 'Frum From Birth'ers to 'Ba'alei Teshivah.' The latter brag about the former. In the Haredi world, especially, however, they will not let them into their schools, play with their children or ( a fortiori) marry them.
Now, in light of the total break down of morality (sexual and otherwise) in Western Society, I understand why there is great concern for modesty as a means of saving the family as an institution and protecting our children from a myriad of מרעין בישין. Appropriate clothing is part of that struggle. It is not, however, the solution. It is only one small element thereof. [The same should be said of the Jim Crow buses, but I'll save that for another time.]
It is time that we take a closer look at the issues and the challenges. It is time we engaged them, rather than covering them up (תרתי משמע). If we don't, the Burkas will come back to haunt us.
Kudos to Richard Landes (Finally)
It is already common knowledge that Muhammed a Dura was not killed by the IDF in September of 2000. (In fact, it's not clear at all that he's dead. Period.) Few people are aware that a pioneer in the effort to unmask this fraud, which inspired countless homicide bombings in Israel, is Professor Richard Landes of Boston University (who blogs at Augean Stables). It was Richard who highlighted and presented material that was originally developed by Nachum Shachaf; material that demonstrated how the Palestinians 'cooked' the film footage, in a process called 'Pallywood.'
Now, he is beginning to receive the attention and plaudits he so richly deserves. See the interview with Ruthie Blum in today's Jerusalem Post.
[Thanks to Yisrael Medad for bringing Shachaf's work to my attention.]
Now, he is beginning to receive the attention and plaudits he so richly deserves. See the interview with Ruthie Blum in today's Jerusalem Post.
[Thanks to Yisrael Medad for bringing Shachaf's work to my attention.]
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Found a Shekel: ס'וועט זיי גארניט העלפ'ן
The shriller the denials that Jerusalem is our Holy City and the once and future site of the Holy Temple, the faster that archaeology proves them wrong. The latest, and most exciting, is the discovery of a Half-Shekel coin, that was slated to be changed into Temple currency. As reported by the Post:
By ETGAR LEFKOVITS
Israeli archaeologists have unearthed an ancient coin in Jerusalem's history-rich City of David which was used to pay a head tax in the Second Temple period, the Israel Antiquities Authority announced this week.
The rare silver coin which was discovered in an archaeological excavation in the main drainage channel of Jerusalem from the time of the biblical Second Temple is a shekel denomination that was customarily used to pay a half shekel head-tax during the Second Temple period.
In the Bible, Jews are commanded to contribute half a shekel each for maintaining the Temple in Jerusalem. Israeli archaeologist Eli Shukron said that the coin was probably dropped at the 2,000-year-old drainage ditch quite by accident.
"Just like today when coins sometimes fall from our pockets and roll into drainage openings at the side of the street, that's how it was some two thousand years ago: a man was on his way to the Temple and the shekel which he intended to use for paying the half shekel head-tax found its way into the drainage channel," Shukron said.
At the time of the temple's construction, in the sixth century BCE, every Jew was commanded to make an obligatory donation of a half shekel to the site. This modest sum allowed all Jews, irrespective of their socio-economic position, to participate in the building the Temple. After the construction was completed, they continued to collect the tax from every Jew for the purpose of purchasing the public sacrifices and renewing the furnishings of the Temple.
The shekel that was found in the excavation outside the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem weighs 13 grams, and bears the head of the chief deity of the city of Tyre on one side, and an eagle upon a ship's prow on the reverse.
Despite the importance of the half-shekel head-tax for the economy of Jerusalem in the Second Temple period, only seven other shekel and half shekel coins were heretofore found in archaeological excavations in Jerusalem to date.
In a symbolic turn of events, the coin was uncovered just days before the Jewish holiday of Purim, which began on Thursday night, when religious Jews make a donation to the poor, a tradition that took root in the wake of the ancient virtuous deed of paying a tax of one half shekel to the Temple.
ורבים מעמי הארץ מתיהדים
Among the many topics addressed by the Book of Esther is the question of that which constitutes an accceptable conversion. The Talmud (Yeb. 24b) already questioned the propriety (and the sincerity) of those non-Jews who converted 'because the fear of the Jews had fallen upon them' (Esther 8, 17). Nevertheless, it concludes that post factum their conversion was valid.
This conclusion, which is echoed by the Rambam (הל' איסורי ביאה יג, יד) and the Shulhan Arukh (יורה דעה סי' רסח סעיף ב), is (ultimately) the basis for the minimalist position that views the acceptance of the commandments (קבלת המצוות) by converts as negotiable (based upon the comment of the Maggid Mishneh on הל' איסורי ביאה יג, יז). Some of the opposition to the RCA concordat with the Israeli Chief Rabbinate is based upon the fact that this position, which is most closely identified with the late Rishon le-Tziyyon R. Ben-Zion Meir Hai Uziel זצ"ל in שו"ת משפטי עוזיאל חיו"ד סי' נ"ה-נ"ח, will no longer be validated by the RCA.
My research into the laws of conversion long ago led me to the conclusion that independently of halakhic considerations (such as the view of the חמדת שלמה, R. Haim Ozer Grodzenski and the Rav) R. Uziel's opinion cannot be justified historically.
Since I plan to publish my findings as a longer monograph I hesitated to post on the subject. However, at the urging of colleagues, I've decided to summarize my conclusions here.
1) There is a rule in law that that which goes without saying, usually does. Hazal did not address the requirement on the convert to accept an observant lifestyle, because that was self-evident. Moreover, the only Judaism that existed until the early 19th century was halakhic Judaism, so there was nothing to discuss.
2) What did concern Hazal were the factors that motivated the convert. That is why the Bet Din serves as a screening committee. If the convert doesn't pass muster, he's not accepted ab initio.
If he passed muster, then בדיעבד he's deemed a Jew. This is because he or she joined the Jewish community and observed the commandments.
Unacceptable motivations, though, are more than of initial concern. According to Maimonides (above), a person whose motivations are suspect is placed on long term probation until his sincerity is established. Evidently, the convert's motivations also were a considered issue post factum (Rav Soloveitchik זצ"ל was of the opinion that such a person was obligated to observe the commandments, but as yet not allowed to marry a Jew. This, though, leads away from the realm of pure history.)
3) The idea that conversion was possible without dedication to religious observance was a result of the emancipation, when Jews no longer had to live in Jewish communities. At that juncture, the absence of any specific written statement that observance is categorically necessary for conversion was interpreted as allowing for just that. As with most argumenta ex silentio, this one too was historically weak.
I am absolutely not arguing that historical considerations should play an active role in Psak Halakha. On the contrary, as the Rav pointed out so many times. Halakhah has its own dynamic and orbit. To peg the Law to external elements would be tantamount to undermining its integrity.
I wanted to provide an historical explanation for the absence of documentary evidence for the requirement that a convert's motives be appropriate and include commitment to submitting to the yoke of the mitzvot. Use of history in such an ancillary mode, judiciously undertaken, seems to me to be perfectly legitimate.
In that connection, I though it apt to post a passage from a fascinating (and deeply affecting) article by Rabbi Dr. David Berger that touches on this last point:
In the realm of concrete decision-making in specific instances, it is once again the case that the impact of academic scholarship does not always point in a liberal direction. In other words, the instincts and values usually held by academics are not necessarily upheld by the results of their scholarly inquiry, and if they are religiously committed they must sometimes struggle with conclusions that they wish they had not reached....Some academics do not hesitate to criticize
and even mock such rabbis for their insularity and their affirmation of propositions inconsistent with scholarly findings, but on occasions like this the very same people are capable of deriding other rabbis for their intolerant refusal to ignore modern scholarship. (D. Berger, 'Identity, Ideology and Faith: Some Personal Reflections on the Social, Cultural and Spiritual Value of the Academic Study of Judaism,' Study and Knowledge in Jewish Thought, ed. H. Kreisel, Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University Press 2006, 25-26).
This conclusion, which is echoed by the Rambam (הל' איסורי ביאה יג, יד) and the Shulhan Arukh (יורה דעה סי' רסח סעיף ב), is (ultimately) the basis for the minimalist position that views the acceptance of the commandments (קבלת המצוות) by converts as negotiable (based upon the comment of the Maggid Mishneh on הל' איסורי ביאה יג, יז). Some of the opposition to the RCA concordat with the Israeli Chief Rabbinate is based upon the fact that this position, which is most closely identified with the late Rishon le-Tziyyon R. Ben-Zion Meir Hai Uziel זצ"ל in שו"ת משפטי עוזיאל חיו"ד סי' נ"ה-נ"ח, will no longer be validated by the RCA.
My research into the laws of conversion long ago led me to the conclusion that independently of halakhic considerations (such as the view of the חמדת שלמה, R. Haim Ozer Grodzenski and the Rav) R. Uziel's opinion cannot be justified historically.
Since I plan to publish my findings as a longer monograph I hesitated to post on the subject. However, at the urging of colleagues, I've decided to summarize my conclusions here.
1) There is a rule in law that that which goes without saying, usually does. Hazal did not address the requirement on the convert to accept an observant lifestyle, because that was self-evident. Moreover, the only Judaism that existed until the early 19th century was halakhic Judaism, so there was nothing to discuss.
2) What did concern Hazal were the factors that motivated the convert. That is why the Bet Din serves as a screening committee. If the convert doesn't pass muster, he's not accepted ab initio.
If he passed muster, then בדיעבד he's deemed a Jew. This is because he or she joined the Jewish community and observed the commandments.
Unacceptable motivations, though, are more than of initial concern. According to Maimonides (above), a person whose motivations are suspect is placed on long term probation until his sincerity is established. Evidently, the convert's motivations also were a considered issue post factum (Rav Soloveitchik זצ"ל was of the opinion that such a person was obligated to observe the commandments, but as yet not allowed to marry a Jew. This, though, leads away from the realm of pure history.)
3) The idea that conversion was possible without dedication to religious observance was a result of the emancipation, when Jews no longer had to live in Jewish communities. At that juncture, the absence of any specific written statement that observance is categorically necessary for conversion was interpreted as allowing for just that. As with most argumenta ex silentio, this one too was historically weak.
I am absolutely not arguing that historical considerations should play an active role in Psak Halakha. On the contrary, as the Rav pointed out so many times. Halakhah has its own dynamic and orbit. To peg the Law to external elements would be tantamount to undermining its integrity.
I wanted to provide an historical explanation for the absence of documentary evidence for the requirement that a convert's motives be appropriate and include commitment to submitting to the yoke of the mitzvot. Use of history in such an ancillary mode, judiciously undertaken, seems to me to be perfectly legitimate.
In that connection, I though it apt to post a passage from a fascinating (and deeply affecting) article by Rabbi Dr. David Berger that touches on this last point:
In the realm of concrete decision-making in specific instances, it is once again the case that the impact of academic scholarship does not always point in a liberal direction. In other words, the instincts and values usually held by academics are not necessarily upheld by the results of their scholarly inquiry, and if they are religiously committed they must sometimes struggle with conclusions that they wish they had not reached....Some academics do not hesitate to criticize
and even mock such rabbis for their insularity and their affirmation of propositions inconsistent with scholarly findings, but on occasions like this the very same people are capable of deriding other rabbis for their intolerant refusal to ignore modern scholarship. (D. Berger, 'Identity, Ideology and Faith: Some Personal Reflections on the Social, Cultural and Spiritual Value of the Academic Study of Judaism,' Study and Knowledge in Jewish Thought, ed. H. Kreisel, Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University Press 2006, 25-26).
the Kolech Incident: Some Reflections
I received a very insightful letter from a friend, whose opinion I greatly respect, which highlighted (in light of the Kolech story and its denouement) the fact that on the net one can be overly quick on the send button. Moreover, as Baudrillard points out, the internet is eminently manipulable, and the information is often unreliable. The damage that one can do by reacting too quickly, though, is very serious.
This is an expanded version of my response:
I really appreciate your comments, and I agree about the dangers of being quick on the finger.
The problem with this specific case involving Kolech is several fold.
First, Ben Chorin waited a full week an a half for Kolech to respond to the Mossawa connection. He contacted them out of concern for Kolech, not because of any agenda. I only joined in after he had received no response and the material from Mossawa achieved wider play.
Unfortunately, there was reason to believe Mossawa's flier, because Kolech has cooperated with it on other issues (as reported in the press). In addition, we both know that Kolech's membership takes in a very wide spectrum. This includes a not insignificant number of people who actually do sympathize with the Post/Anti-Zionist Left. I was concerned that a highjacking had occurred. At the best, as I learned in an earlier life, moderates often see their efforts undermined when they get 'adopted' or 'praised' by radicals.
Notice that I was very careful to keep my remarks restricted to the need for Kolech to maintain its image and integrity. All of my posts were calls for Kolech to do something for its own sake.
Hopefully, we will all learn to stay on top of the way that which we do and say is used in the media and on the web.
At the end of the day, all we have is our integrity, our good name and our relationship with God.
This is an expanded version of my response:
I really appreciate your comments, and I agree about the dangers of being quick on the finger.
The problem with this specific case involving Kolech is several fold.
First, Ben Chorin waited a full week an a half for Kolech to respond to the Mossawa connection. He contacted them out of concern for Kolech, not because of any agenda. I only joined in after he had received no response and the material from Mossawa achieved wider play.
Unfortunately, there was reason to believe Mossawa's flier, because Kolech has cooperated with it on other issues (as reported in the press). In addition, we both know that Kolech's membership takes in a very wide spectrum. This includes a not insignificant number of people who actually do sympathize with the Post/Anti-Zionist Left. I was concerned that a highjacking had occurred. At the best, as I learned in an earlier life, moderates often see their efforts undermined when they get 'adopted' or 'praised' by radicals.
Notice that I was very careful to keep my remarks restricted to the need for Kolech to maintain its image and integrity. All of my posts were calls for Kolech to do something for its own sake.
Hopefully, we will all learn to stay on top of the way that which we do and say is used in the media and on the web.
At the end of the day, all we have is our integrity, our good name and our relationship with God.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Update: Kolech
I have just been informed that Kolech has communicated its desire to disassociate itself from Mossawa and its activities. A spokesman for the organization expressed amazement as to how Mossawa got information on Kolech (though this might explain it).
As with the start of this episode, I agree with Ben Chorin:
I regard this matter as closed as far as Kolech is concerned. The behavior of those who signed the mendacious letter (Jafar Farah of Mossawa, Francis Radai of Hemdat and Gilad Kariv of the Reform movement) bears further investigation.
My comments in the last posting, though, remain vaild.
As with the start of this episode, I agree with Ben Chorin:
I regard this matter as closed as far as Kolech is concerned. The behavior of those who signed the mendacious letter (Jafar Farah of Mossawa, Francis Radai of Hemdat and Gilad Kariv of the Reform movement) bears further investigation.
My comments in the last posting, though, remain vaild.
Secular Humanism in Extremis: The Case of Noah Feldman
Let me start out by saying that I was wrong about Noah Feldman. He has a deep and abiding religious faith, by which he dogmatically interprets and organizes his reality. That faith is not, Heaven Forfend, the Judaism of his youth. It's a radical strain of post-modern, western, culturally imperialist Secular Humanism. He is existentially committed to his faith, in a manner that would only inspire wonder and admiration, if it weren't so dangerous.
The best proof of our Noah's faith is his recent, benighted article in the New York Times Sunday Section. Feldman would have us believe that 'for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world.' For Muslims, perhaps, this was true (if you weren't a Sunni living among Shiites and vice versa). For non-Muslims, life under Islamic Law was hell. Why else would Maimonides assert that there has never been a more terrible exile than that of Ishmael? Why else would Abu Yusuf Hasdai Ibn Shaprut tell the Khazar King that he'd like to leave his job as de facto vizier of Abd-ar-Rahman III, Caliph of Spain, to become his subject? How does Feldman explain the hundreds of pages of testimonies collected by Bat Ye'or, and others? (See David Yerushalmi's response to Feldman, here.)
The truth is that Feldman's misguided piece of punditry is simply an expression of his deep religious faith. He reinterprets, recasts and represents Islam not as it is and not as it desires, but as it ought to be in his dogmatic scheme of things. That, for him and many others, is the deeper reality. (A reality, by the way, of which the sheikhs of Al-Azhar are unaware.)
What troubles me, though, is that the man has a doctorate in Islamic Thought! How can he ignore all of the contradictory evidence? At least he should confront it! No, Dr. Feldman chooses to selectively cite his points, and pontificate as the good pontifex maximus he aspires to be.
Allah yerahmu!
The best proof of our Noah's faith is his recent, benighted article in the New York Times Sunday Section. Feldman would have us believe that 'for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world.' For Muslims, perhaps, this was true (if you weren't a Sunni living among Shiites and vice versa). For non-Muslims, life under Islamic Law was hell. Why else would Maimonides assert that there has never been a more terrible exile than that of Ishmael? Why else would Abu Yusuf Hasdai Ibn Shaprut tell the Khazar King that he'd like to leave his job as de facto vizier of Abd-ar-Rahman III, Caliph of Spain, to become his subject? How does Feldman explain the hundreds of pages of testimonies collected by Bat Ye'or, and others? (See David Yerushalmi's response to Feldman, here.)
The truth is that Feldman's misguided piece of punditry is simply an expression of his deep religious faith. He reinterprets, recasts and represents Islam not as it is and not as it desires, but as it ought to be in his dogmatic scheme of things. That, for him and many others, is the deeper reality. (A reality, by the way, of which the sheikhs of Al-Azhar are unaware.)
What troubles me, though, is that the man has a doctorate in Islamic Thought! How can he ignore all of the contradictory evidence? At least he should confront it! No, Dr. Feldman chooses to selectively cite his points, and pontificate as the good pontifex maximus he aspires to be.
Allah yerahmu!
Kolech and the נקיי הדעת שבירושלים
I am gratified that Kolech has officially posted the following demurrer to the information posted below, and rejects any connection with Mosswa:
To all, Kolech-Religious Women's Forum has no connection with Mossawa, no cooperation with anything concerning the constitution or any other activity. Kolech is currently checking it's standpoint concerning the constitution in the context of women in general and observant women in particular. This is clearly a defamation approach and certainly gossip. This is Kolech's formal response.
However, Ben Chorin writes in his comment:
Last week I forwarded to Kolech the letter being circulated by Mossawa clearly stating that Kolech is a partner to this initiative. I asked them if they wished to clarify their relationship with Mossawa and this initiative. The "rakezet" said Kolech would respond "at the beginning of next (= this) week". I waited until Tuesday and again inquired if they had a response. I published only after they ignored this inquiry.
So, yes, they knew about the purported connection and they didn't deny it, despite having ample opportunity to do so.
In light of the hard evidence produced by Ben Chorin, I have the following reactions:
a) People who support an organization and its ideals have every right to know what it signs on to. If said organization allies itself, even for specific causes, with forces that contradict the deepest beliefs of those supporters, the latter are fully entitled to exert pressure to obtain clarfications or a change of policy. In the absence of these, support can (and should) be withheld in the interest of the integrity of the supporter. (Personally, that's why I cut all ties with Meimad in 1996).
b) Informing people of a public organizations affiliations is not לשון הרע by any stretch of the imagination. On the contrary, following the Hafetz Hayyim, preventing harm by exposing information is a mitzvah. [N.B. This is the same rule allowing for pressure to be placed upon recalcitrant husbands. I assume the Kolech people know the citation.]
c) Affiliation for specific projects is still an implicit endorsement with the affiliate (at least to the outside world). Affiliation for a subsection of an overall project, assumes endorsement of the broader project. Hence, for Kolech to have allowed its name to appear as part of Mossawa's initiative is at best misleading. It also damages Kolech's good name and standing in terms of the important work it does, especially in terms of the rights of contemporary agunot. [ And let me remind my readers that I played a central role in the development and publication of the first, widely accepted pre-nuptial agreement formulated by the Orthodox Caucus.]
If Kolech has absolutely nothing to do with Mossawa and its project, let them publically announce it and denounce Mossawa for illegitimately using (and besmirching) its good name. According to the Talmud, maintaining one's good name is a personal obligation based upon the verse (Num. 32, 22): והייתם נקיים מה' ומישראל. A fortiori, this is true of an organization representing a large, varied population and an important series of causes.
If we are already discussing לשון הרע, let it be recorded that one is not allowed to say or cause לשון הרע about oneself. As The Talmud records (Sanhedrin 23a):
The fair minded of the people in Jerusalem used to act thus: They would not sign a deed without knowing who would sign with them; they would not sit in judgment unless they knew who was to sit with them; and they would not sit at table without knowing their fellow diners.
המבין יבין ויקח לקח.
To all, Kolech-Religious Women's Forum has no connection with Mossawa, no cooperation with anything concerning the constitution or any other activity. Kolech is currently checking it's standpoint concerning the constitution in the context of women in general and observant women in particular. This is clearly a defamation approach and certainly gossip. This is Kolech's formal response.
However, Ben Chorin writes in his comment:
Last week I forwarded to Kolech the letter being circulated by Mossawa clearly stating that Kolech is a partner to this initiative. I asked them if they wished to clarify their relationship with Mossawa and this initiative. The "rakezet" said Kolech would respond "at the beginning of next (= this) week". I waited until Tuesday and again inquired if they had a response. I published only after they ignored this inquiry.
So, yes, they knew about the purported connection and they didn't deny it, despite having ample opportunity to do so.
In light of the hard evidence produced by Ben Chorin, I have the following reactions:
a) People who support an organization and its ideals have every right to know what it signs on to. If said organization allies itself, even for specific causes, with forces that contradict the deepest beliefs of those supporters, the latter are fully entitled to exert pressure to obtain clarfications or a change of policy. In the absence of these, support can (and should) be withheld in the interest of the integrity of the supporter. (Personally, that's why I cut all ties with Meimad in 1996).
b) Informing people of a public organizations affiliations is not לשון הרע by any stretch of the imagination. On the contrary, following the Hafetz Hayyim, preventing harm by exposing information is a mitzvah. [N.B. This is the same rule allowing for pressure to be placed upon recalcitrant husbands. I assume the Kolech people know the citation.]
c) Affiliation for specific projects is still an implicit endorsement with the affiliate (at least to the outside world). Affiliation for a subsection of an overall project, assumes endorsement of the broader project. Hence, for Kolech to have allowed its name to appear as part of Mossawa's initiative is at best misleading. It also damages Kolech's good name and standing in terms of the important work it does, especially in terms of the rights of contemporary agunot. [ And let me remind my readers that I played a central role in the development and publication of the first, widely accepted pre-nuptial agreement formulated by the Orthodox Caucus.]
If Kolech has absolutely nothing to do with Mossawa and its project, let them publically announce it and denounce Mossawa for illegitimately using (and besmirching) its good name. According to the Talmud, maintaining one's good name is a personal obligation based upon the verse (Num. 32, 22): והייתם נקיים מה' ומישראל. A fortiori, this is true of an organization representing a large, varied population and an important series of causes.
If we are already discussing לשון הרע, let it be recorded that one is not allowed to say or cause לשון הרע about oneself. As The Talmud records (Sanhedrin 23a):
The fair minded of the people in Jerusalem used to act thus: They would not sign a deed without knowing who would sign with them; they would not sit in judgment unless they knew who was to sit with them; and they would not sit at table without knowing their fellow diners.
המבין יבין ויקח לקח.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Amalek Redux
Pagan society was eminently pluralist. Its hallmark was the absence of religious persecution, despite the fact that wars between nations were understood to be paralleled by conflicts between their particular deities. Indeed, historians are at pains to explain the two major exceptions to this rule: the anti-Jewish persecutions of the Seleucid King Antiochus IV Epiphanes and those of the Roman Emperor Aelius Trajanus Hadrian. Ironically, in both of these cases, the persecutions were instigated and guided by individuals who sought to embody the highest ideal of Hellenistic paganism.
In this light, the genocidal plot to destroy the Jews that is described in the Book of Esther is absolutely incomprehensible from a purely historical point of view. Irrespective of the claims of Bible critics, it defies the logic of its own sitz im leben. Cultural and ethnic (or racist) homogeneity were the innovation and the perpetual goal of Christianity and Islam, and the former's secular heirs. In fact, Haman's ideology always seemed more appropriate to Tomas de Torquemada and Heinrich Himmler than to an ancient Persian nobleman.
There is one thing, though, that I do know. The Book of Esther sets forth the pattern of subsequent Jewish History in unmistakable terms (see here for one aspect). It describes the virulent, irrational hatred of the Jew that can hold an entire empire in its grip, on a moment's notice. It is that unending, pathological hatred of the Jew that is represented by Amalek, whose scion Haman was.
Amalek is a very loaded image, especially in light of the Bible's injunction to utter destroy it. It's an image that has been both used, and abused. What has not been understood is its role as a time-transcendent symbol.
Modern man forgets that traditional man lives sub specie aeternitatis, under the aspect of eternity. Traditional man, and here the Jew is assuredly a traditional man, understands his present in light of the past and in anticipation of the future, as Ramban said: The deeds of the fathers are a sign for their children (מעשה אבות סימן לבנים). Upon encountering Jew-hatred, of which modern anti-semitism is but the most virulent strain, the Jew knew that he was encountering Amalek. Knowing of Amalek's existence grounded him. It gave him a context with which to fight to survive and endure. He knew, and knows, that God will not give him totally over to this implacable enemy. 'For I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven' (Ex. 17, 14). [ In a sense, the Polish Jew, the despised ostjude, was better prepared psychically for the Shoah, than was the highly assimilated (and sometimes converted) German Jew, the fabled Deutsche Burgher Mosaischen Glaubens. So many of the latter took their own lives in despair in the 1930's, wearing the iron crosses they had earned fighting for the Fatherland in World War I. Polish Jews had no such illusions.]
Amalek is a potent symbol. It is, a religious and historical reality. As an historian, who has grappled with Jew hatred for his entire life, I must admit that its persistent existence only makes sense to me on a metaphysical plane.
Does recognizing a manifestation of Amalek require the implementation of the Torah's dictate to wipe it out entirely? Absolutely not. To say otherwise is to utterly distort Halakha (and Reb Chaim Brisker's famous observation on the Rambam does not contradict this. ואכמ"ל). The Rambam makes clear (Hil. Melakhim 1, 1) that the eradication of Amalek is a royal (and probably messianic) undertaking.
Have some been guilty of distorting the Law? Tragically, yes. Has this ever been official Israeli policy ? Absolutely not! On the contrary, Israel sacrifices its soldiers (and its civilians) in order to avoid harming non-combatants. Have responsible rabbinic authorities (yes, even among settlers) ever advocated wholesale invocation of the Amalek clause in our ongoing war with the Arabs? Again, no.
Amalek, for us, is a metaphysical reality around which we can organize (if not understand the insane world in which we live), and that constantly raises serious questions of theodicy. It does not dictate policy.
We would do well, though, to recall that our enemies are also traditional people. They also have a principled, integrated world view that is nourished by their own traditions and collective memories. Muslims also understand, interpret and experience their reality in light of the Qur'an and the many traditions of their prophet and his successors. Islam teaches that history, which is for them a sacred science, must also be understood sub specie aeternitatis.
Dhimmis, such as Jews, who do not abide by the terms of dhimmitude are despised because they defy the word of Allah. Attacks on kafir have absolutely nothing to do with specific military encounters, and the casualties they engender. They have everything to do with the refusal of Jews to abide by the Pact of Umar and the fact that this is a blasphemous affront to Allah. Inspiration for the massacre of the martyrs of Merkaz HaRav more likely derives from Hadith passages like this, than from anything else:
The Prophet (sall'Allaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: “You will indeed fight against the Jews and you will kill them to the point where the rock and the tree will say: ‘O Muslim! O ‘Abd'ullah (slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him.’
In this light, the genocidal plot to destroy the Jews that is described in the Book of Esther is absolutely incomprehensible from a purely historical point of view. Irrespective of the claims of Bible critics, it defies the logic of its own sitz im leben. Cultural and ethnic (or racist) homogeneity were the innovation and the perpetual goal of Christianity and Islam, and the former's secular heirs. In fact, Haman's ideology always seemed more appropriate to Tomas de Torquemada and Heinrich Himmler than to an ancient Persian nobleman.
There is one thing, though, that I do know. The Book of Esther sets forth the pattern of subsequent Jewish History in unmistakable terms (see here for one aspect). It describes the virulent, irrational hatred of the Jew that can hold an entire empire in its grip, on a moment's notice. It is that unending, pathological hatred of the Jew that is represented by Amalek, whose scion Haman was.
Amalek is a very loaded image, especially in light of the Bible's injunction to utter destroy it. It's an image that has been both used, and abused. What has not been understood is its role as a time-transcendent symbol.
Modern man forgets that traditional man lives sub specie aeternitatis, under the aspect of eternity. Traditional man, and here the Jew is assuredly a traditional man, understands his present in light of the past and in anticipation of the future, as Ramban said: The deeds of the fathers are a sign for their children (מעשה אבות סימן לבנים). Upon encountering Jew-hatred, of which modern anti-semitism is but the most virulent strain, the Jew knew that he was encountering Amalek. Knowing of Amalek's existence grounded him. It gave him a context with which to fight to survive and endure. He knew, and knows, that God will not give him totally over to this implacable enemy. 'For I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven' (Ex. 17, 14). [ In a sense, the Polish Jew, the despised ostjude, was better prepared psychically for the Shoah, than was the highly assimilated (and sometimes converted) German Jew, the fabled Deutsche Burgher Mosaischen Glaubens. So many of the latter took their own lives in despair in the 1930's, wearing the iron crosses they had earned fighting for the Fatherland in World War I. Polish Jews had no such illusions.]
Amalek is a potent symbol. It is, a religious and historical reality. As an historian, who has grappled with Jew hatred for his entire life, I must admit that its persistent existence only makes sense to me on a metaphysical plane.
Does recognizing a manifestation of Amalek require the implementation of the Torah's dictate to wipe it out entirely? Absolutely not. To say otherwise is to utterly distort Halakha (and Reb Chaim Brisker's famous observation on the Rambam does not contradict this. ואכמ"ל). The Rambam makes clear (Hil. Melakhim 1, 1) that the eradication of Amalek is a royal (and probably messianic) undertaking.
Have some been guilty of distorting the Law? Tragically, yes. Has this ever been official Israeli policy ? Absolutely not! On the contrary, Israel sacrifices its soldiers (and its civilians) in order to avoid harming non-combatants. Have responsible rabbinic authorities (yes, even among settlers) ever advocated wholesale invocation of the Amalek clause in our ongoing war with the Arabs? Again, no.
Amalek, for us, is a metaphysical reality around which we can organize (if not understand the insane world in which we live), and that constantly raises serious questions of theodicy. It does not dictate policy.
We would do well, though, to recall that our enemies are also traditional people. They also have a principled, integrated world view that is nourished by their own traditions and collective memories. Muslims also understand, interpret and experience their reality in light of the Qur'an and the many traditions of their prophet and his successors. Islam teaches that history, which is for them a sacred science, must also be understood sub specie aeternitatis.
Dhimmis, such as Jews, who do not abide by the terms of dhimmitude are despised because they defy the word of Allah. Attacks on kafir have absolutely nothing to do with specific military encounters, and the casualties they engender. They have everything to do with the refusal of Jews to abide by the Pact of Umar and the fact that this is a blasphemous affront to Allah. Inspiration for the massacre of the martyrs of Merkaz HaRav more likely derives from Hadith passages like this, than from anything else:
The Prophet (sall'Allaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: “You will indeed fight against the Jews and you will kill them to the point where the rock and the tree will say: ‘O Muslim! O ‘Abd'ullah (slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him.’
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)