Kosher Siren

With Pesach behind us, we again enter the period of national mourning and remembrance limned by Yom HaShoah and Yom ha-Zikkaron. Amidst the somber and painful recollections of both the darkest period in our history, and our grief over the price we have paid to be a free people in our ancestral homeland, there is one discordant note that is always played: the refusal of some to stand silent when the air raid sirens sound. Their justification is that the practice is prohibited by the Torah, as it constitutes 'walking in the ways of the gentiles' (Lev. 18, 3). Now, the Torah does prohibit the imitation of non-Jewish practices (especially those that are religious in origin and/or intent), but the type of actions that are proscribed are clearly laid down in the Talmud and subsequent halakhic literature. 

According to the dominant view (codified in Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah sec. 178 par. 1), two types of behavior are forbidden: a) cultic or religious customs b) immodest or licentious modes of behavior. Actions which are rational, reasonable and proper are totally permitted, even if they are obviously adopted from surrounding cultures. A second view, more restrictive view, was endorsed by the Vilna Gaon (ibid). He maintained that even actions that are reasonable are forbidden, unless they are 'written in the Torah.' This enigmatic phrase, which is mentioned in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 54b), could mean one of two things. Either the practice in question is explicitly mentioned in the Torah, or that it can be shown to be indigenous to Judaism. In either case, it could be argued that the idea of standing silent in memory of a disaster is, indeed, mentioned in the Torah. The Torah portion we read yesterday, describes the deaths of Aaron's elder sons, Nadav and Avihu, who offered a 'strange fire' before God. 'Then Moses said to Aaron: 'This is it what God has said: Through those that are near Me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified.' And Aaron was silent' (Lev. 10, 3). Apparently, standing mute in the face of overwhelming grief is written in the Torah. 

 In truth, however, there is no need for careful legal analysis. What all of these consideration have in common is that the practice in question must be derived from (or actively practiced) in non-Jewish society. [And, according to most, the practice must be adopted in order to assimilate into the broader culture, and not as a uniquely Jewish action.] There is no other country on earth, certainly none in Israel's cultural context, that mandates a siren for a nation-wide moment of silence. This simple fact is always highlighted by the foreign press when it reports on Yom Ha-Shoah and Yom ha-Zikkaron. So, the question, really, never gets off of the ground. 

 Israel is a democracy. People are free to act as they wish. They are free to memorialize the Shoah as they wish. However, I wish they those who refuse to stand silent as the siren wails would stop cloaking their choices in the mantle of Judaism. One less use of the Torah as a political football with dignify and sanctify the memory of our six million dead, our fallen heroes and our beloved ones murdered by over a century of Arab terror. 

 [This post was first published on the Times of Israel on April 7, 2013]

Pesach 5773

Mr Prime Minister, listen to the people!

On this morning after...I see a lot of reason for hope. I pray to God that our newly elected representatives will have the foresight, courage and selflessness to seize the opportunity and make it a reality.

Three weeks later, it appears that the newly elected Knesset members upon whom I (along with so many others) pinned so much hope, are holding fast to their principles. The two harbingers of change, Yesh Atid and Jewish Home, who together represent more than 25 percent of the Knesset, have joined forces to make sure that the new agendas (along with justice for veteran soldiers and young couples) are advanced. The new MK's are busy laying the groundwork for the 'something new,' for the 'future' they pledged to foster. One promising sign of the times was Dr. Ruth Calderon's unprecedented Talmud lesson in her maiden speech in the Knesset. Another indication of things moving in the right direction are the signs that the new parties will support the candidacy of Rabbi David Stav for Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi.

The bad news is that the Prime Minister and his minions are not listening to the message the Israeli people have sent. Netanyahu is busy playing by the old 'principles and values don't count, ministerial positions do' game. He would rather court his nemeses Tzippi Livni and Shaul Mofaz, than deal with Naftali Bennet. He would rather sell the country's soul and buy off Yahadut ha-Torah (and, one may assume Shas) than finally resolve the issues of conversion and Haredi national service; issues that are ripping the country apart and causing needless hatred of Torah at a time when 85 percent of the Jewish population (or more) is desperately thirsting for a qualitatively Jewish Israel. (Never mind the fact that by playing by the old rules, he's only hurting himself and Likud. Even the cynics in the media have remarked that they've never seen political parties stick to their principles in the way that Bayit Yehudi and Yesh Atid are doing.

I have no idea why he is conducting himself this way, when the soul of the nation is at stake. I only know that personally, I am deeply disappointed. I am a longtime member of Likud, with deep ties of affection and affinity for its founders. One thing that Revisionist Zionism taught was that Jews must have a deep, abiding and formative sense of Jewish History. Principle must not be blithely sacrificed for political convenience, or personal pique. If anyone knew and taught that lesson, it was the late Professor Ben Zion Netanyahu, the Prime minister's father. I had the privilege of knowing Professor Netanyahu. While he was far from being an observant Jew, as an historian with a panoramic view of our people's history, he would have been the first to agree that the strategic strength of the Jewish State is first and foremost in its Jewish awareness and knowledge. Yet, his son abjectly refuses to create a government which will contain those parties who are dedicated to precisely that goal. In stead, he is scrounging around to cobble together a government that includes Post-Zionist, non-Zionist and anti-Zionists.

Mr. Prime Minister, the people have spoken. They want a qualitatively Jewish State. They want a state in which Torah is studied and respected, and where the representatives of the Torah respect the people. They want everyone to bear their fair share in carrying the State of Israel forward into the twenty-first century and beyond.

Mr. Prime Minister, Listen to the People, and form the government they demand!!!

[This first appeared in the Times of Israel on 2/19/2013] 

We have a great opportunity here

This morning, the fabled 'morning after,' the media is awash in speculation as to the implications of yesterday's elections. Most observers are focusing on the meteoric rise of Yair Lapid's Yesh Atid Party, the less than impressive showing of Naftali Bennett's Jewish Home party, possible coalitions that PM Netanyahu can cobble together, or the return of the traditional Right-Left divide that characterized Israeli politics. It's going to be an interesting next few weeks (at least more interesting than the campaign itself).

I think that most observers are missing a crucial point. In the absence of any immediate change in our conflict with the Muslim World, the country has apparently decided to look inward and address the issues that impact directly upon its national and religious identity, its economic viability and its social cohesion. At the top of that list is Israel's Jewish identity, which was a serious sub-text of the campaign and found expression in the make-up of the various lists of candidates. Aside from Jewish Home (which significantly includes a non-Orthodox candidate, Ayelet Shaked), the major lists highlighted moderate, Religious Zionist candidates who are devoted to deepening Israel's Jewish identity. Three of these, all of whom I know personally and two well, were elected on Yair Lapid's Yesh Atid list: Rabbi Shai Piron, Dr. Aliza Lavie and Rabbi Dov Lipman. These, together with like-minded religious and non-religious MK's have an opportunity to make a long-lasting contribution to the stabilization of Israeli society, and toward resolving some chronic problems.

I'll just mention a few:

The Chief Rabbinate: As a few on-line publications (such as Tablet Magazine) have noted, yesterday's elections will directly impact upon the upcoming elections for the chief rabbinate. The new Knesset constellation has the ability to ensure the election of a Religious Zionist Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi (preferably, R. David Stav), who can start undoing two decades of abuse and alienation from Judaism while the rabbinate was a political football, used, abused and despised by those who control it.

Conversion: As I have argued before, the resolution of the conversion question is not only desirable, it is critical for Israel's survival. I deeply believe that we have an opportunity to set down the halakhic parameters for credibly and normatively resolving the Jewish status of thousands or Israeli citizens. This will not be easy, as it will cause tensions both with the Haredi World and the non-Orthodox community in the Diaspora. It can, however, be done and it should be done.

Deepening Jewish Education and Awareness: As I've said on numerous occasions: Israeli Jewry is undergoing a far-reaching and deeply felt Jewish Renaissance. Israeli Jews thirst for Jewish knowledge and self-expression. The new Knesset will include some stellar individuals whose lives have been devoted precisely to that end. In particular, one should note the election of two women, in particular, Dr. Ruth Calderon (founder of Elul and Alma College) and Dr. Aliza Lavie (author of the best sellers, Minhag Nashim – Women's Customs – and T'filat Nashim – Women's Prayer).

There will be more to say on all of these issues as time goes on. On this morning after, though, I see a lot of reason for hope. I pray to God that our newly elected representatives will have the foresight, courage and selflessness to seize the opportunity and make it a reality.

[This column first appeared in the Times of Israel on January 23, 2013]

Understand conversion – Israel's survival is at stake

It was announced Wednesday that the Elections Board has strongly recommended the removal of Shas' insidious video that viciously questions the entire government (and army) conversion authorities, characterizing them as cheap fictions. Shas, happily, has agreed to comply with Justice Elyakim Rubenstein's suggestion. In addition, removing the video also removes a striking irony. The message conveyed by this cheap piece of propaganda is diametrically opposed to the published opinions of none other than Rav Ovadia Yosef, the putative supreme authority of Shas. Rav Ovadia, In stark contrast to other Haredi authorities, was very supportive of Rav Haim Druckman, when he headed the National Conversion authority. (The fact that Shas MK's didn't know that says alot about their Jewish Literacy and/or the true standing of Rav Ovadia in Shas, but I digress).

The ad has engendered a fair number of responses, two of the better ones appeared right here at the Times of Israel. That is a good thing, because this election is as much (if not more) about the Jewish character of the Jewish State, than it is about Social Justice and our future relations with the Palestinians.

The Conversion question stands at the center of a much broader debate, comprehending many different, if related topics. Discussion of the question of 'Who is a Jew?', for obvious reasons, tends to quickly become very personal, and very nasty. This is certainly understandable. It is also unhelpful. If we are to address the question, we need to restrain our passions and speak with our heads, as much as with our hearts. We also need to be better informed voters and citizens.

So, even if it was just a slogan for a now defunct, much lamented clothing chain, I agree with Sy Syms that 'An educated consumer is our best customer.' Toward that end, I would like to offer a series of brief points to focus the discussion. I believe that they reflect objective facts (though, I am sure that others will differ). At the very least, my hope is to bring the discussion to a more constructive level.

1. As opposed to Christianity and Islam, Judaism has traditionally defined itself as a religious commitment that under girds a nation's identity. The two elements are so intertwined as to be, practically, inseparable. That is why one's basic standing as a Jew is unaffected by one's level of observance, and why conversion has an unabashedly religious character.

2.  Historically, as the late Professor Jacob Katz used to observe, levels of personal (non)observance often lead to heated arguments and a lot of bad blood. They do not, however, tear the Jewish People asunder. Only differences over the religious question of 'Who is a Jew' can achieve that. That's why there was no schism between Pharisees and Sadducees, between Hasidim and Mitnagdim, between Maskilim and Orthodox, or between Secular Zionists and Haredim. That is precisely what, in the end, drove Jewish Christians, Karaites, and Sabbatians out of the fold.

3. In Israel, especially, it is a matter of both physical and national survival that our tribal unity not be destroyed. Put differently, one's Jewish bonafides (and national solidarity) are defined by one's birth and the validity of one's conversion. They are expressed by our ability to marry one another. (At least, that's what the Talmud and Maimonides said.)

4. Western culture and thought preach the absolute, total autonomy of the individual. Judaism traditionally maintains that the individual has free will and free choice. However, Jewish People-hood makes demands on the individual that s/he may well not like. At rock bottom, then, Jewish Nationhood and Religion are not 'politically correct.'  (As in, 'Who are you to tell me whether I am a Jew, or not?').

5. There are positions, because of their liberalism, that non-Traditional Jews can adopt, which Traditional Jews cannot. Traditional Judaism, with all due respect and affection, can't compromise on the assertions that: 1) no conversion can be halakhically valid unless performed by an Orthodox rabbinical court 2) a convert, like every Jew, is theoretically bound to observe the Torah's commandments. That is why presumptive 'acceptance of the commandments' (Qabbalat ha-Mitzvot) is a factor in the conversion process.

6. Since the Emancipation, when being Jewish no longer presumed being religiously observant, the debate has raged among Halakhic authorities as to what minimal degree of observance should be demanded of the potential convert. Nevertheless, a commitment to Jewish observance is necessary, as with all systems of naturalization.

This is not the forum to vet that debate. However, the Talmud and all subsequent authorities make it patently clear that if a conversion is effected by a qualified rabbinical court, based upon accepted precedent as to the extent of a convert's a priori observance, then that conversion stands and cannot be reversed (except, perhaps, in cases of outrageous fraud). Furthermore, anyone who has ever studied rabbinic responsa knows that rabbinic collegiality demands that, especially in matters of personal status, one court's rulings are respected by another's.

7. Israel's rabbinic establishment has violated two thousand years of Jewish Legal practice in its arrogant (and often, ignorant) behavior regarding rabbinic court actions, generally, and conversions, in particular. (For example, one rabbinic court judge was heard to observe that no one outside of Israel knows how to study Talmud, so no one there is reliable.)

Consider the infamous disqualification of thousands of conversions undertaken under the aegis of the Prime Minister's Office Conversion Commission. Overwhelmingly, in determining the minimal requirements expected of the converts, these courts relied on an explicit ruling by the preeminent halakhic authority, R. Chaim Ozer Grodzinski (Resp. Ahiezer III, 23). Before World War 2, R. Grodzinski's rulings were accepted as final throughout Eastern Europe, especially in Lithuania (with the possible exception of Hungary). Even those who might have disagreed with him, would never have dared to dismiss a court action based on his decision. Yet that is, effectively, what the Rabbinic Courts did in overturning the conversion authority actions. They not only 'oppressed the stranger,' they casually dismissed the greatest Lithuanian Haredi authority of Pre-War Europe and made a mockery of two thousand years of Orthodox rabbinic collegiality.

I started by saying that the conversion issue lies at the interface of the colliding questions regarding our Jewish identity in the Land of Israel. The recently published Guttman Study confirmed an impression that I've had for many years. There is an ongoing, very laudable process through which Israeli Jews are becoming more Jewishly educated, involved and expressive. I firmly believe that this process is critical to our self-preservation in the Land of Israel. After all, sharing the same Jewish Collective Memory,the same self-image as the latest stage in four millennia of history, the same ethnic and religious solidarity that has sustained us through our long exile- what good will fancy weapons do, without the will to use them?

[This column appeared in the Times of Israel on January 10, 2013]

The Bar Ilan Kippa Controversy: Heat but No Light on Hanukkah

A colleague of mine, one of the most mild-mannered and likeable people I know, finds himself this morning in the midst of a raging controversy because he ejected a student from his Talmud class, because the latter stridently refused to cover his head. The reactions have been, more or less, as one might expect. The always loaded question of religion in the public square of the Jewish State explodes with vehemence, vitriol and viciousness. Secularist politicians are trying to cynically capitalize on, and exacerbate those tensions. In order to cover itself, the university (everybody's favorite religious punching bag), is waving its by-laws which everybody signs but nobody reads, to wit: students agree to wear kippot during their text courses in basic Jewish Studies. The bottom line is that today, on the fourth day of the Festival of Lights there's a huge amount of heat and very little light.

As a twenty year veteran of Bar Ilan's faculty, and one who is admittedly lax in enforcing the kippa rule, I'd like to try to inject some food for thought into the discussion.

1) There is something terribly disingenuous (and, perhaps, hypocritical) about the attacks on my colleague. The same people who scream 'Religious Coercion' would not hesitate to remove their hats if so requested, when entering a lecture hall at Gregorian University in Rome. If required by Oxford to wear an academic gown to speak from the podium, I suspect that they would jump at the opportunity to do something so exotic. If a woman were requested to dress conservatively in a foreign university setting (as they often are), no objection would be voiced. After all, one must respect the venue in which one finds oneself. However, when a professor requests a student to offer respect to Jewish sacred texts by donning a kippa (and its legal standing is quite irrelevant), all Hell breaks loose.

2) In the film of Ben Gurion's reading of the Declaration of Independence, there is a brief scene (which is usually omitted) in which the venerable Mizrachi leader, R. Judah Leib Fishman-Maimon, recites the blessing 'Sheheheyanu.' Surprisingly, many of our aggressively secular, founding fathers are seen covering their heads (with hats, hands etc) out of respect for the moment. The point is that while not personally observant, they retained the sensitivity to respond to a situation that still resonated with millennia of Jewish Tradition. The militant response of this student (and those who support him), not to mention the manipulative response of politicians, suggests that for some Israeli Jews (at least as far as Torah Study is concerned) this sensitivity is gone.

This circumstance is, in my opinion, nothing short of tragic. Reverence for tradition is an essential element for national identity and Jewish continuity (something with which our enemies seem to have no problem). The only way to secure this is through knowledge; clearly, respectfully and respectably imparted. And there is an ever expanding audience for that knowledge. My experience has taught me that such students are in the minority. As I have said many times (in print, on the radio, in public fora, and two days ago on this very site), and as has been borne out by the most recent studies, Israeli Jews are in the midst of a renaissance of Jewish identity and searching that is nothing short of wondrous. I have consistently found that my students in Basic Jewish Studies are overwhelmingly eager to obtain the type of sophisticated Jewish Cultural  and Religious Literacy that they were denied in Elementary and High School.*

3) What does this have to do with wearing a kippa? Both precious little and everything. Obviously, one can teach Judaism without a kippa. The question is one of ambiance and attitude. Even for those who do not define themselves as Orthodox or Traditional, covering one's head when studying Torah is the authentic Jewish way of showing reverence for the 'fountain from which your ancestors drew such incredible fortitude' (to quote Bialik's אם יש את נפשך לדעת). Wearing a kippa is a statement on the part of the student that this material is not the same as Dante's Divina Commedia (which, by the way, I constantly hound my students to read). It has more valence, more resonance, more warmth. Classroom ambiance is an integral part of the educational process. When the student leaves the classroom he may remove the head covering, just as he may do with that which he has learned as he wishes. The existential moment in the classroom, though, becomes part of his cultural literacy. He will understand what others intuit (and will have learned a lesson in co-existence with those of his fellow students who did cover their heads).

Let me make this clear, though. The university classroom is not a yeshiva or a seminary. The scientific method reigns. The student is encouraged to probe and question, challenge and debate (courteously). The teacher is duty bound not to preach, but to teach; not to dismiss but to respectfully engage the student's queries and challenges. Debate should lead where debate will lead.

4)  Academic integrity is not in the least impugned if a lecturer actively seeks to infect students with his/her enthusiasm and awe, love and pure enjoyment of the subject matter. Not unrelated to the present brouhaha, there is something unhealthy about a world of public discourse where a Professor of French can wax rhapsodic about La Belle France, but Jewish Studies Professors have to be as sterile and detached as clinical pathologists.

Of course, I fully understand that the question of Religion and State is one of the hot button issues of our day. Indeed, it may be more important for Israel's future than our on going war with the Muslim World. Yet, it is precisely for that reason that requiring a minor in Jewish Studies (the use of the word 'Basic' is unfortunate), and requesting acknowledgement of the fact that for Jews these studies have a reverential aura about them, is so critical. How else will we create a common cultural language, based on mutual understanding; mutual understanding not only of source material  but of its underlying emotional charge?

In the present cultural climate, the tools to achieve this common cultural-historical (and, for many, religious) language are primarily found in the academy. As an institution that is officially under religious auspices, that should be an essential part of Bar Ilan's raison d'etre. Objections that this is illegal for a public institution are silly, or disingenuous. Core Curricula characterize the best universities in the world. Implementing an educational-cultural vision is the privilege of every academic institution. Requiring a minor in Academic Jewish Studies and inculcating an appreciation for one's heritage is a legitimate educational goal. So long as one does not actively catechize, there is no problem. There should be no need for Bar Ilan to hide behind regulations. A principle is at stake and adopting a principled stance is indicated.

In fine, the (to use the colloquial term) aleihom on my colleague is not only out of place, it represents a fundamental lack of understanding of the issues at hand. Rather than abuse his teacher, the student would have been better served by meeting with him respectfully, and opening himself up to a different point of view. That, after all, is what higher education is about.

*For the record, graduates of the Religious School system have many lacunae in their education that we fill, as well. That, however, is the subject for another column.

[This column was first published on the Times of Israel site on December 11, 2012.]

The Law is in Accordance with Beit Hillel

They were two, very different, men. Each was an outstanding scholar of impeccable integrity and deep piety. One man's name was Shammai. The other scholar's name was Hillel. Both Shammai and Hillel founded schools, known as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, that left a profound impression upon Jewish Law and Jewish History.

One point upon which they differed was the order of lighting the Chanukah candles. Beit Shammai was of the opinion that one starts with eight candles, and each night one lights one less candles. Beit Hillel averred that one starts with one candles and adds a new candle each of the ensuing nights of the festival. The Talmud (Shabbat 21b) discusses different rationales for the two opinions. However, it seems to me that they are emblematic of the philosophies of Shammai and Hillel, founders of the two schools.

Shammai was profoundly sensitive to his role as the bearer, and transmitter, of the traditions of the Oral Law as he had received them from his teachers, and they from their teachers, all the way back to God's Revelation at Sinai. He was, therefore, zealous for the integrity and accuracy of Jewish Law, and (most appropriately) was conservative in its interpretation and application. It is, therefore, most appropriate that his disciples viewed Jewish religious history as a type of 'Decline of the Generations,' starting with a blaze of fire and trumpets at Sinai; with the fire growing ever dimmer and more vulnerable as ever greater distances separate us from that formative event.

Hillel was no less conscious of the sanctity, and fragility, of the Tradition that he had received from his teachers, Shemaiah and Abtalion, or of the fact that teaching Torah meant expounding God's Will, something that one undertakes only with a significant measure of trepidation. Hillel, however, differed with Shammai on one, very significant, methodological point. Where Shammai felt duty-bound to pass on Tradition in a more careful fashion; Hillel employed traditionally received rules of Biblical interpretation to expand the boundaries of Halakhic discourse and possibility, beyond those that he had received from his teachers. As a God-fearing Jew, he realized that interpretation also had its limits and that man should not have the temerity to force his own views on God's. However, he apparently believed that one must use rules of interpretation that were part and parcel of the Oral Tradition, in order to elicit its hitherto unrevealed dimensions of meaning and their practical implications. It was, therefore, apt that his disciples should advocate expanding and increasing the lights until they blaze forth in glory on the eight day.

In a world of unparalleled religious challenge, where Traditional Jewish Life and Values are besieged and attacked from without and within, it is no surprise that Shammai's philosophy has taken hold of much of the Orthodox World. After all, we are still speaking of God's Torah and the obligation of those who adhere thereto, to protect and preserve it. In its present manifestation, however, adhering to the path of Shammai has meant not only preserving the lore of millennia, but of drastically narrowing the same tradition that they claim to preserve. The result is that vast areas of Jewish Law and Lore that could, by every Orthodox criterion, be employed to address unprecedented challenges are written off and ignored in the name of caution (Agunot and Conversion come first to mind, but there are many others). Tragically, those who pay the greatest price of this policy are observant or traditional Jews (who make up the vast majority of Israeli Jews), a price that ir all too often paid in the persons of their alienated children.
In the course of the past year, a courageous group of Rabbis,  Yeshiva Heads, To'anot Rabbaniot, and Yo'atzot Halakhah have banded together to form an organization that they have appropriately named 'Beit Hillel.' Their goal is, officially, to develop rabbinic leadership that is attentive to the needs of the entire Jewish community in Israel. On a deeper level, however, their goal is precisely that of its eponymous forbear. It aims, responsibly and with Fear of Heaven, to widen the parameters of Torah and Halakhah, and to restore its capacity to function in a complex society. Its members, among whom I am proud to count myself, hope that by exposing the dazzling capacity of the Torah to encounter and engage the world, it will not only retain its adherents but will establish bonds with those who have yet to engage it.

As was true both of Hillel and his disciples, there will be clear limits to where it can go. Yes, Beit Hillel's published opinions appear lenient. That, however, is a function of the fact that regnant rabbinic opinion has pushed things to such a degree of stricture that stating the Law as it is appears lenient. Nevertheless, restoring the Torah in its plenitude can only advance the cause of Judaism and deepen Israel's identity as a qualitatively Jewish State (while giving it the tools to respectfully engage the democratic side of the Israeli equation).

The Talmud put an effective end to the decades long controversies between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel when it declared (in the name of a Heavenly Voice): Both speak the words of the Living God, but the Halakhah is in Accordance with Beit Hillel' (Eruvin 13b). In the absence of a Heavenly Voice, the contemporary Beit Hillel is asserting that, with all due respect to those Orthodox authorities whose religious sentiments and halakhic methods differ, the sensitivities and methods of Beit Hillel must today be advanced, for the greater glory of God and His Torah.

After all, הלכה כבית הלל.

[The above was first published at the Times of Israel on 12/10/12.]

The End of War: An Open Letter to Rabbi Eliyahu Fink

Dear Rabbi Fink,

I read your blog post entitled 'War Baffles Me,' the many comments that it generated, and your subsequent clarification. Your idealism is heart warming, and your horror at the depravities and suffering that war can cause should be shared by every decent human being on God's earth. I am absolutely sure it is shared by every Israeli, whatever his political or religious affiliation (or lack thereof).

There is a serious flaw in your argument, however. It lies in assuming that ultimately 'people have the capacity to love and care for anyone.' I assume what you mean is that if we all sat down to speak as equals and friends, that differences of opinion would be resolved and war avoided. Your sentiments are certainly representative of the way most people in the West think today. However, your sentiment (and theirs) is seriously flawed. You (and they) have fallen into the logical fallacy that my friend and colleague, Professor Richard Landes, calls 'cognitive egocentrism.' In other words, you project your own mentality, values and “way of seeing the world” onto others. The result is an attitude that is, albeit innocently, both disrespectful and paternalist.

In the present instance, it is also deadly.

As the great historian, Professor Bernard Lewis, noted in a prescient article that was published almost forty years ago ('The Return of Islam,' Commentary, January 1976), it has been over three hundred years since the Christian (or Jewish) west confronted an Islamic resurgence. In the interim, the West has undergone secularization, two World Wars and a massive process of intellectual, religious and moral relativization. Few if any western countries think of going to war except for reasons of national or personal interest. Such conflicts can be negotiated. Muslims, such as the Hamas and their supporters (who put them in power democratically), do not fight for 'interests.' They fight, they struggle ('jihad') because they believe that it is the will of God.
I do not have to tell you that The Will of God is Not Negotiable.

This is not the place to enter into a long discussion on Islam and its attitude to Jews and Israel. There are many, responsible books on the subject (and many irresponsible ones, as well). The bottom line is this. Muslim Law (and here I refer to the overwhelming Islamic legal consensus, both Shiite and Sunni) vehemently denies the right of Jews to possess a sovereign nation on land that, in its opinion, belongs to the 'House of Islam' (Dar al-Islam). It is the God given right and obligation of Muslims to destroy the infidel (kafir) Jewish usurpers who live in that state, unless they surrender and return to a subordinate position as 'protected people' (dhimmi). Until we do so, we are the disciples and allies of Satan (shaitun ), an equation which lies behind the nefarious anti-semitism of the Muslim press, educational systems and propaganda. This position is maintained both by Hamas and Fatah (a word which refers to a stage of jihad). This is the will of God. It is a principled, on its own terms fully logical and understandable, religious position. It is a position that is understandably shared by Muslims the world over, who dream of the establishment of the Kingdom of God on Earth, as God Almighty willed it (whether they intend to work to actualize it, or not). Anyone who falls in the struggle is rewarded by God. It is a sublime vision that is absolutely non-negotiable.

For us, however, it is a deadly vision.

It is a vision against which we are forced to wage war, until the end. In this case, victory will only come when we defeat the enemy so decisively that they decide to delay their dreams of a worldwide Caliphate until the coming of the Imam, at the End of Days (according to their belief).
The great novelist Herman Wouk prefaced his novel, 'War and Remembrance,' with the words: The Beginning of the End of War Lies in Remembrance. We need to remember exactly what type of war faces us. Not all wars are the same. Not all wars are for interests. Some are against an enemy that seeks nothing less than the destruction of Israel, both its people and its state. Only its defeat will bring an end to this war. Then we can, as you said, 'talk about it.'

Respectfully,
Jeffrey R. Woolf

[This post first appeared in the Times of Israel on 11/19/12]

Apres le Deluge: Contemporary Echoes of the Flood Story

My teacher, Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik זצ"ל used to observe that profound insights can be found by looking in the most out of the way places. Parshat Noach provides a case in point. Both the classical commentators and, certainly, contemporary teachers focus heavily on the character of Noach (in contrast to Abraham), the Flood Story itself, the Tower of Babel and the start of Abraham's career. There are, however, other passages that deserve greater attention, and provide great contemporary insight.

After Noah and his family leave the ark, and try to get on with their lives, the Torah tells us of a very disturbing, if enigmatic event (Gen. 9, 20-28):

And Noah the farmer began, and planted a vineyard. And he drank from the wine, and got drunk; and he became exposed in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness, and told his two brothers who were outside. And Shem and Yefet took a garment, and laid it upon their shoulders, and went in backwards, and covered their father's nakedness; and they were looking backward and did not see their father's nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and realized what his youngest son had done to him. And he said: Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brethren. And he said: Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant. May God enlarge Yefet, and may he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant.

The story defies comprehension. Why do we need to know that Noah got drunk? What did Ham do that merited such an extreme reaction by his father (including a curse on his progeny, ie Noah's own grandson)? What was it about Shem and Yefet's action that deserved so effusive a blessing? Finally, why was Yefet subordinated to Shem?

I am convinced that the key to this story is to see it against a reaction to the Flood. Consider the circumstances. Noah and his family had survived, while their entire world had been destroyed. They were now, moreover, commanded by God to reconstruct an entire society, afresh. Based upon what we know of the psychology of the survivors of all types of cataclysms, Noah and his family must have been profoundly burdened by feelings of survivor's guilt, cultural disorientation and uncertainty as to precisely what the proper response to the Flood (its causes and its results) should be. Viewed that way, with a little help from Hazal, each of the various figures represents a different response to the Flood and its aftermath.

Noah, apparently, simply could not cope with surviving, with his loss or with his challenge. He went, as the Midrash states (Tanhuma [Buber], 58, 20), from walking with God to being 'a man of the soil,' earthy, vulgar and bereft of vision. He solace solace in the bottle, and was exposed. Noah's response to surviving was to seek to escape.

Ham's reaction to Noah's state was to see 'his father's nakedness.' What does that mean? It could mean that he simply saw the old man sprawled exposed in his tent. (Apparently, that was offense enough, considering how his brothers eventually covered their father.) He was obviously not horrified by the sight, otherwise he would have covered him up. Instead, he ran to tell his brothers, rather like a bratty child with a hot piece of naughty information to convey. According to this line of interpretation, Ham lost respect for his father, therein lay his sin. Hazal, on the other hand, assumed that 'seeing his nakedness' was a euphemism for something more sinister. They offered two opinions on that count (Rashi, verse 22): that he either castrated him or raped him. Both possibilities are extensions of a fundamental breakdown of morality and authority that Ham felt upon seeing his father's abdication, and perhaps in a post-Deluge world. Castration would be an expression of anger at Noah's bringing children into a corrupt world that could so easily be destroyed. Raping his father would indicate not only violence and anger, but a breakdown of all moral taboos and boundaries. In a sense, it would connect Ham with the sin of the generation that had just been destroyed; a generation that was marked by moral break down. In a postdiluvian world, all rules were off and anything goes.

Shem and Yefet responded very differently to their father's predicament. Despite Noah's self-abasement, he remained their father and deserved not only his dignity but the deference of his sons. So they covered him up, without violating his dignity or having their own reverence for him affected by viewing him in his exposed state. The brothers were, apparently, up to the challenge of putting the past behind them and building a new society on the basis of clear moral and axiological lines of conduct. That is why they were so effusively blessed by Noah. Ham, on the other hand, had acted in a bestial fashion, so that the only future he (or his progeny) could have was by others being a beast of burden, a slave. (The role of Canaan, albeit, is unclear).

One question remains. Why was Yefet told that he would 'dwell in the tents of Shem.' Perhaps, because he was younger. However, both medieval and modern interpreters saw things a bit differently. Yefet, according to the Bible, was the ancestor of Greece while Shem was a progenitor of the Jewish People. In rabbinic tradition, Yefet represented the glories of Greek art and science, architecture and philosophy. Shem, on the other hand, was recalled as the archetype of the servant of God. In that light, Noah's blessing was that all the creativity of Yefet was endorsed and valued, so long as it was enveloped in Shem's a priori commitment to God. Such an insight squares very well with the nature of Graeco-Roman civilization, which was ultimately based on self-worship. As the distinguished classicist, Edith Hamilton once wrote (in her book Mythology, page 16), the 'Greeks made their gods in their own image.'

We, in the West, also live in a post-Flood world. The twentieth century was deluged with wars and destruction greater in magnitude than anything mankind had ever known. The incomparable nadir, of course, was the Shoah. In the wake of this era of cataclysms, man was forced to confront his survival and to rebuild the world. His responses to this circumstance have been precisely those that marked Noah and his family.

Some, like Noah, sought and seek to escape through chemicals, mystical withdrawal, retreat into Indian religions or pure self-indulgence. Others, like Ham, became and become moral relativists. They reject any and all authority and tradition. Some despair of any future for mankind. Others become totally self-indulgent, maintaining that there can be no binding values or norms in the era 'after.' Others, as prefigured by Hazal's view of Yefet, believe in Man and his capacity, by himself and on the basis of his own reason and creativity. This, as we've seen, can easily lead to arrogant self-worship and narcissism. Still others, Shem like, abdicate their personalities, their reason and creativity, in favor of a superficial form of  fundamentalist religiosity which saves them from thinking or confronting the world in which they live.

By bidding Yefet to dwell in the tents of Shem, the Torah demands that man live a life of creative tension and engagement. He must maximize his talents, engage the world critically, build, create, and not withdraw. At the same time, he is bidden to recognize his limitations. He is not all-knowing, and his explorations of science and art, philosophy and history, will always lead him to more questions and fewer answers. At the end of the day, Yefet will thrive if he is enveloped in the humbling awareness that he was created in the image of One who is greater than he, who expects greatness of him, and not the other way around.

[This post first appeared on the Times of Israel Website, on October 19, 2012]

מי שטרח בערב שבת: הגיגים לאלול

'מי שטרח בערב שבת, יאכל בשבת.

מי שלא טרח בערב שבת, מהיכן יאכל שבת?'

(עבודה זרה דף ג ע"א).

           

             בתקופה שלפני חגי תשרי, כולם עסוקים בהכנות מהכנות שונות. משנים את הרגלי הקימה (לסליחות). קונים בגדים חדשים ומאכלי החג. מזמינים ארבעה מינים בהקפדה מיוחדת על בליטות ותיומות ובונים סוכות למהדרין. אולם, עם כל ההכנות החיוניות האלו עדין טמונה בהן סכנת הכניסה לחגים במצב של חוסר מוכנות. אפילו על יהודי או יהודייה כזה, שומר תורה ומצוות, מרחפת תמיהת חז"ל: 'מי שלא טרח בערב שבת, מהיכן יאכל שבת?'

האמנם?

בשיעוריו ובדברי ההתעוררות שלו, הדגיש מו"ר מרן הגרי"ד הלוי סולובייצ'יק זצ"ל שהתורה הקפידה להקדים תקופת הכנה לפני כל חג ומועד. 'שואלים ודורשין בהלכות הפסח ל' יום' (פסחים דף ו ע"א).

ימי ספירת העומר הם הכנה לחג השבועות ולמתן תורה. 'בין המצרים' שבין י"ז בתמוז לט' באב מרגילים את האדם לאבל על חרבן הבית ע"י תהליך אבלות הפוך (מהנהגות י"ב חודש למנהגי שלושים לאבלות שבעה ר"ל). חודש אלול נועד להכין את האדם מישראל להמלכת הקב"ה בעולמו בראש השנה, למעמד הנורא והנשגב של יום הכיפורים ולשמחה של מצווה 'לפני ד' בחג הסוכות. הכנות אלו, הוא קבע בנחרצות, הן חובה מוחלטת.[1]  

            כשהרב דיבר על הכנות, הוא לא התכוון רק לבישולים ולקניות. הוא התכוון ל'עבודה שבלב' של האדם מישראל. לכל חג ומועד, וק"ו לחגי תשרי, יש תכנים מיוחדים וחוויות מיוחדות. ההלכה דורשת לא רק את קיום מצוות החג. התורה דורשת שהיהודי יצוק למצוות רגש והבנה, עבודת הלב ועבודת המוח. יותר מדי אנשים תועים אחרי החיצוני שביהדות, אחרי הפורמלי והמכומת שבה, ומפספסים את העיקר: עבודת ה' והרגשת קרבה אליו.

            הדרך הטובה ביותר לקיים את מצוות ההכנה, כך לימדנו הרב זצ"ל, היא ללמוד תוך גיוס הלב לתובנות השכל. לכן, בחודש שלפני הימים הנוראים הוא הקפיד ללמד, גם בבוסטון וגם בישיבה, את פיוטי המחזור, על הסדר. יצירות אלו אינן פשוטות בכלל. אולם, טמונים עולמות נשגבים של שאר רוח שיעשירו

את אמירתם בשעת מעשה. ובעבור מי שקשה לו לימוד הפיוטים, הרי אפשר להתרכז בגופי התפילות במחזור, הכתובים בעברית צחה. בצורה דומה, יש ללמוד את ספרי המוסר המסורתיים, או אפילו את דיני החגים- בתנאי שיעמוד לא רק על הדין היבש אלא על בתוכן החי והפועם שיש בתוך אותו דין ובלב כל סעיף ברמב"ם ובשלחן ערוך.

אולם, מי שלא יקדיש את הזמן לכך ולא יכין את לבבו ומוחו לחגי תשרי; מי שינסה בשעת מעשה לחטוף משהו מאיזה עלון פ"ש וסבור שכך יוכל להתפלל בכוונה ולעמוד לפני קונו כמו שצריך, עליו יהיה אפשר לתהות: 'מי שלא טרח בערב שבת, מהיכן יאכל שבת?'

יה"ר שנזכה לכתיבה וחתימה טובה, לשנה טובה ומבורכת.

לעי"נ ידי"נ הרב דוד יעקב הלוי אפלבאום הי"ד ביום השנה ה-9 להירצחו

---

[1]  יש להעיר שה"ה לגבי ערב שבת וערב יו"ט, וק"ו ערב יו"כ. הרב האמין שאלה מהווים מרכיב מובנה עקרוני של החגים עצמם. מן המיותר לומר, שבפועל, ערבי חג קיימים רק בארץ ישראל.