David Brooks, in today’s New York Times complains about what a singularly unreflective society we have become. Where once the mental toughness of self examination was expected as part of what was commonly called ‘character’, nowadays such reflection is condemned as being weak.  Nuance is a code word for lack of conviction. When President Obama makes a general statement about freedom of religion and its place in this country and then qualifies it by saying that he was not telling New York where the mosque should be (for other reasons then freedom of religion), he is ‘backtracking’.  There is no room for qualifying statements.  Everything must pass through the crucible of ideological purity. Here’s Brooks.

In this atmosphere, we’re all less conscious of our severe mental shortcomings and less inclined to be skeptical of our own opinions. Occasionally you surf around the Web and find someone who takes mental limitations seriously. For example, Charlie Munger of Berkshire Hathaway once gave a speech called “The Psychology of Human Misjudgment.” He and others list our natural weaknesses: We have confirmation bias; we pick out evidence that supports our views. We are cognitive misers; we try to think as little as possible. We are herd thinkers and conform our perceptions to fit in with the group.

But, in general, the culture places less emphasis on the need to struggle against one’s own mental feebleness. Today’s culture is better in most ways, but in this way it is worse.

The Talmudic tradition is one where reflection and nuance are compulsory.  The craft of refining an argument, only to find a flaw, and then refine it again is the essential stuff of Jewish learning.  The most adept practitioners of this discipline, are often among the least integrated of thinkers when the tome is closed and is then replaced by the pressing issues of the day.  That same intellectual, and dare I say, spiritual thinking, is replaced by group-think that is as nuanced as the wasteland of cable TV news.  The discourse, the process of learning is replaced by the convenience of the “code” that only teaches one what to do, and does not bother to engage him in the process of how we come to know.

This is why the Shulchan Arukh was eschewed by some thinkers at the time.  Better communal practices be a little chaotic than possibly having the hordes mindlessly practicing in lockstep.   The Maharal imagined that people may stop learning, but that’s not what happened.  People continue to learn, but learning is a theoretical enterprise, a mitzvah, that has no applicability to the world. The following popular Talmudic passage requires more scrutiny than it is often given.

Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: Three years the Beit Shammai disagreed with the Beit Hillel. One group said: The Law is the way we see it.

The other group said: The Law is the way we see it.

A came forth and said: These and these are the words of the living God! And the Law is the way the Beit Hillel sees it!

Since “These and these are the words of the living God”, why did the Beit Hillel deserve to have the Law go as they saw it? Because they were gracious and humble, and would teach their opinion and the opinion of Beit Shammai, not only that, but they would always teach Beit Shammai’s version first before they taught their version. (Eruvin 13b)

It is not, as often understood, that Beit Hillel‘s position was preferred because they were nicer guys.  The consequence of that understanding would undermine the intellectual rigor of the process.  Instead, it was the humility and graciousness of Hillel that allowed them to engage, consider, and reflect upon the opinion of Beit Shammai.  Beit Hillel understood that considering the other opinion, responding to its challenges and possibly modifying their position, authenticated their quest for truth.  Quoting Shammai first was not only a token of respect, it was a reminder that Beit Shammai’s point of view was taken into account when they formulated their opinion.  It wasn’t that they were merely warmer and fuzzier, it was that humility and graciousness also can, and should make one more nuanced, more thoughtful, and truer to the essential nature of the Talmudic process.

It would seem that true rabbinic leadership would model this training in its approach to the political and halachic challenges of our time. Well, don’t hold your breath.

This is the week when Jewish teachers throughout the world teach the lesson of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza. The moral of which is that  enmity between two people can have profound political consequences. Rabbi Yochanan teaches that because of the hatred of Bar Kamtza, and rabbinic apathy, Bar Kamtza became an enemy of the Jews and managed to provoke the Romans into destroying Jerusalem. Bar Kamtza’s  plan was to have the Romans bring a sacrifice to Jerusalem, on the way he would make a blemish on the animal so that it would not be fit for the altar, and then claim that the Roman Emperor was being disrespected.  The Rabbis immediately divined the predicament and deliberated about what to do. Here is what the Rabbis had in mind:

“The Rabbis had in mind to sacrifice it anyway to maintain peaceful relations with the government. But Rabbi Zechariah son of Avkulos objected, ‘People will say, ‘Animals with blemishes may be sacrificed on the altar!’ “

“The Rabbis had in mind to kill Bar-Kamtza so that he would not report what had happened to the Caesar! But Rabbi Zechariah son of Avkulos objected, ‘People will say, ‘One who makes blemishes in sacrifices is killed!’ “

Rabbi Yochanan said, “The excessive carefulness of Rabbi Zechariah son of Avkulos destroyed our Temple, burned our Palace, and exiled us from our Land.” (Gitin 56a)

Rabbi Yochanan, a fairly tough minded sage with very profound standards for personal piety, has harsh words for Rabbi Zechariah and his inflexibility.  Rabbi Zechariah, of course, had a point. What, after all, is more important? What the Romans think, or being consistent and faithful to our sacrificial rites? It would, however, have taken a miracle to save the Jews from the yoke of Roman oppression, and we are enjoined not to rely on miracles. There was no choice according to Rabbi Yochanan.  Lives were in the balance and sacred rituals–no matter how sacred–be damned. The people come first, and the rigidity of Rabbi Zechariah had ominous consequences that deserved to be condemned.

When I was living in Jerusalem, I was once asked by a journalist from a prominent American newspaper about the “Who is a Jew” amendment that was being debated in the Knesset. The late (Reform) Rabbi Alexander Shindler had held a press conference railing about this divisive piece of legislation.  He neglected to mention the Reform movement’s contribution to divisiveness by countenancing patrilineal descent, but, never mind.

I answered that I didn’t believe in unenforceable laws that were made only to disenfranchise people.  The journalist asked, what might be a rebuttal to the liberal Jews’ position.  ”Well”, I said, “if 60,000 more Reform Jews lived here, then that might be three Knesset seats, and labor wouldn’t need to make coalitions with the religious parties, but until that time comes, they might not matter so much.” This was in my own estimation a glib, but cogent response.  Orthodox observant Jews far outnumber their Conservative and Reform counterparts, they are allowed to vote their conscience, even if it means bringing their holy wars to the Knesset.  This is not Ayatollastan as Jeffrey Goldberg would say, but democracy.

It is, however, at this juncture, profoundly misguided to muscle through the Knesset  legislation that can only help to diminish support among a community that Israel may need more and more in the future. If Congressmen from the Democrats are writing letters to the State of Israel echoing the concerns of their Jewish constituents, then this is no longer a side issue.

It is true! We are one people of many religions. One of those religions has a monopoly on personal status in Israel for two reasons: One, lots of them live there, and this issue is important to them. Two, dominion over personal status was granted to the Jews living in the Land long before there was a State by the Ottoman Turks, and Ben Gurion maintained that status quo. Why? Because there were lots of those Jews and their rabbis. It is time for leaders of the Reform and Conservative movement to acknowledge that lack of Aliya and lack of success in bringing great numbers to their ranks in Israel is the primary reason for their predicament.

I am, however, very tired of my community not being able to see the proverbial forest. We read these passages year after year–don’t you think enough of us would get the message? This legislation is bad for All of us. It is true that Jewish affiliation is messy, and has been messy for many years, but as long as there is a diaspora, such legislation only succeeds in making Israel less relevant to maybe millions of Jews.

We should listen deeply to Rebbe Yochanan.

This week in Jewcy my friend and once student Charlie Buckholtz bemoans the fact that he, along with all the indie punk rockers of Israel have become the victims of a cultural boycott that may doom Yerushalayim to hearing only Ashkenazi inflected tunes urging everyone to rebuild the Temple–at least until the Messiah comes.  Finally, redemption was at hand with Elvis Costello, the Pixies, and Devenra Banhart coming to T.A. Alas, they have all canceled because of the Flotilla (the hun) incident.

He articulates the frustration of him and other punished fellow travelers who happen to be citizens of a State with momentary ‘benighted policies”.

“…events beyond all our control have conspired against us (Pixies)…merely having your name added to a concert schedule may be interpreted as a political act and it may be assumed that one has no mind for the suffering of the innocent (Elvis)…it seems that we are being used to support views that are not our own (Devendra)…

These sad, spineless phrases are unworthy of the brilliant lyricists in whose names they are written. Reading them makes me want to lock myself in a room with Blood and Chocolate, Surfer Rosa, and Nino Rojo-enduring examples of language used to express the rawest experience, the hardest-earned insight, the most deeply personal human truths. By contrast, these notes, with their awkward overreliance on the passive-voice, read as a series of furtive dodges. The artists’ protestations of being somehow waylaid by new “events” or information just prior to their appearances rings too hollow to be taken seriously. By Elvis’ own logic, these so-called new “events” only make the case for rejecting artistic boycotts that much more urgent. It is, again, a logic that applies to “any democracy, no matter how flawed in the worst time when a government is in power acting in an irresponsible, violent and despicable way.” If “the only answer is dialogue and reconciliation,” and music has the potential to move those processes forward, then aren’t these exactly the kinds of places conscientious artists should be most eager to perform? They booked…they were pressured and intimidated…and they caved.

Well said, Charlie. I, for one, however, don’t believe that the zeitgeist is entirely rational when it comes to Jews. Ruth Wisse would ask with irony overblown, “How can the favored victims of the the twentieth century betray what we love about them,  their victimhood?” I don’t buy that either because it’s too self-serving.

Israel is now an embarrassment because recently, all of a sudden, those who love Jesus, love Israel and all its hawkish policies, and those on the left cannot be associated with those “morons”. The biggest indictment of Israel is not the oppression of Gaza, it’s being embarrassed by those Americans who claim to love her.  When Peter Beinart reports that you can’t expect the young to check their liberalism at the door when it comes to Israel.  I do believe he is misreading what is fueling the disengagement of the liberal young. People are not so thoughtful.  Israel is guilty by association. If Sarah Palin is a fan, then something is profoundly rotten in the state of…

The enemy who is the friend of my friend makes me reconsider that relationship.  This is not fair. It’s not Israel’s fault that they have accidentally found a comfortable niche within Christian eschatology.  Israel has become gross because she is a welcome guest at most tea parties. If the right wing would despise Israel as the Birchers and those of Liberty Lobby used to, then I believe there would be more sympathy for the situation that Israel finds herself in. That, however, for some reason is now not the case.

Here’s a suggestion for Charlie. Gospel music, its timeless, heartfelt, and musical as well and it’s probably the ultimate source for blues, jazz and rock and roll.  You can bet those players won’t cancel their tour to Jerusalem…And that, you can take to the bank. Therein lies the rub.

Probably the most popular story in the Talmud is the story of the modular oven, its parts connected by sand so that it functioned as a unit, but its parts remained somewhat independent of each other.  The question before the Sages was whether this should be considered a finished vessel, and therefore subject to the rules of purity and impurity, or whether it was technically under construction and therefore not subject to these rules.  The principle being that an unfinished vessel does not have the potential to become impure until it has reached its finished state.

The Sages declare that it is indeed finished enough while Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and says that it is not.  At this point the fireworks begin.  Rabbi Eliezer has a number of parlor tricks that he invokes in order to prove that his is the correct opinion.  Streams are twisted around, carob trees jump several football fields, the walls of the Beit Midrash begin to collapse, and finally a heavenly voice descends and announces: The law always goes according to Rabbi Eliezer!

None of these “proofs” impress his colleagues, not even the heavenly voice.  Quoting from the Torah, they say, “It (the Torah) is not heaven”, and “After the majority one must incline”. Later on, one of the sages sees Elijah the Prophet in the marketplace and asks how the Holy One reacted to the seeming impudence of those sages, and Elijah said, God smiled and said, “My children have defeated me!  They have defeated me!”

When retold, most people stop the story at this stage, but the story goes on.  The sages invalidate all of Rabbi Eliezer’s decisions that applied to the purity laws and if that weren’t enough, they decide to formally censure him, and exclude him from their circle.  Rabbi Eliezer having been shunned is terribly upset and the power of his pain has the potential to create spiritual upheaval in the world.  His immediate household is on constant vigil not to let him say the prayers that are used as an outlet for personal grief.  One day, his wife, who is the Nasi’s (the head of the court’s) wife miscalculates the new moon when these prayers are not said, only to find Rabbi Eliezer saying the prayers that have the potential to bring on calamity.  She rushes in and says, “Stop! You’re killing my brother!” When asked how does she know this? She answers, “All the gates of prayer are closed except for the gates of wounded feelings!”

Rabban Gamliel, the head of the court had indeed died.  The Mishnah for which  this Talmudic passage is a commentary, is concerned with hurtful speech and its reprecussions.  This Gemara is brought by the editors to illustrate the seriousness of causing anguish to another individual whether it be by speech or by action.  There is an implicit critique of the exclusion of Rabbi Eliezer, even if the decision of the majority was validated by God’s approval.  The overreaching of authority has disastrous consequences that lead to the demise of the leader of the Beit Din.  The same leader who has been challenged for overreaching before and especially for humiliating his colleague and adversary, Rabbi Yehoshua.

There was a textual overreach as well that was corroborated by God Himself. When the sages quote, “after the majority one must incline” the context of the verse is saying that one should not justify wicked actions by rationalizing that he was going along with the majority.  By subverting the context of the verse, the sages are co-opting the verse to refute Rabbi Eliezer.  This, the story tells us, is a legitimate use of rabbinic authority,  but when it comes to shunning a colleague, the overreaching of authority suffers profound consequences.

Why do most people choose not to learn this lesson from the story, and instead, choose to end it earlier? It may be that the drama of refuting a heavenly voice and winning is what interests most people, and therefore the story is brought to validate rabbinic authority.

I think, however, it says something very unattractive about those who would leave Rabbi Eliezer’s wounded feelings out of the mix. They hide behind the triumph of the argument which in fact is ultimately a pyrrhic victory.  A short term legislative win that has terminal consequences for Rabban Gamliel whose court was seemingly over concerned about preserving authority.  To subjugate God’s word to fanciful interpretations is the licence given when the Torah declares “It is not heaven”.  That same licence, however, does not imply when one is trying to subjugate another human being–especially not a colleague.

This is what the court did not understand, and this is what so many re-counters of this story fail to grasp when they end this story on such a triumphant note.

The Torah may not be in heaven, but we better be careful how we use it. For a look at the narrative, click here

As Stephen Stills once sang, “You who’ve been on the road, must have a code that you can live by…” I guess he internalized this message from the Rambam, and Rav Yosef Karo, the respective authors of the Yad Hachazaka and the Shulchan Aruch, both are books that break from the Talmudic dialectic by distilling and excising process in favor of writing only the halachic decision .I now understand why there was such opposition to this move, as necessary as it might have been at the time.

Both of these works diminish the value of the journey in favor of the destination.  It doesn’t matter how you got there, the important thing is you have arrived, and now you should do this! No doubt, there are many who for this very reason find these books attractive, the Maharal, however, was not a fan for what inevitably happened after these books became popular:

To decide halakhic questions from the codes without knowing the source of the ruling was not the intent of these authors. Had they known that their works would lead to the abandonment of Talmud, they would not have written them. It is better for one to decide on the basis of the Talmud even though he might err, for a scholar must depend solely on his understanding. As such, he is beloved of God, and preferable to the one who rules from a code but does not know the reason for the ruling; such a one walks like a blind person.

In other words, it is better to be part of a creative process and risk failure than it is to be an appendage to someone else’s thinking and blindly, literally blindly, follow the rules.  The supple dynamic and even protean nature of Torah study is suffocated by the code, but there is another unfortunate result of only relying on the codes for answers. By disemboweling the dialectic and favoring a singular opinion, not only have you codified actions, but values and thoughts as well.  Where the Talmud allowed for opposing opinions, sometimes of dramatic importance, the code enforces not only uniform behaviors, which allow us to pray and celebrate together, but uniform thought, that makes it much easier to denigrate and exclude those who don’t look and act the same way.

What the Maharal means to say is the Rambam and Rav Yosef Karo, had they known that the success of  their codes would begin creating  automatons disinterested in the origins of their rulings, they would have endured the chaotic practices that the Talmud, by its nature, seemed to allow. They wanted some order, but they never would have countenanced the ignorance that came with it.

Given the elitism of the Rambam, I’m not so sure that he wouldn’t be sanguine with how things have turned out, even though I am sure he would be resentful that another code came along and superseded his.

Recently, I have been working on curriculum for a project, and because of approaching deadlines, some of the themes for this curriculum had to be farmed out to others.  It was my job to edit their work so that it would conform to the established format.  Their classes were insightful and interesting, but incredibly dogmatic.  They had created a class on Judaism and the Environment, so, of course, it is a foregone conclusion of how these sources are going to support the most progressive environmental thinking. As I was working on what they did, I kept thinking that I could come up with sources that said the earth and her creatures are there for humans to exploit them anyway they see fit.  That voice was not in their piece, even though the argument of seeing both positions would make the class more interesting. One could see the students analyzing which interpretations seemed to be more valid. Instead, agenda transcended process, and we’re the poorer for it. There is no room for a “wrong” answer.

If all we do is bring sources that corroborate opinions that precede our investigation of them, we have nothing, and I mean nothing, to offer.

If all we have to say is, “We’re for recycling just as you are!” Nobody needs us.

Let the study of Torah not be the handmaiden of any outside agenda.

Oy! Just what we need right now.  In the interest of bringing light and not heat to the latest spat between the “klai kodesh” and the Israeli supremes, a little historical context might be helpful.  The uneasy meeting of minds between the Chazon Ish and Ben Gurion back when the State was very young, produced a reality that became known as “the Status Quo”. This ill advised agreement basically created a way for the non-Zionist community to gain some advantages from the State without having any responsibility for it. Why did Ben Gurion agree to this?  Avi Ravitzky claims that BG thought the Hareidi community  would ultimately disappear and the problem would solve itself.  The defection to Zionism from the young of the old Yishuv gave credence to this perspective, but alas, it was not to be.

For years Aguda, unlike Neturei Karta, has been allowed to declare that the cow (the State) is treif, but the milk is kosher.  Now, sixty years later, an unsympathetic Supreme Court wants to treat this fifth column as if they have to adhere to criteria that have heretofore never been the interest of the State. The Hareidim have always had an independent educational system supported by the State.  The Supreme Court presumably could have saved everyone the trouble and could have chosen not to hear this complaint. The Sefardim were happy to have their own school, but instead, the Supremes decided that it was high time to address the inequity of the status quo only to create social upheaval for the State at a critical time (it always seems to be a critical time). It looks like the Supremes have lost and have only succeeded in confirming the worst suspicions of a profoundly ambivalent community.

The hyper-clannishness of Chasidic communities can certainly be seen as non-inclusive, and is often racially motivated by many of their members, but the clash of cultures and perceived threat to the Chasidic way of life is not necessarily racist even though it is exclusive.  Just as rejecting inter-marriage is exclusive but not necessarily motivated by bigotry.

The major public disaffection with the Hareidi community is their exemption from the army.  That should be the issue that is worthy of a supreme court battle–how they choose to educate and with whom should not be the interest of the State and this is one spat that could have been easily avoided.

One of the great divides between Haredi and so-called Modern Orthodox Jews is a steady commitment to the study of Gemara.  In fact, put in a clothing neutral circumstance, one would find the “learners” living in a dramatically different world than their non-learning counterparts.  A good Pshat said by one donning a knit kippah would certainly bring a response of mutuality and respect from the learner wearing the latest Borsellino chapeau.  Part of the ‘modern’ sensibility is a growing disaffection with engaging in the arcane minutiae of Nashim, Nezikin, and Mo’ed.  Really, they say, what is the point?

This divide is most obvious when one looks at Modern Orthodox day schools as compared with yeshiva. The dual curriculum of one guarantees that Talmud will be more of an adjective than a noun, while the other impresses upon the student that Torah study is the most important subject to master, and that their best energies would be well placed in doing so. Secular studies suffer as a result, but there is a statement being made that “Talmud Torah K’neged Kulam“, is not a mere platitude, but a mission statement.

Instead of taking potshots at how mindlessly frum those anemic armadas seem to be, maybe, one should take hold of the real difference between the two communities.  One sees Torah study as even more important than making a living, while the other advocates learning in one’s spare time–after the MBA, the law degree, or the medical degree.  In yeshiva communities students struggle with going to college or kollel, but part of the definition of being modern is that there is no value in sacrificing professional goals in favor of Torah study. This more than anything else distinguishes the two communities.

The antidote of course was to study a year or two in Israel.  Much could be done, and two years at Gush, Shalavim, KBY, or Brovenders could certainly make up for lost time. Now, however, these undiluted yeshiva programs are competing with a diluted experience of which Torah learning is a minor component. The goal of training someone for the avocation of being a lifelong learner has been abandoned in favor of a variegated “meaningful Israel experience” where attachment to God, the land and people eclipse any real connection to Torah.

There will be little opportunity for those who are diffident, but intrigued  about day and night immersion into Torah study to risk doing something that seems so hard.  The more pareve option is certainly less threatening, and therefore, more attractive.  Why risk ones precious year for an experience so foreign? When there was only one option, the risk seemed worth taking. For most, they not only learned Torah, but they were often transformed into learners themselves or ones who saw the value of learning from the inside. These people wished to be connected to the enterprise of learning, and they knew that without that year, they never would have understood its importance. They established lifelong relationships with Rabbaim in ways that rarely would happen with a Madrich.

People should know that it is more important to lead a “market” than it is to pander to it.

I’ve been away for ages, not for want of things to say, but of time to say them. I have, however, been reading contemporary books of Jewish interest for the first time in thirty years.  This was not a conscious choice, but one borne out of necessity. I didn’t get to the library and ended up plundering my son’s Bar Mitzvah stash. I also availed myself of freebies offered at the Samuel Bronfman Foundation’s “Why Be Jewish” annual gathering.

Why have I eschewed reading new Jewish books? Well, quite frankly, I would rather be learning Torah and if not, I would rather my “bitul zman” be spent on something I would quite frankly enjoy more.  Two of these three books did not require a book length treatment to say what needed to be said, while the third one could have been a bit longer.  Each one advocates for different ways to “save the Jewish people”, or at least save people who resemble these authors.

Lord Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi of Great Britain, is a fine writer, and in Future Tense, he argues for a Judaism open to dialog with other religious traditions.  He analyzes Jewish stubbornness and her dyspeptic attitude toward rabbis like himself in a curious albeit eloquent fashion. He claims that we are naturally individualistic and hence not so cooperative.  A strange analysis to say the least.  Here is a tradition that prefers liturgically the “we” over the “I”, that prefers duty to others over individual “rights”, but somehow, is culturally alien to cooperative community.  The problem of Jewish crankiness is real enough, but the analysis is spectacularly wrong.  Rabbi Sacks command of the latest thinking in sociology, philosophy, and psychology is profoundly impressive.  In Torah, however, one cannot help but notice that the quotations are not as numerous, fluid or forthcoming.  He is a spokesman for a new nuance in traditional Judaism, “Assimilationist Orthodoxy”.  For those more comfortable with western discourse, but still have deep attachments to keeping the commandments, he is a commanding voice, but not one who will challenge his more traditional counterparts. For me, many of the conclusions were ones that worldly Jews from traditional and liberal backgrounds could easily embrace.  The arguments were, however, less compelling.

Empowered Judaism a relatively short book describes and promotes the phenomenon of independent minyanim that have emerged throughout the United States. The flagship minyan, although not the first, is Kehilat Hadar. A community founded by committed, competent and knowledgeable volunteers who shared a particular vision for a shule community, and sent out an email to see if that vision was shared by others. Scores of people responded and the minyan was on its way.  The most engaging part of the book was its emphasis on competence and efficiency regarding all  community programming.  Not much is left to chance, and although the actual experience feels authentic, it is the result of meticulous planning, and deliberate decision making.  These twenty and thirty somethings know that people’s time is precious and that the theater of the davening experience requires–if not rehearsals–at least careful consideration that doesn’t allow for spontaneous decisions. Torah readers, Shlichei Tzibbur, and Gabbaim, are selected well in advance of a particular service, and are then vetted before they are accepted as leaders. Kehilat Hadar is completely egalitarian, but committed to traditional nusach with little variation. For those of us in the Orthodox community who are pleased with our davening experience, one is struck by how fraught this process has to be in order to get it ‘right’. I mean, why isn’t enough for the Gabbai to scout the usual suspects and pick the suitable candidate during Mincha for Kabbalat Shabbat?  The answer is that this is a new way of creating culture. This is the culture of consultants and MBA’s. This is the culture of dual income families where time is at a premium.  It is also instructive that the independent minyanim are not taking over, but are fulfilling the needs of an urban demographic of transient people from their twenties to early thirties. They don’t always have the luxury of knowing who their usual suspects are. Beyond that, these newly empowered Jews have the mandate to contribute to or transform existing communities.

Kehilat Hadar spawned Machon Hadar that became the headquarters for start up independent minyanim, of which there are enough to declare it a movement of sorts.  The most interesting part of this vision is Yeshivat Hadar. An egalitarian yeshiva that follows the rigors of a classical yeshiva with Gemara being the centerpiece. Complete halachic observance is required and assumed.  I was struck by how critically important the founders felt that Torah learning, especially learnng Gemara, needs to be in the center of all other considerations.  After all, one does not need to talk about gender roles if you have already made a choice for equal participation.  The Yeshiva has a chance to be more organic than the Kehila does.  If the Yeshiva can be sustained, it will be an interesting challenge for the Orthodox community to have a group of shomer shabbos egalitarian Jews who know how to learn.  Empowered Jews is a grand title for what one might call instead, competent Jews. Hadar has tapped into a small community of young Jews who crave community, intimacy and “authenticity” in accordance with some egalitarian principles that are not in tandem with normative halachic practice.  The Yeshiva is where the primarily aesthetic decision of davening with like minded skilled people at Kehilat Hadar becomes transformed into an experience of commitment and devotion.  Where a person goes to the Kehilla because they like the davening, they go to the Yeshiva because they are open to adopting, or already have adopted, a radically different way of life.  It is the latter that will transform the egalitarian community and not the former. Rabbi Eli Kaunfer has much to crow about here, and he is not reticent to do so.

Art Green in his publication of the Yale Rosensweig lectures wrote a theological tour de force that is poeticlly written, thought provoking and somewhat reductionist.  He offers what he calls a neo-hasidic approach to theology, where God is the source of being that is within all living things, a unifying force that is more within than without.  Not a God who rewards and punishes, or one who judges, but one who requires harmony and life affirming action, much of which some hasidic masters have certainly embraced.  I believe that much of what he decries in the Talmud as primitive is over simplifed, and his knowledge of Hasidut and Kabbalah places his ignorance of Gemara in particular and Talmud in general, in sharp relief.  He never claimed to know or be interested in the Halachic process, so this is not a criticism, it is only when he reduces the God of a Talmud as espousing a more primitive theology that I find him overstepping his bounds.  The seeds of the Zohar were sown in Gemaras that were later showcased and emphasized.  Nevertheless, his love of learning and his grounding in Hasidut is obvious. In a way, much more obvious than Rabbi Sacks’s commitment to Torah learning.

This serendipitous entry into the latest shenanigans of the Jewish community is now over. I claim contemporary insanity, and now go back home to my Talmudic tomes and my Medieval mesmerizers.  I have enjoyed my time with them, but I’ve had my fill for now.

The Holiday of Purim is based on events as recounted in The Book of Esther.  The Book of Esther, known as the Megillah (Hebrew for Scroll) has one glaring “omission”.  The name of God is never mentioned.  The Jews’ salvation remembered on Purim is often referred to as the “Hidden Miracle”.  Hidden, because no supernatural event was responsible, merely the combination of personal courage and good timing made the difference.  One chooses to be courageous, but timing often depends on factors beyond our control.  We choose to exploit the opportunities when offered, but the opportunities present themselves.  When timing works in our favor, we either call it “lucky”, or “Providential” depending on our worldview, or our belief system.  The “Hidden Miracle” of Purim sees the hand of God in the well-crafted natural events of the story.  The Megilla says, “And the Jews were enlightened…” They were enlightened to the fact that this salvation was not of their making alone.

The Passover Haggadah also has a glaring omission. Where is Moshe Rabbenu?  Moshe is not even mentioned once.  How can we have a recounting of the Exodus and ignore the central character?  What point is the Haggada trying to make?

One answer lies in this question, “If God is hidden during Purim why is Moshe hidden during the Pesach seder?”  Purim encourages us to understand that there is no such thing as a self-made person.  We all had partners who contributed to our lives.  Even when no sea was split, no plagues given, so-called unremarkable events have miraculous qualities.

The story of the Exodus might lead one to believe that God had to rely on Moshe to bring miracles into the world, that Moshe was not entirely human.  The Seder reminds us that not only was God ultimately responsible for the redemption, God was entirely responsible.  As the Haggadah says, “‘God took us out’, not by the hands of an angel, not by the hands of a messenger, but the Holy One in God’s full glory.”

Our historical origins were unequivocally miraculous and wonderful.  Our ancestors witnessed the revealed Hand of signs and wonders.  But remember, if the sea would have split and we wouldn’t have been there to cross, it would be a fluke of nature.  What makes it truly miraculous is that it happened when it was needed.  The essence of what makes a miracle a miracle, the timing of it, was as necessary then as it is now.

Most Israelis don’t think of certain Jerusalem neighborhoods as “settlements”, but “suburbs”. Gilo, Ramot, Neve Ya’akov, Pisgat Ze’ev, French Hill, Ramat Eshkol are populated by moderate, bourgeois Israelis.  I imagine that there are some Haaretz journalists in these neighborhoods. Very few of these inhabitants think that they are going to be expelled anytime soon.  These thousands also have relatives and friends across the green line who feel the same way.  Nevertheless, journalists never acknowledge the distinction between these neighborhoods and Beit El which is perceived as the evil twin sister of Ramallah.  One cannot hope to bring around the moderate middle to the possibility of peace, if one does not see the difference between “greater Jerusalem” and Kedumim.  

I understand there may be no legal distinction between the two, but as soon as Gilo (a southern Jerusalem suburb a stone’s throw from Bethlehem) is called a settlement, it is tantamount to delegitimating the entire state.  The building of the Ramot Shlomo neighborhood was ill advised on any number of fronts, but there is a difference between an earmarked Jerusalem neighborhood for a particular constituency, and, say, Kiryat Arba.  

When I was living in Israel, and my sister was working as a foreign correspondent there, I remember her referring to Gilo as a settlement which was technically correct, but totally not a synonym in my Israeli, provincial lexicon. My first reaction was that she really doesn’t know what’s going on!  I am certain that is how many Israelis are feeling now, that nobody “out there” gets what is realistically possible.  Ham-handedness and lack of nuance are not only the province of the Middle East, the West is guilty of it as well. 

If you threaten Gilo, you’ve threatened Israel.