Inadequate Denominations

I’ve been arguing for a while, on-blog and in real life, that denominations are political conveniences and not ideologies. I think that Dov Bear’s question about the razor-thin line between Orthodoxy and Conservatism, as well as his observation (which is only impressive to someone who lives in a community like Woodmere; for us ‘out-of-towners’ it’s obvious) regarding the difficulty in drawing clear boundaries, fundamentally misunderstands the nature and function of denominating in the first place. It’s politically convenient for a synagogue in Boise, Idaho to align itself with a national organization that can help provide it with material and human resources. Thus, it will choose one of the ‘Big Three’ national organizations: OU, US, or UAHC. Of course, a UAHC Temple in Boise might look nothing like the one in, say, Tallahassee, religiously or socially, they are both, officially, ‘Reform’. The same applies to any of the other three. Of course, there are evolving standards. A Mechitza wasn’t always a sine qua non for membership in the OU, but it is now.

[There are a few ‘traditional’ congregations left, where there’s no mechitza, very few members are observant, but they insist on things like an Orthodox Rabbi whose job it is to make ‘ha-motzi’ at sisterhood functions. The only elements of tradition that it adheres to are those which keep the people unempowered. Let’s call it ‘Misogydoxy’ or ‘Ignoramodoxy’].

The main point is, that having denominations are a political necessity, which provide a great boon to those who want to slide comfortably into religious roles. “I don’t do that; I’m Reform”, or “I’m not Shomer Negi’ah, I’m Modern Orthodox”, etc. Once I label myself, I can basically continue to act out of habit, but the habit now has a name and, ostensibly, and ideology that someone, somewhere has articulated.

It can become pretty unsettling when those comfortable labels continue to evolve. I’ll repeat that in case you missed it: the labels evolve. What one meant by ‘Orthodox’ or ‘Conservative’ 50 years ago isn’t what one means by their use today. The social group that calls itself ‘Orthodox’ has evolved, and the connotation of the term has evolved accordingly.

Of course, there are members of any group who cease to evolve. These are the people who scream about ‘YU moving to the right’. To the right of what? Are they making up new halakhot? Are today's Roshei Yeshiva articulating a philosophy that’s radically different from or to the right of the philosophy of, say, R’ Dovid Lifschitz or R’ Yerucham Gorelick?

No. The Modern Orthodox community has evolved. Some of its members haven’t. They respond by trying to invent time-warps where we can all go back to the 50s or by creating brand-new categories like ‘Open Orthodoxy’ so that they can continue to feel comfortable within a label.

Ultimately, though, denominations aren’t religious categories. It’s not that there aren’t religious differences between the denominations, rather, that identification with one or the other particular denomination isn’t a religious choice, rather, a political choice. When discussing the religious possibilities, there are many more than 3 or 4 alternatives. There are thousands, perhaps even 600,000, alternatives. We’d do well not to confuse political and social differences with genuine religious differences.

I’ll end with a line from Zalman Shazar’s memoirs, quoted by Levinas on p. 149 of In Time of Nations, discussing the categories of ‘assimilationism’ versus ‘nationalism’, a conflict which was plaguing the contemporaries of his youth:

“I remember a private conversation in which the baron [David Gunzberg] tried to convince be that the concepts “nationalism” and “assimilation”, which I used in speaking to my comrades, were “inadequate”…he produced the absolute, irrefutable argument: Maimonides! How could I define Maimonides, using the concepts I thought so solid? Would I say that Maimonides was a national thinker? But didn’t he live on the summits of world thinking in his time, his mind full of Greek wisdom, the friend of the princes of thought not from our land, writing his books in Arabic,…persecuted thereafter by the “faithful keepers of the walls” among our people? But…who summarized and organized the Halakhah for his and all future generations? Who formulated the principles of the Jewish credo…?

“It must therefore be recognized that the notions “national” and “assimilated”, so familiar to myself and my generation, do not express the complexity of the real, and are not suitable to their object.”

This should be required reading to anyone who would try to label RYBS as ‘Modern’ or “Ultra” Orthodox, RSL or RDW-H as ‘Orthodox’ or ‘Conservative’, or to cut F. Rosenzweig, Heschel, or Levinas himself down to size.

‘Yehei Shmei Rabbah with all your…’

This rather well-known Gemara came up in the Daf earlier this week. It’s actually the earliest mention of any part of Kaddish.

I remember growing up and sitting in shul near people who literally screamed ‘yehei shmei Rabbah’. This practice was apparently encouraged at the ‘siyum shas’ last year (see my posts on ‘Jewish Evangelism’).

The problem is that it’s not the prevalent understanding of the Gemara. The language of the Gemara is ‘be-kol kocho’ which means ‘with all his strength’. Rashi and Tosafot both understand this to mean ‘with all his focus’. Rambam clearly differentiates ‘kol kocho’ from qol ram’. Tosafot also quote a Psikta which indicates that a loud voice is preferable, but it’s not clear if the Psikta argues with the Bavli or explains it, but it’s not how at least the Rishonim that I’ve seen understand it.

So for the sake of those of us who like davenning without the howling, let’s be someich on Rashi, Tosafos and Rambam.

Thou Shalt Not Erect Monoliths

I’ve written about the Rambam’s take on the Mitzvah of ‘Tamim Tihiyeh’, in this weeks parsha, a while ago. There’s another mitzvah in the parsha that I find to be very fertile for an admonition of many elements of the contemporary scene. As the title reflects, there’s aBiblical prohibition, at the beginning of the parsha, against setting up ‘matzeivot’. As Rashi points out, and as is clear from the usage in Bereishis, a matzeivah is a monolith, a single stone that is erected to become the focus of the worship of a particular deity. A mizbei’ach was made of many stones, and was a locus of animal sacrifice.

The strange part, and many commentators ask this, is that if the Torah was offended, as Rashi claims, by monoliths because they were used in pagan worship, then why aren’t mizbeichot guilty by the same association?

The main approach to resolving this question within the commentators is to describe a monolith as something intrinsically bad, or endemic to paganism, as opposed to a mizbei’ach which is described as being a tool for worship in general.

Of course, all answers are constrained by the fact that the Patriarchs erected monoliths. It’s not acceptable to most commentators, nor to myself, to say that reports of the Patriarchs’ erection of monoliths are from the Elohist whereas the prohibition is from the Deuteronomist. Similarly, it’s not acceptable to most commentators (but I’m personally OK with it) to suggest that the theology of the Partiarchs was underdeveloped and monolatrous’ or ‘henotheistic’.

There’s an approach that I’ve heard as attributed to the Maharal, that basically understands the problem with monoliths as being, well, monolithic. One idea, or theory, or path, or way of thinking becomes so gigantic to as to preclude anything else from intruding. In the dictionary.com definition: “characterized by massiveness and rigidity and total uniformity”, like Stalinism or Chabad.

The Maharal can understand that the Patriarchs would be monolithic; when one introduces a new idea, a new way, there’s no way for that founder to conceive of his project from several angles, in several models, with the contribution and production of many disparate elements. When something progresses from being an individual issue to being a communal issue, monoliths become dangerous in that they overwhelm dissent and diversity.

It seems that God doesn’t want to be worshipped monolithically.

An Apt Metaphor for Daf Yomi

I’ve gone from being a Daf Yomi weekend warrior to 4 days a week (giving the shiur), which obviously also means that I’ve got to keep pace so I know what’s going on (though I’m dismayed to see how easy it is to simply skip a daf).

Yesterday, I was heading to the daf when I saw a sign posting for a ‘Speed Dating’ event. Speed dating is when you get a bunch of people in a room (preferably with gender balance), two people sit at a table, shmooz for a few minutes to barely get to know the other person, and then the whistle blows and it’s time to change partners).

As I continued on to the Beis Medrash where the shiur is held, I realized that Daf Yomi is just like Speed Dating. You get to spend enough time to get a sense that there’s something there that might be worth exploring or developing, the curiosity is piqued, and then it’s time to go on to the next one.

R' Lichtenstein and Modern Orthodoxy

Imagine the following scenario: Somehow, every Rabbi in Israel is compelled to go to Binyanei Ha-Umah and locked in with the following instruction: nobody leaves until you decide on a single individual who will be reinstated with the original semikhah, invested with the power to authoritatively decide the normative meaning of the Torah, to share that authority with others, and to grant the authority to adjudicate the full range of legal issues that may arise. It would become clear pretty quickly that factionalism and ideology, not to mention politics, would take over the discussion. But a mandate is a mandate; nobody is leaving. Pretty quickly, it would become clear that the person chosen would have to be a 'compromise' candidate, not in the sense that he's not the most accomplished or greatest, but in the sense that his own personal stances are most agreeable to most people. Someone conservative by nature, but fully articulate and capable of expressing religious ideas in a contemporary, if obtuse, manner. He would be a staunch traditionalist, and an exemplar of proper religious behavior and attitude, yet have his eyes wide open to contemporary ideas and reality. He would need to be fully at home in both the language of the tradition, and the language of current international discourse. After much debating and deliberating, it would be clear that the obvious choice would be Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein.

Granted, the entire scenario is unrealistic (unfortunately). But to reinforce that, given the scenario, the outcome itself is likely, note that the current Pope was selected by a very similar process

I have not yet begun to read works of Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), though I plan to, but I've heard and read that his basic attitude and relationship with contemporary thought is very similar in many ways. Of course, they both draw from the writings and legacy of perhaps the greatest hero of faith in the face of the condition of modernity, John Henry Cardinal Newman

Newman, an Oxford professor, Anglican by birth, training, and life, converted to Catholicism and thereby provoked the ridicule of his colleagues. His autobiographical defense of his own religious experiences and choices, the Apologia Pro Vita Sua, remains a masterpiece of modern religious thought.

Regardless of R' Lichtenstein's location along the spectrum of modern and postmodern religious thinkers, his ability to digest the full range of encounter between the Halakhic community and its interface with the contemporary world, and articulate both problem and solution in contemporary language is of tremendous significance to each and every one of us. We are fortunate to belong to his generation.

The Name I Call Myself

The following question can be applied to any named group: Did they name themselves, or were they named by others? I think the answer to this question can go a long way to understanding the formation and development of the group.

As a very simple example, whites were the first to call blacks 'black', and vice versa. That's a no-brainer. Here are some others:

Ultra-Orthodox - nobody ever calls themselves Ultra-anything. This is a moniker invented by those who wish to believe that a certain group is extreme.
on the other hand, the term
Chareidi is a form of self-identification, originally applying the usage from the Book of Ezra, where the community of returnees refers to itself as those who 'tremble at the Word of God'. It appears several times throughout the book.

The term Orthodox in general was used by the original reformers to refer to halakha-observant Jews. It actually had (and to my mind, STILL has) a negative connotation of rigidity and self-importance. It doesn't do justice to the multiplicity of ideas and lifestyles that are possible within a halakhic framework. It's a bad moniker for halakha observant lifestyles.

It's not the first time that adherents of Rabbinic (or proto-Rabbinic) Judaism have been thus victimized. The term 'Pharisee' or 'Prushi' was invented by members of other communities (see 3rd Chapter of Mishna Yadayim; the only time that the term 'Prushi' is ever used by Chaza"l is when it's placed in the mouths of the Zadokites (who actually called themselves the 'Sons of Zadok')).

I think that understanding the origins and meanings of these terminologies help us to avoid being trapped by them. We're not going to be able to eradicate the somewhat derogatory term 'Orthodox' or 'Ultra-Orthodox' from the standard vocabulary; it is possible, however, to expand their meanings and allow these conventional terms to signify more than their original narrow meanings.

Ekev: The Little Things and the 'Greater Good'

יב וְהָיָה עֵקֶב תִּשְׁמְעוּן, אֵת הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים הָאֵלֶּה, וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם וַעֲשִׂיתֶם, אֹתָם--וְשָׁמַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְךָ, אֶת-הַבְּרִית וְאֶת-הַחֶסֶד, אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע, לַאֲבֹתֶיךָ.

And it shall come to pass, because ye hearken to these ordinances, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God shall keep with thee the covenant and the mercy which He swore unto thy fathers

Rashi, ad loc.

רש"י דברים פרק ז פסוק יב

(יב) והיה עקב תשמעון - אם המצות הקלות שאדם דש בעקביו תשמעון:
ושמר ה' וגו' - ישמור לך הבטחתו

If you will listen (lit. 'On the heels of your listening') - If you listen to the 'light' mitzvot that everyone tramples with their heels
And God will observe his... - He will keep his promise to you

It seems that the second part of Rashi is pointing out that this 'vav' is a conjunction which connects the two sides of an 'if...then' statement, in distinction from the 'vav's of the preceding words. The startling part is the first part - it's all about the details. The little 'mishpatim' which we take lightly.

We might be tempted to say that Rashi's instructing us to be vigilant about the observance of lesser rituals, like washing mayim acharonim or putting on one's shoes and socks in the proper order. The things which are possibly or probably obligatory, but which we tend to trample.

However, the verse refers to mishpatim specifically. These generally include what we refer to as civil law, social regulations, and torts. It can also include not-regulatory mitzvot such as tzedakah and chesed, taking care of widows and orphans, welcoming the stranger, etc. If this is the case, the implications Rashi's words are radically altered and incredibly profound. It's the 'little' and 'trampled', routine engagement with other people which form the bread and butter of observing the mishpatim and thereby fulfilling the covenant. It could be that in reality the term 'mishpatim' here refers to all of the Torah's commandments, but one can't escape the formulation which refers specifically to justice.

This came home earlier today, when I read the following passage, which was penned by the Russian-Jewish author Vasily Grossman in Life and Fate, and cited in full by Levinas in a chapter of In the Time of Nations entitled 'Beyond Memory', on p. 91:

...I do not believe in the good, I believe in kindness...Not even Herod shed blood in the name of evil...

Humanity had never yet heard those words [from the New Testament - AR]: "Judge not, that ye shall not be judged...Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you. Bless them that curse you. Pray for those who curse you..."
What did that doctrine of peace and love bring to humanity? The tortures of the Inquisition, the struggle against heresies in France, Italy, and Germany, the war between Catholics and Protestants...

I have been able to see in action the implacable force of the idea of social good born in our country (i.e., Russia - AR). I saw it again in 1937; I saw that in the name of an idea of good as humane as Christianity, people were exterminated. I saw entire villages starving; in Siberia I saw the children of deported peasants dying in the snow...

There exists, side by side with this so terrible greater good, human kindness in everyday life. It is the kindness of an old lady who gives a piece of bread to a convict along the roadside. It is the kindness of a soldier who holds his canteen out to a wounded enemy. The kindness of youth taking pity on old age, the kindness of a peasant who hides a Jew in his barn. It is the kindness of those prison gaurds who risk their own freedom, smuggle the letters of prisoners out to wives and mothers...

The history of man is the struggle of evil trying to crush the tiny seed of humanity. But if even now the human has not been killed in man, evil will never prevail.

Levinas himself asks about this passage:

"Were these truths lying dormant in a forgotten corner of some letters or syllables of the Scripture- only to awaken as Word of God in the Jewish and non-Jewish suffering of the twentieth century?"

Shabbat Shalom

Defenses of R' A. Shapira

Link to two responses to R' Lichtenstein's letter to R' Avraham Kahana-Shapira:
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/11/ART/975/919.html

I haven't read them yet, but when I do, I hope to post a summary or a link to whomever posts an English translation.

To be sure, I'm posting these links in the spirit of Beit Hillel, who recorded and taught the positions of their oponents.

The Evolution of a Gadol

If you've seen what the Godol has been posting about lately, you might be surprised to know that he was the author of the following comment on this blog seven months ago:

Great post. However, evolution of religion is a slippery slope. Whats to stop me saying that Judaism has evolved away from having to do these silly rituals. Sure, in the old days they were required, but nowadays we have a more sophisticated understanding of G-d. Or is that where you were heading with this ?

--
Posted by Godol Hador to ADDeRabbi - 'ATAR DI BEI YECHDUN RUCHIN VE-NAFSHIN' at 1/21/2005 12:02:34 AM