Monthly Archives: December 2009

Aliya

Posted on December 11, 2009 | 3 Comments

    Reports are that American aliya this past year totaled almost 4000 souls. It may not sound like a lot, and total yerida from Israel (a closely held secret) may far exceed total aliya, but it is nonetheless a remarkable achievement. It is made even more astonishing by the anecdotal evidence of the olim themselves. There are few large Jewish communities today in which aliya, or plans for aliya, does not figure widely in people’s calculations. In my community, almost fifteen families – our members or children of our members – ascended to the Land of Israel in the last six months.  Why is it more common today than in years past – indeed, in the United States, the highest number since after the Yom Kippur War?

    [CAVEAT: Most American Rabbis shy away from discussing aliya for the most obvious reason: it usually generates the tart and uncomfortable question: “so why don’t you go?” Or, if he says he will, then “why don’t you go already?” – the latter, a question that many congregants are thinking, in any event. Preachers should set the example, and lead. Of course, if the pro-aliya Rabbinate left America, then there would be no pro-aliya Rabbinate in America, and we would be left listening to those who subtly oppose aliya before of fear of a “brain drain” or the loss to American Jewish life of the most committed Jews. I have always felt that, notwithstanding that challenge and the questions tossed at the Rabbi, it was as important to speak about aliya as any other mitzvah, and leave my personal situation aside. ]

    A number of reasons present as to the uptick in aliya:

1)      The remarkable success of Nefesh B’Nefesh in putting aliya in the consciousness of American Jewry – remarkable because most Jewish organizations are not very useful in advancing any Jewish agenda and many are downright counterproductive. Nefesh B’nefesh is therefore unique,  and it shows how two people with vision– Rabbi Joshua Fass and Tony Gelbart – and resources can accomplish wonders for the Jewish people. For a fraction of what Jews spend on, e.g., fighting a non-existent Jew-hatred in America (i.e.,  hundreds of millions of dollars annually!), an organization revolutionized American-Jewish life and gave a needed psychological boost to a beleaguered Israel, as well as assisted thousands of Jews in fulfilling this essential mitzva and extraordinary dream. That is, and continues to be, historic, and may their successes only grow. [Disclosure: I received no remuneration for that endorsement !)

2)      Nefesh B’Nefesh made aliya less imposing. Hearing horror stories of olim from 20 years ago, the thought occasionally crossed my mind that Israel’s aliya apparatus was designed to discourage, not encourage, aliya. (True story: I attended an aliya planning meeting many years ago with official representatives from Israel, and their focus was on “things that can go wrong when you send your lift.” Indeed, my only memory of the event was the vivid description of someone who watched all his worldly possessions – in the container – fall from the cargo ship and into the water in New York harbor. I still live in the US.)

      But NBN smoothes the transition, eases – as much as possible – the oleh’s bumpy ride through the Israeli bureaucracy, facilitates the absorption into Israeli life, gives sound and realistic guidance on communities, employment, education, etc. and serves as a continuing resource. Their planning meetings are upbeat and positive without being phony or hokey. In short, NBN is a very professionally run organization that has set a very high standard for Jewish  organizations generally.

3)      Can it be true? That, finally, decades of Religious Zionist education in American yeshivot that emphasized love of Israel, aliya, parades, rallies and the like has succeeded? Well, I don’t know about that. As much as I would like to think this is a compelling factor in the recent renaissance, it is probably just a factor, while not a very compelling one. Interestingly, the Israeli Yeshivot (the post high school programs) gave a much harder aliya sell when I learned in Israel in the 1970’s than they do now. Today, the emphasis is more on shana bet and the continuation of learning Torah after that, and the focus on aliya has waned.

4)      Israel has become a much more livable country from a Western perspective than it was twenty, and certainly thirty years ago. Almost every amenity that makes life in America comfortable – Fox News (!), modern gadgets, spacious homes, culture, even sensibility – can be found in Israel today. And because of the plethora of American olim and Anglo communities, one can move to Israel and not feel like a keren yarok (greenhorn…  And there is no such idiom in Hebrew). The internet, Skype, unlimited telephone access, and the ease and frequency of travel have made the world smaller and the distance between olim and family left behind smaller as well. So the creature comforts are similar, and in a much holier and more Jewishly-rewarding atmosphere.

     But all these reasons pale before the catalyst for the American aliya that NBN has facilitated:

5)      The declining American economy and the excessive cost of living-Jewishly in American today. The financial burdens faced by the average American Jew are, literally, frightening. Factoring only yeshiva tuition, mortgage and health insurance, the average family can face fixed costs of over $100,000 per year before putting a falafel on the dinner table. To most Americans, the notion of someone earning more than six figures and struggling to make ends meet – indeed, even sometimes qualifying for tuition assistance – would be hard to comprehend, but that is the reality for a growing number of families, and a daunting, insurmountable reality for many young ones. For many, to earn an amount of money that provides for the standard of living commensurate with modern Jewish life requires working an inordinate amount of hours – that is to say, working but not really living, and not having much of a family life. 

      And with the health care reform debacle now taking shape in Congress, the Obama administration spending America into bankruptcy (maybe his $1.4 million Nobel Peace Prize haul should be use to pay down some of the $12,000,000,000,000 deficit – that’s trillion, by the way), and the declining economy that is being transformed from one based on free enterprise to one based on state control, it is likely that the situation will get worse, if it ever gets better.

     Who would have ever thought that people would make aliya for financial reasons – i.e., they could more easily prosper in Israel, and have an easier material life (very limited tuition and health care costs)? The bad joke from the 1970’s was: “How do you make a small fortune in Israel? A. Come with a large fortune.” Now, that joke’s on us. A young family is more likely today to live a less-pressured, more economically stable life in Israel than in America – and if not today, then maybe in several more days.

      I have heard Rabbis in Israel opine that America’s economic woes are all part of the divine plan to gather to Israel this last, great Jewish population still largely untapped. I am not that gifted in reading the Divine mind, but who can argue? Those American Jews who insist that Jews must remain here to protect Israel’s political interests in the United States have probably not been following the news recently: the president whom Jews supported more overwhelmingly than any other in history is decidedly cool to Israel, if not to Jews generally. The “influence” argument rings a little hollow today.

      So, for an increasing number of young couples, families with children, and retirees, the return to the Jewish home will proceed apace. We are the last of the exiles to be ingathered, and the most difficult to convince – a reservoir of potential olim not fleeing political persecution but (perhaps?) financial distress. Or, perhaps it is simply the desire to be part of Jewish history, perceive the trends of modern times, and complete the historical circle started almost 2000 years ago. What awaits us is the next great moment in Jewish history.

→ 3 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Israel, Machshava/Jewish Thought

Fighting in the Dark

Posted on December 7, 2009 | 2 Comments

     The miracle of Chanuka was astonishing for a number of reasons, but especially because “the few vanquished the many.” The Maccabim prevailed against overwhelming odds. Yehuda’s forces never numbered more than a few thousand, and in the climactic battle he mustered 10,000 soldiers against 60,000 Syrians – and still defeated the enemy.

      The Maccabim were greatly outnumbered, even though they operated in their home territory (where usually the insurgents have a numerical advantage) because they were a minority force even among Jews. It wasn’t just a case of the Hellenist Jews predominating, although that was also true. It was also because most Jews adopted a wait-and-see attitude, in large part because this was the first time the Jews fought while not under the protective guidance of a prophet, and Chanuka is the only festival that post-dates the Bible. In every other war – the prophets led the way: Moshe, Yehoshua, most of the Judges, David, etc. Even when the Jews were not victorious – usually because they disobeyed the prophet or due to other sins – he was at least in the background and a useful resource.

      But now, Jews were in the dark, literally. Faced with the occupation of our land by the world power, who knew what to do and which paradigm to follow? How could they decide, and what guarantee did they have that the decision was correct ? These questions plagued the Jews of that era, as indeed they trouble us today. To fight, to compromise, to surrender ? To look for allies, or to fight alone ? To seek the support of the majority who may not be imbued with a national or Torah spirit, or to go it alone – a few radicals leading a bunch of sluggards ? How do we decide ? How did they decide ? In Rav Shlomo Aviner’s phrase, what is the proper balance between faith and realism ?

    That question really frames the issue, and in a sense, defines the challenge of Chanuka. Realism dictated that the Maccabim could not defeat the mighty Syrian empire, that the few could not defeat the many – that all the advantages lay with the conqueror, the most powerful empire in the world. But realism would also dictate that the Jews would never leave Egypt, and never conquer the land of Israel, that David could not slay Goliath (it was possible, but the smart money was still on Goliath), never return to the land of Israel, and not be able to retain it today with the international community allied against Jewish nationalism.

     Often, a non-Jew gives us a clearer insight than we could derive ourselves. The famous Italian philosopher, Giambattista Vico, wrote the first philosophy of history in the early 1700’s, called the “New Science about the Common Nature of Nations.” His theory was that nations are like individuals – nations go through infancy, youth, mature, grow old, decay and disappear. All nations suffer this fate, and it is easier to track the ebb and flow of nations than of individuals, whose choices can take them out of the realm of the predictable.  But Vico acknowledged, in 1725, that one nation does not fit the pattern – the Jews. The Jews, he wrote, were an “exceptional people,” who are the beneficiaries of “extraordinary help from the true G-d.” Jewish history is moved by holy forces, not simply political ones.

      And that is the lesson of Chanuka and the motivation of the majestic men of Modiin. It is the idea, post-Biblical times, on which we thrive or stumble. It is easy to have faith when everything is spelled out in the Torah, and the word of G-d reaches us through his prophets – and we know clearly why we win when we win, and why we lose when we lose. That faith is a theoretical one. Yehuda knew what we needed was practical faith, taking that notion out of the books on the shelves of the Bet Midrash – out of the realm of the theoretical and implementing it in our world view, our conduct – as individuals and as a nation. Our realism includes faith; that is to say, it must include awareness of our exceptionalism. We may ignore that too frequently, but we ignore it at our peril.

      This was the miracle of Chanuka, and the eternal lesson of Chanuka in every generation – that we never despair, that even at the darkest moments the miracle of light is near, and we look for the mysterious cruse of oil that suddenly materializes, and heralds the immanence of G-d.

       As a military victory, the triumph of Chanuka was short-lived. But as a clarion call to faith,  to the hand of G-d that is as real to us as anything material, to be active in defense of Torah and the land of Israel – then the wars of the Chashmonaim inspire us until today – in their dedication, in their tenacity, in their faith, and in the miracles they experienced, in those days in this season.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Current Events, Holidays, Jewish History

Whither Modern Orthodoxy?

Posted on December 4, 2009 | 1 Comment

    The utter shrillness of the response to my “Rabbinical News” of last week evoked these conclusions:

1)      Liberals, Voltaire should have said, will defend to the death your right to agree with them. The dismissive contempt found in certain “Modern” Orthodox circles for any person  - certainly Rabbi – who doesn’t toe the official or progressive line should give us all pause. That triggers a…

2)      Defensiveness in which closed minds refuse to re-consider or look again at anything. This is not that uncommon; a piece I wrote a few months ago critical of aspects of Haredi society garnered me some Haredi criticism – and praise as well. See : http://rabbipruzansky.com/2009/08/26/haredi-follies/

3)      Many people are confused about the notion of Mesora. Bet Shammai’s opinions were certainly part of the Mesora, although we generally don’t pasken like them. To cite, therefore, individual opinions (some rejected long ago) as support for innovations today is tacky, and outside the framework of halachic methodology. Let us not conflate creativity and cleverness. One can certainly find individual opinions – creatively interpreted – to support almost any desire that a person has, but desires should not fuel the halachic process. For example, given a few minutes, I could “justify” eating milk right after meat; cheating on taxes; reinstituting pilagshim (concubines – and alleviate the singles’ problem somewhat), venerating a dead Messiah and a host of other practices that would sound bizarre and are outside the four ells of halacha and the norms of Jewish life. And I am neither Houdini nor his Rabbi-father. But it is not scholarship to pick your target and draw a bulls’ eye around it, nor is that a legitimate part of the Mesora.

4)      The labeling of Jews by Jews is abhorrent, and the open distaste – even anger – that some “Modern” Orthodox feel for some Haredim/Yeshivish Jews (and vice versa) is worse. That is why I refuse to label myself, or the community in which I live and work, and prefer to keep learning Torah and having an open mind about issues. I cringe when Modern Orthodox Jews are criticized, and when Haredim are criticized.

5)      I ran to the archives and dug up an article I wrote for our shul (CBY) bulletin in July 2000, more than nine years ago. It is remarkably consistent with what I wrote last week (to detractors, clearly I have shown no “growth” in nine years!), and I re-print here as it remains timely.  It was entitled: “Whither Modern Orthodoxy,” and it was written while I was leading a tour of Spain, hence the Spanish Jewry reference at the end.

 ESSAY:

     “Is it not time to call halt to these wars (between the Orthodox, Conservative and Reform) and learn to live with one another in peace and respect, even if we have profound differences? Now that centuries have passed since the formation of these divisions, perhaps we can come to terms with reality and a way to at least tolerate one another for the sake of the continuation of Judaism”.

     “My sense of what is happening in the Jewish world tells me that there are signs of such a change. Reform has begun to learn a new respect for aspects of tradition it formally rejected. Modern Orthodox circles have closer to the understanding of development within Judaism that has characterized Conservative Judaism.”

       “The willingness of the Israeli government with the agreement of at least one chief rabbi and the silence of the other, to give the Masorti movement a place at the Kotel for prayer is a sign of progress. More and more Modern Orthodox circles are beginning to see that they are not so far from the Conservative movement – both are based on halacha, although they arrive at different conclusions.” (Italics mine)

     So writes Reuven Hammer, one of the leaders of the Masorti (Conservative) movement, in a June edition of the Jerusalem Post. To be sure, his declaration that Conservative Judaism is faithful to halacha is an old canard, demonstrably false, and quite unremarkable. It is his assertion that Modern Orthodoxy is moving closer to the methodology of Conservatism and even is “not so far from the Conservative movement” that is cause for analysis, if not outright alarm. Regardless whether or not his claim is true, why would he think such a thing? What is happening in our world that would lead a Conservative spokesman to rejoice in the blurred distinction between “Modern” Orthodoxy and Conservative Judaism, long recognized by all shades of Orthodoxy as deviationist, non-halachic “stream” of Judaism?

      Conservative “psak” deviates from traditional Judaism in a number of essential ways (including a new “interpretation” of the mesorah from Sinai), but primarily in its focus – in the first instance – on a particular, desired result. Traditionally, halacha is process oriented, not result-oriented. The decisor analyzes the question, determines the central point at issue, and investigates the halachic precedents. The result emerges only after the process has been faithfully completed.

     The Conservatives begin the process with a desired result in mind (abolishing the mechitza, permitting cohanim to marry divorcees, counting women in the minyan, etc.) They are quite adept at manipulating the halacha to achieve that result, twisting and turning the words of our sages until they are “saying” what the Conservatives want them to say. And where that is impossible – even distortion has its limits – the Conservatives will simply assert that “times have changed, “the Rabbis were biased or insensitive”, or they are “irrelevant in these progressive times”.

      Apparently, Reuven Hammer perceives that a certain segment of Modern Orthodoxy, a left-wing fringe, has adopted a halachic methodology similar to that of his own movement. “Solutions” to halachic or social problems are demanded, even if halachic process is thrown to the wind. “A user-friendly halacha is desired, anything not explicitly prohibited (and even some things which are) is permitted, and there is often a palpable discomfort with tradition. Individuals who flout halachic convention are labeled brave or courageous, rather than exposed as charlatans. And halacha never stands in the way of good time.

      Thus, there are “modern” orthodox communities where swimming and organized athletic competitions for adults are acceptable Shabbat activities. The wearing of tzizit by adult males is shunned, and tzniut generally takes a back-sear to the latest fashions. Liberties are taken with kashrut outside the home, and Talmud Torah often becomes a treasure – hunt for leniencies.

     Pandering to the spirit of the times, women’s “grievances” against the halacha have taken center stage. New forms of worship have been created, oblivious to its trivialization of halacha and potential harm to the community. Flippant “solutions” to the ancient and vexing agunah problem have been extolled as reflecting greatness and creativity, despite their dubiousness. The question, “when will the Rabbis free agunot?” recurs with increasing passion, and sometimes disrespect, an approach that would never surface with another professional question, such as, “when will the doctors cure cancer?”

      The whole notion of asking a she’elah (halachic question) has been undermined, as questioners seek out Rabbis who have been pre-selected to tell them what expect to hear. It is no wonder that I am unable to think of even one book of responsa produced in the 100 years of American Modern Orthodoxy.

       In a recent book by a self-described Orthodox feminist, the author writes why she chose to remain Orthodox despite the “problems”: “It is what I inherited and it belongs to me. I am committed to the ennobling elements of the religion: a vast, rich literature, a dramatic history and strong collective memory, a serious concern for ethics and justice, a dignified framework for daily living and an overriding sense of community. I have been enriched by constructing a Jewish identity, developing a Jewish consciousness, and sharing codes and languages with Jews around the world.”

     What is missing from this eloquent account of her Torah commitment? That the Torah is true, that it is G-d’s word, and that halacha is the reflection of His will. These basic foundations of Torah life are unstated, and thus the author reserves for herself the right to change the halacha wherever and whenever she finds “inequity” or aspects of Torah life that are not “ennobling” to her. What is lacking is the surrender of the heart and mind to G-d’s will, which is at the core of the Torah personality and the essence of Kabbalat Ol Malchut Shamayim (acceptance of the yoke of G-d’s kingship).

      Rather than learn what the Torah has to say, the fringe element tries to get the Torah to say what it wants to hear. Thus the expressed discontent with the roshei Yeshiva at so-called Modern Orthodox institutions when their decisions do not conform to the “popular” will. A colloquy I recently overheard: Someone asserted that “the Roshei Yeshiva are out of touch with the masses”, to which the (proper) response was: “perhaps the masses are out-of-touch with the Torah”.

       To be sure, most Modern Orthodox Jews do not subscribe to this distortion of their ideology at all and would recoil in horror at the suggestion that they are casually being lumped together with non-halachic streams. This group carries on the Modern Orthodoxy of prior generations on other continents: confronting and engaging modernity without fully embracing it. In doing so, they remain faithful to Halacha inside and outside the home, conduct themselves as Bnai and Bnot Torah, ask she’elot and genuinely seek Torah guidance. Their Shabbat is sacred and not a prelude to (or pale imitation of) Sunday, and their Torah study is genuine, sincere and spirited. They honor and appreciate Rabbis and Roshei Yeshiva, The women revel and excel in their Torah-designated roles, and are fulfilled and content with Torah and life itself, And this group – proud bearers of banner of Modern Orthodoxy – are perceived as obstacles to the “development” of Modern Orthodoxy by the fringe elements whose cause is championed by the secular “Jewish” media.

      Reuven Hammer has unwittingly sent a wake-up call to all of Modern Orthodoxy, and exposed the path of which many have chosen to tread – a path littered with thorns and thistles and which leads toward an abyss. Is he wrong? Has he overstated his case to rationalize his own heresies? Is his comparison of Conservatism and Modern Orthodoxy wishful thinking on his part? Or has he touched a raw nerve that should inspire all of us to gaze into our heart and minds, uncover our true inner world and open our souls to the truth of Torah?

      Spanish Jewry, perhaps the first Modern Orthodox Jews, became fully integrated in the culture and society of medieval Spain. They foundered and eventually disintegrated in a wave laxity of observance, forced and unforced conversions, massacres and expulsions. Only we can determine whether we will behold a similar decline, or tenaciously grasp the tree of life in the way which has sustained the Jewish people until today.     END

     Again, that was written in July 2000. The more things change, the more they remain they same. And what will be of Torah, and the Jewish people ?

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Machshava/Jewish Thought

The News of “Rabbinical News”

Posted on December 1, 2009 | 5 Comments

Well, who would’ve thought that ?

My piece on “Rabbinical News,” the implications of a new rabbinical organization, drew an avalanche of a response. I average 2000 hits a month. That column generated 2000 hits in a day. The question is: why? And what does it say about philosophical and halachic discourse in the Jewish world today ?

The torrent of comments was also fascinating. There were a significant number of favorable responses, and a number of people with reasonable, and reasonably-stated, disagreements. And then there was the invective, usually in the short-hand of the simple-minded: “anti-women, hates women, ugly, Neanderthal,” and the like. And the comments focused mostly on one issue: not my contemplations on the differences between Roshei Yeshiva and pulpit Rabbis, nor on halachic methodology, or even much about homosexuals or converts; it was almost exclusively a polemic – on both sides – about women’s issues.

Some might think that the exaggerated interest in my musings stemmed from the titillation of having Rabbis disagree, and in public no less. While that might be true, I found it hard to accept. Rabbis – like people generally, and like members of any profession – will often disagree about matters great and small. It need not be personalized, nor should one ever conclude that a disagreement means that the “other side” is necessarily wrong, or therefore “bad people” who should not be allowed in civil society.

A “machloket,” I assume, was not always perceived the way it is today. Abaye and Rava (yeah, yeah, no one is Abaye and Rava here) did not engender the support of partisan factions in their several thousand areas of conflict. (Typical conversation on the Babylonian blogs in the 4th century CE: “Supporters of Rava: ‘Have you heard? Our master Rava says that when a married woman is accused of infidelity by only one witness, and does not deny it, the one witness is still not believed. But Abaya says that the solitary witness is believed! [Kiddushin 66a] He must be anti-woman, that troglodyte!’” Typical ? Somehow, I don’t think so.)

The hostile reaction here was so visceral that I could only conclude that, contrary to traditional halachic methodology, people are emotionally vested in a certain outcome. Like the rabid sports fan who supports his favorite team and wants them to win at all costs – even if they cheat, even if the umpire or referee blows a call [“a win is a win”] – one group of polemicists wants its side to win. They have little interest in halachic process, but rather a passionate desire for a particular result. I have thought, on occasion, that what passes for “Modern Orthodox” scholarship these days is often the search for the one obscure opinion, rishon or acharon, who will permit the interested to do what they have already decided they are going to do. But that is gamesmanship. I, too, am often in the position of having a particular desire frustrated by the halacha’s conclusion of “no, you can’t” or “yes, you must,” and, to my thinking, that is the essence of the subservience to G-d that is expected of the religious personality.

Just like not “everything” should be instinctively prohibited, so too not “everything” can be permitted, our sincere, heartfelt desire for same notwithstanding. When people are quick to pejoratively label their ideological adversaries, then we have left the realm of Torah discourse and entered a world of closed minds and tunnel vision. Part of the venom (and I underscore that many of those who disagreed were quite polite, and I do not refer to them at all) came, I think, because such views from a “Charedi” can be easily dismissed, but not so readily from a non-Charedi. In truth (and can there be anything more trite and self-serving than what follows here ?), I try not to pigeonhole myself as Charedi, modern, yeshivish, centrist, etc. I try to call ‘em as I see ‘em, and so do not neatly fit in any category – laudatory of the strengths and critical of the weaknesses of each group, as I see ‘em, and myself as well. And each group plays an instrument in the great orchestra of Klal Yisrael; we just have to ensure that everyone is playing from the same sheet music.

I reiterate what I consider the central aspect of the article: “The real dividing line in Jewish life today is between those who are happy with the mesora and those unhappy with the mesora.” I have always been surrounded by men and women – family, friends and teachers (both male and female) – who are content with the Mesora, and surely that has influenced my views. But just like the Torah should not be used as “a spade with which to dig” – a tool to satisfy our wishes and desires – so too it should not be used as “a crown to aggrandize oneself” – to feel superior to those who struggle with aspects of the Mesora that fly in the face of the cultural winds that swirl around us. We are each at a different place on the continuum to complete “Kabbalat Ol Malchut Shamayim” and we would do well to encourage each other – build each other up by having honest discussions motivated by love of Torah and the Jewish people – and not attempt to belittle dissenting opinions and those who hold them.

Then, indeed, the Torah will be “a tree of life for those who grasp it” and the source of all good and happiness for us and the world.

→ 5 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Machshava/Jewish Thought, Philosophy