Rabbi Pruzansky's Blog

John Kennedy’s Pulitzer-Prize winning book (1956) “Profiles in Courage” is worth two readings, for it is as inspirational and timely today as when it was published.  Elegantly written by then-Senator Kennedy while he was convalescing from serious back surgery (I know, I know, everyone says Ted Sorensen actually wrote it; no matter), the book tells the story of nine Senators who exhibited political courage that, in their day and now, was exceedingly rare. Each Senator defied his party, and sometimes long-held convictions, to do what he thought was right at the time, even if widely unpopular. Some Senators won universal acclaim and re-election, others were disdained by the electorate and tossed from office at the first opportunity.

Bear in mind that until 1913, Senators were not elected by popular vote but were appointed by each state legislature. Thus the Senate was perceived more as a House of Lords than directly reflective of the people’s will, and many have argued – rightly so – that the caliber of Senator was much higher before he had to seek election like lesser politicians. (Kennedy himself almost concedes as much.) Most of the “courageous” Senators were then offending not their political bases – the citizens – but the small cadre of voters in the respective legislatures. And yet each acted in accordance with their consciences in defiance of the perceived wisdom and judgment of the time, and even when Kennedy admits that they might have been wrong (each decision was either appropriately liberal or too liberal) the courage they displayed was itself admirable.

Several Senators were caught in the maelstrom of the slavery debate – Daniel Webster, eloquent abolitionist acceding to the continuation of the Fugitive Slave Laws; Thomas Hart Benton, a staunch Southerner, agreeing to the non-extension of slavery to new states and territories – both in order to ensure the passing of the Compromise of 1850 to avert secession and civil war, and both vilified for it. Neither was a shrinking violent. Webster was one of the great orators of all time (without speechwriter or teleprompter), mesmerizing the audience with a speech on this occasion that schoolchildren were taught for decades and knowing he would be denounced by his strongest supporters. Benton – well, Benton can speak for himself. To another Senator:  “I never quarrel, sir. But sometimes I fight, sir; and whenever I fight, sir, a funeral follows, sir.”

Edmund Ross of Kansas – a bitter foe of President Andrew Johnson – nevertheless cast the decisive vote (against the will of his state and his own expressed determination to rid the country of that “traitor” to the South) that acquitted Johnson in his impeachment trial, simply because Ross felt the evidence to convict was insufficient. He was threatened (telegram from 1000 Kansans: “Kansas has heard the evidence and demands the conviction of the President;” Ross’ reply: “I do not recognize your right to demand that I vote either for or against conviction. I have taken an oath to do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, and trust that I shall have the courage to vote according to the dictates of my judgment and for the highest good of the country.”) He was offered a bribe of $20,000. (“There is a bushel of money! How much does the damned scoundrel want ?”) He voted “not guilty.” Friends offered him their pistols so he could shoot himself. He saved the Presidency, and perhaps the nation still torn by the aftermath of the Civil War, but was rejected for re-election and sentenced to a life of near-poverty.

Similarly, Mississippi’s Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar voted to accept the Commission Report that awarded the disputed presidential election of 1876 to Rutherford Hayes – anathema to the South. He too was subsequently reviled, as was George Norris, Republican of Nebraska, who voted against America’s entry into World War I, and Robert Taft (who died just a few years before the book was published), Mr. Republican of Ohio, who sabotaged his own presidential ambitions by opposing the Nuremberg Trials as ex post facto justice and a perversion of American ideals.

The common denominators were that they followed their consciences, an inner sense of right and wrong that transcended both party and crass political considerations, and displayed the sort of audacity that is both uncommon and unexpected today.

Kennedy wrote (again, it was 1955!): “Our political life is becoming so expensive, so mechanized and so dominated by professional politicians and public relations men that the idealist who dreams of independent statesmanship  is rudely awakened by the necessities of election and accomplishment.” It is a point well taken, exacerbated today because every politician’s every statement, musing, thought, decision or promise is recorded for all eternity, to be played over and over again by the mass media if he deviates one iota. He advocates what has become exceedingly rare today – the elected official who does not reflect public opinion in every vote but sees himself as elected by the people to vote his conscience and exercise his judgment, not theirs. But even Kennedy admits that might easily be a formula for electoral defeat – in which case what has the person really accomplished ? He might have been able to make a greater difference, even better serve the people, if he compromised on some issues in order to attain his cherished objectives.

Therein lies the irony of his theme as it relates to today’s politics. The lament of the Obama White House and the Democrat establishment is that the Republicans “refuse to compromise.” I.e., the Republicans  – in large part, although not completely and not all of them sincerely – refuse to continue being the “tax collectors for the welfare state” (as Newt Gingrich – a name back in the news – once famously derided the Bob Dole Republicans). There has always been an expectation in Washington that when all the shouting and screaming stopped and all the name-calling subsided, both parties would come to their “senses” and raise taxes and distribute the burgeoning government pie to their favored constituencies.

But that “courage to compromise” is really cowardice, as well as a classic example of failed politicians who do not act in the public interest but simply see the levers of government as their ticket to re-election, power and wealth. The Tea Party has tried to end that, to the consternation of official Washington; whether they will succeed or fail (i.e., be corrupted) remains to be seen. It is easy for Republicans to get sucked in to the mindset that the system is broken, so they might as well exploit it for their own purposes – more spending, earmarks, special deals, insider trades, etc. Courage for the Republican is to hold firm, steadfastly refuse to increase taxes or spending, and shrink government. (Americans seem to love “big government,” especially when someone else – the rich! – are paying for it.) But true courage would be a Democrat flouting his party, and voting to decrease spending, limit government’s power, and allow people to exercise personal responsibility over their own lives. That would be courageous, but electorally foolhardy as the Democrat base essentially feeds off the government trough.
For sure, courage comes in many forms and can be found (or missed) in many professions. There are many rabbis who keep silent in the face of adversity, challenges, or assaults on Torah, Israel or the Jewish people simply because it is convenient to remain silent – who will never act until they see who else is acting. They are not leaders in any sense. Kennedy often quoted Dante: “the hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in a time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality,” or, I suppose, just vote “present” rather than commit themselves.

Conversely, Andrew Jackson was fond of saying, “One man with courage makes a majority.” It is no shame to be a minority in a worthy cause; no human being was ever in a smaller minority that our father Avraham.

But the courageous man is himself a majority, and such can and should be found in every person, every profession and every walk of life, and among good people everywhere.

The secular media’s knowledge of Judaism ranges from the commonplace to the laughably ignorant. The Daily Mail last month captioned a phonograph of Jared Kushner walking on Succot with his wife and child, and carrying a lulav and etrog, as holding some sort of “bouquet of flowers” for his wife.       Several years ago, the august New York Times Magazine, discussed the banishment of the yetzer hara in early Mishnaic times, and translated the Anshei Knesset Hagedola (Men of the Great Assembly) as “men from a great synagogue.” The Newark Star Ledger once described as among the outreach efforts of non-Orthodox Jews in Lakewood to the Christian population as “inviting them to sit shiv’a with us.” How thoughtful.

We expect more, of course, from Jewish media, but without much justification for that sentiment. Thus, many read JTA’s report last week of an “Orthodox Rabbi” officiating at a same-sex marriage in Washington DC. Whatever the rabbi is, and whatever his personal qualities, Orthodox he is not. An avowed homosexual himself, who lives with his partner with their newly-adopted child, the person in question certainly has strayed far from Orthodoxy. Such conduct is naturally described as brave, courageous, and daring – but it takes neither bravery nor courage just to dismiss explicit mandates of the Torah and carry on as if Judaism is a personal heirloom that one can cavalierly discard or distort. Certainly, if a self-described “Orthodox Rabbi” suddenly interrupted Yom Kippur services to invite the congregation to dine on pork and cheeseburgers, that decision might be popular, certainly innovative, but not courageous and daring. No one would entertain that such conduct is permitted by Torah law, and no one would call such a rabbi “Orthodox.”

The derring-do has been greeted mostly by rabbinic silence, born of the preposterousness of the act itself. Most organizations have ignored it, and, on one hand, not unreasonably. For who in his right mind would ever assume that the Torah endorses, celebrates, or permits same-sex marriages? To issue a public denunciation would be tantamount to decrying the Yom Kippur conduct described above, and give the conduct more attention than it deserves.

But on the other hand, the turbulence of Orthodox Jewish life – especially in the antics of its leftist fringe element – is such that allowing this misconduct to pass without protest will enable the confused and bewildered, willfully or unintentionally, to consider that it is within the range of possibility that same-sex marriage can be condoned by the Torah. Silence allows even a small window of doubt to open, and silence allows that doubt to fester and swell.
Jewish law is unequivocal in its condemnation of same-sex relationships – barring the physical contact itself, the seclusion of two homosexuals by themselves in a private room, and, of course, their “marriage” – and this regardless of society’s “evolution.” Indeed, the Gemara (Chulin 92b) underscores that one of the redeeming features of the ancient pagans was that, although they engaged in homosexual activities (in violation of the Noachide laws), even they did not deign to draft “marriage contracts for males.”

Perhaps the “rabbi’s” Torah study never encompassed that tractate. It apparently excluded several others as well. One hopes that he finds some internal peace and contentment, and remains faithful.

For sure, there is an element of sadness that attaches both to the event and its criticism, and therefore a simple protest and media advisory suffices. No one wants to pile on. The plight of the avowed homosexual evokes sympathy and pain, but even that must defer to a clear articulation of the truth of Torah. If it was clear from which institution the “rabbi” received his ordination, they too should issue a demurral. Rumor has it that the institution from which he claims ordination denies actually ordaining him.

No matter. It is sufficient to reiterate the obvious, enunciated by a broad spectrum of Rabbis and announced by the Rabbinical Council of America not long ago: “the Torah, which forbids homosexual activity, sanctions only the union of a man and a woman in matrimony.”

That is clear, definitive and authoritative. Media – Jewish and secular – take notice. And never assume that a Jew on staff is necessarily an expert on, or even remotely familiar with, Judaism. The “men from a great synagogue,” and their followers, deserve no less.

This is only for those with time on their hands, but two very provocative essays, the first by Rav Yitzchak Adlerstein and the second by Rav Michael Broyde, provoked much thought across our small world, and prompted my response below.

http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2011/09/27/modern-orthodoxy-at-a-crossroads-2/

http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2011/11/09/modern-orthodoxy-is-always-at-the-crossroads/

Paradoxically, I found myself in agreement with both Rav Adlerstein and Rav Broyde in their recent comments on Modern Orthodoxy and the limits of RCA tolerance. Rav Adlerstein lays down the gauntlet in terms of the importance of parameters for RCA inclusion, so we do not define ourselves into irrelevancy, or worse, become a tacit endorser of quasi-heretical notions. And Rav Broyde’s exposition of Modern Orthodoxy as “Always at a Crossroads” is, in many ways, right on point and underscores true areas of difference, especially in the danger of witch hunts and in mandating acceptance of the views of “gedolim” who do not generally share our hashkafat olam. Additionally, the challenge to the “Far Left” of maverick approaches to halacha and minhag that destroy the envelope after first pushing its ends should also engender some necessary soul-searching and perhaps re-visiting of some views.

Yet, if my admiration for Rav Broyde only grows each time he puts ink to paper (or the modern equivalent), I remain troubled by certain assumptions that are made that I believe undermine his overall argument. This is perhaps encapsulated in his summation that states, in pertinent part, that Modern Orthodoxy “incorporates two central values that we cannot live without: Halacha and the best of Western culture.” I am afraid that overstates the case in a way that leaves Modern Orthodoxy bereft of its Torah moorings. Can we really – should we really – equate Halacha and (even the best of) Western culture ? Without Torah, we are nothing, non-existent. Without Western culture, we are like…more than half the rest of the planet. If the Ramban on Chumash was suddenly no longer extant, or the Mishnah Torah disappeared, r”l, we would be orphaned. Can we say the same thing about the loss of Shakespeare, Rembrandt or the Knicks ? (See how easily the world is adapting to the absence of professional basketball.) Is there one Western value not already reflected in the Torah that, if it disappeared tomorrow, we as Torah Jews would sense a loss and openly grieve? There are cherished Western notions – democracy, for one – that are not incompatible with Torah, for sure, but nevertheless, pose a grave threat to international order and safety. Democracy brought both Hitler and Hamas to power, and may leave us trembling from the aftermath of the Arab Spring. So just what are these values we cannot “live without”?  Certainly there are aspects of Western culture that add a positive dimension to our lives, but if they were permanently gone would not even evoke a tear, much less wistfulness or some existential angst. Ki haim chayenu is Torah, nothing else. And science is not a “secular” discipline, insofar as it reflects the revelation of the Creator in nature.

Thus, Rav Broyde’s contention that “The best of the house of Yefet should reside in the house of Shem – the best of western culture should be part of the Jewish community,” is misleading at best. “The beauty of Yefet should be in the tents of Shem” is primarily an admonition that the culture of Yefet should be exalted and ennobled by the influence of the morality of Shem and not descend into the tawdriness and decadence (to which it has), and secondarily (the context of that statement in Megila 9b) that the Greek language – the most beautiful outside of the language of Torah – has a place in the tents of Shem. But the blanket endorsement of the beauty of Yefet in our tents directly contradicts Chazal’s elucidation of this same pasuk in Yoma 10a: “Even though G-d extends Yefet, the divine presence only rests in the tents of Shem.”And therein lies the critical distinction: the culture of Yefet, even in its loftiest state, might find its place in the tents of Shem but can never be equated with it. And our role as the heirs to the tents of Shem is to preserve its purity and moral code and set an example for Yefet.

Therein lies another problem with Rav Broyde’s theses: “It [Modern Orthodoxy] requires that we examine western culture faithfully and diligently to determine that which is best and ought to be incorporated. More subtly, it requires that we recognize that there are things missing from our own tent, so that we ought to acquire them from the outside.” (my bold).

Really ? “Missing from our own tent” flies in the face of the notion of “Torat Hashem Temima” and even more Chazal’s commentary on the pasuk “ki lo davar reik hu mikem – “for it is not an empty thing for you” (Devarim 32:47). The Yerushalmi Peah 1:1 states:  v’im reik hu, mikem hu – “if the Torah appears empty (deficient, missing something), it is in you.” If we sense something missing from our tent, then what is missing is in us, and not in our tent, mipnei she’ein atem yegei’in BaTorah, because we do not exert ourselves sufficiently in the Torah. If we exerted ourselves sufficiently, we would find all we need in the Torah.

To think the Torah is not one’s sole address for moral guidance, or an insufficient venue for one’s spiritual aspirations, is dangerous territory indeed. It lends itself not only to wholesale rejection of parts of the Torah that “offend,” but also to wholesale revisions or original compositions of parts that are deemed “missing” and need to be restored or supplemented.

Needless to say, I don’t suspect this is Rav Broyde’s credo; I do sense it animates what is called the “Far Left.” They find fault with the Torah, openly criticize and often demean Chazal, and – this is barely concealed – are often disappointed when the Torah does not conform to current but transient moral norms. But most of us are happy with the Torah, if occasionally disappointed in ourselves, and the drive to incorporate western values in Torah – or make the Torah subservient to or the handmaiden of western values – is a well known dead end for Jews. Not every desideratum of modern life should be part of Torah just because it is modern or desired. And not every value embraced by Jews – egalitarianism comes to mind – is necessarily a Jewish value.

I am also less than sanguine about the propriety of grounding one’s deviations from the norm in rejected psak, even those with a “fine rabbinic pedigree,” when those deviations are far from the current norm. One can easily locate a justification or two for wife-beating and tax-cheating, as unsavory as those practices are, scattered in the words of fine scholars operating from different premises, but antithetical to the majority opinion and prevailing Jewish practice through the ages. We do not do that because minhag yisrael is sacred, because the mesora matters, and because we are a nation and not just a collection of individuals serving G-d in accordance with our subjective interests.

Obviously, our Far Left would not dare eradicate the mechitza – despite embracing ideological criteria that would endorse such a move. My sense is it would not be done not because it would violate the halacha (the Shulchan Aruch, they would posit, is silent on the matter) but rather because it is identified with the Conservative brand. It would be a blatant admission of defection. So the next best thing is done – either it is rendered unnoticeable or dismantled at the first opportunity, or that very same fight is taken to other battlefields. Hence the list of deviations from prevailing Orthodoxy that Rav Broyde cites critically as enacted by the Far Left without any hint of self-criticism on their part, or awareness that they are distancing themselves from the mainstream of faithful Jews. But the main deviation, as I see it, is not in this or that practice or change, but in an approach to the words of Chazal and the Oral Torah that is more reminiscent of the Conservative movement and that prompts each step away from the tent.

In truth, I am agnostic about expulsions because the fears of Rav Broyde of endless line-drawing and persecution are well-grounded.  Nevertheless, I do see the value in clarifying what we stand for and giving clear guidance to our fellow Jews, even if that means pulling down the flaps of our tent to keep out deviationists. As Rabbanim – teachers of Torah – we shirk our responsibilities if our solitary goal remains a big tent. That would be useful if the primary objective of the RCA is to serve as a professional rabbinic fraternity that protects our jobs and pensions, come what may. But if we aspire as an organization to Torah leadership, and to impact the spiritual lives of our fellow Jews in traditional ways, then lines must be drawn and clarity achieved.

Where those lines are drawn should make for an interesting discussion. But at a certain point, it is clear that diverse opinions are impossible to reconcile and a unity on paper only will easily crumple. Therefore, “scholars, be careful with your words, lest you incur the penalty of exile, and are banished to the place of evil waters (heresy) and the disciples who come after you will drink and die, and G-d’s name will be desecrated” (Avot 1:11). That is good musar for all of us.