The Great Abandonment, or Why I Mourn on Tisha Be'Av

It's not the state of Jerusalem today, which puts the lie to "charev veshamem". More Jews live there and more Torah is learned than at any time in its history. It's not shi'abud malchuyot - we are no more enslaved to superpowers than any other small country - all of whom are independent. It's not the temple, at least not in the way most people understand. The destruction of "etzim ve'avanim" is merely the external manifestation of something far more unsettling - the feeling of abandonment of Am Yisra'el by God.

Anyone who reads Eicha will notice that, in addition to hair-raising descriptions of the depradations the Jews suffered at the hands of the Babylonians, there is a sense of abandonment. If you pay close attention, you can almost hear Yirmiyahu crying desperately to the Heavens for some sign, some assurance that he's there, that he hears us, that it will be OK in the end. Where once there was the confident, certain word of God is now only the desperate, doubt-ridden plea of the Man of Faith, who longs for His word.

In every generation since the great abandonment until modern times, Jews have cried out to the Heavens to understand Why; only to be met with silence. Things became even worse in Modern times, as the silence has allowed doubt and denial to turn the overwhelming majority of Jews away from Him. Those that remain have nothing to answer when asked "Where is God". Rather than being able to say "why, right here", we only hem and haw and squirm. Without God's presence, it is exponentially harder to defend against the constant intellectual and academic charge that "what you see is what there is" and that all of Judaism is man-made, no revelation required. Every generation of ORTHODOX Jews undergoes a constant, uphill struggle to get them to keep the faith. All these things can be traced back to the Great Abandonment.

I know all the explanations. Hester Panim. We're not children, we're grown-ups and we should not have to be coddled with constant appearances. It's a nisayon; there will be great rewards for those who hold up to it etc etc. Many will berate me for even suggesting the idea.

I don't want to hear it. I can't hear it. Not today. For just as one can not, should not try to console one whose meto is mutal lefanav, so I cannot be consoled on the day I am reminded of the day God shut me and the rest of us out. THAT is the main, most horrible tragedy - the destruction of the temple is a mere technicality, a logical end to this process. As the whole purpose of the Mikdash was "veshachanti betocham", once that's gone, the Temple is meaningless.

I say this out of the same despair mixed with hope one finds in Eichah. Mine is not a tefila sedura but a desperate, pained cry for God's presence, for him to reveal himself. I can only hope that he'll listen.

Let's Try Another Tack (on Shidduchim)

Stop me if you've heard this before:

He/she is smart, funny, good-looking, loves life, warm etc etc...

I think we can all agree that it's gotten stale. Even if it were true of everyone (it isn't), we have long since reached the point that we're all basically the same in CV terms (or roughly so). If we're all the same, what's the point? Why should I bother?

This is where I would like to suggest reversing the question. In other words, instead of telling about his/her good points, I want people to tell me about her flaws and imperfections. You heard me - what makes her tick? Is she a neat freak? Does she still step over cracks in the sidewalk or "eat her peas one at a time" (Seinfeld)? Does she have a tattoo or is she scared to death of needles?

Perfect people don't exist, but more importantly, they're boring and unrelatable. I have always had disdain for the perfect/savant hagiographic stories of gedoilim who were always presented as angels on earth. My heroes are ones who had to struggle with flaws and either overcome or manage them. Human heroes are infinitely preferable to me than marble statues.

It's no big deal to "put yourself" out there when you sound just like everyone else. There's no real risk involved - but also no real possibility either. Revealing imperfections (assuming they're not life-threatening or involve real mental insanity) can only help give me and others something to latch onto, a solid toehold in a cracked mountain rather than a futile climb up a sheer, flawless cliff. Good attributes make us attractive, but flaws are what make us really interesting.

So what about me? Well, I'll show you mine if you show me yours...

The Other "Right Wing"

Israel, at least at the level of its ruling elites - legal, media, academia - is staunchly, dogmatically liberal-democratic. From a country brought up on the socialist ethos, the Marxist dialectic and social solidarity, we have become permeated with concepts such as 'the rights discourse' and privatization. Individual rights and freedom and free enterprise as well as their radical offshoots such as anti-nationalism/clericalism/militarism are by now so ingrained in elite discussions that they are practically articles of faith. Even arguments for socialist policies are framed within the context of expanded indivdual rights. Many on the 'right' see this as the victory of the 'left' (read Mapainicks/Labor etc). Nothing could be further from the truth. It is, in fact, a testament to the complete ideological victory of the civilian/liberal/progressive Right Wing of Israeli politics.

What? That can't be! After all, the 'right' is the Likud, the Etzelnicks, the Greater Land of Israel messianic types! To which I will reply, rubbish and poppycock. Contrary to the simplistic dichotomy of left/right common in most discussions of Israel, both the so-called right and left are divided amongst themselves on quite a number of issues. A good example on the left was the difference between MAPAI's ambivalent-to-hostile attitude towards the USSR as compared with MAPAM and more left-wing parties. The split in the right is far less known outside Israel, and that is the topic I wish to discuss.

Yes, the right includes the Revisionists, Herut, Begin and the various land of Israel parties. However, ever since the establishment of the Zionist movement, and especially the Yishuv during the British Mandate, there existed alongside this ideological wing another form of 'right wing' (Indeed Gahal/the Likud was a merger of most of both wings). They came under different names and titles over the years - 'civilian parties', 'liberals', 'General Zionists', 'Progressives' and the like. Some leaned more towards MAPAI, others had sympathies towards Revisionist and later Herut, still more tried to straddle the line. They were perpetually splitting into factions, frustrated at their complete inability to wrest control from the dominant 'leftists' (sound familiar?). They had two newspapers which best espoused their views - Haboker and, you guessed it, Haaretz.

Unlike left-wing parties, which first built institutions and organizations and then went out to expand their ranks, by the 'civilians' it worked the other way around. This right wing never posessed an ideologue on the level of Berl Katznelson, Zeev Jabotinsky or Rav Kook. Their party leadership and organization was often weak and fractured; their positions on many issues 'moderate' but often vague and undefined. Yet they remained a force to be reckoned with, because of their powerful economic and cultural voting base, until eventually their positions became absolutely supreme.

So what was the force behind this right wing? The electoral base of the 'civilians' came, then as now, primarily from what is now called 'the State of Tel Aviv' area - the urban populace living in the vicinity and satellite cities of the First Hebrew City. These were the shopkeepers, the petty bourgeois and the well-to-do. Industrialists and farmers, lawyers and bankers, they not only represented a large section of the population, but also a disproportionate percentage of its national wealth. In municipal elections they either won or always represented a serious challenge to MAPAI. In national elections, they never came that close, because their image as representing the 'fat cats' did not endear them to the rest of the populace.

Elections are not the only measure of success, however. People who talk of the MAPAI 'Worker's Stream' of education's tend to forget that during the Mandatory period, the 'general stream' of the 'civilians' educated half the Yishuv's children. It is unlikely this situation changed, at least ideologically, for those who learned in the State of Israel in greater Gush Dan. As more and more of the veteran Ashkenazi (and Mizrahi) population moved towards white-collar jobs and became lawyers, judges and reporters, the influence of the 'civilian' position grew until it became the dominant position.

So what did/does the 'civilian right wing' believe in? Many will use the nebulous term 'moderation', but this is an optical illusion. They were 'moderate' on issues that didn't threaten their core beliefs, much like the Mafdal on security pre-'67. When it came to those issues, such as the Mafdal regarding 'Who is a Jew', they were no less militant than anyone else. So what were those issues?

1) Individual freedom and rights - especially, but not only free enterprise and free markets. One of the few consistent themes of 'civilian' policy was removal of restrctions on trade, currency exchange etc. As their most famous slogan went - Tnu Lichyot Ba'aretz Hazot (roughly: Make this country liveable)!

2) Balanced Budgets - the fight against spending and what seemed like has a long history dating from Tel Aviv's municipal policy against deficit spending. This 'rational' dogma led, among other things to Haaretz's war against unrestrained aliya, culminating in Amos Elon's openly racist dispatches from Morocco as documented by Avi Picard (Israel 10: 117-143).

Over time, other principles crept in, such as a rigidly 'civilian' identity anathema to the concept of Israel as a Jewish and Democratic state. The concept of a constituion also eventually became an article of faith. The attitude of the early civilians towards Jewish religion - both on the ideological level and as a societal and political issue is a lacunae that demands to be filled. Suffice to say that I highly doubt the present open contempt and disdain of the 'civilian' Haaretz towards Judaism came out of nowhere, or simply because of their anti-occupation stance.

So there you have it. We are a country dominated by a center-right liberal-cosmopolitan ideology masking itself as left-wing because of a dovish stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The 'civilians' have earned their victory fair and square; Tel Aviv has left both Jerusalem and Degania eating its dust. Whether we are better off because of it, is another matter entirely.

The Realistic Jew

Thoughts of a realistic Modern Orthodox Zionist Jew

Over the past couple of weeks I've been boning up on my ideological literature from both the Haredi and Liberal-MO world views. Slowly I came to the realization that I could not wholeheartedly accept either position. Thus this statement of thoughts and principles was born:

I am a realistic Jew. Life is complicated, even chaotic for me. My beliefs are a mess of contradictions, struggles, doubts and debates. I prefer their continuation than any pat answer. Allow me to demonstrate:

I believe the Messiah will come. I just have no idea when.

Corralary: I have no idea whether the State of Israel really is Atchalta Degeula or not. This has no bearing on its importance for the Jewish people, or on the need to say Hallel for such a wonderful gift.

I don't know why God allowed the Holocaust to happen; If He Himself offered to tell me, I don't think I'd want to know.

People who endlessly debate why more Jews weren't saved by the Zionists/Haredim/Allies etc, ought to remember this paraphrasing of George Picket (who, when asked who's fault it was that Pickett's Charge failed, said):

"I always thought the Yankees (Read: Germans and their collaborators) had something to do with it"

Left and Right

Ideologues on both the left and the right claim to have all the answers (or answer in singular). Some claim the mantle of Gadol Hador, others that of Jeremiah. Having not received any word of God lately, I have no such lofty pretensions. Life is never as simple for me as it is for such people.

If I have a serious question of faith which I can not answer, I do not immediately assume it means there is none. It may be that I just haven't found it yet. The question will be placed in a tzarich iyun gadol or teiku until something new comes along. Furthermore, I don't know if I'll ever actually find the answer, but I refuse to stop looking and I refuse to concede defeat.

Others, especially on the left, may call this cowardice. If so, I am honored to be in the company of many great 'cowards' - such as the Rambam - who, unable to decisively prove their position against another, preferred to err on the side of God. He deserves the benefit of the doubt.

I do not believe in the 'one great idea' that binds all. I do not believe religious Judaism is only about Eretz Yisra'el, Torah study or what have you. I consider the idea that Judaism is simply a religious rubber stamp for humanism/liberalism/socialism/'social justice' etc to be both pathetic and insulting to my intelligence. My religion is one that laughs at any attempt at simplification.

Corralary: Hardalim and Liberals tend to forget that Moshe brought down TWO tablets from Sinai. The former ignore the one on the left, the latter the reverse (including the historic preamble).

Haredim accept a morally difficult halakha without qualms. Liberals simply abolish it or ignore it. If I can't find a way out, I will accept - under protest.

Secular Jews

I don't believe a pre-Messiah Medinat Halakha will make all the Jews become religious. I don't believe 'seperating church from state' will have any effect in that direction either.

I refuse to use violence or coercion against a fellow Jew who transgresses mitzvot. This would be against my beliefs as a religious Jew.

I also refuse to ever state that the secular position which denies God (or at least his commandments) is 'just as legitamite (one assumes correct)' a position as my own with how to be a Jew. This would also violate my beliefs as a religious Jew.

I do my best to be accomodating and respectful towards my secular colleagues. I do so not in the vain hope that any of them will ever be hozer bitshuva or in the belief that 'we are both right equally (see above)'.

My goal is much more modest - to get secular Jews to respect people like me, nothing more.