On Labeling, Fair and Unfair (On Ne'emanei Torah Ve'Avodah)

Seth Kadish brought up an important point, one which I hope to deal with at some point - that of the halakhic and hashkafic boundaries of MO. In the meantime, however, I wish to address another issue. I stand accused of "paslanut" - of deligitimizing and mislabeling the Ne'emanei Torah Ve'Avodah movement as "hard left". With regard to the first charge, deligitamization, I emphatically plead "Not Guilty". If I were interested in deligitamizing them, I would have used terms like "neo-Reform", "de-facto Conservative" and all the other well-known epithets. I did not say they are not part of us, merely that they are very far to one side. As for the second charge, I still answer with a slightly more qualified "not guilty", and stand by my argument that they are on the far left of the MO spectrum.

It is true that SOME of Ne'emanei Torah Va'Avodah's public policy positions are indistinguishable from what used to be mainstream but a few decades ago. Minimizing of seperation of sexes unless halakha specifically calls for it, integration with the rest of Jewish society, an open and positive attitude (albeit a guarded one) towards secular studies and sciences - these are indeed issues with which they and I share a common ground. They are also quite brave in trying to face many of the questions we have not yet dared to ask. Nevertheless, it is at this point that the common ground ends, and here's why:

Ne'emanei Torah Ve'Avodah has no real boundaries to its left religiously, in much the same way the Charedi community has no real boundaries to its right. You will often find them in the news bashing (often rightly) the right-wing of our community for its segregationist tendencies and lack of opennes. I have yet to see anyone in that group make anything resembling the anti-Right effort against people in the religious left along the lines of "that's going too far". This in spite of the fact that the group has existed since 1978. Read any given issue of the NTV journal De'ot and you will read articles written by people who are absolutely enamored with liberalism, individualism, pluralism and any and all Jews to their left - traditional, secular or otherwise. The same cannot be said with regard to their views of halakha or hashkafa, or Jews to their right. The old Mafdal was divided into "right", "center" and "left" groups that often counterbalanced one another. NTV seems to be made up of people who are left and more left.

This is to say nothing of their persistent ideological myopia, a bygone product of another age. They speak in slogans and general lofty principles, but they either ignore or dismiss fears regarding religious fortitude. The issue on education exemplifies this approach, cherry-picking cases of educated (both Torah and secular studies) MO teachers as an example of how things were pre-Noam and Lamerchav, even though most of the teachers of that period were actually grossly underqualified. The period of integrated schools is portrayed as a veritable paradise, completely ignoring the massive "horadat kipa" that took place at the time. Some even celebrate it, "pluralism" being a principle that overrides all else. One would have expected a more hard-nosed realist approach to the subject, specifically addressing and developing coping methods for maintaining religiosity. Instead, they pay merely lip service to it, ultimately only preaching to the converted.

It is no surprise, then, that NTV boasts a vocal fringe that constantly pushes the religious boundaries leftward or crosses them outright. Two examples will suffice: In the articles dealing with Biblical Criticism, no-one even so much as tries to defend the traditional position. Instead, the Documentary Hypothesis in whatever variation is either partially or completely accepted (to be fair, Rav Breuer's shitat habehinot is given a fair hearing as well). A letter to the editor of the journal even waxed poetic about the beauty of the "allegory of Sinai". This is to say nothing of the positions of Dr. Moshe Meir, member of NTV's executive. From questioning revelation to endorsing an idea of a "secularized religiosity", his positions as espoused in De'ot and Maqor Rishon are quite radical. Don't get me wrong - a lot of the questions they raise deserve serious attention. But to claim that these are "mainstream" or "centrist" ideas is to close one's eyes to the truth.

When they are called on things like this, NTV members often get defensive, throwing curveballs to deflect from the problem. "I'm just as religious as you" or "stop judging people with a 'dos-meter'" are two of my favorite feints. Obviously, neither argument addresses the problem - NTV's almost cavalier attitude towards halakha and Ol Malchut Shamyim as contrasted to their fervent defenses of liberalism. It is as if Torah is completely subservient to Avodah (all the "-isms"), and at most a personal issue.

I wish I was wrong in my diagnosis. I wish non-fringe NTVers would come down from the clouds and realize that reality, especially religious reality, is messy, difficult and dangerous. I wish they would switch Martin Luther King (I have a dream) for a bit of Churchill (I have nothing to promise you except blood, sweat and tears). I wish they would show anything resembling empathy towards those of us who have real reason to fear the dissolution of what's left of halakhic Judaism.

Since none of that seems to be in the cards, I hold fast to my position that NTV is hard-left. Ve'hamotzi me'chavero alav hara'ayah.

What's in a name? On the term "Modern Orthodoxy" in Israel

"Eizehu Chacham? Halomed Mikol Adam (Who is smart? He who learns from all people)" - Avot 4:1

Today I discussed blogging about Modern Orthodoxy with a colleague at work. While interested, she recoiled from the word "orthodoxy", stating that she preferred the tried and true "dati le'umi" (national-religious) instead. While I suggested a few alternatives such as "dati moderni" (modern religious) and "dati leumi moderni" (national modern religious), I had to concede that she had a point. Thinking it over, I realized that this might not be the best term to describe MO in Israel.

There are two reasons for this. The first is that the word orthodoxy (pronounced "ortodoxia" in Hebrew) is not very friendly-sounding; in fact it's quite scary when you think about it (it has a tough, German ring to it). Moreover, Orthodoxy is a term used more often by its opponents than its adherents (who preferred terms like "Torah-true"), both when it first came on the scene in Europe and nowadays. Its purpose was, then as now, to seperate adherence to halakha from the term religion, with the idea that they are merely one religious strain among many. While "Orthodoxy" as a concept is well-established and comfortaably used in America, its use here is of relatively recent vintage. Until a couple of decades ago, you were either Charedi (ultra-Orthodox), "religious" (moderate Halakhic/Orthodox), traditional or secular. Conservatives and Reforms were identified by strain, religious Jews were not. Now, when it IS used, it is almost always meant as a term of derision and distance, as in "I'm not one of THEM". I have to wonder whether it would be playing into the hands of such people by using that term, so harsh to the untrained ear, to describe our world-view.

The second reason is that most non-English speaking Jews in Israel have little to no understanding of what Modern Orthodoxy is. What understanding they have is often skewed. For instance, in the comprehensive Hebrew language website on Israeli society, Modern Orthodoxy is identified almost exclusively with would be known in America as the "hard left" of MO - academics like Profs. Noam Zohar and Moshe Halbertal, Ne'emanei Torah Ve'Avodah, and so on. The problem is not that there IS a hard-left wing, but that anyone identified with "Modern Orthodoxy" would be immediately "tagged" as such, thus delegitimizing them in the eyes of others (like the "neo-Reform" slur).

All this may sound like pointless semantics; in truth, it is anything but that. Keep in mind that if we want to be more than a small, insignificant American curio in these parts, we are going to have to do more than win "hearts and minds" among the Hebrew-speaking religious Jews in Israel. We will eventually need to gain both visibility and legitimacy in the general popular (Hebrew!) Israeli discourse, and like it or not, "labels" and "user-friendliness" count for a lot here.

So should we still stick with Modern Orthodoxy and change the public perception of it? Or maybe we should try another term? Suggestions are more than welcome.

Don't Just Preach, Practice (Part I: Less Observant Jews)

My Obiter Dicta has begun a critical discussion regarding the importance of introducing Modern Orthodoxy into Israel. I thought I might join the discussion from time to time and add my take on the issue from one specific vantage point - the issue of doing, not just believing. This time round we will discuss the issue of less observant Jews, often referred to as "traditional/masorti" Jews.

Orthodox Jews in Israel have a strange love-hate relationship with masorti Jews, many (though by no means all) of whom come from the Middle East and North Africa. On the one hand, we fought tooth and nail to ensure that many receive minimal religious education in the early years of the state when overwhelming secularism was the rule, both in the classroom and on the street. We count them among our "allies" in the debates regarding the Jewish nature of the country. Yet when it comes to accomodating them on a societal and individual level, we have failed them miserably. Abandonment may sound like a strong word, but it is apt in this situation.

Dr. Matityahu Dagan, a former head of Religious Education for the state, described in his panoramic book how exactly we did that. Put bluntly, Jewish educators in the Masorti-majority schools made little effort to improve the lax religious education given there. In the first generation of the state, Ashkenazim and Masortiyim were geographically seperated, with the result that most Ashkenazim learned with their peers and Masortiyim did likewise. When Masorti Jews started to move into better neighborhoods, the "frumer" and better-off Ashkenazi Jews panicked. The sight of their children learning with kids whose parents didn't keep Mitzvot, and whose children's observance was often lax, triggered the same Pavlovian reaction that led them to protect their children from the hard-core secularist Jews. "Private", "exclusive" and "highly selective" schools - both elementary and secondary became the norm. The latest uproar over education of Ethiopian Jews is simply the latest expression of that fear.

Make no mistake, I believe in the idea of a "khinuch dati". I hold no truck with fantasists who claim that if only we had ensured the same type of education for everyone (a pet peeve of Haaretz and the liberals) then all would be well. There is an unbridgebale chasm between those who believe in God and the Torah and those who do not. To pretend that both can be given the same exact education (necesarily the lowest common denominator) without massive defection to the secular majority betrays a stark naivete about the facts of life. This is not to say that we do not have common ground, or that we cannot fruitfully coexist. It is just that certain differences can not be bridged.

But the idea that living and learning alongisde Masorti Jews is the same thing religiously as doing so among open atheists and secularists is to me a horrible Hillul Hashem. It is also a declaration that we are just as pathetically spiritually weak as the Haredim, many of whom make every effort to avoid people who are not "Me-anshei shelomeinu". Apparently, for all our alleged openness, we are just a bunch of cowards. Anyone who doesn't cover their hair or dress tzniut enough, plays soccer on Shabbat or doesn't make it to shul except on holidays is the equivalent of an apikores lehach'is. Our children, even when they're teenagers or in the army, are so pathetically weak spiritually that the first contact with anyone not like them will make them drop the kipa like a piano. If that's the case, what the hell was the point of all that Torah study?!

So what does all this have to do with doing? It's simple. Stop blabbing about "Achdut Yisra'el" and put your money where your mouth is. Live in places that have a wide scale religiously, especially in the North and the South. Stop hiding in a bubble. Invite Jews over to your house for Shabbat even if it means they might drive (leave the option for not being mehalel Shabbat open). Let your kids play with them. Let them come to your Shul even if they don't show up with a kipa or in jeans. Accept them with open arms and help them rather than scorn them if they falter. Wish them a Shabbat Shalom when you pass them by. Channel Rav Aryeh Levin rather than the Brisker Rav.

I can hear the objections coming out already. My children will stop being religious. I'll be mesaye'a yedei ovrei aveirah. Neither argument works with me. Your children are at risk of stopping to be religious the minute they are born into a world dominated by kefira, both of the low (te'avon) and high (philosophy) variety. It is your job as a parent to work on his/her spiritual well-being and not "take the easy way out" by trying to shunt him into a glorified incubator. At least that's what you should do if you genuinely consider yourself non-Haredi. As for mesaye'ah yedei ovrei aveirah, I have two responses to that: 1) "Chalel alav Shabbat echad cedei sheyekayem Shabatot harbeh" - you never know whether your actions will encourage people to come closer to Judaism or at least ensure their children receive a religious education 2) Kidush Hashem - Even if that doesn't pan out, just causing people to say "zo Torah vezo sechara" or some variation thereof with delight is reward enough.

There is no need to give sins a liberal-religious rubber stamp. All we need to do is keep the door open, standing in front with a tray of cookies, a siddur and a smile on our faces.

UPDATE: Dov makes an important point, one I wish to discuss. Obviously issues of serious halakhic import such as Jews driving on Shabbat can not be solved simply with the conceptual statements I quoted above. My point was more to give an ideological underpinning to halakhic kulas that might allow for inviting Jews like that under certain circumstances. It was not, h"v, to replace halakha but to reinforce a certain way of halakhic thinking against the "always be makhmir" types.

OTOH, no offense, Dov, but I think "solid Torah learning" is a cop-out. Who makes the call when it comes to "solid Torah learning"? The Charedi-exclusivist camp that calls the Rav "JB" and spits on and insults every Rav, no matter how great, who dared to be pasken lekula, especially in our community (just look at the assault on Shabbat elevators, which were allowed based on solid Torah learning but unacceptable to the machmir croud)? Just what would constitute acceptable "solid Torah learning"?!

I think this kind of thinking is exactly what paralyzes us - the fear of "ma yomru". "Solid Torah learning" should be halakha and hashkafa solidly grounded in the sources, but not afraid to openly and unapologetically go in other directions if the situation calls for it. We need independent poskim (poskim, not "wooly-headed left ideologues", as you so quaintly put it), even mavericks, who can help us wade through the difficult territory that is MO.

UPDATE II: Quite a number of comments have come up on the education integration issue. While I agree that it is a serious challenge, doing nothing but kvetching about the situation doesn't help. If anyone who reads this post has better ways of reaching out to Am Yisra'el MO style than what I suggested, then by all means, share with us.

Remember, it is better to light a candle than curse the darkness.

More Nobel Prize Idiocy

OK, now I know who's going to be the new darling of the left-wing for the next decade and a half.

Remember, folks, being brilliant in one area of knowledge does not prevent you from being completely a complete neophyte in others.

You can't make this &$%! up...Or Money and Prizes for Nothing

Barack Obama has just won the Nobel Peace Prize after having accomplished...nothing at all in that field. At least Jimmy Carter and Yasser Arafat had actual TREATIES in hand before they were given their awards...

Living in Different Time Periods

I recently had the dubious pleasure of reading through a learned analysis of why American Jews are "falling out of love with Israel". It was not the article that bothered me; Sarna, as always, delivered a tightly argued, convincing and well-written discussion of how Jews have had difficulty with Israel's behavior, both real and alleged, post-1982. Rather, it was wading through the comments ("talkbackim", we call them in these parts) on the article itself. Most of those that commented on the article made me realize that more than there is a difference of mentality between American and Israeli Jews, they both use different historical lenses.

Put bluntly, American Jews are still living either in the 1980s, when the Lebanon War and the First Intifada convinced many that Israel was either partly or mainly at fault for the continuation and even the origin of the conflict, or the 1990s, when peace was supposedly around the corner, and every delay was the fault of a recalcitrant Israel. I still remember how victims of terrorist attacks in the halcyon Rabin days were called "victims of peace" (the term "korbanot" in Hebrew has even worse connotations).

Indeed, many of the old arguments are still being used: This is a simple territorial issue like the peace with Egypt and Jordan; the Palestinians are essentially defenseless; all offers of negotiation are made in good faith and at least worth pursuing; Israel is racist; the choice whether to make peace lies entirely in Israel's hands etc etc etc. Stop me if you've heard this all before.

American Jews' problems is that (most) Israelis have a different historical perspective - that of the second Intifada post-Camp David. There we learned that peace is not entirely in our hands - the Palestinians can always say no; that negotiations can be interpreted as simply a sign of weakness, used to buy time to arm or pocket concessions without promising anything in return; we learned that the Israel-Palestinian conflict (as opposed to the ones with Egypt and Jordan) is NOT just about territory but about millions of "refugees" and the Palestinian concept of "historical justice" etc. There were, and are die-hards here who also continue to place the blame solely on us, but it's hard to hear them over the noise of the suicide bombings and flying rockets.

While American Jews seem stuck in conceptions of "justice" (a subjective term if there ever was one), we Israelis have long since moved on to a more sober view of reality. We no longer think in terms of peace, justice etc. Read any political discussion in Hebrew, and you'll notice how much it depends on hard-nosed realist analysis of the actual facts, rather than idealistic debates. Here, we deal with the real, not with what "should be". We know that Palestinians can lie just as much as we can; that Hezbollah is a well-trained army division funded by Iran, not some rag-tag group of peasant guerillas; and few, if any, seriously belive that even a full territorial withdrawal behind the green line will "end Palestinian terror and rejectionism" - so far it's been just the opposite.

So how can one bridge this divide? I'd like to propose something rather simple - that American Jews visit and talk to Israelis. Just like that. Not political or cultural leaders, or reporters and foreigners - everymen and women in various parts of the country. There you'll learn, just like you want us to learn about the Palestinians, that Israelis are not all foaming-at the-mouth racist oppressors. That we'd gladly negotiate a deal if we could be certain that we'd then be left alone and not get shot at or blown up. That most of us are not militarized Spartans; that we'd much rather be trekking in India or South America or getting a high-tech degree. That we might be more amenable to "critique of our policies" if you'd stop insisting the Palestinians are blameless innocents and that we are only human beings trying to cope in very difficult circumstances, rather than superhuman beings from another planet. That the "Jewish" part of the "Jewish and Democratic" equation is still very important to most of us, and ignoring that will make whatever democratic critiques you have fall on deaf ears.

Then maybe, just maybe, we'll both stop looking throgh distorted lenses and see reality for what it is - both light and shadow. This is the essence of true "maturity".