Update your bookmarks

Hi,

I've decided to move over to wordpress. The old blog will stay up for the enjoyment of my few readers (esp. Anon :) ).

aiwac

Shut It Down! (On the Kiruv Industry in Israel)

[The following is a reworked version of a speech given by one of the columnists written in last week's weekend Makor Rishon. I feel it is necessary to post it, as the local discussion of the Immanuel school is missing the bigger picture. [Shabbat section] - aiwac]

Rabotai,

We are all gathered here today, Rabbis and educators, all people dedicated to bringing non-religious Jews back into the fold. We have heard many heart-warming speeches on the successes of the kiruv movement. Rabotai, I wish to put a damper on all of this by saying we need to shut it down. Now. Allow me to explain:

The kiruv starts out positive enough. Avrechim and professionals go on their mission, usually to masorti neighborhoods of Sefardi Jews. They show warmth and compassion to their fellow less religious Jews – teaching them Torah and inviting them for wonderful Shabbatot. Eventually some of them decide that this is the life they want for their family, and the become full-fledged Charedi chozrim betshuva. This is the story we have heard over and over again at this conference, and it truly is inspiring.

Except that this story has a sequel, a very bad one. That family, once ensconced in Charedi society, is never truly accepted – not even three generations later. The parents and children are constantly viewed with suspicion and checked to make sure they "fit the bill". Children in particular suffer – forced to go to second-rate schools and associate only with 'their kind'. They will often be called derogatory terms like 'frankim' and "schorim", to say nothing of disgusting insults like "sefarajukim" (sefardi cockroaches). They will never be able to marry above into the "first class" Ashkenazi community unless the Ashkenazi in question is physically or mentally lame or has some family defect. This family of genuinely religious Charedim is forced to forever walk the earth in a state of second-class status – no matter how learned, no matter how pious they are, they will always be considered inferior to the lowest Ashkenazi.

I have heard the excuses given for this state of affairs. It's not racism; it's the importance of masorah and tradition, each edah and its principles. Some might even compare it to the twelve tribes maintaining their separate identities, though I may point out that the only time the tribes didn't intermarry was during the pilegesh bagiv'a incident.

All of this only exacerbates the hypocrisy and fraud of kiruv as is presently constructed. You are selling these wonderful, devout Jews an empty bag of goods, offering them heaven and giving them hell. You present them with the promise of a loving, accepting community of God-fearing Jews. They end up with a bunch of narrow-minded ethnic Ashkenazim who barely tolerate them and give a million and one (even if justified!) excuses for doing so.

Rabotai - this is not true kiruv. This is fraud, a system that destroys the lives and often the families of many a good Jew just so the "kiruv professionals" can feel better about themselves. Until our communities are truly willing to work towards ahavat yisra'el and true acceptance of ba'alei tshuva, we must shut down the project. Otherwise the cries of these thousands of these Jews will continue to reach the heavens, and judgement will come swiftly.

A True Individualist: On Rabbi Moshe Avigdor Amiel

[Note: I'd love to write a post on the Brisker, but I am unaware of any non-hagiographical sources on him. Anyone who knows of such is invited to post them in the comments – aiwac]

I've mentioned before how Eretz Israel in the first half of the 20^th century attracted more than its fair share of brilliant, off-the-wall Orthodox thinkers. Today, we'll take a brief look at one of the oddest of them all: Rav Moshe Avigdor Amiel, Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv from 1935 until his death in 1946.

To this day, many scholars of religious Zionist thought include him as a member of the RZ philosophical pantheon. Rav Amiel was not just an original thinker, but also a brilliant Talmudist. His 'מידות לחקר ההלכה' was a tour de force attempt to create a complete, unified logical system (based on formal rules and deduction) for understanding the halachic method.

One of the most striking things about Rav Amiel was his fierce intellectual independence all throughout his public career. This was a man who considered himself beholden to no particular position, to the point where he spent many of his drashot attacking…well, everyone. In addition, Rav Amiel was not shy about 'bucking the trend', whether it was criticizing Agudah Rabbis' anti-intellectual attitudes or taking an extreme indivualist line in a Zionist community where collectivism and conformity was the norm.

While many Rabbis (especially post-WWII) are extremely cagey about consulting, let alone quoting, non-Orthodox sources, Rav Amiel had no such compunctions. When he quoted Kant, he called him by name. The same goes for the scholars of Wissenschaft des Judentums or outright secular thinkers like Ehad Ha'am.

What's most fascinating about Rav Amiel is that he can't really be pegged – especially as a religious Zionist. Yes, it's true that he was affiliated with Mizrahi for many years. It's also true that he supported the Mizrahi program of giving religious Jews secular education (he established Yishuv, after all) and he believed that Eretz Israel, not Europe, was the place for Jewish spiritual regeneration, contra TiDE people like Dr. Isaac Brueur and Rav Shamshon Refael Hirsch.

Nevertheless, his attitude towards the Zionist program was pretty reserved, and grew more so over time. He had no patience for the attempt to create a secularized Jewish culture, and he saw little to no value in the establishment of a secular state (i.e. one not governed by Torah). Indeed, one gets the impression that he saw little need for a state at all, and preferred some kind of cultural autonomy instead. As opposed to Rav Kook, who saw much value in the works of Secular Zionism, Rav Amiel was barely able to be melamed zechut. The most he was willing to do was praise their building up of the physical infrastructure of the country. He spent about as much time being melamed zechut for Communists and Christians as he did Zionists.

Then there's the matter of his pacifism. Rav Amiel was a life-long principled pacifist. Although he did not rule out individual self-defense (what Orthodox Rabbi could do that?), he made frequent comparisons between war (no matter what kind) and murder. His position on Jewish self-defense was no less strident; although he acknowledged the existence of halachic "war" categories such as "milchemet mitzvah", he insisted that Jews during the Arab Revolt conduct themselves according to the incredibly strict rules of "rodef". He even paraphrased the Rambam along the lines that 'even if there's a one in a thousand chance' that a captive Arab is innocent, he should be spared. Needless to say, he's a darling of the Machon Hartman crowd for this stance, unrealistic though it is in actual warfare.

The sad thing is that today Rav Amiel is barely known outside of left-wing religious academic circles and a few scattered fans. It's a shame, because like most brilliant thinkers – even if one doesn't accept his answers, his questions are still pertinent.

Shabbat Shalom

aiwac

The Murder of the Mind (on Disillusionment)

Recently ADDeRabbi introduced yet another term for the ever-splintering groups of O Jews – Ironic Orthodoxy. ADDeRabbi is right, IMO, that for now this is more a "mindset" of individual O Jews across the spectrum rather than an ideology (See the forum "Stop! Here We Think" internet forum for a look at Charedi "Ironic Orthodox Jews").

I am something different. In addition to being a centrist (or trying to be), I am a deeply disillusioned Orthodox Jew (no, that's not intended as a label). Believe me when I say that there are many like me – people who stay Orthodox but who have lost faith in core parts of the "system". So what I am I personally disillusioned about?

I believe that the term "Oral Torah" has been turned into a lie, a fraud. What we call "Oral Torah" is merely a collection several thousand Written Torahs on top of the original which no-one dares to consult. Every statement is kadosh and literally true if it appears in print, and no-one dares to challenge the issue, lest one be accused of "mehkar" (academic study, which is treif). The consequence is that there is no "orality" in Torah study today of real consequence – no intellectual diversity, no halachic hiddushim (humrot are not hiddushim - any idiot can invent or discover humrot), no attempts at reconception.

The corollary of this is that I have no faith whatsoever in the yeshiva/Rabbinic system as it currently exists – no matter where on the O scale it lies. Both Rabbis and Yeshiva students owe their sole allegiance to the ideological-social community of their institutions; that community is almost entirely anti-intellectual, extremely conservative (halachically and theologically) and contemptuous of real-life problems as opposed to abstract, theoretical ones.

For generations since modernity, moderate Orthodox Jews have been hoping for great Gedolim (or at least a cadre of Rabbis) who will rise up to the challenge and take the problems we face – such as women's standing, the relationship with non-Jews, the reality of Orthodoxy being a 10% minority - by the horns. I believe that such faith is pointless and harmful. Every innovative thinker and posek we have had in the last 200 years – Rav Hirshenzon, Rav Meshash or Rav Chayim David Halevi, Rav Kook or Rav Soloveitchik – has been either ostracized, minimalized, or their biography re-written to fit the views of the Edah Charedit. Whatever intellectual independence that was left in yeshivot is being whittled away – and none of it is allowed to exist in the world of psak and halachic policy.

The "savior Rabbinic leaders" who will buck the "Forever to the right" trend will never come to be and maintain a viable, constant presence – not in a hundred years and not in a million. They either lack the guts, or are overwhelmed by the numbers and hateful rhetoric of those to their right. Which is why "ironic" Orthodoxy exists as a mindset of "cacha zeh" (that's life) rather than try to work for change – they have despaired that the religious elite will ever take the plunge.

I write these words with a deep sense of pain and anguish. I wish it were otherwise. But I can not deny the present intellectual weltanschauung in O Jewry, one which has only gained in strength over the past few decades.

So I remain an O Jew, with deep faith in Hakadosh Baruch Hu, and none in the Rabbinic/Yeshivish elite.

The Pointlessness of it All (On Higher Criticism)

[This will be the last post I write on the subject. I intend to spend my time from here on in on more productive issues - aiwac]

Menachem Mendel has put up the entire program of a major conference in Jewish Studies taking place in Ben-Gurion University. There is a heavy emphasis on the relationship between Bible Studies and Orthodox Judaism, with most of the First session being by Orthodox adherents of the DH (Baruch Schwartz and James Kugel; to be fair, I have no idea what Tovah Ganzel will be discussing).

Originally, I was going to write a post expressing my exasperation at the fact that we have no-one who can give an Orthodox response to stuff like this. I mean it's not like there weren't and aren't Orthodox scholars on Bible out there (Uri Simon, Yehuda Elitzur zt"l, Amos Frish &c). I was going to read the riot act to people like Jeremiah Unterman and Shneyur Leiman, both of whom have complained in different contexts of the lack of a substantive Orthodox response/answer to the challenges of Biblical Criticism of the Chumash. I would charge that they should put their money where their mouth is and compose such solutions/answers (after all, both have the requisite knowledge, training and yir'at shamayim).

Having seen the discussion of this issue in Hirhurim, especially the responses of a certain "Jerry", I must regrettably retract that challenge. Apparently the Charedim are right on this issue - one is either a James Kugel or a fundamentalist when it comes to the Torah. Orthodox Jewish scholars are apparently either incapable or unwilling to provide any other option.

Good Diagnosis, Bad Cure (On Esther Lapian)

[The following is yet another "fictional letter" meant to deal with Esther Lapian's article in the latest issue of Conversations (no.7) – the article itself is unfortunately not online. Enjoy, aiwac]

Dear Esther Lapian,

I recently read your article in Conversations regarding the "Charedization" of the Mamad educational system. You complain of the anti-intellectual atmosphere and attitude of the educational personnel, where it is better that a teacher "dress properly" than know Matisse. I share your concerns and I think the increasing retreat of our educational institutions is losing us many thousands of good people – adults and students - every year.

To be sure, I could question the cavalier manner in which you approach the genuine and legitimate concerns of students and educational personnel towards halachically and theologically problematic issues (I refer you to a letter I wrote to Dr. Aviad Hacohen on this very subject). But I fear that your article suffers from much deeper flaws, which I would like to expound on in this letter.

The first and most obvious flaw is how you frame the issue. To you, apparently, the Chardal-liberal struggle is a zero-sum-game. Either one is completely open to the world, in school as well as in life, or one shuts it out completely; there is no room in your world for compromise. Surely, Ms. Lapian, you are aware that most Jews in the RZ community are somewhere in the middle. There are many, for instance, who would love for their children to learn about literature and science, but might hesitate to let their kids look at nude paintings. Furthermore, I'm fairly certain the overwhelming majority of religious parents, regardless of personal beliefs, would vociferously object to actively exposing their children to theological landmines like Higher Biblical Criticism.

But there's an even deeper issue at stake, one that goes to the heart of your article. Throughout your long panegyric to your students, you go on and on about how open-minded they are; how cultured and intelligent. You explain quite well their "deviations" from certain halachic norms. But not once in your article do you demonstrate that your students are genuinely yir'ei hashem, i.e. devout. Not "halachic", not "makpid" – but religious in the true, fullest sense of the word.

I mention this because your students sound to me too much like a certain archetype of religious Jewish scholar I have had the misfortune to meet many times over the years. Said scholar also "goes through the motions" – keeping halacha, sending their kids to the "right" schools and maybe even is stricter than usual on certain issues. But they are all – to a man and woman – either religiously dead or broken, leading double, compartmentalized lives. One life – the life of scholarship and the Western world – sees them happy, enthusiastic with shining eyes. The other life – the life of ol Torah U'Mitzvot – shows a different, functional side. The fire in their eyes goes out when they live this life; there is no true ahavat Torah. I have never seen such a person truly daven with kavana and God-awareness – not even on Yom Kippur. To address and excuse the halachic actions of such people is to utterly miss the point.

Perhaps you may respond – why is this relevant? After all, many of the frum, anti-intellectual teachers that currently populate the Mamad schools also "go through the motions". To which I will reply – it's relevant because the frum teacher is not the one taking my children on a journey through the wonderful but dangerous world of modernity – your students are. From what I understand, they will do so while being incredibly enthusiastic about the outside world and lukewarm at best about the world from which they came. Children aren't stupid, Ms. Lapian. When they see your students' relative "enthusiasm deficit" for Judaism, what lesson do you think they'll take away from it?

Don't misunderstand me, Ms. Lapian. I believe in the value of secular knowledge. I agree that Orthodoxy needs to come to grips with the various challenges the world has to offer. But they cannot do so and remain ovdei hashem, if, as you contend, the only value worth investing in is "openness" to the world.

Judaism, especially Orthodox Judaism, is not just a "lifestyle" – it is a serious, deep commitment to a series of truths, values and rules which we have carried for thousands of years. Teachers who wish to introduce students to the world must be equally committed – emotionally as well as intellectually – to that world. From what I have read in your article, Ms. Lapian, your students are not up for the job.

Sadly yours,

A (Now-Centrist) MO Parent

National Learning Day (On Shavuot in Israel)

I've had opportunity to mention the various Jewish learning initiatives that take place in Israel year-round. Today I'd like to talk about an even more amazing phenomenon: the transformation of Shavuot into "National Jewish learning day".

Anyone who has lived here in the past ten years or so can attest to what can only be called a revolution. The old religious minhag of studying all Shavuot night in preparation for kabalat hatorah has turned into a gigantic festival of Jewish learning, lectures and symposia all over the country. Everyone - Charedim, Orthodox, traditional and secular - are joining in the fun, whether in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv or Sderot. The learning comes in all flavors, from divrei Torah at shuls, to lectures by the Conservative and Reform movements, to secular cultural gatherings that discuss Jewish sources from even more diverse points of view.

Speaking as someone for whom Shavuot was, for many years, the "cheesecake" holiday that's just another Yom Tov, I stand amazed at this development. It is a testament to the desire on the part of many, many Jews to strengthen and deepen their Jewish identity and cultural attachments. It is, if you will, a different kind of kiruv, of kiruv levavot (bringing people together); what Evanston Jew would call chizuk. At a time when the Charedi-secular kulturkampf drums are being beaten once again, it's nice to look at Shavuot in Israel and see what a little learning can do to bring Jews together.

So, for those of you who read my blog, both in Eretz Hakodesh and in the Diaspora, I wish you all a Chag Shavuot Sameach and a Happy National Learning Day. Let's learn 'till we drop!

Is Bar-Ilan a "religious university"? What does that even mean?

[The following post is based on my own thoughts and a long talk I recently had with a former professor of mine on the subject. Constructive feedback is welcome - aiwac]

I am a proud graduate of Bar-Ilan University. I consider it a badge of honor. Unlike some, I have no feelings of inferiority towards the "secular" universities (Hebrew U, Tel Aviv U &c). I have read the scholarship of people from both areas, and I can proudly say that BIU is no less a bastion of academic excellence than the other institutions of higher learning in this country. Besides, I'm 6'5", so I don't even have to raise my head to "look down" on HUites J. [Those of you who have surmised my identity from this, please do not "out" me. I cherish my privacy. If you disagree with what I say, please do so on based on the merits of my arguments. aiwac]

But lately, I've gotten to wondering about BIU's claim to be a "religious university". To be sure, the "university" part is, to my mind, unquestionable. Professors at Bar-Ilan conduct research, give classes and debate issues according to the accepted scientific standards of empirical proof and formal logic just like everyone else. Nor (for the most part) is there censorship (self or otherwise), as far as I can tell. In the department in which I studied (no, no more hints), ideas and scholarly opinions that are anathema to Orthodox Jews were discussed openly and honestly. Nor should it be otherwise – to hide or whitewash unpleasant opinions or facts would destroy the credibility of the scholars of BIU.

But this brings us back to the original problem – what right does Bar-Ilan University have to bill itself as a "religious university" if there is no substantive difference between BIU and secular institutions (nor should there be, at least when it comes to academic freedom)?

What exactly makes it "religious"? The fact that it happens to have a relative preponderance of Orthodox academic personnel? The "Basic Jewish Courses" that most BA students must take? The relative preponderance of religious facilities (shuls, the kollel and the midrasha &c)?

The above-mentioned facts would seem rather peripheral to the core dilemma (except perhaps for the "Basic courses", but there are a lot of problems with them) and at most bespeak a more "friendly" atmosphere for a religious Jew wanting to study in academia. It pretty much means that people who come to study in Bar-Ilan will have to face the same issues one would face in a secular university, but they would be delivered by people who would help the "bitter pill(s)" of theological problems go down easier – using a surgeon's knife rather than a sledgehammer, so to speak. Thus, structurally at least, Bar Ilan is little different than other universities.

Ah, but therein lies the rub. While it's true that BIU does not, nay cannot differ in structure from other universities, it does differ many times in substance – specifically where it places its research emphases. Jewish religious thought, education and history is given much more thorough treatment in BIU than elsewhere. Scholars like Professor Dov Shwartz, for instance, have done a great deal towards the fleshing out and explication of Modern religious (esp. religious Zionist) thought. Much of the research done in the school of education focuses on specifically religious environments. There is a ton of academic material that comes out of Bar-Ilan on various forums on all sorts of issues pertaining to religious life, thought and dilemmas that is simply not matched (volume-wise) elsewhere. This is to say nothing of the various symposia, conferences &c on religious issues that take place every year.

There's also something else – Bar-Ilan is much more politically diverse than other universities. It's an open secret that the overwhelming majority of professors in humanistic departments in universities worldwide (and in Israel) tend to come in one of two flavors – left and hard-left (regardless of whether you define left as "liberal" or "socialist"). People who are centrists or (gasp! Shock! Horror!) right-wing will often find themselves in the uncomfortable position of a minority (even a minority-of-one). That's not the case here at BIU. The charge of BIU being a hotbed of "right-wing" fanaticism is overstated, if not simply false, when it comes to the academic personnel (wing-nuts like Prof. Hillel Weiss notwithstanding). You can find the entire gamut here – from left-wingers to centrists to rightists. Most of the professors I'm acquainted with are middle-of-the-roaders of one stripe or another. It provides a good environment for people who don't want to have to declare their ideological bona-fides every three seconds while doing research.

So I guess what I'm saying is this: Bar-Ilan University has not solved all the problems of Orthodox Jewry and the challenges of modern scholarship and science, and if that was the expectation (talk about ridiculously ambitious!) then it has only very partially lived up to it (in publications like BDD &c). But what BIU has done is create an institution where religious Jews can comfortably and more easily deal with the issues involved and develop their intellectual talents in studying and developing subjects close to them.

So is that enough to justify the "religious university" moniker? You decide.

It's not just what you say, it's how you say it (On Yishayahu Leibowitz)

One of the most interesting and controversial Israeli Orthodox thinkers of the second half of the twentieth century was Prof. Yishayahu Leibowitz. I bring him up because in the five or so years I've spent perusing Orthodox blogs, I don't remember him ever being mentioned. I've tried to understand why this is, and I have a few possible reasons.

The first is that Leibowitz wrote primarily in Hebrew (only one of his books was ever translated) and for an Israeli audience. But I find this explanation lacking; after all – people like Rav Yoel Bin Nun, Rav Cherlow, Prof. Avi Sagi and Zvi Zohar &c are well known and discussed. So that explanation won't fly.

The second possibility is that it's because of his various religious and political positions, almost all of which were extreme. But that's even less of an excuse – extreme positions make for great internet fodder, and are almost always a reason for a 'blogstorm'.

That leaves two other possibilities – either people simply aren't interested in him, or Leibowitz is shunned in the states for the same reason he's rarely mentioned in Israeli circles. That reason is simple – when it came to public discourse (certainly post-1967), Leibowitz too often acted like a shmuck.

Yes, I know, that he was personally generous and that he often invited people to come to his house to discuss important issues for hours on end. Yes, I know that for many (mostly in the secular world, surprisingly enough), he was a clear moral beacon (even though I vehemently disagree with his analyses).

But none of this can possibly excuse the fact that when it came to public debate, he often acted like a foul-mouthed five-year-old. He often subjected his opponents (esp. on the right) to mounting heaps of verbal abuse. He had no respect whatsoever for them, even if they were Rabbinic authorities (Rabbi Goren pre-langer, Rabbi Shach etc). His penchant for reducing them and their positions to grotesque caricatures was legendary.

Then there's the "Judeo-Nazis" business. This is a stain Leibowitz legitimately earned. The IDF=Nazis equation (and its correlate, Israel=Nazi Germany) was a meme he pushed constantly and with increasing vehemence from 1967 onwards. Few people did more than Leibowitz to grant legitimacy to this disgusting bit of hyperbole.

The fact that he was personally Zionist doesn't help his case. Furthermore, it was so muted, so instrumental and tepid that many of his followers (and there were many, esp. in the heated days of the First Lebanon War and the Intifada) had little trouble taking his rhetorical attacks one step further and ditching Zionism altogether. The center he wanted to convince (or did he?) often didn't listen because his attacks were so extreme.

The sad part is that Leibowitz himself recognized, in an earlier time, that the Prophets failed to convince anyone in their time precisely because their rhetoric was so virulent and full of fire and brimstone. Would that he had followed his own advice.

A Life on the Firing Line; Thoughts on Modern Orthodoxy

To a fellow Charedi Jew,

There's a story that makes the rounds in the perennial debates between MO Jews of all types and Charedi Jews. I can't vouch for its historical accuracy, but it certainly explains a mindset:

The neo-Kantian Jewish philosopher Herman Cohen met a simple Jew from the east along the road. Excited at the chance to expound on his view of God as a Kantian ideal, he went into a long lecture explaining his view of God as a philosophical postulate. At the end of his lecture, the simple Jew looked at him and said, "That's very nice, but where is the Master of the Universe in your vision?". According to some versions, Cohen broke down and cried upon hearing this.

This story is often brought as the penultimate evidence in favor of "emunah peshutah" – simple faith. You MO Jews, they say, are like Cohen – sophisticating yourselves to death and riddled with doubts and questions. Surely it is better to be like the simple Jew from the east in this story – the kind of Jew we try to create by isolating him from the world.

The problem with this argument is that the story has a sequel, one with a tragic ending. That "Jew from the east" was likely on their way to a nearby city to make a living. Perhaps he was immigrating to another country. Yet even if he stayed where he was, the result was the same: modernity came and changed everything.

Maybe he held fast, but his children or grandchildren didn't make it. Whether it was the challenges of modern scholarship, the collapse of the kehilah community structure or the difficulties of making a living, they left Orthodoxy. In every country of Europe on the eve of WWII – Poland and Lithuania included - the majority of Jews had long since "opted out" to one extent or another. I don't need to tell you that the situation in the states was even worse. In the space of a century and a half, Jews went from being mostly shomer Torah and Mitzvot to only 10% doing so. That ratio has not changed to this day.

I am not naïve. Many, perhaps most of the losses were probably unavoidable. Jews have turned their backs on God even in times of revelation – witness the Golden Calf incident. It stands to reason that it should be all the more true in a time of mass skepticism and hester panim. But far, far too many of the losses were entirely avoidable, in my opinion.

Too many Jews left because their leaders – especially Rabbis, refused to see what was going on. They refused to answer legitimate questions of faith or invest in providing tools to those who struggled. Too many of them showed little to no sympathy to Jews who violated Shabbat to provide their families with food. Many more "Not So Frum Jews" were edged out as the Austritt-mentality of "you are either with us or against us" and the "all or nothing" attitude to Shmirat Mitzvot increasingly prevailed.

Enter Modern Orthodoxy. Contrary to what you may think, MO is not a single coherent ideology. It is a "family name", a broad category of different strategies for Orthodox Jews to cope with the difficulties of modernity. It is a category that includes TIDE along with TuM, Rav Soloveitchik and Rav Kook pere, all the way to Yeshayahu Leibowitz, the Religious Kibbutz and Ne'emanei Torah Ve'Avodah. Some have a more positive view of Torah and modernity, some less. What they all have in common is a willingness to stand on the "firing line" and help defend Orthodox Jewry against modern challenges.

The simple Jew of the above-mentioned story had no real defenses against the storm of kefira. Today, thanks to the much-despised MO, he has a multitude of options to choose from and keep the faith – both for himself and his children. It is no longer an "either-or" issue – either simple, willingly ignorant faith or complete abandonment.

I know what you're thinking – we've shut them out! Just look at the success and insularity of the Charedi community. Would that that were true, but it isn't. We both know that, at least in Israel, that society is living on borrowed time, time which is increasingly running out. Modernity is still there, with all its dangers, and no matter how much you try to shut it out, it will get in. Just look at how thoroughly the internet has penetrated Charedi homes. This is to say nothing of the masses of Charedi Jews who will have to enter the modern workforce and deal, just like us evil mizrochnikim, with the modern world. Only you'll have to do it without any real defense mechanisms or tools.

This may surprise you, but I don't like the fact that I have to struggle so hard with my faith. I don't like the fact that every day feels like a re-run of Yaacov's indecisive struggle with the angel. I, too, wish we could all live "betemimut" and without difficulty. But I don't get to choose what period I was born into and neither did you. I am happy that I at least have the option of struggling that was denied the simple Jew from the east and his descendants.

MO Jews, especially the ideologues, have been fighting in the trenches for generations to ensure that Orthodoxy is a viable faith option in the modern world. They bravely continue to struggle against all odds. Their motto could very well have been like soldiers in the civil war – "we'll fight them till hell freezes over, and then, we'll fight 'em on the ice".

So, instead of condemning us for our supposed laxity or our lack of ideological purity or consistency, perhaps you can show us some gratitude for fighting milchamta shel Torah.

Yours,

A Proud Mizrochnik

The "Yishuv" Model

All this talk of the importance of giving charedim good secular education brings me back to the good ol' days of the British Mandate. Why? You'll see in a moment.

Eretz Israel in the first half of the 20^th century attracted much more than its fair share of original, brilliant, independent and often idiosyncratic Rabbinic thinkers. One of the lesser known of these was Rabbi Moshe Avigdor Amiel, Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv from 1936 until his death in 1946. In fact I think that in this department only Rav Kook pere and the Brisker (Rav Velvele) can claim to outclass him. One of these days I intend to discuss the riddle that is Rav Amiel, perhaps even the Brisker (who is woefully understudied in academia…). But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Rav Amiel was a big believer in Jewish education – specifically a "combined" curriculum of religious and secular studies. He established schools (for boys and girls) when he served in Antwerp. His crowning accomplishment, however, came when he settled on these shores. Its name is Yeshivat Hayishuv Hachadash or "Yishuv" as it is known – the first Yeshiva High School in Israel.

"Yishuv" was meant as a place for baalei batim (you know, those subhuman creatures who contribute to yeshivot) no less than for creating talmidei chachamim. Its discipline is legendary, as is its striving for academic excellence. Most "Old Yishuv" style Charedi Rabbis did not like this school to say the least. Efforts were made, both during Rav Amiel's lifetime and afterwards, to isolate it. Rav Amiel, a fiercely independent Rabbi who did not buy into the "Gedolim fiat" concept, refused to yield.

Ironically, the Charedi Yeshiva world benefited (and still benefits) tremendously from this "treif" institution. Many of the most brilliant and dedicated Charedi Rabbis, politicians and jurists rose from the ranks of "Yishuv". It has one of the highest matriculation clearing rates in the country.

Those Charedim that want to break the poverty circle and still maintain there "black hat"-ness could do a lot worse than creating a "grassroots" demand for more "Yishuvs".

Rabbi Segal, Hold Your Tongue! (On the IDF Chief Rabbinate)

I often frequent (Orthodox) blogs of people with whom I disagree, within reason. It is an enriching experience and has helped me form and mold the way I look at the Jewish world today. Evanston Jew in particular has helped me in this regard, especially when it comes to the importance of being "empathetic" to (if still strongly disagreeing with) the other side.

Rabbi Shael Segal is another such person. Most of his posts are very enlightening and well-thought out. They are demonstrative of a brilliant and off-the-beaten track type of thinking that I have always liked. Even when I find myself disagreeing with him (and that's a lot of the time), it is a disagreement of principle – not the type of thing that "gets my gander up", so to speak.

This is true except with regard to one issue – his attitude towards the IDF Chief Rabbinate. In many of his posts, Rabbi Segal makes clear his utter contempt for the Israeli Rabbinate, calling them a bunch of little peikidim and wishing the State of Israel had separated "Church and State" from the outset. This is certainly a legit, if minority position (Prof. Leibowitz held to that view from 1953 until his death).

What made me absolutely furious was that in a post on Operation Cast Lead, he extended this contempt to the IDF Chief Rabbinate. I had to study the history of the IDF Rabbinate pretty thoroughly for my thesis (sheyikatev bimehera beyameinu) so what follows is grounded in academic research. But to make a long story short, Rabbi Segal, you're full of it.

This may sound surprising, but in the first years of the state of Israel, the attitude of many religious Zionist Jews to the IDF was deeply ambivalent. On the one hand, they obviously supported serving in the Army and found it a source of pride. But serving as a religious Jew in the IDF was an extremely difficult experience. Kosher food and kosher kitchens were not always available. Almost all the commanders, junior and senior, were secular. Many were indifferent or hostile to religious needs. There were cases (I don't know how many) where Jews were forced to violate Shabbat in conditions that could by no stretch of the imagination be called "Mivtza'i" or involving military necessity. Many old-time Mafdal leaders (you know, those "always compromise, wishy-washy" types) openly called for establishing separate religious units to prevent the mass defection of the younger generation to the secular side.

Enter the first IDF Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rabbi Shlomo Goren (Gornochik). While his predecessor Nathan Gardi (head of the "religious section") helped lay some of the groundwork, it was Goren who succeeded in turning the IDF into a place where Orthodox and traditional (Masorti) Jews could serve proudly while keeping Torah and Mitzvot to whatever degree. He not only ensured that the IDF be a kosher-friendly environment. He was a pioneer of "Army halacha" and through a years-long painstaking effort created the first hands-on corpus of army-specific halachic responsa ever. Religious Jews now had what to work with to maintain the faith and serve their country. More than that, Rav Goren went to the matt many times to ensure that Jews not be forced to violate halacha unnecessarily, working together with Ben-Gurion (of all people!) to ensure that voluntary Shabbat and Holiday observance in the army (i.e. that religious soldiers not be forced to violate them) was mandated in a series of legally binding directives from the IDF Chief of Staff.

Rabbi Goren was a sincere believer in Klal Israel and was against the idea of "separate religious units. He also practiced what he preached – he was not a detached Yeshiva Rav. He participated in combat missions and even took a parachuting course. In addition to the functions of ensuring "dati-friendly" conditions, he also invested in organizing Seders on Pesach and even held series of lectures on the High Holidays. He risked life and limb to ensure the burial of Jewish soldiers who died behind enemy lines – there are reliable stories of how he crossed minefields to be kover metei mitzvah. He also helped be matir many of the agunot of Jewish soldiers, such as the Dakar incident and the dead of Gush Etzion.

Even after Rabbi Goren left, the IDF Rabbinate continued to this day to do important work. In addition to the "little pekidim" (kashrut supervisors, Rabbis) whom Rabbi Segal so despises who ensure that religious and secular Jews can serve together, there are many other functions. The chazanim (many of whom are Charedi!) who officiate at military funerals and help comfort the bereaved. The important work they do towards (non-lunatic) conversion. I could go on, but I think my point has been made.

Rabbi Segal, the IDF Rabbinate has done and continues to do exponentially more work towards Ahavat Israel and Achdut Israel than you can possibly imagine. Shame on you for smearing the work of this wonderful institution and its people.

Statistics don't lie...Read 'em and weep, seriously

Here's a run-down of stats on the Charedi community for 2009-2010 from a study conducted by the Israeli Government:

• 56% of Charedim are classified as poor. Despite being around 8-9% of the population, they represent 19% of the poor people in Israel.
• The overall employment rate of Charedim (women and men) is 43.2%, compared to 72% for the secular population. 37% of Charedi men work in a multi-annual cycle, as opposed to 80% for the secular-masorti crowd. Only 49% of Charedi women work, compared to 70% of secular women.
• Only 8% of businesses employ Charedi Jews, even though 90% of them believe that most Charedim are qualified to work by them. 95% claim the reason for this is the inability to integrate Charedim into a workforce that doesn't segregate men and women. 65% of non-employed Charedim confirm this by saying they are not willing to work in a workplace that doesn't seperate men and women.
• Male Charedim are woefully uneducated: most study in various "Torah environments", and only 9.5% have a matriculation degree and above. 40% do not know English at all, 41% have medium to low knowledge of English.
• The opposite is true of Charedi women: 21% don't know English, 49% have a medium to ow knowledge of English and the remainder have a good command of English. 42% have a post-high school degree (mostly in the field of education). 11.5% have an academic degree. The overwhelming majority of Charedi women work in the field of Charedi education.

Not Simple, but Necessary: A Parent's Burden (On Jewish Education)

[I apologize for not following up until now on my earlier posts on Jewish education; work and exhaustion got in the way. – aiwac]

Before I get into the issue of how to teach, I would like to address the more important question: who should teach.

Tons of symposia, lectures and conferences are conducted year in, year out on Jewish schools – both here and abroad. I don't think there's a single aspect of Jewish education that hasn't been scrutinized to the nth degree. Yet in all the fuss, we seem to forget that the primary burden for passing on the Torah lies with the parents. The original mitzvah of chinuch is on the father (the mother is expected to do so naturally).

Too many times in the past, I have heard sob stories of this or that kid who "went off the derech" or who conducted themselves abominably, only to hear - "but they came from a nice Jewish home". But what does that mean? Aside from sending them to Jewish schools and keeping mitzvot at home, what Jewish content was passed on in this home?

What were the divrei Torah 'round the Shabbas table like? Were they meant to inspire the kids and bring them in on the conversation, or were they boring lectures meant to mechanically quote the Godol of the Week? What (Jewish and general) values, if any, did the parents try to inculcate into their children? Come to think of it, what did they do towards their education besides "help with the homework"? When children had questions and dilemmas of faith and problems regarding halacha – did parents listen empathetically and try to help, or did they drive them away or shunt them off to someone else?

Education doesn't just happen in the classroom. It takes place at home as well – through osmosis, mimesis and all the other indirect experiential methods of learning.

If parents really want to help with education, then instead of just constantly intervening with schools, they need to work on themselves – religiously, knowledge-wise and morally. No more outsourcing everything to someone else. It's time for Jewish parents to say to themselves – "the buck stops here".

The AIWAC prize

I hereby announce the AIWAC prize, an award given by one judge (myself) for contributions to Judaism made in the great State of Israel. The contributions can be social, cultural or religious. Each prize will contain a theme, and is not limited to one recipient.

This post's theme: Making Jewish sources user-friendly and accessible

After long deliberation, I have decided to award the prize to the following people:

1) Rav Pinchas Kehati - for his seminal work in explaining the entire Mishna in easy-to-understand terms.

2) Rav Adin Steinzaltz - for his monumental bi'ur of the entire Shas, which is set to be finished this year.

3) The Da'at Mikra team - For making the entire Tanakh, book by book, come to life.

Honorable mention also goes out to Rav Shlomo Tal, creator of the widely used Rinat Israel siddur.

To all of you, those who are with us and those who have passed on, I say yashar co'ach for having made such a tremendous contribution to the spread of Torah.

My Independence Day

"Don't it always seem to go/That you don't know what you got till it's gone" – Counting Crows

You know, we take a lot for granted in our lives. That we'll have our health, our family, our jobs. Yom Hazikaron is just such a painful reminder to many not to take their loved ones for granted. Yet I can't think of anything we as Jews take for granted more than the very existence of the State of Israel. Day in, day out, we bicker and argue about all the problems involved in the medina. The corruption problem. The violence problem. The question of Jewish identity. The Palestinian issue.

We argue so much that we forget just how wonderful it is to have Israel around. We argue about what the army should do and forget that there was a time we didn't have an army. We argue the merits and demerits of the Israeli schools; we forget that Israel is the single largest provider of Jewish education (in whatever form) in the world (and relatively inexpensive, too!). We write op-eds galore on issues of the day; we take for granted that most of it's in Hebrew, a language that virtually everyone wrote off as dead but 150 years ago. We debate how to work the Law of Return; we forget there was a time when there wasn't such a thing; when no country in the world would let us in.

So tomorrow I intend to turn off the kvetch-o-meter for a day. For me, Yom Ha'Atzma'ut is Israel appreciation day. It's the day I stop taking the state for granted and start reveling in all the good stuff we've gotten from it.

Criticism? I've got the rest of the year for that.

What is to be Done? (American Secular-Liberal Jews and Israel)

Every so often you see on the net another article on how liberal American Jews are becoming "disenchanted" with the State of Israel. The usual litany of reasons is given: Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, the Orthodox monopoly on religion &c &c. Diaspora should be at the center of Jewish life (ostensibly leaving Israel at the periphery).

I certainly understand their point of view on these matters, even if I disagree. Nevertheless, I don't understand why this has to be zero-sum game. Why can't Israel and the diaspora serve as a mutually enriching "dual-center" of Jewish life, rather than it being one or the other? Most people I know over here have abandoned the extreme "negation of the Galus" attitude, why can't they do the same? As to the Palestinians and the religion-state problems, yes, these are painful, controversial issues, but do they really necessitate an "I hate you guys" attitude? A "you people" or "Israel is a cancer" attitude?

Come to think of it, why do they see the State only through its flaws or problematic parts, both real and alleged? Zionism and the state of Israel have contributed so much from a Jewish point of view that surely even non-Zionists can see it. The full-scale revival of Hebrew (including Hebrew education abroad); compulsory Jewish education (in different ways, of course); a civil calendar that works by the Jewish life-cycle calendar; the list goes on.

Much has been made, justifiably, of "non-denominational" learning events like "Limmud" in London. Well, there's plenty of that here, and it happens all year round. Not a week goes by that lectures on various facets of Jewish history and culture aren't given in all parts of country. What's more important, it comes in every flavor – from ultra-Orthodox to secular. There are even secular "batei-midrash" and "yeshivot". There's more: on Sukkot, for instance, there is a huge non-denominational learning event called "Hakhel" that takes place near Tel Aviv. I am certain that if more people came here to learn, there could be funding for even more events.

I am saying all this not to belittle our very serious disagreements, but to argue that Israel is more than just the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the religion-state issue or a hundred other complaints. There is a lot about this place that is positive, specifically from a Jewish point of view. If you focus solely on the political or democratic angle and judge Israel solely by those yardsticks, you are missing out on a lot. I know that for many, if not most, liberal Jews, the "classical" Zionist ideal of soldier/pioneer &c has lost its luster, but there are so many other options nowadays. I could spend a whole web page just listing them.

We Jews are a family. That doesn't mean our relations are ideal or even have to be. We bicker, argue and often settle scores. But in the end we are family, and we need each other. I would much prefer it if liberal Jews came to visit at gatherings even after moving away rather than cut all ties in anger. If that happens, we will both be the losers.

Waltzing with Wellhausen

[This case is a hypothetical based on Ben Chorin's latest riddle. I consider it an especially important dilemma, since the DH is one of the big emuna landmines for intellectually curious OJs. I guarantee you it is more common than you think. – aiwac]

A religious university student (or professor) is in a bind. He feels intellectually compelled to accept the Documentary Hypothesis (either wholly or in part), and none of the present Orthodox solutions (R. David Tzvi Hoffman's work, Rav Breuer's "shitat habehinot" &c) set him at ease. Nevertheless, he wishes to remain a frum, believing Jew. He approaches his Rabbi on the subject.

What should the Rabbi do, and why?

1) Tell him to take off his kipa, the damned apikores.

2) Try to provide him with some sort of fall-back position for TMS that is intellectually and religiously acceptable, if borderline (assuming one exists).

3) Convince him to continue living a frum life, in the hope that either he finds a personal solution for his dilemma, the DH is rebutted, or that he will at least have zechuyot against his kefira be'ikar emuna.

4) Other (elaborate)

Plus Ca Change

Once again Reb Nachum has won the day on conversion. I really hate Reb Nachum right now.

God Bless the Ba'alei Bayit, Every One

[A few weeks ago, Tzohar's parashat shavua sheet dealt with the touchy subject of integration and the lack thereof in MO Israeli education. I was shocked to read an article by a generally liberal Rabbi singing the praises of elitist religious education and complaining about how mass Jewish education dumbs everything down. The sub-text, of course, is that the only type of Jew that's worth investing in is the intellectual elite, while the rest can be left twisting in the wind. This post is "inspired" by that contempt. – aiwac]

In the yeshiva world (doesn’t matter whether right or left), he is disdained and held in open contempt, his title a common insult. The kibbutz hadati despised his bourgeois values; idealists and intellectuals of all kinds, his laxity and tendency towards compromise. Who is this strange creature whom all disrespect?

He is the Jewish ba'al bayit, or baalabus in yiddish. This species has many forms, but they all have in common the fact that they work for a living and raise Jewish families. Some are more learned, some less; some are more makpid than others on various matters of halacha. You might see him talking in shul about the latest gossip or maybe pouring over a gemara preparing the Daf for his fellow baalabatim.

I wish to sing the praises of this unsung hero of Judaism, the one with the worst PR and the fewest defenders. Talmidim chachamim, radical and conservative philosophers all have books, studies and schools done in their honor. Even the worst of "gadflies" have a loyal flock who trumpet their virtue at every opportunity. At the very least, they have institutions such as the Yeshiva or the Kibbutz to back them up.

The ba'al habayit has none of these. He continues his often thankless task of perpetuating the Jewish world, one generation at a time. He'll send his kid to a religious school even if it means they won't eat in his house. He'll give his Devar Torah at Shabbat meal or in Shul, even if puts everyone to sleep. He'll give money to yeshivot that look down on him. Even when he has doubts and struggles with God, he'll set them aside as best he can for the sake of his children.

If talmidim chachamim are meant to be the "head" of Jewish society, ba'alei batim were and are its material and spiritual backbone. They attended the shuls, filled the coffers of religious institutions and ensured the slow and steady rebuilding of every generation. They did it with no fanfare; simply because it was their duty as Jews.

Perhaps it is time we pay tribute to those simple Jews, those "poshiter yiddin", those silent heroes without whom we might not be here today in such numbers. Maybe we should let them know they are not "second-class Jews", and they are no less deserving of our respect and gratitude. May that come to pass.

Pot, Meet Kettle

Speaking of Dr. Leon, an article of his recently came out in the latest Israel journal no. 15 (in Hebrew, sorry). In the article, Leon argues that two key social changes took place around the 1977 Likud electoral victory that enabled the ascendence of the Shas party. The first one was the increased confidence and power of the Mizrahi middle class and Rabinnic leadership, who now fought to stake out their own independent claim in the Charedi, Religious-Zionist and political world. These social forces combined to help the Likud win the election in 1981, and eventually make Shas a 10-mandate mainstay in Israel.

The second factor was the breaking up of the old religious-Zionist populace. Until 1977, Mafdal regularly garnered around 10-12 mandates. Many of those votes came from traditional and religious Mizrahi homes as well as from Ashkenazim. Unfortunately, the increasing focus on Eretz Yisra'el alone led to many parties splitting off the old Mafdal and siphoning its mandates (Metzad, Tehiyah, Tekumah etc).

This was not the only problem. An unspoken fact of many of the settlments is that they were construed as "community towns". A person wanting to enter such a community has to be able to afford building or buying a house, thus ensuring a high socioeconomic population. More importantly, anyone who wants to live in such a community must pass an "acceptance committee" which pretty much guarantees that only "like-minded" and often "like-skinned people" need apply.

Whether intentionally or not, this middle-to-upper-middle-class flight to the hills ensured that the largely Ashkenazi communities mostly cut themselves off from the poorer Mizrahim in the development towns and neighborhoods. This vacuum was filled in many places by Shas. So far, nothing more than further proof of the self-seperation of much of the religious community pundits have been debating for years.

It turns out, however, that this was not a religious phenomenon but an Ashkenazi phenomenon. Put bluntly, many, many "community towns" have been established throughout the country within the Green Line that follow the exact same principles. The difference? 75% of these towns are homogenically Askenazi, and center or left-wing politically. That's right - many of the same people who love the Palestinians and minorities oh-so much would never dream of letting one live next to them. NIMBY, I guess.

None of this absolves us for having left tens of thousands of our brehtren to fend for their own religiously, but it does make me much more cynical towards so-called liberals in our midst...

The Day After Hitkansut

I really don't want to write about this. The very thought scares me to death. Nevertheless, I think it needs to be out there.

At present, over 60,000 Jews live beyond the "fence" or "wall" or whatever you want to call it. This includes two of my best, closest friends (and I don't have many of those). They are all living there "on borrowed time", in territory that will not be Israeli under any feasible settlement, permanent or otherwise. As crazy as it sounds, we need to take into account the possibility of another forced "hitnatkut". Whether it happens because of international sanction, agreement or otherwise makes no difference. It makes no difference if it happens in five years or thirty - it's coming.

This has nothing to do with the question of whether such a move is "right". I doubt the fact that the Gaza hitnatkut was a disaster is much comfort to the thousands of families who are still without permanent homes. Now multiply that by a factor of 10 and you get what we will be facing if and when it hits yosh.

Let me repeat that number again: 60,000 (if it were up to the "green line" fetishists it would be closer to 400,000, but that doesn't seem as likely). Men, women, children. People whose lives and incomes are tied up in the houses and communities built over time. Now imagine all that erased.

So what's your solution, smart guy?

I don't have one. I just know that we need to start preparing solid, detailed back-up plans for The Day After. I know we can't rely on the government, and I'd rather see those hurt be able to rebuild their life again as quickly as possible.

In Israeli terms, I'd rather we be smart than right (al tehiyeh tzodek, tehiyeh chacham).

An Open Letter on Operation Cast Lead

To: Professor Daniel Statman, Haifa University

Dear Sir,

I read with much interest your response to Prof. Asa Kasher's article on the IDF's conduct in Operation Cast Lead from a 'moral warfare' point of view. You claim to be among the 'moderate voices' who voice reasonable doubts about the IDF's conduct, as opposed to the "functional pacifists" both here and abroad by whom Israel can do no right. Nevertheless, you claim, your doubts remain as is. I will address your critique in its two main aspects: the evidentiary and the theoretical.

Evidentiary Arguments

As far as evidence goes, your excessive, almost wholesale reliance on the report of "Breaking the Silence" on Cast Lead is curious, to say the least. Breaking the Silence is an "issue NGO"; its purpose is to prove its predetermined positions as much as possible (in this case, that the IDF is a ruthless, inhumane monster of an army). As Prof. Kenneth Anderson, a former human rights activist and current international law scholar has pointed out, NGO reports are very much like one-sided prosecutor's briefs, filled to the gills with supporting evidence, but completely lacking when it comes to contradictory evidence or even taking arguments for the other side into account.

It is because of this that I find the fact that the picture emerging from the testimonies to be "almost uniform" to be highly suspect. It sounds like (again, this is my instinctive feeling) that "Shovrim Shtika" looked for corroborating testimony to its own prejudices rather than a genuine cross-section. I am not, God forbid, saying these testimonies are false, just that they are not "smoking guns". Thousands of soldiers participated in this operation; only a professional investigation can determine whether "Shovrim Shtika" is representative or not.

Theoretical

In your letter, you rail about the position according to which soldiers should take no risks to avoid hurting enemy civilians. You argue (as do your colleagues, Profs. Avi Sagi, Noam Zohar and others) that soldiers should take "some risk" (A very vague and undefined term) to avoid harming enemy non-combatants. You claim that there is sufficient room between occasionally letting terrorists go to avoid harming civilians (your position) to letting everyone go to avoid harming any civilians (the European position). No offense, Prof. Statman, but I consider this to be a cheap cop-out. It may make you and your colleagues feel better, but it is useless as a guide for commanders on the ground.

Let's say that I could somehow wave a magic wand and make every commander, junior and senior, agree with your "some risk" position. What exactly is to prevent them from being ridiculously over-cautious and rarely ordering an attack for fear of possibly harming civilians, to the detriment of the whole operation? After all, they all know that both international law scholars and philosophy professors such as yourself are busy second-guessing their every move. Why take the risk of condemnation and possible criminal prosecution? Why do so, when even by us there are professors who believe that sometimes "defeat is the desirable moral outcome [sic!]"? If fear of malpractice suits paralyze doctors, all the more so should not such fears paralyze commanders?

[This is not unprecedented; similar command dithering has happened when commanders feared high soldier casualties - at the first assault on Petersburg in the Civil War, for instance.]

Also, I don't understand why you make no effort to differentiate between intentional harm to civilians and unintentional (inevitable or not) harm to civilians (the so-called "double effect"). This refusal to see a distinction between the two is the lot of the self-same ultra-hostile voices abroad you yourself condemn. If you share their positions and place the entire moral responsibility for harm to civilians on Israel and none on Hamas/Hizbullah, then I frankly fail to see a difference between you and Goldstone.

Conclusion

All this is as nothing to the most serious problem, and that is how the IDF is supposed to effectively wage war (i.e. achieve victory) under the increasing constraints which you place on them. After all, without the possibility of accomplishing something – a cease-fire, a victory, the saving of lives – one could plausibly argue that ANY offensive is immoral since it serves no real purpose. While you claim to not be a "functional pacifist", I believe that you and your colleagues are coming dangerously close to that definition.

I'd like to hope that I am wrong about you, even totally wrong. I would like nothing better than to know that people such as yourself know the difference between abstract ideals and harsh reality; that you know not to be utopian and one-sided in your moral demands. This country needs moral consciences that can give constructive and realistic moral criticism as opposed to the self-declared Jermiahs who pine for "peace on earth".

Unfortunately, your letter has not eased my doubts on the subject. Like your own qualms about the IDF during Cast Lead, they remain in force.

Sadly yours,

aiwac

Mizrachi Jews

[OK, now that I've gotten my rather depressing political rants out of my system, we can return to our regularly scheduled programming. – aiwac]

In my first post on Israeli MO policy, I brought up the touchy issue of interaction with that vague population of Jews in Israel which defines itself not as "religious" or "secular" but rather "traditional" or "masorti". This amorphous group, largely made up of Sephardic/Mizrachi Jews, has not really been given much academic treatment (on their religiosity) over the years and is often the subject of cliché and generalization. This is beginning to change, and two books have recently come out on the subject.

The first book, "Soft Charedism", is by Dr. Nissim Leon, an up and coming researcher who specializes in the development of that unique blend of Charedi outlook and Sephardi religiosity. Leon is a serious scholar with an understanding of how religion actually works (a rarity nowadays among academics). He discusses the development of Mizrachi Charedism through changes in the Mizrachi shul and siddur, as well as the development of a cadre of Mizrachi yeshiva bachurim that grew over time. Highly recommended.

The second book is by Dr. Yaacov Yedgar, a researcher previously known for his analysis of the changing of the national ethos form 1967 to 1995. His study, called simply 'The masortiyim in Israel', is based on thorough interviews of with self-identified 'traditionalists'. While I am less familiar with Yedgar's work and am a little skeptical as to how many people are "consciously" and "ideologically" masorti, his study sounds like a good start on the subject at least.

Unfortunately, both these books are only available in Hebrew...unless someone could take the challenge of translating them...:)

Desperation or Derangement?

The new Hebrew Azure is out, with plenty of goodies - including a very enlightening article about the differences between value-laden education and education that focuses solely on equality. I would like to dedicate this post to another enlightening article by Asaf Sagiv on the mentality of the radical Israeli anti-Zionist left.

Sagiv, editor of Azure, is in my opinion a brilliant and erudite intellectual historian. His essays explaining the thought of various radical thinkers are always clear, concise and fair. Even if one doesn't agree with the views of his subjects, and I certainly don't, he succeeds in presenting their side of things in easy-to-understand manner.

Sagiv tries to explain the position of radicals like Adi Ofir, Yehouda Shenhav (this is how Shenhav spells his first name in English) and Ariella Azoulai as one not of hatred, or self-hatred, but rather of despair. The radicals have convinced themselves that the entire Zionist enterprise is one long act of evil and oppression, one which cannot be separated with "cutting-off points" like the 1948 refugee problem or the six-day war. The differences between "green-line" Zionists and settlers are for them purely cosmetic; the entire state and Zionist society is one large empty void, a dark void so malevolent it conjures up horrifying 1984-esque images of a totalitarian atomizing state that will snuff out all hope.

Having convinced themselves of Israel's unredeemable nature, these radicals are focused entirely on the act of destruction (or deconstruction) of the void, withdrawing completely from any attempt at reform. The attempts at boycott, of derision and violent anti-Zionist rhetoric; these are the acts of people who have become so ostensibly desperate that they believe that only through negation and destruction – "resistance" in their terminology – can anything be accomplished.

So far, this is Sagiv's take. While I'm sure many if not most radicals believe in this vision, I cannot help but see the underlying pathology of radicalism that taints their view of the world. Radicals tend to see things in essentialist terms that often have only tenuous ties to real life; Israeli radicals are no exception. They have no interest in real life, in facts, in shades of grey and actual people. They remind me of many a Russian radical pre-1917 who claimed to speak as "the general will" of the people or the proletariat despite having never actually gained their consent to act on their behalf.

The examples are strewn throughout Sagiv's article. They refer to "the state" as an idea and not the actual state and how it functions, either then or now. The 1948 Palestinian refugee problem is a cosmic event made with a Zionist wave of the hand and not a messy, complicated process borne of a violent national conflict. Actual positive reforms and changes that help the disadvantaged mean nothing to them, since there is either total equality or total darkness. One gets the impression from much of the rhetoric that the Zionist project has to do with a great cosmic clash between Good and Evil rather than serious disputes between fallible human beings. Under such conditions, their despair stems, in my opinion, not from objective reality, but from the underlying assumptions that guide their thought, a mirror image of their essentialist view of how they think Zionism works.

So what am I saying? It's simple. While radicals may be convinced that their's is a position of despair, I argue that this despair is borne of a view of the world that cannot possibly actually deal with the world as it is, with its flaws and foibles. It is a pathology, a powerful and intoxicating philosophical drug that both convinces the bearer of his righteousness and absolves him of the need to get his hands dirty. These people put on themselves the mantle of prophets speaking His word, only they replace themselves with the actual Almighty Blessed be He.

Against people like that, we need to marshal the reformers and the centrists, people of action and not just pure vision. We need more realists. We need more Yaacov Lozowicks and Shalem Centers, more people who deal with the real world and its problems, who can offer real-life solutions and not utopias and apocalyptic visions.

We need to deal with the world as it really is, not as we think it should be.

The Pointlesness of It All (The IDF and Goldstone)

Yaacov Lozowick has a nice discussion of the IDF's thorough response to the Goldstone Report. The army clearly made a concerted effort to adress the specific accusations made therein. I salute Avichai Mendeblit, the Army JAG (and an Orthodox Jew, BTW), for his work. Nevertheless, I am not rejoicing, important a step though this may be.

The first reason is that thorough studies like this should have been made (even if only for internal purposes) from the outset of the 2nd intifada. Instead the army stuck its head in the sand, only beginning to conduct systematic investigations and explanations many years later (e.g. the Gaza beach incident). As things stand now, only the "prosecutor's version of events" (i.e. the various NGO reports) for the IDF's conduct during Intifada II is publicly and easily available. Journalists and future historians will only have this version of events when evaluating the army's conduct. The (military) losers have written almost the entire first draft of this part of history, a fact that was completely avoidable if the government had taken serious steps to counter them.

The second reason I am not happy is because a substantial portion of the intellectual elite in Israel dealing directly with war and warfare have become what George Wegel calls "functional pacifists". This is not an insignificant fringe group; it consists of most Israeli international law professors, some philosophy professors and even one ex-general. As "functional pacifists" they give lip service to the right of Israel to defend itself and no more. As far as they are concerned, any military attack on cities or areas which are thiock with civilians is immoral a priori, irrespective of the steps taken to minimize civilian deaths. Since terrorists almost always meld with the population, this is an effective granting of complete immunity to one side, who may now do what they want to the enemy with impunity.

Some say this outright (as Gordon did), others so restrict the rules of engagement and increase the degree to which soldiers must endanger themselves to avoid civilian deaths so as to make military efforts costly, ineffective and ultimately pointless (which raises the question of whether it renders the attack itself immoral). Indeed, every time we've had intense engagements in a civilian-heavy - in 2006 and 2009 - said functional pacifists have merely tightened the screws and make it even more impossible to actually wage war against terrorists (The following article is a good example of such).

As far as this group is concerned, the moral onus is completely, and always, on Israel, no matter what. Hizbullah and Hamas either bear no responsibility for creating this morally horrible situation, or they are condemned with a few mealy-mouthed words meant to conceal the critique of Israel. In short, as far as this group is concerned, Israel may not conduct war unless it is completely surgical; anything less is off limits.

As long as there are not more people like Asa Kasher who calls for a more balanced approach, as long as the discourse is dominated by "functional pacifists", all the efforts in the world to fight morally will not make one bit of difference - not to this group, and certainly not to people abroad. Until then, Mendeblit's heroic efforts will accomplish little.

On Hitchazkut and Hozka

Whenever the debate about the "slide to the right" comes up in the Israeli media, one of the most common replies of the "rightists" goes something like this: Jews are being mitchazek! They are being more careful about halacha. How can this be a bad thing? (I will leave aside the question of what is and what isn't halacha proper)

My reply to this is simple: I do not have, nor could I have, any problem in principle with Jews personally strengthening their religiosity. If you feel you have found the necessary courage and strength to move forward in your avodat hashem, well, I salute you. Good luck.

My problem, and the problem of many of those who attack the 'slide', is not with hitchazkut or Jews being more frum in general. It is rather with the attitude of many such Jews toward those who are less observant, less frum than they. Either out of a sense of entitlement or genuine religious zeal, many of these frummer yiddin thumb their noses and hold not-so-observant Jews in utter contempt.

The examples of this are legion. The kid who comes home from yeshiva and disrespects his parents. The use of derogatory terms toward Rabbanim that hold to a different hashkafa (JB being a prominent example of this), or to different branches of Orthodoxy (what greater insult can there be but mizrochnik?). The refusal to eat in other frum Jews' homes simply because it's not "their hechsher" (I'm not talking here about the genuine halachic sefekot, but the "it's not ours" kind). I'm sure all of us have heard or seen these things too many times.

More than this, though, it is the attempt to force halacha, or one's understanding of halacha, down people's throats that has caused such antipathy towards Judaism, even in Orthodox segments. Too many mithazkim and frummer yiddin have come to the conclusion that it is their right, nay their duty, to make their poor benighted brethren see the light through coercion.

The result is evident everywhere. Weddings now adhere to ever stricter standards of hafrada for fear of the zealots. Tombs of the greats, like the Rambam and Shimon hatzadik, have been made practically intolerable for women who pray there because of an extremely stringent view of tzni'ut. Violent demonstrations and assaulting fellow Jews is apparently OK if it's done in the name of Shabbat.

I can not stress enough how destructive attempts at increased halachic coercion are to Jews, both the less observant and the non-observant. They accomplish the exact opposite – seething hatred and contempt for Judaism. There are tens thousands of Jews, here and in the states, who are looking to improve their Jewish identity. The one option they will not explore is Orthodoxy, precisely because of the degree of social coercion and disgusting treatment of people who cross the line. There are thousands of Orthodox Jews who completely leave religion every year because too many Orthodox educators think that bullying and halachic zero-tolerance is the way to go.

It goes that I do not object to hitchazkut, but I am four-square against the means that are employed. These methods are completely illegitimate in my view. I don't think I can come up with better examples of mitzvah haba'a beaveirot (the plural is intentional) than the above stories.

We must actively fight those who do this tooth and nail, at every turn. Not because h"v, we object to the goal, but because accomplishing this by force completely destroys the purpose. It does more than just alienate. Force and violence make the very ma'aseh pasul.

People should do mitzvot meyir'at hashem, not meyir'at thugs who use His name in vain.