There are several myths about Orthodox Judaism in America that I’d like to debunk in this composition. Most are posited and propagated by the Orthodox themselves; alas, however, nobody seems to bother to challenge those presuppositions – perhaps for lack of expertise in the subject—so, here I go:

Myth 1: Orthodox Judaism is the oldest of the major Jewish denominations in America.

Truth: Between organized Jewish socio-philosophical movements others are older. For example, the reform movement in America began in 1824 with the foundation of the Reform Society of Israelites in Charleston, South Carolina. Other reform-minded congregations later united under the guidance and leadership of Isaac Mayer Wise and subsequently established Hebrew Union College (HUC) for the training of a new generation of American rabbis in 1875.

When at a gala event non-kosher food was flagrantly served, some participants grumbled and eventually seceded to found Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS) as a more traditional alternative to Reform.

When Solomon Schechter took over the helm of leadership of JTS and officially coined the term Conservative to define the movement as more traditional than Reform but not quite bound by halakha, those who sought to preserve rabbinical Judaism completely unaltered were prompted to once again secede from JTS and establish the “Jewish Jews”, which took the name Orthodoxy after its umbrella organization the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, also known as the “Orthodox Union”.
In short Orthodoxy was the last to organize itself in America and it did so reactively because it was unsatisfied with the state of affairs in the other, more progressive denominations.

Myth 2: Orthodox people observe halakha exactly as specified by the accepted middle-ages authorities such as R. Joseph Cairo, author of the shulhan arukh, without any modifications or negligence.

Fact: None of the factions within contemporary Orthodoxy stick to halakha 100%.

Hasidim, for example, habitually pray minha after sunset and frequently miss the deadline for reciting the morning shema and/or the morning amidah prayer. Other commonly violated laws are the proscriptions on slander (lashon hara) and gossip (rekhiluth).

Modern Orthodox folks – on the other hand—have their own divergences from halakha. For example, they often engage in unacceptable physical contact with women. The Early Orthodox folks of the interwar years – such as Young Israel – even organized co-ed dances in order to encourage social and conjugal interaction within the community. Another questionable practice highly prevalent among the MO is the clean-shaving of the beard, which is prima facie unacceptable.

Myth 3: Orthodox Judaism is the only authentic Judaism available; other denominations being tainted by their eagerness to adapt to their surrounding and thus open to compromise with traditional belief and practice.

Fact: “Traditional” Judaism has not been static over the years. It’s only traditional at a given point in time and space, relative to others who wish to modernize. Ultimately, however, any serious student of Jewish history knows that even the most fundamentalist of contemporary Orthodoxy has learned to adapt in many ways to its particular milieu.

For example:

1) In old Europe there was no such thing as kashrut certification. While this may seem a humra (stringency), it also constitutes permission to eat from commercial establishments who are bound by the laws of the open market to be honest and diligent in its practice of kashrut, as opposed to exhibiting genuine integrity.

2) Eruv in America. The Eruv in America in large cities is clearly not kosher due to the “600,000 people traversing the road” rule; the Talmud and Halakha make it very clear that such does not qualify for Eruv. Accordingly, no eruv would be valid anywhere within a city such as New York.

3) Beth din. The beth din system in America is a travesty. It commands no respect from members of the Orthodox community. The law forbidding adjudication of disputes in secular courts (arkaut) is habitually violated by the most devout Jews.

4) Among many Hasidic sects, adherents’ blind attachment and fanatic dedication to their leaders surpasses halakhic bounds. Adherents often commit acts of aggression and harm in the name of their Rebbe. Even in their personal life, their Rebbe’s advice trumps the strict rule of Halakha and moral responsibility.

Myth 4: Orthodox Judaism will continue indefinitely. All other Jewish movements fizzle out in the end. Strict adherence to tradition is the only permanent safeguard against dissolution of the Jewish faith.

Fact: As explained earlier Orthodoxy itself is a relatively recent, reactionary movement, and so there is no a priori expectation for its continuation any longer into the future than, say, Reform Judaism.
In fact, if history can teach us something in this regard it is precisely the contrary. The Sadducee movement vanished because it was TOO conservative. Because it concentrated all its focus on temple worship, it was unsustainable once the temple was destroyed in 70 c.e. whereas the Pharisee movement with its “reformist” and populist approach to Judaism --enabling commoners to partake of the cult through the studying of Torah and meticulous observance of commandments—thereby laid a solid foundation for the continuity of Judaism through the Middle Ages.

How did Judaism Survive whereas all its Contemporaries Failed?

Why was the Hellenistic threat to the survival of Judaism so great, and why was Judaism's ability to resist Hellenism such a pivotal event in world history?

Most historians don't take the events in Judaea in the years 332-76 BCE seriously. Specifically I am referring --for one-- to the Hellenization trend that lasted from Alexander's conquest until Antiochus Epiphanes' reign and religiously-repressive edicts of 175 BCE; and --secondly-- the triumph of the Hasmoneans over Greek acculturation increasing momentum from 164 BCE until the rule of Alexander Jannaeus in the 1st century BCE.

So Judaism survived. Who cares?

We all care! Our modern culture leans on dual pillars: the "western" rational, scientific, humanistic one based on the Greek worldview and philosophy and the "eastern" religious one based on morality, restraint, and god.

Our deistic pillar is a direct descendant of Jewish traditions. Both Christian and Muslim religions have merely latched on to the Jewish heritage, modified it a bit to suit a particular temporal and geographical need and disseminated it far and wide to their respective people. They did not invent anything from scratch.

But neither did Judea -- you retort. Jews, after all didn't really innovate a all that much. Their Israelite predecessors were merely a small cog in the Egyptian-Mesopotamian civilizations of the Ancient Near East.

And you are indeed very right! For the most part, the Jewish religion, as it started evolving in earnest during and immediately after the exile in the sixth and fifth century BCE wasn't all that unique. It was just the "last man standing" after most of the numerous other petty kingdoms from the Iron Age vanished over time in response to conquest (esp. by Assyria!) and pressure to adapt to prevailing sociopolitical realities which tended to be assimilationist.

And so what it all boils down to is not whether the Jews are important and what the value of their contribution to posterity is. As I said the proof of their enduring contribution and the value it bestows to our society is beyond reproach. The question rather is. Why "them"? Why wasn't is the Aramaeans or the Edomites or the Ammonites -- all of which shared a substantial socio-religious platform with the Israelites of the late second temple period. For that matter: why not the Babylonians or Persians themselves -- the people who were the ultimate lords over the Jews of the exile and beyond. Wouldn't it be more logical that a lord's culture would be superior to that of a vassal state and jostle its way to the forefront in the battle for survival?

And so our investigation will center on why the Jews? Why did their version of Semitic heritage survive and adapt to Hellenistic life while all other cultures have very few discernible traces in our society.

Over the course of much study and examination of this question I have identified several unique characteristics about second temple Judaism, as follows:

1) Emphasis on universalism. "yahweh" was originally a local deity. We now know that a locale in the vicinity of the the Negev and southern Transjordan (what was then inhabited by proto-Edomites) was called "yehu" and the Jewish tradition points to that locale in the story of Moses' revelation at the burning bush on Mt. Sinai (according to the J source -- which is the originator of the tradition via the Levites who emerged out of Egyptian slavery in the LBA).

However, over the years Judaism conceived of a wonderful and novel idea: religious syncretism. A sort of mix 'n match of the best features of both the world civilizations it straddled: Egypt to the West and Mesopotamia in the East. This keen capacity to absorb tidbits from multiple cultures and process them to become relevant in an increasingly cosmopolitan world where global commerce calls for cross-cultural diffusion -- was uniquely Jewish. And this is not surprising since the Jews were the ones inhabiting the buffer zone between the two elemental mega-civilizations and so would have been exposed to both continually.

2) Predisposition to Greek culture. Ironically, while we tend to think of Hellenistic culture as the arch nemesis of Judaism, quite the reverse is likely the case from a broad ideological standpoint. For example, the willingness to endure pain for a noble cause finds its rationale in the Greek school of Stoicism. The Jews didn't necessarily borrow this idea from the Greeks. But they certainly would have found fertile ground with at least some Greeks for a basic understanding of why it is virtuous to die rather than commit a grave sin (such as violation of Sabbath or circumcision) that abrogates Jews' covenant with God and thus renders life worthless. This is a radical notion; generally novel in its time, yet the Greeks were readily receptive to it.

3) Greek receptivity to Jewish religion and culture. The basis for a cosmopolitan, universalistic outlook on life was even stronger among the Greeks. Recall that the Greeks were primarily a seafaring nation. s such they peddled not just merchandise from port to port bu also ideas. The notion that there is no such thing as a local deity --whose power terminated at its nations' borders-- would have sat very well with them. They may have even conceived of it on their own. Regardless, this sort of universal God, is more enduring, more rational, less corporeal and less capricious. All of these were qualities that the Greeks were eminently known for.

4) Religious persecution. At the time the Seleucid religious persecution began in 167 BCE, the Jews had come a very long way in adapting and developing their new religion. They were at this stage ideologically unbeatable. As the saying goes: what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

This is exactly what happened with the Jews for two reasons: 1) Their ability to withstand the mighty Seleucid regime gave them a tremendous psychological and moral boost and triggered an even greater conviction that their god and His covenant with the Jews is alive and kicking. 2) In the process of "defeating" the Greeks, the Hasmoneans learned to adopt various useful elements from Greek culture such as language, military tactics and government structure (note the titles of Hasmonean rulers "ethnarch", "basileios", "strategos" and their names: Hyrcanus, Aristobulus, Alexander,). This capacity to absorb a great deal from your enemy's cultural repertoire while remaining firmly loyal to the covenant actually strengthened the covenant by bringing it up to date with the contemporary political milieu.

5) Trade vs. Agriculture. As hinted to earlier, the Greeks stood for maritime trade -- that was their specialty, their unique contribution to mankind. The long-established Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations in the East, on the other hand, stood for more traditional means of subsistence, in particular agriculture.

It is possible that the Seleucid attempt to abolish the Jewish Sabbath and the three annual agriculture-revolving festivals was seen as a declaration of war not just against a religion but against an economy as well. The Sabbath would have naturally had little relevance to a Greek sailor, who is not tilling land for six days to justify rest on the seventh.

As such, it is possible that the Jews met with sympathy from a much wider Eastern population far beyond their narrow borders. This would also explain the easy with which the Hasmoneans later successfully embarked on various military conquests and territorial annexations and conversions. The Hasmoneans would have been hailed as liberators and promoters of traditional economic practices.

At a private conference yesterday on the topic of inadequate secular education in haredi (Jewish Ultra-Orthodox) schools, some really shocking trends in haredi education were revealed by a group of graduates from such institutions.

The most appalling of all institutions turned out to be --somewhat surprisingly-- Chabad/Lubavitch. Graduates from Chabad schools testified that there was absolutely no secular education provided in their schools, not even elementary education, which is generally normative among haredi schools. It's interesting to note that Chabad pupils --unlike most other haredi counterparts-- speak English among themselves. This fact may explain somewhat the perceived lack of necessity to teach their pupils secular studies; administrators believe that Chabad pupils receive an adequate dosage of exposure to American ways by virtue of their native English speaking (as opposed to Yiddish -- normative at other haredi institutions).

Some other immensely disturbing conditions were revealed by other participants in the conference:

Most institutions offer only elementary secular education. After Bar Mitzvah, upon entering yeshiva qetanah, institutions such as Satmar, Krasna, Papa, Belz, Vizhnitz and other satellite community institutions offer no secular education to its pupils. It is also worth noting that the religious topics curriculum fills significantly more than a typical public school schedule: 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. is quite common (which is partly why many Yeshiva's offer dormitories to save commuting time). Some yeshiva's provide an option to its pupils in the afternoon hours to either enroll in secular courses or to study a religious topic -- typically shulkhan arukh, a work by Rabbi Joseph Caro that is commonly considered the basis for modern Jewish law. The caveat about this "choice", however, is that that secular route is shunned by administrators and pupils alike. Those who do choose such route are often perceived as morally weak or of inferior religious scholarship capacity. For others it is done out of "necessity", in order to be able to find employment at later stages in life or because parents are compelling them to.

I personally wonder whether administrators offer secular studies in high school merely to qualify for state and federal aid which is then collected on behalf of all pupils (including those that are not enrolled in secular courses) and partially diverted toward religious studies budgets. Another practice discovered in the meeting was the collection of federal Pell grants by some institutions on behalf of their pupils, often unbeknownst to them. They sometimes only discover this much later when applying for college funding and being told that their government aid availability has already been exhausted.

The Problem

Some people will invariably ask: okay, so what? if it works for them, let it be; why interfere with their autonomy if the haredi population is okay with a nonexistent or inadequate secular education?

There are several problems with this phenomenon. Chief among them is related to another development in haredi life. In the last decade hundreds of youngsters have defected from the grip of haredi communities, having chosen to pursue college and other employment unacceptable to haredim. They are often lured by the promise of a more libertarian lifestyle, where they can think and express heretical ideas freely and abandon some or all religious practices in favor of a more adaptive 21st century lifestyle.

Those defectors find themselves in an immense quandary. They feel that the haredi community does not speak to them any longer; they are eager to assimilate into the mainstream American culture. However, no one in the outside world seems prepared or able to deal with their overwhelming handicap in education and culture. For those who seek to enter college, the question is posed: no high school diploma and no GED? what do you mean? we need a letter from the last school you attended before you "dropped out"? Of course, they never were in any real school in the first place and even if they were, they would likely find them uncooperative since college is unacceptable to the Ultra-Orthodox.

One of the revelations brought to light in the conference was that many former haredim who decide to pursue college, require intense remediate courses and private tutoring to even reach a minimum level of knowledge necessary for entrance into college. Those who manage without formal courses are either lucky enough to somehow have had some exposure to secular studies in their schools or elsewhere in their haredi upbringing or they have a tremendous drive and tenacity to overcome the obstacles and pursue self-study methods to bring themselves up to par with college entry requirements.

Moreover, even those who do not pursue the college route, face tremendous difficulties adjusting to a more mainstream lifestyle. Satmar-williamsuburg graduates can barely write English and their speaking proficiency is bare-bones, not sufficient for conversational English. Math proficiency is also so rudimentary as to likely interfere with even blue-collar careers. One participant recounted how he did not know what a fraction was when he first left the haredi community.

According to a lawyer familiar with this problem and is considering tackling this in court, it's not abut attempting to enforce the state's or other people's standards on the haredi community. Clearly, the haredim are entitled to freedom of religion and --broadly speaking-- to customize the education of their children according to their religious mores and values, so that if a pupil is like most other pupils they would as adults be satisfied and appreciative with the haredi unique approach to education. The problem is that for those who decide to burst out of the restrictive haredi bubble, their education is so basic as to significantly impede their ability to make the choices they so desperately want to make. Essentially, the haredim are erecting such huge barriers to the outside world that even those who are absolutely determined to make it out are incapacitated by their lack of a basic education.

One participant recounted how he had always wanted to be a mathematics professor. Upon entering high school, he was told after taking an admittance test that he lacks sufficient mastery of the subject to be admitted to the high school math course. When he went to his religious studies principle (known in Yiddish as the menahel) to discuss his dilemma his menahel reacted with glee: "ah, that's great; this way you won't ever become a professor" evidently treating his pupil's desire to become a math professor as an undesirable temptation; now that his proficiency is inadequate those il-conceived aspirations can be finally laid to rest. Of course -- the principle overplayed his hand. In response, the pupil decided to drop out of the Yeshiva altogether and pursue his own curriculum that initially included both traditional Talmudic studies and math but he eventually left the folds of haredi life altogether.

Possible Remedial Action

What can be done to remedy this ill? Several possible solutions were raised and I shall throw my own ideas into the mix:

* Pressure government executive departments (such as the New York State Board of Education) to get off their butts and fulfill their obligations according to State law. State law requires a minimum of secular studies through 12th grade. haredi institutions overwhelmingly do not meet those minimum criteria.
* Sue the state in federal court, perhaps claiming a violation of civil rights by not providing its citizens a basic "civil capacity" to function as an informed, educated citizen.
* Change the law to allow the haredim to develop secular courses that do not conflict with their creationist beliefs and their aversion to sex study before marriage.
* Raise awareness among political electees and activists that this breach in execution of the law is happening before our eyes and is negatively impacting an increasingly larger slice of the haredi population. The goal should be to put an end to the cozy relationship between haredi institutions and their representative assemblymen and councilmen. If the assemblyman fears for his office in the upcoming election he may be more readily spurred into the otherwise uncomfortable action against parts of his constituency.

Hasidism as a way of Preserving Tradition

The Hasidic movement started through the activities of a particular person in a well-defined place and time. The founder of the movement, Rabbi Israel Ball Shem Tov ("Besht") lived in Eastern Europe in the 18th century. He died in 1760 and his disciples then disseminated his teachings far and wide.

Other contemporary prominent Jewish leaders include Rabbi Eliyahu from Vilna (the "Gaon") and Moses Mendelssohn. Both passed away before the turn of the century (though they were younger than the Besht). In some way, those aforementioned Jewish leaders still have their respective following to this very day. Mendelssohn represents the "rational" school of Judaism as exemplified by its Reform and Conservative segments. The Gaon represents the Litvish/Yeshivish world and the Besht represents the Hasidic world.

Nobody, however, sees any connection between those movements beyond the coincidence that they originated in the 18th century, which begs the question: is it really a mere coincidence that all the major modern Jewish segments have their origin in the cultural milieu of 18th centruy Europe? What really transpired in 18th century Europe that can perhaps shed some light on the essential impetus for the launching and development of those movements?

Historians, of course, know the answer. It's the Enlightenment. Two very important events occurred in the 18th century. The American Revolution and the French Revolution. Both these events had a tremendous impact on the future direction of Western Civilization. At the turn of the 18th century people everywhere were grappling with situations and questions with which they had never come face to face before. Is the monarch sanctioned by God? Does the clergy have a monopoly on Godly matters? What if God's word as expounded by the priest does not make sense to me? Am I allowed to interpret the word as I see fit? Is government a holy institution that one may not impugn or all hell will break loose, or is it possible -- just possible-- that government is merely a social contract of "live and let live" (first propounded by Thomas Hobbes)?

I think that a historical anchor exists in the 18th century and its people, perplexed and shaken to the core by those very profound questions, to many of the modern social and religious movements, especially Hasidism.

You see, most people tend to think that Hasidism is a populist and regressive movement. Folks who were brutish and uneducated, who toiled hard and saw little reward, who sought to liven up God and tailor God to their needs: a God who appreciated song, dance and prayer just as much as he does scholarship, erudition and punctilious observance of Mitzvot. But this view is now brought into question since Hasidism has now matured far beyond its incipient age of dance and music and is now de rigueur in the Haredi world. There is hardly any Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) person in our society that is not directly or indirectly inspired by Hasidism. Of course, we all know that modern Hasidism is more nuanced and complex than that of 18th century Europe. But ultimately the question beckons: what legitimates this movement? What's the secret to its enduring appeal and why is it so important in the survival of Haredi Judaism?

So let's go back and re-interpret 18th century events in the light of our time. As pointed out earlier, the 18th century was an era of upheaval; not just militarily or politically but also culturally and religiously. There were essentially two categories of answers offered in response. One was conservative and God-centered and the other was progressive and humanistic. The wealthier and educated world, often characterized by inhabiting Western Europe, often chose the latter, whereas the people of lesser means, intellectually and materially often chose the former.

Why? Re-evaluating one's morals is a very difficult task. It is often easier to effect impressive technological breakthrough, than redesign one's moral framework. It's just too depressing, too wrenching, too discouraging -- to propose that the guardian angel, once thought to accompany the human on every step of their lives through divine providence, is in fact just an illusion. The enlightenment suggested that there is no magic bullet. There is no God who is there for you for your every need and want listening and granting your prayer and who will not hang you out to dry. The enlightenment suggested that humans are running the show and humans need to assume responsibility for their own lives. Again, assuming responsibility and the uncertainty that such an attitude towards life encompasses, is gut-wrenching. It could be highly distressing unless the individual has the capacity and willingness to grab the bull by the horn and make tough, independent, fateful decisions. It is so much easier to hang on to "God" and "know" that God will be there for you no matter what.

This concept constitutes the watershed between the original Hasidic camp and the Mendelssohn camp. Hasidim sought to avoid learning, discovering and rebuilding from scratch and so they latched on to God. The Mendelssohn folks asked the tough questions and therefore ultimately found themselves in a secular world. It's not that the Mendelssohn disciples made a conscious decision to abandon their faith or to disavow their God. The original Mendelssohnians were in fact very pious Jews. What defined them is one thing: the capacity and desire to learn, to absorb and to process information. The Hasidim, in contrast, expressly denounced scholarship and elected retrenchment as their modus operandi to deal with the enlightenment crisis.

The reason that modern ultra-orthodoxy is so closely affiliated with Hasidism is that to this very day one must shut out the inquisitive and investigative process in order to preserve one's faith. Hasidim were the ones who provided the archetypal paradigm for all future generations to follow in this regard. This explains the strange and ironic phenomenon that at the time Hasidim were seen as dangerous to tradition since they often did not rigorously observe halakha, whereas nowadays they are seen as the stalwarts of faith, observance and piety. It's not about halakha; it's about asking questions. The original Hasidim lived in a setting where they were incapable of asking questions, much less answer them in a satisfactory manner; so they developed song and dance and psalm-recitation as wonderful emotional panacea to the intellectual turbulence of the time. The modern Hasid likewise shuts out the rational process but since he is a bit more sophisticated, he manifests a greater adherence to halakha and declares a stronger commitment to scholarship. Ultimately, however, his "scholarship" is spurious since he only entertains the kind of questions that are consistent with his faith and preconcieved religious notions.

Hasidism is thus NOT simply a regressive movement; a movement that is bound to vanish in due time, as progress inevitably triumphs over regress. It is, rather, a unique school of thought; a different way of coping with the socio-religious upheaval of the time. It's the "don't-ask-questions" mode of coping. It's the emphasis of emotional aspects of Judaism over intellectual ones. Hasidism survives in modern society insomuch as this blind, uncritical, unquestioning reliance on tradition is so critically important to modern Ultra-Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy desperately needs blind faith like a fish needs water.

In contrast, those who did not restrict their thought processes, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD THE HIGHEST REGARD FOR THEIR FAITH (Mendelssohn and his followers), eventually found themselves reforming and rationalizing their way out of the system altogether.

I am currently listening to "1. Fast Cars And Freedom (Remastered Version) - Rascal Flatts"

Some ideas for Neo-Reform Judaism

Neo-Reform Judaism

I think It's high time to take some time out from our hectic technology-driven lives and plunge back into 19th century Jewish America. Let us re-examine the movement that has revolutionized the definition of a Jew in the 21st century. I will never forget that moment as a young, impressionable 8-year old when my older sister told me that “frumme” jews comprise a mere 10% of American Jews. I was startled: could it be that so many people have lost their grip on the truth and have veered off the correct path? How lucky then am I --I thought-- that I was born into an observant family! As I grew older, I grew into my skin and became comfortable with the knowledge that there is a different, “corrupted”, kind of Judaism out there, although the exact parameters of it were never quite known to me until much later. I knew that the Ultra-orthodox were on the defensive, they did not constitute the normative American Jews. What I never bothered investigating back then is what actually is Reform Judaism, who started it and why? Does it have any merits? And if so, for whom?

After a thorough re-examination of the premises upon which the pillars of my faith rested in 1998, I realized that there were some serious flaws in my religious worldview edifice. I took it apart brick by brick, hoping to reconstruct it bigger, grander and stronger; but, alas, that never happened. First Ultra-orthodoxy and then Judaism altogether failed to stand up to the scrutiny leveled against it by scientific and academic sources I was increasingly devouring voraciously. Frustrated and feeling betrayed by my sheltered upbringing, I set out on a lonely path toward assimilating into the mainstream and re-establishing myself as an “American”.

Now, 13 years later, I have had a chance to look at my transformation from many different angles. I am no longer restricted to seeing Judaism or even Orthodox Judaism as a mere nuisance; I now see the big picture. I see how charedi Judaism, like other conservative movements, could satisfy the need for communities for a status-quo, a cushion of stability; the comfort of knowing that what happened yesterday will repeat tomorrow reliably and consistently, whatever the cost in lost productivity and irrationality such conservatism may bear.

There is, however, an additional notion that has been crystallizing in my mind over the past few years: that change in the charedi world is ultimately inevitable. Some of the other articles on this blog deal with this theme. But I'd like to lay out here some practical steps which I think are very pragmatic and practicable. They are sensible, even for someone who is used to Jewish orthodoxy and is not comfortable with sudden, intensive and radical change in their modes of living.

The reason why we have seen little organized, piecemeal reform of traditional Judaism in recent years is multifold. The primary reason, of course, is that we (that is, the entire Western world) currently live in an age of nationalism and civil rights. The fashionable thing in this day and age is to cultivate one's own identity, race, and faith regardless of its merits. It is very much politically incorrect to try to impose the upper-class elitist views on the rest of society. We seem to even celebrate the outmodish, outlandish idiosyncrasies of various nationalities and subcultures in our country and we even pride ourselves that we possess such diversity and plurality of ideas in our midst. To cite one example: bilingualism. This is something that would have never been entertained a hundred or so years ago. In our present age, however, it is common operating procedure. The Mexican immigrant who wishes to retain his native language after relocating to this country has the “right” to do so and we are very comfortable in government to provide the means for the perpetuation of this trend (e.g. we supply them with voting literature in Spanish, etc...). Charedi Jews therefore naturally found ripe fruit for the picking in recent decades, thus giving them a chance to rebuild their shattered European “old world” communities on American soil, a true miracle – it seemed to them. The upper echelons of our society are practically telling them: “hey you're an idiot, but you “enrich” our culture, so please go ahead and practice your insanely ridiculous version of extreme Jewish observance such as dietary laws, arcane clothing sabbath observance etc... When it's time to erect a museum of Charedi life in 21st century America, we will be uniquely positioned to provide that, given our magnanimous generosity toward Charedi life in the realm of having granted them the liberty and comfortable conditions under which to behave as they please and thus preserve their “special” heritage.

The secondary reason for the resurgence of Ultra-orthodoxy in the past 50 years is that there is a certain powerful argument that is being directed against Jewish reformers. Take Moses Mendelssohn, critics say. He was very well educated in secular studies and immersed in the dominant German culture of the time, although he remained an observant Jew. Yet, five of his seven children renounced their faith and adopted Christianity instead. The other two children's offspring eventually converted as well. The official reform movements that sprang up in Germany and America in the aftermath of his “paving the ground for reform” did not fare much batter. It is now common knowledge that many Reform Jews intermarry with gentiles, have little or no mastery of Hebrew or any knowledge about Judaism beyond the what they learn during the bar/bat mitzvah preparation course. So there you have it, the orthodox argue: you open up one secular book, you institute one minor reform in the liturgy and it's a slippery slope all the way down the hill from there to utter abandonment of Judaism.

This second point is what I would like to repudiate here. We should not be afraid of change. There are many subtleties and nuances within Judaism and we don't need to label them “reform” if we don't like to (since this term has assumed a stigma in our age of enhanced faith). In fact, the very first “Reform society of Israelites” (yeah, “Jew” was considered a stigma back then, so they chose to refer to themselves as Israelites or Hebrews) of Charleston, South Carolina of the 1820's wasn't anything revolutionary really. They made only minor changes in the ritual such as the introduction of an organ, a sermon in English and perhaps the omission of certain portions of the traditional Sabbath prayers. The Pittsburgh platform that officially formulated Reform Jewish doctrine did not emerge until many decades later and even that is merely a descriptive document stating what is already the case, not prescribing what direction the Reform movement “ought” to take. My point is that we do not need to think of black and white when it comes to introducing reforms or “modifications” (maybe this term sounds more benign) into the synagogue and Jewish normative behavior.

Here are some ideas I'd like to propose:

Dietary laws. Stop with the hashgachah (food preparation supervision) thingy. Even rabbinical Judaism acknowledges the “cancellation” of small amounts of forbidden food mixed in a large quantity of kosher food. The FDA now requires all ingredients to be listed and so we get a pretty accurate picture of how kosher a product is without the need to create an entirely independent kosher food industry, which has the effect of limiting the social interactions of observant Jews.

Abolish the second-day holiday festival known as the “exilic” holiday. We are indeed in exile; but let's face it: those who originally practiced it, did so because they in fact did not know which one was the official holiday as ordained by the sanhedrin in the land of Israel. For many centuries now we follow a fixed calendar and so there's no need for this nonsense any longer. All Orthodox people know that the the three-day observance when a holiday falls on Thursday is a major drag. By the time sabbath comes around many people would rather welcome a fast day than a feast day of two required full-course meals (I know I'm not alone here; c'mon people, back me up here). I want to see some brave talmide hakhamim who have the guts and courage and nerve to stick their neck out and proclaim that the secondary exilic holiday is not quite as holy as the first one! (to say the least).

Give me a break from all those mindless recitals of long scriptural passages every day. Are you kidding me? Nobody gives any thought to what they are saying? I remember I had a melamed (teacher) in kittah teth (lit. ninth grade) –I swear to god this is true-- he would put on his rabenu tam tephilin and he would say viyehi noam adonoy elohenu alenu umaase yadenu konenu alenu umaase yadenu konenu alenu umaase yadenu konenehu. He repeated those four words twice, an obvious homoteleuton error. I suggest they start the davening with barekhu eth hashem hemevorakh. Cut to the chase, which is essentially recital of shema and the amidah 18-blessing prayer. Again, I'm not talking for myself here. I'm talking for folks who strongly cherish their cult and believe in what they practice. Isn't is better – consistent with their own ideals and priorities -- to devote the time for more Torah study in lieu of the babbling of a mind-numbing hodu every day?

I've got a lot more that I want to share with my readers on this topic, but I'll leave it for later.

Future Trends in UOJ (Ultra Orthodox Judaism)

Predictions of the Future.

This blog is supposed to be about future predictions. While I have diverged from this topic often since the blog's foundation, I think it's time to return home. And so, I hope to do a series of monologues on predictions of various sorts.

Let's start with the Ultra Orthodox Jewish (UOJ) sector. I call it a sector as opposed to a “community” because there is hardly any consensus within this highly diverse consortium of ragtag groups, which is serious problem for its long-term survival, a point which I shall return to at a later time.

One observation that I must make as a prelude to predicting future trends in the UOJ sector, is its past. It never ceases to impress me how the world seems to have forgotten how persecuted, isolated and cornered Jewish Orthodoxy was (let alone Ultra-orthodoxy) until quite recently. Of course, I don't personally have any recollection of those envious days. But as a student of history, I can't help take notice that Jewish history pages are vociferous and unequivocal on this matter. For approximately 150 years --since the early nineteenth century until after world war II-- traditional Judaism was under siege. The forces of change were overwhelming. It wasn't just for ignoble “conform to the prevailing winds and be acceptable to gentiles” reasons that reformers sought to eliminate or modify centuries-old laws and practices. There were, moreover, idealistic motives for change: the system just wasn't very logical. Not playing music on the day of rest, for example, runs diametrically against the very spirit of the day of rest. So does the prohibition against travel, which is something uniquely suited for a day of rest and recreation.

A quick survey of the field demonstrates that the core of Judaism was radically reshaped in those years. Judaism went from a religion where the normative behavior is shulkhan-aruch-bound to one in which the normative behavior is rooted in tradition but democratically determined through systematic reevaluation of all its tenets and practices. This was very true in Europe where the majority of Jews had adopted some level of reform by the mid nineteenth century. But it is even more pronounced in America where Orthodoxy barely even existed before WWII. Jewish immigrants to America in those years were extremely eager to shed their outlandish European customs and adopt the American way of life and fulfill the American dream.

Have we completely forgotten those good old days? I continually long for those times when there was all the reason NOT to observe and practically no good reason to observe; whereas at this stage of the game the reverse seems to be the case: there is every reason to be observant and there is hardy any sufficiently good reason to drop out of the system. The wind is blowing in a different direction and so the sail boat boat has been re-routed accordingly.

If I had lived in the 1850's in my ancestors' native land, I would have been a happy camper. I would have been a member of a burgeoning reformed community and my liberal views and and hash criticism of accepted dogma would have been welcome like water in the desert. Now I live in an environment where my thoughts and words fall on deaf ears. The contemporary right-leaning Jewish community craves for spirituality and is just not interested in any intellectual reasoning about the basis of their religion. The left-leaning Jewish world, on the other hand, is so far ahead of me in the game of integration and assimilation into the American mainstream that I am as alien to them as a newly arrived immigrant. They clearly have more in common with a typical catholic Italian than with me. They don't speak my language, both literally (my native tongue is Yiddish) and figuratively (they are not sensitive to the non-American idiosyncrasies of the Hasidic world, such as bluntness when making requests).

So where do I stand?

Well, from the previous depiction of events, the future seems bleak. However, I've got an ace up my sleeve! There is some great news. The “gospel” (=good news) is that there is a very bright future laying ahead of the me and the OTD community in general. I have been predicting massive defections from orthodoxy for many years now but I am now finally seeing concrete data that corroborate this reversal of the magnetic pole. The “Footsteps” movement did not exist when I first executed the “Great Rebellion” in January 1999 (Yeah, I know, it's not the softest of terms for this event but remember: I am an erstwhile hasid, so I'm not quite used to sugar-coating; so yeah, it's also a “transition” but rebellion is more like it). I had zero friends with whom I could find common ground in this unbearably challenging journey to American-hood. I truly felt like an immigrant in a foreign land; only that most immigrants have the benefit of the support of co-immigrants during their early, trying times whereas I did not have this benefit. By now, Footsteps is a thriving organization and community and I have every reason to believe that this trend will only multiply and intensify in the years to come.

I'd like to articulate several factors which I believe will be influential in bringing to bear my prediction of massive defections from Orthodoxy:

1) Internet Information. We live in the “information age”. During the technology age (from which we recently emerged), ideology was obviously not important. It was an age of applied science, technology and industry. This is no longer the case. Anyone who is abreast of the latest news knows that the big names in the American Economy are now Google and Facebook, which have trumped the economic stalwarts of old, such as Standard Oil, Carnegie Steel and --later during the consumer age-- retailers and service providers such as Mcdonalds, Macy's, Walmart etc... In this “information age” it is inevitable that information that indicts and ultimately incriminates Orthodoxy will come to light, since the Orthodox world thrives on misinformation and concealment of certain knowledge which it deems heretic or dangerous. The Ortho world knows it cannot confront this information head on for it will lose at trial. Its defense strategy is the American legacy one of “plead the fifth”: let's hope the prosecution doesn't have enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and if they do let's buy some time through extensive deliberations and appeal of the verdict.

2) Extravagance. Unlike my parents' and grandparents' generation, which constituted the progeny of Holocaust survivors and Holocaust survivors, respectively, the new generation is not bothered by the sense of attack felt by the previous generations. They don't perceive a threat to their very existence and so they can afford to divert their attention to other topics. They don't harbor the gut feeling which equates losing one's religion with losing one's very identity and unique existence. They don't feel the need to establish a "status-quo" environment in America before any questions of reform can be addressed. Needless to say there is still a giant mountain of prejudices and biases, which must be scaled laboriously before the other side may be reached. But there is just one less obstacle in the way in the current generation: there is no sense of an attack, physical or spiritual. Naturally then, curiosity will set in and those who are talented enough will inevitably encounter a great deal of damaging evidence to the Ortho system and will seek to take action as a logical result by proposing changes or --barring that-- dropping out.

3) Rabbis are losing control. It used to be that information was centralized, both in the secular and the religious world. Now with the prevalence and immediacy of the Internet, the community leader is likely to be bypassed or overriden. Religious claims can easily and quickly be vetted on the Internet and alternative theories and ideas --stemming from lay individuals, peers of the information-seeker-- may be consulted. This significantly weakens the Rabbi's leadership and hegemony over his community.

4) Structural changes in the community. Williamsburg no longer resembles an Eastern European Shtetl. Many shops and stores there have been recently renovated and many more will likely follow suit as old, arcane business models fail to compete against modern ones. As the Williamsburg small business owner is confronted with the need to deal with modern computer systems, for example, they are also drawn into other fields which suck them out of the ghetto walls and into the “unprotected” world. They may, for example, develop an interest in learning how to use Microsoft office or how to make money in the stock market. This quest for acquisition of more competitive survival methods will ultimately lead to serious clashes with the mainstream world and those clashes will have to be resolved one way or another. If, for example, the stock market book mentions a movie and the reader is now intrigued by the movie and after watching it becomes impressed with the actor and learns that the actor is Christian and then learns the actor's biography and discovers that the actor is a nice guy after all, this chain of events poses an ideological dilemma for a religiously observant person. After all, both lifestyles cannot be valid simultaneously. If the UOJ is the true representative of the “chosen nation” and is loved by god who has a monopoly of all that is good and true, then how does this Christian actor or actress fit into the picture? Are they not loved by god? They sure seem like nice and decent individuals and they sure got the money to back up this appearance (“money talks”).

About the Merits of Ex-Hasidic Community Cohesion

About the Merits of Ex-Hasidic community cohesion

I just finished reading Samuel Katz's post on this topic at unpious.com (sorry, copy and paste for the URL didn't work). I would like to provide my opinion on this matter, which differs somewhat from his.

While reading the article I mostly identified with his thesis and I definitely agree that he's got a point. However, in the end of the article it was pointed out that he does not personally consider himself a member of the "ex-orthodox" community. That's something that I highly question, as well as some of the general corollaries to his article.

It is known (as Jacob Stein pointed out) that the Eastern-European Jews who made their was into Ellis Island by the millions starting in the 1880's struggled similarly to us, ex-hasidim. Despite the fact that numbers were on their side, back in those days the country was not very accomodating to subcultures. The pressures to conform were immense; the desire to conform was also intense. The Jews WANTED to adopt much of American culture, while at the same time they also wanted to preserve many elements of their heritage, namely those that they felt were compatible with a Western, American lifestyle.

The descendants of those Jews are now, as we all know, heading towards assimilation and many Jews (mostly those on the right) now invoke this phenomenon as a repudiation of Conservative and Reform Judaism. What they don't realize and what Reform Jews will usually be loathe to admit (or perhaps not even aware of it consciously) is that the entire institution of Reform Judaism is now, iglai milta lemafre'a (the matter is retroactively revealed - a Talmudic expression), merely a transitional vehicle from Eastern European Jewish Ghetto provincialism into the mainstream structure of Western society. The Jewish assimilative process is not a condemnation of Reform Judiasm; that would only be the case if the overarching goal of the original immigrants were preservation of their faith and identity. It wasn't! Their goal was oriented in an entirely different direction: material success! They wanted money, better standards of living, educational opportunities and even the adoption and participation in many of the entertainment and behavioral norms of Western society (their opportunities were more limited in Europe due to lingering stereotypes). At worst, loss of identity could be considered "collateral damage". However, I would argue that even though the first Jewish immigrants didn't know it at the time and they couldn't have seen this far into the future, they were heading in the assimilative direction all along and assimilation actually WAS their ultimate goal (subconsciously).

Why am I mentioning all this? Because the Jewish community in the United States has managed to create a highly intricate social and political structure on their path to assimilation. It seems that their self-identity never was a contradiction to their rabid appetite for everything American. In fact, it could be argued that those identity enhancement institutions (including such organizations as AIPAC, The Jewish Federations, etc...) paradoxically sped up their integration into mainstream, by giving them the power and efficiency of a group as opposed to an individual.

I don't see any reason why our Neo-reform movement should be structured any differently. As they say "if ain't broke, don't fix it". The system our progenitors used worked just fine for them. Why do we not appropriate those very same tools to achieve the very same goals. We can and should identify as ex-orthodox Jews, while at the same time voraciously devour the all-so-sweet delicacies of our profligate country, the United States of America, God bless it. There are so many opportunities available to each and every one of us, occupational-wise, community-wise, politics-wise, career-wise. Yet there's no need to behave Judas Iscariot-like and deny our fellowship in the ex-orthodox community.

Having said all this, I should also add that if getting stuck in the intermediate transitional stage were a serious issue, then I agree that we may have to seek other transitional models. However, I am quite confident that at this stage of the OTD movement there isn't any real possibility of cozying up along the way. There simply aren't enough of us yet to form a strong all-encompassing, comforting ex-hasidic haven, and the diversity among us is wide while resources are scarce. Ex-hasidics can thus tremendously benefit from support groups such as Footsteps, Cholent etc... while at the same time knowing that such groups merely provide temporary reprieve from the real battle ahead of them: cracking into mainstream America.

Edited 6/29/2011

ITC Volenuteer serves as Substitute Teacher

Yest. at the Amal school at which I volunteer to help out students with English in small groups through the Otzma ITC program, I was suddenly notified that two teachers didn't show up that day and I was asked to attend the class of "Sari" (10th grade). I was very excited and honored at this request. After all, one of the core reasons for me being on this program, is the availability to polish up on my teaching skills, especially in classroom settings, in preparation for a possible future job as a teacher. Unfortunately, I hadn't expected this and so I didn't really have a prepared lesson plan. I did have my usual repertoire of ideas and exercises which I had been using to teach my students in the usual small-group setting. The really unknown variable was: will I be able to control the class? Will the students listen to me? Will they find my tone and style engaging?

The control issue was addressed through the presence of a substitute "discipline" teacher whose duty it was to keep the class in order. She was apparently not qualified to teach English and so she just made sure that the students were well-behaved and paying attention to my class. The first half of the class went wonderfully. I had a long list of English nouns, verbs and adjectives written on small color-coded papers with their Hebrew translation on the reverse side. I put that to good use in the class, reviewing those vocabulary words with them. I made extensive use of the whiteboard, marking English words and their Hebrew translations on board and often illustrating with a sample sentence.

I also found that many Israeli students tended to confuse similar-sounding English words such as "wait" with "white", "angry" with "hungry" and so on. So whenever I asked the class for the meaning of an English word and it became apparent to me that they were confusing the word with another one, I immediately wrote both words on the board; I "modeled" the difference in pronunciation, if any, and I also pointed out the difference in spelling and meaning.

Later I moved on to some other topics. I reviewed the spectrum of colors in English, in which activity they fully participated. When it came to prepositions, pronouns and the proper auxiliary verb used with pronouns (am/are/is) I had a more difficult time maintaining their full attention but there were always some who did pay attention. In fact, there was one student who kept shushing the others and directing them back to me whenever they sought to start their own little conversations in class. It works amazingly well when a student, rather than a teacher, does shushing.

Finally, the students insisted they wanted "galgal hamazalot" (wheel of fortune). I wasn't quite sure how to conduct this game. So I had a student administer the game in front of the class using Hebrew words and I then proceeded to do the same in English. I was citing famous American actors such as Brad Pitt, Jim Carey, Johnny Depp and Leonardo DiCaprio. I also noted on board the names of major movies they starred in. This was a pretty popular activity.

It was all a milestone for me since this was the first time I ever taught in a traditional high school class setting. I am --somewhat surprisingly-- quite satisfied with my confidence level. For a first-timer I think I did great. In the future however, I hope to be coming a bit better prepared and I will do my utmost to make the material as entertaining and enjoyable as possible.

Over the past two months here in the Qiryat Malakhi school system, I noticed that all students essentially do want to learn. The question really is: at what level and through what methods? the challenge for me is to figure out how to tailor-fit a lesson to the needs and preferences of the class at hand, so as to maximize their participation and learning experience.

Overall, the ITC program here is making a huge difference. Most of the students at my school know me by now, even though I still sometimes wonder how, not remembering most of their names. The small student group setting has been extremely effective at getting through to students who feel that big classes are too cold and impersonal. When I teach in small groups I make sure that everyone understands the text we are reviewing and the newly acquired vocabulary. I very often have students tell me that they want to be with me more often and that this experience works so much better for them.

Also yest. I had a student who was so happy and excited about studying English in my class that she said (in Hebrew) "with your help I will be able to do well on the Bagrut exams. I want to be with you every time (instead of the regular class)". Towards the end of the class she insisted that we finish the text in its entirety before we adjourn. I felt that she experienced a newly kindled hope and confidence in her ability to succeed in English after that class. I should point out that, ironically, this very same girl was a bit reluctant to join my group at first, claiming that she wouldn't understand me in English. The teacher assured her that I can explain things in Hebrew and that is of course precisely what I did, in order to make the text accessible and fun for her to read and understand.

Otzma ITC Experience

The Otzma ITC Experience in the Qiryat Malakhi School System. Today was a very special day for me in my journey towards becoming a school teacher: I was sitting in front of a full class of 12th graders and interviewed them as a preparation for their oral 5-point bagrut (=matriculation) exam. The kids were 16-18 years old and it was very evident that they invested a great deal of effort to reach the stage they were at in English proficiency. Some of them were almost as fluent as native speakers which most impressed me.

written Nov 4 2009

rain water in Israel, good or bad?

Today was the first time it rained in Israel in the current winter season. In Israel rain is precious. Unlike in the states, today is an unofficial holiday; everyone is happy that rain has finally come. At the town in which I reside, Qiryat Malakhi, there is lots of parched earth and dust but little grass or even weeds. Folks cannot overcome this challenge by irrigating their yards since there is a shortage of water. Natural rain water is the only practical way of generating plants and greenery as well as supply water for human consumption.

As I was pondering the benefit of rain, as contrasted with its nuisance status in the states, The verse in Deut. 11:11 came to mind:

For the land, into which you are entering to possess it, is not like the land of Egypt from which you came, where you used to sow your seed and water it with your foot like a vegetable garden. But the land into which you are about to cross to possess it, a land of hills and valleys, drinks water from the rain of heaven, a land for which the LORD your God cares; the eyes of the LORD your God are always on it, from the beginning even to the end of the year.

God contrasts The land of Israel with the land of Egypt, the former being irrigated by the Nile and the latter relying on rainwater. At first glance we are bothered: why mention this? According to historical and scientific data, we know that rivers are a better source of water for agriculture than rain; the very first "civilizations" sprang up along the Nile and the Tigris-Euphrates rivers as a result of society's ability to produce excess agricultural produce in such fertile regions. Why would God point out a negative aspect of the land of Israel?

So we must be misreading the text. Gos is pointing out this contrast in order to show a positive aspect of the land of Israel, namely, that its residents must turn to God for help with their agriculture; they cannot rely on the natural, assured course of events. Or, more precisely, that God shows a "special interest" in this land by actively bringing rain upon when needed, as opposed to abandoning its fate to the natural course of events as is the case in Egypt.

It's like a teacher who is giving special attention to a weak student in the class and then makes a point of it, saying: You are "special". Unlike the other students (who are smart enough not to require extra help) you get my undivided special attention at times, so that you will understand what is being taught in class.

But is this really a compliment? I suppose that in our culture the above-cited example is more likely to be taken as an insult than as a compliment, and rightfully so, it seems. But the Biblical author, in his naivete, genuinely thought that God's "special attention" is more valuable than the superior natural environment in Egypt and Mesopotamia.

My question is: Is there any truth to such an idea? Note: that the existence of God and his ability to favorably single out one nation from the rest does not have to be established in order to investigate this matter. My question is: In the minds of the biblical authors of Deut (seventh cent. BCE), who evidently operated on such assumptions, does this positive idea regarding their "special status" have any rational basis?

Surprisingly, the answer is yes! Let me sashay into Greek culture for a moment in order to illustrate this. While the Ancient Assyrians, Babylonians, Hittites, Egyptians and early Persians were the masters of the civilized world, the Greeks were not on the map yet. They were barley managing to survive in the tough climate of their native hilly mountains of Attica and Peloponessus. What happened? What propelled them onto center stage? Well, it was necessity! They had no choice! In order to survive, they couldn't rely on the accepted practice of agriculture and were forced to seek out an alternative. They thus became shipbuilders and seafarers, merchants and tradesmen. For the first time in world history, there was a people who found themselves in a unique position to absorb a wide array of cultural information from the various people they encountered in their travels and to redistribute that information and culture in an improved form. In other words: they initially set out to trade material goods but what turned out to be far more important is the much more "profitable" trading of ideas that their adventures enabled them to accomplish. Democracy, Philosophy, Mythology and Logic are just a few of the Greek inventions that were so influential in catapulting them into stardom. It is precisely the humble origins of the Greeks that guaranteed them center stage in the future.

We all know that the Ancient Israelites have likewise left an indelible and most valuable legacy to world civilization: religion. All contemporary western religions have their origin in the ideas that circulated in seventh century Judea. So, we must ask, what was so special of them after all?

The answer seems to lie, as the case is with the Greeks, in their adversity, not their material successes. The Judeans, were FORCED, unlike inhabitants of the major civilizations in Egypt and Mesopotamia, to constantly be on the alert: will there be the Early rain (yoreh, in the month of heshvon) to break up the ground for ploughing? Will there be late rain (malqosh, in kislev) to provide nourishment to the seedlings? They were forced to conceive of elaborate cause and effect relationships concerning a universal all-powerful God who is creditable and responsible for their successes and failures. Unlike Egyptians and Mesopotamians who "couldn't fail" (their crops grew reliably year after year), Judeans were forced to ponder the question during years of famine: why has our God forsaken us? What did we do wrong? How can we improve going forward? This self-critical modus operandi proved to be invaluable to the world!

Remember this rule: success generates failure and failure generates success. The USA, the strongest country in the decades following WWII, is now doomed to swap positions with China, the weakest major power in the world. I am concerned about the future of the the West (including the USA) and if history is a reliable guide, there is, alas, nothing we can do to reverse the long but inevitable process in which the USA and China reverse roles.

edited 6/29/2011

The Underpinnings of Israeli Society are Starting to Piss me Off

Hello from celcom: on evenings strating from 8 pm until 7 am and on weekends from 2 pm on Friday until 8 am Sunday morning our service representatives will provide service in the event of lost or stolen phones. For all other matters we will be happy to assist you starting on Sunday 8 am.

This is the message I just received on my phone when trying to make an outgoing call. This, after being notified that my phone had been marked as lost or stolen! I repeatedly get this message in Hebrew and English alternately whenever I try making any call, including the customer service phone number designated specifically for lost and stolen phones. So, what’s wrong here?

According to the message, they will provide service in my case; yet nobody is answering the phone!

But let’s analyze this message a little more closely. Note that the message is quite cryptic and very difficult to comprehend for several reasons:

• The message does not clarify that the time I am calling falls within the range of “afterhours”.
• It starts with an introductory clause –a complicated linguistic mechanism—for no reason. The emphasis should be on the task the listener wants to perform, not on the hours celcom is available to help. The introductory clause totally distracts my attention since it doesn’t seem to address the issue I am concerned with.
• Assuming that the customer is calling to seek routine customer service and it is therefore unavailable at that time insofar as it is afterhours, the message actually fails to drive that point home. The listener is still left wondering whether celcom is willing to help him during afterhours. At best, the message seems to imply that they don’t “happily” provide service during afterhours, but it is far from clear that service is not available at all during afterhours for non-phone theft matters.
• “we will be happy to assist you starting on Sunday….” What about the ending? Once again the announcer makes an unwarranted assumption that the listener still remembers that Friday afternoon at 1pm is when “afterhours” kick in. Besides, it’s never been mentioned that any particular service becomes unavailable on Friday at 1pm.
• The message could be construed as stating that phone theft support is only available during afterhours.
• The announcement illogically first deals with the unusual case of phone theft support and only later mentions the available hours for regular support. This is a very bad practice since the listener is likely to hang up the phone –be in intentional or not-- before he gets to hear the part of the message that is relevant to him.

All this sows who Israeli society is not logically organized and there is no real commitment to customer service in this country despite the great strides they seem to have made in the overall adoption of western mores. And what’s up with all these holidays? Am I not expected to be on the phone on a holiday? What, then, do people do on holidays and weekends? If having a functional celphone is not important on a weekend, then what is? In the country I come from (USA) there is fierce competition for the sale of goods and services to consumers. If the consumer wants or needs something, the consumers gets it, because if they don’t, they will find another company to provide it for them or a company will happily spring into existence in order to fill a void in consumer demand that can and should be filled. What
is wrong with this country?

Judeo-christianity vs. Greco-persian culture

Between the years 400 BCE and 100 AD the four corners of Ancient Civilization combined in inexplicably intricate ways to form our modern "Western Civilization". I have recently spent hours upon hours attempting to untie the Gordian Knot but I am still struggling. What is the true relationship between these four elements? Which is cause and which is effect? Which is the winner and which one is the loser? Are there any other elements that should be part of the equation and if so, assuming what role?



Let's start by classifying a movement as either political or religious. We know that Judaism and Christianity were mostly religious movements during this period. We also know that Greece and Persia vied for political control of Asia and Europe, so they can viewed as political rivals. However, viewing Judaism vs. Christianity as rival groups, implying that they both carried more or less equal weight and competed within the same domain, is probably incorrect. This is part of the reason why it's so difficult to figure out the true nature of the relationship between those various forces.



So what really is Judaism all about and when was the religion born?



Judaism was largely born in response to the Assyrian attack against Judea in 701 BCE. This particular campaign, in my opinion, holds pivotal significance in the inception of Judaism. There is, in fact, no evidence of any "Judaic practices" before this date. 2Chron 29 recounts how Hezekiah revitalized temple sacrifices. 2Kings 18:5 tells us that no Davidic king before or after him (Hezekiah) was like him in piety and greatness. It seems sensible to connect his great political and military maneuvering with his religious reforms in the temple. The Yahwistic cult that he established was designed to unite the nation politically against Assyria. Hence, when the bible describes how he removed the "high places", it promptly also tells us that "Yahweh was with him; wherever he went out (in war) he was successful, and he rebelled in the king of Assyria (Sennacherib) and he did not serve him". The suggestion is that removing the high places enabled him to be more successful against Assyria. (Of course, for the late Biblical author, Hezekiah's success was seen as a supernatural reward for his piety, but we need not conform to such interpretation. We can explain it through the natural, rational connection between national/religious/political unity and military success in parrying off a foreign invader.)



Historians do not know exactly why and how Jerusalem was spared against the Assyrian onslaught. The bible tells us that an angel smote the Assyrians encamped against Jerusalem whereas Sennacherib wants us to believe that Hezekiah paid a heavy tribute and the Assyrians then left voluntarily having been satisfied. In the "Taylor Prism", Sennacherib states that he had shut up Hezekiah the Judahite within Jerusalem, his own royal city, "like a caged bird".



Regardless, this event is extremely significant both for Assyrian and Jewish History. For Assyrians it's important because it's the only city that was not actually conquered and exiled by the Assyrians (albeit perhaps at a significant monetary cost to the Judahites). For Jews it's even more important because if Jerusalem had been conquered by Assyria at that time (and it was just a split hair away from such a fate), the Judahites (from whence "Jews" is derived) would --in all probability-- have been exiled and assimilated just like their northern brethren two decades earlier. There would have been no Judaism and no Christianity, as we know them.



So why indeed were the Jews spared? Were the Assyrians really incapable of subduing Judea? That's quite unlikely! I think the answer is a combination of the Judaean unique position in the Ancient Near East and some good luck to boot. The good luck element is that Sennacherib was informed of a coup back in his capital at Nineveh and so had to care of more important business first. The rational explanation for Judea's political survival relies on several factors:



Judaea --unlike the northern Israelite territory-- did not contain any natural resources, which would make them a prime target for would-be conquerors. Judaea is pretty much situated in the midst of a desert and is the capital of a land of poor peasants who barely subsist off the land and are forced into pastoral nomadism or migration during rough times. Judea, did not hold any material importance to the Assyrians in the same way as the Philistine (Gaza) or Phoenician (Tyre and Sidon) coastal cities did. Judaea's importance lay solely in its role as a linking station between the two great ancient civilizations: Egypt and Mesopotamia. In Earlier times (late Bronze age), when Egyptians were stronger, the buffer zone between the two powers was situated far to the north, as evidenced by the famous battle of Kadesh in the early 13th century between the Hittites (who were a ruling caste in Mesopotamia at that time) and the Egyptians. Incidentally that battle also likely ended up in stalemate despite both sides claiming victory, which is also precisely what's happening in 701 BCE with respect to the Assyrian vs. Judaean-Egyptian campaign. Thus, the ONLY reason the Assyrians lay siege to Jerusalem was to accomplish the goal that our modern Pres. Bush articulated in the Iraq war of 2003 "let's fight them abroad, so that we don't have to fight them at home". The Assyrians sought to check Egyptian ambitions by pushing the border farther south and thereby consolidating more securely important territories that lay within their empire.



Viewed under this light, the 701 BCE battle over Judaea is both the least and most important of all the Assyrian campaigns through their two centuries in power. It's insignificant because there really wasn't anything material to be reaped from the region. But it's also of critical importance to Assyrians, if they are to establish a secure border with Egypt. From history we know that 701 BCE also roughly marked a military turning point for the Assyrians. Even though they continued to hold power in Asia for most of the seventh century, their power was by then on the decline. A new kid on the block, the Babylonians, were the rising stars. This meant that the Judaeans were safe from a second attempt at conquest on the part of the Assyrians. The Assyrians had reached their peak in 701 BCE by expanding their empire all the way from Nineveh to Samaria, but that was as far as they would go. It was all down hill from there and that fact is what saved Judea from Assyrian conquest, UNLIKE any other city-state situated more closer to Assyrian lands.



What I am proposing here is that Judea up until the times of Hezekiah was just like any other ancient near-eastern state. Their laws, customs, rituals, temples and henotheistic religion were all essentially indistinguishable from other ANE city-states. The thing that set them apart from the rest going forward was their geographic location and the fact that they were saved from Assyrian political conquest due to that.



After 701 BCE there was no doubt great celebration within Judea on occasion of their ability to maintain their independence: no other city-state had been able to do so. As was typical in those ANE cultures, military success was ascribed to the superior ability of the victor's national deity. Thus, I could imagine that Judaeans were then convinced more than ever that their god --whom they now called Yahweh-- was tremendously mighty and worship-worthy. This in turn initiated a very vigorous movement to centralize and standardize their religious practices and temple rituals. At the very same time that this was occurring in Judea, other conquered peoples in Asia were being assimilated into the Assyrian empire.



In 612 BCE, the Babylonians took over the helm of leadership but that had no overall effect on the empire. Then, in 537 BCE the Persians and Medes came to power and as "liberators" they sought to reverse the processes of the Assyrian and Babylonian regimes by respecting and even aiding provincial religions. However, at this point (200 years after the Assyrian campaign across the Levant) there wasn't much left to resurrect of ANE cults since they had been mostly subsumed by the Assyrian and Babylonian empires. In other words, once again Judaeans were in a unique position to benefit from Persian religious toleration, since other peoples were already too assimilated within the Assyro-Babylonian melting pot to be helped by Cyrus' Edict of Toleration.



For the next 200 years, until the Hellenic age commenced with the Alexandrian conquests 333-321 BCE, Judea developed in a very special way. Unlike other Persian provinces, the Jews were more "religiously conservative" as a result of their past history (as described previously). Also, during this period Judea's "buffer zone" status had disappeared. It was no longer a battleground state. The Persians ruled Egypt as well and so Judea held absolutely no political or material significance to the Persians. The Persians were perfectly fine with the Judaeans not worshipping Persian gods as long as they behaved themselves and paid the reasonable taxes demanded of them, which they did.



By the time of the Greek conquest of the Levant in 331 BCE, Judea once again was a meaningless province. Judea is NOT EVEN MENTIONED by Greek historians. The Tyrian siege and the Gazan conquest are vividly described by historians but there's no mention of Judea. Why? The Greeks completely overlooked this worthless Persian province. They couldn't care less what went on culturally and religiously within Judea. Judea was a way station to them -- a stopover on their way to Egypt and the great new city of Alexandria that the Greeks founded there. Needless to say Judea wasn't in any position to resist the Greek forces passing through the region; but neither were the Greeks interested in occupying Jerusalem since there was no material wealth to be had from it.

first written on Aug 3 2009

-to be continued-

Why be "rational" and anti-huddling

Kisarita asks the following questions:

From whence the assumption that ALL rational people should agree with me?

Why the certainty in my lifestyle is the best, and yours are destructive?

Why are artificially "rationally" created "like minded" communities better than emotional tribal ones?

By what possible reasonable criteria do you define who is superior and who is inferior?

Bkitzur, why do so may ex-frum sound like born-again religious converts in their devotion to secularism?

Me thinks there is something very suprarational about that.

end quote.

It would also be useful for readers to read Kisarita's post "In defense of Emotions" at http://kisarita.blogspot.com/2009/06/in-defense-of-emotions.html .

My friend. Let me explain my position on this with an illustration ("men ken es farshtein mit a mashal" we can understand it with an analogy).

Judge Sotomayor was recently nominated for a Supreme Justice of the United States of America. As the procedure is with such high-impact life-time appointments by the President, The U.S. Senate questions the candidate about her judicial and even general socio-political beliefs. So the questions arises: why are we asking her what she thinks about Roe. v. Wade? Why should the actual opinion matter, as long as she is actually qualified for the position (experience-wise)? Would a Senator dare ask her how many times she brushes her teeth each day or her sexual intercourse frequency? Of course not! Would any politician inquire as to my judicial or political position? Of course not.

The difference here is that I am not a candidate for office of U.S. supreme court justice. In other words: I have not put myself out there in a position where my opinion should be relevant. If, for example, Judge Sotomayor were to be a dentist and she was nominated for administrator of the (theoretical) dentistry division of the Health Dep. then yes, it would matter somewhat whether how many times she brushes her teeth. If she is presenting herself as an expert on such matters and she is going to advise citizens on how frequently to brush their teeth, then --yes-- senators do have the right and responsibility to ascertain whether she indeed practices what she preaches. If she doesn't, there would be justified suspicion that she wouldn't be executing her job well.

How does all this relate to us?

Well, I did in fact grow up in a highly restrictive environment physically, emotionally and intellectually. If I am going to truly move on in life, then these issues do matter. It's not okay to shove them under the rug and say "let me live and let live". Clearly, if I have been told for 20 years that God created the world in six days, that Noah is the only one who survived the flood and that Moses received a revealed law code from God, it IS MY BUSINESS to set the record straight.

I totally denounce the non-judgemental-ism approach that many OTD's insist on. The Haredi movement is extremely judgemental. Why then, should I stand on the sideline and allow them to preach and advise their youth according to a system which I see as corrupt, incoherent, and illogical. If I am unable to engage successfully in a polemic on such topics, then my lifestyle and my offspring's are in jeopardy. I will never be able to gain the elusive stability that I am so wistfully yearning for. Therefore, I WILL judge my ex-community and say that their lifestyles are silly and I WILL explain why that is so.

This does not mean that I advocate forceful adherence to a code of law as they do. This is where the core American ideal of liberty creates a wide golf between us. I believe that reason should be engaged in and let the person then make an informed, wise decision on how to live. The Orthodox mostly adopt a Freudian defense mechanism of completely suppressing the "dangerous thoughts", denouncing them as heresy and shutting off any possibility of its members being able to extract themselves from their midst in a reasonable manner.

Life is a game of poker. The cards have been dealt and my hand sucks. What's worse is that the information so desperately needed to play this weak hand properly is being suppressed. Why should I be contain my sense of exasperation over how bad my hand is. I will speak up about it and tell the world how bad the cards are in Borough Park and how best to play the seven-deuce. By the way, for those who don't know, the best way to play 'em is to fold! But it's important to fold with style and that's where I come in. I am not imposing my beliefs on others. I am not saying that one "must" live in a particular way or believe or "not believe" any particular thing. I am simply getting a conversation off the ground. I am simply eager to discuss topics that were off-limits in my ex-community. I am eager to use research tools that were totally unheard of in the entire Ortho world from A to Z. In my biblical research I am suddenly encountering German, Christian scholars who have centuries ago employed sophisticated scientifically sound historical and linguistic tools to see the Hebrew Bible in a new light. This info has been completely withheld from me. I want to study it now. I want people to know it's out there.

If you still insist that a life devoid of education and truthful information is perhaps meaningful and advisable, then surely you should stop reading this post and I have nothing further to say in my defense. However, you've read til hear, so it seems to me that --consciously or not-- your instinct impels you to seek the truth and set the record straight.

I hope I explained my self well and good luck to everyone.

The short and Long Route: Difference between the Jewish Denominations

We all know there are three Jewish denominations: Orthodox, Reform and Conservative. But, do we understand the doctrinal differences between them? I think that many people --even those whom you'd expect to know more on this issue, such as OTD's-- don't.

I recently had a conversation with an OTD (off the derech) who made the remark that "reform Judaism is just a different form of religion. They are in theory just as dogmatic and religious as their ortho counterparts". I was appalled. It really irked me to hear this. Of course, in the heat of our conversation I had little success in debunking such a flawed understanding. So let me discuss this here.

It's important to understand that every religious movement and denomination thereof, has a certain real-life setting it feels most comfortable with. Each individual member, however, could do whatever they want and could claim that their behavioral systems are perfectly compatible with the founder's vision. While I usually cannot scientifically prove them wrong, studying the movement's history usually reveals its philosophical underpinning and that is a tremendous indicator as to what the movement stands for, its values, its direction and outlook on life. Do not get sidetracked by individual members claiming "there's absolutely no problem with dosing so and so in a given denomination". I'll give several examples to illustrate what I mean.

1) If you are having a polemic with an enlightened Orthodox Jew about the world being created in seven days (according to the Torah), they will likely admit that the world is older and make the common apologetic argument that the bible is referring to "god days" which are longer. Thus, they will say, the bible and the Orthodox religion are generally consistent with the secular chronology of human history. Wrong! they can believe whatever they want but the Orthodox premise specifically is NOT to interpret the bible allegorically. The importance of observing all the modern minutiae of Jewish law hinges on the belief that God intended the law to be eternal and immutable, precisely as it is presented in the book. Orthodox religion, by its very nature, doesn't allow "longer god days" wiggle room. In other words, while this "enlightened" yeshiva bachur can say and/or do whatever he wants, he's really missing a very essential point here: that the founders of the movement that he follows vociferously rejected any compromise with science. The general spirit of the movement does not allow such an interpretation of the Torah. His approach, rather, would be more fitting to the Reformed or Conservative view of religion.

2) If you've met a karlbach adherent, you may have noticed their intense passion for Judaic rituals such as prayer, dance and hymns. Traditional haredim dismiss them as not authentically religious. Actually, they are precisely what the early hasidim of the late 18th cent. were. The early hasidim were --contrary to modern hasidic practice-- not distinguished by dress, adherence to Jewish law or such. They disregarded Jewish law and scholastic pursuits in favor of a more emotional approach to religion. The karlbach's are as "hasidic" as they get. Don't let the looks fool you. If an satmar hasid ever tells you nishtakkecha torath habbal shem (the teaching of the baal shem had been forgotten), tell him "the karlbach's know what it is, let's go ask them". In contrast, modern "hasidic" practice has evolved so heavily from what its original founders had in mind that it is a misnomer to call it "hasidism"; it conjures up the wrong images. This is true even among the sects who maintain more of the hasidic veneer by emphasizing tischen (firday night table ceremony) and such. Those hasidim are cult-oriented in the sense that they gather round a charismatic figure and venerate him. That's not what true hasidism (as shown by historical fact) is all about.

Let me illustrate the difference between the dominant Jewish denominations through the biblical case law for theft. If one steels an ox or lamb and is caught, he must make restitution and also pay a 100% penalty (he must give back two lambs). Sounds pretty reasonable. However, if he has sold or slaughtered the ox or lamb, then the court forces him to pay a 3x and 4x penalty, respectively. Why the greater penalty? Why even ask this question?

The highly-traditional Eastern European answer is just that: The laws of the Torah are from God and we don't know why they are so and we have no right or reason to question them. The German Orthodox school (represented by Rabbi S.R. Hirsch), however, would acknowledge that there is some rational reason behind this: consumption of stolen property is viewed as consummating the crime; hence, the greater penalty. What the Hirsch school will not do is allow one to extrapolate from this law. To Hirsch, God knows what's good for us and instructs us to behave accordingly for our own benefit. If a computer laptop is involved instead of an ox or lamb there would no "dalet wahe" (4x or 5x penalty) if the thief resold the laptop. That's because God decides how to apply his rules; we are not to reason beyond what is provided by the law.

The Conservative school (represented by Solomn Schechter) would, in principle, allow extrapolation from the theft law. If we understand why the penalty for consumption or resale is greater than mere theft, we can --and should-- further extend this model to apply to other stolen items as well. The Torah only speaks of lambs and oxen because in Biblical times that was the only steal-able property. (Note that in this regard, a "progressive" movement is stricter in the application of ancient law, than a conservative movement -- a source of confusion to neophytes in theology and religious matters). The conservative school believes in the primacy of Halacha but they believe that it should be updated in accordance with modern culture and lifestyle.

The Reform movement, on the other end of the spectrum has the most liberal take on this. Reform scholars are Deists. In matters of conflict between science and religion they essentially side with science. They also advocate enlightenment, the power of reason and a complete revision of Biblical law so as to discard everything that is inconsistent with modern thought or practice. All they see in the theft law is a philosophical precept, which is in fact accounted for in modern Common Law or Civil Law through the imposition of a penalty in addition to restitution in aggravated cases of theft and deception. In other words, what's the point of sticking to the ancient law if-and-when it conflicts with what we would have said in its absence? All the ancient law says, according to reform jurisprudence, is that the ancients saw it best for their society to apply the law thus. Those very ancients themselves would have agreed that as social and economic conditions evolve the law should be updated accordingly. To the Reformer, then, Biblical law has very little significance beyond its moral or didactic element.

Returning to the original topic of this post, on the question of whether there is a fundamental difference between the religion practiced by Reform and Ortho Judaism, I must decisively say: yes, there is an enormous difference between the two. Of course, you could walk in to any Reform synagogue and see the Rabbi donning an unsightly talith and tefilin and preaching to the community on the importance of studying Hebrew and religious materials. You can also walk in to a charedi shul and hear the Rabbi talk about hos the tsiyyon we crave for in the amidah (shemonah esreh) is an allegory representing also the yearning for general salvation from our troubles such as making a living, family relations, morality etc... In both cases we have Rabbis who are preaching or acting in a manner that is more typical of a different denomination; they are "crossing over" (a Gregor Mendelian term?). Don't become obfuscated by such atypical rhetoric and make flawed inferences as to the general character of the movement, and the lifestyle those respective denominations advocate.

I view the various branches of Judaism in through a prism. The branches can --and should-- all be pegged steadfastly within the spectrum of the rainbow, one more conservative than the other. It is a mistake to suppose that one can remain attached to a hasidic lifestyle but be liberal in mind, or that the reform-affiliated congregant who goes to synagogue every Sabbath and says all his blessings constantly is somehow more religious than some Ortho Jews and so there's no point in distinguishing between the two.

The way I see it is that the route from religion to secularism is fixed and is longer than it seems. For ultra-orthodox Jews that route involves a liberal form of Judaism which should be studied and embraced on their noble route out of the shtetel and into 21st-century Western society. Without making this critical stopover in the journey to secularism, there is a high risk of relapse. It's what the Mishnah calls derekh qetsarah vaarukhah: the short route that is (=turns out to be) long.