Conversion, Refusing Orders and Expanding Halacha

Yeshiva head: My duty is to tell troops to refuse orders
Barak: Hesder Arrangement with Har Bracha is Over
Neeman Slammed for Desiring Jewish law
Supreme Court rules Against Jewish School

It may have been a far cry from sex, drugs and rock and roll, but some of the best days of my youth were spent at summer camp. Bnei Akiva may not have trumped the street-cred tables, but it energized and educated, created life long friends, and inspired generations of youth in idealism and love of Israel.

It seems strange to think back to it – the bog tents (these were the days before portaloos); the standing on benches singing our hearts out; the demanding of the camp song ‘(which we wanted ‘now’); and the unashamed chanting of our motto ‘The Land of Israel, the People of Israel, according to the Torah of Israel.’

I recently thought back to part of that phrase ‘the Land of Israel according to the Torah of Israel’ in the context of the controversy surrounding the statements made by

Rav Eliezer Melamed of the Har Bracha Hesder Yeshiva, who called for religious soldiers to refuse to evacuate outposts and settlements as it contradicts Jewish law.

Other rabbis from the moderate nationalist camp (yes, one does exist) were more or less ambivalent – torn between wanting to criticise Melamed without simultaneously turning him into a martyr. But I was particularly struck by a statement from Rav Yoel Bin-Nun, who argued against what he termed Melamed’s ‘politicization of Halacha’, or in other words, expanding the area of issues in the public sphere about which Halacha has an opinion on.

Interestingly, the Har Bracha story comes only weeks after Finance Minister Yaacov Neeman expressed his wish for Halacha to become an integral part of the law of the State of Israel.

Last week meanwhile, my Tel Aviv Shiur group was treated to one final session by Maayan before her and Einav (temporarily) move to Hong Kong. The topic at hand was conversion (particularly relevant in light of the recent JFS case) but it was conversion with a twist.

Our discussion focussed on the analysis by Eliezer Berkovits who argued that the issue isn’t simply about applying the written Halachic principle (which in the case of Conversion means accepting all the Mitzvot, and immersion in a Mikva) but of considering other less tangible - but no less important - Halachic principles as well, such as the importance of national unity, the love of the Jewish people and the dignity of each individual.

What interested me was that despite coming from completely different standpoints, Melamed, Neeman and Berkovits are in some way all promoting the expansion of our understanding of Halacha. But whereas the former want to expand Halacha’s role in discussing (currently ‘secular’) issues in the public sphere, Berkovits wants to use values currently in the public sphere (like human dignity and justice) to expand our understanding of the principles of Halacha.

And it got me thinking that perhaps the problem of the Har Bracha case is not the so called ‘politicization of Halacha’ but the politicization of a particular brand of it;

A narrow, nationalist stream which focuses on the written word rather than the spirit behind it;

One which trumps the value of land over that of democracy.

One which views individual human rights as an alien concept to the body of Judaism.

One which focuses on the importance of destroying one’s enemy in wartime rather than protecting civilians and being concerned over spilling innocent blood.

And perhaps it’s this brand of Halacha, rather than Halacha per se which is the problem...

The nostalgia for the days of my (misspent?) youth will probably continue for a while, although I probably would still proudly proclaim the ideal of living one’s life according to ‘Torat Yisrael.’

I just wish that those who propagate a more inclusive, creative, engaging, tolerant, non-xenophobic understanding of our religious texts would win the ongoing battle over how to interpret them.

Gays, Top Trumps and Whether God Hates Shrimp

For those cool kids (like me) who spent their primary school days playing Top Trumps, ‘abomination’ probably means a sea-green hulk like monster with tight speedos, weighing in at 980lbs, and possessing superpowers of 98. For everyone else meanwhile (and believe me you missed out), the word probably conjures up actions beyond the moral pale, abominable behaviour which can never be countenanced.

I thought back to that hulk like monster while reading about the recent Yeshiva University forum discussing Being Gay In The Orthodox World and the harsh response to it. The discussion itself involved four participants who described heart wrenching stories – of earnestly seeking a wholesome life with wife and kids but being held back by their genetic make up; of desperately seeking acceptance from friends and family; of struggling to maintain their relationship with God and the religion they love.

The response meanwhile (unsympathetic as it was perhaps predictable) focussed on the aspect of homosexuality as a toevah, an abomination.

- - - -

The ‘gay debate’ will probably be around for a while yet. But putting aside the first part of the infamous verse in Vayikra (the ‘lying with a man’ bit), I wonder whether our understanding of the second part, (the pronouncement of the act as a ‘toeva’) might have been overly influenced by Top Trumps.

We first encountered the term ‘toeva’ last week when Joseph refers to the problem of being a shepherd in Egypt. We later read about it regarding the prohibition of eating certain sea creatures (which is where the website http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/ comes in).

Rather than as abomination, it’s reasonable to translate the term as ‘taboo’ – something problematic in certain cultures, but not morally forbidden (whatever one’s views of shrimp, it’s hardly abominable).

- - - -

Whether this realization makes any difference to those who zealously crusade against same sex relationships is unclear.

But at the very least it may cause some of us to question whether our shrill response to the issue has more to do with God or with our own personal insecurities.

Different Demonstrations: Israeli Bikers and the Jews of Hebron

If, as Victor Frankl argues, life revolves around man’s search for meaning, then sitting in traffic on a Sunday morning while Israel’s bikers made their point about insurance prices could easily represent a potentially existential challenge.

Not that I didn’t try to make the 2 hour journey as meaningful as possible.

I shaved.

I did a sit-down Shacharit.

I even read some of my book. (A State Beyond the Pale – Europe’s Problem with Israel)

When I finally reached the office and tried to ascertain who exactly I should be sympathizing with, I came across this video about the demonstration in which the bikers explain their point.

But what really caught my attention was the reasoning that “normally Israelis don’t even acknowledge protests unless they turn really wild, but we are trying to be different” [I guess ‘really wild’ in this context would have been completely blocking the Ayalon rather than leaving one lane free, but that’s simply conjecture]

- - -

Last weekend, thousands of people converged on Hebron to mark both the ‘anniversary’ of Avraham buying the Cave of Machpelah to bury his wife and in order to indicate the Jewish people’s historical, religious and national connection to the area that has spanned over two thousand years.

Of course that is only part of the Hebron story.

In addition to being an important part of our historical memory, the area is also home to thousands of Palestinians, and a powder keg of ethnic tensions. The current reality as well as the wisdom of visiting it often lead to political discussions (or arguments) as to whether we should stand firm and maintain our presence there, or pack up and leave in the hope of reducing tensions and strengthening a Jewish and Democratic state.

While I don’t want to weigh in on the debate (at-least on the blog – those who know me realize I’m happy to weigh in on it in person), the weekend and the debate surrounding it got me thinking…

There are primarily two Palestinian narratives. One – Islamic and uncompromising – claims that Israelis only understand force, that the way to secure Palestinian rights is through violent resistance, rockets and suicide bombings…

The other – moderate in rhetoric at-least – argues that Palestinian rights can best be secured through dialogue and negotiations, that violence strategically undermines the cause of ending occupation.

Yet regardless of one’s political opinion, its worth considering the following; That if while an Intifada of bombings in cafés and restaurants ultimately led to Disengagement from Gaza, yet four years of relative West Bank quiet has led to nothing (not even a settlement freeze), what sort of message are we sending to the so called moderates?

And does our behavior not strengthen the conclusion that ‘Israelis don’t even acknowledge protests unless they turn wild’?

Shaping Heroes in Our Own Image

There is no greater example of Eric Auerbach’s argument that the Torah text is ‘fraught with background’ (rather than detailed descriptions) than the story of Avram who – seemingly out of nowhere – gets a call from God to leave his land, home and birthplace.

The lack of detail allows the Rabbis to shape their hero in their own image. For one, he becomes the pure believer who, already at the age of three, comes to total belief in the Divine.
For another, Avram is the grand philosopher – a mix between Aristotle and Socrates – whose mind gives him no rest until he finally arrives at monotheism and bravely fights against the rest of society to promote the truth.

Read More

Marx, Spinoza, Freud and Avraham

I know I seem to be quoting the British Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks a lot, but this reading of Lech Lecha in which he contrasts the call for Avraham to undertake a spiritual journey with critiques of Marx, Spinoza and Freud on inherent human nature is simply fantastic.

Read More

The Fall of Babel, the Rise of Europe

In a land of 2 Jews 3 opinions, one would have thought that Babel would bring nostalgia – the yearning to create a society of one language and the same words.

In a place divided between right and left, religious and secular, rich and poor, maybe we should be sympathetic to the tower generation – an equal society with no disagreement.

In his book on the Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, historian Paul Kennedy raises a simple question. How did Europe – with its scattered and relatively unsophisticated peoples compared to other global empires like China, Russia and Japan – manage to become a commercial and military leader in world affairs?

The answer is surprising, and it may hold the key to why God felt the need to divide the people of Babel.

read more

Seeing is Believing? Where the Chief meets Gladwell

A while ago, UK Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks gave a lecture in which he argued that while Greek culture is primarily based on site – statues, painting, architecture, sculpture and sport – Judaism is more a culture of the ear.

The Chief isn’t the first to make this distinction. He quotes Eric Auerbach’s essay “Odysseus’s Scar” which explains that while Homer is full of vivid descriptions, the Tanach is not.

No one knows what our heroes looked liked. Instead, we are left with a text “fraught with background” which demands our engagement to fill in the gaps from our own imagination.

To push the argument home, the Chief explained that the Hebrew word for ‘clothes’ (בגד) also means ‘betrayal’. Relying solely on sight can mislead (or blind) us. Instead we need to focus on listening, or hearing (שמע)

I was reminded of this distinction while (re)reading the epilogue of Malcolm Gladwell’s bestselling book Blink – the Power of Thinking without Thinking.

Read More