The Akdamut

The Shavu'ot holiday commemorates the Revelation at Sinai. We are so accustomed to hearing this story, that we are often unmoved by the most remarkable event of G-d not only communicating with Man, but with an entire Nation! On Shavu'ot morning, the Torah portion is read in which the giving of the commandments is described. In German Jewish tradition, adopted by most Ashkenazim, a remarkable hymn, the Akdamut, is recited either before the Torah reading, or, even more unusual, after the Torah reading has begun and is interrupted for this hymn. Many consider it Judaism's greatest hymn. This is a view which I share.
Akadamut is a poem in Aramaic, consisting of forty four lines, each with ten syllables, with all lines ending in the syllable "ta". It takes us from the beginning of time until the end of time.
It opens with the reader apologizing for the interruption, but he must say "a few lines" about the revelation. He starts with G-d about to create the world. The hymn proceeds to creation, the perception of the angels , the creation of Man. We are then told of Israel's observance of the Torah. But the Nations are envious. "Who is your beloved, O fair one (Israel), that for Him you are killed everywhere? Join us, and we will give you great honor!" Israel replies "What will your honor mean when G-d is revealed in Redemption, when Divine honor will cover us, while you are covered in shame?) There is a description of the redemption. The Isralites will point to G-d and say "There He is! The One we believed in and had faith in Him with a fierce conviction!" The joys of the redemption, the rebuilding of Jerusalem in precious stones, are all described with great beauty. The long awaited return of the Israelites from the lands of our dispersion is extolled. A great celebration; the culmination of History, is pictured. The reader ends with "thank you for listening. May you all be present at that celebration".
As beautiful as the Akdamut is, the context is very telling. We are about to read of the Revelation.We are being told, in essence "Stop! Think about what happened. But not only that! Sinai was the culmination of Creation. It was all leading up to this; G-d communicating to Man, and setting him on a mission! But it is also a new beginning. We are to wander, be persecuted, bear testimony to the events of Sinai for millennia to come. Despite persecution, we proclaim the Truth of G-d. Most of mankind thinks us mad. But glory awaits, as all those with false values and false gods suddenly realize their great error and experience the profoundest possible shame." Almost anticlimactically, we are told "Hope to see you there!"
Sinai was a culmination. But Sinai was a beginning. In fact, every step in life is a culmination and a beginning, if we walk in the ways of Torah. Hope to see you there!

Judaism and Women part 6

The women's movement has been the catalyst in all Jewish groups for raising difficult questions. Answers are even more difficult. Are we to allow, or even encourage, hitherto unknown practices in order to allow women on the one hand a sense of full "belonging", or on the other hand to develop new directions for uniquely feminine expressions of Judaism? Or perhaps maintain what has always been done, helping all those who feel disenfranchised to understand the framework of tradition, hoping that they will relate to it. Three years ago, a group of distinguished liberal Orthodox rabbis quit the Rabbinical Council of America over this issue. They had encouraged a re-examination of Jewish life based on the classical sources, as well as re-thinking many issues of Jewish life in a way that is different from the "standard". These rabbis saw that they, and their views, were being marginalized, and that their students were being prevented from taking part in organized Orthodoxy. Will they form a new "denomination", or will their protest force everyone to asses anew their policies? It is too soon to tell.
On the other end of the spectrum, more right wing Orthodox rabbis are defending the idea that "what has been done" is also a part of Torah, even if sourceless. As we have seen in Conservatism, a challenge to a relatively minor practice can lead to a "slippery slope", with consequences no one dreamed of. The concept of "Minhag Yisrael Torah Hi" (A Jewish custom IS Torah" is often quoted, but from where? To my knowledge it is not Talmudic, but did become an accepted principle later. Does it restrict us, or liberate us?
Another factor, which greatly disturbs me (not directly connected to the women's issue), is the "dumbing down" of Judaism for the sake of simplicity. Judaism, including Orthodox Judaism, has had numerous interpretations. If one looks at the classical Torah commentaries of the "Mikraot Gedolot" (published in 1524), many of the commentators have views so divergent that we might think that they represented different religions! Yet, there was room and respect for everyone as long as basic beliefs and practices were upheld .As Judaism came under attack from atheists and heretics, the response of many rabbis was to "circle the wagons". Judaism went on the defensive. Books were written to show how greatly different opinions actually agreed with each other. Every story, every medieval legend, became an article of faith. Like a  house of cards, pull one out, and it will all come crashing down. That was the fear.  Keep it simple, keep it unified, don't confuse the people. Nevertheless, when people begin studying on their own, and see contradictions to this "one size fits all" Orthodoxy, they are often put off by rabbis telling them "it can't mean what it says". The Sea of Torah is so very vast and all encompassing, it seems a shame to me to limit it in this way. It frightens me that books written in the last twenty years are seen as SOURCES rather than opinions. Holding different views, even views based on the teachings of great rabbis, often puts people outside the "consensus". Non-conformity is seen as a danger. It is. but so is blind conformity. Both Man and Woman are in the Image of G-d. We must seek Truth, if we sincerely seek Him.

Judaism and Women part 5

We have seen how pressures for equality  of women in the Conservative movement brought about changes that none had foreseen at the beginning of the controversy, and how rather than expanding the movement, it left it in a state of near collapse. What is to be learned from this?
First of all, when a group of people want change, it is important to ascertain if this is the desire of most people, or merely of a vocal minority. As  we have seen in our own group, discussion of women's role in Judaism brings out expressions of "yes, we need equality...yesterday!" But we have seen others say "we don't want THAT kind of equality. We are different from men. We have different needs and different roles. We don't want change, just respect!" Yet another voice is heard: "Change is good for those who want it. I don't feel the need!" Such varied responses call for a frank discussion. But does it call for   immediate action? How can everyone's needs be met, without disenfranchising large groups with other ideas? Also, can we determine whether or not to insure equality, based on a majority consensus?
Back in the early '70s, I was a campus rabbi. Young people wanted to pray. But they didn't relate to traditional prayers. The result was "the Creative Service". Students would put together a worship service consisting of original poetry, popular songs (mostly Judy Collins and Peter Paul and Mary). Needless to say, that could not be meaningful unless changed often. I still love that music, but my kids would not have a clue as to who those singers were, or why anybody would relate to that sort of music. As to the poetry, the frequent use of terms such as "mind blowing", "out of sight" and "far out" would elicit giggles today. Does this mean that the "Creative Service" is a good idea, but needs to be rewritten frequently, or is it fundamentally flawed by a belief that "we can do it better"? In many Orthodox synagogues, as well as some Conservative, the emphasis was put not on change, but on helping worshipers to understand and identify with the prayers and practices that had served our people well for thousands of years. "Interpretive Services" became, and remain, the preferred method. Beyond prayer, is the problem with Judaism that it has flaws which need fixing, or that we simply don't understand its depth and beauty? Is Judaism perhaps an ancient classic, written in a language that only scholars can understand? If THAT is the case, we don't need a feeble attempt at rewriting it, or even translating it, but merely to learn the language. The messages of Shabbat, holidays, kashrut, tefillin need to be understood, with people taught how to relate. We don't need a new kind of tefillin! We need to understand the old, in its own "language". On the other hand, I cannot help but be dismayed by the marginalization and objectification of woman in some sectors of the Orthodox community, usually under the guise of "modesty". Some ultra Orthodox periodicals Photoshop out women's pictures from advertising, or even news articles. Fringe groups in Israel have adopted the Muslim Burka for their wives and daughters. If it's happening in Jerusalem, Brooklyn cannot be far behind.
Several years ago, I was browsing in a library (remember those?) I happened to pick up a book called "Hiring a Rabbi or Cantor".I only took a glance, but saw something that made a profound impression on me. Clergy and Congregants have fundamentally different needs. Rabbis and Cantors usually want to change tunes (both literally and figuratively) frequently, in order to keep the service fresh and contemporary. Congregants usually want everything to stay the same. They seek a connection to their parents and grandparents, to their own childhood and younger years. A new tune for Kol Nidrei might be momentarily interesting, or even exciting. But the connection to ages of Jews who sang the same words, in the same way,  at the same time of year, in the midst of hopes and fears, triumphs and tragedies, would be lost. Can we say that one side is wrong and one side is right? There is a delicate balance between "now" and "forever".
More thoughts in my next post.

Judaism and Women part 4

Conservatism took a huge dive in membership after adopting the idea of ordaining women, and the subsequent acceptance of full female participation at religious services. But why? There is no doubt that much of this was plain sexism. But it goes beyond that. The main draw of Conservatism over Orthodoxy for many people was that it appeared to be more "flexible", allowing the not-allowable where circumstances were seen as warranting that. Reform was seen by most Jews as simply being not "Jewish enough". The abandonment of familiar rituals and observances just seemed alien to most people. The President of one Conservative synagogue told me that when the synagogue was first built, they really wanted to make it Reform, but "they were embarrassed". Critics of the decision within the Conservative movement said "OK, we're going egalitarian. But what is next? Will we OK homosexuality as well?". The answer was a resounding "no, that will never happen". A leader of Conservatism about fifteen years  ago reiterated that the gay issue was completely out of bounds, as the Torah and Talmud are both unequivocally opposed to these behaviors. An outcry went up from the rank and file "we are an historical movement, not a halachic movement!" At the next convention of Conservative rabbis, a pro-gay resolution was passed. There was no semblance of a halachic basis, just sociology. Many felt they no longer had a home in the Conservative movement. It no longer seemed to be the happy medium between Orthodoxy and Reform. It was now "Reform Lite". Indeed, theologically, the only issues that divide the movements are intermarriage, patrilineal descent, and the observance of Kashrut at public functions. In many outlying areas, compromises on these issues are already being made. Although many differences of style still exist, many people believe that a merger of Conservative and Reform Judaism is only a few years away.
With the decline in membership came other problems. The training of Conservative rabbis, although far weaker in halachah than their Orthodox counterparts, was far more comprehensive in many other ways. Few Orthodox rabbis have training in history, philosophy or psychology that comes near to what is taught at the Conservative seminary. Conservative rabbis are trained in homiletics (how to give an effective sermon), and even how to deal with a synagogue board! Such training demands a professional salary, which many congregations could no longer afford. (A beginning rabbinic salary for A Conservative rabbi is about triple that of an Orthodox one). At first, many Conservative congregations hired Orthodox rabbis. However, as the movement drifted further away from Orthodox practice, this became unrealistic. Two highly regrettable things occurred. One was that many cantors, who knew the prayers but little else, PURCHASED rabbinic ordination from unscrupulous rabbis (any ordained rabbi can ordain another. This would not be recognized by other institutions if done not based on merit, but cash-strapped synagogues could not afford to be choosy). Another phenomenon is "quicky seminaries". A two week seminar, or even a brief online course, could win one the title "rabbi". These "rabbis" have no trouble finding employment at small, out of the way communities. They essentially make it up as they go along. Many of these synagogues become social action centers, or, in the case of female rabbis, feminist consciousness raising groups. The latter issue has driven many men out of Conservative synagogues. Many female rabbis tend to be feminists first, rabbis second. Male congregants often feel uncomfortable.
What can Orthodoxy learn from these situations? What do we need to avoid, and what do we need to strengthen? That will be my next post.

Mesorah 8

With the establishment of the State of Israel, the question of who is and who isn't a Jew became very pressing. Would Jews who practiced another faith still be considered Jews, with the right to immigrate and receive full citizenship? According to halachah they are still Jews, but how would this impact the communal structure of the new country? This was tested in the 1950s by the "Brother Daniel" case. Daniel Rufeisen was a Polish Jew who had been given refuge during the Holocaust in a Polish convent. He accepted Catholicism, becoming a priest and monk. He came to Israel (where he lived until his death in 1998) and applied for citizenship as a Jew. A huge public debate arose. The Secular Courts finally ruled that one who had taken another identity was no longer a Jew. Similar questions arose regarding claims of people and groups all over the world who put forward claims to Jewishness, or at least Jewish ancestry. What about the Doenmeh of Turkey? They were outwardly Muslim, but secretly practiced a bizarre form of Judaism, following, and in some cases actually worshiping, the false seventeenth century Messiah, Shabbeai Tzvi? One Israeli President advocated bringing the community to Israel. This was blocked by both rabbinical and secular bodies. There are many similar cases.
When it came to the Karaites, these questions came into more focus. They were Jews, but practiced a Judaism that was radically different from the Mesorah. Many already lived in the Holy Land...since the eighth century! What about the thousands who lived in Egypt, the Crimea. and other places? Should they be encouraged to come to Israel? The policy for the fist twenty five years of Israel's existence was to allow immigration of those communities, but not encourage it. An arrangement was made in which they would have their own courts, religious leadership, as well as lay decision makers. This meant autonomy, but not real acceptance. As time went by, Israeli Karaites tended more and more to gravitate to the traditional rabbinite practices. Since society, schools, businesses ran by the traditional Hebrew calendar, it became increasingly difficult to observe holidays by their own calendar. The shock of neighbors seeing no mezzuzah on their doors, made many accept this practice due to social pressure. Hanukkah, which had been abhorrent to the Karaites as post Biblical, was nevertheless all around them; in schools, in the media. Many adopted the festival as a "national" holiday. Virtually all restaurants were kosher based on rabbinite understandings, not Karaite. Many went over to the more accepted Kashrut. But were they to be considered Jews? Could they marry other Jews? Although this had been a disputed issue since the twelfth century, there had been few cases. But now the two groups lived together, went to the same schools, and fought side by side in the same army. Until 1973, the rabbinic authorities of Israel resisted accepting heretical groups into the fold, even if they were willing to rejoin the body of Israel. However, upon the election of the late Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (may the memory of the righteous be for a blessing) to the position of Sepharadic Chief Rabbi, the situation changed drastically. Rav Ovadia was opposed to heresy, of course. But he was very open about bringing back into the fold various communities that had either strayed, or whose Jewish identification was questionable. This included far-flung Jewish communities in Asia and Africa, as well as entire communities that had accepted, under duress, another faith. He dismissed concerns of bastardy which I dealt with in my previous posts. All these groups needed to do was to reaffirm their Jewishness. In cases of doubt as to actual ancestry, a minimal conversion would be done in order to eliminate all doubts. To be sure, there were those who balked at this leniency, but it did become the policy of the rabbinate for several decades. In the case of the Karaites, although Rav Ovadia found their views to be contrary to the Torah as we understand it, if they re-accepted Jewish tradition, they were to be welcomed home, with no questions asked. Some Israeli Karaite leaders, however, took to the media, and even the courts, to reaffirm their commitment to their own ideas and ways. Legal challenges arose regarding Karaite butcher shops displaying signs claiming to be kosher. Kashrut is legally in the hands of the rabbinate, and Karaite kosher is not the same as halachic kosher.What is kosher to us, is not kosher to them, and vice versa. As an autonomous group, they had the right to their own system, just as Muslims maintain a system of Halal. But calling it "kosher" was seen as crossing a red line. Twelve hundred years of animosity do not vanish quickly. In 2013, the Chief Rabbinate issued a controversial ruling, saying that Karaites wishing to marry other Jews needed a full conversion. This is still being fought over, and is not likely to be settled any time soon. There is a significant tension between fostering Jewish unity on the one hand, and maintaining the integrity of the Torah on the other. We must add to this the question of non Orthodox Jewish groups as well. Some reject the Mesorah, while others modify it. These movements are, in any case, in flux. REform, in recent decades, has returned to much of the Mesorah, whereas Conservative has been going further away. Both movememnts are tiny in Israel, but they are backed by wealthy donors from abroad, and are challenging the hegemony of the Rabbinate in the secular courts. The Rabbinate, for its part, is stonewalling these efforts. The issue of Mesorah  is, indeed, at the very heart of Judaism. May Hashem speedily send us the Mashiach, who will  lead us all on the proper path!

Judaism and Women part 3

The Conservative movement was born in the last decades of the nineteenth century.At that time, there were few Orthodox Jews in America. Reform had taken a sharp turn away from tradition and halachah since the 1870s. A new "American Orthodoxy" was felt to be necessary.Conservatism was, from the beginning, an uneasy cohabitation of two philosophies. On the one hand, there were essentially Reform rabbis and scholars who believed that Reform had just gone too far. Reform synagogue services, at that time, seemed modeled more after Protestant services than Jewish (this, happily, reversed itself later). Many East Coast Reform synagogues even instituted a Sunday Sabbath! (The last of these switched back only in the 1970s).  Another group was essentially Orthodox, but believed compromises were necessary to bring back a rapidly assimilating community. This would be accomplished, they thought, not by violating halachah, but rather by giving it a more liberal interpretation.This group was heavily influenced by "the Historical School" (Wissenscaft), that sought an understanding of Judaism in its historical context. This idea was already popular in Germany, and also resonated with many Jews originating from the Iberian peninsula. Traditional Orthodoxy really only began to take hold in America in the 1920s. Conservatism perceived itself, and was perceived by many others, as being a form of Orthodoxy. In the 1930s,, an important shift took place. One of the leaders of Conservatism argued that, if we are seeing Judaism as an historical development, why can't we further that development? If something is in the Talmud, or even the Torah, which no longer fits modern sensibilities, we can, and should, change that idea or practice. One Conservative leader in the 1960s even went so far as to call several Biblical laws "immoral". To be sure, most Conservative leaders objected to these ideas, but both were represented among the faculty of the Conservative Jewish Theological Seminary, as well as the Committee on Law and Standards. Several leading Orthodox rabbis in the 1950s and '60s branded the Conservative movement as heretical, although the majority of its rabbis were, for all intents and purposes, Orthodox. One hears today speculation as to whether those Orthodox rabbis foresaw the future direction of the movement, or, whether, they had inadvertently pushed the Right Wing to the Left. Until the 1980s, Orthodox rabbis were still taking positions in Conservative synagogues. The Israeli Chief Rabbinate, although on record as opposing the movement, still recognized conversions done by Conservative rabbis who were known to be at the Right Wing of the movement. Today, Conservative rabbis who strictly follow halachah are exceedingly rare, but they do exist. These men are very brave, as they are seen as an anomaly in their own movement, and generally shunned by Orthodoxy as well.

Everything changed in about 1980. Feminism had taken hold in the American Jewish community. Women demanded the right to be ordained as rabbis. They also wanted full, or at least fuller, participation in synagogue services. Even in more liberal Orthodox circles, rabbis were experimenting with feminist innovations. But Conservative women wanted more than that. Virtually the entire leadership of the movement was sympathetic to the needs of these women. The Right Wing said, essentially, "OK. We will study the issue. We will publish peer reviewed studies based on sources. We will see how far we can go without doing violence to halachah." The Left wing said "OK, The community's values have changed. Halachah needs to change with it." The Rabbinical Assembly of the Conservative movement was ready to discuss these issues, find a consensus, and hold a vote. The lay organization, the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism told them "No. The community demands full equality of women in every sphere. You must permit this immediately!". The usual way that voting on issues was held was radically altered in order to insure passage.Several leaders who had initially supported the idea now felt that the halachic process had not only been subverted, but essentially ignored. Some resigned their teaching positions at JTS and left the movement. (Some of these are personal friends of mine). Many remained, trying to influence from within. (I have friends in this group as well.) The Left had the day. This would continue until the present, expressing itself in many ways on many issues. It was expected that the Conservative movement, already the largest of the three "denominations", would completely win over American Jewry by demonstrating this vibrancy and activism.. Instead, affiliation plummeted. Why did this happen? What can be learned from this experience? That will be my next post.