Leaders of societies and religions often are faced with a conflict between making a choice which affirms the rights of people, and upholds justice on the one hand, but which, on the other hand,, might have devastating consequences for the nation. A case in point is the way Mahatma Gandhi dealt with the problem of the caste system. He knew that the system was fundamentally immoral. Millions are born into the lowest caste. They are called "untouchables" They are doomed, from birth, to a life of poverty and misery. They mainly work at cremating the bodies of the dead. Gandhi considered outlawing the caste system, thereby freeing these people from millennia of discrimination. But he realized that ending the caste system, would, essentially destroy Hinduism. He felt that doing so, would rob India of its roots. He left the system in place. Although we think of Gandhi as a great non-violent liberator, he is cursed by millions who live in misery because of his inaction. But millions of others bless him for saving their heritage.We find the same thing in every religion, including Judaism. The cutting off of the Samaritans probably saved Judaism. Likewise, those rabbis who expressed the view that Karaites are the enemy, and they need to be shunned in every way, and should not be considered Jews, apparently had the same viewpoint as Gandhi. It is a fact that simple Jews do not understand theology or ideology. Few Jews, even Orthodox Jews, can describe to you the basic tenets of Judaism. Jews tend to think of Judaism in terms of what we do or don't do. Realizing this, whenever a heresy or supposed heresy arose, rather than fighting their ideology, the rabbis would fight their deviation from standard Jewish practice; however minor. Although Shabbat candles have many levels of significance, many rabbis, and virtually all historians, see their origin in negating the Sadducees, who believed that the Torah forbids having a fire burning on Shabbat. The rabbis REQUIRED having a fire burn into Shabbat in order to negate this view. Similarly, when Karaism came on the scene, with an understanding of Shabbat similar to that of the Sadducees, the rabbis urged all Jews to have at least one hot dish on Shabbat. Ashkenazim called it "chulent", which derives from an Italian word meaning "hot". (Yes, I am aware of all sorts of fanciful etymologies that have been suggested). Sepharadim called it "Hammin" (also "hot") but developed all sorts of delicious recipes, in addition to the Ashkenazi meat and bean stew. In the late '60s and early '70s, I was a frequent guest in the home of the Syrian Chief Rabbi of New York (one of his sons was my professor for Arabic in college). Before he tasted the Hammin, he recited a short poem, blessing those who partake of hot food on Shabbat, but cursing with the fire of Gehinnom those who do not. This became a powerful tool against Karaism. When Hasidism began, it was considered a heresy by the Yeshivah heads, especially in Lithuania. But when we read the "bans" of excommunication that were issued, none spoke of their ideology, but rather their customs. In the early days of Hasidism, Hasidim wore white garments on Shabbat (one still sees this in Israel). One of the "bans" says that if you see a Hasid dressed in white, strip him naked by force, even in the middle of the street. Hasidism adopted a different type of knife for ritual slaughter (shehitah) of animals for food. They were far sharper than those that had been used up to that point (and later became the norm for all). A ban was issued saying that any animal thus slaughtered must be considered non-kosher. Utensils used in preparing such meat must be either kashered or destroyed. Mezzuzot and Tefillin which were written in the Kabbalistic variation of the Ashkenazi script were declared invalid. Not that any of these things were intrinsically wrong, but they promoted and legitimized Hasidism, which was seen by those rabbis as a threat to traditional Judaism. People died, families were broken up, many lost their livelihood. It would seem to us as the ultimate immoral policy. But those who promulgated this policy, believed that these were necessary measures meant to save Judaism. Fighting the trappings, rather than the ideology of a new movement, was very effective. When Reform came on the scene in the late eighteenth century, it took different forms in different places. All, however, included deviations from standard beliefs and practices. But it was not these that were fought against, but rather external changes, such as the placement of the table on which the Torah was read. Mixed seating of the genders only came in in 1840. There are still Reform synagogues in some parts of Europe that have separate seating. The responsa written about Reform, until fairly recently, attacked not their ideology, but rather their ritual deviations. The same is true of Conservatism. As I have written in the past, the Conservative movement was, from its inception, an uneasy cohabitation of those who sought Orthodoxy with a more liberal interpretation (very much like today's "Open Orthodox"), and those who essentially wanted a less radical Reform. Up until the 1950s, the Conservative movement put out pamphlets on how to keep Shabbat, and even Family Purity (mikveh). Some Orthodox rabbis recommended dialogue with Conservatism. But the most prominent rabbis went on the attack. Again,not on the basis of ideology, but on the basis of trappings. The result was that Conservatism drifted further and further away from Orthodoxy. Did the rabbis who declared it completely invalid simply show them for what they were all along, or did they force them into a corner, thereby distancing millions of Jews from Judaism? (Recently, I have unfiended and blocked several people who were claiming that any Jew who does not accept a handful of Jerusalem and Bnai Brak Yeshivah heads as their leaders, is a heretic, and any converts who do not accept that concept are invalid. I am reminded of the French Revolution, when succeeding leaders decided that the previous leaders were counter revolutionary, sending them to the guillotine).That will be my next post.
No comments:
Post a Comment