Jewish Folklore 3

Jewish suffering at the hands of Christendom was a given from at least the time of Constantine. Stories of Jews being martyred always gave pride and hope. If there was Divine retribution against the perpetrators, so much the better for the frustrated and helpless Jewish minority. In 1753, a Croatian man named Raphael Sentimany, who had taken the name Abraham Isacowicz was executed in Vilna by Church authorities for apostasy. He had, at a very young age, converted to Judaism. He sought to hide among the Jewish community in Vilna. He was discovered, and, with great fanfare, burned at the stake. The event was reported all over Europe, bringing disgrace to the Catholic Church. By 1800, the story had undergone vast embellishments, taking its final form in a historical novel by Józef Ignacy Kraszewski, Now, the hero was a Polish nobleman, named Count Valentine Pototzki. In some versions, he was the heir to the Polish throne. Potocki had gone to study in Paris, where he encountered Jewish scholars. He was so impressed that he went to Amsterdam (the only place in Europe at that time with complete religious freedom), and converted, taking the name Abraham ben Abraham. He returned to his native Vilna. His attempts at "fitting in" proved unsuccessful. After a lengthy trial, he was sentenced to be burned at the stake. His parents urged him to publicly renounce his Judaism, and they would build him a great palace, where he could practice his Judaism in secret. He told his mother "I love you dearly, but I love Truth more". Elijah of Vilna sent him a message, that he could get him out of prison by means of Kabbalah. He refused, preferring a martyr's death. He was burned at the stake in a huge public ceremony in 1749, on the very same date as Isacowicz had died; the second day of the Feast of Shavuot. The town from which the wood had been brought for the execution soon burned down. Buildings around the public square where the execution had taken place became stained with soot, which could not be cleaned away or painted over. A Jew secured his ashes, which were buried in the Jewish cemetery of Vilna. Abraham ben Abraham was subsequently known as "the Ger Tzedek"; the "true and righteous convert" and has been the subject of numerous novels ever since. How do we know that this story is merely an embellishment of the Isacowicz story? First, there is no contemporary written record in either  Jewish or Non-Jewish sources of these events. The Catholic Church in Poland had very outspoken critics at that time, who wrote extensively about Church excesses, including crimes against the Jews. We find nothing. The Potocki family is very well known, with extensive genealogical records. There is no Valentine at that time. We have correspondences from family members. There is no mention of these events. Moreover, although Poles could be executed for apostasy, this was not the case with the nobility. They enjoyed the right to live by any religion they might choose. We may see this story as expressing Jewish pride, the love of Torah so great that it is worth dying for, as well as hope for people born among the oppressor, finally acknowledging the Truth, and even happy to die for it. The encouragement that this story gave Eastern European Jews cannot be overestimated. The true story is perhaps not as spectacular, but nevertheless carries the major elements of the legend. In any case, it is a story born of pain, which provided inspiration and hope. A legend that can do that, is far more than just folklore, even if it never happened..

Women of the Wall

OK, I've calmed down a bit, and will tackle the "Women of the Wall" issue as best I can. There is an Israeli saying "don't believe anything you read in the papers, except the date, and sometimes the weather".There is no such thing in Israel as an independent news agency. All are politically affiliated, and subject to government censorship. Even the sports teams are party affiliate.Animosities run very deep. There are many factions of religious, secular, and ethnic divisions. as well as variations of political Right and Left. Israel tries to maintain a delicate balance in all of these, usually successfully. No party has ever had a majority in the Knesset, and every government is made up of a shaky coalition. One false move and a party might leave the coalition, resulting in new elections, which few want. The religious- secular divide is especially sensitive. Compromises are in place, which most fear to tamper with. As each faction has existential fears concerning the other factions (I have written in the past about being spat at in Tel Aviv by total strangers becasue of my religious appearance. It happens the other way as well.) When the Kotel was liberated in 1967, it was recognized as a religious, rather than a purely historical site, and handed over to the control of the Ministry of Religious Affairs. There is a rabbi in charge of the Kotel, who has full government authority to enforce religious law at the site. Besides that, there is a law in place against making any significant changes in the public observance of any religion. All this is to keep people from killing each other. When I was there, a young woman made a cartoon depicting Mohammed as a pig. She got five years in jail (released after three for good behavior). If this had not been done, people would have died. Allow me to give an American analogy. In New York City (where I live) a woman has a full legal right to go topless. If she walks into certain Churches and Synagogues (let alone Mosques) she places herself in danger. She is within her legal rights, and anyone trying to stop her, would be punished. But is it a wise idea to challenge these groups? The answer is "no", unless she is "putting her life on the line" to enforce her principles, and perhaps destroy the institution she is challenging. As we have been discussing all along, some religious Jews place the emphasis on "this is the way we've always done it" and some on written sources. This is not relevant to most Israelis, who are secular, and they do not care. From sources, there is no question that women may wear tefillin if they wish. On the other hand, this has rarely been done historically, and would be seen as threatening to many people .In most countries, Jews would simply form different synagogues in which to practice the different interpretations. In Israel, rabbis are government bureaucrats. The rabbi of the Kotal has full legal jurisdiction,For better or for worse, this is the law of the land, arrived at by years of conflict, strife, and compromise. The WOW are NOT a feminist group. They have been denounced by feminist organizations, as the latter are in favor of Muslim rule at the site, as opposed to more, but different, Jewish presence. (For the Muslims, the Kotel (El Buraq) is itself a Muslim shrine. Although most Israelis refer to the WOW as "the Reform Women" their membership consists of women who identify as members of all "denominations". Like the example above of going topless to a house of worship, their intent is to shock and provoke, until the organized rabbinate is broken. This is not unlike the Civil Disobedience practiced by the late Dr. Martin Luther King. Unlike in the case of Dr. King, however, there is no large group yearning for freedom. One government minister who was trying to work out a compromise, related that he had received over 10,000 letters from American Jews on the topic, but barely 100 from Israelis. Most secular Israelis feel that the entire topic is irrelevant, as prayer is "stupid", or, alternatively, that a agonizingly difficult compromise worked out years ago should be kept in place, or else risk civil war. The WOW has provoked loud shouting matches at the Kotel, and some scuffles. One of our members wrote to me earlier that she had "been told" that women were not accommodated at the kotel during Passover. That is totally false. Rather, the WOW announced plans for a massive "Priestly Blessing" done by women. In halacha, this can be interpreted as no big deal..or an actual Biblical prohibition. The rabbi at the kotel gets to make that call. Police prevented the event from happening, in order to prevent bloodshed. I find the strife between Jews in Israel to be sickening and disgusting. We have our divisions in American Jewry as well, except we talk them over. That is sadly lacking in Israel. I mentioned a few days ago that my wife, Sima, sometimes chides me for being a "radical feminist". There is truth in that, but I also know how to talk and find common ground. Please, questions accepted, but not if put in an accusatory form. Everything to do with Israel opens too many old wounds for me.

Jewish Folklore 2

As I have so often mentioned, there were huge differences between the Talmud Yerushalmi and the Talmud Bavli in both practicum and outlook. Even when the rulings of the Bavli became standard, the Yerushalmi left its imprint on many communities, particularly the Ashkenazim. One striking difference was in prayer. The rabbis of the Yerushalmi wrote poetry for every occasion, that became part of the order of prayer. In the Bavli, we never find this, as an off-topic prayer inserted into the amidah or other blessings, was seen as a "hefsek", an interruption, which might even invalidate the prayer. Even today, German Jews say lengthy poetic additions in the reader's repetition, and sometimes in the blessings of the Shema', at every special occasion. A Shabbat coinciding with Rosh Hodesh, for example, has additions to the service that take about forty minutes to say. Other Ashkenazic communities have much less, and on fewer occasions, but they are present. Sepharadim, following the Bavli, have few poetic additions, and those that they do have, are recited at non-critical parts of the service. (The exception is Yom Kippur, when a few additions are in the reader's repetition. I am searching for an explanation for this). Therefore, if one visits a Sepharadic synagogue on Rosh HaShanah, the service is only slightly longer than a Shabbat service, while the Ashkenazi service will typically begin around 8 am, and continue well into the afternoon. We have a tradition not to speak any dire words, or even to have dire thoughts, on Rosh HaShanah. In fact, many people even deliberately mispronounce the Shehechiyanu blessing, so as not to include something that may sound unpleasant. Yet, at the very heart of the Ashkenazi Musaf prayer, there is a long, albeit beautiful, description of death and suffering that will come upon those whose fate is so decreed. It is called "Unetaneh Tokef"; "let us speak the awesomeness of the day...even the angels are in terror, the fate of each creature is determined for life or death, who by fire, who by water, who by stoning, who by strangulation..." After the list, the haunting melody continues without words, hinting at more means of punishment. Rabbi Nachman said that many horrible things come into the world due to the implied punishments in the melody. It always bothered me how this fits into the Rosh Hashanah idea of only happy thoughts and words. The answer is a very old and beloved legend. Because of the legend, the Unetaneh Tokef is seen as the height of the service. It was even adopted by many Sepharadic communities, albeit not said during the amidah. I have a Sepharadic High Holiday prayer book in my possession that even tells the legend in Ladino. The legend became world-famous when Menachem Begin, being pressured by Jimmy Carter to make suicidal concessions, told the story at the press conference following a meeting between the two men. Carter was gnashing his teeth through his signature smile. The story goes like this. Rabbi Amnon of Mayence, referred to as "the Gadol HaDor" (Great One of his generation), was constantly pressured by the local archbishop to convert to Christianity. After many years of this pressure, Rabbi Amnon unthinkingly said "give me three days to think about it". He immediately deeply regretted his words, and did not come to the archbishop on the agreed-upon day. The archbishop sent men to bring him by force. "Why did you not come". Rabbi Amnon said that he did not mean it, and urged the archbishop to cut out his tongue which had spoken these words. "No! Your tongue spoke well. Your legs are guilty for not coming!" He thereupon had Rabbi Amnon's legs cut off. He asked to be brought to the synagogue, where Rosh HaShanah prayers were in progress. He stopped the prayers, saying the words of the Unetaheh Tokef, proclaiming G-d as Sovereign and Judge, waxing eloquence about human suffering. When the recitation was finished, he died. Everyone present was overwhelmed by the beauty of the prayer, but no one could remember his words exactly. Three days later, his friend and colleague, Rabbi Kalonymos (d. 1096) saw Rabbi Amnon in a dream, in which Rabbi Amnon taught him the prayer. But the story has problems. Although Rabbi Kalonymos is well known, we search in vain for any reference to Rabbi Amnon outside this legend. If he was the Gadol HaDor, where are quotes of his teachings, or mentioning who were his teachers and disciples? The story is first referenced in the thirteenth century, with the prayer first coming into liturgical use in Europe in the sixteenth century. Moreover, manuscripts of prayers from Eretz Yisrael consisting of poetic insertions have been found which contain this prayer, predating the legend by about 400 years. The real story may be nowhere nearly as dramatic as the legend, but I believe that there is a deeper story here. That is the reconciliation of an ancient E.Y. approach with a Bavli approach, spoken out of the pain of persecution. We find a similar phenomenon among the annusim from Iberia. The most common women's name among them was Susanna. The annusim saw the apocryphal Book Of Susanna as a paradigm of their own plight. In the story, Susanna is a woman who is suffering greatly at the hands of corrupt judges. Daniel, still a child, comes forward and proves the judges false. They are subsequently executed, and Susanna vindicated. Frustration at their treatment by the authorities, and the hope for vindication and true justice, made this apocryphal story so real for them. I believe the same goes for Rabbi Amnon. Just because something did not happen, doesn't mean it isn't true.

Jewish Folklore 1

Every group has its folklore. Jews are no exception. However, we are presented with a difficulty in discussing this, as Ashkenazic tradition has placed a huge value on all aspects of tradition, especially if the traditional story has been mentioned in a book, or quoted by a great rabbi. The concept of the infallibility of rabbis, and the sanctity of stories handed down through the generations, has become a basic feature of many Jewish groups, especially Ashkenazic communities. While it is true that Judaism has a concept of Emunat Hachamim (variously translated as "faith IN the Sages" or "faith OF the Sages"; a huge difference), it was classically understood to be speaking of the Oral Torah, as transmitted by the rabbis of all times, and especially the rabbis of the Talmud. Think of the American story of the Pilgrim Mothers and Fathers. We learned from our childhood how great they were. Only much later did the true stories surface of betrayal, murder, and intolerance.. I have seen writers question these true stories as anti-American, facts be damned. Rabbi Nachman warned against taking Hasidic stories too seriously, as "they were told at gatherings where alcohol was consumed, between the third and fourth cup. The teller was drunk, and the listener was half asleep". Stories were often told in order to bolster or demolish a certain group or ideology. There is also the issue of "maaseh bichelech" (story books, usually intended for the consumption of the unlearned), which usually embellished, or even invented stories of great men. These stories became part of the common consciousness. People readily accept stories as fact. We recently had the Mexican holiday of Cinco de Mayo, celebrating Mexico's independence from French rule. A comedian on TV told a joke that the actual origin was the "fact" that the Titanic was carrying a huge shipment of mayonnaise, intending to bring it to Mexico after letting the passengers off in New York. When the Titanic sank, the Mexicans declared a day of mourning for their lost, beloved mayonnaise. They called it "Sinko de Mayo". Despite numerous publications giving the truth of the origins of the day, studies have shown that millions of Americans believe the joke to be factual. People love a good story. I became acutely aware of this when, in 1975, I changed my affiliation from Chabad to Breslov. First, I saw that the two groups had a completely different narrative of the history of the Baal Shem Tov. Customs attributed to the Baal Shem Tov by Chabad (and others), were often denied by Rabbi Nachman, a direct descendant of the Baal Shem Tov. Even more striking was the Hagiographa of individual figures. One popular Hasidic leader, adored by Chabad (and others) is depicted in the Breslov literature as a cruel, jealous and vindictive man, who was a tool of the Evil Forces. Similarly, a figure who is depicted in Chabad as a bit eccentric, and guilty of distorting Hasidism, was highly esteemed by Rabbi Nachman, who said "I have seen many Tzaddikim, but perfection (sheleimut) I only saw in him".With the fall of the Iron Curtain in the early 1990s, scholars were able to find contemporary documents, dealing with the origins of Hasidism. There had even been some historians who had considered the Baal Shem Tov as a fictional figure. The historical documents show that on the contrary, he was very real, a scholar, beloved by Jew and Gentile alike. He apparently had no opposition; the persecution of Hasidism beginning only after his death. Historians concluded that a later generation read back their own suffering into the Baal Shem Tov's time. There were persistent rumors that a son of a major Hasidic leader had converted to Christianity.(Please don't ask me who). A sixth-generation descended of the great figure, wrote a lengthy denial of this story. He "explained" that it was a false accusation, and how the accused took upon himself terrible sufferings to atone for being the cause of desecration of G-d's Name. In the documents discovered in the '90s, two are significant in this story. One was the original Baptismal certificate of this man, the second was a record of his having been committed to a mental hospital one year after his Baptism. Was the Hasidc group merely trying to protect the family reputation? Are there factors here of which we are unaware? With our modern understanding of mental health, do the documents undermine the honor of the Hasidic figure? For your consideration.

Jewish Leadership Struggle in the Roman Era part 6

The stories of the political and religious struggles of Rabban Gamliel's reign as Nasi, both made and broke several precedents, which resulted in controversy and compromise. We have been the richer for them, and they have almost always served as guidelines in future disputes.Where these guidelines were ignored, disaster was never far behind. In the dispute with Rabbi Eliezer, a central Torah principle was at stake; the authority of the Sanhedrin. Rabbi Eliezer was, and remains, a most beloved figure in Jewish tradition. But he put his own convictions (NOT ambitions!) ahead of the halachic process. Rabban Gamliel was faced with the unenviable choice of honor for an esteemed colleague and a most basic principles of Torah law. He did his duty as head of the Sanhedrin; preserving Torah. The Talmud is full of Rabbi Eliezer's statements and stories, but the halachah is rarely fixed according to his opinion. To what degree we consider an individual opinion when it differs with the majority is still a controversial matter. The fact that we have no valid Sanhedrin greatly lessens the obligation of majority rule, yet consensus remains a strong value in the halachic process. All sides in any disputer must bear in mind the story of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer. Another issue at stake was hereditary leadership. Kings were hereditary. But the Tanach is full of criticisms of bad Kings. There were those who risked their lives opposing some of the Kings, and publicly heaping criticism on them. Even today, the halachah remains (at least theoretically) that any halachic position of authority is to be passed down from father to son, providing the son is worthy, even if another candidate is more worthy than he. I said "theoretically", as this is not practiced in many situations. An explanation of this is provided by some twentieth-century rabbis. The one Biblical position NOT passed down from father to son is the position of Mashuach Milchamah; the Priest who would exhort the people before going into battle. The Torah considers his ability to encourage and strengthen the faith of the people, as overriding issues of pedigree. The modern-day rabbi, in most cases, is less of a halachic authority, than one who teaches and brings near to Torah. He is more like the Mashuach Milchamah than the classical rabbi. He will defer on halachic issues to the more erudite. Nevertheless, when choosing a halachic authority, the heads of Yeshivot, and Hasidic Rebbes, heredity is a very major consideration. The memory of the struggle between Rabban Gamliel's hard-line on hereditary authority, versus considerations of Rabbi Joshua's apparently superior knowledge and abilities, are still very much alive. Compromise has been reached. Another issue in these events is wealth. It is a basic foible of humanity to agree with Tevya; "when you're rich, they think you really know". People love to see pomp in leadership. But often, wealth does not mean either wisdom or integrity. Rabban Gamliel's remarks about Rabbi Joshua's poverty, which was apparently a common situation among the scholars that Rabban Gamliel was not even aware of, seems to reflect badly on him. But when he is made aware, he acknowledges the error in his ways, and makes full apology. But Rabbi Joshua is not quick to forgive Rabban Gamliel. A false peace is often worse than war. Only when Rabban Gamliel pleads for forgiveness in honor of his forebears, does Rabbi Joshua accept the apology. We must honor those in positions of leadership, but not grant them powers and authority beyond what they have earned. It must be remembered that these events took place shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and before the Bar Kochba revolt. I find it remarkable that the great rabbis of that era were able to face the struggles of the place and meaning of Torah law in Jewish life, considering what was happening around them. We have struggles as well. We also have, thanks to those rabbis, a paradigm to base ourselves upon.

Jewish Leadership Struggle in the Roman Era part 5

The day that Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah became the Nasi was a most special one. The meeting chamber was filled with scholars, and questions of every kind were raised. None went unanswered. We often find the expression in Talmudic discussions; "It was decided on THAT day..." This always refers to the day of Rabbi Elazar's leadership. The Tractate "Eduyot" was formulated on that day, a unique tractate with no unanswered questions. Rabban Gamliel was also present. An Ammonite convert presented himself with the question if he is permitted to marry a Jewish woman. The question seemed superfluous. The Torah specifically disallows an Ammonite or Moabite to "enter the Congregation" (i.e., marry a Jew). (Deut. 23:4) Rabbi Joshua said that he may. Rabban Gamliel, shocked, protested this seemingly heretical ruling. Rabbi Joshua quoted Biblical verses that showed that the Assyrians had mingled populations sufficiently that tribal purity no longer existed, and therefore the prohibition is no longer in place. Rabban Gamliel was overwhelmed with Rabbi Joshua's superior wisdom and skill. At the end of the day, he went to Rabbi Joshua's home to apologize. He was shocked to see the hovel in which Rabbi Joshua lived, with walls blackened from soot. "Are you a blacksmith?" queried Rabban Gamliel. Rabbi Joshua responded "Woe to the generation of which you are the leader! You are from a wealthy family, and have no concept of how other rabbis live!" Rabban Gamliel was taken aback. "I apologize. Forgive me!" Rabbi Joshua remained silent. "If not for my sake, please forgive me in honor of my father". (Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the previous Nasi). Rabbi Joshua then agreed to forgive him. A message was sent to the rabbis "let he who is accustomed to wear the robe wear it." (I.e., restore Rabban Gamliel as Nasi) A question arose, however. We have a principle "We elevate in sanctity, but do not lower it." Would it be justified to depose Rabbi Elazar, who had done no wrong? A compromise was reached, in which Rabban Gamliel would reign as Nasi three weeks out of four,. with Rabbi Elazar serving the fourth week. (Another view is that they were given parallel positions.) This seemingly minor incident set several important precedents. I will analyze these in my next post.