Conversion to Judaism part 9

In 1979, after two years of campus work, and two years of congregational work, I became interested in the military chaplaincy. I was only twenty six. I eagerly toured several air force bases, and spoke at length with the chaplains. Jewish chaplains were, and still are, first approved by the Jewish Welfare Board (JWB), that, in turn, deals with rabbinical organizations of the three major denominations. In the case of Orthodox rabbis, that was the Rabbinical Council of America. I was, in fact, a member of  a smaller, more Right Wing organization; the Rabbinical Alliance of America. The JWB informed me that this presented no problem. The RCA would simply approve me or disapprove me on the merit of my credentials. I was summoned to the RCA headquarters in New York (I lived in Cincinnati at the time). One of the bigwigs of the RCA met with me. "Look" he said "each denomination has an annual quota of chaplains. If we are short, we recognize you. If we have enough of our own people, we don't". I suddenly realized I was essentially dealing with a labor union, and I wan't one of "his people". I told the bigwig that I had gone to college with his son. He placed a call to his son. "He doesn't remember you. Goodbye". That's how the U.S. military lost me as a chaplain. That's how I lost my respect for the RCA. Little by little, over the years, I discovered that the whole system was about power and influence. Up until about 1980, any conversion, performed by any Orthodox rabbi, was recognized both in the U.S. and in Israel. Although conversion requirements differed greatly from rabbi to rabbi, all were recognized. Then, the RCA let it be known that they wished to standardize  all Orthodox conversions, by means of a central Beit Din. This proved impractical, so they modified it to include only certain RCA rabbis, who would follow RCA guidelines. Other rabbis, even RCA members, were no longer authorized to perform conversions. Who granted the RCA such sweeping powers? They simply took it, as they had taken control of virtually all major Orthodox synagogues. An expression my late Mother used to use a lot comes to mind; "Who died and left you boss?" People with other conversions, were told that they are not Jewish at all. Chabad, which used to do many conversions, stopped (at least in places where there were  RCA rabbis). Hasidic and right wing Yeshiva conversions were no longer recognized, although, with considerable pressure, they could often be recognized ex post facto, after the RCA deigned to grant recognition. Often, these involved rabbis far more qualified than the RCA ones. Twenty years later, the Israeli Chief Rabbinate made a deal with the RCA that they were to be seen as the only rabbinic representatives of U.S. Jewry. Any RCA rabbi coming to Israel, would also automatically be recognized to serve in an Israeli rabbinic position. (Whereas I, and many others, had to seek the approval of one of the Chief Rabbis.) A similar situation exists regarding kashrut and the OU. (Same people as RCA). Millions have been spent on public relations, to make the OU the ultimate name in the field. A large part of their success lies in the fact that they weaken and destroy smaller hechshers, by spreading all sorts of nasty rumors. On the other hand, mistakes of other agencies are often covered up for political expediency. My mind races back to my abortive attempt of becoming a chaplain. But with me, it was just an issue of a position. For numerous converts, these policies often signal a lifetime of hurt and rejection. I do not know how some people sleep at night.

Conversion to Judaism part 8

Although several American cities became centers of Jewish life and education since colonial times,  In the early  twentieth century, New York City emerged as the ultimate center; a position it held for most of that century, and, to a lesser extent, until today. It was home to the Jewish Theological Seminary, that gave birth to the Conservative movement, as well as the Jewish Institute of Religion, that composed a major part of the Reform movement. From the 1930s, several European style Yeshivot made their homes in New York, even ordaining American born rabbis. However, then as now, these ordainees seldom sought to occupy pulpits, preferring instead to concentrate on education. Accepting "Out of Town" rabbinic positions (anything other than New York), almost never occurred to these men. In 1886, and elementary school, Etz Chaim, was founded on the Lower East Side, that took the unheard of position of teaching in English, well as teaching some secular subjects. In 1898, it progressed to hosting a Rabbinical school. Their rabbis did take pulpits, some even going to the "unknown" territories beyond the Hudson. Eventually, this institution became Yeshiva University (YU), and its Rabbinical School became the Rabbi Yitzchak Elchanan Theological Seminary (RIETS). The rabbis of the European style yeshivot mocked YU, with its acceptance of American culture, and especially its inclusion of secular subjects. The Sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe quipped "I don't know how Rav Yitzchak Elchanan could have sinned, to have such an institution named for him". But YU proudly sported the motto "Torah U'Mada" (Torah and Science). Indeed, their logo is a microscope with a Torah scroll. There were several Orthodox Rabbinical organizations at that time, but none were willing to accept these newfangled rabbis as members. The fact is, that the American Orthodox rabbinate was in shambles at that time. Most of those serving as rabbis (as opposed to educators) were without credentials. Some took grandiose titles for themselves. One "rabbi" in the Bronx, put  a shingle by his door "Chief Rabbi of New York". Another "rabbi" across the street, not to be outdone, hung a shingle that read "Chief Rabbi of America". Hasidic "Grand Rabbis" were soon to follow. In the mean time, YU rabbis began to occupy established Orthodox synagogues, first in New York, but soon in all major American cities. Two new organizations were formed; a federation of YU rabbis, called the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA), that was, and is, open to all YU ordainees, and theoretically, graduates of eight other Yeshivot that they recognized, but, in fact, only those with "connections" in the RCA need apply. Those synagogues that got their rabbis from YU, formed an association of synagogues; the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America" (OU).. For all intents and purposes, the YU. RCA, OU triumvirate had taken over American Orthodoxy. Although other groups sprang up, they have little of the recognition that the YU confederation commands. By 2003, the Israeli Chief Rabbinate recognized the RCA as the sole representative of American Orthodoxy. The meaning, and repercussions, of this arrangement, especially regarding conversion, will be my next installment.

Conversion to Judaism part 7

A big consideration in the non recognition of non Orthodox conversions has more to do with history and politics than actual halachah. Both Reform and Conservative Judaism differ on many important points from Orthodoxy. As such, they are considered heresies, much like the Karaites and the Samaritans. But Samaritans WERE considered Jews for 1,000 years before the issuing of a ruling declaring them not to be Jews. Similarly, marriages between Karaites and Rabbinites were common for 400 years, until RAMBAM campaigned for their non recognition. The Chief Rabbinate in Israel keeps going back and forth between declaring Karaites to be Jews or non Jews. The Conservative movement began before there was an organized Orthodoxy in America. While some of its leaders were essentially "Reform lite", most were fully observant and for all intents and purposes Orthodox. In fact, the Conservative Jewish Theological Seminary very nearly merged with the Modern Orthodox Yeshiva University in the 1920s.  The merger fell through, not because of halachic differences, but because of differences in methodology in Talmudic study.With time, however, it drifted further and further away from Orthodox principles, even as Orthodoxy was drifting to the Right. In about 1960, two prominent American Orthodox rabbis declared war on the Conservative movement. (I do not wish to reveal their names). One, a very Right Wing rabbi, had a young rabbinic scholar enroll at JTS, in order to find out what was said there. I spoke to that scholar many years later. He described to me what happened. He was in a class on Chumash. An unusual word was under discussion. The professor explained it by using a cognate word from another Semitic language. The young man protested "but RASHI says..." The professor interrupted "THIS is the approach of our yeshivah". After reporting back to the rabbi, a ban was put on the Conservative movement. Everything they did was declared invalid. Even if an Orthodox rabbi took a Conservative pulpit, he was to be considered invalid. This position was endorsed by the Right Wing Agudas HaRabbonim. Had that rabbi taken the time to send a spy four miles North  to Yeshiva University, he would have heard the same thing. He was, in fact, a prisoner of the mindset of the European yeshivot. At about the same time, a highly influential  Modern Orthodox rabbi applied for a teaching position at JTS. He was rejected. Personally miffed, he also declared the Conservative movement to be heretical and invalid. This all begs the question if these men had the foresight to see what was to become of the Conservative movement, which now rejects the binding nature of halachah, or whether they brought this about by pushing them away. In any case, this resulted in an ostracizing of any and all rabbis with any connection to that movement, even if personally observant and dedicated to the spreading of Torah Judaism. This also served to write off two thirds of American Jewry. A few years ago, in the neighborhood where I live, and Orthodox rabbi was seen talking to a Conservative rabbi on a street corner. The Orthodox rabbi was immediately fired. In my opinion, this attitude is, in my opinion, bad for the Jews, and even worse for converts. Next, I shall discuss how American Orthodoxy, including conversions, has been hijacked by one narrow group.

CONVERSION TO JUDAISM PART 6

So why, in apparent violation of the Biblical commands to "Love the Convert" and "do not oppress the Convert" and the Talmudic admonition not to "lock the door before potential converts" are converts today being dragged over hot coals, and finding deadbolt locks on every door? The reasons are varied; some making some sense, others being more political, although most would balk at my use of the word. Let's first take the arguments that are genuine concerns. First is the reality that we live in an open society. Whereas once, the Jews lived behind ghetto walls, either figuratively or in actuality, today, a large percentage of even ultra Orthodox Jews suffer the heartbreak of having one or more children go "off the derech (path)". Even those who are doing the most for bringing people in, have no clue how to handle this. Throwing that child out, and changing the locks, does happen. This is primarily an attempt to "save" the other kids. Those families are forever broken, with feelings of hurt and resentment on all sides. When it comes to converts, enthusiasm for Judaism today may give way to secularism tomorrow, or conversion to another faith the day afterwards. Many rabbis feel that we must, at the very least, be as certain as possible that the new convert is prepared for the real world. That is the reason that although, in classical sources, there are no requirements of knowledge or observance before the conversion, today, most rabbis require significant knowledge and full observance beforehand. Full disclosure of what it means to be a Jew, will prevent someone from thinking "hey, had I known this law or that, or this attitude or that, I would not have chosen this path". Another really major hurdle is the view I recently explained of Rabbi Yitzchak Schmelkes in the late nineteenth century, that a conversion is invalid if the candidate had any mental reservations about any law, or indeed about any Jewish principle. This was an entirely knew idea, accepted, at first in some right wing circles, but now fairly standard in most of Orthodoxy. Some have written against this idea, but find themselves marginalized. Beyond that, the idea has become so fundamental in people's minds, that all converts are now looked upon with suspicion; what were they  thinking at the moment of conversion?. One acquaintance of mine, a former Minister as well as an attorney, attended a lecture given by a prominent rabbi who did much in "kiruv" in the mid twentieth century (my wife, Sima, had also been a follower of this rabbi when I met her). When the rabbi opened the session to questions, the former Minister challenged one of his assertions. The rabbi thereupon said "I have grave doubts as to the validity of your conversion". (This statement violates several Biblical laws).The support given the view of Rabbi Schmelkes, was endorsed by Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, considered the greatest rabbi in America, or perhaps the world, in right wing Yeshivish circles in the U.S, (I do not share that view). essentially guaranteeing its acceptance . It should be stressed that in those circles, Rabbi Feinsteins views were accepted more for his reputation, than for  examining  his logic and faithfulness to sources.Please see my series on "Daat Torah" for the explanation of that approach. Actually, in his responsum, he shows that this is NOT the view of Talmud, but goes on to question how bringing in a not fully observant convert could benefit the Jewish people.  When I was researching the background for this post, I had been studying the different views, especially between RAMBAM and the Tosafot, if non-Jews may, if they choose, observe mitzvot beyond the Seven Noachide Laws. RAMBAM says "yes". The Tosafot say "no". RAMBAM only excludes a few; namely, the ones of which it is written "It shall be a sign between Me and the Children of Israel". Whereas many take RAMBAM at his word, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein had written that virtually all mitzvort have a Jewish theme, and are therefore forbidden to non-Jews. RAMBAM, according to Rabbi Feinstein, only included the mitzvot of charity, and bringing certain sacrifices. The rabbi writing the article on this topic, rather than seeing if this explanation fits RAMBAM's words, simply concluded with the words "since Reb Moshe was more widely recognized than the other rabbis, his view must be accepted". These are the ideas that have made life so difficult for converts and potential converts. In my next post, i will cover those that I consider to be politics.

Conversion to Judaism part 5

When I went into the rabbinate in 1971, placed in a prominent Midwest University, I asked the rabbi who had prepared me for ordination (as a young man, he had studied under the Chafetz Chaim in Radin, and was now a member of the Right Wing Agudath HaRabbanim), how was I to relate to those people who had had non Orthodox conversions. Without hesitation, he opened Tractate Yevamot in the Babylonian Talmud to page 47, and showed me two remarkable passages.Both spoke of people who were living as Jews, but there was doubt about their mothers actually having been Jewish. People were referring to them as non-Jews. In the one case, the person in doubt was a woman. One of the rabbis remarked "It is impossible that she never immersed for her menstrual cycle (nidah)" (and therefore is considered Jewish) In the other case. a man with the same issue was under discussion. Again, a rabbi interjects "It is impossible that he never immersed for a seminal emission".(The Torah requires immersion in such a case only in relation to the Temple Laws of Purity. Ezra extended that to Torah study and prayer. This was suspended during Talmudic times, although some still practice it). The implication here was that once immersion had taken place, either with intent of conversion, or intent of fulfilling a mitzvah, the person was now Jewish.(RAMBAM has a different, non literal interpretation of the passage). The rabbi who had taught me concluded, that any convert who had undergone immersion was now Jewish, independent of our recognition or non recognition of the converting rabbi. This has been my policy ever since, although I favor re-conversion, no questions asked, as a stringency. This, in fact, was the policy of most Orthodox rabbis at the time. Today, you will hear vociferous denials from Orthodox rabbis and rabbinic organizations. Where does the dispute lie? Why the shift? The above mentioned Talmudic discussion in Yevamot, goes through several stages of discussion. In practive, we do all of them, but the question is, if all was NOT done, what are the minimum requirements needed for the conversion to be efficacious? The ideal conversion consists of informing the candidate of some of the mitzvot and their seriousness. (Whether a formal acceptance of the convert is necessary, or merely acknowledgement of what he has been told, is not clear). This is to be done before three dayyanim (judges), but any three adult, male, observant laymen would also be 100% kosher. The candidate, if male, is then circumcised, and given time to heal before completing the conversion. If already surgically circumcised, a drop of "blood of the covenant" is drawn. At that pointy, both male and female converts are immersed in a mikveh (or suitable body of water). That's it. A discussion ensues concerning what if only circumcision was done? (The Babylonian Talmud rules "no" the Jerusalem Talmud says "yes") Another view says that immersion alone is required for conversion, circumcision being an obligation incumbent on every Jewish male, but not an absolute requirement for conversion. Another opinion is that circumcision is the main requirement for conversion of males, immersion for females. Whether a Beit Din is an absolute requirement or not is also discussed. One man came to a rabbi and confessed to him that he had "converted himself" The rabbi asked "do you have any witnesses?" (Implying that corroborating witnesses are necessary). When the man replied "no", he was told "you are believed enough to disqualify yourself, but not your children." The Talmud also speaks of "Converts who converted among the Gentiles, and never heard of Shabbat". (Shabbat 68b). No one questions the validity of the conversion; only the degree of liability of the convert.Are witnesses absolutely required, or would definite public knowledge be sufficient?In Tractate Sanhedrin, many leniencies are allowed for the makeup of the Beit Din for a conversion "SO AS NOT TO LOCK THE DOOR BEFORE CONVERTS." The legal codes written after the time of the Talmud all quote the "ideal" way, and that has become standard. But, as all the other ways are left in the Talmud (with the possible exception of circumcision only) as open questions, it is impossible to say that they are not valid. So why the extreme stringencies that are practiced in the last twenty five years? That will be my next post.

Stringencies part 4

The vast majority of Ashkenazi rabbis continue to see electricity as fire, or at least so much so, that no leniencies are accepted that would not be utilized with actual fire. On the other hand, most do not permit use of electricity on Yom Tov, when fire is, in many cases, permitted. Rabbi J.B. Soloveichik was an exception. He permitted all appliances on Yom Tov, as long as their use didn't detract from the enjoyment of Yom Tov. Thus, he permitted dish washers, but not vacuum cleaners. Today, few of his students still rely on his ruling in this area. Most Sepharadic communities freely used electricity on Yom Tov, until coming to Israel and submitting to Askenazi influence. I mentioned in my series on Shabbat, that there exists an organization in Israel called the Tsomet Institute, that creates appliances, primarily for the military, police, and hospitals, Most of these are electrical, and based on the idea of indirect, or delayed, action (causation). They produce a microphone, as well as a telephone, that work on a delay of one one hundredth of a second. This microphone is in use today in many Modern Orthodox synagogues, as well as in the Great Synagogue in Jerusalem. They also make a hot water machine, that heats up water for tea or coffee, by means of delayed action. While some are opposed to this, it has gained wide acceptance not only in hospitals, but in yeshiva dormitories as well. A delay would render a Biblical prohibition rabbinic, and a rabbinic prohibition permissible, in case of necessity. On the other hand, about eight years ago, a company came out with a "Shabbat Switch", which was met with great opposition. It connected to the main electrical outlets of the house, turning on the power, after a short delay. One could hook up not only lights, but radio, TV and all other gadgets. Why was this different from the Tsomet appliances? Rabbis pointed out that this was not intended for emergency situations, but was, rather, designed to make Shabbat like a weekday. It might not violate the laws of Shabbat, but it essentially makes Shabbat into a dead letter. Numerous rabbinic prohibitions in the Talmud are designed to not undo the feeling of Shabbat. What would be left of Shabbat if we sat around the table while checking our cellphones, and then went to visit our friends driving our electric cars? Sepharadic and Yemenite rabbis are less convinced of the idea that electricity, especially when not used to heat metal to a glowing point, is in any way to be considered :"fire", but nonetheless insist on its avoidance, because of the reason of "Uvdin D'Hol" (weekday activity). Many will, however, permit electricity to be used in case of great difficulty, even without illness or danger, on condition it is turned on in an unusual manner. (as with the elbow, for example). These things are never given as general rulings, but are dealt with on a case by case basis. Things that may not be used on a Shabbat, such as a pen, may not be moved (muktzeh). This is a basic idea in rabbinic law. Many Sepharadic rabbis do allow moving an appliance, such as a fan, as long as we do not detach it from its power source. (Rav Ovadia Yosef permitted this with appliances that had no lighting or cooking function, but many other Sepharadic rabbis do permit even that). In short, Ashkenazi opinion generally sees electricity as either fire, or likely fire, whereas Sepharaidim see it as risky, but enough of a doubt that it can be permitted in emergencies. So, is care regarding electricity a matter of halachah, or a stringency? Greater minds than mine will need to decide.This is but one of many situations where a particular activity may be permissible, but the consequences could lead to the demise of Judaism. Discretion is oft the better part of valor.

Stringencies part 3

The issue of electricity on Shabbat has been a sticking point between rabbis for well over a century, and continues to raise hackles. Many rabbis take one stance publicly, but privately maintain quite different views. One side of the argument has been so vociferous, that many assume it is the only side. Issues come into play that are not only halachic, but also pragmatic. Whether to be strict or lenient takes on another whole dimension.There can be no real solution, either, until a genuine Sanhedrin will arise. This question is a paradigm for other issues as well, that lack any solid guidelines in sources. Rabbis are forced to go with gut feelings, as well as utilizing tiny shreds of evidence that can conceivably be applied to the issue. Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinski (1863 - 1940), at the introduction of electrical lighting, visited a power plant, and spoke with the engineer. At the rabbi's question of what is it and how does it work, the engineer gave a grossly oversimplified answer. "We make fire in the generator, and send it through the wires". Upon hearing that, he issued a ruling that it is Biblically forbidden to turn on  the electricity, or start up any appliance on Shabbat. On Yom Tov, however, when fire is permissible (so long as it comes from an existing fire), we may feel free to turn on lights, or use appliances. This view held sway for half a century. Some rabbis even used an electric light as a havdalah candle, in order to demonstrate that we are actually dealing with fire. Rabbi Avrohom Yeshaya Karelitz, (1878-1953), know as  Chazon Ish, disagreed. He was unconvinced that electricity is fire, but equally unconvinced that it is not fire. He ruled that we must be strict both ways, and turn on electricity neither on Shabbat nor Yom Tov. Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (1910-1995), believed that the premises of his two predecessors were incorrect. He said that an electric circuit has no halachic significance. However, if electricity heated up a piece of metal, that would, indeed, be considered fire, perhaps even Biblically. He based himself on a Talmudic statement that certain Shabbat prohibitions may be ignored, in a case where the full observance would lead to pain and injury. Thus, broken glass in the street may be swept up, even in a place where there is no "eruv", as injury is likely. Similarly, the Talmud discusses a glowing metal fragment sitting in the public domain.The ruling is that it may be extinguished RASHI maintains that such a piece of metal poses a threat of injury. It isn't really "fire" by Biblical law, but is nevertheless "fire" by rabbinic law. Rabbinic law is not applicable in a case of injury or great pain, so it may be extinguished. The Tosafot say that a glowing piece of metal is indeed Biblical fire, but as the glowing metal is not easily seen by passersby, people might become so badly injured that their lives might be threatened, thus rendering even a Biblical labor permissible. Rabbi Auerbach therefore ruled that an incandescent light bulb, operating with a tungsten filament, is clearly fire, either rabbinically or Biblically. But appliances that have no glowing element are at least theoretically permissible, to be decided by a qualified rabbi on a case by case basis, so as not to bring to widespread disrespect for Shabbat. The one exception he made was with hearing aids, which he considered completely permissible, even to the extent of changing a battery. (In the 1950s, hearing aid batteries needed replacement about every three hours). However, out of respect for the Chazon Ish, he did not publicize his view widely. These three men are considered the greatest rabbinic authorities in halachic matters of their age (at least in Lithuanian circles), although none of them had any education in science. Nearly all that has been written since, struggles between these views. One prominent twentieth century rabbi went so far as to say that even if Rabbi Grodzinsky's views were based on misinformation, once it came out of his mouth, it is forever halachah. (I consider that view to be heretical). Another prominent rabbi, on the other hand, said "Had I been there when the Chazon Ish ruled against electricity, I would have gone against him...and I would have been wrong". We shall see what this means in my next post. A great Rosh Yeshivah, Rabbi Yaakov Yitzchok Ruderman (1900-1987) was adamant that a microphone is permissible on Shabbat. We would be hard-pressed to get that ruling from a prominent rabbi today. These are the battle lines. How they are applied by different rabbis today will be the topic of my next post.

Charismatic Personality and Halachah part 8

How is one to know if a charismatic figure is legitimate or a fake? One excellent guideline, widely publicized during the era of cults in the 1970s and 1980s, is that a religion differs from a cult primarily in that a religion empowers, and a cult disempowers. If a charismatic figure tries to micromanage your life, control your finances, pressure you to cut ties of family and friendship, you are in the wrong place. Next, in the case of Jewish charismatic figures, if you witness non-halachic behavior from the cult leader, run.. Once again, I will take aim at those who are so afraid to speak or hear lashon hara, that they let molestation and other crimes go unreported. I know of thousands of people who refuse to believe the sworn testimony, both in Beit Din and Civil Court, of women who have been abused by a certain Jerusalem figure. Most of his many followers refuse to believe, seeing the reports as a "test" of their faith. These followers bear full responsibility for those yet to be abused. Please, if you see something, say something. If you hear something, believe the victim. Err on the side of caution. I wish I had believed the rumors about Carlebach before my disastrous first marriage. If a "rabbi" talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk, you are once again in the wrong place. There have been several cases in the last few years of supposedly Orthodox rabbis who cheated on their wives with married congregants. Their congregations decided nevertheless to retain these men! This is like drinking water out of a toilet. It looks like Torah, sounds like Torah, but it is a deception. Best of all, is the advice of Rabbi Nachman, as interpreted by Rabbi Natan. Rabbi Nachman taught that a spiritual leader is like a rubber stamp; you can't read it until it is imprinted on something else. Thus, a leader may really be known only through the conduct of his students. Rabbi Natan connects this with the teaching in Ethics of the Fathers, "What are the differences between the disciples our father Avraham, and the disciples of the wicked Bilaam?" Why mention the disciples? Why not just say "Avraham and Bilaam"? He answers that had we met both, we couldn't tell the difference. Both prayed, offered sacrifice, and performed miracles. The difference can be seen only in the students! May HaShem guide us to proper, holy leaders, and make us worthy of bearing their imprint!

Charismatic Personality and Halachah part 7

Throughout this series, I have used the term "charismatic" in a negative way; as one who demands honor and acceptance by virtue of his position, rather than his actual knowledge. But there is one class of Jewish leaders that openly operate on the level of charisma, who are accepted by many, though vilified by others. These are the Hasidic Rebbes, as well as the Sepharadic and Yemenite Mekubbalim (Kabbalists). Although many of these men are scholars in their own right, many are barely learned. There are also charlatans among them.Their claim to fame is not their learning, but the belief that their great piety has brought them to a state of devekut (clinging to G-d), that affords them the ability to ascertain G-d's will, and even intercede to change His will. A rationalist will dismiss all of this as chicanery. But millions of others find encounters with these men to be life changing. One of the disciples of Rabbi Elimelech of Lizhensk, was asked to describe his first meeting with the Tzaddik. "When I met him, he hugged me. I felt him taking a knife, plunge it into my heart. cutting it out, washing it with soap and water, replacing it in my chest, and sewing it up". Many followers of Rebbes and Mekkubalim will tell you similar experiences. Does this represent anything in Jewish tradition? In fact, it does. We find many of the Prophets being consulted on private, personal matters. (Think Saul's first encounter with Samuel). Similarly, in the Talmud, although most of the Sages are known for their erudition, some are known especially, or even exclusively, for their efficacious prayers, and the performance of miracles. (Think Hanina Ben Dosa and Honi Hame'agel). There is an interesting statement in the Talmud (Megillah 29a):

The verse states: “Yet I have been to them as a little sanctuary in the countries where they have come” (Ezekiel 11:16). Rabbi Yitzḥak said: This is referring to the synagogues and study halls in Babylonia. And Rabbi Elazar said: This is referring to the house of our master, i.e., Rav, in Babylonia, from which Torah issues forth to the entire world.

We apparently have two approaches here. One, that G-d is to be found in Torah sources. The other, that G-d is to be found with those whose lives are a living Torah. But how are we to distinguish those who are truly connected to G-d, from those who are faking? A scholar will show a discerning person who he is the moment he opens his mouth. A charismatic person can use trickery, slight of hand, even hypnosis to establish his claims.How are we to know? That will be my next post.

Orthodox and Non-Orthodox Judaism part 20

In one of the writings of the Fifth Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Shalom Ber Shneerson, appears the enigmatic statement "A Rebbe is G-dliness in a body". The usual understanding of this is that EVERYONE is G-dliness in a body. But whereas for most people this aspect is hidden within, for a Tzaddik, this has become actualized. However, there have long been some who interpreted this phrase to mean that a Tzadddik is an aspect of G-d incarnate. Most recoil at this claim. But during my years in Chabad (1964-1975), I did encounter several people who espoused this view, cherry-picking "hints" for this doctrine in the words of the Rebbe. These people became known as Elohists (or Elokists); literally "G-dists". They believe that the Lubavitcher Rebbe was, and is, a manifestation of G-d. This approach is almost non-existent in the U.S., but is common in Israel. Prof. David Berger's writings against Chabad Messianism allege that this movement is growing, and is essentially taking over. I highly doubt this, but numbers are hard to come by. A prominent Chabad rabbi in Israel, active in the Settler movement, Rabbi Yitzchak Ginzburgh, while not openly identifying with the Elohists, has been quoted as saying "It cannot be denied that the Rebbe is a Gilui Elohus, a Divine manifestation". One of his students, a staunch Mashichist, told me "I'm not an Elokist, but I don't disagree with them". Tempers flared, almost coming to violence, when a Chabad group put up a banner in the Old City of Jerusalem, with the usual "Yechi..." mantra. But this one, instead of saying "Our Master, Teacher, and Rabbi", said "Our Master, Creator, and Rabbi." It is a well-known phenomenon in world religions that a hero is seen as first going into hiding, and then coming back as a god. The Elohists, after the Rebbe's passing, have bought into that narrative, Nearly all rabbis would consider the Elohist approach as being outside the scope of Judaism, and downright pagan. Judaism has never entertained the concept of a human being becoming G-d. In summation, let me say that Chabad does much great work, and the Rebbe was a great man and Tzaddik. But where there is much light, there are many flies. We must all be careful to examine our beliefs and actions in the light of Torah, or risk apostasy.

Orthodox and Non-Orthodox Judaism part 19

After 1990, the main mover in the Chabad Messianic movement became Rabbi Shmuel Butman. He began to write books and articles "proving" the Messiahship of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Denounced by the Rabbinical Council of America, he went on the offensive, declaring them not authorized to speak on such things, and essentially declaring their words to be against the process of  Redemption. He began referring to the Rebbe as "King Messiah", and put out radio messages informing people that Mashiach had come. In 1992, he addressed Congress, at the invitation of Chuck Shumer (!!!) In  January, 1993, following the Rebbe's release from hospital after a devastating stroke, he announced a "Coronation Ceremony" for "King Mashiach". Some 8,000 people were present, with many more watching via satellite around the world. Publicity stated that the Rebbe would rise out of his illness, and bring about the final Redemption.  The Rebbe was kept behind a curtain at first. The curtain was then rolled back, and the Rebbe managed to lift his arm in a gesture of encouragement. Butman quickly backtracked, saying that this had just been a consciousness raising event. The Mashichists began reciting after each prayer service, as well as at every sacred occasion "Yechi Adoneinu..." Long live Our Master, Teacher, and Rabbi, King Messiah, forever and ever." At the rebbe's funeral in 1994, they repeatedly chanted this formula. Rabbi J.J. Hecht, a leader of the non-Messianics, told reporters "This is an anomaly. I don't know what they're doing, and I don't know if they know". Many thousands were in denial. Many refused to believe he was dead, but rather in hiding. Some of these refuse to visit his grave even today, as this would be admitting that he's dead. Others grant that he is dead, but expect his imminent resurrection. One Israeli Chabad leader, greatly admired by some members of this group, announced that the Redemption had, in fact, occurred, but was hidden. The Meshichists still perform the following act of divination, when they have a question or problem. They write a note to the Rebbe. They place it in one of a series of books called "Igrot Kodesh" (Holy Epistles), containing all of the Rebbe's correspondences.  They close the book, and recite three times "Long live our Master...". They then open the book, and lo and behold, the answer is in the epistle facing their note. This is done when deciding whether to marry someone, take a job, or even which party to support in Israeli elections. Meshichists and non-Meshichist Lubavitchers do not pray in the same places or marry each other, Each believes the other group to be hopelessly clueless. In the U.S., the non Meshichists are the majority. In Israel, they are a tiny minority. There was even a murder of a prominent non-Meshichist rabbi in Israel, perpetrated by an angry Meshichist. For these reasons, many put Chabad into the Non-Orthodox camp. In my opinon, their views are bizarre, but they should not be written out of Judaism.  There is, however, a far worse development in Israeli Chabad. That will be my next post.

Orthodox and Non-Orthodox Judaism part 18

From 1951, virtually all Chabad Hasidim viewed the new Lubavitcher Rebbe as at least a potential, or even a likely, Mashiach. After all, there is the belief of most Jews that in every generation there is one individual who will become Mashiach if we are worthy. It stood to reason that since (Chabad believes) it is the last (and greatest)  expression, or even  revelation, of Torah, a Lubavitcher Rebbe would be the logical candidate for messiahship. Besides, he was the seventh Rebbe, corresponding to the attribute of Malchut. What's more, he was childless, so  there could never be an heir to the position of Lubavitcher Rebbe, so it MUST be HE. True, he had a brother in law who could also lay claim to the title. But when the previous Rebbe had died, the brother in law challenged Rabbi Menachem Mendel for the position of Rebbe. When, at the end of a year, the dust settled, and Rabbi Menachem Mendel was the clear choice, his rival became the butt of jokes, and was relegated to the position of principal in the Lubavitch High School. He, and his children, were never given full credibility again. On top of this, when the Talmudic rabbis had speculated on the name of the Messiah, Menachem (a comforter) was a favorite pick. The Rebbe would end each of his addresses with the hope that Mashiach would come "Really soon" (b'karov mamash). Since "mamash" (really) was formed from the Rebbe's initials, many took this as a broad hint of Mashiach's identity. Everything seemed to be lined up. For most Chabad Hasidim, this was information to be kept in one's heart and mind, while they watched and waited. For others, this became the focus of their lives. The previous Rebbe had declared that Mashiach would come in his lifetime. The new Rebbe explained, based on a verse in Judges, that twenty years after one's death is still considered his "lifetime". The previous Rebbe had commissioned the writing of a Torah scroll that would be presented to Mashiach. It was to be left unfinished until Mashiach came. In 1970, at the twentieth anniversary of the previous Rebbe's death, Rabbi Menachem Mendel ordered "Mashiach's Torah" to be completed. It was dedicated at a huge festive gathering. The Rebbe said that the Redemption had not quite arrived, but would be very soon. The hands of those who considered him to be Mashiach were greatly strengthened. They now formed a new organization called "Machaneh Yisrael" (the Camp of Israel), but soon became more commonly known as "the Meshichists". Surprisingly, the Rebbe appeared to remain neutral in this, or at least ambiguous. At one public gathering (Farbrengen), he totally denied being the Messiah. At another, he announced "Mashiach is here, right now in this room, and his name is Menachem". The focus of the Mashichists was, and is, to let the world know that the promised redeemer had come. The rabbinic leadership of the Chabad movement put out public letters condemning this speculation. But In Israel, the Mashichists were, and are, the majority in the Chabad community. I remember riding in buses through the Arab cities of Ramallah and El Bireh, seeing signs with the Lubavicher Rebbe's picture, captioned, in Arabic, "Mashiach". Others bore his picture with a sunrise, informing our Arab neighbors that our Redeemer had arrived. Just as the previous Rebbe experienced great opposition from Rav Aaron Kotler, the Rebbe was bitterly opposed by the leader of Israel's "Yeshivish" community, Rabbi Eliezar Menachem Man Shach (1899-2001). He declared the Rebbe and his followers to be heretics. He banned the study of Chabad literature. As the Rebbe had instituted a regular daily study of RAMBAM's legal code, Rav Shach even banned that. He even condemned some American Yeshiva deans, who maintained friendly relations with the Lubavitcher Rebbe.  This was all to come to a head in the rebbe's last years, as well as after his death. To be continued

Orthodox and Non-Orthodox Judaism part 17

The great historian of Kabbalah, Gershom Scholem, suggested that Hasidism was, in its early phases, an anti-Messianic movement. Remnants of the Shabbatean heresy were still waiting for Shabbetai Tzvi's return in glory. The founders of Hasidism strove to make that feeling into a more internal transformation. (The Kingdom is within you", to borrow a Christian phrase.) Not that they ever rejected the concept of Mashiach, but the idea was put on a back burner. First and foremost was the spiritual awareness of the community, as well as that of the individual.The famous letter of the Baal Shem Tov, describing his meeting with Mashiach, was only published a decade after his death, and is now considered by scholars to be inauthentic. Early Hasidic writings, including the Tanya, mostly mention the concept of Mashiach only in passing. So how did Chabad come to be known for Messianism? The fifth Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Shalom DovBer Shneerson, (1860-1920), lived through the upheavals of the Russian Revolution. At times of great upheaval, Jews think of Mashiach. During the tenure of his son, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Shneersohn (1880-1950) not only did he suffer persecution from the Soviet regime, but also witnessed the rise of Nazism. He was in Warsaw when the Germans took over. Diplomatic efforts for his rescue were successful. He arrived in New York in 1940, where he lived for the remainder of his life. He stated that Mashiach was very near, and would come in his lifetime. This aroused anger in Lithuanian Yeshiva circles, especially with Rabbi Aaron Kotler, the esteemed head of the Lakewood, New Jersey Yeshiva. Rav Kotler considered his remarks dangerous, bordering on the heretical. When Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak suffered a stroke, pundits on both sides claimed that it was a result of a curse from Rav Kotler. Animosity between the two groups continues until this day. When Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak died, people around him, including his son-in-law and eventual successor, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Shneerson, declared their belief that his father-in-law was, in fact, the Mashiach. This declaration, with its unheard of idea of a dead Mashiach, with none of the signs of a Messianic era visible, caused widespread opposition to the movement. These ideas soon went underground, while efforts to establish Jewish education and outreach took the forefront. In Rabbi M.M. Shneerson's first public letter, after assuming leadership, contained Judah's words to Joseph "Bi Adoni", which means. in context, "please, my lord". But it can also mean "My lord is in me". Was this just an unfortunate coincidence, or was he hinting that the Messianic soul of Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak was now inhabiting his body? Rav Kotler was incensed when he saw the letter. Some Chabad Hasidim refused to read too much into these words. Others saw a redeemer before them. Ambiguity added to ambiguity. Battle lines became clearer with time. To be continued.

Orthodox and Non-Orthodox Judaism part 16

In recent years, Chabad has become a major player on the American scene in most communities. From a small sect in the 1950s, it has become one of the primary Jewish forces in American Jewish life; in some communities THE primary force. As I have discussed elsewhere, Chabad is today divided between the mainline group, and the Meshichist (Messianic) group. In this post, I will deal only with the mainline group. Messianics will be discussed in a subsequent post. The reasons for Chabad's success are many, but so are the criticisms. Let's look first at the reasons for their success:
1. They are the only major group that deals in spirituality within the context of Jewish law and tradition. Whereas Orthodox deal with text and "how to" Judaism, Conservative deal with history and sociology, and Reform deal with ethics, Chabad talks about G-d and our relationship with Him.
2. Chabad emissaries have a sense of mission. They leave their families and friends behind, going to live and work in an area with little Jewish observance or awareness. They usually do this about two years after marriage.
3. They are open to non observant Jews, with no sense of pressure or judgment. Conformity only comes into the picture if one commits to becoming Chabad, for which there is no overt pressure (although this is the main goal). Some are open to non-Jews, others are not.
4. Whereas most Jewish groups have large membership fees, and frequent "emergency appeals" most Chabad services are almost always provided for free, with the emissaries raising the necessary funds from other sources.
5. There is an emphasis on the experiential, rather than doctrinal.
6. Chabad has remained relatively unscathed by sex scandals, as opposed to many high profile cases in the Modern Orthodox camp.
Critics of Chabad are many. Much of the criticisms are based on jealousy, or a sense of unfair competition with mainline congregations. Central to this is the common practice of taking a failing congregation, loading the board with Chabad Hasidim, voting the congregation out of existence, and selling the facility to Chabad for a fraction of its actual value.Voila, a new Chabad synagogue. But more fundamental questions abound. Here are a few:
1. Are they really Orthodox? There is little regard, or even respect, for most non-Chabad rabbinic figures.
2. Even with the non-Messianics, the personality cult of the Lubavitcher Rebbe is very powerful and central.
3. They have their own halachic sources and authorities, that often differ from the mainstream.
4. There is a "Chabad Way" in almost everything. There are Chabad Tzitzit, a Chabad Tallit, Chabad Tefillin, a Chabad Etrog, Chabad Matzah, a Chabad Hanukah Menorah, a Chabad mikveh,  a Chabad Torah script, a Chabad prayer book...and on and on. In some of these cases the differences are minor. In others, non-Chabad rabbis question their validity.
5. Chabad emissaries, although ordained as rabbis, do not have the same degree of competency as more mainstream rabbis. Nearly every Chabad Hasid receives semichah just before his wedding. Although some go on to be rabbinic scholars, the ones who are out in the boondocks are usually long on enthusiasm, but short on erudition. Chabad rabbis are usually not recognized by mainstream Orthodox rabbinical organizations.
6. Along with many other Hasidic groups, Chabad is very lax when it comes to the appointed times of daily prayers; with many reciting the morning prayers shortly before sundown. Yes, they have explanations for this behavior, but they are little more than rationalizations. For most Orthodox rabbis, this is very disturbing.
7. Although most Chabad rabbis do not study Kabbalistic sources, their own literature is filled with Kabbalistic concepts. This makes many uncomfortable.
8. Chabad maintain a very literal understanding of aggadah (Talmudic legends,and parables), in a way that is shared by few others, This includes Geocentric theory, spontaneous generation, monsters of varying descriptions, giants the size of mountains, flying people and much more. While many are drawn to Chabad, few intelligent people remain once these issues come up.Others simply accept the good with the bad.
All in all, I consider the Chabad phenomenon to be a mostly positive influence on the American scene. They have turned spiritual deserts into flourishing Jewish communities. Modern Orthodox has largely failed. Chabad has filled the vacuum. Next time, the Meshichists.

The Chief Rabbinate; A Blessing or a Curse? part 15

One of the greatest challenges to the authority of the Chief Rabbinate has been "The Women of the Wall". After the Six day War, the Israeli government handed over authority at the Kotel to the Rabbinate. Ever since, there has been an official, government approved and salaried rabbi in charge of maintaining Jewish law and tradition at the Kotel; Judaism's holiest place (after the Temple Mount itself). In 1988, a group of Jewish Feminists, challenge this by holding a women's service at the Wall. replete with Tallit, Tefillin, and a Torah reading. The women are mostly from English speaking countries, especially the U.S.. They run the gamut of "denominations", although they are often popularly referred to as "the Reform Women". The fact is, that all of these actions can be halachically justified. But they run so much against thousands of years of tradition, that even many non religious Israelis are made uncomfortable. A 2013 poll, found that they are supported by 51.5% of Israeli men, but only by 46% of women. Many Israelis consider these actions "an American import".The fact remains that it is technically illegal, as the rabbi of the Kotel has declared it forbidden. The courts have gone back and forth on the issue, I suspect that part of the problem is that Americans are used to the idea that a rabbi is their employee, and maintains his position by the will of the congregation, whereas in Israel, as well as most other countries, the rabbis (and other clergies) are government agents, fully in charge of the religious life of their congregations. In Morocco, rabbis are, even today, authorized to use capital punishment against rebellious community members, although I have never heard of this right being exercised. The Women of the Wall conduct the services every Rosh Hodesh (New Moon). Far from being silent, the services are conducted in a loud voice, replete with much singing. This is clearly a provocation as much as it is worship. Their actions often incite violence (chairs being thrown and the like), and arrests are common on both sides. Is this analogous to the early days of the American Civil Rights movement, with African Americans defiantly sitting in at segregated lunch counters, with the goal of breaking a corrupt system? Or is it an assault on rabbinic authority in general, aimed at "bringing down" the Chief Rabbinate, resulting in the chaos we see in the American rabbinate? Neither side seems willing to budge. Sadly, compromise is not part of the Israeli lexicon.
Besides the Women of the Wall, many secular Israelis are choosing to simply avoid the rabbinate, either entering into "Civil Unions", with the aid of a lawyer, or else going to Cyprus (a twenty-minute flight), in order to have a civil ceremony. There are travel agencies that will plan the whole thing for the couple seeking to avoid the rabbis.
Next time, I will deal with a revolt within the ranks of the rabbinate, often involving the secular courts as well.