Orthodox and Non-Orthodox Judaism Part 4

At the end of my last post, I alluded to the fact that an element of German Jewish tradition took on a new meaning in the Conservative movement that put, over time, a considerable distance between it and Orthodoxy.
The method of studying, especially Talmud, of the European yeshivot, was, and is, to analyze, compare texts, and determine the meaning and implication of passages. This method goes back to the Medieval scholars of France and Germany, perfected in the great yeshivot of Central and Eastern Europe, especially Lithuania. Particularly after the Shabbetai Tzvi debacle, the goal of study became study itself, without emotionalism or spiritual speculation. I have previously discussed the fact that the Sepharadic method was different; placing the emphasis on coming to practical conclusions. In Germany, a new and controversial method of study developed. Texts were analyzed from a "scientific" perspective. Who made the statement? Why did he make it? Were there political or social motives behind statements? Did the fact that a particular Talmudic sage was the son/brother/brother-in-law/cousin of another sage influence his thinking? From a method of study, this turned into a movement in nineteenth-century Germany called Wissenschaft des Judentums (Jewish Knowledge). The Wissensschaft people turned away from Orthodoxy, even seeing traditional Judaism as a relic that needed to be studied. Being a "Jewish Scholar", for them, took on the meaning of the scientific study of what was. Spirituality or observance now took on a very secondary, or even negative, image. I am reminded of Woody Allen's sarcastic analysis of musicology; that one can't appreciate a great piece of music unless one knows the date and place of birth of the composer. Orthodox scholars pointed out that this method was draining Judaism of its "sacral power". My late friend, "Pet" of the Reform movement once told me "When things were good in Judaism, people studied Judaism. When things were bad, they wrote Jewish history".
Many of the faculty at the (Conservative)  Jewish Theological Seminary were influenced by the Wissenscaft movement. Unlike their German counterparts, they remained committed, at first, to Jewish law and tradition. But the methodology changed from looking for what the sacred texts were telling us, to sources for analysis from a scientific, literary and social standpoint. It was a form of Orthodoxy to be sure, but one concentrating on what happened and why, rather than what is its enduring message. There was actually a serious consideration to merge JTS with (the Orthodox)Yeshiva University in the late 1920s, which failed not over the issue of theology or practice, but over the method of study.
Eventually, a portion of the faculty of JTS came up with the following reasoning: If we are seeing Judaism as the result of a historical process, can we not further that process? In other words, if our current values conflict with Talmudic, or even Biblical values, our own values should be seen as no less valid, trumping the ancient ones.
Most of the faculty of JTS recoiled at this idea. Analyze, see where things came from, study the implications of this analysis, sure. But reject Bible and Talmud in favor of societal trends? Absurd! From the 1930s onward, this became a divisive issue in the Conservative movement. The seminary had two factions in uneasy cohabitation. Students often felt compelled to choose sides. There were many areas of disagreement, but one issue in particular brought the movement to crisis in the late 1970s.That will be the topic of my next post.

Orthodox and Non-Orthodox Judaism Part 3

America in the nineteenth century was, Jewishly a wasteland. There had been a small Jewish community since the seventeenth century, mostly Spanish and Portuguese Jews, who had fled to Brazil, with some eventually coming to North America. They were joined in the eighteenth century by large numbers of German and Austrian Jews. The great migration of Eastern European, especially Russian Jews, didn't begin until 1885, reaching its climax in the first decades of the twentieth century. (Actually, Jews of the Russian empire, as Jews were not permitted to live in Russia proper.) However, well into the twentieth century, rabbinic scholarship was exceedingly rare. Most Orthodox rabbis were opposed to Jews braving the temptations of the New World. Assimilation and intermarriage, were the norm, taking a heavy toll already in the seventeenth century. Those who came with basic Jewish knowledge became rabbis in America. The same was, unfortunately, true of those who had little knowledge, but fraudulently passed themselves off as rabbis. This was true both in Reform and Orthodox circles.
A major factor in ameliorating this situation was a Reform rabbi, Isaac Meir Wise (not to be confused with the twentieth-century Reform leader, Stephen Wise).
Wise came to the United States in 1846, becoming the rabbi of the Reform Congregation in Albany, New York. He soon moved to Cincinnati, Ohio. He began campaigning for unity between factions in the Jewish community, and eliminating charlatans. Although Reform, he opposed the far more radical David  Einhorn, who had moved to a Sunday Sabbath. Wise sought drastic changes to Judaism as well, but sought to maintain a framework of Jewish tradition. He organized national conferences, at which problems facing the Jewish community were discussed, and solutions sought. His thrust was that Reform should develop on its own, but not cut ties with Orthodox Jews. He came up with a grand plan for a united seminary, where American rabbis could be trained; those wishing to be Reform would be Reform, and those wishing to be Orthodox would be Orthodox. The plan took shape in 1855, but didn't come to fruition until 1875, due largely to the American Civil War. He had the best scholars in America as faculty, from both factions. Jewish unity seemed an achievable goal. But then it happened. Exactly how is still a subject of debate. Non-kosher food was served at the first ordination dinner, including shrimp and lobster. Wise insisted that this was a mistake on the part of the caterer. But the Orthodox participants saw it as an affront, and a plot to push the Orthodox out. Did Wise have a change of heart on the subject of unity, or was it a real mistake? We'll never know. The result was clear. Battle lines were drawn, and the Orthodox faction decided to make its own seminary. The leader of the Orthodox faction, Sabato Morais (an Italian Jew), had been a professor of Bible at Wise's Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. He now proposed the founding of a rival institution in New York, called the Orthodox Theological Seminary. There was, however, a problem. There was in America only one first-class expert in Talmud. His name was Marcus Jastrow, and he was Reform. (Jastrow wrote an amazing dictionary of Talmudic Aramaic, which is a standard reference work to this day, even in Orthodox circles. I myself refer to it several times a week.) Morais asked Jastrow to teach at his new seminary. Jastrow agreed, on condition it not be called the "Orthodox Theological Seminary", but the "Jewish Theological Seminary", and that non-Orthodox ideas should be taught as well. From this seminary came forth Conservative Judaism, which did not become a separate movement for another fifty years. In the meantime, it was a uniquely American brand of Orthodoxy, mixing Old World principles with New World ideas and values. For the first several decades, the Seminary did not bestow the title "rabbi" on its graduates. The ordination read "Teacher/Preacher". It was felt that the European-style rabbi, an ivory tower figure who presided over a network of Jewish communal structures, was not what was needed. The rapidly assimilating community needed knowledgeable professionals who would bring them back to the Jewish path; not necessarily erudite scholars. Real questions of Jewish law could be directed to the Seminary, which eventually formed a "Committee of Jewish Law and Standards", which would rule on law, and decided which compromises to Jewish law were acceptable, and which simply were not. A later chancellor of the seminary would sum it up as follows: "Judaism is flexible, but not invertebrate". A uniquely German Jewish method of study was, however, eventually to be modified, making a new form of Judaism. Unlike the case with Reform, the brake was subtle; hardly noticeable at first. That story will be my next installment.

Orthodox and Non-Orthodox Judaism Part 2

One of the areas in which the Reform movement differs from the others is in the question of independence of rabbis and congregations. In both Orthodox and Conservative, although there is some leeway in both action and doctrine, there are still red lines. Reform allows its rabbis and congregations to set their own standards and styles. Therefore, there are many "flavors" of Reform, and it is difficult to generalize on anything.
In the mid and late twentieth century, two very different thinkers and leaders arose in American Reform. Both pulled Reform away from the "churchy" style that had characterized the movement for 200 years;.Most present-day Reform rabbis have been highly influenced by one or both.
One was Alvin J. Reines (1926–2004). He developed the idea called "Polydoxy". This was intended to be the opposite of "Orthodoxy". Orthodoxy is a Greek word, meaning "Straight Belief". Reines felt that, on the contrary, Jews should have different beliefs, while accepting each other's ideas as valid. For him, Judaism could, but didn't have to, follow any classical texts or traditions. Each community, or person, could make his or her own Judaism. I twice attended a Reinesian service (in the early 1970s). Each had a theme. The first one I attended was "Yiddish Literature". The second one was "The American Indian". Poetry was read, the Cantor, in the first case, sang some Yiddish songs, and in the second, folk songs about the American Indian. The rabbi read passages about each culture. A woman did interpretive dance, in the first instance dressed in East European "shtetel" clothing, in the second dressed as an Indian woman. At the end, the mourner's kaddish was recited, and the Friday night kiddush was made. The rabbi (himself a distinguished professor of Jewish history at a major Midwestern University) said to me "You are probably wondering how this is a Jewish service. Jews put it together, therefore it is Jewish". Reines was a professor of Philosophy at Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, the main Reform seminary. His students formed, in 1972, the Polydox Institute, which still exists. However, it now embraces not only all Jewish expressions, but all other Liberal religious ideas and non-Jewish practices as well.
The second one was J.J. Petuchowski (1925 – 1991), known affectionately by his students as "Pet". I was privileged to get to know him well, as I was, in the mid-1970s, the assistant rabbi of the German Orthodox congregation in Cincinnati, of which he was a member and active participant. Although there was a 24 year difference in our ages, he befriended me, and we spent many hours in deep discussion every Sunday morning. He was himself traditionally observant; Shabbat, Kashrut, the whole nine yards. He felt that Reform offered a freedom of inquiry and expression that the other movements, in his opinion, lacked. He was strongly opposed to the deviations from Jewish tradition that Reform had adopted. He advocated "Catholic Israel", that is a universal respect and acceptance, being careful not to deviate from practices that would endanger ties with other Jews, such as in the areas of marriage and divorce. While some of his students became observant as he was, others, while not becoming observant in the Orthodox sense, nevertheless incorporated traditional Jewish practices into their life and work. Once, I was to lecture at a Reform temple for their Sunday school, where the assistant rabbi was a student of "Pet". I came early and prayed the morning service in a side room, naturally wearing my Tallit and Tefillin. The assistant rabbi saw me, and brought the entire Hebrew School to look. When I finished, he asked me to explain to the students what I was doing. I gave a fairly thorough explanation, after which the rabbi said to the children "Reform Judaism agrees with what Rabbi Siegel has said". That's it. No "buts". This scene would have been unthinkable a decade earlier. Those Reform rabbis who studied under "Pet", and many who only read some of his books, now have an openness to Orthodoxy that was unknown for many generations. While there are still many things that divide us, there is, at least in some segments of Reform, a willingness to rethink. About ten years ago, when I gave a lecture on Orthodox belief, a "classical" Reform rabbi who was present, stood up and remarked that my beliefs were "silly". A student of "Pet" objected strongly to his words, and reported him to the Reform movement's ethics committee.
A huge gulf exists between Orthodoxy and Reform. But the willingness of many Reform rabbis to rethink, and even re-form, gives me a great deal of hope. May G-d lead us all to His Torah.
In my next installment, I will discuss the Conservative movement.

Orthodox and Non-Orthodox Judaism Part 1

As there is a lot of confusion about the meanings of Jewish "denominations", I feel some explanation is in order.
First we need to define Orthodoxy. Although there may be vast differences in practice and philosophy between groups, nevertheless, all who recognize the existence of G-d and his Unity,the special relationship which G-d maintains with the Children of Israel, the Divine origin of the Written and Oral Torah, the obligation to observe the Mitzvot (commandments) and accept the Eternal Truth of these ideas, is an Orthodox Jew. Although there may be differences in specific customs, or even in the interpretation of certain laws, all are "on the same page" with basics, and recognize the validity of each other's identity as Orthodox Jews, even if we have a different practice, or even consider the other's legal rulings hopelessly mistaken. We can disagree on details, but agree on the essential identity of all who share the same basic ideology and legal framework. Despite this, political differences often make rifts where there should be none. In these essays, I am speaking about substantive, rather than political definitions. Among the classical Orthodox thinkers of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, there were legalists, philosophers, humanists, mystics, philologists, and a host of others. With some notable exceptions, there was a great deal of tolerance for all these views.
In the eighteenth century, Western Europe was undergoing some basic soul-searching. For a century and a half, Protestantism had challenged the most basic assumptions of the Church. New sects and sub-sects arose, each with its own take on the meaning and application of Christianity. Similar undercurrents were occurring in the Jewish community, especially in Germany. Moses Mendelssohn (1729–1781) was a German Jew who was, on the one hand, sought to have the Jews learn modern languages, literature and Western philosophy, in order to be welcomed into the general community. He fought for the acceptance of Jews as having the potential for "noble character", an idea that shocked German society at the time. At the same time, he argued for the strict maintenance of all Jewish laws, Biblical as well as Talmudic law, IN PRIVATE. "Be a Jew in your home, a man on the street" was his motto. There gathered around him many German thinkers and philosophers. He also developed a Jewish following. However, we now know that his Jewish followers were mostly from Sabbatean backgrounds, the heresy that I discussed in a past series, which believed in sacred sin, and the freeing of G-d's sparks from Evil by diving into it. His students mostly broke with traditional Jewish beliefs and practices, creating a new Judaism based on the idea of "Ethical Monotheism". This idea meant that the point of the Torah was an ethical life. All the commandments, the theory went, originally had an ethical meaning, which has mostly been forgotten. In these cases, they can, and should, be abandoned. Only those that had a clear ethical message need be adhered to. The synagogue, too, needed changing. First the sermon, later the service, switched to the vernacular. The services, in most cases, began to take on the style of Christian services; clerical vestments, an organ, a choir, everything to make it more "German". The idea was born that we are NOT a people, but Germans, Frenchmen, Dutchmen, Englishmen of "Mosaic faith". In the following century, the term was coined "Reform Jews". As the idea spread to America in the 19th century, it became still more radical. In the Northeast, a Sunday Sabbath was introduced. (Although this was opposed by the Western part of the movement). Now, there was no obligation to keep the mitzvot, no special covenant relationship. At the dedication of an early reform synagogue in Charleston, South Carolina, the rabbi said "We neither expect nor hope for a return to Zion. This land is our Holy Land, this city our Jerusalem, this building our Temple". The word Temple has been used ever since for non-Orthodox synagogues. Rather than increasing Judaism's adherents, assimilation became rampant. At the centennial celebration for the Charleston Temple, descendants of the original founders were sought. Not one was still Jewish. In 1937, a convention of Reform rabbis met in Columbus, Ohio. It was discovered that fully thirty percent of Reform congregations had, since the mid 1800s, become Unitarian Churches. After all, what was the difference, other than one more prophet? A decision was made to reintroduce some traditional Jewish practices; not as obligations from G-d, but as ways of maintaining and strengthening Jewish identity. This trend continued throughout the twentieth and into the twenty-first century. Each new reform prayer book became closer to the Traditional one, in language, structure, and content. Reform Temples began to look more like synagogues, and less like Churches. However, the basic philosophy is unchanged. The Torah is not binding, except in terms of ethics. We are Americans of Mosaic faith. Some voices within Reform have arisen, urging a return to a more "Jewish" approach. Many Reform congregations welcome Orthodox rabbis to speak to their members, even encouraging Orthodox outreach groups to conduct classes or programs. It must be noted that this was not so much a change of heart, but was born of a realization that they had cut away their roots. Several late twentieth-century reform leaders have left an indelible mark on Reform worldwide. I will discuss more in my next installment.

The Dispute of 1538, and its Ongoing Repercussions part 6

The founding of the State of Israel needed to be interpreted theologically by religious Jews. Like in the case of the 16th century Safed community, different approaches sprang up. Each had sincerely held views; often seeing the opposing views as nothing short of dangerous, or even heretical.
One view was that the founding of the State was actually a rebellion against G-d. It is a secular State in the Holy Land. Could there be a greater insult to G-d and Torah?To rebel against the King is bad enough, but to do so right in the King's palace? This group saw the attempt to end our exile by our own efforts as nothing less than an affront to G-d and His judgments. The militant "Neturei Karta" (guardians of the city), are a prime example of this approach.
A second, much larger group, were not anti-Zionist, but highly skeptical non-Zionists. They chose to live in the Land, abide by its laws, but not to see the State as having any theological basis. This group included the heads and members of the Charedi (Ultra Orthodox) Yeshivot and most Hasidic groups.
The third group is known as "National Religious". The first Chief Rabbis of Israel declared the founding of the State to be "Itchalta d'geulah" (the beginning of Redemption). A prayer was composed by the writer and Nobel Laureate S.Y. Agnon, which begins "Our Father in Heaven, Rock of Israel and its Redeemer, .bless the State of Israel, the first sprouting of our Redemption". This prayer is recited weekly in most Israeli synagogues, and many in the diaspora as well.. Israel independence day was declared a religious holiday. Religious Jews were to partake fully in all the responsibilities of citizenship. Further stages of redemption would take place in G-d's time, in accordance with His will. In the mean time, celebrate what we have and realize that something far greater is in the offing. Just be an Israeli, study Torah, keep the mitzvot (commandments) and judge the secular majority in the "Scale of Merit", they will soon come to G-d. This is the view of the majority of non-Charedi Orthodox in Israel.
A fourth group, by far the most controversial, believes (as Rabbi Berav did) that this is the historical moment to act. The Temple Mount must be liberated, the Temple built. An organization was founded, with international support from both Jews and non-Jews, to study all that is relevant to the Temple. Many of the vessels for a Third temple have already been reconstructed, with more being prepared all the time. Consciousness-raising events are frequently held, in order to popularize the idea of a Temple and all that goes with it. Like with Rabbi Berav, a Sanhedrin has been formed (which has gained little support or recognition beyond this group). This was accomplished by sending a registered letter to every (government authorized) rabbi in Israel, asking to re-start the chain of Smichah, by ordaining a famous Jerusalem rabbi (who was actually a Charedi rabbi, one of the leaders of the first group mentioned above, who nevertheless was sympathetic to this idea).. Any who did not reply, would be considered as abstentions. The majority of those who did reply, voted in favor. They saw smichah as having been re-introduced. Others were ordained; some important scholars, others more activists than scholars, but still possessing considerable learning.Many of the members consider this THE Sanhedrin. Others consider it more of a consciousness raising exercise. All members have signed a document that they will step down if a more suitable candidate were to  come forward. (One of the heads offered me a place in it, but I declined). This group sees the establishment of "facts on the ground" as essential to the full Redemption, and the appearance of Mashiach.
Tensions between these views exist, and often result in open controversy. The parallels with 1538 are unmistakable. Is this "dochek et haketz", the premature push for Redemption, or a natural response to not only the call of history, but the call of G-d? Each view has major rabbis supporting it. Each view has major rabbis opposing it, seeing it as paving the way to disaster. There can be no doubt that each view is sincerely held "L'shem Shamayim" (for the sake of Heaven). We can only hope and pray that G-d will lead is in the right way, in accordance with His will.

The Dispute of 1538, and its Ongoing Repercussions Part 5

In 1538, everything added up. It must be the Redemption! This was the view of Rabbi Berav, and of many others. Rabbi Ben Habib didn't necessarily disagree, but felt that any attempt to act on this feeling was premature, and actually fraught with danger. Now, let's fast forward to the late 19th century. A similar situation arises, with responses remarkably similar to those of 1538.
A wave of attacks against Jews, called pogroms, swept across the Pale of Settlement; those areas of Czarist Russia where Jews were allowed to live. Murder, rape, pillage were daily occurrences well into the early twentieth century. In Western Europe, mobs were running through the streets of Paris crying "Death to the Jews!", as a result of the false accusations against Dreyfus, which I have written about elsewhere. Some Jews, largely assimilated, anti-religious Socialists decided that the Jews needed a State in order to be safe. Groups of young people began migrating to the Land of Israel, then a Turkish province. The religious Jewish community in Jerusalem and other cities was not happy about this, as it was felt that their secular, even libertine ways would weaken the ways of Torah in the Holy Land. Nearly every rabbi in the world was opposed to the new movement. But as things worsened for European Jewry in the twentieth century, more and more Jews sought refuge in the Holy Land; not only Socialist idealists, but people with simply nowhere else to go. The Revisionist leader, Ze'ev Jabotinsky preached across Europe "Jews, put an end to the Exile, before the Exile puts an end to you!" Few realized how prophetic his words would turn out to be. The end of the first World War saw Great Britain in charge of the Land Of Israel. But when the situation deteriorated in Europe, the British clamped down on Jewish immigration with the infamous "White Paper". Millions could have been saved from the Nazis had the British allowed them into the Holy Land. One British "statesman" famously quipped "the fewer Jews left after the war, the fewer problems for Great Britain". Rabbi A.I. Kook had been preaching for decades that the Zionist movement, although secular and even anti-Torah, was subconsciously a response to a religious calling; in fact, he said, it was the beginning of the Redemption foretold in Scripture. Very few rabbis agreed with him. But after World War II, when Jews had nowhere to run (even the American administration refused Hitler's offer at the beginning of the war to take the Jews), two short years later, the United Nations voted to found the State of Israel. (November 1947, taking effect May, 1948). Many religious Jews, including many rabbis, felt that this meant something much more than met the eye. The persecution of the nineteenth century, culminating in the Holocaust of the twentieth century, had now reversed itself. The "birth pangs" had largely passed. Hundreds of thousands, soon millions, of Jews had returned to the Holy Land, with the blessing of the Nations that had formerly oppressed us! Could this be the promised redemption? Some thought this a wildly premature notion. Would Israel even last? An uncle of mine was a reporter. He was covering the vote for establishing the State of Israel at the U.N. He interviewed the Israeli diplomat Abba Eben. He asked Eben if he thought Israel would still exist in fifty years. He sighed deeply and said "I hope so." Many others thought, like Rabbi Ben Habib had thought four hundred years earlier, it might be...it likely is...but let's see how it plays out. Let's pray, do good works, and wait. But some said "no! Jewish history, the very place of G-d in the world, is in our hands! We must act. We must establish facts on the ground". But how? Most rabbis were not just skeptical, but frightened at the prospect of interpreting events in a theological way, when there really was no proof. Others, including great rabbis, felt that not to recognize G-d's working in history was a perverse denial of everything we believe. Each view had, and has, its adherents. What was done? What could, and can be, done is an ongoing question. The parallels with 1538 are unmistakable. The story is still in the midst of working itself out. What was done by each side? That will be my next post.

The Dispute of 1538, and its Ongoing Repercussions Part 4

I concluded my last post with an allusion to the concept of "Dochek Et HaKetz" (to push the "end"). Our sages point out that many of the great mistakes of history came about as a result of "jumping the gun". The Golden Calf, for instance, was made because Moses was late in coming down from Mt. Sinai. How late? Six hours! They supposed him dead, and made a ridiculous substitute. The consequences were disastrous. There are numerous other examples.
Beyond that, one of our central concepts is the coming of Mashiach. Yet, the Talmud records a curse for anyone trying to calculate the time of his arrival. RAMBAM  even goes so far as to say not to think about it too much, as it adds neither to our love or awe of G-d, but to believe that when G-d wants, it will happen. (The current folk belief that we are required every moment to beleive he is coming instantaneously, is contradicted by all Talmudic sources).Yet, we find throughout our history, large numbers of people deciding that someone MUST be Mashiach. Disaster resulted. Sometimes entire heresies grew up around failed Messiahs. Jewish tradition is clear. "If you are planting a tree, and someone runs up to you saying Mashiach has come, finish planting, and then investigate." We find NOWHERE in scripture or Jewish tradition that someone is to be BELIEVED to be the Mashiach. If someone seems like he MIGHT be, and he fulfills certain criteria, he may be assumed to be, until proven otherwise. But nothing changes. Only when he has accomplished his task; in-gathering the exiles, building the Temple,, and ushering in an era of peace, may we BELIEVE that he IS the Mashiach. Many have lost their faith, or even their lives, in premature acceptance of a make-believe figure. I have endured much anguish over the years from people claiming that one or another political figure (!!!) is certainly Mashiach, or every time there is a border skirmish in Israel, impassioned cries go up "this is it!! The War of Gog and Magog! pack your bags!". Even the great Rabbi Akiva erred in thinking that Bar Kochba, who lead a rebellion against Rome, was Mashiach. He must be! Everything is lining up! A colleague said to him "Akiva, grass will grow from your cheeks, and Mashiach will not yet have come".
Here we get to Rabbi Ben Habib's central concern. He saw Rabbi Berav's real motivation for renewing smichah, and forming a Sanhedrin, as the first steps in preparation for the Redemption. There can be little doubt that this was, in fact, Rabbi Berav's intention. Everything is lining up! We have witnessed the destruction of Iberian Jewry. That MUST be the pre-Messianic travails spoken of in scripture. Thousands have come back to the Holy Land! Let's get everything ready! Rabbi Ben Habib also thought the Redemption is likely near. But there is nothing to do but pray, perform righteous deeds, and wait. From his perspective, the premature exultation could only lead to chaos. In fact, similar thinking led to the Sabbatian debacle a little more than a century later; a tragedy which has left terrible scars on our people to this day. (I have discussed this in an earlier post, and will  elaborate on this in a coming series). We can well sympathize both with Rabbi Berav's interpretation of history, as well as Rabbi Ben Habib's fears. I titled this series "The Dispute of 1538, and its Ongoing Repercussions". What are the ongoing repercussions? That will be my next post.