"Have You Checked Your Mezuzahs?"

I've made a couple of trips to "Terem" (local emergency medical clinic) recently with two of my children, including last night. (Everyone's ok - just kids having normal kid-type accidents, though it doesn't make it any less traumatic when it happens!) So after a fairly long evening I get home, and a neighbor, knowing about the previous accident, asks me with grave concern: "Have you checked your mezuzahs?"

I'll tell you why the question irks me. First off, here I am coming back home from what was obviously a stressful ordeal, and now somehow I'm to blame for it, because I haven't checked all my mezuzahs recently? I know he wasn't "blaming" me - but the implication is that I'm supposed to be the one taking care of my household, yet I'm not ensuring that we have basic "spiritual protection". But the other thing I'm left shaking my head at is the belief (which is as far as I can see has become "standard" creed) that mezuzahs basically work like amulets, a form of "Torah-sanctioned" magic, whereby if the letters are written correctly, they have the capacity to protect the house and ensure that no harm comes to the family. But God help you if there's one letter that's missing, faded, smudged, etc., because now "mazikin" (demons, spiritual entities) will enter the house and unleash all manner of hellish havoc - from broken toasters and leaky pipes, to accidents, sickness, problems with "shalom bayit", you name it. Even if a person is God-fearing, davens sincerely three times a day, is meticulous in mitzvah observance, that's not enough - because if so much as one letter of your mezuzah is ill-formed, all bets are off!

This is just one of the little interactions with my religious brethren which leaves me with the sense of "What are people thinking?!" Forgetting about whether it might be a form of darchei emori (lit. "ways of the Amorites", buying into non-Jewish magic and superstition), what about basic common sense? You know, like the kind that says that "accidents happen" is a more likely (not to mention healthy) explanation

Taken from an article on the breslev.co.il website

than saying little Shloimi or Rivka fell off their scooter because a demon placed stones in their path or went inside their heads and caused them to make too sharp a turn, all due to the fact that here's a scroll on the doorpost of their house that wasn't offering enough spiritual protection. Seriously? It just goes to show that intelligence is no inoculation from believing in utter nonsense and superstition.

The bitter irony is that emergency clinics all through the country are going to be filled over the next day or so with kids who've been burned or otherwise hurt as a result of Lag Ba'omer bonfire celebrations, where kids build towering infernos with little or no adult supervision, often in areas adjacent to dry brush. Every year kids end up hurt, and every year fire departments are driven nuts putting out wildfires. And why? Because of the belief in the holy power of Kabbalah/mysticism and the veneration of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, who many people believe authored the Zohar (which itself is a questionable assertion). Point being, the same people who will tell you about getting your mezuzahs checked for fear of harmful demons are the same ones who let their kids run around setting massive unsupervised blazes. The message: Hashem will protect you - not if you're a decent human being, not if you practice reasonable safety measures, but if you press the right spiritual "buttons".

It's superstition run amok, a kind of religiously sanctioned mental illness. And not only is it annoying to encounter (especially when coming back from the ER), not only is it the kind of superstitious thinking not befitting of an am kadosh (holy nation), but sometimes it's just downright dangerous!

Wishing everyone a happy (and safe, and sane) Lag Ba'omer

Why I Don't Care whether the Torah Is Factually True: Part II - Morality and Midrash

In my previous post, I suggested an approach to Torah that doesn't require making any assertions about historical events in the ancient world (e.g. the giving of the Torah at Sinai, or even the historicity of Moses). Even if none of it "happened", it shouldn't have any impact on our involvement in Torah. Why? Because in this approach, we look at Torah as a declaration about how we view ourselves as a nation and what kind of people we choose to be, commit ourselves to be. And so we stay involved in Torah and mitzvot because we view them as having intrinsic value.

Now I'd like to focus on two examples where a "declarative" approach comes in rather handy - morality and midrash. I've also inserted a bit of preemptive Q & A (which I certainly invite you to challenge and/or add to).

1. Morality

As I said last time, there are other truths besides "historical/factual truth" that we ought to be concerned with and strive for. One of those is "moral truth".

Now let me clarify - when I say "moral truth", I don't mean in the sense of there being any absolute moral truth "out there". I wouldn't for instance assert that "murder is wrong" or "rape is wrong" in the sense of believing that these moral laws are somehow etched into the universe. Nor am I a relativist who believes that just because there's nowhere I can point to and say about morality, "See, there it is," that I can't make the statement that "murder is wrong".

I would say as follows: All the talk of "moral absolutism" and "moral relativism" can simply be bypassed if we stop using "assertive" language to talk about morality, and instead simply start using "declarative" language. Murder and rape are wrong because we as a society declare them to be wrong. Period.

Q: Doesn't that mean the designation as "wrong" is arbitrary? A: Not at all. We have plenty of grounds for making this declaration, since it overwhelmingly reflects our experience as human beings, and certainly society would crumble if we didn't make this declaration.

Q: But how is that considered a "truth"? A: In the sense of it being "true to" the human experience, true to our higher sensibility that suffering is something we find to be abhorrent to us and which we will go to great lengths to try to prevent.

Q: That may work with murder and rape, but what about cases where there's less unanimous agreement? A: The idea of "declaration" as a substitute for "assertion" doesn't take away the complexity of issues or the fact of differences of opinion. What it does is 1) provide a more honest presentation (rather than having to make claims about "divine" morality), and 2) it softens the "bite" of differences, since after all it's harder to kill someone over a "declaration" than it is an absolute, God-given reality.

2. Midrash

To bring another example where the idea of "declaration" might serve us well, let's talk about "Oral Torah", and Midrash in particular. On the one side you have people who take the Midrash to be "literally true" in the sense of describing "facts", actual events, e.g., if you don't think Moshe was 10 cubits tall as described in the Midrash then you're some sort of heretic. And on the other side you have people who ridicule the Midrash for being obviously "false", not only in the sense of not portraying real "events", but for often being totally inauthentic to the words of the Torah text.

But again, both of these positions are based on an assertive orientation to Midrash. I would recommend instead that we approach Midrash as being declarative. That is, Midrash is a statement which says: "I choose to look at the Torah through the lens of such-and-such teaching". It's not making any "fact-claims" - just emphasizing what we feel is important. So don't venerate Midrash for being something it's not, and don't judge it for being something it's not either! That would be my take.

Another way to put it is in terms of "meaning". There are two ways to look at meaning. One is "meaning of", a synonym for "explanation". This is the assertive usage. For instance, if someone argues that the text "means" such-and-such, we can debate whether that meaning is right or wrong. The second way to look at meaning is in the sense of deriving "meaning from", as in providing personal "significance". That's the declarative usage. When someone says that they find an interpretation "meaningful", that's not a question of "right" or "wrong". It just is meaningful to that person. What I'm saying about Midrash is that it's a mistake to think of it as explaining the meaning of the text. Rather, it's a tool to derive significance, meaningfulness, from the text, by attaching a desired teaching/interpretation to it. Or if you will, it's a way of making the text into a mnemonic device for reinforcing our values.

This last part is important. Because the pshat of Torah, what Torah "is", doesn't always match up with something that we'd want to declare our commitment to! And so we have Midrash (and in the wider sense "drash") to help make Torah work for us. Because despite what the Torah says, at the end of the day WE declare what we believe, what values we hold, what's relevant to us. And if we see something in Torah which turns us off, which runs counter to what we believe, we can and must interpret it in a way that resonates with our conscience. (Either that or just repudiate it altogether.)

Q: But isn't this disingenuous to the Torah? A: No, this kind of drash is not disingenuous because it never asserts to explain the "meaning of" the Torah text. Rather, it is knowingly interpreting the text in a way that attaches meaning to the text. (It's an "asmachta" - see this post about Midrash.)

Q: Doesn't this approach essentially render Torah meaningless? A: No, it doesn't, first off because we never depart from Torah. Even if we're disagreeing with it, we're still interacting with it, stimulated by it. Secondly, it's not meaningless because there is always a "critical mass" of Torah that we naturally resonate with, either in the pshat itself or in classical Midrash. In other words, if we completely darshened away the meaning of the entire Torah because it didn't fit with our sensibilities, that would probably be time to get ourselves another text. But that is very far from being the case!

What's more, there's a great deal of precedent for creating interpretations which suit us. How do you suppose the Midrash came to be in the first place? How is it that all kinds of Halachot are darshened into the text (and very differently by various Tanaim and Amoraim)? These aren't "built-in" features of the text - it's ALL asmachata! It's all human-driven interpretation. Torah Sheb'al Peh is one big declaration of how we choose to perceive Torah - and it's one which is meant to evolve over time.

What all this points to is an orientation that sees Torah as a choice. Even a "command" is a choice to feel commanded, compelled, regarding those things to which we ascribe importance and value. It's our choice to declare our identity as Jews, as a people connected to and nourished by the Torah. And what's more, it's up to us to declare what exactly that Torah is. Our job is to look at Torah, figure out what's nourishment for us and what's poison (sam chaim vs. sam mavet), and then - as the Torah itself instructs us - "choose life".

Does any of this depend on the Sea splitting? Does it depend on pillars of fire or talking donkeys or even a talking "Hashem"?

Sure, the "believing bunch" derives meaning and relevance from Torah by saying it's all from God, all factually/historically true - so therefore it's obviously relevant, no matter what it says. What I'm suggesting is replacing the authority-driven approach to meaningfulness, with a content-driven approach. It's the content of Torah which is worth perpetuating, irrespective of how or when (or at what stages) we got the Torah. And how do we ensure that it's worth perpetuating? By continuing to refine, reinterpret and mold the content of Torah so that it aligns with our highest ideals and sensibilities.

No, it's not a free-for-all. It's not about overnight revolutions. But it is ultimately in our hands.

"Great Pillars of Fire!" Why I Don't Care if Not One Single Word of the Torah Is Factually True

Short answer: Because Torah is not an assertion of "facts" - it's a declaration of how we choose to identify and act as a people.

Ok, now the longer answer... To understand where I'm coming from, we need to distinguish between two entirely distinct modes of language - assertive and declarative.

Assertive language is concerned with facts, claims, proofs, truth and falsity: Is it true or isn't it? Did it happen or didn't it happen? For instance, the statement "There's a grocery store on Main Street" is an assertion. "God gave the Torah to Moses" is another assertion. Clearly, some assertions are more easily provable/falsifiable than others.

Declarative language by contrast is a pronouncement on oneself or something else. "Let the games begin" is a declaration. "I do" and "Harei at mekudeshet li" are declarations. They're not facts. They're neither true nor false. Instead, they express one's will, intent, choice.

Sometimes the same statement can be either assertive or declarative, depending on the intent. For example, "I'm Jewish" can be an assertion, as in "I claim to be Jewish," and if asked for proof I'll tell you that my parents are Jewish, that I live a Jewish life, etc. But "I'm Jewish" can also be a declaration, as in "I (hereby) identify as a Jew." The first is concerned with the "facts" of the case. Am I in fact a Jew or am I not? The second is simply an expression of my will, choice, commitment, identity. It's factually independent. (Granted, my self-declaration as a Jew may be meaningless to the outside world if they don't recognize me as Jewish, but the statement per se is a declaration of intent, neither true nor false.)

We live in a world that's often dominated by assertive language. Especially in the religious and political arenas, the discussion often centers around asserting what "is" good and bad, right and wrong, arguing over who's got the "facts" right, proving what "really happened" or didn't, and what "really exists" and doesn't. And indeed that's an important part of life. But who says it's the most important part of life? And who says it's even the Torah's perspective?

Could it be that we're projecting our "assertive" mentality onto the ancient world, and more specifically onto the Torah? What if the entire Torah is a declarative statement about what this civilization believes, what it values, what it identifies with as its national story, its lore and narratives, and what standards and norms it's committed to?

Now, I don't want to go overboard either. I don't believe the Torah sees itself as being entirely devoid of "facts," or as not being tied to any historical events or persons whatsoever. But "Torah" after all means "instruction." If it manages to give over those instructions effectively, it's a success. If it doesn't, regardless of how many "facts" it contains, it has failed. So I'd argue that the Torah davka goes out of its way to present a fantastic, compelling, memorable story, one which is deliberately highly embellished, in order to more effectively give over its teachings, its instruction. It is not a book of facts, nor was it ever intended to be.

But really that argument is superfluous. All I need to say is that I don't need any of the Torah to be historically/factually true in order to live and identify as a Torah-observant Jew. Why? Because I declare the teachings of Torah, observance of the mitzvot, affiliation with Am Yisrael, and my own identity as a Jew, to be relevant to me.

In other words, I don't have to "assert" that the Torah is literally/historically true. I just need to declare that I identify with it. And I do so by living it, learning it, infusing my life with it.

Because there are other types of truth that are vastly more important than "historical truth" or "factual truth." There is moral truth. There is intellectual truth. There is being true-to-life, truly relevant, truly meaningful, truly something that has what to contribute to the world. If Torah has that, I couldn't care less about facts and history. Because Torah is self-justified. It's able to stand on its own without any historical justification. Yes, of course I'm curious as to what the "reality" is, what the true events of history were. I'm also curious whether there's sentient extraterrestrial life out there. But I don't base my life on that!  (See my post on truth/emet for more on this topic.)

Stay tuned for Part II of this post - about morality, Midrash and more...

Saying "Merry Christmas" without the Neurosis

I used to wish my Christian friends a very reluctant "Happy Holiday" when Christmas rolled around, feeling like saying the word "Christmas" meant acknowledging and giving honor to the birth of "that man", whom they erroneously call the "Christ/Messiah", giving tacit support to avoda zara, the belief in a "man-god". It's the same reason I used to feel my skin crawl if I somehow found myself stuck inside a Reform shul during services - that I was betraying Torah, giving my unspoken approval to foreign and wrongheaded practices.

But today I gladly, without any hesitation whatsoever, extended a warm "Merry Christmas" to a Christian friend of mine. Of course I reject the "man-god" concept as ridiculous. But I acknowledge that holidays for most people have very little to do with the theological/conceptual package, and everything to do with family, memories, songs, traditions, food, joy, more down-to-earth concepts like "goodwill towards men". Holidays are packed with meaning and personal/family significance - THAT is what I honor when saying "Merry Christmas". I honor the person by acknowledging what is deeply significant to him (in this case a "him"). Just like he'll wish me a "Good Shabbos" even though he doesn't believe in a literal seven-day Creation (and even though as a non-Jew he's "chayav mita" if he keeps Shabbat) - because he knows that Shabbat as Jews experience it has nothing to do with all that.

And of course what helped make my more respectful, more human greeting possible is the fact that I reject not only the man-god, but also the God-god. I've made the move to "clean house" entirely by trying as best I can to sweep out the door (and not just under the rug) untenable beliefs not only of other people's traditions (which is all too easy to do) but also those within my own tradition. We can argue over who's got "crazier" beliefs, the one who holds by the virgin birth or the one who holds that the sea split, the one who holds that God incarnated in the form of a man or the one who holds that God inscribed His will word by word in the form of the Torah, the one who holds that belief in Jesus as savior brings eternal salvation, or the one who holds that the dead will one day literally rise from their graves and roll their way to Eretz Yisrael. As I say we can argue but we'd be foolish not to see that there's a bit of "crazy" in each of us.

So ok, if I can take Judaism's craziness with enough of a grain of salt to actually devote a huge part of my life to religious observance and Torah learning, then I can take Christianity's craziness with enough grain of salt to wish a good friend a "Merry Christmas" - that is, providing I also get to wish a hearty "Mazel Tov" on the bris come January 1.

Sandy Hook and Jihad

Before I start, I feel I need to let you know where I'm coming from. I live in Israel. I believe we need to pursue the peace process with the Palestinians. Their plight weighs on me. I've personally expended considerable time and effort to reach out to Muslims, Palestinians, online and in person, to dialogue with them, try to find common ground and discuss solutions. I'm not a typical "right winger". I'm open to any number of possible political solutions, providing it "works" - i.e. provides people with freedom, security, self-determination, and makes for a more safe, stable, successful future for everyone here.

With that, on to "Sandy Hook and Jihad"...
_________________________________

First off, I can't even begin to imagine the utter anguish that the families of the victims in the Sandy Hook massacre are going through right now. What an absolutely devastating loss.

I'd like to talk about something that came to mind for me in the wake of the massacre. I was reflecting on how hard it is to fathom that anyone could walk into a school and deliberately shoot up whole rooms full of precious little kids. If you had to conceive of the worst thing a person could possibly do, that would just about be it. As people have been pointing out, this suggests a case of severe mental illness. Now whether the murderer (I don't want to give him the posthumous pleasure of saying his name) had a diagnosable "DSM" mental illness I don't know. He may have just been a sicko, with an ultra-narcissistic, sadistic evil streak that ran away with itself. But either way, I'd classify that as "mentally ill" for all practical purposes. He was a person not fit to be in society. And unfortunately we didn't find that out until it was too late.

Now as I stated above, I live in Israel. A Sandy Hook-type massacre is not something that's ever happened here, where some random person just walks into a school and wantonly kills kids for some unknown insane personal reason. HOWEVER... We have experienced very similar horrors, where a Palestinian gunman walks into a Yeshiva, a private home, a bus, a restaurant or along a crowded street and deliberately murders as many innocent men, women and children as possible. The weapon of choice could be a gun, knife, hand grenade, bomb strapped to the chest - the point is to inflict maximum carnage.

Here's the main difference as I see it between Sandy Hook and Israel. In Israel, it's not "random". While it always comes as a shock, it's not completely out of the blue. Because we're not talking about one person's internal psychotic breakdown, some sort of sick personal vendetta. No, here it's "b'shita" - it's part of a methodology, a cold-blooded widely-disseminated philosophy that believes it is good to kill as many Jews as possible, and to take oneself with them if necessary. (Actually, not even "if necessary" - it's deemed a "mitzvah" to die while killing Jews.)

If we knew about the Sandy Hook murderer's mental health issues ahead of time, we could have saved all those lives. We could've been spared all the horror, all the anguish and mourning. Yet here in Israel, we have a mental health EPIDEMIC that we're all well aware of. It's not in the DSM, but it should be. It's called "Jihad", militant Islam, a movement which is breeding people, training them in droves in fact, to commit precisely the kind horror that the Sandy Hook murderer did, to want to slaughter innocent civilians, to make the streets run with blood. How? By deluding people into crossing out the word "innocents" and writing in "infidels", "pigs and monkeys", "devils". By deluding them into thinking it is the "will of Allah". I suppose then it is a clinical diagnosis - a kind of paranoid delusional psychosis, only on a mass scale.

Children from an early age are taught to believe in martyrdom. It is spoken about explicitly in mosques, broadcast with pride over television and other media. Jihad is a culture that is actually gleeful over the slaughter of innocents, where people pass out candies to celebrate a terror strike - at the very same time that Zaka volunteers are sorting through body parts. There are actually governing bodies in the world (Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran) which have identified themselves and their political/military platforms on the basis of this mental illness and use whatever power they have to advance its agenda.

Again, think about the worst thing a person could do, to murder as many innocent people as possible, and then think about a culture which is mass-brainwashing people to do just that. By any standards of normality, this kind of thinking would be considered completely and dangerously psychotic. And yet it is talked about as part of a "conflict". It is rationalized as part of a "struggle". But if we can't recognize Jihad for what it is - a "Sandy Hook ideology", psychotic and insane, then that makes us partly insane ourselves.

Ok, so let's say we call Jihad the dangerous mental illness that it is. That's a good first step. The question is, what are we going to do about it?

Here's where we get to the tricky part. If we try to stamp out the epidemic by targeting the political/religious leaders espousing it (an ostensibly reasonable strategy), this only incites more craziness, catalyzes further madness. And by doing this we also alienate the reasonable people on the Muslim/Palestinian side who might otherwise be our allies and partners. On the other hand, it's a philosophy that thrives on weakness and passivity, on the naive good will of the infidels, the people they perceive as their enemies. It thrives on doves and gets worked up by hawks.

So then aside from bombing one another to smithereens, or packing up and moving to Brooklyn like Spielberg would have us do (see the movie "Munich" for that suggestion) - or simply putting anti-psychotic meds in the drinking water, what are we supposed to do? The only solution I can think of is to work on building more alliances with the sane majority of Palestinians and Muslims. And then hope that through these connections the realization will develop that it's better to align oneself with people who want to make something out of their lives than with psychotic killers - and maybe, just possibly, we can start an epidemic of sanity.

What say you, readers?

Women's Participation in Shul: A Reaction

A few weeks back, Rabbi Zev Farber of Atlanta wrote an article on Women's Participation in Ritual. Here's how I'd sum up his basic thesis:

We need a paradigm shift regarding women's participation in shul rituals, so that instead of non-participation being the default, participation is the default. The need arises because:

1. A significant number of women "feel excluded and marginalized" in shul, and even in "the best of shuls" the efforts made to include them are insufficient. 
2. Rabbis don't take the initiative to look out for women, which means that women who want to participate have to approach their rabbis and risk "humiliation and disappointment".
3. (His main point) The argument of kavod hatzibur ("honor of the congregation") is based on sociological factors which no longer apply. Since women now have equal access to positions of power and respect in the public sphere, and it's no longer considered a "breach of etiquette", this should also reflect in Jewish life, so that the presumption is equal access to participation in rituals unless there's a specific Halachic reason to forbid it.

I first heard about R. Farber's article in a post from blogger Garnel Ironheart, When Only the Mechitza Is Left, which offers a critique on the article. I'd like to address his post because I think he presents an argument that many frum Jews resonate with. Here's how I'd summarize Garnel's argument against the "paradigm shift" proposed:

1. The need for change is unfounded. A problem is being invented where none exists. R. Farber assumes that inequality means inferiority, and that's not the case.
2. The motivation for change is inauthentic. It's not based on Halacha but on secular liberal values. Women don't really want to daven - they just want the same "rights" as men.
3. The focus is misplaced. Shul is not the center of Orthodox Jewish life. The main thing is not access to a sefer Torah but access to a Torah sefer, and that's something every woman has. The greatest honor isn't getting a kibbud in shul - it's raising a Torah family.

Here's where I agree with Garnel: I don't think there is necessarily a problem. I think he's right that liberal values play a strong role. And I also think he's right in terms of the overall priorities of Judaism.

Now let me explain what I mean and where I disagree.

When I say it's not "necessarily" a problem, I mean that R. Farber's article is effectively a condemnation of the status quo. So when frum people out there living happy, meaningful lives read the article, many may feel as if they're being attacked as doing something wrong - conducting themselves in a way that's oppressive and antiquated. And not only doesn't it match their experience - it's insulting. And it's intrusive - they feel like "discontent" and the "need for change" are being foisted upon them against their will. Frum women generally don't want to participate in shul, and they're more than happy to let the men do their thing, while they do theirs. To the overwhelming majority of the Orthodox world, there is no problem. It's the proposed "paradigm shift" which is the problem.

(Mind you, I'm talking about shul participation. Things like the aguna issue, problems with husbands not giving gets, etc. are inequalities that I think a wider swath of Orthodox women are not happy about and would like to see change.)

However... Clearly there's a minority of women, particularly in left-wing Modern Orthodox circles, who aren't happy with the status quo in shul. They want to read from the Torah, go up for alliyot, lead parts of the tefilah - basically be counted as an equal part of the minyan to the extent possible. Some may only want to do that within the confines of normative Halacha, and others may want to see the Halacha change, or simply be bypassed. And yes, I think there's little doubt that part of what fuels that discontent is the influence of living in a free society where women have equal rights before the law, and where a person's gender doesn't determine whether they have something valuable to contribute in the public sphere. And this reality wasn't always the case, to put it mildly. Up until only very recently, it was a man's world. Laws regarding women and property ownership, marriage and divorce, access to birth control, equal pay, voting, holding public office - all of these were issues that women had to fight for. It may all seem like a vague memory now, but the world was very different in this regard only a few generations ago. And we consider it a bracha and a considerable upgrade to society that these changes have been enacted, not because we want "sameness" or to blur male-female distinctions, but because we consider it a more elevated, enlightened society where women's lives are not controlled by men, and where we judge a person's ability to participate and lead based on their capability, talent and desire, and not on their gender.

So naturally there are Jews who look at traditional Judaism, where women are not equal in Jewish law, and where women's leadership/participation in the public sphere is not welcomed, and they find this highly disconcerting (even if inequality doesn't mean "inferiority", which itself is debatable). Here they look to Judaism as a source of spiritual inspiration, and yet Judaism seems to be behind secular society in a very significant and tangible way. This fact weighs on some people's minds like a heavy cloud, and it disturbs their ability to derive full enjoyment and meaning from Jewish life. That goes for women who want to participate in shul, and yes, even for those who don't want to come to shul - it bothers them deeply. Just like if a city had a law on the books that said no Jews were allowed in a particular park - even if there wasn't a single Jew in the city who ever wanted to use that park, we'd understand if they were irked by such a law and found the city a less desirable place to live. And so for this Orthodox minority, there is a significant problem with the status quo, and a paradigm shift is not just welcome - it's overdue.

So here you have two very different positions, one which doesn't want to see a change, and one that does. But the thing is this - neither one is without its reasonability! And neither one particularly wants to be judged, let alone have its interests and aspirations blocked. So I'd prescribe a very simple solution:

Let people decide for themselves.

Let there be shuls where the minhag is that women participate, and shuls where they don't. And let people be happy doing what they want to do. Don't make traditional Orthodox women feel "antiquated" and "oppressed" for watching from the sidelines in shul, and don't make women who want to be included in shul ritual feel like they're being "whiny feminists", merely wanting to imitate secular society without having any genuine spiritual motivation.

As for the argument that R. Farber's position is illegitimate because it's rooted in liberalism, I think that's the wrong approach. The point is not what "motivates" the desire to change - it's whether Halacha can accommodate it. If Halacha is flexible enough to allow for changes that make a segment of the Orthodox community feel more "at home", that comport more with their conscience and create a more enjoyable and meaningful experience, then why oppose it? To take strong opposition to something that's Halachically permissible and which would improve people's lives strikes me as a sign that one is taking their guidance not from Halacha but rather from the visceral attachment they have to a particular set of norms and taboos.

The idea of having a woman open the Ark and take out the Torah is something that strikes 99% of Orthodox practitioners as deeply wrong. And it's not because they can quote siman/se'if in the Shulchan Aruch. The reaction has nothing to do with Halacha. It's just somehow... wrong, unnatural, bizarre, out of place. Well, that is what we call a "taboo". It's an emotional gut reaction based on something we're not used to experiencing. And that is every bit as "non-Halachic" an influence on what we do or don't do as liberalism or feminism, or any "ism". But... I would also say that it's a legitimate reason to do something or not to do something in Jewish practice. There's no "mitzvah" to make every person in shul cringe just because something is permitted in Halacha. In fact there's a mitzvah against causing that kind of discomfort. It's called ona'at devarim, not saying or doing something which causes another person to suffer emotionally. Which is what would happen in 99% of shuls if a woman came up and took out the Torah. People would be upset. I'm not apologizing for it - it's just a fact, and it's something we need to be sensitive to.

That said... In a shul where that taboo doesn't exist, where the majority wouldn't cringe, and where if anything the prevailing discomfort comes from the lack of women's participation, we have a very different situation. If there's a way to arrive at a solution within Halacha* for women to participate, then gey gezunt! Let people live and be well and do their thing.

*(Now, as someone who doesn't ascribe divinity to Halacha, I'd go further and say there's no problem whatsoever with bypassing Halacha completely if it goes against our conscience. But we have to recognize that there's always a price to pay by going outside the system, so we need to think about whether it's worth it in a given situation. But for purposes of this conversation, I'm assuming the more normative Orthodox view of Halacha as sacrosanct and therefore something which most religious Jews don't want to bypass.)

So I've touched on the first two points I enumerated regarding Garnel's critique, the need for change and the question of authenticity and liberalism. About the third point, misplaced focus in Judaism, I agree that shul isn't the center of Orthodox Jewish life (even though it does have a very central communal role). And getting a kibbud in shul is certainly not the biggest "honor" to strive for as a Jew. However, I can be cognizant of these priorities and yet still appreciate an alliyah in shul. And I assume that a woman is every bit as capable of doing the same - and it doesn't mean she's misprioritizing or taking the kibbud out of proportion any more than I am. And lastly, a mussar point: It's for me to shun my own kavod (honor) if I so desire - but it's not for me to shun someone else's kavod. It's not for me to tell someone what kind of kavod they should or shouldn't seek. That goes for shul-related kavod, and it goes for men as well as women.

What's my point with all this? It's a suggestion - that we stop expending so much effort trying to delegitimize one another's practices and preferences (whether they're liberal or traditional or anything else), and simply see our main "avodah" (job) as looking out for people's happiness and well-being. If we can do that, I think we stand a much better chance at arriving at solutions that work for people, and we'll be a happier, healthier people as a result.

Weberman's Defenders & the Role of Dogmatic Belief

Like many, I've been following the developments of the Nechemya Weberman trial currently underway in Brooklyn. In short, he stands accused of sexually abusing a schoolgirl over a three-year period, starting at age 12, under the guise of "counseling."

One of the more disturbing things to watch as this case came to light has been the Satmar community's overwhelming support for Weberman, raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for his "defense fund" (which apparently was initially used to try and bribe the girl to drop the case and leave the country), as well as the constant harassing and bullying of the girl's family. In my mind, the girl's strength to persevere with her case under these circumstances is simply incredible - and incredibly inspiring.

The question I want to ask is this: Does having a culture of supernatural belief and metaphysical dogma make it more likely for a community to defend people like Weberman?

Well, it's certainly not required. Think of the OJ Simpson case, and how whites tended to believe he was guilty and blacks believed he was innocent. We tend to rally around people who are "like us". It's human nature. And think of the mafia and its policy of "omerta", the code of silence where people do not hand "their own" over to the police. The latter is similar to mesira, literally "handing over" a Jew to non-Jewish authorities, which in certain circumstances is prohibited in Halacha. In other words, you don't need supernatural belief to create a culture that protects its own. From an evolutionary point of view, it's probably built into us as part of our survival strategy.

But there's a difference between Satmar and the mafia. In the mafia, the idea is to protect your own even when you know they're guilty. It's a "family business" and it stays within the family. Now, the Satmar community has this mentality too (as do other insular Orthodox communities). But the difference is this: Not only does Satmar protect its own - they also believe them to be innocent. Mafia communities are not nearly so naive.

I would venture to guess that the knee-jerk "Weberman is innocent" reaction has partly to do with the dogmatic absolutism that "The Torah is from God and therefore perfect". And so it is impossible for Torah - or anyone connected and committed to it - to ever be wrong, or to ever commit such a heinous wrong. So the Satmar mentality is this: Weberman is a person who lives a "Torah life" (I know it's hard to stomach, but go with it), and in particular who holds the beliefs and stringencies of the Satmar world (which is seen in that community as the "true" Torah). Therefore anyone who challenges the "absolute truth" (and innocence) of this world is necessarily a liar and a rasha (evil person) who is against God and His Torah. So my hunch is that the community believes it is literally impossible that Weberman is guilty.

Now again, blacks defended the innocence of OJ. But that's arguably a reaction to years of victimization and unfair prosecution/persecution at the hands of whites. (That, and plain old racism, just like whites believing he was guilty.) Moreover, blacks would not take "offense" at the idea that OJ was guilty, as if it were a "sin" to say so. They would not think it would be logically "impossible" for him to be guilty. They wouldn't brand the prosecution as "anti-God".

So that's my thesis here: The belief in the Torah as God-given and "perfect" enables a mentality wherein anything or anyone connected with Torah is unassailable, thereby aiding and abetting accused sexual predators the likes of Nechemya Weberman. I say "enables", meaning even if you hold that the Torah is perfect, it doesn't necessarily follow that you'd believe people are perfect. However, the one belief enables the other, such that if you took away the magical "Torah can do no wrong" dogma, you'd undermine the magical idea that people connected with Torah can do no wrong.

Now I'd like to know: What do you think?

I also want to add that, assuming Weberman is found guilty, I hope that his case gives other victims the strength to come forward, and that it helps to prevent such horrific abuse from taking place in the future. As for the Satmar community engaging in any genuine introspection or "apologizing" to the victim and her family, I for one am not holding my breath. That's the frightening power of religious dogma. No "secular court" or evidence or truth can ever hope to prove it wrong.
____________________________________________

UPDATE: (Dec 10, 2012) Nechemya Weberman was just found guilty on 59 counts, including sustained sexual abuse of a child, offenses which have the potential to land him in prison for decades. The defense plans to appeal the decision, and sentencing is scheduled for January 9th.

I imagine I'm supposed to be feeling happy, or at least relieved. But I find myself feeling decidedly melancholy, quiet, reflective. There is no "happy ending" to this terrible case. As I said above, I hope it results in less abuse, and I hope it gives the victim in this case (as well as other victims of abuse) a measure of solace.

UPDATE: (Jan 28, 2013) On January 22, Nechemya Weberman was sentenced to 103 years in prison.