Erran Baron Cohen (Sacha's brother) just released a bunch of Hanukkah songs and videos. I have to admit I kind of enjoy the new twist on the old tunes, but can someone please explain the following two things:
1) Why are they using an Israeli dreidel in (what I presume is) England?
2) Why are they spray-painting Yeshua (Jesus) on the wall in the background of the video? (Is there another meaning or an inside joke I don't get?)
Showing posts with label Judaism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judaism. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Now they tell me . . .
Apparently there is a prayer now that gay Jews recite over anonymous one-night stands. The relevant piece of Talmud used to justify this has just been discovered (by me) and I include it here.
Ta Shma: On experiencing unexpected intimacy one makes the beracha "who created passion and wove it throughout creation" as it says [in Genesis] "In the dark, in a strange place, our father Jacob encountered a stranger with whom he grappled all night".
But is not this [verse] talking about an angel or a messenger of god - not interested in gay sex? Yes, but it was a male angel, and male angels are always interested in gay sex. Is this verse not talking about wrestling and not grappling? Yes, but grappling is the same as wrestling, and wrestling is the same as "doing it".
[The bracha] is made by everyone, according to the house of Hillel. The house of Shammai claims it is only for homosexual sex. Both agree that one makes the beracha if both people are Jewish, and Beit Shamai is more stringent claiming that one makes it if he or she is the only Jew in the hook-up. Hillel however agrees that if the sex is so anonymous that you don't know if the other person is Jewish then there is a safek and you don't make the beracha as it is a safek over a d'rabanan. However, if you picked up the other person in a synagogue, in New York, in a bank, or a bookstore, there is a chazakah that he or she is Jewish and even the house of Hillel holds that one makes the beracha. What kind of bookstore does the saying refer to? A New age-bookstore, but not in a bookstore chain.
But did we not learn that Rabbi Dorf says "A one-night stand is officially an act of prostitution in the Jewish tradition"? Yes, but there is no conflict, because in the case of prostitution, if it is good, you would pay for it again, in the case of a one-night stand with someone you met in a bar, you do not want to repeat the experience with the same person because situations like this devolve in to same-sex marriages.
Ta Shma: On experiencing unexpected intimacy one makes the beracha "who created passion and wove it throughout creation" as it says [in Genesis] "In the dark, in a strange place, our father Jacob encountered a stranger with whom he grappled all night".
But is not this [verse] talking about an angel or a messenger of god - not interested in gay sex? Yes, but it was a male angel, and male angels are always interested in gay sex. Is this verse not talking about wrestling and not grappling? Yes, but grappling is the same as wrestling, and wrestling is the same as "doing it".
[The bracha] is made by everyone, according to the house of Hillel. The house of Shammai claims it is only for homosexual sex. Both agree that one makes the beracha if both people are Jewish, and Beit Shamai is more stringent claiming that one makes it if he or she is the only Jew in the hook-up. Hillel however agrees that if the sex is so anonymous that you don't know if the other person is Jewish then there is a safek and you don't make the beracha as it is a safek over a d'rabanan. However, if you picked up the other person in a synagogue, in New York, in a bank, or a bookstore, there is a chazakah that he or she is Jewish and even the house of Hillel holds that one makes the beracha. What kind of bookstore does the saying refer to? A New age-bookstore, but not in a bookstore chain.
But did we not learn that Rabbi Dorf says "A one-night stand is officially an act of prostitution in the Jewish tradition"? Yes, but there is no conflict, because in the case of prostitution, if it is good, you would pay for it again, in the case of a one-night stand with someone you met in a bar, you do not want to repeat the experience with the same person because situations like this devolve in to same-sex marriages.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
Review of A Debate on Jewish Emancipation and Christian Theology in Old Berlin
I have been reading a lot more lately than I have been writing about, but I wanted to throw in a note about the collection By Richard Crouter and Julie Klassen that I just read.
As soon as Jews had some freedom in Germany during the Enlightenment, they started producing an abundance of scholars and men of letters. Each one staked out his own position on Jews and their relationship to the state. From Mendelssohn and on, they advocated for Jewish emancipation from the prejudicial and anti-Semitic laws of the German state. Mendelssohn argued (on philosophical grounds) for simple equality, and a sort of separation of Church and state. David Friedlander, after a long and what must have seemed like fruitless quest to try to improve the Jews and their situation in Germany, argued for mass fake conversion to Christianity.
What do I mean by "fake"? Well, he thought that Jews really didn't need the ceremonial laws, and he thought that no one would know if Jews didn't believe in Jesus when they converted to Christianity, so he asked the State, in an Open Letter, to accept the mass conversion of Jews who agree to stop outwardly practicing Judaism, and get baptized Protestant without actually believing in Jesus.
If you ask me, that misses the point from the perspective of both religions. And the important protestant theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher and Wilhelm Abraham Teller both agreed. Both wrote responses to Friedlander's letter. Naturally they agreed that keeping the Jewish rituals was unnecessary, but they thought that a fake conversion was no conversion at all, and moreover has the potential to harm Christianity. Of course, in accordance with Enlightenment values, neither thought that being Jewish should be a bar to getting rights though.
For Jews, especially those of Mendelssohn's ilk, keeping the mitzvot is Judaism (though they definitely argued in favor of the existence of God). For Christians Belief in the divinity of Christ is Christianity.
Crouter and Klassen collect their three documents as well as anonymous satirical polemic asking for rights for Jews. The translation reads well, and it is a valuable set of documents for those interested in this period.
I wish they would have included more of the responses to Friedlander. There were many written in pamphlets and in the popular press. I would love to have seen some of them. Also, I should mention that there is an essay at the end that feels totally out of place. It is mostly a discussion about the situation of the Turks and their problems with emancipation in contemporary Germany. While it is interesting, it just really doesn't belong here. I am not sure who at Hackett publishers agreed to it. It's point is unclear and except in the sense that Turks and Jews are both not considered German and they both have had problems there, I am pretty sure the essay is unrelated to the others.
(Also, there is one minor error, which I am not sure whether I ought to attribute to Teller or to the translators, but on p 135 they use the term "yom Ha'aretz", which literally means "earth day". The word they meant to use was "am ha'aretz" - literally: people of the earth.)
As soon as Jews had some freedom in Germany during the Enlightenment, they started producing an abundance of scholars and men of letters. Each one staked out his own position on Jews and their relationship to the state. From Mendelssohn and on, they advocated for Jewish emancipation from the prejudicial and anti-Semitic laws of the German state. Mendelssohn argued (on philosophical grounds) for simple equality, and a sort of separation of Church and state. David Friedlander, after a long and what must have seemed like fruitless quest to try to improve the Jews and their situation in Germany, argued for mass fake conversion to Christianity.
What do I mean by "fake"? Well, he thought that Jews really didn't need the ceremonial laws, and he thought that no one would know if Jews didn't believe in Jesus when they converted to Christianity, so he asked the State, in an Open Letter, to accept the mass conversion of Jews who agree to stop outwardly practicing Judaism, and get baptized Protestant without actually believing in Jesus.
If you ask me, that misses the point from the perspective of both religions. And the important protestant theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher and Wilhelm Abraham Teller both agreed. Both wrote responses to Friedlander's letter. Naturally they agreed that keeping the Jewish rituals was unnecessary, but they thought that a fake conversion was no conversion at all, and moreover has the potential to harm Christianity. Of course, in accordance with Enlightenment values, neither thought that being Jewish should be a bar to getting rights though.
For Jews, especially those of Mendelssohn's ilk, keeping the mitzvot is Judaism (though they definitely argued in favor of the existence of God). For Christians Belief in the divinity of Christ is Christianity.
Crouter and Klassen collect their three documents as well as anonymous satirical polemic asking for rights for Jews. The translation reads well, and it is a valuable set of documents for those interested in this period.
I wish they would have included more of the responses to Friedlander. There were many written in pamphlets and in the popular press. I would love to have seen some of them. Also, I should mention that there is an essay at the end that feels totally out of place. It is mostly a discussion about the situation of the Turks and their problems with emancipation in contemporary Germany. While it is interesting, it just really doesn't belong here. I am not sure who at Hackett publishers agreed to it. It's point is unclear and except in the sense that Turks and Jews are both not considered German and they both have had problems there, I am pretty sure the essay is unrelated to the others.
(Also, there is one minor error, which I am not sure whether I ought to attribute to Teller or to the translators, but on p 135 they use the term "yom Ha'aretz", which literally means "earth day". The word they meant to use was "am ha'aretz" - literally: people of the earth.)
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Jewish Services at Fort Benning
In the Army, Sunday is religion day. Regardless of your religion, you can pray on Sunday. That is when all the services are held. On Fort Benning there were various Christian services in various chapels and one Jewish Service. There was probably some Muslim service and I should assume a Bhuddist one somewhere in the neighborhood.
The Jewish service is held on Sand Hill. Sand Hill is the place on Fort Benning where all the basic training takes place. So if you are going to be in BCT in Benning, you will be spending a lot of time on Sand Hill.
I remember Jewish Services at Fort Knox when I did basic training there four years ago. There, there were usually 8-15 people. About half of them were Jewish. In basic training, most people go to some service just to get away from their barracks. Spiritual comfort is often beside the point. Basic trainees often went to their battle buddy's service, generally because it was something different to do. On Fort Knox, I remember seeing mostly privates in basic training, and one E-4 who took it upon himself to lead services while he was there and a major who spent time with the Chabad Rabbi who came by most Sundays to do part of the service.
On Fort Benning, which is a slightly larger base than Fort Knox, there were at least 75 people at each of the two services I attended. I did not have many free Sundays. I think about 70 of the 75 people were in basic training. There were about five of us who were eihter in OCS, BOLC II or some other school there. I did not meet anyone permanently stationed there.
I would guess (based on nothing more than looking at last names, general intuition, and guessing) that no more than 15 or 20 of the basic trainees there were Jewish.
Though there is a Jewish Chaplain on post, I did not see him. He was out for the two weeks I was there. People say good things about him. I sat next to some kid from Chaim Berlin on a flight who claimed to know him from Atlanta. Instead of the chaplain there were two lay leaders. One led services one week, and another led services the next week. They both did a good job, and they seemed to be very enthusiastic about it.
Though the praying was nice, I suspect that the real reason so many people choose the Jewish service was for the food. There was a nice selection of donoughts, bagles, cream cheese and OJ. If you are in Basic Training in a place like Fort Benning, these things will sound like real treats. They were to me at Fort Knox. One of the lay leaders made some joke about bagles without cream cheese being article 15 actionable.
The actual service lasted about 45 minutes. This was followed by some food, and some people who went outside and gave Hebrew lessons. They got to the first few letters. when I was there. Hebrew lessons are scheduled to follow the service.
Incidentally, I think that at least two of the cadre in my BOLC II company were Jewish. That strikes me as odd for some reason.
That was my experience with Judaism in Fort Benning.
The Jewish service is held on Sand Hill. Sand Hill is the place on Fort Benning where all the basic training takes place. So if you are going to be in BCT in Benning, you will be spending a lot of time on Sand Hill.
I remember Jewish Services at Fort Knox when I did basic training there four years ago. There, there were usually 8-15 people. About half of them were Jewish. In basic training, most people go to some service just to get away from their barracks. Spiritual comfort is often beside the point. Basic trainees often went to their battle buddy's service, generally because it was something different to do. On Fort Knox, I remember seeing mostly privates in basic training, and one E-4 who took it upon himself to lead services while he was there and a major who spent time with the Chabad Rabbi who came by most Sundays to do part of the service.
On Fort Benning, which is a slightly larger base than Fort Knox, there were at least 75 people at each of the two services I attended. I did not have many free Sundays. I think about 70 of the 75 people were in basic training. There were about five of us who were eihter in OCS, BOLC II or some other school there. I did not meet anyone permanently stationed there.
I would guess (based on nothing more than looking at last names, general intuition, and guessing) that no more than 15 or 20 of the basic trainees there were Jewish.
Though there is a Jewish Chaplain on post, I did not see him. He was out for the two weeks I was there. People say good things about him. I sat next to some kid from Chaim Berlin on a flight who claimed to know him from Atlanta. Instead of the chaplain there were two lay leaders. One led services one week, and another led services the next week. They both did a good job, and they seemed to be very enthusiastic about it.
Though the praying was nice, I suspect that the real reason so many people choose the Jewish service was for the food. There was a nice selection of donoughts, bagles, cream cheese and OJ. If you are in Basic Training in a place like Fort Benning, these things will sound like real treats. They were to me at Fort Knox. One of the lay leaders made some joke about bagles without cream cheese being article 15 actionable.
The actual service lasted about 45 minutes. This was followed by some food, and some people who went outside and gave Hebrew lessons. They got to the first few letters. when I was there. Hebrew lessons are scheduled to follow the service.
Incidentally, I think that at least two of the cadre in my BOLC II company were Jewish. That strikes me as odd for some reason.
That was my experience with Judaism in Fort Benning.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
My Very Army Purim
It has been a crazy week and I had almost no time to do anything that I needed to do. The weekend started on Friday when I spent the morning taking care of school things. Then in the Afternoon I had to pack up and head to Fort Totten and then from there to Fort Dix. As always, this was a rather lengthy process and we ended up getting in really late.
We got in and then there was some setting up and getting rooms and stuff like that. But eventually we got to sleep. Saturday was spent doing physical stuff. First the Leadership Reaction Course and then the Confidence course. The first got me kicked in the face a bit, an injury that put me out of commission for the last 20 minutes of the course and kept me in pain for the next day or so. I still have some residual sensitivity and trouble with chewing gum. But it'll pass.
The Confidence Course was just hard, but I managed, despite the pain to do all the obstacles. I am still sore. It'll take a few days to get the soreness out of my shoulders.
After dinner chow we got back to the barracks, where thanks to some weird circumstance, I had my own room. So I read the Megillah myself. I borrowed my father's. (It is a really nice one.) I am pretty out of practice, but I managed to make it through the whole thing without breaking my teeth. (That's more than I can say for the confidence course.) I was going to offer to read it for anyone who wanted, but one never knows what schedules will be like at these battle assemblies. So I thought that it was better that people do not rely on me for their megillah, and have me not show up. Besides I saw some Lubavitchers on Fort Dix on Saturday afternoon, I am sure they did the reading for the permanent party.
On Saturday night there the whole unit went out to the post bar and we had a goodbye party for our First Sergeant who was being promoted out of the unit.
On Sunday morning after a few hours of sleep we woke up at 04:30 and worked out for about an hour and a half. It was cold and painful, but it felt good at the end. We got changed, ate morning chow and then had a few ceremonies, cleaned up and left in the afternoon.
On the way back I got a ride with one of my Staff Sergeants. We stopped off on the New Jersey Turnpike for lunch. Outside of the Starbucks at the rest stop I saw this very religious-looking man waiting around for his family or for his coffee, I'm not sure. I instinctively wished him a happy Purim. and went back to my Sergeant who was picking out a good pair of polarized sunglasses.
When we got to the parking lot to be on our way, the religious-looking man was there as well with what I assume was his wife and two kids. He asked us if he can give me mishloach manot. I said that if he can do it soon, then "sure". So he went in to his car and gave us hamantashen and some orange beverage. My hispanic Sergeant was a bit puzzled by why a total stranger was giving us food in a parking lot, but he accepted it politely. I sort of explained that this was a holiday where we did this and we went along.
In the subway people were particularly polite, thanking me for my service . . . It is actually something that we appreciate, even though we may not show it.
I got to Flatbush to have the traditional Purim meal with my grandparents. I was walking through the streets (with "D") and everyone was dressed up in their Purim costumes. For the first time I really did not feel out of place in uniform in the streets. I played with my nieces and nephews till I had to go home and collapse out of sheer tiredness.
We got in and then there was some setting up and getting rooms and stuff like that. But eventually we got to sleep. Saturday was spent doing physical stuff. First the Leadership Reaction Course and then the Confidence course. The first got me kicked in the face a bit, an injury that put me out of commission for the last 20 minutes of the course and kept me in pain for the next day or so. I still have some residual sensitivity and trouble with chewing gum. But it'll pass.
The Confidence Course was just hard, but I managed, despite the pain to do all the obstacles. I am still sore. It'll take a few days to get the soreness out of my shoulders.
After dinner chow we got back to the barracks, where thanks to some weird circumstance, I had my own room. So I read the Megillah myself. I borrowed my father's. (It is a really nice one.) I am pretty out of practice, but I managed to make it through the whole thing without breaking my teeth. (That's more than I can say for the confidence course.) I was going to offer to read it for anyone who wanted, but one never knows what schedules will be like at these battle assemblies. So I thought that it was better that people do not rely on me for their megillah, and have me not show up. Besides I saw some Lubavitchers on Fort Dix on Saturday afternoon, I am sure they did the reading for the permanent party.
On Saturday night there the whole unit went out to the post bar and we had a goodbye party for our First Sergeant who was being promoted out of the unit.
On Sunday morning after a few hours of sleep we woke up at 04:30 and worked out for about an hour and a half. It was cold and painful, but it felt good at the end. We got changed, ate morning chow and then had a few ceremonies, cleaned up and left in the afternoon.
On the way back I got a ride with one of my Staff Sergeants. We stopped off on the New Jersey Turnpike for lunch. Outside of the Starbucks at the rest stop I saw this very religious-looking man waiting around for his family or for his coffee, I'm not sure. I instinctively wished him a happy Purim. and went back to my Sergeant who was picking out a good pair of polarized sunglasses.
When we got to the parking lot to be on our way, the religious-looking man was there as well with what I assume was his wife and two kids. He asked us if he can give me mishloach manot. I said that if he can do it soon, then "sure". So he went in to his car and gave us hamantashen and some orange beverage. My hispanic Sergeant was a bit puzzled by why a total stranger was giving us food in a parking lot, but he accepted it politely. I sort of explained that this was a holiday where we did this and we went along.
In the subway people were particularly polite, thanking me for my service . . . It is actually something that we appreciate, even though we may not show it.
I got to Flatbush to have the traditional Purim meal with my grandparents. I was walking through the streets (with "D") and everyone was dressed up in their Purim costumes. For the first time I really did not feel out of place in uniform in the streets. I played with my nieces and nephews till I had to go home and collapse out of sheer tiredness.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
It didn't happen
Personally I am skeptical that there really was a holocaust denial conference in Iran this week.
Well maybe there were a few people in "Iran" who got together to talk about not liking Jews. And everyone knows that Iranians exaggerate their numbers just to advance their anti-Zionist agendas. And everyone also knows that Iran simply doesn't have halls big enough to hold all the holocaust deniers.
Borat, who was allegedly at the conference is widely believed to be fictional. It is also unclear if Iran actually exists. I understand there is a conference pending about that. Americans and Israelis, and miscellaneous "Jewish" conspiritors who were allegedly at this perported conference have no legal way of actually getting to Iran.
So one wonders what the Persian agenda is here. Why pretend to hold a conference about a subject so unpopular in the west? Moreover, why pretend to hold a conference when it is probably just as east to just actually hold one. Faking conferences seems like more trouble than it is worth.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Memo to the Simon Wiesenthal Center
There are no facts you can tell the leaders of Iran that they can't google themselves, if they just visited a neighboring country that had unrestricted Internet access. When they hold an event questioning the holocaust the correct response is not to hold an event to "counter it". To do so is to miss the point. When they hold an event such as this they are trying to piss you off. It is not about researching the most well documented event in human history, it is about hating you.
Here are two responses that are better than getting upset.
1. Ask world Jewery to set aside one minute of today yawning. As in - who cares what kind of bigotry they exhibit in Iran. You have to be an upper-East Side New York liberal Bush hater to still find it surprising that Iran hates Jews. When Bush put Iran in the axis of evil, it is because the Irani leadership really are bastards, not because Bush just needed a third country to not like.
2. Piss Iran off yourself. Hold a conference - "Iran, is it really there?" or "Islam - the billion most gullible people on Earth" or if you were feeling charitable "Crisis in the Muslim world: The obvious reason why they have produced no historians of note - ever"
(Be prepared for a few days of rioting)
Even Palestinians will be banned if they are not toeing the party line here. As an old activist once said, if someone calls Jews dogs, would you hold a conference that provided unequivocal proof that dogs have tails, and Jews don't, and dogs bark, and Jews speak a human language, dogs walk on four legs and Jews on two. . .? If someone calls a Jew a dog, they are not making a biological point. If someone challenges the historicity of the holocaust, they are not making a historical point.
The Weisenthal center is dignifying this sort of hatred with a response because they need to show that (1) Iran is not evil in any way that can't be corrected with a simple conference, that this is about ignorance, not hate, and (2) so that the Weisentahl center can claim to actually be doing something about this.
But despite what "education theorists" have been saying for decades, you can't just teach someone something and expect them to be the way you want. Virtues such as those it would take to make Iran our friends have to be inculcated over a long time with the proper upbringing for a whole generation of leaders. This will not start with a conference. A conference shows that you take them seriously - which you shouldn't.
The Weisenthal Center justifies its budget on the grounds that it does something about anti-semitism. Well, perhaps here the best thing to do is nothing. Somethings are just not meant to be taken too seriously. The best way to respond, is to find a disincentive for Iran to do this. It has to be made to be not worth it for Iran, or Iranians. But this is too hard, so the Center is just doing the next best thing, which is actually not a good thing at all.
Here are two responses that are better than getting upset.
1. Ask world Jewery to set aside one minute of today yawning. As in - who cares what kind of bigotry they exhibit in Iran. You have to be an upper-East Side New York liberal Bush hater to still find it surprising that Iran hates Jews. When Bush put Iran in the axis of evil, it is because the Irani leadership really are bastards, not because Bush just needed a third country to not like.
2. Piss Iran off yourself. Hold a conference - "Iran, is it really there?" or "Islam - the billion most gullible people on Earth" or if you were feeling charitable "Crisis in the Muslim world: The obvious reason why they have produced no historians of note - ever"
(Be prepared for a few days of rioting)
Even Palestinians will be banned if they are not toeing the party line here. As an old activist once said, if someone calls Jews dogs, would you hold a conference that provided unequivocal proof that dogs have tails, and Jews don't, and dogs bark, and Jews speak a human language, dogs walk on four legs and Jews on two. . .? If someone calls a Jew a dog, they are not making a biological point. If someone challenges the historicity of the holocaust, they are not making a historical point.
The Weisenthal center is dignifying this sort of hatred with a response because they need to show that (1) Iran is not evil in any way that can't be corrected with a simple conference, that this is about ignorance, not hate, and (2) so that the Weisentahl center can claim to actually be doing something about this.
But despite what "education theorists" have been saying for decades, you can't just teach someone something and expect them to be the way you want. Virtues such as those it would take to make Iran our friends have to be inculcated over a long time with the proper upbringing for a whole generation of leaders. This will not start with a conference. A conference shows that you take them seriously - which you shouldn't.
The Weisenthal Center justifies its budget on the grounds that it does something about anti-semitism. Well, perhaps here the best thing to do is nothing. Somethings are just not meant to be taken too seriously. The best way to respond, is to find a disincentive for Iran to do this. It has to be made to be not worth it for Iran, or Iranians. But this is too hard, so the Center is just doing the next best thing, which is actually not a good thing at all.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
The assassination of Pierre Gemayel
Including Rafik Hariri, there have been five successful political assassinations in Lebanon in the past year and a half. (Hariri, Kassir, Hawi, Tueni, Gemayel) Then there is the defense minister who survived one car bombing, and a reporter who lost an arm and a leg (literally) in another. Undoubtedly Syria is in one way or another responsible for all of these, just like it was most likely responsible for the assassination of Bachir Gemayel (Pierre's uncle) about 25 years ago.
Syria just resumed ties with Iraq and is reconsolidating its power base in Lebanon after Hizbollah's popular war with Israel. It is now killing off domestic opposition. There are also numerous reports suggesting that Lebanon is again on the verge of a civil war, and of course this is in Syria's best interest. Syria has been fostering the myth that Lebanon would inevitably descend in to civil war without Syrian presence on Lebanese soil. Of course after the Cedar Revolution threatened to show how false that really was, Syria is trying to make it true.
It is important to keep in mind that the last time a Gemayel was assassinated (again, most likely by Syria via Hobeika) it led directly to the Sabra and Shatilla Massacres. (Deja vu?) Syria is undoubtedly trying to recreate that tension in Lebanon. Syria is trying to kill off enough Maronite leaders to provoke them to massacre another few hundred Muslims. If that happens Syria wins two victories. First there is anti-Maronite sympathy, meaning people will be more likely to hate the Lebanese Christians and continue to support the Shites. Secondly, Syria will have an excuse and support to march right back in to Lebanon to "help stabilize the region".
Given the situation in Lebanon, it is unreasonable to expect the Maronites to stay quiet for long. We can expect something really bad to happen to Muslims by Maronites pretty soon. On the other hand that is exactly what Syria wants, and it will ultimately make things worse. The only way to proceed is to go to the heart of the problem and get at the Syrians.
But that is getting harder with Syria being helped by Iran, which seems willing to fight Israel to the last Syrian, Lebanese, and perhaps Iranian. While I don't see a full scale civil war in Lebanon happening anytime soon, I do predict some small scale violence.
This is real bad my friends.
Syria just resumed ties with Iraq and is reconsolidating its power base in Lebanon after Hizbollah's popular war with Israel. It is now killing off domestic opposition. There are also numerous reports suggesting that Lebanon is again on the verge of a civil war, and of course this is in Syria's best interest. Syria has been fostering the myth that Lebanon would inevitably descend in to civil war without Syrian presence on Lebanese soil. Of course after the Cedar Revolution threatened to show how false that really was, Syria is trying to make it true.
It is important to keep in mind that the last time a Gemayel was assassinated (again, most likely by Syria via Hobeika) it led directly to the Sabra and Shatilla Massacres. (Deja vu?) Syria is undoubtedly trying to recreate that tension in Lebanon. Syria is trying to kill off enough Maronite leaders to provoke them to massacre another few hundred Muslims. If that happens Syria wins two victories. First there is anti-Maronite sympathy, meaning people will be more likely to hate the Lebanese Christians and continue to support the Shites. Secondly, Syria will have an excuse and support to march right back in to Lebanon to "help stabilize the region".
Given the situation in Lebanon, it is unreasonable to expect the Maronites to stay quiet for long. We can expect something really bad to happen to Muslims by Maronites pretty soon. On the other hand that is exactly what Syria wants, and it will ultimately make things worse. The only way to proceed is to go to the heart of the problem and get at the Syrians.
But that is getting harder with Syria being helped by Iran, which seems willing to fight Israel to the last Syrian, Lebanese, and perhaps Iranian. While I don't see a full scale civil war in Lebanon happening anytime soon, I do predict some small scale violence.
This is real bad my friends.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Jewishness
Ideas by Jewish organizations for building a positive Jewish identity among 20-somethings generally range from the assinine to the moronic. Ocassionally they are thinly veiled ways to make you join some religious group or other. Today I was reading about one that prima facie does not seem to suck. It is this. Of course those that are neither too wannabe, to kitchy, to poserlike, too religious, generally tend to be part of these hippy do-godder organizations that think that four out of five books of the bible involve saving whales, the the fifth one was where Hilary Clinton got the idea for universal healthcare. One day I ought to look at all of these more carefully. There has got to be one somewhere that normal people could live with.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Review of Shmuel Feiner's The Jewish Enlightenment
Shmuel Feiner's The Jewish Enlightenment is a very good overview of the haskallah movement. It is the only good historical survey that coveres the whole period from about 1780-1800. It covers all the major players, literature, and crises in the movement.
The historiography of the Jewish Enlightenment usually focuses on Moses Mendelssohn and his circle of students. Feiner's discussion is much more nuanced, and comprehensive. The book makes a few things clear: The haskallah seems to have been motivated by a few things including equal rights for Jews, a feeling of intellectual inferiority by Jews, the need for scientific knowledge and culture, and a need to break Jews away from the authority of the rabbinical elite. The rabbinical elite were suspect for many things, but their anti-enlightenment attitude was especially problematic. Their stance on the early burial issue seems to have been particularly annoying to the maskillim.
The book argues a few very interesting pionts: Mendelssohn didn't really have students. He had a circle of people who revolved around him, went to his home and took part in discussion with him and his salon. Also, there is no clear way to deliniate when the enlightenment was actually taking place. Feiner uses the publication of Ha'me'asef, their main literary journal as to dilineate the endpoints of the haskallah.
The book tells the story of all the important battles the haskallh fought, including the ones with Wessely, the ones over the schools, the fight over the Bi'ur, the Posner affair, Mendelssohn's battle with the Priest, the Kohn problems. . . . Part III of the book tries to show what the haskallah movement was and how they organized, and what their institutional structures were. Part IV then chronicles their ultimate demise. Mendlessohn dies, their reaison d'etra is less clear. Their are battling both the "ignorant rabbis" and also the secularized Jews. The movement ultimately looses momentum and cannot attract interest.
The book is a good read and I learned quite a bit about the history of the haskallah.
The historiography of the Jewish Enlightenment usually focuses on Moses Mendelssohn and his circle of students. Feiner's discussion is much more nuanced, and comprehensive. The book makes a few things clear: The haskallah seems to have been motivated by a few things including equal rights for Jews, a feeling of intellectual inferiority by Jews, the need for scientific knowledge and culture, and a need to break Jews away from the authority of the rabbinical elite. The rabbinical elite were suspect for many things, but their anti-enlightenment attitude was especially problematic. Their stance on the early burial issue seems to have been particularly annoying to the maskillim.
The book argues a few very interesting pionts: Mendelssohn didn't really have students. He had a circle of people who revolved around him, went to his home and took part in discussion with him and his salon. Also, there is no clear way to deliniate when the enlightenment was actually taking place. Feiner uses the publication of Ha'me'asef, their main literary journal as to dilineate the endpoints of the haskallah.
The book tells the story of all the important battles the haskallh fought, including the ones with Wessely, the ones over the schools, the fight over the Bi'ur, the Posner affair, Mendelssohn's battle with the Priest, the Kohn problems. . . . Part III of the book tries to show what the haskallah movement was and how they organized, and what their institutional structures were. Part IV then chronicles their ultimate demise. Mendlessohn dies, their reaison d'etra is less clear. Their are battling both the "ignorant rabbis" and also the secularized Jews. The movement ultimately looses momentum and cannot attract interest.
The book is a good read and I learned quite a bit about the history of the haskallah.
Monday, November 07, 2005
Review of Israel Knohl's The Messiah Before Jesus
Israel Knohl's The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls is an important book in Bible scholarship. It is short, and a rather easy read, but extremely interesting. In the book he advances the following thesis: Jesus was a messiah who was following the pattern of an earlier messiah.
It was earlier believed that although there were many messiahs of Jesus' period, but many things about Jesus like the suffering servant" and the "son of man" attitude were later inventions of the church, and not authentically from Jesus. Knohl believes that they were actually Jesus' attitude. He claims that there was an earlier messiah, just before Jesus lived who followed the same pattern. This was a messiah who is reflected in the Dead Sea scrolls. He then conjectures that this messiah was in fact a certain Menachem who was mentioned in the Talmud as the other leader with Hillel in the time of the "pairs" of leaders in Tannaitic times. His evidence for this is impressive and well thought out.
It was an intersting read.
It was earlier believed that although there were many messiahs of Jesus' period, but many things about Jesus like the suffering servant" and the "son of man" attitude were later inventions of the church, and not authentically from Jesus. Knohl believes that they were actually Jesus' attitude. He claims that there was an earlier messiah, just before Jesus lived who followed the same pattern. This was a messiah who is reflected in the Dead Sea scrolls. He then conjectures that this messiah was in fact a certain Menachem who was mentioned in the Talmud as the other leader with Hillel in the time of the "pairs" of leaders in Tannaitic times. His evidence for this is impressive and well thought out.
It was an intersting read.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
on the old notion that Zionism is Racism
In the olden days (up until a few years ago) there was a standing UN resolution that Zionism was racism. Not like I care about UN resolutions, nor should you, but bare with me.
I think I now understand why all of Europe was able to take this resolution seriously, and even perhaps why they believed it independent of their antisemitism.
Nationalism means different things to different people. In Europe nationalism is a very bad thing. When you hear that say a Frenchman or a German is a nationalist, what you are supposed to think is that he believes in a whole bunch of things. First he believes in the inherent superiority of his local culture, race, language, ethnicity, and religion. He believes in removing all other traces of otherness from HIS land. He believes in a form of racial cleansing, and he believes that his language is the only accptable and pure language. He believes in a whole bunch of crap that no self-respecting human believes in anymore.
When an American calls himself a nationalist, he means none of this. An American means he believes in democracy and capitalism, and he happes to like his life in the U.S. Being a nationalist in the US has no racial connotations, or anything like that. SOMETIMES it means that you think everyone should learn English. That is about it.
So when Americans and Europeans fight over the the goods and evils of nationalism, they are generally not really understanding each other. Each thinks the other is talking about something the other is in fact not talking about. This is obvious to anyone who is American and has had a conversationa about natioanlaism with a European.
But on to my main point.
Zionism is clearly a form of nationalism. There are various forms of Zionism, but however you look at it, it has something to do with Jews building a nation, and a nationality. When you have nations and nationalities, you have nationalism.
So when Europeans heard that someone wanted to equate Zionism with racism, it was natural for them to agree. After all, Zionism is a nationalist movement. Nationalist movenents(in their world) tend to be racist, so Zionism is probably racism. Thus it was natural for them to support that.
Americans on the other hand, had no such notion. For us, nationalism is not associated racism, it is a naive patriotism, which is something we are generally comfortable with: if you have a good country, there is nothing wrong with liking it.
I think this explains how, whith a straight face, Europeans can insist that anything Zionist is inherently racist, and how with an equally straight face, Americans can think that Europeans are just being Antisemetic.
In reality, the Europeans are not being antisemetic, they are simply projecting, that is, they are assuming that since many Europeans are racist facists, and call it nationalism, so to are the Zionists.
I think I now understand why all of Europe was able to take this resolution seriously, and even perhaps why they believed it independent of their antisemitism.
Nationalism means different things to different people. In Europe nationalism is a very bad thing. When you hear that say a Frenchman or a German is a nationalist, what you are supposed to think is that he believes in a whole bunch of things. First he believes in the inherent superiority of his local culture, race, language, ethnicity, and religion. He believes in removing all other traces of otherness from HIS land. He believes in a form of racial cleansing, and he believes that his language is the only accptable and pure language. He believes in a whole bunch of crap that no self-respecting human believes in anymore.
When an American calls himself a nationalist, he means none of this. An American means he believes in democracy and capitalism, and he happes to like his life in the U.S. Being a nationalist in the US has no racial connotations, or anything like that. SOMETIMES it means that you think everyone should learn English. That is about it.
So when Americans and Europeans fight over the the goods and evils of nationalism, they are generally not really understanding each other. Each thinks the other is talking about something the other is in fact not talking about. This is obvious to anyone who is American and has had a conversationa about natioanlaism with a European.
But on to my main point.
Zionism is clearly a form of nationalism. There are various forms of Zionism, but however you look at it, it has something to do with Jews building a nation, and a nationality. When you have nations and nationalities, you have nationalism.
So when Europeans heard that someone wanted to equate Zionism with racism, it was natural for them to agree. After all, Zionism is a nationalist movement. Nationalist movenents(in their world) tend to be racist, so Zionism is probably racism. Thus it was natural for them to support that.
Americans on the other hand, had no such notion. For us, nationalism is not associated racism, it is a naive patriotism, which is something we are generally comfortable with: if you have a good country, there is nothing wrong with liking it.
I think this explains how, whith a straight face, Europeans can insist that anything Zionist is inherently racist, and how with an equally straight face, Americans can think that Europeans are just being Antisemetic.
In reality, the Europeans are not being antisemetic, they are simply projecting, that is, they are assuming that since many Europeans are racist facists, and call it nationalism, so to are the Zionists.
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
Review of Samuelson's Introduction to Modern Jewish Philosophy
Samuelson recently wrote a book on the history of Jewish Philosophy. This deals with an older book of his, An Introduction to Modern Jewish Philosophy.
Rather atypically for a book on the history of philosophy, the book starts with a rather lengthy discussion of Contemporary Jewish History. Jewish history is closely tied to Jewish philosophy in a much stronger way than the history of philosophy ion general is linked to human history.
Following that is a discussion of what might be called philosophies of Judaism, that is outlooks on what Judaism is, or various conceptions of the nature of Judaism.
When Samuelson begins to address philosophical issues the discussion opens with Spinoza. Spinoza was perhaps the deepest of the modern philosophers. His work is very difficult to penetrate, and perhaps that is why it has garnered less attention than other modern philosophers, like his intellectual inspiration Descartes, or those who followed him like Leibniz. However, despite his brilliance, it is unclear what makes Spinoza's philosophical output Jewish. Clearly Spinoza was Jewish, and he was a philosopher, but that hardly merits the moniker "Jewish Philosopher". This question has been somewhat controversial, and it should have been dealt with in any text on Jewish philosophy. A case needs to be made for his inclusion. We are given about one sentence on this question.
The presentation of Spinoza is rather compact. Spinoza's ethics and metaphysics are notoriously difficult to follow. This book does not ease the presentation that much. The discussion of applied ethics in Spinoza is a bit clearer. This is where the book addresses Spinoza's views on politics, religion, scripture, and law.
Next is a rather good discussion of Mendelssohn, and his place in the Haskallah. Unfortunately some of the other philosophers who were of the same period got too short a treatment, though I would like to have learned more about them. However the author is to be excused for not giving too much space to Samuel Hirsch, S. D. Luzzatto, as they were minor figures, and the author rightly does not seem to place much faith in their greatness as philosophers, or their centrality in Jewish thought.
The discussion of Hermann Cohen is short and somewhat sloppy, but quite valuable. Very little of Cohen's work is available in English. I was particularly interested in Cohen's notion of infinitesimals, and how Cohen used them in his philosophy of Judaism. There is a small discussion where the concept of a derivative is sort of spelled out, though I was unable to see how Cohen's notion of infinitesimal was unique. I could not really see how it differed from Weierstrass or if it was related to the notion that Abraham Robinson eventually came up with sometime in the 60's. This chapter, iof you read through it carefully, can pay off though, if you are interested in this. It really did make me want to read more of Cohen's work.
Then came a chapter on Buber. The chapter was pretty good, and rendered Buber's I and Thou intelligible, even to someone as deeply rooted in Analytic philosophy as myself. Unfortunately I cannot say the same for the presentation of Rosenzweig. I do not know if the inadequacy here is Samuelson's or Rosenzweig, but I could not really make heads or tales of Rosenzweig's system of thought. It was full of these incomprehensible metaphors, and vast generalizations about religions, and history, and the function of ritual, and things like that. I suspect that this is what passes for philosophy in Europe, so I can put the blame on Rosenzweig for perpetuating this sort of thinking. Perhaps if I had the patience to reread the chapter, it would have proved more rewarding.
The final two sections on Kaplan and Fakenheim were also pretty good reads. The point of Kaplan's Judaism as a Civilization is made clear. There seem to be no necessary conditions for Judaism. Judaism's goal, 9is and ought to be its own self-preservation. This notion has come under quite a bit of attack lately, but it was very influential in the new suburban Judaism that took root in the era immediately following Kaplan.
The chapter on Fakenheim is also rather clear. Fakenheim was made to see Jewish history anew in light of the Holocaust. It was such an event as to chage the nature of Judaism itself. I happen to disagree with Fakenheim in many places, but I shall save that for another time.
Overall, despite the books flaws, I thought that the book was quite rewarding. I got a good picture of modern Jewish philosophy from it. Now I need to fill in the gaps. A flaw I should point out is that it often reads like class notes. It seems like it would be great to hear the lectures that come with the book, to fill in gaps and make sense of everything. There are also good questions at the end, suitable for classes, that serve to reenforce the main themes of the chapter, and the bibliography is pretty decent.
Rather atypically for a book on the history of philosophy, the book starts with a rather lengthy discussion of Contemporary Jewish History. Jewish history is closely tied to Jewish philosophy in a much stronger way than the history of philosophy ion general is linked to human history.
Following that is a discussion of what might be called philosophies of Judaism, that is outlooks on what Judaism is, or various conceptions of the nature of Judaism.
When Samuelson begins to address philosophical issues the discussion opens with Spinoza. Spinoza was perhaps the deepest of the modern philosophers. His work is very difficult to penetrate, and perhaps that is why it has garnered less attention than other modern philosophers, like his intellectual inspiration Descartes, or those who followed him like Leibniz. However, despite his brilliance, it is unclear what makes Spinoza's philosophical output Jewish. Clearly Spinoza was Jewish, and he was a philosopher, but that hardly merits the moniker "Jewish Philosopher". This question has been somewhat controversial, and it should have been dealt with in any text on Jewish philosophy. A case needs to be made for his inclusion. We are given about one sentence on this question.
The presentation of Spinoza is rather compact. Spinoza's ethics and metaphysics are notoriously difficult to follow. This book does not ease the presentation that much. The discussion of applied ethics in Spinoza is a bit clearer. This is where the book addresses Spinoza's views on politics, religion, scripture, and law.
Next is a rather good discussion of Mendelssohn, and his place in the Haskallah. Unfortunately some of the other philosophers who were of the same period got too short a treatment, though I would like to have learned more about them. However the author is to be excused for not giving too much space to Samuel Hirsch, S. D. Luzzatto, as they were minor figures, and the author rightly does not seem to place much faith in their greatness as philosophers, or their centrality in Jewish thought.
The discussion of Hermann Cohen is short and somewhat sloppy, but quite valuable. Very little of Cohen's work is available in English. I was particularly interested in Cohen's notion of infinitesimals, and how Cohen used them in his philosophy of Judaism. There is a small discussion where the concept of a derivative is sort of spelled out, though I was unable to see how Cohen's notion of infinitesimal was unique. I could not really see how it differed from Weierstrass or if it was related to the notion that Abraham Robinson eventually came up with sometime in the 60's. This chapter, iof you read through it carefully, can pay off though, if you are interested in this. It really did make me want to read more of Cohen's work.
Then came a chapter on Buber. The chapter was pretty good, and rendered Buber's I and Thou intelligible, even to someone as deeply rooted in Analytic philosophy as myself. Unfortunately I cannot say the same for the presentation of Rosenzweig. I do not know if the inadequacy here is Samuelson's or Rosenzweig, but I could not really make heads or tales of Rosenzweig's system of thought. It was full of these incomprehensible metaphors, and vast generalizations about religions, and history, and the function of ritual, and things like that. I suspect that this is what passes for philosophy in Europe, so I can put the blame on Rosenzweig for perpetuating this sort of thinking. Perhaps if I had the patience to reread the chapter, it would have proved more rewarding.
The final two sections on Kaplan and Fakenheim were also pretty good reads. The point of Kaplan's Judaism as a Civilization is made clear. There seem to be no necessary conditions for Judaism. Judaism's goal, 9is and ought to be its own self-preservation. This notion has come under quite a bit of attack lately, but it was very influential in the new suburban Judaism that took root in the era immediately following Kaplan.
The chapter on Fakenheim is also rather clear. Fakenheim was made to see Jewish history anew in light of the Holocaust. It was such an event as to chage the nature of Judaism itself. I happen to disagree with Fakenheim in many places, but I shall save that for another time.
Overall, despite the books flaws, I thought that the book was quite rewarding. I got a good picture of modern Jewish philosophy from it. Now I need to fill in the gaps. A flaw I should point out is that it often reads like class notes. It seems like it would be great to hear the lectures that come with the book, to fill in gaps and make sense of everything. There are also good questions at the end, suitable for classes, that serve to reenforce the main themes of the chapter, and the bibliography is pretty decent.
Thursday, April 01, 2004
I am not a sheigetz god
Sigh.
This piece from the New York Observer really made me think about myself and the stereotypes I exhibit. The article is about Shaina Feinberg's lusting after non-Jewish men, and her loss of interest in Jewish ones. At first I was violently offended. What does she mean "I don't want a little weenie Jewish boy."?!?
Excuse me?
Is this some angry woman's way of getting back at all men for the gold-digger JAP jokes of the 80's? Is this the self-hatred that the author's shrink says she has?
I suppose it is OK to talk about stereotypes of your own kind? If they exist, then who is more qualified to talk about them? Of course Jewish men are not her own kind. Jewish women are - but so what? Or, is the author just looking for the only people she can feel superior too, realizing that with someone completely alien, she can pretend to know something, whereas even when it comes to being Jewish she is hopelessly outclassed and outgunned by your average Jewish male?
Who knows what the author is thinking? Maybe she needs more help then she realizes.
Anyway, I was thinking that despite her obnoxiousness, and crass insensitivity to Jewish men, she may indeed have a point. Being a somewhat self-reflective Jewish man, I have to admit, I am not particularly tall or hulking. I am a fairly nice guy. And I am genuinely bookish. I do sit and read. . . alot. I do spend late nights hunched over my Talmud, or my math book, or my Arabic grammar, or some obscure philosophy book. I do wear glasses. I drink many lattes at Starbucks. I rarely attend sports games, and I have only once been in a bar fight, and that was at least six or seven years ago. I am not impressed when someone understands three percent of what she reads in a haggadah. The ability to understand the words that come out of your mouth is a duty, not a virtue. Most of my girlfriends had staggering IQs. I am slightly on the neurotic side. I have a blog. (I am literate.) My friends include academics, doctors, and lawyers.
I do not have all that much to offer in my defense. I have made bookshelves - from nails and wood - with my own two hands. And I can use a stud-finder. I recently fixed a broken toilet. I am a low-level nobody in the US Army whose job it is to do lots of hard manual labor. I stay in shape. In the army I also learned how to kick someone's ass. I was pretty good at it too. (In my unit I am the only white guy, that has to be good for something.) I never see doctors unless I need a form filled out. I never used an inhaler. I speak with my mother every other week - and that is on good months. And my friends include plumbers, contractors, and bus drivers.
So what is my deal? I am a stereotype. I have described myself as an overeducated Jew from New York. I will always be one. So I am not blond? So I am not thuggish?
Mind you, all this criticism comes from a woman seeing an Israeli shrink. I think it may be time to revive those old how-do-you-know-when-a-JAP-had-an-orgasm jokes. (When she drops her nail file.)
From now on, I do my studying in secret, and my fighting in public. None of this metrosexual slash Woody Alan crap for me. I am off to get me some power tools.
Screw you.
This piece from the New York Observer really made me think about myself and the stereotypes I exhibit. The article is about Shaina Feinberg's lusting after non-Jewish men, and her loss of interest in Jewish ones. At first I was violently offended. What does she mean "I don't want a little weenie Jewish boy."?!?
Excuse me?
Is this some angry woman's way of getting back at all men for the gold-digger JAP jokes of the 80's? Is this the self-hatred that the author's shrink says she has?
I suppose it is OK to talk about stereotypes of your own kind? If they exist, then who is more qualified to talk about them? Of course Jewish men are not her own kind. Jewish women are - but so what? Or, is the author just looking for the only people she can feel superior too, realizing that with someone completely alien, she can pretend to know something, whereas even when it comes to being Jewish she is hopelessly outclassed and outgunned by your average Jewish male?
Who knows what the author is thinking? Maybe she needs more help then she realizes.
Anyway, I was thinking that despite her obnoxiousness, and crass insensitivity to Jewish men, she may indeed have a point. Being a somewhat self-reflective Jewish man, I have to admit, I am not particularly tall or hulking. I am a fairly nice guy. And I am genuinely bookish. I do sit and read. . . alot. I do spend late nights hunched over my Talmud, or my math book, or my Arabic grammar, or some obscure philosophy book. I do wear glasses. I drink many lattes at Starbucks. I rarely attend sports games, and I have only once been in a bar fight, and that was at least six or seven years ago. I am not impressed when someone understands three percent of what she reads in a haggadah. The ability to understand the words that come out of your mouth is a duty, not a virtue. Most of my girlfriends had staggering IQs. I am slightly on the neurotic side. I have a blog. (I am literate.) My friends include academics, doctors, and lawyers.
I do not have all that much to offer in my defense. I have made bookshelves - from nails and wood - with my own two hands. And I can use a stud-finder. I recently fixed a broken toilet. I am a low-level nobody in the US Army whose job it is to do lots of hard manual labor. I stay in shape. In the army I also learned how to kick someone's ass. I was pretty good at it too. (In my unit I am the only white guy, that has to be good for something.) I never see doctors unless I need a form filled out. I never used an inhaler. I speak with my mother every other week - and that is on good months. And my friends include plumbers, contractors, and bus drivers.
So what is my deal? I am a stereotype. I have described myself as an overeducated Jew from New York. I will always be one. So I am not blond? So I am not thuggish?
Mind you, all this criticism comes from a woman seeing an Israeli shrink. I think it may be time to revive those old how-do-you-know-when-a-JAP-had-an-orgasm jokes. (When she drops her nail file.)
From now on, I do my studying in secret, and my fighting in public. None of this metrosexual slash Woody Alan crap for me. I am off to get me some power tools.
Screw you.
Friday, January 03, 2003
On Judaism's decentralization
I am thinking about this book that I am reading (more about it when I finish reading it) and it made me think about a few things. One of the most unfortunate things about the current Jewish geographic dynamic, and the nature of global communication and travel is that Judaism risks loosing one of it's most important features - decentralization.
One of the greatest features of Jewish civilization from late biblical times to the present is that, of necessity, there has been no one central authority. Each town did what was was best in its own eyes. Each town had its own economic, demographic, historical, social, and religious situation. Each town had its own customs and practices that were motivated by said situation. They were aware of the religious law in the next town or country, and each knew that they both were following the law, but it never dissuaded them from keeping their own practices.
Often Rabbis from other towns were consulted and deferred to but that was always the town Rabbi's choice.
Judaism today is not like that at all. Today there is Lubavitch. They are Judaism in half the towns that there are Jews. Israel has two chief rabbis. They are elected and their word carries the weight of a central rabbinic authority. The chief rabbi still controls marriage, divorce, Kashrut, and Jewish education. The ultra-Orthodox in Israel have a handful (minus a couple of fingers) of people who male decisions, and it is on the radio or in any case word quickly travels. If a ruling is issued in Bnei Berak (Near Tel Aviv) it instantly becomes "law" in Jerusalem. If some central Lebavitch authority (whatever that might mean these days) says something in New York, it is suddenly "law" in Buenos Aries. The chasm between Israel and the rest of the world is growing smaller too.
Ever since the passing of Moshe Feinstein of New York some 15 years ago, the Unites States has ceased to have one person who was respected as a religious leader by all religious (and some non-religious) Jews. Many Jews therefore began turning to Israel for advice. Moreover because of the general decline of the level of Jewish scholarship, people turn more and more to books for instruction (see the famous article by Soloveitchik some 10 years ago in Tradition, "Rupture and Reconstruction" about this). These books, in order to be published by a mainstream "kosher" publisher, say Artscroll or Feldheimm, must essentially repeat what is standard and acceptable. Moreover we generally find the most strict interpretations which everyone will agree to given in these publications. The inability of any Jewish community to be independent is truly destroying the dynamic that produced all the literature and creative religious thought.
(When we look at the Conservative or Reform movements we are in even a worse position. They started out as centralized movements.)
The fear that all religious communities have of innovation is destroying the need to be able to think in any original way. It has rigidified the law such that it has lost flexibility and adaptability. The conservative movement argued (prior to this occurring) that this is what they are fighting. The Orthodox assumed that they went too far in "adapting". This is one of the biggest dangers of living in the kind of small world we live in for religious Jewry. Community leaders no longer have to be good at solving problems, nor do they need to be able to even figure out how to make a halachic decision. Why learn how to make a decision when you can fob the problem off to the Agudah, or the CCAR, or the Chief Rabbi of Israel.
I wonder how Yeshiva students today learn to make halachic decisions. Of course there is the standard stuff about looking to the sources. But what about new situations? What about new technologies? There are now a handful of people who make those decisions. Once there were thousands. Do yeshiva students learn to think creatively or are they just given the phone number of someone higher up on the halachic chain? the latter would mean a very sad state of affairs for today's Jewry.
One of the greatest features of Jewish civilization from late biblical times to the present is that, of necessity, there has been no one central authority. Each town did what was was best in its own eyes. Each town had its own economic, demographic, historical, social, and religious situation. Each town had its own customs and practices that were motivated by said situation. They were aware of the religious law in the next town or country, and each knew that they both were following the law, but it never dissuaded them from keeping their own practices.
Often Rabbis from other towns were consulted and deferred to but that was always the town Rabbi's choice.
Judaism today is not like that at all. Today there is Lubavitch. They are Judaism in half the towns that there are Jews. Israel has two chief rabbis. They are elected and their word carries the weight of a central rabbinic authority. The chief rabbi still controls marriage, divorce, Kashrut, and Jewish education. The ultra-Orthodox in Israel have a handful (minus a couple of fingers) of people who male decisions, and it is on the radio or in any case word quickly travels. If a ruling is issued in Bnei Berak (Near Tel Aviv) it instantly becomes "law" in Jerusalem. If some central Lebavitch authority (whatever that might mean these days) says something in New York, it is suddenly "law" in Buenos Aries. The chasm between Israel and the rest of the world is growing smaller too.
Ever since the passing of Moshe Feinstein of New York some 15 years ago, the Unites States has ceased to have one person who was respected as a religious leader by all religious (and some non-religious) Jews. Many Jews therefore began turning to Israel for advice. Moreover because of the general decline of the level of Jewish scholarship, people turn more and more to books for instruction (see the famous article by Soloveitchik some 10 years ago in Tradition, "Rupture and Reconstruction" about this). These books, in order to be published by a mainstream "kosher" publisher, say Artscroll or Feldheimm, must essentially repeat what is standard and acceptable. Moreover we generally find the most strict interpretations which everyone will agree to given in these publications. The inability of any Jewish community to be independent is truly destroying the dynamic that produced all the literature and creative religious thought.
(When we look at the Conservative or Reform movements we are in even a worse position. They started out as centralized movements.)
The fear that all religious communities have of innovation is destroying the need to be able to think in any original way. It has rigidified the law such that it has lost flexibility and adaptability. The conservative movement argued (prior to this occurring) that this is what they are fighting. The Orthodox assumed that they went too far in "adapting". This is one of the biggest dangers of living in the kind of small world we live in for religious Jewry. Community leaders no longer have to be good at solving problems, nor do they need to be able to even figure out how to make a halachic decision. Why learn how to make a decision when you can fob the problem off to the Agudah, or the CCAR, or the Chief Rabbi of Israel.
I wonder how Yeshiva students today learn to make halachic decisions. Of course there is the standard stuff about looking to the sources. But what about new situations? What about new technologies? There are now a handful of people who make those decisions. Once there were thousands. Do yeshiva students learn to think creatively or are they just given the phone number of someone higher up on the halachic chain? the latter would mean a very sad state of affairs for today's Jewry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
