Rabbi Landsberg's Blog

Like Ordering Filet Mignon After Ridding the Planet of Cattle...?

The question at hand is about the viability of Jewish culture without Jewish belief. 

First, check out this post in Jewcy (here) relating a debate between Rabbi Shmuley Boteach (host of tv show "Shalom in the Home" and--according to Newsweek magazine--the most famous rabbi in America) and Michael Steinhardt, the founder of Birthright Israel and an avowed atheist.  The writer of the post, Abe Greenwald, asserts that Jewish culture is a byproduct of Judaism without independent life. Or, in his well chosen turn of phrase,  "It would be like ordering filet mignon after ridding the planet of cattle...."

Then listen to Amos Oz who maintains that Jewish culture can encompass and explain the shul (here, click on the video link).  I do agree with Oz that there is a rich Jewish culture independent of the authority granted to it by belief.  However, culture's home is in the "republic of letters."  For Jews, the letters are Hebrew (and to an extent Yiddish, Ladino and all the other rich langauges of the diaspora).  Further, living in the "republic" requires fluency and an immersion that is not available, outside of Israel, except for the few.   

For the rest of us, I maintain now as I have for quite a while:  in diaspora, no shul...no Jews (believers, agnostics, atheists or otherwise).

A Deal You Can't Refuse: Against Jewish Specialness

Simchat Torah is approaching, and with it, two realizations:

1. I will probably not have another opportunity to speak face to face with the entire congregation until next Rosh Hashanah, so it is time to return to the blog! Forgive the sudden onslaught of posts; there are several pieces I've come across the past few weeks that I want to share. And,

2. It is probably a good time to look at the issue of Jewish chosenness. Most of us are familiar with the midrash which says that God offered Torah to many other peoples before bringing it to the Jews. When at last it was our turn, God (having run low on patience) lifted Mount Sinai over the assembled Jews and said: Accept Torah or I'll drop Mount Sinai right on your heads! There are different strands of thought within Jewish tradition about Jewish specialness, including some which posit an intrinsic distinction between Jews and other nations.

There is also the more secular manifestation of this question when Jews count PhDs as evidence of the inherent genius of the Jews. This is tricky line to take--not least for the complacency it encourages but also--because it does not stand inspection. Here is a post from a couple weeks ago by Daniel Septimus that surveys the arguments.

4 out of 5 Theologians Recommend

If a wave of theologians in the 1950s, post-Shoah world proclaimed the death of God, then it is only fitting that theology too would soon receive its own eulogy.  This week in the Forward there was a provocative piece by Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove entitled, "Where Have All the Theologians Gone?"  He argues that, "We are so focused on Israel, antisemitism and intermarriage that we have come to ignore the linchpin for all discussions on Jewish continuity — namely, a compelling case for Jewish belief."

Personally, I was struck by the list of theologians whose passing [or whose prime has passed] Cosgrove mourns:  Eugene Borowitz, Neil Gillman, Yitz Greenberg, David Hartman, Harold Kushner.  In the 16 years since I entered rabbinic school, I have had the pleasure of studying with all but one [Harold Kushner].  Each has had great influence on my own thinking--though I certainly have not seen eye to eye with them all.   I am returning this summer to begin again a 3 year cycle of study at The Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem [The Rabbinic Leadership Initiative]; though I will be studying more with David Hartman's son Donniel, David's influence is still greatly felt. 

Is Jewish theology dead?  I hope not.  Yet this may not be the time of its blossoming.  Cosgrove is correct; we are as a community distracted by immediate needs and threats, often unable or unwilling to pause and reflect on the larger picture.  Will the Jewish people be able to survive the challenges and assimilatory power of diaspora without a return to theology?  Probably not as we know it.  The purpose of Jews is not just to exist or survive, but to be an instrument of the divine will as refracted through Torah as best we can understand/interpret it.  The more secular version of this can be seen in the moves towards tikkun olam - recasting Jews as an essential agent in the struggle for social change in our world. Whichever way you cut it there is always a need to understand the role of Jews in the diaspora as more than just an ethnicity. We make demands of ourselves and other Jews that will only be valid if they can be traced back to a coherent world view. 

The challenges of our age, therefore, are very different to those faced by the post war generation. For the Jew today the question is not one of secularism versus faith.  Rather, it is one of finding a coherent and compelling Jewish identity within this world in which global concerns are paramount (hunger, HIV ) and other faith traditions are sometimes felt to speak more directly to the heart/soul (thus, the rise of the so-called "Bu-Jew," the Buddhist Jew).   I hope Cosgrove's pessimism proves to be misplaced.

BTW, read the comments on his article; many points are well taken. 

Reductio ad Hitlerum, Testimony of a Non-Zionist (and other such stuff)

Shavua tov! Time to start a new week and no better way to do so than by spending some time at Jewcy, currently chock full of interesting pieces.  There is one by Michael Weiss berating historian and journalist Ian Buruma. It is hard to miss it: besides calling Buruma's recent writing "full-tilt stupid," it is entitled, The Decline and Fall of Ian Buruma. 

I do not, in fact, agree with much of Weiss' critique of Buruma, and I question his understanding of the history of Jews within the Austro-Hungarian empire.  He seems quick to deny Jews' affection for Franz Joseph - read this article in the NYRB for a more nuanced view of the Jews' relationship to Franz Joseph (subscription required though if you would like to read it I will have copies available in the office).  In part he bases his view on the support of some Bolshevik Jews for the communist Bela Kun.  Kun certainly had Jewish support, but that is a far cry from proving that all Jews were supporters of Kun.  That is a syllogism.

Further, calling old Jews who had affection for Franz Joseph--who thrice rejected the appointment of the blatantly anti-semitic mayor Karl Lueger--"quislings" is a little strong. Quisling was a Norwegian fascist leader who, through his collaboration with the Nazis, has become a byword for collaborators and traitors. I would be loathe to use this accusation so casually.   

Yet it all makes for interesting read and--as a small treat on top of that--it introduced me to Leo Strauss' concept of reductio ad Hitlerum. 

Also on Jewcy you can read David Klinghoffer's rejection of Zionism in his piece, Why I am not a Zionist (But Christians Should Be).  His words challenge Jews to clarify their stance on Zionism as opposed to a support of Israel based on the reality of so many Jews living there.  Again, read this for yourself and decide; I will simply make a note or two here.  Klinghoffer's particular understanding of tikkun olam, which he ascribes to Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, is one which is dependent upon Jews living amongst the nations, rather than in a state of their own.  He states:

This is the famous idea of tikun olam, repairing the world. In the traditional understanding, tikun olam means acting to lead humanity toward a deeper understanding of God and His laws. Hirsch argued that this is “a God-given destiny which…overshadows the existence of a state.”

The concept is central to Judaism. It is embodied in the famous instruction God gave to the Jews upon their arrival at Mt. Sinai, where they would receive the Ten Commandments: “You shall be to me a kingdom of priests” (Exodus 19:6). Jews are literally intended to minister to the world as priests, teaching and inspiring humanity. Merely to have a state, to be like other peoples, is not our destiny.

One does not have to be especially Torah-literate to know that "the famous instruction" was given to the Jews together with the command to enter the land and live apart from other peoples.  Therefore, one can reasonably assume that God did not see an inherent contradiction between Jews living apart with national autonomy and being a kingdom of priests.  The question, then, is how one views history, the relationship between Zionism and the messianic promise of return to the land, and the Zionist belief that the authority of the state is necessary for the current well-being of the Jewish people.

Hope you enjoy the read and have a great week. 

Interfaith or Intercitizen Dialogue? Redux

The week before last I was quite honoured to receive a comment on my post Interfaith or Intercitizen Dialogue by Daniel Septimus, the editor of the invaluable resource MyJewishLearning.com. For those of you who read my blog regularly, you will know that I am an enormous fan of this site. Daniel was recently interviewed in Haaretz newspaper. (Read it here).

To do credit to his comment I am going to place it here for those who may not get to the comments section.

First off, Rabbi Landsberg, thank you for reading Mixed Multitudes and contributing to this conversation.

But I'd like to clarify my view: Unfortunately, my position on interfaith (and interdenominational) relations derives from my encounter with the negative ramifications of triumphalist theologies.

That is, I've seen how the devaluation of other people's beliefs leads to the devaluation of them as people. Similarly, as I mentioned in my blog post, Yitz Greenberg's interfaith work arose out of his confrontation with the Holocaust and the ways in which Christian theology facilitated it.

My theology isn't so complicated. It's rooted in a desire to have people be nice to each other, respect each other, or at least not kill each other. I have such a problem with Soloveichik's approach because I think when we insist that we have a better truth, we eventually believe we are better people.

In times of crisis or stress, this can lead to scary things.

I gave  much thought to Daniel's words. Here is my response:

Dear Daniel,

First of all I want to thank you for your comment and to tell you how much I am enjoying your guest post on Rosner's blog over at Haaretz.

I understand your deep concerns about the ramifications of triumphal theologies.  However, I believe that the theological aspect is--almost counter-intuitively--not the essential element of the issues you raise as being of concern; a glance at modern history (even one account of the gulag) can attest to the ravages of secular triumphalism as well.  Nazism and fascism thrived for more than religious reasons.  There are those who have argued (quite compellingly, I think) that it was the lack of classical religious restraint--expressed even within a traditional Christian triumphalism--that was a necessary element in allowing the Shoah to occur.

You recommend a prescription to end the willful destruction of the physical and spiritual existence of others whose beliefs we either dispute or vehemently oppose:  that of "defanging" triumphal religious belief structures.  The mysteries of human beings, however, are such that a person's religious beliefs--no less the Hindu than the Evangelical--do not define his/her willingness to participate in the desecration of another.  It was often the Catholic who protected the Jew--not due to a recognition of an ultimate truth held only by the Jew--but out of a strong, internally coherent religious conviction that does not excuse murder.  I need not grant any validity whatsoever to unique truths claimed by others; my Jewish understanding is that I am not allowed to murder, even the idolater.

Therefore, I begin at a different starting place than you, though we are striving toward the same goal of a less destructive world.  I begin with the public square; it is here (rather than in the realm of theology) that triumphalism is the most fundamentally threatening.  A society with a strong liberal political culture (such as the U.S.) is the best safeguard against unrestrained excesses of dangerous religious beliefs.  I do not see a necessary correlation between political and religious liberalism, and thus my relationship with my fellow citizen is not defined by any particular religious belief they may hold (or by their professing no religious belief at all).

My interaction with another Jew, here or in Israel, is determined by a willing adherence to the tenets of liberal society (in a classic political sense, not in contradistinction to a political conservative).  I would be closer to Meir Soloveitchik if he would support a liberal democratic Israel over a theocratic one, than I would be to a secular Israeli who supported Avigdor Lieberman (read this if you are skeptical).

Hope this clarifies where I stand.  I appreciate any further comments you might wish to share.

Kol tuv,

Debra

Interfaith or Intercitizen Dialogue?

Mixed Multitudes (written by Daniel Septimus) is the house blog of MyJewishLearning.com.  It currently carries a series of posts on the issue of interfaith dialogue. You can read the posts in the order they were posted here and then here.  Rabbi Meir Soloveichik (the great nephew of Rav Soloveichik the esteemed Modern Orthodox theologian) makes his case here (subscription required though you can borrow the edition from the synagogue office) in Commentary magazine.  For those who want the condensed version, I will try to summarize:

Soloveichik argues that in the search for ecumenical understanding, Judaism too readily effaces its claim for ultimate truth relative to other traditions.  Septimus responds that a Jewish theology that does not recognize the truth in other traditions is not grounded in the reality of day to day existence. How can one be respectful to one's neighbors if one does not think that their faith has ultimate value?

I would sidestep both these positions and suggest that my respect for a fellow citizen is grounded in a liberal politics that may be informed by my particular Jewish milieu but ultimately is rooted in the shared compact that all citizen make in liberal democracies.  Put another way, I respect my neighbor not from any belief that his or her religious faith possesses truth, but through the insights of what is necessary to make a civil society function. I accord this respect to people of all faiths or those of none.

The advantage of such a position is that people who hold their faiths dearly do not need to inspect each other's traditions and give it a kind of hekhsher. We live together in mutual respect and tolerance because we want to and need to.  I would be greatly interested in your comments on this.

Kicking the Kitniyot Habit?

For the congregant who told me that her husband ABSOLUTELY refuses to believe that legumes might be kosher l'Pesach--and any others who may choose to begin this culinary debate with their beloved while kashering their utensils--, here is the story:

The debate about the status of legumes is an old one.  Orthodox rabbi Michael Taubes of Teaneck NJ provides a rather detailed summary of the rabbinic debate here.

The Masorti Movement in Israel [Conservative] decreed that legumes ought to be allowed during Pesach, even for Jews of Ashkenazi origin, in order to add joy and pleasure to Pesach.  See the English summary of the relevant responsum here.  More recently, the CCAR [Reform Rabbis] published a responsum on this question, stating that legumes are allowed...though many Reform Jews may choose not to eat them, given the long-standing Ashkenazi custom.

With all this said, what to do?  Personally, I recommend marrying a Jew of Mizrachi origin [for whom there is no debate whatsoever], but if that doesn't work for you:   make the more stringent member of your household responsible for all Pesach cooking and enjoy your peanut-less holiday in peace. 

Feeling Peckish?

The question of outside influences is at the heart of another debate, this one about a new Conservative movement hekhsher (kashrut certification), entitled a tsedek hekhsher ("justice certification").  This new certification would evaluate labor conditions in slaughterhouses and would be a seal of social responsibility, not slaughter techniques. 

There is, of course, vehement opposition to this, for the fact that labor conditions are being assessed according to a secular liberal sensibility, not halakhah.  You can access a good summary of the issue here.

And, for those of you concerned about the treatment of the animals as well as the human workers, send thanks to my friend and colleague Rabbi Adam Frank who, together with his brother Aaron, brought about a decision by the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Conservative movement against certain previously allowed slaughter techniques.  You can read the CJLS's decision here.

Alien Impositions

My mother--an experienced rebbetzin--always said that a rabbi has no more than two or three sermons in them; rabbinic sermons are either variations on deeply cherished themes or "one-offs" (sermons for a particular moment in time, without an extended life span).

I don't know if she is correct (I'm sure many congregants in many shuls probably think so), but I do know that one of my oft repeated tropes concerns liberalism and Judaism.  I strongly believe that Judaism is not reducible to current liberal values. Much of what Jews call their values derive from the Enlightenment and its reaction--ideas that have been imbibed through the painful but liberating encounter with European thought by figures such as Moses Mendelssohn and others.   

This truth, however, can be difficult for liberal Jews to acknowledge.  Jews are plagued by a gnawing doubt and seek instead to syncretize divergent beliefs.  We fear that we are saying that Judaism is insufficient or incorrect somehow, if we acknowledge that we incorporate values from outside of Judaism into how we live our lives as Jews.  What we are doing instead--I would argue--is confusing our politics with our transcendent Judaism; the one cannot lessen the other.  I digress so let me say it more simply. I do not need the crutch of Judaism to defend with passion the values and loyalties I hold dear.

Read through a recent debate hosted by Jewcy, between Steven I. Weiss and Daniel "Mobius" Sieradski.  They touch on these matters as they argue the question Is Social Justice the Soul of Judaism?   It is a question of special importance for identified Reform Jews, given the Reform movement's historical identification of liberal values with Jewishness.

Look Left, Right, Left...

My head is spinning (and not simply because I sit in front of my computer, sipping my fourth cup of coffee).  This week, the Jewish world seems abuzzing with disputes.  Yet, despite the vast multitude of voices, opinions, ideologies and arguments out there, I am struck by how many of them center around the same question:  what are we Jews?  This fundamental question of our collective identity underlies all other debates, including the one raging right now over diaspora Jewry's proper relation with Israel. 

I will share many of these conversations with you over the course of the next week, so as to give us time to reflect on each particular dialogue.  Right now, I wanted to start with one that cuts to the bone within the liberal Jewish world.  David Klinghoffer, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and former Reform Jew (now Orthodox), throws down the gauntlet in his articulate, challenging article, "The Limitations of Liberal Pluralism."  He questions the viability of liberal Judaism over the course of several generations, noting the disproportionately high intermarriage rate among identified Reform Jews. 

Daniel Septimus, a founding editor of MyJewishLearning.com, responds directly and without defensiveness.  He posts twice on his blog, once about the value of liberalism and once about the relationship between liberalism and intermarriage.  He does not resolve the difficult challenges faced by the liberal Jewish community which seeks to maintain strong Jewish identity and continuity; instead, he simply acknowledges it.  ["Klinghoffer is right to hint at the hypocrisy of many liberal Jews who seem bewildered by the high rate of intermarriage..."].  His willingness to address real issues within the Reform community is not to be taken for granted, yet it is only a first step.  We are left with the vital question:  on what basis do we--liberal Jews--argue for inmarriage, when our children question us?

I know what I think, and I will share over the course of the week.  For now, what do you think?