An incident has stuck in my mind for well over a year now that bothered me quite a bit. There was a women, a Rabbi, who was a guest at a Bar Mitzvah in our community. She was asked by the family to lead Maariv services. Despite her lovely voice, her ruach and energy, I could not help but be distracted by the fact that she was not wearing a Kippah. She wore a Tallit, her own, as the Shalicha normally does for Erev Shabbat, but she did not wear a Kippah. I asked later for an explanation and was told that she considers a Kippah to be a male garment and, as the wearing of a Kippah is a Minhag and not a Halachic requirement, she chose not to wear one.
I wonder, from the distance of time, what would have happened had I removed my Kippah, which I wear all the time, not just for services. I can imagine that someone would have politely reminded that I was not wearing my Kippah. I am sure that they would have assumed I had dropped it or forgotten to put it back on at some point. I imagine the conversation when I say that I see no reason that I need to wear a Kippah if the Shlicha, who surely has a greater obligation than me, chooses not to wear one. The consternation and unhappiness that would have resulted is palpable, even in my imagination.
The point should be obvious: it is not possible to celebrate an egalitarian approach to worship and insist on one's right to reject that which is normative in the community. Had this Rabbi been a member of the congregation, there would have been no issue, since we do not insist on women wearing a head covering when not taking a public role in our service. However, when serving as the Shlicha for the congregation, it seems all to obvious that she should have donned a head covering, whether a traditional Kippah or a more feminine alternative.
Instead, it seems to me, she was arguing, through her actions, that while she insists on her rights as an egalitarian Jew to be counted equally, she does not want the norms of the community to be imposed upon her. She insists, in her autonomy, that she should be treated with respect, yet she fails to respect the community as equally legitimate. Moreover, she seems to acknowledge that there are very real differences between men and women, differences that can be symbolized in clothing, such as a head-covering. If there are differences that are legitimate and worth noting and acting upon, then why are we so committed to the notion that within our service, we need to treat men and women with equal responsibilities and rights.
The answer appears to be that egalitarianism stops with rights and does not extend to responsibilities. Women are to be accorded the rights of men within the ritual space, such as being counted in a minyan, reading from the Torah and Haftarah and leading services. But when it comes to taking on the responsibilities on which these rights are based, it seems that these can be rejected on such flimsy premises that they are Minhag or that they are uncomfortable or that we might offend the sensibilities of some older members of the Kahal.
It is time for those who are egalitarian to insist on that the rights are subject and secondary to the responsibilities. Within Judaism, which is based on mitzvot, commandedness, and not natural rights, we must start with understanding our responsibilities to G-d, to our community and to ourselves. Only then, do we earn the rights that we covet.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Monday, September 18, 2006
Halacha and the Conservative Movement
Rabbi Andy Sacks was posted in Shefa (its not clear whether he wrote specifically for Shefa or whether this was posted from some other origin) writing an implicit response to Avi Shafran's charge that the Conservative Movement has abandoned Halacha. Rabbi Sacks writes, "The Masorti/Conservative Movement is indeed a Movement committed to deep respect for Halacha . Those that pay heed to the writings of the Movement in matters of Jewish law know that the level of scholarship is high and the respect for sources runs deep." He goes on to say that "Far too often those to the right, in particular those in the fervently Orthodox world, confuse Minhag (custom) with law. We find custom, which has a central place in our tradition, becomes frozen and somehow sanctified. This applies to the black garb that many Orthodox wear and it applies too much in the realm of the (in)active participation of women in public Jewish ritual life."
The rest of the article is an attempt to argue that the current debate about homosexual practices within Judaism is well within halachic norms. I have to say that I agree with Rabbi Sacks up to this point. I think that each of the statements he makes, except for his fundamental premise, is correct. I think that Masorti and Conservative Rabbis do, by and large, have enormous respect for the sources from which our traditions spring. I agree that the right-wing has become unable or unwilling to distinguish between Minhag and Halacha, though there is a strong argument that Minhag can become "like" Halacha (e.g., the requirement that men wear a Kippah at least when engaged in ritual activity). I would go farther to say that the right wing's fear of innovation has led to a defensive posture that manfiests itself in lashing out at anyone who would dare to engage in such innovation. I agree that debate on any subject, including homosexuality, is condoned and protected by Halachic standards. There was no subject off-limits to Chazal and there should be no subject off-limits to us.
However, I think Rabbi Sacks fails to make his basic point, that this debate, being within a Halachicly-recognizable process, will yield a valid halachic outcome. Rabbi Sacks fails to identify what he means by Halacha and how it is that the current (or previous) debates fell within that definition. Simply respecting the sources and using them in the context of a Tshuvah is not enough to make something Halachic. The arguments made and the conclusions reached are not Halachic only by citing enough traditional sources; a Halachic decision requires something more and Rabbi Sacks has not identified what it is (and neither will I, because I am not sure I know either).
But, let us say that the elites of the Conservative movement, both Rabbis and educated and engaged laypeople, do engage in Halchically recognizable and defensible debate; it is still too evident that the vast majority of the Conservative movement, with the acquiesence if not outright approval of the elites, have abandoned any serious commitment to Halacha in a practical sense. It is facile to point to the number of Jews affiliated with the Conservative movement who have abandoned any pretext of keeping Kosher or Shabbat. We can look to the elites of their communities for a more compelling argument. In how many congregations have large sections of the liturgy been abandoned to save time? In how many congregations have accommodations been made to allow photography, electronic music and other Shabbat-prohibited activities for the sake of a Simcha? How many Conservative communities have acted to build Mikvaot so that their members can fulfill be more closely bound to the mitzvot associated with the laws of Niddah?
In how many congegrations that call themselves "Egalitarian" has this come to mean that women can do, or not do, anything that they choose, without any concomitant responsibilities. Is the same expectation of Tallit and Tefillin placed on women that are placed on men? Are women who claim that Kippah, as a Minhag and not Halacha, is not obligatory making a valid point or have they lost any perspective of the damage that their decision does to the halachic understanding of the rest of their community? Certainly, there are some congregations that have applied Egalitarianism in a thorough way, but they are simply the exception that proves the rule. To argue on the one hand that Egalitarianism can be defended within Halcha and then to use it to abandon Halacha is simple hypocrisy.
There is certainly a place somewhere between the ossification of the right-wing Orthodox and the hypocrisy of the left-wing Conservatives. Whether it lays with the Modern Orthodox, who have not been able to find their way to a full engagement of women within ritual practice, or in the so-called traditional Egalitarian synagogues who struggle to explain their decisions to a laity that is unengaged with halachic debate, remains to be seen.
The rest of the article is an attempt to argue that the current debate about homosexual practices within Judaism is well within halachic norms. I have to say that I agree with Rabbi Sacks up to this point. I think that each of the statements he makes, except for his fundamental premise, is correct. I think that Masorti and Conservative Rabbis do, by and large, have enormous respect for the sources from which our traditions spring. I agree that the right-wing has become unable or unwilling to distinguish between Minhag and Halacha, though there is a strong argument that Minhag can become "like" Halacha (e.g., the requirement that men wear a Kippah at least when engaged in ritual activity). I would go farther to say that the right wing's fear of innovation has led to a defensive posture that manfiests itself in lashing out at anyone who would dare to engage in such innovation. I agree that debate on any subject, including homosexuality, is condoned and protected by Halachic standards. There was no subject off-limits to Chazal and there should be no subject off-limits to us.
However, I think Rabbi Sacks fails to make his basic point, that this debate, being within a Halachicly-recognizable process, will yield a valid halachic outcome. Rabbi Sacks fails to identify what he means by Halacha and how it is that the current (or previous) debates fell within that definition. Simply respecting the sources and using them in the context of a Tshuvah is not enough to make something Halachic. The arguments made and the conclusions reached are not Halachic only by citing enough traditional sources; a Halachic decision requires something more and Rabbi Sacks has not identified what it is (and neither will I, because I am not sure I know either).
But, let us say that the elites of the Conservative movement, both Rabbis and educated and engaged laypeople, do engage in Halchically recognizable and defensible debate; it is still too evident that the vast majority of the Conservative movement, with the acquiesence if not outright approval of the elites, have abandoned any serious commitment to Halacha in a practical sense. It is facile to point to the number of Jews affiliated with the Conservative movement who have abandoned any pretext of keeping Kosher or Shabbat. We can look to the elites of their communities for a more compelling argument. In how many congregations have large sections of the liturgy been abandoned to save time? In how many congregations have accommodations been made to allow photography, electronic music and other Shabbat-prohibited activities for the sake of a Simcha? How many Conservative communities have acted to build Mikvaot so that their members can fulfill be more closely bound to the mitzvot associated with the laws of Niddah?
In how many congegrations that call themselves "Egalitarian" has this come to mean that women can do, or not do, anything that they choose, without any concomitant responsibilities. Is the same expectation of Tallit and Tefillin placed on women that are placed on men? Are women who claim that Kippah, as a Minhag and not Halacha, is not obligatory making a valid point or have they lost any perspective of the damage that their decision does to the halachic understanding of the rest of their community? Certainly, there are some congregations that have applied Egalitarianism in a thorough way, but they are simply the exception that proves the rule. To argue on the one hand that Egalitarianism can be defended within Halcha and then to use it to abandon Halacha is simple hypocrisy.
There is certainly a place somewhere between the ossification of the right-wing Orthodox and the hypocrisy of the left-wing Conservatives. Whether it lays with the Modern Orthodox, who have not been able to find their way to a full engagement of women within ritual practice, or in the so-called traditional Egalitarian synagogues who struggle to explain their decisions to a laity that is unengaged with halachic debate, remains to be seen.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Pirkei Avot 4.14
Rabbi Yochanan the Sandler says: Every assembly that is dedicated to the sake of Heaven will have an enduring effect; but one that is not for the sake of Heaven will not have an enduring effect.
One has to wonder about the context in which Rabbi Yochanan made this statement. Rabbi Yochanan was a Tanna of the generation of Rabbi Akiva, which means that he lived after the destruction of the Second Temple and during the Bar Kochba rebellion. Looking backward at the destruction of the Temple, it is tempting to think that Rabbi Yochanan may have been castigating that generation for their sins that led to the destruction of the Temple. Looking at the Bar Kochba rebellion and its gruesome aftermath, Rabbi Yochanan may have had serious doubts about the efficacy of their task.
But, with the benefit of millenia separating us from those events, we can see that that Rabbi Yochanan was correct in the positive statement that he made. The purpose of Chazal (the sages), was always to create community that would last. They taught a tradition that was designed, by man and G-d, to create communities that could withstand the worst that the world could inflict upon them. Their teaching became that moral foundation of the Western world and has allowed Jews to remain Jews until this time. Certainly, one can look back and see that their assembly, which had everything to do with L'shem shamayim (the sake of heaven).
Our own building is on the verge of closing. Like the Jews of Rabbi Yochanan's time, though on a much smaller scale, we are about to find out what life is like without the geographic focal point of our Jewish community. For 18 months or so, we will be wandering around Caldwell from location to location creating sacred space wherever we find ourselves. It is our hope that we have created an assembly that is truly for the sake of heaven, for that joined purpose will create something that lasts long beyond this temporary dislocation
(Prepared for Congregation Agudath Israel, 9/15/2006)
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Shafran and Shefa
Not surprisingly, the Shefa folks are up in arms about Avi Shafran's latest shot across the Conservative bow. Shafran writes in the Jerusalem Post that "a prediction I made in an article for Moment magazine more than five years ago - and for which, at the time, I was roundly pilloried - has been confirmed by recent events." What recent event could have confirmed Shafran - none other than the clear signal that a Conservative decision recognizing homosexuality is imminent. So, while Shafran could only predict 5 years ago that the Conservative movement would drop its adherence to Halacha, now he has his proof?
But that isn't what causes me to write. It is Bill Plevan's response. Plevan takes the standard way out of this accusation - he simply states that what Shafran understands as halacha and what the Conservative movement understands as halacha are different and therefore the accusation is baseless. Plevan says, "his [Shafran's] characterization of the 'halachic process of the millennia' is at best contestable, which is precisely what many rabbis and scholars within Conservative Judaism have argued for a "century." Of course, the only Rabbis who contest this are Conservative rabbis, who, having abandoned an adherence to traditional understandings of halacha have taken it upon themselves to define halacha to fit their own pre-conceptions.
Lets face it, Neil Gillman is write when he states categorically that it is time for the Conservative movement to abandon its tortured defense of its halachic bona fides. Gillman writes in this issue of Conservative Judaism magazine that a definition of halacha as loose and flexible as that of the Conservative movement can hardly be called halachic at all. I'm no fan of Rabbi Gillman, but I have to admire his candor. I surprised that Avi Shafran didn't quote directly from the leading philosopher of the movement.
But that isn't what causes me to write. It is Bill Plevan's response. Plevan takes the standard way out of this accusation - he simply states that what Shafran understands as halacha and what the Conservative movement understands as halacha are different and therefore the accusation is baseless. Plevan says, "his [Shafran's] characterization of the 'halachic process of the millennia' is at best contestable, which is precisely what many rabbis and scholars within Conservative Judaism have argued for a "century." Of course, the only Rabbis who contest this are Conservative rabbis, who, having abandoned an adherence to traditional understandings of halacha have taken it upon themselves to define halacha to fit their own pre-conceptions.
Lets face it, Neil Gillman is write when he states categorically that it is time for the Conservative movement to abandon its tortured defense of its halachic bona fides. Gillman writes in this issue of Conservative Judaism magazine that a definition of halacha as loose and flexible as that of the Conservative movement can hardly be called halachic at all. I'm no fan of Rabbi Gillman, but I have to admire his candor. I surprised that Avi Shafran didn't quote directly from the leading philosopher of the movement.
Kavvanah
My son and I were talking last night about Kavvanah. His goal is to daven with Kavvanah at all times, but he finds this very difficult in his school minyan in which few are davening at all or in our shul minyan in which the pace is too fast for him to concentrate. We talked about whether it is really possible to strive to daven always with such concentration and intent.
I related a story that I had heard from a source now forgotten. A Rabbi in a Yeshivah asked his students how often they davened with Kavvanah. Answers ranged from "Every day" to "Once or twice a week." No student wanted to admit that Kavvanah was hard to achieve, at least on occasion. The Rabbi told his students, "I feel fortunate if I can daven with Kavvanah once or twice a year."
Kavvanah is something you can strive to achieve, but can not achieve consciously. Once you become aware that you are davening with Kavvanah, it is over. Kavvanah is an attempt to become joined to G-d, such that there is no difference between your prayer and G-d. As Rabbi Pinchas, a Hasidic master, says, "When a man who is praying thinks his prayer is something apart from G-d, he is like a supplicant to whom the king gives what he has begged from him. But he who knows that prayer in itself is G-d is like the king’s son who takes whatever he needs from the stores of his father."
Kavvanah is a spark that burns only for a instant. Its brilliant light catches our eye, if we are looking in the right direction, but then, just as we see it, we lose sight of it and it vanishes. All we can do is to keep trying to capture that spark each time we reach out to HaShem with our prayers.
I related a story that I had heard from a source now forgotten. A Rabbi in a Yeshivah asked his students how often they davened with Kavvanah. Answers ranged from "Every day" to "Once or twice a week." No student wanted to admit that Kavvanah was hard to achieve, at least on occasion. The Rabbi told his students, "I feel fortunate if I can daven with Kavvanah once or twice a year."
Kavvanah is something you can strive to achieve, but can not achieve consciously. Once you become aware that you are davening with Kavvanah, it is over. Kavvanah is an attempt to become joined to G-d, such that there is no difference between your prayer and G-d. As Rabbi Pinchas, a Hasidic master, says, "When a man who is praying thinks his prayer is something apart from G-d, he is like a supplicant to whom the king gives what he has begged from him. But he who knows that prayer in itself is G-d is like the king’s son who takes whatever he needs from the stores of his father."
Kavvanah is a spark that burns only for a instant. Its brilliant light catches our eye, if we are looking in the right direction, but then, just as we see it, we lose sight of it and it vanishes. All we can do is to keep trying to capture that spark each time we reach out to HaShem with our prayers.
Pirkei Avot 4.13
Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: He who fulfills a single mitzvah gains for himself a single advocate; one who commits a single transgression gains for himself a single accuser. Repentence and good deeds are like a shield against retribution
I found, in the ArtScroll Pirkei Avos Treasury, a parable (paraphrased) for this mishna that is worth sharing:
There was a man who had three friends. He loved the first friend very much and spent much time pursuing this friendship, sometimes to the exclusion of other friends. The second friend was almost as close and he felt very comfortable in this friend's company. The third friend was more of an acquaintance; the man would occasionally seek out this friend, but might go some time without his friend's company.
This man was summoned to appear before the court to be accused of a crime. The man, understandably concerned and wanting for someone to stand with him, approached his first friend, but this friend would not accompany the man to the court. The second friend was willing to accompany the man to the court, but only as far as the outside steps, not inside the courtroom. Desparate, the man approached the last friend, the acquaintance. This friend said that he would be happy to stand with the man in the court and help to defend him against the charges.
The first friend is like our money and wealth and all that we strive so hard and with such single-mindedness to accumulate. None of this will make any difference when we stand before our Judge and answer for our actions. The second friend is like our family who loves us and whom we love. They can accompany us only as far as the cemetery and no farther. They can not stand with us when we stand before the Judge. The third friend is our good deeds, our true repentence, and the mitzvot that we have strived to keep. These stand with us when we answer our accuser before the Judge of all. These are our witnesses that we have striven to live our life as G-d intended it.
As we approach the Yomim Noraim, we can keep in mind that even one mitzvah may be just what is needed to tip the scales of justice in our favor. A single mitzvah may be the advocate that we need to win a favorable judgment.
(Delivered 9/8/2006 at Congregation Agudath Israel
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)