Menachem Butler has an excellent post on the current non-existence of Hamevaser. Having been involved with Hamevaser during a significant transitional period, I’d like to add a personal perspective as to the how’s and why’s Hamevaser is no more.
Nine years ago Edah entered into the Modern Orthodox world with much fanfare and controversy. Touting the slogan “The Courage to be Modern and Orthodox,” Edah seemed poised to combat the perception of Orthodoxy moving increasingly “towards the right” with Yeshiva University leading the way.1 Those against Edah likened them to Korach or Conservative Judaism in breaking away from “the tradition.” Edah’s supporters felt they finally had a voice within the often stifling Orthodox world and optimism for effecting actual changes in their communities. The dissension was so great that there were even rumblings of a formal schism within Orthodoxy. Regardless of how one considered Edah, there was a near universal feeling that Edah was going to be significant.
Nine years later, we have the ingenious revelation that Edah is closing down its operations. For the past few years it seemed evident that Edah as an organization had been in a gradual decline. The initial lavish conventions held in eventually became glorified yimei iyyiun at the Skirball center. Aside from producing a consistently solid journal, Edah had been relatively quiet in terms of its programming and contributions in the Modern Orthodox world.
Considering all the hype which has followed Edah, its inconspicuous closing seems anticlimactic though not altogether unexpected. Today on YUTOPIA, we take a brief look back at our experiences with Edah and offer our take of what once the most controversial organization in Modern Orthodoxy.
I’m very happy to plug Rabbi Johnathan Mishkin’s new site www.TanakhProfiles.org. One of the most talented and intelligent Jewish educators anywhere, R. Mishkin compiled a comprehensive database of every person mentioned in Tanakh, which now online is thoroughly hyperlinked. Not only is it useful for cross referencing biblical characters, but future parents can start bringing back forgotten names like Tzoveiva and Ya’a’zanya.
Once again, www.TanakhProfiles.org
I’ve recently been discussing with SIW the new state policies regulating metzita b’feh for circumcisions. I’m reading this new policy as a pragmatic compromise between the State and the religious institution.
There is obviously a segment of the Jewish population who have been neglecting basic health requirements1 and to protect the general welfare of it’s population, the State understandably wants to take action. One option would be to make the practice of metzitza illegal, but this would be wholly counter-productive. Outlawing metzitza would alienate and antagonize the people whose behavior the State is trying to change. Not only would it be political suicide for whomever would suggest it, but there would likely be a knee-jerk backlash against the state trying to regulate religious practice. In fact I would guess that such an action would lead to more people ignoring the health laws simply out of spite, thus increasing the risk of infections while decreasing the likelihood that such infections would be reported.
On the other hand, the compromise defines mutually acceptable objective standards for metzitza, and in doing so outlines the expectations from both sides. The Rabbis get assurance and security from knowing what the State expects of them (and having input in such definitions), and knowing that given these rules metzitza may continue without futher interference from the government. In return for granting such autonomy, the State can not only expect the Rabbis to follow the mutually approved health code but also to actively assist in enforcing the standards.
From Section III of the Circumcision Protocol:
A. If an infant becomes infected with HSV on or after April 28, 2006 within a compatible incubation period following metzizah b’peh, the NYSDOH will conduct an investigation without prejudging the cause. Such an investigation would include but not be limited to interviewing, reviewing medical records of, and testing the mohel in question and all pertinent caregivers. The mohel in question must stop metzizah b’peh (up to 45 days) until the NYSDOH investigation is completed.
B. So long as each local health department in whose jurisdiction such public health investigation is proceeding agrees to be bound by, without addition to or modification of, any and all provisions of this Circumcision Protocol, community Rabbis are expected to lend their support and cooperation in the event of any such public health investigation.
Quick recap: the Rabbis maintain autonomy and can expect the security to continue the practice and the State now has a legal and social mechanism for pursuing violations.
I’d say everyone wins.
1. And by logical extension the halakhot of pikuach nefesh, but that’s another matter.
This past week Mt. Sinai started printing what will likely be weekly announcement flyers. Most people agreed that the announcements took way too long especially considering that the majority of regularly scheduled events never changed, and now that there is an eruv people can actually take them home.
Since we are a nice frum shul, they also had the idea to have a devar torah on the flip side. And for some reason, I was asked to provide the inaugural devar torah.1
As difficult as it is to come up with meaningful derashot, I’ve found it particularly challenging to do so in a one-page limit. Since there are many ideas which I tried to cover and many details and sources which needed to be omitted, I may revisit these issues in a future post. In the meantime here is the devar torah as printed.
My previous post on Ryan Karben prompted an interesting conversation with someone who knew him from the YU days. According to this person, Karben’s affinities were an “open secret” at YU and he personally knew people who had been propositioned by Karben.
We then discussed the question of if and when someone’s tendencies should be “outed.” If we are aware that someone is potentially dangerous, to what extent do we pursue this person or expose the risks of being involved with such a person.
On one hand, we do have the obligation of lo ta’amod ‘al dam rei’echa and cannot sit idly by while people are being harmed. If we know that there is a risk in the community, can we risk doing nothing?
On the other hand, pursuing such people needs evidence and as the Gafni and Lanner cases have shown us, they might not do much good. Furthermore, there is always the risk of slander, which is prevalent enough as it is let alone being motivated by religious or political agendas.
I’m open to suggestions.
Update: In an IM, The Town Crier points to other recent examples of whistleblowing both good and bad, including Un-Orthodox Jew and the Kolko issue as well as Jewschool apologizing (and perhaps retracting the apology) for reporting that Gafni was accused of rape. In the Internet Age and instant anonymous blogging, the whistleblowing reporting can be used for good or evil faster with more immediate consequences.
The Jewish Week recently created a stir when it reported that “the Chief Rabbinate in Israel is refusing to accept conversions performed by several leading Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) rabbis,” a revelation which many in the Orthodox world found unsettling. In addition to challenging foreign Rabbinic authority, this policy aversely affects hundreds if not thousands of converts who have trained and studied under Orthodox auspices. The RCA itself was tentative in its initial response, leading some to claim that R. Herring was selling out his constituency. Having discussed the issue more thoroughly at their recent convention, the RCA responded saying that the Israeli Rabbinate was not singling out or delegitimizing the RCA conversions, but generally reevaluating their methods for accepting conversions worldwide.
SIW correctly notes, “While the Chief Rabbinate may not have specifically ‘rejected a conversion authorized by the Beth Din of America,’ it seems by all accounts certainly to be rejecting those authorizations.” This analysis is supported by other quotes in the original article:
The difference is that since Rabbi Amar assumed his position in 2003, he said, “we have been operating according to a list of approved rabbis.”
The list, obtained by The Jewish Week, has fewer than 50 names on it, including some rabbis who are deceased.
“A member of the RCA is not automatically recognized,” Rabbi Krispel said.
The ramifications of such a policy are extensive. Since Israel lacks the clear division of Church and State, the religious decisions made by the Israeli Rabbinate affect many areas of social policy. For example, the halakhic rulings of Who is a Jew will determine if one can get married in Israel, or if one may be included under the Law of Return for citizenship.
The purpose of having the Rabbinate wielding such authority is ostensibly to ensure that Jewish law is being followed properly. However, in light of their decisions to reevaluate its accepting of certain conversions, we should question if the standards being drafted are entirely in line with the standards mandated by halakha.
I know I owe a post on Pesach and that will be coming along soon. In the meantime, being Yom Haatzmaut and all and having recently returned from Israel, I figure it’s time for some random thoughts on Zionism or at least some general attitudes towards it.
While most Jews I’ve met would claim to “support Israel” ideologically but as expected, this support is highly subjective and how it is conveyed is equally varied. Some support Israel financialy through donations, Israel bonds, trips, or purchasing Israeli products where possible. Others take part in ceremonies, programs, or parades demosntrating their solidarity with the Jewish state.
And of course, others actually move there.
I’ve spoken to olim about the Zionism of Americans and quite are cynical, some to the point of outright disdain. If you believe that Israel is that important to the Jewish people as a nation or as a religion, then why not move? As one person expressed to me, the real meaning of an America going to the Israeli Day Parade is like saying that Israel is a great country – for someone else.
Others have toned down the pro-aliyah rhetoric for pragmatic reasons; people don’t always respond well to sanctimonious rantings. Still there is some resentment at the pharisaical Zionistic propoganda from those who haven’t actually made aliyah.
The question I have been dealing with recently is if American Zionism inherently hypocritical. Can one honestly claim to be Zionistic without actively planning and/or preparing for aliyah or is this just another example of vicarious Judaism?
My current thinking is to distinguish between who and how Zionistic messages are being propogated. For example, I’m sure you’ve heard the hocker in shul pontificating as to what Israel ought to do to solve their security or economic crises. Or perhaps you’ve heard the Rabbis extoling the superior spirituality of God’s chosen land.
In these types of rantings, the lack of aliyah mitigates the intended message. Unless the hocker is an expert in history, political theory, or has some other expertise, then his right to an argument is likely based on a perceived connection with the State of Israel. However, were his connection to be serious, then aliyah should be in his short-term plans. Similarly, if the Rabbi truly believes in the ultimate kiddusha of Eretz Yisrael then why not move?
Where I think these discussions disintegrate is in the motivations of the participants. For example, people could be taking extreme positions to overcompensate for their own Zionistic shortcomings.1 Or like many conversations, people could just be motivated from simple ideological arrogance.2
What are the alternatives? Frankly I’m trying to figure those out myself. Humility would be a good first step, but we could use that all over. On the other hand, Israel is one of the few things about which Jews feel strongly. Perhaps muting such passion would have even more averse consequences.
I’m still working this out, but I’m open to suggestions.
1. At least Rabbis have the capacity to create their own religious justifications for not making aliyah such as they can do more and better work the Jewish people in America or elsewhere. Even so, the premise of this noble sacrifice is rooted in sheer arrogance that their work is that crucial to the Jewish people. Some Rabbis might be able to get away with this, say R. Avi Weiss perhaps, but these would be the exceptions.
2. Not to say you don’t find this among Israelis, but at lest they live there.
One quick halakha before my ride to the airport gets here. This one comes from Shulhan Aruch O.C. 461:5:
Rough translation: Matzah baked with hametz is only problematic (i.e. considered hametz itself and thus prohibited on Pesach) if they touched, in which case, cut off from the matzah at the point of contact and the rest is fine. Lest you think this is some Sephardi leniency, here’s the Ramo:
And just to be sure, the Mishnah Berurah:
If you’d like to make sense of all this, I recommend looking over the entire siman as well as the Bet Yosef or you could hock your local Rabbi.
Hag Kasher V’Sameach!
As some of you may know I’m going to be in Israel for Pesach. It’s my first vacation in just about ever, since for several years I have either had the time or money to travel, but not both. So I figure since I might not have the time or access to post over Pesach, I can address something for which I have recently been getting a lot of flack.
Despite my staying in Israel for roughly two weeks, I will be keeping one day of Yom Tov this Pesach.