I just again heard a case of this dilemma of choice. I remember when a close friend of mine mentioned this to me over twenty years ago. He had a choice. He was a relatively new ba'al teshuva and he was at a crossroads. Should he join the charedi world or the modern Orthodox world? He knew the latter was more intellectually challenging and even more intellectually honest but the former had a spirit that was not found in the world of MO. He chose to enter the charedi world. I keep hearing this issue arise again and again. Intellectually, people like my friend recognize the intellectual correctness of the thoughts of Modern Orthodoxy -- yet they still become members of the charedi community, knowing full well that they are thereby compromising the intellectual backbone of their commitment to Torah. Yet they feel that they must do so -- for they need a spirit in their Torah observance that is just generally not found in the world of MO. And this keeps happening again and again.
To be honest, I have met charedi individuals that do meet the highest standards of intellectual struggle, curiousity and honesty. There are possibilities of intellectual heights in the charedi world -- but it is not forthcoming. Any system that places great restrictions of the permitted conclusions must, by definition, restrict intellectual movement. The truth is that these charedi individuals who meet these high intellectual standards somewhat are restrained in their world. They have their reasons for their viewpoints and often it also a result of their intellectual honesty.
Yet finding this elusive spirit that attracts many individuals into the charedi world, even at the expense of their intellectual honesty, is elusive in the MO world -- and the question must be: why? One problem is that while many know what is being alluded to, this spirit is hard to define. Still is it inherent in MO that there be this lack of spirit or is there a problem within the practice of MO that yields this lack of spirit? And if it is the latter, how do we correct it? Do we want to correct it?
Last year, Nishma published an article that, to some extent, dealt with this problem. The article can be seen, on line, at the Blog of Garnel Ironheart at http://garnelironheart.blogspot.com/2007/11/new-approach-to-modern-orthodoxy.html
The fact is that this issue keeps arising again and again. It is time to start thinking about this lack of spirit in the world of Modern Orthodoxy.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
5 comments:
It's interesting to me that I face the same struggle, but from the other end of the Jewish spectrum. The reason that I am a Reform Jew is that I find it to be the most intellectually honest, and therefore the "truest" stream of Judaism (I'm not trying to open a debate about that - I know that most who read this will definitely not agree). But, the reality of the Reform movement often disappoints me. I wish that we could have more of the ruach that infuses the haredi world, or the dedication to learning which is so prevalent among the Orthodox.
If nothing else, this is yet another reminder to me that the idea that there is a "right" kind of Judaism is overly simplistic. Although I do believe Reform to be the truest form of Judaism, there are things that other streams of Judaism simply do better. The trick is for us to learn from them.
If I was feeling really bold, I might ask if the Orthodox have anything they feel that they can learn from Liberal Judaism...
Rabbi Rosenberg's initial comment reminds me of an article I once wrote concerning the views of R. Louis Jacobs. He argued that he could not abide by some traditional views of the Ikkarim, the fundamentals of faith, because they were intellectually problematic. Yet Rabbi Jacobs still maintained there was a value and necessity in halachic observance. I contended that this position was also intellectually untenable. Arguing for the necessity of halachic observance while denying concepts such as Torah MiSinai is, to me, as intellectually problematic as maintaining that one cannot believe in Torah MiSinai because it is intellectually problematic. What it comes down to, in my opinion, is that the beliefs of traditional Judaism are really the only arguments that can substantuate an unwavering commitment to Jewishness -- yet, under the microscope, these beliefs are challengeable. What to do? One answer is not to put the beliefs and ideas under the microscope. I cannot accept this answer. Another answer is to deny the fact that without the beliefs the whole system and process ultimately becomes challengeable and even meaningless. I believe that the results will still substantiate this assumption -- and I also am not one to tell someone they have to marry a Jew just because I feel it is important for Jewishness to continue and the sacrifice this person will make in giving up the love of a non-Jew is a correct one without some argument for it.
Basically I have seen and studied enough to know that there is wisdom in this system and there is value in it. I also know that there are questions. To reject the questions is not an option for me. To reject the system also is not an option for me. To ignore the confusion and controversy inherent in my living with the problems and paradoxes is also not an option to me. So I live with the question. And with always trying to understand. That is why, for me,I don't summarily dismiss the charedi world -- but in not dismissing it, I also consider the wisdom I may find in it that I am just not seeing. It is not simply that I choose mind over spirit but I also maintain an assumption that the reality of spirit may have within it some basis of the mind -- and I will continue to search for it.
And if I was feeling really bold, I might attempt to answer Rabbi Rosenberg's question last question...but maybe for a later comment.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
Well, this is now very far afield from the original posting, but I'd love to hear more from Rabbi Hecht about "putting beliefs under the microscope."
It seems to me to be very easy, intellectually speaking, to deny that there are any valid challenges to the base assumptions of traditional Judaism. It's also very easy, intellectually speaking, to see those challenges as a death-blow to Judaism. But, to acknowledge those challenges, while still being devout, is incredibly difficult, but incredibly important. I'm personally very interested how Jews from a traditional point of view deal with this.
While you've said, Rabbi Hecht, that you don't have any definitive answers to this conundrum, I'd love to hear more about how you approach it. I imagine that it would be interesting to many of, wherever we fall on the "spectrum" of Judaism.
Before responding to Rabbi Rosenberg's most recent comment, I should first complete my original comment and, feeling bold, express my toughts on what Orthodoxy can learn from Liberal Judaism, if anything?
When Liberal Judaism began in the early 1800's, a book was published with essays from leading Orthodox Rabbis on it. Of course, all condemened it. One essay, though, stood out for it maintained that there must have been a reason for the development of Liberal Judaism and Orthodoxy must respond to the problems within Orthodoxy that led to this development. I personally agree with this viewpoint and, at least, in this regard Orthodoxy can learn from Liberal Judaism.
There are alwasy reasons for why someone adopts new behaviour. One set of reasons may be defined as negative. This would be exemplified by arguments that certain behaviours are adopted because individuals are motivated by our baser, animalistic drives. On the other hand, we may also define these motivations in a positive light and, while still diagreeing with the behaviour adopted, can understand why someone will be motivated, by even what we would define as good drives, to undertake such actions. Movies that show an abused wife having an affair with a gentle and understanding other man would exemplify such a circumstance. While I would still disagree with the adopted behaviour, there is much I can still learn from this, with an attempt to fix the problem that may have led to this behaviour in the first place.
This is how I view Liberal Judaism. There are reasons why people adopted this system and there are reasons for why this system developed. I must take these reasons seriously. Some of the reasons, in themselves, I may still reject. I can say that there are reasons but I disagree with the factors and thoughts behind these reasons. There are other cases, though, where, while still diagreeing with the concluded behaviour, I can understand the reasons for the adoption of this behaviour and agree with the theory and ideas behind these reasons. In such cases, I have been introduced to new perspectives because of the advent of Liberal Judaism that instruct me as to what needs to be corrected within my own world. This, I beleive, has singificance.
We then enter into a possible next stage. Can I learn from how Liberal Judaism corrected the problem? Let us assume that Liberal Judaism introduced an innovation into Jewish life that was not non-halachic? Could I learn from them and even adopt this new behaviour? On one hand, I could say 'why not?' In that way, I would learn from Liberal Judaism. On the other hand, I could be concerned that one would learn thereby to adopt other behavious from Liberal Judaism that are halachically problematic. The adoption of this new halachically accepted behaviour could thus result in greater halachic problems within the greate perspective. This has been an issue within the Orthodox community since the advent of Liberal Judaism.
In the end, I guess I would have to say, as is often said the in the name of the Rambam, that we can learn from everyone. This does not mean we can learn everything from everyone and it also still recognized that this process of education may yield problems. People could learn what I would consider to be the wrong things. But then I am someone who lives in the grey and sees issues in everything -- so who says the process of learning is suppose to be easy. So, from my perspective, is it possible to learn something from Liberal Judaism? Yes, but there is a challenge in learning the proper lesson.
I guess, next time I will respond to Rabbi Rosenberg's last comment as I cannot now do so. I do wish to thank Rabbi Rosenberg for his comments. They open vistas for further investigation and thought -- which must continue to be our goal.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
I would now like to respond to Rabbi Rosenberg's last comment and with it, perhaps, allow myself to be somewhat introspective.
I guess the starting point for my whole perspective on life is "doubt". The basic question for me is not connected to what I believe but my very ability to believe, to know. I, the human being, is inherently fallable. As such, the challenge for me is always the question of how do I know. The reality is, though, that I also do not have the luxury of ignoring the question. I continuously practically must answer this question -- to the best of my ability. As such, while i have doubts -- basically in myself and my ability to know -- I also recognize that I still must make decisions and act upon them. It is within this framework that I live.
As such, I must rely upon my personal intuition and shikkul hada'at, weighing of alternatives, eventhough I know that I am influenced by my background, my personal history, by own biases and my own psychology. Rav Elchanan Wasserman once asked the question of why Aristotle, who the Rambam described as the greatest of secular thinkers, never found the God of Israel eventhough the Heavens clearly point to the existence of a Creator. He answered by saying that Aristotle was affected by his desires and thus could not see clearly, could not see the truth. With all respect, I question how Aristotle was suppose to see through this bias. Was Rav Elchanan not also affected by his upbringing? Does the concept of tinnok shenishba not point to the very fact that we are affected by our teachings? I know that I have a personal bias but, even given this reality, I must still make decisions and follow through on them. I can only do the best that I can.
At the same time, I also recognize that there is wisdom in others and the fact that I do not understand does not necessarily mean that the answers I may encounter are not necessarily wrong or to be rejected. This is my perspective on Chazal. I live with questions. Often I do not have answers. Often, as an Orthodox Jew, I would say that my faith comes down to a belief in the wisdom of Chazal and the fact that they had a better of idea of the elusive truth than I do. Is it possible that I am bias in my reliance on Chazal? Absolutely. I believe, though, that I have reasons for my trust in their wisdom. But still, as with all my reasons and thoughts, do I recognize my weaknesses? Yes. But what else am I to do.
In the end, the result is that I am not a judgemental person -- but not necessarily because I am a nice guy. The fact is that I am very critical of pompous individuals, especially those that believe they have knowledge of the absolute truth simply because they "believe." As I wrote in my comments on the Lubavitcher Mashichists, my real negative viewpoint towards them emerges from my perception that they lack of doubt in themselves and do not question this very belief. To me this is arrogance. I though cannot be critical of any individual who sincerely is struggling with trying to find the truth eventhough it is inherently elusive to us. To me, I believe that God judges us not on the conclusions we reach but the process we apply in trying to reach these conclusions. I guess, as an Orthodox Jew, I do believe that the application of honest processes will eventually lead to Orthodox Torah observance, but that is ethereal belief of mine. In this world, I know the struggle. I make my decisions because I have to. The result is that I can respect individuals who are also struggling who make variant decisions from my own. We live with the question.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
Post a Comment