(We should note a caveat that, of course, our posting of these posts on the Nishmablog site does not necessarily mean that we are in agreement with everything that Garnel writes nor do we necessarily advocate for his style or presentation. There is no doubt, though, much thought to what he has written.)
Rabbi Ben Hecht
*****
Guest posts from The Blog of Garnel Ironheart
What Does "Modern" Mean Anyway?
It seems to usually mean that MO's dress in modern clothes, have modern interests, appreciate modern secular knowledge, and so on. Unfortunately it also gets implied that the "modern" doesn't so much influence the "orthodox" as the other way around.
But the problem with the word "modern" is the same problem with the word "now". Neither really indicates much. If "now" is this instant in time, well by the time I've finished typing that the "now" that was is in my past, much further back by the time you read this.
It's the same with "modern". Folks back in First and Second Temple times didn't call themselves "ancient". That term was reserved for the original Egyptians and Hittites, possibly also our ancestors who came out of Egypt. And as much as we like to call ourselves a modern society nowadays, folks in the 23rd century will be talkin about us as living on "old Earth". Watch Star Trek if you don't believe me.
If this is the case, then the "modern" in "Modern Orthodox" cannot refer to simply being trendy with whatever is hip in secular society while maintaining an Orthodox approach to life. Rather, it should refer to the way Judaism interacts with the surrounding culture and how it takes from it elements of use to one's practice.
It seems that there's an intrinsic tension in the word "modern" since what it defines is always changing but in another respect it's always the same since it's the latest and greatest. How does one bring that concept into our practice of Judaism?
Years ago a Conservative rabbi (I think it might have been Elliot Dorf but don't quote me) compared the halachic decision making process to a game of chess. After the Torah was given and the Oral law develop the pieces moved into different positions as new situations came up. The Orthodox approach nowadays, he contended, was to place a glass dome over the board so the pieces could no longer move. The Conservatives, on the other hand, were still moving the pieces and allowing halacha to evolve.
He never mentioned the Reform but I could suggest that their approach was to clean all the pieces off and use the board as a coaster for their drinks.
I don't think this analogy is very accurate, though. For one thing, there is clearly continued motion of the pieces on the Orthodox chessboard. It's just that the Chareidi approach to moving the pieces is to create new rules that limit options, like allowing the queen to either go straight or diagonal but not both, or restricting the rooks to a maximum move of 4 spaces at a time. For them, the mesorah is defined as unchanging but this is clearly not correct if one looks at how normative Orthodox practice has evolved over the centuries.
For another, it could quite easily be proven that while the Conservatives are still moving the pieces but that they've tossed the rule book into the garbage. For them, queens (and this is not a backhanded reference to their recent legitimization of homosexual marriage) can move in any direction and jump like horses while pawns can move backwards and rooks can jump over bishops. The pieces and board are the same but the game being played is unrecognizable to someone familiar with the rules. For them, change is the whole point and the guiding light is secular society.
Where does that leave Modern Orthodoxy? Well, to persist with the chess analogy, both the Chareidi and the non-Orthodox approach leave an excellent option to be used: playing with the actual rules. The rules of chess which guide the motion of the pieces are unchanging. They are the "Modern" in Modern Orthodoxy.
What this means is developing a model of Orthodoxy based both on traditional halachic principles and academic scholarship to obtain a deeper and more accurate understanding of the mesorah. It means saying to the non-Orthodox that what they are playing is not chess, no matter how much they want to think it is and that they therefore cannot legitimately claim to be halachic and taken seriously. And it means saying to the Chareidim that their limitations on the rules, their adjusting of how the halacha is developed is also in violation of the rules.
Full halachic practice requires knowledge and confidence. It requires knowledge is that a person needs to know the sources he is dealing with, from the Torah through the Talmud down past all the Poskim. It requires confidence in that difficult situations or a lack of ready facts cause people to say "assur " just to be careful. This is not halachic practice. It is a cop-out.
Therefore it must be proposed that Modern Orthodoxy develop this model: a traditional model of halacha including the traditional rules for adjusting it to changing circumstances while maintaining absolute fealty to the mesorah.
Putting the Mystical Back In
Having said that, I do recognize the incredible importance and legitimacy of the mystical part of Judaism. When explaining it to people, I analogize it to neurosurgery. Kabbalah, I tell them, is the neurosurgery of medicine. Most doctors aren't neurosurgeons, nor do they have the skills or aptitude to be, but that doesn't mean neurosurgery isn't really important and that neurosurgeons aren't top-flight doctors. It's the same with Kabbalah. Real kabbalah isn't for everyone although everyone is aware that it exists and to become a real practitioner of it requires training and respect for the material that not everyone has an aptitude for.
I think what's also hurt my impression of Kabbalah is the contradiction between the description I've just given and the way "popular Kabbalah" has spread throughout Jewish society. It's annoying to be told something is forbidden, to reply "But the Shulchan Aruch says it's okay" and be told "Yes, but the Zohar says it isn't" or "The Arizal said it's not allowed". Real kabbalists are not like this, of course, but kabbalah isn't restricted to them anymore. It seems, for example, that it's a standard grade 9 course in every Chabad yeshivah. That allows them to say stuff like "Well maybe that's what 'X' says but the Rebbe said only the sod matters". And let's not bring up Madonna/Esther. Please, let's not.
Having said all that, it occurs to me that one of the biggest difference between Chareidism and Modern Orthodoxy is the learning and utilizing of kabbalah in the Jewish life. Both Misnagdim and Chasidim incorporate it into their studies and behaviours while MO's, perhaps because of the more rationalist bent of the movement, are aware and maybe have learned some kabbalah but in general it isn't as prevalent or influential. And I think that should change.
No, I'm not implying that MO should develop chaburot where people sit in a circle in the lotus position and scan the universe for the mystical energy sent out from Shamayim by the holy neshama of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. (Yes, I once met someone who claimed it was an important ritual, more important than davening but he also seemed unaware of the existence of nail clippers) However, understanding the role of Kabbalah in Jewish practice and promoting a greater awareness of its proper role in halachic decision making, appreciating the concepts of pshat, drash, remez and sod in Scriptural interpretation and encouring its study at the highest levels of MO institutions is a change the movement should make.
The reason for that I will bring in my next post.
The Needed Merger
The first is the mystical/messianic as exemplified by the writings of Rav Kook, zt"kl. Rav Kook's followers see the return to Israel as the aschalta d'geula and the resettling of the Land as the fulfillment of the Divine promise of a return of our nation to Israel at the end of days.
The second is the halachic approach as detailed in the writings of Rav Joseph B Soloveitchik, zt"l. Consistent with his style elsewhere, the Rav saw a return to Israel as necessary to create a fully functional halacha. After all, there are many mitzvos that can only be observed in the Land of Israel. There are many more than only become relevant when the Temple (may it be speedily rebuilt) is standing. Therefore a return to Israel and a building of a Torah state is necessary to bring about the full flowing of Judaism.
According to Rav Schwartz, the Kook camp is currently ascendant within Religious Zionism. Much of this occurred as a result of the Six Day War and the messianic fervour it unleashed amongst Rav Kook's followers, then led by his son Rav Tzvi Yehudah Kook, zt"l. As anyone following the political history of Israel knows, however, this fervour for the settling of a Greater Israel has consumed much of the movement. Whereas once upon a time Religious Zionism was literally about that - Zionism done al pi halacha - it is now a movement based on, centred around and obsessed with the chalutzim of Yesha.
Why does this matter? It is important to remember that for 1800 years Jews didn't not pray three times daily for the creation of a secular state in Israel that had a Jewish majority and some tokens of Jewish ritual in its public life. We did not pray for the creation of a society in which religious Jews either be parasites living off the teat of the State while condemning its very existence. And we did not pray for a country in which those who wish to see the rise of a Torah state would be confined to the edges of the political discourse and seen by the public majority as a fringe interest group.
Therefore, while the philosophy and influence of Rav Kook remains extremely important to the existence of Religious Zionism, it cannot by itself guide the movement into a thriving position. Religious Zionism, remember, was supposed to be the national alternative to Secular Zionism. While the latter posited creating a socialist state in Israel with a Jewish majority, the former was based on the idea of Jews returning to Israel to create a Torah state.
Is Religious Zionism in such a position today? Is there a Religious Zionist party that is relevant to national discourse even in its own community? Yes there is a party in the Knesset but tell me, what is its economic policy? What is its foreign policy? What is its environmental policy? If it were to accidentally win the election tomorrow, how would it govern?
Is it any wonder that Religious Zionists vote for the Likud more than they do for their own party? After all, the Likud is able to govern and Religious Zionists, worried about the State and life there, are more interested in supporting a party that can address many of their concerns than the poor Mafdal which only seems interested in Yesha.
And what exactly is the halachic approach of the Religious Zionist movement today? As opposed to the practical definition of Modern Orthodox - not Reformative, not Chareidi but somewhere in the middle - Religious Zionism is all too inclusive. From the chardalim on the right to the Shirah Chadashah crowd on the left, Religious Zionism seems to mean anyone who sees a value to the State other than just as an emergency lifeboat for the Jewish people.
But this is where my previous two posts come into the mix. Both Modern Orthodoxy and Religious Zionism, while important movements each on their own, are missing something important. For Modern Orthodoxy it's a connect to the deeper aspects of Judaism, the Chasidus of the matter as its were. For Religious Zionism there is a global unifying worldview that is missing.
In other words, Modern Orthodoxy needs the depth and richness of Rav Kook's approach to Jewish thought and Shivas Tzion. Religious Zionism needs a consistent halachic approach so that it can present a vision of a Torah society that is palatable and plausible for the population. Each movement has what the other is lacking.
This is my vision, a counterweight to the strong Chareidi influence that is constantly working to overwhelming all other Orthodox groups and create a monolithic Torah-based society from their views and opinions alone. I even have a name for such a community: Navonim, as in the verse "Surely a wise and discerning people is this great nation!" (Deuteronomy 4:6)
Navonim because I believe that God, while He demands our respect and awe, does not so much want us to tremble at His world as to grasp at it, study it, understand it and apply it in the world He has put us in. He wants an intelligent practice of Judaism that leads to a confident Jew who doesn't have to hide from the temptations of the world because he knows that the Torah puts us above all that.
A merger between the philosophies of Modern Orthodoxy and Religious Zionism would create such a Judaism.
