25 Feb 2009

The irrelevance of the "revelation argument"

My reading over the last couple of days have been mired in troubling matters such as traditional rabbinical views about the relationship of our Torah text to what Moses did or not receive. I was going to blog about why, despite varying Orthodox views about what was written when and by whom, Masorti Judaism has seemed to given up on any relevant notion of "Torah min Hashamayim". In fact, I have meant to write about it since I heard (Masorti) Rabbi Wittenberg talk at Limmud, espousing views so close as to be indistinguishable from Reform. At the time, his views kept me up half the night. However, quite frankly, the rabbinic views themselves are giving me much too much of a headache to think clearly.

As such, I'll stick to much safer ground. Let us assume the whole Torah was dictated to Moses on Mount Sinai at the time he was first given the Ten Commandments. This, despite, being plenty of machloket in the mefarshim in last and this week's sidrot. For example, this week we have the classic disagreement about when Moses was given the commandments about the Mishkan. Do we go like Ramban and say that those instructions were given before the golden calf (i.e. when he got first set of luchot)? Or do we say like Rashi/ Rambam that they were given after the golden calf (i.e. second time around on Yom Kippur)? However, let us ignore that and assume he got the whole Torah at once. Then what?

Let us also assume that the 'revelation argument' the kiruv movements use, does prove one important point. Let us make what I feel to be an uncontroversial point. That is: if 600,000 men claimed to hear G-d's voice and weren't lying, and weren't deluded, then it actually was G-d they heard. Of course, it is the all-important italicised if which I'd usually object they haven't yet shown. However, let us concede the point as I don't have any paracetamol handy. Then what?

Here I want to take a liberty and concede two further points that no-one has actually made. To be more precise, they are ones I suspect that they hold but have been not articulated or argued for. They are: 1) if G-d wills something then it is something we should do and we don't just think he is a tyrant that holds a mountain over our head 2) we know that something is G-d's will if we first establish that we have heard it 'from G-d'. If no-one makes these assumptions, I apologise. However, if you don't, I fail to understand why 600,000 men merely hearing something from G-d, should make the slightest difference to me. But to avoid my head exploding its contents onto my creme sofa, I'll accept the points without argument. Then what?

"Then" so the interlocutor says smugly, "we have shown that the Torah is divine, is true and so we have to follow it". Phew!!! After making all those concessions, we have finally got to what we after. Or have we? The one problem with any of these arguments is the rather inconvenient fact of the Rabbinic tradition. Wouldn't it be so much simpler if we were all Karaites?

A widely-accepted opinion in the oral law that it was, in fact, only the first two commandments that the assembled masses heard from G-d. They couldn't hear the other commandments without dying and so had to learn them from Moses himself. At the time, they only heard the sound of the shofar and the rumblings of thunder etc. So, if the argument is about the testimony of thousands to the word of G-d, then not many of G-d's words got this testimony. In fact, Rambam intimates that Bnei Yisrael were only able to 'hear' these two because they are precisely the kind of commands they didn't need to hear from G-d. The prophet, he says, has no advantage over them in respect of knowing these are Divine commandments.

What then about the rest of Torah? How do I know it is an accurate representation of G-d's will? Why was it authoritative then and why is it so to this day? Why should we walk in G-d's ways and how does this text guide us in that? Not because we 'heard it from G-d' because we didn't. In fact, Rambam says the method of transmission between G-d and prophets is irrelevant anyway. The point we need to believe is that they had access to 'Divine Knowledge' and their writings are not merely their own ideas and conceptions. Point 2 above is backwards. We know something is 'from G-d' by knowing his will So why believe this? To this, the 'revelation argument' is simply irrelevant.

Which brings me back to Masorti. I challenged Rabbi Wittenberg at Limmud with the following point. Kiruv organisations assert that belief x has been proved true ,whilst you stand up and say that evidence has unfortunately proved this false. Yet, you're both so eager to prove a 'fact' about what people did or not hear, that you forget to say anything theologically or philosophically relevant about "Torah min hashamayim". What is the view that you are accepting or rejecting? What did the rabbis mean when they said that the Torah was ('literally') divine: what makes something divine and on what basis did they believe the Torah met this criteria? If you don't address this, you haven't shown anything. (He avoided the question)

I suppose the kiruv groups have one advantage over Masorti. At least they believe in the divinity of the Torah even if they have given me no reason why they should.

23 Feb 2009

The confessions of a "Neo-Chassid": Part 1

I

As some of you may know, I have an ambivalence about all things mystical. Maybe, however, this will surprise you as I tend to get a bit type-cast. When I told my old housemate (only half jokingly)that if I were to label myself it would have to be “neo-chassid” he would laugh and basically accuse me to telling fibs.

He: “You know you are not, you don't have a Chassidic bone in your body, you are always making objections”

I: “I only object when they are led to talk nonsense”

He: “But they can’t help but talk nonsense”

I: “Often, perhaps. But necessarily? Maybe. I don’t know but I hope not”

He, as an exceedingly “Modern Orthodox” Jew, can’t necessarily assign any value to such pursuits as mussar, Chassidut or the simple spirituality and faith. Modern Orthodoxy tends to be quite elitist focusing, as it does, on Talmud Torah, the pursuit of philosophy and other rational endeavours. For some, it is very emotionally and intellectually satisfying.  However, Modern Orthodoxy doesn’t fare well amongst the masses which, on the whole, leads to one of two outcomes. One is that they will start pursuing a meaningless Orthopraxy simply on the basis “this is how things are done”. The other is that they will find more spiritually satisfying options in the form of Chareidi Judaism, Zen Buddhism or non-Orthodox forms of Judaism. 

Whilst I may sociologically be a Modern Orthodox Jew, I cannot on principle share this rationalist vision of Judaism. I couldn't live the ascetic life of a philosopher, such as a Rambam, or a Brisker such as the Solovei(t)chiks (both Chareidi and non-Chareidi versions).  I am not the 'disembodied head' that so many ancient and new rabbis call upon you to be.  I should live Judaism in the real world, in every act, with all my faculties. Why should I see G-d as completely (and only) transcendent, or see the only form of Devekut as being in text-study, or live wholly inside the a-historical world of the bet midrash?  Instead, I should see G-d as intimately involved in my life, become close to Him through performance of the mitzvot and see G-d's redemptive action through history.

II

The following is a wonderful description, from 'The Wind in the Willows' of the mystical experience, the having of which is the pre-requisite for religion making sense:

“Then suddenly the Mole felt a great Awe fall upon him, an awe that turned his muscles to water, bowed his head, and rooted his feet to the ground. It was no panic terror- indeed he felt wonderfully at peace and happy- but it was an awe that smote him and held him and, without seeing, he knew it could only mean that some August presence was very, very near. With difficulty he turned to look for his friend [Ratty], and saw him at his side cowed, stricken, and trembling violently. And still there was utter silence in the populous bird-haunted branches around them; and still the light grew and grew."

In those moments of inspiration we feel G-d's nearness and meaning pervading creation.  We are both at peace and simultaneously trembling.  We feel both love of G-d and fear of G-d.  We feel like the pinnacle of creation and like a speck of dust in an infinite universe.

We all get these moments of inspiration.  I do when I look up at the stars on a summers night.  When I do so, I am looking directly into the past and at the creation of the world.  I'm seeing the star as it was millions upon millions of years ago, as it has taken the light that long to get here.  It may have gone supernova by now and not even exist any more!  This fills me with awe and wonder for the universe and makes me want to shout:  

"The heavens recount the glory of G-d and the firmament declares the work of His hands... There need be no speech, nor words; their voice is heard without it... where the world of man ends, their words speak, 'He has sent a tent in them for the orb of the sun'"

As I say, everyone has these experiences.  Richard Dawkins is right that an atheist can still experience wonder at the universe.  It is not, in itself, a cognitive endeavour an so is open to all.  However, the key point is how we respond to such an experience.  How is that experience translated?  What are its consequences?  Whilst the above experience of creation is the start of a religion it is not the end.  We must bear in mind that:

"He who is walking by the way and studies and breaks off his study and exclaims: 'How beautiful is this tree! 'How fine is that field!' is regarded as he had sinned against his own soul"

I will expound upon that quote in a later post in this series.  However, at present it means we must examine the link between the experience of creation and the outcome of revelation. Having experience this awe, are we led to accept that "the ordinances of G-d are truth, they are eternally just" or do we thereafter build a Golden Calf?  Will we adequately express it in our prayer, or will we simply interpret the experience how we want?  Can we accurately represent it in our philosophy or will we simply talk nonsense? 

One response I believe is correct is the one emphasised by chassidut.   When we have that experience we feel 'close' to G-d and ultimately, we should experience this 'heavenly fire' the whole time.    However, this 'heavenly fire only resides on an altar made from the ground' (so Matisyahu sings).   As such, we should elevate both ourselves and the physical world through all our actions.  We should see the G-dliness in all things.  The whole world should be utilised in G-d's service.  This way the experience described above is not just a transitory inspiration but is perpetuated through everything that we do. 

III

The chassidic movement started in protest to the elitism of Judaism at the time.  The 'few' were learning 24/7  whilst the 'many' were completely disconnected from Judaism.  The mitnagdim were incredibly ascetic- such as fasting Monday and Thursdays- which left them out of touch with the lives of ordinary people.  The lay folk were liable to be swept along with false messiahs such as Shebbati Zvi and the rabbinic scholars were unable to give political leadership when this dream fell apart.

Against this background, the Chassidim provided a religion that was much more relevant, more meaningful and more accessible through people's everyday lives.   One could be ecstatic in prayer and sing, dance and cartwheel.  One could find meaning in your work and other 'mundane' activities.  One could experience G-d through the world.  As the Ba'al Shem Tov said, it is perfectly acceptable to admire the beauty of a woman so long as that 'leads you back to the source'.  Amen to that!  The popularisation of Judaism was naturally going to import popular superstitions into a pristine Judaism.  However, one should easily assent to their overall vision of Judaism.

These days it is almost impossible to tell between the chassidic and chareidi worlds.  The chareidi world has imported certain superstitious beliefs of the chassidim, and the chassidim have adopted the ascetic lifestyle of the chareidim.  Absolutely, the Vilna Gaon was right to insist that the they should fully keep with halacha and not be 'lax with their prayer times'.  I am trebly perplexed as anyone by the concept of an 'aveira lishma'.  However, this shouldn't have meant that it is forced to adopt a lifestyle only appropriate for the 'few' than for the 'many'.  G-d should be experienced through every aspect of a person's life as was the original intention of chassidut.

IV

The above has partly explained why I view 'Chassidut' as a hashkafa one should hold, as opposed to rationalist Judaism.  This may beg the question for some of you as to where I stand vis-a-vis rationalist philosophers such as Rambam and Soloveitchik.  As far as you were aware, these were major influences on me and I always quote them.  This is absolutely true.  You probably inferred from this that I was a rationalist, which may leave you confused now. 

The full answer will be forthcoming in future posts.  Suffice it to say here that just because I'm not a rationalist, doesn't give any license whatsoever to be irrational.  Where one has to philosophise or intellectualise Judaism, one should do so like Rambam and Soloveitchik.  Such intellectualisation has to be done in somewhat foreign terms and should at least use people who know how to use these terms!  However, intellectualisation isn't the goal of Judaism.  We shouldn't become 'disembodied heads' but instead, the end point requires consummation in the world.

V

Come back to see future posts  where I discuss:

  • How one can talk about a 'mystical experience'
  • Why certain chassidic or kabbalistic beliefs taught today result in nonsense
  • The appropriate context for such beliefs.
  • The difference between rabbinic and pre-rabbinic Judaism (as evidence by the Fast of Tevet) and how this relates to a Chassidic Hashkafa
  • How the views of Rambam, Soloveitchik and Hirsh relate this hashkafa
  • Why, in galut, I don't think I could ever accept the haskafa that I strive to accept.

One of the greatest Jewish philosophers of the last century, Franz Rosensweig, used a very simple device in his book "Star of Redemption".  On three on the points he laid out three key elements: G-d, man and the world.  On the intervening prongs he laid out the relations between them.  The relation between G-d and the world is creation; the relation between G-d and man is revelation; and the relation between man and the world is redemption

I think this is a correct characterisation: redemption is a matter of you and the world being correctly aligned and in harmony.  It is one where you have the 'correct vision' with regard to the world and act accordingly; and also where the world is such that this is possible.  This relationship is the chassidic-like one I am discussing.  Unfortunately, we will see that in a pre-redeemed world, we cannot artificially manufacture this relationship without making errors regarding creation or revelation.  Thus, while in a pre-redeemed world I could not be chassidic, it gives the most sublime notion of what redemption itself consists in.

16 Feb 2009

What is Hamas?

Theft is Hamas.  Murder is Hamas. Taking women simply because they are 'fair' is Hamas. Brutality to creatures with inferior strength to your own is Hamas.  Eating meat (outside of sacrificial use) is technically Hamas.

Hamas, in a funny turn of events, is  a halachic category that encompasses all the sins above: 

This going after something which is beyond one's jurisdiction and ontic sphere is called hamas.  Hamas is the universal act of interfering with somebody else's right and prerogatives, usurping something that is not mine, the act of overreaching oneself and reaching out to the non-self. (Soloveitchik, EEM, 33)

And what is the biggest act of Hamas?

Murder is hamas, for if I rob another person of his life which was granted to him by G-d... [he] takes illegitimate possession of divine rights. (Soloveitchik, EEM, 43)

Now, names are certainly signs in identifying the spiritual characteristic of the thing named.  This leads us to ponder which organisation we know whose acts fall under the sin that is Hamas?

13 Feb 2009

What I hate most about the Credit Crunch

.....The Bloody Adverts.

It's been going on for months now.  It started before people talked the problem into existence. 

  • "Beat the credit crunch"
  • "Come to our credit crunch supper"
  • "Credit Crunch Credit Card"
  • "Buy a bed for £20,000 when usually it'd be £10,000 just to show the credit crunch where it's at". 

If I hear just one more credit crunch advert- and if annoying adverts are a justifiable reason to commit suicide- then I may commit suicide.  If it were simply done on utility, I'd have to find a method of death less painful than listening to the radio.

And on another note... buzz off Darwin and die.  What has this to do with the credit crunch? Nothing, but he is blocking our airwaves.

11 Feb 2009

Please not Bibi, Please no, Please

The title sounds like it should be read in a mock-baby voice. Whilst not the intention when deciding to write about this, it is indeed an uncontrollable cry. My response, rather than specifically being rational, is at base a simple reaction to the a gross unfairness of a world in which Benjamin Netanyahu could lead our Jewish, democratic state? Maybe having such a leader will, Chas v'Salom, precipitate the end of such a state itself.

It is an unfortunate side effect of 'proportional representation' that in a deeply fragmented society, the winners of a general election are not necessarily the winners of the elections! The leader of the party that wins the most votes will not necessarily be able to form a government. In this case, Livni and Kadima may win the most seats in parliament but will end up in opposition. There are so many parties on so many issues for so many interest groups, that even the main parties will only get 30 or so seats, out of 120 in the Knesset. You only then get into government through coalition with many, many of the smaller parties. There is no guarantee that the main party will, and ample evidence they will not, be able to do this.

These small parties get the deciding vote as to who leads and therefore, proportional representation leads to disproportional influence of these groups. As such, you may doubly end up not getting what you voted for. Firstly, the group that most people want end up in opposition. Secondly, even if those you voted for get into government, you will not be able to recognise them post-election. To get the smaller parties to agree to join them, you basically have to cede your policies to theirs. They often get their votes on the basis of a single issue and this is what the main party will have to cede some ground on. Often this will have benign or amusing effect. Only in Israel could "The Pensioners Party" have such sway over governmental policy!

However, in this case it leads to Bibi being PM!! He is the most able to form a coalition as he the most willing to give up on any principles he has to gain and hold on to power. One thing that this will mean, although I won't go into detail here, is an a major step backwards from the peace process. This isn't do with the fact that he is 'right-wing' as it often only those on the 'right' that can make peace. Nor is it specifically to with his views. If it suited him, he would try make peace by going back on his word about a United Jerusalem in a second. The problem is, is that he will have to go into coalition with the possibly racist Avigdor Lieberman and his Yisrael Beiteinu. Their minority view- one which hardly anyone accepts or voted for- will have a disproportional influence. It will only serve to amplify Netanyahu's hawkish tendencies.

However, in the short term, his policies will not be all that different from anyone else's. They would all continue the disastrous policy of maintaining the status quo with regards to settlements until such a peace deal is made. Such a policy leads to the slow but sure death of the Zionist dream. Netanyahu may (sadly) put off the surgery but everyone will be dealing with the symptoms of the illness in the same way.

More worryingly about Bibi becoming PM in the short term, is his economic policies. With all the attention on the recent war in Gaza, people have forgotten about social issues. These are things which a) Netanyahu is more principled about (for the worse) and b) where policies will have more immediate effects. Moreover, Netanyahu already has a record in this area and people know (but have forgotten or ignored) what he is capable of. This, more than anything else, puts into doubt the building of a Jewish society.

However, rather than saying anything myself, I will just copy an article by Rabbi Michael Melchior who heads the only religious party in Israel- Meimad. Yes, there are many parties with rabbis in or have the word 'religious' in their title. But they are just one more interest group trying to secure a) money for their yeshivot b) a hawkish foreign policy c) exemption from army service d) control over the institutional Bet Din and Chief Rabbinate etc. Who though is fighting for a Jewish character of society? This is what Meimad, founded by Rav Yehuda Amital, tries to do. Meimad is an acronym for "Jewish State, Democratic State".

Here is what R' Melchior said in 2004 in relation to Bibi's economic policies (originally from Ha'aretz):

"The group of children that gathered around us seemed highly amused. Some of the children held out syringes they had collected n a nearby yard, and demonstrated how to inject drugs "like dults." Others cursed the state and everything to do with it. It is hard to blame them: It is not pleasant seeing a closed community center. Near the gravel road the sewage flowed freely, and the neighbor from the nearby house told us about the complex "ATM" network or selling drugs, which is open for business there from the afternoon to the next morning.

Presumably, the million Israelis that went abroad this summer will not encounter such a scene. It is hiding across the road, two kilometers from Ben-Gurion Airport. During take off and landing it is hard to detect the squalid hovels, the dirt and drugs of the town of Lod, but to its residents it is a painful, depressing everyday reality.

In recent years there have been serious attempts to change the situation and improve the town's image. But just when it seemed that the town was on the right course and had a chance, some of the authorities stopped their activity and now the collapse and destruction loom closer than ever. Israel, which defines itself as "a Jewish Democratic state," has become one of the most immoral states in the Western world.

In one field Israel could win a gold medal, although not in Athens. It is in the income gaps between society's top tier and the lower tiers. These gaps compromise human dignity, and cast grave doubt on our right to be called a Jewish democratic society.

It is not a decree of fate. Only a few years ago Israel was at the top of the education pyramid. The Israeli health system also won a worldwide reputation, even though the economic situation was worse than it is today.

We live in a society in which a million and a quarter people - 40 percent of them working people - are below the poverty line. This is a society that abandons 366,000 of its children-at-risk and throws them into the street; a society that treats its foreign workers like animals; a society that despises its elderly and sends them to rummage through the garbage. It is a society, according to information given the Knesset Committee for Children's Rights, where in the absence of standards, a social worker has to devote an average of two minutes to a family in distress. It is a society among the leaders in the world trafficking in women. Such a society is neither Jewish nor democratic.

The magic solution that the Israeli government has found for this situation is bulimic privatization, taken from the economic school of the finance minister. In recent years Israeli society has been privatizing itself to death. The damages of this dangerous trend are obvious in every direction. Thus, for example, Jewish communities abroad were enlisted to subsidize summer camps for needy children. The days go by, a year passes, and in time fashions change. The amount of money communities gave this year dwindled significantly - the number of children at camps was reduced this summer by two-thirds. By means of the privatization, the government of Israel is washing its hands of its minimal social responsibilities. In the best tradition of the shtetl of the Jewish community in exile, the government leaves education, health and welfare to the mercies f the rich philanthropists.

True, charity has always been the main concern of the Jewish community. But this is not what the State of Israel was meant to be. The Jewish state is supposed to and ought to take care of all its citizens, not only the rich ones, so that they can give their children a good education, and provide all the citizens with health and social services that would preserve their welfare and dignity. Instead of a rule of justice, a rule of charity is being established, based on alms collection and mutual back scratching.

In the beggar state there is no place for single mothers, elderly or handicapped people. The philanthropists prefer to give their money to grandiose marble buildings, or ambulances with their names inscribed on them. In the beggar state the Knesset enacts a "feeding law," which ensures that a small percentage of the school children (who of course are immediately branded with wretched poverty) can have one warm meal a day. A considerable part of this law - hard to believe, but a majority of the Knesset members decided this - will be financed by philanthropists. And what will happen when they prefer to direct their contributions toward other causes?

Beyond the immediate risk of the collapse of the education, health and welfare services, those who need them - the majority of the population - are losing their voice. Where there is privatization, there is no responsible minister, and consequently the children at risk no longer have a mouth at the cabinet table.

Those in the upper class can wait two more years for the tax benefits which the magician Benjamin Netanyahu promised them. Instead of reducing the taxes, the government would have done better to direct those NIS 2.5 billion to the health services, the single mothers and the children at risk. Had it done so, perhaps the old couple who "thanked" Netanyahu before committing suicide due to their economic distress could have thanked him in person. Had it done so, the government could have boasted that it was heading a Jewish, democratic state."

5 Feb 2009

Songs, role-play and some weird Neil-isms

I'm slightly odd- I know- but I won't play a song that I cannot imagine writing and/or performing.  Still in my childish world of role play, I imagine that I'm the greatest, most varied and most musically talented song-writer of all time.  G-d forbid, that anyone actually has to hear me sing.  Whilst I may have somewhat of a heavenly, angelic quality; this is not something that is manifested in my voice.  Even when I role play (and no, not with a hairbrush in front of the mirror), I don't sing out-loud because that would bring me back to reality with a bump!

Imagining to be a popstar is not- I dare say- an unusual thing.  However, in my case it rather restricts what music I can listen to.  Most people, I imagine, will be able to see themselves singing a song if they happen to like it.  However,  I have to take into account what my grandma would think were she to see me on TV, whether by singing it I'd be 'keeping it real' and also, whether it'd be consonant with my public image as a kippa-wearing Jew (obv. only performing at a festival where I wouldn't be responsible for mixed dancing). 

Given this, you will understand that I was absolutely gutted when a couple of years ago, my housemate told me that Hotel California was an addiction to going to a brothel etc.  I just could no longer sing it in good faith.  There are some songs, (e.g. by Meatloaf or The Streets), that aren't morally bad per se, and are more akin to storytelling than personal confessions, but where I couldn't personally justify writing those lyrics.  In such cases, I can get away with telling the adoring crowd (every time I sing it) that I wrote it before I became religious and should be taken in the right spirit.  However, if I judge that the content of a song is actually morally wrong, I could not see it.  So no more Hotel California.

As it turns out my friend was wrong about what it meant, or at least he wasn't right..  At some point later I was told that it was actually about a drug rehabilitation centre.  Before writing this I wanted to check that this was true, and found this probably wasn't the actual meaning either.  It might not have one.  When asked Don Henley said the following (two different occasions):

It was really about the excesses of American culture and certain girls we knew. But it was also about the uneasy balance between art and commerce

It's a song about the dark underbelly of the American Dream, and about excess in America which was something we knew about

Okay, so something about excess and art and commerce and something and something else.  Weirder interpretations than the brothel one have tied the song down to advocating a particular variety of satanism.  The truth is that the individual lyrics probably don't mean a whole lot and if they do, I luckily don't know that meaning.

Of course, there is still one obstacle I need to cross.  It does need to mean something for me in order to sing it and this meaning must 'keep it real'.  Given the 'death of the author', it doesn't matter what was going though the songwriter's mind at the time.  It only mattered above 'what the song was about' because I couldn't then see the song in a different way. The words seemed inevitably to bring a particular thought to mind.  When a song is a blank canvas, however, I can then give the song a plausible meaning depending on the words.

There are different ways of doing this, of course.  Sometimes it just requires a slash.  Take Muse's "A Dying Atheist", change it to "A Dying A/Theist" and then the song can have its pretty obvious pshat.  Others require choosing the 'target' of the song such as with The Arctic Monkey's "Perhaps vampire is a bit strong but..."  Which group of big-shots who pretend to stand by us but spend their time "thinking about things, but not actually doing those things" do you know?

Sometimes, these changes require a bit of creative storytelling and midrashic interpretation to get the right fit between words and meaning.  However, sometimes you, your meaning and the words merge effortlessly into one another.  Linkin Park's "Numb" and me are existentially bound together.  It was me who was meant to write it. I have considered changing the name of the song to 'Imitatio Dei' and placing those words where they sing "Caught in the Undertow".  However, those are mere quibbles.  I have spent many a 4 minutes bellowing this at G-d, expressing exactly what I sometimes want to say at him.

So my music collection is of a reasonable size after all  

2 Feb 2009

Rabbinic fashion and the art of (davka) (not specifically) looking frum

"Moses' streimel must have been darn inconvenient in the desert.  Anyway, he was very brave to risk it crossing the Reed Sea; a bit of spray and that'd be £4000 down the toilet"

It's this kind of Biblical Criticism that should keep us good Orthodox Jews far away from academia and their heretical ways.  You have been warned of the misleading moral axioms, and mocking ways, that underlie a study of the history of Judaism.  Even having taken on this criticism, we must be astounded by the none-too-Orthodox ways of the past. 

This is so, at least in the manner of dress.  Examine old photos of rabbonim and you will not find a Borsalino in sight.  You are far more likely to find turbans and ottoman-style shoes than you are to find shtreimals and stockings.  Whilst we- today- see a vast uniformity in the frum velt; the old photos show far more individuality and variety than we would ever expect.  These days we open the 'rabbi page' of Hamodia and know exactly what to expect- the same as last week (Purim excluded, of course).  One could reprint the same pictures, change the captions, change 'bris' to 'chasuna' and one wouldn't notice the difference.

Sure, the Rabonim in the old photos do not look like a shmock like myself in jeans and a T-shirt.  They would endeavour to look smart and respectable and thus, distinguish themselves from the general run of men.  There is no better of example of this than the picture of the Rebbe below in his pressed Western suits and stylish creme hat!  It is certainly the case that were Rambam to time travel to the modern world, he would be far more comfortable speaking to a chareidi person dressed as they are, than to myself in my casual clothes.  This is a point ably made in "One above and seven below: a consumer's guide to Orthodox Judaism from the perspective of the Chareidim" of which I read an extract in Hamodia.  This indeed is an imperative I should take to dress in a way such that I would be happy to meet the King of Kings.

However, what Yechezkel Hirshman (the author of the aforementioned book) may not have emphasized is that this gives us no reason to dress in a chareidi or chassidic (as opposed to modern) way.   There is no need to davka look Jewish.  There is no reason dress in a Jewish way- a universal style that transcends culture, country or time.  As is often pointed out, this Jewish way is simply the style of Polish noblemen of a few hundred years ago. 

The Rabbis of old presumably followed the edict 'do not walk after the ways of the gentiles'- they didn't follow every fashion and especially kept far away from ones with relation to idolatrous practices.  However, this didn't mean that they should davka dress differently to the surrounding culture.  In fact, they may very well- like Hirsch- have had some derech eretz and intentionally dressed in the (respectable) manner of the time.  See Emden's Renaissance clothing; Hirsch and British Chief Rabbi's clergyman clothing, the Rebbe's fashionable French ware and the Sdei Chemed's Ottoman finery.

You will too find- although I haven't reproduced them here- that even when a Rebbe of a particular chassidic group wore what you would expect them to, there Chassidim do not.  The chassidim themselves (in the 30s) wore Western clothing.  Why then the change?  Why, for example, did the Rebbe (although he wasn't Rebbe at the time) go from a guy known to the Seridei Aish as the "well dressed young man at the back of my lectures" to dressing in the manner we know him to have done? 

This change is one that has gone hand-in-hand with a change in Judaism itself and its attitude to the outside world.  Gone are the glory days when three Gedolei Yisrael- The Rav (Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik), The Rebbe (Rabbi Schneerson) and Rav Hutner- could all be found attending the same lecture at the University of Berlin.  Three great rabbis- three great friends- who went on to lead three very different (and sometimes antagonistic) kinds of Judaism, all to be found in the same lecture hall of a secular university!!  Who would have thought?  Sure, this was pre-Holocaust and a very different kind of world.  Plus, no doubt the Rebbe had good reasons for his decisions.  Only through securing a strong personal identity could his group have the strength to go out in the world in the way they have done.  Still, it's a great shame.

Seperate? Judaism has always been this.  Seperatist?  Well, there's a question.

---------

 

rebbe2  rebbe

Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson- The Seventh Lubavitcher Rebbe.  Leading the Lubavitch movement in an era when it has become the most inclusive, most extensive and geographically expansice chassidic group ever.  He is  the living/the temporarily dead/bechezkat/hopefully the/ a false/ a failed/ never claimed to be (delete as appropriate) messiah.

The picture on the left situates him perfectly in early twentieth century France in the "Jardin du Luxembourg".  The picture on the right, I think, was taken in Berlin.  Very stylish

 

 hirsch

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch- Gaon of the 19th Century who created a towering commentary on Chumash, tehillim and Siddur; as well as creating a monumental philosophical work on the reasons for the commandments.  A critique of both rationalism and Kabbalah, he took a keen interest in both the grammatical and ethical aspects of Judaism. 

A proponent of "Torah im derech eretz" and creator of a "Neo-Orthodoxy" he was a Religious Humanist.  Interestingly, despite his written testimony to the contrary he only believed in studying secular subjects for 'parnasa' and that 'Torah im derech eretz' was a concession to his time.

He has a striking resemblance to a young athletic Henry VIII.  However, his morality and spiritual grandeur was far in excess of any known monarch.

 

luzatto

Rabbi Samuel Luzatto (The Shadal)- Expert talmudist, grammatician, and poet of the Nineteenth Century.  He wrote aessays, Hebrew Grammar, a commentary of the Targum, a collection of piyyutim, a commentary on the Petntateuch and many of the prophets, as well as many essay on topics such as Kabbalah.

He was a fierce proponent of the style of Biblical and Talmudical Judaism as opposed to the more philosophical understandings of Rambam and Ibn Ezra.  He was the first from a traditional perspective to question authorship of Kohelet and The Zohar.

He looks very gentrified!

 

Chaim hoseph david azulai 

Rabbi Chaim Joseph David Azulai ("The Chida")- Student of the Ohr ha- Chaim, he was a strict talmudist and kabbalist of the 18th Century.  His scholarship encompassed the whole range of Judaism and earned him the right to be emissary of the small Jewish community in the Land of Israel.  This meant he was a great Jewish traveller of the day taking him places such as Tunisia, Britain and Amsterdam.

His most famous contribition was his Shem ha-Gedolim, inspired by an interest in the history of Rabbinic literature.  The work is a scientific travel guide of his journeys, recording information about all the works and their authors of all the places he visited.  There is valuable information that would otherwise be lost.

  shimon bar yochai

Shimon Bar Yochai- One of the greatest and most famous talmudic rabbis whose oral tradition was later incorporated in The Zohar in the 13th Century.  As such, he is seen as a major torch bearer of kabbalah.

After many years in a cave with his son, he came out and almost destroyed the world due to his insistence that people should be in kollel full-time.  G-d sent him back to the cave for another year to mature.  After this, he went through some more lessons in order to answer a question that eerily preceeds Monty Python's "What did the Romans ever do for us?" scene.

He is included here, not because the picture is an accurate portrayal of how he looked or what clothes he wore.  Instead, it reflects the attitudes to fashion of the artists at the time in which it was drawn.

meir bar ilan  

Rabbi Meir Bar-Ilan- info to follow

 

hermann adler

Rabbi Herman Adler- info to follow

 

emden

Rabbi Jacob Emden- info to follow

 

 Tiferet yisrael

Rabbi Lipschitz (the Tiferet Yisrael)- info to follow

nathan adler

Rabbi Marcus Adler- info to follow

sdei chemed

Sdei Chemed- info to follow