© Isi J. Leibler, 1991

Published jointly by World Jewish Congress 501 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10022 and Australian Institute of Jewish Affairs GPO Box 5402 CC, Melbourne, Vic. Australia 3001

Produced in Australia

ISBN 0 646 02848 0 PREFACE

is monograph has its genesis in an article titled 'Moderation and Zealotry' which was widely published a few years ago in the international Jewish media. It created more interest than anything I have ever written and was translated into at least four languages.

I have completely revised and expanded that article, and have made major modifications of the views expressed in the original. I may displease some readers, who will disagree with one aspect or another of my assess- ment. I stress, however, that the views expressed are exclusively my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publishers - the World Jewish Congress and the Australian Institute of Jewish Affairs.

My intention is to stimulate thought and perhaps encourage action in relation to a burning issue which will undoubtedly have a major bearing on the future of the Jewish people.

ISI LEIBLER

Av5751 August 1991 PREFACE

When I wrote this monograph five years ago I warned that religious national extremism represented the greatest threat to the Jewish people. But nobody could have foreseen the ultimate disaster of Yitzhak Rabin's assassination by a religious national extremist. Yet, in retrospect, we can now see that the seeds of that disaster were sown many years ago. It is as if the lines of the Psalm were reversed: It has not been a case of Hazorim b'dimah, b'rinah yiksoru - "They that sow in tears, shall reap in joy" but rather, to our profound national sorrow, "They that sow in joy, shall reap in tears".

It is now clearer than ever before that it was the "joy", the euphoria and religious exultation which followed the 1967 Six Day War, which brought us undone. For it was not the election of a Labor Government committed to territorial concessions to the Palestinian Arabs in Yehudah and Shomron which suddenly brought mourning and tragedy upon the House of . Those political changes merely accelerated the influence of the fanatical minority who had been poisoning the national religious camp for a whole generation.

What is to be done? This supplement reviews the chain of events which brought us to this low point in Jewish history and calls for actions to restore our faith in the values of religious as understood by its founders. That great task, now the imperative of the hour, can only be undertaken by religious Zionists themselves. THE CANCER WITHIN RELIGIOUS Z I O N I S M

evil cancer has invaded the religious Zionist camp. Unless the patient himself succeeds in surgically removing the infected areas from his body, the condition is terminal. Should the disease not be treated radically, the kippah serugah, once considered a proud symbol of all that is beautiful in and Zionism, will be regarded instead as a mark of Cain.

We did not have to reach this point. And let us pray that we still find the courage and leadership to advance beyond it. But for that to happen we must understand how we arrived here.

I grew up in a family steeped in the traditions of Mizrachi and im derech eretz. In those days, the years immediately before and after the establishment of Israel, the national religious movement represented one of the most constructive forces of Jewish life in the Diaspora and in Israel. It harmonised Torah and Zion, acted as a bridge between religious and secular, and was renowned for its tolerance and moderation in religious practice and political outlook. Above all, it promoted the concept of ahavat Yisrael and ahavat Klal Yisrael.

But today major segments of this movement have been transformed into a radical ideological group which promote an aggressive religious wholly inconsistent with its antecedents. The turning point can be precisely located in time: it began during the religious euphoria following the Six Day War. A movement within the Bnei Akiva-Mizrachi camp, headed by Zvi Yehuda Kook, son of the saintly former Chief Rabbi of Israel, was swept up in the post-war fervour and became convinced that we were poised in history at the beginnings of the Messianic era. Those inspired by the new movement took a portentous step beyond faith and became embroiled in a political movement which put the at the centre of Judaism, not as one of a number of values, but as the "supreme" value - even more important than life itself. Furthermore, the movement's and rashei yeshivot began to speak and teach as if they knew, literally, what Cod wanted of observant Jews

2 in the day-to-day politics of Israel, with only one exclusive interpretation of halachah being considered valid.

This was not the Likud, let us remember clearly which attached theological primacy to the Land of Israel, but an element within which was allowed to go unchallenged, except by a minority increasingly cowed by the zeal of those rabbis and leaders certain that they had acquired the mandate of Heaven.

Today, in many circles, Likud is being blamed for having tolerated an environment of xenophobia which fostered and even nurtured an ideological legitimacy for the assassination. And certainly Likud leaders should have more forcefully condemned those indulging in verbal violence and character assassination; they should never have shared platforms or permitted the extremists to partake in demonstrations under their leadership.

But, let us sadly acknowledge, responsibility for the polarisation of Israeli society does not lie with the opposition alone. Supporters of the Rabin government, including cabinet ministers, also indulged in vile and inflammatory attacks on religious groups and settlers without distinguishing between extremists and others. And during the Lebanese war, Begin was also defamed as a "traitor" and "murderer".

Yet violent political rhetoric, dangerous and reprehensible though it may be, does not have the same impact as religious education. It has been that education which encouraged impressionable young people to believe that the leaders of Israel were acting against the Almighty's express wishes. It is in this area that the prime responsibility rests for paving the way to the disaster.

Yitzhak Rabin's loathsome murderer saw himself as fulfilling "a sacred duty" and acting on "God's instructions". The facts about Yigal Amir have entered the national consciousness; indeed, they have seared its collective memory. He grew up in a middle-class religious Yemenite household, served in the elite Golani army unit, was educated in a , worked as a volunteer teaching Judaism in Russia, and when he committed the crime was a law student at Bar-llan university, and enrolled in the university's .

3 It will not do to regard the assassin as a solitary lunatic. Nor did his ideological roots lie with Likud. Alas, he was primarily a product of the perversion of the national religious movement. And that is not surprising. Anyone watching the anti-government demonstrations over the past few years would have noted that the vast majority of the protesters wore kippot serugot including those who incited to violence. Many of the most aggressive and obscene verbal outbursts against the leaders of Israel were articulated by members of the religious Zionist camp. And the silent majority, who stood by and failed to protest against the extremists, also share some of the guilt.

It is not a time for recrimination, we are told. But that cannot be used as an excuse to avoid responsibility or a failure to sheet it home. For myself, I assign prime responsibility for tolerating, and in some cases, encouraging impressionable young people to believe that the halachah sanctioned acts beyond the law, to the zealous and sanctimonious rabbis and leaders of the national religious camp. They were the ones who provided a moral and religious legitimacy to such attitudes. Indeed, it is a matter of record that some yeshivot encouraged their students to see themselves as soldiers of the Almighty. They were led to believe, as did Rabin's murderer, that Cod had instructed them to follow a particular path. They came to the conclusion that those who "opposed God's will" should be dubbed son'ei Yisrael - enemies of the people of Israel. And the ultimate conclusion was that such "traitors" deserved death.

This was not the outcome of some overnight flash of protest that took the responsible national religious leaders by surprise. It was years in the making and the responsible rabbis should have cried out against such a distortion of all that we should hold sacred. Those who did speak out can virtually be counted on the proverbial fingers of one hand. And yet we ask ourselves today: how was it possible that the rabbis did not know of the terrible dangers? Could they not see that when their schools and yeshivot encouraged the young to believe that they could ignore the rule of law, for what they arrogantly believe is a "higher law", that we were on the brink of evil and chaos?

In truth, the writing was on the wall and in the publications of the movement for all to see as far back as the 1980s, when the so-called

4 machteret - the "Jewish underground" - justified the dreadful murders against Arabs it perpetrated in Cod's name. Here also, many of those directly involved were nurtured in religious Zionist backgrounds. For them the killings were a simple matter: they had been taught to believe that there was little distinction between Arabs of today and the Amelekites of the Bible.

More recently, Baruch Goldstein's massacre of Arabs at prayer in the mosque made it even clearer that the eish zarah, the "alien fire", had entered the religious camp. That massacre was notable for many things, but most of all for the muted condemnation by Mafdal and much of the rabbinate. They either failed to comprehend the enormity of what had happened, or had become desensitised to the malaise of zealotry within their own ranks. True, the murderer from Kiryat Arba originally came to Israel from Brooklyn. True, too, that all the indications were that his reason gave out at some point and that he acted while in a deranged state.

But Goldstein and his supporters - and they were not merely a handful of misfits - were nurtured by the silence of large sections of Israel's religious society, with many religious nationalists standing by and declining to denounce the hatred and lawlessness he exemplified. Nor was the cult following which quickly grew up around Goldstein, making his grave a shrine, ever convincingly denounced by the religious Zionists who could have destroyed or, at the very least, neutralised the Goldstein phenomenon with concerted leadership.

But the Goldstein killings were early 1994 and while some may wish to argue that they represented an aberrant individual's madness, they cannot make the same claims for what followed over the next 20 months. Week after week, all through 1994 and gathering strength in 1995, religious Zionists, in large numbers, were at the forefront of demonstrations which called the elected leaders of Israel "traitors" and "Nazis"; Rabin himself was demonised as a "murderer", a "traitor", a "moser", and a "rodef" as the national religious camp occasionally made some noises. But due to expediency or cowardice, or both, Mafdal failed to eradicate these elements from its midst, or even to try convincingly. By default, its leaders must share the responsibility for the disaster.

5 It is right and proper at this point to distinguish between notions of legal guilt and moral responsibility. Sadly, the justified refusal by some religious Zionists to accept the first linkage is still being used in some quarters to avoid facing up to the second. Of course, no mainstream rabbi in the religious Zionist camp has yet been charged with calling for Rabin's assassination and there is no evidence that such a direct and unequivocal call came from those quarters. In that sense the rabbis and leaders of religious Zionism of whom I speak are not legally guilty.

But there were rashei yeshivot who openly taught their students that and halachah were incompatible. Democracy, they taught, was memshelet sadon - a reign of iniquity incompatible with Torah. These zealous rabbis must accept responsibility for that, as they must for claiming that Israel's elected leaders were acting against the Almighty's dictates. They must accept responsibility for classifying Rabin as a rodef (a pursuer) who, in Talmudic terms, could rightly be killed because he represented a threat to the Jewish people. Those who articulated and circulated such notions to their students and other rabbis cannot now shed their responsibility by acting shocked and indignant that they were taken seriously.

Nor can the rabbis who issued the infamous psak halachah on service in the Israeli army avoid responsibility for the disaster which has befallen us. When they incited soldiers to reject army orders and thus created the atmosphere for potential civil war in the name of a "higher law", they not only endangered other Jews and threatened the bonds of civil society, they were guilty of sinat chinam. As such, they should ask forgiveness for their aveirah and remind themselves of the repercussions of those who behaved similarly 2000 years ago.

Which brings us to the aftermath of our tragedy. Just two decades ago, religious Zionists were widely regarded by non-religious Jews as symbolising the elite idealists of the Jewish people. Today, sadly, religious Jews and their rabbis, by and large, are considered fanatics and isolated from the mainstream.

This is a mistaken and unfair judgment. I am convinced that the overwhelming silent majority of religious Zionists remain among the

6 best and the most committed Jews in Israel. But their spiritual and political leaders have failed them. They have not contributed anywhere near enough to fight the evil elements in our midst and their cowardice has allowed the ideological cancers which were developed in our educational institutions to metastasise.

And yet, whatever has to be said about the leaders, I cannot entirely absolve those who were led, either. To our discredit we, the rank and file, were also too passive. Where there was no-one to stand up, we should have stood up.

Reflecting on these failures of value and leadership, and considering today's still-charged atmosphere in Israel and the Jewish world, we need more than cheshbon nefesh in religious Zionist circles. Soul- searching alone is not sufficient. What is required is a radical purge, and I use the word advisedly, of rabbis and leaders w h o are unwilling to reassert vigorously the traditional values of Judaism and to do so from every pulpit, from every yeshivah and from every position of responsibility.

If Torah is to come from Zion, we must expel from our educational mainstream every one of those w h o desecrate the basic Jewish approach of ahavat Yisrael. There is just no place anymore for the extremist rabbis, educators and leaders in the religious Zionist movement. And every religious Zionist has the obligation of using his political influence, and where possible financial leverage, against institutions which continue to provide a platform for such people to poison the minds of our young.

Religious Zionism must return to its roots of tolerance for those w h o differ; it must again act as a unifying element for the Jewish people, as the Mizrachi organisation did before the religious fanatics hijacked the movement. Let us be clear that the solution lies not only in supporting legislation by the Knesset against incitement to violence. It rests primarily with our ability to influence our moral and spiritual educational system. And to change it. V'shinantam levanecha ... And you shall teach them diligently. What we teach them matters now above all else. To pretend that nothing has really happened, that we can go on as before, would be the greatest sin of all.

7 I pray that the day will come soon when my children and I can again walk in the streets of Israel wearing a kippah serugah with a sense of pride. I believe I echo the sentiments of the vast majority of national religious Zionists in Israel and in the Diaspora w h o failed to act and have been disgraced by the silence of some of their leaders and rabbis over the past years. But it is only with genuine teshuvah that we can return to our authentic roots.

Religious Zionists, let us acknowledge, represent only a small minority of the Jewish people. But they provide a crucial element of dynamism and the best hope of providing the links of moderation with other Jews. If this corruption is not eliminated from within our ranks, that hope will be lost and two separate groups will emerge from the Jewish people having virtually nothing in common with one another. At this momentous time in our history, that would truly represent the greatest tragedy - one imposed by ourselves rather than by our enemies.

In putting our o w n house in order we must simultaneously, however, urge government supporters and secularists not to indulge in witch- hunts or to seek vengeance against religious Jews. As a matter of the utmost urgency we should find ways to bridge the gaps which have been created between us and the vast majority of the Jewish people.

This is a moment for bitachon, in the religious sense of trust and faith in the Almighty, and for teshuvah in the most profound sense of a return to the basic tenets of religious Zionism as set out in the vision of our founders. Let us immediately seek an end to violence and extremism; an end to incitement against those Jews with w h o m we differ even on the future of Eretz Yisrael; and an end to the terrible dangers we unleash when we claim to speak against our fellow Jews in the sinful arrogance that God has spoken directly to us.

In the late Yitzhak Rabin's words as he made his plea for peace: "Enough ... Let the sun rise on peace, not just with our external enemies, but amongst our o w n people."

Isi Leibler AO CBE Co-Chairman, Governing Board. World Jewish Congress

January 1996

8 AN OUTLINE OF THE PROBLEM

theme of this paper, which is written from a layman's perspective, relates to religious extremism and the rabbinate - more specifically, the Orthodox rabbinate. At once, however, even if that limitation is accepted, we have a problem of categorisation.

Who are the rabbis about whom are we talking? Chief Rabbi Shapiro of Israel? Former Chief Rabbi Goren? Lord Jakobovits, Chief Rabbi of the Commonwealth? Chief Rabbi Adolphe Shayevich of Moscow? Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik? Rabbi Emanuel Rackman of Bar Han University? Rabbi of ? Rabbi of Yeshivat Har Etzion in Israel? The Lubavitcher Rebbe? The Satmarer Rebbe? Rabbi Eliezer Schach? Rabbi Ovadia Yosef?

The answer is all of these. By referring to these rabbis with their diverse approaches, each of whom would regard himself to be bound by the Halakhah - Jewish law - it is clear that what we call is not monolithic. Nor was it ever so.

The term 'Orthodox Judaism' was unknown before the Haskalah - the nineteenth century enlightenment movement. Until then, Judaism, despite its diversity and internal conflicts, was united by the same common de- nominator embracing contemporary Orthodox Judaism - an acknowledge- ment of the supremacy of Halakhah in Jewish practice and acceptance of the divine authority of the torah, both written and oral.

The term 'Orthodoxy' was actually introduced by Reform elements as a pejorative description for 'old believers'. It subsequently became part of the vocabulary defining those who strove to maintain traditional Judaism in an untraditional age. '

1. Jonathan Sacks, Traditional Alternatives, lews' College Publications, London, 1989, p. 51

1 The diversity within contemporary Orthodox Judaism is an extension of the tradition of controversy and competing factionalism that has characterised the history of Judaism throughout the ages. The approach of a Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai in the first century contrasted with that of a Rabbi Akiva fifty years later. The Talmudic period, characterised by opposing views recorded in the Mishnah and the Gemara, was exemplified by differences between famous rabbis and their followers - such as the adherents of either Bet Hillel or Bet Shammai. 2 These conflicts continued during the Gaonic period and beyond; between the followers of and his detractors; between Ashkenazim and Sephardim; and between the Hasidim and Mitnagdim. Today, there is the ongoing conflict between religious Zionist, anti-Zionist and contemporary nationalist zealots; and the tensions between the so-called 'modern' and 'right wing' Orthodox streams. ______

2. Rabbi , Chief Rabbi of Efrat, draws attention to a text in theTalmud which actually applauds disputes between disciples of Hillel and Shammai: "... both speak the words of the living God". [Tractate Eruvin 13b]

Can two opposing interpretations be correct? The Talmud maintains that they can because, even if conflicting interpretations result in differ- ent practical applications of the law, both express the word of God and either view could have become Halakhah. "The reasons why we follow Hillel's disciples is because of their humility, their willingness to accept insults, and their practice whenever announcing a ruling to precede it with the view expressed by their adversary, Bet Shammai." [Tractate Eruvin 13b]

In a similar vein, Mishnah Eduyot, Chapter 5, Halakhah 1, asks why minority as well as majority opinions are recorded in the redaction of the Mishnah. Most commentators explain that minority views were incorporated so that future Sanhedrins seeking to reverse a decision of an earlier Sanhedrin, could do so even if they did not consider that they exceeded the higher standard of wisdom or numbers which was obliga- tory before reversing a former court judgement. This requirement could be bypassed if the Sanhedrin had access to a previous dissenting minority viewpoint which had been incorporated in the text of the Mishnah. Hence, a recorded minority opinion was never nullified and remained an eternal part of the torah heritage and "those are the words of the living God".

[The aforegoing is based on an article in the Post, 24.8.90.]

2 In other words, contemporary Orthodoxy, while remaining committed to Rabbinic Judaism, in fact incorporates a more varied diversity of interpreta- tions than what prevailed before the Haskalah.

Over the past twenty years Orthodox Judaism in Israel and in the diaspora has experienced an unprecedented resurgence. As late as the 1960s there was a general consensus that, at least in the diaspora, Orthodox Judaism was doomed. Its numbers were shrinking, its leaders were on the defen- sive, and Conservative and Reform Judaism represented a far more attrac- tive means of Jewish identification than Orthodoxy which in the past all- too-frequently amounted to payment of lip service to a way of life without practising its obligations. For almost 200 years Orthodox Judaism had been losing its struggle with the new Jewish world of secular humanism and scientific enlightenment.

Yet today Orthodoxy is burgeoning at an incredible rate and exuding confidence and triumphalism whilst secular and Reform-oriented religious groups within the Jewish world are succumbing to acculturation and even ideological nihilism. This applies in Israel as well. There, secular national- ism and socialism have collapsed and are considered to be ideologically bankrupt movements.

The purpose of this monograph is to review critically the Orthodox revival which, I believe, will in the last resort determine the future of the Jewish people in Israel and the diaspora. Without detracting from the overall benefits that the Orthodox revival contributes to the Jewish people, I highlight the dangers I see arising as a consequence of inadequate spiritual leadership and an increasing domination of that leadership by extremist elements who are displacing their moderate counterparts and denying legitimacy to viewpoints other than their own.

The entire Jewish tradition reflects a tolerance for differing viewpoints within the framework of acceptance of the torah shebikh'tav (the Written Law) and the torah shebe'al peh (the Oral Law).

Sadly, this tolerance is noticeably absent today. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi elect of the British Commonwealth, who does not regard himself as an adherent of the Modern Orthodox stream, nevertheless warns against the prevailing intolerance and the public brawls between Ortho-

3 dox groups, which he describes as the antithesis of "arguments for the sake of Heaven". He maintains that, despite Orthodoxy's emergence and its increasing influence over the past decade, it is still inclining towards confrontation rather than reconciliation when resolving its inner problems, and seeks to impose authority rather than indulge in dialogue:

If Orthodox Jews are to mend the Jewish world they must rise beyond sectarian thinking to a position where they can recognise alternatives within the tradition. Some will formulate new alterna- tives within tradition. The tradition of argument calls for respect for positions with which one does not agree. It leads one to admire stances one does not seek to imitate. These are values powerfully implicit in the rabbinic texts. And not accidentally. For Rabbinic Judaism emerged from the ruins of one disastrous division within the Jewish world. We face another. What mended divisions then has the power to do so now. For whether the future translates into convergence or schism depends less on the chimera of Jewish unity than on how conflict is handled. 3

In this context the classification of treifah - non-kosher - by some extremist Orthodox adherents is not restricted to food but frequently extends to yeshivot, schools, synagogues, eruvin and rabbinical personalities. Putting glatt kosher food in the mouth does not always prevent slander coming out of the mouth - something which Jewish tradition regards as at least as great a transgression against Jewish law as eating food which is non-kosher.

3. Jonathan Sacks, op. cit., pp. 228-229.

4 THE ORTHODOX REVIVAL

or to reviewing these issues I must emphasise my view that what has happened to Orthodoxy over the past thirty years has been overwhelmingly positive for Judaism and Jewish life. I believe that without the Orthodox revival, the calamitous level of inter- marriage and assimilation in the diaspora would virtually guarantee the demise of the Jewish people as we now know it.

To cite some of the consequences and by-products of the Orthodox renaissance:

• There has been a dramatic revival of Judaism in the broadest sense, in part, no doubt, attributable to the general disenchantment with and alienation from the materialism and shallowness of modern and Western society - in particular the collapse of the family in affluent societies.

• There has been a dramatic upsurge of commitment to and a renewal of observance of mitzvot which seemed unlikely, if not impossible, in the aftermath of the Holocaust. Today, for the first time in two hundred years, Orthodoxy, with its attendant observance of mitzvot, is more than holding its own.

• There has been an extraordinary expansion in the teaching of limudei kodesh - religious studies - and, as a consequence, a dramatic increase in the number of yeshivot and religious Jewish day schools. There are, amazingly, more students in yeshivot today than ever before in the history of the Jewish people.

• There has been a phenomenal growth in other Orthodox communal infrastructures such as systems, mikvaot, the emergence of a religious press and literature, and the creation of a network of organisa- tions covering the entire spectrum of Jewish religious life.

• The religious demography of world Jewry has changed. Because of their propensity to have larger families and a much lower-than-average

5 intermarriage rate, the number of Orthodox Jews has increased and is likely to continue increasing as a percentage of the whole.

In Israel, prior to the advent of the recent Soviet , these trends were accelerated because of the high proportion of religious olim and non-religious yordim. They were further accelerated by the compara- tively high abortion rate amongst Israel's non-religious population.

• We have seen a significant ba'al teshuvah movement - young people from non-traditional, often positively secular, backgrounds who have 'returned' to traditional Judaism. Conversely, very few children from contemporary Orthodox homes discard their religious commitment as so many of their counterparts were inclined to do only a few decades ago. 4

These developments have fostered a new sense of confidence and pur- pose, as well as an increasing degree of militancy within Orthodox Judaism.

Is this all to the good? On balance, undoubtedly, the answer is an affirma- tive one, especially if the development and growth of Orthodoxy is con- trasted with the frightening losses occurring among the broad masses of world Jewry. Assimilation, intermarriage, ignorance about Judaism and a lack of Jewish education have raised a very real question-mark over the future of the Jewish people. In this context, the revival of torah Judaism is obviously critical to Jewish survival.

Yet, despite this, my purpose here is to demonstrate that those who are committed to the harmonisation of ahavat Yisrael and ahavat torah- the love of the Jewish people with the love of torah - must not become blind, and accept that everything happening in the religious arena is for the good. It is not. And there is a great danger for us all if we fail to recognise the emergence of negative and troubling aspects of Orthodoxy's resurgence.

4. Vide Herbert Danziger, Returning to Tradition: The Contemporary Revival of Orthodox Judaism, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1989.

6 A NATIONAL RELIGIOUS AND MODERN ORTHODOX PERSPECTIVE

rthodox Jewry is today broadly di- vided into a dominant right wing and a Modern or Centrist stream or trend. Neither of these terms, however, adequately defines the movement in Orthodoxy which is closely related to Zionism and which endeavours to integrate rather than isolate itself from Klal Yisrael and the wider commu- nity.

Sociologist Samuel Heilman notes that:

Almost from the beginning, two major trends appear in European and later American Orthodoxy (i.e. Orthodoxy of the Ashkenazic diaspora). One sought to incorporate elements of the modern world into the framework of traditional Judaism - call it 'Modern Ortho- doxy' - while the other - call it 'traditional Orthodoxy' - sought to exclude them. Between these two extremes there were, and con- tinue to be, certain compromise forms. Yet the nature of these compromise structures has always been fragile, and their occupants seem more often than not to have felt drawn toward one or another of the extremes. 5

Charles S. Liebman postulates in similar vein that:

Modern Orthodoxy evinces two dominant characteristics: an abid- ing concern with demonstrating the relevance of the Halakhah for contemporary life, and a strong emphasis of the interconnectedness of all Jews.... Sectarian Orthodoxy, as distinguished from Modern Orthodoxy, is marked by an emphasis on authority and separation. 6

5. Samuel Heilman, 'The Many Faces of Orthodoxy', in Modern Judaism, Vol. 2, No. 1, p. 26.

6- Quoted from Lawrence Kaplan, 'The Ambiguous Modern Orthodox Jew' in Reuven P. Bulka (Ed.), Dimensions of Orthodox Judaism, KTAV, New York, 1983, p. 248.

7 There is no clear delineation between the two groups and there is consid- erable overlapping. Indeed, many observant Jews would resent being classified exclusively in either camp. But, despite the fact that they all recognise the primacy of Halakhah, major differences do exist in the outlook of both groups.

It was the Chatam Sofer (1 762 -1839), Rabbi Moshe Schreiber, the famous Chief Rabbi of Pressburg, who reapplied the Rabbinic adage which best sums up the ideology of right wing Orthodoxy: "Hechadash asur min hatorah"- anything which is new is prohibited by the torah. 7

Not surprisingly, it is the relatively smaller Modern Orthodox stream which is scorned, frequently reviled and denied legitimacy by many of the more extreme Orthodox elements who condemn its attitude towards Zionism, its worldly knowledge and its refusal to become separated from the mass of non-observant Jews.

Modern Orthodoxy is also frequently criticised for allegedly compromising its standard of adherence to Halakhah. It is an indisputable fact that a substantial percentage of Jews who regard themselves as Orthodox 'select' those halakhot which they will observe with greater or lesser rigour and those they will ignore or even violate. However, like Jews throughout the ages who violated ritual precepts, the 'compromisers' accept the authority of tradition and recognise that they have fallen short of meeting their full religious obligations. 8

To condemn Modern Orthodoxy because it includes a percentage of adherents who transgress halakhic precepts is akin to challenging right wing Orthodoxy's religiosity because of the behaviour of those within its ranks who err or fail to observe the precepts governing interpersonal behaviour - the mitzvot shebeyn adam lachavero - as distinct from the

7. The Talmudic expression "chadash asur min hatorah" had no rel- evance to the internal religious struggles in which the Chatam Sofer was engaged. It was in fact a play on the phrase used in relation to the prohibition of eating from the new crop - min chadash - before the omer was offered in the Temple on the second day of Passover.

8. Charles S. Liebman, Deceptive Images: Toward a Redefinition of American Judaism, Transaction Books, New Brunswick, 1988, pp. 56- 57.

8 mitzvot shebeyn adam lamakom - the commandments affecting man's re- lationship to God. I stress this point because of the frequent allegations that Modern Orthodox adherents are compromisers, do not adhere to Halakhah, and are no different than Conservative Jews - a patently unjusti- fied criticism.

As Rabbi Emanuel Rackman of Bar Man University recently stated:

I do not like to hear it said by anyone that the Modern Orthodox try to water clown religious observance. True, they may on halakhic grounds be more permissive on some issues than their right wing brethren.... However, at the same time.... I do not and will not claim that the Modern Orthodox are more ethical and decent than the right wing. There are many saints and villains in both camps. The Modern Orthodox may stress centrality of ethics in the teaching of Judaism. They may even accord to the commandments between man and man a higher priority than to those between man and God. But, I repeat, no group can boast that it is finding more favour in the eyes of God than the other.... A better policy is for each of us not to evaluate group behaviour but to pursue the course God prescribed for every area of our activity.. to do justice, love, mercy, and above all, to walk humbly with H i m . 9

It is important to acknowledge that Modern Orthodoxy recognises and pays tribute to the enormous contribution made by the right wing towards the revival of Judaism and, while differing on aspects of its approach, never questions its legitimacy.

On the contrary, as Rabbi Shlomo Riskin has noted:

If by right wing Orthodoxy one means married women who cover their hair, men who attend services every morning and learn daf yomi [a daily page of Talmud], and who do not merely pray at home alone without a quorum, and even Hasidim who wear special Sabbath garb, I view with joy and gladness every group which strengthens Jewish law and custom. But if by right wing Orthodoxy

9. The Jewish Week, 14.9.1990.

9 one means a wholesale rejection of secular learning and a blanket condemnation of the Jewish state, I am concerned about such a resurgence l0

In this context, I believe that the Modern Orthodox or national-religious branch of Orthodox Jewry has a proud record. It has been at the forefront of every constructive activist movement affecting Israel and world Jewry. In Israel the Mizrachi or, as it is now known, Mafdal 11 , until recently served as the bridge between the religious and non-religious wings of the commu- nity. In recent years Israeli national-religious youth set an example in idealism, pioneering, and national service - including army service - at a time when secular nationalism and socialism became increasingly dis- credited. Their counterparts in the diaspora provided proportionately more olim to Israel than any other section of world Jewry.

On an international level Modern Orthodox activists assumed leadership positions throughout the Jewish political spectrum. They paved the way for Jewish education and Jewish day schools, not merely for their own children, but for Klal Yisrael. In support of the cause of Israel, the struggle for Soviet and other oppressed Jewish communities, Modern Orthodox Jews have always been involved far in excess of their relatively small numbers.

Yet the achievements of Modern Orthodoxy do not detract from the fact that many of the so-called right wing Orthodox groups display the same genuine concern for the rest of Jewish society as their 'modern' counter- parts and receive the respect of the Modern Orthodox even if they disagree with many of their other attitudes. These include several Hasidic groups which, in contrast to the anti-Zionist Satmar movement, undoubtedly make a major positive contribution to Jewish life.

The most outstanding of these contemporary Hasidic groups is the Lubavitcher Movement, known as Chabad. There is no organisation in Jewish life which commands the dedication and support of its members comparable to Lubavitch. The movement is headed by its charismatic

10. Shlomo Riskin, Tradition, Spring 1982, p. 64.

11. Miflagah Datit Le'umit- (N.R.P.).

10 Rebbe, a man of advanced years, whose leadership and ability to imbue his supporters with a sense of self-sacrifice belies his age and makes Chabad one of the most extraordinary phenomena of our time.

Chabad's influence ranges from New York to Johannesburg to Melbourne and is also felt in small and often beleaguered communities in North Africa, the Asia-Pacific region, and in tiny pockets of Jewish life every- where.

However, as I can personally testify, it is especially in relation to its contribution to the cause of Soviet Jews that one must pay credit to the self- sacrifice of Chabad, the only Jewish movement to have survived the Rus- sian Revolution and, despite all the trials and tribulations of Soviet Jewry, to have maintained an unbroken presence in the USSR even in the worst period, during the 'black years'.

Chabad does not send emissaries to the Soviet Union for two week lecture courses, with accommodation provided in Moscow or Leningrad hotels. The organisation dispatches men and women, frequently with young chil- dren, to outlying districts where they must endure the most primitive conditions for not less than a year, and where they are often obliged to create a religious Jewish centre from scratch. The process of commitment is extended to Israel where Chabad has become one of the most effective groups integrating Soviet Jews and providing them with housing and jobs.

Yet, like many other branches of Orthodoxy, Chabad, despite its achieve- ments and dedicated adherents, does not have the capacity of ultimately serving as the vehicle to cement the unity of the entire Jewish people, either in the diaspora or in Israel. Despite Chabad's great virtues and constructive contributions to Jewish life, no right wing orthodox stream has the capacity by itself to serve as the bridge to link Klal Yisrael with tradi- tional Judaism.

11 ISRAEL AND ZIONISM

negative attitude held by sec- tions of the Orthodox stream towards Zionism is a major factor inhibiting unity within Klal Yisrael.

This applies particularly in Israel where religious extremism has manifested itself in a tragic manner, bringing about a polarisation in society which may have profound repercussions on the entire Jewish people.

Over the past 20 to 30 years the religious leadership in Israel has moved away from the traditional moderate arena it once occupied into a world dominated by extremist ideological elements which threaten the unity of the Jewish people and the future of Israel.

One of these extremes represents the contemporary extension of the East- European anti-Zionist rabbis and yeshivot, and their historic battle with Mizrachi and its rabbis who supported the Zionist movement. In their more extreme manifestation we describe these groups in Israel as haredim. In the diaspora they have their counterparts amongst the right wing rabbis in some yeshivot and congregations.

There are critical differences between religious Zionists and the haredim in attitudes towards the contemporary world. But even within the haredi ranks there are varying degrees of moderation and extremism.

The moderates among the haredim may share the commonly held belief among Jews that the emergence of the State of Israel is the most significant positive event in Jewish history since the days of the Maccabees. How- ever, they simply reject the religious Zionist belief that, with the re- establishment of Israel in its own home, we are witnessing the atchalta digeula, the beginnings of the Redemption. In fairness it should be noted that many Jews share this view and still regard themselves as Modern Orthodox.

Some take their anti-Zionism a step further and deny the redemptive or pre-messianic nature of the Jewish State. In their view, Israel is nothing

12 more than just another secular state which happens to provide for a Jewish majority. They are devoted to Eretz Yisrael - the Land of Israel - but they scorn Medinat Yisrael, the State of Israel. They do not celebrate Yom Haatzmaut- Israel Independence Day - or Yom Yerushalayim - the annual commemoration of the liberation of Jerusalem.

The 'ultra' ultras, who at this stage are only a minority among the haredim, go even further. They consider it a religious obligation to agitate for Israel's 'de-Zionisation.'

The spectrum of non-Zionism stretches from the more moderate opponents of Zionism to the ultimate fanaticism reflected, for example, in the Satmar Hasid who denounces Zionists as Nazis, or to his Israeli counterpart in the Naturei Karta who calls on PLO leader Yasser Arafat to liberate him from the secular Zionists.

The radical haredim, with the support of their right wing allies in the diaspora, make political demands which have estranged them from the Jewish people. The extremists do not care because they appear to lack the ahavat Yisrael which, in turn, leads them to hold Klal Yisrael - the Jewish people as a whole - in contempt. Most of them are concerned only with their own sectional interests which they promote with a form of smug self- righteousness.

The worst manifestation of their indifference to the national interest was their exploitation of the political process to obtain exemption from army service for students attending their yeshivot. 12 Such behaviour in relation

12. There is certainly no clear halakhic basis to justify exemption of yeshivah students from the army. In a monograph published in 1948, the late Rabbi Shlomo Yosef Zevin, universally recognised as one of the great- est Talmudic scholars of this generation, condemned those rabbis who approved of exemptions from the army. He wrote:

What is the source for exempting yeshivah students and torah scholars from an obligatory war fought to defend Israel from those who come to destroy her, God forbid? How can you pass it off as if it were Halakhah or da'at torah that yeshiva students need not register or serve? Have we not learned that when it comes to saving a life - not many lives, just one - 'these things are done by the leaders of Israel' and by the scholars 'in order to teach the Halakhah to the nation'? Was any distinction made whether or

13 to the obligation of military service which is pursued by some haredi groups generates more hatred against religious Jews in Israel by the non- religious than any other single factor. This, despite the exemplary role of national-religious youth in the Israel Defence Force, and in particular the outstanding performance in combat of students from yeshivot hesder - students who combine their army service with religious studies.

In sum, haredi extremists are today primarily responsible for the devastat- ing polarisation between religious and non-religious Jews in Israel. 13 In setting themselves apart from the positive achievements of national reli- gious life, in rejecting Army service, and above all in appearing to reject the sacred precept of ahavat Klal Yisrael, they can be said to have profaned the national institutions of Israel. Their behaviour has provided ammuni- tion for the anti-religious secularist extremists who, thirty years ago, were a declining influence in Israel.

In this context it is clear that the moderate Orthodox elements in Israel and the diaspora have undergone a substantial decline in influence over the past two decades. In many cases they retreated without resistance in the face of aggressive right wing or haredi triumphal ism. As they retire many

not it is time of learning torah that is to be lost? If this is the case in the saving of one life, how much more so in the saving of tens of thousands of Jews?

But if our enemies fall upon us in a mad killing frenzy, we must defend ourselves. And you, our Geonim, admit the dire neces- sity of this obligatory war. Many of you have sent blessings and words of encouragement to our valiant soldiers. It is your obliga- tion to encourage young and healthy scholars to fight. 'Will you send your brothers to war, and yourselves sit at home?' [ Tradition, Fall 1985, p. 51.]

13. Haredi extremism does not exonerate the anti-religious elements in government who, during the early years of the State, abused their power and deliberately created a campaign to de-Judaize olim origi- nating from religiously observant homes in the Arabic-speaking world. These migrants arrived shortly after the establishment of the State of Israel and were immediately directed to non- and anti-religious envi- ronments in what can only be described as an ideologically motivated attempt to wean them away from religious observance. But that is now history and one immoral act does not justify another. At this point in the history of the Jewish people all efforts should be directed towards neutralizing the deepening kulturkampf which threatens to destroy the very fabric of Israel's national purpose, civic peace and coherence.

14 of the moderate rabbis are being replaced by extremists who favour hitbadlut - separation from other sections of Jewry.

What caused these dramatic changes and the displacement of moderate by right wing rabbis?

Paradoxically, it was the moderate religious lay leaders and rabbis in Israel, and to some extent also in the diaspora, who were themselves responsible for paving the way for these developments. In a very real sense, they suffered from an inferiority complex about their own ideology. Hence, they did not trust their own educational systems and sent their children to non-Zionist or anti-Zionist yeshivot. As a consequence they created within their ranks a generation of non-Zionist and even anti-Zionist teachers, leaders and rabbis to whose hands they delegated the religious education of their children. It was therefore not surprising that many of their own children joined the anti-Zionist camp and were encouraged to treat secular culture with suspicion and contempt.

Over the past decade, these trends have accelerated. The vast amount of government money pouring into the coffers of religious institutions in Israel is unfortunately directed overwhelmingly towards non-Zionist and even anti- Zionist yeshivot. And tragically, while all this has been happening, the broad national religious educational system in Israel, which embraces the wider community, has been regressing, and is now under siege from right wing, non-Zionist elements. As in Israel, Jewish schools and yeshivot in the diaspora have also been currying favour with extremist elements to demonstrate their 'torah true' Orthodoxy.

15 THE FAILURE OF ORTHODOX EDUCATION

most devastating aspect of the relative deterioration of Modern Orthodoxy has been the repudiation of any linkage between torah and universal knowledge by the ascendant right wing elements who are currently trying to take over the remaining moder- ate-inclined Orthodox institutions in the diaspora and in Israel.

In the nineteenth century Rabbi , paradoxically himself a pre-Herzlian "anti-Zionist" and a fervent separatist, inspired a form of torah Judaism that demanded total commitment to Halakhah, but also encouraged broad understanding of and involvement with the world at large.

In his Nineteen Letters of Ben Uziel, Rabbi Hirsch stated:

Pursued hand-in-hand, there is room for both (Jewish and general studies), each enhancing the value of the other and producing the glorious fruits of a distinctive Jewish culture which at the same time, is 'pleasant in the eyes of God and man'. 14

Rabbi Hirsch's movement played a critical role in maintaining Judaism in the for over a century. No one could challenge its adherents in their standard of observance and their commitment, despite their involvement with the culture and of the world around them.

Until recently, the national-religious and Modern Orthodox elements un- hesitatingly promoted such concepts in their own educational structures. It all made sense to an enlightened movement. If Jews were not going to live in a self-imposed ghetto, they had to be able to reconcile worldly knowledge with torah.

14. Cited in Norman Lamm, Faith and Doubt, KTAV, N.Y., 1971, p. 72.

16 In Israel this trend was encouraged by the philosophy of the late Chief Rabbi Isaac Hacohen Kook who was also condemned as a heretic by the extremists of his time.

Samuel Heilman notes that:

Rabbi Kook supported the integration of secular studies with torah learning so that 'the wisdom of history and criticism, logical thought, poetry, and all their branches will not belong solely to those people who want specifically to destroy the torah and faith in God.' The latter were not, he believed, the young irreligious pioneers who were settling the land. These Jews were, in Kook's estimation, 'singularly free from all superstitions and idolatrous cults which are the real enemies of Godliness and spirituality.' They were instead 'souls in a void' who had lost 'sensitiveness to things divine through a lack of understanding and perception.' Their admirable contem- porary goals of social justice and universal human emancipation needed, however, to be grounded in religious sensibility.

Similarly, Kook believed Orthodox Jews narrowly committed to strict observance of the letter of Jewish law to the exclusion of anything else were 'souls in need of repair,' who could benefit from a dose of the universalistic values of the secular world. Only an integrated yeshiva such as Kook tried to create would, he believed, help both groups. 15

Today, Bar llan University in Israel and Yeshiva University in New York stand isolated and alone in the religious world. They face continuous assault on the grounds that they are not 'torah-true' institutions simply because they teach worldly, secular knowledge in addition to torah.

It is, of course, tragic that teachers in the national-religious school system who had been educated in right wing yeshivot absorbed a hostility against the study of the secular wisdom of the world at large. They idealised the 'purist' right wing approach as the ultimate in religious commitment and piety.

15. Samuel Heilman, op. cit., Vol. 2, Part 2, p. 181.

17 Many of these right wing Orthodox religious educators maintain that the study of 'worldly wisdom' may be accepted, not as a means of enhancing wisdom and human perfection in conjunction with torah, but only as a sad concession to economic necessity. Hence, the majority of Hasidic and non-Hasidic yeshivot reject contact with secular academic learning other than as a means of earning a livelihood. Some even insist that, if a livelihood is not imperative, one should immerse oneself exclusively in torah studies, ignoring the well-known dictum of Maimonides, who warned that "one who makes up his mind to study and not work, and lives on charity, profanes the name of God, and brings the torah into contempt."

The Modern Orthodox also follow the ancient Jewish tradition which recognises that the torah is the Jewish people's unique and supreme ethical fountainhead. But in contrast they also maintain that worldly wisdom enhances torah - that it does not conflict with a recognition that that wisdom is the universal heritage of all mankind in which Jews should share as equals. Modern Orthodoxy regards worldly wisdom as increasing our appreciation of God's role in history and as a vehicle for a better under- standing of the Divine truths contained in the torah.

Rabbi Norman Lamm, President of Yeshiva University, has observed that in historical terms the galaxy of outstanding religious leaders who synthe- sised torah umadda - torah and wordly studies - includes some of the most profound intellectual contributors to Judaism:

The knowledge of medicine did not detract from Maimonides' sense of wholeness; Don Isaac Abravanel was no less a full personality because of his financial abilities and diplomatic skill; knowledge of grammar did not impoverish Abraham Ibn Ezra; philosophy did not diminish the stature of Hasdai Crescas; secular poetry did not re- duce the wholesomeness of either Solomon Ibn Gabirol or Yehuda Halevi; mathematics did not make the Gaon of Vilna any less a Gaon; and a general philosophy has not lessened the greatness of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik. On the contrary, the 'umadda' devel- opment of each contributed not only to his intellectual greatness but to his shlemut, his completeness which would have suffered

18 without a development of those gifts. Wholeness is enhanced by many-sidedness, and fullness by openness. 16

A positive attitude toward torah umadda does not invalidate acceptance that the torah is preeminent as our sacred teaching. But this is a far cry from saying that the torah is the exclusive repository of all mankind's wis- dom.

Sadly, however, this negative trend is becoming the prevailing world outlook of many young rabbis. One only has to be present at a gathering of Israeli rabbis to discover that not only is it almost impossible to encounter a young rabbi with a secular higher education, but that most of them have never had a general (i.e. secular) high school education in conjunction with their religious studies.

16. Norman Lamm, Torah Umadda: The Encounter of Religious Learning and Worldly Knowledge in the Jewish Tradition, Jason Aronson, New York, 1989, p. 221.

19 RITUAL AND ETHICAL OBSERVANCE

rabbis adopt a narrow, anti- intellectual approach, they are paving the way for an even further aliena- tion from Judaism of the mass of Jews. Instead of being viewed as a historic with a message for all mankind, Judaism becomes an embattled enclave which is more in conflict than in harmony with the world at large. Religious Jews, in turn, become an isolated minority, a sect which rejects all secular knowledge as intrusive and corrupt rather than as complemen- tary to the torah.

It is as if Judaism in its own right cannot confront the competing life styles and the challenge of the world at large and Jews must therefore return to the false shelter of the ghetto in which they were previously forcibly confined.

Such a view conflicts with the basic precepts of Judaism which, centuries ago, taught that serving the Almighty was all-encompassing; that it in- cluded mitzvot shebeyn adam lamakom, the commandments affecting man's relationship to the Divine, as well as mitzvot shebeyn adam lachavero, the mitzvot governing relations between man and man; that by virtue of torah, Israel was to be a 'light unto the nations'; that 'wisdom' of any kind was not alien to torah. But a man-the-ramparts self-ghettoisation marginalises believing Jews and trivializes the torah - which is a 'torah of truth' for all times, all places, and all peoples.

This is relevant to our consideration of rabbis and their role in contempo- rary Judaism because, over the past twenty years, there has been a growing tendency in Jewish life for rabbis and Jewish religious leaders to compete with one another in demonstrating who can be more machmir, more rig- orous or extreme, in relation to the performance of the ceremonial and ritual mitzvot. Many rabbis today imply that severity in halakhic judge- ment is a reflection of a desirable ascetic ideal. Yet in reality they would be hard pressed to demonstrate that such an approach has historical roots in the mainstream Jewish tradition. Indeed, it can certainly be demon- strated that being machmir was not at all uniformly regarded by our Sages as a criterion for being a better Jew.

20 The influence of certain rabbis in right wing yeshivot has been a major factor in promoting this trend. Being isolated from Klal Yisrael, surrounded by idealistic young men ostensibly striving to serve God, they have fre- quently lost contact with the mainstream of Judaism and the Jewish people and as a consequence have become more and more machmir in their in- terpretations, thus attenuating their communication and relatedness with other Jews.

To buttress the implementation of this trend, the issur - the Rabbinical prohibition - has become more frequently utilised by right wing rabbis both in Israel and in the diaspora. The issur or cherem (excommunication) was used unsuccessfully by the Gaon of Vilna against the Hasidim, and by the anti-Zionist rabbis against the Zionist Movement. It failed because, despite the fact that it was supported by the counterparts of some of today's Gedolei Hador- great torah Sages - the real issues involved were political or, at any rate, not purely halakhic.

Regrettably, the trends within Orthodoxy towards extremism in ritual practice are not usually linked with higher standards in the ethical realm. Only too frequently many who adhere to the letter of the ritual laws are lacking in their general moral demeanour. Adopting a stringent, chumrah- based approach towards observance of commandments concerning man's relationship to God does not automatically guarantee abjuring a kullah (leniency) in ethical behaviour - that is, in man's relationships with his fellow man.

With some notable exceptions, many of the contemporary haredi or right wing rabbis lack the spirituality, gentleness and ahavat Yisrael that seemed to emanate from their predecessors in Europe before the war - especially the Hasidim.

Occasionally chumrot- severe legal judgements - border on the grotesque. For example, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the former Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel, ruled a few years ago that Nechama Leibowitz, the octogenarian biblical and talmudic luminary, could be permitted to teach men, but only from behind a curtain. Earlier, Rabbi Schach, then leader of the primarily

21 Lithuanian or anti-Hasidic sector of , 17 had said that be- cause of kol ishah - the ban on hearing a woman singing - she could not teach men at all.

Without being a talmid chakham or rabbi, I am unable to comment on the halakhic grounds for such an interpretation. But it surely appears to be an extraordinary example of competitive efforts to prove who is more rigorous when even the more 'moderate' ruling of the two is still such a radical shift from hitherto accepted practice in Orthodox quarters.

17. Rabbi Schach now heads Degel Hatorah, a group which broke away from Agudat Yisrael.

22 REFORM: THE IMPENDING CATASTROPHE

are, of course, far more seri- ous issues involved than kol ishah. One such issue is the question of dealing with people who consider themselves to be Jewish but who would not qualify as such in halakhic terms. This is particularly relevant today because of the many thousands of Soviet Jews now arriving in Israel amongst whom are partners to mixed marriages, children of mixed mar- riages, and many other complex categories of questionable halakhic Jew- ish status. In a situation of this nature there is a desperate national need for rabbis to take into account the prevailing social circumstances and the fact that these people are living in a Jewish state.

The need to adhere to Halakhah in such matters is self-evident, but it is surely now time for rabbis to try to be more mekel, more lenient than machmir, in relation to problems which will ultimately affect the unity and destiny of the Jewish people. Of course, the confused status of many Soviet Jews presents enormously complicated problems for contemporary halakhic authorities, but that is their historic challenge - and one which cannot and must not be 'solved' by the easy technique of an automatic and reflexive 'no'. Tragically, all too often tolerance of more lenient interpreta- tions of Halakhah is rejected and those who do not adopt the stringencies laid down by the more machmir elements are all but placed in herem - the status of excommunication.

What happens in Israel is, of course, reflected in the diaspora where religious developments and polarisation between religious and non-reli- gious elements are also taking place.

In the United States, the largest Jewish community in the world, many observers describe halakhically committed Modern Orthodox rabbis as a dying breed. While it is far from certain that this accurately represents the facts, the very impression has a life and influence of its own. Conversely, non-Orthodox groups are moving further away from tradition. The Con- servative Movement, like the Reform Movement, now ordains women as rabbis. There are even more dramatic changes in the Reform movement which endeavours to compensate for the loss in the ranks of the Jewish

23 people by converting to Judaism the non-Jewish spouse of a mixed mar- riage with minimal commitments. This was also apparently the principal factor which motivated Reform to declare, against millennia of sanctified practice, that patrilineal descent would qualify as a criterion for Jewish status.

The distress generated in Orthodox quarters by these dramatic breaches with traditional Halakhah affecting Jewish status was aggravated by recent additional deviations from basic Jewish moral traditions by the Reform leadership - specifically, the ordination, at least in principle if not yet in practice, of homosexual rabbis, and support under the rubric of women's right to freedom of choice for abortion on demand. Both of these depar- tures from Halakhah are clearly repugnant to historic Jewish tradition. Abortion is only sanctioned in the event of the mother's life being at risk. Judaism may extend compassion to homosexuals but it categorically precludes any interpretation which would legitimise it as an alternative lifestyle. Such indisputable perversions of age-old Jewish morals have persuaded many Orthodox Jews who hitherto supported Reform Jewish day schools and other Reform institutions in preference to non-Jewish institutions, to review their position.

Lord Immanuel Jakobovits, Chief Rabbi of the British Commonwealth, reflects the sense of disillusionment and anguish with the direction of the Reform Movement which exists amongst even the most tolerant Orthodox observers:

It grieves me deeply that of late, in very recent times, the focus of the attack on our traditional values [by the Reform movement] is no longer limited to the ritual, not even to interpersonal status and relations, but also challenges the moral commitments that we thought would unite us and would not be a matter of dissent, certainly not in public. Now alas, the break in our ranks is threatening to sever the last ideological bonds of commitment that bind us together. And I say this with deepest grief and regret in the hope that we can reverse this current trend. 18

18. Immanuel Jakobovits, 'Preserving the Oneness of the Jewish People: Can a Permanent Schism be Averted?' Tradition, Winter, 1989, p. 93.

24 Lord Jakobovits quotes Rabbi Jacob Petuchowski, a prominent Reform leader, who recently wrote in the Journal of Reform Judaism:

There is no doubt that Reform Judaism approves of neighbourly love, of honouring one's parents, and of paying the wages of a hired labourer before sunset. Nor would Reform Judaism deny the impor- tance of laws against murder, theft, and false oaths. The difficulty arises when we remind ourselves that the torah's moral legislation is not exhausted by the provisions that we have thus far enumerated. Moreover, even such 'simple' laws as those prohibiting murder may have implications that latter-day Reform Judaism is trying its best to evade. Thus, in public debate, Reform Judaism has tried hard to create the impression that 'Judaism' favours abortion-on-demand. In reality, traditional Judaism, while not holding a position on abortion identical with that of the Roman Catholic Church, ap- proves of abortion only in the case where the mother's life would be at stake . . . Blanket approval of abortion-on-demand does not come to us from the source of Judaism's moral legislation, but from the platform of leftist politicians.

So does a favourable attitude towards homosexuals, which has manifested itself in the encouragement of the formation of homo- sexual Reform congregations. This is happening at a time when medical opinion is by no means unanimous about the nature of that particular 'sexual preference', but when the championship of the cause of gays and lesbians has top priority among the 'demands' of the political left. Certainly the torah's moral legislation can hardly be invoked in support of a favourable attitude towards what the torah itself calls an 'abomination'...

...in the nineteenth century, Reform divested itself of ritual obliga- tions while affirming Ethical Monotheism as that part of Judaism which really mattered. The theistic component of Ethical Monothe- ism began to be problematic in the twentieth century, and, in any case, threatened to limit the constituency available for the support of Reform's organizational structure. As a result, efforts were made to accommodate atheists and agnostics within the ranks of Reform Judaism. What was left of the Reform past consisted of the emphasis on morality and ethics, or what, in Reform Jewish parlance, is

25 usually called 'Prophetic Religion'. The most recent stage of Ameri- can Reform Jewish development has seen the onslaught even on biblical morality. What is now championed as "Prophetic Religion" is more likely to be the program of the political left than something that speaks to us from the pages of Holy Writ.

Rabbi Petuchowski concludes:

...one wonders what Kaufmann Kohler would have said about abor- tion-on-demand, or Claude G. Montefiore about Reform congrega- tions for homosexuals. One does know, however, that the one thing that all Reform Jews have had and do have in common is the fact they are not Orthodox. The question is whether the negation of Orthodoxy is enough of a living faith to transmit through the genera- tions, and enough of a religious content to sustain a denominational identity. Judging by the repeated changes in Reform Judaism's demographic composition, the answer to that question would seem to be 'no!' Indeed, I see the suicidal tendencies manifesting them- selves in my own religious environs'. I9

In such an environment, the emergence of two 'classes' of Jews who will not be able to intermarry is now becoming a frightening reality. There is already talk in the United States of introducing registries of Jews eligible for Orthodox marriage in order to cope with Reform Jewry's rapidly growing halakhically non-Jewish constituency.

This complex problem is compounded by the realisation that the only possible solution would require the non-Orthodox groups to grant Ortho- doxy legitimacy in crucial fields without the Orthodox being in a position to reciprocate.

A terrible potential tragedy thus faces world Jewry. Throughout Jewish history, and especially over the past century, there have been numerous examples of Jews deviating from their religious commitments and observ- ances. However, the unifying fabric of the Jewish people remained intact because there was basically only one accepted form of conversion and

19. Ibid. Rabbi Jakobovits quotes from The journal of Reform Judaism, Fall, 1986, pp. 15-24.

26 religious marriage or divorce and hence a single undisputed determinant of Jewish status.

The institutionalisation of walls permanently separating observant Jews from other Jews is now in the process of becoming a reality. In future we could well find Jews sharing common goals in relation to Israel, combating anti-Semitism, being united by a tradition of Jewish history, and yet unable to marry one another. This is the most burning issue facing Israel and the diaspora. There are no easy solutions and only the rabbis can provide the leadership required to resolve this terrible problem.

27 HALAKHIC SOLUTIONS POSSIBLE

find halakhic solutions to major problems affecting the Jewish people was the challenge which rabbis overcame over the millennia. Today, regrettably, many rabbis appear to have major inferiority complexes and bury their heads in the sand accept- ing without challenge the dogma that in comparison to the Cedolim - the great Sages of the past - they and other contemporary talmidei chakhamim - learned Sages - are not only inferior but effectively impotent.

One is tempted to ask whether previous halakhic interpretations were not influenced by the social conditions of their time. If one concedes that they were, are our current problems not also capable of reinterpretation accord- ing to new social realities, without compromising the essential halakhic prerequisites? 20

In our age of crisis and human distress one would expect our rabbis to follow the example set by their predecessors who, during periods of crisis and need, stretched the din torah and rabbinic halakhot to the limit, espe- cially in order to alleviate the distress of innocent people.

There are many other examples of how the rabbis of the Talmud and their successors used the power to reinterpret earlier laws when there were clear and present social, moral or ethical reasons to do so. Besides, whilst the Jews were in exile, Halakhah was in exile with them. Now that the Jewish exile is largely over, contemporary rabbis are obliged to shed their timidity and try to utilise existing elements within the broad framework of Halakhah to overcome some of the tragic human problems facing the modern Jew and Israel. As Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits states, "Halakhah is in exile in the

20. Vide Emanuel Rackman, One Man's Judaism, Philosophical Library, N.Y., 1973, pp. 262-283 and 'A Challenge to Orthodoxy', Judaism, Spring, 1969, pp. 143-158.

28 Land of Israel as it was before in the lands of Jewish dispersion. It is still the Halakhah of the shtetl not that of the State. As yet we have not become worthy of Torat Eretz Yisrael." 21

It is difficult to visualise how the Tannaim - the scholars of the Mishnah - would have fared with their contemporary counterparts if they tried today to introduce innovative halakhic adjustments designed to blend in with real life such as the prozbul, shtar-mekhirah, hetter-iskah, etc. 22 They would, in all probability, have been branded Reform Jews by some of the more extreme right wing contemporary rabbis and heads of yeshivot.

Paradoxically, if Halakhah today is as clear-cut as we are often told, we would be obliged to conclude that former generations of rabbis were not outstanding pious scholars but, in reality more ignorant and less observant than their contemporary counterparts.

21 • Eliezer Berkovits, Not in Heaven: The Nature and Function of Halakhah, KTAV, N.Y., 1983, p. 91.

22. Prozbul According to biblical law, all loans were cancelled at the end of every seventh or sabbatical year. In order to overcome the reluctance of people to lend money, Hillel introduced the prozbul. This was a document designed to transfer the debt to a court so that it would remain valid despite the sabbatical year.

Shtar-mechirah A bill of sale, whereby chametz - unleavened bread - in one's posses- sion is sold to a non-Jew before Passover and repurchased after the festival. In this manner the law of owning chametz on Passover is not violated even if the chametz was located in one's home.

Hetter-iskah The Bible forbids the lending of money for interest to a Jew. When commercial development demanded modern banking facilities, the rabbis sanctioned the borrowing and lending of money with interest for business purposes by means of a hetter-iskah, a specially designed partnership agreement between borrower and lender.

These innovative adjustments did not represent changes in fundamen- tal Halakhah. Rather, they were ingenious solutions invoked from within the Halakhah itself to solve difficult societal problems. Yet, the contemporary rabbinate rarely displays the ingenuity or the compas- sion shown by their predecessors who so frequently found halakhically sanctioned solutions to difficult religious problems.

29 Innovative solutions to halakhic problems are not necessarily the preserve of 'modern' or 'progressive' rabbis. For example, to overcome the issue of prohibited marriages, divorces and associated halakhic issues related to anti-halakhic practices employed by Reform and Conservative rabbis, the late Rabbi Moshe Feinstein effectively nullified the status of any wedding ceremony not performed in full accordance with the requirements of Jewish law, which includes the need for participation of two adult male observant Jews as witnesses. By this process Rabbi Feinstein in effect resolved the problem of divorce and remarriage conducted by non-Ortho- dox parties and overcame the issues of gett, agunah and mamzerim 23 in marriages performed by non-Orthodox ministers. This was a brilliant and regrettably rare example of flexibility in halakhic law employed to meet the challenge of the social realities of our time. Rabbi Feinstein was an outstanding talmid chakham and one of the great leaders of right wing religious life who would certainly never be regarded as a Modern Ortho- dox rabbi. Yet his solution is not widely accepted by the Orthodox Rabbinate.

Whilst the 'glatt glatt kosher' - super kosher syndrome - is an alarming reflection of extremism in the observance of ritual mitzvot, it is neverthe- less an unfair generalisation to suggest that Jews have become obsessed with ritual mitzvot and are in danger of judging themselves as good Jews by those criteria alone.

This brings to mind the oft-quoted story of the rabbi who asks his syna- gogue president for advice about the subject matter on which he should darshen - preach. He inquires whether he could talk on Shabbat observ-

23. Gett A bill of divorce provided by a husband to a wife, without which a divorce cannot be effected. Agunah A woman unable to remarry because her husband will not give her a gett (bill of divorce) or because there is no certifiable evidence of his death. Mamzer The offspring of an halakhically adulterous or incestuous union. De- spite the frequent usage of this word for an 'illegitimate' offspring, in Jewish law a child born of unmarried parents carries no stigma and may marry any other person.

30 ance. He is told: rather not. "Kashrut"? Rather not. "Family purity"? Rather not. "OK," asks the frustrated rabbi, "on what should I talk"? To which the president responds: "Just talk about Yiddishkeit."

Yet, without promoting the idea of a Judaism of abstract ethics, or a Judaism devoid of mitzvot, it is clear that our generation of Orthodox rabbis is today in danger of being regarded, by many Jews at the non-reli- gious end of the spectrum, merely as interpreters and policemen of ritual observance, catering to an increasingly exotic minority and occasionally even seen to be promoting forms of primitive superstition in the name of religion.

Because many Orthodox rabbis are perceived to have abdicated their role as national moral and ethical leaders, a large proportion of the non- observant regard them as irrelevant fringe-dwellers whom they would encounter only when they face critical Jewish life-cycle events such as marriage, divorce, funerals, conversion and, perhaps, bar .

The problem is particularly poignant in Israel, where rabbis seem to have abdicated their role as moral authorities. They are not hesitant to quote Halakhah on political issues. And some of them are quite happy to sign manifestos demanding as an halakhic imperative that Israel's present boundaries be retained. But, sadly, many of these rabbis are no longer perceived as even being obliged to create a social or ethical awareness. And the repercussions of the recent initiatives by religious parties in the political system could be regarded as scenarios for a theatre of the absurd if the implications were not so profoundly serious.

31 RELIGION AND POLITICS IN ISRAEL

the first twenty years of the State, religious political parties in the Knesset were dominated by moder- ate religious groups who acted as the bridge between religious and non- religious elements and who were committed to the nation as a whole.

For reasons explained above, the former moderate Mizrachi-oriented ele- ments have now largely been displaced by a combination of haredi and ultra- nationalist groupings.

The haredi groups, in particular, have exploited the balance of power and created enormous resentment by obtaining sectional benefits for their members and frequently ignoring the welfare of the people and the State per se.

The unseemly bargaining and outright bribes extended to Knesset splinter groups which now regularly precede the formation of a government is sufficiently nauseating when it applies to politicians who as a whole are generally despised in Israel. It is, however, tragic when rabbis and their followers are involved in such machinations. It becomes a chillul hashem - a blasphemy - when, prior to elections, medieval-style ecclesiastical threats and/or blessings are conveyed through the print and electronic media by various rabbis in order to influence the ignorant and the supersti- tious, thus creating an image of Judaism repugnant not only to the secular but to most traditionally inclined Jews, including many who are strictly observant.

It is such primitive political machinations and the naked pursuit of power by competing religious factions that have now made many former support- ers of religious political parties question the benefits or otherwise of organised religious groups being directly involved in the Israeli political framework.

Consider, for example, the most serious recent manifestation of such absurdity - the Knesset voting patterns on the proposed amendments to the Law of Return. A combination of political expediency and religious

32 zealotry led to a situation in which the genuinely halakhic issue of 'Who is a Jew?' as it applies to Israeli law could have been determined by the votes of Arabs, Communists and other secular interests. Fortunately, after pain- ful debates which were not only counterproductive but even threatened to undermine the relationship between Israel and the diaspora, the issue was not put to the vote in the Knesset.

In this, and similar cases, the new forces of religious extremism tried to exploit Israel's inherent political instability.

This was exemplified in March, 1990 when Rabbi Eliezer Schach - the 96 year old mentor of the haredi party, Degel Hatorah - in the course of an attack against the Labour Party at a mass political rally held in a basketball stadium, condemned members of kibbutzim as Godless with "no links to Judaism, no links to the past.... who breed rabbits and chazir- pigs." 24

The outburst prompted a moderate national religious group, Torah V'avodah to state:

One who speaks in the name of the Almighty should recall that along with their negative attitudes such as eating pork and desecrat- ing the Sabbath, the secular community also has positive attributes, such as the building of the Land of Israel and the sacrifice of its blood for the country's defence and the preservation of the Jews living there.

Torah V'avodah went on to note that, proportionate to the general popula- tion, five times as many kibbutz members have fallen in Israel's wars. It was also observed that in his address Rabbi Schach made no reference to mitzvot affecting relations between individuals and the State, that Hatikvah - Israel's national anthem - had not been sung and that the national flag had not been displayed at the stadium where Rabbi Schach had delivered his speech. 25

24. Jerusalem Post, 28.3.1990.

25. Ibid.

33 Needless to say, crude condemnations of those not adhering to religious observances are not only directed against the Labour Party. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, a former Sephardi Chief Rabbi and the spiritual mentor of another haredi party - - opposed Rabbi Schach and supported the Labour Party. He therefore publicly condemned Likud Prime Minister Shamir and his wife for eating shrimp and other prohibited seafood despite the fact that Mr Shamir's Labour Party counterpart, Shimon Peres, was never regarded as a person with a penchant for kosher food. A further sad example of this sort of behaviour was exemplified several years ago in the monstrous claim by haredi cabinet minister, Rabbi Yitzchak Peretz then of the Shas Party, that the tragic deaths of 22 Jewish school- children in a bus accident was a form of divine retribution to punish people in the area because cinemas in their town operated on the Sabbath (chillul Shabbat). Rabbi Peretz made a similar claim following another tragedy, which he attributed to the fact that some of the mezuzot in the area concerned were not strictly kosher. On another occasion, a Shas Member of Knesset alleged that the death of Israeli soldiers in terrorist attacks was divine retribution for promiscuity amongst women in the army. But Rabbi Schach must qualify for having provided by far the most painful and simplistic explanation for the Almighty's tolerance of innocent human suffering. In an address to students of the Ponivezh Yeshiva which he heads, Rabbi Schach blandly ascribed the Holocaust to divine retribution as a direct consequence of the Jewish people having drifted away from religious observance. Fortunately he did not attempt to explain why reli- gious Jews and millions of innocent children suffered the same fate as the non observant. 26 Such primitive attitudes obviously intensify the trends to polarisation and extremism. In these circumstances, whilst no-one can deny that religious groups have the same democratic right as any other section in the commu- nity to form themselves into common interest political parties, the impact of their presence in the political arena in Israel is now regarded by many as being extremely harmful to the cause of Judaism. Indeed, the move for a total separation of religion and politics is now gaining momentum even amongst religious Jews, including many who were previously supporters of moderate religious parties like the Mizrachi.

26. Jerusalem Post, 26.12.1990.

34 EXTREMIST RELIGIOUS NATIONALISM

brings me to the other danger facing Judaism - religious nationalist extremism - which in the long run may prove to be the greatest danger facing the Jewish people.

The national religious movement was one of the most constructive facets of Israeli society. It harmonised torah and Zion, acted as a bridge between religious and non-religious and was noted for its tolerance and moderation in religious practice and political outlook.

The movement towards religious extremism - away from the traditional centrist groups - is a phenomenon which only accelerated after the reli- gious euphoria which followed the Six Day War (1967).

It is paradoxical that the move towards national extremism was strongly influenced by Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook, son of the saintly former Chief Rabbi of Israel who was renowned for his mystically tinged love of Israel and the Jewish people. Rabbi Zvi Yehuda inherited his father's love of Israel but unwittingly transformed it into a form of extreme nationalism. As a consequence, some of his followers not only believe that we live in the messianic era; they have even been encouraged to believe that the Al- mighty has given them clear instructions about what He requires from us in the political domain. This, in turn, has led to a distortion of authentic Judaism into extremist Jewish religious nationalism.

Regarding themselves as the Almighty's soldiers on earth, some of these nationalists have concluded that major issues affecting life and death, national security, and even the very existence of Israel, are beyond rational or pragmatic discussion or consideration. They are convinced that their particular interpretation of both Halakhah and Jewish history is infallible, and that no other authentic interpretations are conceivable. They not only insist that one may not question their right to expound their theory in relation to the future of the disputed territories, they also claim the right to act on these theories on their own, even if this implicates all of Israel and world Jewry.

35 Most traditional Jews regard the idea of Eretz Yisrael hashlemah - the Land of Israel in its totality - as something close to their hearts. It attracts religious Jews in a way that some non-observant Jews would find difficult to comprehend.

Yet it is a terrible distortion of authentic Judaism to claim that the determi- nation of this issue is beyond the scope of the democratically elected government and the people of Israel, on the basis that any concession in ceding land is contrary to Halakhah under any circumstances.

The result of such a viewpoint could lead to a dangerous situation - I say 'could' because I believe that, for the present, Israel should retain the ter- ritories unless the repercussions of the Gulf War or the implementation of America's "new Order" in the Middle East dramatically change the posi- tion. There is no basis for making any concessions as long as Israel does not have partners on the Arab side with whom to negotiate and when she remains the only country in the world still in a state of war with all but one of her neighbours.

Yet, ultimately the decision on whether or not to cede rocks and sand, or even areas inhabited overwhelmingly by Arabs, must not be subject to a veto by those who claim that this issue has been clearly determined by Halakhah. Such a situation could lead to a terrible cost in Jewish lives. It could even present a mortal danger to the very existence of Israel.

To insist that Halakhah has a clear position on such issues and must be upheld under all circumstances is extremist chauvinism and hence intoler- able. Such a stance threatens democracy in Israel and jeopardises the very basis for co-existence between torah and State. Halakhah, while not open to an infinite number of interpretations, is not necessarily limited at all times to one single decision - as the voluminous codes and responsa literature of the Halakhah exemplifies. Moreover, the halakhot regarding Israel as an independent state are in their infancy when compared to the centuries over which laws regarding kosher food or usury or Sabbath regulations have evolved. At such a time it is thus morally and halakhically irresponsible for national zealots to act as if they and they alone have a monopoly on what is halakhically right and proper and to ignore the vast implications of their actions in relation to the potential life and death of millions of other Jews.

36 THE ABUSE OF HALAKHAH FOR POLITICAL ENDS

The Gedolei Hador, the rabbis re- garded by haredim as their spiritual mentors, are also opposed to the religious nationalism of Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook. They were even more opposed to his revered father, Chief Rabbi Abraham Isaac Hacohen Kook. When some of them also decide to operate as political directors and strive to impose halakhic vetoes on political issues that may affect the future physical existence of Israel, then religious Jews must vigorously dissociate themselves from such attitudes.

It is perhaps pertinent to point out that as far as haredim are concerned the so-called halakhic demand not to cede an inch of territory is of relatively recent origin. Until recently the haredi Agudah party maintained a very dovish policy on territorial concessions which they then related to pikuach nefesh - the saving of human life. It was only when their relationship with Likud warmed that they also adopted halakhic vetoes against territorial concessions.

Rabbi Schach of the Degel Hatorah Party is willing to cede land to Arabs in exchange for peace and remains bitterly opposed to the Lubavitcher Rebbe and other religious nationalists who are unwilling to contemplate the return of territories under any circumstances. The Sephardi haredi Party Shas is divided over the issue, the leaders tending to be dovish but under pressure from a hawkish constituency.

When one is critical of religious nationalists one must make distinctions between the various groupings. When some supporters 27 of Gush Emunim living in Judea and Samaria demand that nothing be ceded and cite Halakhah to justify their case, we must at least respect them as people who are willing to lay down their lives, and those of their children, by their advocacy of what they sincerely believe to be divine will and Jewish

27. I say "some supporters" because I would certainly not classify as extremists the overwhelming majority of Gush Emunim supporters or settlers in the disputed territories. On the contrary, many of them today undoubtedly represent the best and most idealistic elements in Israel.

37 destiny. They are a group whose adherents, by personal example, have dedicated their lives to the Jewish State at a time when many others have become discouraged and disheartened by the tremendous burdens Israel imposes on its citizens.

But when rabbis in Jerusalem who do not permit their children or their yeshivah students to serve in the Israel Defence Force express views on security and military strategy, such attitudes are totally unacceptable.

Indeed, when rabbis living in America whose children have not even settled in Israel tell Israeli parents, whose children could be sacrificed in defence of the Jewish State, that Halakhah denies them the right if neces- sary to cede land in the process of achieving a genuine peace settlement, that represents a chillul hashem, a profanation of God's name.

As a layman, I may be accused of intruding on halakhic matters beyond my competence or meddling in matters which fall within the exclusive juris- diction of the rabbinate. But we are involved here with the complexities of pikuach nefesh, the saving of life itself, not merely for one person, but as it affects the possible survival of the Jewish State.

I do not wish to be misunderstood. My argument is not with those in Gush Emunim and others who support the concept of Eretz Yisrael hashlemah. But I object to invoking an halakhic imperative for any political issue. Such behaviour threatens the essence of the Jewish people. It smacks of false messianism, which has had such tragic consequences for the Jewish peo- ple on previous occasions when we mistakenly believed in what we were told were iron clad guarantees from the Almighty.

To illustrate the point: was Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai breaching Halakhah when he tried to accommodate the might of the Roman Empire in order to save the Jewish people? Or alternatively, was Rabbi Akiva acting against Halakhah when he supported the Bar Kokhba revolt which failed and which brought about the defeat of the Jewish people in their land?

Of course not. Both Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai and Rabbi Akiva acted in accordance with their judgement of situations that confronted them. The point is that Jewish religious views and sacred texts can be employed to sanction many attitudes, but not to transform those attitudes into rigid Halakhah.

38 Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik clearly stated in relation to pikuach nefesh that when a person is sick he or she must seek a doctor, not a rabbi. In an era of ballistic missiles, poison gas and the threat of a nuclear holocaust, Israelis weighing up the life and death issues facing them as a nation must take guidance not from rabbis but from political and military experts. Ultimately they must make their own decisions after reviewing the facts presented to them and not on the basis of halakhic decrees from Gedolei Hador or other rabbis.

It is surely ludicrous to suggest that rabbis should use Halakhah, open to a variety of interpretations, to exercise a veto over military and political experts who are themselves obliged to consider pikuach nefesh for the na- tion. This form of religious fanaticism is doubly dangerous. It knows no limits and has serious repercussions in other areas of Jewish life. Let us not mince words. Once a person claims that he knows that God has person- ally instructed him to follow a particular path, those who oppose him can only be dubbed son'ei Yisrael - literally, enemies of the People of Israel. The next logical step is that the latters' existence becomes an affront to the Almighty, leading to the conclusion that they are not really bnei adam, human beings, and therefore do not have to be treated as such.

That is the basis upon which the machteret of the 1980s, the so-called Jewish 'underground' in Israel, justified the dreadful acts it perpetrated in Cod's name. It led to idealistic young men and women from the best and finest homes in Israel, some of them from Bnei Akiva backgrounds, partici- pating in the premeditated murder of innocent human beings.

That, too, is why Rabbi Moshe Levinger displayed no remorse after having recently killed an Arab. That is why some of his followers treated him like a hero before and after he served a prison sentence for manslaughter. And that is why some extremists even make analogies between Arabs and the biblical tribe of Amalek and from this reach frightening conclusions that are utterly inconsistent with the whole tenor of traditional Jewish ethics.

The worst of such behaviour occurs when people are genuinely convinced that such violence against innocents is being undertaken leshem shamayim, 'for the sake of Heaven'. When well-meaning people believe that they can eschew normal civilised conduct and ignore the rule of law for what they arrogantly believe is a 'higher law', revealed only to them, we are on the brink of evil and chaos.

39 This descent into extremism has also contributed to a virtual collapse of the bridges built up over the years with so much loving care by idealistic religious moderates. Religious Zionists had succeeded in creating condi- tions in which religious and non-religious Jews in Israel did work harmoni- ously side by side. Their attitude was one of keruv rechokim - bringing Jews closer to torah by example, not by pressure, and not by confrontations.

Just two decades ago, in 1967, the religious Zionist elements were widely regarded by non-religious Jews as symbolising the elite idealists of the Jewish people. So it is sad that today, as never before during the past half- century, we face a situation in which religious Jews and their rabbis are, by and large, isolated from the mainstream majority.

40 THE NEED FOR MODERATION

these religious and religious na- tionalist excesses are a result of a breakdown in responsible moderate religious leadership.

It has even had a snowballing effect. Today the inevitable by-product of an insidious process of pressure from extremists has been an inclination by most Orthodox rabbis to avoid assuming moderate positions. There is a corresponding tendency to adopt a simplistic perception of a Jewish world in which everything is black and white, good and bad. Moderation in a sense becomes a dirty word.

Rabbi Norman Lamm pleads against this trend:

Moderation should by no means be considered a 'change' or 'inno- vation'; moderation is, if anything, more mainstream than extrem- ism. But in today's environment, true moderation appears as an aberration or. worse, a manifestation of spinelessness, a lack of commitment. And that is precisely what moderation is not. It is the result neither of guile nor of indifference nor of prudence; it is a matter of sacred principle. Moderation must not be understood as the mindless application of an arithmetic average or mean to any and all problems. It is the expression of an earnest, sober and intelligent assessment of each situation, bearing in mind two things: the need to consider the realities of any particular situation as well as general abstract theories or principles; and the awareness of the complexities of life, the 'stubborn and irreducible' facts of existence, as William James called them, which refuse to yield to simplistic or single-minded solutions. Moderation issues from a broad Weltanschauung or world view rather than from tunnel vision. 28

28. Norman Lamm, 'Some Comments on Centrist Orthodoxy,' Tradition, Fall, 1986, p. 6.

41 Maimonides also maintained that the path of moderation, not compro- mise, was haderekh hayesharah, the correct path. Today, all too frequently, moderation or 'the middle way' is described in some yeshivot as the way of a chamor, a donkey.

In the debased world-view of the extremist, life can be very simplistic. Jews who eat only glatt kosher must be 'good Jews'. Those who do not observe ritual mitzvot are dismissed as 'bad Jews.'

These distinctions can only be made by those who take it upon themselves to presume to know how the Almighty, in His infinite wisdom, categorises good Jews and bad Jews.

But is life really so simple? For example, would those Jews who identify with religious Zionism really feel comfortable at being associated with a Satmar Hasid who claims to be a shomer mitzvot but who insists that Israel is a Nazi state? Or would they feel happier associating with a secular Jew who is an ohev Yisrael, who loves all Jews and is prepared to fight to defend them?

The high point of intolerance is when our people are branded good or bad Jews. And it has reached quite frightening proportions. Many rabbis are terrified of being smeared and so, sadly, they remain silent even when they know wrongs are committed. It is a sad truism that too many moderate Orthodox rabbis have lost confidence in themselves and have surrendered leadership to the more dogmatic and determined right wing.

Just imagine Abraham today making his plea to the Almighty on behalf of Sodom and Gemorrah. There is every probability that the Gedolei Hador, the great rabbinical leaders, would excommunicate him and many reli- gious leaders throughout the world would denounce his voice as that of Satan.

It is sometimes said that the only lesson we learn from history is that we do not learn from history. If Orthodox rabbis who are opposed to extremism fail to assert the importance of moderation; if they fail to emphasise the imperative of unity over division; and if, by default, they allow the kana'im,

42 the zealots, to split the Jewish people, then the disunity and enmity which led to the loss of Jewish independence in the time of the Second Temple could threaten us again.

It is somewhat unfashionable in the increasingly upbeat mood of modern Jewish life for those within Orthodoxy to sound such an apocalyptic warning. Sadly, it has become quite fashionable outside Orthodoxy to fear it may come true.

President Chaim Herzog was correct when he recently warned that inter- nal religious divisions present a greater danger to Israel and the Jewish people than any threat from outside.

Anti-Semitism has always threatened the wellbeing and the physical exist- ence of the diaspora. Throughout the ages countless Jews have also been lost to the Jewish people as a consequence of the ravages of assimilation and intermarriage, even though the threat has never been as great as it is today with the horrifying internal haemorrhage the diaspora is undergoing.

In this context the Orthodox revival is a profoundly important element in the struggle to stem the tide of acculturation. It has all the potential to bring about a renaissance in Jewish life.

But if the trend towards extremism amongst Orthodox leaders - in particu- lar rabbis - is not going to be stemmed we should tremble for the future of the Jewish people.

For the reality remains that Orthodox Judaism cannot survive as a mere enclave without a bridge or level of communication to the Jewish masses.

And the Jewish people could suffer a catastrophic and possibly mortal blow if the current trends towards polarisation in Israel becomes institu- tionalised and two separate Jewish identities evolve.

43 WHAT CAN BE DONE?

solution to these burning prob- lems depends primarily on the quality of our spiritual leaders.

• We desperately need a breed of enlightened Orthodox rabbis who are yir'ei shamayim - God fearing Jews - and who are willing to stand up and be counted, and if necessary condemn the growing extremism and bigotry which has permeated sections of the yeshivah world and alien- ated many Jews from Judaism. In other words, we need rabbis with courage to resist the 'halakhic blackmail' so frequently employed by their extremist colleagues.

• We need rabbis who are willing to denounce behaviour which is incompatible with Jewish ethics and morality. We need rabbis who will revive the ethical teaching of Rabbi Israel Salanter or the Chafetz Chayyim and who will not rely exclusively on ritual observance as the criterion for being a 'good Jew'.

• We need gedolei torah and, generally, rabbis who recognise the impor- tance of moderation without compromising the observance of mitzvot or commitment to a life of faith; rabbis who will have the courage to proclaim publicly that within the framework of Halakhah there is scope for different interpretations; rabbis who will stand up and repudiate the zealots - those who wish to return to the ghettos and also those who believe that in respect to the future of Judea and Samaria, the Almighty has authorised them to act on His behalf even if this means acting in a manner that the majority of Israelis believe would endanger the State.

• We need rabbis who have the courage to stand up and fight against those who, under the banner of Halakhah, fight against the tradition of Torah and Reason. To quote Rabbi Norman Lamm once again:

Klal Yisrael desperately yearns for leadership from enlightened committed rabbis who have the courage to be yir'ei shamayim begaluy- observant Jews involved in the world at large - as well as beseter- inside the religious framework.

44 • We need rabbis who combine intellectual openness with a commit- ment to torah min hashamayim - the divine authority of the torah. We need rabbis with the sensitivity and humanity to strive to harmonize the problem of the modern Jew and the State of Israel in conformity with Halakhah.

• We need rabbis who realise that the entire people of Israel is not comprised of observant Jews alone, but that the non-observant Jewish masses are also part of the people whom God has chosen. 29 Our rabbis must regard themselves as spiritual leaders for all Jews, and not merely for those who observe the ritual mitzvot. They must understand that Judaism includes the Covenant of Abraham as well as the Covenant of Sinai, both of which relate to the common fate and destiny of the entire Jewish people.

• We need rabbis who acknowledge that ahavat torah and ahavat Yisrael are inseparable and who recognise their obligation to act as a bridge between the committed minority and the uncommitted majority who are in danger of losing their identity as Jews. They must convey the need for keruv rechokim, bringing all Jews closer to the torah. To do this our rabbis must be sensitive to human suffering and should be righteous without exuding an aura of religious superiority or self- righteousness.

Admittedly, a call for enlightened rabbis to emerge and forestall the dangerous trends I have been discussing may sound like a somewhat Utopian fantasy.

But all is not exclusively dependent on the rabbis. After all, as well as being leaders, rabbis were often also influenced by trends amongst observant Jewish laymen. And as history can testify, rabbis who emerged as great leaders did so because they found a willing resonance within the Jewish lay community which was seeking their guidance and direction. 30 ______

29. A well known Talmudic dictum states: "Af-al-pi shechata, Yisrael hu. [Even if a Jew transgresses he remains a Jew.] Sanhedrin 44(a). 30. Vide Samuel Heilman, op cit., Vol. 2, p. 26.

45 It is therefore a challenge to all enlightened and moderate Orthodox laymen to ensure that they obtain the rabbis they deserve. Modern Orthodox Jews must ensure that young men with the necessary levels of Jewish and secular education are encouraged to enter the Rabbinate. Rabbis should know that they will receive remuneration commensurate with their abilities and that they will not be obliged to compete with yeshivah graduates possessing no secular education who are frequently willing to accept positions at grossly underpaid salaries.

Most yeshivot, kollelim, and other traditional religious institutions are, and will continue in the future to be generously supported by Modern Ortho- dox laymen. There is, moreover, absolutely no suggestion that haredi institutions per se should be boycotted. Yet one of the most crucial prereq- uisites for the survival of Modern Orthodoxy is the need for its laymen to establish their priorities and direct their financial resources towards the maintenance and growth of educational institutions which will produce rabbinical graduates capable of promoting a Modern Orthodox stream of Judaism. In other words, special support - both financial and moral - will have to be channelled as a matter of priority towards schools, yeshivot and universities which are committed to torah umadda, recognise the central role which the State of Israel occupies in Jewish life, and promote a vision of love which embraces the Jewish people in its entirety and which fosters maximum communication and support amongst Klal Yisrael.

But it is in Israel itself that Modern Orthodoxy faces its greatest and most immediate challenge because the vast number of moderate religious Israe- lis seemingly have no effective representation. Unless they make their presence felt and find appropriate vehicles to express their views instead of merely privately bemoaning the deplorable state of affairs, all the ingredi- ents exist for a major disaster.

The danger is that the rabbinical and religious spokesmen in Israel will become extensions of the most extreme and frequently primitive haredim or nationalist zealots, neither of whom can provide bridges to link up with the majority of Israelis or Jews in the diaspora.

In turn, our children and grandchildren will be in danger of dividing themselves into two separate communities, either rejecting traditional Judaism altogether or adopting a form of religious zealotry which denies

46 the relevance of the world in which they live and encourages them to isolate themselves in self-created ghettos.

In summary, moderate Orthodox Jewish laymen in Israel and in the diaspora must ensure that their views are heard and that the religious representatives they appoint reflect their approach. Lay leaders must also be willing to provide public support for moderate rabbinical leaders of broad vision so that they are encouraged to stand up and be counted in the face of extremist pressures.

This is especially crucial for Israel during these dramatic times when former Soviet Jews will, in all probability, soon become the country's largest group. The overwhelming majority will be illiterate in Jewish terms - with no Jewish tradition upon which to rely. They need spiritual guid- ance from enlightened rabbis or they could become Hebrew-speaking Israelis, devoid of any link with traditional Judaism. This would be a tragedy for Israel and Klal Yisrael.

These, and the other burning problems addressed in this monograph, highlight the fact that the religious issue today undoubtedly represents the most crucial challenge confronting the Jewish people.

47 Additional copies of this publication may be obtained from any office of the World Jewish Congress or directly from:

World Jewish Congress 501 Madison Avenue - 17th Floor New York N.Y. 10022 Phone: 212 755 5770 Fax: 212 755 5883

or

Australian Institute of Jewish Affairs G.P.O. Box 5402CC Melbourne Victoria 3001 AUSTRALIA Phone: 61 3 828 8570 Fax: 61 3 828 8584

48