Rejewvenate!

XGH can’t get enough of the science vs. faith issue, and I suppose neither can I. Unlike XGH, I’ve always taken the not-at-all-original position that science and faith have two different roles and asking if they contradict is sort of like asking whether the Declaration of Independence contradicts a grapefruit.

A fundamental truth and feature of human existence is the presence of uncertainty in our lives. Whether it’s choosing an investment, a school to attend, a candidate to vote for or a movie to go to, we must constantly make choices based on insufficient information about the past, present, and future.

Science is one kind of response to uncertainty. Logically, if the problem we face is uncertainty, better information will improve our decisions and capabilities. Thought we often think about science as a pathway to inventions and innovative products, those things are the result of engineering, not science. At heart, science is a quest for knowledge, and the knowledge gained impacts every area of human endeavor.

We all acknowledge that science as practiced in the last few hundred years has been an astonishing success. But science is a relatively slow process, and its task - the understanding of the universe - is immense. No matter how fantastic science is, we remain with a tremendous amount of uncertainty.

Religion is at heart a response to that uncertainty. At its best, it is a tool for navigating uncertainty. We would all agree that even as science circles closer and closer to satisfying and complete answers to some very difficult and important questions, it remains incomplete. There are very many questions that science cannot answer, and very many answers that science has provided over time which have proven to be incorrect by varying degrees. Therefor, for the person trying to establish a method for making decisions, science is an imperfect tool. Relying on its findings absolutely, to the exclusion of all other means of evaluation, is irrational. It is true that one cannot do science effectively except by submitting fully to the scientific method, but doing science and living life are two different pursuits, with very different goals.

Religion is many things: a tool for making decisions when faced with uncertainty, a means for protecting and conveying important information across generations, and a source of comfort and strength in times when doubt and fear overwhelm our rationality.

We attribute truth even to non-rational aspects of religion. I can’t scientifically test for Tumah v’Tahara. No neurologist or cardiologist has ever identified the soul. But if we are to put any stock into the intelligence of our forebears, and the value of human cultural experience, we must agree that these constructs, whether physically real or not, are just as true as gravity or magnetism. We can see and feel their impacts, even if we cannot test or measure them scientifically.

When I need to make a decision, I evaluate that decision not only based on  ‘rational’ modes. I ask myself, and I’m sure I’m not alone in this, whether God would approve of my decision. Surely, the answer I receive depends on my specific conception of God - after all, many suicide bombers have asked themselves this same question, and came up with an answer I find evil and abhorrent. But how can I live without asking that question? Science can’t give me certainties, and as it turns out, neither can religion. But religion allows to tap into generations of human knowledge about relationships, right and wrong, community, and insight into how to live a meaningful life, and I just can’t get that from science.

In a move that brings Orthodox Judaism hurtling forward through time to the 1960s, the Shalom Hartman institute will ordain women to be Orthodox rabbis.

More accurately, the institute has opened a 4-year program to prepare people of any Jewish denomination to receive rabbinical ordinate.

More on this later, but I think this marks a major turning point in Jewish history, not so much for the content of the decision, but because the decision emerged from an Israeli institute. Is progressive Orthodoxy now an Israeli phenomenon, surpassing Yeshivat Chovevei Torah?

Ultra-Orthodox missionaries from Bnai Brak have hit upon a very old scheme for gaining adherents - monetary incentive. As Ynet reports, Hareidi rabbis have been offering poor high school kids in Ramat Gan 18 shekel to attend a Torah study class.

I’m a little stunned. It is not acceptable behavior to bribe high school students in this manner. Talk about not passing the smell test! Would it be okay for secular Israelis to bribe Hareidi students to eat pig, or attend a lecture on evolution? If I found out that somebody was bribing my kid in order to indoctrinate him without my consent I would be driven to violence! Subverting parental choices about education and basic values goes beyond merely disrespectful. It is a violation of basic parental rights and a brazen act that will surely result in grief to all parties.

And from Israel, no less. I was recently emailed a responsum regarding what constitutes a reliable Hechsher from Rav Aviner, the Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Ateret Cohanim in Jerusalem I am reproducing the responsum in part. If you would like the whole things, please email me at rejewvenator[at]gmail.com

Question: Is it acceptance to eat food under the kosher certification of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel or should I only eat from Badatz?

Answer: Quite simply, all kosher certification is acceptable, whether it is Mehadrin, Badatz, or the Chief Rabbinate. Any product with any kosher certification is presumed to be acceptable until proven otherwise. We rely on the principle of “chazakah – presumption” based on the Gemara in Niddah (15b) that a Torah scholar “does not allow food to leave his domain without its kashrut being ensured.”  [...] There is, however, a general principle: We must not doubt the kosher certification of Rabbis. It does not matter which Rabbi who gives certification – whether it a Rabbi with a knit-kippah or with a velvet kippah. If we say that it is not kosher, we are saying that this Rabbi is a sinner. He is feeding non-kosher food to the Jewish People! This is a serious accusation. This thought itself is the height of non-kosher thinking. Why would he do this? What is his motivation? He wants to make money? In order to make money he is willing to feed non-kosher food to people?! Making such an accusation against a Torah scholar is a serious transgression. One must be very careful about acting this way. [...] All kosher certifications of all Rabbis are therefore acceptable until proven otherwise. I am obviously only referring to Orthodox Rabbis who are particular about the laws of Kashrut.

This type of halachic reasoning affirms that principle of derech eretz kadma la-Torah. Rather than falling into a discussion of halachics, R. Aviner recognizes the underlying principles of respect due to one another, and particularly, respect due to Rabbis, who are themselves ‘certified’.  But wait, there’s more!

Question: Nonetheless, perhaps I should be strict and only eat food with the kosher certification of the Ultra-Orthodox?

Answer: May a blessing come to anyone who is strict. The Talmud Yerushalami quoted by the Tosafot in Avodah Zarah (36a) says, however, that one of the conditions of one who is strict is that he does not shame other people and, all the more so, a Torah scholar. [...] Someone who wants to be strict can be strict about whatever he wants, not necessarily relating to the laws of kashrut. He can be strict about the laws of tzitzit or Shabbat or lashon ha-ra (evil speech) or the Land of Israel or loving other people. Each person can choose to be strict about whatever he wants, but a person must also know where he stands. The Book “Mesillat Yesharim” discusses being strict in “Sha’ar Ha-Perishut – The Gate of Abstinence”: A. To separate from any pleasure which in unnecessary in life. B. To act strictly regarding everything in the world. C. To dedicate all of one’s time to divine service. I do not know if we are at this level. I am not at this level. A person who wants can be strict, but he must remember the “Vidu’i” (confession) of Rav Nissim Gaon: “For that [on] which you were strict, we were lenient; for that [on] which you were lenient, we where [sic] strict.” You were strict in the laws of kashrut, but lenient in the laws of lashon ha-ra. If you want to be strict, you can be strict, but I say that it is more important to be strict in honoring Torah scholars.

Of course! A lesson we teach to Baalei Teshuva (Jews returning to or first taking on traditional observances) is to recognize where you are, and not take on too many commitments if you are not at the point where you can truly maintain them and feel authentic about that level of observance. It’s a lesson we are often not even taught when being raised inside the religious community. Better to observe at a level that is consistent and authentic with your heart, and to take on strictures that are personally meaningful, than to be herded by a community into a hypocritical lifestyle of strict piety that holds no personal meaning for you and misrepresents you before God and man. It is comforting to hear R. Aviner expressing these sentiments, and taking aim at a ritual that has spun out of control and threatens the very meaning of Kashrut.

A few weeks ago, after a well-received sermon at a Westchester synagogue, I was approached by one Dr. Solomon Dinkevich, a professor of mechanics and applied mathematics who has also written on Jewish topics, including perhaps most famously, a calculation of how Noah could have possible fit all those animals in the Ark.

Dr. Dinkevich pressed into my hands a different article that Shabbat, about the demographic trends within Jewish denominations. By now we’ve all seen these articles, often accompanied by charts, that show that the more kugel you eat, the more Jewish grandkids you’ll have. Ok, not really. They show what the Orthodox keep saying: that Orthodoxy has the highest birth- and retention-rates of the Jewish denominations (and the more to the right you go the better), that the Conservatives are barely replacing their own, and that Reform Jews are a-dwindling away.

It feeds into that Orthodox fantasy that one day, many years from now, they will wake up and find that ‘heterodox’ Jews ahve simply disappeared, vanished into a puff of smoke in the shape of themselves.

It’s also horseshi- ehem. The only thing that this study shows is the the setbacks suffered by Jewish movements, not the Jewish community itself. In other words, it’s true that fewer and fewer Jews are identifying themselves as Reform, or Conservative. On the other hand, more are identifying as Reconstructionist or Renewal, denominations not presented in the study, or in many studies. Even more identify themselves as nondenominational. Some see this as a negative, a sign of lack of ‘affiliation’, lack of true membership in Jewish life. Surprising then that minyanim like Hadar and Kol Zimrah, rising stars in the Jewish institutional community, take these labels for themselves, as do many other innovative new Jewish organizations, from JDub to Reboot to the granddaddy of them all, Birthright Israel.

But beyond the fact that Jews today are less likely to identify with a denomination (unless they’re Orthodox, in which case they most certainly choose not only a denomination, but a prefix, like Modern, or Centrist, or Ultra, or Hassidic, etc.), even within the denominations there is a shift. The institutions that brought us to this dismal place are changing, and the leaders who shepherded the process are being replaced. Every day we hear about nwe Jewish leaders, bright ideas, innovative projects and a rebirth of zeal, energy and light in the Jewish world. Demographers love to use the caveat “assuming current trends hold” - which, of course, they never do (Falling Rock Zone? Shouldn’t that sign say “Road Closed”?) Demographic studies can offer a snapshot of what’s happening today, but they are notoriously poor at predicting the future. And really, aren’t such studies used more often not to deal with the problem they ostensibly point to, but to delegitimize  opposing groups?

As the Jewish community variously gears up to prevent, ‘inreach’ fret, strategize, or otherwise just plain deal with intermarriage, I think an important point is being overlooked.

The intermarriage of today is not the intermarriage of the past. A good analogy is how America assimilates people today versus in the past. The model of past assimilation was the melting pot. A diverse immigrant population would come to America and busy itself with the task of becoming indistinguishably American. People sought to abandon the individual trappings of their cultural in favor of American homogeneousness, and with it, American prosperity.

Today’s assimilation is different, as is today’s intermarriage. Sociologists now refer to the “salad bowl” rather than the melting pot. Individuals do not melt into a single type, but rather, retain much more of their individuality and identity evena s they are accepted into the whole. One no longer need shave a mustache, discard a head scarf, or unwind a turban to achieve acceptance and success in what has gone from a repressed culture in the 1950s to an exuberant, expressive and polyglot one today.

Intermarriage today is not about erasing a Jewish identity in order to melt into a Gentile society. Though marrying a person of another faith will certainly blunt certain kinds of religious expression and later others, in relationships observed today, it does not, nor does it even seek to, eliminate expression of one faith or the other.

The point in this, as in all discussion of intermarriage, is the next generation. Put aside for a moment the question of which children from what types of unions are ‘actually’ Jewish, as vexing a question as this may be for some, and as consuming as it is when we engage it. Children from mixed unions are often encouraged to explore both faiths. Many wish to choose only one, and many wish to commit to one in a more complete manner than perhaps their parents did. Maybe this is in response to the fractured upbringing they experienced. Who can say for sure? But these children will resurface in our Jewish communities. And some children will embrace all the fragments of their religious identity, and try to stitch a whole fabric out of this patchwork. They too will resurface in oru Jewish community.

And so will many others, undescribed here. But that puts the point on this whole discourse. Intermarriage today is different than intermarriage in the past because the children WILL EMERGE in our communities. That’s a hopeful thought.

Attributable to Rabbi Irving “Yitz” Greenberg

Questioner (at the RCA convention a few years back): “Rabbi Greenberg, after the Holocaust, is it better to be Orthodox, Reform, or Conservative?”

Rabbi Greenberg: “It doesn’t matter what you are, as long as you’re ashamed of it.”

Thanks to Mixed Multitudes for the quote, and for an interesting post.

I have come to believe that a new schism is coming to the Jewish world, a vast new reorganization that will supplant the current denominational divides. One of the new fault lines will split the Orthodox movement and pit Hareidim against Modern Orthodox Jews. Ahead is a guest post by my good friend and long-time reader MJFire surveying this split. The post comes in response to a post on Emes Ve-Emunah about R. Nachum Eisenstein’s pronouncement in R. Elyashiv’s name at the Eternal Jewish Family conference that it is heresy to believe that the world is older than 5768 years.

Without further ado, the guest post:

I think the MO have a dependency on the Charedim that is entirely one-sided, and this is at the root of the problem between the two camps. On the one hand, the MO are in awe of the emunah, lack of materialism, and rigorous observance of halakah of the Charedim.  Moreover — and more importantly – they depend on Charedi religious leaders ( e.g., R’ M. Feinstein, R’ A. Kaminetzky, and R’ S.Z. Auerbach, et al.) for piskei halakha on many practical issues, with the prominent exception of educational standards and tzniut/negiah.  This dependency puts them in the difficult position of kowtowing to the Charedi world’s norms and standards on a semi-regular basis.  On the other hand, I do think that the MO value their contact with the modern world, and recognize that for all the problems that such an interaction creates for a religious person, this contact is worthwhile.  In other words, they are unwilling to give up the “modern” aspect of their lives, and have therefore made the choice to accept, with some level of disappointment, the disdain in which they are held by the Charedi world, while at the same, secretly admiring many aspects of the Charedi world.

But the attitidue of the Charedim (which has never returned the MO’s secret admiration) has moved from disdain to condemnation — and as the Charedim grow more powerful in Israel and take better advantage of emerging tecnologies to broadcast this message, this attitude starts to define the relationship.  At core, the MO need to realize something that they have been loathe to recognize in the past: the Charedim just don’t need and don’t care about the MO.  The Charedi world views itself as Shevet Levi at the moment Moshe comes down from Sinai after having shattered the luchot.  They are perfectly willing to execute the family members who have strayed from the path, and they will burn down the village to save it. This attitude is anathema to the MO world, even in its interactions with the Conservative and Reform movements.

The response of the MO should not only be in denominational reorganization (which I think has as much if not more to do with the drift of the Conservative movement), but to break with the Charedim by actively cultivating poskim from within the MO community who are willing to publish an MO Mishna Berurah and an MO Igrot Moshe that is not only modern in a “scientific” outlook (there is really no great controversy over evolution among the MO), but that takes a modern approach to issues on which the MO world has been totally beholden to the Charedi community for halakhic guidance in the past, but where there is now a sense growing alienation from the Charedi camp, ( e.g., womens’ issues such agunah, kol isha, and kavod hatzibur, and even chumras related to shmirat shabbat and kashrut). Only then can they say to the Charedim — we don’t need you anymore.

Since the ill-fated Camp David negotiations between Ehud Barak and Yassir Arafat collapsed into an orgy of blood and violence we now call the Second Intifada, many on the Israeli side have abandoned the principle of land for peace. This principle, which became official US policy after Russia hastily agreed to a UN-brokered ceasefire to the June War of 1967 that did not require a withdrawal to pre-war lines, remains the official policy of Israel, the US, the Quartet, the UN, the Arab League, the PA, Fatah; pretty much everyone except Hamas. So why have forty years gone by with no resolution to this conflict?

Along comes Bueno de Mesquita (no, it’s not a name for a delicious new Tex-Mex barbecue sauce, it’s a real person, and he’s a lot smarter than either of us) with an answer for not only that question, but also for the question of how to resolve the conflict.

“In my view, it is a mistake to look for strategies that build mutual trust because it ain’t going to happen. Neither side has any reason to trust the other, for good reason,” he says. “Land for peace is an inherently flawed concept because it has a fundamental commitment problem. If I give you land on your promise of peace in the future, after you have the land, as the Israelis well know, it is very costly to take it back if you renege. You have an incentive to say, ‘You made a good step, it’s a gesture in the right direction, but I thought you were giving me more than this. I can’t give you peace just for this, it’s not enough.’ Conversely, if we have peace for land—you disarm, put down your weapons, and get rid of the threats to me and I will then give you the land—the reverse is true: I have no commitment to follow through. Once you’ve laid down your weapons, you have no threat.”

Bueno de Mesquita’s answer to this dilemma, which he discussed with the former Israeli prime minister and recently elected Labor leader Ehud Barak, is a formula that guarantees mutual incentives to cooperate. “In a peaceful world, what do the Palestinians anticipate will be their main source of economic viability? Tourism. This is what their own documents say. And, of course, the Israelis make a lot of money from tourism, and that revenue is very easy to track. As a starting point requiring no trust, no mutual cooperation, I would suggest that all tourist revenue be [divided by] a fixed formula based on the current population of the region, which is roughly 40 percent Palestinian, 60 percent Israeli. The money would go automatically to each side. Now, when there is violence, tourists don’t come. So the tourist revenue is automatically responsive to the level of violence on either side for both sides. You have an accounting firm that both sides agree to, you let the U.N. do it, whatever. It’s completely self-enforcing, it requires no cooperation except the initial agreement by the Israelis that they are going to turn this part of the revenue over, on a fixed formula based on population, to some international agency, and that’s that.”

(Good Magazine via Marginal Revolution)

Not bad, huh?

Or a Mazel Tov, if you’re old-school

On the first night of Sukkot, my wife gave birth to our first child, a beautiful baby boy! Mom and baby are resting comfortably and recovering well.

I was scheduled to give a six-part lecture series over the three-day holiday at the Dude Ranch in Passaic (where Deuter-Pesach, Duder Sukkas, and Machvis, Shushan Machvis, Machvis Sheini and Machvis Katan all take place) but because of the timing of the birth, I was only able to deliver an abridged and condensed version. I hope to reproduce the six parts in some kind of written format here, but as a new father, perhaps I’m biting off more than I can chew. We’ll see how it goes!