Loose Ends: Psalm 29

I've been accused, mostly by Chardal, of papering over the scholarly debate about the nature and origins of Psalm 29 and of saying with far too much certainty that our Psalm is a copy of a Ugaritic poem found in a Syrian cache in 1928.

He's right, to an extent, but he's wrong in the ways that matter most.

The post in question was not intended as a work of scholarship, nor was it meant to summarize the various scholarly views about Psalm 29. The post, in fact, was not about Psalm 29 at all. Its purpose (as 99.99 percent of you comprehended) was to mock the tendency of traditionalists to imagine that our Judaism as we have it today was presented intact at Sinai, when really our rituals, practices and theology evolved slowly over centuries (and continue to evolve.)

In the post, I chose the most radical (though legitimate) interpretation of Psalm 29, and made no mention of the other, more moderate interpretations.* Of this, I am certainly guilty.  

Chardal, however, makes a serious genre error. Criticizing that post for eliding discussion of a complicated and technical debate about Psalm 29 is a bit like criticizing, I don't know, Archie Comics for glossing over the latest research on the the dynamics of teenager relationships. (Chardal actually called the post "poor scholarship." I kid you not. By the Chardal-standard, I guess McDonald's is a poor 4-star French restaurant, a Toyota Prius is a poor Indy race car, and my old digital wristwatch is a poor I-pod.)

* Breifly summarized the various interpretations of the Ugaritic Psalm are:

1. The Ugaritics stole our story/terminology
2.  We stole their story/terminology

--Interpolation--

The terminology in question include the phrase "Benai Eilim" and the representing of God as a stormgod which is how the Ugaritic poetry depicts Baal. Also, some phrases seem to appear in both places.

--End interpolation--

3. Some time after the revelation at Sinai, well-meaning Jews embellished our stories with elements borrowed from other cultures. The Nile floating story could have been added to make Moshe seem more heroic. The "Cloud Rider" epithet could have been appropriated because, well, isn't that what a super powerful God does? And so on.
4. In writing the Psalm, it author made use of the stories and myths and language that would have been familiar to and appreciated by his audience.

Caveats include:
1.  The dating rests on interpretations of the linguistics and stress on accents. Its complicated, technical and not entirely conclusive, though the consensus is the Ugaritic version is at least a few centuries older than the Hebrew version
2. "Stole" is such a harsh word. Do we say Milton "stole" from Homer, or do we say he made use of a style/approach/artistic vocabulary that Homer created while making it wholly his own? Perhaps the author of the Psalm recast familiar Ugaritic idioms in authentically Israelite ways? Sometimes we read with a wink, and tell ourselves, well the verse really means this. Well, maybe the author of this particular Psalm wrote with something like that wink? How would we know otherwise?

---

Search for more information about Psalm 29 at 4torah.com.

Loose Ends: Women leading Kabbalas Shabos

What about Kol Isha? This is what my wife asked when she read the posts about a women leading Kabbalas Shabbos, and its also what many of you brought up on the comments and by email.

In brief, a woman's voice (Kol Isha) is considered ervah or nakedness. Normative Jewish law enjoins a woman from singing in front of men. She is not (yet) prevented from speaking to, or before, men, and I'm not familiar with any discussion of chanting, or other in-between categories.

In any event, if singing is certainly banned how can a woman be permitted to lead a prayer service in front of men? Isn't her singing immodest?

Well, not so fast. Here are the facts not yet established:

(1) Is leading a prayer service really "singing"? Its not a performance. The leader's back is to the congregation, and she is addressing God. Any eye contact she might make is with Him. Also, I'm certain its possible to lead without singing, at least per the most ordinary definition. When I lead, I intone (that is I speak in a singing voice) Does that count? 

(2) Are women really forbidden from singing in a shul? Are they required to sit silently during the congregational songs (or, in shteebles, the congregational humming)?  This strikes me as needlessly exclusive. Perhaps there's an exception for shul singing? 

(3) Is the ban on singing applicable today? This depends on the nature of the prohibition. Do we say that women are banned from singing because of the effect the signing might have on men, or do we say that there's something inherently immodest about a woman's voice? I'm not sure. If the ban on signing is like the ban on going topless, that's one thing, but if female singing was banned because once upon a time it made men horny, I think we can agree the prohibition has outlived its usefulness. Today, ordinary men are not affected this way by singing women (and certainly not by a women chanting Psalms with her back to us) 

Expert readers, what do you know and will you share some of this knowledge with us?

---

Search for more information about singing girls at 4torah.com.

Killing Tree

Jon Stewart on the clash that killed 5 people at the Israel- Lebanon border

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Killing Tree
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

---

Search for more information about [topic] at 4torah.com.

Congressman Anthony Weiner's Marvelous Temper Tantrum and a Lecture on Political Expediency

After corrupt Republican morons in the House blocked a bill to provide health benefits to 9/11 first responders on tenuous, partisan, self-serving grounds, my new favorite Congressman Anthony Weiner went ballistic on the floor of the house. I'm sure you heard about it, though if you were living under a rock you can see it after the jump:

Don't Judge A Group By It's Extremists

A Guest Post By E. Fink

The Westboro Baptist Church practices and preaches an extremely fundamental version of Christianity. They hold that God punishes American soldiers in Iraq because there are "Gays in the military". They hate Jews because Jews are they killed Jesus and are the cause of fornication. They protest at shuls, Holocaust Museums and funerals of soldiers. They are fundamentalists and like many fundies are obscene, anti-social and hateful.

There are orthodox Jews who practice a very fundamental view of Judaism. They say that God killed the Haitians in a massive earthquake because of Gays in the military (or Lashon Hara). They say that Hurricane Katrina was punishment for Mardi Gras. They have been known to murder innocent people for the sake of their beliefs They hate liberals because they allow for depravity such as gay marriage. They protest (sometimes violently) all over on behalf of their causes.

There are Jihadist Muslims who practice a very fundamental and oftentimes violent version of Islam. They wish to rid the world of infidels, including Jews. They have bombed and fired weapons and thrown rocks in favor of their cause. They hate pretty much everyone that is not exactly like them and have no desire to integrate into a democratic society.

There are environmentalists who believe in a very fundamental version of liberalism. They are super passionate about the environment and nature. They stand in front of bulldozers, destroy private property and call people names all to protect nature. They put their lives at risk for their cause and spend millions of dollars promoting their cause. They put their cause above all else (for example instead of procreating).

In all these examples, the extremists make a lot of noise and find their way into the headlines. Would it be fair to associate these extreme elements with the more moderate practitioners of their ideologies? Of course not. I don't want to be judged by the crazed acts of fundamentalist orthodox Jews and I am sure that moderate Muslims, Christian and Liberals feel the same way about the extremists in their ideologies.

Extremism is bad. Nobody likes it except the ones acting extreme. I find it disturbing that Islam is judged solely by its extreme and fairly recent activities. Prior to the 20th century, Muslims were far more benevolent to members of other religions than Christians were. Recently, extremists have become the face of Islam. I think that is unfortunate. It is our best interest to support moderate forms of Islam and help them fight against the extremists.

Are there dangerous forms of Islam? Yes. Are there dangerous forms of all faiths, beliefs and ideologies? Yes again. We should be working together to foster moderates who are tolerant of others in all walks of life.

---

Search for more information about fundamentalism at 4torah.com.

More on the Mosque (that isn't a mosque)

A reader:

I see you (or your blog) got into the mix today. Not sure I understand E. Fink's post though. I frankly don't understand the controversy. The people own property and wish to use it for a purpose that is at the very least perfectly legal (a cultural center) and probably protected by the first amendment as the exercise of religion (a mosque). The government is supposed to deny them the necessary approvals for doing so because they are Mulsim or practice Islam? Don't we live in America?? Aside from the fact that any such action would be thrown out of court in a nanosecond (there are about three or four slam-dunk reasons why such action by the city would be unconstitutional) as Jews, do we really want the government telling people where they can pray?

I understand why the location of the Mosque might anger some people (actually, I don't but I will say I do for the sake of argument) but part of the life in a constitutional democracy means granting people rights you may not care for because you know you will benefit from those rights as well. The complete lack of moral imagination by right wing and their friends among our brethren is truly sickening.

Mayor Bloomberg:

Mayor Michael Bloomberg subtly
reminds his critics that this is the sweet land of liberty

This morning, the City’s Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously voted not to extend landmark status to the building on Park Place where the mosque and community center are planned. The decision was based solely on the fact that there was little architectural significance to the building. But with or without landmark designation, there is nothing in the law that would prevent the owners from opening a mosque within the existing building. The simple fact is this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship.

“The government has no right whatsoever to deny that right – and if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question – should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here. This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions, or favor one over another.

DovBear:
I don't blame every Muslim in the world for the behavior of a minority of their co-religionists, and I don't want the government telling people how they can worship on their own private property. Those are the two salient issues for me, and I'm disgusted with those of you who'd like the government to curtail the First Amendment rights of all Muslims as retribution for what 18 lunatics did on 9/11.

I understand that some of you find the mosque "offensive", but guess what: You don't have a right not to be offended, while they do have a right to freely exercise their religion. This idea that we must not ever be offended is exactly the sort of thinking that got the fatwa slapped on Salmon Rushdie and that Dutch cartoonist killed. I'm sorry if the mosque offends you, and to some extent I can sympathize, but upholding the First Amendment together with civil rights we wish to enjoy ourselves strikes me as far more important. If you disagree, don't come crying to me if your gentile or secular Jewish neighbor has a problem with your eruv or your zonage-violating yeshiva.

Its the same thing.

P.S: The Muslims win this in every court, every time. Why? RLUPA, that's why This is why every eruv wins. Its why every shul wins. Its why every yeshiva wins. And don't we wish to keep it that way?

---

Search for more information about idiot Right Wingers and their foolish, fearful, stupid, can't see past the end of their own self-righteous noses behavior  at 4torah.com.

A DovBear Experiment

From time to time I get emails and comments asking, DovBear what is your view on this, or how do you justify you thinking about that? Usually, I ignore these types of requests, but in the interest of fun and science, I'm prepared to make a one time exception.

If you have a question about my thinking that has been burning a hole in your brain, please drop an email to yourfavoriteblogger@gmail.com slugged: DB EXPERIMENT, and I'll make a serious and concerted effort to address in a future post. Or, comment your question. 

Note: I know most of you don't give two figs about what I think about anything. This post isn't meant for you.

  

Chelsea's wedding

Chelsea Clinton's wedding set a new record for the most media coverage gaining the least amount of information. Really the media disgraced itself, as Jon Stewart makes perfectly clear. (He also had some funny remarks about the whole Jewish thing)

Annoyance note: The Jewish "expert" on one of the clips mispronounces chupah, and mixes up her havarah, saying ketubah and talis in the same sentence.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Wedding of the Decade of the Century of the Millennium
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

---

Search for more information about Chelsea Clinton  at 4torah.com.

Islamaphobia and Cordoba House

A Guest Post By E. Fink

It seems that the Cordoba House in downtown Manhattan has cleared a major hurdle by winning a 9-0 vote of the Landmarks Conservation Commission. (NY Times link)

Conservatives and liberals seem to be at loggerheads on this particular issue. Sarah Palin made headlines with her plea that the center be blocked and fellow right wing pundits have expressed their distaste to the center. They feel it disgraces the deceased by glorifying what they believe to be the religion that caused the tragedy at Ground Zero almost 9 years ago. Liberals, on the other hand, see the center as an olive branch to Islam and think the center glorifies America, not the dangerous form of Islamic Fundamentalism that took down the Twin Towers, 3000 victims and the U.S. economy.

I can't say whether the center is an affront or not. That's because it varies with each person. Everyone is free to react as they choose. I can't say one side is right and one side is wrong.

What I can say is that the center has a bad marketing plan.

The center is not a mosque. It is a massive cultural center. There is a sanctuary planned but it is a minor part of a broader institution. An institution that, according to their website attempts to bring the gap between Islam and the West. An institution that also fights for women's rights and opportunitities within Islam. In fact, if we are to believe the Cordoba website, it is exactly what Americans (especially Conservatives) should be supporting.

From their website:

Cordoba House is a Muslim-led project which will build a world-class facility that promotes tolerance, reflecting the rich diversity of New York City. The center will be community-driven, serving as a platform for inter-community gatherings and cooperation at all levels, providing a space for all New Yorkers to enjoy.

This proposed project is about promoting integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion through arts and culture. Cordoba House will provide a place where individuals, regardless of their backgrounds, will find a center of learning, art and culture; and most importantly, a center guided by Islamic values in their truest form - compassion, generosity, and respect for all.

The site will contain tremendous amounts of resources that otherwise would not exist in Lower Manhattan; a 500-seat auditorium, swimming pool, art exhibition spaces, bookstores, restaurants - all these services would form a cultural nexus for a region of New York City that, as it continues to grow, requires the sort of hub that Cordoba House will provide.

So why call themselves a mosque? Bad marketing.

The center is not "at Ground Zero" either. It is 2 blocks away. If you've never been to Manhattan you can't appreciate how FAR part 2 blocks in NYC are. Two blocks in Manhattan is very far. It is a few minutes walk and more importantly, it is certainly not within the line of sight. They should be saying that their center is a few minutes walk from Ground Zero. Not "at Ground Zero".

From their website:



So the Mosque at Ground Zero is neither a mosque nor at Ground Zero. It is an Islamic Center in Downtown Manhattan. Is that still as offensive to those who oppose the center?

The only reasonable explanation for opposition that remains is conspiracy.

In other words, the website is a sham. The REAL purpose of Cordoba House is to spread Fundamental Islam and serve as a springboard for the continued spread of Islam in their quest for world dominance. This is Islamaphobia. (Which is up there with Homophobia and Gynophobia as the three biggest phobias in the frum community.)

There are people who believe this to be the case. I do not.

If you are asking me, which you aren't, I say support the Cordoba House and the brand of Islam they espouse and perhaps get involved a see it for yourself if you are not convinced. Working together will go a long way.

---

Search for more information about Islamaphobia at 4torah.com.

How Dare You: A short history of Kabbalas Shabbos

This week, the so-called traditionalists are aghast that a woman was permitted to lead Kabbalas Shabbos at H.I.R, but the joke is on them: Kabalas Shabbos didn't fall intact from the sky. It developed slowly, over time. Along the way, there were ample opportunities for traditionalists to scream "How Dare You!"

Date	Event	Traditionalist's Complaint
Antiquity	A proto-version of Psalm 29 is composed, likely by a Ugaritic poet. (Our Psalm 29 is very similar to a poem found in a cache of Ugaritic texts in 1928.)	How dare you compose a religious poem! We never had them before! What can that possibly add to your spirituality??
Antiquity	Psalm 29 is modified so that it describes YKVK, not Baal	How dare you incorporate Cannaite poetry into proto-Judaism? What can that possibly add to your spirituality??
Antiquity	Psalms 92,93,95-99 are composed, likely by an Israelite poet, for reasons unknown	How dare you compose religious poetry! What can that possibly add to your spirituality?? Don't you have something more productive to do?
Antiquity	Some Psalms are incorporated into the Temple service	How dare you make changes to the Temple service! What can that possibly add to your spirituality?? Things were perfect the way they were!
Late antiquity	The Psalms gradually become part of our every day prayer (and also the every day prayer of monks, who made a practice of reciting them daily)	How dare you make the Psalms part of our every day prayer! What can that possibly add to your spirituality??
Mideival period	We develop the idea that reading the Psalms can have a restorative effect on our souls. Concurrently, Christians arrive at the same conclusion, and begin employing the Psalms for the same purpose	How dare you employ the Psalms in this manner! What can that possibly add to your spirituality??  Who do you think you are with your changes!
15th or 16th century	Community of Sefad mystics begin saying 6 Psalms to represent the six days of the week on Friday night between mincha and maariv* (Maariv is delayed until after the stars are out; mincha is said at sunset. Before this practice caught on, people would use the recess to study, or they would go home and eat dinner.)	How dare you add something new to the Friday night service! What can that possibly add to your spirituality?? You should learn, or have dinner with your family instead! That's the Torah-true way!
16th century	The prayer-song Lecha Dodi is composed in Sefad where it is sung following the recitation of the six Psalms	A song? How dare you! What can that possibly add to your spirituality?? Who do you think you are to write a song?
17th-18th century	The Kabbalas Shabbos service spreads across Europe	How dare you introduce a new service! What can that possibly add to your spirituality??
18th century onward	Lecha Dodi is set to various melodies, many of which have secular origins	How dare you sing Lecha Dodi with THAT tune, and not the Torah true tune we used when I was young?
Unknown	Congregations begin singing Lecha Dodi responsively, rather than congregationally.	How dare you make this unauthorized change to the official and authentic style of prayer?
Late 20th century	Shlomo Carlbach's style of Kabalas Shabos spreads	Carlbach? With all that singing? And a different tune for the chazan's recitation? HOW DARE YOU!
Early 21st century	Orthodox shuls allow women to lead Kabalas Shabos	HOW DARE YOU!

* The current practice is to say Psalms 95-99 and 28 before Lecha Dodi and Psalm 92 and 93 afterwards. This is a combination of two distinct practices. At some point (I don't know when or where) communities started saying Psalm 92 and 93 between mincha and maariv. This probably  pre-dates the Sefad practice of saying the other 6 Psalms.

---

Search for more information about Kabalas Shabos at 4torah.com.

A brief demolition of all the arguments against letting a woman lead kabbalas shabbos

The RW of the blogosphere is moaning and groaning about the decision at H.I.R to let a woman lead kabalas shabbos in an auxiliary minyan. Their complaining strikes me as misguided for several reasons.

First, the minyan is optional. Any member of H.I.R who sees no advantage to participating can stay in the main minyan.

Second, decisions made by the Rabbi at H.I.R affect that shul only. If you don't agree with a decision made by the leader of H.I.R, you're under no obligation to make changes at your own shul. Just live and let live.

Third, your complaints are creating a schism. If you can tolerate Hasidic shenanigans without tossing them out of Judaism, I don't see why H.I.R can't be extended the same courtesy. If you succeed in driving H.I.R out of Orthodox Judaism, you are responsible for the children and grandchildren of the people who were made to feel unwelcome in Orthodox Judaism.

Fourth, the fact that this was never done before is irrelevant. Kabalas Shabbos itself is brand new, having been established in the 16th century.

Fifth, the fact that this might lead to something worse is irrelevant. That's the slippery slope argument, and its bogus.

Sixth, your nightmare scenarios aren't that frightening. Harry, for example, frets that next women may wear tfillin or talitot. Newsflash: Jewish women in the non-Othodox sects already wear both, and even some Orthodox women, with the permission of their local bes din, are already wearing tzitzis. Rav Moshe permits it, and in the wonderful words of  Rambam "Women and slaves who want to wrap themselves in tzitzit may do so without a berakha. And so too with other such mitzvot from which women are exempt: if they want to perform them without a berakha, one does not protest" (Hilkhot Tsitsit 3:9).

The MadMen approach to women in Judaism

I'm sorry. Sometimes bending over too far backwards to accommodate someone else can cause your back to break. What ever happened to common sense? Must we now have female Chazanim davening at the Amud? What possible spiritual benefit is there in that? How does one increase their Avodah SheB'Lev by listening to a female Chazan? Can you honestly say that it does so in any siginficant way? What exactly is accomplished here, DovBear? How does Klal Yisroel gain by having a female Chazan Daven Kabbalas Shabbos? How does the Shul gain? Are the Mispallelim going to ave more Kavana with a feamle standing and 'shuckling' ang the Bima or Amud? Do you think this is what God wants His people to do now? Come on. Dont you think there might just be something else driving this? ...and not a search for greater spirituality? -- Harry M.

Yes, indeed. Whatever happened to common sense?

In short, Harry's note is so stupid it almost drools. It ignores the fact that things change, and that 99 percent of the things we do started because someone, somewhere, thought it felt nice. Only afterwards were the deep, spiritual reasons attached to it. And even if you can't quite accept the truth of this premise, use your common sense, for heaven's sake: God never said anything to us about chazanim. We don't know what - if any - "spiritual benefit" a male chazan receives, nor do we know what, if any, "spiritual benefit" is available to the congregation. Any spiritual benefit that does accrue may, for all we know, be available to a woman, too. How does Harry know otherwise? Is he a prophet?

Harry's logic is the logic of the chauvinist, the reprobate, the dogmatist, the die-hard and the monomaniac. See, he can't quite fathom why any man would want a female chazan, and that's where the conversation ends. No other perspective is possible. Disagree with Harry and, well, you don't exist. Not only can't he imagine that another man might think listening to a female chazan would improve his avodah she'blev  but he hasn't paused for even a second to consider if perhaps some woman in the world might have an unaddressed need. Disagree? Well, clearly God agrees with Harry, and anyone who think differently is "driven" by something else, something unseemly, something like... AN AGENDA.

If such reasoning doesn't make you puke, I suggest you see a gastroenterologist.

I'm also irritated on behalf of women everywhere about about the last, little insult in Harry's comment. Have you ever noticed how women who want to do new things are always suspect, but men with the same desires are lauded? For example, when the man who sits down the row from me showed up in a shtreimal for the first time, we were all much too polite to point out the real reason. Rather than insult him with remarks like, "You think that rat hat is going to get your daughter married?" we all congratulated him with the traditional, "Hey man, nice beaver!" Shouldn't a woman be extended the same courtesy? If she wants to DO THINGS THAT ARE PERMITTED shouldn't we meet that desire with respect, and dare I say it admiration? According to what math is female self-esteem such an terrible thing that we need to go further than halacha, and ban what the law permits?

Dear Yeshiva Administrator: Jennifer's reply

At the risk of serious tuition fatigue...Jeniffer from Mama-land has responded to the Yeshiva Administrator who responded to her.

Read it here

HIR, Kabbalas Shabbos, and the worst Cross Currents Post of all time?

Some of you may have heard that HIR (Hebrew Inst. Riverdale, the shul led by Avi Weiss)  had a woman lead Kabbalas Shabbos last Friday night. Here is how Cross Currents responded:

Read the rest of this post

The Power of Piyutim

Most people hate piyutim. I don't, but from time to time find myself wondering what exactly their authors thought they were writing.

A bit of background first. A piyut is a prayer-poem. Jews have been writing them and adding them to the services since antiquity, and the habit didn't fully disappear until well into the Renaissance period. Though the original tunes have been lost, the piyutim were written as songs, to be chanted or sung-- and not antiphonally in the style of the modern shteeble. An 11th century Jew would not have oi-boy-boyed a melody while the reader sang; he'd have sung along. (Ironically, this venerable synagogue practice is dismissed by RW Jews as "modern".)

Stylistically, the piyutim are similar to the non-Jewish poems written in the same time and place. Adon Olam for example employs the Hazaj meter, which frequently appears in the Arab epic poetry of that period. Many piyutim are a collage of biblical verses, cleverly arranged around a theme; others are simply words of praise and glorification of God; others are both. Some rhyme, some follow a meter, some form acrostics, and some do all of the above.

There are a few different ways to understand the purpose of a piyut:

Read the rest of this post.

An Anti-Fundie Drasha

A Guest Post By E. Fink

The second paragraph of Krias Shema begins with a promise. God assures us that if we heed His commandments we will merit wealth. The blessing depends on whether we love God with all our hearts (levavchem) and all our souls (nafshechem).

In the first paragraph of Krias Shema God says: you shall love God your Lord with all you heart (lev) all your soul (nefesh) and all your might (m’odecha). The rabbis interpret might as ones financial resources. In the first paragraph we are charged with serving God with our heart, our soul and our material wealth.

Many of the commentaries wonder why in the first paragraph of shema we are instructed to serve God with our hearts, souls and might and in the second paragraph of shema – the "check up", we are rewarded if we serve God with our hearts and souls, what about our might? Why aer we not judged based on our execution of serving God with all our material wealth?

R' Gedaliah Schorr cites a section from the Nefesh Hachaim (written by R' Chaim Volozhin) to answer this question. There is a famous disagreement in the Talmud between R’ Yishmael and R' Shimon bar Yochai. R’ Yishmael says that one should live Torah im Derech Eretz. Which means, one who wishes to observe the Torah should also make a living and integrate the Torah into his mundane life. R' Shimon bar Yochai retorts “is it possible for one to plow in plowing season and plant in planting season and tend to his crops as they grow and then harvest in harvesting season and still have time for Torah? Torah mah tehe aleha!?" What will happen to Torah?! Rather, says R' Shimon bar Yochai when Israel does as Hashem asks, their work is done for them and when Israel disobeys God they need to work for themselves – as it is written “and you shall reap your grain” and not only that – but Israel will end up doing the work of others!

The Talmud then quotes Abaye (several generations later) who comments on this disagreement that many have done like R’ Yishmael, meaning they worked for a living and were successful and many did like R' Shimon bar Yochai and they did not work and hoped God would provide and they were failures.

R' Chaim Volozhin infers from Abaye's words that he says that MANY did like R' Shimon bar Yochai and it did not work. It says MANY because it can't work for a large number of people. It is impossible for a majority to rely purely upon God and have only a small group working for a living. But for an individual for whom it is possible to live a life relying on God - it is still encumbent upon them to try to live the life that R' Shimon bar Yochai describes.

Using this insight, R' Chaim Volozhin explains the discrepancy between the first and second paragraphs of Shema. In the second paragraph of Shema the usage is in the plural. B'chol levavchem, with all your hearts and b’chol nafshechem with all your souls. But in the first paragraph it is a commandment to each of us as individuals. When we are talking about the group, the community, the general public, there is no way to mandate bchol m’odechem – with your entire material existence, for the group – it is unsustainable. However in the first chapter of shema it is the individual commandment – we are each commanded to live the R' Shimon bar Yochai style life of relying upon God if we are capable of it.

Therefore God does not make the blessings of the 2nd paragraph of Shema contingent on living like R' Shimon bar Yochai. The group is judged by the efforts shown in our hearts and our souls and not by whether we completely rely on God as R' Shimon bar Yochai prescribes since that is impossible.

The message is clear. While fundamentalism may be preferred in an idealistic sense, it fails in a realistic sense. It failed 2 millennia ago as Abaye reports to us in the Talmud, and it is bound to fail again. While the Torah lifestyle of Orthodox Judaism has fundamental elements to it, if the system becomes unsustainable, it is too much like R' Shimon bar Yochai and not enough like R' Yishmael. When idealism usurps common sense and common courtesy it has gone too far.

This is not a cute vort from a liberal, modern Rabbi. These are the words of the heroes of the fundies. Abaye, R'Chaim Volozhin and R' Schorr. I hope you all tell your fundie friends!

---

Search for more information about Gedolim against fundamentalism at 4torah.com.

A Guest Post by Rabba bar bar Chana

The “who is a Jew” situation in Israel is getting preposterous. A granddaughter of holocaust survivors who wants to get married is being asked by the Rabbanut to provide 4 generations of ketubot on the maternal side to prove her Jewishness. And the Rotem bill, set to be taken up by the Knesset in the next few months, would solidify Rabbanut control over all conversions.

It's time to end the Rabbanut's power in Israel. We should call on all couples wishing to get married, even fully Orthodox ones with impeccable "Jewish" credentials, to get married in Cyprus in a civil ceremony, and then to have a private chuppah in Israel that has no Rabbanut sanction at all. All people should rise up and reject Rabbanut control over all their lifecycle events, not just when they fear being rejected by the Rabbanut.

Basically, we should call for a boycott of the Rabbanut. Do an end run around them to protest their abuse of power and increasingly extremist standards. By getting married within the rules of the Rabbanut, Modern Orthodox Israelis, for example, are helping perpetuate their Taliban-like regime.

Israel was founded as a haven for Jews and as a Jewish state. But why does that mean that the Israeli Rabbanut should have the right to dictate what Judaism is for everyone?

Let there be separation of shul and state in Israel. Israel can be a Jewish country in the sense that it provides a place for Jews and for Judaism to be safe. The Rabbanut can still exist, and be funded by the state, but only as an optional service for those who want it. And the heterodox movements should also have their own, optional streams within the Rabbanut.

Sadly, though, demographics in Israel make it likely the current official religious extremism will just get worse and worse.

---

Search for more information about the Rabbinate's abuse of power at 4torah.com.