RAL – facebook and Ha’aretz

Gush alumni are big fans of RAL. Some are so devoted to him that they ironically become Hassidim of Rav Aharon Lichtenstein. If you thought rebbe worship was something only for the ultra-Orthodox, you would be mistaken.

There are facebook groups such as I♥Rav Aharon

People at Gush were even thinking of printing shirts with “I♥Rav Aharon”, of course not to be worn in the biet midrash or anywhere where Rav Aharon would see you

One of this years ideas for the overseas program sweastshirt with Mt. Gushmore, moddled of course on Mt. Rushamore with the likenesses of the four Rashei Yeshiva (Rav Ahraon, Rav Amital, Rav Gigi, Rav Medan) cast into the cliff face.

There is this fan website. He admits:

This is either the closest thing I have to God or the closest thing I have to Avoda Zara. Or both.

If you want a more reasoned approach to Rav Aharhon I suggest you read his books, or at the very least this Ha’aretz article

Concerning Yonatan Bassi, Lichtenstein argues that, as head of the Sela disengagement administration, he displayed conduct reflecting profound morality, as well as Zionism and a sense of mission. "His actions betrayed neither his nation nor the religious camp," he states categorically. "He wanted to serve Israel's best interests. He wanted to open the eyes of a public that was uninterested in understanding the situation. I think such conduct deserves respect. I am very angry that there are still people in my world who not only state that he failed but joyously celebrate that failure."

This does not mean that Lichtenstein completely condemns the criticism directed at Bassi. He believes that, when people say harsh things, they are showing they really care. "We live in an era when the future of the Jewish community here and Israel's future hang in the balance, and some people are more sensitive to this than others," he notes. "The British poet and writer T.E. Hulme related how, during a discussion in France of who was the better dramatist, Shakespeare or Racine, people threw chairs at one another. That shows they deeply cared about the issue."

Somehow I don’t think that Rav Aharon would find it acceptable to throw chairs in the beit midrash. Also he is not exactly condoning people’s actions, he is just saying that it is good that people are passionate.

Nonetheless, he observes: "When people become more religiously observant, they are convinced they have a monopoly on the truth. Although they might care more passionately about certain issues, they are not particularly imbued with a sense of humility or self-criticism that is rooted in a full-fledged spiritual world. They are unprepared to hear what others have to say because they believe it might weaken their religious faith."

It is easy to imagine that this criticism is leveled against the Hardali - the Hebrew acronym for Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) nationalist - community. Although, in his view, the Hardali community displays some degree of intolerance, he sees a definite advantage in the strengthening of religious behavior it has fostered: "The Religious Kibbutz Movement is considered tolerant but is also perceived as prone to making compromises. Religiously speaking, it is less impassioned. The Hardali community is devoted to the Torah and strictly obeys the commandments."

Its interesting that he says that, considering how I have heard many times that despite the machon at gush he doesn’t exactly have a great love of academic Jewish studies. I for one would much rather be an impassioned meticulous member of the Religious Kibbutz Movement than an open-minded Hardali

Lichtenstein says that it's not his political positions that have changed; rather, the national-religious camp has moved further to the right. "Today," he admits, "I am in a political wilderness. I once belonged to the National Religious Party, but today the party is unprepared to hear my views."

People tried to obfuscate and doubt the move to right religiously, but I doubt people have the hutzpa to try the same tactics to convince us that Religious Zionism hasn't taken a drastic right wing turn politically. They also have taken on right wing politics as a religious credo, almost on the level of Rambam's 13.

Nevertheless, he emphasizes that he has never been a member of Meimad, although he supports it from behind the scenes: "I do not see myself going down that route. I advocate territorial compromise, but also hold the view that Jews must never be indifferent to the various parts of Eretz Yisrael, the Land of Israel."

His support of territorial compromise is based on the religious principle of piku'ah nefesh, Judaism's paramount directive to save human life. Soloveitchik also spoke of the need for territorial concessions. "When we talk about territorial compromise, we are talking about a calculated risk," explains Lichtenstein. "And, as long as experts see such concessions as serving Israel's best interests, we must respond. If every lieutenant in the army chooses to ignore policies established by democratic forces, that is a problem."

Don’t worry folks he hasn’t turned left on you. He is still central, all of you just ran as far up those Judean hilltops as you could.

There is also the moral aspect. "When a society becomes overly militaristic spiritually, a price is always paid," he explains. "One price is narrow-mindedness. Unfortunately, that statement holds true for a fairly large segment of the religious-Zionist community."

I’ll let that stand

*BONUS*

Then why is he in the minority? Why has modern Orthodox Judaism not caught on here in Israel?

"The very complexity of that outlook," he replies, "requires a certain level and ability to balance things and clarify issues. It is much simpler to follow a single flag."

Darfur: The "palestine" of American Jews

No one will accuse me of thinking that Darfur is not one of the most important issues that is facing World Jewry and humanity at large.

So I do not need to start by saying that I am glad that the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA) put Darfur high on their agenda.

However, I am disappointed by lack of effort to bring awareness to the genocide which Iran is planning.

The JCPA explained afterward that the resolution was voted down for technical reasons, not because of its content. However, it seems indisputable that the issue of Iran's nuclear armament was not the most popular item on the agenda of the JCPA's plenum: The genocide in Darfur was the top-priority international item on that agenda. In the case of Darfur, a divestment resolution was passed by a large majority.

The mood at the JCPA conference gives some indication of public opinion on the "Jewish street" in America. The fact is that there has been no massive Jewish mobilization to date for the struggle against a nuclear Iran. The largest mass demonstration, in which tens of thousands of American Jews participated, was held in protest of the genocide in Darfur. Israeli leaders like former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and even historians like Benny Morris have declared that Israel is facing the prospect of a second Holocaust; however, Jewish activists in the United States prefer to deal with the genocide of another nation that is taking place right before our eyes.

- Ha'aretz

While it is commendable to be working against a current genocide, that is no excuse to ignore a imminent threat of genocide directed at your people. So what are their excuses?

David M. Elcott, who was recently appointed executive director of Israel Policy Forum, believes that American Jews are simply smarter than Israeli politicians. He says that Netanyahu's apocalyptic rhetoric is not acceptable from the standpoint of Jewish theology; the Jews, he notes, have always spoken of hope, and the language of despair is foreign to Jewish tradition. (still Ha'aretz)

Since when did most of American Jews care about theology? Which tradition is he talking about? Jews are always in despair and they turn to many recourses including Messianism throughout the ages.

In an unforgettable speech that he delivered of the United Jewish Community's General Assembly in Los Angeles last November, Netanyahu kept repeating the same point - namely, that it is as if we are in 1938, but instead of Germany, the threat is an Iran that is trying to arm itself with weapons of mass destruction.

In Elcott's view, the analogy Netanyahu made between Iran and Nazi Germany has a flip side: It draws an analogy between Israel and European Jewry on the eve of World War II. As Elcott sees it, saying that the Jews in Israel are in the same situation as the Jews of Warsaw or Berlin in 1940 "undermines the Zionist vision of an independent State of Israel." (still Ha'aretz)

How are we in such a different position? We were afraid to rock the boat and protest without a state of our own, and now even with a state of our own we are afraid to rock the boat. Political action and acknowledgment of threats to Israel undermines the Zionist vision? What does he suggest, oh right, Jewish theology. I guess by that he means pray to G-d and hope that everything will be alright. G-d forbid you should take action and try to find solutions to the threat of a nuclear Iran, because that would undermine the Zionist vision. I guess when I learned about how Zionism was about taking bold action as opposed to sitting around and talking and waiting for the messiah to come, it was all lies.

I am not saying we should be rushing to go to war with Iran. I know that many people don't want another Iraq, but that is no excuse to hide under the covers and hope it all blows over. It won't blow over if we ignore it, it will blow up in our faces.

But why did I call Darfur the "palestine" of American Jews?

Given the choice between an internal threat and a threat aimed at Israel, many of America's Jews prefer to sit on the fence. It is much simpler and much easier to struggle for the victims of genocide in Darfur. (still Ha'aretz)

Its exactly the same reason the left focuses on Palestinian issue when it looks for someone to rally for. Its easy, and to them non-controversial. We can't just save Darfur because it is convenient and everyone else is doing it. We must do it with the same conviction against genocide that will make us stand up to genocide anywhere in the world, including from Iran. We should not just be interested in Darfur because its the "in" thing. We must stand up in North Korea as well. And as for Jewish groups, its great how we are helping others, but lets not die in the process

Oh... and SAVE DARFUR!

Rav Avi and Zionism

People sometimes ask how I became so Zionist/into Bnei Akiva, or how I got so into Darfur, or why I love tiyulim so much. I don't really have an answer to questions like that. But for the Zionism, well here is a partial answer to the first one:

Religious Zionism vs Modern Orthodoxy

What is the difference between the way the way the Religious-Zionists(RZ) look at the secular and the way the Modern Orthodox(MO) look at the secular?

Torah U’Madda, Torah V’Avodah, what’s the difference?

Let’s make it very clear that neither is Torah U’parnasa, the ideology that masquerades as part of the MO world. It’s so clear that people need to make a living, and in the past people made a living. Haredim also work. Not being in denial about the fact that you need to provide for yourself and your family is not some new idea, and it’s not much of an ideology either.

The followers of Ha’Rav (Kook) talk about bringing the secular and the holy together to reach a combination that is elevated above either one.

The followers of The Rav (Soloveitchik) talk about the secular that has a real truth which can bring one closer to knowledge of G-d, in a similar way as Torah does.

Don’t read too much into that, its just what I hear from people who claim to be the students of The Rav or Ha’Rav.

I was writing this up after hearing a shiur about Purim in which Rav Kook was used as a source many ties in discussing how Purim was a special holiday that represents the eventual eschatological era when the greatest connection to G-d will be attained through physical and spiritual means with no conflict between the two. After the shiur I was reading some Kol Dodi Dofek. This question of MO vs RZ has been on my mind for ages. It was emphasized at a Tish by Rabbi Yosef Blau of Yeshiva University (The model of Torah U’Madda) on divisions in the Jewish world; he mentioned that RZ in America and in Israel made dialogue between the two theoretically equivalent groups difficult, even without a language barrier.

As I was writing this in the front of the beit midrash, Rav Cherlow was giving a shiur on Orot Ha’Rav Kook. I wasn’t in the shiur because the shiur I was just in ended long after Rav Cherlow’s began. However suddenly I hear him talking about Rav Soloveitchik, and the difference between him and Rav Kook. Apperntly someone asked a question about it. I only caught the end of Rav Cherlow’s response, which would be interesting because people say he represents Israel’s version of the closest thing to Modern Orthodoxy. If I heard him correctly, he mentioned something about how The Rav viewed literature as inherently holy, while Rav Kook viewed it as something intresting and part of this world. I am not really sure what that really means, but make what you want of it.

Well that was a short little look into the matter, with no sources or anything passing for a real analysis. Just a sort of an intro to the subject to the hang of blogging.

Another subject I am thinking about a lot is State of Israel vs Land of Israel. Small issue? Nope, just about the biggest thing dividing the religious community, both Zionist and non-Zionist.