How Arye Deri Might Force the Chief Rabbinate to Recognize Rav Rabinovitch's Conversions

My favorite political writer in Israel, Zev Kam, floated a fascinating theory in last week's Mekor Rishon suggesting that the individual who might be most responsible for the official acceptance of the conversions performed by the new conversion Beit Din of Rabbi Nachum Rabinovitch might be none other than Arye Machlouf Deri, head of Shas.

Deri? you ask. He's the head of a Hareidi party, and a devoted follow of Rav Ovadia Yosef zt"l. Rav Ovadya's son, Sephardic Chief Rabbi Rav Yitzchak Yosef, recently criticized the Beit Din by asserting that,

"They want to convert children who will eat pork and violate the Shabbat. This represents a falsification of the words of Torah, even according to Rav Kook and Rav Yisraeli. These conversions are forbidden." 

[A short digression on Rav Yosef's comments: On the first point there is no debate. The Beit Din does not require that the children commit to an Orthodox lifestyle. On the second point, Rav Rabinovitch doesn't need my defense. Yet, I note with interest Rav Yosef's choice of words about the conversions themselves. He could have said that they are illegitimate and will never be recognized. He did not say that. He said, הגיורים האלו אסורים, meaning that in his mind, it is forbidden for a rabbi to perform such a conversion. What would the halachic status of a person converted by a recognized rabbi? Rav Yosef did not answer that question. End digression.]

Yes, Deri.

How would Deri coerce the Chief Rabbinate to accept and legitimate these conversions? He'd do it, unintentionally, through the magical world of Israeli politics. This is because while Deri himself would never suggest accepting these conversions, given the proper incentive, Prime Minister Netanyahu would. Why in the world would Bibi want to get himself involved in this fight? Because he needs a gas deal, and he needs it sooner rather than later.

The Gas Deal
Jews around the world, and especially in Israel, rejoiced when we learned of the discovery of huge natural gas reserves in Israeli waters in the Mediterranean Sea. The first field, Tamar, is estimated to have 7.9 trillion cubic feet of gas. That's a lot. Discovered in 2009, the field came online and began producing gas in 2013. Just to get a sense of the crazy Israeli politics involved: Tamar is directly west of Haifa, but due to lawsuits and holdups in the Supreme Court, it turned out to be easier to just pipe the gas under the sea all the way to Ashkelon, one hundred miles to the south. (And if you drive north today on Road 6, you'll see crews laying pipeline to carry natural gas north from Ashkelon to the utility plants in the north. Crazy.)

Tamar turned out to be an appetizer for the main meal, as Noble Energy announced that it discovered another field they called Leviathon, which is estimated to contain 16 trillion cubic feet of gas (more that a lot; much more). Yet, before the company can begin producing gas, the government must sign off on the agreement that it made with the company to buy the gas. This turns out to be incredibly complicated. The general sense that I get is that right-wing parties want to sign the deal, while left-wing parties think that the government should hold off and demand a better deal from the fatcat tycoons who are getting filthy rich by selling gas that belongs to the Israeli public. Both are probably right. It's very confusing, which is why you're probably not even reading this paragraph, and skipped to the next heading when you read the words, "The Gas Deal"

Deri's Role
How does Deri fit into all of this? Well it turns out that in order to trigger the deal already approved by the Cabinet, it must be certified by the government's Antitrust Commissioner, ensuring that contracts to do not give monopolistic rights to specific companies. (This deal does seem to have all the markings of a monopoly). Yet, like so many Israeli laws, this one also has a loophole. Article 52 of the Antitrust law states that in cases of national security or foreign policy concerns, the Economy Minister (Deri) could sign a waiver that would circumvent the antitrust commissioner's objections. In other words, Bibi had a "Get out of jail free" card for his gas deal: Arye Deri. All Deri had to do was sign the papers, the gas deal would have gone through, the companies would have gotten rich, and the Israeli public would have enjoyed a windfall from the taxes on that gas (albeit less than they should get, but who's asking?)

Deri refused to sign the deal. Not once, but twice. It's clear that if Bibi thought for a moment that Deri wouldn't sign off, he never, ever, ever would have made Deri the Economy Minister. Never. But that's water under the bridge. And, on top of it all, the current Antitrust commissioner just resigned, and Deri has to find someone else to take the job. That person will then need to reexamine the whole agreement, create a commission to conduct an inquiry - a huge tumult. It will take months, if not years for this gas deal to go through. And, Egypt just found an even bigger gas field in its waters.

Bibi wants this gas deal. Badly.

How do you get approval for the deal if you can't get Deri - who you appointed as your Economy Minister - in your coalition, to sign the papers? Well, you can bring it to the Knesset for a vote, and approve it officially, without the need for loopholes.

There's only one problem: Bibi's coalition is 61 out of 120 seats - razor thin - and he'll never get the vote passed with that margin. He needs breathing room, and there's only one natural place for him to turn: Avigdor Lieberman.

The Lieberman Factor
Lieberman surprised the political pundits when he announced that his Yisrael Beiteinu party would not be joining the government this year. He can change his mind at any time, given the proper incentive. In fact, it has been widely assumed that he would eventually join the government, as Bibi himself never actually filled the post of Foreign Minister (keeping it for himself, and placing Tzipi Hotoveli as Assistant Foreign Minister) which he seems to be saving for Lieberman. What might Lieberman want in order to enter the government? I assume that he'll want a whole host of things, but included in the list might very well be the issue of conversions.

Lieberman represents an almost exclusive constituency from the former Soviet Union, and for them, the issue of conversions really is important, no so much because they want to convert, but more because those who are not halachically Jewish can't marry legally in Israel, and feel like second-class citizens. This is a symbolic issue that's very important to Lieberman's community, even if practically it won't make that much of a difference.

Last month, Lieberman held a very public meeting with Tzohar Chairman Rav David Stav in order to discuss ways to promote the acceptance of the conversions promoted by the new Beit Din. A Hareidi website reported that,

"Lieberman and Rav Stav agreed that the Yirsrael Beiteinu party will work with the relevant parties in the government and the Chief Rabbinate, in order to find a way to allow these alternative Batei Din to operate, with official recognition for the conversions performed."

Lieberman further threatened that if the conversions were not recognized, his party would once again introduce a new "Tzohar Law" legislating the rights and recognition of the new conversion courts. These threats and any new legislation, only have a hope of passing if Lieberman joins the government and helps pass the gas deal.

So, in the end, who might have forced Bibi to turn to Avigdor Lieberman to pass his gas deal, who in turn will force the Chief Rabbinate to accept Rav Rabinovitch's conversion court? That's right: none other than Arye Deri.

Maran would be appalled.

Post Election Redux

The Family Enjoying a Lovely Sunday - er - Election Day

We Need More Election Days

The greatest aspect of the elections are the fact that the entire country has off on a weekday. Once every two (to four) years, the people of Israel finally get to have a Sunday. I miss Sundays. The country would be so much calmer if people had a day to shop, spend time with their kids, or just hang out, unrelated to Shabbat. My proposal: Once a month during the summer months Sunday should be a day off, with the extra eight hours spread over the other four days: nine hours from Monday through Thursday, and a short workday on Friday from 8am to 1pm. If only.

Votes in the Toilet

Losing fully 25 percent of your base really is pretty bad. Part of that can be blamed on the Chardal elements of the party moving to Eli Yishai's Yachad party, led by their Rabbinic leadership, including Rav Tau of Har Hamor, Rav Dov Lior, and Rav Aviner. Fully 40 percent of Yad Binyamin's electorate (presumably the entire population of Torat Hachayim) voted for Yachad which did not reach the minimum threshold, thereby throwing almost 120,000 votes (about 3.5 Knesset seats) in the toilet. 

Bibi's Brilliant Scare Campaign
Many people did vote Likud, fearful of not just of a Labor government, but even more fearful of a Likud-Labor unity government. If you're nervous about territorial concessions, that's the nightmare scenario. Think about it this way: when was the last time a left-wing government (which could only survive in the Knesset with Arab support) made a major territorial concession or peace agreement? Somehow, the right-wing governments (with left-wing support) are the ones that give back land we've never gotten back. It's a good bet that Netanyahu wanted the right wing to fear that he would do exactly that, hoping to scare people into voting for him. It worked, pretty well.

Alienating Your Base
To me, the Bayit Hayehudi loss began almost immediately after the election, surrounding one simple issue: Day School Tuition.
No, we don't spend nearly as much money as our friends in the Diaspora. No, we cannot understand how they make ends meet, especially in the United States, with tuition costs out of control. But tuition still represents a major, major expense for the Religious Zionist community, with tuition costing at least ten thousand shekel per child (after elementary school) per year, and up to twenty thousand shekel for kids who dorm. That's a lot of money for many, many families, and was clearly an issue motivating many voters during the last election.
No problem, Bayit Hayehudi told us. We've got you covered. We'll take care of it - especially the Assistant Minister of Education, (future former) MK Avi Vortzman. They won't so far as to promise to reduce tuition by a staggering forty percent!
What did they do? They sent an urgent dictate to all schools: lower tuition by ten percent. Having no choice, the schools did exactly that, and lowered tuition by ten percent. The government then transferred to the schools, exactly zero. Nothing to cover the tuition reductions. Efes. So, what do you do when you're income is reduced? You cut back on services to cover your losses. Parents were left frustrated, especially when the Bayit Hayehudi then ran an ad campaign proclaiming that "We kept our promise! Problem solved!" Hardly. The whole cynical experience left every parent who pays tuition with a bad taste in our mouths. No one that I know is crying for (future former) MK Vortzman, who will soon see himself (together with Orit Struk and Shuli Mualim) out of the Knesset.

Naftali Bennett's Upcoming Decision
Then Naftali Bennett tried to expand the party to include first popular journalist Yinon Magal - who's traditional-religious (how many votes did he bring to the table?), so we looked the other way. Then he ridiculously tried to bring former soccer player superstar Avi Ochana as well, prompting a mini-revolt within the party. I got the sense that voters felt like, "Hey, if you're trying to make the Bayit Hayehudi into the Likud without catering to the Religious Zionist sector's needs, no problem. We've already got a Likud with plenty of religious members of the Knesset. So we'll vote for them." Speaking with a neighbor about this issue the day after the election, we discussed the fact that in the end, the Bayit Hayehudi is a sectorial party, and my neighbor said, "And I'm very, very proud to belong to this sector." I agreed with him. I am proud as well, and my vote reflected that pride.
In the end, Naftali Bennett faces a choice that he must  make in the near future: Does he want to be the head of the Likud? These elections clearly showed that the Bayit Hayehudi will never be that. It's a "sectorial" party, representing the needs of its constituents, which often overlap with national goals, but sometimes do not. Or, will he be happy being the strong, charismatic leader of a very vibrant, very important community in Israel, knowing that he can be Finance Minister or Minister of Foreign Affairs, but that the head of Bayit Hayehudi will never be Prime Minister, at least not the way Israeli elections are currently configured.
We'll never be Likud-2, and we should stop trying.

The Chareidi Gospel Truth

Rav Moshe Meiselman

Each of us lives with our own individual, subjective truth. Look in the mirror. What do you see? I guarantee that you won't see what everyone else does. Women see something worse than the truth, men something better. (I like to pretend that I still have hair. From my angle viewing the mirror, and with a big enough kippah, I still do.)
We see what we want to see, and not what everyone else clearly sees.
What's true as individuals, holds true as well for entire communities.
Look at the United States today, which has become increasingly divided between "Red" and "Blue." Each group has its own media that it watches/reads/surfs, which feeds it the truths that it chooses to highlight.
This rule applies of course, to every group of every type. Personally, I never realized just how accurately it describes the Chareidi community today, especially in Israel. I really didn't understand just how deeply this rule applies to that community. Until now.
Over the past week, I have encoutered this phenomenon so often, in such dramatic terms, that it (figuratively) slapped me in the face. First, a relative forwarded an interview with Rabbi Moshe Meiselman that was recently published in the Yated. He emailed me saying (in my own words), "Read this article, and then you'll understand just how wrong you are." I read it, and found myself bewildered. I found Rav Meiselman's arguments unconvincing, to say the least, if not baffling and downright mystifying. He seemed to be describing facts and events of which I have no knowledge.
Then, last week, the issue of Rabbi Dov Lipman came up in a private rabbinic arena (I'm leaving things vague). Rabbis that I respect related to Rabbi Lipman (who is a friend of mine) with such vitriol and contempt that I found myself struggling to reconcile their animosity with the generous spirit that I know they possess. What gives? What's the basis for such a deep-seated difference of opinion?
Reading the Meiselman interview several times, it finally dawned on me. We're working with different facts. It's as simple as that. And when there's no common set of facts to discuss, there cannot be room for agreement and compromise. There isn't even place for discussion.
I'll explain, using Rabbi Meiselman's words to illustrate my point.
Discussing the "Status Quo" agreement between David ben Gurion and the chareidi community, Rabbi Meiselman said,

Meanwhile, everyone else in the country - besides the bnei hayeshivos - was expected to serve for three years in the Israeli army. One would think that this was due to security concerns. While this is partially true, there was another, more sinister reason for requiring almost everyone to serve in the Israeli army. Ben Gurion mentioned that the army was the social leveler, enabling all the diverse elements of Israeli society to be united and molded in a new Israeli mentality and nationality.
(Interviewer) In what way was the army to impact the culture and atmosphere of the country?
The army served the purpose of allowing Ben Gurion and the Zionists to impose their anti-Torah lifestyle, philosophy and ideology on the thousands who would serve in Tzahal. One must understand that being in the army means that soldiers must totally subjugate themselves to the rules and orders of their superiors. This enables those running the army to create a new social identity.
This was the reason that the gedolim leading the chareidi community insisted very strongly that bnei hayeshivos not go to the Israeli army. They rejected the new social identity that the Zionists were trying to impose on the residents of the country.

Here, in plain English, is Chareidi Truth 1A: Secular Israel (and secular Israelis) harbor a deep-seated desire to destroy the Torah, and by definition, Judaism. This is not a matter, in their perspective, subject to debate. It's simply the truth. Sometimes the secular hide this desire and couch it in rhetoric, and sometimes it's explicit. But it's always there, deep-down. Moreover, even when they say explicitly this is not the case, they're lying.
This, of course, leads to the Second Truth: Anyone who tries to destroy Torah is a Rasha. Since secular Jews wish to destroy the Torah (see 1A), they are Resha'im (wicked people).
This, of course, leads inveitably to a Third Truth: Anyone who collaborates with a Rasha is himself a Rasha.
With this in mind, we can now understand how Rabbi Meiselman could make the following assertion:

On Lag Ba’omer, Naftali Bennett visited Bnei Brak and declared that the lifestyle of the chareidi community is a greater existential threat to Israel than the Iranian nuclear threat. What Ben Gurion said sixty-five years ago our enemies say today. He declared that he will force us to integrate into secular Israeli society. In fact, one of Bennett’s campaign goals was to make Sunday a day of rest so that the Dati Leumi community could share cultural events with the secular community and achieve cultural unity. While his primary goal is to secularize the chareidim, his secondary goal is to do likewise to the Dati Leumi community.

What? What!? Did Bennett really say that "the lifestyle of the chareidi community is a greater existential threat to Israel than the Iranian nuclear threat"? That sounds pretty harsh. What did he really say? It turns out that in fact he said that,

שילוב רבבות החרדים בעבודה - באהבה - הוא יעד לאומי, ממש כמו עצירת הגרעין האיראני

The inclusion of tens of thousands of Chareidim to the workforce - with love - is a national goal, exactly ilke stopping the Iranian nuclear threat.

Naftali Bennett in Bnei Brak

Did he say that he wants to destroy the Chareidi lifestyle? Actually, he said the opposite. Did he say that the Chareidim were a threat greater than the Iranians? Far from it.
Last I checked, Naftali Bennett is religious, served in the IDF, and has attempted, sometimes successfully and sometimes not, to serve as a buffer between the Chareidim and Yesh Atid. But here Rav Meiselman explicitly calls both Bennett and Ben Gurion "enemies", and makes crystal clear that he, perhaps even more than Bennett himself, realizes that Bennett's true goal is, "to secularize the chareidim, his secondary goal is to do likewise to the Dati Leumi community." How does Rav Meiselman make such blatanly false statements, and put words into Bennett's mouth that he never said?
Rav Meiselmen isn't lying, God forbid. In his mind, Bennett really did say those things, and really does believe. Let's remember our mirror of personal truths, and the Chareidi rules: Bennett is in the coalition with Yair Lapid (who is a Rasha) so :

Bennett = Lapid = Evil

This being the case, when a wicked person makes a statement, it's only logical to intrepret that statement in the most extreme, negative form. Bennett made a connection between the Chareidim and the Iranians? "He must really mean (deep down) that he thinks that the Chareidim are worse than the Iranians, and presents a greater threat to the future of (the-dream-of) secular Israel."

Lipman and Lapid

This also explains the terrific venom focused on Rabbi MK Dov Lipman, who was called, not coincidentally, a Rasha by none other than the Rosh Yeshiva of his former yeshiva. Really? A Rasha? Isn't that a bit harsh? Sure, Rav Feldman walked back the statement a bit, but in his heart of hearts? Of course Rabbi Lipman is a Rasha, because he's working with Lapid, who's also a Rasha. Thus, our mathematical equation is:

Lapid = Bennett = Lipman = Evil

Moreover, Dov Lipman especially enrages him, because the very core of his activities - working with the secular community to try and improve the lives of the Chareidi community - is antithetical to the core identity of a "real" Chareidi. A real Chareidi knows the truth: that Lapid deep down wants to destroy the Torah. If Lipman doesn't believe this, he's fooling himself, and betraying the community he purports to represent.

I wish I were making this up. But I'm not, and if you look carefully, you'll see this attitude pervasive throughout the Chareidi press. (Mostly in Hebrew, where it's more pronounced a vitriolic. In America, the Chareidi community has learned over the years to temper its message in a more politically correct way.)
Take an open letter to Minister of Education Shai Peron (a former Rosh Yeshiva), published on a major Chareidi website, titled, "You Hate Us, and We Hate You." Personally, I find the letter, written by an anonymous Kollel student, troubling for its frankness and open expression of hatred. (Isn't the Torah supposed to bring us closer together? Isn't it supposed to speak of peace and love?) Towards the end of the letter, the writer states:

אין אני פונה אליך בשם הדת. דתך אינה יהדותי, ואלוהיך האחרים אינם אלוקי. אלוקי ישראל אשר בו האמינו כל דורות ישראל, ברא את העולם, הוציאנו ממצרים, נתן לנו את התורה ובנה לנו את בית הבחירה, לכפר על כל עוונותינו.
ואילו אתה, מר פירון, מיהו אלוהיך? הלא מבחינתך את העולם בראה האבולוציה, במצרים אילו היית – לא היית נגאל, את לימוד התורה אתה רוצה לעקור, וכפרת עוונות הוא מושג מיסטי וערטילאי בעיניך, ובכן מיהו אלוהיך?

I don't turn to you in the name of religion. Your religion isn't Jewish, and your other gods are not my God. The God of Israel in whom every generation of Israel believed created the world, took us out of Egypt, gave us the Torah, built for us the Beit Hamikdash to atone for our sins.
And you, Mr. Peron - who are your gods? From your perspective the world was created through evolution; had you been in Egypt you would not have been redeemed. You wish to uproot the study of Torah, and the notion of atonement for sins is a mystical and abstract concept to you. Thus, who are your gods?

I wish I was making this up. I wish someone purporting to speak in the name of the Torah, didn't spew such venom at a recognized Torah personality in my community.
But I'm not making it up. After all, our kollel fellow isn't really saying anything new that isn't already accepted within his community (just read the comments). He's simply preaching the Gospel Truth.
How then can we possibly have a conversation, when we're not even speaking about the same facts?

The Seder, President Obama, and true Redemption on Pesach

For years now, the Seder has been part of the Obama tradition, as the President (he began the minhag even before he became President). The White House published the attached video, in which the President explains to thousands of young Israelis why he brought the Seder into his household. He said,

After enjoying Seders with family and friends in Chicago and on the campaign trail, I’m proud that I've now brought this tradition into the White House. I did so because I wanted my daughters to experience the Haggadah, and the story at the center of Passover that makes this time of year so powerful.
It’s a story of centuries of slavery, and years of wandering in the desert; a story of perseverance amidst persecution, and faith in God and the Torah. It’s a story about finding freedom in your own land. And for the Jewish people, this story is central to who you’ve become. But it’s also a story that holds within it the universal human experience, with all of its suffering, but also all of its salvation.
For generations, this promise helped people weather poverty and persecution, while holding on to the hope that a better day was on the horizon. For me, personally, growing up in far-flung parts of the world and without firm roots, the story spoke to a yearning within every human being for a home. 

Taking President Obama at his word, he himself found the Seder personally moving. The Seder speaks to him, and he identified with the notion of overcoming slavery, seeking freedom and salvation, and rising to the greatest heights achievable. He wanted his daughters to share in the story because he correctly realizes that they cannot relate to it. They grew up in relative wealth in Chicago, and even worse, in the House of Pharaoh, in the lap of luxury that is the White House, where someone is always waiting to cater to your every need. How do you teach your children to appreciate what you have when they don't know what suffering is? How can you celebrate freedom if you've never tasted the bitterness of slavery?

It is this exact question that I feel vexes the Jewish people today. For centuries, we had no trouble appreciating the bitter pill of exile and degradation. That was the stuff of a daily Jewish existence, where antisemitism, bigotry and hatred formed the basis of a Jew's core identity. Yet, today we (thank God!) live in relative Utopias where Jews worship freely in the United States, and easily reach the highest levels of society, be they in the media, the financial and business world, and the government. While life is no picnic in Israel with enemies at every border, in another sense life is wonderful. We have a powerful army that protects us, great friends who care for us deeply, and a wonderful standard of living. Things are, in a very real sense, amazingly good. So we have no trouble with the elements of monarchy that we commemorate at the Seder. In fact, while the symbols that we invoke (leaning? What king leans to the left?) seem arcane, we fail to notice that the homes we consider normal or even small would have seemed huge, even obscene to most people just a few hundred years ago.
We already live like kings, with every luxury and whim at our fingertips. Food fills our fridges and any possible form of entertainment from across the globe lies no farther than the press of a button. How then can we possibly understand and appreciate what it means to be a slave?
And if we can't understand slavery, what is the meaning of redemption? After all, the Sages in the Gemara insisted that מתחילין בגנות ומסיימין בשבח - we must begin with the negative, and only then can we conclude with praise of God. Without the negative; without the suffering, there can be no praise.

For this reason I wonder whether Barack Obama might truly be able to appreciate the Seder experience more than most Orthodox Jews. How many of us grew up in parts unknown, yearning for a better life? How many of us have had to overcome true adversity, and know the sting of racism, prejudice and hatred?

Yet, there's another aspect of the Seder that President Obama cannot appreciate - no matter how hard he tries. While freedom from bondage and overcoming difficulty are critical elements of the Seder, they serve as means to an end. God did not free us to act as we choose. אין חרות אלא תורה - "There is no freedom other than [adherence to] the Torah. God freed us to become a Holy Nation with a unique, singular mission in the world. President Obama said,

And while Jews achieved extraordinary success in many parts of the world, the dream of true freedom finally found its full expression in the Zionist idea -- to be a free people in your homeland. That’s why I believe that Israel is rooted not just in history and tradition, but also in a simple and profound idea -- the idea that people deserve to be free in a land of their own. 

While he's right, he's also wrong. Israel is not rooted in the idea that "people deserve to be free in an land of their own." Israel is rooted in the idea that the Jewish people belong in and to the Land of Israel. It's not only a universal story. It's a particular story. It's our story, and it's our Land. On his Atlantic Magazine Blog, Israel Go-To Guy Jewish Journalist Jeffrey Goldberg wrote,

No holiday embodies the essential tension at the heart of Jewishness like Passover does. The story of Passover is the story of a particular people moving from a specific land of slavery to a particular land of freedom (President Obama, on his trip last week to Israel, seemed to understand very well the -- you should pardon the expression -- Zionism at the heart of the Exodus story).  Passover is also the most universal of Jewish holidays. It provided the world with what long ago became its most important, and metaphor-ready, story of human liberation. It also inculcated in Jews a restless and eternal urge to upset the status quo. The tug between the universal and the particular plays out in Jewish life in all sorts of ways, most notably on the Middle Eastern stage.

It's a prescient comment. That is, this struggle takes place almost on a daily basis here. Is Israel a universal idea - a nation of freedom and democracy first and foremost - or a particular one - a Jewish State? From my point of view, while democracy and freedom are clearly critical values, we are and must always be a Jewish State, and when the two values clash, then the compromises must come from the former, and not the latter. Interestingly, the last elections here (and arguably the ones before that as well) have articulated precisely this viewpoint among the majority of Israelis. We don't just want to be a free country. We want to be a free Jewish country - and not just because we happen to have a majority of Jews. President Obama concluded his speech by saying, 

And as the President of a country that you can count on as your greatest friend -- I am confident that you can help us find the promise in the days that lie ahead. And as a man who’s been inspired in my own life by that timeless calling within the Jewish experience -- tikkun olam -) -- I am hopeful that we can draw upon what’s best in ourselves to meet the challenges that will come; to win the battles for peace in the wake of so much war; and to do the work of repairing this world. 

Here he made a mistake (at least his speechwriters did), expecting the Israeli crowd to readily identify with the "universal" notion of Tikkun Olam, not realizing that he was simply parroting a trope that's been popularized by American non-religious Judaism: that our core national mission is "Tikkun Olam" - repairing the world. It's not, and to suggest so to a crowd of even secular Israelis will strike them as foreign, which explains why Obama's line got such a muted response (when he would have gotten a standing ovation for such a line in front of a UJA Federation crowd). Israelis think that Tikkun Olam is nice, but that's not why we're here. We're here to rebuild the Jewish Nation. Our soldiers stand watch not to "repair the world," but to protect and defend the Jewish nation. And, to repeat an oft-quoted Orthodox trope that's worth repeating, we do believe in Tikkun Olam: לתקן עולם במכלות שדי - "to repair the world in the Kingdom of God."
That's what we're building. That's the Redemption we pray for at the Seder. We want not just universal freedom and the right to live in peace and tranquility on our Land. Rather, we are building towards the day when the Jewish Nation succeeds in bringing about the spiritual transformation that will warrant the return of God to our Midst.
That can and will only be achieved by this Nation, on this Land.

It Must Be Confusing to Be Sephardic

No, I'm not writing about reciting Selichot at midnight for a month before Rosh Hashanah (although I'm happy I don't have to do that as well). Rather, I'm writing about the upcoming elections. It's got to be really confusing if you're Sephardic. I am, of course, writing about the ads now running across Israel.

First, I saw this ad:

I'll translate:

Whose heart pains him over the weak and the poor? The Sephardim have compassion for the poor...We have the Shas movement, the only movement of the Sephardim" (from the words of Maran [Ovadia Yosef] during his weekly shiur)
A Religious Sephardi Votes Shas! So ruled Maran.

There you have it. If you're Sephardi, you ostensibly follow the halachic rulings of Rav Ovadia, and he ruled that one votes for Shas. (Actually, if you read the text carefully, nowhere did Rav Ovadia "rule" anything. But I dare not quibble with the Shas people writing their ads. If they say Rav Ovadia ruled vote Shas, who am I to disagree?


But then, I turned the page. Literally. In some papers, on the very next page, was this ad:

I'll again translate:

"Anyone who decides in his heart to immerse himself in Torah and not work, and will be supported from charity - this person desecrates the Name [of God] and denigrates the Torah and extinguishes the light of religion and causes harm to himself and removes his life from the world to come (From the Mishneh Torah of Rambam).
RAMBAM WOULD HAVE VOTED AMSALLAM!
Anyone who really wishes to [enact] change is willing to pay a heavy price. Like Rav Amsallam.
Only one who fights with vigor against the massive "business interest"can fight racism and extremism, the integration of Chareidim into society and the army, and to build a bridge between the religious, the secular, and the other parts of the nation.
Only someone who comes from the inside.
Not Livni, not Lapid, and also not Bennett...and certainly not Shas. Because creating change demands strength.
The choice of the Strong!

Aside from the fascinating historical assumptions that the ad makes and the incredibly direct attack on Shas, calling it a corrupt, self-interested party of hacks who lack vision, strength and any sense of integrity - the ad must be confusing.

After all, how could Maran tell us to vote for Shas if Rambam himself would have voted Am Shalem? Did the Shulchan Aruch pasken like the Rif and the Rosh against the Rambam? Is there some Sephardi precedent that told Rav Ovadia to ignore Rambam here?

How is a Sephardic religious voter to know how to vote?

It must be so confusing.

Which Politician Is Frummest? (And Not the Relgious Ones)

It's becoming increasingly clear that the Israeli public will vote in a right-leaning government, a fact that seems logical, given that the left-wing goal of giving land to the Arabs for free hasn't worked out all that well (read here: rockets falling on the south). The real question is how right wing?
People here take it for granted that Bibi Netanyahu and Likud will once again garner the most votes and remain Prime Minister. The big fight is who takes second (and third and fourth) place. For years, the religious Zionist population has been slowly migrating to the Likud. Sick and tired of an ineffective, sectarian leadership running the classic religious parties (Mafdal, Ichud Haleumi, etc.), religious voters turned to the Likud in ever increasing numbers, a fact evident by the sizable list of religious Likud members of Knesset.
All that has quickly changed with the sudden rise of Naftali Bennett, whose charisma, freshness and success (personally, militarily and professionally - he sold his high-tech firm for somewhere around $150 million) has drawn voters from across the spectrum.
Plenty of commentators fill the blogosphere with political screed. I'm much more interested in the cultural shift that Bennett's rise both indicates, and has accelerated. On his Facebook feed (which is really worth following), Bennett recently shredded Tzippi Livni, who doesn't actually seem all that interested in her own candidacy, truth be told. The interview is a great lesson in talking points and political strategy. Yet, at the end of the interview, the host (who was interviewing both Livni and Bennett) asked her about whether she'd be celebrating the New Year in a club. He was clearly waiting to ask her the question in order to show footage of her dancing and make her look silly. She gave a glib answer, and then the host turned to Bennett and asked the same question. He said, "First of all, I'm a terrible dancer. But more importantly, the New Year that I celebrate is Rosh Hashanah on the first of Tishrei." Poor Livni was left to insist that she too celebrates the New Year on Rosh Hashanah, of course. Ouch.

It was no surprise to see that the on the very next day, Livni took a visit to...you guessed it, the Kotel. She's got a lot to daven for, and it probably doesn't hurt to have her photo taken as she's praying for political salvation.
On Netanyahu's Facebook feed, he sends out Shabbat Shalom greetings, and shares insights from his monthly Tanach group. The entire country is bending over backwards to demonstrate just how frum, how Nationalistic, and how connected to the Jewish people he or she really is. They're all fighting for the vote of the religious and traditional community, in any way they can.

More Israeli RZ Politics - 2012 Edition

They didn't even pretend the sheet was about Torah

Aside from race for the head of the party (the election is this Tuesday), on the following week we'll pick the slate for the full list of candidates for the party. So, the weekly Alonei Shabbat (supposedly parshah sheets, but it's all politics now) are full - really full of ads for the different candidates running for office. These things really don't belong in the shuls, and the people who make these weekly rags are clearly the big winners in this race - as is Rav Chaim Drukman, who appears in almost every ad.
The most popular weekly is called Olam Katan (you can download it here for yourself, or if you prefer Giluy Daat), which is supposedly aimed at young people, with type so small you can barely read it. I say supposedly, because while the target audience can't really vote, the paper is full of ads for people that you've never really heard of running for the Bayit Hahehudi list.

Each ad lists:
1. The candidate's qualifications
2. How he served in some elite military unit
3. What a great guy he is
4. Which Rav endorses him (It seems that Rav Druckman has endorsed pretty much everyone)
5. How he will unite the party. In fact, the ads seem to be endorsing each other, with each candidate claiming to get along with both Orlev and Bennett.
What's the difference between each of them? No idea. None whatsoever. Again, it's all about who you know. Although if you're reading this, I'm going to vote for Jeremy Gimpel. He seems like a really good guy, and he speaks English.

My favorite ad by a very wide margin? I love the ad for Harav Rachamim Nissimi. It proclaims: OUR POWER IS IN OUR UNITY! Sounds great, doesn't it?

Again, I know nothing about Rav Nissimi. He seems like a good guy, and he's a Sfardi running on the Bayit Hayehudi list.
His ad claims that he's the man to unite the party. After all, look at that great picture! He's standing there with Orlev AND Bennett, and they're all holding hands in the huddle, ready to break and start playing football! Hike!
But then you read the words, and he tells you: For the head of the party, vote for Zevulun Orlev. Then, vote for Bennett and Nasimi high on the list for the Knesset the next week.
So now you know what team he's on.
The best part of the ad? Look at the tiny words on the side when I have circled in red, which I'll help you with: התמונה הינה הדמיה בלבד - which means, "picture for illustrative purposes only", which really means, "This picture never happened. It's a fake that we Photoshopped."
I love it! Can Rav Nissimi unite the factions of the party? Sure he can - with Photoshop.
In real life? That's another question entirely.
But this isn't real life. It's politics.

November 2012 in Israel: All Politics all the Time

Obama vs. Romney? Hardly. It's go time in the Bayit Hayehudi.

In one corner, we have MK Zev Orlev, who successfully overwhelmed the current party head Minister of Science and Technology Rabbi Dr. Hershkovitz, so now they're running on the same ticket. Mr. Orlev's slogan is, מוביל ת'עניינים - loosely translated as "Making things Happen", which I take to mean, "taking care of people who I know who ask me to help them with their local issues."
That's not a knock, actually. He's known as a very caring member of Knesset, who's apparently quite willing to use his power to help people in the RZ community. Sadly, he's also been on the job while the party's power has consistenly waned over the past few years. See this ad, which has thoughtfully provided a nice visual aid charting the party's decline.

In the other corner is Naftali Bennett, a former Likudnik who made $140 million selling his software company, now vying for the party's leadership. He's trying to make the Bayit Hayehudi more of an "open tent", which as I understand it means seeking the votes of people who aren't necessarily Orthodox per se, and also addressing issues other than the settlements. Also, Bennet promises to finally unite the different factions together into a single party, which he claims has a chance of getting eight or more seats in the Knesset.
Actually, politically, I have no idea whether the two "sides" disagree fundamentally about anything. It's more about personalities now. Welcome to Israeli politics, where people vote more for people than for ideologies. How else would former media personalities have any chance of getting elected? Can you imagine Tom Brokaw getting a serious look in politics? Really?
In any case, the way I see it, it's boiling down to an election of old vs young. The old guard, (read here: over age 40 - or maybe 45?) who know Orlev, just don't trust Bennett. Sure, he's a good guy, but let him work his way up the ladder and earn his keep. They're all in for Orlev.
Anyone younger than that is simply fed up with the old guard, and the fact that they can't seem to get along with each other. The "Young Rabbi" wrote this morning that he doesn't know anyone in his circles who will vote for the Bayit Hayehudi if Orlev is elected. Young people are sick of the old way of doing things, and want someone new, who didn't make a life in politics to give things a try.
Will Bennett really do things differently? Will he really succeed in uniting the party? Who knows? I always feel like new people claiming to be able to do things differently (read here: Barack Obama) quickly discover that politics is a rough world, and idealism and promises don't always pan out as you'd hope. But at least they offer something different.
More of the same means even greater irrelevance for the Religious Zionist community in the coming government.

The Tuition Crisis: Religious Zionist Edition

Fighting for Cheaper Yeshiva Tuition. At least for now.

I just got the bill for my son's new yeshiva - which includes full dorm. The price? 18,000 shekel for the year.
I know what you're thinking in the United States: 18,000...divided by about 4...that's 4,500 dollars for the year! What a deal! And it includes full dorm? What are you complaining about?
First of all, I'm not complaining. OK, I am. But also realize that salaries are far lower here than they are in America. And it's not only me. The entire Religious Zionist sector is complaining. And it's gotten quite political, which means that something might actually happen.
Check out this article from the Israeli website Kipa, which is one of the primary websites for the Religious Zionist community. In it, the head of Bayit Hayehudi, Rabbi Dr. Daniel Hershkovitz, is quoted as refusing to vote for the cuts to the Israeli budget (which aslo include a small tax hike), unless the government does something about the astronomical price of Religious Zionist education.

"הורים רבים נקלעו לחובות וקורסים תחת הנטל הכלכלי. בחינוך הדתי משלמים פי 10 ויותר מאשר בחינוך החילוני והחרדי. הציבור הדתי-לאומי נושא בנטל אך הוא הראשון שמשלם את מחיר הקיצוצים", אמר הרשקוביץ.
במפגש שקיים בשבוע שעבר עם ועד ההורים הפועל למען הוזלת תשלומי ההורים במגזר הדתי, אמר להם הרשקוביץ כי "הגיע זמן להפסיק להיות מנומסים ולדאוג גם לעצמנו. אנחנו משלמים עבור חינוך ילדינו סכומים כבדים שאף מגזר בישראל לא משלם. דורשים מאיתנו לשאת בהוצאות שלא דורשים מאחרים. תקציב החינוך החרדי גדל ב-46% בהתמדה, ולחינוך הדתי קיצצו קרוב ל-80 אחוז מהתקציב הממוצע לתלמיד. בדיוני התקציב נאמר הפעם: עד כאן. מחובתנו להילחם למען הציבור שלנו, שקורס תחת נטל התשלומים".

"Many parents find themselves ensnared by dept and are crumbling under the financial strain. For religious [Zionest] education, parents pay ten times what other parents pay for secular or Chareidi [eduation]. The Religious Zionist community carries its weight [in serving in the army and in Israeli society] but it's the first to pay the price when there are cuts", Hershkovitz said.
In a meeting last week with a committee of parents working to reduce the cost of education in the Religious Zionist community, Hershkovitz said, "The time has come for us to stop being polite and to take care of ourselves. For our childrens' education, we pay great amounts that no other sector pays. [The educational system] demands payments from us that it doesn't demand from others. The budget for Chareidi education grew consistently, at a rate of 46 percent, and from the Religious Zionist edudational system, they cut an average of 80 percent of the budget per student. With regard to the issue of the budget we say, "Enough!" It is our obligation to fight for our own community, which is crushed by the burden of these payments.

Yeah! Right! You go Rabbi Dr. Hershkowitz!
What's really going on here?
First and foremost, what we're dealing with here is politics. The Bayit Hayehudi is in the middle of its first-ever primaries (although I have no idea when the elections are - I think early September), and candidates are falling all over themselves to demonstrate how they're the best choice to lead the Religious Zionist community. I don't know if you clicked on the link to the articel, but let me share with you what the screen actually looked like when I read it. (You need to click on the image to see it full size with my comments).

Hershkowitz is clearly trying to gain favor with his constituency with an issue that's near and dear to most of our hearts: the high cost of education. And he's got my attention. Truth be told, if he gets the government to kick in some money, I'll vote for him too.
Moreover, I take some comfort in the fact that there is actually a chance that something might happen, and that tuitions might go down somewhat, because the issue is political. In America, despite the insistence that Jews must get more involved in local politics as a means to help address the crushing burden of day school tuition, I can't really see that making much of a difference. There's no appetite for vouchers pretty much anywhere in America, and with budgets as tight as they are, what politician (other than one in Brooklyn or New Square) would vote to give a slice of that budget to private schools? But here, everyone fights for their piece of the pie. So, if Hershkovitz is willing to fight hard enough, he might just get somewhere. In fact, Ha'aretz is now reporting that the Prime Minister has already promised to do something about the payments in response to Hershkovitz's threats. Great for us.
But his comments raise a much broader issue. He's really right. For ages, the RZ community waffled between trying to do what's best for everyone, and worrying about our own needs. Not so Chareidim who willingly sold their votes to fund their yeshivot. (If you're wondering why they get such great subsidies, that's why.)
We pay more for the simple reason that we want more out of our kids' education. The secular want excellent secular studies. They don't need or want 24 hours of class per week on religious education. The Chareidim want and pay for Torah, but pretty much could care less about secular education. We want both. We insist on both. So, should we really be that surprised when it costs more money?
But do we really want to be yet another group that grovels in the Knesset for our slice of the pie? I guess, right now, the answer is yes. But that groveling comes at a price. In essence, we've got to ask ourselves: what are we willing to give up? What's our price? It's easy to refuse to vote for a budget that's going to pass anyway. But when push comes to shove, and the Prime Minister is counting votes for a controversial issue (kicking people out of their homes, perhaps), will we be willing to sacrafice those people, and that Land, at the Altar of Cheaper Education?
Is that really who we want to be?

Are we One Movement Anymore? The Problem and Challenge of Religious Zionism

by Rabbi Reuven Spolter, Director of Student Recruitment

Following the (recently cancelled) announcement of early elections here in Israel, the Religious Zionist movement found itself in a familiar position: unprepared. After years of leadership in the Knesset, the religious Zionist movement splintered over ideological grounds into two generally distinct groups which then aligned themselves into distinct political parties. Habayit Hayehudi places its emphasis on religious Zionist activity throughout Israel while stressing the importance of involvement within greater Israeli society. On the other hand, the Ichud Haleumi (sadly, they haven't really updated their website in three years! If you'd really like to see just how sad the split it, see here.) finds itself more attuned to rabbinic instruction and direction, and places a far greater emphasis on settlement of the Land of Israel over other values.
While the split reflects genuine differences in a very diverse community, it also has significantly weakened the Religious Zionist community's influence and political clout. Instead of one political party with eight Knesset seats (and the power, influence and financial wherewithal that brings), the greater movement founds itself with two parties of four seats each, one of which found itself a member of the majority in the soon-defunct government (with the "important" portfolio of Science and Technology – and yes, I am being sarcastic when I say “important”) while the other remained in the opposition, left with little to no political power at all. The split truly cost us all. The question we must contemplate is: Can we find a way to reunite? Can we restore the power that we should have (and badly need), or, due to our unwillingness to find common ground, will we continue to diminish our influence and thereby fail to properly influence broader Israeli society?

Orot's Amadot Conference Schedule

At Orot’s recent Amadot Conference, Rabbi Yuval Sherlo, Rosh Yeshiva of the Yeshivat Hesder Petach Tikvah participated in a panel that addressed this vexing question: Are we one movement? And, more importantly, can we remain a united force, or have we become so divided that we can no longer operate as a single unit.
Rav Sherlo made a number of fascinating points that I’d like to share.
Legitimacy: One of the critical measures of whether groups have split irreversibly is how they relate to each other. Put another way, do they relate to one another as legitimate? That is the difference between machloket – dispute – and division. As long as both groups legitimize each other, they can remain united. Yet, if one group refuses to acknowledge that the position of the other might be wrong – but still remains legitimate, and instead insists that the position of the other is not legitimate, then they have lost any sense of common ground, and rupture is inevitable.
Marriage: Do groups within the framework marry each other? Rav Sherlo pointed out that the Mishnah (Yevamot 1:4) emphasizes that despite all of the great disputes between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, לא נמנעו מלישא זה עם זה – “they did not refrain from marrying with each other.” Can we same the same about different Religious Zionist groups today? He explained that he teaches at Migdal Oz (a rather left-wing women’s seminary), and he has yet to witness a wedding between a Migdal Oz girl and a yeshiva student from Har Hamor (a very right-wing yeshiva). This is a matter for concern. To what degree have we split ideologically so far, that little, if any interaction remains between the two groups that fall under the broad umbrella of Religious Zionism?
Language: The language of ideology doesn’t lend itself to compromise. Ideology articulates a specific vision, a worldview which represents idealism in its purest sense. It speaks to the world which we would create – if only we had the power to actualize our dreams. Platforms of ideology don’t often include words like love, compromise, mutual respect and the like. Imagine a marriage based solely on ideology, where words like those didn’t exist. How long would such a marriage last? Not long.
Rav Sherlo noted that we also suffer from two mutually exclusive beliefs. We believe that the world not only wants what we have to offer, but is waiting for us to save it. We have the truth – the combination of Torah and real life; of Religiosity and Zionism, of spirituality and worldliness – that provides the proper path for the Jewish Nation. Yet, at the very same time we also believe that the same world hates us: the secular press can’t stand us; the European Union is trying to topple us; the Israeli Supreme Court can’t stand us; the Chareidim attack us at every turn.
So which do we really believe? Does the world look to us to save it, or is it trying to bring us down? 
Rav Sherlo suggested that the solution to all of these challenges lies in a single word: Relax. We need to find the proper balance that pulls on Religious Zionism at all times. Our community defines itself in a kind of musical tone: Religious-Zionism; Yeshivat-Hesder; Kibbutz-Hadati. (He compared it to a metronome, which sways from side to side in rhythm.) Each side pulls on the other. Is it Religious? Or is it Zionism? Is it a Yeshiva? Or is it Hesder (part of the army)?
If we can learn to Relax, and see the value inherent in each of these seemingly contradictory terms, then the tension between them has the potential to draw us even closer together. In fact, the fact that the two parties formally agreed this week to run as a single party gives cause for hope. (Although the proof is in the pudding. With elections now pushed off for another year, a lot can happen between now and next October.)
On the other hand, if we cannot or will not learn to relax, and instead insist on remaining absolutists; if we continue to insist that we can only define ourselves in the most literal sense, then the forces pulling on the two sides of Religious Zionism have the chilling potential to irrevocably tear us apart.

A Nation That Dwells Alone - An Amazing Discussion on this Week's Parshah from "The Prime Minsters"

When we met for dinner a few months back, my good friend Rabbi Barry Gelman mentioned that he was reading Yehuda Avner's "The Prime Minsters". My wife, listening in, took note and bought the book for me on our Kindle.
It's a fascinating read. Avner had incredible access to the leaders of the Jewish State for decades, and shares some powerful memories and gut-wrenching issues that they faced. It's really worth reading. Yet, the most powerful figure of them all thus far must be Menachem Begin. I'm not sure about his politics, but from his early days running from the British to his "amcha" appeal, I'm learning things about Begin that I find deeply moving.
Today, as I sat down to relax, I hit upon Chapter 33, which happens to be about Begin's Bible Circle - basically a Torah discussion that he conducted in the Prime Minster's residence periodically. It just so happens that the discussion he records is also about this week's parshah - and the famous prophecy that Bilam made about the Jewish people - הן עם לבדד ישכן ובגויים לא יתחשב - "they are a nation that will dwell alone and amongst the nations not be counted". I'm taking the liberty of sharing with you the entire chapter, which is worth reading. If Mr. Aviner has any issues about me quoting such a large swath of the book, I assume that he'll let me know and I'll be happy to take the post down. I'm not worried because if you read the entire piece, you'll also buy the book.

Chapter 33 The Bible Circle
Though Mr. Begin had to forego his open house, he did open up his home to a Bible study circle which convened every Saturday evening. Approximately twenty people, among them Bible scholars of repute, would seat themselves around the couch on which the prime minister sat, and for an hour or more they would delve into some particularly attention-grabbing passage of the Book of Books. I would participate as a matter of course; being in attendance on the prime minister was part of my job.
On the first such Saturday night, held on the very eve of Begin’s departure for Washington, the chosen passage was from the Book of Numbers, chapters twenty-two to twenty-four, in which the Bible records how, in the fortieth year after the children of Israel embarked on their Exodus from Egypt, and just a few months before entering the Promised Land, the heathen prophet Balaam was coaxed – bribed actually – by the Moabite King Balak, to curse the advancing Israelites and thereby devastate them before they could devastate him. However, Balaam, impelled by God’s command, and much to Balak’s displeasure, found himself involuntarily blessing them instead.
That evening’s discussion centered primarily on the evocative verse nine of chapter twenty-three, in which Balaam foretells with remarkable prescience the future destiny of the Jewish people, predicting, “…this is a people that shall dwell alone and shall not be reckoned among the nations.”
Reading the verse out loud, Prime Minister Begin gave a mild chuckle and said, “One does not have to be a mystic for the imagination to be stirred by such an improbable vision of a nation forever ‘dwelling alone.’ Is it not a startlingly accurate prophecy of our Jewish people’s experience in all of history?” Even as he was saying this, I vividly recalled the remark Prime Minister Golda Meir had once made about how lonely she invariably felt when attending a session at the United Nations. “We have no family there,” she had said. “Israel is entirely alone there. But why should that be?”
Being a socialist, with no bent for theology, Golda Meir had made no attempt to answer her own momentous question. But now Menachem Begin was opening discussion on this indisputable reality.
“Why does the Jewish State so frequently face solitude in the family of nations?” he asked rhetorically. “Is it because we are the only country in the world that is Jewish? Is it because we are the one country in the world whose language is Hebrew? But why are there no other Jewish states? Why are there no other Hebrew-speaking states, just as there are multiple Christian states, Moslem states, Hindu states, Buddhist states, English-speaking, Arabic-speaking, French-speaking, Chinese-speaking states? In short, why have we no sovereign kith and kin anywhere in the world? In the United Nations, everybody is grouped into regional blocs, each bloc bound by a common geography, religion, history, culture, and language. They vote with one another in solidarity. But no other country in the world shares our unique narrative. Geographically, we are located in Asia, but the Asian bloc won’t have us. Our Arab neighbors see to that. Indeed, they want to destroy us. So, geographically, we really belong nowhere. And since membership in the Security Council is in accordance with regional blocs, we have no realistic chance of being elected to it. The one blood tie, the one kindred bond we have with anybody at all in the world, is with our own fellow Jews in the Diaspora, and everywhere they are a minority and nowhere do they enjoy any form of national or cultural autonomy.”
Professor Ephraim Auerbach, a rotund, semi-bald scholar of refinement, wit and brilliance, picked up the theme, citing classic commentators who suggested that the meaning of “dwelling alone,” as cited by the heathen prophet Balaam, really meant voluntarily setting oneself apart. In other words, the Jewish nation distinguished itself from other peoples by virtue of its distinctive religious and moral laws, and by the fact that it had been chosen by God as the instrument of a divine purpose within the family of nations. “In that sense, the Jewish people dwells alone of its own volition,” he said.
A woman in her fifties asked for permission to comment. She was tall and lean, her face equine, her dress and hat plain, and her eyes brilliantly intelligent. This was Nehama Leibowitz, a renowned Bible scholar famous for her immensely popular weekly Torah commentaries, composed in a highly comprehensible style. Deftly, she drew attention to the verse’s grammatical structure, elaborating upon and reinforcing Professor Auerbach’s comment, explaining that the word yitchashav, generally translated to mean ‘reckoned’ – “this is a people that shall not be reckoned among the nations” – was rendered in the reflexive form, which therefore gave the meaning, “this is a people that does not reckon itself among the nations.” And as an aside, she pointed out that this form of that particular word occurs but once in the whole of Scripture.
Professor Yaakov Katz, a slight figure with dour features and a deeply analytical disposition, broke in to refer to the eminent Talmudist Marcus Jastrow. Citing Jastrow’s Talmudic sources, Katz showed that the reflexive form of the root word chashav [reckon] signifies “to conspire,” meaning that Israel “is a people that dwells alone and does not conspire against other nations.”
Professor Harel Fisch, educator, literary scholar, and future laureate of the prestigious Israel Prize, raised a finger for attention. Stroking his goatee, he mused that in modern society the Jewish people were unique in personifying a seamless blend of peoplehood and religion, born out of the two seminal events that forged the Jewish national personality: the Exodus from Egypt, when Jews entered history as a people, and the giving of the Torah at Sinai, when Jews entered history as a nation-faith. A Jew, therefore, was a synergy of both – Exodus and Sinai. He could not be the one without the other, though many throughout the centuries had tried to keep them apart. Whether one was a believer or a skeptic, this subtle nation-faith individuality was indivisible. And since this was what distinguished the Jewish people from all other peoples, they would always, uniquely, “dwell alone.”
Another participant, whom everybody knew simply as Srulik, a bushy-haired archaeologist and Bible prodigy wearing an emerald green yarmulke which he had picked up at the door, provocatively remarked that whichever way one interpreted Balaam’s prophecy, it stamped the Jewish people as an eternally abnormal nation within the family of nations – and that this flew in the face of the classic Zionist creed, which expounded that Zionism’s aim was to normalize the Jewish people so that it could become a goy k’chol hagoyim – a nation like all other nations. Indeed, the central thesis of the Zionist thinkers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, particularly the Labor Zionists, was that once Jews possessed what every other normal nation possesses – a land of their own – they would automatically become a normal nation within the family of nations. And the consequence of that, so the classic Zionist theory held, would be that anti-Semitism would wither and die. Well, it hadn’t withered and died. On the contrary, the very existence of the Jewish State was often a cause for anti-Semitic prejudice, and this, surely, cast a shadow on a fundamental article of Zionist faith.
To which Dr. Chaim Gevaryahu, chairman of the Israel Bible Society, added that he wondered what led those brilliant secular Zionist founding fathers of yesteryear to predict so confidently that Jewish self-determination would, of itself, lead to national normalization and put an end to anti-Semitism. Indeed, once Jews became a normal people they would cease being Jews. But that could never happen, because nothing could ever put an end to anti-Semitism. In fact, one thing to be learned from the biblical portion under review was that the so-called prophet Balaam was the archetypical anti-Semite. His whole intent was to curse the Jews, not to bless them. The blessing was God’s doing, not his.
Irresistibly, the prime minister plunged in once again, expanding on the uniqueness of the Jewish national identity, saying, “As Professor Harel Fisch has pointed out, other peoples are multi-religious; other religions are multinational. But we Jews are one and the same – religion and nationhood both. And as Professor Auerbach and Professor Leibowitz have indicated, we have forever maintained this distinctiveness by refusing to assimilate into other nations. It all began with the father of our nation, Abraham of Ur of the Chaldees, who, at the age of seventy-five, deduced the eternal truth of the One God, and bolted the idolatry of his parental home in order to worship Him. Hundreds of years later we see his descendents, by now an enslaved people, again embarking on a God-commanded journey – the Exodus from the idolatrous land of Egypt – again in order to worship the One God. In both instances their destination was Eretz Yisrael, there to fulfill their religious-national destiny. Never in Jewish history was this identity severed.” Then the line of his mouth tightened a fraction showing he was about to draw a practical conclusion: “And since there can be no separation between nation and faith, this means there can be no total separation between religion and state in the Jewish State.”
This triggered off a firestorm of controversy, because while some of the scholars present took the Bible as a paradigm of God’s own writing, others related to it secularly, as a piece of extraordinary literature. Listening attentively, Mr. Begin lowered the temperature by saying in an earnest voice that whatever the differences of view, the eternal fact remained that, by any reading of the text, the Jewish people did, indeed, constitute an exceptional phenomenon in world history. To illustrate his point he picked up a volume of the utterances of Dr. Yaakov Herzog, my mentor, counselor and inspiration when I took my first steps into the world of diplomacy. Yaakov died prematurely in 1972 at the age of fifty, and Menachem Begin appropriately described him that evening as “a master of the perplexities of international diplomacy and a prodigy in the field of Jewish erudition.” He continued, “In fact, he is the only man I ever met who was given the choice at one and the same time of being asked by Levi Eshkol to be chief of the prime minister’s office, and approached by Anglo-Jewry to be chief rabbi of Great Britain.”
In closing the discussion that night, Menachem Begin read from Herzog’s profound philosophical anthology, A People That Dwells Alone :
The theory of classic Zionism was national normalization. What was wrong with the theory? It was the belief that the idea of a ‘people that dwells alone’ is an abnormal concept, when actually a ‘people that dwells alone’ is the natural concept of the Jewish people. That is why this one phrase still describes the totality of the extraordinary phenomenon of Israel’s revival. If one asks how the ingathering of the exiles, which no one could have imagined in his wildest dreams, came about, or how the State of Israel could endure such severe security challenges, or how it has built up such a flourishing economy, or how the unity of the Jewish people throughout the Diaspora has been preserved, one must come back to the primary idea that this is ‘a people that dwells alone.’ More than that, one must invoke this phrase not only to understand how the Jews have existed for so long; one must invoke it as a testimony to the Jewish right to exist at all in the land of their rebirth.
“So there you have it,” concluded Begin snapping the book shut. “Cease dwelling alone and we cease to exist. What a conundrum!”

I have only one other question: how did one get invited to that shiur?

Judaism or Democracy: What Would You Choose?

In the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, signed on the eve of Israel's War of Independence, the founders of the State tiptoed around a fundamental paradox. Their attempt to evade this glaring issue, probably because they could see no ready solution to the problem, has been the root of many, if not most of the major debates in Israel and across the Jewish world.
It's worthwhile to spend time studying the document in its entirety, but I'll focus on two small sections for now.

השואה שנתחוללה על עם ישראל בזמן האחרון, בה הוכרעו לטבח מיליונים יהודים באירופה, הוכיחה מחדש בעליל את ההכרח בפתרון בעיית העם היהודי מחוסר המולדת והעצמאות על-ידי חידוש המדינה היהודית בארץ-ישראל, אשר תפתח לרווחה את שערי המולדת לכל יהודי ותעניק לעם היהודי מעמד של אומה שוות-זכויות בתוך משפחת העמים.

The catastrophe which recently befell the Jewish people - the massacre of millions of Jews in Europe - was another clear demonstration of the urgency of solving the problem of its homelessness by re-establishing in Eretz-Israel the Jewish State, which would open the gates of the homeland wide to every Jew and confer upon the Jewish people the status of a fully privileged member of the comity of nations.
Survivors of the Nazi holocaust in Europe, as well as Jews from other parts of the world, continued to migrate to Eretz-Israel, undaunted by difficulties, restrictions and dangers, and never ceased to assert their right to a life of dignity, freedom and honest toil in their national homeland.

I need to make a small but critical point here: there's a problem with the translation in the text. I didn't translate here. The Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs did. Notice the section that I've highlighted in bold and red: "the problem of its homelessness", which is a paraphrasing of the words, בעיית העם היהודי. While technically correct, it's missing the critical nuance of the language that the framers clearly intended. When we translate the words בעיית העם היהודי literally, we find that this phrase means "the problem of the Jewish nation." This is clearly a reference to the "Jewish Problem" articulated by Nazi Germany. See also here. As we all well know, the Nazis came up with a rather ingenious solution to the problem. I see this minor translation (or the lack of nuance) as critical, because it highlights how strong a role the Holocaust played in the creation of the State of Israel, not only in the minds of the members of the international community, but also in the minds of the founders of the Jewish State.
With this is mind, we can begin to get a sense of the urgency of creating a Jewish State. Jews were slaughtered by the millions, with nowhere to run for refuge. The founders of the State declared openly that this would never happen again. Israel would stand ready to accept any Jew running from persecution. It would be a haven for Jews fleeing from the rampages of antisemitism. It would do so, by definition, by creating itself as a Jewish State: by the Jews, and for the Jews.
But then, later on in the document, the framers make another important statement:

THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

In other words, Israel would be a democracy, granting full rights to all of its citizens. Sounds great. But there's only problem. How do you ensure that the State remains Jewish if it truly adheres to the principles of democracy fully? If you grant "complete equality" to all citizens, what do you do if a minority grows to the point that it threatens to overtake the Jewish minority?
Let's leave the territories of out the equation. What do you do when you see secular Israelis fleeing the country, while the Israeli Arab population explodes? Would the State of Israel still be a Jewish State if its Arab majority voted for an Arab Prime Minister? How then do you guarantee that the State remains both Jewish, and a democracy?
In a word, you can't.
Until now, we've been avoiding this internal contradiction. We haven't had to confront the truth: a Jewish State and true democratic values might not be completely compatible. Something has to give.
So you've got to choose. Which are you willing to sacrifice? Are you willing to risk Israel's status as a Jewish State for the sake of the principles of democracy, equality and fairness, hallowed and sacred and important values? Or, will you sacrifice that equality for all to ensure that Israel remains a Jewish country?
That's the choice. Which would you choose?

Bibi, Don't Take the Deal

As we speak, the Cabinet of the Knesset is weighing whether to accept an American proposal for security guarantees to Israel in exchange for a three month moratorium on building in Judea and Samaria. Despite my being rather right-wing and in favor of continued construction and Jewish presence in our Biblically mandated lands, I'm against the deal for a very different reason: We're essentially discussing a bribe, and taking bribes never works in the end, either for the briber, or the bribed.
Essentially, the "security guarantee" is $3billion in advanced fighter planes. Now, I like advanced fighter planes as much as the next guy. They fly over my house practically every day. But what do fighter planes have to do with the security arrangements in the West Bank? What have they got to do with whether we do or don't build in East Jerusalem? Nothing. And that's what bothers me.
In an op-ed article in the Washington Post, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer writes,

This is a very bad idea. And while Washington will almost certainly come to regret bribing Israel, Israel may regret receiving such a bribe even more.

I agree with him, and found some of his points critical. But while I don't agree with his thesis that Israel is "behaving badly", he's right on the money when he calls the deal a bribe, plain and simple. And we shouldn't take it.
The reason I believe we shouldn't take it is because of the attitude of normal Americans. It's difficult to overstate their justified anger at Wall Street, General Motors, and the other fat cats that the American government bailed out and gave money for no reason. Often, the most angry Americans are the ones who offer Israel the greatest support.
And now we've got our own hands out, asking for money to justify a peace process that no one is their right mind thinks will pan out. Does that smell right? If I was a "regular" American, that would make me pretty mad, and wonder whether all that other money the U.S. gives to Israel isn't also some kind of payout - when it fact it really does represent an important strategic investment in the Middle East.
Taking the money now will only reinforce the very worst stereotypes about the Jewish State: that all we want is America's money, whether it's good for the United States or not.
If Bibi thinks that we should refreeze building for another three months, then he should try to push the initiative through without the promise of new planes. And if he doesn't think it's a good idea, then taking planes as an "incentive" to change our minds is a very bad idea, making us look cheap and petty, and willing to sell our souls (and our ideals), as long as it's for the right price.

In the New York Times, Some See Manufactured Controversy

Is the New York Times biased against Israel? Some would say "yes." I base this on my ability to find at least one person who takes each side of the issue. Wait, you might wonder. Is that really fair? After all, if a hundred people think the Times is fair, but only two think it's biased, my description doesn't really reflect the true picture!
Some might have a problem with my headline, but not the New York Times. How do I know? It can't bother them that much, because they seem to have no problem using this troubling journalistic tactic when writing about Israel.
Take this article from today's Times: "Remembering Rabin, Some See His Legacy Fading". Again with the "some." How many is "some"? Do they reflect a significant trend in Israeli society, or is this just a convenient way for the Times to gin up an issue? Some would like to know.
In fact, the article itself alludes to the fact that this is a created-controversy.

But with the failure of the Oslo accords, the violence of the second Palestinian uprising in 2000, the withdrawal from Lebanon that increased Hezbollah’s power and the rise of Hamas in Gaza after Israel pulled out, land-for-peace is viewed with skepticism by a rising portion of the Israeli public.

Reading between the lines, it's clear to Israelis that the Arabs don't want peace, and only viewed land-for-peace as a tactic to acquire land, so that they could then fight for more land. Israelis don't view the Palestinians as serious about wanting peace with us (they'd rather reach consensus with Hamas - who at least say openly that they want to kill us, than sit down seriously with Israel). So why in the world would we waste time trying to negotiate with people who have no serious interest in negotiation? (Unless someone was pressuring us to do so.) "Some" might wonder about a NY Times article lamenting the decline of the left-wing in Israel and its politics.
What about this article: "Some Question Insistence on Israel as Jewish State"? You would think that the article would be about a strong internal debate about whether Israel should be a Jewish state or not. But that's not the case. The article itself says so, telling us that,

Many Jews in Israel and beyond consider it essential that they are recognized not just as members of a religion but also as a people with historic rights to a sovereign state in the Holy Land. The issue, they say, goes to the core of the conflict and will serve as a litmus test for Palestinian intentions.
“Only when our peace partners are willing to recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish state,” Mr. Netanyahu said Friday at the same conference, “will they truly be prepared to end the conflict and make a lasting peace with Israel.”

What does it mean that "many" Jews think that Israel must be Jewish? Didn't the headline tell us that "Some" question that fact? Could it really be "most" vs. "almost none?" But that wouldn't make an attractive headline which grabs our attention and page views.
Most (and by that I mean pretty much everyone) in Israel takes it as a given that Israel is and must be a Jewish State (Other than Ahmed Tibi. He's not so sure.) The real question - the burning question in Israel right now, is only alluded to later on in the piece.

There is no consensus even within Israel on the meaning and nature of a “Jewish state.” For many Israelis, it describes the country as it is: with a Jewish majority that speaks Hebrew, living in a dominant Jewish culture. Some would like to see a more religious element; others worry that it denotes an ethnocracy.

That's the burning question. What does a "Jewish State" really mean? How Jewish should it be? Does it mean that we should make bagels and lox (which nobody but Americans eat here) and Matzo Ball soup the national foods, and leave it at that? Or perhaps the government should observe all Jewish holidays and maintain kashrut (which it does)? Should the country promote Torah study (does that too) or just promote the ideas of Jewish identity and heritage (ditto)? These burning questions really do occupy Israeli society today. (My wife Rena returned yesterday from her continuing education courses at a local college talking about a symposium on campus which discussed the need to inculcate Jewish identity in the secular Israeli classroom.)
These critical issues might be the honest subjects of debate and discussion here in Israel. But the NY Times really isn't interested in them, because only "some" would actually care enough to take a deeper look. Instead, it's far better to manufacture a controversy, quote an individual or two who take the contrary position, and write an inflammatory article describing a non-issue.
"Some" would call that journalism. Just not me.