Friday, August 14, 2015

A Response to Rabbi Mordechai Willig

Recently, Rabbi Mordechai Willig penned a highly controversial piece entitled Trampled Laws (  Disclaimer - I'm a relatively recent musmach of RIETS (2011) and have learned tremendous amounts from Rabbi Willig during my brief tenure in the rabbinate.  As an intern at the Beth Din of America, I witnessed Rabbi Willig serving in an active judicial role as Sgan Av Beit Din (something akin to Associate Justice second to the Chief Justice).  His scholarship, social awareness, common sense, and ability to actively, sensitively, and effectively apply Jewish law in constructive ways clearly designed to be comfortable to the recipients of his instruction were (and I'm sure still are) an admirable combination.  While studying in RIETS,  I had the absolute pleasure and merit of attending classes given by Rabbi Willig, where the breadth of his knowledge, clarity of presentation, involvement of students, and intellectual honesty in interpretation and application were hallmarks.  

Because these are the qualities I personally experienced and admire, I feel the need now to politely pen a response to this most recent essay, which fails to measure up to the excellent analysis I've come to expect.  To be quite clear, I respect Rabbi Willig immensely, do not claim to approach his level of halachic expertise, and am floored both by the quality and quantity of his dedication to the Jewish people.  So far as I've experienced, he's always welcomed dissent and counterargument in the hopes of helping to sharpen the truth.  In that spirit, I'd like humbly to respond in part:

At the crux of his argument, Rav Willig suggests a reinterpretation of our current approach to women's Torah study.  Though the Talmud, Shulchan Aruch, Mishneh Torah, and other classic sources all spoke negatively of teaching one's daughters Torah, particularly the intricacies of oral law, Rav Willig correctly notes how leading figures such as the Chofetz Chaim boldly asserted that this was not a categorical prohibition per se but rather timely advice as to the best path given then-extant social realities:

Those gedolim, guided by their yiras Shomayim as well as an absolute mastery of kol haTorah kulah, understood that in light of the weakened state of the mesorah from one generation to another in the twentieth century (ibid), talmud Torah for women was a necessity to, "implant pure faith in their hearts" (Rav Zalman Sorotzkin in Moznayim L'mishpat siman 42, etc.), and as such was entirely consistent with Chazal's mandate to provide the most productive chinuch for women. 

Rav Willig suggests a re-examination of those rulings given the great changes of modernity.  Truthfully, this first assertion is absolutely correct, and characteristic of the benefit of Rav Willig's general style of analysis.  Like his predecessors before him who reinterpreted the dicta of the Talmud in radically changed social circumstances, Rav Willig resists the temptation to pidgeon-hole halachic application, always seeking to re-examine and accurately apply rulings to modern circumstances.  In a world bereft of a Sanhedrin and centralized mechanisms for Jewish legislative correction, reapplication of halachic principles to changed circumstances is absolutely essential to the survival of a meaningful Jewish law system.  As Rav Aharon Lichtenstein zt''l was wont to explain, the art of pesikah, understanding a particular situation and applying the law accurately to that situation, is an essential component of rabbanus.

Times are entirely different.  The worldwide movement for women's suffrage was just gaining steam toward the end of the Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan's lifetime, and women had not substantially entered the workplace, institutions of higher education, or any of society's leadership structures.  Gender roles were largely bifurcated and fixed.  

Rabbi Willig asserts that, because of the rise of "feminism" and "egalitarianism" within even Orthodox circles, past approaches need to be peeled back, with a more restrictive role for women:

However, in the words of a "pioneer of the religious feminist wave" cited in the aforementioned article, "What is happening today is a direct continuation of the beginning of Talmud studies for religious women in the 1980's." This candid admission must, for the genuinely Orthodox, call into question the wisdom of these studies. Although there are ample reliable sources that encourage individual women who have proper yiras Shomayim and whose motives are consistent with our mesorah to further their Torah study[1], the inclusion of Talmud in curricula for all women in Modern Orthodox schools needs to be reevaluated. While the gedolim of the twentieth century saw Torah study to be a way to keep women close to our mesorah, an egalitarian attitude has colored some women's study of Talmud and led them to embrace and advocate egalitarian ideas and practices which are unacceptable to those very gedolim.    

I'd like to address these claims from both pragmatic and philosophical perspectives.  "Feminism," a movement which many even in modern Orthodox circles decry and a word many use pejoratively, is not in fact bad or anathema to Torah.  While there are many different strata and stripes of feminism, it is, at its root, a movement that has had profound and positive effects for (approximately) half of the world's population.  Feminism is about social, political, and economic equality for women.  The cause has manifested in successful advocacy for the right to women's suffrage, the right to work, the right to hold public office, the right to own property, maternity leave, laws against sexual slavery, child rape, spousal abuse, and a variety of other advancements.  

Many of us see feminism primarily as a kiyum (fulfillment) of the divine affirmation that we are created in the image of God.  These societal advancements can be seen (and are!) in religious terms as a fulfillment of the respect owed to infinitely valuable souls gifted to us for a short time by the blessed Creator, and representative of the development of societies' ethical sensitivities, something to be celebrated.  Efforts in this regard are part and parcel of the rabbinic notion of tikun haolam, the perfection of the world legislated through reforms designed to alleviate poverty and oppression throughout the Mishna and rabbinic literature.  More grandly, they represent the very essence of our partnership with Hashem in the advancing the work of creation and redemption.  

Moreover, we have a hard time accepting the consistency and cogency behind the arguments that posit feminism and egalitarianism as categorically negative or even evil.  After all, if you support women being politicians, doctors, lawyers, owning property, in a word, being fully autonomous beings and not mere subordinates, then how can people fairly assert that feminism is simply bad, case closed.  Run the thought experiment and take away the reforms of the feminist movement, and fairly tell me or anyone else that our wives or daughters would be better off (economically, spiritually, emotionally) under that regime.

Now, that's not to say that feminism and other largely positive developments haven't brought along a host of complicated challenges.  I trust that Rabbi Willig and others, out of a deep bona fide concern for mesorah, fear that seeming innovations and a new spirit threaten to upend that which we cherish.  Rabbi Willig and others (seemingly the majority of recent essays on the Cross Currents blog - have taken to criticizing trends of "postmodernism."

Now, I'm certainly not an expert on current postmodern trends, but do know well that postmodernism presents at least two major challenges (opportunities?) to the faith community.  First, postmodernism is characterized by a profound skepticism about truth, valuing instead narratives and perspectives.  This skepticism extends all the more so to claims of dogmatic or absolute truth, and results in a deep mistrust of organized religion and traditional frameworks.  While this is certainly a challenge to the received wisdom of our cherished tradition, the truth is there are many positives to the current thought trend, should we choose to take advantage of it.  a) "Elu v'elu divrei Elohim chayim - these opinions and those are all the words of the living God."  Why a living God?  Our earthly existence, unlike that of the unified Creator, is an existence of multiplicity and difference.  We're entirely accustomed to difference leading to discord; Judaism teaches that fundamentally, difference too is divine, not discordant.  God "lives" through our good faith passionate disagreements, and that these differing perspectives can all represent truth.  b)  Though critiqued, the Rambam's negative theology, whereby not only anthropomorphic descriptions of God but even anthropopathic descriptions of God were proscribed serves as a model.  Ultimately, if God is "kadosh," meaning utterly distinguished, there's nothing we can fairly say.  This reverence and humility can perhaps be seen as embodied in the practice of our treatment of sheimos, divine names.  We refuse to pronounce, under any circumstances, the Shem Havayah, the revered Tetragramaton, representing God's total otherness.  c)  Humility - all of this skepticism can lead to a profound humility about what we know and the development of personal humility of character.  Moshe Rabbeinu is singled out, according to the Torah, specifically because of his profound and unique humility, and it's a character trait that the Rambam suggested we ought to develop in excess; all of the others require balance and the golden mean.  In an era of narcissism gone wild and surreal selfie-style self-promotion (see the Donald Trump candidacy merely as the current  culmination of the disturbing trend), humility is the character trait the hour demands.

Secondly, postmodernism has been characterized by fluid less-rigid roles and structures.  This isn't only a product of postmodernism, but also of a more flexible economy whereby increasing numbers of people work remotely, from homes, coffee shops, or anywhere else, and automation and technological development has spurred an increase in the kinds and varieties of work that people do.  The fluidity of modern society results in more flexible family structures whereby roles are not normative but rather functional on individual levels.  It's not just that we have two-parent working families.  A dad might choose to stay at home or work part-time, if his job and temperament allow it, particularly if mom has a higher-paying or more reliable job with a large corporation.  Increasingly, people are happy to embrace the variety of choices present in a largely non-biased society, and do whatever works best for them.  

The benefits are obvious - rather than have ill-fitting roles foisted upon individuals because of their gender or other identity delineaters, we're able to expand the potential for human and family development by allowing individuals and families to create structures most suited to help them flourish.  Now, it's not all rosy.  A recent article in the New York Times highlighted that millenials aren't nearly as willing to shed traditional roles as they think they will be once they have families and children.  Also, the lack of predictability and ill-defined roles creates a new organizational challenge of role definition, and overcoming the associated chaos, stress, and lack of predictability.  Still, society has weighed in, and the market of humanity has, across cultures, chosen more fluid roles.  

It's this area which ostensibly poses the most overt challenge for traditional Judaism, which in  large part rests on the breakdown of gender roles as a rationale for the increased number of male religious requirements, particularly the time-bound ones.  This poses challenges not just for women, but for men as well.  For example, a man who chooses to stay at home and care for the children may have a harder time being able  to fulfill his requirement to attend the daily minyan or fulfill other time bound positive precepts.  Recently, a congregant suggested to me that the legal mechanisms for dealing with these new realities already exist in the halachic system, notions such as osek min hamitzvah patur min hamitzvah, someone who is engaged in a commandment is exempt from others, and the like, and that we merely need leadership and good faith reverent application of the laws on the books.  Perhaps.  A full discussion of this is beyond the scope of what I'd like to discuss in this piece.  

Most importantly, just as the sages of the early twentieth century adapted to a situation whereby women's roles were changing, Rabbi Willig's absolutely correct that postmodern trends require reevaluation of womens' roles.  However, the nature of that reevaluation must be based on current social realities, so as to insure the survival of the mesorah  we all value so deeply and its wise application to modern times.  Of course, the changes can't themselves be in violation of the tradition, as this would prima facie represent a destruction, not preservation of the tradition.  This will mean that, for example, where halacha permits, we will need to see more fluidity, based on particular individual needs and circumstances, in the nature of gender roles in our community.  A return to roles of the 19th century is, in this respect, unhelpful in addressing the current reality. Since many mainstream authorities permit, in theory, the notion that women can have a heter hora'ah, permission to rule on legal questions, if qualified, opportunities for training and leadership will become normative and ought to be afforded.  Unlike some others who support women's "ordination", I don't believe it's a radical change at all, or that members of a traditional faith community should be engaged in radical change altogether, but rather a modern application of traditional and absolutely halachic norms.  This is just one example, though, of a wider trend of more fluid roles.  For another example, note the number of "Rebbitzens" who, due to full time workloads and a variety of diverse responsibilities, eschew the traditional role of being a semi-official synagogue staff members.               

To close, a word on methodology of argumentation.  Lately, many critical pieces employ logical fallacies in the effort to persuade (not intentionally, but in their effort at good faith persuasion), particularly the straw-man fallacy and the fallacy of poisoning the well.  Briefly, the straw-man is a fallacy whereby a caricatured and easily combustible version of the opponent's argument is posited for easy burning; really good argumentation (like the highly complex and brilliant argumentation comprising the Talmud) seeks to assert the strongest version of an opponent's claims, note the weaknesses of one's own arguments, and arrive at a modified but stronger end point.  For an example of this, there is the trend of calling Orthodox believing religiously pious  Rabbis and lay individuals alike "neoconservative."  They're not (go to their synagogues and they're distinctly Orthodox), and though their might be some overlap, the social realities suggest the comparison is not particularly accurate or useful, broadly speaking.  Large communities of halachically observant Jews who favor legally permissible women's ordination (or certainly arguably legal), for example, are legally and socially observant in ways that neither Orthodox or Conservative congregations were during much of the 20th century.   Along with this, the notion and intimation that feminists are seeking to uproot religious tradition and that the line from feminism to heresy can easily be drawn posits and unfair picture of religiously passionate and pious women. 

Poisoning the well is a technique whereby a host of presumed negative information (usually not sufficiently nuanced either) is introduced at the outset to bias readers against a person or group preemptively.  From a religious perspective, this also cuts against the notion that we ought to try and judge each other favorably, perhaps especially when we disagree.  Many articles contain a host of links, trying to inflame by citing all of the most controversial innovations, usually out of context, in an effort to delegitimitize or frame speakers before a reader has had an opportunity to frame opinions.  Ultimately, this distracts from the merits of  a particular argument, and causes unnecessary animosity.

Lastly, a plea.  Pious Jews seeking new roles for women are merely trying to take part in the natural evolution of tradition, but a tradition it remains to them as well.  They're seeking to preserve it within legally acceptable parameters, not as a compromise but ideally, and as part of traditionally religious imperatives in authentic if new ways.  Moreover, the great changes of modern times call for traditionally rooted solutions and evolutions to preserve our great faith.  Though the times present challenges, they also present opportunities.  It's my hope that the sages and great scholars of this generation, like Rabbi Willig, will address the challenges in constructive ways that make sense for our generation.  Like predecessors before, this will require courage and creativity, rooted in yiras shamayim and scholarship.  People aren't seeking to trample laws, but to observe them and preserve them more broadly.  This should be celebrated and assisted, not fought.    

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

A Prayer Petition to my Congregation

Image result for ecstatic chasidic tefilla

Today, I sent this letter to my wonderful congregation to inspire increased attendance while many of the regulars are away during the summer months.  I share it publicly knowing that we're not alone, and noting that the ideas are broader than our local community.

Dear Congregants,

This past Saturday night and Sunday, we mourned together on Tisha B'Av lamenting the absurd cruelties of Jewish history but primarily mourning for the destruction of our holy Temples in Jerusalem and everything else (religiously, politically, socially) that those absolute destructions entailed.  Should a sincere mourning have a lasting effect?  If so, what should it be?

The truth is, I'm writing primarily because of the situation out community finds itself in.  Though we have about 80 men in our growing congregation (maybe more, maybe less), I haven't taken the time to count precisely, we now have trouble each day acquiring the minimal prayer quorum of ten men. Yesterday morning, I was number six (6); today, I was number ten (10).  This past Friday night, we were never close, despite a robust turnout on Shabbat morning, Shabbat afternoon, and Tisha B'Av itself.  Granted, all of this is partly due to the fact that it is summer, where a number of our members (and sometimes our Rabbi) travel and take extended vacations.

This situation will only be exacerbated in the coming days, as approximately seven (7) of our regular ten (10) will be traveling for an extended period of time; I'll also be taking the rest of my vacation. As leadership, we are now inclined to temporarily suspend our daily prayer services, morning and evening, save Shabbat and possibly weekends.  At this time, I turn to you, the congregation, with a message that I hope will facilitate discussion but also inspire attendance, regardless of what we choose to do over the coming weeks.

Why Ten?

As Rosie the Riveter said, "[w]e can do it!"  We is the operative word in that sentence.  We call ourselves a "congregation" in English, or "kehillah" in Hebrew. Rather than a mere collection of individuals, we are prima facia something larger than that, and share the responsibilities and privileges of our awesome and holy venture together as a joint entity.

In addressing the question of quorum, Rav Abraham Isaac Hakohen Kook zt''l explained as follows. There's national service of God and individual service, and both are vital to the mission of Israel; individual service provides for an outlet for the proper service of each soul in a local context, whereas national service sets an example to the nations of the world in furtherance of our people's historic mission. Exile and the destruction of the Temples were a sensible Divine response to the particular private moral failings of individuals on a massive scale.  Private ethical behavior was weakened supplanted by perfunctory national religious ritual. The priorities were out of balance and misplaced, with an entire pole utterly neglected. It should be noted that this stinging message is delivered painfully by the prophet Isaiah:

10 Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. 11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me? saith the LORD; I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. 12 When ye come to appear before Me, who hath required this at your hand, to trample My courts? 13 Bring no more vain oblations; it is an offering of abomination unto Me; new moon and sabbath, the holding of convocations--I cannot endure iniquity along with the solemn assembly. 14Your new moons and your appointed seasons My soul hateth; they are a burden unto Me; I am weary to bear them. 15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide Mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood. 16 Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings from before Mine eyes, cease to do evil; 17 Learn to do well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. {S} 18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD; though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. 19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land; 20 But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword; for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken. {P}

In essence, God was entirely sick of the vain "religious" service of a nation of corrupt sinners.  As a result, we were placed into a situation of exile, whereby there was no more nation with a clear center, but individuals dispersed on their own. Enter the mussar movement, a focus on religious study, and personal religiosity and spirituality as the primary avenues of Jewish expression.  In exile, we would more properly work to refine our private ethical character devoid of forums for nationalized public worship.  Eventually, when this imbalance was properly corrected for, the national urge would again rise, which Rav Kook believed corresponded to the rise of the settlement of the land of Israel he was experiencing.  Even during our exile, though, rabbinic reminders would signal our national historic mission.  With prayer as a replacement of sacrifice after the destruction of the Second Temple, the requirement of a quorum (derived for the word עדה, community, used in relation to the ten spies, an interesting subject in its own right) served to remind us that our private service of God, observed most prominently during prayer, an intimate conversation with the Master of the Universe, ought still occur in the context of a quorum representative of the entire nation.  Moreover, all of the blessings of the amidah are distinctly plural.  Many contain direct references to our national mission and eventual and ongoing redemption.  All of this to remind us that we're not merely individual Jews, but members of a larger holy community, proudly pursuing prophetic promises of global and historical redemption, tikun haolam.

As you're likely aware, most of our prayer services contain a reader's repetition of the amidah.  Rav Soloveitchik, zt''l, prominently asserted that talking and even Torah study during such was absolutely prohibited, and accustomed himself to stand for the entire repetition, feet together, as if he was in prayer. There is the tefillat hayachid, the prayer of the individualand the tefillat hatzibur, the communal prayer. They are equally important.

Personal Reasons to Pray

On the one hand, prayer with a quorum is a Jewish legal obligation.  Jewish men are required to pray thrice daily with a quorum, if possible, and women are required to pray the morning and afternoon services (with or without a quorum), according to Ashkenazic practice.  The Talmud rules that prayer in a synagogue with a quorum is qualitatively preferable to prayer alone.  Prayer in a synagogue even absent a quorum is preferable to prayer at home.  Experience tells us this is true.  It's a simple matter of fact that we're far more likely to pray and pray seriously if we attend the prayer service then if we try to fit it in on our own. Moreover, praying for others in the plural together, in the presence of others sharing the experience, is a holy experience of bonding and interpersonal communion that simply does not occur, spiritually, alone.

The obligation itself should be enough to encourage more frequent attendance, as we strive to pass on a tradition, legal and otherwise not of rights but of responsibilities.  I dare say we're growing weak and wimpy, finding excuses for skipping prayer, and our piety and lives suffer because of it.  We treat other rabbinic laws (rightly) with the utmost seriousness, yet simply ignore this requirement as if it were a luxury option.  As we fret about the Jewish education of the children in our community and passionately advocate for observance, we must model the behavior we proclaim to promote and observe ourselves.

Now, I know perfectly well that perfection is nearly impossible.  I know further that we're all on a path of service, at different levels of observance, seeking to find the right balance in our lives.  I'm not unaware of the stresses prayer attendance can create on family life, the hour of sleep forfeited, and the tremendous time and financial pressures placed on all of us.  All the more reason we need more prayer and prioritization in our lives, all of us, regardless of background or observance.

Prayer as Prioritization

We lead hectic lives, all of us, with too much to do, and constant interruption. Technology provides the reality of constant interruption and communication, interrupting tasks, flow, thought, and focus.  Additionally, prioritization is challenging and often not entirely within our control.  Enter prayer, more important now than ever; we've got to check in with God more than our inbox if we want to maintain meaningful religious practice.

In his commentary on the Talmud in Berachot entitled Ein Ayah, Rav Kook zt''l notes the important and distinct role of each of the three prayer services.  Morning prayers allow for a focus on the soul and spirit as we begin our physical days.  I heard from Rav Avidgor Neventzal that this is one of the reasons for the sages' famous ban on pre-prayer breakfast.  We must pray for our souls before feeding our stomachs; in other words, we must prioritize matters of the spirit in organizing our day.  I'll make a pragmatic suggestion.  Each of the 19 blessings of the amidah, particularly the requests in the middle, can be used to think about the to-do list for the upcoming day, praying and reflecting on what's to come.  I now use the shacharit amidah to reflect on whether the outcomes I hope for are in fact reach nichoach Lashem, "a fragrant odor to God," and whether my priorities are properly aligned.  This understanding is based on the fact that the reflexive Hebrew word for prayer is להתפלל, sometimes translated as "to judge oneself."  The root can also mean to imagine, and would them mean that we're hopefully imagining the lives we wish to lead.  Properly done, this weighing of priorities can serve as an exercise in fostering humility and hope while catalyzing our attainment of well-being.

Immersed in the work day, we can be overcome by the pursuit of wealth, forgetting ultimately why we really need it, while also losing balance with other values (family time chief among them).  Mincha, the afternoon service, interrupts, allowing us an antidote to the potential toxins of the modern workplace.  Elijah the prophet defeated the priests of Baal in the afternoon, says the Talmud.  So too, we are likely to contend with foreign forces during the workday.  While this may sound somewhat cynical, reflecting negatively on the predominant culture, it is also poignant and often true.  Our world is absolutely full of negative and foreign values (obsessive greed, selfishness, narcissism, the objectification of women, and mass dehumanization come readily to my mind) that overtly and covertly seep into our psyche.  As Edward Abbey famously noted, "[g]rowth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell."  Many of us are caught up, to varying degrees, in that western rat-race of ego and wealth.

Ma'ariv, the evening service, according to Rav Kook, serves to guard against lustful and sinful behavior most commonly occurring at night.  Psychologically, I'd like to offer a suggestion.  The mental capacity for self-control has been shown to exhaust itself, resulting in poorer decisions and a lack of self-restraint following other difficult decisions.  After the rigors of the day, we need renewed encouragement to renew our fortitude for good decision making based on the values we not only profess but care about. Ma'ariv encourages us to continue to live our values and be our best selves. Importantly, it also serves as an opportunity to measure our day and reflect.  We all know that self-evaluation and feedback are critical to job performance lest we lose sight of goals and fall into rote. Our spiritual/ethical feedback should be at least as strong as our professional measurements, but I fear is entirely absent.

These insights from or based on the teachings of the Talmud as explained by Rav Kook serve as a powerful explanation for the tangible benefits that prayer can have on our lives.  Restatement, reflection, and refinement of our priorities, meditated on at important times, can truly transform how we live and change our lives for the better in revolutionary ways.

Prayer for Everyone

Recently, in response to my request for morning minyan attendance, a congregant retorted, "[s]orry, but minyan is for alter cockers, mystics, and people saying mourner's kaddish."  I'd like to take written issue.

First, I'd like to share a passage from Worship of the Heart, a collection of thoughts from Rav Soloveitchik, zt''l, where the Rav questions seriously the notion that prayer is for everyone:

"A serious problem comes to the fore . . . is it confined to the religious genius - a curious and unique type of personality who is capable of attaining this ecstatic state of mind, of rapture an unification, a personality who rejects what seems clearly, logically and tangibly to be the natural order, for the sake of tending a reality which is beyond one's grasp?  Is prayer only for the mystic?  We, in contrast to the mystic, are all physically and mentally children of this external concrete world and therefore, if this be true, cannot make the leap from the sensuous and real into the transcendent and absolute.  Hence, avodah she-ba-lev, in the Maimonidean description, is an esoteric adventure, one that is not understandable to the average person.  Saints or mystics, whom God has blessed with an over-sensitized nature, with the capacity for violent and intelligible emotions, with an exalted sense of perceptions and fantasy-they may follow the mystical way, devoting their existence to the Infinite.  But we many not be able to do so . . . Unless tefillah as a Halakhic norm can find a place within the frame of reference of normal mentality, and lend itself to realization by every human being, regardless of his spiritual limitations, its meaning to us could never more than academic and remote . . . entrusted to an esoteric group, to the select few . . . ." (Worship of the Heart, 26-7)

The Rav's answer was simple.  Chazal were well aware of this concern, and therefore designed a tripartite prayer consisting of 1) Praise 2) Requests 3) Gratitude from among a wider array of possible subjects as most related to the needs of a common person.  "These three motifs-these three rays-offer remedial and inspiring energy for everybody.  Therefore, they were singled out and spelled out in our silent prayer."  We can all recognize the grandeur of God, think about and request our needs, and express gratitude for the blessing in our lives.  To do so daily provides "energy for everybody."

Second, I'd like to focus on certain ethical aspects of the notion that minyan is for those reciting the mourner's kaddish.  In our community, there are men and women regularly desirous of reciting this exalted prayer to elevate the soul of a departed loved one.  Doing so is both an act of love and dedication to the memory of  the deceased, while at the same time an act of faith very much focused on God's presence in our "real" world.  By attending the minyan, men help insure that others will be able to carry on this most sacred tradition, engaging in a de facto act of compassion and kindness for the those trying to recite the prayer.  There is a responsibility to do this as a fulfillment of Judaism's great primary principle, "[l]ove your neighbor as yourself."   

Which brings me to the next logical point.  If we ourselves would/will desire the quorum to recite kaddish when, God forbid, the time comes, we have an ethical obligation to attend during other times as well.  It's my strong feeling that it's ethically wrong to be willing to receive a donated organ but not willing to give one.  It violates basic ethical norms of fairness, Hillel's golden rule, and Kant's categorical imperative. Minyan is no different.  Basic fairness demands that those who would utilize in the hour of need must facilitate the same for others during their hour.               


Now, there are several frequent objections to Jewish prayer I have not substantively addressed in these musings.  You may find yourself saying, "[o]ur prayer experience does not map the lofty goals and aspirations described by sages ancient and modern quoted in this and other writings on the subject; our prayers are rote, rushed, full of talking, or otherwise not spiritually conducive in some manner or another." To that claim, I am quite sympathetic, and share it in large measure, but note that the abandonment of prayer itself solves nothing and also the exaggeration of the claims a bit.  Prayer is a practice to help us always live more fully aware of God's presence; to the extent it doesn't meet that aim, we must work to refine our environment to something more conducive.  Abandoning prayer does even less to further the aim.  I as your Rabbi will support communal suggestions for more conducive prayer wholeheartedly. It is also largely private, and can be taken seriously by willing individuals regardless of external factors.

You may find yourself saying, "I don't want to read words someone in a different place and time wrote, but want to pray my own prayers."  To this, I'd note that our sages required that we be mechadeish bah davar, that each of our prayers contain new elements, and suggested the framework as a baseline framework to be added to.  Minimally sufficient restrictions and limitations (like rules for children) foster the freedom to create and innovate more fully.  Add your own prayers related to the subject matter of the different blessings, please.  It's a Jewish law requirement.

I lay these out before you as preliminary thoughts on the obligations and benefits of regular prayer attendance.  You may disagree with some or all of what I've said.  That's well and good, and I'd be thrilled if this is a starting point for a communal discussion about what prayer is or ought to be, in our personal lives and for our community.  Perhaps we will develop congregational forums for discussing prayer seriously; after all, it's a fairly central part of what goes on in a beit kenesset.

Most immediately, though, I've set up a Google document for the coming weeks designed to chart prayer attendance.  At the bottom of the page, there's on tab for shacharit and one for mincha/ma'ariv.  This serves both as a way for our congregation to see if we have the requisite numbers for a quorum for each prayer over the coming weeks (so that those saying kaddish or otherwise desirous of a minyan may plan accordingly), while also serving as a way for you to commit yourself and hold yourself to it.  Women are welcomed and encouraged to sign up, though won't count in the quorum (that's for another essay).  Frequently, modern Orthodoxy is criticized as a movement more of convenience than commitment. This is symbolized by the fact that we need to rely on others to make our minyan.  I don't believe this to be true at all, and am confident that with time, training, and re-habitualization, we can rise to the challenge לטוב לנו, to our ultimate benefit.  I know that my attendance is and will remain less than perfect, and note publicly the inherent inconsistency always present in writing these kinds of thoughts.  Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts, for your serious consideration, and for signing up.


Rabbi Dolinger
חיים בעריל בן מאיר שמשון ולאה ביילה

Thursday, February 26, 2015

The Administration's Fixation with Israel - A Public Appeal

(U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry criticizing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu)

Dear Honorable Elected Representatives and Officials,

Jewish hero, bridge builder, and Soviet Gulag survivor Natan Sharansky famously suggested a "3d" test for what he termed the "new antisemitism" (  Softer than its more overt cousins, this anti-semitism is the product of double standards, delegitimization and demonization. Semantics and incendiary politics aside, this is a useful rubric for examining unfair and biased treatment of Israel.

Yesterday, testifying before the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry warned:

"The Prime-Minister was profoundly forward-leaning and outspoken about the importance of invading Iraq under George W. Bush.  We all know what happened with that decision."

The problems with this statement are many, and consequential.  Firstly, there is extreme hypocrisy.  Kerry, vast majorities of both major U.S. parties, as well as the vast majority of the American people supported that war.  In fact, John Kerry was one of the select few with the actual power to wage war (the U.S. Congress is supposed to be the branch to declare wars).  Then Senator Kerry voted for the war he now criticizes others for supporting.

Secondly, intentional or not (I assume it is not), this plays off of fears and classic anti-semitic canards that the Jews are a fifth-column, divided in their loyalty, powerful in their influence, lobbying and persuading the United States to act against their own interest.  Often, this type of allegation goes hand-in-hand with conspiracies of Jewish ownership of the main organs of society (Holywood, the media, government, Wall Street), and lurks just beneath the surface.  See, for example, a recent attempt to deny a Jewish student appointment on a judicial governing council at UCLA because of the "conflicts of interest" involved simply in being an affiliated Jew (  In reality, Israel was merely supporting its great friend and ally.  I recognize that Kerry didn't make accuse Israel of influencing the policy, but he certainly came too close to intimating such a thing.

Many allies supported and fought in the Iraq War with us.  To single out Israel, particularly Benjamin Netanyahu, and then note his judgement is now circumspect is a clear employment of an unfortunate double standard.  Are the leaders of England, France, Germany, Canada, and all of the politicians, military officials, etc. now circumspect in their judgment of all military matters due to their support of that war?  Perhaps, but Israel is again the country to focus on and criticize.  It's worth noting that this event isn't occurring in isolation, but comes on the heels of weeks of intensifying and personal criticism of Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu from administration officials like John Kerry, Susan Rice, Jen Psaki, and many many others.  Nary a week goes by without incitement against Israel or its elected leader from the executive branch.  Would it were that the administration would reserve its anger and frustration for actual enemies such as the Iranian regime (committed overtly and proudly to terrorism and our defeat).  Instead, for political reasons, those criticisms are limited or absent, while criticism of Israel is ubiquitous and overemphasized.  That's called a double standard, and it's time to protest.      

John Kerry also misleads with his words.  Much ink has been spilled noting Israel's (and yes, Benjamin Netanyahu's) reluctance to engage in a military conflict with Iran, desiring instead a negotiated solution. Netanyahu himself recently gave a speech where he stressed his vehement opposition to a bad agreement, but not an agreement generally (  Kerry implies that Israel is gunning for war, but it clearly is not, as evidenced by the lack of attack or discussion about one.  Kerry also imputes Netanyahu's support for the Iraq war to Israel, though Netanyahu was only a former Prime Minister holding no elected office at that time.  In reality, Secretary Kerry and President Obama have promised a non-nuclear Iran, but have clearly given up on that notion if multiple media reports of the emerging deal are to be believed.

In short and without exaggeration or rhetorical flourish, the administration has mislead, employed a double standard (the frequency and intensity of the criticism render a term like double standard generous), stoked fears of Jewish influence and hypocritically attacked the Jewish State and its Prime Minister.  Moreover, they've done it with obvious anger and resentment.

To an outside observer, it seems that President Obama and Secretary Kerry are letting a personal feud with Prime Minister Netanyahu (I'm not commenting on the legitimacy of that feud, as I recognize there are many viewpoints) dominate discussion, instead stifling important and legitimate discussion about the real issue, Iran's nuclear intentions, motivations, and capabilities.  Let's have a national debate about whether the terms of the emerging deal are a good one.  Distracting and making it all about a school-yard catfight between world leaders is silly and demeans the high offices being served and the United States Government generally.

At a time where Jews are frightfully experiencing a renewal in violent and hateful global anti-semitism, the administration's tone and words are causing increased anxiety for many.  As a Rabbi and communal leader, it is my moral duty to protest and to do so loudly.  This week, Jews across the world will celebrate Purim, celebrating victory over a genocidal Persian regime seeking to kill the Jews for reasons of political expedience.  Just as Mordechai and Esther acted to protect the Jews of Persia, we speak up on behalf of our people again.  Treat Israel and its leaders fairly, like the loyal Middle Eastern democractic ally that it is. End the scorn, double standards, fixation and misleading criticism. Please, enough is enough.


Barry Dolinger
חיים בעריל בן מאיר שמשון ולאה ביילה        


Tuesday, February 17, 2015

Letter to the Islamic School of Rhode Island

This is the text of a letter I sent today to the Islamic School of RI, which was recently attacked and vandalized with incredibly hateful messages.  We should stand in solidarity against this kind of bigotry and hatred, which has no place in our society.

Dear Students, Teachers, Staff, Parents, Members of the Board of Trustees, Supporters and Friends of the Islamic School of Rhode Island:

It is with outrage and profound sadness that we received the news of bigoted and hateful messages spray-painted illegally and cruelly onto your precious school.  We condemn the actions, and more importantly, the spirit of hatred that caused them. 

Coming on the heels of the vicious attack and brutal killing of three upstanding Muslim students in North Carolina, and just one day after your school’s memorial of those honorable victims, may they rest in peace, it seems unlikely that the timing was coincidental.  Rather, the vandalism of your school was likely intended to rub salt in the proverbial wound and was calculated to cause increased fear and anxiety.  This makes these otherwise horrific actions that much worse. 

We extend our hands in offering you support during this time, and pledge to work together to fight intolerance and hatred all too common in our world.  Sharing the belief that all people are created in the image of the one true God, we join together with you in prayers for peace and respect. Assalamu alaykum.  


Barry Dolinger