[Avodah] Fwd: Torat Chaim VeAhavat Chesed

[Chana Luntz via Avodah]

R' Ysoscher Katz writes:

   ...

   <<Personally, my rejection of the Maimonidean ethos and realization of
   the degree to which chassidut can speak to the modern searcher was a
   long and arduous process. It came about as a result of a deep sense
   of betrayal by Maimonides, the champion of Rationalist Judaism. I for
   many years was the object and fool of Maimonides "the seventh reason"
   as presented in his introduction to the Guide by not seeing his
   philosophic views. In that passage, Maimonides condones misleading
   the masses for their greater good, even to the point of advocating
   contradictory ideas for different audiences and then obscuring those
   contradictions.

   Growing up in Satmar and then Brisk, I was oblivious to his
   non-halakhic writings and led to believe that he fully and literally
   believed every word he wrote in the Yad. I was exposed to his other
   writings only later and when I did I felt cheated. I was part of
   that the masses, whom he thought could not handle his unconventional
   approach to theology and tradition.>>

And yet ironically RYK's experience in Satmar and Brisk would seem to
confirm the sense of what Maimonides did.  

RYK was only the object and fool of Maimonides "seventh reason" because he
was immersed in a society that had built very high walls against the risk of
engaging with philosophy.  Contrast his experience to mine.  I read the
Guide at fourteen - long before I had any real exposure to the Yad.  Why?
Because I grew up in a society in which it was more acceptable for girls to
read philosophic texts than it was to learn and engage with halachic texts.
And indeed, a translation of the Guide was published and available in
English, in my shul library, whereas the Mishna Torah, which was no doubt
there (I don't remember), was only in Hebrew and would have been in the
"halachic" section that only boys (and scholarly boys at that) were expected
to access.  Even more, when I started asking questions, the librarian
pointed me in the direction of the philosophy works, which included the
Guide, that is how I got to it. It was just assumed that if somebody was
asking theological questions, that was the place to go.  So by the time,
much, much later, that I read the relevant portions of the Mishna Torah, I
already knew Maimonides' philosophic works in some depth, and layered them
on to anything in the Yad.

And yet Maimonides was surely right, had the Yad contained the opinions
expressed in the Guide, in any detectable way, there is no way a society
like Satmar and Brisk would have allowed it into their hallowed betei
midrash - and what a loss to the halachic world that would have been.  What
occurred to RYK is merely a by-product and inevitable consequence (if you
step outside) of what Satmar/Brisk have created.  Not what Maimonides
created.  He created a work which, in any society that valued philosophy,
would be available to those who sought it.

And this is why RYK's experience is unlikely to occur in any true Modern
Orthodox setting.  Because curious, searching teenagers will inevitably take
advantage of what is available in languages they can read in their local
libraries (assuming they are encouraged to go there, and such libraries are
not off limits), and hence, while they might (hopefully) be exposed to the
Mishna Torah earlier than I was, they will certainly have the opportunity,
and if that way inclined, are likely to take the opportunity of exploring at
least the introduction to the Guide.


<<The two most dramatic changes that have happened is that Jews are now
   sovereign and women have made significant progress in their pursuit of
   religious equality. The pioneers of both these changes were driven, at
   least in part, by a chassidic ethos. R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson,
   the Rebbi of Lubavitch, was one of the first orthodox scholars to
   champion female Talmud scholarship, while R. Avraham Yitzchak Kook,
   a serious student of Chassidut, was an outspoken early proponent of
   a Zionist state.>>

Now this I find-  well perhaps touchingly naive to the point of bizarre.
Not the characterisation of the two most dramatic changes, necessarily, but
the idea that "the pioneers of both these changes were driven, at least in
part, by Chassidic ethos".  Of the two, the claim regarding female Talmud
scholarship is the most odd.  Chassidic groups have been at the forefront of
those fighting a rearguard action against women's exposure to any form of
text, not least Talmudic and halachic text.  Satmar in particular - I recall
once standing in a bookshop in Boro Park, perusing a book (written clearly
by somebody from the Satmar derech) who had gathered together all the
sources on the evils of giving women access to any text - but most
fundamentally, horror of horrors, to Rashi al haChumash.  It was of course,
an attack on what is taught in Beis Ya'akov.  The position advocated being
that at most, girls should be taught in school the stories of the Tanach,
outside and without any recourse at all to reading in original.

Lubavitch, I agree, was and is in this regard unusual amongst the Chassidic
groups.  But, growing up in Melbourne, a community heavily dominated by
Lubvitchers, I am pretty well acquainted with what was allowed and not
allowed vis a vis girls/women and learning from people with reasonably close
connections with the Lubavitche Rebbe.  Sure, streets ahead of the other
Chassidic groups - but more open than the Beis Ya'akovs? - dubiously -
although there was a fair bit of flexibility granted when dealing with
potential ba'alei teshuva who (it was acknowledged) could be seriously put
off by bans on access to knowledge of the nature of that on gemora.  But
what was granted begrudgingly and in a limited fashion in such circles were
standard parts of the curriculum in Modern Orthodox schools (with Maimonides
in Boston the flagship in this regard).  How high a level a girl was taught
in MO environments differed (especially given that often the overall level
of kodesh education was not always that high in such schools), but the idea
that any of this was driven fundamentally by the Lubavitcher Rebbe is
ludicrous. And if you look at Israel and the explosion of women's learning
there - not a chassid in sight.

R' Kook and Zionism is a more justified charge.  While it is hard to
describe Rav Kook as a "pioneer" of political Zionism (there were many
before him who saw political Zionism as logically arising out of their
religious belief), he unquestionably provided serious theological
underpinnings justifying the religious being involved in this endeavour, and
much of what he wrote is rooted in chassidus.  But note of course that the
major thinker against was again the Satmar Rebbe - ie chassidus provided,
yet again, the most reactionary response to this phenomenon.  Which is more
typical of chassidus - Rav Kook or the Satmar Rebbe? - I think it is far
fairer to say that Rav Kook was the exception, despite his deep roots, and
the Satmar Rebbe closer to the rule.  And note, while we are on the subject
of Rav Kook, that while he was "progressive" regarding political Zionism, he
was "regressive" regarding woman voting.  Was his attitude towards women's
place in society also fuelled by his Chassidic studies?

In general, while I do agree that Chassidic thinkers, such as Rav Kook, have
a lot to say to "the world we live in today" and that there is something to
be said for incorporating aspects of their theology in the pursuit of
meaning, I suspect that trying to create "chassidish modern Jews" is an
enterprise doomed to failure, and certainly not something that will be able
to speak to the modern orthodox world.

Why? 

Firstly because Chassidism is all embracing.  I have watched many ba'alei
teshuva embrace Chassidism (in lots of forms) over the years - as indeed it
has a serious pull for many.  I have rarely found one who is attracted that
way who ends up in the modern orthodox camp.  Where do they usually end up?
Well amongst the most extreme Chassidic groups, where they can indulge to
the fullest extent.  Chassidism become so all embracing that it pushes
everything else out.  And while this phenomenon is already found amongst
Modern Orthodox children going "black".  It is certainly not going to save
modern Orthodoxy.

A further problem is articulated at the beginning of the piece, in relation
to RYK's father:

  > My father is the most non-chassidish Chassid. He does not study
  > "chassidus," nor does he want to "understand" it. 

But, however you cut it, those with a modern orthodox upbringing are taught
to want to "understand".  They are brought up with the scientific method,
even if some debunking then occurs in universities.  For sure, there are
those who reject that in favour of exploration of mystery and experience -
but as suggested above, by and large those "go right" - further into the
ultra orthodox world. By and large, while the ashrams of India are peopled
by many Jews, I don't think very many of them are modern orthodox dropouts.
The ones we are losing totally are going left, into the secular mundane
world without religious input. Because while they are usually aware of the
experiential, it appears to simultaneously contemplate a suffocation of the
mind that they cannot swallow (as an ashram also does).  Such people are
never going to be comfortable in a world in which there is any expectation
of not "wanting" to understand.  They may perhaps be persuaded to find
meaning in the writings of people like Rav Kook, or in other aspects of
Chassidic writing, but are likely to be even more repelled by a world that
implicitly or explicitly tells them to bin what is the attribute they have
been taught to spend most of their life cultivating - their mind.

I am probably going to be (metaphorically speaking) shot on this list for
even mentioning it, but if you want to see what you get when you mix a
modicum of Chassidic plus philosophic inspired thinking in a more "modern"
context, you could always look at the German thinkers (including Reform
thinkers) of the early twentieth century - people like (particularly) Franz
Rosenzweig, not to mention Leo Baeck, Martin Buber, Hermann Cohen.  What
about Levinas?  There is your post modern thinking (but note that it comes
out of a Lithuanian background with existentialism and philosophical
exploration rather than chassidus).  But it is a long way from Maimonidian
rationalism (despite of course Maimonides being the father of all this
philosophy, but only after it has been through Kant and the
existentialists).  Avraham Yehoshua Heshel is another example of those
attempting to integrate a Chassidic background with modern sensibilities.
But since he operated out of the Jewish Theological Seminary, and was
closely identified with the Conservative Movement, he probably did more to
make such explorations treif to MO thinkers than he did to inspire them to
explore.  A bigger problem, I think, is that MO in America is so fixated on
RYBS, and his particular brand of philosophy, that philosophy linked to
Orthodoxy becomes identified only with his particular stance.  But there is
a much wider world out there, and a philosophical world that does not only
relate to transcendence (as RYBS appears to do) but to imminence as well.
Are those who speak of paradox/polarity of imminence and transcendence
inspired by the imminence of the Chassidic world?  Maybe, but it is
attenuated, and no longer strictly Chassidic.  

Regards

Chana