Celebrating July 4 -- Through Torah Study

While there was lots of celebrating back in the USA, July 4 was another day of Torah study at Hartman, with several interesting sets of ideas to think about.

The previous evening, Tzippi Livni presented her thoughts about the peace process.  No great revelations, but I did not know that she had actually grown up as a Beitarnik, a follower of Jabotinsky.  her reading of Jabotinsky was that Israel would be a Jewish state that accorded full and equal rights to its non-Jewish citizens.  She now believes, clearly that both of these things can't be true without a two-state solution.

The next morning featured Israel Knoll speaking about the historical development of covenant.  He sees three stages:

1.  The earliest developments, coming from Hittite sources, feature a brit of mutual benefit -- like a business deal.  Israel adopted this approach in conceiving a similar relationship with God, in which the Israelites pledged loyalty, and God would take care of them.

2.  The priestly sources use a model of "edut," which is more one sided.  There is a promise of fealty, but not necessarily rewards that come with it.  This has Assyrian roots -- the Assyrians were a much stronger power, and their treaties rewarded loyalty by not destroying the vassal, and a parallel approach is adopted in the priestly literature.

3.  FInally, Jeremiah and Ezekiel develop a "new covenant," reflecting the failure of fealty by Israel.  Their hoped-for future covenant would be one in which laws and expectations - morality - would be written "directly" onto the hearts of the people.  This would eliminate the need for free will -- and hence ensure loyalty.  

David Hartman notes that this third type of covenant did not come to pass -- a source of consternation and disappointment to Ezra and Nehemiah, who, instead, affirm the older form of covenant (especially the mutual one).  David Hartman found this move significant, an affirmation of the importance of free will, and that "the aspiration for total victory of the inclination to sin is shown to be an illusion.

FInally, later in the afternoon we had our first study session with Donniel Hartman, together with RLI 4.  We explored a text from Avot deRabbi Natan about Moses breaking the Ten Commandments.  There are two versions of the text, each developing its own tradition of Moses' ability to decide to destroy the tablets.  One version (nusah Bet) sees the giving of a second set of tablets as showing God's approval for Moses' decision.  HOwever, Moses is required to take radical action to save the people -- destroying the tablets -- because otherwise there is a harsh judgment ready for them.

In the second text (nusah Alef), God sends a sign that Moses should not give the tablets by making the letters disappear.  But there is more of an ongoing relationship in this text -- in the analogy of bridegroom and bride, there is a pre-existing "pre-betrothal" -- an ongoing relationship, and Moses saves the people so they can "become better" and fulfill the relationship down the road via teshuvah.  Hartman  sees this, BTW, as a rejection of Christianity's notion that sin causes rupture in the relationship, whereas God asserts an affirmation of relationship even through disappointment -- much like Adam and Eve are not killed after they eat from the apple.  

This version has Moses making a less radical decision about having to break the tablets, but is more affirming about the permanence of the relationship between Israel and God.

Why This Blog?

I'm doing a lot of this writing just so I can keep up with and reflect on the biggest ideas I'm encountering during my time at the Shalom Hartman Institute and during my time here in Jerusalem -- so primarily, I see this as a personal journal, that has the option of being shared with folks who have invested in my time here -- I'm not really sure with whom I will share it, either during the experience, or afterwards.  But I find that I remember things better when I write them down.  However, it doesn't mean that just because I'm writing about the ideas, that I agree with them.  When my jet lag clears, I'm sure I'll be trying to reflect more, and not just record the ideas I've received.

What is clear, however, is that my experience is shaping up in many of the ways that I expected -- an opportunity to study texts in depth, to hear from powerful teachers, and to meet some really wonderful colleagues who are doing interesting and very diverse types of work.  I hope that all of this will be reflected in the posts to come.

But if you're reading this, it means that, in some way, you've made this experience here in Jerusalem possible, and you have my thanks!

The Ideas Keep Coming

The ideas keep coming at a furious pace, even as my brain gets more jet-lagged (the third and fourth days are always the toughest -- I hope my sleep cycle will normalize by Shabbat).

Last night's session was titled "The Challenges of Israel."  Donniel Hartman spoke first, about his take on the current political domestic situation.  His provacative thesis was that in Israeli politics they are always looking for "the other within" as a distraction from other "real" problems like the budget deficit (which was solved with 4 billion shekels/1 billion dollars in cuts, against promises that Tommy Lapid had made in his campaign).  He sees anger and policies directed at groups such as the National Religious (including settlers), Haredim (the ultra-religious), and Israeli citizen Arabs, each have been labelled a "threat" to Israel.  In particular, he talked about the recent efforts to draft Haredi youth into the Army, and asked why all of a sudden such coercive policies could be enacted, rather than a process of dialogue.  He noted that, should the rabbis not be on board, Haredi youth will certainly be willing to go to jail rather than serve -- and where will that get us?  He sees it as a distraction, and an easy way out, instead of the slow but real changes already taking place in that community through patient cultivation and dialogue, in which thousands are now enlisting in the Army and in vocational programs.

Tal Becker's provacative these about the international arena is that Israel can't "acknowledge its victory" with the Palestinians, and then consolidate that victory by also allowing a space for Palestinians to also feel "victorious" through an appropriate settlement.  Instead, Israelis have taken on a sense of "inevitability" -- a passive sense that "there is no partner for peace" and that over 70% of Israelis would want a settlement, even a painful one, but "it doesn't matter because it will never happen."  He sees this passivity as ironic givent that Zionism was built on a sense of activism and affirmative effort to control Jewish destiny.  He sees it as a betrayal to both Judaism and Zionism's optimistic spirit.  What he did not offer was a specific set of actions or principals with which to move forward, despite the fact that he serves as an important advisor in the Foreign Ministry.  But it is certainly an interesting perspective, and a reminder that a decision to do nothing in this arena is still a decision.

This morning's session with Moshe Halbertal centered around the idea of what Judaism believes about "sacrifice" and "self sacrifice."  We focused first on readings from Yishayahu Liebowitz, who felt that this was the essense of mitzvah -- that Judaism is, essentially, halakhah -- what we do -- and that halakhah is simply the way we act on our relationship with God.  There is no "utilitarian" aspect to it -- it doesn't lead to "knowledge" of God, nor to any type of reward.  The essence of being human and Jewish is to do mitzvot, and doing mitzvot leads to doing more mitzvot.  The extreme example of this was Abraham and the Akedah, in which Abraham was even called on to give up his "moral sensibility" for the sake of acting on God's command.

Liebowitz also makes an interesting twist, in saying that in this way, Judaism and Christianity are polar opposites.  He sees the Akedah as the Jewish "foundation story," in which Abraham is willing to sacrifice his son for God -- it is man doing for God.  But he sees in the crucifixion a "utilitarian" myth, in which God sacrifices for man -- a human centered, pagan understanding.

David Hartman, on the other hand, rejects the Akedah story as the foundation myth of Judaism, and instead favors Abraham's behavior before the destruction of Sodom and Gemorrah -- an embrace of Abraham's moral sensibility, and his willingness as God's partner to challenge God.

Finally, later today we had our second and final meeting with Ed Feinstein, who challenged us to think more deeply about our rabbinates.  In particular, he challenged us to see if we can articulate, over the next 3 weeks, "the message of our rabbinate."  This is something I take seriously, because I've felt over the past several months that that message is in some state of change and flux, as my congregation moves into its next stages -- I think of both the congregation and my rabbinate as being in a stage of "adolescence" -- a stage of searching, uncertainty, and desire for identy, purpose, and meaning.

Meanwhile, the weather is perfect, and I've taken to early morning walks since I've been waking up at 5 AM everyday.  I'm sure there will be more to write tomorrow!

Getting started

I've arrived in Jerusalem and "hit the ground running."  Thanks to some very kind members of the congregation, I had easy flights and a very quick and wonderful transition through the airport and off to Jerusalem, where I arrived at the Hartman Institute.

I "hit the ground running," catching the tail end of a study session that talked about the authority to create law.  The Torah itself mostly talks about God as the source of law (when Moses gets a question he can't answer, he calls on God).  But sometimes the Torah offers the possibility that human beings are expected to take the Torah and run with it to answer new questions (I came late so I missed some of the specific sources).

Later in the afternoon was a dedication of the Hartman campus, which is being named in honor of Robert Kogod.  So it seems I travelled all the way from Washington, DC, to see one of its major philanthropists being honored here in Jerusalem.  What I found most striking in the tribute that Donniel Hartman (the son of the founder of the Institute, David Hartman) is that he thanked Kogod for pushing towards excellence in everything the Institute does -- its scholarship, its architecture, its staff, and its programs.  This is something the synagogue really struggles with -- to create excellence within its resources.  What I found particularly meaningful is that Donniel reflected that excellence "didn't always happen on the first attempt," but that rather than being discouraged, Kogod and other donors stuck with the Institute as it pushed forward towards excellence.

Finally, the evening ended with an outstanding presentation by two visionary leaders of cutting edge synagogue communities -- Rabbis Ed Feinstein of Valley Beth Shalom, and Sharon Brous of IKAR, both in Los Angeles.  They spoke eloquently about the challenge of synagogue life and engagement today -- and the need to make it all about "relationships" (what we at Shaare Torah have been calling "connections.").  If a program doesn't connect people to something (other people, God, Torah, whatever), it's not worth doing.  They also talked about the challenge of creating a community of commitment out of people whose first instinct is to protect autonomy.  They labeled this the key challenge of our time, and everything -- dues, education frameworks, resources -- comes down to how we move people towards a commitment to Jewish community life.

Both last night and in one of today's sessions, Ed Feinstein challenged us to think about how we define success as a community, and success as a rabbi.  What are the benchmarks?  How are they different than in previous generations, or even in earlier incarnations of our institutions or rabbinate?  A great thought question.

This morning's session by David Harman's daughter, Tovah, was about prayer and "spiritual intimacy."  It posed interesting questions about keva (the fixed form of prayer) and kavvanah (intentionality).  When do we stick to the text of a prayer, for the sake of tradition, even if it means a radical re-interpretation, and when do we have to jump in and simply change the text?  A key text we looked at was from Maimonides, who tells a righteous convert that he can absolutely say "God of our ancestors" in his Amidah (even though, of course, biologically he is not descended from Abraham), but that if he is more comfortable, he can also change certain phrases in the prayers if he does not feel that connection.  I had read this letter before, but not with this particular sensibility.  A real gift to re-read a text in such a relevant way, both in my own life (engaging prayers that often don't seem to say what I mean), and for so many of my congregants.

So I've been here 26 hours, and already am finding lots to think about and engage with.  More tomorrow, I hope.