Will we have religious Great-Grandchildren?

Although I have visited Israel many times over many years, this year presented the first opportunity for a protracted stay with people of similar age and background. Among the subjects discussed were children, grandchildren and their future in a country as volatile as Israel. Another aspect discussed was the type of religious education they were receiving.  Many of these children or grandchildren were attending, or had attended, a State Religious School and dissatisfaction was expressed about the results achieved. I mentioned this to a local rabbi who acknowledged that that were problems with Religious State schools. They were, he said, not producing the kind of religious student as intended.

It would appear that although many students maintain an observant lifestyle after graduating, many choose to become secular or traditional. Even among those who remain observant, some, because of the intensive Jewish education they received, feel capable of cherry picking the observances they wish to maintain. Some believe that these developments occur after the students join the army but others believe that they occur whilst the students are still at school. I listened carefully to the thoughts and grievances expressed and have mingled them with some thoughts of my own, in order to try to fathom what might be the underlying cause of this disillusionment on the part of a significant percentage of students. Is it that they are confused and if so, what causes this confusion? This essay is not the result of scientific research but trust that it will, never the less, be of interest.            

Judaism is a wonderful religion. It started with Abraham who brought the knowledge and concept of monotheism to the world’s attention. One single God, not a series of idols, who created the world and everything in it. At Sinai, somehow, He gave to the Jewish people a blueprint, the Torah, which instructed how they should lead an ethical and moral life and serve Him.

The Torah tells that with Abraham, and again with the Jewish people at Sinai, God made a Covenant, the details of which He set out therein. According to many leading Jewish thinkers throughout the centuries, whose thoughts are mentioned in the writings of the late Rabbi S. R. Hirsch, Chief Rabbi J.H. Hertz and Yehudah Halevi, this Covenant was with all of the People, not secretly, not just with a selected few, all of whom were given the opportunity to accept or reject it. The people were also forbidden to add to, or subtract from, the Torah. I would like to discuss the several implications of this paragraph, which lie at the heart of Jewish belief, as they may well affect students.

‘The opportunity to accept or reject’. Some rabbis teach that ‘The People’ accepted the Covenant blindly and that they replied Na’asey V’nishma, ‘we will obey and we will listen’, before hearing the details.  Perhaps this is taught in order to obtain unquestioning obedience. The teaching is, however, incorrect. It is clearly stated in the Torah that it was only after the people heard the details of the Covenant that they said ‘’we will obey and we will listen.    

‘This Covenant was with all of the people’. As I understand it, a covenant, which is another word for contract, can only be binding if its terms are introduced before the parties are bound by it. One party to a contract cannot unilaterally enforce terms, terms which are not introduced or not disclosed, until after the contract is concluded.  Another essence of a contract is that the words used must have a generally accepted meaning unless otherwise specified. It is also generally accepted that no explanation of the Torah texts should run contrary to its plain meaning. Many do not follow this understanding.

For example, there are mystical explanations. These seek to find hidden meanings in the text, a practice that has often caused the Jewish people much trouble in the past. If it were not for the Jewish mystic’s explanations, the Christian religion may never have become established. At that time Judea was in turmoil both from internal and external forces. Because of this, the people were hoping for and expecting the Messiah. In view of the treatment Jesus received at the hands of the Romans, many of his followers, all of them committed Jews, some of them rabbis, questioned whether he could really be the Messiah. It was mystics who claimed that they had found a sentence in the bible showing that the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ death were appropriate for that of a Messiah. This kind of mystical interpretation helped found Christianity

Again in the 17^th Century it was Jewish mystics, including many rabbis, who enabled Shabbtai Zvi to be accepted as the Messiah; his teachings caused utter confusion and chaos throughout European Jewry, the effects of which still linger today. It was also Jewish mystics who set the pattern for mystical interpretations of the bible, a pattern now followed by Christian Missionaries. By using the mystic’s formula, they try to convince us that we too ought to become followers of Christ whose coming, they say, was foretold in the Torah.  We know the problems that this has caused the Jewish people over the centuries. 

In order to justify such explanations, mystics claim that these mystical explanations were given to a few people, together with the Torah, at Sinai. But if they were given to a few then it cannot have been given to the whole of the People, for them to accept or reject nor does it fit the rule that no explanation can run contrary to the Torah’s plain meaning. If rabbis in the past have, albeit inadvertently, mislead the Jewish people into following mystical concepts to their disadvantage, why should we believe that rabbis of today cannot make the same error.  Mystical teachings and explanations not only confuse but do not, as argued above, form part of the Covenant. We should reject them.

‘Forbidden to add to, or subtract from, the Torah. Trying to analyse how this teaching has developed is a very difficult and sensitive exercise. We know from current practice that the Rabbis have in fact added to, abrogated or altered the clear instructions set out in the Torah and they have done so, and have justified their so doing, for several different reasons. Let us consider examples in their different groupings.

‘Added to’. Within this grouping we find Halachah which does not go back to Sinai such as the ‘Fences around the Law'. The Rabbis introduced these ‘Fences’ because they were concerned that people might inadvertently violate Torah Law, and so they surrounded such Laws with prohibitions which were in themselves not forbidden in the Torah. These distinguishing factors are known as ‘Torah Law and Rabbinical Law’. Violating the former is more serious than violating the latter.

‘ Added to’. Also within this grouping the Rabbis added a second day Yom-Tov for those living in exile. The reason for this is stated to be, that the Jews in exile might not know precisely on which day Yom-Tov would fall and it was prudent to ensure that the correct day was observed. This second day Yom-Tov is not observed in Israel except for Rosh Hashanah and this only for the last thousand years or so. Before then, the Jews in Israel observed one day Rosh Hashanah only, but immigrants from Spain who were fleeing persecution, insisted on observing a second day even though this appears to be an illogical and unnecessary violation to the rule of ‘not adding to’. I do no understand how they could justify this addition.

Rosh Hashanah presents another problem by being kept for two days for it is also a Rosh Chodesh; a new month. But whereas all other Roshei Chaddoshim, which are kept for two days, are kept on the last day of the previous month and the first day of the new month, Rosh Hashanah is kept on the 1^st and 2^nd days of the new month. Why this difference and how is it justified? One can give other examples which appear to breach the rule of ‘adding to’.

‘Abrogated’. In another of my essays discussing the Pharisees and Sadducees I mentioned examples showing that the rabbis ‘Abrogated’ a Torah Law when circumstances deemed it necessary. These examples are worth repeating.

Sotah. This is a trial by ordeal provided for in the Torah but abolished by Yohanan Ben Zakkai because he considered it inequitable in his day and age.

Agunah. Where a husband is missing for a long period the wife is nevertheless ‘chained’ to him. The early rabbis relaxed the Written Law and accepted that one witness to his death would be acceptable instead of the prescribed two witnesses. After the holocaust, the husband was presumed dead after a reasonable time had elapsed.

‘Changed’. The Torah was given to be relevant for all time. It is therefore reasonable to assume that God knew that, for example, the first day of Succot and also Rosh Hashanah would, in some years, fall on a Shabbat. The Torah clearly commands that on the first day of Succot we should take the ‘Arbei Minim’ and on the first day of the seventh month we should sound the Shofar. Before the exile, whilst the Jews were still, mainly, living in Israel, and observing one day only, this is exactly what they did, but some time after the exile the rabbis ceased both observances when Yom-Tov fell on a Shabbat, even in Israel.

‘Changed’. The position of women in Judaism. The Talmud quotes one rabbi as saying that to teach Torah to women is like teaching them ‘Idol worship’. Maimonides wrote that one should not teach Talmud to women because they do not have the mental capacity to learn and absorb it. Fifty years ago, rabbis would have considered that a woman touching the Sefer Torah, to read from it, or to hold separate prayer services, to be the height of impropriety if not reform. Today these activities are fully accepted by many main stream orthodox rabbis.

‘ The Oral Law’ Some rabbis teach that the whole of Oral Law, like the Written Law was given openly at Sinai. This teaching is reasonable in some instances when one considers that many of such Laws, such as those pertaining to kushrut, tephilim, succot etc. are not spelt out in the Torah and there had to have been instruction about their fulfillment. We also know that many of these Oral Laws were added to the Torah Laws in Talmudic times such as the ‘Fences around the Law’ for its protection and for other specific reasons. These too, some rabbi’s unreasonably claim, also go back to Sinai.

There are other areas where rabbis give conflicting rulings. They teach that all Torah Laws have equal standing because they are all divinely commanded. But they also teach, and quite understandably, that Laws for preserving life and health takes precedent over all other Laws; that the transgression of Laws which command ‘thou shall not’ is more serious than transgressions of Laws which command ‘thou shall’.        

Many observant Jews have learned, understand and are happy to observe and accept these explanations, additional Laws and rulings. Many know how they originated but out of respect, and for the sake of tradition, do not challenge the rabbi’s rulings. Many graduates of the Religious State Schools, however, find some of these apparent contradictory teachings both confusing and irrational and are not as accommodating as are some adults. Having spent over twelve years receiving an intensive religious education, the last six of which are often from teachers who are also rabbis, these students are impatient. Living in a competitive and a very pressured society, they often throw the baby out with the bath water. Unless we follow the practice of the Haradim and try to shut our children away from the world, this reaction is natural. History has shown that this reaction will occur even within a Haradi community given the passage of time. It is up to the Education Authorities to listen to what the students are saying, and to work out how to counter these unfortunate developments.

From what I have gathered, and it is very interesting, the students that are becoming less observant than the Religious Schools would wish, are not doing so because they do not believe in God, although perhaps this applies to some.  They are not even losing their faith in the Teachings of Judaism. They appear to be losing their belief in, and therefore neglecting, those parts of the ritual, which they believe are being misinterpreted or interpreted too strictly and therefore, not fundamental for religious practice. Some, with whom I discussed the problem, suggest that I am exaggerating. So be it, time will tell. Others suggest that what is occurring is assimilation, something that has continually happened, as though it were inevitable. I believe that assimilation is not inevitable but requires appropriate education. This whole subject deserves proper scientific research.     

I wonder whether we can learn a lesson from history? Some 220 years ago, before the emancipation of European Jews, all Jews who wished to consider themselves as Jews lived within an orthodox environment. They had nowhere else to go other than to leave the fold. Once the emancipation had begun, many yeshivah students wished to learn secular subjects in addition to the traditional subjects. The rabbis were not sensitive to their needs and desires in the changing environment. They fiercely objected and as a result, not only did many students, over a period of time, give up the traditional subjects, they also gave up many religious observances as well. The Jewish community which was then almost 100% orthodox is today a community which, even by the most optimistic of statistics has, worldwide, only some 20% within the orthodox camp.

The form of orthodoxy introduced by Rabbi S. R. Hirsch, in the mid nineteenth century, i.e. ‘Torah im Derech Eretz’, which loosely translated means, ‘combine Torah with worldly affairs’, would not have been acceptable to the pre emancipation rabbis.  Today it forms the basis for the belief of many main stream orthodox rabbis.

In the Amida we pray God to restore the Temple, a pious hope. We call this restoration not reformation. We have seen that in the past, rabbis had the power to add to, abrogate or change the Law when circumstances required it. Would they not consider the restoration of these powers if and when today’s circumstances require it?

                                                                                              Woolf Abrahams

                                                                                               December 2000