Post by Rabbi Neil on Jun 23, 2017 20:04:18 GMT
Five years ago, my teacher and friend, Rabbi Elli Tikvah Sarah, wrote a book called Trouble-Making Judaism. She starts the book with a quotation from chapter 18(:17-18) of the first book of Kings: “When Ahab caught sight of Elijah, Ahab said to him, ‘Is that you, you troubler of Israel?” He retorted, ‘It is not I who brought trouble on Israel, but you and your father’s house, by forsaking the commandments of the Eternal, and going after the idols.” Of this, Rabbi Elli says the following, “Yes, Elijah certainly was ‘a troubler of Israel’ – ocheir Yisrael – the noun/verb ‘troubler’, ocheir, based on the root, Ayin Kaf Reish meaning to ‘trouble’, as in ‘stir up’, or ‘disturb’. That was the role of the prophets in their societies. The prophets were the hecklers; the sacred wordsmiths who barraged the kings and the priests, with criticiswm, tormenting them with threats of punishment for their sins and misdeeds. Their only responsibility was to speak out. As Brian Klug puts it: ‘as a breed, the Hebrew prophets were intent on making trouble’ trouble was their trade. They gave offence to ruler and to people alike, discomforting them to the core.’ And that is what the prophetic message is always meant to do: trouble, disturb, stir up the status quo.” She mentions how in ritual practice the Torah reading, which is often quite clear in its desire for obedience, the Haftarah reading is added afterwards to shake up the community. Ironic, then, that in Reform communities which pride themselves on following the model of Prophetic Judaism, the Haftarah takes much less precedence than the Torah reading itself. Rabbi Elli suggests that this was a deliberate choice made once the Temple was destroyed, because the Rabbis did not want to rock the boat too much. Rabbinic Judaism held the Jewish people together with a halakhic system that clearly determined behaviour, that put people in their place and that limited luminal behaviour. There was no place for trouble-making.
The Enlightenment blew all of that out of the water. Suddenly, people didn’t want to be told their place, especially women. Reform Judaism embraced this, much to the annoyance of the mainstream Jewish community at the time. Trouble-making Judaism returned abruptly, and no-one knew what to do with it. That trouble-making strand continued, with overturning the apple cart for LGBTQ Jews. Jews became more aware of race and their responses to it. Some Rabbis tried to connect it to the Judaism of the past to give it a sense of authenticity. “We’re just doing what the prophets did,” they would say, ignoring the fact that there hasn’t been prophecy for two thousand years and that since then Jews have tended to do the exact opposite and not cause trouble. Other said that it was a break from the past because Judaism was undergoing a revolution, a revolution the size of that which occurred when the Second Temple was destroyed and Judaism changed from a priestly religion to a rabbinic one. But there are valid questions to be asked here, the first of which is “How far does trouble-making Judaism go before it’s just trouble-making by Jews?” In other words, at what point is it inherent in Jewish life, and at what point does it actually become damaging to Jewish life? Just because a Jew starts causing trouble doesn’t mean it’s authentic Judaism. So, what’s the line? If is enough to say that if we call it Judaism then it is? There is a profound difference between the revolution of today and the revolution in Judaism of two-thousand years ago, which is that by and large the Jewish community back then all fell under the same authority structure. Yes, there were other sects, like the Samaritans and the Essenes, but by and large most Jews agreed on a shared course of Jewish life. That is not the same today. So, what a Reform Jew calls Judaism an Orthodox Jew might not. That brings us back to the question of subjectivity – if a Jew says that they’re doing something Jewish, does that make it Jewish, even if other Jews disagree that it is even Jewish? Who has the authority to say? The Orthodox say that they have the authority while the Reform say that they do.
The point is, though, that there is no authority any more. There’s Rabbinic authority within communities, but on a global sense, there is none. Trouble-making Judaism has succeeded in upending a two-thousand year old authority structure. But what has it replaced it with? With an autonomous collection of Jews. And that is great but it also brings with it huge issues because at least with an authority structure everyone knows where they stand and what they’re meant to do. When there’s authority and structure, there can be consequences to behaviour that transcends the norm. When there is no longer a norm, people are free to do what they like. And we should celebrate that independence. It’s totally new to Judaism. But it brings with it certain issues, like declining attendance at Shabbat services as a very prescient example. Freedom to express your own version of Judaism has to go hand-in-hand with freedom to ignore Judaism entirely. That was certainly the intention of many Jews at the start of the Enlightenment as they sought a new life for themselves outside the restrictive structure of the Jewish community. Nowadays, though, it makes things very difficult for the Jewish community. We can’t deny that trouble-making Judaism has also brought with it a surge of creativity in the Jewish community. Now we have b’not mitzvah celebrating girls, we have wedding rituals for same-sex couples or for interfaith couples, and we have rituals for all moments of life that traditional halakhic Judaism never covered. I remember when I was with the ultra-Orthodox in Jerusalem as a young adult and a giant bee flew straight into my mouth and down my throat. Once I got over the shock and the choking, I asked the Rabbi with us if there was a blessing for eating a bee? He angrily replied that there wasn’t. But there could have been an opportunity for a prayer. There could have been a moment for connection with God, for a prayer on inadvertently eating something unkosher and hoping that it nonetheless brings me nourishment now that the accident has happened. Or it could have been a prayer thanking God for a body which remains healthy even after consuming a bee, which had the potential to harm me. My question was essentially trouble-making Judaism. And I think it’s a helpful example because it helps answer the earlier question of how to determine trouble-making Judaism from just plain trouble-making by Jews. My question asked, “Is there an authentic way to connect to God in this moment?” The ultra-Orthodox Rabbi was clear that, to him, there was not. But I disagree. I did then and I do now. There is always an authentic way to connect to God at every moment. The very act of wanting to connect to God renders any act authentic. I may not like the form of it, I may not like the words that are used or the actions that are performed, but if the attempt is a sincere connection to God, then I believe it is always authentic. That means that it is trouble-making Judaism, and not just trouble-making by Jews. The difference is in the intention. If the intention is to add to Jewish practice, if it is to invigorate Jewish practice by questioning that which has become stultified or which remains oppressive, then it is trouble-making Judaism. If the intention is merely to criticise, to disrupt, to upset, without trying to build or rebuild Jewish practice or thought, then it’s just trouble-making by Jews.
In our Torah portion for this week, Korach makes trouble for Moses, and he and his followers are immediately punished. He brings a whole host of followers and barks at Moses and Aaron (Num. 16:3), “You have gone too far! For all the community are holy, all of them, and the Eternal is in their midst. Why then do you raise yourself above the Eternal’s congregation?” Is this trouble-making Judaism or is it a trouble-making Jew? Think of Reform Judaism’s abolition of priesthood and the authority structure contained therein. That seems to be exactly what Korach is saying – we’re all holy so don’t elevate yourself. And that’s not something he’s just made up – there’s a firm scriptural basis that the entire people are commanded to be holy, which means distinct and different. So, it seems at first that this is trouble-making Judaism, but I don’t believe that it is. Korach’s critique of Moses is totally unfair because it’s not Moses who elevated himself over the Israelites, God did it. Moses, if you remember back in Exodus, actively fought against the commission. He didn’t want to be leader, and throughout Torah we see his reluctance regularly return. Moreover, Korach tries to speak on God’s behalf even though it’s clear in Torah that there is no-one who speaks more closely to God than Moses. The final reason that suggests this is just trouble-making is that he brings an entire entourage. A host of men, seeming like a small, threatening force. But trouble-making Judaism doesn’t need physical force, it needs intellectual and spiritual force, and it needs not to blame people, but rather set a constructive vision of Judaism renewed.
So Korach is a trouble-maker and is not the ideal role model for Reform Judaism today. But perhaps Elijah, the prophet, serves as a better role-model. The man who rallies against idolatry, who clearly cares about the Jewish community and its connection with God, the man who experiences God in the still small voice, perhaps his Judaism is the trouble-making kind we should seek. May he and others inspire us to have our Judaism be not just passive and receptive, but engaging and challenging. May our Judaism fight for justice and openly against injustice. And may our Judaism always be trouble-making without us just being trouble-makers. May such be God’s will, and let us say, Amen.
The Enlightenment blew all of that out of the water. Suddenly, people didn’t want to be told their place, especially women. Reform Judaism embraced this, much to the annoyance of the mainstream Jewish community at the time. Trouble-making Judaism returned abruptly, and no-one knew what to do with it. That trouble-making strand continued, with overturning the apple cart for LGBTQ Jews. Jews became more aware of race and their responses to it. Some Rabbis tried to connect it to the Judaism of the past to give it a sense of authenticity. “We’re just doing what the prophets did,” they would say, ignoring the fact that there hasn’t been prophecy for two thousand years and that since then Jews have tended to do the exact opposite and not cause trouble. Other said that it was a break from the past because Judaism was undergoing a revolution, a revolution the size of that which occurred when the Second Temple was destroyed and Judaism changed from a priestly religion to a rabbinic one. But there are valid questions to be asked here, the first of which is “How far does trouble-making Judaism go before it’s just trouble-making by Jews?” In other words, at what point is it inherent in Jewish life, and at what point does it actually become damaging to Jewish life? Just because a Jew starts causing trouble doesn’t mean it’s authentic Judaism. So, what’s the line? If is enough to say that if we call it Judaism then it is? There is a profound difference between the revolution of today and the revolution in Judaism of two-thousand years ago, which is that by and large the Jewish community back then all fell under the same authority structure. Yes, there were other sects, like the Samaritans and the Essenes, but by and large most Jews agreed on a shared course of Jewish life. That is not the same today. So, what a Reform Jew calls Judaism an Orthodox Jew might not. That brings us back to the question of subjectivity – if a Jew says that they’re doing something Jewish, does that make it Jewish, even if other Jews disagree that it is even Jewish? Who has the authority to say? The Orthodox say that they have the authority while the Reform say that they do.
The point is, though, that there is no authority any more. There’s Rabbinic authority within communities, but on a global sense, there is none. Trouble-making Judaism has succeeded in upending a two-thousand year old authority structure. But what has it replaced it with? With an autonomous collection of Jews. And that is great but it also brings with it huge issues because at least with an authority structure everyone knows where they stand and what they’re meant to do. When there’s authority and structure, there can be consequences to behaviour that transcends the norm. When there is no longer a norm, people are free to do what they like. And we should celebrate that independence. It’s totally new to Judaism. But it brings with it certain issues, like declining attendance at Shabbat services as a very prescient example. Freedom to express your own version of Judaism has to go hand-in-hand with freedom to ignore Judaism entirely. That was certainly the intention of many Jews at the start of the Enlightenment as they sought a new life for themselves outside the restrictive structure of the Jewish community. Nowadays, though, it makes things very difficult for the Jewish community. We can’t deny that trouble-making Judaism has also brought with it a surge of creativity in the Jewish community. Now we have b’not mitzvah celebrating girls, we have wedding rituals for same-sex couples or for interfaith couples, and we have rituals for all moments of life that traditional halakhic Judaism never covered. I remember when I was with the ultra-Orthodox in Jerusalem as a young adult and a giant bee flew straight into my mouth and down my throat. Once I got over the shock and the choking, I asked the Rabbi with us if there was a blessing for eating a bee? He angrily replied that there wasn’t. But there could have been an opportunity for a prayer. There could have been a moment for connection with God, for a prayer on inadvertently eating something unkosher and hoping that it nonetheless brings me nourishment now that the accident has happened. Or it could have been a prayer thanking God for a body which remains healthy even after consuming a bee, which had the potential to harm me. My question was essentially trouble-making Judaism. And I think it’s a helpful example because it helps answer the earlier question of how to determine trouble-making Judaism from just plain trouble-making by Jews. My question asked, “Is there an authentic way to connect to God in this moment?” The ultra-Orthodox Rabbi was clear that, to him, there was not. But I disagree. I did then and I do now. There is always an authentic way to connect to God at every moment. The very act of wanting to connect to God renders any act authentic. I may not like the form of it, I may not like the words that are used or the actions that are performed, but if the attempt is a sincere connection to God, then I believe it is always authentic. That means that it is trouble-making Judaism, and not just trouble-making by Jews. The difference is in the intention. If the intention is to add to Jewish practice, if it is to invigorate Jewish practice by questioning that which has become stultified or which remains oppressive, then it is trouble-making Judaism. If the intention is merely to criticise, to disrupt, to upset, without trying to build or rebuild Jewish practice or thought, then it’s just trouble-making by Jews.
In our Torah portion for this week, Korach makes trouble for Moses, and he and his followers are immediately punished. He brings a whole host of followers and barks at Moses and Aaron (Num. 16:3), “You have gone too far! For all the community are holy, all of them, and the Eternal is in their midst. Why then do you raise yourself above the Eternal’s congregation?” Is this trouble-making Judaism or is it a trouble-making Jew? Think of Reform Judaism’s abolition of priesthood and the authority structure contained therein. That seems to be exactly what Korach is saying – we’re all holy so don’t elevate yourself. And that’s not something he’s just made up – there’s a firm scriptural basis that the entire people are commanded to be holy, which means distinct and different. So, it seems at first that this is trouble-making Judaism, but I don’t believe that it is. Korach’s critique of Moses is totally unfair because it’s not Moses who elevated himself over the Israelites, God did it. Moses, if you remember back in Exodus, actively fought against the commission. He didn’t want to be leader, and throughout Torah we see his reluctance regularly return. Moreover, Korach tries to speak on God’s behalf even though it’s clear in Torah that there is no-one who speaks more closely to God than Moses. The final reason that suggests this is just trouble-making is that he brings an entire entourage. A host of men, seeming like a small, threatening force. But trouble-making Judaism doesn’t need physical force, it needs intellectual and spiritual force, and it needs not to blame people, but rather set a constructive vision of Judaism renewed.
So Korach is a trouble-maker and is not the ideal role model for Reform Judaism today. But perhaps Elijah, the prophet, serves as a better role-model. The man who rallies against idolatry, who clearly cares about the Jewish community and its connection with God, the man who experiences God in the still small voice, perhaps his Judaism is the trouble-making kind we should seek. May he and others inspire us to have our Judaism be not just passive and receptive, but engaging and challenging. May our Judaism fight for justice and openly against injustice. And may our Judaism always be trouble-making without us just being trouble-makers. May such be God’s will, and let us say, Amen.
