Hertzberg & Yoffie On The Future of Zionism
Last night I attended Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg & Rabbi Eric Yoffie’s talk on the future of Zionism, a promotion, if you will, for Hertzberg’s new book The Fate of Zionism. Some highlights:
Hertzberg and Yoffie derided the Orthodox Right saying that their interpretations of Torah and Talmud with regards to Eretz Yisrael were distortions based on skewed interpretations of the Talmud which violated the traditional teachings of the likes of men such as Hillel, and that many of these Hareidi were ignorant “bigots” who, Hertzberg pronounced, he was “not afraid of.” He intimated that his next book would be one which challenges conventional Orthodox interpretations of Talmud, particularly on this subject.
Yoffie added an interesting note with regards to the holiness of the land of Israel (a justification used by Orthodox settlers and other expansionists, for example, to suggest that we are obligated to preserve all of Israel as it is “holy land”), saying that Israel is by no means holier than any other land (quoting Torah and Talmudic sources which I couldn’t jot down fast enough on my Treo), but rather it is the fact that we carry out mitzvot in the land which makes it holy. He and Hertzberg both suggested that those who elevate the land of Israel in such a way to suggest that it is holy in-and-of-itself are partaking in idolatry.
Further, Hertzberg said that “according to intelligence sources [close to him], Israel has been cooking the books with regards to population. There will be an Arab majority in seven years, not 20.” This is a striking fact.
Other brillaint Hertzberg quotes, “The right-wing is heading towards making Israel the new South Africa,” and “If the moshiach is going to come in our day, he shoulda come to Auschwitz.”
Yoffie discredited the Geneva Accords saying while it’s a nice gesture it doesn’t stand a chance. He noted that for all its advances, it still leaves the Right of Return up in the air, and does not require the Palestinians to recognize Israel’s sovereignty. It’s a lose-lose for both sides.
Hertzberg rejected the notion of a cantonized West Bank, and decried the notion of a binational state as Leftist lunacy. (The subject of binationhood was primarily the point where I disagreed with them. A binational state may in fact be the only acceptable terms to “the outside world” and as Esther Kaplan notes in her essay “Globalize the Intifada” from Wrestling With Zion, “we don’t own this movement anymore,” and thus whether the terms of closure are acceptable to us or not may soon become irrelevant. If the world demands a binational state in which Arabs and Jews are equal citizens with equal representation, the opposition can kick and scream all they want—it won’t make a difference.)
Yoffie stated that the security wall was in fact an idea of the Israeli Left, and that when they decided it couldn’t work, the Right decided to implement it. He said that he believes the best policy is to fence off the West Bank and when the Palestinians are ready to honestly talk peace, we’ll deal with them. In the meantime, we should build the wall, back away, and fire at whoever tries to cross illegally.
In conclusion, Hertzberg and Yoffie insisted that the future of Israel lay in a secular democracy devoid of Right-wing Orthodox ‘heresies’ which serve only to complicate an already overly complex situation.
During a round of Q&A the brother of an Israeli refusenik asked Hertzberg how he felt about the refusenik movement. He said that, speaking as a former soldier, you should either get out of the army or follow orders. You can’t pick and choose. Ie., Hertzberg believes refuseniks get exactly what’s coming to ’em.
Meh… He’s a good guy. I agree with a lot of what he says. But certainly not everything… Not by a longshot. And Yoffie, for a guy who publicly decries settlements as a barrier to peace, comes off a bit too centrist and even to the Right on some issues for my taste. But alas. It is what it is.
Anyhow…Those are my notes. I intend to meet privately with Hertzberg in the near future and speak to him more at length about some of the issues that strike me personally, including how he feels about the resurgence of world antisemitism and its relationship to anti-Israelism. I’ll write it up when it happens.
I would love to see where he was quoting from.. the fact is that many of the monei hamitvos ( “counters of the commandments”) include shleimos haaretz as a mitzvah.. that is just keeping it complete.. this way predates zionism. And the land itself is holy not through the mitvos that we do there but an intrisic holy quality… we do have the ability to elevate the diospora through mitzvos almost to the level of israel
>Hertzberg rejected the notion of a cantonized West Bank, and decried the notion of a binational state as Leftist lunacy. (The subject of binationhood was for the primary point where I disagreed with them…
can you clarify this for me. are you for a binational state. and if so, how does that fit in to your left wing zionist persona.
Hertzberg sucks, besides having a huge ego he must be going nuts.
From what Hertzberg said he sounds like a pretty big windbag. I do not agree with much of the theology of the settler movement, but I doubt that Hertzberg and his Reform buddies will have any real hard-hitting theology. Its most likely going to be some of the new-agey half-truths which we are accustomed to in the recent “theology” of the Reform and Conservative. He is going to ‘challenge’ the conventional Orthodox understandings of Talmud? What a laugher! The average Orthodox Yeshiva Senior has learned more Talmud than this demagogue.
Any idiot who confuses the theology of Haredim with the theology of settlers, particularly in regard to “Eretz Yisroel” issues (as your quote seems to indicate he does) is going to make a fool of himself if he tries to wax scholarly.
This seems to have been more red meat for the Left-wing crowd.
Any idiot who confuses the theology of Haredim with the theology of settlers, particularly in regard to “Eretz Yisroel” issues (as your quote seems to indicate he does) is going to make a fool of himself if he tries to wax scholarly.
Do you people have any idea who Arthur Hertzberg is?
Arthur Hertzberg received rabbinic ordination from the Jewish Theological Seminary in 1943 and a Ph.D. in history from Columbia University in 1966. He has taught at Princeton, Rutgers, Columbia, and Dartmouth. Since 1991, he has been the Bronfman Visiting Professor of the Humanities at New York University.
In addition to his academic posts, Rabbi Hertzberg served as a chaplain in the United States Air Force from 1951 to ’53 and rabbi of Temple Emanu-El in Englewood, New Jersey, from 1956 to 1985, where he remains as rabbi emeritus. He has also served as president of the American Jewish Policy Foundation since 1978, president of the American Jewish Congress from 1972 to ’78, and vice president of the World Jewish Congress from 1975 to 1991.
Rabbi Hertzberg is a co-editor of “Essays on Jewish Life and Thought” (1959) and the author of “The Zionist Idea” (1959), “The Outbursts That Await Us” (1963), “The French Enlightenment and the Jews” (1968), which won the first Amran Award as the best work of nonfiction in the Jewish field, “Judaism” (1961), “Being Jewish in America” (1978), “The Jews in America” (1989), “Jewish Polemics” (1992), “At Home Only With God” (1993), “The Zionist Idea” (1997), and, with Aron Hirt-Manheimer, “Jews: The Essence and Character of a People” (1998).
…as for the Haredim/settler thing, perhaps it was my confusion in statement. The word “Haredim” itself didn’t slip out of his mouth once throughout the whole talk.
I’d also like to note that the man was personal friends with every single Israeli Prime Minister since Ben Gurion and probably knows a hell of a lot more about this issue than you trolls.
I also note that I would not dare to question the man’s knowledge of Torah and Talmud. He’ll mop the floor with you.
Binational state yeah good thinking because Ireland, Cyprus, Lebanon and all the other places that have tried it have been such successes.
Additionally, Hertzberg had a hassidic upbringing, so he knows more sides of the story than most anyone here. It is simply inane (“Nuts”, perhaps) to imply that anyone with whom you strongly disagree is completely lacking in knowledge.
knowledge yes wisdom however is a totally different thing.
knowledge yes wisdom however is a totally different thing.
J-
Wisdom isn’t learned from books, it is learned from life experience. The breadth of Hertzberg’s experience is as impressive as his knowledge.
Your response supports the view that anyone with whom you strongly disagree may not lack knowledge, but does lack wisdom. Ben Zoma taught: “Who is wise? He who learns from everyone.” I might add: “Who is utterly bereft of wisdom? He who learns only from those with whom he agrees.”
The silly ranting of Herzberg prove my point. Does he actually believe that he will simply write a book which demonstrates that the approach of Rabbis Moshe Feinstein, Yitzchak Hutner, Aron Kotler, Chofetz Chaim, Chaim Ozer Grodzensky, Kook, etc…etc…?
Gimme a break. The problem with so many secularists is that they have idea what Torah scholarship is. They have never personally met someone who knows the entire Talmud by heart (I have). These people think that if you hobnob with prime ministers and teach at princeton that makes you qualified to deride the Talmudic erudition of the greatest Talmudic sages of the modern era. If writing books made someone smart, then anyone with a CV should be qualified. Thats why it is laughable and worthy of derision. If he had said that he considers the approach of a limited sector to be flawed we can talk, but that the entire approach of Orthodoxy to the subject which they know better than anyone else is flawed?
The man is a windbag.
First I never said I strongly disagree with anyone my point was just because someone has knowledge does not make him wise I know wisdom isn’t learned from books thats why I said it. This man may be knowledgable but that does not make him wise. If everyone who has lived life is wise then we must have a lot of wise people around. If you want an xample of someone who is both knowledgable and wise check out what the Lubabvitcher Rebbe obm had to say about the Israel situation.
not to mention his picture doesn’t help when it comes to not thinking of him as a windbag.
“He intimated that his next book would be one which challenges conventional Orthodox interpretations of Talmud, particularly on this subject [Eretz Yisrael].”
Note that in Mobius’ quote (not even the actual words of Rabbi Hertzberg), there is an important word “conventional.” That word implies current practice and thought, not the weight of tradition. Rabbi Hertzberg has no intention of overturning historic Talmudic Judaism. He is not a secularist by any means. What Hertzberg recognizes, as we all should in this discussion, is that the mainstream (conventional) orthodox interpretations of the Talmud on the topic of Eretz Yisrael are vastly different than those when he was growing up. The vast majority of orthodox Jews nowadays, even Israeli Haredim, embrace the state of Israel, dearly, grudgingly, or somewhere in between. 80 years ago, that was not so. While there were certainly many strong orthodox proponents of Jews living in the land and even governing a state, the mainstream (conventional) orthodox view at the time was opposed to such Jewish political control there. Obviously, orthodox authorities both then and now based their views on interpretation of the Talmud. But, that interpretation has changed…drastically.
Rabbi Hertzberg does not take issue, as is implied by more than one writer here, with the method of Talmudic interpretation as the basis for Judaism. He takes issue with the conventional interpretation–that is, the way the contemporary orthodox world interprets it as related to Israel. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Rabbinic authority after rabbinic authority have done that. Heard of Rabbi Akiva? Rambam? Rabbi Hirsch? They challenged the “conventional orthodox interpretations of Talmud” of their times. I’m glad they did.
Well, Akiva didn’t really challenge the Talmud :). He did, challenge the conventional method of Halakhic reasoning…an equally dramatic act.
One more thing, then I’ll shut up. Someone mentioned, in their attempt to substitute insults for reason, that Hertzberg would likely put forth new-agey half-truths. Another called him a secularist.
Hertzberg would blanch. On beliefnet http://www.beliefnet.com/story/12/story_1246_1.html), he reiterated his opinion that new-age spiritualism is nothing but self-absorption and that the true source of closeness to God is through the traditional mitzvot.
Can you believe it? A religious fellow, dedicated to Jews, Judaism, and mitzvot, who has a different opinion. Shocking!
Fineline.
I am glad you cleared some of that up as many of your observations about the transition in the Orthodox community vis-avis Israel is valid on many points. I was commenting on the broad sweep which was depicted by Mobius indicating that somehow Herzberg would somehow show the entire premise of Orthodox Talmudic scholarship to be false. In general when people attempt to do that they substitute scholarship for new-agey half-truths (one glimpse of the contortions that the Conservative movement is going through trying to permit gay sex will demonstrate this in full).
Also, I am very curious. Where did Rabbi Akiva change the conventional method of Halachic reasoning?
hey jerkwad, why do you refuse to present a consistent identity on my website?
I dont mind doing that, but why does it bother you so much? I think that my style of writing and name choosing is consistent enough.
If you feel this is inappropriate etiquette I can change that….
No need to get upset.
Sorry, Interesting, Nuts, whoever you are,
Rabbi Akiva’s “new thing” his systematic effort to seek source material for Halakhot in Tanakh, whereas Rabbi Yishmael’s familiar 13 logical principles of exegesis did not assume such a direct connection. Hence, the midrash in which Moshe is told that R. Akiva can deduce the halakhic principles from even the crowns on the letter. The assumption that the written Tanakh was the source material for the majority of oral law (as opposed to a parallel entity) was no small change. Additionally, Akiva’s work set the foundation for the formulation of the Mishneh, the first time the oral law was written down. He was, in fact, quite a revolutionary figure in some ways.
BTW, it is pretty annoying with you changing your name all the time. It is nice to be able to carry on a conversation with one entity…at least within one comment string.
Really? Isnt the entire point of the 13 principles directly focused on finding the source in the text. In fact that is PRECISELY what the methods are…. You seem to have turned this on its head. Also, In the Mishna and Talmud EVERYONE is using Tanach as a basis for source material. What is the basis of what you are saying?
I am not sure you answered my question. You cited a cryptic medrash about Rabbi Akiva finding significance in even the small tags on the Hebrew letters (1. Its a medrash, and thus not relevant to Legal Halachic structure 2. There is not practical example of Rabbi Akiva employing this methodology in contrast to other methods). You also imply that Rabbi Akiva avoided the 13 methods of Exegesis. A short search for Rabbi Akiva employing just one of the 13 methods comes up with:
Shabbos 143b
Bava Kamma 6b
Zevachim 61a (In this Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva debate USING the principles)
I don’t follow. How do you see them disagreeing? What is the source of this?
Rabbi Akivah was one of hundreds of Tannaic authorities whose opinions and writings make up the Mishna. In what way is he unique?
I have no problem with this premise, but I fail to see how what you have said is true…
I apologize for the double post. I formatted the first one wrong. I ask the webmaster to remove it.
=Rabbi Akiva’s “new thing” his systematic effort to seek source material for Halakhot in Tanakh, whereas Rabbi Yishmael’s familiar 13 logical principles of exegesis did not assume such a direct connection.
Really? Isnt the entire point of the 13 principles directly focused on finding the source in the text. In fact that is PRECISELY what the methods are…. You seem to have turned this on its head. Also, In the Mishna and Talmud EVERYONE is using Tanach as a basis for source material. What is the basis of what you are saying?
=Hence, the midrash in which Moshe is told that R. Akiva can deduce the halakhic principles from even the crowns on the letter.
I am not sure you answered my question. You cited a cryptic medrash about Rabbi Akiva finding significance in even the small tags on the Hebrew letters (1. Its a medrash, and thus not relevant to Legal Halachic structure 2. There is not practical example of Rabbi Akiva employing this methodology in contrast to other methods). You also imply that Rabbi Akiva avoided the 13 methods of Exegesis. A short search for Rabbi Akiva employing just one of the 13 methods comes up with:
Shabbos 143b
Bava Kamma 6b
Zevachim 61a (In this Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva debate USING the principles)
=The assumption that the written Tanakh was the source material for the majority of oral law (as opposed to a parallel entity) was no small change.
I don’t follow. How do you see them disagreeing? What is the source of this?
=Additionally, Akiva’s work set the foundation for the formulation of the Mishneh, the first time the oral law was written down.
Rabbi Akivah was one of hundreds of Tannaic authorities whose opinions and writings make up the Mishna. In what way is he unique?
=He was, in fact, quite a revolutionary figure in some ways.
I have no problem with this premise, but I fail to see how what you have said is true…
I certainly am not arguing with you information, Interesting. Here, I offer two quotes from the online Jewish Encyclopedia:
“Akiba’s true genius, however, is shown in his work in the domain of the Halakah; both in his systematization of its traditional material and in its further development. The condition of the Halakah, that is, of religious praxis, and indeed of Judaism in general, was a very precarious one at the turn of the first Christian century. The lack of any systematized collection of the accumulated Halakot rendered impossible any presentation of them in form suitable for practical purposes. Means for the theoretical study of the Halakah were also scant; both logic and exegesis—the two props of the Halakah—being differently conceived by the various ruling tannaim, and differently taught. According to a tradition which has historical confirmation, it was Akiba who systematized and brought into methodic arrangement the Mishnah, or Halakah codex; the Midrash, or the exegesis of the Halakah”
and…
“Admirable as is the systematization of the Halakah by Akiba, his hermeneutics and halakic exegesis— which form the foundation of all Talmudic learning—surpassed it. The enormous difference between the Halakah before and after Akiba may be briefly described as follows: The old Halakah was, as its name indicates, the religious practice sanctioned as binding by tradition; to which were added extensions, and, in some cases, limitations, of the Torah, arrived at by strict logical deduction. The opposition offered by the Sadducees—which became especially strenuous in the last century B.C.—originated the halakic Midrash, whose mission it was to deduce these amplifications of the Law, by tradition and logic, out of the Law itself. It might be thought that with the destruction of the Temple—which event made an end of Sadduceeism—the halakic Midrash would also have disappeared, seeing that the Halakah could now dispense with the Midrash. This probably would have been the case had not Akiba created his own Midrash, by means of which he was able “to discover things that were even unknown to Moses” (PesiḲ., Parah, ed. Buber, 39b). Akiba made the accumulated treasure of the oral law—which until his time was only a subject of knowledge, and not a science—an inexhaustible mine from which, by the means he provided, new treasures might be continually extracted. If the older Halakah is to be considered as the product of the internal struggle between Phariseeism and Sadduceeism, the Halakah of Akiba must be conceived as the result of an external contest between Judaism on the one hand and Hellenism and Hellenistic Christianity on the other.”
Those are no small changes in direction for the “orthodox” world at the time, wouldn’t you think?
What you have cited is interesting. Nonetheless, I see no basis for the assertions. I understand that the limits of space do not allow for an exposition though.
I did look up the encyclopedia and it seems that this is influenced by the works of Graetz (seeing when the encyclopedia was published, the general tone of the article and who the author of this piece is). However, the general thesis of Graetz’s work has been so thoroughly debunked since then that it makes an article from 1905 a wee bit irrelevant….(The first thorough debunking was done by Rabbi Hirsch when the work was first published).
Moreover, as someone who has completed a good deal of Talmud and related texts, I find many of the assertions more based on conjecture than facts. (As demonstrated in my previous post).
I realize that this is not the place for an extended debate of these matters with proofs and counter-proofs, but to make the leap from a discredited theory about Talmudic exegesis (published almost 100 years ago!) and conclude what you have is not compelling.
My use of “ancient” encyclopedias was incidental. I used that entry because I could copy and paste it online. Modern biographical information on R. Akiva concludes many of the same things. He was one of our greatest sages, not because he was identical to the others, but because he had fresh ideas. As I first noted, this also applies to Rambam and Hirsch, amongst many others. The relevance which our traditions and observances continue to have is due, in many ways, to those sages who have advanced the cause of Halakha and traditional Judaism into new spheres.
I dont disagree that there have been changes in Jewish culture and custom (A la Hirsch), but it is a long leap to then assume it appropriate to uproot the Talmudic thinking of everyone between Rabbi Akiva Egier, Vilna Gaon, Rav Ahron Kotler, etc…(Not that you are asserting this, but defending the broad proposal of the poster by comparing the two)
I still disagree with the statements about Rabbi Akiva as in my own study I have found no support for the sweeping thesis you present. I am aware that Graetz’s theories are still popular with certain schools of thought, but it has been so thoroughly debunked as to be pretty irrelevant.
Nonetheless, I personally am open to considering the evidence, though, as you see from my previous posts I am pretty certain that the assertions are simply reverse engineered to fit a particular view of the Talmudic sages rather than based in sound scholarship. (Much of modern ‘Graetzism’ is just this).
I would love to see some evidence to the claims made about Rabbi Akiva.