Hi all.
These are two videos I first saw on a blog, and then saw a link to the youtube page for one of them in the JitW e-mail list. Each one is a little over 5 minutes long. The first video is Reb Zalman's opinion on what makes a Judaism authentic, in part what the unique aspects of Judaism are that make it Judaism.
Video one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ctACFm1gnw
One of the things he talks about is covenant, as it is used in a Jewish sense, which he distinguishes strongly from the Christian sense. He goes off on a little tangent to criticize those who talk about getting rid of ego, and instead suggests it's a good asset to us, but not good if we let it become our boss. He brings it back to say that to be a Jew, you have to have a yiddishe ego, a jewish ego, to see that if there isn't justice, if there are people enslaved, that it's something that pushes you to act. Then he tells a story about a guy who was a member of parliament in Canada that he knew who had a travel agency and would help people in the community send money to the Ukraine or where they needed to. On shabbos, instead of going to shul, he would go to the shvitz. And then they'd come by shul in time for kiddush. He went to Reb Zalman and asked his help, because he would every year give a speech on socialism, but he didn't want to get socialism from Marx. He found inspiration in Isaiah. And he wanted more sources. So each year Reb Zalman helped him find sources in Jeremiah, Amos, Pirkei Avot. And what he goes on to suggest is that type of thing is important too, finding the sense of making things right and just and fair in Torah, and if Shabbos for someone is going to the shvitz instead of to the shul, that's less important.
I tend to agree with that I think, although most especially with the first part about covenant. I think that it's important to have some sense of that in order for there to be a degree of authenticity, and I think it's important to approach very wholistically. That's to say not throwing the baby out with the bath water, and maybe seeing if there's something more sustainable you can use the bath water for instead of just getting rid of it. So the guy in the story for example, he doesn't stop doing Shabbos. He keeps kiddush because the communal element is important for him, and instead of of going to shul he goes to the shvitz, but that's his Shabbos. It's what he does regularly. I think probably a valid criticism of this idea is what becomes of covenantal relationship when it's on your terms. But when I think about marriage and things like that, or a business partnership, that's usually a type of contract that's reviewed by both parties to make sure it's agreeable. There may be one partner, like in business, who gets a little more leverage, and maybe that's like saying, "Shabbos is important. It's not something to budge on. But your particular expression of it, let's co-create that together." And another important aspect of that I think is making God in some way a part of the decision-making, consulting the Divine as in the manner one is comfortable in finding what works best, and not just going all loosey-goosey on it.
On the second point about ego, I think lately I've been thinking in more wholistic terms, that don't negate or reduce or exclude a piece of myself. To be more specific, more personal, a couple months ago I stopped taking my medication for Bipolar Disorder. It wasn't working, and numbed me to a lot of my experience of the world, including my ability to better understand and come to terms with the very thing I was struggling with. I'm not seeing it as something outside myself or separate from who I am, but instead as something more integral. I also have not terminated treatment, just changed my strategy. I've been meditating more, returning to my davennen and other spiritual practices that I'd become lax in, increasing the structure and regularity in my daily schedule, changing my diet. When I sometimes feel a little off, if I'm at home I'll plug into my Healing Rhythms biofeedback system and do a guided meditation, and see how that effects me. Sometime the biofeedback from reading the sensors isn't as helpful, because my heart rate variability is generally very regular, but the biofeedback from reading myself is. So ego, along with everything else, I agree it's better to include it in an appropriate place than to exclude it, and that it bares repeating.
The third point I do think is important, but it seems less "what makes one Jewish" than "what generally makes one a member of religion x." I think in most traditions there's an idea of drawing from and learning from sacred text, although some religions and forms of religions are most certainly less interpretive in approach than Judaism.
Video two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f01CHD_3f4k
The second video is more about Jewish Renewal specifically, but with something I think is a bit more universal, the benefits and hinderances of denomination vs. a more organic, less-structured movement.
What R. Zalman suggests is that the problem with denomination is that it creates boundaries. And as it relates to Renewal, he poses the scenario of people who aren't able to daven without a mechitzah, the divider that separates men and women, but also want to be able to do a retreat at Elat Chayyim. If there was a policy at Elat Chayyim that said no mechitzot, they would be unable to go. And they wouldn't be able to get involved in the learning that goes on there. So he suggests, if someone needs an eruv, or a mechitzah, it's better to allow that to happen within renewal. Just like being open to people who are gay or transexual or intermarried, that the openness needs to extend to the left and to the right. But when denomination forms, it becomes more rigid and makes fewer allowances for those types of things. The benefits of denomination that Reb Zalman suggests are quality control, sharing resources, networking, and a name recognition which helps to set an expectation for a little of what it's going to be like.
He ties the two points together by talking about structure. He contrasts a structure on the outside, like the exoskeleton of a bug, with the endoskeleton of a vertebrate. He suggests that when you start to talk about limits and boundaries, that's making it more like a bug. But if it's a vertebrate it's got a spine holding it together. He then goes on the defensive a little for renewal stating that it has spine. Then he gives an example of eco-kashrut, an idea in renewal, in this case using stainless metal cups on Shabbos instead of styrofoam at a gathering at shul.
He sorta brings it back by saying that to him if offering each other assistance resembles in some ways a denomination because of the structure, it's not an issue. That having some degree of structure is more important. He mentions clergy from various denominations at an ohalah gathering, a gathering for rabbis involved in renewal, how he he sees that as a good thing, and closes by suggesting that there should be a membrane, but the membrane should be semipermeable.
I've really always been against denomination for Renewal. I think sometimes it starts to look more like denomination, and when it does I don't hesitate to point that out. But I don't like it when it happens too much. And I think Renewal at this time is really at its best when it is connected to other understandings of Judaism, and growing along those edges, when it's grafted in. If it's grafted, the external extensions of the spine change a little, but the place where it's been grafted is different too. And unless the graft is rejected, eventually the kinks get worked out. If it's not grafted, it's really less in conversation with the rest of the Jewish population, and I don't mean that it should be in conversation for the benefit of the rest of the population, but for itself, so it doesn't get disconnected. It's not that I want to see something that's not diverse. It's just a way to not get too far from the shore. If the non-grafted parts of renewal are connected and in dialogue with the grafted parts, then I'm not so worried. Somebody needs to be out there exploring the depths, so long as there's a tether.
So for example, the shul I attend is sometimes very traditional egalitarian. It used to be a conservative shul. Now it's independent. But it's also got a strong neo-hasidic and renewal element to it. And it's the home base of a Jewish meditation center that offers its services to local communities.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on Zalman's thoughts as expressed in the videos. Your thoughts?
Dauer
These are two videos I first saw on a blog, and then saw a link to the youtube page for one of them in the JitW e-mail list. Each one is a little over 5 minutes long. The first video is Reb Zalman's opinion on what makes a Judaism authentic, in part what the unique aspects of Judaism are that make it Judaism.
Video one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ctACFm1gnw
One of the things he talks about is covenant, as it is used in a Jewish sense, which he distinguishes strongly from the Christian sense. He goes off on a little tangent to criticize those who talk about getting rid of ego, and instead suggests it's a good asset to us, but not good if we let it become our boss. He brings it back to say that to be a Jew, you have to have a yiddishe ego, a jewish ego, to see that if there isn't justice, if there are people enslaved, that it's something that pushes you to act. Then he tells a story about a guy who was a member of parliament in Canada that he knew who had a travel agency and would help people in the community send money to the Ukraine or where they needed to. On shabbos, instead of going to shul, he would go to the shvitz. And then they'd come by shul in time for kiddush. He went to Reb Zalman and asked his help, because he would every year give a speech on socialism, but he didn't want to get socialism from Marx. He found inspiration in Isaiah. And he wanted more sources. So each year Reb Zalman helped him find sources in Jeremiah, Amos, Pirkei Avot. And what he goes on to suggest is that type of thing is important too, finding the sense of making things right and just and fair in Torah, and if Shabbos for someone is going to the shvitz instead of to the shul, that's less important.
I tend to agree with that I think, although most especially with the first part about covenant. I think that it's important to have some sense of that in order for there to be a degree of authenticity, and I think it's important to approach very wholistically. That's to say not throwing the baby out with the bath water, and maybe seeing if there's something more sustainable you can use the bath water for instead of just getting rid of it. So the guy in the story for example, he doesn't stop doing Shabbos. He keeps kiddush because the communal element is important for him, and instead of of going to shul he goes to the shvitz, but that's his Shabbos. It's what he does regularly. I think probably a valid criticism of this idea is what becomes of covenantal relationship when it's on your terms. But when I think about marriage and things like that, or a business partnership, that's usually a type of contract that's reviewed by both parties to make sure it's agreeable. There may be one partner, like in business, who gets a little more leverage, and maybe that's like saying, "Shabbos is important. It's not something to budge on. But your particular expression of it, let's co-create that together." And another important aspect of that I think is making God in some way a part of the decision-making, consulting the Divine as in the manner one is comfortable in finding what works best, and not just going all loosey-goosey on it.
On the second point about ego, I think lately I've been thinking in more wholistic terms, that don't negate or reduce or exclude a piece of myself. To be more specific, more personal, a couple months ago I stopped taking my medication for Bipolar Disorder. It wasn't working, and numbed me to a lot of my experience of the world, including my ability to better understand and come to terms with the very thing I was struggling with. I'm not seeing it as something outside myself or separate from who I am, but instead as something more integral. I also have not terminated treatment, just changed my strategy. I've been meditating more, returning to my davennen and other spiritual practices that I'd become lax in, increasing the structure and regularity in my daily schedule, changing my diet. When I sometimes feel a little off, if I'm at home I'll plug into my Healing Rhythms biofeedback system and do a guided meditation, and see how that effects me. Sometime the biofeedback from reading the sensors isn't as helpful, because my heart rate variability is generally very regular, but the biofeedback from reading myself is. So ego, along with everything else, I agree it's better to include it in an appropriate place than to exclude it, and that it bares repeating.
The third point I do think is important, but it seems less "what makes one Jewish" than "what generally makes one a member of religion x." I think in most traditions there's an idea of drawing from and learning from sacred text, although some religions and forms of religions are most certainly less interpretive in approach than Judaism.
Video two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f01CHD_3f4k
The second video is more about Jewish Renewal specifically, but with something I think is a bit more universal, the benefits and hinderances of denomination vs. a more organic, less-structured movement.
What R. Zalman suggests is that the problem with denomination is that it creates boundaries. And as it relates to Renewal, he poses the scenario of people who aren't able to daven without a mechitzah, the divider that separates men and women, but also want to be able to do a retreat at Elat Chayyim. If there was a policy at Elat Chayyim that said no mechitzot, they would be unable to go. And they wouldn't be able to get involved in the learning that goes on there. So he suggests, if someone needs an eruv, or a mechitzah, it's better to allow that to happen within renewal. Just like being open to people who are gay or transexual or intermarried, that the openness needs to extend to the left and to the right. But when denomination forms, it becomes more rigid and makes fewer allowances for those types of things. The benefits of denomination that Reb Zalman suggests are quality control, sharing resources, networking, and a name recognition which helps to set an expectation for a little of what it's going to be like.
He ties the two points together by talking about structure. He contrasts a structure on the outside, like the exoskeleton of a bug, with the endoskeleton of a vertebrate. He suggests that when you start to talk about limits and boundaries, that's making it more like a bug. But if it's a vertebrate it's got a spine holding it together. He then goes on the defensive a little for renewal stating that it has spine. Then he gives an example of eco-kashrut, an idea in renewal, in this case using stainless metal cups on Shabbos instead of styrofoam at a gathering at shul.
He sorta brings it back by saying that to him if offering each other assistance resembles in some ways a denomination because of the structure, it's not an issue. That having some degree of structure is more important. He mentions clergy from various denominations at an ohalah gathering, a gathering for rabbis involved in renewal, how he he sees that as a good thing, and closes by suggesting that there should be a membrane, but the membrane should be semipermeable.
I've really always been against denomination for Renewal. I think sometimes it starts to look more like denomination, and when it does I don't hesitate to point that out. But I don't like it when it happens too much. And I think Renewal at this time is really at its best when it is connected to other understandings of Judaism, and growing along those edges, when it's grafted in. If it's grafted, the external extensions of the spine change a little, but the place where it's been grafted is different too. And unless the graft is rejected, eventually the kinks get worked out. If it's not grafted, it's really less in conversation with the rest of the Jewish population, and I don't mean that it should be in conversation for the benefit of the rest of the population, but for itself, so it doesn't get disconnected. It's not that I want to see something that's not diverse. It's just a way to not get too far from the shore. If the non-grafted parts of renewal are connected and in dialogue with the grafted parts, then I'm not so worried. Somebody needs to be out there exploring the depths, so long as there's a tether.
So for example, the shul I attend is sometimes very traditional egalitarian. It used to be a conservative shul. Now it's independent. But it's also got a strong neo-hasidic and renewal element to it. And it's the home base of a Jewish meditation center that offers its services to local communities.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on Zalman's thoughts as expressed in the videos. Your thoughts?
Dauer