Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

One 16^th century rabbinic scholar, Rabbi Eliezer Ashkenazi, exhibited integrity transcending the parochial world he inhabited, and called upon his readers to show an independence of thought that challenged the theological correctness of his era. His prescription for honesty and intellectual truthfulness can certainly apply to our own generation as well:

• Neither should we be concerned about the logic of others—even if they preceded us—preventing our own individual investigation. Much to the contrary, just as [our forbearers] did not wish to indiscriminately accept the truth from those who preceded them, and that which they did not choose [to accept] they rejected, so it is fitting for us to do. Only on the basis of gathering many different opinions will the truth be tested. . . . Do not be dismayed by the names of the great personalities when you find them in disagreement with your beliefs; you must investigate and interpret, because for this purpose were you created, and wisdom was granted you from Above, and this will benefit you.[1]

From R. Ashkenazi’s opinion, one may surmise that the truth can always stand up to scrutiny. All the various approaches concerning the origin and redaction of the Pentateuch have much value and wisdom to impart. Early rabbinic exegetes deserve considerable credit for pointing out many textual anomalies that require clarification. Granted, many of the Midrashic answers given may not be grounded in a realistic understanding of the text, but the questions they raise regarding the text’s meaning are important. Conflicting interpretations—especially in a dialogical setting—frequently draw attention to nuances and ideas that one participant or interpreter may have overlooked or failed to take adequately into account. Conflicting interpretations also expand the text and force each participant to re-articulate earlier stated ideas that take into account the criticisms of the other side. In the midst of a discussion, one party may see truth in an oppositional point of view.

The need to occasionally acknowledge interpretive fallibility is an essential feature if one is to arrive at a truth. The absence of consensus is not a negative thing per se—in fact, quite the opposite. Contrary to Aristotle’s law of non-contradiction;[2] namely, “a thing and its opposite cannot both be true,”[3] rabbinic wisdom believes that truth is best served when contrarian interpretations challenge one another.[4] Truth is frequently discovered through a process of adversity and contradiction. Regardless how a person interprets a classical text like the Bible—or for that matter any great work of literature—there will always be somebody else who will interpret it differently. Disagreement is something that is not only endemic—it is inevitable. Whenever a new idea or approach is introduced, attention is drawn to aspects of a text that one might have overlooked or failed to take adequately into account. Arguments—whether they happen to be contrarian or supportive—force a person to modify an earlier stance. By the same token, one person’s ideas may have an equally powerful influence on someone else. While interpretation typically refines the next interpretation, controversy remains our constant companion.

How should one respond to this conundrum? If unanimity is really the goal, what incentive would there be for new interpretive ideas? Conversely, dissent is not necessarily indicative of a communications breakdown. Oftentimes a consensus of a people may be predicated upon an error (e.g., Ptolemy’s geo-centric view of the universe is but one obvious example). The desire to create a stable consensus can threaten to immobilize a person(s) or a society in error.

Dissent can be beneficial, and often leads to new discoveries and ideas. Moreover, dissent ensures that there will be some sort of accountability on the part of the originator. This would explain why peer review is a necessary process whenever new articles on any subject are introduced. A community of readers and interpreters create a network that produces alternative viewpoints worthy of reflective consideration. Differences of insight do not necessarily mean disagreement on the core issues of a story or discussion. Throughout Jewish and Christian exegetical traditions, rarely has there been a stable consensus. If this was the case in ancient times, why should it be any different today? The focus of scholarly dissent may change over time, but the fact of disagreement does not go away; indeed it is a necessary part of the learning process.

Every biblical commentary (to a greater or lesser extent) offers varying responses, often to the same question; at times they pose different questions and may also argue as to which questions ought to serve as the focal point of a discussion. The purpose of their commentaries is not to create a monologue with the reader but to stimulate a living dialogue for both the reader and his community. In light of this, we can boldly say that questioning the great interpreters of the past need not undermine faith; on the contrary, it has the potential of strengthening it. Conversely, the fear of new ideas in many ways undermines faith in the Divine message of the Torah. Perhaps one of the greatest gifts of the Socratic and Talmudic milieu to the Western world is the need to question everything that is believed to be the “truth.” The fluid nature of Judaic theology demonstrates a historical resiliency that has the innate ability to maintain its structural and spiritual integrity against any wave of modernity or textual criticism.

While Birth and Rebirth through Genesis: A Timeless Theological Conversation is primarily a theological exposition of biblical themes that are scattered throughout the chapters of Genesis, the title implies that it is also an exegetical work, intended to honor the nature of the peshat (the contextual meaning of the text)[5] with its rich history of intertexuality. The text is a nexus where ideas and thoughts of the past converge with the present and future. The exegetical component is extremely important, for good exegesis can provide a solid contextual basis for eisegetical insight and wisdom.

[1] Cited from Alan Dershowitz’s The Genesis of Justice (New York: Time Warner, 2000), 18-19. Continue Reading

Like a bad penny, the problem will not go away. It doesn’t seem to matter what people say or do to prevent it. Beth Shemesh is a lot like a train-wreck that waiting to happen; actually, it has already happened, but the extent of the damage and casualties has yet to be determined.

Beth Shemesh continues to explode with internecine religious violence. Today, hundreds of Haredim are rioting in the streets. Bear in mind that many Haredi leaders have condemned the violence but they are frightened. One prominent Haredi leader, R. Minster Ya’acov Litzman is scared because he has received numerous death threats from Haredi extremists over the last few months. Litzman is not exactly a flaming liberal in the Haredi movement; in fact, he happens to be one of the most important leaders of the Agudat Yisrael and United Torah Judaism faction of the Knesset.

You might wonder: Who’s behind the violence? Who is instigating the violence seen in Beth Shemesh? Sources close to Litzman say the Sikrikim (Hebrew סיקריקים) are acting as the ringleaders in Beth Shemesh. Interior Minister of the Knesset Eli Yishai revealed that he too has received threats from the Sikrikim.

San Diego Jews might find it hard to grasp the subcultures and factions that exist within the Haredi movement itself.

You practically need a scorecard.

Some Haredi leaders are very pro-Zionist. Other Haredim like Chabad and Gur, pay their taxes and serve in the Israeli army but still would never describe itself as, “Zionistic.” Virtually all Hassidic groups share the common belief believe that only God and the Messiah can establish a true theocracy and “Jewish State.”

Some Hassidim take a much more militant approach to the State of modern Israel. One of the oldest Hassidic groups, known as the “Neturei Karta” (“Guardians of the City”) is no stranger to the modern Jew. They believe that God punished the Jews by unleashing a Holocaust for having accepted Zionism instead of waiting for the Messiah. This was the group who met with the Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a few years ago. The Sikrikim are actually an extremist breakaway faction from the ultra-Orthodox Neturei Karta and Gerrer Hassidic movements.

The name “Sikrikim” ought to be familiar one to anyone who has read the Talmudic account of how Jerusalem got destroyed. The Sicarri (literally, “dagger” men) were the Jewish zealots who attacked Rome, resulting in the expulsion of our people.

Today’s Sikrikim gangs are no less violent and extreme; they operate mostly in Jerusalem, where they have won international attention for their attacks on their fellow Gerrer Hassidic Jews. When they first began, their core group was said to be about a hundred, but their ability to attract others to their philosophy has greatly expanded their ranks, which are now in the hundreds. No Haredi politician can escape the Sikrikims’ attention and threats [1].

The Sikrikim recently attacked Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger with stones for attending a popular book store, Ohr Hachaim, which did not follow specific “modesty standards.” The owner refused, until the Sikrikim put glue in the locks and dumped human manure inside the store. Attacks on prominent rabbis may also explain why so many important Haredi leaders are reluctant to speak out. Finally, the owners agreed to post a large sign requesting that all customers dress modestly. In addition one of the Sikrikim supervisors made sure the store-owner had to remove all controversial books from the shelves.

A few months ago, the Sikrikim vandalized a popular ice-cream store (I remember visiting several years ago) in Me’ah She’arim. The store had video-games and it was one of the few places where young boys and girls could actually socialize. Well, the Haredim put an end to that benign activity. However, the Sikrikim didn’t like the fact the boys and girls could still share the same table. So, this past October, the Sikrikim left signs asking men and women to be seated separately, and not to eat in public. The Sikrikim asserted that licking ice-cream cones was “immodest.”[2] Later that night, they broke in and vandalized the store.[3]

If Freud were living, he would probably have a field day with the Haredim . . .

The owners hoped the police would arrest four of the assailants since they were videotaped. However, at first, the police refused to get involved. Only a handful of the Sikrikim have since then been arrested and charged.

More recently, this past October, the Religious Zionist Orot Banot Girls School opened up in Ramat Bet Shemesh only to be greeted by the Sikrikim, who stood outside the school on school days and taunted the students, throwing rocks at them, claiming that the girls were “immodestly” dressed. [4]

As I see it, the presence of the Kosher-nostra gangs would disappear if the Israeli government decided to really put its foot down. All of us need to contact the Israeli Consulate and write letters to the Knesset urging them to actively arrest these people and make them serve real hard time in prison. Once this happens, Haredi and secular alike will breathe a collective sigh of relief.

It is strange that the Sikrikim gangs would have chosen to choose a name from ancient Israel’s most violent group; had they prevented Rabbi Yochanan ben Zacai from escaping the city of Jerusalem, Judaism might very well have disappeared from history. It is a pity the Sikrikim syndicate has such a superficial grasp of Jewish history for had their spiritual forbearers (the Sicarri) killed Rabbi Yochanan, they would not exist!

=========

Notes:

[1] Gill Hoffman. “Hundreds of haredim riot in Beit Shemesh.” Jerusalem Post, 2011-11-29.

[2]“Ultra-strict Jewish sect trashes ice cream parlour claiming licking cones in public promotes promiscuity.” The Daily Mail. 2011-10-18.

[3] Lubell Maayan, (2011-4-22). “Religious zealots attack “immodest” Jerusalem shops”. Reuters.

[4] Alison Kaplan Somer, “American enclave stands up to extremists”, The Jewish Daily Forward, 29 December 2011.