Opening Remarks for the Third Path Gathering: Torah with Derech Eretz — Rabbi Michael Avraham

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] In any case, I really want to place things a little bit within some kind of framework, so I’ll try to summarize the path we’ve gone through so far. I mean, on the organizational level, I’m not sure what to call it, there’s a large group that started, and we paused it in the middle, of people joining the third identity. I assume you read the outline sheet, or at least the one we sent. There’s a group of opinion leaders, which most of the people sitting here belong to, though not all of them; there are some whom we asked to join us, and of course we’re inviting them as well to join the opinion leaders. And there’s also some kind of steering committee more on the practical level, where we’re trying to do the ongoing work, among other things organizing this conference, and thanks to Sharon, who helped us with that too. We met with all kinds of people, also in order to get to know them a bit. Before I get into details, I’m just putting things in a framework. We met with various groups, also Ne’emanei Torah Va’Avodah, I spoke a bit with Rabbi Stav and Rabbi Nehorai — that is, central people who are leading things in relevant directions, let’s put it that way. And also from the Haredi side, whoever we managed to reach and felt was suitable and managed to get their cooperation — from that side as well. And this combination, in my view at least, is very important, and I’ll want to say a bit about that here. So now I’ll begin with the substance, the actual content of the matter. The problems that basically gave rise to this whole thing are two types of problems. One problem is what we might call an inward-facing problem: what does Torah look like, what does religious society look like today — not how it looks outwardly, but what it actually is. Meaning, is it functioning properly or not? A lot of movements of this kind aim at unity, preventing desecration of God’s name, bringing the distant closer, and things like that. Personally — and I think this is also true for all, or at least most, of the participants here — first and foremost the purpose is not to generate ratings outwardly, but to ask whether religious Judaism is actually going in the right direction, whether this is being conducted the way it should be. That, in my eyes, is the central kind of problem. Of course, attached to that is the way it is reflected outwardly. There is what we see today — and again, in the end everything somehow finds expression in politics, but the problems are not specifically in politics; politics reflects them. But it does come out in politics. Today there is a kind of desecration of God’s name, and I can’t sleep with this story when I see how Judaism is perceived today in the world, not only בארץ but beyond it too. How is Judaism perceived? As a collection of extremists, conservatives, thugs, I’d even say, who conduct themselves in some way — and again, I’m not even getting into what I agree with and what I don’t agree with, and I’m sure there are disagreements here about this — but the overall picture is a very problematic one. Meaning, there is something here: this whole story is going in the wrong direction, at least in its public appearance. But in the end the claim is that the root of the matter begins with the character of the individual Jew, the ordinary person. Meaning: what kind of religious figure do we want to see, to educate, to raise, to encourage? In the end, that’s also what creates the broader public image. Yes, even on the level of halakhic ruling — how do we relate to present reality? How do we relate, say, to “It is better to dwell as two,” a Talmudic topic I dealt with a little on the practical plane — are precedents from Iraq two thousand years ago or from Poland two or three hundred years ago really an accurate estimate of what women think today? Just one question out of a thousand, okay? But that’s only an illustration of the fact that, in my view at least, the problem also exists on the level of Jewish law, halakhic ruling, and how we relate to reality in the halakhic sense as well. Conservatism versus non-conservatism, you could call it that, but those are broad labels and they don’t necessarily say much. Another expression of this issue is the attitude toward the rabbinate, or how the rabbinate functions, and therefore what the attitude toward the Chief Rabbinate ought to be, what our attitude toward it ought to be. There is here — this is my feeling, of course, each person has his own position — my personal feeling is that there’s some deficiency here. A dream that people find hard to detach from. The Chief Rabbinate, Rabbi Kook, and the Jewish character of the State of Israel — this whole business doesn’t work. It keeps getting worse from year to year, or from term to term. It’s becoming some sort of private estate of families, of certain groups, I don’t know — something that, to my mind, is simply shocking, even though we’ve gotten somewhat used to it. And the question is to what extent we should continue at all to relate to that institution, or support that institution, or try to sell ourselves to that institution — yes, apropos the current matters with that booklet. Okay, that wasn’t in the plan, but yes. In any case, that was just an illustration of the problems I spoke about earlier. Now, on the ground, little by little — and we still don’t know everything — but little by little it’s becoming clear to us that there are very many initiatives and organizations and activities moving in these kinds of directions, each according to its concerns, worldview, and field of work, and they differ from one another on those three parameters. But still, the feeling is that there is here a force that is very, very dispersed. Meaning, there are many organizations, many bodies, and certainly many individuals on the private level, and personalities too, including leading personalities, who want some other direction, who are working toward some other direction — but this story isn’t coming together. Meaning, it isn’t gaining a presence in the public discourse — and again, I’m not talking about politics. Politics is an expression. I’m talking about the question of what is actually visible in the field of Jewish discussion. So of course voices are heard in all directions, and today there is an open world and many articles are being written and voices and so on, but in religious discourse on the identity level, as I’ll get to in a moment, it doesn’t seem that this gets enough expression. And that leads to a kind of, I would say, market failure. This market failure basically means that the world, the world of religious identities, is traditionally divided in two. Each side has shades, but still — two. There are Haredim and non-Haredim, right? After all, even we here are talking about this issue. Now, originally this split began as a split around the Zionist question. Meaning, whether you are for Zionism or against Zionism — where within the “for” and within the “against” there can be all kinds of shades on all sorts of issues — but basically that is the watershed line that divides religious identities to this day. Meaning, the newspapers are divided that way, the political parties, the educational institutions, matchmaking, the literature people read — everything. There is some very clear division on almost all parameters around a subject that, in my opinion, has long ceased to be relevant. I think we can agree on that, though I don’t know — afterward we can hear what you think. The questions that are much more relevant—

[Speaker B] The army draft will prove that it’s still relevant.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, I don’t think so. That’s not specifically connected to Zionism. But maybe it’s an expression of it. This dichotomy, it seems to me, is very, very strongly driven or encouraged by the two poles that lead the two sides. The two poles that broadly lead the two sides — again, lead the two sides — the Haredim versus the Hardalim, you could call it that, meaning the conservative Religious Zionists or non-Haredim. And it’s very convenient for them to define everyone who isn’t there as “light.” Right? In a very broad-brush way. Now true, there are also “light” people, obviously. There are also many “light” people. Okay, all true. But this dichotomy — that either you are Haredi… after all, today you can read in articles that the question is whether you are Hardal or “light.” Those are the two options. That’s how things are divided. And this idea has also taken root among people who, I think, basically would never have accepted such a thing. Meaning, basically people are forced to position themselves on one side or the other of this dichotomy. Meaning, the question is whether you are Haredi or Hardal, or Haredi or “light.” Okay? The monarchist Haredim are a bit different, new Haredim, modern Haredim, I don’t know — there are slightly different subdivisions there, but there is a lot in common. And as a result a market failure is created. And this market failure basically means that this whole middle group — some of whom are genuinely “light,” and some of whom, in my opinion, are not genuinely “light,” and some of whom understand that they aren’t “light” at all even though people are trying to sell them that identity — somehow still continue to identify with one of the two sides. So you can hear many people who would never in their lives dream of following, or accepting what is said by, those who are today called, I don’t know, the rabbis of Religious Zionism or whatever — every time it gets a different label — but a kind of collection of Haredim who say Hallel on Independence Day, and they are considered the rabbis of Religious Zionism. That’s the usual heading. That’s the accepted heading in the newspapers, in the media, and I think also in people’s consciousness. That’s the accepted heading, even though many of those people do not see those figures as figures who are supposed to chart their path. But he says to me: okay, but I’m Religious Zionist, so those are the leading figures. True, I’m “light,” I don’t belong there, but that’s the synagogue I don’t go to, okay? Like the well-known jokes. And this division, this dichotomy, that people are working so hard to instill — to my mind it’s destructive. Destructive not because there are no Zionists and non-Zionists; there are Zionists and non-Zionists. But in many cases these are theological differences that there is serious doubt whether anyone can really point to them and define them well. And on the practical level, I think that a significant percentage of those defined as Haredim, for example — I don’t see any practical difference between them and centrist Religious Zionists, Gush Etzion. There are two yeshiva heads from Gush Etzion here. So what exactly is the difference? Fine, they say Hallel and you — they don’t say Hallel and these do say Hallel, these wear knitted kippot and those wear black kippot, they don’t marry each other, they go to different schools. But in terms of content, these people — many of them — basically think they ought to enlist, maybe there are social constraints, and afterward they also think it is right to enlist. These people also believe that broader studies should be pursued, core curriculum or whatever, vocational training. Some of them believe in higher education. I meet quite a few such people; some of them are sitting here too. But I think this public is much broader than people see, and I’ll get to that in a moment. And therefore my feeling is that this group, because of this market failure, simply doesn’t receive expression. It doesn’t receive expression. Now there are tons of initiatives and tons of complaining and lots of “we’re unhappy with this and unhappy with that,” and everyone does various things, and people are doing blessed work, all fine. But it doesn’t connect into some different alternative. Something that offers an alternative to these two sides that basically hold the monopoly over the whole map. Now why doesn’t it connect? For two main reasons — just a few more minutes — two main reasons, I think. One reason is that organizations operating in these fields, these initiatives and organizations, usually — not all of them, but usually — have specific goals. One organization aims to advance the status of women, for example Kolech, okay, which now connected here, but I’m speaking generally, no matter which others; they have these kinds of goals, other goals, conversion, Itim, all sorts of things of that kind. These are specific goals, very important, all fine and all true, but that’s not something that can really create an identity alternative to the sides. And the second thing is the hairline differences. Meaning, I don’t sit with that person because he’s too Reform for me; he doesn’t sit with me because I’m too Reform for him. It doesn’t matter — each person with his nuances. And there are differences, and it’s not always right to dismiss those differences. But the question is whether those differences are enough to justify the price we pay. The price we pay is that all these groups, which basically could have gone together under one umbrella, with all the shades in between and without giving them up, but under one umbrella — they can’t do it because of these hairline differences, and therefore they basically do not exist on the ground. They do not exist on the ground in the public discourse, certainly not in politics. So today people vote for other parties, not even religious ones. But that basically means they are unable to place on the map an alternative to the two sides. Of course people immediately say that anyone who isn’t this is left-wing and “light” and all kinds of labels like that — sometimes true, sometimes not true. But these are labels whose purpose is basically to make sure that a third alternative will not grow. If you’re “light,” then you’re like me, just lighter. You’re gray, not black. But no — I want to be green, not gray. Meaning, that doesn’t mean that if I’m green I stop being Religious Zionist or stop being Haredi; each person with his own outlook. But the question is whether I build my identity around those points. The example of the rabbinate elections is a super-representative example, and it’s coming up again now. People are always talking about uniting the Religious Zionist forces. Unite around what? Around saying Hallel on Independence Day? That’s the only thing connecting them. The questions the rabbinate is really dealing with are questions that are not connected in any way to Zionism. They are connected to the question of modernity, to the question of the status of women, to the question of how one perceives Jewish law — yes, in a more flexible, open, updated sense, I don’t know exactly what to call it; all these labels are not very successful. That is what the arguments are really about. And on that, the real coalitions are between Haredim and Hardalim — that is the natural coalition. And whoever stands on the other side — yes, Rabbi Stav in the previous Chief Rabbinate elections — then people always said, oh, how foolish we were not to unite, and that’s why Rabbi Stav wasn’t elected. Not wise enough to unite around what? They did unite. He wasn’t elected because he was genuinely in the minority. But that wailing afterward reflected the fact that there is a mistaken perception of reality here. A mistaken perception of reality, that the arguments are still around Zionism. Whether yes to Zionism or no to Zionism. Now the connection with Haredim, in my view, is very important, beyond the fact that the problems suffered there and the problems suffered אצלנו appear in different forms but have a lot in common. It has very great importance for the move itself. Because if we really agree — and we’ll hear what you say about this — whether we really agree that this move now needs to pass to the next stage and create some alternative identity around which people can organize, so that all these groups will operate under its umbrella and say: no, we’re not this and we’re not that. I’m Religious Zionist, I’m Haredi, I’m — it doesn’t matter, each person whatever he is, that’s all fine — but that is not my identity, that is not my reference group. I also wear pants, I also do various things, I also wear glasses — so what? The question is what people are organizing around. What are we actually leading? And on this issue I think the connection with Haredim is very important, because if I look at it as a coordinate system that I rotate, then instead of the struggle between Zionists and non-Zionists, where here and here there are modern and non-modern people — “modern” as a general term, you understand what I mean — modern and non-modern here too, I rotate the coordinate system and basically the argument is now between modern and non-modern, who can be Haredi or non-Haredi. That’s the real argument today. After all, that’s what almost all the discussions in religious discourse are really about — religion and state relations, but also internal religious discourse. The discussions are about that, not about Zionism. So why should we stay with that distinction? And therefore the connection with Haredim has tactical value beyond the substance, which I also think is very important. It has very important tactical value, if one accepts that this really ought to be the direction, and that some different identity needs to be created. In the end I just want to say, just to finish with one thing. I’m one of the great complainers, and I assume there are a few more here who enjoy criticizing. Our world — in my opinion the religious Jewish world today — is in a terrible crisis. A terrible crisis. The desecration of God’s name that has been created is insane. But as I said earlier, I’m also speaking inwardly: to what extent do we really think correctly, act correctly, work correctly? To what extent are we really listening to the right things? How are we listening to the rabbis who are leading these directions — it makes your ears ring. And somehow each of us is busy with his own affairs, and we are all very, very busy people, and who has the energy now to go into major social moves and create an identity? What now — will there be a black knitted purple kippah, or that Gush Katif bracelet, I don’t know, some external sign of the third identity? I don’t know, maybe that too is needed. But it’s hard. On the one hand it’s not well-defined — creating an identity is not a defined goal, like I want to pass this law or that law. On the other hand, I think passing laws is very important, but it won’t do the job. Meaning, it won’t create the change. And therefore we need to think, first, whether it is correct that we need to create an alternative identity in the sense I’ve spoken about here — not to give up worldviews, but in the sense of organizing on a different basis; and second, how to do it, what goals to set, and how to move toward that; and third, how much we are willing to step up for it — meaning, how much each person is really prepared to step up within the limits of his busyness. We are all busy, but to step up — even when something is initiated, then at least to participate. In the end, we are the ones who are today on the front line, if there is a front line. Whoever agrees there is a front line — the ones on the front line today are us. “I lift up my eyes to the mountains” — I always used to look at my parents. At some stage — my father and mother, thank God, are still with us — but slowly we are reaching the conclusion that there’s nowhere to look. That’s it, now we’re there. And now people are looking — they’re looking down at us. And now the demand is on us. We have to shoulder the burden and run this matter. In the end, there is a very important mission here: where is Torah going, where is Judaism going? And today this is acute — it’s a crazy crisis. And we’re all quiet, we’re all quiet, not really willing to take some kind of public action, to identify ourselves, to say: I’m here and I don’t agree with this, to take a confrontational step — and not always with these “unities” that in the end always conclude with all of us being united, but the great sages of the generation are always those same great sages of the generation, and all of us are united with them — apropos the Chief Rabbinate elections that just were or are about to be, and so on, and that’s what it looks like. And if we go on, each one just carrying on as before — and again, each person with his very important tasks, all true — in the end I think the blame is on us. Meaning, we need to get up and do something. Without that, nothing will change. There is no one else who will do the work. There is no one who will do the work. I’m very happy to sit and write reflections — I’m a philosopher, all fine — what do I care about the world? The world only interferes; it creates practical consequences. Meaning, there are practical consequences to all the reflections because the world exists, but that’s it. That’s its only justification. Fine. But in the end there are real things here, and the practical consequences are not going in the right direction. And someone has to do it. And I think that maybe if we can, in this room, create the beginning of a move that actually goes somewhere — if we agree that this is the direction, again, we’ll hear from people afterward, that this is the direction and this is where we need to go, and if people are also willing to step up — then I hope maybe something will happen here.

[Speaker B] Thank you. Thank you very much. We’ll begin — so now Oren is turning off the camera.