Should You Be Reading These Books?

A new book on Job, the next generation of Modern Orthodoxy, and a biography of one of the world's oldest cities – Jerusalem.

Jerusalem: The Biography by Simon Sebag Montefiore.

Simon Sebag Montefiore's Jerusalem: The Biography was the Jewish Book Council's book of the year, and deservedly so.

Montefiore writes better than all but a very small handful of published authors. He makes history sing and reading his work is an immense pleasure you should not miss.

And now you can buy Jerusalem: The Biography at an affordable price, because the book just came out in paperback last month. Buy it. You'll love it, and so will anyone you give it to for Hanukkah. Two very enthusiastic thumbs up.

The Book of Job: When Bad Things Happened to a Good Person by Rabbi Harold Kushner.

Kushner has shifted his views on the issue of good, evil and the role of God since his first bestseller published 31 years ago, When Bad Things Happen To Good People. He now believes that God created the world in such a way that necessitates humankind having free will, and that free will means that humans can do very evil things to other humans, but won't intervene to stop it.

Kushner's newer understanding of God is much closer to the Orthodox understanding of God than his previous view that God created the world and then ceased having day-to-day involvement in it.

I find both views to be intellectually weak but the second to be emotionally comforting, because it doesn't have to rule out (admittedly rare) Divine intervention, and it allows God to see, hear and even feel our pain. Under this view, we may suffer but we never really suffer alone.

All that said, Kushner has done a wonderful job telling Job's story in way that modern people can identify with and appreciate. It's well worth reading. Two thumbs up.

The Next Generation of Modern Orthodoxy (The Orthodox Forum) edited by Rabbi Shmuel Hain.

There's not much I can say about the latest volume in the Orthodox Forum's series. I should like it, but I don't. I found it mind-numbing rather than edifying.

I think part of this comes from my increasing distaste of what Modern Orthodoxy has become.

But I think most of it comes from the fact that this newer generation of young Modern Orthodox leaders are for the most part not the educators, theologians and advocates that previous generations were. Most of these younger leaders see the trees but not the forest, and are overly tied to words on a page that cry out for kulot (leniencies) previous generations would have sought out and used, but these new leaders don't hear that cry, just as they do not see the pain and the destruction their blindness causes.

Perhaps no book containing supposedly scholarly essays about this next generation of Modern Orthodox leadership could have been any better. I don't know.

But I do know that I couldn't stand it, that I couldn't get through it, and that every time I picked it up and began to read I realized how spiritually and theologically gutted Modern Orthodoxy has become in the years since the passing of its leader, Rabbi Joseph B. Soleveichik. But perhaps if you read it you'll feel differently. One thumb firmly down, the other thumb wavering.

Comments

[Jeff]

Kushner has shifted his views on the issue of good, evil and the role of God since his first bestseller published 31 years ago, When Bad Things Happen To Good People. He now believes that God created the world in such a way that necessitates humankind having free will, and that free will means that humans can do very evil things to other humans, but won't intervene to stop it.

Shmarya, that's essentially what he's always believed. His premise has always been that God can't (or won't) intervene in the natural order (including human free will), but that he gives us kind, helpful, supportive people to deal with the crap that comes along. I think it speaks volumes about the kind of life he's led. His son died in childhood of a terrible degenerative disease that causes rapid aging. It was horrendous, but I think he had a strong support system. Frankly, I don't think he was prepared for the cultural phenomenon the book became. I think he wrote it to deal with his son's death, and didn't anticipate what followed.

There are theologians who claim Kushner's conceptualization isn't a legitimate Biblical representation of God. I would have to agree. His God is impotent; he stands there, wringing his hands and whining, "I'm so sorry you're suffering. I'd really like to help you, but there's nothing I can do because you're surrounded by pricks."

In any case, I've always felt and continue to feel that Kushner has nothing of any depth to contribute to the field of theodicy. His thinking isn't even original; I read a book by a rabbi (I think it might have been Rabbi Gittleson of Temple Israel in Boston) written in the mid -20th century that said pretty much the same thing.

He just isn't a deep thinker. He doesn't claim to be, but everyone seems to regard him as one.

[Jeff]

But I do know that I couldn't stand it, that I couldn't get through it, and that every time I picked it up and began to read I realized how spiritually and theologically gutted Modern Orthodoxy has become in the years since the passing of its leader, Rabbi Joseph B. Soleveichik.

David Hartman has had two books come out over the past couple of years - The God Who Hates Lies and From Defender to Critic. I'm reading the former and recommend it; I've not yet gotten to the latter, but as it appears to be a continuation of the previous work, I'll go out on a limb and recommend it as well.

I like Hartman a lot, but the reason I bring him up is that in the former book, he has a chapter entitled, "Where Did Modern Orthodoxy Go Wrong?" Hartman makes the case that rather than betraying the legacy of Rav Soloveitchik in capitulating to the Haredim, the Modern Orthodox have actually internalized his insistence upon elevating halakhah to what he calls "meta-halakha", a system outside of time which renders historical context meaningless. He expresses his admiration for Soloveitchik's brilliance and retains his affection for him as his old teacher, but blames him for the intransigence of today's Modern Orthodoxy.

It's ironic. If he's right, the Haredim are correct - Modern Orthodoxy is an experiment gone wrong - but they're right for the wrong reasons.

I also highly recommend Krista Tippet's interview with Hartman for her APR program On Being that took place last year: http://www.onbeing.org/program/opening-windows/16 . If you have time, listen to the unedited version.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Thanks, Shmarya and Jeff. As a book addict, I will put them on my Amazon wish list. Maybe you can offer an online api-course (LOL).

I think Jeff's analysis of JBS's ahistorical approach is true. As much as I like JBS, he was a Neo-Kantian, and as such put too much faith in scientization. Of course, other works of his are more experiential and existential, but Ish Halacha is a very rigid book. In the 1980's, a Modern Orthodox rabbi wrote a mild and reverential critique of JBS that pointed out the apparent contradiction between the Neo-Kantianism of Ish Halacha and the more existential tracts such as Lonely Man of Faith and Kol Dodi Dofek. For this analysis, some schreid "Gevalt! Apikorsus!" And so it goes...

[Garnel Ironheart]

> He now believes that God created the world in such a way that necessitates humankind having free will, and that free will means that humans can do very evil things to other humans, but won't intervene to stop it.

Well boker tov. Only took him 31 years to figure that out?

As for the latest Orthodox forum book, here's why it's disappointing. Previous Forums have presented essays by true "Gedolim" of Modern Orthodoxy and Religious Zionism like Ravs Lichtenstein and Carmi. This one has a keynote essay from Rabbi Asher Lopatin who might be a very nice guy but Torah-wise isn't in their league. It's like you're expecting an address on nuclear physics from a leading world expert and instead a guy who teaches high school science shows up.

[jack]

Fuck shmarya

[A. Nuran]

Jack, with a little therapy you could come to terms with your sexual orientation. But I still don't think Shmarya would want to sleep with you.

[Sarek]

Kushner needed to provide an answer for people who are religious but have suffered in life. He had to come up with some explanation (whether it made sense or not) why their prayers weren't answered. If he didn't, religion would lose more people. So he threw a bunch of explanations against the wall, hoping some would stick.

[Shmarya]

…Shmarya, that's essentially what he's always believed. His premise has always been that God can't (or won't) intervene in the natural order (including human free will), but that he gives us kind, helpful, supportive people to deal with the crap that comes along. I think it speaks volumes about the kind of life he's led.…

Posted by Jeff

No. He makes it very clear in his new book that he changed his theology as I stated.

[Jeff]

He makes it very clear in his new book that he changed his theology as I stated.

Okay, but honestly, I don't see the difference. They appear to be two slightly different ways of saying the same thing.

[Jeff]

As much as I like JBS, he was a Neo-Kantian, and as such put too much faith in scientization.

Really? I'm surprised to hear that; it would appear to be a contradiction? On the one hand, he'd be emphasizing the scientific approach, which requires empirical evidence. On the other, he insisted upon a halakhah that is above any attempt at critical analysis - including, as I said, historical context. You couldn't contextualize halakha by saying, "Well, that was based upon what they believed then about the nature of the universe, but we know better now."

[Blima]

I found Senator Joseph Lieberman's book "The Gift of Rest" to be a nice read.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Jeff: He takes the Neo-Kantian idea of the Scientist archetype and transfers it to the Orthodox Jew. He was influenced by Hermann Cohen, a non-Orthodox German Jewish philosopher; particularly Cohen's early works. Early Cohen postulated that the Scientist, in his fidelity to the Truth, exists outside of history. So too, Halachic Man is an ahistorical paradigm.

Ironically, Hermann Cohen did teshuvah in his later works, after undergoing a spiritual crisis. Cohen's idea of God was basically Deist, and one day he was in shul, patiently explaining his ideas to an alter Yid. The old man listened, and then cried out: "But where [in your philosophy] is the Ribonno Shel Oylam?!" Cohen cried, and eventually formulated a kinder, gentler philosophy. Ironically, JBS likes the earlier, hard ass school.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Cohen

The whole idea of an ahistorical man is deeply flawed. As the great non-religious Jewish literary critic Lionel Trilling wrote: "The idea of a realm beyond culture, is, as culture well knows, its most generous achievement." The gist of that is, there is no realm beyond the reach of culture (which includes history).

[Jeff]

Yes, I've aware of Cohen, but I'm afraid I know little about him.

Ironically, JBS likes the earlier, hard ass school.

And yet he, of course, wasn't a Deist. Interesting.

Human beings are masses of contradictions.It exhausts me.

[Yitzchak]

Kushner's book is excellent- definitely worth reading. It is the book his rebbi, Mordecai Kaplan, would have written.

[Jeff]

I just learned about this fellow:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Meiselman

He has degrees from Harvard and MIT, yet is a Haredi apologist who called Slifkin an "incompetent nincompoop" for suggesting that Chazal were ignorant of some aspects of science. He also blames assimilation for the Holocaust. (Isn't it interesting that these guys always end up blaming the frei yidden? Not one of them ever blames the sinat chinam that characterizes their world. Not one.)

The reason I bring him up is that tragically, he happens to be a nephew of Rav Soloveitchik. As I've mentioned here before, one of the Rav's grandsons is Rabbi Meyer Twersky (the current Talner Rebbe) who, although a Rosh Yeshiva at YU, is pretty much Haredi in all but name. I think even calling him "Haredi Lite" (as I often do with the YU crowd) would be generous. R. Twersky's father, the previous Rebbe, taught at Harvard and founded its Center for Jewish Studies.

This is the Rav's legacy - his grandchildren and nieces and nephews have become Haredim. I continue to be proven right; Modern Orthodoxy is dead. Unfortunately, this is one time in which being right gives me no pleasure.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Jeff: The MO rabbi who wrote the piece mildly critical of JBS also has chareidi offspring. It's like Gresham's Law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law

About Meiselman, I'm sure his degrees are not in the Humanities. One can be a dogmatic thinker and valorize science (except when it interferes with religion), but literature and philosophy open up the mind. That is why some chareidim grudgingly support vocational secular studies, but not Humanities. (And also, I think, why politicians support "STEM" education and basic literacy at the expense of the Humanities).

[Jeff]

It's like Gresham's Law.

I suppose, except that in this scenario, it's the "bad money" itself that appears to be setting the exchange rate.