I found the Haredi world very receptive to my ideas. My book received approbations from noted Haredi Rosh Yeshivas.
The typical Haredi position on Zionism is not given much articulation in analytic Torah style, which allows for a clearly articulated, analytical and unbiased Torah teaching to engender engagement and be accepted. The exception to this is Satmar, whose position is given (relatively) clear expression, and from which quarters I did, in fact, receive much negative feedback.
There certainly are also Satmar talmidei chachamim who stand by the original doctrine, but the people who engaged with me weren't of very high standards.
One of the important points I make in my book, within which I engage deeply with the Satmar Rebbe's teachings, is that his doctrine was based in historical realities and therefore demands a critical reanalysis 70 years later. I also show that he himself alluded to the contingent nature of his doctrine in the Va'Yoel Moshe, his anti-Zionist work.
I consider myself one of the few who actually engage seriously with the Rebbe's teachings, since I approach them with critical thinking. Most people either ignore them for being "extreme," or accept them as God's holy word without studying them critically, which is the only way to understand anything.
From what I remember, Prophecy is given a very central role by the Rambam. I think prophecy also needs to be thought as being a very particular mode of being, with a very heavy physiological aspect, a thing that requires cultivation by very level headed people. It's never far off from idolatry or madness otherwise.
The difficulty in distinguishing between a true and false prophet almost demands it be a mundane and grounded endeavor, not some esoteric or lost mythical ability.
This was a fascinating episode, thank you. Here are some of my thoughts on a few of the topics discussed:
On idolatry and freedom - Anthony De Mello, a Jesuit priest, defines an idol as anything that you believe you cannot live without (see his brilliant book Awareness). This can be a rain god that will bring drought if not appeased, but in our current age of materialism, it is money, power, success, independence, individualism, respect, esteem, beauty, youth, security, romantic love, etc ...
Therefore, as Baruch pointed out, women sacrifice their unborn children (and to some degree, their living children) to appease the idols of money, success, and independence. Men commit suicide following a market crash or business failure. Women subject themselves to grotesque plastic surgery to appease the idols of youth and beauty. Spurned lovers of both sexes commit suicide.
Freedom is an absence of idols in one's life. A free man may desire money, success, security, etc ... but he is ok without them, and they do not cloud his judgement or integrity. His identity and security come from unconditional trust in God. And if you become free, you may lose everything you thought you couldn't live without. Everyone at your high school reunion might think that you're a loser.
On practical steps forward - I can only think of 2:
1. Grow in virtue, and you will be a beacon for others.
2. Do not abandon your children to the world. Raise your children in virtue, and teach them to engage with the world. Be vigilant of the values of any institution that is educating them, particularly when they are young. Teach your children why pursuing worldly values leads to misery and slavery.
On the heimish nature of our slavery - I am very grateful to you for this discussion. Of course this brings to mind Numbers 11:5 - the Israelites' misty water colored memories of enslavement in Egypt. But in my own life, I am struggling with this as well. My father passed recently, and I am struggling to let go of my child-like dependence on him. There is an intensely heimish quality to my feelings of helplessness. I am afraid to let go of them, because this is the only way I have ever known how to be in the world.
Thanks again for this podcast, it was a balm to the soul.
Interestingly, you sound very Protestant. I mean it as a neutral comment. Re-discovering the purpose of Judaism is similar to a new covenant; an emphasis on Tanakh is shared; and seeing the world through God’s eyes - basically abstracting away Judaism from shechitah and nidah and focusing on its moral core.
And then Protestants often sound like Jews. Just listen to Handel’s Samson or Judas a Maccabaeus.
I have noticed that, but I am largely ignorant of Protestantism.
I also think the Law has a very interesting but misunderstood role within the moral core, a topic that I'm currently writing much about. See, e.g., my latest post:
Christianity where Jesus is a bit looked beyond and Judaism where the Law is being looked beyond, end up in a similar place with an emphasis on the Old Testament, the adventures of the Israelites, the Prophets, and the sublime inspiration of the psalms. An Israeli kind of Judaism and an English kind of Protestantism.
Interesting. I look beyond the Law in that I see the Law as being in the service of an ultimate goal which is s/t other than the Law (Moses came after Abraham), but in a way that it stands in dialectical opposition to its ultimate goal. My writing project referenced above is dedicated, in a certain sense, to this very issue.
Could it be that the Law WAS in the service of an ultimate goal when it was given, but now is not necessary? Meaning, you can see it as a system of drilling into the Israelites the foundations of monotheism, having a conscious, a commitment to moral thinking, etc. But is it needed now? 2000 years or so of the written Law have created a legalistic system that can seem a little soul-less. Endless pilpul about elevators during Shabbat, how to blow air into the lung of a slaughtered cow to make sure it's kosher, etc., etc.
1) What was the intent of the Law itself? Does it state that it is meant for perpetuity?
2) Why might the Law be good now?
I won't address the 1st question, but regarding the 2nd I would say that soul-lessness should be rectified through soul-fullness, not by abolishing one of its root causes, that is not truly a cause but perhaps a distraction from soul-fullness, and that the Law, like many other goods, can be misunderstood and misused, whereas if it was properly understood (when it will be, imo), it will in fact serve as the means for the greatest soul-fullness.
I'm far from being qualified to comment about any of this, I just know my personal experience as a modern person seeking a connection with God. Following something like "nitzchuni banai," meaning, that rabbinical tradition trumps revelation, that pilpul has primacy over inspiration, doesn't speak to me very much.
But then again I do recognize that these traditions (Talmud, the Law, etc.) were held onto by people even through the direst of times, like a heirloom sanctified by suffering.
That's funny, I was thinking that Rabbi Burton sounded very Catholic - I saw a parallel between his assertion of the primacy of the land of Israel in the Jewish life to the primacy of the Church in the Catholic life. The idea of a "virtual Israel" reminded me very much of the Protestant idea of the "invisible church."
Good stuff. I would like to hear more about how Rabbi Burton's ideas on this topic have been received in the Haredi world.
I found the Haredi world very receptive to my ideas. My book received approbations from noted Haredi Rosh Yeshivas.
The typical Haredi position on Zionism is not given much articulation in analytic Torah style, which allows for a clearly articulated, analytical and unbiased Torah teaching to engender engagement and be accepted. The exception to this is Satmar, whose position is given (relatively) clear expression, and from which quarters I did, in fact, receive much negative feedback.
What did Satmar say beyond Vayoel Moshe's responses?
Mostly hate mail, no official responses. Things like, "Who do you think you are to argue?" as opposed to any substantive arguments.
So nothing from any Satmar talmidei chachamim.
There's a growing semi-underground movement there which desires a return to the Land (meaning, now and nob-miraculously.)
I've been hearing about that movement.
There certainly are also Satmar talmidei chachamim who stand by the original doctrine, but the people who engaged with me weren't of very high standards.
One of the important points I make in my book, within which I engage deeply with the Satmar Rebbe's teachings, is that his doctrine was based in historical realities and therefore demands a critical reanalysis 70 years later. I also show that he himself alluded to the contingent nature of his doctrine in the Va'Yoel Moshe, his anti-Zionist work.
I consider myself one of the few who actually engage seriously with the Rebbe's teachings, since I approach them with critical thinking. Most people either ignore them for being "extreme," or accept them as God's holy word without studying them critically, which is the only way to understand anything.
From what I remember, Prophecy is given a very central role by the Rambam. I think prophecy also needs to be thought as being a very particular mode of being, with a very heavy physiological aspect, a thing that requires cultivation by very level headed people. It's never far off from idolatry or madness otherwise.
The difficulty in distinguishing between a true and false prophet almost demands it be a mundane and grounded endeavor, not some esoteric or lost mythical ability.
This was a fascinating episode, thank you. Here are some of my thoughts on a few of the topics discussed:
On idolatry and freedom - Anthony De Mello, a Jesuit priest, defines an idol as anything that you believe you cannot live without (see his brilliant book Awareness). This can be a rain god that will bring drought if not appeased, but in our current age of materialism, it is money, power, success, independence, individualism, respect, esteem, beauty, youth, security, romantic love, etc ...
Therefore, as Baruch pointed out, women sacrifice their unborn children (and to some degree, their living children) to appease the idols of money, success, and independence. Men commit suicide following a market crash or business failure. Women subject themselves to grotesque plastic surgery to appease the idols of youth and beauty. Spurned lovers of both sexes commit suicide.
Freedom is an absence of idols in one's life. A free man may desire money, success, security, etc ... but he is ok without them, and they do not cloud his judgement or integrity. His identity and security come from unconditional trust in God. And if you become free, you may lose everything you thought you couldn't live without. Everyone at your high school reunion might think that you're a loser.
On practical steps forward - I can only think of 2:
1. Grow in virtue, and you will be a beacon for others.
2. Do not abandon your children to the world. Raise your children in virtue, and teach them to engage with the world. Be vigilant of the values of any institution that is educating them, particularly when they are young. Teach your children why pursuing worldly values leads to misery and slavery.
On the heimish nature of our slavery - I am very grateful to you for this discussion. Of course this brings to mind Numbers 11:5 - the Israelites' misty water colored memories of enslavement in Egypt. But in my own life, I am struggling with this as well. My father passed recently, and I am struggling to let go of my child-like dependence on him. There is an intensely heimish quality to my feelings of helplessness. I am afraid to let go of them, because this is the only way I have ever known how to be in the world.
Thanks again for this podcast, it was a balm to the soul.
I think you will appreciate this clip from Anthony De Mello, re: idolatry and freedom
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUYz78tGrpU
Interestingly, you sound very Protestant. I mean it as a neutral comment. Re-discovering the purpose of Judaism is similar to a new covenant; an emphasis on Tanakh is shared; and seeing the world through God’s eyes - basically abstracting away Judaism from shechitah and nidah and focusing on its moral core.
And then Protestants often sound like Jews. Just listen to Handel’s Samson or Judas a Maccabaeus.
Thoughts?
I have noticed that, but I am largely ignorant of Protestantism.
I also think the Law has a very interesting but misunderstood role within the moral core, a topic that I'm currently writing much about. See, e.g., my latest post:
https://shnayor.substack.com/p/ee-and-r-3_6-between-the-torah-and
Christianity where Jesus is a bit looked beyond and Judaism where the Law is being looked beyond, end up in a similar place with an emphasis on the Old Testament, the adventures of the Israelites, the Prophets, and the sublime inspiration of the psalms. An Israeli kind of Judaism and an English kind of Protestantism.
Interesting. I look beyond the Law in that I see the Law as being in the service of an ultimate goal which is s/t other than the Law (Moses came after Abraham), but in a way that it stands in dialectical opposition to its ultimate goal. My writing project referenced above is dedicated, in a certain sense, to this very issue.
Could it be that the Law WAS in the service of an ultimate goal when it was given, but now is not necessary? Meaning, you can see it as a system of drilling into the Israelites the foundations of monotheism, having a conscious, a commitment to moral thinking, etc. But is it needed now? 2000 years or so of the written Law have created a legalistic system that can seem a little soul-less. Endless pilpul about elevators during Shabbat, how to blow air into the lung of a slaughtered cow to make sure it's kosher, etc., etc.
Anything could be.
We would have to ask 2 questions:
1) What was the intent of the Law itself? Does it state that it is meant for perpetuity?
2) Why might the Law be good now?
I won't address the 1st question, but regarding the 2nd I would say that soul-lessness should be rectified through soul-fullness, not by abolishing one of its root causes, that is not truly a cause but perhaps a distraction from soul-fullness, and that the Law, like many other goods, can be misunderstood and misused, whereas if it was properly understood (when it will be, imo), it will in fact serve as the means for the greatest soul-fullness.
I am writing a lot about this now, but here is s/t I wrote in the past about one aspect of this: https://shnayor.substack.com/p/heavenly-law.
I'm far from being qualified to comment about any of this, I just know my personal experience as a modern person seeking a connection with God. Following something like "nitzchuni banai," meaning, that rabbinical tradition trumps revelation, that pilpul has primacy over inspiration, doesn't speak to me very much.
But then again I do recognize that these traditions (Talmud, the Law, etc.) were held onto by people even through the direst of times, like a heirloom sanctified by suffering.
That's funny, I was thinking that Rabbi Burton sounded very Catholic - I saw a parallel between his assertion of the primacy of the land of Israel in the Jewish life to the primacy of the Church in the Catholic life. The idea of a "virtual Israel" reminded me very much of the Protestant idea of the "invisible church."
Wouldn’t this be episode 11?