Uncategorized
Everyone knows about Herzl. Is it time for Max Nordau, the intermarried father of Zionism, to get his due?
(JTA) — In the weeks since Israel’s latest government was sworn in, questions relating to assimilation, defining Jewish identity and what it means to be a Zionist have been central to the public and political discourse, which in some ways is perhaps more heated and divisive than it has ever been.
One useful addition to the discourse might be recalling the thought and example of an author and Zionist leader who died 100 years ago last month. Max Nordau was a central figure in the early years of the modern political Zionist movement, literally founding the Zionist Organization (today’s World Zionist Organization) with Theodor Herzl and heading multiple Zionist congresses. A physician and renowned man of letters prior to his “conversion” to Zionism following the Dreyfus Affair in France, Nordau’s joining the Zionist movement gave it a notable boost in terms of renown and respectability.
He also coined the term “Muscular Judaism” — a redefinition of what it meant to be a Jew in the modern world; a critical shift away from the traditionally insular, “meek” Jewish archetype devoted solely to religious and intellectual pursuits. The “Muscular Jew” in theory and practice was necessary in order for a modern Jewish state to be established.
Reviving interest in Nordau now is a continuation of a conversation that an Israeli historian kicked off four decades ago. The historian, Yosef Nedava, embarked on a crusade to renew interest in and appreciation of Nordau. Nedava was a proponent of Revisionist Zionism, a movement led by Zeev Jabotinsky and later Menachem Begin that was considered to be the bitter ideological rival to the Labor Zionism of David Ben-Gurion and others. Broadly speaking, Revisionist Zionism was more territorially maximalist when it came to settling the Land of Israel, and favored liberal principles as opposed to the socialist ones championed by Ben-Gurion and his colleagues.
Nedava had a penchant for fighting the battles of unsung heroes of history who he thought should be better remembered. He led a crusade to clear the name of Yosef Lishansky, the founder of the NILI underground movement that assisted the British during World War I who was executed by the Ottomans. He also worked to exonerate fellow Revisionist Zionists accused of murdering Labor Zionist leader Haim Arlozorov — an event that shook Mandatory Palestine in the early 1930s and beyond.
About Nordau, Nedava said at the time, “For 60 years he wasn’t mentioned and he was one of the forgotten figures that only a few streets were named after.”
Nedava’s sentiment was clear, even if his words were somewhat hyperbolic. Nordau had in fact been studied and cited over the years, and there were in fact at least a few streets named after him in Israel. At the official state event marking six decades since Nordau’s death, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin even declared, “We never forgot Max Nordau, his teachings and his historical merits.”
Following Nedava’s efforts leading up to the 60th anniversary of Nordau’s death in 1983, Begin set up an official committee to memorialize the Zionist leader. The committee was tasked with publishing Nordau’s works, establishing events and honoring him in other ways like getting his face on a stamp “and maybe on a monetary bill,” according to Nedava.
But no bill was ever printed with Nordau’s visage, and there’s no question that Nordau never has gotten nearly the credit nor recognition that Herzl received. If the streets referenced by Nedava are any indicator, there are currently a respectable 33 streets named after Nordau in Israel, though that’s just about half of what Herzl’s got. There’s a city called Herzliya, with a massive image of the Zionist founder overlooking one of Israel’s most-trafficked highways. Nordau has a beach in Tel Aviv, a neighborhood in Netanya and a small village far in the north — but no city of his own.
Trees line alongside Nordau Avenue in Tel Aviv, March 4, 2017. (Anat Hermoni/FLASH90)
That’s not to say he didn’t have his fans. The Revisionist movement and Begin’s Herut and Likud parties idolized him, often mentioning and depicting him alongside Herzl and Vladimir Jabotinsky. Revisionist historian Benzion Netanyahu, father of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, greatly admired Nordau, even editing four entire volumes of his writings.
“Alongside Herzl, the Revisionists loved him, as he was a liberal. Yet he was also accepted and respected by those on the other side of the political spectrum,” Hezi Amiur, a scholar of Zionism and the curator of the Israeli Collection at the National Library of Israel, told me.
Like many of his generation and ilk, Nordau, himself the son of a rabbi, rejected religion and tradition as a teenager, opting to join mainstream European secular culture. He changed his name from Simon (Simcha) Maximilian Südfeld to Max Nordau. The shift in surname from Südfeld — meaning “southern field” — to Nordau — meaning “northern meadow” — was very much an intentional act for Nordau, the only son in his religiously observant family who chose northern European Germanic culture over the traditions of his fathers. He even married a Danish Protestant opera singer, a widow and mother of four named Anna Dons-Kaufmann.
In a congratulatory letter sent to Nordau following his marriage to Anna, Herzl, who was also not a particularly observant nor learned Jew, wrote:
Your concerns regarding the attitudes of our zealous circles [within the Zionist movement] regarding your mixed marriage are perhaps exaggerated. … If our project had already been fulfilled today, surely we would not have prevented a Jewish citizen, that is, a citizen of the existing Jewish state, from marrying a foreign-born gentile, through this marriage she would become a Jew without paying attention to her religion. If she has children, they will be Jews anyway.
This particular vision of Herzl’s has certainly not come to fruition, and the topic remains a particularly heated one, continuing to roil the Israeli political system, and — no less — Israel-Diaspora relations.
Similar political forces to those that have kept this particular Herzlian vision at bay may have also been responsible for ensuring that Nordau’s impressively whiskered face never made its way onto Israeli currency.
According to one report, Begin’s Likud government abandoned its efforts to get Nordau’s onto a shekel note in 1983 in order to avoid a potential coalition crisis. The concern was that the religious parties that were part of the ruling coalition could become outraged at the prospect of having someone married to a non-Jew on Israeli money. Whether the report was fully accurate or not, the sentiments behind such a potential coalition scare are certainly familiar to anyone following contemporary Israeli politics.
Nonetheless, perhaps the two most influential religious Zionist rabbis of the 20th century, Rabbi Abraham Isaac HaKohen Kook and his son, Rabbi Zvi Yehuda, not only somewhat overlooked Nordau’s assimilationist tendencies and intermarriage, they even celebrated the man and his vision.
The elder Rabbi Kook, who served as the rabbi of Jaffa, Jerusalem and the Land of Israel in the opening decades of the 1900s, uncompromisingly criticized some of Nordau’s views, especially with respect to the separation of religion from Zionism. But he was a big fan of Nordau’s “Muscular Judaism,” writing among other things, that:
…a healthy body is what we need, we have been very busy with the soul, we have forgotten the sanctity of the body, we have neglected physical health and strength, we have forgotten that we have holy flesh, no less than we have the holy spirit… Through the strength of the flesh the weakened soul will be enlightened, the resurrection of the dead in their bodies.
Decades later his son, likely the most influential Israeli religious Zionist spiritual leader until his death in 1982, defined Nordau (as well as seminal Hebrew poet Shaul Tchernichovsky, who also married a non-Jew) as a “baal tshuvah” — a term imprecisely translated as “penitent” that is generally used to refer to non-observant Jews who become more religiously observant. Yehuda based his designation on a Talmudic teaching that “Anyone who transgresses and is ashamed of it is forgiven for all of his sins.”
Like anyone, Max Nordau probably regretted and felt ashamed of various decisions and actions in his life, but marrying a non-Jewish woman does not seem to be one of them. He and Anna stayed married for decades until his death in 1923.
Both Kooks were able to overlook the decidedly non-religious (if not outright anti-religious) life Nordau chose to lead. Instead of his personal choices, they focused on the central contribution he made to ensuring the reestablishment of a Jewish home in its ancestral land.
The majority of Israel’s current ruling coalition claims to be the ideological descendants of Begin and the Rabbis Kook, men who managed to have great admiration for the teachings and achievements of Nordau, even if they may have found his anti-religious, assimilationist tendencies and intermarriage reprehensible. Nedava wanted Israel to learn from Nordau 40 years ago. It’s possible the country still could today — if only the striking level of tolerance and respect with which he was considered in the past can still be summoned.
—
The post Everyone knows about Herzl. Is it time for Max Nordau, the intermarried father of Zionism, to get his due? appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Haley Stevens takes aim at Netanyahu in Michigan Senate debate, as opponent Abdul El-Sayed calls Israel a ‘rogue state’
(JTA) — Viewers of Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary debate on Tuesday night could be forgiven for at times forgetting that one candidate comes with the heavy backing of pro-Israel donors.
“The prime minister of Israel has failed,” Rep. Haley Stevens said when asked about Iran, saying that both Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Donald Trump had failed to achieve “long-term peace.”
Later, Stevens added that she supported “aid into Gaza” and reiterated that she believed Netanyahu has been bad for American Jews.
“It is very clear that Mr. Netanyahu has not made us safer, has not brought us closer to peace, and he is a danger to Jews in America and around the world,” she said.
The lines represented sharp criticism of Israel’s leadership for a candidate who, according to federal campaign records, has received more than $10 million in support from donors affiliated with AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby that her progressive opponent, Abdul El-Sayed, has excoriated on the campaign trail and during Tuesday’s debate. Regarded as one of Congress’ more reliable pro-Israel Democrats, Stevens made the comments as Democratic voters have largely shed their sympathies for Israel.
El-Sayed, meanwhile, said during the debate that the United States’ foreign policy “has been handed to us” by Israel and AIPAC and called Israel a “rogue state.”
The former Wayne County health director, whose grassroots campaign has gained momentum as it has increasingly centered anti-Israel rhetoric, did not hold back in his criticism.
Citing “the impact of AIPAC in our politics” as the reason for the joint U.S.-Israeli war on Iran, El-Sayed asserted that the lobbyist’s goals were “to annex Lebanon or to do genocide in Gaza.” He added that Israel was committing “human rights abuses, genocide and apartheid” and called for the United States to “stop funding the Israeli military unilateral blank checks.”
He also tied voters’ economic woes to Israel. “Ask yourself why it is that we are paying $5 gas, why it is that we can’t get out of this quagmire,” he said. “It’s because for too long, our foreign policy has been handed to us by the likes of the state of Israel and AIPAC, who has made sure that both Democrats and Republicans are doing their bidding.”
He further claimed there was no difference between his Democratic opponent and the presumptive Republican nominee, former congressman Mike Rogers, on Israel.
“If Congresswoman Stevens makes it, or if Mike Rogers wins, either way, Israel will win,” El-Sayed said. “AIPAC is perfectly fine with either of my two opponents because they know they will have a comfortable, reliable vote in the U.S. Senate.”
Stevens, who noted that she supports a two-state solution, rejected the line of attack. “No one owns my vote and no one owns my policies,” she said. “Anyone who’s contributing to my Senate campaign is doing so because of my proven record of fighting for Michigan.”
El-Sayed also suggested that Stevens’ sparring with Netanyahu, who is deeply unpopular with American voters, was ingenuine. Earlier in the day, Netanyahu told CNN that he believed Stevens’ previous comments accusing him of making American Jews less safe represented her “probably trying to excuse antisemitism.”
Sayed said he wasn’t convinced the remark was authentic. “I don’t think Benjamin Netanyahu is attacking her to actually attack her,” he said at the debate. “I think he’s attacking her to try and steer away the stink of how staunchly she stands for their policy.”
El-Sayed also attacked Stevens over a June 2025 vote she made in the House to “thank” Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officers. The appreciation was embedded in a resolution condemning the firebombing of a peaceful march for Israeli hostages in Boulder, Colorado. Stevens accused Republicans of having “put in a cynical point” about thanking ICE and El-Sayed of falling into a trap laid by the GOP.
Israel has grown increasingly central ahead of the Michigan primary, set for Aug. 4, in a crucial battleground state with large populations of both Jewish and Arab/Muslim voters. A third candidate who sought to tread a middle ground between Stevens and El-Sayed suspended her campaign earlier this week, ratcheting up anxiety among American Jews around the race.
Stevens’ bid for the Senate comes four years after she ousted Andy Levin, a Jewish progressive congressman who expressed criticism of Israel, in a race that drew more than $4 million in AIPAC-affiliated spending. In the years since, she has remained in a dwindling minority of House Democrats who have voted against all measures that would block or condition military aid to Israel.
El-Sayed’s bid comes as other anti-Israel progressives have prevailed in congressional primaries, shifting campaign discourse about Israel to the left. In an interview with CNN also published Tuesday, El-Sayed took aim at the very idea of a Jewish state.
“Every definition of a Jewish state ends up in some articulation of illiberal values, every single one,” he told CNN. Asked if support for Israel could ever be about more than money, he responded, “Not if you’re a Democrat and you believe in human rights.”
Other Michigan races are also turning into referendums on the Democratic stance on Israel. El-Sayed has cross-endorsed two left-wing congressional candidates, state Rep. Donavan McKinney and activist William Lawrence, who have both said Israel committed genocide in Gaza. Stevens, meanwhile, has endorsed pro-Israel Jewish state Sen. Jeremy Moss for her House seat.
Further down the ballot in Michigan, Democratic activist Abbas Alawieh, a key architect of the 2024 “Uncommitted” movement designed to pressure national Democrats on Gaza, on Tuesday picked up the endorsement of Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in his bid for a state senate seat on the party ticket. Alawieh has also met with former Vice President Kamala Harris, who lost Michigan to Donald Trump in the general election after the state’s large Arab and Muslim population expressed strong dissatisfaction with her stance on Israel.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Haley Stevens takes aim at Netanyahu in Michigan Senate debate, as opponent Abdul El-Sayed calls Israel a ‘rogue state’ appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Trump says Iran ceasefire ‘over’ as Hegseth cancels Israel visit amid rising tensions
(JTA) — President Donald Trump said Wednesday that the ceasefire with Iran was “over” after the U.S. military pounded sites in Iran and the Islamic regime struck dozens of American military facilities in the region.
“I think it’s over. I don’t want to deal with them anymore,” Trump told reporters in Ankara, Turkey, where he is attending the NATO summit. “They’re scum. You know what scum is? They’re scum. They’re sick people. They’re led by sick people, and they’re vicious, violent people. And if they had a nuclear weapon, they’d use it. As far as I’m concerned, it’s over.”
At the same time, the president did not appear to rule out further negotiations with Iran, adding, “I’ll speak to our negotiators. They want to negotiate.”
Trump’s comments came hours after the military’s U.S. Central Command announced Tuesday evening that it had launched a “series of powerful strikes against Iran” in retaliation for Iran hitting commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz.
Following the U.S. strikes, Iran targeted dozens of U.S. military sites in Bahrain and Kuwait, according to the Iranian Fars news outlet.
“In the initial response to the US aggression, the naval and aerospace forces of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps, in a joint missile and drone operation, struck 85 locations of important US military facilities,” the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps said in a statement Wednesday.
The exchange of fire further imperiled the shaky ceasefire between the United States and Iran, as well as negotiations with Iran that were supposed to resume after the dayslong funeral for Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ended Thursday.
Following Trump’s announcement, the price of oil jumped to its highest level in weeks.
Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth cancelled a planned visit to Israel Wednesday to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to media reports.
The U.S. and Iran signed a Memorandum of Understanding last month to provide a 60-day framework for the sides to reach a deal on Iran’s nuclear program and other sticking points.
Following Tuesday’s U.S. strikes, Iran’s parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf accused the United States of violating the Memorandum of Understanding, including “Continued Zionist aggression on [Lebanon]” in a post on X.
“The era of bullying and extortion is over. It leads nowhere. We don’t fold,” Ghalibaf wrote.
During Trump’s meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan Tuesday, the president also signalled that he would likely restore the country’s ability to purchase F-35 fighter jets, a move that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has staunchly opposed.
“Turkey has been in many ways much more loyal than other countries that we think would be loyal,” Trump said when asked if he is going to sell the jets to Turkey, according to Axios. “So it is something we definitely would consider.”
Hegseth’s scrapped meeting with Netanyahu was widely expected to touch upon the idea of U.S. selling the advanced stealth plane to Turkey.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Trump says Iran ceasefire ‘over’ as Hegseth cancels Israel visit amid rising tensions appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Can the Trinity be kosher?
„אַ ייִדישער שילוש‟ (A Jewish Trinity) — אַזוי הייסט דאָס נײַע בוך פֿון אַלאַן בריל, דער ראָש פֿון ייִדיש־קריסטלעכע שטודיעס אינעם סעטאָן־האָל־אוניווערסיטעט (ניו־דזשערזי) און אַ באַקאַנטער פֿאָרשער פֿון ייִדישקייט און צווישן־רעליגיעזע ענינים. ברילס פֿאַרגלײַך־אַנאַליז איז אַ וויכטיקער שטאַפּל אין ייִדיש־קריסטלעכע באַציִונגען, וואָס קען העלפֿן ייִדן און קריסטן בעסער פֿאַרשטיין איינער דעם צווייטן.
בײַ אַ סך ייִדן איז די קריסטלעכע דאָגמע וועגן דער געטלעכער דרײַ־פּערזענלעכקייט אַזוי פֿרעמד, אַז זיי ווייסן נישט אַפֿילו, אַז אין דער פּאָלעמישער ייִדישער ליטעראַטור איז פֿאַר איר פֿאַראַן אַ ספּעציעלער טערמין — שילוש. דאָס וואָרט ווערט אָבער אין ערגעץ נישט דערמאָנט אינעם בוך און ס׳איז דאָ אַ גוטע סיבה דערפֿאַר. בריל באַנוצט זיך מיט דער באַקאַנטער קריסטלעכער טערמינאָלאָגיע און מײַדט דווקא אויס די אַלטע מיטל־עלטערלעכע דיספּוטן צווישן ייִדן און קריסטן. זײַן צוועק איז אַ קאָנסטרוקטיווע פֿאַרגלײַך־שטודיע, נישט קיין פּאָלעמיק. ער פֿאַרגלײַכט די ייִדישע און קריסטלעכע רעליגיע און ווײַזט אָן, אַז אַפֿילו אַזעלכע קאָנצעפּציעס, ווי די קריסטלעכע אמונה אין דרײַ געטלעכע פּערזאָנען, זענען לאַוו־דווקא פֿרעמד פֿאַר ייִדן; עס ווענדט זיך, ווי מע טײַטשט זיי אָפּ.
אין זײַן בוך פֿאָקוסירט בריל אויף דער מאָדערנער קאַטוילישער טעאָלאָגיע. אָפֿט מאָל ציטירט ער דעם דײַטשישן יעזויִט־גלח און פּראָמינענטן טעאָלאָג קאַרל ראַנער, ווי אויך אַ ריי אַנדערע: ייִרגען מאָלטמאַן, וואַלטער קאַספּער און האַנס קינג.
דאָס בוך איז אײַנגעטיילט אין זעקס קאַפּיטלען וועגן דעם שילוש; אינקאַרנאַציע (דער גלויבן, אַז גאָט האָט זיך פֿאַרקערפּערט אין יעזוסן); אָדם־הראשונס חטא; עולם־הבא; משיח, און דעם ברית צווישן גאָט און מענטשן (Covenant).
אין דער הקדמה דערקלערט בריל זײַן אייגענע פּאָזיציע. ער גלייבט נישט, אַז די אונטערשיידן צווישן וועלט־רעליגיעס קאָן מען פּשוט באַשרײַבן ווי „אָט דאָ גלייבן מיר צוזאַמען אין דער זעלבער זאַך, אָבער יענער גלויבן אײַערע איז אונדז פֿרעמד‟. עס זענען פֿאַראַן אַלערליי וואַריאַנטן פֿון ייִדישער און קריסטלעכער טעאָלאָגיע. אין געוויסע אַספּעקטן איז דער חילוק צווישן דעם רמב״מס און אַ חסידישן מקובלס צוגאַנג צו ייִדישקייט גרעסער, ווי צווישן ייִדן און קריסטן.
ס׳איז אינטערעסאַנט, אַז צו אַזאַ טעמע איז בריל צוגעקומען נאָכן וווינען עטלעכע יאָר אין אינדיע, וווּ ער האָט זיך באַקענט מיט הונדויִזם און אַנטדעקט פֿאַר זיך, אַז די אינדישע הויפּט־רעליגיע איז אויך נישט אַזוי ווײַט פֿון ייִדישקייט, ווי עס טראַכטן אַ סך מענטשן. בריל דערציילט וועגן דעם אין זײַן בוך „אַ רבֿ אויפֿן טײַך גאַנג‟. און אַז מע רעדט שוין פֿון הינדויִזם, מעג מען צוקומען צו אַן אַנדער, מער באַקאַנטער רעגיליע, וועלכע האָט במשך פֿון דורות אַרויסגערופֿן בײַ ייִדן ממש אַן אַלערגיע – קריסטלעכקייט.
ווי אַ מאָדערן־אָרטאָדאָקסישער רבֿ, ווענדט זיך בריל זעלטן צו קבלה און חסידות, וווּ מע קען געפֿינען אַ סך מער כּמו־קריסטלעכע פּאַראַלעלן. לייענט, למשל, שאול מגידס בוך „חסידות אינקאַרנירט‟ (Hasidism Incarnate), דערמאָנט אין דער ביבליאָגראַפֿיע פֿון ברילס בוך. בריל שטעלט דעם טראָפּ אויף דעם מין ייִדישקייט, וועלכן ער באַטראַכט ווי דעם ראַציאָנעל־געשטימטן הויפּטשטראָם. ער ווענדט זיך יאָ צו מיסטישע שיטות, אָבער נישט צו אָפֿט. פּונקט אַזוי באַציט ער זיך צום הײַנטצײַטיקן קאַטויליציזם, שילדערנדיק אַזעלכע דעות, וואָס קלינגען מער מאָדערן און ראַציאָנעל, וואָס טײַטשן אָפּ דעם שילוש בלויז ווי פֿאַרשיידענע אַספּעקטן פֿון איין גאָט, און גאָטס פֿאַרקערפּערונג אין יעזוסן מער סימבאָליש, נישט אין גאַנצן בוכשטעבלעך.
על־פּי קבלה אַנטפּלעקט זיך דער אייבערשטער צו דער וועלט און צו דער מענטש דורך צען ספֿירות — פֿאַרשיידענע פּערזענלעכע אַספּעקטן, וועלכע מע קען פֿאַרגלײַכן מיטן קריסטלעכן שילוש. בריל באַמערקט אָבער אַ ספּעציפֿישן חילוק: די ספֿירות באַציִען זיך איינע צו דער צווייטער לויט אַ שטרענגער היעראַרכיע, און בײַ די קריסטן זענען „דער טאַטע, דער זון און דער רוח־הקודש‟ אַבסאָלוט גלײַך. די פּראַוואָסלאַוונע קריסטן, פֿאַרקערט, באַטראַכטן גאָט דעם טאַטן ווי אַ מלך איבער זײַן זון און דעם הייליקן גײַסט ווי זײַן עמאַנאַציע. בריל האָט מיר דערקלערט, אַז אין דער פּראַוואָסלאַוונער טראַדיציע האָט ער זיך נישט געגריבלט. ער באַשרײַבט נאָך אַזעלכע וואַריאַציעס פֿון קריסטלעכער טעאָלאָגיע, וואָס זענען גוט באַקאַנט דעם ברייטן אַמעריקאַנער עולם.
בדרך־כּלל איז בריל גערעכט, אַז די ספֿירות ווערן אָפֿט באַטראַכט ווי אַ שטרענגע היעראַרכיע. כ׳מוז אָבער צוגעבן פֿון זיך, אַז אין אַ ריי באַקאַנטע חסידישע ספֿרים ווערט זייער סדר רעלאַטיוו אָדער דווקא איבערגעקערט. בפֿרט איז דאָס בולט בײַ חב״ד. די ליובאַוויטשער רביים באַטאָנען כּסדר, אַז מלכות — די לעצטע ספֿירה, באַטראַכט ווי אַ ווײַבלעכע און אָפֿט אינעטניפֿיצירט מיט דער שכינה, איז אין איר שורש די העכסטע. מע קען זאָגן, אַז ס׳איז „העכער‟ צו באַטראַכטן דעם באַשעפֿער ווײַבלעך, ווי אַ געטין. מעג דאָס קלינגען אומטראַדיציאָנעל, נאָר אין געוויסע גאַנץ כּשרע קבלה־קוואַלן געפֿינען מיר סימנים פֿון אַזאַ צוגאַנג. פֿון ברילס שטאַנדפּונד – צו האַלטן זיך נישט צו ווײַט פֿונעם הויפּטשטראָם – איז גאַנץ פֿאַרשטענדלעך אַזעלכע ענינים נישט צו דערמאָנען.
אינעם קאַפּיטל „אינקאַרנאַציע‟ דערמאָנט בריל נאָר אַ ביסל, אַז פֿאַר די חסידים איז אַן אמתער צדיק אַ געטלעכע אַנטפּלעקונג, און פֿאַרגלײַכט עס מיט דער „פֿאַרגעטלעכונג‟ פֿון קריסטלעכע הייליקע דורכן רוח־קודש, נישט מיט דעם, ווי די קריסטן קוקן אויף יעזוסן. אויב מע פֿאַרגלײַכן די פּראַוואָסלאַוונע טעאָלאָגיע מיט געוויסע חשובֿע חסידישע ספֿרים, ווערט אָבער דער חילוק נישט אַזוי קלאָר. צום בײַשפּיל, שטייט געשריבן אין שײַכות צו משה רבינו אינעם ספֿר „זרע קודש‟ פֿונעם ראָפּשיצער רבין (פּרשת „ואתחנן‟), אַז אַן אמתער צדיק איז גאָט — ממש מיט אַזעלכע ווערטער. דעם דאָזיקן ספֿר האַלטן די סאַטמאַרער חסידים ווי איינעם פֿון די כּשרסטע און הייליקסטע.
ווידער, פֿון ברילס שטאַנדפּונקט איז דווקא ריכטיק אַזעלכע ראַדיקאַלע דעות נישט צו דערמאָנען. אַפֿילו אין די חסידישע קרײַזן קאָנען זיי שאָקירן אַ פּשוטן ייִד. אַזוי באַציִען זיך אַ סך חסידים צום „זרע קודש‟: דער ספֿר איז טאַקע אַ הייליקער, נאָר גיי פֿאַרשטיי, וואָס דער ראָפּשיצער רבי האָט באמת געמיינט! פֿון דעסט וועגן, אויב עמעצער וואָלט פֿאַרגליכן דעם ראַדיקאַלן „צדיקיזם‟ מיט פּראַוואָסלאַוונע קריסטלעכע געדאַנקען, וואָלט זיך באַקומען גאָר אַן אַנדער בילד מיט נאָך מער פּאַראַלעלן צווישן די רעליגיעס.
די לייענער פֿון מײַנע אַרטיקלען ווייסן, אַז איך האָב ליב אַרויסצוגראָבן, אַמאָל פֿון זעלטענע און ווייניק באַקאַנטע ספֿרים, דווקא ראַדיקאַלע, אומגעוויינטלעכע און יוצא־דופֿנדיקע דעות. ווען איך האָב געלייענט ברילס בוך, האָב איך כּסדר געטראַכט: פֿאַרוואָס גייט נישט דער מחבר נאָך ווײַטער? דאָס איז אָבער אַ מעלה פֿאַר די, וואָס האָבן ליב אַ מאָדערנעם ראַציאָנעלן צוגאַנג. בריל האַלט זיך בײַם מאָדערן־אָרטאָדאָקסישן דרך און שטיצט אַן ענלעכן מין קריסטלעכקייט. פֿאַר מיר, אַ ליבהאָבער פֿון מיסטישע און שאַמאַנישע זאַכן, איז זײַן בוך געוואָרן אַ גוטער באַלערנדיקער אַרײַנפֿיר אין דער וועלט פֿון הײַנטצײַטיקע קאַטויליקער, וואָס קלינגען טאַקע ווי קריסטלעכע „מאָדערנע אָרטאָדאָקסן‟.
דאָס בוך ענדיקט זיך מיט אַ דערמאָנונג פֿונעם פּראָמינענטן רבֿ יונתן סאַקס ז״ל, וועלכער האָט באַטאָנט, אַז „די וועלט ווערט גרעסער צוליב די אונטערשיידן‟ און דערבײַ אָפּגעשאַצט די קריסטלעכע רעליגיע, ווי אויך די רעליגיעזע פֿאַרשיידנאַרטיקייט בכלל. בריל איז מסכּים, אָבער שליסט זײַן פֿאָרשונג מיט די ווערטער: „די צוויי רעליגיעס בלײַבן באַזונדערע אומאָפּהענגיקע בריתן מיטן באַשעפֿער‟.
The post Can the Trinity be kosher? appeared first on The Forward.
