Uncategorized
A chaotic response to Israel’s turmoil a reveals a fraught new dilemma for Jewish legacy organizations
WASHINGTON (JTA) — Major American Jewish organizations that hoped to send a unified message about the turmoil in Israel yesterday instead found themselves tussling, partly in the public eye, about what exactly they wanted to say.
Should they praise the massive anti-government protests that have taken shape in recent months? Should they criticize Israel’s sitting government? What, if anything, should they endorse as a next step in the ongoing crisis?
Five large Jewish organizations — all known for their vocal pro-Israel advocacy — began Monday afternoon trying to answer those questions in a unified voice that sent a positive message: praise for a decision to pause the government’s divisive judicial overhaul.
Instead, in a somewhat messy process that unfolded over the course of the afternoon, they ended up sending out a number of different statements that contrasted in subtle yet telling ways. The scramble to publish a statement reflecting consensus — and the resulting impression that consensus was lacking — was a reflection of how Israel’s politics have created a rift in the U.S. Jewish establishment.
For decades, large American Jewish groups have publicly supported Israel’s foreign policy, and mostly stayed quiet on its domestic conflicts. Now, a domestic policy issue threatening to tear Israel apart has compelled at least some of them to do two unusual things: opine on Israel’s internal affairs, and publicly chide the government that, in their view, is responsible for the crisis.
“For a long time any criticism of Israel, even criticism of very difficult policies, was thought to be disloyal, and couldn’t be spoken out of love,” said Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the president of the Union for Reform Judaism, which was not a signatory to the statement but is a constituent of the group that organized it. “I think we now understand that there’s plenty of legitimate criticism and activism that comes from that very place.”
The five groups that began composing the statement together were the Jewish Federations of North America, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. All have historically been seen as centrist, pro-Israel and representative of the American Jewish establishment, speaking for American Jews in international forums and in meetings with elected officials. All have annual budgets in the tens of millions of dollars, if not more.
Any vocal criticism from those groups has largely been limited to Israel’s treatment of non-Orthodox Jews. Because most American Jews are themselves not Orthodox, American Jewish groups have felt more comfortable advocating for policies that, they believe, will allow more of their constituents to feel welcome in the Jewish state.
But events this year have prompted the groups to speak out on another Israeli domestic issue: the judicial overhaul being pushed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which aimed to sap the Israeli Supreme Court of much of its power and independence. The court has, in the past, defended the rights of vulnerable populations in Israel such as women, the non-Orthodox, Arabs and the LGBTQ community.
“The recognition that what happens in Israel, the policies of the Israeli government and a broader range of issues in this particular case — on judicial reform, the perception of Israel as a vibrant democracy for all of its citizens — that perception has a significant impact on American Jewish life and American Jewish engagement,” said Gil Preuss, CEO of Washington, D.C.’s Jewish federation.
Most of the five groups had previously endorsed calls for compromise on the judicial reform proposal. The federations had also come out against one of its key elements. So when Netanyahu announced on Monday — in the face of widespread protests and dissent from allies — that he would pause the legislative push to allow time for dialogue, they all hoped to express their support.
What to write after that sentiment, however, proved contentious. A version of the statement put out by the American Jewish Committee included sharp criticism of Israeli politicians that was not in the other statements.
The Jewish Federations of North America sent out an addendum to the statement that was sympathetic to anti-Netanyahu protesters.
And the American Israel Public Affairs Committee ultimately opted out of the statement altogether — but not before a version had already been released in its name.
None of the five groups responded to requests for comment on the process behind the statement, but insiders said the differences between the statements, and AIPAC’s opting out, had little to do with policy differences. Instead, they blamed the confusion on missteps in the rush to get the statement out in the minutes after Netanyahu’s remarks, which aired in Israel at 8 p.m. and in the early afternoon on the East Coast, where all of the groups are based.
The statement that ultimately appeared, after declaring that the groups “welcome the Israeli government’s suspension” of the reforms, said that the raucous debate and protests over the legislation were “painful to watch” but also “a textbook case of democracy in action.”
A key line included rare advice to Israel from the establishment Jewish groups: “As a next step, we encourage all Knesset factions, coalition and opposition alike, to use this time to build a consensus that includes the broad support of Israeli civil society.”
The Conference of Presidents was the first to release the statement, just past 2 p.m., less than an hour after Netanyahu had completed his remarks. It listed its co-endorsers as the AJC, the ADL and JFNA.
Five minutes later, the AJC put out a version of the same statement that added AIPAC to the endorsers. It included the same sentence offering advice, plus another two that added criticism and a caution: “Israel’s political leaders must insist on a more respectful tone and debate. A hallmark of democracy is public consensus and mutual consideration.”
Statements from JFNA and ADL, which went out subsequently, hewed to the Conference of Presidents version. An AIPAC official told JTA that the group did not want to sign onto the statement because it had wanted more time to add edits.
Just before 3 p.m., more than 40 minutes after its initial email, AJC sent out an email advising recipients that its inclusion of AIPAC was an error.
But its new statement still included the line criticizing politicians, which the other groups had eschewed. In the end, AJC removed that line, too: It is absent from the version of the statement posted on the group’s website.
AIPAC ultimately settled on posting a tweet that stuck to praising Israel for its democratic process, without further comment.
“For many weeks, Israelis have engaged in a vigorous debate reflective of the Jewish state’s robust democracy,” it said. “Israel’s diverse citizenship is showcasing its passionate engagement in the democratic process to determine the policies that will guide their country.”
JFNA, in an explanatory email to its constituents attached to the joint statement, was more pointed in its criticism of Netanyahu. On Sunday night, the prime minister had summarily fired his defense minister, Yoav Galant, for publicly advocating a pause on the legislation. That decision sparked protests across Israel, which in turn prompted Netanyahu to announce exactly the same pause and compromise that Gallant had proposed.
“The response across Israeli society was immediate and angry,” said the email signed by Julie Platt, the chairwoman of JFNA, and Eric Fingerhut, its CEO. “Spontaneous protests gathered in the streets and commentators expressed shock at a decision to fire a Defense Minister for having expressed concern about the risks to the country’s military position … Netanyahu’s own lawyer in his corruption trial announced that he could no longer represent him.”
The groups weren’t alone in releasing pained statements about Israel’s volatility — which has also stirred anguish among groups that have previously defended the Israeli right.
This week, Rabbi Moshe Hauer of the Orthodox Union, who met earlier this month with far-right Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, praised Israel’s leaders for “the recognition of the value of taking time, engaging with each other with honesty and humility, and proceeding to build consensus.” (Smotrich, for his part, supports the overhaul and opposed pausing the legislation.)
“Our Sages taught, ‘Peace is great; discord is despised’,” Hauer, the group’s executive director, said in an emailed statement to JTA. “We are deeply shaken by the upheaval and discord that has gripped our beloved State of Israel. In recent weeks, the Jewish tradition and the democratic value of vigorous debate have been replaced by something very dangerous and different.”
The two largest non-Orthodox movements were open about their opposition to the overhaul. “We believe ardently that the proposed judicial reform is fraught with danger and goes against the principles of democracy,” the Conservative movement’s Rabbinical Assembly said in a statement Tuesday.
A statement from the leadership of the Reform movement, including Jacobs, castigated Netanyahu for agreeing to create a national guard under the authority of Itamar Ben-Gvir, the far-right national security minister, and for being “willing to risk the safety and security of Israel’s citizens to keep himself and his coalition in power.”
That strong language, Jacobs suggested, reflects the wishes of those who fund establishment Jewish groups and congregations. He said those groups were hearing from donors whose frustration with the Netanyahu government is reaching a boiling point.
“I hear of donors telling organizations, ‘I have to tell you, I don’t hear your voice, speaking out in favor of Israel’s democracy at this very vulnerable moment. So I’ll tell you what, why don’t you hang on to my phone number when you find your voice?’”
—
The post A chaotic response to Israel’s turmoil a reveals a fraught new dilemma for Jewish legacy organizations 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.
