Tuesday Jun 24, 2008

Reform Reflections: French without tears

Posted by Rabbi Michael Marmur
Comments: 87
Decrease text sizeDecrease text size
Increase text sizeIncrease text size

In honor of the visit of President and Madame Sarkozy to Israel, it's time for all good citizens to dust off their arsenal of French phrases. One or two of them seem particularly germane (although not German).

Let's start with  plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Attributed to the great nineteenth-century man of letters Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr, this expression has received a variety of translations, most frequently; the more things change, the more they stay the same. It's an epigram which captures something profound about culture in general, and we may find some particular resonance for Jewish culture and contemporary life.

Change is indeed a feature of human civilization, much more than most people are prepared to admit. I have recently read Orlando Figes' tremendous Natasha' Dance, A Cultural History of Russia, in which he chooses a number of examples to demonstrate that what is often considered to be quintessentially Russian may in fact be a late interloper. One example which stood out for me is the famous Russian doll, which Figes exposes as a late interloper to the ranks of the quintessentially Russian. They appear at the every end of the nineteenth century, probably under the influence of Japanese artefacts.

As it is with Russian dolls, so it is with many of the items and beliefs we believe to be ancient and unchanging. In the case of Jewish civilization, the range and depth of innovation and change can be breathtaking. Think for a moment of all those aspects of the faith and practice of the Biblical Hebrew which have been excised or altered radically by subsequent eras. Think of the innovations of the Sages of the Talmud (often presented as hyper-traditional, but revolutionary nonetheless), of the philosophers of the High Middle Ages, of the masters of the Kabbalah, of the Hasidic movement.

Change is a central feature of the Jewish story, and acrobatic attempts to deny this usually involve a studied ignorance of Jewish History. It is sometimes particularly galling to consider that those who promoted most vigorously the doctrine of Judaism's eternal unchanging character were themselves involved in radical innovations of the intellect and the spirit. But just because change is a cause of discomfort doesn't mean it can be denied or ignored for long.

And yet - our Francophone friends are on to something with their pungent epigram. For indeed as much as things change, so indeed do they stay the same. Or rather: the existence of radical transformation is matched by something equally undeniable - texts, practices, experiences and places which pre-date our current interpretations and extrapolations. To put it another way: the instruction to 'Sing to the Lord a New Song' is very ancient: the new is mandated out of the old.

The proverb has another meaning, of course. It implies a skepticism about every new dawn. It tells us that every fresh start is more stale than it appears. Russia provides another classic example of this - after all, Communist despots may have presented themselves as radical innovators, but they ended up looking remarkably familiar to the despots who came before them. Here in Israel, where we are thankfully low on despots, followers of the political system often have recourse to Karr's famous expression, because it usually transpires that the Next Great Thing looks remarkably similar to the Last Old Thing. Sometimes he is the Last Old Thing But One.

For me, however, the attraction of the saying is not its cynicism, but rather the way it expresses one of the key paradoxes of Life, The Universe and Everything. Things change; things stay the same. Come to think of it, Yehudah Amichai found a way of expressing this idea in a late poem, translated here from the Hebrew:

I would like to add two more commandments to the ten: the Eleventh Commandment: "Thou shalt not change," and the Twelfth Commandment "Thou shalt change. You will change."

There are other great French expressions - the pluralistic sentiments of chacun à son gout are simple, true, and easily overlooked. This week, as the paparazzi reach new heights of pap, Monsieur le Président may have cause to think of another famous French view, to be found in the writings of Alexandre Dumas:

Il y a une femme dans toute les affaires; aussitôt qu'on me fait un rapport, je dis: 'Cherchez la femme'. One way of translating this would be: There is a woman in every case; as soon as they bring me a report, I say, 'Look for the woman'.

This was certainly the philosophy of Israel's journalists, who seem to be spending much of Monsieur S's visit looking for Madame S. Still, this shouldn't surprise us. Men have been blaming women since the Garden of Eden, and probably ogling them just as long: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

BOOKMARK or SHARE: technorati digg del.icio.us reddit newsvine facebook What's this?
Print
Comments: Post your own comment
1  |  Daniel, Tuesday Jun 24, 2008
Mr. Marmur, you fail to understand the difference between change within the system which is what the Torah allows and promotes as is seen in the Talmud, and the type of change which you represent - that is, changing the system. When your Reform ancestors took away one base from baseball, and the next generation took away another, and the next another, It is no longer baseball you are playing but rather a new dangerous game. Keep it up, soon you will be left all alone....without any base whatesover.
2  |  Jason, Wednesday Jun 25, 2008
Daniel (1), if you have a life outside of attacking Reform Jews, you should seriously consider giving it more attention. I frankly think that you are personally threatened by Reform Judaism and that is why you react in the way that you do. Also, to use your analogy, the Charedim of which you are a proud adherent, have imposed so many rules and restrictions on the "game of baseball", they have strangled whatever life remains in it. It is a boring, tedious, unresponsive, and restrictive game that you play, far from what was probably intended when the designers of the game made it up. :)
3  |  sarah, NY, Wednesday Jun 25, 2008
Right on
4  |  Daniel, Wednesday Jun 25, 2008
Jason, I know you couldn't keep quiet too long. However, you continue to personalize this debate. Please try to stick to the issue on hand this time. Threatened by Reform? I refer you the article wrtiiten by Jack Wertheimer, professor of American Jewish history at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York article about the failings of the Reform movement. His article, “What Does Reform Judaism Stand For?” appears in the June 2008 edition of “Commentary.” Check it out. Sadly, there's not too much to feel threatened by.
5  |  Daniel, Wednesday Jun 25, 2008
Jason, if it's a boring, tedious, unresponsive, and restrictive game that we play, it's funny how so many people are joining the league all the time. But hey, if you don't like playing baseball, Jason, you can always play catch with Marmur. Sarah, who gets the "right on"? Marmur, Jason, or yours truely?
6  |  Daniel, Wednesday Jun 25, 2008
Jason, I do have a life outside attacking Reform. However, as a chareidi wife-beater and child abuser who is violent and addicted to drugs, my therapist suggested that I redirect my energies towards making minced meat out of you and Marmur. So, sorry you have to suffer with my comments. My family thanks you for your understanding !!
7  |  Jason, Thursday Jun 26, 2008
Daniel, why do you care to make "mince meat" out of me and Rabbi Marmur? What do you gain from doing so? I don't think that your typical observer of our exchanges will find you THAT compelling. You may feel that way in your own fundamentalist mind, you may be a legend in your own imagination, but alas....Also, see .jpost dot com "Save us from Shas's narrow interests" regarding the conversion crisis: "...yet another example of the pernicious influence of haredi leaders on Israeli life, in which the values of an extreme minority are placed over and above the interests of the wider public".
8  |  Daniel, Thursday Jun 26, 2008
Jason 7 - In case you didn't notice, I was making fun of the way that you view me and my community. I dont know how the typical observer views me, but he will atleast see the humor within and will conclude that I like other chareidim are very comfortable with ourselves unlike the picture that you try to paint of us as a bunch of miserable basket cases. As for your article, it's called democracy! You got a problem with that ?? Were you so shocked when Lapid destroyed everything holy "above the interests of the wider public"? Besides, this is not Reform! Halacha is not formed by a popular vote.
9  |  Jason, Thursday Jun 26, 2008
Daniel (8), I surely noticed your attempt at humor, thank you. I never once suggested that ALL of you charedim are the same, you certainly are not. In fact, i intimately know of many charedim who are closet liberals (in every sense of the word). When i bring up incidents of Charedi abuse (substance abuse, wife and child abuse, ban-loving edicts, poverty etc etc), i am only suggesting that your fanciful depiction of your community as being one which is idylic is very far fetched. As for democracy, I am sure that your gedolim would prefer a theocracy if given the opportunity. Now thats scary.
10  |  Shalom, Cherry Hill, NJ, Thursday Jun 26, 2008
Hi, Jason, The Commentary Magazine article by Jack Wertheimer that Daniel cited is an interesting and pessimistic portrayal of where Reform in the US is headed. If you've read it- what's your take on it? Shalom
11  |  Lloyd, Friday Jun 27, 2008
Shalom, if you will permit me, I am Reform affiliated and have read the Wertheimer article. I think he makes good points, and identifies a number of challenges Reform has to tackle. However, I don't think the solution is to abandon inclusiveness. Attrition from the Reform movement is from people who have already also rejected Conservative and Orthodox affiliations. It is not because of inclusiveness; rather, inclusiveness allows the maintenance of Jewish affiliation by those who otherwise would depart earlier. The flip side to those who leave is those who stay, who would not otherwise.
12  |  daniel, Sunday Jun 29, 2008
Jason 9 - I have already stated that there are definite problems in our community but it pales in comparison to the secular world's problem. There is no reason to get into this again. I have proven my point successfully in the past. On the question of democracy, I only point out your double-standard which you did not address. A theocracy under the control of Gedolei Yisroel sounds wonderful to me. The Gays and Lesbians will have to parade in San Fransico and not pollute the holy land of Israel like they did last week.
13  |  Daniel, Sunday Jun 29, 2008
Jason, Shalom, and Lloyd - I'm interested to hear the three of you discuss the Wertheimer article. Jason answer Shalom and Shalom answer Lloyd. I don't want to distract the three of you so I will keep quiet for a day - that is, the best I can.....I am also very interested to hear Mr. Marmur's comments on the failings of Reform addressed in the article in his next blog. We have heard enough about Russian dolls.....Unfortunately plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose is not true when it comes to Reform. Things are only getting worse.....
14  |  Shalom, Cherry Hill, NJ, Sunday Jun 29, 2008
Hi, Lloyd, Shavu'ah Tov. Thank you for your response--if memory serves, and you're in the UK, I believe that Reform there is a bit more traditional that in the US. I would ask what you mean by 'inclusiveness'? If its honest and polite dialogue among different groups of Jews, no matter how much we disagree, I'm for it. If its changing the Torah, I'm not. We might disagree on what constitutes 'melacha', but can we disagree that melacha is forbidden on Shabbat and have constructive dialogue? Even if we can, I'm afraid that we might be like ships passing in the night--but hope not.
15  |  Daniel, Sunday Jun 29, 2008
Lloyd - Please allow me to understand your Reform ideology. What is the parameter of your belief system? Is there anything you must believe in or do? is there anything wrong with an outright denial of the existence of God and the Torah in any form whatsoever? What about immoral relationships, drugs etc...are there any red lines whatesoever? Since I assume there is no concept of reward and punishment or divine will, what is stopping you from fulfilling your heart's desires? I find it fascinating that you are not bound by anything! Even Christians are required to believe in their savior!