Heterodox Liberalism - Orthodox Liberalism

Illinois Governor J.B. Prtitzker (JTA)

Yet another illustration of the tragedy that has befallen the American Jewish community was demonstrated by Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker when he addressed a meeting of fellow Democrats in New Hampshire.

“When you destroy social justice, you are disparaging the very foundation of Judaism…”

This comment was made in the context of rallying political support - calling for mass protest against President Trump and his agenda. He referred to Trump’s policies, including those fighting antisemitism, as nothing more than ‘a power grab and a tearing down of the Constitution’.

Governor Pritzker is a self-described liberal who is Jewish. So I would not expect him to say anything different about the President. I’m not here to dispute or endorse that political sentiment. What I am here to do, once again, is point out that when it comes to Jews who lack any semblance of a Jewish education, their idea of Judaism devolves into equating it almost entirely with social justice.

Liberalism is not limited to heterodox Jews. Sadly, there are many well-meaning Orthodox Jews who lean liberal too. In fact I have liberal leanings on certain issues, myself. But when liberalism begins to influence how one interprets the Torah’s directives, one has veered off course - however well-intentioned they may be.

Rabbi Dov Linzer (JTA)

I believe Rabbi Dov Linzer, Rosh HaYeshiva of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, is one such individual. As far as I’m concerned, Rabbi Linzer’s Orthodox credentials are not in question. But his ultra-liberal views have taken him far afield from some of the traditional values of Orthodox Judaism. They have caused him to interpret certain directives of the Torah in ways that, in my view and in the view of most Orthodox rabbis, run contrary to their intent.

He recently reiterated some of those views in an article promoting his own political slate in the WZO elections. Ironically, what he argues against in his article is in fact refuted by what he promotes as Jewish policy. He characterizes it as aligned with the Torah, when it appears to be quite unaligned with the Torah.

Rabbi Linzer begins by referencing the Torah’s narrative about Nadav and Avihu, Aaron’s sons, who were so religiously moved during the dedication of the Tabernacle that they brought their own incense offering. They were immediately killed by God for doing so.

His explanation for why God punished them is, in my opinion, accurate:

“They brought ‘a foreign fire, one that God had not commanded them’ (Leviticus 10:1). They acted on fervor without reflection or assessing propriety. When people follow unbridled religious passions, they often believe their actions are self-justifying: ‘If this is how my religious passion propels me to act, then it is a religious act; it gets me closer to God; it is good.’ This ‘ends justify the means’ attitude contradicts classical Jewish thought.”

If there was ever an argument against innovations motivated by personal spiritual fulfillment - when such innovations were never part of Jewish tradition - this is it.

I’ve often been told by defenders of the Women of the Wall who pray at the Kotel every Rosh Chodesh that they do so for spiritual reasons. Not for feminist reasons. But God did not ask them to do this. As with Nadav and Avihu, religious passion may convince them that their actions are self-justifying… that it is a religious act that brings them closer to God. But those ends do not necessarily justify the means.

Creating radical innovations, even with the best of intentions, does not necessarily mean this is what God wants. All it really means is that this is what they want - much like Aaron’s sons, whose good intentions ended in tragedy.

As Rabbi Linzer himself notes:

“The key is to begin with boundaries, with concern for the other, with ‘what is right and good in the eyes of God.”

This is not to say that today’s well-intended but radical innovations are as unwanted by God as were the offerings of Nadav and Avihu. We cannot know that in our era of Hester Panim -when God’s ‘Face’ is hidden from us.

But radical innovation is precisely what Rabbi Linzer promotes when he supports a platform in which compassion (the ends) justifies the means. What  ‘means’ does he support? These:

“It supports women’s empowerment and equality; it protects LGBTQ+ individuals from discrimination and defends their right to build families of their choosing. It does not tell many of its citizens, ‘Go to Cyprus if you want to get married.’ An Israel for all—rooted firmly in this world.”

I, of course, have no issue with women’s empowerment in the realm of economics, job equity, education, and social equality. I’ve always supported gender equality in those areas. What I oppose is the push for absolute equality in religious matters. Judaism ascribes different roles to men and women, and we would do well to respect and fulfill those roles rather than innovate for personal spiritual reasons that, while perhaps technically permitted, fall outside the spirit of Halacha.

And I am the first to say that people who experience same-sex attraction or identify as a different gender than their biological sex should be treated with understanding and compassion. They are human beings, created in the image of God, and are no less deserving of dignity.

However, Rabbi Linzer goes too far when he asserts their right to build families of their choosing. Promoting gay marriage - and thereby promoting a lifestyle that almost inevitably involves prohibited forbidden sexual acts - cannot possibly be what God intended when He imposed the most severe consequences for such behavior in the Torah.

Please do not misunderstand. In no way do I, God forbid, endorse harming or killing anyone for being gay. That would be murder, plain and simple. But the fact that the Torah prescribes capital punishment for certain acts should at least inform us that promoting a lifestyle where those acts are common - as a form of Jewish values is deeply problematic.

As with many situations driven by good intentions, sometimes the path taken leads us far afield from where we intended to go.