Reattaching Reason To Ritual

Over the last while we've seen repeated posts at Morethodoxy and Cross-Currents dealing with both the recent Rabbi Farber essay on the Documentary Hypothesis (DH) and the ongoing struggle in Israel between the Chareidi community and the government issue over the impending draft and implementation of a real curriculum in Chareidi schools.  While the two subjects don't seem very connected it seems to me that there is something deep that unites them and explains what is so wrong with Orthodoxy today.

Let's look at Rabbi Farber first.  Ever since he published a piece at Thetorah.com along with an unrepentant follow up piece in which he embraced the DH over Torah MiSinai (TMS) as his preferred explanation for the origin of our holiest book Morethodoxy has been posting essays which debate the issue back and forth.  Is the DH legitimate?  Is TMS a viable opinion?

There are two problems with this whole discussion.  First of all, in a real debate both opponents enter with the goal of convincing the other side or at least a substantial part of the audience that their position is correct.  If both sides prefaced the debate with the statement "And we don't care what you say, we're not changing your mind" it would not be a genuine debate, just an exchange of opinions.  This is what happens when people debate the DH vs TMS.  The bottom line is that Sinai-deniers will not accept any of the multitude of arguments put forth by Chazal, the later commentators and some modern academics that confirm the truth of the unity and antiquity of the text.  On the other side Torah-observant Jews stop listening once someone gets to the second syllable of the word "Documentary".  We know the Torah is true, we are only interested in those legitimate Torah sources that discuss the issue and therefore outside academics and their opinions are of no interest to us.  That's why these discussions go nowhere.

The real discussion therefore, and one which Morethodoxy is eager to avoid, is: can one hold that the DH is true and still call oneself Orthodox?  Rabbi Farber and probably most of the YCT crowd, even those who publicly state otherwise, would say that it is possible.  For those of us on the other side we wonder how this could be.  How can one be Orthodox while denying the authenticity of Judaism's founding event, Matan Torah?

Now let's look at the other side.  Rav Natan Slifkin recent posted a critique of an article by Eytan Kobre on his blog.  Kobre, a PR guy for the Chareidi side in the ongoing army draft controversy brings a number of sources to show that learning full-time is an accepted, traditional and preferred method of life for the observant Jew.  Rav Slifkin, on the other hand, looks at the sources in a more complete fashion and points out at pretty much none of Kobre's sources actually support his position.  Rav Slifkin wonders where Kobre draws his conclusions from.  My belief is that Kobre knows quite well that his footnotes are not relevant to the argument but he's hoping that a selective quoting, a smattering of dropped names and enough references will convince the reader who doesn't have the time or interest in double-checking things that his position is the correct "Torah true" one.   Anyone familiar with the genuine halachic method would have to be greatly disturbed by this unOrthodox distortion of our mesorah.  

In other words, Eytan Kobre has reached a conclusion and handpicked the sources he needs to support his predetermined conclusion.  If this sounds familiar then go back to the first part of this post.  Rabbi Farber and his supporters, in their quest to turn the Torah into a human document, are also able to quote from a smattering of Rishonim and statements in the Gemara which they turn into a proposal to suggest that the DH is accepted by authentic Jewish authorities.  They too will handpick sources to fit their predetermined conclusion.  Two radically different groups in the Orthodox world using the exact same methodology.

How do both these groups justify their belief that their positions represents genuine Orthodoxy despite the obvious problems with them?

The answer might be that they have detached the two principle elements of Orthodox practice, reason and ritual, from one another.  Contrary to the assertions of scoffers we are a religion of reason.  We do not draw laws and rituals from thin air.  We practice on the foundation of thousands of years of legal discussion and philosophical reason.  This intelligence must ever inform our approach to ritual.  Ritual without the thinking behind it becomes a mindless routine, as decried by Yishiyahu HaNavi and Yirmiyahu HaNavi. 

Recall Yirmiyahu's cries of anguish in the final days of the First Temple.  He well noted that the general population believed that the Har HaBayit was a place inviolable, that God would never allow His holy habitation to be destroyed.  Here were people who would routinely sin and then routinely bring sin offerings as a payment, not as a penitence.  No matter what the Navi told them they could not change this outlook.  For them Judaism was about the ritual and as long as the ritual was performed properly the reasons behind it mattered not a whit.

This is the position that Orthodoxy finds itself in today.  Is it any wonder we are a community divided by the type of hat or kippah a person wears?  Is it any wonder we base a shidduch on the type of sheitl a person wears or whether or not they allow their children to wear a certain colour of socks?  Where are questions about the person's innate honest and decency?  Where are questions about the depth of their beliefs or the understanding of the nature of the godhead?  We worry about when the last time they went to the shaatnez checker but not the last time they put on their tefillin and stood for a moment to appreciate their enhanced connection to the Ribono shel Olam.

We are now deep into Elul.  We are approaching a series of holidays rich in ritual but also in reason.  We are faced with a challenge.  We can worry if the shofar is appropriate and fulfills all the strictest halachic requirements, if the etrog and lulav pass our inspection with a jewel cutter's glass or we can apply that same rigorous approach to ourselves.  Do our souls survive the same scrutiny we give our external ritual behaviours?  Do we spend more time worrying about the status of the tzitzis on our Yamim Noraim tallis or about whether our connection with the Divine is frayed?  Do we take the time when the shofar is blowing not just to make sure the tokea is stretching out each note precisely or to make sure we pour out our whole hearts during that sacred moment and beg our Father in Heaven to accept our words?  Are we there just because that's what one does or because we desire an audience before Him?

In short, is it just about ritual for us or does the reason also play a role?

Both Morethodoxy and UltraOrthodoxy seem to have detached the reason from the ritual.  The YCT crowd proposes one can be Orthodox entirely through behaviour without regards to one's underlying thoughts and beliefs.  The UltraOrthodox crowd puts an emphasis on ritual that relegates reason to a limited supporting role, only relevant when supporting that ritual.

We must reject this approach and remind ourselves that God wants from us an intelligent practice, one where the reason and ritual intermix and influence one another in perfect synergy.  This is the challenge of real "Torah-true" Judaism that makes it such a challenge to do properly.  May we merit that all of us consider this in the coming weeks so that our High Holydays are celebrated properly for our benefit?

The Evolution of Artscroll

Over at the Seforim Blog , Eliezer Miller recently posted a scathing review of Artscroll's new edition of Sefer Yishiyahu, the book of Isaiah.  In competition with Judaica Press' extant and complete Nach series Artscroll has slowly been rolling out a version of its own.  This set is different from the books in its older Tanach series.  Whereas those were exhaustively researched works formatted with a few lines of the Hebrew text and translation at the top of the page and tons of commentary at the bottom, these new books are formatted to look like they could replace the old Mikraos Gedolos volumes.  The text on the Hebrew side is clear and in an eye-catching format.  The communtary, while not as long as the Tanach series counterpart, is quite detailed.  For all the ideological differences one might have with Artscroll there is no denying they put a lot of effort into making their seforim look fabulous.  So what trouble might Eliezer Miller have had with this new edition of Isaiah?
Going through that post Miller raises points that should be completely obvious.  Artscroll isn't in the business of putting out comprehensive commentaries that include secular information.  Miller notes a lack of interest in archeological and anthropological information that might have enhanced the commentary but that's not the crowd Artscroll is selling to.  They're looking right at the yeshivish crowd and those BT's who want to fit in with that group.  The commentary is meant for people who know nothing of Nach and want to get some basics.  This would explain most of Miller's objection.
But after reading Miller's review I think I can explain most of the problems he has in another way.
Remember that within the Chareidi community the study of Nach is very problematic.  Some yeshivos ban it outright.  Others let you study the weekly hafataros but not much else.  The idea that someone would sit down with a set of Bible books and a good commentary to understand them is incomprehensible in their worldview.  Why would a good bochur want to do that when he could be learning Gemara and halacha?  From this perspective Artscroll is actually being quite daring in wading into this area.
Knowing this Rav Nosson Sherman, the chief editor, is simply doing what he is expected to do for his books to be accepted and get the right haskamos.  Were he to include an essay showing the differences between our text of Isaiah and the one on display in the Israel museum he'd face a tarring and feathering.  You mean there's different texts?!  Were he to try and explain all those times in Nach when major figures in our history commit acts that are apparently against halacha without simply retreating into a "Chazal knew best" shelter he'd be forced to pull the line off the shelves.
When it comes to their Talmud Artscroll is a huge resource.  The time and intelligence they've invested in that series makes those books masterpieces.  When it comes to their other books, however, the overarching agenda - the Agudah version of this is the only legitimate version, etc. - tends to show through.  Their infamous translation of Shir HaShirim is a travesty to any thinking person but then, Artscroll doesn't want you to think when you're learning Shir HaShirim, just to know what you should be thinking.  Similarly their digests of famous commentators (the Pirkei Avos of the Maharal and the Sfar Emes series come to mind) aren't so much presentations of the original work but rather the Artscroll author's version so you won't reach the "wrong" conclusion you might have if you had actually seen a decent translation of the original.
For those who are paying really careful attention you'll also notice that the Satmar philosophy of anti-Zionism infects their works in the relevant places.  Consider Artscroll's commentary on the Three Oaths at the end of the Kesobus or the couple of places in their translation of the Kinnos where they brazenly insert Satmar principles (no forcing the end!  no ascending like a wall!) even when there's absolutely no Hebrew lines on the other side to stick them to.
Their Nach series is therefore simply more of the same.  The average person, it seems, can't be trusted to think about what he's read in Nach so Artscroll saves you the trouble.  Eliezer Miller wonders what's wrong with Artscroll but really there's nothing wrong.  They are the publishing arm of the Agudah and the Agudah has an agenda.  Enough said.

Old Loyalties Die Hard

Anyone out there remember the Palm Pilot?  Back in the late 90's it was the gizmo to own.  A small (for the times) device it not only came with a built in contact list, calender and memo program but it also had lots of other neat applications (back then we still said the entire word).  As the device evolved it got smaller and sleeker and its app catalog exploded with fun and relevant programs for almost any field.  About the only thing the Palms couldn't do was act like a phone but unless you were a Blackberry user you didn't really care about that.
In the hi-tech world one either evolves constantly or dies a quick death.  Such was the fate of the Commodore 64 in the late 1980's as Apple's Macintosh took over the home computing scene.  Such was the fate of Palm.  Late to the phone game Palm only realized inthe mid-00's that Blackberry was onto something when it combined personal data assistannts (PDA's) and phones.  It came out with the Treo and then the Centre which were okay phones but the underlying operating system never really changed.  Yes, the graphics resolution improved a bit and colour became a standard feature but overall it looked and felt the same as the original.
Then came the iPhone and Androids.  Suddenly Palm was in huge trouble selling a phone with an antiquated operating system.  Yes they had the app catalog but those programs also looked positively antique when compared to what Apple and Google were putting out.
Much too late Palm put out the Pre and then the Pre2.  I owned a Pre2 and had high hopes it would revive the company.  It was fast with great graphics and an intuitive operating system.  Unfortunately it never took off.  Palm was bought by HP which tried to make waves with the Pre3 and then just gave up on the cell phone business altogether. 
So there I was with a Palm phone and it was a lonely experience.  The app catalog numbered in the 1000's with only 2-3 new programs appearing a week, sometimes less.  It was frustrating to read about all the new app's coming out but only for Apple, Android and usually Blackberry.  It's an awful feeling to be left behind but I'd been with Palm since 1998.  I was so reluctant to let go.
Ultimately I did though.  I didn't want an iPhone or Android (I found the original Terminator movie frightening when I was a kid and he was an android) so I tried out the Blackberry Z10.
Now, full disclosure: I own Blackberry stock and I bought it on the hope that the Z10 would be a kick ass phone.  I'm pleased to note that it is.  Suddenly I'm working with a huge app catalog that is growing daily and constant updates to programs I have.  As opposed to the lonely quiet world of Palm I feel like I'm back on the information highway again, not some information side road in the country.
But every so often I look at my old Palm, still sitting on my desk and wonder about what could have been.

What Putin Knows

A country about to hold the Olympics usually wants to impress the world.  The Games are, after all, a multi-gagillion dollar endeavour and a chance to show the world all that's glorious and positive about the host country.  Never mind the economic opportunities that it brings, the Olympics is a chest-beating moment.
It's odd then that Russia seems to be taking the opposite approach.  Far from endearing itself to the world before the Games begin, the governmet in Moscow seems intent on the opposite: showing the rest of the world - and especially the West - that it doesn't care what others think about it.  President Vladimir Putin and friends have done this by passing new legislation that bans the public promotion of homosexuality, a law draconian enough to cause people to fear that just wearing a rainbow pin in public could get one arrested.  What's more, the Russians have promised that this law will apply to all international athletes while in Russia raising the possibility of some of them getting arrested on the flimsiest of charges.
It's given Russia quite the black eye in the international arena and seems to make no sense.  Russia is, after all, not a particularily religious country.  Some columnists I follow suggest that Putin is doing it to win the popular support of the Russian Orthodox Church and its followers but considering that theft and abortion are also major sins in that religion it's curious that the government isn't coming up with restrictive laws about those.
The timing is also problematic.  Why couldn't Putin have waited until after the Games to avoid the negative publicity?  Doesn't he know this might hurt his tourist income?
It seems to me that Putin isn't out of touch when it comes to these matters but rather that he has a very accurate sense of the pulse of things.  He knows something that the pro-homosexual lobby hates to have shown and he's exposing it to the world.  He knows that the pro-homosexual lobby are craven bullies.
Look at the Western world and what happens to any politician who dares to even muse about not approving gay marriage and giving it equal standing to the traditional equivalent.  What happens to any public figure who uses the phrase "That's so gay!" in the wrong context? 
Ever noticed how strongly Pride parades demand public support in places like Rome and Jerusalem?  Despite the religious sensitivites of many of those cities' inhabitants, or possibly because of them, these parades are turned into major human rights demonstrations.
But is there a Pride parade in Mecca?  To quote the immortal Al Bundy, "Uh, no Peg."
Every year the Toronto Pride parade features a group called Queers Against Israeli Apartheid.  Meanwhile over in so-called Palestine it's illegal to be homosexual and getting caught means execution.  Is there a float for so-called Palestinian victims of so-called Palestinian violence?  Uh, no Peg.
Do you think there will be any public demonstrations by the Olympic athletes when they arrive for the Games in Russia?  Uh, no Peg.
There is no question that Vladimir Putin is a bully.  His whole model of government presumes that very thing.  He is the biggest oligarch amongst the worst collection of corrupt "biznesmen" in the world, the chief viper in the snake pit.  He's looked across at the pro-homosexual lobby and seen something familiar.  They are also bullies prepared to scream, show and be absolutely fabulous when any of their principles or beliefs are even slightly questioned.
But they'll only do it if it's safe.  They're quite happy to stand up to middle-aged white folks while the police stand nearby guaranteeing their safety.  It's quite another to stand up and shout when the cops are the opposition.  When they can't bully their opponents the pro-homosexual lobby goes eeerily quiet.
And that's what Putin knows.  After all the caterwauling back home in the West where it's safe all the gay athletes and their supporters will show up in Russia because they don't want to miss the even they've dedicated their lives to.  They'll publicly play good heterosexuals and won't say a word about the repressive Russian legal system.  They very much believe in their equality but not quite enough to stand up to an even bigger bully.

Just Wait Quietly

When the subject of Yair Lapid comes up amongst Torah-observant jews someone inevtiably mentions his father, Tommy, and how Lapid the elder was a virulent anti-religious fanatic.  Much of this is true.  Lapid was very anti-Chareidi and by extension did not show much love for non-Chareidi Orthodox Jews.  His Shinui party won 15 seats in its most successful election which earned him a senior seat in the cabinet rom where he tried to implement his anti-religious agenda.  Frum folks often speaker of Lapid the younger as the second coming of Tommy with the same dedication to destroying the "Torah world" as his father.
What people often don't recall is what happened to Tommy and Shinui.  There is a good reason the party was a one-election wonder.  Shortly after getting his cabinet position Lapid discovered that personal popularity and decent election showing did not translate into anything close to political omnipotence.  He also discovered that the people he elected were no immune to the disease that afflicts all politicians sooner or later: corruption.  Shinui wound up becoming like every other minor party that made it big.  It failed to implement much of its platform and its members wound up on the front page of the newspapers guilty of the same crimes they had so condemned during the election campaign.  And then Shinui disappeared.
If one is going to compare the two Lapids one needs to keep this whole picture in mind.  Like his father, Yair campaigned on a populist platform, shouting about the needs of the middle class and the need to reduce the hegemony of the Chareidi parties in matters of religious and national affairs.  Campaigned as a righteous defender of the poor is easy.  Remaining one once you're elected is a real trick.
To his credit Lapid has handled himself in a superb fashion until recently.  The master manipulator, Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, gave his the Finance Ministry portfolio, a graveyard for ambitious politicians.  Yet he has remained on message when it comes to economic reforms and he has refused to be publicly enraged by the ongoing abuse he receives from the Chareidi leadership and its political representativies.  All it would take is one statement like "You stupid religious bastards..." and the "Ah ha!" shouting would being.  So far he has held his temper and has made the Chareidi leadership look all the more infantile for it.
But now there is a first chink in the armour.  It's one thing to go on and on about needing to strengthen the middle class.  It's one thing to itnroduce a budget.  It's another to implement one's plans and for that one needs senior people on message.  Lapid is under further pressure because Israel is, to our sorrow, one of the most corupt countries in the world when it comes to financial issues and the concentration and control of wealth by the few over the many.  The governor of the Bank of Israel is an especially important person for Lapid yet so far he has picked two contestants for the position and both have had to withdraw their candidacy for personal reasons.  This has created the impression that finding a decent person to run the Bank is more difficult than it should be and that Lapid's ability to find such a person is defective.
Now by itself this is not such a crisis for Lapid.  I have no doubt he will shortly find a qualified candidate.  But it is instructive in that it is a first failure for him.  He is not omnipotent, he is not automatically the next prime minister as he himself has crowed and he has stumbled.  Perhaps him opponents, instead of trying to turn him into a martyr the public can rally around, should just step back and see if this initial stumble turns into a full fledged fall.

Who'd You Rather Have Dinner With

Following up on my last post, I would like to bring up another important point, one I think is always lost when we start screaming "heresy" and the like.
Let's compare two people who have been in the news lately that occupy the opposite ends of the Orthodox spectrum.  The first is Rabbi Zev Farber.  The second is Avraham Mondrowitz.
Now for those who don't know Mondrowitz is a serial pedophile and child rapist who victimized multiple boys in both the Jewish and Italian communities he lived in.  Naturally it was the Italians who attempted to bring him to justice while his Jewish community did everything it could to run cover for him and eventually get him to Israel where he has escaped extradition with the reported help of the Gerer Rebbe himself.
Now, let's run that comparison.  Rabbi Farber doesn't believe in Torah MiSinai.  Despite a lack of any archeological evidence to contradict its occuring and some to support it, Yetzias Mitzrayim and the greatest event in human history are just mythology for him.  This drops him out of Orthodoxy as far as many are concerned.  Heck, I'll go further.  I'll bet you he thinks evolution is real and the world is billions of years old.
In his personal behaviour Rabbi Farber is exemplary.  He's a scholar, polite and cultured and treated his colleagues and laymen with decency and honesty.  If he's every touched a young boy it's probably been to prevent the child from running out into traffic.  If he's ever touched a woman other than his mother and daughters he has probably done everything he can to banish lawd thoughts about the encounter from his mind.
Mondrowitz, on the other hand, definitely believes in every word of the Torah at its most literal level.  He probably also accepts all Midrashing as literal historical fact.  He surely thinks that the world is only 5773 years old and that the dinosaurs are a stunt put there by secularists to deny the Torah.  His tefillin, both Rabbi and Rabbeinu Tam, are perfectly kosher and the only part of him that would ever touch a woman is the spittle in his mouth.
He's also a child molester.  He's walking proof that an intense Torah education and lifestyle is not incompatible with base immorality.  Need I add anything to that?
So on one hand you have Rabbi Farber who doesn't believe the right thing but acts quite Jewish when it comes to the overarching goals of making the world a kinder and more decent place.  On the other you have Mondrowitz who believes in all the right things but is a menuval min menuval l'mehadrin. 
Is it just about beliefs and not about actions?  Yes, the best path is to have the correct beliefs and act in the correct fashion but given the choice of just one, should we be obsessing over a decent guy whose basic metafacts about Creation are wrong or over the people who think that enabling and protecting a monster are fulfilling the ratzon HaShem?
In short, if you were looking to have a good Jewish dinner, who'd you rather eat with?

The Heresy Of Zev Farber

Once upon a time I was sitting in shul on a Shabbos morning and an acquaintance, a proud Conservative, wandered over and asked me if I knew whose yahrzeit it was coming up in a couple of days.  Without hesitating I answered "A.J. Heschel".  The acquaintance smiled and seemed pleased that I knew.  After he walked off someone asked "How did you know?" I responded, "Well, he's Conservative so he'd really only make a big deal out of one of them and when you've only got one 'Gadol' to choose from it's kind of easy to guess."
One must feel a little sorry for Yeshivat Chovevei Torah these days.  Like the Jewish Theological Seminary many students have passed through their gates but only one seems to have qualified for the coveted "Yadin Yadin" status, Rabbi Zev Farber.  Now it turns out their greatest prodigy is trying to redefine Orthodoxy into something that violates much of its treasured core principles and beliefs.
YCT is, of course, no stranger to controvery.  Ever since Rabbi Avi Weiss printed his "Open Orthodoxy" credo the yeshiva and its followers have continually struggled to redefine Orthodoxy further and further into secular territory.  From their pulpit in the Morethodoxy blog they have espoused changing some of our morning blessings because it offends their egalitarian senses, subtly encouraged the idea that halacha should change to allow for homosexual marriage and presented deadly enemies of the State of Israel in an encouraging light.  Each time they insist they have support from the halacha using their pick-a-posek method of decision making.  Each time they insist they are Torah observant in their views and are not violating any principles of Orthodoxy.
In fact there is a tremendous difference that does remain between Morethodoxy and right wing Conservativism. Despite all the comparisons and accusations that have been made that YCT is just JTS with a mechitzah we must acknowledge that the pick-a-posek method, while invalid, is still superior to the so-called Rabbinal Assembly's method of open voting on halacha.  YCT recognizes that they still cannot simply make up new rules or dispense with old ones willy nilly.  We should not forget that.
But Rabbi Farber may have finally crossed a line and provided opponents of YCT with their "Ah ha!" moment.  In a recent essay he endorsed many of the lies that the Documentary Hypothesis has been spreading over the last couple of centuries while analyzing Sefer Devarim.  True, his first statement is vague and can be explained away as simply pointing out that the conclusion of those Sinai-deniers who fail to see the unity and holiness of our Torah.

The simplest explanation for these differences between the accounts in Exodus-Numbers and Deuteronomy is that they were penned by (at least) two different authors with different conceptions of the desert experience

But one of concluding statements dispenses with that assumption of innocence:

 it appears to me that being able to accept that there are contradictory perspectives expressed in the Torah allows us to offer meaningful interpretations of each and to address significant tensions in the text without feeling the need to create hollow apologetic explanations

By referring to the wisdom of Chazal as apologetics Rabbi Farber seems to be stating his preference for the academic approach to Chumash rather than the Jewish one.  His tossing out of the phrase eilu v'eilu to justify his position smacks of open Reformativism.  Eilu v'eilu doesn't include opinions that allow driving on Shabbos or the eating of bacon.
This is not the only time Rabbi Farber crosses the important line.  He dismisses the narratives of Bereshis as mere allegories and moral tales, denying the historical existence of Avraham Avinu et al, something no believing Jew could conceive of doing.  His final justification for continuing to be "Orthodox" despite not believing in fundamental principles of it sounds like a paean to orthopraxy:

I was once asked by a friend how I can go on being an Orthodox Jew when I believe that virtually all of the stories in the Torah are ahistorical. I responded with a story from the Babylonian Talmud (Berachot 61b). During the Hadrianic persecutions, when the teaching of Torah was a capital offense, a man named Pappos asks Rabbi Akiva why he continues to teach Torah if it could get him killed. Rabbi Akiva answers that a fox once asked a fish why he swims in water if he could get caught by fishermen. “Would it not be better,” the fox asks, “to hide on the dry land and avoid the nets?” The fish responds that this would be a bad idea. “Outside the water,” the fish says, “I will surely die; inside the water I have a chance.” “I am the fish,” says Rabbi Akiva, “and the Torah is my water.”

This is a powerful story about Rabbi Akiva’s commitment to his faith and people. Now, if Pappos had responded by saying, “Akiva, you are telling tales—fish don’t talk,” he would have been missing the point. “It doesn’t matter whether fish talk,” we would respond, “Rabbi Akiva’s story is still true.” Now, I am going to tell you something else: there was no Pappos; the story is a fictional account, written in Babylonia four hundred years after Rabbi Akiva’s death. Nevertheless, that is not the point; it is still true. 

In short, Rabbi Farber doesn't believe the Torah is a produce of the Divine.  He doesn't believe our forefathers existed.  He simply feels comfort in Orthodox practice the same way a Reformative feels comfort in what passes for Judaism on their side of the line.  He continues to keep kosher not because of some imperative from Sinai because frankly the Sinai experience probably didn't happen, chalilah.  He does it because he likes it, it gives something to him. His religious experience is selfish, just like that of the Reformatives.
And despite YCT's protests to the contrary we should not be fooled that the leadership of Morethodoxy has any problem with this position.  They can't.  Accepting that Matan Torah happened, accepting that the Torah is a divine and accurately preserved expression of the Will of God and that the Oral Law is a necessary part of it, not a product of Chazal invented much later on, creates the authoritative mesorah which must be handled with extreme care and only by the greatest authorities, none of whom work for YCT.  It means that being Torah observant is the correct lifestyle for a Jew and the only one at that.  It means no moral relativism but external standards of right and wrong that do not change to fit secular society's mood.  In contrast, the new "Rosh Yeshivah", Rabbi Asher Lopatin, is on regard as dismissing the uniqueness of Orthodoxy when it comes to genuine Torah observance.  For him, like Farber and the others Orthodoxy is simply a stream, a style, not the authentic practice of the mesorah we have received from our ancestors.  I have no doubt that the leadership of YCT does not believe in the historical reality of Matan Torah or the unity of the Torah as a God-given document.  Unlike Rabbi Farber they realize they cannot continue to portray themselves as "Orthodox" if they admit it publicly.
Now Rabbi Farber may be a nice man.  He is probably quite ethical, honest and decent in his dealings with others.  But it seems that he is not, despite his attempts to redefine the term, Orthodox.  A pity such a mind has gone off in the wrong direction.

Thinking Again About Segulos

Segulos are a tricky subject when it comes to Judaism.  On one hand there is clearly a strong tradition supporting their existence and use, especially when it comes to Kabbala stuff.  Even the Gemara mentions them in various places without much controversy.
On the other hand the Gemara also notes that there is a thin line to be crossed in some cases and then certain actions you might think are segulos become darchei emori, idol worship.  Something which must definitely be avoided.
Perhaps I'm too much of a rationalist (doesn't explain my being a Toronto Maple Leafs fan though) but I've never been comfortable with segulos.  One of the middos that I find most important about God is His absolute free will.  As Rav Shimon Rafael Hirsch, zt"l, notes in his commentary on Torah God is completely above any pressure or coercion.  He cannot be forced to do anything.  He can be merciful or strict but it is always by His choice.  So contrary to His nature is any form of influence that the Gemara notes only three cases where human argumentation led to God saying "Well, what can I do?  I have to do things his way".  Even in those cases the Gemara is clear that God wasn't doing this because He was somehow backed into a corner, chas v'shalom, but because He wanted His plans for history to continue on as scheduled.
That's why I've always been uncomfortable with any magical aspects to Judaism.  I don't like the idea of independent angels, sefiros or whatever running around up in Heaven with lives of their own.  I don't like the idea of anything disturbing the absolute unity of God and His sole control of life, the universe and everything.
And I especially don't like magical charms and rituals that people say will create specific results.  For me such things interfere with the unique and personal relationship every single individual in existence has with the Ribono shel Olam.
After all, if it comes down to a red string on the wrist instead of hours of positive mitzvos fulfillment to achieve a certain goal then why bother with the latter?  And if you say that the former only works in the presence of the latter then what does that say about God?  He'll reward you for observing the big 613 but only if you have the right kind of thread on?
Even when it comes to Rosh HaShanah I'm a bit of a drag. Every year the Ironheart family is invited over to one of the nicest families you'll ever meat for one of the Yom Tov dinners.  This family treats the segulos of Rosh HaShanah with lots of energy and enthusiasm.  Me, I cringe.  Am I really to believe that if I eat a fish head then I'll have a better year, regardless of my actions in that coming year or the degree of repentance for my misdeeds of the previous one?  Yes, I enjoy  the apple dipped in honey but that's because it's an apply dipped in honey!  Who wouldn't like that?  I don't really think that my chewing it down with proper kavannah is going to change my fortune for the coming year.  My personal relationship with God, my level of dveikus to Him, and the overarching needs of history and the universe will trump that.
Perhaps we all need to see through the extras more clearly and remember that behind all of these rituals, amulets and herbals there is only one God in Heaven and Earth, that His will is supreme and that He desires a personal relationship with all of us.  Trying to circumvent that or, chalilah, to manipulate him, only drives us further away from him.

The Tears Are The Tears Of Eisav

Rav Shlomo Levenstein brings an interesting thought in the name of the Kotker Rebbe, zt"l.  We all recall that when Eisav HaRasha came before Yitzchak Avinu, a"h, for his blessing he was distressed to discover that Yaakov Avinu, a"h, had come previously and "stolen" it from him.  So distressed he was that he began to cry and Chazal say that he shed two and a half tears.  Because of these tears, they note, we have had to endure centuries of suffering at the hands of Edom, Eisav's descendants.
But the Kotzker Rebbe asks a simple question: we have a principle in halacha of batel b'shishim.  If this is true then why haven't the countless tears shed by Jews in their suffering in the last two thousand years nullified those paltry two and a half tears of Eisav and brought an end to our tribulations?
The Kotzker Rebbe answersby pointing our an important exception to the principle of 60:1.  Bitul b'shishim only works with two unlike substances such as meat and milk.  It does not work with two like substances, min b'mino.  In such a case we say min b'mino eino batel afilu b'elef, there is no nullification.
So how can we end Eisav's dominance over us if no amount of crying will end his oppression?
The Kotzker Rebbe concludes by pointing out there are two types of tears.  Eisav's tears were shed out of self-pity.  "I lost the beracha."  "I got cheated."  "I missed out!"  Selfish tears on a loss of good fortune and opportunity.
Such are the tears that we have shed since galus Edom began.  We have cried from pain, theft, bruising, burning and death.  We have shouted out "Woe is us!" so many times to Heaven hoping for an answer.  But such tears, as sincere as they are, come from the same source as Eisav's: Woe is me!
The Kotzker Rebbe thus reminds us of something Chazal note repeatedly throughout the Talmud and Midrash.  When Jews suffer, when Jews are lost in exile, when the land of Israel is not the centre of the spiritual universe, the God Himself, kibiyachol, is diminished.  His Shechinah is in exile with us.  His presence in the world and the shefa He bestows to it are limited.  As believing Jews we should be horrified by this.  It's one thing to feel sorry for ourselves.  Heaven knows we have enough reason for that.  But the Kotzker Rebbe says we have to go one step beyond that.  We have to feel sorry for the humiliation our sins have caused God.  We have to cry tears for the loss He has suffered through our being in exile and through the Temple remaining in ruins under foreign occupation.
It is those tears which are min sheb'eino mino and therefore the ones that will nullify Eisav's and end our exile.  As Elul bears down on us with all the subtlety of an enrage bull towards a matador we are preparing once again to arrange our prayers of repentance before the Ribono shel Olam.  Perhaps this years, instead of crying out for forgiveness because we're afraid of punishment we should have the overreaching kavannah instead that our sins need to be forgiven so the Shechinah can regain its proper place in our world.

Sometimes It's The Obvious Answer

In a bid to enrich myself on Tisha B'Av I scanned Youtube for a shiur or two.  I found one that initially piqued my interest but rapidly wound up annoying me.  The speaker, a younger man from the Chareidi community began talking about how on Rosh Chodesh Tammuz many observant Jews were banned from praying at the Kotel because of fears that they would participate in a riot once the Women of the Wall showed up and began their monthly shtick.
He began to speak about reflecting on why this happened but, almost predictably, did not state the obvious: Jews were banned from praying because the police were worried about violence.  Instead he brought up a gemara from the end of Makkos, the famous one about Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues seeing a fox walking in the ruins of the Temple and their varied reactions.  He went on from there and brought in a beautiful interpretation but by then he'd lost me.  All I wanted to do was shout at the screen: Dude!  It's because you guys riot!  If you didn't do that the incident wouldn't have happened.
It reminds me of a story I read somewhere on-line a few years ago about a community where some children had been killed in car accidents at a busy intersection.  The community called a meeting and various people tried to determine what sin they were guilty of that had caused these tragedies and what they should do to make proper teshuvah.  When the Rav of the community was asked though, his answer was simple: Maybe we should ask the city to put in a traffic light.
When people don't want to see the obvious answer to their problems they can come up with all kinds of different solutions.  The average obese person with knee pain doesn't blame that Molson Muscle hanging down over their belts.  He claims that the pain killers I gave him weren't strong enough or that he needs a better pair of shoes.  Similarly the frum world, when looking at its problems, seems to possess a significant central blind spot with excellent peripheral vision.  They see everything else other than their own contribution to what's affecting them.
A fantastic example of this is a recent letter from our favourite PR hack, Rav Avi Shafran which was appended to an article written by Rav Elchonon Oberstein in Baltimore Jewish Life.  The subject of Rav Overstein's column was the recent spate of attacks on Chareidi soldiers by Chareidi civilians incensed by... well who knows anymore?
After noting several things which are not making their way into the Chareidi community regarding how much the Tzahal is trying to accomodate ultraOrthodox recruits and make the process of drafting them as painless as possible and after noting statements from the secular side of society showing care and concern for the worries the Chareidim have about this, a letter from Rav Shafran is appended which, on superficial glance, seems to be what I predicted he wouldn't do: acknowledge the problem and condemn it.
But read the letter carefully and the blind spot reappears.  Consider:

 Now, with various players putting the issues front-and-center, and signaling their intention to mold the charedi community to something closer to their own image, the (easily predictable, if unfortunate) result has been a counterpush – with things like army service and joining the workforce becoming, at least in the eyes of some – a playing into the hands of the enemy (here, Mr. Lapid and company).

Note the way Rav Shafran has taken the Chareidi onslaught against the government and turned it around.  Mr. Lapid and company have, from the start, done their utmost to avoid inflammatory statements and to find as many compromises as possible in order to accommodate the special needs of the ultraOrthodox while the response has been shrill and unyielding.  But instead of noting this Rav Shafran simply repeats the canard: well of course we're upset.  They've trying to change us into seculars!

The poster-posters and catcalls you describe are misguided and obnoxious -- I felt revulsion reading your account -- but they are just another sadly predictable result of the new polarization of the Israeli populace. 

How odd then that, despite this polarization, there have been no poster campaigns from the secular and Religious Zionist communities in Israel villifying the Chareidim?

Firstly, the American Gedolim as a rule do not comment on anything having to do with Eretz Yisrael, 

Unless it has to do with the Women of the Wall.  Despite the WoW's only real presence is in Israel and therefore only an Israeli concern this hasn't stopped Rav Shafran from issuing comments along with many of his cohorts at Cross Currents.

And yet, on communal issues like the larger one in Israel, the Gedolim do feel they must call a spade a spade, and a stick-and-carrot campaign by anti-charedi people (even those who have occasionally presented themselves as “the charedim’s friend”) precisely that.

In summary: yeah, bad stuff's happening but it's all the fault of those nasssssty seculars who want to destroy the Chareidi community so how can you expect "the Gedolim" to issue any statements?
Tisha B'Av has just passed and with it another opportunity to miss the point of the day.  We must each of us be constantly performing a cheshbon hanefesh on ourselves while simultaneously judging our neighbours, both religious and secular favourably.  Instead of blaming "the other" we must start blaming ourselves.  If both sides were to approach the other with the opening statement "I'm the problem, how can I change to make things better for you?" then we would be many steps closer to eliminating Tisha B'Av as a fast day.

Why No Condemnation?

Another day, another ugly incident in Meah Shearim.  In this case it's the recent mob violence directed towards a Charaeidi man who dared to show up in the neighbourhood wearing a Tzahal uniform.  As the story is told by the Israeli media, he was set upon by the locals, had to take shelter in an apartment and then had to be rescued by a special squad of police who themselves were attacked by the mob.  One shudders to think of what would have happened if the young man hadn't found a place to hide.
These people are Jews?  They're so Orthodox that they're Ultra-Orthodox?  What does that even mean anymore?
In the wake of the attack it has been noted in more than one place that there has been no statement of condemnation from any of the "Gedolei Yisrael", the leadership of the Chareidi community.  Some have noted a paucity of reporting of the incident in the Chareidi press.  Comments can be found on-line that downplay the severity of what happened and emphasizing that the soldier wasn't hurt so why get upset?
So why haven't the "Gedolim" issued a statement?  I would like to humbly suggest some reasons which will also cast a light on the nature of leadership in the Chareidi community.
1) Isn't it obvious?  Despite the anger and hate of Israel some in the Chareidi leadership possess, no major Chareidi leader, not even those in the Eidah Chareidit, would promote violence against other Jews, let alone threatening their lives, chalilah.  Why should they apologize or issue statements when it's obvious they don't approve of this behaviour?
2) How often does the President apologize?  When an American commits a crime somewhere, does the President of the United States go on television to issue a statement about how this act doesn't reflect America's values, etc.?  So why should the Gedolim have to issue a statement in this situation?  This wasn't an approved activity promoted by them but a random act of violence.  Besides, if they had to issue a statement every time a Chareidi misbehaves they'd have no time to learn Torah!
3) Who exactly should issue the statement?  From the outside Chareidism looks monolithic.  From the inside it's a community of communities, disparate in values and beliefs.   No one "Gadol" speaks on behalf of all Chareidim.  Nor do the "Gedolim" have regular board meetings in order to flesh out common policy.  The Eidah Chareidis wouldn't feel a connection to a statement by Rav Shteinman, shlit"a, nor would the Yeshivish care about a pronouncement from Ger.
4) What exactly happened anyway?  Remembe that the "Gedolim" aren't like regular people.  They do not read the newspaper.  They don't watch the news on TV or listen to the radio.  They certainly don't look it up on the internet!  Chas v'shalom!  They are entirely dependent for their information about the outside world on their handlers and those handlers can paint any picture they want without fear of being exposed for being manipulative and dishonest.  If any "Gadol" has even heard about this incident you can be sure the version he was told bears little resemblance to what actually happened.  In the hands of the handlers mobs become guardians of purity and pedophiles and wife abusers become the righteous of the generation.  Even if a "Gadol" wants to release a statement could you imagine how bizarre it would sound?
You aren't going to see a statement from Rav Avi Shafran on the matter for almost all the same reasons, plus he's way too busy attacking decent talmidei chachamim for daring to not see his brand of Judaism as perfect.  He's trapped in a conundrum.  On one hand he wants us to believe that "real Torah Judaism" is a society in which the "Gedolim" have absolute control.  On the other hand, acknowledging the riots means either claiming the "Gedolim" are responsible due to their leadership positions or that in reality the leadership doesn't actually control anything.  Far easier to distract by writing another diatribe against the WoW's.
The response of the average Chareidi-on-the-street is the litmus test here.  Do they feel they have more in common with other observant but non-Chareidi Jews or do they still feel a kinship with these primitives and see them more as misguided than as barbaric?

Religious Zionism Must Lead

One of the dangers any movement faces is becoming complacent.  In the beginning a group of people set out with a goal and a plan to achieve it.  With good fortune and the help of Heaven they do that but what happens after success?  How many revolutions ended with the upstarts become the government they replaced?  How many advocates drift along mouthing slogans without any sense of further achievement?
It is the same with countries.  Many countries simply exist.  England, Russia, China, these countries aren't moving towards any meaningful accomplishment, they have no sense of purpose, they are simply there because they always have been. On the other hand the United States, until only a couple of decades ago was filled with a sense of purpose.  They were a beacon of democracy, the wellspring of true capitalism and the world's policeman, guaranteeing freedom from the autocracies that threatened civlized peoples.
What about Israel?  Does it serve a purpose?  Did it ever?
The second question is quite easy to answer.  The founding and maintaining of the State served a different purpose depending on which group you asked.  For Labour Zionism Israel's purpose was to show the world that Jews could create a European-style socialist state and be just as good as the Gentiles were at it.  For Religious Zionists it was about God turning history and helping us rebuild our national home in our Holy Land.
The problem with these visions is their success.  Labour Zionism did create a European-style socialist state on the eastern Mediterranean coast.  Jewish life did flower and prosper within it.  Sixty five years later Israel isn't simply a place on the map but an important member in the family of nations, a world leader in many areas and home to the largest Jewish community on Earth. 
So now what?
Eight years ago Ehud Olmert gave a speech which captured the ennui that had enveloped Labour Zionism and turned it into an apathetic post-Zionist movement.
"We are tired of fighting; we are tired of being courageous; we are tired of winning; we are tired of defeating our enemies."
Like a World Series champion that barely makes .500 the next season with almost the same line-up because the players no longer care as much, Olmert's vision of Israel was a simple one: We built a state, we survived every attempt to destroy us.  We'v proved ourselves.  There's nothing left.
It's no surprise that post-Zionism has turned Labour Zionism into a self-defeating movement.  One hundred and twenty years ago Theordore Herzl and the first Zionists announced they would take a patch of desert land under Ottoman rule and turn it into a modern state run for Jews by Jews.  Few world leaders and people of influence took them seriously at the time.  Today it seems almost inconceivable to recall a world in which Israel did not exist. 
But success has been the movement's undoing.  For us Israel is the rebirth of our ancient commonwealth.  The rest of the world sees it as a post-World War 2 upstart state (at best).  No one questions the right of France to exist (although if you ask me...) or whether or not the world needs a Nigeria.  Israel is the only country in the world that has to constantly justify its right to be on the map in any form, the only country whose borders are contested on an ongoing basis. 
The old answers don't cut it anymore either.  Is there a need for a European-style socialist state in the Middle East?  In these days of economic turbulence one could ask if there's a need for European-style socialist states in Europe, never mind the Levant. 
Do Jews need a life raft, a place to flee?  Well Israel certainly still fills that roll but the current overt danger to large Jewish communities outside of Israel is currently at a historic low.  That's not to say things can't or won't change, I won't be that presumptious, but at the moment the more dangerous place to be a Jew in the world is in Yesha, not Moscow.
Simply put, if someone were to ask what the net effect on the world would be from the forcible migration of Israel's Jews to Europe and North America what would the answer be?  Would Israel be missed?
This is where Religious Zionism comes in.  Unlike secular Zionism, the Dati Leumi do not see the founding and maintaining of the State as the end-all and be-all.  Certainly the existence of a Jewish state not run al pi halacha is not the goal of history or something desirable for observant Jews.
In contrast to the goal-fulfilled secular Zionists, Religious Zionism has to still sense a sense of purpose to the State.  No, the world would not be essentially the same if all Israeli Jews moved to Thornhill or Skokie.  God has moved history, manipulated events and changed the hearts of great leaders in order to bring us home to rebuild His land.  A lack of Israel would be a frustration of those plans, an affront to the Ribono shel Olam. 
Our purpose in the world isn't simply to keep black hat milliners in business.  Our purpose in the world isn't to supply international newspapers with tales of pedophiles and theft.  Our purpose in the world is to move history forward to its natural conclusion where God reappears in the midst of all civilization and makes known His will to all, where we return to our land, rebuild our Holy Temple and restore true Divine worship in the eyes of the nations of the world.
We aren't here simply because we are here.  Many of us have forgotten this.  Our non-religious brethren have transformed their identity into an ethnic designation.  Jews, Italians, Argentians, half a dozen of one and six of the other.  Our Chareidi brothers have, through their desire to ignore the will of God and His involvement in hisory, degenerated into a reactionary cult in which decisions are made based on what's good for "the oylam" without regard to ethics, decency or Torah.  The secular don't see a way forward.  The Chareidim are trying to drag things backward.
What needs to interpose between both is a group that can accomodate the needs of both without compromising the essential vision of the State of Israel as aschalta d'geula.  It needs to be a group that both values the learning and practice of Torah as central and primal to Judaism while using that Torah to interact with the modern world to create a functioning society.
That leaves only Religious Zionism as a movement with such a comprehensive view of a Jewish future.  On the secular side Religious Zionism is well aware that halacha must encounter, examine and legislate for modern economic, legal and political systems to create an environment in which Torah behaviour is mandated but Torah repression is avoided.  On the religious side it offers both chasidic (Rav Kook, ztk"l) and Yeshivish philosophies (the Rav, zt"l) for those for whom everything is seen through the lens of the Torah.  Through its vision of creating a modern state run al pi halacha as a prelude to the arrival of Moshiach it provides an underlying point of unity for these groups. 
This is why, following the moderate success of Bait Yehudi the movement must develop itself into a strong alternative both for secular Jewish nationalists looking for depth and meaning and for Chareidim looking for genuine religious practice within God's plans for This World.  Only in this way can Israel have a proud, strong and historically meaningful future.

What's the Point of Talking

Pity poor Rav Dov Lipman.  All the guy wants to do is improve the lot of his fellow Chareidim.  He's young, earnest, honest and hard-working, full of good ideas and eager to improve his community's lot.
And what's his reward?  Villification, slander, lies and public attacks.  And all of that from a community which claims to be the embodiment of holiness in the world, the ideal that God desires from all of us.
He's not alone, either.  As the wise RYGB has noted, it seems that anyone who questions the Chareidi party line in Israel is immediately lumped in with such historical figures as Hitler, y"sh, Stalin, y"sh, and Chiemlnitski, enemies of the Jewish people, Torah and possibly even God.  This seems to have been the fate of one Barry Jacobson who also dared not tow the official line in public.  Even Rav Jonathan Sacks is not immune from the Agudah's attack dogs, especially after his recent speech in which he gave his perspective of what's ailing Chareidism today.
As the pressure ramps up on the community in the face of the Israeli government's determination to integrate them partially into society the response has become even more fanatic.  One report out of Israel suggests that they want to make it illegal to not have Chareidi parties in the government.  Another report states that it is now sina qua non that Chareidim should not have to work but instead be supported by the State while they learn full time.  Therefore the Israeli government is going again this "natural law" in its efforts to extend the draft to them.
And need I mention the debacle over the Women of the Wall yesterday in which thousands of supposedly God-fearing Jews worked together to create a tremendous chilul HaShem in public?
How does one even respond to all this idiocy?
One thing is certain: rational conversation with the leadership and its representatives is a waste of time.  These folks live in a completely different reality from the rest of us.  We see that Israel survives both due to the physical and the mystical.  Yes, Torah study is a positive factor that guarantees the survival of the Jewish people and the State but the army is another important factor that can't be dismissed.  For these folks, however, it can be.  All the physical efforts, all the important work done to keep the borders secure are meaningless to them because in their world it's only Torah study that matters.
What if you try to point out there's lots of non-Chareidim out learning Torah while serving in the army?  The response is that it's only their learning that counts just like it's only their Gedolim who are real Gedolim.
In short, you can't reason with them.  Trying to refute their arguments is a waste of time because the principles of rational debate do not override their beliefs.  Tell them that staging a riot at the Kotel is a terrible thing and they will tell you that they do not care about what the world thinks, only God.  The idea that God Himself might not be onside with their plans simply will not occur to them.  It is axiomatic that He is.
So what's left?  As hokey as it might sound: self-reflection.  We on the outside also have principles and beliefs.  Are we being true to ours?  As mightily as the Chareidim fight against the draft because they truly believe theirs is the good fight do we also have that same sense of security?  Are we trying to create a Jewish nation in which burdens are equally shared or are we out to get the Chareidim?  Are we opposing a society of "learn, don't earn" because we really believe that it is not the Torah way or is it because we simply don't see any value to learning like they do?
This is the important lesson of all the hyperbole coming out of the Chareidi PR machine.  It is a challenge to us on the outside.  We need to be as focused and as principled as they are so that we can stand firm in our beliefs.

Properly Understanding The Mesorah

Way, way back when I was still going to the Conservative synagogue in my home town I frequently butted heads with one of the gvirs of the congregation, a genuinely nice guy with a limited Jewish education, lack of insight into how limited it was, and a strong egalitarian streak.  For him it was important that the synagogue be trendy, egalitarian, modern and reflective of societal values.  That's what Judaism was to him and if anyone in the synagogue advocated a more traditional approach (like me) he would go on the offensive.  One day he went as far as to declare, on behalf of the congregation, that ours was a "tradition of change".
I got in trouble that morning for pointing out that a tradition of change strongly suggests no tradition at all.  He didn't like that.
In truth Torah Judaism does allow for change.  Despite what the crowd over at Cross Currents might state the mesorah does shift over time.  The idea that all change is rejected because it's against "our mesorah" is quite false.
The problem is not just when all change is rejected.  It's also when people who believe a "tradition of change" is our tradition also think that the mesorah can be adjusted at will to reflect surrounding circumstances.  So on one side you have "All change is forbidden" and on the other you have "No, you're allowed to change whatever you want if you really have to".
The truth is somewhere in the middle and seems to go like this: change is permitted but only in those circumstances where there is compelling evidence that it's necessary, there is support in the halachic literature for the new position and the consequences of not changing are greater than  the consequences of changing.
Let's look at two examples, one historic and one in process right now.
The first is the founding of the Beis Yaakov school system.  When Sarah Shenirer started the first school it effected a revolution in Jewish education.  While nowadays we take the idea that women should be literate, educated in a broad curriculum and knowledgeable in Judaism for granted it wasn't so long ago that the idea of women's formal education was forbidden, especially in Eastern Europe.  Whatever a woman needed to know, so the mesorah told us, she could learn from watching her mother or asking the local Rav.  She didn't need to know how to read or do math since her role in life did not require those skills.  And at the time the slogan was that it had been this way from time immemorial.  Yet somehow change occured.
Historically it's easy in retrospect to see why this was the case.  At the turn of the 19th-20th centuries Torah Judaism was under assault from all sides.  There was the slow dropping of barriers between gentile and Jewish societies, especially in western and central Europe, gentile societies in which women received formal education.  There was the Haskalah with its challenges to Torah Judaism in eastern Europe in particular.  Finally there was Zionism with its approach to creating a "new Jew", one who could be male or female and educated regardless of gender.  It is quite clear that the leaders of the Torah observant community of the day saw that continuing to pretend that women didn't need a formal education would end up as a disaster.  Women would wind up either being educated in public schools by edict of the government or going off to non-religious Jewish schools run by the haskalah or Zionists and thereby be lost to Torah observance.
A century later the decision to being formal schooling for girls can be seen as an important decision that was made the right way.  But the underlying point remains: the mesorah changed and in a big way.
The second example is the current controversy regarding metzitzah b'peh. As most folks know the new concern regarding direct MBP is the transmission of the herpes simplex virus.  Due to our many sins this virus has found its way into our community on a not-so-rare basis.  Many mohelim are either infected or at risk of infection.  A herpes outbreak is contagious for several days before the characteristic rash appears and the virus transmits skin-to-skin.  All of this is a huge risk for a newborn with an immature immune system.  A neonatal herpes infection could cause encephalitis or death.
There is a way to prevent such things from happening, indirect MBP in which the mohel sucks the blood out of the incision using a pipette or syringe.  There are many poskim who have no problem with this and consider the milah valid if done this way.  It also eliminates the risk to the infant.
And the opposition?  No surprise that one of the biggest reasons for refusing to consider indirect MBP is because it's against "our mesorah".
Now look back at the criteria I mentioned above.  There is evidence that herpes infections in neonates as a result of direct MBP are occuring on a not-infrequent basis.  There is support in the halachic literature for indirect MBP as a valid alternative.  The consequences of continuing direct MBP are newborn boys become seriously ill, possibly brain-damaged or dying.  If changing from direct to indirect MBP is forbidden because "our mesorah" doesn't change then you have to close down every Beis Yaakov as well.
As for women rabbis, well I'm not sure what the compelling circumstances are that demand we consider the idea, there is at best lukewarm support in the halachic literature for such a big change in the structure of religious leadership of the Jewish community and the consequences of not changing are what?

Ethnicity Or Torah

One of the main differences in approach between religious and non-religious Jews is how they define a "good" Jew.  For religious Jews it's based mostly on personal practice and the regular learning of Torah.  For the non-religious definitions are based more on an ethnic basis.  Just like someone can be a good Italian simply by accident of birth and a like of ravioli, one can be a good Jew if one has even just a Jewish father and a liking of blintzes on Sundays.
Neither approach is entirely satisfactory.  While the Torah approach has more legitimacy since religious practice and learning has been what has kept our nation strong and distinct from the surrounding cultures for the last 3000 years it is foolish to assume that it can be the sole defining feature for what makes a Jew.  It fails to account for not only those legal differences in practice between Sephardim and Ashkenazim, for example, but also the cultural things that give each group its special flare. 
Why does this matter? Shouldn't Torah be enough?  Shouldn't we simply define our comradeship based on mutual appreciation of learning and practice?
I would venutre to say that it is not enough for a couple of reasons.  As keeps getting demonstrated almost daily it is quite obvious to state that Torah learning and personal practice does not a mensch make.  In fact reading the news out of Israel you sometimes sadly get the opposite impression, chalilah.  Based on my personal feelings it is sometimes very difficult for me to walk down the street in Bene Beraq and feel like I have anything in common with some of the folks on the street there.  This is not a good situation.
Another reason concerns the greater good of the Jewish nation.  Although, nebich, most Jews are not properly Torah observant (if at all) that does not make their innate status of Jews less valuable.  They have their place in God's grand scheme of things even if their personal level of practice suggests they don't agree.  We have enough enemies willing to reduce the size of our population.  We need not assist them through disenfranching our co-religionists.
What's more, despite their lack of observance there is much we Orthodox Jews can learn from them.  ON one hand an ethnically exclusive approach to one's Jewishness leads to Howard Wolowitz - a stereotype that amuses the gentiles who watch while causing those who know what real Judaism is to cringe.  On the other hand might someone like Howard, befriended by frum Jews, have turned out more involved religiously, more conscious of his Judaism and its obligations?  
There is also a general sense of nationhood to consider.  If I meet another Jew I am not just meeting someone who puts matzoh balls in his chicken soup for taste.  I am meeting someone whose history goes back 3500 to yetzias Mitzraiym and beyond.  It doesn't matter if he's from Israel, Russia, South Africa or China.  When I see a Jew on the news he's one of mine.  This sense of camraderie is one of the factors in our survival after all the hardships we've been through.  And that sense doesn't necessary come from personal practice and Torah study.  How many ultra-Orthodox Jews are quite dismissive of Ethiopians because they're the wrong colour or demand that Sephardim wear Orea cookie outfits if they want to be considered properly observant?
Look at Israel right now, the conflict between the seculars and the Chilonim in particular.  With the language flying back and forth you'd think mortal enemies were about to clash. We are talking about Jews against Jews.  Shouldn't there be some moderation, some reaching out because we are all the same nation?
We are right now during the Three Weeks and Tisha B'Av should be a stark reminder that sinas chinam put us into golus and is keeping us there.  No, we can't approve of the ethnic Jew's claim that he is being "good".  We have standards that demand practical observance and learning of us.  But we must continue to feel a sense of brotherhood towards him or we are lost as a people.