Halachic Musings
By Rabbi Yair Hoffman
The prayer for the secular government has its origins in Sefer Yirmiyahu (29:7): “Seek the welfare of the city . . . and pray to Hashem on its behalf.” It also appears in Pirkei Avos (3:2), where Rabbi Chananya, s’gan ha’kohanim, says, “Pray for the welfare of the government.” However, the prayer of HaNosein Teshuah first appears in the form that we know in the Pinkas Ha’Ir of the Worms community dating back to 1096 CE.
What if the government under discussion is “evil,” so to speak? Is the prayer recited even then? Let’s realize that Rabbi Chananya was referring to Roman times where the local populations were exploited and murdered in order to achieve the goals and aims of the Roman Empire.
This question relates to some recent news. Arutz Sheva ran an article that highlighted how Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz, dean of the Valley Beth Midrash in Phoenix, Arizona, has rewritten the traditional prayer for the government “so as to avoid actually blessing the 45th president.”
“Because of my commitment to the integrity of prayer, starting this week, I can no longer recite or say Amen to the Shabbat prayer for the success of the U.S. president,” Yanklowitz wrote.
The revised prayer reads in part: “Guide the incoming leader of this country away from his basest instincts, thwart his plans to target certain groups and strengthen white supremacy; for You know, G‑d, that all were created in Your image.”
It continues, “We pray that the decrees from the executive office do not harm the innocent. We pray that any policies that are meant to harm the vulnerable in prioritization of the powerful and privileged will be quashed. Should there be plans that will merely benefit the most privileged Americans, but not all of humankind and the planet we call home, may they fail.
“May our nation not consort or conspire with totalitarian despots but reaffirm our commitment to freedom and democracy. Grant us the strength to demonstrate spiritual resistance, to imbue our sinews with the highest integrity. Give us the wisdom and courage to do what’s right to protect the most powerless and defenseless in society.”
• • •
It is suggested that for the sake of not misleading others, Orthodox publications and news sites should not be calling Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz “Open Orthodox,” because by no means is he Orthodox. This just serves to confuse the non-Jewish media into thinking that he represents Orthodox Judaism is some sense. He does not.
We should be calling them Open O’ers instead.
His writings reflect a theological perspective that is so beyond the pale that it does not fit into Orthodox Judaism in any sense.
Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz’s writings on Mashiach being a Christian concept that influenced Judaism, and other writings of his, clearly place him far outside the orbit of Orthodox Judaism. The following quotes are from an article he had published in the Jewish Week, February 1, 2012 (www.thejewishweek.com/features/street_torah/most_important_and_dangerous_jewish_value_messianic_impulse).
“We have made too many mistakes throughout history, thinking that the Messiah is a person or event. It was Christian influence that helped further this idea of the single divine human. The Jewish notion, preceding that, suggested that all people are imbued with divinity.
“At the end of the day, I would like to suggest that we are Mashiach—we are the ones we have been waiting for.”
This article is a flat-out denial of a cardinal principle of Judaism—the arrival and anticipation of Mashiach. He has written that the identity of the much-awaited Messiah is “us.” This flies in the face of the Talmud, Maimonides, and thousands of years of Jewish tradition.
It is disingenuous for Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz to claim that he is Orthodox and yet deny fundamentals of Judaism. Open O’er is a much better designation.
In a Tishah B’Av reflection this past Tishah B’Av, Rabbi Yanklowitz actually denies the rebuilding of the third Beis HaMikdash. (see http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/also-have-trouble-mourning-on-tisha-bav/#ixzz33Pmpp5DO.) He writes, in part:
“The fantasy of returning to one centralized monolithic form of Judaism is not only wishful thinking. It’s also dismissive of two of the most important aspects of modern Jewish life: diversity and adaptability.
“Further, in any centralized system of authority, abuses of power and limits of transparency and empowerment have proven to be inevitable. The new paradigm that the Temple’s destruction and exile from Israel enabled is one that says, Bring G‑d into your hearts and into the wide world every day and in every way; the Temple was a vehicle for this once, now we have so much more.
“It is natural to long for past models in a world of uncertainty but we must move forward with courage, creativity, and open hearts to build a world of justice, kindness, and holiness where G‑d can reside.”
These articles and more have placed Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz far outside the orbit of Orthodox Judaism. The “I’m OK, you’re OK” attitude cannot stretch the boundaries of the umbrella of Orthodoxy to include someone who denies the meaning of the idea of Mashiach and of rebuilding the Beis HaMikdash.
This is not a matter of misinterpretation; he really writes and believes this. The very tefillos of our synagogues, our Shemoneh Esreih, indeed, even the last line in the counting of the Omer would have to be thrown out in order to comport with Rabbi Shmuly’s theological writings.
It is particularly sad because it is clear that Rabbi Shmuly is a man of great sensitivities. His work in Haiti, in improving conditions for prisoners, in calling for greater transparency in charitable organizations all point to a man of good middos. His concerns for social welfare, for immigrant rights, for the downtrodden and weak are all very important and admirable qualities.
There is obfuscation going on here of the highest order. The obfuscation involves not only this rabbi, but an entire group of others, presenting their ideas that lie far beyond the pale of Orthodoxy as if they are Orthodox.
Chovevei Torah and Open Orthodoxy have taken the most radical positions on issues of biblical criticism, changing the formulation of blessings instituted by the Men of the Great Assembly, recognizing marriages that the Torah clearly prohibits, and engaging in interfaith activities that are clearly forbidden by halachah.
Rabbi Zev Farber, a leading Open Orthodox thinker, has taken the position that Sefer Devarim was not written by Moshe Rabbeinu and came significantly later. This does not and cannot comport with the theological views of the Talmud, the Shulchan Aruch, and Orthodox Judaism. (See, for example, http://thetorah.com/torah-history-judaism-part-3/ and http://thetorah.com/torah-history-judaism-part-4/ for starters.)
Elsewhere, Rabbi Farber has written:
“The same holds true of the description of the development of Israel. The idea that the twelve tribes of Israel were formed by the twelve sons of Jacob has all the appearances of a schematic attempt of Israelites to explain themselves to themselves: ‘We are all one family because we are all children of the same father.’ These Torah stories are not history, the recording of past events, they are mnemohistory, the construction of shared cultural-memory through narratives about the past.
“It is impossible to regard the accounts of mass Exodus from Egypt, the wilderness experience, or the coordinated, swift, and complete conquest of the entire land of Canaan under Joshua as historical.
“The popular idea that the Torah’s holiness stems only from the historicity of its claims, dictated by the mouth of G‑d, strikes me as an attempt to depict the Al‑mighty as a news reporter.” (http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2013/07/26/belief-in-torah-min-ha-shamayim-damage-control-by-yct/#ixzz33RD0Wyx6).
Orthodox organizations should redesignate members of “Open Orthodoxy” as “Open O’ers” to stop the terrible confusion.
The author can be reached at Yairhoffman2@gmail.com.