 |
| Chaim Topol as Tevya the milkman in Fiddler on the Roof |
One of the things that characterizes the views of a Centrist
is that very few things in life are black and white. Except for those Torah laws universally understood and accepted, things are pretty much grey.
It is because of this that one will see an occasional
controversial view posted here. A view that either the right or the left (religiously
or politically) will have trouble with. But since this blog is about trying to
ascertain the truth, being controversial is not an impediment.
For example, the play Fiddler on the Roof is often cited
as anathema to a Torah Hashkafa. The story line follows the path of ‘Tevye the
milkman’ as he evolves in his thinking about accepting non traditional sons in
law. Especially their having met his daughters in non traditional ways without a Shadchan (matchmaker).
The 1st is
an observant but unlearned man – Motel, the tailor - who has not studied Torah in
depth and remains somewhat ignorant about Halacha. Tevye analyzes the relative merit versus
debit of such a man marrying one of daughters in one of his famous ‘On the
other hand’ soliloquies. He ends up with an acceptance of Motel for his daughter.
The 2nd daughter marries a free thinking
socialist who is not religious at all. Tevya does the same thing here and accepts
him too.
The 3rd daughter falls in love with a non Jew.
Tevye goes through it one more time and this time to his credit he incompletely
rejects the intermarriage of his daughter.
Unfortunately the play is sympathetic to the errant daughter
and gives the impression that the right thing for Tevya to have done would have been to accept them the same way he accepted the other sons in law.
The bottom line of this play is that the Judaism of the unenlightened European Jew should be seen as archaic. Although sweetly portrayed the
message is clear. Tolerance trumps tradition. So that to the
extent that Tevye sticks to traditional Jewish values is to the extent that he errs. To the extent that he accepts the non traditional is to the extent that he is seen
as doing the right thing. Rabbis that promote traditional Jewish values are symbolically ridiculed by portraying the community rabbi as a doddering old fool.
The reality of life in ‘the old country’ is that in the vast
majority of cases the rabbi was anything but an old fool. To me that was an outrageous and disgusting thing to do.
And yet, I still loved that play. When I first saw it in back in
the early 60s no one saw it negatively. In fact if I recall correctly it was used
as a fundraiser for one of the religious schools. How does one reconcile that
with the more or less accurate description of the message of that play being
anathema to Torah?
I think the answer is the following. Although it was somewhat
anti religious, it nevertheless portrayed life in the ‘Shtetel’ of Europe
warmly - with a sense of nostalgia. We
loved all those characters and saw them as our own relatives – our ancestors of just a few generations ago.
Many religious leaders nevertheless condemned it and never saw it as anything but anti Torah. But was that all it projected? Did all who saw that play have negative thoughts about traditional Judaism planted into their unconscious minds? Did its treatment of that end up creating or reinforcing negative thoughts about following Halacha - seeing it as primitive and not in concert with modern thought? I suppose it might have done so in some cases. But in other cases it inspired! Some Jews were actually moved to explore their roots. And in some of those cases it actually led some non observant Jews to become observant.
In case there is any doubt about whether that ever actually happened,
an unlikely source shows us that it definitely did happen.
I once described Eytan Kobre
as the resident pit-bull of Mishpacha Magazine. I was strongly criticized for referring
to him that way by some people. But I stood my ground because of the way he attacked those
with whom he disagreed. While I had no
issue with strong disagreement, I did have an issue with the way he tackled it. For him it was always black and white. This was the case with
his views about the play Fiddler on the Roof. He trashed it for all the reasons
I stated above.
But he has re-thought his approach because of Refoel
Franklin. Mr. Franklin is a Baal Teshuva that Eytan Kobre wrote about in a
previous issue of the Mishpacha Magazine. In the course of interviewing him, he was surprised to hear how Mr. Franklin became
observant. It was the movie version of Fiddler on the Roof. After
seeing that movie, he was inspired to check out his heritage and that ultimately led him to become observant.
I applaud Mr.Kobre’s intellectual honesty here. He now affirms
what we Centrists know intuitively. That many issues that may seem black and
white – are not. There is a lot of grey in them. In his latest column in
Mishpacha he tells us that he will from now on be mindful of any possible redeeming
factors that mitigate outwardly negative things. I am very happy that this very erudite and
talented writer has had a change of heart and now recognizes that there is
indeed a lot of grey in the world.
So it is with this - that I withdraw my pit-bull reference.
I now regret it and apologize. I don’t know if he ever heard of me, or if he
did - that he ever reads my blog or even acknowledges my existence. Nonetheless, I feel
an apology is owed and it is my sincere hope that he accepts it.
