It was written by Binyamin Zahav wherein he attacked the Maccabees and totally distorted the meaning of Chanukah. And along with attacking him, I attacked OO saying in effect that if this what OO believed - there could be no longer be any doubt that they were not in any way Orthodox despite using that word as part of their name and claiming to be so.
That post received a variety if responses – both pro and
con. I recall one of them saying that the article in question was a spoof of OO rather
than a serious attempt to describe and defend it. I received an e-mail from someone
else saying the same thing
I also received an e-mail from a prominent rabbi associated
with OO who denounced the article and me for believing that what
Zahav wrote had anything to do with OO. (Apparently he too thought it was real enough to make it clear to me that Zahav’s views in no way represented OO.)
Well, it appears it was a spoof albeit – close enough to the actual views
OO rabbis have expressed in the past to make it seem quite real. Many of us (including me - obviously) were fooled. But the comments telling me it wasn’t did make me wonder.
I found out the answer to that by reading the most recent Times of Israel article ‘defending’
OO by Mr. Zahav. This time he did a much better job of showing that the article
was meant as satire. It's entitled The Genius of Open-Orthodoxy:
“Gumby Halacha. If that title doesn’t tell you it is a spoof, nothing will.
There is more than one indication of that in the text of the article itself. Here
is one example:
The Torah is indeed our beloved plaything as was understood by Chazal and yet by the very nature of it, it has a fantastic ability to stretch! I encourage Jews to stretch the Halacha. Stretch it a foot-long, nay five feet! Watch the arms and legs and head stretch the length of your wingspan. And if you do this for the sake of Heaven and the head pops off, you have engaged in the greatest expression of Talmud Torah.
OK. I get it now. Zahav was just kidding. And clearly what he writes does not represent OO. While I still have some serious issues with OO, the
descriptions of OO in both articles is not part of it.
I would like to therefore apologize to OO for misrepresenting their
views based on an article that I now know was meant as pure satire and nothing else.
And also, to Mr. Zahav for thinking that he actually
believed in the OO he described instead of realizing that the opposite must be true.
This does not necessarily mean that I now accept OO as a
valid expression of Orthodoxy. But if one
is going to criticize them. It has to be based on what they actually are.
