For the last year or more we have been tracking the efforts of Open Hillel to open up campus Jewish organizations to discussions that are critical of Israel. Well, last month Hillel Int’l held its global assembly and its president, Eric Fingerhut, accused the organization Open Hillel of pursuing an argument “that is not for the sake of heaven,” intended to turn Hillel chapters into sites of “anti-Israel agitation.”
He likened the critics of Hillel to the biblical character Korach who rebels against Moses and is swallowed up by the earth in what Moses calls an act of God, because Korach was opposing God’s wishes.
According to the video above posted by critics, Fingerhut began his comments by saying that Jewish tradition has always valued “dissent and disagreement,” that is how the Jewish community moves forward. But Hillel also has “a special role in setting boundaries around appropriate arguments,” and here he resorted to the biblical story of Korach, who plotted a rebellion against Moses in the book of Numbers.
Jewish tradition makes a distinction between “a proper argument… an argument in the name of heaven and an argument that is not for the sake of heaven,” Fingerhut says.
“The rebellion of Korach and his followers against Moses and Aaron is held out as the exemplar of an argument that is not made for the sake of heaven.”
Fingerhut offered two lessons derived by Jewish sages from the tale. First, the passage about Korach tells us that Moses reached out to two of Korach’s accomplices, but they refused to meet with Moses. So Jews learn that “an unwillingness to engage in dialogue even with those who are obviously not seeking compromise is still wrong.
“This is why I and so many of you have sought out opportunities to dialogue with Hillel’s critics on campus… even though these efforts at dialogue too often produce critical responses.”
The second lesson is about Korach’s bad faith. Korach claimed that he was simply seeking equality with Moses and Aaron when in fact he actually sought to be the high priest himself, Fingerhut says.
“This deliberate effort to hide one’s true motive the Torah teaches us– the rabbis teach us– makes Korach’s efforts beyond the pale.
“Now we too have experienced deception in the last year.”
Deception? He explained that Hillel is an open, pluralistic organization that works hard to include everyone and make them welcome and appreciated.
“However, some who claim Hillel is not open do not really mean that. Their real agenda is to have another platform for anti-Israel agitation. This is an argument that is not for the sake of heaven and one we will not join.”
It was plain from that reference that Fingerhut was referring to Open Hillel, which has opposed Hillel’s restrictions on speech that approves BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel). But he never mentioned Open Hillel by name.
Evan Goldstein, a Boston College student, offers his take on Fingerhut/Korach at New Voices:
Let’s acknowledge three major problems with this allusion. First, Fingerhut suggests that “Hillel has a special role in setting boundaries around appropriate arguments.” This strikes me as utterly preposterous, especially when we consider its application to Parshat Korach. If Hillel is the boundary-setter in this metaphor, to what shall we liken it? Is Hillel like Moses, who engages in a dispute with the rebellious group? Is Hillel like the sages, who determine after the fact that Korach’s motives were impure? Or is Hillel, dare I say it, like God, who exacts violent judgment against the faction? All of these options imply that Hillel has a right to set boundaries with respect to normative Judaism, a ridiculous self-perception on the part of Hillel International. They are not Moses, nor a sage, nor, it goes without saying, God, and it is not for them to determine what arguments are and are not “Jewish.” Second, Fingerhut implies that Open Hillel has “deceived” the Jewish community by misrepresenting our motives. As I have written elsewhere, members of Open Hillel hold various opinions on the State of Israel, but we are united in our ahavat Yisrael, our love for the Jewish people. While suggesting that we’re all secretly anti-Zionist agitators who work against the interests of Jewish students might make for a good applause line, it simply has no basis in reality. Finally, it is ironic that Fingerhut suggests that one lesson of Parshat Korach is “unwillingness to engage in dialogue…is wrong.” Open Hillel would like nothing more than to engage in genuine dialogue; that’s why we invited Fingerhut, along with plenty of Jewish leaders to his right, to our conference in October. One can only gawk at the chutzpah Fingerhut displays in refusing our invitation, and then accusing us of an insincere commitment to dialogue!
Despite all of this, I actually think Korach’s rebellion is precisely the lens through which we should understand Open Hillel. Consider what Korach actually says: “The entire congregation are all holy, and the Lord is in their midst. So why do you raise yourselves above the Lord’s assembly?” Note that Korach does not condemn the idea of Jewish leadership, but merely charges that Moses has gone too far in his exercise of power. The holiness of am Yisrael, Korach suggests, comes from our covenant with God, not from the authority of our leaders.
Well, well argued, I suppose, although Korach seems (what do I know about it) to have transgressed.
But, for me, HI has transgressed, assuming the authority to define what is and is not proper like some Miss Manners, and telling OH off. I say it’s their dime and they (HI) can say what they want to say about who can do what on their premises, but to exclude decent Jews after saying they open their doors to all Jews is over the top.
Maybe its time for OH to start a new club. With its doors open, unlike HI, for discussion of the major issues of our times.
“Maybe its time for OH to start a new club”
I think if they prod Hillel just a little more, it’ll fall right into their laps if they want it.
Aaron and Miriam also questioned Moses’ authority by opposing his marriage to a Cushite (Ethiopian) woman. Miriam was punished with a nasty skin disease but God made her well again after seven days when Moses interceded for her. Aaron wasn’t punished at all. It seems a bit excessive in this context for Korach to have been swallowed up alive, but then unlike Aaron and Miriam he wasn’t related to Moses.
What does Mr. Fingerhut think about intermarriage? I would expect that as a Zionist and tribalist he would be on the side of Aaron and Miriam. But that would mean that he too questions Moses’ authority and is hardly in a position to condemn Korach.
Korach’s argument was one of religious roles rather than nationalism. He claimed everyone could be a priest, not, like Open Hillel, that a nation state was questionable.
Israeli secularism and Reform Judaism have far more to do with Korach than Open Hillel does. Israeli secularism and Reform Judaism teach that obedience to Moses’ law is unneeded, for example it says that work is not banned on the Sabbath, although it may be discouraged.
Eric Fingerhut: “Their [alluding to Open Hillel] real agenda is to have another platform for anti-Israel agitation. This is an argument that is not for the sake of heaven and one that we will not join.” [applause]
This is the correct framing of the debate. Can Fingerhut convince the public that all Open Hillel wants is to take over Hillel to take down Israel. I think that by attacking the integrity of this growing movement of Jewish students he is setting himself up to lose. His audience are the hardcore Israel supporters. Fingerhut is their leader. But his other audience are the liberal Zionists who still feel uncomfortable in the radical camp but could be pushed in that direction by people like Fingerhut,