We don't learn anything from History. That was the first thing I was told in University. We don't get wiser with time but are somehow fated to make the same mistakes endlessly, never being able to explain something until it happens: the collapse of the Berlin Wall, 9/11, the credit crunch, These are things Historians did not predict.
"Ah but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now". Obligatory Dylan quote. But this position is slightly modified by the fact that we constantly use history to inform our decisions. E.H Carr mentions that many of those who convened at Versailles had Waterloo in mind when deciding upon reparations, and Chamberlain's infamous appeasement policy was clearly in large part a product of wanting to avoid the horrors of the first world war. The lessons of history weigh heavily in the minds of those entrusted with major decision-making.
And in this sense, history is at the forefront of everyone's mind when thinking about the role of appointing female rabbinic leaders in Judaism. There are two dominant perspectives; the first, clearly in the minds of many contemporary Orthodox rabbis, is the slippery slope leading to Conservative or Reform Judaism. The very concept of a female rabbi takes them on a journey which ends in assimilation, apostasy and the end of the Jewish people. The second is quite the opposite. History is filled with positive innovations. Particularly in the realm of women's educations, many perceived innovations are now accepted as critical to the spiritual wellbeing of the Jewish people. Why, they might say, Copernicus' model of the universe was also an innovation.
Whilst the halakhic considerations are certainly paramount, what you increasingly have are two groups who see a monumental period in history which requires action. This is, like it or not, the definitive issue in the contemporary Jewish Orthodox scene. But there is another issue. How do you present these ideas? Even if you consider a movement to be potentially heretical what is the point saying something in a way that can only create discord?
The age of the internet has created the greatest revolution in the spread of knowledge since the invention of the printing press. This deeply affects the way people respond to authority, particularly in religion. Whilst a signed letter of condemnation may have been powerful when people could view it under certain limited conditions, for example in print. But today when anything is said or released, instantly the whole of cyberworld goes crazy and points that are raised with the voice of authority are mercilessly attacked, sometimes harshly and sometimes constructively, in split seconds. Since the days of the Herem being rendered obsolete as a means of social control, condemnations from figures of authority have become less influential. In today's world they almost always attract derision.
Who is the wise person? One who sees the newborn. It is true that history cannot predict specific events. But it should be able to create a deeper understanding of the way the universe and humanity work. The bad feelings from fights take a long time to go away, as things get personal and unpleasant. As well as the technical rights and wrongs of a situation, leaders should try and take full account of responses, reactions and consequences when making decisions.
Like Pieterson, there is a time and place to publish a book, particularly when you want to get back into the Test team.
Now I wish I could write you a melody so plain
That could hold you dear lady from going insane
That could ease you and cool you and cease the pain
Of your useless and pointless knowledge.
Bob Dylan, Tombstone Blues.
One of my rabbis in secondary school likes to berate me about the fact that I am unable to remember the Gemarah I learned in yeshivah but will never forget the birthdays of messrs. Bergkamp, Henry etc. I didn't bother pointing out that my knowledge of cricket batting averages is far more developed than footballers birthdays but I presume it would have incurred the same treatment. Whilst the comparison is perhaps an unfair one it is true that knowledge of irrelevant facts and figures has always been a passion of mine.
It is quite interesting to observe what people consider 'relevant'. In certain schools of Jewish learning, particularly in the Lithuanian school of Talmudic study, everything in the Talmud is relevant as it is its own end. Although learning is not really about coming out with a particular body of knowledge but embracing the process by which the knowledge is acquired, its all-encompassing importance makes it worth memorising.
In other areas, relevance has much to do with ultimate financial success. In terms of learning foreign languages, for example, the following scenario will often occur: person a. 'Hi, I've decided to learn Italian' person b. 'What's the point? Learn Chinese, that's where the economic future lies' etc. Relevant = useful + productive.
But my problem with all this is as soon as something is relevant, necessary or important to know it becomes boring and brain draining. Memorising hurts and ultimately locks you into a particular pattern of thought which becomes tedious and sterile very quickly. Once we have to do something it loses its appeal. Reminds me of the idea of why the person who performs mitzvoth when commanded is superior to the one who does them voluntarily.
I think that part of the problem is that as human beings we have a basic need to make our own distinctive and creative mark on this earth, which can apply to things as simple as the ideas we communicate with other people. When something is relevant and expected, our uniqueness feels challenged. When I arrived at university, I sought to follow a structure and memorise it, to pursue the relevance to attain that employability standard of a mid-2:1. But then it got boring. Everyone did the same thing. This wasn't mine and didn't feel distinctive in any sense so I realised I needed to change my whole attitude towards studying and learning in the broadest sense of the word.
So I began to embrace the irrelevant and ridiculous. Because the irrelevant was fun and suited me perfectly. It also removed the burden of having to do things just because they were useful. I heard a brilliant Shiur from rabbi Dweck the other day which included the point that many are reluctant to broaden their scope of knowledge for fear of challenging the 'working definitions' that we use on a daily basis in our adult lives. New ideas will automatically be incorporated into a pre-existing framework that we are comfortable with. To pursue truth and deep understanding we have to be like children, approaching new ideas with innocence and a degree of naivete.
As kids we don't care why we are interested in what we are interested in, we just are. Childhood contains the seeds of what makes us truly us and when we forget for a few moments what we have to do/be and embrace that ridiculousness within it reminds us what makes us unique as individuals. A bit more of this can only be a good thing.
