http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/727575.html

Secular Jews seek their own version of halakha
By Yair Sheleg

Shai Zarhi and Itamar Lapid want to take the renaissance of secular
interest in Judaism to an unprecedented level: Now that secular study
centers (batei midrash), rituals and prayers have been developed, Zarhi
and Lapid, both from the Midrasha at the kibbutz movement's Seminar
Oranim (the secular beit midrash that helped pioneer the phenomenon),
are talking about fashioning a secular halakha, or Jewish legal code - a
detailed code that, like religious halakha, will include a punctilious
formulation of dos and don'ts, according to secular principles. Lapid,
to be precise, refers to an "Israeli halakha," because in his vision,
religious people will be partners in shaping it as a shared platform.

Their idea is for the secular world, which now believes in maximum
individual freedom, to adopt a worldview in which all areas of life are
shaped by rules that bind everyone in the community - just like state
laws, or halakhic laws for observant Jews. They are not talking, at
least for now, about writing a secular Shulhan Arukh (one of the
foremost Jewish legal codes), but about reconstructing the world of the
Mishnaic sages, before halakha was fashioned into an obligatory rule
book - multiple batei midrash discussing all areas of life and the
correct way to live them.

Lapid explains: "More than I'm interested in answers, I'm interested in
dealing with questions, but not just via principled debates about
values; rather, by delving into the details of all areas of life - labor
relations, the nature of holidays and Shabbat, rituals, etc. And I don't
mean that only Talmidei Hachamim [scholars] should engage in this, but
all sectors of society - teachers, soldiers, journalists, everyone."

    Advertisement

To a certain extent, this is an expansion of Supreme Court Justice
Aharon Barak's slogan that "everything is justiciable." Lapid and Zarhi
believe that, as with religious halakha, every area of life should be
discussed and shaped by society and the various communities within it,
"unless society has explicitly decided, after examination, that it is
leaving a given area to be determined by individuals." Such a process,
Lapid believes, will infuse public and democratic life with meaning
beyond election day.

He also underscores the difference between the goal for which he is
striving and various ethical codes: "An ethical code is a sort of
recommendation, and it is not by chance that politicians gladly ignore
it," he says. "I'm talking about a binding system of rules, which would
stipulate, for instance, that a certain person is not fit for public
duty, even if an offense has not been proved on a criminal level.
Besides, I don't want the ethical code to be drafted by a single person,
but for all of society, with its various sectors, to discuss the code
that binds it."

Biographical background is crucial for understanding their worldview.
Both were raised in the kibbutz movement - Zarhi, 50, on Kibbutz Ginegar
in the Jezreel Valley (where he lives to this day), and Lapid, 37, son
of the late Herut Lapid (who rehabilitated prisoners), on Ayelet
Hashahar in the Hula Valley. Lapid also now lives in the Jezreel Valley,
in the community of Shimshit. For both men, the kibbutz movement, with
its written and unwritten rules, was a sort of "secular halakha" that
collapsed and needs rebuilding.

Moreover, Zarhi believes that a key cause of the kibbutz movement's
collapse was that its socialism was couched in gentile rather than
Jewish terms. "Our language, and its concepts, have existed for
generations. So then, even if you invest them with new meaning, they
still convey commitment. But when you employ global terms to begin with,
it creates something that doesn't last," he says.

Lapid stresses that the kibbutz's demise does not indicate the failure
of the "secular halakha" concept. "The fact that something didn't work
doesn't prove that it's impossible," he says, and offers the revival of
Hebrew as an example of a successful revolution.

Each arrived at this concept on his own, but it grew out of a parallel
experience of gradual exposure to the world of Judaism.

Unlike the burgeoning secular enthusiasm for studying Jewish texts, for
religious rituals and even for prayer services, this idea still has no
takers. It undermines the most valued part of today's secular identity -
individual freedom. "Halakha is the opposite of privatization," Lapid
readily concedes. "Halakha presumes that we are not interested in living
each man to himself, but in engaging in what connects people."

Zarhi reports that friends in the Jewish studies world are supportive of
the idea, "and only the name 'halakha' bothers some of them. But I
believe that part of the dialogue with the past is using traditional
terminology."

A more realistic-sounding Lapid says that "unfortunately, we have not
yet reached the state where we are perceived as a threat." In other
words, if they were further along in realizing their vision, they would
already have some opponents.