The Music of Shelomo Carlebach: To Sing or not to sing?

The Mishna in Avot 1:1 counsels that rabbinic judges be deliberate in judgment, that when deciding questions of Jewish law, we do not rush to judgment based upon our personal emotions, taste, feelings, intuitions, or ideologies. An act is regarded to be forbidden by all Israel only if it violates a legal norm memorialized in the canonical Oral Torah, which came to closure in the end of the Amoraic, or Talmudic period [5th Century CE], with the academy of Rav  Ashi, the last institution with the legal authority to issue hora’ah, apodictic rabbinic legislation that obliges all  Israel.

The historical fact and its attending ethical dilemma are that Carlebach has done wonderful things as well as terrible things. While his music has enchanted synagogues of all sorts, his sexual misbehavior violated unambiguous Jewish law and, from a strictly legal perspective, he would be punished by lashes if judged by a court in a Halakhic polity [Maimonides, Issurei Bi’ah 21:1]. Carlebach’s serial, sexual abuse reflects an unbelief that God is watching, seeing, knowing, and holding him to account for his “unorthodox” behavior, in contrast to the faith that seems to flow from his music. After all, he willfully, callously, and coercively objectified other human beings by using them as raw instruments for his own illicit, immoral, personal carnal pleasure.

After the Barry Freundel, Chaim Ramon, Moshe Katzav, Harvey Weinstein, Baruch Lanner, Leon Wieseltier, and  Al Franken revelations, Baltimore’s Ner Israel’s “issues” with Moses Eisenmann [http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2007/08/abuse-allegatio.html]  and Isaac Neuberger [http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2015/01/ner-israels-proximity-to-evil-678.html],  and  Yeshiva University’s mishandling of its own Rabbis Macy Gordon  and George Finkelstein, both of  whom were charged with abusive misconduct, institutional Orthodoxy has consistently failed to fire the offenders, and avoided reporting these offenders to the police.  Both Orthodox and Liberal Jewish communities have been publicly shamed.  Liberal Judaisms speak of a “higher,” “Rights of Man” ethical intuition that they trace to the Enlightenment, while often not living moral lives themselves. All humankind are taken to be created equal as a humanistically self-evident premise,’ but not as a God-given truth. If there is neither Judge nor judgment, there is no control but self-control. When Al Franken was asked why he behaved so badly, he suggested that as a media star, he is “entitled.” Unknowingly, Franken appealed to a “Tradition” even older than the Hebrew Bible, the Gilgamesh Epic, where the superman/king is able to take the sexual partner whom he wishes and from whomever because he is sufficiently powerful to do it. This was also Athens’ excuse for attacking Syracuse, a fellow democracy, like Athens.  For those for whom there is neither Judge nor judgment, powerful people demand pleasure now and they don’t want, or given their behavior, to have to wait. For them, power translates to privilege, and instead of the Law of Torah, the law of the jungle prevails.

Torah Orthodoxy affirms, and is rightly held to a much higher moral standard. But until recently, Orthodox affiliating abusers were not handed over to the police—as required by Hoshen Mishpat 425:1. Since the abuser is a clear and present danger to the lives and moral integrity of innocent others, the rule prohibiting informing the civil authorities of Jewish wrongdoing does not apply.    Institutional Orthodoxy consistently protected the offending Jews in its employ, violating what they claim to be God’s revealed law, in order to avoid the communal shame of scandal.  Orthodox Jews talk as if God is really watching them but sometimes misbehave as if no one, not even the Holy One, is watching. Ironically, institutional Orthodoxy condemns consensual mixed social dancing but unwanted mixed and same gender groping is common knowledge, tacitly tolerated, but out of embarrassment, never addressed.  Just as those who knew about the instances of sexual abuse within Orthodoxy were complicit by their silence, Liberal Jews who knew about Harvey Weinstein, yet remained silent, just like the Congress people who were aware of Al Franken’s misbehavior yet did and said nothing, are not in a moral position to criticize others on moral grounds.  Before decrying Orthodox female clergy, institutional Orthodoxy should have mustered the moral courage to address the moral misdeeds of the weeds growing in its own garden.

While Liberal Jews appeal to “higher ethics” and Orthodox Jewry, which forbids lascivious [as opposed to innocent] intergender contact outside of marriage [“derech ta’avah,” Maimonides, Issurei Bi’ah 21:1], neither  stood in the breach when they became aware of abuse, but both remained silent. Both Left and Right in the Jewish community appear to be unbelieving hypocrites. Both Orthodox and Liberal Jews really do know what to say; they do know the difference between right and wrong. Still, abusers usually act out of a sense of entitlement, that their leadership status comes with “perks,” one of which allows great people like themselves to use, abuse, and when bored with them, to discard the little people. Violating the image of God that inheres in the other is not a taboo if one does not really  believe in the God Who commanded “love your friend as you love yourself” [Lev. 19:18]. Orthodox Jews believe that they are commanded to empathize with the other’s sense of personhood which is to be valued as one rightly values one’s own personhood. The authentic Orthodox Jew is supposed to be a proactive moral agent, consistently challenging and protesting wrongdoing, not standing  idly on “one’s fellow’s blood” [Lev. 19:16 and bSan. 73a].  Institutional Orthodoxy is concerned about face, how one appears in social settings, and less about faith, by adjusting one’s behavior to the Judaism of the Oral and Written Torah. Institutional Orthodoxy is not immune to being called out for its insiders’ moral failings.

Because Carlebach was a learned, talented, often profound, and creative Orthodox rabbi, his abusive actions remain unexplainable, indefensible, and unless he asked forgiveness from each and every one of his victims, his acts are unforgivable [Maimonides Teshuva 2:9].   This being said, the banning of Carlebach music, minyanim, and discourse must be considered in Halakhic terminology and context, and not as out of anger, moral revulsion, or revenge.

At Responsum n.  224, Maimonides has more difficulties with secular Arabic singing then the applications of Arabic melodies to Jewish liturgical words. Once composed, musical melodies seem to have a Halakhic life of their own. Mordecai ben David’s Yiddin  is “borrowed” from Ghengis Khan, Chabad allows for Bobby Vinton’s non-Jewish, Polish melodies but somehow has a problem with Hatikva, the Jewish, Zionist, national anthem. Therefore, the guilt that was created by Carlebach’s misdeeds does not necessarily attach to his music.

While it is true that Rabbi Judah the Hasid [Sefer  Hasidim  768], forbids non-Jewish melodies being used in the synagogue, he fails to cite any Oral Torah law or legal norm that justifies his ruling. R. Judah calls such singing a “trespass,” or “aveira,” apparently on the basis of his own religious intuition or spiritual taste. Personal revulsion is a matter of personal taste, not “official religion” Jewish law.  R. Ovadia Yosef, at Yehavveh Da’at 2:5 shows that many authorities allowed non-Jewish music to be used in the synagogue, and lacking an Oral Torah source that forbids non-Jewish melodies being used in the liturgy, one is hard-pressed to justify imposing a restrictive ruling.  As long as the venue and behavior accompanying the music is kosher, the melody, sans the original lyrics and setting, would also be kosher. Again, the music is judged on its merits, and not the merits—or demerits—of the composer.

Maimonides also maintained that music that empowers the individual to pray with joy must be encouraged. [Lulav 8:15].  On these grounds alone, Carlebach’s melodies should be permitted for use if they enhance the prayer experience.

The question may now be posed, since Carlebach  behaved wickedly—the popular euphemism “inappropriately” minimalizes and  trivializes his offenses, does singing his tunes  imply tacit approval—and validation—of the man and his misdeeds, and on these grounds of association should his music not be banned from Jewish institutional life? After all, Malachi 2:7 teaches that we may seek Torah from the priest, who is compared to and thus ought to act an angel.  Therefore, bHagiga 15b rules that only the Rabbi who is ethically worthy may be considered to be reliable and duly vetted to teach Torah as God’s word.  And by all accounts, Carlebach was no angel.

However, Carlebach’s melodies [a] are not Torah, [b] they have been vetted and accepted by the synagogue attending public, and [c] their being sung violates no explicit Halakhic rule that I could find.

The requiring of angelic excellence of the Jewish leader is an ideal that may be waived, but only when the situation requires the waiver.   bHagiga 15b reports R. Meir proclaiming that he learns Torah from Alisha b. Avuya, the apostate known as Aher, the “other,” whose Torah he requires, while discarding the husks, the heresy to which Alisha had succumbed.

It may be argued that for R. Meir, one who is learned, may learn from Aher, but lesser lights must focus on the integrity of the Torah teacher, having no other means to vet the validity of the teacher’s teaching.  And since Carlebach was a serious and serial sexual abuser, violating the rule codified at Maimonides, Issurei Bi’ah 21:1, that outside the purity of marriage, sexually arousing, limb to limb physical contact is a very grave Halakhic offense, singing his melodies may be construed to legitimate, after the fact, Carlebach’s very bad behavior.  To this concern, Rabbi Marc Angel has argued at https://www.jewishideas.org/blog/thoughts-%E2%80%9Ccarlebach-controversy%E2%80%9D-blog-rabbi-marc-d-angel,

The most frequently mentioned name in Tanakh is that of David. He looms large in our tradition, so much so that the messiah himself will emerge from the Davidic line. Tanakh is quite candid in pointing out David’s moral failings: he took another man’s wife and arranged for the killing of her husband. These are terrible blots on his reputation, and he himself admitted his sinfulness. Yet, in spite of these egregious misdeeds, the Psalms of David are part of the Bible, and many are included in our liturgy. We read these Psalms because they are spiritually powerful and elevating. Even though the composer of many of our most beloved Psalms could be accused of adultery and murder, we compartmentalize: David’s personal shortcomings are one thing; his poetic compositions are something else. Yes, we can justify this by saying that David sincerely repented for his sins. But how can we know whether or not others—including Rabbi Carlebach—also sincerely repented?

We do not ban the book of Psalms because the author of many of them was both an adulterer and a murderer [See bShabbat 30a and Rashi, loc. cit. as well as the more often cited bShabbat 56a].  I recall reading that when confronted by one of the women he used, Carlebach expressed regret and apologies.  We are neither the ones nor the One to judge the accuracy of this report.

Carlebach’s “Torah,” however, is another matter. He offers insights but does not articulate a Halakhic hermeneutic. By praising a Hassidic rabbi whose zeal brought him to dance on Rosh Ha-Shana with his disciples, Carlebach ignores, like many less informed, and therefore less culpable rabbis, bBetsa 30a and 36a, which forbids clapping and dancing exuberance on Shabbat and Festival days. By allowing emotion, intuition, charisma, and personality to override the Torah law, Carlebach revealed that he functions, by dint of his own charisma, as if he is Torah “incarnate.”  When Torah becomes “incarnate,” carnal crimes inevitably occur.

In sum,

1. Carlebach’s behavior remains intolerable, and must be condemned.
2. His music is not impugned by his behavior according to the letter of Jewish law.
3. People who have been sexually or otherwise victimized by Carlebach do deserve and ought to be accorded reparative consideration.
4. Carlebach’s “Torah” is not Torah and should not be cited, venerated, or presented as if they are “holy words.”
5. This being said, if Carlebach’s music enhances Jewish life, it may be used in the synagogue, the table, the school, and the wedding canopy. King David’s Psalms were canonized; Carlebach’s “Torah” was not. Elisha ben Avuya’s Torah was absorbed by R. Meir, but because Elisha’s behavior was bad, he was not mentioned by name, but as Aher, i.e. the “other.”
6. It would therefore be appropriate to apply the Oral Torah’s response to Elisha’s apostasy to Carlebach’s debauchery, to retain the fruit and cast away the husk.
7. We should therefore be allowed to use Carlebach’s music while avoiding his name, which like Elisha’s, carries with it the taint of shame.