| Caution: This blog is la-halakhah ve-lo le-ma'aseh. Consult your rabbi before following any practices advocated here. Disclaimer: In reviewing books, I may choose works in which I have a financial interest. I believe that I will still be able to maintain objectivity but judge for yourselves. Important Policy: This blog is intended only for the interchange of ideas for the purpose of Torah study, promoting enlightened public policy and/or the refinement of character. Comments in that spirit are welcome but those that entail denigration of character are not welcome and if they appear will be deleted upon discovery. Since editing is rarely feasible, comments that are deemed inappropriate will be deleted entirely or, if possible, edited. Comments Moderation: For questions and suggestions about comments, please contact the blog's general editor Rabbi Ari Enkin at this e-mail address. Advertisement Policy: Please note that this blog does not necessarily endorse the services of advertisers. Please consider carefully any books and events announced on this blog and decide on your own whether they are appropriate for you. |
Monday, February 08, 2010
Announcements #138: Etz Chaim in February
Etz Chaim in FebruaryExciting lectures at Etz Chaim this month.
147-19 73rd Ave.
Flushing, NY
EtzChaimkgh.org
Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb
Wednesdays February 10, 17, 24 7:30pm
Halakha and Psychology
1. Perspectives on Mental Health Issues in the Orthodox Jewish Community Today
2. New Trends in the Search for Spirituality: Helpful or Harmful to the Halachic Jew?
3. The Posek, the Pious, and the Parent: What Psychology Can Teach Them
Rabbi Dr. Edward Reichman
Wednesdays February 10, 17, 24 8:30pm
Medical Ethics
1. When Man Creates Man: The Beginning of Life
2. End of Life Issues
3. Entering Dangerous Situations for the Sake of a Mitzvah
Rabbi Moshe Taragin
Shabbat Yitro: February 5-6
Leil Shabbat: 8:00pm Shiur for all, followed by tish for Gush alumni
at Rabinovich home: 144-33 72nd Drive
Shabbat Morning Drasha: Approx. 10:30am
At Seuda Shlishit: Divine Geula and Secular Zionism
Dr. Michelle Levine
Wednesday February 3rd 7:45pm
Shiur Ha-Chodesh for Women
Rabbi Dr. Moshe Sokol
Tuesdays February 9, 16, 23 8:30pm
Judaism’s Encounter with Modernity
1. How Independent-Minded Should an Orthodox Jew Be?
2. Should an Orthodox Jew Be Tolerant of Those He Believes Are Religiously Wrong?
3. Was Rav Soloveitchik a Modern Orthodox Jew?
Rabbi Menachem Leibtag
Shabbat Mishpatim: February 12-13
Leil Shabbat, after congregational dinner:
From the Ten Commandments to Parshat Mishpatim – A Step in the ‘White’ Direction
Shabbat day: approx. 10:45am
Why Sefer Devarim ‘Belongs’ in Parshat Mishpatim (and how that explains the daily “kriyat shema”)
At Seuda shlishit – Why the Mishkan gets so much ‘press’ in Sefer Shmot [The ‘plus side’ of talking in shul]
(Announce your simchah or Torah lectures by clicking on the
button in the top right corner of Hirhurim. See here for readership statistics and here for instructions on buying an announcement. Please note that announcements now cost $36 each.)Weekly Links
Rules: link (Note that this post will move every day until the end of the week)Monday
- SALT today: link
- The debate over the NY Times Jerusalem bureau chief: I, II
- A diverse new wave of kosher in Teaneck: link
- Survey evaluates changing Jewish community in Rochester area: link
- R. Shmuel Hain on the middle path of women's communal leadership: link
- Anglican church struggling over the ordination of women: link
- Anglo-Israeli religious women to discuss 'kosher' use of social media: link
- New genetic research indicates Jewish priesthood has multiple lineages: link
Announcements #137: Check-Out-Linden Shabbaton
Young Families: You’re Invited to a Check-Out-Linden Shabbaton!Shabbat, March 5-6, 2010
Spend Shabbos with the Linden community, the new destination for young, Orthodox families in New Jersey.
We offer:
- Without question, the most affordable houses in an Orthodox community in the NYC area.
- Great single-family homes, beginning at $220,000 in addition to garden apartments and multi-family rentals.
- A growing community: We welcomed 13 new families to Linden in the last 3 years.
- A beautiful, tree-lined, safe and quiet neighborhood with a 35-minute commute to NYC.
- All Orthodox Jewish ammenities: schools, shopping, mikvah, eruv, etc.
- Experience our warm, welcoming community, and our inspiring new dynamic rabbi, Rabbi Joshua Hess.
- Connect with other couples looking for the right place to plant their roots.
- Bring your kids! Enjoy Shabbos morning children's groups (infants to age 7).
- Enjoy gourmet shabbos catering by our very own Tacos N' Things chef.
- Stay with families in the community and meet our friends!
- Master Hypnotist Sebastian Black, of Oprah and CBS fame.
- Lounge & Open Bar after the show.
- Catering by Masterpiece Cuisine, Passaic, NJ | Music by Shemspeed.com.
- Babysitting options for Saturday night
(Announce your simchah or Torah lectures by clicking on the
button in the top right corner of Hirhurim. See here for readership statistics and here for instructions on buying an announcement. Please note that announcements now cost $36 each.)Sunday, February 07, 2010
Nostalgia Ain't What It Used To Be
I. ReunionLast night I attended my 20-year high school reunion. As I've written before, I'm a sucker for nostalgia. Now that we are old -- even though many looked quite young last night, some of us have children in high school (including one with a child in the school we attended) -- I think it's possible to begin evaluating the results of our education. Let me note that I was instructed to be discreet in writing about the event so I will use a loose code and will only intentionally embarrass one person with a carefully inserted falsehood (why? link). Please allow for inside jokes.
Click here to read moreTurnout last night was not so great. For many reasons, a lot of people didn't show up (brief sample of explanations: I live too far away, I live too close (!), I have other commitments, I hated high school). Additionally, due to our remarkable inability to follow simple instructions, we had less time for shmoozing than expected (as I was walking out at the end I learned that there were table assignments). Despite that, I had a great time reconnecting and reminiscing.
II. Reconnections
Picture this: Straight out of yeshiva, I enter the large corporation that inexplicably hired me. Last Thursday I was learning in kollel; this Monday I am reporting to work like a gefilte fish out of water. After going through some corporate paperwork, I am taken to a cubicle and told that E, a woman who seems about my age and looks remarkably familiar, would show me what to do.
Me: Did we go to high school together a bunch of years ago but you had a different last name?It turned out she wasn't kidding about the teasing being in good fun. She and the rest of our frum actuarial ghetto in that company became close friends despite the fact that we almost unanimously hated our jobs (even though the people were great).
E: Yes, I got married.
Me, sweating profusely: Were you the one I teased incessantly?
E: Yes, that was me.
Me: You're not my boss, right?
E: No but don't worry, it was all in good fun.
I got to see E again, for the first time since I quit that miserable job. We both had the same reaction about the collapse of the building in which we worked -- 7 World Trade Center: Cool! The CIA had an office in that building (link). Although obviously that was not the primary reaction either of us had.
Most of my classmates went to Israel right after high school but I didn't and I roomed with (and learned with) another classmate who went straight to YU (now a rabbi in Australia). That was the year of the First Gulf War. In January, a bunch of students who were in Israel came back as war broke out in the Middle East. My roommate and I decided to take in a refugee even though it meant extremely cramped quarters, and we greatly benefited. Our new roommate Z immediately raised the coolness quotient of the room. I got to see him last night for the second time since college (first time was a random pass-by in Midtown).
III. Observations
I'm not going to go through everyone else I enjoyed seeing, other than noting that I was put in the odd position of signing autographs for the friends and family of a girl on whom I had a crush for all of high school. Suffice it to say that there were a lot of good memories. The school put together a Memory Book, which is basically a revised yearbook, showing the old picture, a new picture, and a revised biography with answers to a few questions. How cool is it that my funniest moment mentioned my favorite plastic surgeon and his funniest moment mentioned me, but they were different moments? He also won the all-time prize for most surprising religious awakening by announcing in the Memory Book: "I am currently Frum: GASP!" Gasp, indeed.
Now, some observations from talking and reading the Memory Book:
- People have a lot of kids. The conventional wisdom that yeshiva tuition serves as effective birth control in the Modern Orthodox community seems to have been lost on my classmates. A lot of people have four or more kids (I think the record so far is 8).
- We had some real overachievers in our year, some brilliant, creative and hardworking people. A surprisingly large number of them curtailed their careers in order to raise their children.
- Some stats (to the best of my knowledge): 93 grads, 2 tragic deaths, 11 olim, 7 Orthodox rabbis, 1 (female) Reform rabbi, 2 rebbetzins, 13 doctors (not all medical), 3 or 4 intermarriages, 1 film screenwriter, 1 Ivy League professor, 6 actuaries
Now, to the point: I have heard it said that Modern Orthodox education in general and my high school in particular is like a red heifer -- it makes the non-religious religious but opens the door for the religious to leave the fold. Is that true? From what I can tell based on the anecdotes I've collected from my grade, the better biblical analogy is the Jewish slave. If he enters slavery single then he leaves single (im be-gapo yavo, be-gapo yeitzei). Similarly, if you enter the school with religion then you leave religious.
It seems that a few people became more religious and a few became less religious. Generally, though, those who entered the school non-religious continued that way, sometimes becoming less religious after high school (but not always, one classmate told me that when he got married he insisted on keeping a kosher home even though he never grew up with one). My friend who became a female Reform rabbi was always on that trajectory, pretty much from the first day of high school. And those who entered the school Orthodox continued that way, sometimes becoming more religious after high school. But overall, after eliminating the outliers, people pretty much stayed where they were. Im be-gapo yavo, be-gapo yeitzei.
You can spin this as a success of the education or a failure, depending on your inclination. I was just surprised by the results.
Friday, February 05, 2010
Weekly Links
Rules: link (Note that this post will move every day until the end of the week)Friday
- SALT today: link
- Brooklyn yeshiva students warn neighbors about house fire: link
- Report: Bloomberg to endorse David Greenfield for city council: link
- How Dovid Katz thirst for Jewish History: link
- New documentary explores history of Jews and basketball: link
- R. Jonathan Sacks: The Pope is right about the threat to freedom: link
- R. Steven Pruzansky: Schism?: link
- SALT today: link
- Former Felder staffer Eric Kuo joins Team Greenfield as Senior Advisor: link
- Frum & female, but a rabbi? - Agudah welcomes new title for controversial clergywoman: link
- R. Reuven Bulka: Some observations on the conversion crisis : link
- The impending haredi implosion: link
- The secret code of repealed conversions: link
- R. Eliyahu Safran: Is gluttony a disease or choice?: link
- Rabbi Melamed: IDF chief rabbi’s rulings not binding (OLD NEWS, see R. Melamed's book Revivim: Kovetz Ma’amarim Be-Inyanei Am, Eretz, Tzava, pp. 250-254): link
- Yated: Say it already: Avi Weiss is not Orthodox (he needs to read a good history of Reform): link
- SALT today: link
- OU disabilities inclusion resolution passes House: link
- Torah and iTablets: link
- The Jewish Press to host 44th district City Council debate: link
- Is Wikipedia good for the Jews?: link
- Rabbonim shlita question Jerusalem’s policy to promote Evangelistic tourism: link
- Jewish groups protest "Mussolini" iPhone app: link
- Controversial? Sure. Post-Orthodox? C’mon.: link
- Corpse abduction in Jerusalem to avoid autopsy (unbelievable): link
- New title, but restrictions remain for religious leader: link
- Leib Tropper resigns as rosh yeshiva of Kol Yaakov: link
- SALT today: link
- Chief rabbi: Judges won't deliberate nullifying conversions: link
- 1000 rabbis warn: open homosexuality in the military is a disaster and may cause further natural disasters: link
- More than a paycheck (note the correlation between the three types of motivation and those discussed by the Rambam in his introduction to Chelek): link
- Mayor Ed Koch endorses David Greenfield: link
- Construction for 770 Florida begins: link
- Best news story every (video at bottom, like yesterday's best blog post): link
- PM Netanyahu's son wins Jerusalem Bible Contest: link
- SALT today: link
- David Greenfield city council campaign kickoff: link
- R. Emanuel Feldman: Haiti and the mind of God: link
- More from R. Dovid Ribiat on EJF scandal: link
- The incredible ongoing experiment in Jewish responsibility: link
- International dateline in Jewish law: link
- Dennis Prager: Messengers who forgot their message: link
- Charities are suffering: link
- Best blog post ever: link
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Audio Roundup LXXIX
by Joel RichQuestion 1:
Does “Kabel et haemet…” (accept the truth from wherever it comes) include: 1) Yoshvei kranot (corner sitters – the not positive definition); 2) baalei batim; 3) people with university training; 4) academics; 5) academics with Judaic studies degrees; 6) people with other hashkafot; 7) people who disagree with me?
Question 2
The Talmud in two places asks “hilchata lmashicha” which pretty much means why come to a halachic conclusion if there is no immediate application? I’m looking for possible theories as to why coming to a halachic conclusion on such issues might trouble the Talmud (I have a few but don’t want to prejudice anyone).
Click here to read more
Ma Nomar (what can we say?) That he died way too young? That he was a prolific and creative thinker and giver of shiurim? That he was charming, athletic and a broad thinker? That his hasmadah was as legendary as his wit? That he was R’Moshe’s talmid muvhak? That his tapping out of bitachon in his last hours taught a lesson in bitachon (IMHO it’s that whatever the result, HKB”H has my back)? That even a wretch like me would be indelibly affected by having seen him from behind and to this day when I have some time to learn at YU, I go to the old beit medrash to learn so I can look at the spot where he would sit with his black briefcase writing continuously?
There’s a choshuv rav who was a rather energetic talmid who always had is hand up (in those days, before he fully engaged his mind) in R’Alpert’s face calling out and interrupting the shiur. Once towards the end of the year he said “rebbi, I know this might not make sense but”, R’Alpert with his gentle smile cut in with “Avos, it never stopped you before” –
Perhaps most of all, when one Talmid asked him why HKB”H would create a system that one could not possibly complete without error, he responded in a heartbeat “who says you can’t?” and meant it! Yehei Zichro Baruch
Bni Bchori (and his brothers probably too) would say – “This is a Daddy shiur” - Exploration of the role of Nach in general and in the halachic system in particular. Seemingly contradictory sources as to whether Nach was a required part of our destiny and what, if any, halachic force it has (and why drashot from it have any halachic force). There is a broad spectrum of answers to the questions and practical differences may flow from them.
Even minimalists agree there are important lessons to be learned from Nach!
Another Daddy shiur. Certain concepts were instituted logically by “early chazal” (Moshe?) – klachar yad, derech asiyatan [doing things in an unusual manner implies no culpability]. Is this a function of time and place (similar to batla dato etzel kol adam = abnormal actions)? R’AW says yes but some takanot of chazal (eg derech bishul) are fixed. New applications will require a Rashba (someone with extremely broad shoulders)
Great start to another Daddy series. (Warning – includes some outside chochma!). Is it good because HKB”H commanded it or did HKB”H command it because it was good? (Is there an ethic outside of halacha?) [why didn’t Avraham just say “thanks for the heads up” when HKB”H told him about destroying Sodom]. Kdoshim tihyu, Vasita hatov vhayashar (be holy, do what’s right) as examples, some other examples and possible counter examples.
Some people seem to be wearing Tfillin more of the day than in the past. Discussion of the issue based on the nature of the mitzvah (me – I guess people are at a higher level and no concern of mshum yuhara?)
Review of alternative explanations of free will and the Pharoh’s seeming lack thereof (me – alternatives based on mesora or smart people using logic?)
My favorite is the one seemingly parallel to part of the storyline in Asimov’s Foundation Trilogy (of course his was a pircha to this!)
Making 100 brachot a day – Is it a torah/rabbinic mitzvah or just a nice practice? Creative attempts at explaining where 100 comes from including a discussion of the famous “close enough” (credit: Abba Warshaw) rule (off by 1 is ok – but no real explanation of source of this rule).
Discussion of time bound rabbinic commandments (are women commanded in these) [me – is any violation of a rabbinic command simply a violation of Lo tasur (i.e. all equal)? Would the Rabbis “violate” kol dtakun rabannan kein duraita takun for something so basic?]
R’Sternbach – it’s designed to reinforce you doing what you’re suppose to do. [me – but do people get the causation? Reminds me of common (IMHO) problem – a client reads that the main predictor of employee retention is if they have a best friend at work so he mandates every employee to have a best friend at work)]
Understanding why the Talmud prefers lech lshalom to lech bshalom (and can use of the wrong one harm anyone? – perhaps only if you believe it will!)
Tzeitzchem lshalom to the angels? (me – if you sing it (hey, I’m a rationalist but still sing it)
Discussion of kri/ktiv (in Tanach when word is written in one way and pronounced another). How did this happen and what do we take away from it? Radak (R' Nosson Aryeh-found in critical works section of sfarim sale??) – In the aftermath of destruction of bayit rishon (1st temple) some traditions lost and had to be resurrected through logic. Where Anshei Knesset Hagedolah couldn’t do this, put kri and ktiv. Others – it notes later changes in grammar – other still, it was all halacha moshe misinai.
Why? – Pshat vs. drash? Other?
The Rambams 3 categories (fools, idiots and him?) and how do deal with your kids whose teachers don’t get it (no easy answers – trust me, I know this one! R’Yisroel of Passaic has strong feelings on this as well.)
Some TUM mussar then analysis of evolution and how it is evolving towards the eventual torah truth. It’s HKB”H who is behind all the “laws” of nature. (me – and when string theory finally uncovers the TOE, HKB”H will be there smiling and saying either nitzchuni banai (my children’s have eternalized me) or what took you so long?)
The Rambam representing all encompassing knowledge as a goal.
General schmooze on Tfila (prayer) as service of the heart and recognition that all depends on HKB”H yet we need to understand his “system” and do our part (both prayer and hishtadlut (practical effort)).
Tie in mazalot (astrological signs) for shvat and tribe of Asher and Yaakov’s blessings – water and oil. Water is representative of torah, oil of chochma (wisdom). Is the latter of torah or broader, can /should you do both, etc. [different strokes for different folks and so on and so on and Scooby dooby do – we’ve got to live together!?] Mussar on relationship between the two.
A potpourri of related topics. Do you make a shechiyanu on new fruits if they are available all year long? On new suits if you buy them with some frequency? (R’Sobolofsky is a big Syms bash fan) ordering of brachot on fruit, shmita rules as well.
Q&A discussion of women’s haircovering and tzniut (modesty) for what sounds like a beginners type group. Interesting analysis of the presenters views on what’s normative.
Her understanding of sheitel – women like them less than their own hair (even if better looking?), it’s how it makes you feel and act differently, not how it looks.
A posek in Toronto. Can you start a new shul if a new group moved into a community? (generally yes). Can you assume a holocaust torah was written by a kosher sofer? (generally yes – me – see recent news reports). Can you have a 50th anniversary celebration (yes – with torah and praise, no chuppa or brachot)
A New Old Perspective on Purim
As Purim approaches, there is a fascinating new book that adds an exciting new dimension to the Megillah. Purim and the Persian Empire: A Historical, Archaeological, & Geographical Perspective by R. Yehuda Landy works to demystify the book of Esther by connecting it to historical and archeological data. The author's goal is to add a new perspective to the biblical book through the use of history. Drawing on examples of Medieval Torah scholars who used historical and archeological data to better understand the Bible, R. Landy defends his approach. He describes the goal of this book in his foreword (p. x):
Click here to read more
The purpose of this book is not to authenticate the Megillah and/or the midrashim of Chazal. Nor is this book meant to resolve any halachic issues. It is meant as a tool for understanding and visualizing the events of the Megillah.To some extent, the book succeeds. The pictures of ancient items such as gold cups (pp. 53-55) and jewelery (p. 68), excavations at Shushan and labeled diagrams of the capital palace, and depictions of people on reliefs allow readers to visualize to some degree what the characters and events looked like. The interpretations of places, events and terms based on historical information also adds to our understanding of the Megillah. For example, the differentiation between the city of Shushan and the capital of Shushan (the king's palace) that emerges from archeological excavations explains a lot of the events in the Megillah (R. Reuven Margoliyos mentions this in his Ha-Mikra Ve-Ha-Mesorah).
The book begins with four essays and then proceed to explain various verses (in the order of the Megillah) based on history and archeology. It concludes with an edition of Esther in Hebrew and English. The colorful pictures and diagrams in the book are stunning. The commentary is generally interesting. But is it any good? Is the history accurate?
As a rule, the book chooses a frum version of history but not too frum. The author accepts the consensus view that Achashverosh was Xerxes and not Artaxerxes. He notes that there is a discrepancy between Chazal's chronology of ancient Persia and conventional chronology. He writes that there are different ways to handle this but that he will be following Chazal's chronology (and, in a footnote [p. 40 n. 17], directs readers to Mitchell First's book -- link). In everything, he is careful to note when there are disagreements but to choose the "frum" approach.
I was surprised to see how often the book explains midrashim based on history. For example (p. 80):
[Esther 4:17 - Mordechai (thus) crossed over and did according to everything that Esther instructed him.]One surprise is when the author writes that Vashti and Esther are not mentioned in historical sources at all (p. 57). There are actually historians who suggest that either Vashti or Esther is mentioned.
"Mordechai [thus] crossed over." Rav says: [It means] he transgressed [God's commandments] by fasting on the first day of Passover (he fasted for three days, and the third was Passover). And Shmuel says: [It means] he cossed over a stream of water. (Megillah 15a)
The royal mound at Shushan is bordered on the west side by a river currently known as the Shachor River... On the eastern side of the mound, the Persian workers dug canals and filled them with water in order to isolate the royal palace from the rest of the city. Thus, in order to notify the Jews of Shushan that they were to fast for three days, Mordechai was forced to cross this moat, or stream of water...
Also surprising is how the book does not explain the enigmatic word "ha-achashtranim" (8:10), which the Gemara (Megillah 18a) does not understand but we now know from archeology means "that belong to the king" (Da'as Mikra). Compare the NKJV translation of the end of the verse ("bred from swift steeds") with that of the more scholarly NRSV ("bred from the royal herd"). The latter is informed from ancient Persian.
An interesting point is made how Haman was placed over the ministers but it was the servants who bowed to Haman (3:1-2, p. 73). Herodotus states that Persians who are of a slightly lower status would greet someone higher with a kiss on the cheek. If he was of a much lower status, he would greet someone of a much higher status by bowing.
Herodotus' account can help us understand these verses. The king set the position of Haman above all the ministers and servants. The ministers who were a little lower in status than Haman were not required to bow down and prostrate, but rather to acknowledge that they were of a slightly lower status. The servants, on the other hand, were of a much lower status and were required to bow and prostrate themselves before him. This is why the Megillah stresses that the servants bowed and prostrated themselves before Haman, but does not say the same about the ministers.In short, this is a beautiful, fascinating and useful book that is a welcome addition to my library.
Announcements #136: Rabbi Slifkin in New York
Rabbi Natan Slifkin - Lectures and Presentations in New YorkSunday February 7th:
Morning, 10am – 1pm
The Torah Tour of the Bronx Zoo
Price: Adults $20, children $15 (does not include admission)
For registration (required), email zoorabbi@zootorah.com
Download flyer here (PDF)
Sunday afternoon at Washington Heights Congregation (The “Bridge Shul”), 815 West 179th Street:
2:30 pm: Sacred Monsters: Mysterious & Mythical Creatures of Torah, Midrash and Talmud
4:00 pm: Rationalist Judaism: The Unknown, Endangered, Dangerous, & Life-saving Approach to Torah
Entrance Donation: $10 for one lecture, $15 for both
Download flyer here (PDF)
Saturday February 13th, 8:30 pm
Sacred Monsters: Mysterious & Mythical Creatures of Torah, Midrash and Talmud Sephardic Institute
511 Avenue R, Brooklyn
Entrance Donation: $10
Sunday February 14th
Lecture program at Congregation Bnei Israel, 3190 Bedford Ave., Brooklyn
Topics and times will be announced within a few days at www.rationalistjudaism.com
(Announce your simchah or Torah lectures by clicking on the
button in the top right corner of Hirhurim. See here for readership statistics and here for instructions on buying an announcement. Please note that announcements now cost $36 each.)Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Parashah Roundup: Yisro 5770
by Steve BrizelMoshe's Encounter with Yisro
The Preparations for Matan Torah
A Holy Kingdom and a Nation of Priests
The Aseres HaDibros
( addition #2) reminds us to use the recalling of Maamad Har Sinai as a means of getting closer to HaShem: link
link (audio)
Naaseh Vnishma
The Culmination of Yetzias Mitzrayim
Shoalim V Dorshim Department
Was There A Noach?
In the latest issue of Tradition (42:3, Fall 2009), there is an article by Dr. Joel B. Wolowelsky titled "A Note on the Flood Story in the Language of Man" (link). In my brief description of the article when the journal was published, I wrote (link):Explaining and defending the approach that the biblical flood story was intended as a response to pagan myths. No new ground is broken but the article is important because it fleshes out the arguments.Click here to read moreThere are two ways of reading a text non-literally: 1) the story describes an actual event but in describing it the text uses language that was not intended to be taken literally, 2) the entire story did not actually occur and the text should be read as an allegory. Note that according to both approaches the text is entirely true but not in its literal meaning. For the first approach, think of God redeeming the Jews from Egypt with an outstretched arm, which is true but not literally. For the second, think of a parable which is entirely true when understood as representing abstract ideas.
Which of these two approaches does Dr. Wolowelsky take? Note that while the second may seem radical, it has support within the sources (see this post: link). Here is the key passage in Dr. Wolowelsky's article:
Needless to say, this approach no more suggests that there was no catastrophic flood than does the position that God has no physical limb claim that “He took us out with a mighty arm” is false and that we were never taken out of Egyptian slavery. It has no relevance to the secular debate on the historicity of the Bible. We are not talking about whether the Flood happened but the literary devices the Torah used to describe it.In private correspondence, Dr. Wolowelsky confirmed to me that he was in no way suggesting that a catastrophic flood had not actually taken place -- the flood story is true but was written in language that has additional significance.
Perhaps then my original description should have been:
Explaining and defending the approach that the biblical flood story was written in a way so as to undermine then-current pagan myths to which the emerging Jewish nation was exposed. No new ground is broken but the article is important because it fleshes out the arguments.
New Periodical: Kol Hamevaser 3:4
There is a new issue of Kol Hamevaser: The Jewish Thought Magazine of the Yeshiva University Student Body on the topic of "Jewish Denominations and Sects." The whole issue is available here: link. Also, those who would like to subscribe to automatically receive a PDF version of new editions of the paper should send an e-mail to kolhamevaser@gmail.com. If you wish to receive a hard copy of the paper for the price of shipping and handling, please e-mail us your contact information and home address.
- Sensitivity in the Face of Controversy: Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 19:17 by The Kol Hamevaser Editorial Board
- Letter-to-the-Editor by Suri Halpern
- Letter-to-the-Editor by Yehoshua Blumenkopf
- The Philosophical Implications of Division by Jonathan Ziring
- Monopolizing Marriage: The Rabbinate's Control of Marriage in Israel by Tzivia Traube
- An Interview with Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm by Staff
- Chabad: Issues that Have Not Been Discussed on Campus by Estee Goldschmidt
- Playing with Fire: The Study of Controversial Theological Beliefs by Ayelet Mael
- Hasidim: The Aharonim of Torat Nistar by Periel Shapiro
- Reach Out, Fight More by Chaim Cohen
- Where Do We Go From Here? by Raphy Rosen
- "A Yid iz Geglaychn tzu a Seyfer Toyre" by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik
- A Preliminary Taxonomy of Rabbinic Anthropologies by Alex Ozar
- Thinking in Broader Terms by Yitzhak Bronstein
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
What Is A Rabbi?
I. The Role of the RabbiWe've already discussed some of the religious issues involved with a woman serving as a rabbi (link). Elsewhere, we've outlined other reasons that also bar women from the rabbinate. I'd like to follow here an approach suggested by Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks in a 1989 article ("Creativity and Innovation in Halakhah", in R. Moshe Sokol ed., Rabbinic Authority and Personal Autonomy). On pages 160-161, R. Sacks briefly discusses the following issue, that I would like to more fully develop.
Click here to read moreThis will seem like a stretch to those who are not already convinced. After reading the responsa involved, however, it seems to me that it is consistent with the halakhic tradition on the subject. Regardless, as we reach the end of this discussion, we will see that it sheds important light on the role of today's community rabbi.
II. A Rabbi's Heritage
The Rema (Yoreh De'ah 245:22) rules that a rabbi's son (and grandson) inherits his father's (and grandfather's) rabbinic position if he is capable of occupying it. In other words, when a community's rabbi dies, his son has preference over other candidates (assuming there is no prevailing custom [or presumably contract] to the contrary). However, the Magen Avraham (53:32) quotes the Maharshdam and the Rama from Fano who rule that rabbinic positions are not inherited.
The Gemara (Yoma 72b) says that there were three rims in the Temple -- one of the altar which was taken by Aharon (i.e. kohanim), one of the table which was taken by David (i.e. kings), and one of the ark which is available to be taken by anyone. This is connected to the Mishnah (Avos 4:17) that there are three crowns -- Torah, priesthood and kingship. The priesthood and kingship are hereditary but Torah is available to anyone willing and capable to acquire it (cf. Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Talmud Torah 3:1). Therefore, a Torah role is not hereditary like the monarchy or priesthood and a rabbi's son does not inherit his father's position.
How, or if, to reconcile the ruling of the Rema with that of the Magen Avraham was a very relevant matter because case arose frequently in which a town preferred another candidate over its deceased rabbi's son.
III. Three Views
The Sedei Chemed (vol. 8 Ma'arekhes Chazakah Be-Mitzvos, no. 7 secs. 15-61) discusses this issue at length and quotes a number of authorities who dismissed the Magen Avraham (e.g. Responsa Beis Shlomo, Orach Chaim no. 13).
The Chasam Sofer (Responsa, Orach Chaim no. 12) expounds at length in favor of the position that rabbinic positions cannot be inherited. He claims that the Magen Avraham's position is normative and the Rema was only speaking of a rabbi who rules over the population. However, in a later responsum (no. 13), he reverses his view. It is true that Torah positions cannot be inherited, however rabbis today do not function purely as Torah teachers but serve the community. Therefore, their positions are inherited. Should the rabbi lose the rights that the cantor has simply because the rabbi also teaches Torah? Significantly, the first responsum is roundly criticized in the literature. Its arguments are repeatedly refuted.
In a remarkable responsum, really a booklet, R. Avraham Borenstein (Avnei Nezer, Yoreh De'ah 312 -- a responsum with 103 sections!) disputes the original position of the Chasam Sofer. Instead, he proposes that the rabbinic function today is different from when we had the original type of ordination. The rabbi's role used to be to be implement the Torah's laws, like a shofet. Nowadays, however, they lack the prerogative of ordination to do that. Instead, their role is to ensure that the community functions properly, like a king. Since the position of community rabbi is not one purely of Torah but instead of facilitating the smooth running of the community, it is inherited.
IV. Applying the Views
R. Jonathan Sacks (p. 160) writes: "Without saying so explicitly, the Hatam Sofer has linked the congregational rabbinate to keter kehunah (crown of priesthood)." Expanding this to all three views: According to the Sedei Chemed, rabbis function within the crown of Torah. According to the Chasam Sofer, within the crown of priesthood. And according to the Avnei Nezer, within the crown of kingship.
While these might seem like homiletic assignations, they are not. The crown of the rabbinate determines whether or not it is inherited. Both the Chasam Sofer and Avnei Nezer ruled in practice based on this.
What is the practical ramification of these views towards women serving in the rabbinate? R. Sacks writes of the Chasam Sofer's view (p. 161): "There is an equally strong underlying logic against the inclusion of women in the keter kehunah. Why this should be so is a matter for historical conjecture, but it is certainly not because priestesses and other women religious functionaries were unknown to the pagan background against which the Torah is a sustained protest."
Everyone, including women, have a portion in the crown of Torah. If the rabbinate is a function of Torah then women can, barring other issues, serve in the rabbinate. However, women have no role in the priesthood or the monarchy. In the Jewish tradition, they are excluded from both. Therefore, if the rabbinate is an aspect of the crowns of priesthood or kingship then they are barred from serving in the rabbinate.
V. Rabbis Today
Which of these views best represents the role of the American rabbi today? Is the rabbi a communal teacher, communal servant or communal executive? I suspect that the answer is "all of the above." If so, we need to look to the Chasam Sofer's responsum, in which he wrote that since a rabbi teaches Torah but also functions as a communal servant we must treat him as a servant. Similarly, a rabbi today must have the rights and restrictions of both a communal servant and communal executive, as well as those of a Torah teacher. Effectively, this would bar women from the communal rabbinate today.
In particular, though, these identifications help explain the issue of serarah (see this post: link) regarding the rabbinate. A communal executive, who operates within the rubric of kingship, is certainly in a position of communal authority even if he cannot enforce his rulings.
Books Received XVII
I don't always have the chance to review each book, so I'll list the books that I receive. Some of them will be quoted or reviewed in future posts. Here are the books I've received recently:- The Other Bible Code: Ancient Hebrew Revelations About Events of Our Time by H. M. Davidson
- For God's Sake: Perspectives on Chumrot by Chaim Burg
Family Planning - The View of Rabbi Y.H. Henkin
By: Rabbi Ari EnkinThere is a mistaken impression in the orthodox community that there is a halachic requirement to continue to have children indefinitely. This notion is based primarily on the following Talmudic passage which is also the main source for discussions on family planning and related issues:[1]
Rabbi Yehoshua said “Even if a man married a woman in his youth, he should marry again in his old age. If he had children in his youth, he should also have children in his old age, as it is says "sow your seed in the morning and do not rest your hand in the evening (vela’erev al tanach yadecha)".[2] For you do not know who will prove worthy, whether these children or those, or whether both will be equally good.”Click here to read moreIt is specifically the injunction of “do not rest your hand in the evening” (“la’erev”) which is widely cited as the source for the requirement that a couple continue to have children even after fulfilling the Torah's mitzva of procreation by having one boy and one girl. With the noted exception of the Rambam,[3] all of the prominent early authorities ("rishonim") rule that the rabbinical enactment to continue to have children is not as binding as the other rabbinical enactments which we are accustomed to. As Rashi writes: "…there is somewhat of a mitzva to continue to have children."[4] So too the Ramban writes, "…[continuing to have children in one's old age] is a mitzva l'chatchila but we don’t force a person to do so, nor do we call him a sinner if he chooses not to."[5]
Even the Rambam, who is of the opinion that the mitzva to have children continues indefinitely, qualifies his ruling with the stipulation that it is only binding "as long as one has strength". He does not define or qualify what exactly "as long as one has stenght" is, which makes it subject to interpretation. It is worth noting that even the Shulchan Aruch does not follow the opinion of the Rambam.[6]
Therefore, as with all controversies in rabbinic law, one is entitled to follow a lenient interpretation regarding continuing to have children, especially when there are difficutlies in comfortably doing so. This is true even when marrying for a second time. Furthermore, Rabbi Henkin argues that even the rabbinical injunction ("vela'erev") to continue to have children is itself limited in nature and may only have been intended to parallel the Torah's requirement of having children. As such, the entire scope of "vela'erev" might only require repeating the Torah's requirement to have a son and a daughter. Once this is fulfilled (i.e. two girls and two boys), a couple would be permitted to cease having children entirely without concern for violating any rabbinical injunction whatsoever, should they choose to do so. It follows, therefore, that continuing to have children after fulfilling the requirement to procreate is an optional, albeit commendable, mitzva for those who are able to do so.
Based on the above, Rabbi Henkin permits a couple to practice family planning in a number of situations. This includes concerns relating to shalom bayit, and by extension, the ability for a family to function efficiently with additional children. A classic precedent for allowing family planning on the basis of shalom bayit can be found right on the pages of the Shulchan Aruch. The Rema[7] cites a case where the Terumat Hadeshen was asked concerning a widower who wanted to marry a certain woman but was afraid that fights would break out between his children (from his first wife) and the woman's children. In the end, he decided against the idea and instead married a woman who was infertile but not likely to clash with his children. The Terumat Hadeshen ruled that the man's decision was an acceptable one, as the need to ensure shalom bayit takes precedence over the requirement to have more children. Similarly, a couple should not fight if one spouse prefers not to have more children. The dispensation to allow family planning for shalom bayit considerations also includes financial and economic factors, including the inability of a woman to work when a second income is necessary.[8]
There are also exemptions from any duty to continue to have children based on health concerns and birth defects, such as Down syndrome.[9] As the Yam Shel Shlomo writes: "a woman may use a contraceptive if she has distress in childbirth or is afraid of having children who are unworthy ("ainum hagunim" – referring to birth defects)…." This even includes a concern that one's children will stray from the path of Torah. As the Yam Shel Shlomo concludes "…all the more so, if her children have strayed from the proper path and she is afraid of producing more such children, she is permitted to prevent conception.”[10] This might be true even for those who did not yet fulfill the Torah's requirement of procreation.
Closely related to dispensations based on health concerns is Rabbi Henkin's position on permitting women to practice contraception for one year or more after giving birth in order to allow them to fully recover from childbirth. This was the position of the Chazon Ish, as well. Furthermore, Rabbi Henkin will often allow contraception for up to two years or more if a woman feels that she needs to take a break in between children in order to devote her time and energy to raising her baby. This is true even if the couple has not yet fulfilled the Torah's requirement of procreation. This is because spending one's time focusing on and raising one's children in the spirit of the Torah is perhaps the greatest expression of procreation! Hence, even though a woman might be preventing conception for these two or more years, she is actually not evading the mitzva of procreation at all.
It goes without saying that painful, risky, and complicated pregnancies are also included in the umbrella of health concerns, especially if the couple has already fulfilled the Torah's requirement of procreation, and often even if they haven't. In order not to unnecessarily delay marriage, Rabbi Henkin will permit newlyweds to use contraception for up to the first six months of marriage if they feel that they are not yet ready for children. This is especially true for newlyweds under the age of twenty. Nevertheless, one should not criticize those who practice contraception for several years after marriage. Rabbi Henkin's preferred contraceptive method is the diaphragm along with the accompanying foams.
This paper is based on my understanding of Bnei Banim 1:30, 1:31, 2:38, & 4:15. E&OE
*********************************************
[1] Yevamot 62b
[2] Kohelet 11:6
[3] Rambam Ishut 15:16
[4] Beitza 37a
[5] Milchemet Hashem;Yevamot 62b
[6] E.H. 1:8
[7] Rema E.H. 1:5
[8] It is interesting to note that even Rabbi Moshe Feinstein allowed contraception for financial considerations. As he writes in Igrot Moshe E.H. 4:72:…"if they have already fulfilled the mitzva of procreation and there is an economic reason or other pressing need, or even
if they have not fulfilled the mitzva but the woman is weak, she may take
birth control pills.”
[9] For more on family planning in situations of Down Syndrome and other birth defects, including the permissibility of aborting, see Tzitz Eliezer 14:101, 13:102
[10] Yam Shel Shlomo;Yevamot 6:24
Sunday, January 31, 2010
How Many Jews Were In Egypt?
The Torah (Ex. 13:18) tells us that when the Jews left Egypt, they were "chamushim". Rashi and Rashbam translate this as "armed". Ibn Ezra (Peirush Ha-Arukh) and Chizkuni suggest that it means that they had sufficient money or provisions.However, Rashi also quotes a Midrash to explain the word, based on its linguistic connection to the word "chamesh -- five":
An alternate explanation of chamushim: one of every five went out [of Egypt] and four-fifths died during the three days of darkness.Click here to read moreIn other words, while 600,000 men left Egypt, that was only one-fifth of the people at the time. There were 3 million men (plus women, children and old people) in Egypt, 2.4 million of whom died during the plague of darkness. Rashi's source is the Mekhilta, which also has the views that one-fiftieth and one-five hundredth left Egypt. About this last view, that only one-five hundredth left Egypt, Ibn Ezra writes in his Peirush Ha-Katzar:
The Midrash that one-five hundredth left is a minority view that is disputed. It is not at all a tradition. We have enough problems with the Muslim scholars who ask how, in 210 years, 600,000 men above the age of 20 could descend from 55 men.Ibn Ezra then proceeds to describe his debates with Muslim scholars who claimed that there is no way that Ya'akov's family could turn into 600,000 men in 210 years. Ibn Ezra did the math to show it could be possible. However, the suggestion that there were really 300 million men is beyond credulity.
Additionally, it seems that no Jews died during the plagues that Egyptians died. If so, how could we suggest that the vast majority of Jews died during the plague of darkness, when no Egyptians died?
Furthermore, if only a tiny portion of Jews were redeemed from Egypt, then it wasn't such a great salvation. The redemption was actually a terrible tragedy. That is the opposite of what the Torah tells us.
Instead, Ibn Ezra says, the Midrash is either unreliable or is based on a "secret," presumably meaning an allegorical meaning.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Weekly Links
Rules: link (Note that this post will move every day until the end of the week)Friday
- SALT today: link
- R. Steven Pruzansky on the Rabba: link
- Gay Orthodox rabbi nudging Judaism: link
- Duck recall: link
- United Synagogue row over 'live near shul' rule: link
- Rabbinate: Room service only on plastic plates during Pesach: link
- Chareidi world appalled as Shas joins WZO: link
Previous days' linksThursday
- SALT today: link
- Assault on authentic Orthodoxy continues: link
- Jewish events need kosher food: link
- War on internet is a fight the rabbis can’t win: link
- The God Of OMG!: link
- Rabbi E. Melamed considering resigning: link
- SALT today: link
- R. Seth Farber: The new conversion law is a joke: link
- Rabbis request bail for convicted financial fraud perpetrator: link
- RCA pushing ethical kosher guidelines: link
- Rabbinical courts softened stance on husbands refusing their wives divorce in 2009: link
- Ultra-Orthodox seek boycott of their own Web sites: link
- RCA Op-Ed by Rabbi Asher Meir, Chairman of the JPEG Committee, in support of the Kosher Food Industry Ethical Guidelines Recently Issued by the RCA: link
- The story of how The Jewish Press began: link
- R. Avi Weiss calls Sara Hurwitz "a rabbi with the additional quality of a distinct woman’s voice": link
- SALT today: link
- David Greenfield defends wearing tefillin on airplanes: link
- Anti-semitism highest since WW2: link
- R. Shlomo Riskin wants Efrat to be smoke-free: link
- When religious people lie: link
- Orthodox rabbis fight for release of convicted perpetrator of bank fraud: link
- SALT today: link
- Pope encourages blogging: link
- Prominent Monsey rabbi on EJF scandal: link
- R. Yair Hoffman: Rabbis are fallible: link
- R. Avi Shafran on Haiti, lashon ha-ra and the EJF scandal: link
- The lonely man of peace: link
- Hikind tries to squash young frum political hopeful: link
- Serious questions about purportedly Holocaust-era Torah scrolls: link
- Conference confronts "new reality" for day schools: link
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Audio Roundup LXXVIII
by Joel RichDid I ever mention that I graduated MTA and YU and that both classes were full of people a lot smarter than me(Where have you gone Sidney Markowitz, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you)? One of my classmates (who likely didn't know I existed, at least on an intellectual level) Sam (now Shmuel) Safran of the Weizmann Institute, has written a great article in the latest BDD C-C-C Contemporary Problems in Light of the Writings of R'YBS.. It would be worth it alone for one of my favorite R'YBS quotes which (as is often the case) dovetails with the mesorah I received from Avi Mori Vrabbi ZLL"HH -"All extremism, fanaticism, and obscurantism comes from a lack of security. A person who is secure can not be an extremist. He uses his heart and his mind in a normal fashion." I am thrilled that just about all the quotes are ones I tagged for the local shiur I gave after its publication (I called it"" The Rav in his Own Write" which tells you a lot about why shmuel is a gadol and I am a katan (joke on 2 levels)
Click here to read moreQuestion: As a community leader, do you favor policies that are more inclusionary but might reduce your average frumometer score (but increase the total of all frumometer measures) or less inclusionary that increase your average frumometer score but decreases the total of all frumometer measures?
First in series. Discusses history of large vs. small shuls(there have been both back to the times of the Tamud). Here focus on benefits of smaller ones (functionality, greater spots of holiness, less free-riding). Very important (IMHO) tie into sociology (me - why is it that churches have studied this a lot – is it we know issues in our gut?). Dunbar’s # is worth thinking about (effective group sizes for different purposes?)
Some of the positives of big shuls. Focus on how to maintain social benefits in large groups (representative democracy) – have subgroups which coalesce (??) around common greater purpose (Rabbi T. – how would you define that greater purpose – e.g. qualitative vs. quantitative avodat Hashem?)
If one who goes to secular court and gets money is a thief, how does bet din ever allow you to go to secular court?
The audio quality is fairly low. Issues covered:
1) Study of ancient near eastern culture in High School (sounds like a no)
2) YU tolerance club public forum – it’s complex!
3) Purpose of creation (really)
4) Yeridat hadorot (weakening of progressive generations)?
5) Kashrut “facts” and science (e.g. 1/60) – how to understand the interaction (reminds me of R’HS’s statement how all the Rabbis should get together and rule that stainless steel doesn’t absorb).
Suggestions: 1) better audio; 2) have a 1 minute chazara shiur on each question.
Hat tip to R’Dr. Shapiro’s works (well worth reading). There’s also a new series on the Sridei Eish on the VBM (link).
A complex almost tragic gadol (reminds me of R’YBS on Joseph and his brothers).
Here deals with his responsa on shechita, bat mitzvah, mixed sex youth groups and translating prayer. His recognition of his own alienation is painful.
Kriat Shma and the amida, how loud? Regular days vs. Yamim Noraim?
Bottom line – loud enough to hear yourself but not to bother others.
Burial in Israel for those who live outside the country. Rabbis outside of Israel seemed to discourage (R’Moshe, R’Henkin, R’Yaakov); inside seem OK (Chacham Ovadya, R’Pesach Tzvi Frank, Tzitz Eliezer). Sources quoted both way.
[How personally painful – the position that if you’re not here alive then….!!]
An analysis of the concept of migo (I could’ve said I didn’t borrow a teapot, so you should believe me that I borrowed it and returned it) and Chazal’s thinking behind it.
Technical analysis of the nature of the duty to give charity (is it monetary or prohibited/permitted). Some other examples of this duality.
Traditional exposition of traditional women’s role of traditional household builder of traditional home in traditional manner.
Daat Yehudit vs. Daat Moshe analysis.
Money quote: Rav Soloveitchik Z”l his wife Z”l did not cover her hair - based on that there are many women who don’t cover their hair. Of course it’s absolutely silly…..against the mishna, against everything. The Rav himself was the first one to tell you that as he told 3 or 4 people. I spoke to each one of them.
What was the underlying goal of the writing of the Kuzari and how can it be seen by paying close attention to the plot and players (convince those already convinced?)
Talmudic source against davening outside, quoted by S”A but not others – some possible explanations why and reasons (humility, intent in prayer, not being bothered) and some possible differing implications (e.g. don’t put on tfillin on commuter flights out of LaGuardia?) [add to my question list – daven outside with minyan vs. inside by self?]
Modern Jewish history defined – well actually there are differing definitions but generally from the time of the enlightenment. Also, differs by geography – it’s really about facing “modern” issues. First in a series.
In the middle ages (as contrasted to middle age?) there's lots of discussion of obligation to believe (vs. act). There probably is some dogma (think Rambam) but not all accept. Whatever it is, if you deliberately deny it, you’re probably a heretic and no world to come for you! What if you’re well intended? – difference of opinion (R' Chaim's nebech ).
What did you do if you finished shalosh seudot past Tzeit on Shabbat Rosh Chodesh shvat? Good discussion of nature of maariv, tosefet Shabbat and can you turn Tuesday afternoon into Wednesday evening? (my chiddush – also holds for Wednesday/Thursday J).
Used to fast for Shovavim, now we learn laws of taharat hamishpacha! (tough to find a good ascetic these days?)
Mussar on importance of gmilut chassadim, especially for bnai Yeshiva (need all 3 – torah, avodah and gmilut chasadim). Do one or two small additional acts each day.
I keep listening to Shiurim on this topic hoping someone will tell me why no one till shmuel said this, and why no source is given. (Here assumption is it’s torah based and only monetary related).
Clarification of halachic issues surrounding recent controversies, as well as hashkafic framework (me - which is first?) Interesting understanding of darkei shalom (as a seemingly reciprocal obligation).
Halachic status of miraculous conceptions (well, really creations). Best line – something like “I’ve never created a golem, but I’ve met lots of them”. (me – I didn’t know R’AW traveled in actuarial circles?!)
Common sense shidduch/dating advice (kach mkublani mbeit avi abba – common sense is an unfortunately rare commodity, on the other hand hot air is available in overabundance).
Introductory course – Rambam’s introduction to his commentary on the mishnayot. Here discusses force of oral law.
Case studies of issues brought before Bet Din of America – includes employment law and divorce amongst others. Some practical implication and how bet din takes them into consideration.
Post-Orthodox Responsa?
I've been going through the collected responsa of Conservative Rabbi Wayne Allen, the inappropriately named Perspectives on Jewish Law and Contemporary Issues. The book is a collection of halakhic essays from the past 20 years on a wide variety of topics, all ending with a practical conclusion.Like any such collection, the essays vary in length, depth and approach. However, I generally found them to be excellent. I always consider a good sign of intellectual honesty when you cannot generally predict what conclusion a writer will have to a halakhic question. To my surprise, the author is very unpredictable. In particular, he is sometimes stricter than I would be! That is not what I expected from a Conservative rabbi.
Click here to read moreHere are some examples:
- Can a Non-Jew serve in a synagogue choir? Discouraged
- Can cantors repeat words and phrases in the liturgy? Yes as long as it doesn't distort the meaning
- Can you add the names of the Matriarchs into the Amidah? No
- Can women lead Pesukei De-Zimra? No
- Should mourners leave the synagogue for Yizkor during the first year? No
- Can you convert a lesbian to Judaism? No
- Can a Non-Jew serve as a pallbearer? Yes
- Can a pregnant woman go to a cemetery? Yes unless parents object
- Can a mourner lead prayers on Shabbos and Yom Tov? Yes
- Does a married woman need to cover her hair? No
- Can an active homosexual be ordained as a rabbi? No
- Can the kesubah of a non-virgin say besulta (virgin)? As long as she was never married before
- Can you give an employee a negative evaluation? Yes
- Is there a concept of clergy confidentiality in Judaism? No
I find this objectionable. In general, I believe that you have to take into account the stature of a work's author. I also believe that halakhic responsa operate within a closed system. Articles can quote anyone and offer a wide variety of views. Responsa, however, have a time-honored style and tradition. There is no room in responsa for non-traditional scholars. R. Amram Gaon writes in a responsum (link) that scholars who do not act appropriately should not be mentioned in the beis midrash. I think that this also applies to being mentioned in responsa. They have no place in the give-and-take of halakhah.
The author also rejects mystical and non-rational practices regardless of how common and well-established they are. He is also quick to reject and dismiss customs that he considers mistaken.
On the other hand, there are reasons why this collection of responsa is not Post-Orthodox. The author does not take advantage of historical methodologies. He does recognize historical progression of views -- who said what and when -- but he does not conduct any sociological or historical-critical analyses. He also does not utilize Talmudic criticism.
Further, he is coming from the wrong direction to be Post-Orthodox. He is not someone who is experimentally deviating from Orthodoxy based on his personal religious agenda. Rather, he is coming from the Conservative side, deviating towards Orthodoxy. Will the two paths meet or have they already crossed and traveled past each other?
Parashah Roundup: Beshalach 5770
by Steve BrizelThe Crossing of the Red Sea
Click here to read more
Tu BiShevat
Jewish History Special
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
How Did We Get Here?
I. How Did We Get Here?While my blog posts on Post-Orthodoxy have met with heated opposition by many commenters here, they seem to have struck a chord with others. In particular, Dr. Jeffrey Woolf seems to accept the general premise about this massive change in our community, even if differing with me on how to precisely define it (link).
He recently asked a question that I found myself repeating today after seeing a report of a statement that R. Avi Weiss issued about his Maharat now being a rabbi and using the title Rabbah (link): How did we get here? Dr. Woolf doesn't literally ask this question but he addresses it.
Click here to read moreHe suggests that the large-scale abandonment in Modern Orthodoxy of the field of Jewish Thought, the lack of serious confrontation with the theological dilemmas of our day from an informed Orthodox perspective, has led to the situation of many Post-Orthodox thinkers surrendering, even partially, to Non-Orthodox approaches (link). Where were the serious treatments of the Biblical Criticism of our day? Who has defended Orthodoxy against Post-Modern critiques? The deafening silence was essentially an abandonment of the flock, leaving students to figure it out on their own, and many have not.
II. Two Dinim of Post-Orthodoxy
I don't disagree with Dr. Woolf's description of the situation but I think his diagnosis of the cause is off the mark. We can see this by comparing theological elements of Post-Orthodoxy with social aspects. Two major socio-halakhic issues of Post-Orthodoxy are gay rights and women's participation in the synagogue. On the latter, the leadership of Modern Orthodoxy did, in fact, lead. They wrote papers, gave many lectures and issued halakhic rulings. On gay rights, we recently witnessed a confrontation in YU but it was certainly not the first. There is a whole literature on the subject (some of which I listed in a recent post - link).
Did any of that stem the tide of Post-Orthodoxy? No. The reason is, as Dr. Alan Brill has pointed out (link), that we are dealing here with a societal trend, a moment, a mood. It was inevitable.
III. The Inevitability of Post-Orthodoxy
The Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Teshuvah 6:5) asks why Egyptians were punished for enslaving Jews when God had told Avraham, he decreed, that they would (Gen. 15:13). He answers that the decree was on the Egyptians in general, not on individuals who each could have personally resisted. God foresaw a trend, a force of history that did not force any individual but never the less changed the world. What we are dealing with today is similarly a force that is sweeping across the world. Individuals can resist it but it was inevitable that many would be swept up by it.
Individualism, distrust of authority and organized religion, sympathy with the outsider, the allure of religious experimentation and more -- these are part of a force of history pushing against the Orthodox tradition. Some Post-Orthodox Jews are able to walk the fine line but many will and have crossed it (for example, violating the Rema in Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 1:1 by appointing a woman as rabbi of a synagogue).
Because it was inevitable, we can't look to see where the Modern Orthodox leadership have lost in Post-Orthodox circles and identify those issues as failures. Instead, we have to estimate how bad it would have otherwise been. Maybe by not confronting Biblical Criticism they lessened its impact on our community.
IV. Did Leadership Hurt?
Modern Orthodox leaders led on social issues but not on theological issues. On which set did they lose more? I suggest the social. It could be for other reasons but, perhaps, the very act of protesting made the problem worse. Or, we could look at it and say that it would have otherwise been much worse. Social issues could have torn the community in half but, because of the strong leadership, only a small portion has turned Post-Orthodox.
In the end, this analysis of what caused the split in Modern Orthodoxy is irrelevant. It is inevitable and has been happening for at least a decade, although we see its pace quickening today. Popular history has it that the "Treif Banquet" marked the split between Reform and Orthodox in the US. The truth is much more complex. But if we are looking for a "Treif Banquet" of our time that defines the start of Post-Orthodoxy, I suggest that it was the ordination last year of a Maharat (now Rabbah).
