| 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, January 31, 2005
Doubting Darwin
When I saw this article, I knew that it was too timely to ignore. So here it is: Doubting Darwin. Evidently, the editors of Newsweek either read Yated or the J-blogs.
Miracle-Workers
As I was driving him home from a family celebration motza'ei Shabbos, a relative told me that he is considering paying a visit to a new mekubal he just heard about who tells you exactly what to do - how many times to dunk in a mikvah, what chapters of Psalms to recite, what color string to wear around which finger, etc. - and wanted to know my thoughts about it. I don't know why he asked me because he knows me well enough to be able to guess my reaction. I told him that I don't think it is technically assur although I know others who do.
If you want God's assistance, try praying, learning more Torah and performing more mitzvos. Despite our strong desire for them, there are no shortcuts in life. Work hard, do your job, be faithful and true. "Be wholehearted with the Lord your God" (Deut. 18:13).
But, he told me, he has heard such great miracle stories about this mekubal. Maybe. I don't deny the existence of miracles, but I remain skeptical about individual miracle workers. For years, every day on my walk home from the train I would pass by a fortune teller's storefront that almost always had customers in it who, presumably, believed wholeheartedly in that fraud's powers. Just last week, I read that Mother Theresa has "600 'divine favors' (unverified, possible miracles) credited to her intercession." If other people can be duped into believing about such miracle-workers, then maybe we should be skeptical also.
A little knowledge about statistics also goes a long way in these matters.
Most importantly, don't give any money for these cures. That is a sure-fire way to know you are being ripped off.
Sunday, January 30, 2005
Let The Masses Be Heard
I received from a friend this e-mail that seems to be circulating. Even though I am hesitant to put it up, particularly given my business considerations, I have decided to do so with a slightly edited version. I am also concerned about giving out personal information over the web, but since it only directs readers to the phone book I figure there is no harm in that.
The recent ban on Rabbi Slifkin's books has far-reaching repercussions that need to be expressed. When a matter of this nature is brought to the attention of a rosh yeshiva, the voices he hears most loudly and frequently are those of the people who have the time and desire (and sometimes chutzpah) to place themselves directly in his path. They call him at all hours and show up at his yeshiva and other functions he attends, all to press the issue and the viewpoint that they advocate.UPDATE: To clarify, this is not a call to harrass these eminent scholars. If you want to speak with them and express your thoughts and questions, call them on the phone. But do not harrass them or treat them disrespectfully.
The antagonists of Rabbi Slifkin have the time, ability and chutzpah to make their voices heard. All of the others who are affected by this ban must now make their voices heard.
The ban has caused immense pain among many. You, the reader, might be a rebbe or teacher who has been instructing students for years and trying to strengthen their faith in traditional Judaism. You have just been told that the views you were taught and are teaching is heresy. The hundreds of students who have passed through your classrom were taught kefirah by you. I can only imagine the distress you must be feeling. Were you and your rebbeim spreading lies? Have you, instead of increasing belief, been distancing students from Jewish belief? Is this not causing you to question the sacrifices you have made to teach students and whether you are fit to teach? I can only imagine the pain you must be going through.
Kiruv workers, NCSY advisors, friendly professionals who speak with non-observant colleagues, etc. Have you been spreading heretical beliefs? Have you, in your attempts to bring others closer to Judaism, actually been feeding them views that are counter to our tradition? In this group, I include myself and I feel the pain. Those who banned these books have just declared that I have been spreading heresy, and that hurts. They have just declared that I, and everyone I have influenced, are outside the pale of Orthodox Judaism. If they are right, then I am guilty of very serious offenses that make me shudder. If they are wrong, or never intended it this way, then I am even more hurt.
They have effectively announced that Rav Aryeh Kaplan and all of the many Jews who were influenced by him are heretics. Everyone who had some contact with him surely feels pain over this. Was Rav Kaplan really a heretic? All those college students who became frum because of him, are they really closet heretics? Is the frum community really so infected by this heresy? Baalei tshuvah, in particular, must be extremely hurt by this declaration that, in truth, they have never become truly frum.
They have disqualified just about every member of the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists. Should the group be disbanded? Every member of AOJS, and every Jew who respects the doctors and scientists who dedicate their lives to Torah and science, should be hurt by this.
Every shul rabbi who has discussed this topic has infected his congregants with heresy. Can that damage ever be undone? Has the rabbi unwittingly harmed the souls of the people who were placed in his charge? The distress many are going through is unimaginable.
It is likely that the roshei yeshiva have not yet heard from people who have been hurt by the ban. Shouldn't they hear from us how much pain and confusion people are suffering? If we want to balance out the personal influence that those with louder voices have on the roshei yeshiva, we need to voice our pain. Let the roshei yeshiva know that we have been hurt. With one fell swoop, thousands of Bnei Torah who have dedicated their lives to Yahadus have been written off. We, our rabbeim and our students have been pushed michutz lamachaneh. Let us call up Rav Dovid Feinstein, Rav Malkiel Kotler, Rav Matisyahu Salomon and the others, and, with all the tremendous respect that they deserve, express from our hearts how much we have been hurt. Let us pour out our souls, cry over the phone, share our grief over the position in which we have suddenly been placed. Let us express the enormous pain that this ban has caused and beg either for clarifications or at least sympathy.
I ask every reader to forward this message along to anyone to whom you think this may be relevant. Each one who signed the ban against Rav Slifkin should be called until you personally get through to him and express your personal pain. Be respectful. Be humble. Be honest. And be persistent. Keep calling until you get through to him. Leave specific messages and keep calling until you speak directly with the rosh yeshiva and relay to him your personal pain. He needs to hear it from each and every one of us.
I do not think it is appropriate to post phone numbers in this venue. However, try the phone book www.whitepages.com
Rav Malkiel Kotler is listed in Lakewood, NJ under the name A M Kotler
Rav Matisyahu Salomon is listed in Lakewood, NJ under the name M Salomon
Rav Elyah Wachtfogel is listed in Fallsburg, NY under the name Eli Wachtfogel
Rav Chaim Stein is listed in Wickliffe, OH under the name Chaim Stein
Rav Dovid Feinstein can be reached at his yeshiva, listed in NY, NY as Mesivtha Tifereth Jerusalem
Rav Meyer Hershkowitz is listed in Stamford, CT as Meyer Hershkowitz
Rav Raphael Schorr is listed in Monsey, NY as Raphael Schorr
Friday, January 28, 2005
First Book
I am pleased to announce that Yashar Books has published its first book, and it is a great one. A paperback, expanded edition of The Right and the Good: Halakhah and Human Relations by R. Daniel Z. Feldman is now officially available for purchase.
These books are *hot off the press*. They will be available at the Seforim Sale but you can order them now and receive them before the sale begins here.
While we have been distributing other books, this is the first that we have published ourselves. Another book, Rabbi Israel Salanter: Religious-Ethical Thinker will be ready next week.
Ascent to the Altar
Exodus 20:23 "Do not ascend My altar by steps, that your nakedness may not be exposed upon it."
The Mekhilta quotes R. Yishmael who points out that this is unnecessary. Since a kohen wears pants as a part of his priestly garb, even if he walked up stairs his private parts would not be exposed. Therefore, R. Yishmael explains this verse as referring to large steps. The ramp relieve the priests of having to take large steps to ascend to the altar (cf. Rashi).
R. Menahem Kasher, in his Torah Shelemah (no. 571), quotes a Midrash Ha-Bi'ur manuscript that explains the necessity of this prohibition. This rule is a safeguard in case the pants become ripped. R. Kasher quotes the Moreh Nevukhim (3:40) who takes the exposing nakedness of the verse literally, contrary to the Mekhilta.
I thought that another explanation of this prohibition can be offered in light of the Sefer Ha-Hinukh's surprising statement that this law applies to both men and women (no. 41). How can it apply to women who may not perform the sacrificial service on the altar? The Minhas Hinukh (no. 2) explains that the prohibition also applies to women who, in violation of other laws, perform the sacrificial service. If they ascend steps they are also violating this prohibition in addition to those other laws. Perhaps one could also say that this prohibition applies to a priest who does not wear the proper pants. Not only is he in violation of the laws prohibiting performing the sacrificial service without the proper attire, he is also violating this additional prohibition by exposing his private parts.
Thursday, January 27, 2005
A Lesson in Literary Talent
R. Emanuel Feldman brilliantly comments on the Slifkin controversy while entirely shielding himself from criticism. I am in awe of his skill.
Slifkin Controversy
FYI, R. Nosson Slifkin has updated his website over the past few days with more information about the controversy.
Attention Perplexed
Attention perplexed: The complete Guide is now available online.
Tel Aviv University has put online the entire text of Michael Schwartz's new Hebrew translation of Moreh Nevukhim.
Wow!
(Thanks to Lamed)
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
Banned IV - Evolution
The question we will address here is not whether there are merits to the theory of evolution, or whether it is appropriate for an Orthodox Jew to adopt that theory. We will only discuss whether it is consistent with Orthodox beliefs, whether someone who believes in the theory of evolution is still within the bounds of Orthodoxy. As before, we will be making the case that even though there is debate on this matter, this is a matter of contemporary debate with scholars on both sides of the issue. For our purposes, we need only demonstrate that there are respected rabbis who adopt or do not object to the theory of evolution.
Over 130 years ago, R. Samson Raphael Hirsch offered his view on this matter. This is of great significance because R. Hirsch was a leader of the opposition to non-Orthodox movements and was very open and direct in his labeling of people and ideas as unacceptable (see volume 5 of his Collected Writings). R. Hirsch wrote:
This will never change, not even if the latest scientific notion that the genesis of all the multitudes of organic forms on earth can be traced back to one single, most primitive, primeval form of life should ever appear to be anything more than what it is today, a vague hypothesis still unsupported by fact. Even if this notion were ever to gain complete acceptance by the scientific world, Jewish thought, unlike the reasoning of the high priest of that notion, would nonetheless never summon us to revere a still extant representative of this primal form as the supposed ancestor of us all. Rather, Judaism in that case would call upon its adherents to give even greater reverence than ever before to the one, sole God Who, in His boundless creative wisdom and eternal omnipotence, needed to bring into existence no more than one single, amorphous nucleus and one single law of "adaptation and heredity" in order to bring forth, from what seemed chaos but was in fact a very definite order, the infinite variety of species we know today, each with its unique characteristics that sets it apart from all other creatures. (Collected Writings, vol. 7 pp. 263-264)While not adopting the theory of evolution, R. Hirsch is clear that there is no theological problem with it and that Judaism would gladly adopt it were there sufficient scientific proof.
R. Avraham Yitzhak Kook also wrote of the possibility of accepting the theory of evolution. In two letters published in Oros Ha-Kodesh (pp. 559, 565) and translated into English in Challenge, R. Kook discusses the matter:
The evolutionary way of thinking... has caused considerable upheaval among many people whose thought had been wont to run in certain regular, well-defined paths. Not so, however, for the select, hard-thinking few who have always seen a gradual, evolutionary development in the world's most intimate spiritual essence. For them it is not difficult to apply, by analogy, the same principle to the physical development of the visible world.R. Kook goes on to say that those who are reluctant to accept evolution as a possibility have hesitations but "[t]hese hesitations have nothing to do with any difficulty in reconciling the verses of the Torah or other traditional texts with an evolutionary standpoint. Nothing is easier than this. Everyone knows that here, if anywhere, is the realm of parable, allegory and allusion."
In Iggeros Ra'ayah (91, cited by R. Yitzchok Adlerstein in The Jewish Action Reader, p. 290), R. Kook writes, "[E]ven if it becomes apparent that life came into being through the evolution of one species from another, there is no contradiction [to the Torah]."
If not explicitly supporting evolution, R. Kook is being very clear that he has no theological objections to it.
One of the concepts of evolution that is most difficult to accept is that man, specifically Adam, is descended from lesser creatures. Can one say that Adam had humanoid, biological parents? This is, indeed, very difficult for me, personally, to accept. However, those much greater than I have made precisely that suggestion. In addition to the implicit acceptance of this concept by R. Hirsch and R. Kook above, there are explicit statements of this idea.
R. Menahem Kasher, in Torah Shelemah (Bereshis, ch. no. 738), quotes a responsum from the Geonim in which it is stated that Adam was first created as a speechless creature, like an animal, and only later was given speech. This could certainly be interpreted as a precedent for the claim that Adam was descended from humanoids. R. Kasher suggests that this is a matter of dispute between the Ramban and his student R. Bahya ben Asher, with the Ramban on the side of the Gaon's responsum.
R. Kasher poses a question on the above position from Rosh HaShanah 11a, where the Gemara states that all of Creation was made fully mature. If that is the case, how could Adam have been initially created as a humanoid and only later made into a human? R. Kasher cites midrashim that disagree with this Gemara and leaves it at that. However, R. Yehuda Henkin offers a resolution to the question.
In his Hibah Yeseirah (Bereshis 1:26, printed in the back of Bnei Banim vol. 2), R. Henkin suggests that the Gemara was only referring to the end of the Creation period. At that point, the end of the sixth "day," all of Creation was fully mature. Until that point, however, it is entirely possible that Adam was initially a humanoid and only later became a full human.
R. Henkin writes explicitly that Adam's body was taken from creatures that preceded him and it was only his soul that was created ex nihilo. In other words, Adam evolved from lower creatures and became human when God created and implanted in him a human soul.
I have been told that R. Shimon Schwab makes a similar claim in his Ma'ayan Beis Ha-Sho'evah but was unable to find it myself. I am still awaiting a fax of the material to see it with my own eyes.
Dr. Gerald Schroeder, in his The Science of God (p. 127), writes:
When I was first struggling with the questions of our origins, I steeled my courage to ask the renowned biblical scholar, Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, if it was possible that Adam had an ancestor. Not knowing what to expect, I skirted the issue for a few awkward minutes. When I finally presented the question, his matter-of-fact reply almost bowled me over: "The text of Genesis and the ancient commentaries of Nahmanides on that text certainly [certainly, mind you!] leave the door open for that interpretation."It seems that R. Lichtenstein, whom I would label a talmudic scholar rather than a biblical scholar, accepts R. Kasher's understanding of the Ramban and allows it to serve as a precedent for the idea that Adam was descended from lesser creatures. He certainly did not call it heresy. (Can anyone in Gush confirm this quote from R. Lichtenstein? Thank you.)
In an open letter, R. Ari Kahn relates the following about R. Shmuel Ya'akov Weinberg:
More recently, when Dr. Schroeder cites certain opinions regarding prehistoric man he has given me as his rabbinic source. A few months a go I received a phone call from a friend who would also be happy to be defined as someoneIn conclusion, is this idea mainstream? I don't think so. Are there scholars who advocate it or at least do not consider it to be heresy? Definitely. Whether or not this is acceptable is clearly a matter of contemporary dispute.
who lives in the zealous camp. He heard Dr. Schroeder speak and quote me, my friend was incredulous. I told him of the following conversation which I had with Rav Yaakov Weinberg on another occasion. I asked Rav Yaakov if it was kefira to say that Adam had parents. He responded by saying that as long as you can show a spiritual difference between Adam and those preceding him then in terms of Hashkafa this would be fine. I could not tell if Rav Yaakov Weinberg himself accepted this approach or merely thought it was hashkafically acceptable (I later heard from a very close talmid of Rav Yaakov that he heard Rav Yaakov suggest this 40 years ago and was comfortable with it).
UPDATE: Someone correctly pointed out in the comments that R. Moshe Tendler has written on the subject of evolution (The Torah U-Madda Journal article is not in vol. 4 and does not seem to be posted on the web). Here is what I found on the web, although I know he has written more on the subject:
The gedolei hador at the time of Darwin found little to criticize in the theory or its scientific findings...Note that R. Tendler is the brother-in-law of R. David Feinstein, one of the signers of the ban. Boy, would I like to hear the conversation between them on this subject.
Neither the age of the earth, the fossil finds of strange creatures nor the evolution of man, posed any "threat" to Torah truth as understood by the Tifereth Yisroel. Indeed, data from carbon dating lead/uranium, and other radioactive time clocks affirm the great age of the earth...
Did Hashem make this last world in six days and rested on the seventh, or was it six millennia? Either assumption can be correct....
The Talmudic literature refers to prior worlds and earlier men before the present world that is dated 5748 years from the birth of Adam and his wife Eve. Some of our great Torah sages accept this literally and see in it a concurrence with the scientific claim for a very ancient world. No one dare label such a belief heretical, even if personal family tradition is to accept that the world was created ex nihilo 5748 years ago.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
We Already Have 'B'Chezkas Moshiach'
From last week's Beis Moshiach:
Even in the early years of his leadership, chassidim knew that the Rebbe shlita, the nasi of the seventh generation since the Alter Rebbe, was Melech HaMoshiach... Then, on Shabbos Parshas Shmos 5752, we were privileged to hear the Rebbe shlita himself use a unique expression when he said that "there already is b'chezkas Moshiach." That same year, a rabbinical p'sak din had been written, establishing that according to the halachic signs and principles, the Lubavitcher Rebbe meets the criteria of "one who is presumed to be Moshiach."The article goes on to explain why the (deceased) Lubavitcher Rebbe is currently the presumptive Messiah. In response, see my book, this article in response to the pesak din and my Hebrew booklet on the subject in which I dissect and rebut these (silly) arguments.
In fact, many people have dealt with the issue of "b'chezkas Moshiach" since the p'sak din and the Rebbe's sicha, even writing books on the subject [foremost among them, the seifer Yechi HaMelech HaMoshiach by HaRav Sholom Dovber HaLevi Wolpo], explaining the signs of "b'chezkas Moshiach" and how the Rebbe shlita fits the description. However, since there are still many people who have difficulties with certain aspects of these signs, this is an appropriate opportunity to discuss this matter briefly, as it is explained in the sichos of the Rebbe MH"M shlita...
Orthodoxy – the Future of Judaism?
There is no greater argument, in my mind, for Haredi army service than the general theme in this article. Be-kitzur, we want a country in which all Jews are Torah observant. When that happens, who will be in the army if not the frum? Are we supposed to hire a mercenary army? Obviously, there are significant challenges to a frum person in the IDF, as discussed in the article from the previous post. But they should not be insurmountable.
As an aside, I found the following from the article amusing: "Agudath, an Orthodox organization with a stated mission to 'mobilize Torah-loyal Jews for the perpetuation of authentic Judaism,' has a membership ranging from clean-shaven men to black-hatted ones (the haredi), from Jews educated in secular universities to full-time, Yiddish-speaking students of the Talmud."
For quite a few years I was clean-shaven, black hatted, educated in a university and a (full-time, when I was in kollel) student of the Talmud all at the same time. My Yiddish is pretty rough, though, and I now have a beard.
TuM Journal
The new issue of The Torah U-Madda Journal is available online. You can download some of the articles discussed in this post and this one. My contribution is here (see this post).
Scariest quote from the entire journal:
Recent studies of twelfth-grade pupils in religious high schools indicate that a large minority looks forward to military service precisely because it presents them with an opportunity to abandon their Orthodox life-style. Thus, of those surveyed in a large poll in 1999, only 52% declared an intention of remaining fully observant. As many as 20% admitted that they had already decided not to do so, in the case of boys by taking the symbolic step of “removing their kippah.”In general, this article ("Dilemmas of Military Service in Israel: The Religious Dimension" by Stuart A. Cohen) is a fascinating discussion of the challenges facing Orthodox Jews in the Israeli army and some solutions that are being used. Altogether, though, it presents a somewhat depressing portrait.
Monday, January 24, 2005
Yael and Sisera
In last week's haftarah, we read about how Yael killed Sisera, the enemy general. The Gemara in Horiyos (10b) says that Yael slept with Sisera seven times before killing him, and refers to this as a sin with a good intent - aveirah li-shmah. This is quite an astounding statement!
The Rashbash (R. Shlomo ben Shimon [ben Tzemah] Duran) explains this in his Iggeres Milhemes Mitzvah as follows:
This is an allegory and the meaning is that she gave him milk to drink to strengthen his sperm as mil does... The combination of such foods with the exhaustion of travel and the sight of a beautiful woman will lead to an emission. In his thoughts, he had relations with her and that is to what this passage refers. The intent of this righteous woman was to weaken him [so that she could kill him]. This is called a "sin with a good intent" because she allowed him to stare at her so that he would have a discharge and be weakened. This is the meaning of this passage and not that this righteous woman literally slept with this wicked man.
Sunday, January 23, 2005
Snow, Snow, Snow
From the bottom of my heart and the muscles of my back I would like to thank the good Lord for giving mankind the wisdom to invent the snowblower, Arthur Sicard for being God's emissary in this world, and my neighbor for letting me use his.
Update: A reader directed me to two articles on Aish.com about snow - I & II
Saturday, January 22, 2005
R. Samson Raphael Hirsch on the Age of the Universe
R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, Collected Writings, vol. 7 p. 265:
Judaism is not frightened even by the hundreds of thousands and millions of years which the geological theory of the earth's development bandies about so freely. Judaism would have nothing to fear from that theory even if it were based on something more than mere hypothesis, on the still unproven presumption that the forces we see at work in our world today are the same as those that were in existence, with the same degree of potency, when the world was first created. Our Rabbis, the Sages of Judaism, discuss (Midrash Rabbah 9; Tractate Hagigah 16a) the possibility that earlier worlds were brought into existence and subsequently destroyed by the Creator before He made our own earth in its present form and order. However, the Rabbis have never made the acceptance or rejection of this and similar possibilites an article of faith binding on all Jews. They were willing to live with any theory that did not reject the basic truth that "every beginning is from God."
Friday, January 21, 2005
Calculating the Redemption
Exodus 13:17 "Now when Pharoah let the people go, God did not lead them by way of the land of the Phillistines, although it was nearer..."
Shemos Rabbah (20:11) explains that members of the tribe of Ephraim were overly anxious in their anticipation of the Ge'ulah, the Redemption from Egypt, and miscalculated when it was to occur. They were thirty years too early. However, confident in their own calculation, despite opposition from all of their fellow Jews, they took it upon themselve to leave Egypt and enter the promised land. They were all killed. Their bones littered the direct route to Israel, through Phillistine land, and God did not want the other Jews to have to see those bones. That is why he took them on a different route.
For practical application of this midrash about the disastrous repercussions of even slightly miscalculating the Redemption, see my introduction to Kuntres Bikores Ha-Ge'ulah.
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Rav Dessler on the Six Days of Creation
A reader was kind enough to scan in and e-mail me the relevant excerpt from Mikhtav Me'Eliyahu (vol. 2 pp. 151-153) by R. Eliyahu Dessler. You can see/download the PDF here.
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Charedi Top Ten
R. Yitzchok Adlerstein sent me this jokeful e-mail (with permission to post):
My defense of Rabbi Nosson Slifkin in Cross-Currents was a lightning rod for criticism, both from the right and the left. It was expected. Some was more imaginative than others, at least according to what others told me. I didn't bother to read it. One reader apparently warned the blogosphere that my endorsement of Rabbi Slifkin was insignificant, because I wasn't really charedi anyway. This made me pause and reflect. Could he be right? I had never considered that possibility before. After quite a bit of thinking, I arrived at the Top Ten Reasons Why I Must Be Charedi. Unfortunately, I also arrived at the Top Ten Reasons Why I Can't Be Charedi. Perhaps by presenting both, someone will help me attain some clarity.
Top Ten Reasons Why I Can't Be Charedi.
10) I listen to classical music
9) I love learning Rav Kook
8) I refer to him as "The Rav," rather than "JB"
7) I have spoken at the OU convention
6) I am given to using polysyllabic words, unprovoked.
5) I very seldom punctuate my speech with words like "mamesh," and takeh."
4) Members of the Israeli consulate regularly enjoy hospitality at my Shabbos table, even when I don't need anything from them
3) "Biblical criticism" to me does not mean taking issue with Artscroll
2) I refer to non-Jews as non-Jews, not goyim, and never tell racial jokes
And the Number One reason why I can't be charedi......
1) I actually speak with non-Jews
But then there are the arguments in the other direction.
Top Ten Reasons Why I Must Be Charedi
10) None of my rabbeim attended college
9) The last television program I remember was Leave it to Beaver
8) We get Hamodia at home
7) We actually read Jewish Observer
6) My shul does not have a Kiddush Club
5) I don't use the local eruv, even though it is entirely valid
4) I believe that Daas Torah is an important working concept, not an article by Lawrence Kaplan
3) We regard Kol Ishah as a binding halacha, not a female vocal group
2) My wife is so frum, she not only covers her hair, she even covers other women's hair (By appointment only; call at least two weeks in advance.)
And the Number One reason why I must be charedi......
1) My kids went to schools so frum, that most can't speak English properly
Banned III - Age of the Universe
I am planning a series of posts to try to demonstrate the premise upon which I am acting, namely that the issues underlying the herem on R. Nosson Slifkin’s books (link) is a matter of contemporary debate, with solid Torah sources on both sides of the debate. This first post is about the age of the universe. Was the universe created in literally six days, i.e. six 24-hour intervals equivalent to the days of any week, and is the universe exactly 5,765 years old? R. Slifkin suggests that from at least some perspectives it was not and is not.
In the Yated Ne’eman article about the herem (link), R. Yitzchok Sheiner is quoted as saying, "He believes that the world is millions of years old--all nonsense!" The actual Hebrew is "afra le-fumeih" which is more of a "God-forbid to say such a thing" than an "all nonsense!" but the implication is the same. However, this is not the only view voiced by contemporary Torah scholars.
It is unclear to me why R. Sheiner would object less to, say, an interpretation that Creation took one decade than that it took 1 billion years. Either way, it is re-interpreting the simple biblical text of six days of Creation. I, therefore, assume that he would object to any belief that Creation took more than six days (or seven, if you include rest) and that the world is older than 5,765 years.
R. Eliyahu Dessler, in his Michtav Me’Eliyahu (vol. 2 pp. 151-153) -- by now a classic of Jewish thought even though its author only passed away in 1954, addresses the six days of Creation. R. Nosson Slifkin translates a large excerpt from this essay in his The Science of Torah (pp. 120-121) and I quote it partially:
"Because six days did God make Heaven and earth..." The days referred to here relate to the period before the completion of creation, when the concept of time was different from that which applies now. But the Torah was given to us in accordance with our own concepts: "Moshe came and brought it down to earth." This is the meaning of the dictum, "The Torah speaks as if in human language"; it speaks to us in accordance with our own perceptions of matter and our own concepts of space and time...In other words, on some levels the world was not created in six 24-hour days. Rather, the Torah says that it was because that is a way for it to simplify complex concepts in words that we will understand. It is true, but it is not the complete story. Elsewhere, R. Dessler writes that "creation does not take place in time" (quoted by R. Slifkin, ibid., p. 128).
We see from this that in the simple meaning of the text -- that which is conveyed to us in accordance with our own conceptual capacity -- we are to understand actual days made up of hours and minutes. But in its real essence, that is to say, in its inner meaning, the text has quite a different connotation. It refers to six sefiros, which are modes of revelation of the divine conduct of the world.
R. Dessler, a universally recognized giant of Torah thought, alone, is sufficient support for a claim that the six days of creation need not be understood literally. He was arguably the most influential Jewish thinker (ba’al mahashavah) of the twentieth century and a man whose writings are basic texts in the Orthodox world. It is also noteworthy that R. Dessler’s close student and translator, R. Aryeh Carmell, is a strong and vocal supporter of R. Slifkin.
Rabbi Eli Munk, noted rabbi and thinker from Paris (author of the classic The Call of the Torah), wrote a book titled The Seven Days of the Beginning in which he, too, explains Creation as taking longer than six 24-hour days. Most importantly, he cites as support the great twentieth century German posek R. David Zvi Hoffmann (p. 104, cited by R. Slifkin, ibid., p. 114). Again, we need go no farther than R. David Zvi Hoffmann and R. Eli Munk to be able to accurately state that there is a legitimate difference of opinion among Orthodox thinkers today.
R. Aryeh Kaplan, the brilliant rabbinic scholar and scientist whose early passing in 1983 was mourned by all the great roshei yeshiva, offered very vocally his view on the matter. In The Jewish Action Reader (pp. 287-289), R. Yitzchok Adlerstein summarizes a speech that R. Kaplan delivered at a 1979 conference of the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists. Basing himself on his understanding of an obscure thirteenth century kabbalistic text, R. Kaplan suggested that the true Torah view is that the world is fifteen billion years old. This is further explicated in R. Kaplan’s posthumously published Immortality, Resurrection and the Age of the Universe: A Kabbalistic View. R. Kaplan was a serious Torah scholar. He was a preeminent talmid hakham who concluded that the world is older than 5,765 years.
Let me now add the voice of one of the leading American roshei yeshiva of the twentieth century, R. Shmuel Ya’akov Weinberg. The following is a (lightly edited) excerpt from an open letter by R. Ari Kahn of Aish HaTorah and Bar Ilan University about the process of his hiring Dr. Gerald Schroeder who, in his book Genesis and the Big Bang, promotes the view that the six days of Creation were really billions of years long:
Many years ago, in my capacity of educational director of Aleynu (Aish HaTorah's outreach arm), I hired Dr. Gerald (Yaakov, as he prefers to be called) Schroeder. When I first heard his material, I was impressed with the novel approach. He then delivered a lecture to senior staff including myself, Rav Motty Berger and Rav Shmuel Veffer. In order to protect Aish from the type of attack it is experiencing now, I introduced Dr. Shroeder to Rav Yitzchak Berkovitz, and then Rav Noach Weinberg. Neither had objections to his basic approach. Later, when his first book came out, we gave a copy to Rav Yaakov Weinberg, and then arranged a meeting. I was there together with Rav Yaakov Weinberg and Dr. Schroeder. Anticipating that one day people will claim that Rav Yaakov Weinberg never could have approved his approach, I came armed with a tape recorder. Somewhere in my house I have a tape of the meeting.Two important figures in the Torah world, R. Shmuel Ya’akov Weinberg and R. Moshe Shternbuch, both found nothing heretical in the idea that Creation, on some level, took longer than six 24-hour days. R. Weinberg even supported teaching it to non-observant Jews and -- significantly -- yeshiva students who had questions on these matters.
Rav Yaakov's first concern was that the science was valid -- while he was extremely well read and conversant in science, Rav Yakov was humble enough to feel that he could not judge the book scientifically and wanted to know that the science was indeed acceptable. Dr. Schroeder assured him that the book went through scientific peer review at Bantam books. Rav Yaakov was satisfied. Rav Yaakov then gave some guidelines and advice. A major point was never to teach his approach in yeshiva -- but if yeshiva guys with questions came to Aish he should teach them. Rav Yaakov felt that teaching this approach while valid, would be counter-productive for yeshiva students because it would hurt their emunas hakhamim [faith in the sages]. Secular people, on the other hand, he felt should be taught this material.
A number of years later some of the more zealous elements in Israel decided that they did not like Dr. Schroeder's approach and soon a din torah [religious trial] was setup. Presiding was Rav Moshe Shternbuch, representing Aish HaTorah was Rav Yitzchak Berkovitz -- charges of kefirah [heresy] were hurled. Ultimately Rav Berkovitz asked Rav Shternbuch which ikkar in emunah [principle of faith] was being denied. Rav Shternbuch was silent and then turned to the petitioners -- who also could not articulate the exact kefirah. In the end Rav Shternbuch, who did not like it at all, had to admit that this was not kefirah -- even though he did not like it at all.
The point of all of the above scholars is what R. Avraham Yitzhak Kook wrote in the following letter (Iggeros Ra'ayah no. 91, translated in Rav A. Y. Kook Selected Letters, cited by R. Adlerstein, loc. cit., p. 290):
Surely all realize that ma-aseh b'reishit [the acts of Creation] are among the "Secrets of the Torah." If those matters were to be understood simply and plainly, what "secrets" would there be?In conclusion, my purpose here is to show that over the past century there have been significant figures in the Torah world who suggested, advocated, and found no problem with the idea that the world is older than 5,765 years. What R. Sheiner referred to with the derogatory phrase "afra le-fumeih," others of equal or greater stature supported or at least permitted. This is, in other words, a matter of disagreement within the Orthodox world. The many rabbis who are supporting R. Slifkin are merely following acceptable teachings in a subject that is of debate within the Orthodox community.
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Buy the Books
Mysterious Creatures and The Camel, the Hare, & the Hyrax are now available for purchase from Yashar Books.
Go to www.YasharBooks.com/shop and scroll down.
Unfortunately, The Science of Torah is entirely out of print.
Copernicus and the Jews
I was always told that the conflict between science and religion was an illusion created by the Catholic Church in the early modern era. They were the ones opposed to the radical scientific advances of the time and not the Jews. It is only our lack of historical knowledge and the influence of our predominantly Christian society that makes us think that Judaism reacted in the same way. The truth, I was told, is that Judaism was much more receptive to those scientific advances. This is not true. While we did not and could not have had anything similar to the Inquisition, we did reject scientific advances for theological reasons.
While I am sure there are better sources for this information, such as Meyer Waxman's A History of Jewish Literature, this is what I have sitting on my desk so this is what I'll use. The following is from Jakob J. Petuchowski, The Theology of Haham David Nieto: An Eighteenth-Century Defense of the Jewish Tradition, pp. 59, 61:
Hardly less medieval is Nieto's attitude towards the Copernican system. It was not, however, that Nieto failed to be convinced by the scientific arguments in favor of Copernicus' hypothesis... Nieto considers this to be absolutely logical. However, he also insists that "our attitude to Science must be that we accept whatever is not opposed to the Written and the Oral Law..." But in the heliocentric view of Copernicus we have, according to Nieto, an instance where Science does contradict the Scriptures. For we read in Joshua 10:12f: "Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon... And the sun stayed in the midst of the heaven, and hastened not to go down about a whole day." This can only mean that, according to the Scriptures, the sun normally does move and revolve like the other planets...Even though today everyone agrees that Copernicus was right and does not contradict our religion, the initial Jewish response was that he contradicted the Bible and must, therefore, be rejected.
David Gans (1541-1613), in his Nehmad veNaim, is full of praise for Copernicus, whom he considers to be the greatest scholar of the age. But he does not accept his world view which, he says, was already known by the ancients and rejected by them. This attitude is explained by Waxman as being due partly to the influence of Tycho Brahe who was a great opponent of the Copernican revolution, and partly to the piety of the author who could not accept the view of Copernicus since it contradicts Biblical passages.
Tobias Cohn (1652-1729), the author of Ma'aseh Tuviyah, is very wroth against Copernicus for his theory which contradicts a number of statements in the Bible. For this reason he rejects it and clings to the Ptolemaic system.
At the time it appears to have been only Joseph Solomon del Medigo (1591-1655) who was not an outspoken opponent of the Copernican system. In the fourth part of his Ma'yan Gannim he lays special emphasis on the new discoveries from the time of Copernicus to his own. But he does not decide whether the views of Copernicus are correct, though he quotes them.
This is not intended to be an analytical post and I am not rendering judgment on whether the initial conservative response was good or bad. Just an historical FYI.
Monday, January 17, 2005
Alone
This poem by Hayim Nahman Bialik about the droves who left the yeshivos in his day always moved me. It is about the dedication and loneliness of those who remained in the beis medrash despite the overwhelming temptation outside its walls. I haven't seen it in years. Thanks to Out of Step Jew who directed me to the website.
See also the classic Ha-Masmid.
And, of course, the lullabye my mother used to sing me as a child.
I remember once hearing R. Ahron Soloveichik say that Bialik did teshuvah before he died. I find it hard to believe, but it makes sense.
Fast of the Firstborns
R. Shmaryahu Shulman, in his Merish Ba-Birah on Parashas Bo (p. 61a), raises an issue that is relevant to this year's calendar. Every year, firstborn sons are, due to ancient custom, expected to fast on the day before Pesah, although the practice has become to celebrate the completion of a talmudic tractate (siyum) thereby overriding the fast. When the fast falls out on Friday, the custom is to fast on that day even though we normally do not fast on Fridays. The reason for this is that we generally do not fast on Fridays because it is improper to recite so much selihos on the day before Shabbos and/or one should not enter Shabbos extremely hungry. However, since the firstborns do not recite selihos on that day and there is a long tradition (perhaps even requiremtn) to enter Pesah hungry the reasons for pushing off the fast do not apply and it remains on Friday. However, when the fast falls out on Shabbos it must be moved. It cannot be moved later, because then it would have to be pushed off until after Pesah, over a week later. The Shulhan Arukh (Orah Hayim 470:2) records two opinions of what to do when the fast falls out on Shabbos. One is to simply nullify the fast for that year. The other is to observe it on Thursday, and this is the customary practice.
R. Shulman points out that when Ta'anis Esther is pushed back to Thursday and then there is a festive meal that overrides the fast, those who eat are expected to fast the next day (Rama in Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayim 686:2), and such is normative practice. If that is the case, then it would seem that firstborns who eat at a siyum on the Thursday fast day should then fast on the next day as well, or at least make another siyum on Friday. He points out that R. Moshe Shternbuch (Teshuvos Ve-Hanhagos 2:211) raises this issue as well. R. Tzvi Pesach Frank (Mikra'ei Kodesh, Pesah vol. 2 no. 23) recommends eating some left-overs from the siyum on Friday.
However, R. Moshe Feinstein (Iggeros Moshe, Orah Hayim 4:69) and R. Moshe Shternbuch rule that the normative practice is not to be strict because this fast is merely customary. The Piskei Teshuvos (470:4) writes that the medakdekin make another siyum on Friday.
R. Tzvi Pesach Frank quotes the Yeshu'os Ya'akov (470) as raising another problem. Normally, a siyum would not override a fast because the meal for the siyum can be eaten later that night after the fast is over. However, since on a normal erev Pesah that is impossible because the seder will be held that night, the siyum meal must be eaten during the day and therefore override sthe fast. When the fast falls out on Thursday and the seder will be on Saturday night, we return to the original point and the siyum meal should not override the fast. R. Frank quotes R. Avraham Kook as explaining that the replacement-day cannot be more stringent than the original-day. Since the Thursday fast is a replacement for the Friday fast, the Thursday fast cannot be stricter and, therefore, a siyum meal must have no less an impact on Thursday than it does on Friday.
Sunday, January 16, 2005
BANNED II
R. Yitzchak Adlerstein publicly supports R. Nosson Slifkin on Cross Currents:
This author has his name on every one of the banned books. I am as supportive of the thrust of those books as when I first wrote those approbations. I believe that the thrust of what he wrote is firmly in line with the teaching of Rav Hai Gaon, Rav Sherira Gaon, the Rambam and his son, Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch, and Rav Aryeh Kaplan. I am also proud to be in the company of many talmidei chachamim who did not sign the letter, and of more chaverim than I could count who think the same way. I am in the company of virtually all intellectually rigorous kiruv workers, who have been using this approach for decades. With them stand literally thousands of bnei Torah who happen to work or study in areas that raise issues about Torah and science, and for whom the above-mentioned figures have served as their lifeline to uncompromised avodas Hashem. There are reasons why they have not (as of yet) come forward publicly. Hamayvin, yavin.
Friday, January 14, 2005
Kosher Coffee
From the Star-K's website:
Due to the flood of consumer inquiries regarding what can and can not be purchased at local coffee shops such as Starbucks, the Star-K has compiled the following information:
* All unflavored, roasted coffees (both regular and decaf.), may be purchased in a disposable cup. Sugar may be added. Milk (not creamer) can be added, and is cholov stam.
* Creamers and flavors may be added separately after the consumer verifies that the label of the original container bears reliable certification.
* Only packaged food items bearing reliable certification may be purchased.
* At Starbucks, bottled beverages bearing a KD are certified kosher, dairy, chalav stam, by R’ Zevulun Charlop.
* Frapuccino, whipped toppings, and other beverages prepared in coffee shops are not recommended since they are made in carafes/pump pots that are not exclusively used for kosher beverages.
Thank You Sir, May I Have Another Hundred Thousand
I started this blog as a way of easily responding to a Conservative friend who, I believe, was misrepresenting Jewish tradition. After that volley of posting, I found that I had enjoyed posting to this blog and I continued. I never thought I would keep it going for this long. Nor did I think that I would receive the positive reaction that I did. To my continued shock (and awe), this blog has reached far beyond the readership I had ever even considered.
To date, I have received feedback on blog posts from professors at five universities, including one chairman of a department, two roshei yeshivah, three instructors at post-high school yeshivas, the editors of two Orthodox journals and one posek, one dayan and countless pulpit rabbis. I remain stunned at the reception.
As we reached the 100,000th hit this week (and well surpassed it, thanks to a brand-new controversy), I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of my readers who decide to come and read what I have to say. In particular, the commenters deserve special thanks because they are an integral part of what makes this blog enjoyable and informative. The quality of commenters we have on Hirhurim is remarkable, and I thank you for that.
I pray that we continue learning from each other and growing as ovdei Hashem.
Thursday, January 13, 2005
BANNED!!!
REVISED:
As you may have heard or seen (link, link), three of R. Nosson Slifkin's books have been banned by a number of prominent talmidei hakhamim. The temptation--especially to those outside the Haredi community--is to portray R. Slifkin as a latter-day Galileo. But the issues are far more complex and subtle.
I do not presume to question or debate the authority of esteemed sages to defend the Torah community from actual or suspected heresy. The question of freedom of inquiry is itself an ancient debate. But, with the greatest deference to the defenders of the faith, we respectfully follow those sages and scholars who followed the well-established path of synthesis between Torah and the other, lesser wisdoms.
R. Nosson Slifkin (link) has written many books about science and Torah and deals with some of the hardest theological questions of the age. He is unapologetic in his investigations, and that frequently leads to rejecting some conventional, traditional explanations. His book The Science of Torah deals with issues such as creation, the age of the universe and evolution. In it, he questions some of the common answers and offers some of his own. Most importantly, he takes science seriously as an intellectual power to be reckoned with. He is on a quest for truth, as is clear from his writing. One of his conclusions is that the world is, contrary to a simple understanding of the Jewish tradition, billions of years old. This is nothing that respected scholars have not said many times already. But now, three of his books have become the center of a new controversy over the limits of religious inquiry.
R. Slifkin's book Mysterious Creatures deals with animals mentioned in Tanakh and Hazal that seem mythical, like dragons and unicorns, and tries to understand whether these animals really existed or not. He lays down criteria for verification and applies them critically to his subject matter. Throughout the book, he advocates the stance of Hazal and attempts to identify the animals intended. However, and this seems to be a point of controversy, he adopts the position of R. Sherira Gaon, R. Hai Gaon, Rambam, R. Avraham ben HaRambam, R. Samson Raphael Hirsch and many others that Hazal might have, on occasion, relied on the regnant scientific theories of their time and might have, therefore, been inaccurate on matters of scientific fact. I have written extensively on the subject (link) and was even quoted in the acknowledgments section of R. Slifkin's book. In the most recent issue of Jewish Action, the magazine of the Orthodox Union, this book was warmly reviewed by R. Dr. Eddie Reichman.
R. Slifkin's most recent book, The Camel, the Hare, & the Hyrax, takes a critical and informed look at the details of kosher signs in animals and attempts to understand these sacred teachings with what we now know about zoology. This book was mentioned on my blog a number of times already (link, translation of approbation from R. Yisrael Belsky, link). From my own perspective, it is essential reading for a serious Jew in the modern world.
A few months ago, R. Elyah Weintraub, a distinguished talmid hakham in Bnei Brak, signed a statement condemning the ideas in the three books described above. This was particularly significant because one of his students had written an approbation for one of the books. However, that ban did not receive widespread publicity, although I know of at least one scholar in Brooklyn who publicly defended R. Slifkin in response to the condemnation. Additionally, several renowned talmidei hakhamim contacted R. Slifkin to voice their sympathy and support, and to urge him to exercise restraint and refrain from responding contentiously to the condemnation. Responding to a controversy only encourages it and fans the flames.
Still, the controversy smoldered and the Yated Ne'eman had an article accompanying a statement signed by a number of scholars from both Israel and America (link). They include: R. David Feinstein, R. Shmuel Birnbaum, R. Malkiel Kotler, R. Matisyahu Solomon, R. Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, R. Aharon Leib Steinman and R. Shmuel Auerbach. That is a serious list of esteemed Torah leaders, all of whom declared R. Slifkin's books to be heretical.
On the other hand, I am aware of other gedolim who have voiced private support for R. Slifkin, but who are understandably reluctant to make a public statement. Of the eight approbations his books originally had, only one was revoked.
After the ban, R. Slifkin's distributors, Targum and Feldheim, decided to suspend distribution of his books. By mutual agreement, my company, Yashar Books, will be taking over that position. The Science of Torah is currently out of print. It will be reprinted, possbily under a new title but definitely with significantly more information (already planned before the ban). Mysterious Creatures and The Camel, the Hare, & the Hyrax are still in print and will be available soon through Yashar Books. I will be trying very hard to get the books to the YU Seforim Sale if at all possible.
There are a number of unsettled questions here. One is whether R. Slifkin's books deserve to be labeled heretical. Those authorities I follow do not think so. As someone who has spoken frankly and extensively with the author on this matter, I believe that if many of the parties involved had read R. Slifkin's books in their entirety--especially The Science of Torah which absolutely must be read without skipping in order to be understood--they might have arrived at different conclusions. This will become more clear now that R. Slifkin is putting online a comprehensive defense of his position (link).
Certainly in the world of Modern Orthodoxy his views are even somewhat bland, but even in much of the yeshiva world his views are fairly accepted. However, there are divisions within the Haredi world itself on these issues.
Another question is whether banning them is an effective measure. I expect that it will have the exact opposite effect of that intended. On the one hand, people who have no doubts about science and Torah might possibly read these books and develop doubts. On the other hand, people who already have doubts, or even just questions aligned with a firm faith, have much to gain from these books. In fact, I understand that R. Slifkin's writings have positively influenced people who were on the verge of rejecting Judaism. Banning the books does not serve anyone's purposes because those who have no questions would not have read them anyway. They were designed primarily for people who struggle with conflicts between Torah and science, which includes a large portion of the English-speaking Orthodox world today. While these books are available to all Haredi Jews, these books would not appeal to anyone not already looking for such a book.
The case can be made that the days of effective banning are long gone. In today's world of individuality, curious people will read what they want regardless of what is labeled "kosher" and "non-kosher." Banning books only serves to make them more appealing to those who are looking for interesting reading.
In my personal opinion, it is time to ban the ban. It has served its purpose but, as history has taught us again and again over the past two hundred years, it does not have much effect in the modern world.
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Censorship
A friend alerted me to a new edition of R. David Zvi Hoffmann's responsa titled Melamed Le-Ho'il. It was published by Mosad Le-Idud Limud Ha-Torah and sponsored by the Kest-Lebovits Memorial Bnei Torah Compact Library. The edition has a letter of approbation from R. Hoffmann's great-grandson who tells a story about how his grandfather was, at least according to a character in the story, a ba'al mofes -- miracle-worker.
It seems this edition lacks volume 2 responsum 56 in which R. Hoffmann relates how, when he came to teach at R. Samson Raphael Hirsch's school, the latter told him to remove his hat and yarmulka around R. Hirsch so that the other teachers would not see his refraining from doing so as a sign of respect. R. Hoffmann also states there that in the school the students only wore yarmulkas during limudei kodesh classes and not during secular classes. This edition of Melamed Le-Ho'il has a large empty section where that responsum should have been and in its place in the table of contents.
Full text of responsum here.
Torah and Truth
In a review essay of One People, Two Worlds in The Torah U-Madda Journal, Dr. William Kolbrener posits that a central dispute between the two adversarial authors of the book is based on a faulty premise. Rabbi Yosef Reinman, the Orthodox author, takes the stance that the Torah (in its broad sense) teaches absolute truth about the world. Reform rabbi Ammiel Hirsch argues that truth is relative. Dr. Kolbrener submits that the two authors are mired in a world dominated by Greek categories of thought while the Torah exists outside of that world. The Torah is neither absolute truth nor relative truth; it is interpretive truth. As the Ritva (Eruvin 13a) explains, multiple positions were given at Sinai and they are all true. There is absolute truth but it is in multiple forms. One can be wrong by taking a position not given at Sinai, but differing parties can still hold different absolute truths. Dr. Kolbrener suggests that the Maharshal (introduction to Yam Shel Shlomo on Bava Kama) agrees with this approach.
Be that as it may, the Ran disagrees. A careful reading of the Derashos Ha-Ran (Feldman ed., pp. 43-45, 84-86, 111-114) reveals that while he believes that there is a multiplicity of views in the interpretation of Torah, only one view represents absolute truth. It is our job to use the methodologies of Torah to find the best truth that we can. However, it is possible for us to fail and to espouse a position that is "the opposite of truth." Even if we do so, as the Sages did in opposition to R. Eliezer regarding the oven of Akhnai, we are still obligated to follow the position to which our methodologies lead. I interpret this position as follows. There is an absolute truth, however it is in heaven. We have the methodologies of Torah with we which can try to approximate truth and that approximation is the best humanly possible given our limitations. We are to treat that approximation as the truth even if we have information from outside of our accepted methodologies of approximation. "It is not in heaven" because we live in a world of approximate-truth and the world of absolute truth is beyond our grasp.[1]
This might possibly be the intent of the Maharal.[2] According to the Maharal, all positions have an element of truth in them even though one is more true than others. This could be translated into my terminology as meaning that all (validly arrived at) positions are legitimate approximations of the truth even if one represents the absolute truth.[3]
Given all this, and, truly, even given the Ritva's approach, the argument between Reinman and Hirsch is not over what is absolutely true and what is not, but over what methodologies are sufficiently legitimate to result in a version or an approximation of truth and what are not. Hirsch would allow any and all methodologies to undermine even the most basic of faiths while Reinman is much more restrictive and conservative in his acceptance of methodologies. To use an example from their book, Hirsch would label as true an approach that allegorizes Sabbath observance while Reinman would not countenance ignoring millennia of Jewish precedent and an entire talmudic tractate about the laws of Shabbos. Could that, Reinman would presumably ask, have been one of the truths given at Sinai?
A potential difference between the Ritva/Maharshal approach and the Ran/Maharal approach is as follows. If a view was given at Sinai then, according to the Ritva, it is true regardless of what later generations believe. However, according to the Ran, it is only valid if it is within acceptable methodologies. If a methodology declares that something is "einah Mishnah," according to the Ritva it cannot lose its status of true. Either it was true and remains so or it was never true. Once it is established that it was once true it will always retain that status. According to the Ran, however, that need not be so. Something may be considered an approximation of truth at one point in time and then later disqualified from being considered an approximation.
[1] See also Sefer Ha-Hinukh 496 and Or Hashem 3:5:2.
[2] Be'er Ha-Golah pp. 19-20, cited in R. Michael Rosensweig, "Personal Initiative and Creativity in Avodat Hashem" in The Torah U-Madda Journal vol. 1 pp. 80-81.
[3] In a different essay, R. Michael Rosensweig writes "[Maharal's] comparison of halakhic categories and institutions to the human personality and its manifold complex characteristics suggests a kind of Platonic model which presupposes the existence of an ideal halakhic status which precedes and supersedes the sum of its components... Thus, one may speak of approximating the ideal sufficiently but not fully, and the same token substantially but not sufficiently, and consequently, a whol hierarchy of truths would emerge."
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
A Pound of Flesh
From Sefer Ha-Hayim:
You might recall from high school that, in Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, the Jewish money-lender Shylock demands a pound of flesh from Antonio for failing to pay his debt. Is this an halakhically acceptable demand and, should two people make such an agreement, would a beis din uphold it? As the expanded edition of R. Daniel Z. Feldman's The Right and the Good: Halakhah and Human Relations goes to print...
Monday, January 10, 2005
Musings on Blogs
As this blog nears a major milestone -- it’s 100,000th hit (in under 8 months), I would like to take some time to meditate on the merits of a blog as opposed to other forms of internet publication and communication (thanks will come after we hit the milestone). I am more than a little familiar with other forms of internet discussion, most prominent among them e-mail lists (or listservs), posted articles, message boards and forums. I think reviewing those venues will help explain the values I see in a blog.
An article can address any topic that a blog can. In fact, at first glance there seems to be very little difference from the two. Blogs are updated frequently and kept in a central location. However, with a little organization, the same can be done with articles. The difference, however, is that blogs allow comments. An article is a monologue while a blog post is, one hopes, the beginning of a discussion that includes the blogger and readers. This is an important point for two reasons. First, it allows the blogger to be corrected or to be otherwise informed. This is no small matter because few people can claim omniscience or faultless judgment. Second, this feature draws readers into the blog and makes them part of the experience. By joining in the discussion, readers feel that to some degree they are also a part of the blog, and that builds comradery and loyalty. All of this is lacking in an article where there is no participation by the audience.
This participation is available on a forum and a message board. However, I have yet to find a forum or message board that has a lot of content and is easily maneuverable, especially to people with limited time. One has to dive in and out of discussions to find new and interesting topics, and frequently the interesting parts are drowned out by frivolous (and anonymous) discussion that clogs the threads.
An e-mail list has that danger as well, but a little moderation frequently goes a long way. Additionally, the relative absence of anonymity can stop a good deal of the nonsense that takes place on forums. However, even a properly moderated e-mail list lacks something that is present in articles and blogs. On an e-mail list, everyone is equal. In an article, the author has full control. He is the master and the sole voice. On a blog, the owner is less than the complete controller but his voice is the strongest. He is the one whose words are in the posts while readers are relegated to the comments. This creates a less-than-equal status that is enticing to someone who wishes to control the content and tone.
However, a blogger certainly lacks complete control of the site. Even one who is quick to delete comments cannot control which topics spark interest and which do not. A blogger can post something he considers extremely important and readers can ignore it. Alternately, they can take the discussion in the comments to a totally different topic, something that is difficult to control.
To me, a blog is a more satisfactory venue than any of the others discussed. There are others with more time than I who, on an e-mail list, can simply drown me out by sheer volume. On my blog, my voice is heard. I may be contradicted and disproved, but I will be heard. I can control the topics to a degree, but can still benefit from active discussion when the readers choose to engage in one. To me, it is currently the best of all possible venues.
On the other hand, articles can be held onto for a long time and more properly thought out and edited. Blogs are updated frequently -- I try to post at least once each weekday* -- and that does not always leave me time to think things through or to edit my writing (hence the frequent spelling and grammatical errors -- sorry). However, I submit that this very nature of blogs is a positive aspect rather than a negative one. It makes readers feel more comfortable and more ready to comment. If every blog post were a literary masterpiece, I suspect that most readers would be too intimidated to comment. The informality of blogs is what helps make this place into a community rather than a lecture hall.
And with this, I conclude my thoughts on blogs. It seems to me that they are currently very much in vogue. However, they are only the current fad and probably will be considered out-of-date within a few years once they are supplanted by a newer concept. So enjoy it now until it becomes passé.
* Confession: I added an hour to the time I posted this so it would register as Monday morning and take me off the hook for the day.
Friday, January 07, 2005
Torah U-Madda Journal
I received my copy(ies) of the TuM Journal this week but have barely had time to look at it. But the table of contents looks so fascinating that I ended up reading some of it during my meals (don't tell my mother).
R. Ephraim Buckwold enters the Twersky-Soloveitchik family debate about the place of the Ra'avad and daringly takes on Dr. Soloveitchik.
R. Yitzchak Blau has an important review of Marc Shapiro's book The Limits of Orthodox Theology (a frequent topic on this blog). A bit speculative in his tone, but he make a strong if understated case.
R. Shalom Carmy reviews R. Eliezer Berkovits' contributions. I've only started that article so no comment yet.
William Kolbrener, who recently debated R. Aharon Lichtenstein in Jewish Action about Torah U-Madda, has a review of Reinman and Hirsch's One People, Two Worlds. Kolbrener makes an interesting observation that the debate was overly restrained by categories within Greek philosophy about absolute truth and relativism. He offers a further definition of the truth of Torah that defies those categories and distinguishes Judaism from fundamentalist faiths. At least I think that's what he did. I only gave it a quick read and the article uses a lot of technical terminology.
It seems that Charles Manekin has finally finished his On Maimonides book. I saw it advertised a few years ago but he had told me at the time that he had barely started it. He tried to write a primer on Moreh Nevukhim that is udnerstandable (imagine the hutzpah of writing an understandable book about Maimonidean philosophy!) and from a traditional, conservative viewpoint. Charles Raffel briefly reviews the book. I'm guessing this short book will be a must-have (and wish that I had published it).
That's all I've gotten to so far. The entire issue looks very interesting.
The Legal Philosophy of R. Hershel Schachter
Menachem Butler directs us to the schedule for the upcoming Edah conference. One topic that looks quite ominous:
The Legal Philosophy of Rabbi Hershel Schachter and Its Challenge to Orthodox ModernsOn the one hand, I applaud Edah for consistently coming up with interesting speakers and provocative topics. I wish more mainstream organizations would follow that lead. On the other hand, while I should assume only the best, the phrase "its challenge to Orthodox moderns" implies a bashing session. I sincerely hope not.
I implore whoever is leading that session to keep it positive. Discuss Rav Schachter's positions with respect and do not position him as someone against modernity. Consider his openness to scientific and historical evidence (e.g. tekheles), his belief in halakhic innovation, his encouragement of female Talmud study, his broad leniencies for outreach and his investigations into the history of the Oral Torah. Note also that his conservatism on synagogue ritual follows a long history of the greatest Modern Orthodox posekim (as detailed in my series of posts on the adoption of heterodox practices - I, II, III, IV).
Maybe my memory is getting fuzzy, but I don't think I've ever heard of such a discussion about someone still alive. Maybe an article or two in the Conservative movement about R. Moshe Feinstein's declaring them all to be heretics, but about anything else?
UPDATE: Also worth mentioning is RH Schachter's quiet championing of eruvin in Manhattan. A very daring move, but also very careful and politically astute.
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Spitting on a Priest II
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Don't spit on priests
Just don't do it. It should not be so hard to comprehend.
Natural Disasters and Rabbinic Explanations II
Some commenters have objected that the sole example I brought of a talmudic explanation for a reason behind the destruction of the Second Temple was inadequate and even seemed to prove that one could not offer reasons for such tragedies without prophecy. I will correct that here by citing a whole list of sins to which the destruction was attributed. Note that the original passage I cited is explained by many as referring to the reason that the land was afflicted, and not the Jewish people (e.g. Anaf Etz Yosef ad loc., Iyun Ya'akov to Nedarim 81). As such, it was an inappropriate example. Here is Judah Goldin's paraphrasing of a number of rabbinic sources, from his Jewish Legends of the Second Commonwealth, pp. 365-366:
Why was Jerusalem destroyed? Abaye said because its people profaned the Sabbath. Rabbi Abahu said it was because they neglected their prayers, to recite the Shema mornings and evenings. Rabbi Hamnuna said because they stopped teaching Torah to their children. Ulla said it was because they lost their sense of shame. Rabbi Isaac said because they paid no respect to people who deserved it. Rabbi Amram, quoting his father, Rabbi Simon ben Abba, who had quoted Rabbi Hanina, said it was because the did not admonish each other when it was called for; they turned their faces away and saw no evil. Rabbi Judah said Jerusalem was destroyed because they held scholars in contempt. Rava said it was because there were no more trustworthy people in the city, although Rabbi Ketina said that even at its worst Jerusalem always had some trustworthy people. [Shabbos 19b, Hagigah 14a]
Jerusalem was destroyed only because justice was perverted, as it is said, Your rulers are rogues and cronies of thieves, every one avid for presents and greedy for gifts (Isa. 1:23). Rabbi Johanan said, "Jerusalem was destroyed because people insisted on taking everything to court instead of seeking to settle disputes and litigations by compromise. They insisted upon the fulfillment of the exact law and never sought equity." [Midrash Aggadah 21:1, Midrash Tehillim 82:1, Bava Basra 30b]
What was the cause of the destruction of the First Temple? Idolatry. And of the Second Temple? Causeless hatred... [Kallah Rabbasi 54b]
The First Temple was destroyed because the people practiced idolatry, immorality, and murder. But during the period of the Second Temple they were engaged in the study of Torah, the fulfillment of commandments, and the practice of charity. Why then was the Second Temple destroyed? Because there was causeless hatred among the, which teaches you that causeless hatred is equal to the transgressions of idolatry, immorality, and murder together... [Yoma 9b]
Why was the Temple destroyed? Because it was taken as a pledge for our sins. [Shemos Rabbah 21:10]
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Hirhurim, the E-Book
I'm beginning to put together the posts on this blog into book format. The plan is for it to be a free e-book. I need to make some editorial decisions on what to cut and what to keep. Please post in the comments section what you think should not be included in the book and what should be.
Thank you
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Natural Disasters and Rabbinic Explanations
I
In wake of the recent tragedy in the Far East, whose deadly repercussions are still being felt, some rabbis have tried to find reasons for the "natural" disaster. One sin in particular that I have seen attributed as the cause is inappropriate talking in the synagogue. I am sure there are other sins that have also been blamed. After all, a disaster of biblical proportions must have a biblical cause. This, inevitably, leads to protests by others of the insensitivity and arrogance of these rabbis.
While not necessarily agreeing with the rabbis, I see no reason to protest their words and am actually offended by those who object because it is not these rabbis in particular with whom they are disagreeing but with millennia of Jewish tradition.
R. Yoel Teitelbaum, in the introduction to his scholarly anti-Zionistic tract Va-Yo'el Moshe, notes that rabbis have traditionally responded to great disasters by searching for spiritual causes. R. Yosef ("The Hassid") Ya'avetz wrote a book titled Or Ha-Hayim to discuss the sins that led to the expulsion from Spain. R. Ya'akov of Lissa used this motif as the central theme to his commentary to Lamentations. While one may certainly dispute R. Teitelbaum's suggestion for the sin that led to the Holocaust (Zionism), one cannot refute his claim that it is entirely within rabbinic tradition to search for sins that caused Divine retribution.
Do we not find in the Talmud many statements that attribute specific disasters to specific sins? For example, Bava Metzi'a 85a-b:
"Who is wise enough to understand all this? Who has been instructed by the Lord and can explain it to others? Why has the land been ruined so completely that no one even dares to travel through it?" (Jeremiah 9:11)... Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: Because they did not recite the blessing before learning Torah.That is one of the reasons given by the sages of the Talmud for the destruction and devastation that ended the Second Commonwealth, and it seems, to the modern eye, as trivial as the explanation given for today's tragedy.
The Ramban in his treatise on theodicy, Sha'ar Ha-Gemul (Kisvei Ha-Ramban, vol. 2 p. 281), after proposing many detailed theories about how and why rewards and punishments are Divinely dispensed, raises the question why one should even delve into these matters since it is almost impossible to fully comprehend all of the issues. Why not just rely on faith that God is just and forget about the unfathomable details? He states that such is the question of those who despise wisdom. By studying such matters we learn more about God's ways. Rather, it is everyone's obligation to delve into such matters and to become satisfied in the justice of God's ways. Tziduk ha-din is obligatory.
II
With such a vast historical tradition, why are people so offended by these types of statements? I think the answer is two-fold. First, we live in a world in which the majority are non-believers. Of course people who do not consider violations of the Torah to be punishable sins would object to the idea that anything, big or small, is a Divine punishment.
Second, we have become acculturated to the modern, secular world. People simply do not believe that violating commandments are sins that will be punished, even many who mouth belief but do not feel it. We trivialize the commandments so that violating them does not seem like something that should merit major punishments. OK, maybe a slap on the wrist or a temporary dip in one's stock portfolio. That is not the faith of our ancestors.
Dr. Haym Soloveitchik addresses this in his article Rupture and Reconstruction:
And while there are always those whose spirituality is one apart from that of their time, nevertheless I think it safe to say that the perception of God as a daily, natural force is no longer present to a significant degree in any sector of modern Jewry, even the most religious. Indeed, I would go so far as to suggest that individual Divine Providence, though passionately believed as a theological principle--and I do not for a moment question the depth of that conviction--is no longer experienced as a simple reality.[103] With the shrinkage of God's palpable hand in human affairs has come a marked loss of His immediate presence, with its primal fear and nurturing comfort. With this distancing, the religious world has been irrevocably separated from the spirituality of its fathers, indeed, from the religious mood of intimate anthropomorphism that had cut across all the religious divides of the Old World.III
[Excerpt from note 103] Rabbi Peretz's remarks simply expressed the classic religious explanation of linking misfortune with guilt (pishpush be ma'asim), which would have been uttered by an preacher of the past millennium... As noted above (nn. 34, 19), the Sefaredic world has encountered modernity only recently, and in many ways, as in the palpable sense of the rewards and terrors of the afterlife and of God's immediate involvement in human affairs, remains far closer to the religious sensibilities of their fathers than does the more unconsciously acculturated members of the Ashkenazic community. This distance is true even of one of the least acculturated elements of the Ashkenazic haredi world, Hasidic women...
On the other hand, when we attribute a disaster that happens to others on our sins, are we not being arrogant? First of all, we must keep in mind that the Torah calls us God's firstborn son. This is an obligation and a responsibility. Regardless, though, what is the other option? Would it be better to blame the tragedy on the sins of those who died? Would this somehow appease the conscientious objectors? I doubt it.
The reactions in the Orthodox world are (surprisingly) ones of universal concern and brotherhood. It is being declared that we have an innate connection to gentiles on the other side of the planet. This, I believe, is a very interesting and positive development.
Monday, January 03, 2005
Who? Where? When? II
Kudos to Chakira for correctly identifying the Mystery Rabbi as R. Marcus (Mordechai) Horovitz, one of R. Esriel Hildesheimer's top two students (the other being R. David Zvi Hoffmann), son-in-law of R. Ya'akov Ettlinger (the Arukh La-Ner), rav of the Gemeinde Orthodox community in Frankfurt Au Main (and hence R. Samson Raphael Hirsch's archenemy), close friend of Orthodox historian R. Yitzhak Isaac Halevi (author of Doros Ha-Rishonim) and author of Responsa Matteh Levi.
Judging from how he looks in the picture, I'd guess he was around 50 years old at that time which means it was taken in the 1890s.
UPDATE: Greg found this bio and this picture.
Who? Where? When?
Hirhurim is sponsoring a Name The Mystery Rabbi contest. I am posting a picture and, in the comments section, entrants must guess the name of the rabbi. The first person to get it right wins. If no one guesses the name right, then the first person to guess the place in which he lived wins. After that, the person to guess the approximate decade in which the picture was taken wins.
The prize: A post listing you as the winner with a link to your website if you have one.
And here's the picture:
Who is the Mystery Rabbi?
Sunday, January 02, 2005
Saturday, January 01, 2005
A Psalm of Sunamis
My rav pointed to Psalm 46 as one that fits strikingly well with the recent Sunami tragedy. While most commentators take it allegorically, the literal reading resonates well after this past week's natural disaster.
Psalm 46:
God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear, though the earth should change, though the mountains shake in the heart of the sea; though its waters roar and foam, though the mountains tremble with its tumult. (Selah)...Worthy of further emphasis: God is our refuge and strength
Come, behold the works of the Lord; see what desolations he has brought on the earth.
