Frumteens and R. Ovadiah Yosef

The Frumteens moderator quotes an old article in Tehumin by R. Ovadiah Yosef about returning territories in exchange for peace. I have not seen the article and cannot comment on its contents. I will only point out some improper conclusions that should not be deduced from the article.

According to Frumteens:

If you want to see just how absurd the notion is that "only Satmar and Neturei Karta" hold the Oaths are halachicly binding (besides the slew of poskim and Gedolim from all walks of Torah Judaism who quote the Oaths l'halachah), pick up the Zionist journal "techumin" Vol. 10, and you will see the Oaths quoted l'halachah by none other than Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef...

His conclusion l'halachah is that because of the Oaths, even the Ramban agrees that there is no Miztvah at all nowadays to endanger Jewish lives to conquer Eretz Yisroel, and therefore, when you can obtain peace by giving up land, you are obligated to give up land because of Pikuach Nefesh.

Even if this is correct, one should not conclude that R. Ovadiah Yosef has any affinity for the Satmar position. Keep in mind that R. Ovadiah Yosef has also written:

I wish to emphasize first that the state of Israel and independent Jewish reign in our holy land is of the highest historical and religious significance.

(Torah She-be-Al Peh, no. 16, 5734, pp. 19-20)

While despite all this, there are many and great Gedolei Yisrael who see in the establishment of the state the beginning of the Redemption... However, since we still have before us a long path before we reach peace, both in political and military aspects and in ethical and spiritual aspects, we should not obligate the completion of Hallel [on Israel Independence Day]... I will not fear [to state] that despite all of these areas of shade [i.e., the lack of religiosity among many in Israel], there are still great lights from which we should not hide. The state of Israel today is a center of Torah in the world and thousands of wonderful boys from among the best of our delightful children are studying Torah day and night in holy yeshivot. The Torah is returning to its host, for there is no Torah like the Torah of Israel... Thousands of faithful Jews are educating their children according to the holy Torah... However, since now we have only a good beginning, therefore there is no obligation to recite Hallel with a blessing.

(Yabi'a Omer, vol. 6, Orah Hayim 41:5)

It is improper to infer or imply that R. Ovadiah Yosef is anywhere near the Satmar position on the state of Israel.

UPDATE: Frumteens has been updated on this subject:

Mod, are you saying R. Ovadiah holds like Satmar? Thats impossible, you know.

---

Not at all. My point was just the opposite - I was responding to those Zionists who claim (as have many on this site) that the Oaths are not halachah nad everybody knows that, and only Satmar and Neturei Karta hold theyre halachah.

My response is that not only are the Oaths quoted l'halachah by Rishonim and Achronim, but they are even considered Halachah by Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef! This underscores the absurdity in the claim that "only Satmar and NK" hold the Oaths are Halachah. The further away from Satmar that Khakham Ovadiah is, the more absurd their claim becomes.

However, he has also proven that the Three Oaths is not a valid argument against Zionism because R. Ovadiah Yosef, a proud Zionist and former chief rabbi, can uphold the Three Oaths and Zionism. It is not the only way to believe in Zionism. As great as he is, R. Yosef is not considered by most of the world to be the final arbiter of halakhic matters. However, unless one is willing to charge him with intellectual dishonesty and inconsistency, one must conclude that the Three Oaths is not a barrier to Zionism. In other words, talk of the Three Oaths is not an argument against Zionism. So talk all you want about them.

Read the rest of this entry »

Job's Guilt

Students of the Bible are familiar with Job's (Iyov's) travails in his eponymous book. Readers generally understand the book as stating that Job was perfectly righteous but was nevertheless afflicted by God. The important, yet never explicitly stated, message of the book is how such a seemingly perverse course of events could take place.

However, there is a strand of thought within Judaism that Job was not free of guilt (this certainly exists within Christianity, where belief in the inherent sinfulness of all people prevails).

The first verse in Job reads:

איש היה בארץ עוץ איוב שמו והיה האיש ההוא תם וישר וירא אלקים וסר מרע

There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

The verse describes Job's perfection with many adjectives, which leads to the question of what each word means. Is it merely meaningless repetition? Or does each word signify something different?

There are four descriptors:

• תם perfect
  
• וישר upright
  
• וירא אלקים one that feared God
  
• וסר מרע eschewed evil

Rashi explains that the first two תם וישר refer to Job's relations with his fellow people, and the last two וירא אלקים וסר מרע refer to Job's relation with God. In regard to other people, Job was perfect and upright. However, with God he was fearing and avoided sinning. He was not, though, complete in his worship. There is a far cry from avoiding doing bad and being scrupulous in doing good. In other words, Job was extremely punctilious in his interpersonal relations and was also nearly righteous in his obligations to God. Nearly righteous, but not quite. This can explain Job's punishment. On his high level, even the smallest blemish is considered a serious flaw (this is a consistent theme in rabbinic interpretation of the Bible).

There is another source, with which most schoolchildren are familiar, that states explicitly that Job sinned. The Gemara in Sotah 11a tells us the following midrash:

R. Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of R. Simai: There were three in that plan [to drown the newborn Jewish boys in Egypt] -- Balaam, Job and Jethro. Balaam who devised it was slain; Job who silently acquiesced was afflicted with sufferings; Jethro, who fled, merited that his descendants should sit in the Chamber of Hewn Stone...

This passage clearly attributes Job's sin, in refraining from stopping Pharoah from killing Jewish babies, as the source of Job's sufferings. According to Rashi and the Gemara, Job was not an innocent man suffering from inexplicable punishments.

Read the rest of this entry »

Identity Crisis

I spent Shabbos in a way out-of-town community. In the afternoon, I was walking with my family someplace and another frum family was walking in the same direction. We were talking and then a lady asked me with which group I am affiliated, Lubavitch or otherwise (by the way, no one "in town" would ever think that I'm Lubavitch, based on the shape of my hat and my day-after-Lag Ba'Omer neatly trimmed beard). I said that I attended Yeshiva University, so I guess that makes me Modern Orthodox. She stepped back, looked me up and down, wrinkled her nose and said, "I don't think so."

Read the rest of this entry »

The Religious Zionism Debate VI

I inadvertently omitted two important and great scholars from my previous post on this subject.

The following is from the definitive biography of R. Eliezer Silver--R. Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff, The Silver Era, pp. 262, 274, 302:

Another time [R. Eliezer] Silver was in a quandary within himself and with his associates [was] regarding a Bonds for Israel dinner in his city. Every year Silver publicly supported this event and attended the dinner. In 1964 the guest of honor was to be Nelson Glueck, the president of the Hebrew Union College. Many Orthodox Jews felt that Silver should not be present at an affair honoring such a prominent Reform Jewish personality. Nevertheless, Silver did attend, since his concern for the cause and feeling of communal responsibilities won out. At the affair, when questioned about his presence, Silver declared, "How could I stay away from a dinner aiding the State of Israel?..."

Silver also exerted his influence in the determination of Agudat Israel and Agudat Harabanim policy towards the formation of the Jewish State. Silver himself had always been in favor of such a state, despite his Agudat Israel ties. Following the Balfour Declaration in 1917, Silver marched in a New York Zionist parade in its support. When Chief Rabbi Abraham Kook visited the United States in 1924, the Agudat Harabanim invited him to adress its convention...

Silver's letter [in opposition to Satmar anti-Zionist activities] did not abate the course of action of the Satmar element. It did, however, strengthen the more moderate forces in American Orthodoxy. His viewpoint was widely cited in Mizrachi circles. Silver later participated in a Mizrachi conference. Afterwards, at an Agudah conclave, there were those who desired to disbar Silver. It was reported that Rabbi Kotler opposed this request...

R. Pinchas Teitz's daughter, Dr. Rivkah Blau, wrote the following in her biography of her great father, Learn Torah, Love Torah, Live Torah, pp. 150-153:

After the Shoah the significance of whether Israel would win recognition as the Jewish state was so strong that R. Teitz left a radio on in his study over Shabbat, November 28/29, 1947, in order to hear the vote in the United Nations...

When it became clear that there would be a Jewish state of Israel again, R. Teitz thought it was time for a completely new approach.

He called his 1948 essay "A Key [or, An Opening] To Redemption" and applied halakhic analysis, in the tradition of the Rogatchover [with whom he was very close - GS], to the new situation. He began with a question: do the remarkable events indicate the Redemption, the beginning of the Redemption or a chance, with the "key" or "opening" now available to usher in a period of redemption? His response, in my translation and paraphrase, was:

First, how did our generation merit these events? The end of the exile has come because of the halakhic rule that if one deserves two punishments, one gets the harsher punishment immediately and does not ahve to udnergo the lesser punishment. When we were sent into exile and given into the hands of Job's Satan, we would endure all kinds of offliction, but, like Job, we were supposed to survive. Between 1935 and 1945, we learned that there is no place on this globe, however cultured and democratic, to have an exile. If the world could cold-bloodedly stand by while six millioni were murdered, there is no safe place for Jews. The punishment of death incorporates all other punishments; the Shoah was the absolute, the maximum, and covers the end of exile as well. In ten years, we suffered a concentrated exile equal to that of all the preceding centuries. Now it is time to go to a city of refuge...

R. Teitz went further in defining how that erea would register in history in an essay for the New Year 5709 [October 1948] on "The State of Israel and the Torah-Jew." He asked, "Will we be a generation of mourners for the great destruction" or "a generation of redemption, of builders who establish the foundation for the Jewish future?"...

He thought that the founding of the state of Israel eliminated most of the differences between Agudath Israel and Mizrachi, which had centered on the question of whether there should be a Jewish state at all. Once this question had been answered with a fact, the parties should cooperate. R. Teitz met regularly in 1948-49 with a group trying to create a united religious front in Israel, but the two groups elected to remain separate.

Read the rest of this entry »

Bringing Sacrifices Today

R. Tzvi Hirsch Kalischer famously proposed bringing sacrifices today (i.e. mid 1800s) even though there was no Temple standing. He brilliantly argued that there is no need for a Temple in order to bring sacrifices. He was roundly critiqued by the greatest scholars of his day, but since he was in their league he continued debating the subject.

R. Ya'akov Ettlinger wrote a response to R. Kalischer, now printed as the first responsum in his Binyan Tziyon. One of his proofs is from a verse in this week's parashah: "I will lay your cities waste and bring your sanctuaries to desolation, and I will not smell the fragrance of your sweet aromas" (Lev. 26:31). After the destruction, God will not "smell the fragrance of your sweet aromas," i.e. accept sacrifices.

A colleague and supporter of R. Kalischer, R. Eliyahu Guttmacher, wrote a response to R. Ettlinger titled Mikhtav Me-Eliyahu. It is published in the 2002 Etzioni edition of Derishas Tziyon. R. Guttmacher (p. 266) responds by pointing to the commentary of R. Bahya ben Asher on that verse. According to R. Bahya (and the Ramban, I'm not sure why he does not quote him), this entire passage is referring to the destruction of the First Temple, while the related passage in Deut. 28 is referring to the destruction of the Second Temple. Therefore, this verse is irrelevant to today's situation.

However, R. Ettlinger has a proof that, at least on an halakhic level if not on a peshat level, this verse is referring to today's situation. The Mishnah in Megillah (28a) states that synagogues that are in ruins retain their holiness, and quotes the above verse: "I will... bring your sanctuaries to desolation" (even in desolation they are still called sanctuaries). Clearly, the verse is also talking about now and the end of the verse can be equally applied to today's situation.

R. Guttmacher (pp. 264-266) struggles with this and offers a number of answers. I think the answer is quite simple. According to the majority of commentators, the halakhah in the Mishnah--that sanctuaries have sanctity today--is only of rabbinic origin. While the Yere'im, and possibly the Rambam, hold that this law is biblical, most others hold that it is at most rabbinic (see the Ramban and the Ran). According to themm, the biblical verse cited is not the source for this law; it is only an asmakhta brought to support the rabbinic law. Therefore, the Mishnah cannot be used as proof that the verse is referring to today's situation.

Read the rest of this entry »

Learning Without Practicing

R. Daniel Z. Feldman, The Right and the Good: Halakhah and Human Relations (Yashar Books, 2005), pp. xviii-xix:

[T]he principles dictating people's behavior with each other have been stamped with the seal of Divine commandment, subject to the commitment and seriousness that this entails. However it may be that these principles, for certain purposes, carry a severity that not only equals but exceeds that inherent in mitzvot in general. A story told, involving R. Yisrael Meir Kagan and R. Yisrael Lipkin, may be instructive in this area. R. Kagan (1838-1933) was the revered author of the authoritative work Mishnah Berurah on the Orach Chaim section of R. Yosef Karo's code of Jewish law, the Shulchan Arukh. However, he was perhaps better known for his treatment of the laws of gossip, lashon hara, whose title became his own, Chafetz Chaim. This story relates that a certain businessman requested to purchase all of R. Kagan's many books, with the glaring exception of Chafetz Chaim. When R. Kagan questioned this, the man admitted that the pressures of his business made it difficult to avoid saying derogatory things about the people he came into contact with, and he would rather not purchase a work whose directives he felt compelled to ignore. R. Kagan prevailed upon him to buy it anyway, relating a comment made to him by R. Lipkin. R. Lipkin (1810-1883), known after his hometown as R. Yisrael Salanter, is famed as the founder of the Mussar movement, which popularized the intense study of ethical concepts. When the work Chafetz Chaim was completed, R. Lipkin told its author, "If all you accomplish is to evoke one sigh from one Jew [who becomes aware of the prohibitions and cannot observe them], the work is worthwhile." So, too, R. Kagan told the businessman, he may not believe himself able to adhere to the contents of the book; but if it will at least "evoke a sigh," it is worth the purchase price.

The author then goes on to analyze at length why we do not say "better they be inadvertent sinners than intentional ones."

Read the rest of this entry »

Star Wars During Sefirah III

After reading the book (a bigger waste of time than seeing the movie, by the way), the following occurred to me (minor spoilers ahead):

At the end of the movie, all of the Jedi are killed except for Obi Wan Kenobi and Yoda (anyone who saw/read the original Star Wars should know that). The shocking speed in which an entire way of life is almost entirely wiped out, in a treacherous and horrifying manner, is matched by the pain of the two remaining Jedi at witnessing this terrifying development. Hundreds (thousands?) of beings who trained all their lives to do good were ruthlessly destroyed, and the remaining Jedi saw everything in which they believed all but ended. It was their almost impossible task to rebuild what was lost. They were the only hope to continue their noble tradition.

Le-havdil, that is what the mourning of Sefirah is about: All of those Torah students tragically destroyed with the few remaining having to preserve their tradition for future generations.

The plight of Obi Wan and Yoda helped me visualize the enormous difficulties that faced those who survived the tragedy that befell R. Akiva's students.

UPDATE: It might be relevant to review this post about Torah and popular culture.

Read the rest of this entry »

History vs. Storytelling II

(Follow-up from this post)

Steve Brizel kindly pointed me to this editorial from the English Israeli Yated Ne'eman, that describes its attitude towards biography:

We do not of course compare a baseball life to a Torah life, but the analogy to the interest that one has is obvious. If one is deeply interested in Torah lives and in how others lived their lives of Torah and avodas Hashem, he or she will be eager to hear about nuances that a casual observer would not notice. What an outside critic sees as a numbing sameness, is seen by those seeking to improve themselves from the example of great people as valuable and fascinating new information.

That at least is the theory. The quality of the work varies as it does in any area. At Yated we set our standards high and we believe that we generally meet or beat them. In any case mediocrity is deplorable, but it is by no means unique to the field of biographies of Torah giants.

A related complaint that is sometimes made is that we leave out information. This is true, but the reason is that in our Torah-based scale of values, the harm or embarrassment that can be caused to someone — perhaps a family member or bystander — rates much higher than the needs of the historical record or journalistic objectivity. The actual or potential tears of a widow or an orphan weigh very heavily, and we unhesitatingly withhold any information or anecdote that may cause such pain. Even after we take this out, there is always plenty of material for our readers.

So we will continue writing biographies as we have been, until the days in which ubila hamovess lonetzach, death becomes obsolete.

Read the rest of this entry »

Turning Over In His Grave - 800 Years Later

The Israeli city of Tiberias, intent on honoring the great sage R. Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam; Maimonides), has decided to erect a statue of him in commemoration of the 800th year since his passing. Rambam would certainly -- without question -- be in the forefront of objecting to such a practice. After all, aside from codifying in his Mishneh Torah that making statues of people is forbidden, he was also a forceful campaigner against any form of pseudo-idolatry. The irony of commemorating a halakhist with such a blatant violation of halakhah is maddening. This is not a matter of religious extremism, but basic respect. It is like honoring a vegetarian with a slaughter of cattle in his honor!

Thankfully, upon objection of local rabbis, the city of Tiberias has cancelled its plan to build such a statue. However, the city of Fez, Morocco will be erecting the statue instead. Frankly, the insensitivity of the gentiles in Morocco to the legacy of the Rambam is also upsetting. Please, people, you don't have to be an Orthodox Jew to want to honor a person in a way that he would find fitting.

(thanks to Out of Step Jew)

Read the rest of this entry »

R. Shlomo Aviner on the Disengagement

From here:

In the Torah, it does not say "national religious". It speaks of worship of G-d, it speaks of the people of Israel- in other words, the whole of the people of Israel. I am not bothered by what is good for the national religious public, but by what is good for the whole people of Israel, what will help the people of Israel.

Redemption comes "little by little" - not all at once. Light and darkness are mixed together, and slowly the light conquers in its way. Sometimes, temporarily, the darkness also triumphs…. In the midst of the progress of the light, there are crises and setbacks... We are not working alone, but through the people of Israel and the State of Israel... Patience is needed. Patience is not a concession. We are not conceding anything. Do not say: "The state is finished, I have finished with the state." We have not finished with anything - not with the people, not with the state, and not with the army. We have only just begun. We are now in a great test.... I hereby declare: "I love Gush Katif and I love northern Samaria, but I love my people above all.

(But compare that with this.)

Read the rest of this entry »

The Religious Zionism Debate V

I. The Many Flavors of Zionism

Until now, we have discussed two attitudes towards one of Zionism:

1. Messianic Zionism -- The belief that the resettling of the land of Israel and the establishment of the state of Israel are the beginning of the Redemption. According to proponents of this view, we are already experiencing the beginning of the Redemption, as the Gemara in Megillah (17b) states: "The beginning of Redemption is war." The wars Israel is currently fighting are the wars during the Redemption. This view led to the following phrasing of the blessing for the state of Israel that is recited in many synagogues: "Our Father in heaven, the rock of Israel and its redeemer, bless the state of Israel, the beginning of the sprouting of our Redemption (reishis tzemihas ge'ulaseinu)."

2. Anti-Zionism -- The conviction that the state of Israel is a satanic creation that is based on evil and brings destruction to this world. Proponents of this view would like to see the state of Israel dismantled, but only the (crazy) ultra-extremists want the Palestinians to have control of the land. Those who share this belief refuse to recognize the state of Israel and do not use its currency. They certainly do not serve in the government, and generally do not vote in Israel's elections.

These are certainly not the only views on the subject. There is a spectrum of religious approaches to the state of Israel between these two extremes, and the following two are only two general categories that are not meant to be exhaustive (based on R. Yehuda Henkin's Bnei Banim, vol. 2 ma'amar 2; he then proceeds to suggest a fifth approach that I do not describe here). Every thinker has his own nuanced approach.

3. Non-Zionism -- The belief that a secular state of Israel has no religious significance. It has political significance, in that Jews are generally treated well by this government and many lives have been saved by it. However, it is not a "Jewish" state in the sense that being "Jewish" requires subjugation to the laws of the Torah, which the state of Israel does not have. However, culturally and religiously, Jews have fared well under this government, even though at times the state of Israel has been antagonistic, to say the least, towards religion and religious Jews. Non-Zionists might be classified as Zionists by some, in that they encourage living in Israel and treasure the land of Israel. They also participate in the government, just like they would in the government of any land in which they live.

4. Hopeful Zionism -- The view that the current return to the land of Israel might be the ingathering of exiles and the state of Israel might lead to the Messianic Era. We don't know. It might and it might not. We'll just wait and see. In the worst case, the state of Israel is simply a temporary respite from our long exile that we should enjoy and treasure while it exists. In the best case, it is the forerunner of the Messianic kingship that will usher in the Redemption.

In my opinion, for what little it is worth, history needs to have a voice in distinguishing between the different views. What might have seemed tenable when the state of Israel was first declared may be seem quite implausible after 57 years of existence. It seems hard to me to consider the state of Israel a satanic creation when it allows, and supports!, the study and living of Torah on an unprecedented scale. I am not aware of any other country in history that has funded through tax dollars so vast a number of people studying Torah. The extent of such support is simply staggering. Additionally, there is no other country in the world where people can live and practice religion as Jews with such freedom. To someone raised in exile, the freedom to be Jewish in Israel is almost palpable and is certainly easily recognizable.

Is the state perfect? Certainly not. While there is great religious freedom, it is not absolute. The state frequently acts arbitrarily, and frustratingly, against religious causes. There are compromises that need to be made because of the large secular population. Despite all this, there is simply no place like Israel where Jews have such freedom and governmental support.

I can't imagine that being merely a satanic ploy. On the other hand, the great flaws in the Israeli government make it hard for me to believe that it is the harbinger of the Messianic Era. After over fifty years, the state of Israel still remains largely unobservant and the government of Israel still retains some anti-religious biases.

To my mind, history has disproven both the Messianic Zionist and the Anti-Zionist views. But I admit that this is conjecture on my part.

II. The Gedolim

To which approach do the great Torah scholars of the past half-century subscribe? There is no single answer to that, because, unsurprisingly, great thinkers often disagree. Those who wish to rewrite history have to deal with two things. First, the explicit statements we will quote shortly that prove the contrary. Second, the following question: Who was holier and smarter -- the Satmar Rav or Rav Kook? The Satmar Rav, we know, was an ardent Anti-Zionist. Rav Kook was a Messianic Zionist, on the other side of the spectrum. So who was greater?

Anyone who dares to answer that question should be kicked in the rear. Both scholars were great in their own ways, and no one has the right to disqualify either of them. On the occasion of Rav Kook's fiftieth yahrtzeit, R. Nissan Alpert eulogized him and began by pointing out that both Rav Kook and the Satmar Rav were outside of the mainstream on this issue. There is no reason that one's teachings should be excluded from the community any more than the other's.

In a recent article in the journal Modern Judaism, Dr. Zvi Kaplan points out that the Satmar Rav "opposed the Ultra-Orthodox non-Zionists, who participated in the electoral process without sharing in the ideals of Zionism, and the Religious Zionists with equal vigor... Rabbi Teitelbaum saw the Zionist and non-Zionist Orthodox as enemies from within" (p. 170). Va-Yo'el Moshe was written as much, if not more, against Agudath Israel as it was against Mizrachi!

To the point, though, the record is clear that many Gedolim took positions closer to the center. For example, R. Tzvi Pesah Frank and R. Isser Zalman Meltzer were sympathetic to the state of Israel. Even R. Hayim Shmulevitz made public statements about the positive value of the state of Israel. R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin was a Messianic Zionist and, as a Lubavitcher, he was castigated by his rebbe for this belief. The Lubavitcher Rebbe sent him harsh letters on this subject that were eventually printed in Likkutei Sihos. R. Yehiel Mikhel Tukaczinsky was a Zionist, as is evident in his Ir Ha-Kodesh Ve-ha-Mikdash. R. Meshulam Roth was also a Messianic Zionist (see this letter). Well before that, R. Meir Simhah of Dvinsk (see this letter) and R. Shlomo Ha-Kohen of Vilna were enthusiastic supporters of Mizrachi, as were R. Hanokh Henokh Eigus of Vilna (the Marheshes) and R. Moshe Shmuel Glasner (the Dor Revi'i). A comprehensive history of the Mizrachi movement was published in Sefer Ha-Mizrahi (Mossad Ha-Rav Kook, 1946). The chief rabbis of Israel, in particular Rav Kook and Rav Herzog, were first class Gedolei Torah. Notable also was R. Shaul Yisraeli and today's R. She'ar Yashuv Cohen, R. Shlomo Aviner, R. Aharon Lichtenstein and R. Hershel Schachter.

R. Moshe Feinstein was asked about the prayer for the state of Israel. He said that it should be modified to indicate a Hopeful Zionist view, instead of a Messianic Zionist approach. The text, as he recommended, is as follows: "Our Father in heaven, the rock of Israel and its redeemer, bless the state of Israel that it become the beginning of the sprouting of our Redemption (she-t'hei reishis tzemihas ge'ulaseinu)."

R. Yosef Eliyahu Henkin was adamantly opposed to the position of the Satmar Rav. He wrote:

I was shocked to read in Chomoteinu of Cheshvan 5719 the slanderous notion that we are required to give our lives (limsor nefesh) to frustrate and resist the efforts of the State of Israel in its struggle against those who would rise up against them. This was stated as a p'sak din based on what we learn that Israel is restricted from rebelling against the nations (Ketubot 111a)...

Now all the rabbis who were opposed to Zionism and the establishment of a state took up that position until the time that it was officially founded. Once the state was declared, anyone who plays into the hands of the nations of the world even where there is no imminent danger, is clearly a moseir and rodeif. All the more when there is danger to destruction of life in so doing... Surely, those who recently emigrated must be very weary of the state's efforts to strip them of their Torah way of life, but to proclaim that anyone who aids the state is a rodeif, well such talk is the severest form of redifa.

If I'm not mistaken, this is Rav Henkin calling the Satmar Rav a rodef (pursuer)!

R. Yehi'el Ya'akov Weinberg, author of Seridei Esh, wrote an essay titled "Herzl, the Man of Religion" (now in Kisvei Ha-Gaon R. Yehi'el Ya'akov Weinberg, vol. 2 p. 298ff.). After that essay, the editor of that volume (Dr. Marc B. Shapiro, who kindly sent me a copy of the book) collected a number of pro-Israel and pro-Zionist statements of R. Weinberg. One example is from the journal Ha-Pardes (Nissan 5726), in which R. Weinberg opposed the establishment of Israel Independence Day as a religious holiday because it was done unilaterally by the Israeli Rabbinate, without approval from other great scholars. In that letter, R. Weinberg expresses his great joy at the establishment of the state of Israel.

It is also no secret that R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik was a Zionist. While he was not a Messianic Zionist, he was a leader of the Mizrachi organization. R. Walter Wurzburger, in assaying the various approaches to Zionism, describes R. Soloveitchik's view as follows (God is Proof Enough, p. 90; for another discussion, with relevant citations, see R. Mayer Twersky, "A Glimpse of the Rav" in Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik:Man of Halacha, Man of Faith, pp. 116-119):

On the one hand, he categorically refuses to treat the establishment of the State of Israel as a Messianic event. For all his enthusiasm for an independent Jewish State, he was not prepared to accord it the preliminary status of Atchalta De'Geulah (the beginning of the Redemption). On the other hand, he was unequivocally opposed to the do-nothing passivity of the pietists as they await the arrival of the Messiah.

I personally saw both R. David Lifschitz and R. Ahron Soloveitchik recite hallel on Israel Independence Day (see here and here). See the biographical article of R. Lifschitz by his son-in-law, Dr. Chaim Waxman (here): "Eretz Israel and Medinat Israel were among his greatest loves throughout his adult life." Dr. Waxman also wrote to me about the joy R. Lifschitz had when he saw his grandson, R. Ari Waxman (now a rebbe in Yeshivat [Hesder] Sha'alvim), in an Israeli army uniform: "Reb David was also incredibly proud of Ari for being a soldier in the Israeli army."

R. Ovadiah Yosef has expressed great appreciation for the state of Israel. See, for example, his responsa on whether to recite hallel and she-heheyanu on Israel Independence Day (Yabi'a Omer, vol. 6, Orah Hayim nos. 41-42). In the journal Torah She-be-Al Peh (16, 5734, pp. 19-20), R. Yosef wrote: "I wish to emphasize first that the state of Israel and independent Jewish reign in our holy land is of the highest historical and religious significance."

R. Ya'akov Kamenetsky writes in his Emes Le-Ya'akov Al Ha-Torah (Exodus 12:2 n. 17):

It is incumbent on us to understand that the establishment of the state of Israel in our day, after the the great destruction and despair that overtook the remnant, and given the desperate and destroyed status of Russian Jewry, God caused the establishment of the state of Israel in order to strengthen the connection to Judaism and to sustain the link between the Jews in exile and the Jewish nation.

R. Eliyahu Dessler has two relevant letters, from 1948 and 1949, that were published in Mikhtav Me-Eliyahu, vol. 3 pp. 349-353. He writes that he is hesitant to call the establishment of the state of Israel and the ensuing military victory the beginning of the Redemption, but he considers it a possibility (i.e. a Hopeful Zionist position). He also has harsh words for anyone who refuses to see God's miraculous intervention in this, considering them heretics who reject Divine Providence.

R. Avraham Yishayahu Karelitz, the author of Hazon Ish and a close colleague of R. Dessler's, also took the position of Hopeful Zionism. The following letter from R. Zvi Yehuda, who was very close with R. Karelitz at the end of the latter's life (he passed away just five years after the establishment of the state of Israel), was published in Tradition 18:1 (Summer 1979):

Based on my intimate closeness to Hazon Ish at the time, I am in the position to deny categorically such a libelous and disastrous rumor [that he predicted the destruction of the state of Israel in the near future]. Hazon Ish was the paradigm of a halakhist; he never assumed the role of prophet or soothsayer... Nor was the great sage Hazon Ish (and claims to the contrary by partisan ideologians notwithstanding) imbued with any negative or hostile attitude to the State of Israel. He genuinely loved Jews and welcomed indeed anything that may save their lives or improve their lot. The current "oral tradition" circulated within some yeshiva (or "kollel") coteries, that Hazon Ish was against the State, and even proclaimed its doom and decreed its fall within a prescribed span of time, is no more than a vicious lie--perpetrated by the zealots through a deliberate distortion, and received by the naive on the basis of an unfortunate misunderstanding...

Thus we examine the meaning of the State of Israel by halakhic categories: Is it really, from the point of view of our limited human judgment, the beginning of redemption? Is it certainly and clearly a positive, constructive redemptive act?

'Time will tell.' This is the gist of Hazon Ish's response, that by malice or stupidity (or both) is now distorted and repeated as if it were a terrible pronouncement of doom.

This list could continue almost endlessly (UPDATE: see here for two additions). My point, which I think has been firmly established, is that the Gedolei Torah had different views on the subject of Zionism, with many of them taking positions throughout the spectrum. The statement that I have seen in the comments section and elsewhere, that the Gedolim were all opposed to Zionism, is simply factually incorrect. They were, by and large, against the Anti-Zionist approach of the Satmar Rav. However, as R. Nissan Alpert said, that view is also part of Torah, just as is Rav Kook's Messianic Zionism.

---

I thank R. Dovid Gottlieb, Dr. Marc Shapiro, Dr. Chaim Waxman, R. Ari Waxman and R. Yehuda Henkin for helping me find sources and avoid getting out of my chair.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Impact of the Slifkin Ban

I spoke to an author today, one who has published a number of excellent books that no one would find objectionable, and he is having difficulty with his publisher. You see, in his books he quotes a lot of Rambam, including from Moreh Nevukhim. His publisher is taking an excruciatingly long time in proceeding with publication because they are scared that some of the views might be attacked and banned. This, my dear readers, is only the tip of the iceberg of the ramifications of the Slifkin ban. Whether intended by the signers of the ban or not, their actions did not just place R. Nosson Slifkin's books outside of the community. They caused a reaction against the Rambam and anything that is not standard yeshivish theology.

Some may applaud this, but we should all recognize that the issue is not over a few books by a young rabbi. This is a vast cultural confrontation.

Read the rest of this entry »

Me'or Enayim

R. David Berger, "Judaism and General Culture in Medieval and Early Modern Times" in Judaism's Encounter with Other Cultures, pp. 131-133:

Azariah de' Rossi's Me'or `Einayim, which is not a narrative history but a series of historical studies, utilized non-Jewish sources to test the validity of historical assertions in Rabbinic texts to the point of rejecting the accepted chronology of the Second Temple and modifying the Jewish calendar's assumptions about the date of creation. The author was clearly sensitive to the prospect of opposition, and he defended the study of history on the grounds of religious utility and the intrinsic value of the search for truth. There is, however, considerable irony in his argument for rejecting historical statements of the Rabbis in favor of gentile authorities. The Sages, he writes, were concerned with important matters; with respect to trivial concerns like history, we should expect to find a greater degree of reliability in the works of gentiles, who after all specialize in trivialities. The difficulty of distinguishing the strands of sincerity and disingenuousness in this assertion speaks volumes for the problematic nature of de' Rossi's undertaking. He can justify his methodology only by minimizing the significance of his discipline...

Bonfil has demonstrated convincingly that the Italian attack on Meor `Einayim was much more limited in both its ideological scope and its degree of support than historians used to think... Yerushalmi, writing before Bonfil's study, made the cautious observation that "it is perhaps a token of the flexibility of Italian Jewry that the ban upon the book, [which] only required that special permission be obtained by those who wanted to read it, was not always enforced stringently." If we accept, as I think we should, both Yerushalmi's perception of the book and Bonfil's findings about the ban, the implications for Italian Jewry become more striking. A substantial majority of the rabbinic leadership accepted with equanimity a work which treated the historical statements of the ancient Sages with startling freedom. The contrast with the intense opposition to Me'or `Einayim from R. Joseph Caro in Safed and R. Judah Loew (Maharal) in Prague highlights the openness of sixteenth-century Italian Jews to non-Jewish sources and the willingness to utilize them even in the most sensitive of contexts.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Giant of the Generation

Not The Godol Hador has shut down his blog. Since he has removed all the material I found objectionable, I'll finally give him a link.

Let me take this opportunity to raise a question that has been bothering me for a while. Grammatically, shouldn't it be "Gedol Ha-Dor" and not "Gadol Ha-Dor"? Please enlighten me in the comments if I am wrong on this.

Read the rest of this entry »

Your Guide to YUdaica

Menachem Butler gives a quick rundown on everything in the successful series of reflections on YU's history that he edited for The Commentator, Yeshiva College's student newspaper.

Read the rest of this entry »

History vs. Storytelling

Should history be looked at through rose-colored eyeglasses, skipping over misjudgments or foibles and merely reporting the positive achievements of Jewish leaders?

Yashar Books' Open Access Project has released an excerpt from Rabbi Nathan Kamenetsky’s foreword to his controversial biography of his illustrious father, Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetsky: The Making of a Godol. In this passage, Rabbi Kamenetsky discusses the issues involved in writing a biography and cites rabbinic precedents for his approach of completely honest history.

Available for download here.

Read the rest of this entry »

More Carmy

September 11th, 2001 was a day that changed the world. Along with that of most Americans, my life was changed that day in a number of ways. I had the privilege of spending a large chunk of that day with R. Shalom Carmy, making our way from uptown Manhattan to Brooklyn and speaking about a number of religious and philosophical issues that were on my mind.

Rabbi Carmy is among the top Modern Orthodox thinkers alive today. He is also the moral conscience of Orthodox Jewish academia and, to a large degree, the rest of us (hopefully) thinking Jews.

ATID, with the help of R. Yitzchak Blau, has put a collection of essays by R. Shalom Carmy on the web. The essays are here, and a general introduction is here.

Read the rest of this entry »

Star Wars During Sefirah II

A reliable source told me that when Star Wars Episode 1 came out, he personally asked R. Ahron Soloveichik whether he was allowed to see it during sefirah, and R. Soloveichik answered in the affirmative.

However, I do not think that it had to do with piku'ah nefesh.

Bottom line: Ask your rabbi.

Read the rest of this entry »

Illegal Downloading

A new policy statement from the RCA:

RCA Calls Upon Community to Desist from Downloading Copyrighted Music and Other Materials from the Internet

May 19, 2005 -- Whereas the Internet has improved our lives by allowing people to communicate with one another around the world with astounding ease, access fast-breaking news reports, and conduct scholarly research from the comforts of our homes; and yet,

Whereas the Internet has also enabled people to illegally download intellectual property covered by copyright, particularly music, thereby depriving record companies and artists of royalties due them by law; and,

Whereas such downloading and deprivation of royalties constitutes theft which is clearly prohibited both by secular law and Halacha for both Jews and non-Jews;

Therefore, the Rabbinical Council of America hereby calls upon our entire community, including Jews of all ages, to desist from illegally downloading music, Jewish as well as secular, and other forms of entertainment, in order to comply with the requirements of Halacha and the law of the United States.

As to the halakhic issues involved, I will b"n blog about it once I can find my copy of R. Zalman Nehemiah Goldberg's Tehumin article on the subject.

Read the rest of this entry »

A Defense of Simple Faith II

It was pointed out to me yesterday that Rabbi "Moshe Ben-Chaim" responded to my post about Simple Faith on his Mesora.org website.

You can see his original essay here. After reading it, you will see why his response to me that "You just agreed that conviction does surpass faith" is irrelevant because he attempted to entirely delegitimize faith as "A disease which so called 'religious' Jews cleave to and spread... the Christian ethic of 'blind faith.'" Once he grants simple faith legitimacy, even as a secondary and less-than-ideal position, he is recanting from his original condemnation of it as foreign to Judaism.

Read the rest of this entry »

Star Wars During Sefirah

I've been asked by a lot of people whether one is allowed to see the last Star Wars in movie theaters during sefirah. I'm not a posek but my gut tells me "No" and that is the answer that I've received from every rabbi with whom I've discussed the issue. One also pointed out that this movie is probably worse than most movies, in that there is something uniquely festive about seeing the final Star Wars movie. Those of us who grew up in the US during the 70s and 80s understand that.

On that note, see the kind words that David Letterman had for those overly eager fans who camped out for the first showing (here).

Read the rest of this entry »

Reaching Conclusions

I receive a lot of response to my blog. Some readers send ideas for future posts. Others send comments or related documents. Many send praise, sometimes on meeting me in person, other times via e-mail. And I also receive a lot of criticism. Of course, sometimes the criticism is totally incomprehensible. I'm used to that. I wrote a website against anti-semitic critics of the Talmud (here) and against Lubavitch messianism (here), so hate e-mail is nothing new to me. I give my readers credit, because I have not yet been sent viruses by people unhappy with this blog. Criticism generally bounces off of me, sometimes too fast. Every once in a while I have to stop and consider whether I am being legitimately criticized. It is not farfetched at all.

Over the past few months, basically since the Slifkin controversy erupted, I have been receiving e-mails from old friends who read my blog and criticize me. This hurts, although it shouldn't. They are not being mailicious. Not at all. These are people I like and respect, and they are trying to point out their surprise, even shock, at some of the things I write. Sometimes they are misreading my blog but often they are not. Whenever I receive these e-mails, I try to stop and reconsider the issue from first principles. Is what I am doing and saying proper? Sometimes I'll talk it over with others also.

Last week, I was surprised to receive what I considered to be criticism from an old friend about one of my posts on Religious Zionism (here). Specifically, my dismissal of the Satmar Rav in this way:

Again, if the Satmar Rav's goal was to prove conclusively that Religious Zionism is invalid, indeed heresy!, he does not seem to have done so conclusively. Quite the opposite. His explanation of the sources, while more or less viable, is much less plausible than that of the Religious Zionists.

Where is my awe for hakhamim? This question bothered me. A lot. I have previously written and spoken with tremendous awe for the Satmar Rav. When I was in YU, I once wrote a devar Torah in the weekly parashah sheet based on an insight from the Satmar Rav--not something that happens too frequently in YU. Did I get carried away in my zeal to justify Religious Zionism and fail to show the Satmar Rav proper respect?

I e-mailed three people whose judgment I respect, and printed out my (at the time) three essays on Religious Zionism for my rav. Of the four people, one thought I went too far in dismissing the Satmar Rav and should have used softer language. Another agreed, but thought that no one has the right to criticize me for rejecting the Satmar Rav's view. The third thought that my language was so mild that it should not be criticized. My rav agreed that there was nothing wrong with my tone. In learning, it is normal to agree with one view over another. Part of learning Torah is looking for proofs in favor of one position or another. He also encouraged me to tell the following story that I told him:

I went to Israel in my third year of beis midrash and, based on my reading of the commentary Birkas Avraham on various tractates of the Talmud (by R. Avraham Erlanger), decided that I wanted to attend his lectures in Yeshiva Kol Torah. I had already been accepted into another respected yeshiva, but I decided to try to get into Kol Torah anyway. They ignored my application from abroad, so I showed up at the yeshiva on the first day of the zeman to try to get in. The person in charge of Americans was not particularly enamored with the idea of accepting a student from YU who insisted that he would be returning to YU. However, he told me that if I convinced them that I am an illuy (genius), they will accept me. He arranged for an oral examination--on Shenayim Ohazin, arguably one of the hardest chapters in the Talmud. The examination lasted for a while and I was surprising myself at how well I was doing. I was taking him through rishonim and aharonim all over the place. Finally, I ended up in a dispute between Reb Hayim and the Or Samei'ah. So, the examiner asked me, who do I think is right--Reb Hayim or the Or Samei'ah? I looked at him with a bit of shock and disbelief. I simply told him that I couldn't decide between the two giants. That was the end of the exam. They sent me to the other yeshiva, which they praised as an excellent yeshiva (which it is), and wished me well.

The point of the story: Part of learning is trying to be makhri'a between different positions. Yes, you have to know what you are talking about (this point cannot be emphasized enough, especially on the internet). And, of course, you have to remain within the confines of normative tradition (OK, let's emphasize this point also). But choosing one Torah position over another, based on extended analysis and thought, is a natural part of advanced learning. Just 1) don't call anyone names and 2) acknowledge that the people who hold the position you are dismissing are intelligent and learned, usually much more than you.

Read the rest of this entry »

R. Shlomo Wolbe zt"l

Following up from this post, the following letter was published in the London Jewish Tribune, in response to this eulogy of R. Shlomo Wolbe by R. Jonathan Rosenblum:

Dear Sir,

While Jonathan Rosenblum (JT 5th May) has written a beautiful and masterly appreciation of the life, educational work and greatness of Rav Wolbe Zl, I think it is most important not to be guilty of re-writing history, albeit by omission. Everything written about this giant's Torah education, loyalties and student of Gedolim is absolutely correct yet..... Although I was not yet born at the time, I have reliable information from both my Father Dayan Grunfeld Zl and separately from my Mother OH, Fraulein Dr. Judit Rosenbaum at the time. Rav Wolbe Zl was an amazing product of a very powerful and significant Hashpo'oh during the early part of the twentieth century namely the V.A.D. (Verein Judische Academiker). This openly orthodox Students' Union, unlike the type of thing in British Institutions had a powerful influence in the Kiruv of many initially unorthodox students. People of the stature of Rav Yechiel Weinberg, Rabbis Elie Munk, Rabbi Dr. H. Cohn, Dr. Med. Wallach (Founder of Sha'arei Tzedek Hospital) Dr. Med. Schlesinger, Dr. Jud. I. Grunfeld, and many others had a great influence on students in various different Faculties. These were all frum senior students deeply rooted in the Torah Im Derech Eretz style, which is so unpopular today. There was just a special student called, Gustav Karl Friedrich Wolbe, who attended University between the years of 1930-1933, and who, as a result of the regular Shiurim, Torah discussion and guidance of such Alumni in German university institutions, was among the very first to embrace full, observant Yiddishkeit, as well as setting aside regular Ittim LeTorah. They were all introduced to the contents of our revered Mussar Seforim under the guidance of Yekkische mentors whose Hashkofoh was faithfully modeled on the Samson Refoel Hirsch Zl religious pattern of combining secular and Lehavdil Elef Peomim, Torah knowledge.

Indeed, many of the founders of orthodox vital institutions in Eretz Yisroel were of frum, educated Yekkishe origin, like for example, Dr. Shmuel (Leo) Deutschlander of Beis Ya'akov fame. I feel it my duty, by reason of seniority in age and firsthand knowledge of contemporary Jewish History to put the latter on record.

(Dr) Anne Ruth Cohn

Read the rest of this entry »

Reb Hillel Responds

Yes, the saga continues. First, R. Yitz Greenberg wrote an article in The Commentator attempting to clarify events that occurred almost 40 years ago. Then, R. Aharon Lichtenstein wrote a response to the article, ostensibly to set the record straight. Now, R. Hillel Goldberg, the author of the controversial 1966 interview with R. Greenberg and one of the two people behind the YU effort to preserve damaged books in the JTS library, has written a detailed letter to The Commentator, disputing many of R. Greenberg's points.

Unfortunately, this entire episode has gotten ugly and personal, something that I am sure dismays all of the participants. This issue also has two letters from R. Greenberg, one in response to R. Lichtenstein and another in response to R. Goldberg. I recommend that everyone skip those to avoid the personal issues, and focus on R. Goldberg's fascinating historical account.

Read the rest of this entry »

R. Barry Freundel's Sermons

In exchange for honoring me by sitting through my long and late speech yesterday, let me return the favor by directing my readers to a hidden treasure trove -- an online collection of some of R. Barry Freundel's derashos (sermons).

Read the rest of this entry »

The Religious Zionism Debate IV

The Three Oaths, Part I

I. The Oaths

The Gemara in Kesuvos (111a) quotes R. Yossi ben R. Hanina: "What are these three oaths? One, that Israel should not rise with (or like) a wall; another, that God had Israel swear not to rebel against the nations; another, that God had the nations swear not to subjugate Israel overmuch."

These three oaths are taken by the Satmar Rav as implying a prohibition against the Jewish people returning as a group to the land of Israel. While we may return as individuals, mass immigrations, and certainly the erection of a Jewish state, violate the oath against rising with (or like) a wall.

While this passage seems like an aggadic passage, there are two responses to this objection. First, there are a few posekim who cite it. Second, there is no such thing as "just" an aggadic passage. Aggadah informs our religious outlook and cannot be ignored!

Most significantly, the Satmar Rav quotes the Maharal of Prague's treatment of these oaths in his Netzah Yisrael, ch. 24. The Satmar Rav explains the Maharal's difficult words as implying that these oaths represent absolute prohibitions that one must sacrifice one's life before violating. In technical terms, these oaths are yehareg ve'al ya'avor. It is better to be martyred than to violate these oaths.

The Satmar Rav's treatment of this subject is lengthy, erudite and simply brilliant. One can only be amazed by the breadth and depth of his thinking. However, this does not mean that his analysis is conclusive. It seems he overlooked or, more likely, did not have available to him an important source that refutes his analysis.

II. The Maharal

The Maharal's commentary to Kesuvos was published from manuscript for the first time in, I believe, 1960. In that commentary, which is now ubiquitous and readily available for anyone to verify, the Maharal explains these oaths allegorically, as is his general approach. These were not literal oaths which a biblical obligation prohibits us from violating. Rather, these are Divine decrees about the exile. The exile will last as long as God has determined, not one moment less or more. Thus, the Maharal explains (and this is all explicit), the oaths that Israel should not rise with (or like) a wall and may not rebel against the nations means that we will not be able to shorten the exile. It will end when God has decided it will end and not any time sooner. The third oath, that the nations may not subjugate us overmuch means that they will not be able to lengthen the exile. The overmuch, evidently, refers to the time of the subjugation. The exile will end at the appropriate time, not sooner and not later.

This explanation is significantly different from the Satmar Rav's. Indeed, as R. Shlomo Aviner points out (Kuntres She-Lo Ya'alu Be-Homah 13:5-6), this explanation of the Maharal, that the oaths represent Divine decrees and not prohibitions, might very well be the intent of the authors of the halakhic responsa that the Satmar Rav quoted.

For example, R. Shlomo ben Shimon (Rashbash) Duran (Responsa Rashbash, 2) wrote:

However, this commandment [to move to Israel] is not a communal commandment to all of Israel in this exile, but is entirely prevented (nimneis) as the Sages said in the Gemara in Kesuvos in the last chapter, that it is one of the oaths that God had Israel swear--that they would not hurry the redemption or rise with a wall. Just see what happened to the descendants of Ephraim, who tried to hurry the redemption.

It is quite possible that the Rashbash is saying that we cannot move to Israel en masse because it will not work. We are exempt from this communal commandment because its fulfillement is (or was) currently impossible, since the oaths are a Divine decree preventing such a mass immigration. There is no evidence that he held that such a mass immigration is forbidden, only that it is impossible. The same can be said for R. Yitzhak ben Sheshet (Rivash) Prefet (Responsa, 101).

The Rambam, in his Iggeres Teiman (ch. 4, Qafah edition, p. 55), writes:

Because Shlomo knew with Divine inspiration that this nation, once it is ensnared in exile, will plot to awaken before the appropriate time and will be destroyed through this and will fall into troubles, he warned about this and made it vow -- allegorically (al derekh mashal) -- and said, "I adjure you, O you daughters of Jerusalem" (Song of Songs 2:7).

The Satmar Rav finds this significant: The great Rambam explicitly quotes the Three Oaths! However, the Rambam states that they are allegorical. The Satmar Rav (Va-Yoel Moshe, Ma'amar Gimmel Shevu'os, ch. 36, in the Ashkenazi 5760 edition, p. 47) explains the allegorical aspect of these oaths as meaning that, in truth, the oaths are only binding on the generation that took the oaths (his reasoning is actually much more elaborate). Therefore, these are not legally binding oaths, "only" allegorical but still very serious matters.

This seems, in my opinion, to be a somewhat forced reading of the phrase "al derekh mashal." That is not the standard way the Rambam allegorically interprets aggadic passages. It seems to me more likely that he understood the oaths in a manner similar to the Maharal: The oaths are Divine decrees that the exile cannot be shortened. Our efforts to do so will only end in disaster.

III. More Maharal

While the Maharal is quite explicit in his commentary to Kesuvos, he also has a long discussion of the Three Oaths in his book Netzah Yisrael, ch. 24. The discussion there is very complicated and somewhat ambiguous. This format does not lend itself to extensive textual explanation, so I encourage my readers to explore R. Menahem Kasher's Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah, ch. 14, where this great sage delves into the language of the Maharal and offers a much more compelling explanation of the Maharal's words that, importantly, are consistent with his commentary to Kesuvos. Anything to the contrary yields a contradiction within the Maharal's own writings. Also critical is that the Maharal is no longer understood as being of the surprising opinion that Jews should choose to be martyred rather than mass-immigrate to Israel.

IV. History and the Oaths

According to the Maharal, as explained above, the Three Oaths refer to a Divine decree that the exile has a pre-determined length and we cannot shorten or lengthen that time (excluding, presumably, a mass repentance). Any attempts to immigrate en masse to the land of Israel will fail unless the time for the exile has ended.

Evidently, if we immigrate en masse and do not fail, the time of the exile has ended! The existence of a huge portion of the Jewish people in the land of Israel, expected to be the majority within the next 15 years, indicates that the Divine decree of the exile has been fulfilled and our punishment has ended.

One critic has suggested that Religious Zionists read the Maharal as referring only to a Divine decree, rather than a prohibition, and then they reject the Divine decree. That is not at all the case. Rather, they are saying that the Divine decree has finally, and thankfully, ended (as everyone agrees it eventually would). The reality of the state of Israel is proof of it.

Read the rest of this entry »

Review of Leaves of Faith

First Things has a review of R. Aharon Lichtenstein's two volumes of Leaves of Faith.

(thanks to Lamed)

Read the rest of this entry »

Halav Yisrael

Why I eat OU-D:

(NOTE: Consult your rabbi on this matter, although you presumably already have.)

The Orthodox Union certifies as kosher-dairy (OU-D) food that is dairy, even if not Halav Yisrael. The question that arises is how they can do so (their explanation is here) and, even if they choose to be lenient, perhaps to accomodate those who would otherwise eat non-kosher, how I can rely on such a leniency. The following is my personal approach. Note that this is an ex-post-facto explanation, because I was consuming non-Halav Yisrael long before I learned this material, and my rabbi does also even though we have never discussed the matter.

The Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 35b) tells us that the milk drawn by a non-Jew is considered non-kosher because there might be non-kosher milk mixed in with it. It is for this reason that we can only drink Halav Yisrael, milk drawn by or under the direct supervision of a Jew.

However, the question remains whether this prohibition is still in place when one is sufficiently certain that there is no non-kosher milk mixed in. Is this a rabbinic decree that remains in effect until it is officially annulled by the proper authorities, or is it a pragmatic prohibition that only applies when the reason exists?

The Mishnah (AZ 29b) states that cheese made by a non-Jew is also prohibited, and the Gemara discusses the reasons that it might be non-kosher.

The Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Ma'akhalos Assuros 3:13) writes:

Therefore, the law is that any milk that is in a gentile's possession is forbidden because he may have mixed into it milk from a forbidden animal. A gentile's cheese is permissible because milk from a forbidden animal cannot congeal. However, in the time of the sages of the Mishnah they decreed against gentiles' cheese and prohibited it...

The comparison of the Rambam's language in formulating the prohibition against cheese and the prohibition against milk is telling. The latter he states is a decree. The former, clearly, is not. The implication is that when there is no suspicion of non-kosher ingredients, milk is permitted but cheese is not.

This inference was made by the Radbaz (Responsa 4:74), who ruled accordingly. Others ruling in this way are the Rashbatz (Tashbetz 3:143; his son, Rashbash (Responsa 554); the Peri Hadash (Yoreh De'ah 115:6); the Or Ha-Hayim, in his Peri To'ar (115:2); Mahari Bruna (Responsa 78). Tosafos (Avodah Zarah 39b) might also allow this.

However, this leniency is not brought down in Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 115, and the Rema seems to rule against it in par. 1. Therefore, non-Halav Yisrael milk should be prohibited regardless of how certain we may be that it is strictly cow's milk. If it isn't milked by a Jew, it should be considered non-kosher due to an official rabbinic decree. In particular, the Arukh Ha-Shulhan (ad loc. 5-6) is particularly insistent that it is prohibited.

However, the Darkhei Teshuvah 115:6 has a long list of posekim who debate whether normative halakhah should follow this leniency, despite its absence from Shulhan Arukh, with many authorities on both sides of the issue.

Because there is such a strong minority opinion to be lenient on this issue -- much stronger than for such leniencies as saying kiddush on a tiny cup of liquor or not eating in a sukkah on Shemini Atzeres -- the Hida in his Shiyurei Berakhah (Yoreh De'ah 115:1) rules that except in places where the custom is to be lenient, one must be strict. Clearly, where the custom exists to be lenient on this matter it can be followed without hesitation.

It is my contention that the dominant custom in America has been, and continues to be, to rely on this strong minority opinion and consume non-Halav Yisrael when there is no question of non-kosher mixtures. Since that is the case, this custom can be followed le-khat'hilah and without hesitation.

Read the rest of this entry »

Mussar Kallah III b

Tapes from the Mussar Kallah III are available here. It looks like these were professionally done, which I assume means excellent quality recordings.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Definition of a Blog

Hirhurim made it into the Wikipedia definition of blog. Cool!

Read the rest of this entry »

An Eye For An Eye

R. Avraham Sar Shalom:

The last verses in the weekly Torah portion, Parshat Emor, deal with the punishment given to a person who physically harms another person (and his property). There is one verse in particular amongst all the verses in which our commentators have invested a greatdeal of effort. "... An eye for an eye ..." (Vayikra [Leviticus] 24, 20). On reading, the simple meaning of the words, they would seem to imply that the person who harms the eyes of his friend will be punished by being harmed in his eyes, and the person who removes the eye of a friend will be punished by having his eye taken out.

Our sages dedicated a very long discussion to explain this verse (at the beginning of the chapter "HaChovel" in tractate Baba Kama), which basically brings various evidence suggesting that the simple explanation cannot possibly be correct. Therefore, the verses must be explained in another way. They then bring and base the explanation as follows, that the meaning implied is financial compensation for damages.

It is not my intention to discuss this issue. The more nagging question, following the long discussion mentioned above is "Why is the Torah unable to write in a simple manner that a person who harms another person's body will be punished by having to pay financial compensation for damage inflicted?"

A fundamental issue is raised here. It is impossible to simply write "Money for an eye". This would transform the entire issue into a business deal with a list of prices. And then a person may make a calculation to check whether it pays for him to harm his friend in his eye, his ear or other part of his body, according to the amount that he is willing to invest in the injury and his financial situation.

The Torah does not conduct itself in this manner. First of all the Torah is alarming: the one who takes out his friend's eye, he should have his own eye taken out; the one who breaks his friend's hand, he should have his hand broken. It is true that ultimately the person who causes injury to another will be obliged to pay monetary payments only. However, it is necessary that the fundamental saying concerning the severity of the actions is spoken...

Read the rest of this entry »

New Star, Still Old

The Forward has a review of a new translation of Franz Rosenweig's The Star of Redemption. The book is Rosenzweig's magnum opus, written from the trenches of World War I. A brilliant philosopher, he was also a ba'al teshuvah who decided to teach in Jewish schools rather than in the famous German universities of his time.

The Star is really long and really boring. Even with this new translation (from German) "into language that anyone can read," the book still "remains an exceptionally difficult book." More than that, the philosophy is very dated. Not only that, but the outlook on life is very foreign. His preoccupation with death seems to be born from his own difficult life and is very distant from our lives.

But it is still an important work and if you want to actually read it, maybe this new translation will make it a more accomplishable task.

Read the rest of this entry »

Hallel on Yom Ha-Atzma'ut

This is my post from last year on this subject, quoting from R. Ahron Soloveichik.

DovBear has an interesting post on the subject.

And Torah Currents has a thought-provoking essay on the topic.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Religious Zionism Debate III

I. The Redemption Process

Yesterday afternoon, I was speaking on the phone with a prominent talmid hakham, someone who had been very close with R. Moshe Feinstein, and he ended the conversation by wishing me a "Hag samei'ah." I was a bit taken aback because "It is not so done in our place." He noticed my surprise and explained that he had just spoken with his son in Israel, where Israeli Independence Day had already started. I am still always surprised when people treat Israeli Independence Day as a religious holiday, even though I understand the reasons for it.

The Talmud Yerushalmi (Berakhos 1:1) tells the story of how R. Hiyya Rabbah and R. Shimon ben Rebbe were walking together at dawn and saw the sunrise. R. Hiyya Rabbah said that the rise of the sun is similar to the Redemption of the Jewish people: "So is the redemption of Israel. At first, little by little (kim'ah kim'ah), as long as it continues it gets bigger and goes further."

Midrash Tehillim (18:36) states:

R. Yudan said: One verse says "migdol" (2 Samuel 22:51) and another says "magdil" (Psalms 18:59) because the redemption does not come to this nation at one time but little by little (kim'ah kim'ah). What is "magdil" (increases)? Because it increases and continues before Israel... What is "migdol" (tower)? Because Mashi'ah will be like a tower for them.

In other words, there will be a process of Redemption. The question, though, is whether this process will culminate with the arrival of Mashi'ah or will begin with it. This is one of the main fundamental areas of dispute between the Religious Zionists and the Anti-Zionists.

II. Pre-Messianic Redemption

The most powerful argument that R. Tzvi Hirsch Kalischer brings that the Redemption will begin before the messiah arises is somewhat complex (Derishas Tziyon, ma'amar 1 ch. 2, Etzion 2002 edition, pp. 40-41).

The Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 5:2) tells of a rabbinic enactment regarding the bringing of fruits from the fourth year in the life of a fruit-bearing tree to Jerusalem. R. Yossi states that this post-destruction (of the Second Temple) enactment contains an internal condition that when the Temple is rebuilt, the enactment will be automatically nullified. Yet, the question begs to be asked: Why cannot the Mashi'ah, with his authoritative court, merely annul the enactment? Why is there a need for the enactment to be automatically nullified? The Talmud Yerushalmi on that Mishnah quotes R. Aha who explains, "This means that the Temple will be rebuilt before the kingship of the house of David." The important Tosafos Yom Tov commentary to that Mishnah expands on this and states, "It will be that until the kingship of the house of David, our enemies will have a little lordship over us, just like there was at the beginning of the Second Temple."

It is clear from this Yerushalmi and Tosafos Yom Tov that there will be some sort of limited Jewish sovereignty in Israel and the Temple will be built before Mashi'ah arises.

There are also biblical passages that clearly imply that the Jewish people will return to the land of Israel before Mashi'ah comes. For example:

The word of the Lord came to me: Mortal, set your face toward Gog, of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal. Prophesy against him and say: ...After many days you shall be mustered; in the latter years you shall go against a land restored from war, a land where people were gathered from many nations on the mountains of Israel, which had long lain waste; its people were brought out from the nations and now are living in safety, all of them. You shall advance, coming on like a storm... to assail the waste places that are now inhabited, and the people who were gathered from the nations, who are acquiring cattle and goods... On that day when my people Israel are living securely... you will come up against my people Israel... so that the nations may know me, when through you, O Gog, I display my holiness before their eyes...

(Ezekiel 38:1-3, 8-9, 12, 14, 16)

It seems that the war of Gog and Magog, which precedes the rise of the Mashi'ah, will take place in the land of Israel after Jews have returned to settle it.

R. Teichtal, in his Em Ha-Banim Semehah 2:15 (Mekhon Peri Ha'aretz 1983 edition, p. 132), quotes the Gemara in Megillah (17b) that says "Once Jerusalem is built, David comes, as it says 'Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the Lord their God, and David their king' (Hosea 3:5)." Rashi explains, "After they will return to the Temple, they will seek God and David their king." Clearly, first the Jews will return to Jerusalem and the Temple will be rebuilt, and then the king from the house of David, Mashi'ah, will arise.

R. Teichtal (2:2, p. 94) also quotes the following Rashi on Psalms (70:1), that is based on a Midrash Shohar Tov:

I saw a parable to a king who became angry at his flock, broke the pen and sent out the flock and the shepherd. After time, he returned the flock and rebuilt the pen, but did not mention the shepherd. The shepherd said, "Behold, the flock is returned and the pen rebuilt, but I am not remembered." Similarly, above it says "For God will save Zion... and they that love his name shall dwell therein" (Psalms 69:36-37). The pen is rebuilt, the flock is collected and the shepherd (this is David) is not mentioned. Therefore, it says, "Of David, to make memorial" (Psalms 70:1).

In other words, first Israel will be rebuilt and the Jewish people gathered into it, then Mashi'ah will arise.

Bereishis Rabbah 64:10 tells of how in the time of R. Yehoshua ben Hananiah, the Jews almost rebuilt the Temple. Yet, there was no Mashi'ah at that time!

Pesikta Rabbasi ch. 37 states: "When the king messiah is revealed, he will come and stand on the roof of the Temple and speak to all of Israel and tell them, 'O humble ones, the time of your redemption has arrived.'" Clearly, the Temple will be rebuilt before the Mashi'ah is revealed.

There are many other passages indicating that either the ingathering of the exiles or the rebuilding of the Temple will take place before the Mashi'ah arrives. These are taken by some Religious Zionists as an indication that parts of the Redemption can occur before Mashi'ah comes. Granted, he will come. However, the return to the land of Israel and, possibly, the rebuilding of the Temple can take place before Mashi'ah arises.

III. Contrary Indications

There are, however, passages that indicate to the contrary. Yoma 5b asks a question about how the priests will don their priestly garments in the Temple and answers that, at that time, Moshe and Aharon will be there to teach it to them. The implication is that the Temple will not be built until after the resurrection of the dead. While it could be answered that the resurrection of the dead will also precede the arrival of Mashi'ah, and there is a passage in one of the Rambam's letters that can support this possibility, it seems most likely that this will not be the case and that the passage is implying that the Temple service will only start after Mashi'ah's arrival.

Similarly, Vayikra Rabbah 9:6 states that Mashi'ah will come and build the Temple. It cannot be any clearer than that.

IV. Resolutions

Based on Religious Zionist writings, these can all be explained by stating either that there will be different stages in the Redemption and more than one ingathering of the exiles. Perhaps there will be one ingathering, then the Temple will be rebuilt and Mashi'ah will arise, and then a final ingathering of all the rest of the Jews. (See Em Ha-Banim Semehah, p. 95ff.)

Alternately, one can say that if the Jews merit redemption, it will be speedy and Mashia'h will arise first and cause everything to happen immediately. Otherwise, which seems to be the case today when not everyone is observant, there will be a lengthy historical process culminating in the arrival of Mashi'ah and the final Redemption.

The Satmar Rav struggles with these sources and insists that no part of Redemption can happen before Mashi'ah arises. He suggests (Va-Yoel Moshe, Ma'amar Gimmel Shevu'os, ch. 60, in the Ashkenazi 5760 edition, p. 72) that there was a dispute among the Sages of the Mishnah over whether the Temple can be built without Mashi'ah. While the halakhic conclusion is that it cannot, this debate explains the sources implying that it can. This is a very difficult answer, and does not explain why post-Talmudic authorities, such as Rashi (on Psalms 70:1), continued to quote the non-normative view that the Temple can be built before Mashi'ah arrives.

The Satmar Rav (ch. 61, p. 74) offers another explanation. He suggests that perhaps the Redemption is a long process that starts with Mashi'ah beginning his reign that eventually spreads out to include a vast kingdom. The sources implying that Redemption will occur before Mashi'ah arises refer to after his crowning as king but before his reign spreads throughout the world.

Again, if the Satmar Rav's goal was to prove conclusively that Religious Zionism is invalid, indeed heresy!, he does not seem to have done so conclusively. Quite the opposite. His explanation of the sources, while more or less viable, is much less plausible than that of the Religious Zionists.

---

To those who observe today as a religious holiday, I wish a Hag samei'ah!

Read the rest of this entry »

RCA Convention

I'll be emerging from behind my computer, once again, next Tuesday at the RCA Convention. I'm scheduled to lead a 10:30am roundtable on "Jewish Scholarship on the Web." However, my discussion is competing with R. Gedalia Schwartz's and R. Kenneth Brander's, both of which I'd rather go to than my own. So maybe if no one shows up, I can get to one of the others.

Read the rest of this entry »

Sports and the Dead Messiah

Tel Aviv's basketball team, the Maccabis, defeated the Spanish team Tau Vitoria in a Euroleague championship game in Moscow.

The appropriate reaction is clear. From The Jerusalem Post:

"Maccabi's victory is another sign that any second now Moshiach will come – just like the Rebbe taught us," Rabbi Yaakov Gloiberman, the personal rabbi of Maccabi Tel Aviv coach Pini Gershon, said Monday. "And God willing, Moshiach will be the rebbe himself," he added, referring to the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson...

"What else has to happen before Moshiach comes?" asked Gloiberman.

Read the rest of this entry »

SOY President

Mazel tov to fellow blogger Menachem Butler on his election to the presidency of the Student Organization of Yeshiva.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Ideology of Modern Orthodoxy

R. Michael J. Broyde has a letter outlining his view of Modern Orthodoxy (here - PDF). He lists three issues as being of particular importance:

1. Religious Zionism - "I accept that the establishment of the State of Israel -- imperfect as it is -- could be the beginning of our redemption, and is an event filled with religious significance, that should be noted accordingly. Furthermore, I think that Jews in Israel and in America -- particularly religious Jews -- should involve themselves in activities of the State of Israel, as the Divine favors Jews being involved in Israel."

2. The Secular World - "I adhere to a philosophy which maintains that there is much of value in the secular world and that it is proper for one to seek out those intellectual pursuits in the secular world that are of worth and to incorporate those consistent with Torah into one's life... More practically, I believe that a Torah-based society is incomplete if it is not predicated on the necessity of productive and economically rewarding work by nearly all of its members."

3. Rabbinic Authority - "I believe that a rabbi or posek earns respect and deference to his authority by demonstrating a comprehension of Torah, its values, and the reality of the world to which Torah is to be applied... However... even the best of Torah scholars or rabbis can make mistakes; there is no obligation to follow their rulings when they are in error."

The irony, of course, is that a large segment of the so-called Yeshivish community agrees with these principles.

Read the rest of this entry »

Publishers Weekly on Students' Guide

See Sefer Ha-Hayim.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Religious Zionism Debate II

I. Early Permission to Return

R. Tzvi Hirsch Kalischer, in his Derishas Tziyon, ma'amar 1 ch. 2 (Etzion 2002 edition, p. 40), quotes from the Ramban's commentary to Shir Ha-Shirim 8:13 (in Kisvei Ha-Ramban, vol. 2 p. 516) that the beginning of the redemption will be with the help and permission of Gentile governments. R. Hayim Dov Chavel, the editor of the Ramban's collected writings, points out in a footnote to this passage that we have merited seeing this literally fulfilled.

R. Kalischer also quotes from R. David Kimhi (Radak)'s commentary to Tehillim (146:3) that, just like the Babylonian exile was ended through the Gentile king Cyrus, the final exile will also be ended through Gentile kings who will send the Jews back to their homeland.

This, R. Kalischer claims, proves that the redemption will begin with the Gentile nations giving the Jews permission to return to the land of Israel. He evidently found these two sources (and a Yerushalmi that we will hopefully address in a future post) extremely convincing, as he repeatedly referred to them and even quoted them in an 1836 letter to Baron Mayer Amschel Rothschild (printed in the Etzion 2002 edition of Derishas Tziyon, pp. 292-293).

R. Yissachar Shlomo Teichtal cites these two sources also, in his Em Ha-Banim Semeihah 1:15 (Mekhon Peri Ha'aretz 1983 edition, p. 131), quoting the Ramban in almost the exact same language as R. Kalischer (which makes me think that he copied them right out of Derishas Tziyon, which is understandable given that he wrote it during the Holocaust and away from his library).

II. Late Permission to Return

R. Yoel Teitelbaum, in Va-Yoel Moshe, Ma'amar Gimmel Shevu'os, ch. 68 (in the Ashkenazi 5760 edition, p. 84), points out that R. Kalischer quotes the Ramban imprecisely. What the Ramban actually wrote was that there will be a preliminary and small return to Israel and then, after the Mashi'ah arrives, the Gentile nations will give permission to the rest of the Jews to return to Israel. This is significantly different from what R. Kalischer understood the Ramban to mean. This is not referring to the beginning of redemption, but later in the process and subsequent to the arrival of Mashi'ah (ben David).

R. Teitelbaum further points to Radak's commentary to Isaiah 66 in which it is made clear that the Radak, too, was referring to permission to return to the land of Israel after Mashi'ah comes and not to a pre-messianic return.

In other words, these two important sources do not prove what R. Kalischer and R. Teichtal say they do.

III. Clarification

What is surprising is that R. Menahem Kasher, in his Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah, 7:1-6 (pp. 116-119), quotes these sources as well, even though he certainly had read R. Teitelbaum's work (he sometimes quotes it, albeit as an unnamed source and in order to refute it). How could he do so after R. Teitelbaum clearly demonstrated that these sources are inapplicable?

The answer, I believe (and after consultation with others, this seems to be the consensus), is that while R. Teitelbaum's comments are entirely correct, they are also entirely beside the point. He is assuming that R. Kalischer et al's proof is from the timeline presented by those scholars: they expect the initial return to be pre-messianic and with Gentile assistance. This, R. Teitelbaum shows, is incorrect. However, that was never the intention.

The Rambam writes in Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Melakhim 12:2:

...The plain meaning of the words of the prophets seems to indicate that the war of Gog and Magog will take place at the beginning of the Messianic Era. Before the war of Gog and Magog, a prophet will arise to set Israel right and prepare their hearts... There are Sages who believe that Eliyahu will appear before the coming of the messiah.

Nobody knows these things until they actually happen, because the prophets couched these matters in obscure phrases, and even the Sages have no set tradition about them, just their interpretation of the verses. That is why they have different opinions about these things.

In other words, neither the Sages of the Talmud nor subsequent commentators knew the exact timeline of the Messianic Era. They attempted to discern it through analyzing the Bible, but that is not an exact science.

Therefore, R. Kalischer was not basing his view on the exact timeline of the Ramban and the Radak. He certainly did not take their assessments of the order of events leading up to the redemption as authoritative, as the Rambam instructed. His proof, however, was from the concept that both the Ramban and the Radak embraced--that the return to the land of Israel will be with the assistance and permission of Gentile nations. That this can happen before Mashi'ah arrives, he proves from elsewhere. This will, God-willing, be the subject of my next post on this subject. However, he did prove conclusively, and even R. Teitelbaum will agree to this, that the return to the land of Israel, whenever it happens, can be with the permission of Gentile nations. Thus, rather than being disproven, his point on this matter was accepted as correct.

R. Teitelbaum could have answered that he understands the Rambam differently. In a few places in Va-Yoel Moshe, Ma'amar Gimmel Shevu'os (e.g. ch. 61, p. 75), R. Teitelbaum applies the Rambam's above statement only to events after Mashi'ah has arrived. He would not allow it to refer to pre-messianic events. However, this is very difficult because the Rambam begins by applying it to whether Eliyahu will come before or after Mashi'ah, so clearly it can refer to events prior to the messianic revelation.

Read the rest of this entry »

Orlofsky on Slifkin

R. Dovid Orlofsky published an official letter on the Slifkin issue and I find myself agreeing with this one:

Several months ago, a letter was signed by many gedolei Torah establishing a halachic position regarding Torah and Science. The attitude that Chazal can be wrong when it comes to science was deemed to be illegitimate...

Let me make [myself] clear; I am not saying you have to accept my view on this subject. There are gedolei Torah who disagree and feel that it is acceptable to espouse such a view. But though I try to present all the Torah views on a subject, I personally try to express the views of my Torah authorities...

You can agree with these gedolim or not, but it is inappropriate to attack them or question their competence.

Read the rest of this entry »

Human Dignity

Chapter 14 of R. Daniel Z. Feldman's The Right and the Good: Halakhah and Human Relations discusses human dignity (kevod ha-beriyos) and when it overrides rabbinic, and sometimes biblical, prohibitions. But what slight to human dignity is sufficient to override a prohibition? R. Feldman (p. 200) writes:

R. Naftali Amsterdam, in a letter to R. Yitzchak Blazer (also know as R. Itzeleh Peterburger), writes that to qualify for the classification of k'vod habriyot the matter must be one of objective degradation for at least the majority of individuals.[19] In this respect, the dignity referred to is that of mankind, rather than of any individual. Along these lines, R. Shimon Gabel[20] explains that it is for this reason that one is not asked to dispense with one's dignity for the sake of the mitzvah; no single person can make that decision. R. Blazer, responding to R. Amsterdam in one of a lengthy series of responsa on this topic,[21] writes to prove the existence of a subjective standard.[22] Nonetheless, R. Eliyahu Bakshi Doron, former Sephardic chief rabbi of Israel, argues that an observable, albeit individual, humiliation must be present; one's internal, emotional biases may be halakhically relevant, but under other categories.[23]

---

[19] See also Responsa Divrei Malkiel, ibid.
[20] Sofrei Shimon, Berakhot 20a.
[21] The two rabbis were among the foremost students of R. Yisrael Lipkin (Salanter).
[22] Responsa Pri Yitzchak 1:53, 54. See also R. Yisrael Meir Kagan, Mishnah Berurah 13:12, and R. Baruch Weiss, Birkhot Horai 32:66.
[23] Responsa Binyan Av 2:56. See also R. Shepansky, pp. 223-225.

About whose dignity are we discussing? From p. 199:

It should also be noted that according to many authorities, human dignity is not to be interpreted as Jewish dignity; all human beings merit this prioritization, as the phrase itself suggests. R. Shimon Sofer[10] considers this to be the opinion of the Rambam in his Mishneh Torah[11] and rules accordingly, as does R. Aharon Lichtenstein.[12] R. Yisrael Shepansky[13] and R. Dov Rosenthal[14] ntoe that this conclusion is the logical extension of the fact that concerns of dignity stem from the creation in the Divine image,[15] a fact true of all of mankind.[16] R. Natan Leiter[17] and R. Yitzchak Sternhill[18] also consider this possibility, although they do not rule conclusively.

---

[10] Responsa Hitor'rut Teshuvah 1:39.
[11] Hilkhot Sanhedrin 24:9.
[12] In the journal Machanayim (new series) 58:8-15. Note his extensive discussion of this detail, and his analysis of various types of dignity.
[13] Ohr HaMizrach, ibid., p. 228.
[14] Divrei Yosher to Pirkei Avot 1:12.
[15] Note R. Malkiel Tannenbaum, Responsa Divrei Malkiel 1:67 and 3:82.
[16] As per Tiferet Yisrael and Tosafot Yom Tov, Avot 3:14. Note also Ramban, in his commentary to Chumash, Deuteronomy 21:22, and R. Moshe Rosmarin, D'var Moshe, Pirkei Avot 3:140. See also R. Avraham Geiser, in the journal Derekh Eretz Dat U'Medinah, pp. 159-165.
[17] Respnsa Me'orot Natan 97.

Read the rest of this entry »

Secular Morality

R. Aharon Lichtenstein (adapted by R. Reuven Ziegler), By His Light: Character and Values in the Service of God, pp. 119-121:

Regarding the philosophical argument, it is perhaps true that a strong case can be made for the notion that without God everything is lawful... But even if one were to concur with this philosophical argument, can we factually deny that there exist people who are totally removed from religion yet nonetheless act in accordance with high moral standards? Perhaps they are logically inconsistent; perhaps if they were deeper philosophers, they would be worse people. Yet they regard themselves, and we would regard them too, as moral individuals. We cannot be oblivious to the existence of this phenomenon. How, then, do we relate to it...?

[W]e surely should not dismiss nor denigrate moral idealism simply because it springs (in certain cases) from secular sources. Certainly, we believe deeply that a moral idealist would be at a much higher level were his morality rooted in yirat Shamayim, were it grounded in a perception of his relation to God and of the nature of a man as a respondent and obedient being. But that surely is not to say that we therefore ought to dismiss totally the possibility or the reality of secular morality. First, we should not do this because it is simply untrue--there are genuinely moral people within the secular community. Second, we ought not do this because, after all, the results are not what we should be seeking.

Read the rest of this entry »