| Caution: This blog is la-halakhah ve-lo le-ma'aseh. Consult your rabbi before following any practices advocated here. Disclaimer: In reviewing books, I may choose works in which I have a financial interest. I believe that I will still be able to maintain objectivity but judge for yourselves. Important Policy: This blog is intended only for the interchange of ideas for the purpose of Torah study, promoting enlightened public policy and/or the refinement of character. Comments in that spirit are welcome but those that entail denigration of character are not welcome and if they appear will be deleted upon discovery. Since editing is rarely feasible, comments that are deemed inappropriate will be deleted entirely or, if possible, edited. Comments Moderation: For questions and suggestions about comments, please contact the blog's general editor Rabbi Ari Enkin at this e-mail address. Advertisement Policy: Please note that this blog does not necessarily endorse the services of advertisers. Please consider carefully any books and events announced on this blog and decide on your own whether they are appropriate for you. |
Friday, September 30, 2005
YU's New Tag Line
This just in:
A few friends of mine -- YU alums -- were exchanging e-mails about YU's new motto "Bring Wisdom to Life". Someone suggested e-mailing Richard Joel and one of us actually did. Here was his response, lightly edited (as you can see, he gave permission to spread it):
Wisdom, as we explain it, represents knowledge and values and that is what's distinct about YU. However, please spread throughout the blogosphere the fact that we have not replaced Torah Umadda -- it is, was, and will be the alma mater. We have not replaced the YU seal. It remains. All I have done is use additional branding elements, like other schools do, as corporate logos. The new YU flame is very popular, and, indeed, represents Torah Umadda, but doesn't replace the seal. Bring Wisdom to life is not our new "alma mater", but a tag line that we think brings a lot of value consistent with Torah Umadda. I've still not seen a satisfactory one line translation of Torah Umadda. We've used logos and tag lines for years -- "There is Only One YU", "Oldest and Largest...", etc. More has happened to advance Torah Umadda in the last few years than for several years, and will continue.I think by "alma mater" he means motto, as in the the second definition provided by Merriam-Webster's. And I'll say again that I like the new tag line.
UPDATE: Yeshiva College's undergraduate newspaper, The Commentator, mentions this post in this article.
Know Thyself
R. Hershel Schachter in this week's TorahWeb article:
Chava sinned with the eitz hada'as because she fooled herself into believing the words of the nochosh, that she "will become as great as G-d Himself." Many individuals are led to sin because they fool themselves into believing that they are someone other than who they really are; they join groups of people where they don’t really fit in. To fool others is a serious sin; to fool oneself is a greater sin.
Kuntres She-Lo Ya'alu Ke-Homah III
Do Not Ascend Like A Wall
by Rabbi Shlomo Aviner
Rabbi of Beit El and Rosh Yeshiva of Ateret Cohanim, Yerushalayim
translated by Rabbi Mordechai Friedfertig
printed with permission
(continued from here)
2.C. The appearance of the Revealed End of Days is the remembrance
In the Talmud in Sanhedrin:[67] Rabbi Abba said: "You have no Revealed End [clearer] than this, as it says (Yechezkel 36:8): 'But you Mountains of Israel, you shall shoot forth your branches, and yield your fruit to My people of Israel; for they will soon be coming.'" If so, the ingathering of the exiles and the Land giving of its fruit in abundance[68] by way of its agricultural settlement, this is an exceptional sign of Redemption.
And similarly the Ramban.[69] And in the Pesikta: "The Holy One, Blessed be He, does not show the sign of Redemption to Israel until they return to the thing which they loathed...The Land which our forefathers loathed.[70] And in Rashi,[71] Rabbi Meir according to the school of the grandson of the Rosh,[72] Sefer Chareidim,[73] Meharsha,[74] Rabbi Mordechai Molcho[75] in the year 5460 (1900), the author of Mishnat Chasidim[76] and Ha-Rav David Lida wrote: "That our Redemption depends on the redeeming of the Land, our subjugation depends on our subjugation to it,"[77] Rabbi Mordechai Rubin,[78] Rabbi Yehudah Chai Alkalai[79] and Ha-Rav Eliyahu Gutmacher:[80] "If Israel fulfills beginning to work the Holy Land, one hundred and thirty families in total, then the Redemption will be [at hand]." And similarly Rabbi Yitzchak Elchanan wrote: "By means of the work of the Land and labor by the young, our eyes will see the raising up of the horn of our Nation,"[81] and Rabbi Yissachar Shlomo Teichtal,[82] and there in the name of the book Yashan Noshan[83] that by means of the beginning of Redemption which comes slowly the wall of iron which separates us from our Father in Heaven is nullified.
And Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Kalischer wrote at length that the reason that the Redemption will come will be by means of the settled Land,[84] and similarly the Admor of Kotzk-Pilav,[85] and Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk[86] in the name of the Magid, the Ba'al Shem Tov and the Ba'al Ha-Tanya,[87] and the Vilna Gaon similarly wrote that the Redemption will come by means of the Revealed End of ascending to Zion and the building of the Land.[88]
And already approximately one hundred years earlier the great authorities of Israel announced the appearance of the Revealed End, they include, the Chafetz Chaim who stated concerning the beginning of the settlement in the Land "Behold, the matter has already begun,"[89] Rabbi Reuven of Denenburg,[90] Rabbi Akiva Yosef Schlesinger[91] in the year 5633 (1873), Ha-Rav Menachem Nachum Kahanov[92] in the year 5620 (1860), Rabbi Meir Yechiel of Ostrovtza,[93] Rabbi Yehoshua of Kotna,[94] the Admor of Kotzk-Pilav at length[95] and our master Ha-Rav Kook in many places[96] and others.[97]
2.D. The horrors of the Exile are the remembrance
1. Ha-Rav Yissachar Shlomo Teichtal[98] wrote that the entirety of the Oath is in effect when we sit in relative calm in the Exile, "when there is no sign from the Heavens that His will, may He be blessed, is that we should abandon the lands of the Exile...but it is not so in our time, since the words of the prophet (Michah 5:7), 'And the remnant of Yaacov shall be among the Nations...like a lion among the beasts of the forest, like a young lion among the flocks of sheep, who if he goes through, treads down, and tears in pieces, and none can save.'"
2. And he brings a proof from the words of Rabbi Yonatan Eibeschitz.[99]
3. And the great authorities of Israel already wrote that it is forbidden to remain in Exile when there are also evil decrees, they include the Rambam:[100] That those who abstain from this [ascending to the Land] they are "violators and cause others to sin," the Ralbag,[101] and the Magen Avraham:[102] that furthermore are "liable to the death penalty," and this is also implied from the words of the Ramban.[103]
4. And the great authorities of Israel similarly wrote that the purpose of the suffering of the Exile is to awaken us to ascend to the Land of Israel - and this is similarly in the Midrash[104] - they include the Chatam Sofer,[105] the author of the Arba'ah Turim[106] and Ha-Rav Mordechai Eliezer Weber, that this is the explanation of the talmudic statement "The Land of Israel comes through suffering that the suffering hints to us to awaken ourselves to return to the Land of Israel,"[107] and Rabbi Meir Shapira of Lublin.[108]
5. The great authorities of Israel wrote that the horrors of the Exile come upon us when we do not ascend to the Land of Israel, they include Ha-Rav Yaacov Tzvi Emden,[109] Ha-Rav Yehudah Alkalai[110] and similarly the Rokeach.[111]
6. The Shelah wrote that the goal of the fiery furnace is to clarify that this is a mitzvah to ascend to the Land of Israel.[112]
7. The great authorities already warned, that if we do not ascend on our own to the Land of Israel, the matter will come through horrors and destruction, they include Rabbi Simchah Bunem of Pshischa[113] that it is incumbent upon us to ascend to the Land of Israel on our own and not wait to be struck by a rod, and Rabbi Meir Simchah of Dvinsk[114] similarly wrote that Hashem will clarify by a blow of fury that Berlin is not Jerusalem. And the Netziv[115] and the Gra wrote that it is incumbent upon us to choose the path of the of the Revealed End of returning to Zion and then there would not have been a need for our Sages to warn us regarding a king whose decrees would be worse than Haman,[116] "and almost every day our Rabbi spoke to us in trembling and emotion that in Zion and Jerusalem there will be a refuge, do not delay the appointed time. Who can recount and who can describe the magnitude of concern of our Rabbi in his relating to us these types of matters in his holy spirit and tears in his eyes."[117] In the year 5693 (1933), ten years before the destruction of Europe, when the oppressors of the Jews, may their name be blotted out, rose to power, the Chafetz Chaim said that the remaining refugee camp would be in the Land of Israel.[118]
Our master Ha-Rav Kook wrote: "Come to the Land of Israel, pleasant brothers, come to the Land of Israel, save your souls, the soul of your generations, the soul of our entire Nation..."[119]
8. And our Rabbi Ha-Rav Tzvi Yehudah wrote that the Holocaust is the divorce document with the Exile which appears together with our Redemption.[120]
2.E. The appearance of the Gra
Ha-Rav Shraga Feivel Frank[121] wrote that even according to one who holds that it is necessary to wait until "the day of My remembrance,"[122] the appearance of the Gra is the remembrance since the Gra was a spark of the Mosiach ben Yosef [Messiah the son of Yosef - see Sukkah 52a],[123] and thus it was revealed to him in an exalted vision.[124] And the command of the Gra to engage in the ingathering of the exiles and in the building of the Land is like the command of Ezra and Nechemiah.
(b"n more to come)
67. 98a, and also Megillah 17b. And see Ketubot 113b.
68. Rashi ibid. And see below footnote 81 that the beginning of Redemption of "slowly, slowly" nullifies the wall of iron.
69. "That He will command to raise up the yielding of fruit when the End of Israel draws near..." (Sefer Ha-Geulah pg. 270. And see Ramban on Vayikra 26:32. And similarly Rabbenu Bachya Bereshit 17:8).
70. Brought in the book Yosef Chen, pg. 88b. Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pg. 105.
71. "Any time that Zion is destroyed, the Redeemer still has not come" (Yeshayahu chapter 59. Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 223). And similarly in the Talmud: "The son of David only comes in a generation which is completely meritorious as it says (Tehillim 37:29), 'The righteous will inherit the earth,'" and Rashi explains: "'Will inherit the earth' - which is Redemption" (Sanhedrin 98a).
72. "That ascending to the Land will draw the Redemption near" (Shevilei Emunah).
73. "With the redemption of the Land the Redemption will quickly be, as it says (Tehillim 102:14), "'For Your servants hold her stones dear...'" (Negative Mitzvot which are dependent on the Land of Israel, and it is possible to fulfill them at this time, chapter 2).
74. On the verse (Yirmiyahu 33:11), "For I will cause the captivity of the Land to return, as at the beginning": "Which is the maintenance and settlement of the Land of Israel" (Meharsha Berachot 6b) "Which means there that if they maintain and settle the Land of Israel then Hashem stated that He will cause the return of the captivity of the Land as at the beginning" (Berachot 6b. Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 198).
And similarly on that which is in the Talmud: "Rava said: For a general remembrance" (Megillah 12a), he wrote "That the remembrance is 'that a few of Israel had since settled in the Land of Israel,' until here. Since any settlement of Israel in the Land of Israel is a remembrance of Redemption. And then at that time only a few thousand settled" (Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 2), and see below footnote 134.
75. "The exceptional sign of Redemption, is when we see that Jerusalem has repair and dwelling in it," (Likutim. Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pg. 35). The Shelah similarly wrote that the settlement of Jerusalem is a sign of Redemption (Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pg. 35).
76. "Day in and day out they build them, and I say, that this is a sign of the coming of the Redeemer speedily in our days" (Hon Ashir end of chapter 9 of Sotah. Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pp. 42, 128, 130, 197).
77. Ir Miklat , Parashat Emor pg. 35. Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 195. Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pg. 105.
78. Shemen Ha-Mor Yoreh De'ah #22.
79. Goral La-Shem 7.
80. Letter which is printed at the beginning of the book Nefesh Chayah by Ha-Rav Chaim Eliezer Wax of Kalisch. Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pg. 160.
81. Shivat Tzion vol. 2, 4.
82. Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 129.
83. On Seder Moed. Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 108.
84. Derishat Tzion, Rishon Le-Tzion 54, 58. Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pg. 158.
85. Kuntres Shalom Yerushalayim. Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pp. 181, 497. And see footnote 93, and the Avnei Nezer agreed with it. Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pg. 196.
86. In his letters to the Gabba'im of Eretz Ha-Kodesh in Russia in the name of the Magid of Mezeritch and the Ba'al Shem Tov regarding the holy obligation of settling and building the Land as a preparation for the Redemption. The book Mosad Ha-Yesod pg. 288. Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pg. 550.
87. That the beginning of the Redemption will be by means of an ingathering of the exiles and the Revealed End. Mosad Ha-Yesod 13, 19, 287, Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pp. 434, 435, 436.
88. Kol Ha-Tur chapter 1 #9, chapter 3 #7, chapter 5 #3. Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pp. 155-156.
89. Brought in Le-Netivot Yisrael pg. [202] 274 and pg. [205] 278. And see Letters of the Chafetz Chaim pg. 44. And in the book Toldot Chafetz Chaim pg. 43: "For these days are the days of the footsteps of the Messiah, and when Hashem remembered His Nation, and it is possible that it is the beginning of the ingathering of the exiles.
90. Shivat Tzion vol. 2, 4.
91. Kolel Ha-Avarim pg. 19.
92. Sha'alu Shalom Yerushalayim pg. 9.
93. "For in truth this is it" (Le-Netivot Yisrael pp. [202] 275, [204] 278).
94. Yeshu'ot Malko Yoreh De'ah #66. And see above section 2.B. And #5 footnote 52.
95. In Kuntres Sha'alu Shalom Yerushalayim. Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pg. 181. And see footnote 85.
96. Igrot Re'eiyah vol. 1 - 236, 244, 344. Vol. 2 - 35, 37, 164, 210.
97. See in the book Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah (pp. 374, 231) that he brings a broadside with two hundred signatures of the great authorities of Israel on it, almost all of the Rabbis of the Land, including the great Rabbis of the generation, that the establishment of the State of Israel is the beginning of the Redemption.
98. Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 162.
99. For he writes in Ahavat Yonatan: "That in the future when the time of love arrives, the kingdom will make decrees against Israel, and they will dedicate their hearts to go and dwell in the Land of Israel, and that time there will be a time of distress for Yaacov and Hashem will hear their cries and will have mercy on them (Parashat Ekev. Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pp. 164, 302). And even though he wrote in Parashat Va-etchanan that we should not ascend to the Land of Israel even with the permission of the Nations (see above footnote 6), when there is distress on Israel it is different, as Rabbi Yissachar Shlomo Teichtal wrote: "And I am sure, that if our Rabbi, the author of 'Ahavat Yonatan,' had lived with us now in the Exile, and saw our position today in the bitter Exile that has passed over us, he himself would also say to us: Our brothers, the Children of Israel, the time has arrived for us to ascend to Zion and to the Land of our forefathers..." (Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pp. 162-163, 329-330).
100. At the end of Iggeret Kiddush Hashem (Edition of Mossad Ha-Rav Kook pg. 66) that it is forbidden to remain in the land there in which there are decrees, "But those who deceive themselves and say that they should stay in their place until the King Messiah comes to the Land of the West [and then they will] leave and go to Jerusalem - I do not know how this persecution will be nullified for them. Rather they are violators and cause others to sin."
101. That after there was a famine in the Land, our forefather Avraham decided on his own that this is the will of The Holy One, Blessed be He, that he should descend to Egypt even though the Divine command was to settle in the Land (To'aliyot Ha-Ralbag, Parashat Lech Lecha, Bereshit 12:10). And all the more so to abandon the Exile and to ascend to the Land (Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pp. 160-161).
102. "That if there are harsh decrees in the Land of Israel one should sacrifice his life for settling the Land which is not the case of one who dwells outside of the Land in a place of decrees, he is liable to the death penalty if he does not go to another country" (Zait Ra'anan on Yalkut Shemoni Yitro 292. Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pp. 106-107).
103. Who wrote that The Holy One, Blessed be He, promised us that we would sit in tranquility and with ample livelihood in the Exile (Parashat Ki Tavo, Devarim 28:38), and if so, when the non-Jews take all of the benefits of life from us, it is as if The Holy One, Blessed be He, is saying: "I pulled my hand away from you from further promising your settlement in the Exile, but you should arise and come to your mother's chest" (Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pp. 160, 239).
104. For The Holy One, Blessed be He, brought distress upon Machlon and Kilyon for approximately ten years in order to warn them to return to the Land of Israel (Tanchuma Behar #3. Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 159).
105. For the force of the distress is to bring us to the Land of Israel (Derashah for Parashat Parah. Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 86).
106. "Any time that the sounds, cries and screams of the harsh decrees are heard, God forbid, every person's heart should burn to build the Holy City" (Shemot 9:33. Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 228).
107. The introduction of the book "Erech Dal" on Arachin. Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pp. 161, 231. And ibid., that the purpose of this bitter Exile is to awaken us for the Land of Israel (pp. 245-246).
108. "Now I know why you are against ascending and building the Land, since any time that you eat 'lichtiga fish' ['fish of light' which Chasidim eat at Seudah Shelishit while it is still day] the Land of Israel is not an imperative for you. But on account of our great sins, the great majority of Israel only eats 'finsatara fish' ['fish of darkness' - which Chasidim eat at Seudah Shelishit when it becomes night]" (related in Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 225). And he wrote similarly that the actions of the fathers are a sign for the children for Yaacov swore at a time of distress "And I will return in peace to my father's house." It is written in the Midrash that The Holy One, Blessed be He, takes the words of the fathers and makes them a key for the redemption of the children, a hint of the footsteps of the Messiah (Sefer Divrei Emet Parashat Va-yetze. Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 31).
109. "Do not consider remaining rooted outside the Land...this was the sin of our forefathers...and it is what kept us in our bitter Exile because not only one person arose upon us to destroy us but in each and every generation...and we were persecuted ruthlessly...as it seems to us when we were in tranquility outside of Israel that we found the Land of Israel [on] a different level, therefore all of the tragedies come upon us when Israel was dwelling in the Land of Spain and other lands..." (Siddur Beit Yaacov, introduction, 13). "And if only this sin had been in our hands...in my view it is the closest reason, revealed, powerful and strong, for all of the horrible, great and unprecedented persecutions, which astonishes the mind, which we have experienced in Exile" (ibid.). And see below footnote 178.
110. "Since Israel was not awakened to return to our Land and the inheritance of our forefathers, the decrees began, the expulsion and persecutions, because the matter is dependent on repentance - that they return to the Land of Israel" (Kol Korei from the year 5608 [1848]).
111. For the persecutions of Warsaw came because they thought they lived in the little Jerusalem. See below in the end of footnote 156.
112. Shelah volume 3, chelek Torah Shebichtav, 11:2 (Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 330).
113. For there are two ways to acquire an animal: call it and it follows after him, or strike a stick and it runs before him. And thus we have to ascend to the Land of Israel of our own accord, and not to wait until Hashem strikes us by means of a stick (Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 88).
114. "...and the Jew...will think that Berlin is Jerusalem...then a stormy and rushing wind will come, it will uproot us from its trunk..." (Meshech Chochmah Bechukotai pg. 192). "A stormy wind will arise, and spread out its many waves, and destroy, lay waste, ruin, wash away without mercy" (pg. 191).
115. For during the three days of darkness all those who did not want to leave Egypt died, "And all of this is incumbent upon us to remember that also at this time that many of Israel refuse the future Redemption [occurring] quickly in our days, but The Holy One, Blessed be He, will rule over us with a strong hand" (Haggadah of Pesach on the verse "And Hashem brought us out...with a strong hand").
116. Kol Ha-Tur chapter 4 #3.
117. Kol Ha-Tur end of chapter 5. And similarly "And there will be a refugee in Zion and Jerusalem and for the remnants, and that is sufficient wisdom. And our Rabbi was extremely worried regarding this" (ibid. Chapter 1 #10). And Rabbi Moshe bar Hillel of Shaklov: "The matter of this prophecy, in Zion and Jerusalem will be a refugee, caused extreme worry to our Rabbi, the Gra, that according to this the footsteps of the Messiah were coming that the ingathering of the Exile would come by way of the refugee, which means out of the necessity of distress and decrees, and only the remnant of the survivors would arrive to Zion and Jerusalem" (Magid Doresh Tzion vol. 2 pg. 71. Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pg. 446). And Rabbi Sa'adia of Mohliv, a student of the Gra, reported that when the Gra spoke about this, tears flowed from his eyes, and he said "We must hope that the ingathering of the Exiles will be by our own will and not by means of distress of a refugee" (ibid. footnote 33. Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah ibid.).
118. As it is written (Ovadiah 1:17) "And there will be a refugee on Mt. Zion and it will be holy" - and therefore it was ensured that our Land of Holiness will rescue (Chafetz Chaim pg. 73. Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pg. 198).
119. "Keriyot Gedolot - Le-Eretz Yisrael." And Ha-Rav of Onsdorf said [in Yiddish]: Woe, I see that God forbid the Jews can not remain here, in these countries, and they will be forced to flee. There will be nowhere to flee. Why do they not see to build the settlement in the Land of Israel?" (Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 25).
120. "Hashem's hand extends over us, from the midst of bloodshed, fiery furnaces, agony of suffering, kindling of fires, sacrificing of souls, which with the taking of land of the Exile and the removal of the Divine Presence from it, also brings us by our forelock, and places us in the heights of our theater of operations" (Le-Netivot Yisrael pg. [61] 81). "And the extension of Hashem's hand over us in a pouring out of His anger, to remove us from the impurities of the lands of the Nations and the dispersions of our Exiles in the midst of their darkness...in the annihilation of a third of our body and its choice part" (ibid. pg. [94] 123). "The dreadful chapter of the Divine dissection in the body of the Nation with the annihilation of our six million, an important part, in a way of lifting us to our place" (ibid. pg. [110] 147). "The departure from the desert of the Nations...with the inconceivable horrible and dreadful dissection-severance of hundred of thousands, may the remembrance of the holy ones be a blessing, may Hashem revenge their blood, and cause to enter for the settlement of the Land" (ibid. pg. [134] 179). "The ingathering of our exiles and entrance of our scattered to the Place of our Life, with their horrible uprooting of the dispersions and the scattering" (ibid. pg. [182] 247). "With the completion of the collapse of the land of the Exile from under our feet...with the fulfillment of the word of Hashem that 'Among these Nations we will not find tranquility and our feet will not find rest'..." (ibid. pg. [52] 69). "The storm of severance of the body of the Entirety of Israel from the deserts of the Nations" (ibid. pg. [80] 105). "The complete actual arising, of the announcement that 'Among these Nations we will not find tranquility,' came with taking the portion of the land from our presence there" (ibid. pg. [61] 80). "In the essence of the full collapse, the complete uprooting, the final severance, for all of the Community of Israel's agony of upheaval from its reality among the Nations and their lands, of its bodies and its souls, of its adults and its youths, of its possession and its culture, of its physical and its spiritual, of its holy and its profane - it is the appearance of the light of life and the revival of the Nation of Holiness and the splendor of its eternity" (ibid. pg. [102-103] 135).
121. Toldot Zev, Kuntres Mitzvat Yishuv Ha-Aretz, pg. 64 #18.
122. He also wrote that Rabbi Zeira ascended only after he saw barley in his dream as in explained in Berachot 57a, after his rabbi, Rabbi Yehudah, said to wait until "the day of My remembrance," since this dream was his personal remembrance (Toldot Zev, #19). And see further regarding this issue in the book Kuntres Mitzvat Yeshivat Eretz Yisrael of Ha-Rav Blumberg pg. 20.
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Blogs and Lashon Ha-Ra II
Following up on this post, I exchanged some e-mails with Rabbi Dr. Asher Meir. In the meantime, he wrote two columns on the subject -- one available online here, the other to be released perhaps next week.
The following is what I gather from our correspondence, in my own words. Read it carefully, because there are all sorts of caveats. And keep in mind that Rabbi Dr. Meir has not approved this, so don't hold him responsible for it. I'm pretty sure that on one point, we both consulted with the same third party. This is intended to clarify the issues he raised in his two published columns on this subject (I, II).
1. One is allowed to discuss a neutral or positive story of public interest about any public figure by name (talmid hakham or not) without regard for potential denigrating comments. This is not the case for private citizens who probably do not want to be discussed in public.
2. One may discuss negative stories about general public leaders provided that one is certain that the stories are true (or adds appropriately worded caveats), one has no ulterior motives and one is not causing any harm to the individuals.
3. One must judge a talmid hakham generously and go out of one's way to give him the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, one must be extremely cautious in discussing negative stories (or stories that appear negative) about talmidei hakhamim.
4. One may respectfully disagree with a talmid hakham, even if others might take this as an opportunity to insult the talmid hakham.
5. One may review an article or book negatively. However, one should not be unfairly negative and should make sure to emphasize the positive aspects as well.
Learning Torah on Subways II
In a comment to this post, Rabbanit Chana Henkin offered readers a copy of R. Yehuda Henkin's article "Contemporary Tzeni'ut" from Tradition 37:3 (Fall 2003). I had forgotten that he addresses this issue in that article. Here is a relevant excerpt (pp. 5-6):
Shema is paradigmatic of all prayers and blessings: none may be recited in the presence of uncovered erva [nakedness] of even rabbinical nature. Is studying Torah permitted in such circumstances? Sefer Yere'im forbids it, and for that reason relies on "et la'asot la-Shem" [emergency negation of the law] for a dispensation to permit Torah study within earshot of the songs of gentile women; he is cited by a number of Rishonim. All the more so, this would apply to tefah [a handbreadth of uncovered nakedness].
However, others disagree. Me'iri writes in Berakhot 24a:Seeing a tefah in his wife anywhere that is normally not exposed, prohibits Keri'at Shema but does not prohibit divrei Torah, since seeing causes hirhur.This is also the opinion of sefer ha-Hashlama...
This is important support for permitting men to lecture on Torah and mussar to audiences that include women who are improperly dressed.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Banned Books Week
No, "Banned Books Week" is not the theme of the Jewish blogosphere. Nor is it this blog's topic of the week. As I just discovered this afternoon, the American Library Association has declared this week (Sep. 24-Oct. 1) to be "Banned Books Week" (link).How's that for Divine Providence? The "Improved Edition" of Making of a Godol and a cover story in Moment Magazine about Rabbi Nosson Slifkin, both unknowingly just in time for the ALA's Banned Books Week.
The Real Kind of Kugel
The Town Crier directs us to a NY Times article about kugel. After my maternal grandfather's passing when I was a young teen, I inherited many of his books. Among them, I found some obscure and even extreme Hasidic texts (plus, a two-volume, very bizarre autobiography of my grandfather's rabbi). When I asked a distant cousin from out-of-town, who had spent many Shabbosim with my grandfather while attending a NY yeshiva, about this, he was surprised and thought my grandfather must have gotten them free from someone. Anyway, I remember going through one book that was dedicated to enjoying (oneg) Shabbos. When I got to the part about the mystical significance of kugel, I knew it was time to put the book away and never look at it again. Sure, the idea that kugel, with its layers of skin on top and on bottom, is similar to the manna in the desert is fairly mainstream. But we all know that it is just a clever, barely existent connection with no real significance. We all know this, right? I guess not.
As to the variety of kugels now available, this might be my distant Polish heritage speaking but in my book there is only one kind of kugel -- potato. Everything else is a poor imitation. And my wife's homemade, hand-grated potato kugel is better than anything you can buy.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Making of a Mountain out of a Molehill
As already announced on this blog, the new -- "Improved" -- edition of R. Nosson Kamenetsky's Making of a Godol is now available. A helpful reader of this blog was kind enough to ensure that I obtained a copy. This new edition has, among its many changes, a 3-page foreword to the new edition and an index of all the changes to the book.
I was going to write a long post detailing the changes in the book, but someone already beat me to it. See these posts (I & II) for a discussion of the some of the changes in the book. And see here for an interesting interview by Steven Weiss with R. Kamenetsky. Let me just add a few more changes to those listed in the two posts mentioned above:
1. Whereas the previous edition related a story about how R. Aharon Kotler, in the heat of an excited study, told his father-in-law R. Isser Zalman Meltzer that he (R. Aharon) could learn better than him (R. Isser Zalman), and R. Isser Zalman replied that it isn't much anyway; the new edition attributes the original source of this story as R. Ya'akov Yitzhak Ruderman (p. 1097).
2. The new edition revises the story of R. Barukh Ber Leibowitz offending R. Elazar Mayer Preil's family when the latter's daughters started singing zemiros on Shabbos and R. Barukh Ber ran out of the room. According to the Preil-Teitz family, it was not R. Barukh Ber but his student, R. Reuven Grozovsky, and he only wanted to run out but R. Barukh Ber would not let him. There is also one report that the girls were singing bentching (pp. xxii, xliii-xliv). The author makes it clear that there is otherwise a "seeming normative halakhic imperative to leave the room."
3. After describing the protagonist's broad-mindedness, in praising the large attendance at R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik's yahrtzeit shi'urim and of having gone to hear a Zionist orator as a youth, the author adds in this new edition that his father saw the world in figurative shades of gray (p. 1187). Evidently, this made it clear that the protagonist was not a full supporter of R. Soloveitchik or the Zionist orator.
The new edition is full of corrections and additions. My favorite correction is that the word shai'ur (the way my wife pronounces it) is now spelled shi'ur (the way I pronounce it). It is not possible for one blog post to detail all of the improvements and elaborations that can now be found in the book. But I think the most important information garnered from this new edition is not found on any specific page.
What is so shocking about this "Improved Edition" is how minor the changes are. If we are to take R. Kamenetsky at his word and believe that he revised all of the "offending" passages, then we now have a complete record of the issues that led to his ban and most public humiliation. One would hope that in order to be called cruel and sadistic, to be accused of intentionally trying to cast doubts on the fundamental principles of faith, to be called a Rasha Aritz (a wicked tyrant), etc. (quotes are from pp. 152, 160 of Anatomy of a Ban and were not stated by Gedolim but by interested parties) one's offense would have to be exceedingly egregious. But such is not the case. The "Improved Edition" of Making of a Godol only demonstrates how minor the author's indiscretions were, if they can even be termed indiscretions. The public humiliation, the name-calling, the black-listing, the financial damage and the betrayals are entirely incommensurate with the perceived offense.
The "Improved Edition" of Making of a Godol is supposed to be a commentary on the pre-War yeshiva world, but it is really a commentary -- no, a biting indictment -- of the contemporary Orthodox community.
UPDATE: Steven I. Weiss reports on this in The Forward.
The Heresy of Nosson Slifkin
Moment Magazine's current issue has a cover story about R. Nosson Slifkin (here). It's probably the best article I've seen so far on the subject.
Monday, September 26, 2005
Learning Torah on the Subway
Can a man learn Torah on the subway or bus when there are immodestly dressed women there?
[AS ALWAYS, ASK YOUR RABBI ABOUT PRACTICAL ISSUES]
I. The Problem
One Sunday this past summer, I drove with my family up to "the country" to visit our neighbors (of eruv fame) in the delightful Riversite Bungalow Colony, near South Fallsburg, NY. While there, we discussed -- particularly with R. Dr. Chaim Neuhoff -- whether a man may sit by the swimming pool during men's swimming time and learn Gemara. The issue is twofold. First, one may not learn Torah in a place where people are immodestly dressed (Shabbos 150a). Second, one may not learn Torah in a bathhouse even when everyone there is dressed, because the bathhouse is designated as a place where people are normally undressed.
In my opinion, neither of these issues should prevent a man from learning Torah poolside. First, since all of the men and boys were wearing bathing suits, they were all modestly dressed. To my knowledge, there is no rule regarding men that when body areas that are normally covered are uncovered, this is considered immodest dress. Second, a bathhouse is one that is humid and stuffy (see Magen Avraham 85:2). This was an outdoor swimming pool that would not qualify as a bathhouse. Even though women frequent the swimming pool in what is technically immodest dress, the area is still not considered a bathhouse because it is outdoors and airy.
However, I believe that there is a further consideration that makes the above irrelevant.
On the subway and on city busses, there are invariably women immodestly dressed during the summer. Technically, then, one should not be allowed to learn Torah within eyesight of these women. According to the majority of Ashkenazic posekim, as recorded in Mishnah Berurah (75:1,129), even closing one's eyes is insufficient. One must (discreetly) turn one's back before learning Torah. On the subway or bus, this is frequently impossible. Are we then prohibited from learning Torah in those frequent situations?
II. Types of Learning
The Gemara cited above contains a dispute over whether hirhur (thinking) is like dibbur (speaking). In the course of that debate, the prohibition against learning Torah in the presence of nakedness is raised. Rashi (sv. ha-hi) explains the Gemara as saying that only reciting Torah is prohibited in the presence of nakedness. Dibbur is prohibited but hirhur, thinking about Torah, is permitted. The Hiddushei Ha-Ran also explains the Gemara this way. One could conclude, then, that while one may not learn Torah out loud in the presence of an immodestly dressed woman, one may learn in one's head -- or read from a book without saying the words. The Magen Avraham (ibid.) raises that possibility, and it is confirmed by the Mahatzis Ha-Shekel (ad loc.). The Arukh Ha-Shulhan (Orah Hayim 74:2, 85:2) also explicitly permits hirhur of Torah in front of an immodestly dressed woman.
[As an aside, note how hirhur -- or hirhurim -- is used positively in this context.]
Thus, according to this line of reasoning, a man would be allowed to learn silently on the subway or bus, and certainly at the poolside.
Dr. Neuhoff suggested (if I recall correctly; I should probably just call him and ask) that R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach discusses this in Halikhos Shlomo but I could not find it. If anyone can find it, I'd appreciate being informed exactly where it is.
III. The Surprising Leniency
The Hazon Ish (to whom R. Daniel Sperber attributes a large share in the alleged contemporary paralysis in halakhah -- Tradition 36:3, Fall 2002) has a surprising leniency on this matter. The Hazon Ish (Orah Hayim 16:7 sv. u-le-inyan tefah) writes that when dealing with immodest dress and not actual nudity, one need not turn one's back but may merely avert one's glance. Thus, someone on the subway can simply look into his book and learn without worry.
R. Eliezer Waldenberg (Tzitz Eliezer 15:11) supports this leniency and cites other authorities who ruled similarly. R. Yosef Hayim Sonnenfeld (Salmas Hayim 1:26-27) was asked whether one may preach Torah in the street when there is invariably an immodestly dressed woman. He replied that one may, and should simply not look at such women.
Therefore, R. Waldenberg concludes, one may learn Torah -- even audibly -- in the presence of immodestly dressed women if one takes care not to look at them.
This leniency is not one on which I would normally rely because it contradicts the understanding of this law as I learned it from my teachers, as well as (from what I can tell) the majority of aharonim. However, this ruling is also tied to that of the Mordekhai regarding hearing the singing voices of women while learning. The Mordekhai ruled if non-Jewish women sing near a study hall and there is nothing that the students can do to avoid hearing them, they should continue learning and not pay attention because they have no other option. Similarly, men who take the subway or bus every day have no other option and would otherwise lose some of their preciously small time available for learning. Because of this "emergency," it seems that if one should reject the reasoning in the previous section about hirhur, there is still room to rely on this leniency.
IV. Conclusion
For what little it is worth, it is my opinion that one may learn Torah quietly on the subway and bus even if there are immodestly dressed women in one's eyesight (my rabbi agrees). It might be advisable, though, to refrain from "speaking in learning" if possible. Ask your rabbi.
Just in Time for the Holidays
Maalox is now certified as kosher by the OU.
http://oukosher.org/index.php/articles/single/5315/
Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. and the Orthodox Union have jointly announced the first kosher certification of a mainstream adult over-the-counter (OTC) medication, Maalox®, the popular heartburn remedy. Today’s announcement is the second time Novartis has received a kosher certification on one of its OTC products.
With last year’s announcement of the kosher-certification of Triaminic®, a children’s cough, cold and allergy product, Novartis became the first major OTC company to receive OU certification.
Maalox® will begin carrying the kosher certification symbol in early October. However, formulations of Maalox® that are currently on the shelves already are kosher compliant. This includes all chewable and most of the liquid formulations. The only product that is not kosher-certified is Maalox® Total Stomach Relief.
Survival Tips in Corporate America
And now for something completely different...* Based on my many years in corporate America, or rather corporate New York City, I present my accumulated wisdom in the form of:
Survival Tips in Corporate America
1. Always carry a calculator with you to meetings. People respect your opinion more if you have a calculator and you'd be surprised how often it comes in handy.
2. Take your first few vacation days as personal days. Personal days do not carry over into the next year.
3. When taking the NYC subway, take either the first or last cars (in that order) because they are the emptiest.
4. Be quick to take the blame for everything. People respect that and eventually stop believing that it's your fault.
5. Be flexible about work schedules when you can because of the times when you cannot. Offer to work on legal holidays.
6. Always complain about how much work you have.
7. When you don't have much work, don't be obvious about it. People intellectually know that people do not have constant workflows, but they don't like seeing it.
8. Hoard medium-sized binder clips. There are few more precious commodities in the corporate world.
9. Memorize important numbers. You can be the biggest moron, but if you're the only one in the room who knows the company's revenue for the past five years or how much money the top five clients paid to the firm last year, you will be respected.
10. At the end of the year, when you realize how many sick days you are about to lose, call in sick at the smallest sign of illness. But don't fake being sick because that is probably theft of a day's pay.
* If I may borrow from a commenter, if you understood that reference then you have violated 20 biblical prohibitions, 16 positive biblical commandments and 13 rabbinic prohibitions.
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Faith in the Sages
The Baraisa Kinyan Torah (AKA Avos ch. 6), par. 5 lists 48 characteristics needed to fully acquire Torah. One of the traits in this list is emunas hakhamim (faith in the sages). What exactly is this extent of this faith? What topics does it include?
The Midrash Shmuel writes:
That one believes that all that the sages say is as if it was given to Moses at Sinai. On this it is written, "You shall not turn aside to the right or to the left from the sentence which they pronounce upon you" (Deut. 17:11). If you do not believe in even one thing, the secrets of Torah will not be revealed to you. In the end, you will become a Saducee because one sin leads to another.The clear implication is that the sages retain authority on all matters. One must believe everything they say on any topic. I hesitate to call it a concept of complete infallibility, and prefer to refer to it as universal authority. Any idea the sages pronounce is to be accepted as authoritative, regardless of the topic.
The Mahazor Vitry has a much more limited explanation of emunas hakhamim. It records simply and briefly: "That one believes their words, unlike Saducees and Boethusians." The Saducees and Boethusians disputed the sages on matters of oral law. The implication from the Mahazor Vitry is that emunas hakhamim requires us to have faith in the chain of the tradition of the oral law. Pronouncements from sages about the oral Torah are considered authoritative and binding. However, there is no indication that emunas hakhamim goes beyond the chain of tradition of the oral law.
R. Avraham Farissol (cited in the Me'orei Or commentary in the Masekhes Avos Im Peirush Ha-Gra Ha-Mevu'ar) explains similarly:
That they believe in the explanations of the sages who explain the laws, and they believe in their decree for the needs of the time and place. Even though one can question slightly the matter or the decree, it is proper to believe in it.He also understands emunas hakhamim to be referring to the area of halakhah. There is no indication that it would include philosophy, theology or science.
More recently, the Tiferes Yisrael writes of emunas hakhamim:
That one does not believe everything that one hears, for this is the trait of the fool who believes everything. Rather, one believes the words of the sages about the wisdom of the Torah, even if one's intellect does not comprehend them.According to these last three commentators, emunas hakhamim is limited to accepting the authority of the sages regarding the transmission and integrity of the Torah. Rather than giving the sages universal authority on all matters, it confers on them legal authority, meaning authority on matters regarding the law.
It seems to me that this second approach is connected to that of those authorities (Ramban, R. Avraham ben Ha-Rambam, etc.) who sanction occasionally rejecting an aggadic text but would never allow such leeway in regard to an halakhic passage. This is not too say, though, that great scholars may be summarily rejected. A wise man does not lose his wisdom when the topic of conversation shifts. Rather, his level of expertise on a particular subject might be less than complete, perhaps even without his knowledge, and this should be taken into account. Recent rabbinic pronouncements about science come to mind. On this subject, it is worth reviewing R. Aharon Lichtenstein's words (here).
The Sanctity of the Synagogue
Micha Berger hits a home run with this post. That is how we are supposed to react to tragedies, rather than blaming some third party.
Friday, September 23, 2005
Television, Videos and Internet II
OK, I've gone through the book quickly. I'm desparately trying to overcome my desire to mock the book because the author, who I was told this morning is a fine individual and not at all extreme, is essentially correct. In the introduction, the author points out that the internet is useful and can be filtered. He recommends carefully looking into filtering and discussing the matter with a rabbi. The book is generally arguing against television, albeit pointing out that much of the material applies equally to videos and the internet.
90% of the book is easily dismissable but the other 10% is absolutely unassailable. That the author prohibits reading newspapers (p. 84), all Hol Ha-Mo'ed trips (pp. 114-116), listening to sports on the radio (p. 6) and essentially all recreational activities does not change the simple fact that television is full of scantily clad women and not-subtle-at-all allusions to matters that should be kept private. So even if you don't wait for a commercial to go to the bathroom, thereby possibly violating the prohibition of bal teshaktzu (i.e. "holding it in" that is potentially damaging to the body), and you don't refuse a request for assistance from a parent while watching TV, thereby neglecting their biblically ordained respect, you still face the insurmountable barrier of choosing to look at immodestly dressed women. That's just not allowed. (Please don't argue that you see them anyway on the street or at work. You have to walk on the street and go to work. You don't have to watch them on TV.)
My dilemma in writing this post was that some (most) readers will simply ignore this and continue watching TV. My hope, though, is that in the spirit of the upcoming Yom Kippur season readers will actively reduce their television watching. I don't expect anyone to change years-old habits from one quick blog post. But try cutting down. Think about it. It's easy, fairly painless, and can only yield positive results.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Television, Videos and Internet
The other night, at parent's orientation in my sons' yeshiva, they were selling the brand new book Kuntres Davar Be-Ito by R. David Rosenbaum about the prohibited nature of television, videos and the internet.
The book lists 20 biblical prohibitions, 16 positive biblical commandments and 13 rabbinic prohibitions involved in watching/using television, videos and the internet. Yes, some are far stretches--such as yihud, being along with a woman. His example is if you get caught up in a TV show and everyone leaves the house, with you remaining alone with a woman. But others are not stretches at all.
(My thanks to the reader who lent me his copy of the book)
(You can click on the image above to see it larger)
Mixed Seating at Weddings
In a letter to The Jewish Press, R. Levi (Lawrence) Reisman offers the following perspective on R. Moshe Feinstein's view of mixed seating at weddings:
From what I was told, two of the four weddings Reb Moshe made had completely separate seating. At Reb Reuven's wedding, there were some mixed tables to accommodate those from his wife's side who wouldn't sit any other way. Reb Reuven has acknowledged making the same accommodation for mechutonim at several of his children's weddings. At Rav Tendler's wedding, I was told, the Feinstein side sat separately while the Tendler side sat mixed.See also this post about R. Yehudah Henkin's position on the subject.
It would appear that Reb Moshe preferred separate seating, but was ready to accommodate those who felt otherwise. I know of one leader from the chassidic tradition who is sympathetic to this position. Although he will not allow mixed seating at his own simchas, he will (unlike the Satmar Rebbe, zt"l, and others) attend a wedding meal with mixed seating, as long as where he sits is not mixed.
Separate seating at weddings has a long history, supported by many sources in halacha and hashkafa. The Sefer Chassidim states that one cannot recite "shehasimcha bemeono" in Birchat Hamazon where men and women sit together because there is no real rejoicing. The Maharshal strongly endorses this position, as does the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch and the Chofetz Chaim in Geder Olam.
I know that the Levush writes that it is not necessary to be so careful with this anymore. However, the Levush can be read as stating this is the case where there is no mechitza between men and women. The original Sefer Chassidim writes of where men sit among the women; the Levush writes of where men can see the women.
I am aware that any number of rabbanim, especially in Germany but also in Lithuania, made weddings with mixed seating. I can and will admit that "mixed seating can be Orthodox"... However, separate seating has far more halachic support, and the advocates of mixed seating should keep that in mind.
The Holocaust and Theodicy
I have not looked through this blog carefully, but this one particular post at Literati is excellent (link). It is a summary of the essay "The Holocaust and the Problem of Theodicy: An Evangelical Perspective" (in this volume) by John J. Davis. The essay covers various Jewish proposals to theologically explain the Holocaust, ranging from a total rejection of God's place in the Holocaust to the attribution of the destruction to the sufferer's sins. Literati then summarizes Davis' approach.
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
When Did R. Dosa Ben Hyrkanus Live?
The Rambam writes in the introduction to his commentary on the Mishnah (Kafah edition, p. 28) that R. Dosa ben Hyrkanus lived at the time of Shimon Ha-Tzadik and had such a long life that he lived into the time of R. Akiva. In other words, R. Dosa ben Hyrkanus lived for over 400 years. Unsurprisingly, the Rambam's student R. Yosef Ibn Aknin writes similarly in his Mevo Ha-Talmud 10:1. R. Yitzhak Abrabanel (introduction to Nahalas Avos) also follows this understanding.
The Rambam's source seems to be the Yerushalmi Yevamos (end of ch. 1) that R. Dosa ben Hyrkanus said that R. Elazar ben Azariah looks like his ancestor Shimon Ha-Tzadik. Alternately, his source might be Yevamos 16a that R. Dosa ben Hyrkanus testified that the prophets Hagai, Zechariah and Malachi had sat on a certain stool. Both passages imply that R. Dosa ben Hyrkanus was alive at the time of Shimon Ha-Tzadik and the last prophets, and the time of R. Elazar ben Azariah.
However, that anyone would live for over four hundred years seems quite amazing.
The Meiri (introduction to Avos, published as Seder Ha-Kabbalah pp. 50-51) explicitly argues on the Rambam and suggests that R. Dosa ben Hyrkanus merely had traditions about the ancients and was not an actual witness to their lives. I saw that R. Sherira Gaon is also quoted as implicitly disagreeing with the Rambam (I believe from Sha'arei Teshuvah no. 187). The Rashbatz, in Magen Avos 1:1 (sv. u-nevi'im), says that R. Dosa ben Hyrkanus lived after the destruction of the Second Temple and that Hagai must have lived very long if R. Dosa ben Hyrkanus saw him.
R. Aharon Hyman (Toledos Tanna'im Va-Amora'im, pp. 322-323) suggests that because R. Dosa ben Hyrkanus was rich, as we know, he might have owned an antique with Ezra's image, perhaps also a stool on which prophets had sat.
The Seder Ha-Doros asks on the Rambam from Gittin 81a that Beis Shammai was doros ha-rishonim (the earlier generations) and R. Dosa ben Hyrkanus was doros ha-aharonim (the later generations). This certainly implies that R. Dosa ben Hyrkanus was not from the very first generation of the Second Commonwealth. The Hida, in his Pesah Enayim (ad loc.), answers that perhaps R. Dosa ben Hyrkanus was not ordained until late in his life and is therefore called doros ha-aharonim.
Admissions Tests
The NY Daily News reports:
Drew University, a small liberal arts school, on Tuesday said that applicants no longer need to submit scores from the SAT or ACT...No kidding. Imagine if Kingsboro College in Brooklyn decided not to require SATs. It would join the ranks of Torah Vodaas, Mir, Chaim Berlin,...
Drew joins five other four-year schools with campuses in New Jersey that do not require the SAT or ACT, according to FairTest: Berkeley College, in West Paterson; Thomas Edison College, in Trenton; and three religious institutions, Beth Medrash Govoha, in Lakewood; Rabbinical College of America, in Morristown; and Talmudical Academy of New Jersey, in Adelphia.
YU News
There's a new Commentator available online. It seems a bit empty without YUdaica.
But it has important news. While not yet reported on YU's website, the Commentator is announcing that Yeshiva College has appointed a new dean: Dr. David J. Srolovitz, from Princeton (link). Earlier this week, I was speaking with someone who said that he thought the job of YC dean is merely an administrative position. While this might reflect the majority of the work, the dean also has profound impact on the direction of the college. Administrative decisions are what drive a bureacracy and the policies the dean sets make a big difference about how professors are treated and what they teach.
Dr. Srolovitz starts out his career in YU with the following words:
While hesitant to address other changes in store for the college, Srolovitz acknowledged that skepticism in the Jewish community regarding YC's academic prowess was in certain cases well-founded, and that he would seek to terminate a culture of academic "compromise."No offense intended, of course.
On another story, there is an opinion piece about YU's new motto: "Bring Wisdom to Life" (link). I like it. It's something to which the average Jew, whom YU wants to influence (and from whom YU would like to extract a donation), can relate. I see this as part of YU's (and Richard Joel's) continuing attempt to connect with the amkha and influence the broader Jewish community. Kol ha-kavod!
UPDATE: The Forward has an article on the new motto.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Kuntres She-Lo Ya'alu Ke-Homah II
(continued from here)
2. At the time of a Divine remembrance, the wall is nullified
If there is an indication that Hashem remembered His Nation, the wall is nullified[40] since the verse says "until I desire" - "do not stir nor awake the love until I desire" - and if there is an indication [that the time is] "until I desire" there is no wall. And similarly in the Talmud: "Until the day of my remembrance" - and there are various clarifications of the issue of what is a "remembrance."
2.A. Permit of the Nations of the World is the remembrance
1. Thus wrote the Avnei Nezer, and according to his opinion it is possible that permit of the Nations of the World is in and of itself a remembrance and nullified the wall.[41]
2. And the Gra similarly wrote that the remembrance will be like that of Koresh.[42]
3. And there is similarly room to attach all of the great authorities of Israel mentioned above regarding the issue of the possibilities of Redemption through the permit of the Nations of the World,[43] and similarly regarding the issue of the Balfour Declaration,[44] and similarly the Admor of Ostrovtza.[45]
2.B. The awakening of the Nation to return to its Land is the remembrance that nullifies the wall
1. Ha-Rav Yissachar Shlomo Teichtal wrote, that when there is a general awakening to ascend to the Land of Israel this is a sign that Hashem desires, and there is no Oath, as it says, "I made you swear, daughters of Jerusalem, do not stir nor awake the love - to ascend to the Land of Israel - until I desire," that is to say until a desire will rise from The Holy One, Blessed be He. And if so, when there will be a general awakening to ascend, it is a sign that the desired time has arrived from The Holy One, Blessed be He.[46]
And he further wrote: "Because there is no doubt that only The Holy One, Blessed be He...inserted this desire within the hearts of our brothers the Children of Israel...who will desire and yearn especially for the Land of our forefathers."[47]
And the great authorities of Israel already wrote that the awakening[48] of the Nation to return to Zion is the remembrance.
2. Rabbi Yehudah Ha-Levi: "In the realization of men and their awakening to the love of this holy place, this long-awaited matter is greeted, as it is written 'You will arise, [and] have mercy on Zion, for it is time to favor her, for the set time is come. For Your servants hold her stones dear, and cherish her dust' (Tehillim 102:14). For Jerusalem will truly be built when the Children of Israel yearn for her with a fundamental yearning to the point that they cherish her stones and dust."[49]
3. And similarly the Meharsha wrote on this verse that on account of the desire of the Land and its settlement the Redemption will come, now that they suffer affliction in Exile they already returned to desiring the Land and they are worthy for You to have mercy on them."[50]
4. And Rabbi Chaim ben Atar: "And the Redemption will be in the realization of the hearts of men, and He said to them, Is it good for you that you dwell outside, exiles..."[51]
5. And Rabbi Yehoshua of Kotna: "And in particular now that we see the immense yearning, it is in those of lesser value, it is in the average ones, it is in the ones who are upright in their hearts, it certainly draws near that the spirit of Redemption is shining."[52]
6. The Netziv: "After the idea has been awakened within the midst of Israel from one corner of the world to another...and the voice of the many is like the voice of God through his prophets..."[53]
And similarly Rabbi Hillel of Kalamaya,[54] and similarly in the book "Shevilei Emunah" by the grandson of the Rosh,[55] and similarly the Admor of Kamarna,[56] and he added: "And if we see that many long to build it...who will appease [them] and disturb them from their work." And similarly Rabbi Shlomo Ha-Cohain Radomsk,[57] and similarly Ha-Rav of Liska.[58] And Rabbi Nachman of Breslov already wrote a special prayer that Hashem should give us great yearnings and longings for the Land of Israel,[59] and similarly Rabbi Yosef Karo: "That they should relate the praise of the Land of Israel, so that Israel will yearn to enter it, and on account of this they will merit to enter it."[60] And similarly Ha-Gaon Rabbi Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld wrote: "It seems that it has been fulfilled through us 'Do not stir...until I desire.' And it appears, that this desire, is a supreme awakening."[*60]
And the great authorities of Israel wrote that the essence of the awakening to return to the Land of Israel is repentance, and in its merit they will merit the Redemption. They are Rabbi Yehudah Alkalai[61] and similarly Rabbi Yissachar Shlomo Teichtal[62] who wrote: "That this itself that we are returning to the Land of Israel, this itself can be considered repentance, and this is the essence of repentance,"[63] and Rabbi Yonatan Eibeschitz,[64] Rabbi Yitzchak Elchanan,[65] and our master Ha-Rav Kook similarly wrote: "The awakening of the desire of the Nation to return to its Land, to its essence, to its spirit and to its character - in truth it has the light of repentance in it."[66]
40. And Ha-Rav Kasher brought a proof from the Midrash: "Rabbi Chelbo says...And do not ascend like a wall from the Exile. If so, why is the King Messiah coming? To gather the exiles of Israel" (Shir Ha-Shirim Rabbah 2:18). And Matanot Kehunah explained: "If so, that is to say that when it is the time of the End, if it is permissible to ascend like a wall, why is the King Messiah coming? And he answers, to gather the exiles, and everyone together will ascend in the Name of Hashem," this means that at the time of the End it will be permissible to ascend like a wall and part of the Children of Israel will ascend, and afterwards the Righteous Redeemer will come to gather those remaining (Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pp. 150-151).
41. And these are his words: "And when I wrote there that it is possible to be considered a remembrance, the intent was that perhaps this was Rashi's intent, since in the first chapter of Yoma: 'If you would have made yourselves like a wall and ascended in the days of Ezra...,' he explains there 'like a wall - with permission,' since ascending in the days of Ezra was with permission, regarding this I thought that it is possible to be considered a remembrance." And he added: "Nevertheless how can it be Rashi's intent, the subject is explicit like Rashi that it is permissible with permission" (Yoreh De'ah 456. Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pg. 195. Milchemet Yom Ha-Kippurim pg. 65). And see above footnote 4.
42. Be'urei Ha-Gra on Zohar Chadash pg. 27. Midrash Shlomo pg. 27. Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pg. 547.
43. Footnote 20-33.
And Ha-Rav Hillel of Kalamaya also established that in the year 5640 (1880) that the willingness of the Sultan to sell the Land of Israel on the Eastern Side of the Jordan and Syria, is a remembrance for the good (Kol Korei. Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 19).
44. Footnotes 34-38.
45. See above section 1.D. [footnote 11]: "And like what we see that it is fulfilled now in our time..."
46. Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 152. And he brings the midrash there: "If you see the benches full of Babylonians located in the Land of Israel, expect the feet of the Messiah" (on Eichah 1:13), and he explained there: "If you see an increase of those who dwell in the Exile ascending from Babylonia to the Land of Israel, it is a sign that The Holy One, Blessed be He, is bringing about the End."
47. Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 185.
48. And see below the position of the Admor of Izbitza that when there is a powerful awakening in the hearts of the Children of Israel to ascend to the Land of Israel, there is no oath, section 8.
49. Kuzari 5:27.
50. Meharsha Ta'anit 15a d.h. Be-Eretz Yisrael merachem. Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 214.
51. Ohr Ha-Chaim Vayikra 25:25. And how the Ohr Ha-Chaim explained the verse, "I will scatter you among the Nations" (Vayikra 26:33), based on the issue of the Three Oaths, and these are his words: "'I will scatter you' - do not ascend like a wall, 'among the Nations' - do not rebel against the Nations" (and see the book Va-Yoel Moshe pg. 36), one can explain that thus was the Divine decree when there was not a remembrance of awakening. And see below section 13.
52. Yeshu'ot Malko Yoreh De'ah #66.
53. Shivat Tzion beginning of volume 2.
54. Who proved this from the language of Rashi to Tehillim beginning of chapter 70. Shut Beit Hillel #31.
55. That before the Redemption many of Israel will donate to live in Israel, and then the End of Redemption will approach (Netiv Asiri chapter 1).
56. It is possible that the Redemption will come through an awakening of the Nation of Israel (Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 149).
57. Tiferet Shlomo on the Torah Masai 109a d.h. Eretz Yisrael.
58. In the name of the Nachal Kedumim: "If all Israel would give of its heart to live in the Land of Israel - our Righteous Messiah would come" (Peri Tevu'ah, Parashat Va-yechi. Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 222).
And see further what he wrote in "Ohr Ha-Chamah" on Zohar Shemot 31b in the name of the Ramak that even our forefather Avraham had an awakening before he left on his own.
59. Likutei Tefillot vol. 1 #7. And see further what he wrote: "...The essence of the victory of a Jew is when he comes to the Land of Israel. My intention is that the Land of Israel is obviously with those, the houses and the dwellings...everyone who wants to be a Jew in truth is obligated to travel to the Land of Israel...There are those who apparently greatly desire and yearn to come to the Land of Israel if they can travel there in luxury, and not in distress or cramped. This, however, in truth is not complete desire. Since one who desires to come to the Land of Israel needs to come even on foot."
60. Magid Meisharim, Parashat Shelach. Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 184, 255, 284.
*60 Brought in Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 325.
61. "The first repentance that Israel will do in the End of Days is that they will request the Heavenly Kingdom, that is to return to the Land of Israel, in order that The Holy One, Blessed be He, will be called 'King'" (Minchat Yehudah - Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 186. And see there in Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 277 on the bottom. And similarly in Kol Korei year 5608 [1848]).
62. They will not merit to be redeemed until they request the Land of Israel" (Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 113).
63. Ibid. pp. 118-119.
64. "When...they do not abandon Hashem and their inheritance, the Land of Holiness, may it be built and established speedily in our days amen, and this will be the essence of their repentance" since this is the balance of repentance against the sin of descending to Egypt, "Thus will be their repentance in the future - that they will not abandon their inheritance" (Ahavat Yonatan Parashat Balak, Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 119), and ibid. (Parashat Balak) that in the future there will be an awakening from below (Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 126) and see footnote 6.
65. "And the merit of the awakening of the cherishing of our Land of Holiness will bring closer the End of our Redemption" (letter, Ginzech Mossad Ha-Rav Kook).
66. Orot Ha-Teshuvah 17:2. And see that which Rabbi Meir Simchah wrote: "Since after he will return to his Nation, he will surely return to his God" (Mesech Chochmah, Parashat Netzavim d.h. ve-shabbat).
The Weirdest Eruv on the Block
WARNING: ERUVIN ARE COMPLICATED AND EVERYONE'S SITUATION IS DIFFERENT. ASK YOUR RABBI.
I. The Background
I spent much of Sunday afternoon putting up an eruv in my driveway. I live in Flatbush, in which there is an eruv that is a matter of great controversy. In all likelihood, were it not for the social stigma I would use the "old" Flatbush eruv, which I believe my rabbe'im would approve but they refuse to take a stance on a controversial matter in a community in which they do not reside. When I first started davening at my current shul, the Flatbush eruv came up in conversation with the rabbi and when I asked him whether he liked it or not, he said that it depends who asks him. "What if I ask you?" "No, it's not for you." I can respect that answer. The "new" Flatbush eruv is not better than the old one in any meaningful way. Plus, it does not reach my block. So, sof kol sof, I need an eruv for my driveway/backyard so that we can carry there on Shabbos.
I live in a semi-attached house, with a shared driveway on one side. When I first moved to my house, both of my neighbors were non-Jewish so I made an eruv just in my part of the backyard (which connects without barrier -- except for my eruv -- to my neighbor's). However, my neighbor with whom I shared the driveway moved and a frum family moved in. Our wives have been on our case to build a shared eruv and this past Sunday I was forced to overcome my procrastination and build it. My neighbor's wife had already bought 2 very tall, maybe 10 feet, pieces of wood for it.
II. The Expert
I figured it would take at most half an hour. I took these 2 pieces of wood and start tying them to the front of the house, at the point in the driveway we want to start/end the eruv ("a" in the table below). The wood has to be tall so that the string overhead can allow a minivan's antenna to go underneath without any trouble. After tying the wood loosely, I look to make sure that it is in a good place before screwing the wood into the brick with masonry screws. This is when a helpful neighbor comes running down the block to tell me that I'm doing it wrong and I need to put the wood on the inside of the driveway ("b" in the table). I may have learned hilkhos eruvin but I can't claim to know it. So I let him talk, even though he isn't making much sense to me. Eventually, I get convinced that what I'm doing is wrong for a different reason. Then the helpful neighbor calls his friend, the so-called expert in these matters, who says he can come over in a few minutes. It takes him more than a few minutes, so in the meantime I run inside and grab my Mishnah Berurah (the under-utilized fourth volume) and R. Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer's The Contemporary Eruv. The knowledgeable friend comes and starts looking around with a tape measure, making sure that the backyard/driveway is fully enclosed (it is) and that the only opening, the driveway, is less than ten amos wide (it is).
This knowledgeable friend clearly knows what he's talking about and has invaluable practical experience in building eruvin. He is typically Brooklyn in his speech and mannerisms. I even guessed correctly which yeshiva he is connected with. I just wish he would stop saying the word "Goy" so much. I know that he doesn't mean it in any derogatory manner, and is just talking about the situation of a Jew building an eruv with non-Jews, but my neighbors don't know that. All they hear is "Blah blah blah GOY blah blah blah GOY." I try emphasizing the word "nokhri" but to no avail.
The knowledgeable friend looks at the entrance to my house and walkway, which is fully gated but shared with my attached (non-Jewish) neighbor. He measures the gates to make sure that the gates are high enough (and raises one possible problem), and concludes that we can carry in there once we pay our non-Jewish neighbor for the right to do so (sokher reshus). Like I wrote above, I don't know hilkhos eruvin, so I ask if that is necessary if there are no other Jewish residents within that enclosure -- no tenants or owners. He insists that I do and I take out my Mishnah Berurah and ask him if I'm misreading Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayim 382:1. He reads it a few times and says he'll have to look it up and get back to me (I give him my business card). Meanwhile, he sees my copy of Rabbi Bechhofer's book and mentions that he knows him.
We then explore a few options in how to build the eruv in my shared driveway. I want to be clever and utilize various pipes or lining pieces that are already there, but it gets too complicated. So we go back to the pieces of wood and he says that there is nothing wrong with what I was doing but that I don't need an overhead string. What? No string? That's right. As long as I keep it far enough in the driveway, I don't need a string.
III. The Weird Eruv
There are two ways to enclose an area for an eruv (aside from an actual wall): a tzuras ha-pesah, which is a doorframe that has two poles and an overhead beam (or string); a lehi, which is a marker on the side of the opening. For a hatzer, a gathering of houses and an open area (backyard/driveway), in which the opening (driveway) is less than ten amos wide, one can use either a tzuras ha-pesah or a lehi (which the Gemara calls passei he-hatzer). Since we qualify, instead of using the familiar tzuras ha-pesah, we have the option of using a lehi (see Eruvin 12a and Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayim 363:2). A lehi can be done two ways: either one thick lehi on one side of the opening, or two small ones on either side. Since our pieces of wood were not thick enough, we had to put a piece on each side. But we put them on the front of the house ("a"). I ask him specifically if there is any problem with it. He says no, but there is "epis a shitah" (we were speaking Yeshivish, a dialect in which I am fluent and which I greatly enjoy, the whole time). I say that I'm "not hoshesh for epis a shitah." It seems that I had been doing it right the whole time, except that I don't even need an overhead string.
The expert says something about how, according to R. Moshe Feinstein (and the only reason we need an eruv is R. Moshe Feinstein), a reshus ha-rabim (public domain) extends a few feet from the street into a driveway, so we need to build the eruv far up into the driveway where it is no longer a reshus ha-rabim. Which is what we were doing anyway. But he seemed to imply that this is only for the lehi but not the tzuras ha-pesah, which I don't understand. If anyone can explain this to me, please do so.
The expert leaves, and I start to get concerned that the pieces of wood are too wobbly. Our masonry screws are not doing the trick. That's when I get the idea that the lehi does not have to be ten feet tall. Since there is no string to get stuck in a minivan's antenna, the lehi can be ten tefahim high, which at the most conservative is 40 inches. I look it up and it seems legitimate, but my neighbor's wife (and the whole crowd of neighbors and kids who have gathered around by now) don't think it's right. So I go inside and call Rabbi Bechhofer for a quick phone consultation. Since his book is sitting outside, his expertise convinces everyone. First, he was very surprised that we could get a widely famous eruv expert to come and look at my personal eruv. It seems the knowledgeable friend is not just knowledgeable (which was quite clear) but is a top expert. R. Bechhofer confirmed on the phone that a lehi only needs to be ten tefahim tall. So I get out my saw and cut the wood down to size. That's when my neighbor's cute little daughter (age 6 going on 40, and probably my favorite neighborhood child) asks how we're going to put a string on such a low piece of wood. "We don't need a string." "So we're not going to have an eruv?" "This is our eruv. We don't need a string." She gives me a look like I'm a pitiable lunatic and walks away.
I then bring matzahs to my neighbor's house and we recite the eruv formulation without the blessing (I insist on omitting the blessing because of the "old" Flatbush eruv, and that is what the rabbi of my old shul -- before I moved -- told me to do).
My neighbor and I now have little pieces of wood tied to the fronts of our houses next to our driveways. That's our eruv. No large pieces of wood. No overhead string. No one who believes that it's a real eruv. My wife told me last night that she and her female counterpart next door don't think that anyone else will carry in our eruv.
PS The expert called back and said that I was right and I don't need to rent permission from my attached, non-Jewish neighbor to carry in the walkway.
PPS Later that afternoon, I went to pick my daughter up from a friend's house and saw that they had their eruv on the front of their house. They told me that one of their neighbors had given them problems with it so they had our rabbi (who I could not reach all day on Sunday) look at it and he said that it was OK.
TABLE
Street
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Open Access: Writing Midrash Avot
Yashar Books' Open Access Project presents R. Gidon Rothstein's doctoral dissertation Writing Midrash Avot (available here).
From the abstract:
The dissertation identifies and analyzes a fifteenth century shift in the hermeneutics of the third century Mishnaic tractate, Avot, known in English as Ethics of the Fathers. Relying on the distinction between peshat and derash already articulated in studies of Midrash, the study shows that Avot commentators before the fifteenth century read the text in ways that could constitute a peshat reading (best translated as a contextually accurate plainsense rendering) of the text. In sharp contrast, the fifteenth century saw the rise of "reading in" to Avot the way that Midrash "read in" to the Biblical text, particularly in the writings of commentators such as Mattathias haYizhari, Joseph Hayyun, and Isaac Abarbanel.
The dissertation defines the difference between peshat and derash, demonstrates the new hermeneutics of the fifteenth century, shows that earlier commentators offered only peshat readings of the text, and that sixteenth century commentators continued the new trend. It then searches for factors that led to that change, noting especially the roughly contemporary and similar shift in Talmudic interpretation-studied at length by academic scholars such as Daniel Boyarin and H.Z. Dimitrovsky -- credited to R. Isaac Kanpanton The conclusion notes that the two significant changes in modes of reading point to the fifteenth century as a time period worth further study, as the mother of a self-conscious search for innovation in Jewish exegesis and thought.
Polygamy in the Parashah II
Following up on this post, R. David Silverberg asked me to point out to readers that his source of information was the book Ke-Motzei Shalal Rav.
R. David Cohen (Harhavas Gevul Ya'abetz, kuntres "heter mefurash ba-kasuv", sv. herem de-rabbenu gershom) directs readers to Minhas Elazar 1:62 that discusses this issue. The Minhas Elazar offers other answers to the question, in addition to the answer given by the Hasam Sofer:
1. Rabbenu Gershom et al made this a time-limited ban in order to avoid this problem, even though they really wanted it to last forever. This is why we continued observing the ban even after the time limit expired. Temporarily prohibiting that which the Torah discusses is allowed.
2. Our practice is to require a heter me'ah rabbanim to avoid Rabbenu Gershom's ban even when one has not yet fulfilled the obligation to procreate. Thus, clearly our assumption is that Rabbenu Gershom intended his ban uproot an explicit biblical obligation. So certainly it also uproots an implicit biblical permission.
3. Rabbenu Gershom actually intended and wanted this ban to be only temporary.
At the end of his introduction to this section (p. 103), R. David Cohen quotes the Toras Hesed (Orah Hayim no. 10) who argues that the Taz's concept only applies to an explicit permission mentioned in the Torah within the context of the prohibition being discussed (e.g. circumcision on Shabbos). But the concept does not apply to a statement made in a different context that implies that something is permitted. This last description applies to our discussion of polygamy.
In the next paragraph (p. 104), R. Cohen quotes the Rishon Le-Tziyon (Hagigah 7:2) who states similarly that the concept only applies to an explicit biblical permission and not to anything merely implicit.
Saturday, September 17, 2005
Feed a Child
From the NACOEJ website:
THE NACOEJ LUNCH PROGRAM FEEDS THOUSANDS OF JEWISH KIDS IN ADDIS ABABA AND GONDAR EVERY DAY. Each meal costs 23 cents. For $72, you give a child life-sustaining food for one full year. For $720, ten children will eat; $7200 will feed 100. For every child you sponsor, you can receive a photo with information about the child.Even if these kids are not Jewish (see these posts -- I & II), and it's an IF, they are at least righteous gentiles.
Friday, September 16, 2005
Polygamy in the Parashah
This week's Torah portion discusses the case of a man with two wives:
Should a man have two wives – one who is loved, and one who is despised – and the firstborn is that of the despised wife… he may not grant birthright privileges to the son of the loved wife over the son of the despised wife.The Taz made famous the concept that the rabbis lack the authority to prohibit something that the Torah explicitly permits [R. David Cohen wrote the authoritative study of this topic in his Gevul Ya'abetz, later republished in his Harhavas Gevul Ya'abetz (see here for some key points he raises)]. If so, how could Rabbenu Gershom prohibit polygamy when the Torah (above) explicitly permits it?
R. David Silverberg cites two answers to this question:
The Chatam Sofer answered by distinguishing between two types of rabbinic legislation: a gezeira (rabbinic decree), and a cherem (ban). A gezeira is the more familiar type of enactment, whereby the Jewish people’s central rabbinic authority issues laws binding on the entire nation, as they see fit in order to ensure proper observance of the Torah (such as refraining from blowing the shofar when Rosh Hashanah occurs on Shabbat). A cherem, however, such as that imposed by Rabbenu Gershom, operates much differently, on a communal, rather than national, scale. Citing from the Ramban’s Mishpat Ha-cherem, the Chatam Sofer explains that a cherem is essentially a communal neder – a provision taken on by a community, corresponding to a personal oath taken by an individual. Rabbenu Gershom’s cherem was exceptional in that its sphere of influence covered all of German Jewry, rather than a single community. Fundamentally, however, it operates according to the same halakhic mechanism as a standard cherem, a provision taken on by a community at the behest of its rabbinic leadership.Another answer, that denies that there is even a question, is:
Therefore, the explicit reference in the Torah to polygamous marriages did not stand in the way of Rabbenu Gershom’s ban. Just as an individual can take a personal neder to refrain from something explicitly permitted by the Torah, so can a community accept a cherem banning an activity which the Torah expressly permits.
A simpler answer is suggested by Rav Yosef Schwartz of Grosvarden, in his Ginzei Yosef (154), who points out that the Torah does not, in fact, explicitly sanction polygamy in this verse. The Torah here does not specify when the man married the second wife; it perhaps speaks of a case where one married the more beloved wife after having divorced the despised wife or after her death. The verse can just as easily be read to mean that the husband married the two wives successively, and thus it does not make any clear reference to a polygamous marriage.I'll b"n check in Harhavas Gevul Ya'abetz to see if he has anything to add to these answers.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Eishes Hayil
Chancellor Ismar Schorsch of the Jewish Theological Seminary writes the following towards the beginning of his comments on this week's Torah reading:
I grew up in a household where my father sang with gusto the well-known tribute from Proverbs 31:10–31 to my mother each week. The ritual afforded him a sacred respite to reaffirm his affection and esteem for his soul mate in front of his children. Like him, I have intoned that ancient love song to my own beloved for forty-five years. Not only does the ritual encourage one to express what the pace of the week inhibits, but the declaration assures children that the love of their parents is undiminished.I believe that he is mistaken about the reason for reciting Eishes Hayil.
The recitation of Eishes Hayil (Proverbs 31:10-31) is not a tribute to the woman of the house, the faithful ballebusta, who slaved hard to prepare the house for Shabbos. Not that she doesn't deserve praise, but Eishes Hayil is not it. Eishes Hayil was introduced by sixteenth kabbalists as a reference to Shekhinah, the feminine aspect of God. This is widely documented, and in my laziness I will just quote from the Siddur Otzar Ha-Tefillos (Ashkenaz, vol. 1 p. 616):
Afterwards without interruption he should say Eishes Hayil from the beginning to the end, corresponding to the Shekhinah that is kabbalistically hinted at, as is known to those who know kabbalah (yod'ei hen). It has 22 verses corresponding to the 22 channels from above that are open and emptying plentitude and blessing from the upper blessing, from the head of all crowns.The passage itself in Proverbs is explained by its commentators as being an allegory for Torah or the nation of Israel, but its insertion into the Shabbos pre-kiddush liturgy is of kabbalistic origin. Its explanation is clearly not the mundane (but well-deserved) appreciation of the hard-working wife.
Two online links about this: R. Shlomo Riskin, Ben Ish Hai (par. 29)
Blogs and Lashon Ha-Ra
R. Dr. Asher Meir was asked the following question (link):
Blogs provide an open forum for readers' comments. Is the blogger responsible for encouraging slander and other irresponsible contributions?Here is an excerpt from his response:
However, we have to make a suitable exception in the case of public figures or aspects of a person's life which are intentionally opened to the public. When someone runs for public office, he surely expects, even wants, others to openly discuss his qualifications for office, whether positive or negative. Likewise, if someone makes a public speech or publishes something it is fair to assume that he is willing to have his ideas weighed in the "court of public opinion", with its self-appointed lawyers for defense and prosecution alike. Any serious scholar is grateful for the insights gleaned from critics...So, it would be perfectly fine for me to say that I think Dr. Meir is wrong and doesn't know what he's talking about. Except that he isn't and he does.
Blogs are not an appropriate forum for mentioning the virtues and foibles of unassuming people we encounter in everyday life. These people don't seek our praise and are justifiably mortified to be criticized in the public square of cyberspace. However, public figures must, and generally do, reconcile themselves to the fact that their message will be lacking in consistency and impact if they don't open it to public debate. Bloggers may generally assume that these individuals are willing to be discussed on blogs as long as basic standards of journalistic ethics are maintained, including attribution of facts, right to make a reply, and so on.
Also see this post.
UPDATE: Let me clarify that Rabbi Dr. Meir is not discussing whether or not a blogger is allowed to repeat lashon ha-ra about another person, nor is he stating that one is allowed to post lashon ha-ra about public figures on a blog. He is discussing the rabbinic prohibition of avak lashon ha-ra, discussing someone by which one might lead others to speak lashon ha-ra. Must a blogger be concerned that his readers will speak lashon ha-ra about a subject of a blog post. To this, Rabbi Meir answers that the blogger needs to be concerned about private individuals but not public figures -- providing one abides by basic journalistic standards.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
The Religious Zionism Debate XV
I. Ahav: Wicked or Righteous?
R. Menahem Kasher, in his Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah (ch. 2, pp. 34-39), utilizes the argument that God created miracles for Ahav despite his wickedness. He points to the commentaries of Radak and Abrabanel on 1 Kings 20:14 explain that Ahav himself was surprised that God would perform a miracle on his behalf, since he was an idolater. R. Kasher also explores the miracle of Purim through Esther's intermarriage, with a lengthy note delving into the matter. Therefore, suggests R. Kasher (and he was not the first to make this argument), these examples serve as a paradigm for how God will sometimes perform great miracles through the hands of non-religious Jews. This helps us understand the establishment of the state of Israel, largely by non-observant and even anti-religious Jews.
R. Yoel Teitelbaum, the "Satmar Rav," in his Va-Yoel Moshe, Ma'amar Gimmel Shevu'os, ch. 131-134 (in the Ashkenazi 5760 edition, pp. 136-139) discusses Ahav, the idolatrous king of Israel. The Satmar Rav argues that Ahav was actually a righteous man who was overcome by his evil inclination towards idolatry. However, other than that, he was not only completely righteous but sacrificed greatly for the sake of Torah. Therefore, the fact that even after his idolatrous activites he was respected by prophets and had miracles performed by God on his behalf does not demonstrate that God will perform miracles through non-religious people. Ahav is not a relevant precedent in how to relate to a largely non-religious Jewish population and government.
In a later addition to Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah (ch. 16, pp. 336-369), R. Kasher responds to the Satmar Rav's argument. He points out that the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 11:1) states explicitly that Ahav has no portion in the world to come. The Gemara (Sanhedrin 102b) states that Ahav had written on the gates of Shomron that he rejects (kofer) the God of Israel (the Satmar Rav claims that this is only a reference to his idolatry and not to actual rejection of God). Rabbinic literature, and the Bible itself, is replete with references to the tremendous extent of Ahav's idolatry: e.g. Tanhuma Yashan, va-eshanan, addition 2: Ahav sinned and caused others to sin more than all of the wicked people who preceded him... He sold himself to idolatry... He cause God's name to be forgotten. How? He erased all mentions of God's name [in the Torah] and wrote instead, "And the Ba'al spoke," "In the beginning Ba'al," "And the Ba'al said"...
Furthermore, it was not just idolatry that Ahav violated. Pesikta Rabbasi (ch. 21) states that Ahav violated the prohibition of coveting. The Rambam writes in Mishneh Torah (Hilkhos Rotzei'ah U-Shemiras Ha-Guf 4:9):
Whoever has this sin [of murder] on his hands is a complete wicked person and none of the commandments he fulfilled throughout his life are equal to this sin... Learn from Ahav the idolater about whom it says "There was no one like Ahav" (1 Kings 21:25) and when his merits and demerits were arranged before God there was no sin that required his destruction and nothing else against him except the blood of Navos, as it says "Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord" -- this is the spirit of Navos -- "You shall persuade him, and also prevail" (1 Kings 22:21-22). This wicked man [Ahav] did not kill with his own hands but arranged it, even more so for someone who kills with his hands.According to the Rambam, Ahav was not only an idolater but also a murderer.
The Gemara in Berakhos (61b) says: "Rava says: The world was only created for the totally wicked and the totally righteous... Rav said: The world was only created for Ahav ben Omri and R. Hanina ben Dosa." The clear implication is that Ahav was completely wicked.
Despite all this, Hazal occasionally mention his good deeds, particularly in Sanhedrin 102b, which states that he supported Torah scholars and respected the Torah. R. Kasher quotes the Yad Ramah (Sanhedrin 103b) which says that the kings from the kingdom of Israel are not condemned to eternal punishment because they tried to save lives, they fought obligatory wars, and they suffered along with the people in times of trouble. R. Kasher also quotes the Gemara in Moe'd Katan (28b), in which R. Akiva is quoted as saying that Ahav only did one good things in his life: "The king was propped up in his chariot, facing Aram" (1 Kings 22:35). R. Hananel explains that Ahav maintained his composure while dying so as not to weaken the morale of the Jewish soldiers. In other words, he was a brave and strong fighter to the very end. This trait of his, suggests R. Kasher, is what prompted Hazal to occasionally look for reasons to praise him.
Even though Ahav was the worst of all the kings of Israel, an idolater and a murderer, Hazal tried to find reasons to praise him -- to be melamed zekhus on him.
Starting on p. 358, R. Kasher quotes passages directly from Va-Yo'el Moshe and offers a point-by-point refutation. He points out that the Satmar Rav expands Ahav's sacrifices (mesirus nefesh) for the Torah well beyond any sources in Hazal [the Satmar Rav even suggests that the Torah greats of our generation can learn from Ahav's sacrifices]. He also notes the sympathy the Satmar Rav displays for idolatry and points out that our traditional attitude is the exact opposite.
II. Respect for a Wicked King
The Satmar Rav (ch. 133, p. 138) quotes the Ralbag that Ahav was only treated with respect during the period when he was righteous. But when he was wicked, he was not respected by the prophets. Therefore, even if Ahav were used as a precedent for today's non-religious government, there would be no reason to respect it.
R. Kasher (pp. 367-368) explains that the issue of whether a wicked king is due respect is a dispute between R. Yohanan and Reish Lakish. The Ralbag follows Reish Lakish, that he should not be respected, while the Mekhilta follows R. Yohanan and holds that wicked kings (such as Pharoah, Ahav and Nevukhadnezzar) must be respected (cf. Torah Shelemah, vol. 9, ch. 5 no. 9; vol. 12, ch. 11 no. 41).
He further points out that the Mishnah (Avos 3:2) statement that one should pray for the welfare of the government does not distinguish between a righteous and wicked government.
III. Today's Non-Religious
Earlier in the volume (ch. 6, pp. 100-101), R. Kasher argues that non-religious Jews today are different than the wicked of earlier generations. Citing the Hazon Ish and Rav Kook, R. Kasher explains that because non-religious Jews in the current era were not raised and educated in a traditional Orthodox environment they have the status of tinokos she-nishbu. This is certainly relevant in the current argument. According to R. Kasher, not only was Ahav wicked, he was in an entirely different category from someone today who would commit the same exact sins.
Monday, September 12, 2005
Shabbos Attire II
No matter how many times I visit certain communities, I never cease to be surprised when some people act as if Shabbos ends at lunch and, after they finish eating, walk around in more casual clothes. Shabbos ends later, and one is expected to dress appropriately throughout Shabbos. The Kaf Ha-Hayim (300:6) quotes the Peri Etz Hayim (R. Hayim Vital?) as stating that one should wear Shabbos clothes until after one eats melaveh malkah, the meal after havdalah. However, the Mishnah Berurah (262:8) is more lenient and rules that one should wear Shabbos clothes only until havdalah. After that, even before eating melaveh malkah, one may change into weekday clothes. But during Shabbos proper? No. Fine, you're at home and relaxing... take off your tie and jacket. But don't change into jeans! And when you leave your house, especially to shul, wear your Shabbos finest.
This is not an issue of peer pressure or communal conformity. It is a matter of kevod Shabbos. (see this post from ages ago)
Who Wrote Rashi?
Who wrote the commentary on Sanhedrin attributed to Rashi? Here is what I wrote elsewhere:
The first to question the authorship of the commentary on Sanhedrin chapter Chelek (chapter 11 in the Gemara, 10 in the Mishnah) was R' Nosson Nota Rabinowitz in his Dikdukei Sofrim. He noted that the usage of language indicated that the commentary was not written by Rashi. However, since R' Meir HaLevy Abulafia in his Yad Ramah attributed the commentary to Rashi, R' Rabinowitz accepted this claim. Later scholars have debated the topic at greater length and not arrived at any convincing conclusion. R' Ya'akov Nachum HaLevy Epstein, a noted academic scholar, wrote a long article in which he brought strong proofs that Rashi did not write the commentary. Prof. Saul Lieberman has tried to recreate parts of Rashi's real commentary based on medieval Christian writings. However, the evidence points in both directions and no one has yet been able to conclude the debate. It still remains unclear who wrote the commentary on Chelek attributed to Rashi.attached document (PDF)
In the attached document are the following:
1. The comments of Dikdukei Sofrim questioning the authorship.
2. The introduction to Sanhedri Gedolah discussing the issue.
3. R' Menachem Kasher's notes on the issue in his monumental bibliographical work Sarei HaElef.
UPDATE: Thanks to two commenters who directed me to Yonah Frenkel's Darko Shel Rashi Be-Ferusho La-Talmud Ha-Bavli and Prof. Shamma Friedman's essay in Z.A. Steinfeld ed., Rashi, Iyunim Bi-Yetziraso. Frenkel devotes chapter 10 of his book to the sources of Rashi's commentary to Perek Helek. He concludes that there are three levels -- Rashi's own, Rashi's students and later additions. Interestingly, on page 316 he writes that the Rashi used by Lubavitcher messianists (Sanhedrin 98b sv i min haya) is not a later addition.
Prof. Friedman disagrees with Frenkel. The English summary of Friedman's article states this (p. XLII):
Thus the recension of Rashi's commentary to Heleq (Sanhedrin XI) may be ascribed to a disciple, but the content must be attributed largely to Rashi.
Making of a Godol
The new edition of Making of a Godol is now available. Please e-mail me if you can pick up a copy for me at Tuvia's and send it to me. Thanks.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
Kuntres She-Lo Ya'alu Ke-Homah
Do Not Ascend Like A Wall
by Rabbi Shlomo Aviner
Rabbi of Beit El and Rosh Yeshiva of Ateret Cohanim, Yerushalayim
translated by Rabbi Mordechai Friedfertig
printed with permission
Clarifications of the Issue of "Do Not Ascend Like a Wall"
In the Talmud in Ketubot (111a), according to Rabbi Zeira there are Three Oaths[1] [or Six Oaths(2)] and among them is "Do not ascend in a wall" [another version - like a wall] (i.e. Do not return to the Land of Israel en masse).
Based on this, the great authority, Rabbi Yitzchak Leon,[3] wrote: "That the commandment of possessing the Land only applied during the periods of Moshe, Yehoshua and David and all of the time that they were not exiled from their Land, but after they were exiled from their Land, this commandment does not apply during the subsequent generations until the coming of the Messiah, since, on the contrary, we were commanded according to what our Sages stated at the end of Ketubot that we should not rebel against the Nations to go and conquer the Land by force, and they prove it from the verse (Shir Ha-Shirim 2:7, 3:5, 8:4), 'I made you swear, daughters of Jerusalem, do nor stir nor awake the love until I desire' and they explain from it that we should not ascend like a wall. And that which the Ramban said that the Sages stated that the conquering of the Land is an obligatory war, this is when we are not subjugated by the Nations."
On the relationship between the oath not to ascend like a wall and our activities toward the revival of our Land and our Nation through the wonders of Hashem, there are thirteen answers:
1. The wall fell by the permit of the Nations of the World.
2. At the time of a Divine remembrance, the wall is nullified:
A. Permit of the Nations of the World is the remembrance.
B. The awakening of the Nation is the remembrance.
C. The appearance of the Revealed End of Days is the remembrance.
D. The horrors of the Exile are the remembrance.
E. The appearance of the Gra.
3. Violation of the Nations of the World of their oath, nullified all of the Oaths.
4. Ascending in stages is not like a wall.
5. The wall only surrounds Babylonia.
6. The wall stands for only a thousand years.
7. The oath is ascending to build the Temple.
8. When there is power and courage, there is no wall.
9. The issue of the wall remains as a dispute in the Talmud.
10. The teacher of the Oaths, Rabbi Zeira, retracted them.
11. The halachic authorities disagree with the author of the Megillat Esther not to ascend like a wall.
12. The wall is a homiletic (aggadic) and not a legal (halachic) issue.
13. The Oaths are Divine decrees and not a prohibition.
1. The wall fell by the permit of the Nations of the World
1. Thus wrote the Avnei Nezer:[4] "That which I wrote in section 56 that there will be no oath if permission is granted for all to ascend to Israel, since Rashi[5] explained 'together by force,' and if it is with permission it is not force."[6]
2. And similarly Rabbi Meir Simchah of Dvinsk wrote: "Nevertheless at this time Divine Providence causes, that in a gathering of the enlightened Kingdoms in San Remo, a command was given that the Land of Israel would be for the Nation of Israel, and since the fear of the Oaths departed, then the mitzvah of settling the Land arose to its place with the permit of the rulers."[7]
3. And this is also implied in the Meharsha: "'Do not ascend like a wall' - and Nechemiah who said: 'And we will build the walls of the city..."? It was with the permission of the King."[8]
4. And Ha-Rav Menachem Kasher[9] wrote that this was similarly the opinion of the Admor of Ostrovtza since he wrote on the words of the midrash "'And the pig (chazir) - this is Edom'...and why is her name called a pig, because she will return (mechazeret) the crown to her owner," and these are his words:[10] "That they prophesied about this that the Christians will conquer the Land of Israel before the Redemption from the control of the Muslims, and they will return her to Israel, and as we have seen fulfilled now in our time."[11]
5. And similarly Ha-Rav Natan Tzvi Friedman, that after the Nations of the World decided to return the stolen object which they stole, now there is no oath.[12]
6. And similarly Rabbi Yissachar Teichtal.[13]
7. And similarly Ha-Rav Chaim David Chazan [Ha-Rishon Le-Tzion].[14]
8. And similarly Ha-Rav Blumberg that with permission it is permissible to ascend like a wall,[15] and his proof is from Ezra.[16]
9. And see Midrash Shir Ha-Shirim: "The Holy One, Blessed be He, made Israel swear four oaths...'Do not stir nor awake the love until I desire' the Kingdom delivered the sword from their hands."[17] On this Ha-Rav Kasher wrote that the Nations of the World will give permission to the Nation of Israel to protect itself and supply it with weapons.[18]
10. And see Kaftor U-Ferach[19] who explains that not ascending like a wall is in order to conquer, which implies that with permission is permissible.
11. And similarly our Rabbi Ha-Rav Tzvi Yehudah [see below].
And many earlier authorities have already written that the permission of Redemption will be by permit of the Nations of the World as in the time of Koresh, they are: Rabbi Moshe ben Machir,[20] Ramban,[21] Radak,[22] Rabbi Yosef Ibn Kaspi,[23] Rabbenu Bachya,[24] Rabbi Yitzchak Abarbanel,[25] Maharibach,[26] Rabbenu Saadia Gaon,[27] Rabbi Yehudah Chai Alkalai at length,[28] Ha-Rav Tzvi Hirsch Kalischer at length,[29] the Gra[30] and the Malbim.[31] The Chafetz Chaim wrote: "It is possible that the future Redemption will be through natural means by way of The Holy One, Blessed be He, placing within the heart of the Kings of the Nations to act beneficently with Israel and such was the matter as was said about Koresh."[32] Rabbi Yaacov Leib, Av Beit Din of Jerusalem, testified in the year 5622 (1862) that this matter was agreed upon by all of the inhabitants of the Land of Israel.[33]
And many great authorities of Israel saw an awakening from the Heavens in the Balfour Declaration and they supported this endeavor, they are Rabbi Meir Simchah of Dvinsk,[34] the Admor of Sochatshov,[35] Ha-Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld,[36] the Chafetz Chaim[37] and our master, Ha-Rav Avraham Yitzchak Ha-Cohain Kook.[38]
The general principle: If there is permit - there is no wall. And our Rabbi Ha-Rav Tzvi Yehudah, similarly wrote: "Ascending like a wall, about which we were warned, surely this wall is only the authority of the Nations over our Land and the place of our Temple, and any time in which this wall exists by the Divine command of Exile, but when in the continuing results of the Revealed End (Sanhedrin 98) it becomes nullified and this wall falls, and "the mouth which forbids is the mouth which permits," and the Master of the Universe who erected this wall, as "a separation of iron which divided between Israel and their Father in Heaven" (Pesachim 85b and Sotah 38b), is the One who nullified and caused this wall to fall, then when there is no wall there is no obstacle and the issue of ascending like a wall, is like the law of one who vows not to enter a house, and when the house fell he does not need to be released from his vow."[39]
(b"n more to come)
1. Regarding the issue of the oath "That The Holy One, Blessed be He, made Israel swear not to rebel against the Nations of the World," our Rabbi Ha-Rav Tzvi Yehudah Ha-Cohain Kook, wrote: "And in the issue of the rebellion against the Nations of the World, when we were compelled to remove the authority of the British from here this was not rebellion against them, since they were not the legal authorities in our Land, rather they had a temporary mandate in order to prepare the authority of the Nation of Israel in its Land according to the decision of the League of Nations, as the word of Hashem in the Tanach, and when they betrayed their mission the time arrived to remove themselves from here" (Ha-Tzofeh, beginning of the year 5734 [1974]).
2. And regarding the issue of "Do not force the End [of Days]," our Rabbi Ha-Rav Tzvi Yehudah Ha-Cohain Kook, wrote: "This is not the version in our Talmuds, rather 'Do not distance the End,' Rashi explains: 'Do not distance the End - in your sinning.' Another explanation: Do not force - the language of force, that they should not offer too many supplications for this.'" And he does not discuss the physical activity of the ingathering of the exiles and the building of the Land, "And not that they should not increase and magnify the building of the settlement of the Land of Israel and the revival of the Torah in the Land of Israel" (ibid.). And see below footnote 156.
3. Megillat Esther on Sefer Ha-Mitzvot of the Rambam, criticisms on the additions of the Ramban, mitzvah 4.
4. Avnei Nezer Yoreh De'ah #453, 456. And that for which he was criticized in Sefer Va-Yoel Moshe pg. 38 #16, Ha-Rav Kasher responded in Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pg. 195, and in Sefer Milchemet Yom Ha-Kippurim pg. 65, and see further Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pg. 166 in note, and see below footnote 41.
And our Rabbi, Ha-Rav Avraham Shapira, said: "Regarding the issue of the Three Oaths...we have a clear ruling of the great authorities of the previous generation. There are not great authorities today who can compare to the author of the Avnei Nezer and the Ohr Sameach who wrote their rulings down" (Morashah vol. 9 pg. 18).
5. And similarly explains the Magen Avraham (Zeit Ra'anan on Yalkut Shimoni #969), and also Eitz Yosef and Matanot Kehunah on Shir Ha-Shirim Rabbah 2:18.
6. And he added: "And his honor pointed out that in the book Ahavat Yonatan he wrote that it is forbidden even with permission, this is a homiletic statement, and a thousand like them will not move the words of Rashi from their place. And Ha-Gaon, our teacher, Ha-Rav Yonatan [Eibeschitz] z"l himself did not depart from Rashi's explanation for the legal ruling," until here are his words.
And in the book Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pg. 193 this statement is expanded and clarified. And similarly Ha-Rav Shaul Yisraeli in Eretz Chemdah pg. 30 and in Morsahah vol. 5 pg. 16.
And see Rashi to Sotah 36, "It will be performed for them by a miracle," and Rashi explains: "It is decreed for them that they will ascend only with permission," until here are his words.
And in the book Geulat Yisrael of Rabbi Avraham Yellin: "I saw in Shem Ha-Gedolim of Ha-Rav Chida z"l that the book Ahavat Yonatan was not written by Ha-Rav Rabbi Yonatan z"l himself, but a student who heard from his mouth, and one great rabbi told me that Ha-Rav Rabbi Yonatan z"l proclaimed that they should not rely on what his students wrote in his name, because sometimes they erred in his words. And similarly in the book Ahavat Yonatan itself (Parashat Ekev) there appears to be a contradiction to his above-mentioned statement" (in Parashat Va-etchanan) (introduction pg 12). In the book Em Ha-Banim Semeichah of Rabbi Yissachar Shlomo Teichtal he resolves the contradiction as mentioned below footnote 99, that when there is dreadful oppression which is visited upon the Nation, this is a sign from the Heavens, and then there is no oath here (Kol Mevasser edition, Jerusalem 5758 [1998] pp. 162-164). And see footnote 62. And on what was brought in the book Va-Yoel Moshe pg. 31 #11 from the words of "Yefeh Kol" of our teacher Ha-Rav S. Yafeh on Shir Ha-Shirim, the verse "I made you swear...," that they should not ascend together to the Land of Israel even with permission of the Kingdoms, you also tell him the words of the Avnei Nezer "that a thousand like them will not move the words of Rashi from their place."
7. Otzar Ha-Aretz pg. 82, printed in "Torah U-Meluchah" by Mossad Ha-Rav Kook. And in the book Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pg. 174. And see below footnote 34. And Ha-Rav Kasher wrote: All that is in the book Va-Yoel Moshe that the Three Oaths also apply today, but how he did not see the words of Rabbi Meir Simchah that after San Remo the fear of the Oaths departed, and many great authorities of Israel as well (Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pg. 271). And see further in section 8 #2.
8. Ketubot 111a. And see the article of Ha-Rav Meir Blumenfeld "Regarding the Issue of the Oath Not to Ascend Like a Wall," collection of articles Shanah Be-Shanah 5734 (1974) pg. 15.
9. Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pg. 176, 154. Milchemet Yom Ha-Kippurim pg. 68.
10. Meir Ainai Chachamim, section edition 26.
11. And Rabbi Avraham Yellin wrote similarly in the book Geulat Yisrael on the words of the midrash and the Zohar that the Christians will take the Land from the control of the Arabs and return in to us.
12. Shut Netzer Mata'ai section 10 #5.
13. Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pp. 307-308.
14. In his approbation to the book Derishat Tzion of Ha-Rav Tzvi Hirsch Kalischer - brought in Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 11.
15. Kuntres Mitzvat Yishuv Eretz Yisrael pg. 20, based on Rashi, Meharsha and Matanot Kehunah on Shir Ha-Shirim 2:18 and 8:11.
16. Ibid. pg. 21. And he wrote further regarding the oath of "Do not rebel," that from the words "Do not rebel" it is implied that with permission of the Nations of the World there is no rebellion and it is permissible (ibid. 20b, 21a, 21b).
17. Manuscript of the Geniza of Greenhut chapter 3, 5.
18. Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pg. 212.
19. Rabbi Ashturei Ha-Parchi chapter 10 pg. 197. And see footnote 186.
20. Seder H a-Olam (Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pg. 96).
21. Commentary attributed to the Ramban on Shir Ha-Shirim 8:13 (Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pg. 96).
22. Tehillim 146:3 (Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pg. 96).
And in the book Mossad Ha-Yesod pg. 137 it is written that Rabbi Yisrael of Shklov (Pe'at Ha-Shulchan) would quote the words of the Ramban and the Radak that the Redemption will come through the permit of the Nations of the World (Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pg. 546). And see footnote 30.
23. In the book Tam Ha-Kesef pg. 44 (Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pg. 96).
24. Parashat Shemini (brought in the book Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 144) regarding the issue of the pig who will return the crown to its owner.
25. Mashmi'a Yeshu'ah pg. 25 (Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 189). And on the verse "The Builder of Jerusalem is Hashem" (Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 146).
26. Father of the Maharalbach in his introduction to Ein Yaacov (Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 145).
27. Emunot Ve-Dei'ot 8 (Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 146).
28. Goral La-Shem #9. Sefer Ha-Chaim pg. 18b #3. And in the book Minchat Yehudah (Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 188). And in his books which were published in the years 5601-5617 (1841-1857) he wrote that the Kingdom of England, which is at the end of the Earth, will say to Zion, behold your salvation is coming, and he merited to intend to the Balfour Declaration in the year 5678 (1917).
29. Derishat Tzion pg. 40 and further. And see what the Admor of Rosin wrote that before there will be a natural Redemption as in the time of Ezra (Sefer Ha-Zichronot of Rabbi Isik Chasid. Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pg. 114).
30. Sefer Mussar Ha-Yesod pg. 137, that Ha-Gaon, the kabbalist, Rabbi Yaacov Leib Leval z"l, Av Beit Din of Jerusalem, would often mention in his speeches about the beginning of the Redemption according to the opinion of the Gra...and he would emphasize that the beginning will be as it was in the Second Temple Period with the permit of the Nations of the World (Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pg. 546). And see footnote 22.
31. Brought in Shivat Tzion vol. 2, pg. 3 and Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pg. 103.
32. Shem Olam, sha'ar ha-hitchazkut, chap. 14 pg. 14b. Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pg. 103.
33. The newspaper "Ha-Magid" 5622 (1862) copy #26 (Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pg. 154 and 547). And similarly our teacher, Ha-Rav Yehoshua Leib Diskin: "That the Beginning of the Redemption will be by the permit of the Kingdoms," Ha-Peles 5663 (1903) 433. Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pg. 100. And in the Midrash Rabbah Parashat Toldot it is told that in the days of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananyah the King gave permission to ascend to the Land of Israel and to build the Temple, and they began the work with the permission of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananyah (Em Ha-Banim Semeichah pg. 101, 137, 181).
34. In the book Rabbeinu Meir Simchah pg. 160. Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pg. 198. And see above 1B.
35. Avir Ha-Ro'im vol. 1 #201-203. Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pg. 199.
36. In the book Moriah of Dr. Yitzchak Breuer, from the book Milchemet Yom Ha-Kippurim of Ha-Rav Kasher pg. 71.
37. As testified by his son. And so too in the book Chafetz Chaim of Ha-Rav S. Greenman pg. 101. Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah pg. 198.
38. Igrot (Letters) vol. 3, 316.
39. In the newspaper "Ha-Tzofeh." And he also wrote: "The wall, which separates between us and the Place of our Life, fell on account of the renewal of the battle of the Governments of the Nations..." (Le-Netivot Yisrael vol. 1 [pg. 65], publication of Mei-Avnei Ha-Makom, Kiryat Ha-Yeshivah Beit El, 5762 [2002], pg. 86). And further there: "And will they resemble those piling up new 'walls' of authority of Exile and erecting a separation between us and our Land, in place of the wall which fell" (pg. [88] 115). And see there further pg. [126-127] 169. And see below footnote 203 and further on.
The Religious Zionism Debate XIV
R. Zalman Nehemiah Goldberg's approbation for R. Moshe Lichtman's English translation of R. Yissachar Shlomo Teichtal's Em Ha-Banim Semehah:
Friday, September 09, 2005
Medical Ethics Issue
AP is reporting:
Britain has granted permission to scientists to create a human embryo with genetic material from two mothers, officials said.Wow! I've got no clue whether this is a cause to celebrate (women with genetic diseases can now have healthy children!) or mourn (we've reached a new level of tinkering with humanity). I think it's more a cause to think and hope that someone intelligent will present an articulate opinion that is not just a knee-jerk reaction.
Scientists from Britain's Newcastle University plan to transfer the pro-nuclei - the components of a nucleus of a human embryo - by a man and woman into an unfertilized egg from another woman to prevent mothers passing certain genetic diseases to their unborn babies.
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Tehillas Hashem
The Shelah (Sha'ar Ha-Osiyos, kuf, birkas ha-mazon) records the practice of reciting Psalm 137 (Al naharos Bavel) before reciting the grace after meals. However, this sad psalm is inappropriate for Shabbos or (even minor) holidays. Therefore, Psalm 126 (Shir ha-ma'alos) is recited instead. This practice is cited by the Magen Avraham (1:5) and some later posekim. Reciting Psalm 126 on Shabbos and holidays seems to be the normative Askenazic practice, although followers of the Vilna Gaon's customs do not recite it. It is unclear why, but reciting Psalm 137 on regular days seems to have largely fallen out of practice.
I have seen some add another three verses to Psalm 126 -- Psalms 145:21, 115:18, 107:1, 106:2. I tried looking for some explanation as to why these are recited. Based on whom I have seen reciting these extra verses, it struck me as possibly being a German custom. However, the Baer Avodas Yisrael siddur does not have these verses. Ta'amei Ha-Minhagim, Minhag Yisrael Torah and Prof. Sperber's Minhagei Yisrael do not discuss this at all. I tried (not too hard) looking for the original Shelah but could not find it. The only thing I could find is in the Otzar Ha-Tefillos siddur (Ashkenaz, vol. 1 p. 474), in which a brief introduction and 13 verses are listed as being a segulah (charm) for always having sufficient food if recited before the grace after meals. These are listed after Psalms 137 and 126, and the last two verses are among the four I've seen added. However, beyond that I've found nothing. It would seem that this practice evolved from some kabbalistic charm, but this practice is found among German- and modern-types who would normally avoid charms.
Online, I found this suggestion by R. Yehonatan Chipman:
From the Siddurim that I am familiar with, it seems clear to me that the original, classic Ashkenazi minhag is to recite Psalm 126 (Shir Hama'alot) alone on Shabbat and Yom Tov, etc., and Psalm 135 (Al Naharot Bavel) on weekdays. Thus in Baer's Avodat Yisrael (the classical Yekkishe Siddur, publsihed in the 19th century in Rodelheim), in the Gera's Ishei Yisrael, in Rav Kooks' Olat Re'iyah, and in many others. The classical Sephardi (Oriental) minhag, on the other hand -- what is widely known in Israel as Minhag Baghdad, as in Siddur Tefillat Yesharim, in the various siddurim of Rav OvadiahYosef and Rav Mordechai Eliyahu, etc -- has no psalms before Birkat Hamazon, but does have five verses, recited both weekday and Shabbat: Ps 34:1; Kohelet 12:13; Ps 145:21; 116:18 (the last two are "tehilat hashem.... va'anahnu nevarekh Kah...); and Ezek 41:22b (i.e, the second half of that verse only).
Somewhere along the way -- essentially, after the development of Hasidut and its adaptation of Kabbalat ha-Ari and its nusah-- there began to develop hybrid nushaot, which collated elements of Ashkenaz and Sefarad (i.e, the so-called Nusah Sefarad of the Hasidim, whch in many cases overlaps or conflates both readings). Thus, the Habad Siddur adds these five verses followig Shir Hamaalot/Al Naharot Bavel, as the acse may be, also adding Psalm 87, as well as Job 20:29 just before mayim
aharonim (Vayedaber ailay is said afterwards).
The custom I have seen today in many homes is a perhaps a variation on that: to say Shir Hama'alaot, followed by "Tehilat hashem... Vaanahnu..." (i.e., Ps 145:21 and 116:18). Some people add only these two verses, while others add Ps 118:1 (=106:1) and 106:2 as well (Hodo la-Shem... Mi yimalel). My personal theory is that these last two verses may have been added for musical reasons: in most melodies for
Shir hama'alot, from Yossele Rosenblatt's on down, the melody is repeated twice to accomodate the text (vv. 1-3, then vv. 4-6). If one adds two verses, one sings it a third time, but is stuck in th emiddle, so two more verses are needed to round out the third round.
The Opposite of the Flood
Most of the fish died in the New Orleans aquarium but not the land animals (link). Surprising.
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
Intelligent Design
In an article in last week's Forward, David Klinghoffer discusses the current controversy about Intelligent Design and asks "Where, I wonder, are the scholars of Yeshiva University, Orthodoxy's flagship educational institution that was founded to make Torah confront the issues raised by modernity? On Intelligent Design, Y.U. is so far AWOL." I contacted a professor at YU and offered to allow him to write a response on my blog, but he declined. So I'll take the opportunity to do so myself with the following important caveats:
1. I have no connection to YU
2. My biology education ended in ninth grade
3. I only took one philosophy course in college
4. I don't know what I'm talking about
With that said, the main point of contention currently is whether Intelligent Design should be included in public schools' science curricula. Those in favor of including it point out that there is good reason to believe that it is true. Those opposed argue that it simply isn't science.
I, in my ignorance, think that those who claim that Intelligent Design is not science are correct. After all, this is not a testable theory that can be either proven or disproven. But they are wrong if they say that this is just religion. It isn't. It is philosophy. The question, then, is not whether religion belongs in the science classrooms of this nation's public schools, but whether philosophy belongs there. Personally, I don't see why not as long as it is made clear that it is philosophy.
Science class is not just about teaching scientific methods. It is also about teaching truth and truth-seeking. We want our nation's scientists to be not only powerful but also moral, and that requires studying philosophy and ethics along with science. So if it were up to this ignorant man, I'd allow philosophy and ethics into the science classrooms, and that includes Intelligent Design.
Torah Codes and the Talmud
I'm sure readers are familiar with Torah Codes. If not, here are two websites, one in favor (link) and one against (link). I've been asked a few times to post my thoughts on these codes.
I most definitely have thoughts on this matter, but I was gratified to discover a few years ago that Dr. Ya'akov Elman had reached the same conclusion for the same reason as I had (link).
It boils down to this: The Gemara (Kiddushin 30a) is explicit that we are not experts on the exact spellings in the Torah that are haseros and yeseros. I explained this in a lengthy essay as follows:
In Kiddushin 30a, Rav Yosef (early fourth century) says that we are not experts in chaserot veyeterot (defective and plene spellings). There are certain vowel sounds in Hebrew that can be spelled solely with vowelization (chaser=defective) or also with a letter vav or yud (yeter=plene). Both spellings are grammatically equivalent and are pronounced the same. At some point in time, doubts arose among the scribes regarding some words in the Bible, whether they are spelled chaser or yeter. While some have tried to minimize this statement to refer only to Rav Yosef who was blind (R' Reuven Margoliyot, Hamikra Vehamesora, ch. 4), the commentators and halachists did not understand it this way. Some have also tried to limit it to unusually large or small letters. However, R' David Metzger has demonstrated that this is insufficient to explain the entire talmudic passage (Torah Shelemah vol. 28 p. 288). Additionally, the rishonim clearly did not read the passage this way. Thus, the Rama ruled in Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 143:4 that if a Torah scroll during a public reading in the synagogue is found to have a mistake then it must be closed and another Torah taken out. However, if the mistake was a chaser or yeter that differs from the textus receptus then we do not take out another Torah. Who can say, the Rama implied, that the new Torah that presumably matches the textus receptus is more correct than the current Torah being used? On this one issue - chaser and yeter - the textus receptus is considered imprecise (with one exception that we will discuss later). This does not, however, affect the meaning of the Bible, which is perhaps how these errors crept in.According to the Gemara, Rishonim, Posekim and Aharonim, we are unsure whether the vowel-vav's and -yud's are missing or extra. Therefore, if we find a deviation in a Torah scroll from what is generally written, it does not disqualify the Torah scroll. The only exception is if that letter (or lack of letter) is used for an halakhic midrash.
CD Ginsburg collected variations in the Massorah codifications of the text of the Torah, selections of which are published in R. Menahem Kasher's Torah Shelemah encyclopedia.
The bold claim by proponents of Torah Codes defy this halakhically acknowledged deficiency, seemingly in contradiction to the Gemara and post-Talmudic authorities.
Recall that Torah Codes are discovered by counting letters. If even one letter in the middle of a code is missing or additional then the entire code is disturbed. That would seem to imply that, because of our lack of expertise in haseros and yeseros, the Torah Codes we have must either bypass all questionable passages or -- what seems more likely -- be simply false.
In response to this challenge, as presented by Dr. Elman, proponents of the Torah Codes answered as follows:
1. First, it must be remembered that the spelling differences in the various texts of Torah mentioned by the poskim are few in number.
But posekim are not the only places to look for variants in haseros and yeseros. Codices and Torah scrolls are!
2. And of all the differences between the Masoretic text and the quotations from the Talmud used to derive specific halachos none are found in Genesis.
This is irrelevant. The halakhic midrash is evidently an exception to our lack of expertise and not the exact opposite -- the place where our lack of expertise lies.
3. As the Meiri writes in Kiryath Sefer: The absence of disagreement between ba'alei ha'mesorah and the Talmud is itself the greatest proof of authenticity for a given text
See CD Ginzburg and the Masorah collections.
4. In addition, there are almost no divergences in Genesis between the kosher sifrei Torah of different communities.
The lack of expertise was already in existence in the time of the Gemara. Our communal standardizations came into place centuries after that lack of expertise was established.
5. When we repeated the "Great Rabbis Experiment" reported in Statistical Science using the Yemenite text of Genesis, we achieved results of the same statistical significance as those of the published experiment.
Here is what I would like to see. I would like them to randomize every questionable case of haser and yeser -- or, even better, every single case in the whole Torah -- and repeatedly run the codes on random versions of the Torah. If the Torah Codes are true, there should be a handful of versions that have exceptional results that are clearly above all of the rest. These would be the versions that have the original and correct text of the Torah, with only differences that do not affect any codes throughout the Torah. To my mind, that would be the only way to prove that the Torah Codes exist. Anything less than that is simply going against the Gemara and post-Talmudic authorities. (Is it heresy? It's hard to say that it is, although some of the logic used against R. Nosson Slifkin would seem to apply here also.)
UPDATE:
6. Finally, as a believer in Torah, I am not just concerned with scientific proofs of information encoded in ELSs. If it were shown that the phenomena exist only in the Masoretic text but not in any deviant texts, our belief in the hashgacha pratith that caused this particular text to be accepted throughout the Jewish world would be strengthened, without the probative value of our experiment being diminished in the slightest.
Are they implying that Rav Yosef in the Gemara did not believe in hashgahah peratis? Or the Rema? Or the Rishonim? This belief of theirs seems to contradict practical halakhah and, as such, is suspect in my eyes.
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
The Molad
I don't know if you've ever heard that the Gemara's calculation of the molad, the time of the astronomical new moon, is proof of the scientific wisdom of the sages of the Talmud, but I have. I can't seem to find it on any kiruv website, but I'm sure I've heard it somewhere. Anyway, it turns out it's not.
I have some irrational phobia of the intricate calculations of the Jewish calendar. You'd think I wouldn't, since I majored in math and have made a good living from my math skills. But so it is. I even have a cousin through marriage who is a world expert on this subject and occasionally e-mails me articles that intimidate me into saving them and pretending that I might read them some day.
In the most recent issue of Tradition (Fall 2004), there is an article about this titled "A 5765 Anomaly," by Sheldon Epstein, Bernard Dickman and Yonah Wilamowsky. I forced myself to start reading it, despite (or perhaps to spite) my aforementioned phobia, and to my great surprise I found it fascinating. I even saw my cousin quoted in a few endnotes!
The article contains the following (pp. 42-43) -- trust me, read through this despite its intimdating numbers:
As cited previously, the Gemara presents 29.5 days and 793 halakim (29.530594138 days to the nearest 10 decimal places) as a lower limit for lunation. Rambam (KH 6:3) says that this figure refers to the mean lunation, i.e., the length of any individual month can show considerable variability. The actual time between two successive true conjunctions ranges in the 20th and 21st centuries between approximately 29 days 6.5 hours, and 29 days 20 hours, and for the period 1000 BCE until 4000 CE, it ranges from a low of 29 days, 6 hours and 26 minutes (in 302 BCE) to a high of 29 days, 20 hours and 6 minutes (in 400 BCE).This is interesting on a number of levels. First, the length of a lunar month was slightly overestimated by R. Gamliel, who said that it was an underestimation. But this can be explained if he was only relaying a tradition that was correct at the time it was originally taught.
Just as the range of lunation has changed with time, so has the mean lunation changed with the passage of time. The current most accurate estimate of the mean lunation value is given by NASA to 10 decimal places as 29.5305888531 days. Thus the Gemara's 2000 year-old value overestimates the current best scientific calculation by 5.2827E-06 days, or a little less than 1/2 a second (i.e., .4564 seconds). The fact fact that the Gemara's lunation value is an overestimate of the mean and R. Gamliel indicated that it was an underestimate is not problematic. The mean lunation has been decreasing with the passing of time. Thus, in the Gemara's time the actual mean lunation was more than NASA's current figure. By some estimates the mean lunation was actually 29.5 days and 793 halakim somewhere around the beginning of the Common Era. Thus, when R. Gamliel, first century tanna, asserts having received information from the house of his grandfather, he is apparently citing from an old tradition that had been in his family for a very long time. As evidence of the ancient origins of the mean lunation being 29.5 days and 793 halakim, we note that some attribute the value to Cidenas who lived about 383 BCE, i.e., 500 years before R. Gamliel. At that point in time over 2500 years ago the actual mean lunation may very well have exceeded 29.5 days and 793 halakim
Furthermore, it seems that the Babylonian astronomer Cidenas had arrived at such a calculation about 500 years before R. Gamliel.
More than that, though, this value is actually changing over time. We can state about this with full scientific backing that nishtaneh ha-teva -- nature has changed. The length of a lunar month was once exactly 29.5 days and 793 halakim but it has now changed.
The bulk of the article is about the practical problems that this growing discrepancy is causing (pp. 43-44):
Although our estimate of the mean lunation differs insignificantly from the true mean lunation, over long periods of time the cumulative sum of these monthly differences results in significant differences between the molad based on 29.5 days and 793 halakim and the true mean conjunction based on the true mean lunationBecause of this two-hour difference, it seems that the date of Rosh Hashanah last year was pushed off by two days, which it would not have been had we used the astronomical calculation of the molad. Fascinating. Who would have thought?
History, Truth and Nastiness
Prof. Alan Dershowitz makes an interesting point in his obituary for the recently deceased Chief Justice William Rhenquist:
My mother always told me that when a person dies, one should not say anything bad about him. My mother was wrong. History requires truth, not puffery or silence, especially about powerful governmental figures. And obituaries are a first draft of history.This is an important issue, because if we fail to tell the truth about history it will inevitably be told distorted by partisans (see the recent posts about Religious Zionism). See R. Nosson Kamenetsky's discussion of this issue in his piece on Open Access.
On the other hand, it can certainly be argued that waiting a little time after someone's death is appropriate before publicly criticizing him. Historical truth can certainly wait until after a dead man's funeral. Furthermore, criticism should be respectful and not nasty.
History does require truth. But truth should be told politely.
Monday, September 05, 2005
Exodus Chapter 1b
(continued from here)
| 8 Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph. 9 And he said unto his people: 'Behold, the people of the children of Israel are too many and too mighty for us; 10 come, let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there befalls us any war, they also join themselves unto our enemies, and fight against us, and get them up out of the land.' 11 Therefore they set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh store-cities, Pithom and Raamses. 12 But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and the more they spread abroad. And they were adread because of the children of Israel. 13 And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigor. 14 And they made their lives bitter with hard service, in mortar and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field; in all their service, wherein they made them serve with rigor. | ח ויקם מלך-חדש, על-מצרים, אשר לא-ידע, את-יוסף. ט ויאמר, אל-עמו: הנה, עם בני ישראל--רב ועצום, ממנו. י הבה נתחכמה, לו: פן-ירבה, והיה כי-תקראנה מלחמה ונוסף גם-הוא על-שנאינו, ונלחם-בנו, ועלה מן-הארץ. יא וישימו עליו שרי מסים, למען ענתו בסבלתם; ויבן ערי מסכנות, לפרעה--את-פתם, ואת-רעמסס. יב וכאשר יענו אתו, כן ירבה וכן יפרץ; ויקצו, מפני בני ישראל. יג ויעבדו מצרים את-בני ישראל, בפרך. יד וימררו את-חייהם בעבדה קשה, בחמר ובלבנים, ובכל-עבדה, בשדה--את, כל-עבדתם, אשר-עבדו בהם, בפרך. |
1:8–15 Hard Labor
This section begins the enslavement of the descendants of Israel by a paranoid Pharoah in three stages. First he talks to his people and then proceeds to force the Israelites into two phases of labor. The first phase is enslavement into the labor of building store-cities and the second is being forced to work with more rigor in the field (Hakham 17). This section and the subsequent one are replete with irony, as seen in the following verses.
8 Now there arose a new king over Egypt
This most likely refers to not only a new king but a new dynasty. It might refer to the Eighteenth Dynasty ruler Ahmose I (ca. 1539-1514 BCE) or the Nineteenth Dynasty ruler Ramesses II (ca. 1279–1213 BCE) (Hoffmeier 122-126). There is a certain irony in the new Pharoah's name not being mentioned. While it is true that the Torah was not intended as a history book and the specific name of the Pharoah would not have been significant to the Torah's readers (Cassuto), there is a specific irony in the omission of the Pharoah's name. In ancient Near Eastern literature, Assyrian in particular, victorious kings are extremely careful to enumerate in detail the kings whom they have defeated. However, Egyptian literature is different and conquered kings often remain unnamed (Hoffmeier 109–111). By refraining from naming the Pharoah at the beginning of the narrative, the Torah is ironically using an Egyptian technique to delegitimize the enemy Egyptian king who is eventually defeated at the end of the story.
9 Behold, the people of the children of Israel
Exodus is the book that describes how the children of Israel became a people. Ironically, it is Pharoah who first calls this family a people (Fretheim 28).
are too many and too mighty for us
This can be translated as "more and mightier than we"--with mimenu referring to both terms--or "many and mightier than we"--with mimenu referring to only the last term (Abrabanel). The former seems to be the simplest translation, which makes it a very implausible statement. How could the Israelites be the majority in Egypt and still become enslaved? It seems that this was a statement intended to scare the Egyptians into action, a prediction of what would be if they did not act decisively (Abraham Maimonides).
The Hebrew words for "many" used in this verse and the next--rav, atzum, yirbeh--are three of the seven used in verse 7 above.
It is ironic that Pharoah emphasizes the fulfillment of God's promise by noting how the Israelites have become so plentiful (Fretheim 28).
10 come, let us deal wisely with them
It is indeed ironic that Pharoah called up his people to act wisely but, as the story unfolds, is found to have repeatedly acted foolishly (Fretheim 28). The references to the Egyptian people is in the plural but the Israelite people in the single. This literary device serves to emphasize that the Israelites have been called a people for the first time (Greenberg 20).
when there befalls us any war, they also join themselves unto our enemies, and fight against us, and get them up out of the land
It is unclear exactly what this fear is--that the Israelites will join an enemy in battle against Egypt and then leave the country? What does the latter point add? Mendelssohn translates the conjunctive vav as "or", breaking the passage into two possible events: in case of invasion, the Israelites might join the enemy combatants; or they might leave the land and strengthen the enemy people whose army is fighting in Egypt (Hertz). Another irony in this passage is that this latter fear of Pharoah's is exactly what comes about in a literal sense, despite Pharoah's efforts to prevent it (Fretheim 28).
11 Therefore they set over them taskmasters
The use of taskmasters reflects a two-tier system of labor that is documented as being utilized in ancient Egypt (Hoffmeier 114-115). This is the first step in the enslavement of the people of Israel. The use of the term "mas" (sarei misim = taskmasters) reflects forced labor, as used in 1 Kings 5:27f., 9:16f.
to afflict them with their burdens
The forced labor would make them too tired to procreate (Bekhor Shor).
Pithom
From the Egyptian p(r) itm which means "house or estate of the god Atum." Some believe that Tell el Maskhuta is Pithom, others consider Tell el Retabeh a more likely identification, while still others favor Heliopolis (Hoffmeier 119-121; ABD "Pithom").
Raamses
Also vocalized as "Ramesses". This city has been equated with Pi-Ramesses, which has been positively identified as Qantir (Hoffmeier 117-119). In its day, Pi-Ramesses rivaled Thebes and Memphis as a large city with massive temples and huge statues. It was also strategically located to provide defense against invasion in the narrow land between a branch of the Nile and nearby lakes (ABD "Ramesses").
12 But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and the more they spread abroad
The Egyptians enslaved the Israelites in order to prevent them from growing too large (see previous verse). Ironically, the exact opposite of their intention was realized when the Israelites multiplied even more.
13 And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigor
This is the second phase of enslavement, in which the work was bitterly hard. The Egyptians hoped that this difficult labor would tire the Israelites and prevent them from procreating. The text does not state whether or not this plan succeeded, although the following section implies that it did not (Cassuto).
14 And they made their lives bitter
In this whole section, seven forms of the words avodah and parekh are used, which emphasizes this section's theme of hard labor (Hakham 17).
(full bibliography after the last post in this series)
The Religious Zionism Debate XIII
The Frumteens moderator has selectively quoted from the historical record in this post, ommitting material that completely undermines his claim that all of the Gedolim oppose any form of Jewish state in the land of Israel before the messiah arrives. He writes as follows:
In the summer of '37 at the third Kenesia gedolah of the rabbinical leaders of Agudath Israel held in Marienbad, which included hundreds of rabbis, heads of yeshiva religious academies and grand rabbis of Chassidic communities from a number of countries. Rabbi Aharon Kotler attended this convention.What the moderator fails to mention is that these rabbis were outvoted!!! That's right. The issue of HaPardes that the Frumteens moderator quotes is available online here (PDF) and the relevant passage is on page 8. After the part quoted/translated by the Frumteens moderator, the article continues:
From the journal Hapardes (Year 11, Issue 7) describing the convention:
"Rabbi Wasserman, Rabbi Kotler, Rabbi Rottenberg from Antwerp, and rabbis from Czechoslovakia and Hungary were unanimous in rejecting any proposal for a "Jewish State" on either side of the Jordan River, even if it were established as a religious state because such a regime would be a form of heresy in our faith in the belief in the coming of the Messiah, and especially since this little "Jewish" state would be built on heresy and desecration of the Name of G-d.
The late Rabbi Shlomo Rottenberg (a historian and author of Toldos Am Olam and other works), who also attended the Convention in '37 used to say that he could still remember what was discussed there, and the harsh opposition of these rabbinical leaders to a "Jewish State" that is a violation of the Three Oaths mentioned in the Talmud. (Rabbi A.L. Spitzer)
Arguing against them were the Admo"rim from Boyan and Sadigora, Rav Tzirelson (the president of the [Agudath Israel] congress), Rav Levin from Reisha (the head of Agudath Israel), and Rav Sorotzkin, [who said that] it is possible to agree, according to the laws of the Torah, to the establishment of a Jewish state in its portion of the land of Israel without denying the belief in the coming of the redeemer. There is no need to be concerned that the non-religious will chase, through the Jewish state, the religion. Therefore, it is forbidden to push off entirely the matter of the Jewish state; rather we must pursue expanding its borders and ensuring that the laws of a Jewish state will be founded on religion and tradition. And to protest that they did not ask Haredi Judaism and did not include its leaders in this discussion.Incidentally, the Boyaner Rebbe's son, who is still alive and well in New York, told me that he once heard his father and the Satmar Rav in the former's house screaming at each other about the state of Israel, with the Boyaner Rebbe opposing the Satmar Rav's harsh anti-Zionist stance. After that, they agreed to never talk to each other about the subject again.
And those saying yes won!
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Where to Next?
The Town Crier links to a recent article by leaders of the OU in which they state that the OU will be encouraging and leading discussions about the future of Religious Zionism. The Town Crier doesn't get it, so let me explain what I see.
They want to get R. Avraham Shapira and R. Aharon Lichtenstein, or others with similar views, into a room together to shake hands and agree on the proper course for Religious Zionism. In other words, enough fighting on a moot point and let's figure out where to go from here.
I wish them all the success in the world.
Class Picture
At my parents' house, I came across the following (sometime post-1924) picture of my grandfather's heder in Makov-Masovietski, Poland. We have no idea which of the children is my grandfather, his brothers or his future brothers-in-law. It is safe to assume that over 90% of the boys were killed in the Holocaust.
Friday, September 02, 2005
Katrina and Television
If you do not own a TV, get to a neighbor's house or an electronics store and watch the news ASAP. Nothing -- not reading, hearing or seeing pictures -- can portray the horrific nature of this catastrophe as can television.
I'm not advising owning a TV. But get to one NOW (if you haven't already) so you can understand the nightmare. It is terrifying to see.
Back in the 90s, it took me a while to realize that the Sarajevo of the Bosnian civil war/genocide was the same Sarajevo that had hosted the olympics when I was a child. Civilized cities can descend into terrifying scenarios very quickly. The thread that holds together our comfortable society is indeed very fragile.
Conjectural Emendations
Rashi has a very curious comment on the verse in last week's Torah portion, "You shall put these words of mine in your heart and soul, and you shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and fix them as an emblem on your forehead" (Deut. 11:18). Rashi comments:
Even after you are exiled, you must distinguish yourselves by performing the commandments. Set the tefillin in place, and affix the mezuzos, so that they do not seem novel when you return. Similarly, it is said, "Establish marks of distinction for yourself" (Jer. 31:20).Rashi seems to be seeing that one might have thought that the commandments of tefillin and mezuzah only apply in the land of Israel. However, they apply also in exile so that they don't seem novel when we return to Israel. The Divrei Eliyahu quotes the Vilna Gaon as pointing out that this seems to contradict an explicit Gemara. The Gemara (Kiddushin 36b) states that any commandment that is dependent on land only applies in Israel, but all other commandments apply equally inside and outside of the land of Israel. If that is the case, how can Rashi state that tefillin and mezuzah, which are obligations on the individual and not connected to land at all, do not really apply in exile?
Rather, suggests the Vilna Gaon, there is a scribal error in our text of Rashi. It might have been written in earlier texts the abbreviations h"t a"m which a scribe mistook as meaning hanihu tefillin asu mezuzos (set the tefillin in place and affix the mezuzos) but it really stood for hafrishu terumos isru ma'asros (remove the terumah and the ma'aser, referring to land-based obligations that should not, ideally, apply in exile.
R. Ya'akov Tzvi Mecklenburg was evidently unaware of this commentary of the Vilna Gaon because in his Ha-Kesav Ve-Ha-Kabbalah (Deut. 11:12), he offers a similar explanation. However, he points out that the only early attestations to Rashi's text -- the Ramban and Rabbenu Bahya -- agree with the printed text we have. That certainly argues against this proposed textual emendation. He then proposed a different solution, utilizing the metaphor of the Sifrei that served as Rashi's basis, that of an estranged who wife returns to her father's home but continus to dress up like a wife so that it is not new to her when she reconciles with her husband. R. Mecklenburg explains that if the estranged wife refrains from dressing up, she is showing that she gives up on her husband. However, if she continues to dress up, she shows her continued connection with her husband and her expectations for the future. So, too, Jews must keep the commandments in exile to demonstrate their continued connection to God and hope for the ultimate redemption.
Earlier, the Maharal from Prague, in his Gur Aryeh (ad loc.), explained Rashi's intention as being that if we were exempt from commandments in exile, when we return from Israel God would need to give us the Toah a second time. Because that is an unacceptable option, we must retain our connection to the first giving of the Torah by following its commandments even in exile.
Later, R. Avraham Binyamin Sofer, in his Kesav Sofer (ad loc.), suggests a different explanation that emphasizes tefillin and mezuzah. Those commandments, more than any other, are intended to serve as a sign to other nations. If we are living peacefully in our land, then the signs serve the divine purpose of spreading the glory of God. But if we are living in exile from our land, wandering throughout the world, then the sign serves the exact opposite and even lowers the esteem of God in the eyes of the nation. Therefore, one might have thought that these commandments do not apply in exile. However, they do, so that they do not seem new to us when we return to Israel. (See also the introduction to Responsa Oneg Yom Tov)
My point here is that conjectural emendations are not a good idea. If even the Vilna Gaon could suggest an emendation that was later refuted, then none of us should even dare to venture into that territory. If you are examining texts, stick to the manuscripts of which we have now been blessed with a plethora.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Real Disengagement Dysfunction
From Haaretz (I'd link to an article on this in Arutz Sheva but I could not find one):
An immigrant from the United States who came to Israel a year ago set himself ablaze on Wednesday in the yard of Ulpan Etzion, a Hebrew language school for olim in the Bakaa neighborhood of Jerusalem.(via Chayyei Sarah)
...said he did it to protest Israel's withdrawal two weeks ago from the Gaza strip.
...came to the ulpan's entrance carrying a prayer book and wearing tefilin on his forehead and arm, doused himself in a flammable liquid and set himself aflame.
The guard on duty at the time put out the flames and called an ambulance.
The Religious Zionism Debate XII
R. Yehudah Levi, Facing Contemporary Challenges, pp. 17-18 (the book has approbations from R. Zalman Nehemiah Goldberg and R. Ovadiah Yosef). Note the lack of objections due to the Three Oaths:
We lack prophets who can interpret the ways of Providence for us. Nevertheless, whoever opens his eyes will see that the establishment of a Jewish state in the Holy Land is an event of historic proportions. Anyone denying this is only deceiving himself. Even regarding the British Mandate, Rabbi Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld, the great leader of the old Yishuv in Jerusalem, admonished:Where are the Torah-true Jews of the Diaspora? Do they not see here the finger of God.... Let us imagine a small cloud being seen after two thousand years without rain. Will not everyone say with great excitement: "Perhaps... perhaps after all?" Is the Mandate not at least such a cloud?He also regarded the building of the Land through settlements throughout the whole country as athchalta di-geulah (the beginning of the Redemption), despite the sorry state of Torah