| 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. |
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
God's Covenant with the Jews II
The current issue of First Things has an exchange of letters about Avery Cardinal Dulles' article about Jews and the covenant, discussed in this post.
As someone mentioned in a comment last week (how'd he get his copy so soon?), Alan Mittleman has a great letter and Dulles begins his response with "Alan Mittleman has rightly understood the intent of my article." Mittleman points out that "minimally, dialogue is about understanding the other as the other understands himself" -- an excellent point. And Dulles replies that he was trying to describe Jews as Catholics see them and not as they see themselves.
Some other letter-writers demanded that Dulles change the Catholic position and Michael Wyschogrod goes so far as to offensively (at least to me, and I'm not Catholic!) argue that Dulles is wrong about Christian theology.
Dulles seemed to have it right: I hold what I hold and I'm not letting another religion tell me what I should believe. But then, bizarrely, in the middle of his response he changes course. "Jews as well as Christians can no doubt revise their theological judgments and find new areas of commonality." No! We aren't changing our religion just because Christians don't like it and we don't expect you to change yours either.
Abortion V
According to this report, legislators in five states have proposed laws that would ban abortions permitted, perhaps mandated, by Jewish law according to many rabbinic authorities. These laws would prohibit abortions for women who will suffer severe but not life-threatening distress from childbirth (see this post).
This is just another reminder that the pro-life faction is not necessarily a friend of Orthodox Jews.
Festival of Freedom
I saw the following new book in Eichlers from the MeOtzar HaRav series: Festival of Freedom: Essays on Pesah and the Haggadah.
My sources tell me that it will be available at the SOY Seforim Sale. My copy is already on its way.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Grammatical Pedantry
Is there a Talmudic precedent for those pedantic people who insist on correcting everyone's grammar? What does the Jewish tradition have to say about such a practice? I'm glad you asked.
The Tosefta (Berakhos 5:18) discusses whether the person calling others to recite the zimmun introduction to the grace after meals should say "nevarekh" (we will bless) or "bar'khu" (you bless). The Tosefta states that regardless of which of the two is said, we do not correct him but the "nakdanin" correct him. Jastrow translates nakdanin as "cavillers," Soncino as "those who are punctilious," Artscroll as "the perfectionists," and Neusner as "people who are meticulous." In other words, the type of person who goes around correcting other people's grammar. Most people do not correct someone who says "you bless" but those sticklers do. Is that the correct thing to do?
It seems to be a dispute between the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds. The Babylonian Talmud (Berakhos 49b-50a) seems to rule like the cavillers, that one must say "nevarekh" (let us bless). The seeming legitimacy of imprecision in the Tosefta is abandoned for the proper grammar of the nakdanin.
The Jerusalem Talmud (Berakhos 7:3), however, tells the story of how R. Hiya bar Abba once corrected R. Ya'akov bar Aha and R. Ze'ira was very upset over this. The clear implication is that the nakdanin are wrong.
Various commentators try to explain this different attitude but I think the simplest explanation (which emerges from the Meiri's commentary) is that both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds agree that one should try to be grammatically correct. However, they also agree that one should not correct another for being incorrect. Thus, we accept the position of the nakdanin that the grammatically correct usage should be utilized but reject their attitude of correcting others.
Permission from the Woman of the House II
(following up on this old post)
I took a peek in R. Shlomo Riskin's new bentcher, Around the Family Table, and he added in a parenthetical request for permission from the woman of the house.
And, a commenter reported in the name of R. Hershel Schachter:
R' Schachter in a shailos and teshuvos this past shabbos felt that if it will make the ba'alas habayis feel better and/or she'll feel insulted otherwise so then u can say bi'reshut ha ba'alat ha'bayitWhile this is second-hand, and R. Schachter has in the past been grossly misrepresented from just such question and answer sessions (who remembers the women's ordination issue from around 1990?), this seems like a very plausible report. It's a pointless and mistaken practice, but don't cause a scene in someone's house.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Aristotle and the Jews
Did Aristotle meet a Jew who impressed and influenced him?
Louis H. Feldman, Jew & Gentile in the Ancient World, p. 5:
The first cultural contact between Greeks and Jews is said to have occurred in the fourth century BCE, when a learned Jew from Coele-Syria supposedly met Aristotle in Asia Minor. This meeting, which took place about 340 BCE, is reported by Clearchus of Soli (about 300 BCE), as quoted in Josephus (Against Apion I.176-83). The passage is extremely complimentary to the Jews, who are said to be descended from the philosophers of India. This particular Jew, we are told, not only spoke Greek but had the soul of a Greek. He had come to test Aristotle's learning but, in the end, it was he who imparted to Aristotle knowledge of his own. Clearchus marvel, in particular, at the astonishing endurance and sobriety displayed by this Jew in his way of life.
Lewy, however, cites cogent reasons for concluding that the Jew whom Aristotle met is a figment of Clearchus's imagination similar to those representatives of Oriental priestly wisdom who are often depicted as superior in wisdom to the great Greek philosophers... [T]he whole story appears to be imaginary and stereotyped, relayed secondhand through Clearchus of Soli...
In Aristotle's own writings (Meteorologica 2.359A) there is one reference to a bitter and salty lake in Palestine, presumably the Dead Sea, in which it is impossible to sink; but that he locates it not in Judaea but in Palestine, which in this period refers to the area along the Mediterranean coast, so called because it had been inhabited by the Philistines, would indicate that he derived his information secondhand.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
JIB Awards II
(Because the main competition has been campaigning heavily for votes, I'm bringing this post back up. Thanks for your votes.)
It seems Hirhurim made it through the first round of voting in all three categories in which we were nominated.
Please feel free to vote (once every three days):
- Best Overall Blog
- Best Jewish Religion Blog
- Best Series (The Religious Zionism Debate)
Thursday, January 26, 2006
The Names of God and Biblical Criticism
Exodus 6:2-3:
God also spoke to Moses and said to him: "I am the Lord. I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as Kel Shakkai, but by my name YKVK I did not make myself known to them.Literary biblical critics find in this passage evidence of multiple sources of the Pentateuch. After all, the name YKVK is found prior to this statement. It must have been, many argue, that in this particular source document the name YKVK was not used earlier. In other source documents, however, the name was.
(note that intentional minor changes were made to God's name in case some readers feel the need to say them out loud)
Dr. Meir Seidler of Bar Ilan University introduces readers to the non-traditional Jewish commentator Benno Jacob (1862-1945) and offers his philological defense of Rashi's (by definition, traditional) interpretation of this passage that removes any implication of multiple source documents.
The key, according to Rashi and Jacob, is the phrase "make myself known." This does not mean that God was not known by this name but, rather, that He did not act as YKVK. See here for more elaboration.
Learning History
Point to ponder, inspired by a post to a private e-mail list:
Why does our community (i.e. the Orthodox Jewish community), which prides itself on following an ancient tradition, fail almost entirely to teach Jewish history to its students?
Blogging Protocols II
(continued from here)
Readers come from very different backgrounds and will likely understand your words in different ways. It is a blogger's job to try to anticipate that and remove ambiguity and the possibility of misinterpretation (if that is what he wants). Significant and even damaging misunderstandings can result from a failure to do this. So far, I have a pretty bad record on it.
Recognize how your diverse readers will interpret your words based on their varying perspectives
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Cutting Down Fruit Trees
When I first moved to Brooklyn, there was a synagogue whose building had burned down and was temporarily -- for a few years -- located in a shack built in someone's yard. Because a fruit tree stood in the middle of the yard, the structure was built around it, with the tree in the building surrounded by wood so it could not be seen. The reason for this, I was told, was that because the tree was fruit-bearing it could not be removed due to a biblical prohibition (Deut. 20:19-20). However, was this necessary?
R. Ya'akov Kamenetsky as quoted in R. Ya'akov Jacob, Bi-Mehitzas Rabbenu (p. 223):
Our master ruled that it is permissible to cut down fruit trees "for the need of building" (regarding a new building of Yeshiva Beis David), based on the words of the Taz (Yoreh De'ah 116:6). Even after they told our master that the gentile worker was injured in his leg during the cutting, he still did not change his position and was only interested in whether the yeshivah had insurance for this.Perhaps, though, since the building for this synagogue was intended as temporary (even though it remained for a number of years), the conclusion might be different.
Vote Torah
No, this is not another post about the JIB awards. This is about voting in the WZO elections. Just do it. It's painless and helps support a number of Torah institutions, including the Torah Mi-Tziyon kollel with which my brother-in-law is associated.
This article explains it, and Menachem Butler has posted a letter from R. Aharon Lichtenstein about it also.
So just do it already.
Tenafly Eruv
Victory! From today's NY Times:
After five years of legal battles, the leaders of this Bergen County borough approved an agreement on Tuesday night that enables an eruv, a symbolic boundary for Orthodox Jews that allows them to do some work on the Sabbath, to remain in place.
The agreement, which the Borough Council approved by a vote of 5 to 0, with one abstention, reimburses the Tenafly Eruv Association for $325,000 in court costs.
Blessings and Television
One may not recite a blessing in front of an immodestly dressed woman (see here and here). Does this also apply to when one is in sight of a television screen with the picture on it of an immodestly dressed woman? For example, I was recently sitting at an airport gate in a seat that faced a TV that constantly played CNN, which has frequent images of women who are not dressed according to halakhic requirements. Could I recite a blessing on food or was I obligated to turn my back before reciting the blessing?
R. Shlomo Zalman Braun, in his She'arim Metzuyanim Ba-Halakhah (5:9), addresses this question. He points out that this is different from the case of "ervah ba-ashashis," immodesty behind glass (e.g. a naked person outside a window), because this is only the image of immodesty and not immodesty itself. "Ervah ba-ashashis" requires turning one's back, but perhaps the image does not. R. Braun continues to suggest various analogous cases and concludes that because an immodest image can cause one to have improper thoughts (hirhurim!), one must turn one's back.
I don't understand his conclusion. As he points out, we are dealing here with an image -- pixels on a screen -- and not an actual person. If it causes improper thoughts, then don't look at it. But if you aren't looking at it, and therefore it doesn't cause improper thoughts, why should you be obligated to turn your back in order to recite a blessing or learn Torah? I asked my rabbi, without leading him to any conclusion, and he said the same thing. Don't look at the screen and you can recite a blessing. Ask your rabbi.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox
Dr. Marc Shapiro recently published a short book titled "Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox" on the fascinating topic of how various figures in the Orthodox community related to Prof. Saul Lieberman after he joined the faculty of the (Conservative) Jewish Theological Seminary, eventually becoming the dean of its rabbinic school. Shapiro applies his characteristic encyclopedic bibliographic skills to this topic and presents an amazingly broad survey of letters, articles and books from that time that are relevant to this topic. The Hebrew section of this book contains letters (many published for the first time) to and from Prof. Lieberman that shed light on this topic, including Lieberman's harsh criticisms of the non-traditionalism of historian Solomon Zeitlin (formerly of Yeshiva University).
The book is full of interesting information and references, including a discussion of R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik's relationship with Prof. Lieberman and the allegedly proposed joint Conservative and Orthodox beis din, the incident in which R. Meshulam Roth refused to accept the Kook Prize together with Prof. Lieberman, R. Ovadiah Yosef's non-existent relationship with Lieberman, and the Jose Faur controversy (he taught in JTS and therefore was publicly blacklisted in the Syrian community). It also has some amazing references to citations of Conservative scholars in Orthodox literature, such as the many citations of Prof. Louis Ginzberg and a very interesting responsum from R. Eliezer Waldenberg that consists almost entirely of a letter from a prominent (right wing) Conservative rabbi (Shapiro suggests that R. Waldenberg did not know the denominational affiliation of this rabbi which, in truth, has been somewhat in flux for a long time).
Interestingly, four bloggers are mentioned in the book. This blog is quoted on p. 40 n. 153 in regard to the series of posts titled "Citation of Non-Orthodox Scholars." I believe this marks the first citation of Hirhurim in an academic publication. Menachem Butler, Dan Rabinowitz, and Steven I. Weiss are also quoted.
As is my custom, allow me to add a few comments:
1. On p. 3, Shapiro notes that Ibn Ezra quoted interpretations of Karaites. On this, see R. Menahem Kasher's Torah Shelemah vol. 8 (Shemos) addenda ch. 17 who suggests that they are later interpolations. I don't know enough about this subject to be able to evaluate this view.
2. Shapiro notes a number of times when Lieberman was called Reform and attributed that to the lack of knowledge in Israel about the American denominations. While I don't doubt that this is true, it is important to keep in mind that some might have used it to emphasize their belief that Conservative is equivalent to Reform as a deviation from tradition or might simply have intended it as an insult.
3. Shapiro found a number of the letters sent to Lieberman that address him in very complimentary terms. I suspect that some were written by people who always used those terms and would have had to consciously refrain from using them. That does not make the letters irrelevant, but requires a little more care in inferring from them. Additionally, some seem to have been written to him requesting favors. Who would intentionally refrain from using standard introductory compliments when asking for something?
4. Shapiro discusses the Jastrow talmudic dictionary, Marcus Jastrow having been aligned with the Conservative movement. However, I think Shapiro overestimates the dictionary's popularity. I think it is no longer as ubiquitous as it once was. Two interesting references on this: There was an anti-Jastrow article by R. Salomon Alter Halpern in the April 1970 Jewish Observer; R. Ya'akov Kamenetsky is quoted in Emes Le-Ya'akov on Shulhan Arukh (Yoreh De'ah 246 n. 121) as permitting the use of the Jastrow dictionary.
Narishkeit
This website defines "narishkeit" as follows (my copy of Leo Rosten is temporarily displaced due to minor construction):
Narishkeit: (nar-ish-kite) foolishness (a nar is a fool) "An artist, you want to be? Never mind this narishkeit! Better you should go to college and get a real job!"I mention this because I was thinking the other day that perhaps it comes from "na'ar", which is Hebrew for youth. In other words, youthful foolishness or nonsense.
Linguists, what say you?
Monday, January 23, 2006
Modern Orthodox Theology, or Lack Thereof
In an October 2003 article in First Things, Dr. Alan Mittleman reviews a pamphlet that was circulating at the time about the religious dangers that Ivy League colleges present to Orthodox students. In it, he presents a broad critique of the lack of intellectual production in the Modern Orthodox world:
A mood of fretfulness thus pervades the pamphlet. The tactics it advocates—emotionalism and disengagement—attest to a failure of intellectual nerve. There is a theological vacuum behind the anxiety. Although the authors gingerly suggest that the yeshiva high schools expose their students to “potentially troubling theories such as evolution and the Documentary Hypothesis,” they also recognize that the high schools might “lack the resources to successfully implement this proposition.” Better, then, for it to be dealt with by the intellectual and spiritual leaders of Modern Orthodoxy. They are the ones who ought to “articulate sophisticated responses to the complex questions” raised by contemporary Bible scholarship, Jewish Studies, and so forth. But who are these leaders today? Modern Orthodoxy has no one approaching the stature of its late leader, Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik. And does the posture of waiting for authorities to work out strategies really befit people who are products of the modern university? Should they not have learned to think for themselves, especially in an area touching intimately on the quality of their own faith?A few issues later, Rabbi Shalom Carmy responded:
There is a cautionary tale here about the neglect of theology. Modern Orthodoxy for too long has relied on sociology—familism, solidarity, youth groups, institutional loyalties—instead of intellectually sophisticated apologetics. It has written off the bolder elements of its own Hirschian legacy, let alone any ongoing engagement with modern philosophy, in favor of an increasingly otherworldly fundamentalism...
Perhaps American multiculturalism and postmodernism have blunted the urgency of the need. Perhaps the thunder on the Orthodox right has made adherents of Modern Orthodoxy nervous about the deep engagement with culture that good theology requires. Perhaps durable American optimism has persuaded them that you can have it all, contradictions be damned. Whatever the case, the result is the melancholy dilemma reflected in the “Parent’s Guide to Orthodox Assimilation on Campus”—eager participation in the American dream, accompanied by unsettling American nightmares.
By and large, young Orthodox students are not interested in articulating and defending their beliefs because, like their parents before them, they are preoccupied with their professional training and social lives. Rabbi Soloveitchik used to say that the besetting vice of the middle classes is complacency, and he definitely did not except the community that placed him on a pedestal...If I understand correctly, he is acknowledging the problem and saying that the fact that people are noticing it is a good sign.
Modern Orthodox spokesmen are rightly disturbed and embarrassed by the inadequacies reported in Prof. Mittleman’s article. A few decades ago that would not have been the case. Defection on the way to Americanization was common; vitiated practice and invincible vagueness about belief and conviction were not a cause for alarm but the best that could be achieved under unpropitious conditions. If we are disinclined to regard such debility with equanimity, that may be a tribute to the higher standard of commitment associated with the impact of a more strenuous Orthodoxy. From my perspective that is a good thing.
R. Asher Siev z"l
I received this via e-mail about R. Asher Siev (I, II), editor of the Responsa Rama, biographer of R. Moshe Isserles and longtime Yeshiva College professor:
We regret to inform you of the passing of our distinguished chaver, Rabbi Asher Siev of Teaneck, New Jersey.Here's an interesting story he once told me. He had asked R. Moshe Soloveitchik (d. 1941) whether he could wear a gold watch on Shabbos (in a place where there was no eruv). R. Soloveitchik responded that jewelery is for women, i.e. no. Years later, when the neighborhood had changed significantly, R. Siev asked R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik whether he could wear a gold watch in case he was mugged, so he would have something to give the thief. R. Soloveitchik responded in the affirmative.
The levaye took place on Sunday, January 22nd. Burial is today in Israel.
Shivah is being observed at 612 Maitland, Teaneck, New Jersey, from Wednesday, January 25th until Monday, January 30th.
I later realized that R. Moshe Soloveitchik's response, that jewelery is for women, was alluding to a ruling of R. Akiva Eiger (glosses to Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayim 303:18) on which I won't elaborate because he utilizes the concept of "mutav she-yihyu shogegin..." (it is better that people sin unwittingly than intentionally).
Vomiting in Halakhah IV
The following question arose in the comments to an earlier post, so I will begin with this true story (no names have been changed!) and proceed to the halakhic question and the answer:
I was taking the subway home and right before my stop to get off, a child vomited. I had my head in a Torah book but, well, you can't miss that sound. His mother was comforting and my stop was coming up in a few minutes. Was I obligated to stop learning (or switch cars, which is supposedly dangerous to do while the train is moving but everybody does it)? Why would I be obligated to stop learning?
The Torah prohibits learning or even thinking about Torah in an area where there is excrement. This is a matter of respect for the Torah. Extending this aspect of respect, the rabbis prohibited learning in the presence of urine as well. The Arukh Ha-Shulhan (Orah Hayim 76:21) writes that this extends to anything that is disgusting, such as vomit. Torah study (and prayer) should be done in clean areas as a matter of respect. However, the Mishnah Berurah (76:20) quotes R. Akiva Eiger (I couldn't find it, but I didn't look too hard) who explicitly states that this rule does not apply to vomit. So there I was, on a train with vomit, thinking about this dispute not knowing whether or not I was even allowed to be thinking about it. Then my stop came.
I later asked R. Mordechai Marcus, a local adam gadol, who told me to be lenient. While he is not generally known for being strict, I took this in the sense of R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik's general opposition to stringencies that prevent Torah study.
UPDATE: A reader e-mailed me, and I confirmed, that R. Hershel Schachter is of the view that one may not learn in the presence of vomit. He discusses it in this lecture on this week's Torah portion (from 2001, about 1 hour 7 minutes into the lecture).
Friday, January 20, 2006
Blogging Protocols
This is the first in a series of posts about common-sense blogging protocols that I am making up as I go along.
This applies to both positive and negative descriptions. Don't insult people unless you are so convinced that it is necessary and proper that you would say it to their faces. Also keep in mind the Talmudic dictum to only praise someone partially in their presence. In general, assume that whatever you are writing will be read by the people mentioned and imagine yourself saying it to them.
Don't write something about someone you would not say to his or her face.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Learning from Louis Jacobs
1. The Jacobs Affair
Before we get to lessons we can learn from the Jacobs Affair, I think many readers could use a summary of its events. Louis Jacobs is an 85-year old "Masorti" rabbi in England, recently voted to be the greatest British Jew ever. Back in 1957, however, he was a 37-year old graduate of the Manchester yeshiva and the Gateshead kollel. Widely acknowledged as a talmudic genius, arguably the greatest product ever of the English yeshiva system, his secular training and polished speaking ability made him the most likely candidate for the position of chief rabbi. 1957 was the year he published his lectures from a study group of congregants from his New West End Synagogue in London as a book titled We Have Reason to Believe. In the book, he made the case for a modified religious belief system that takes into account critical academic scholarship. A large part of the book is dedicated to his acceptance of multiple human authors of the Torah -- the Pentateuch -- and cultural and scientific errors in it. In 1960, Jacobs was appointed as an instructor at The Jews' College and the following year, upon retirement of the principal (dean) of the school, his name was submitted as a replacement -- widely understood as his next step towards the position of chief rabbi -- but he was vetoed by then-Chief Rabbi Israel Brodie for holding insufficiently Orthodox beliefs. Later, when Jacobs attempted to return to his pulpit at New West End Synagogue, the chief rabbi vetoed that as well. This was all very public and there was quite a furor over it. In the end, members of the New West End Synagogue formed a new independent synagogue, beyond the authority of the chief rabbi, and appointed Jacobs as their rabbi. He no longer goes under the title Orthodox and is essentially affiliated with the Conservative and Masorti movement(s). There is, of course, much more to this story. But this will have to suffice for now.
Jacobs has written and spoken a good deal about this episode and what it means. For our purposes, however, I would like to focus on a 9-page retrospective he wrote for the 2004 (fifth) edition of his controversial book, We Have Reason to Believe. In this relatively short piece, Jacobs exudes certain attitudes that I think can inform us (and particularly me) about a different "heresy" controversy that is taking place, and hopefully winding down, now.
Read more2. Crossing the Line
I found three themes particularly noteworthy in this retrospective. First, Jacobs entirely minimizes the extent of his departure from traditional Jewish belief. As we'll soon see, he acknowledges that his assertion about the authorship of the Torah is "untraditional" but does not concede that he has crossed any red lines. To him, it all seems to be either the straight, unwavering traditional belief or something else. In doing that, he is able to lump himself together with Orthodox thinkers who also deviate from traditional views but without crossing red lines.
Jacobs is not unaware of the rabbinic tradition. Not by far. He unquestionably knows (and acknowledges elsewhere) that his position "flies in the face of talmudic teaching, Maimonidean teaching, and contemporary rabbinic discussions," as Dr. Shnayer Leiman has described an equivalent position in another context (Shalom Carmy ed., Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah, pp. 184-185). Yet his retrospective implies total ignorance of this. He seems to be papering over the fact that he crossed a very significant red line. The issue is not that his belief is untraditional, but that it is contrary to one of the fundamental principles of Judaism as listed by Maimonides.
3. Dismissing Alternatives
In the retrospective, Jacobs responds specifically to a review of his book by Dr. Tamar Ross (whom Jacobs mistakenly calls Tamar Roth) of Bar Ilan University (published in Studies in Contemporary Judaism vol. 18 [Oxford University Press, 2002]). Ross asked why Jacobs had not pursued other, more traditional responses to biblical criticism and he answers this question. He briefly reviews the positions of Prof. David Weiss Halivni, R. Mordechai Breuer, and Dr. Shubert Spero. Jacobs gives each position very short shrift, inaccurately describing them and summarily dismissing them. Without discussing whether or not I think any of the three have also crossed over a red line, I find it at once very surprising and perfectly understandable that Jacobs barely even entertains their theories. There are problems with each theory, which can be dealt with in various ways perhaps successfully, but Jacobs does not even consider them sufficiently to identify those problems.
This is not too hard to understand. Someone who was tormented -- publicly humiliated -- and had his promising career ended because of a particular belief is going to be hard pressed to consider alternatives. (Even if this turns out to be a caricature and oversimplification of a complex personality, it is worthwhile to pursue this angle for our own moral needs.) Jacobs has a good deal "invested" in his analysis and it seems almost unreasonable to expect him to give alternatives a fair hearing.
But what we cannot expect from others, perhaps we must demand of ourselves. The pursuit of truth requires us to be always willing to reevaluate our stances. Let me be clear: I am not advocating an eternal state of uncertainty. However, outside of certain fundamental beliefs, one must be willing to consider the possibility, no matter how remote, of being mistaken and to listen open-minded, within reason, to alternatives. If we made a mistake, we must be willing to admit it.
4. Looking for Friends
It is quite peculiar that more than once Jacobs states that others within the Orthodox community secretly agree with him. On the one hand, I don't doubt it. On the other, it seems abundantly clear that he is far overstating that phenomenon. For example, his declaration that the current chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, agrees with him in some respects is entirely irrelevant. Sacks does not dispute a fundamental principle while Jacobs does.
This finding of friends with similar beliefs seems to me to be an entirely human way of handling the situation. While there was certainly a good deal of politics involved with the entire affair, it is incorrect to attribute it all to mere power struggles and personality conflicts. Jacobs is equating partial agreement with complete conformity and mistaking personal kindness with ideological harmony. It is natural to consider the voicing of sympathy to be agreement, but that is not at all necessarily the case.
5. L'Affaire Slifkin
I see all three things happening in the current Slifkin controversy. We -- meaning this writer but not necessarily only me -- have dug into our trenches. This is, of course, ironic because I really have no opinion on the age of the universe or evolution. I never particularly cared about it and am open to just leaving it as an open question. Are there other possible answers? Perhaps. But are we open to reevaluating our stances? And perhaps we are incorrect about what is and what is not a fundamental principle.
And finally, we have definitely been stretching to find friends. Many of the rabbis who support us do not agree with us but feel that we have not crossed over any red lines. In other words, they think we are wrong but not out of bounds. Let's be real about that.
Let me be clear, though. I am not backing down and I am not removing my support. I am only advocating a more thoughtful, but no less strong, position. It is still true that R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, R. David Tzvi Hoffmann, R. Avraham Yitzhak Kook, R. Yitzhak Herzog, and many other great scholars advocated and/or defended as viable the positions we have been discussing: the age of the universe, evolution, and the science of the Sages. But let us not mistake sympathy for agreement.
Rally for Tuition Relief
From the OU:
More info here.
Dear Friends,
The Jewish Education Community is urging your participation in a rally for tuition tax credits in Albany on February 14, 2006 as we join a wide coalition called TEACH NYS in this effort. The soaring costs of yeshiva and day school education have reached the crisis point, placing an enormous burden on families in our communities. This rally is intended to urge the New York State legislature to support and pass a tuition tax credit measure that will help families. We applaud the proposal just announced by NYS Governor George Pataki, as part of his new budget proposal, to create a state tax credit of educational instruction expenses. The importance of attending this rally is greater than ever.
We are urging synagogue, yeshiva, and day school parents to turn out in great numbers on February 14. Students in Grade 7 and up will also be participating. Synagogue and school groups wishing to have the opportunity to meet with elected officials after the rally can contact info@TEACHNYS.org for arrangements...
Please mobilize your membership to come to this rally - your participation will ensure the success of this important measure that is so vital to our community.
Stephen J. Savitsky, President
Rabbi Tzvi H. Weinreb, Executive Vice President
Elliot Gibber, Senior Vice President, OU
UPDATE: I received the following statement on the stationery of NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer:
STATEMENT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL ELIOT SPITZER REGARDING EDUCATION TAX CREDITS
Governor Pataki this week proposed education tax credits for lower- income families living in school districts with failing schools.
In response to a question from a reporter yesterday about providing government aid to non-public schools, I cautioned that state government must be careful when it devises such programs because of potential constitutional problems. These comments should not be construed to imply that I believe that there are such problems in Governor Pataki’s proposal, or that I am opposed to education tax credits.
In fact, I support the idea of education tax credits. Moreover, I have long advocated for finding constitutional ways to increase the assistance that the state provides to children in non-public schools. In 2002, I convened a task force that released a report outlining specific proposals to accomplish this goal.
I have not seen the details of Governor Pataki's proposal because they have not yet been released. It appears to offer tax credits to aid parents who seek to expand their childrens' school choice or to supplement their childrens' education via tutoring or after-school programs. That is a promising approach.
While most of the benefits provided by the Governor’s proposal would go to parents whose children are educated in the public schools, the state’s first obligation must be to achieve a resolution of the CFE litigation, and to provide the appropriate and necessary funding to the public schools.
I believe that increasing public school funding and providing financial relief to parents of all schoolchildren should be education priorities this year, and I look forward to being part of the discussion on both of these initiatives.
Media Snub
Another article on Jewish blogs that doesn't mention Hirhurim but does mention a female rabbinic student who has received approximately 10% of Hirhurim's number of votes in the JIB category of best religion blog.
Feel free to send feedback to feedback AT jta.org.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Torah Among the Gentiles II
(continued from here)
There is a spirited debate going on in the comments section to an earlier post about the use of Christian and Non-Orthodox Bible comments. Rather than offering my own thoughts, let me share with you what R. Chaim Navon and R. Amnon Bazak, ramim (senior Talmud instructors) at the Har Etzion Yeshiva, wrote on the subject.
R. Chaim Navon:
My friend, Rabbi Amnon Bazak, has raised two weighty arguments against this mode of thinking. Firstly, even people who lack all fear of God, and even gentiles, may have the capacity to propose meaningful interpretations of the Torah. God Himself testifies in the Torah: "For this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, who shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nations is a wise and understanding people" (Devarim 4:6). Rambam, in his introduction to chapter "Chelek," objects to a certain position, arguing that it contradicts reason, and will therefore not bring the gentiles to recognize the greatness of the Torah, but rather to scorn it. Hence, that position cannot possibly be correct. If gentiles have no understanding whatsoever when it comes to the Torah, why should we consider their opinions? We see then that we cannot simply reject what the gentiles have to say, without hearing them out and giving their words serious consideration. And furthermore, even if we categorically assume that gentiles are totally void of wisdom and understanding when it comes to understanding Scripture, how are we to relate to the problems that they raise? How are we to answer the questions that they ask? Rabbi Bazak argues that it is wrong to assume that a non-believer cannot suggest persuasive interpretations of the Torah; hence, he cannot be disregarded."R. Amnon Bazak's essay can be found here.
And, finally, R. Aharon Lichtenstein in Judaism's Encounter With Other Cultures: Rejection or Integration?, pp. 226-228:
Madda's elucidation of Torah is not confined, however, to minutiae. At its best, it affords not only information but insight. Our understanding of Tanakh may be enhanced by criticism as well as by philology; and that relates not just to phrases but to entire texts, events, epochs, and personalities. "Biblical criticism" is, of course, for us anathema; and, by and large, rightly so. If the term denotes, as to many it predominantly does, a school which denies the transcendental truth of Torah; if it signifies a fusion of heresy and blasphemy whose advocates alternately gut and grade kitvei ha-kodesh as they pass judgment upon Torah and the Ribbono Shel 'Olam--then, clearly, we shall have no truck with it. But there can be biblical criticism of a very different order--one which wholeheartedly accepts the integrity of Torah and, precisely for that reason, strives maximally to divine its message... From criticism geared to apprehending texts and contexts in their multiplanar complexity, the Torah world's reading of Scripture can profit considerably...[Let me give a shout-out to Jordan Hirsch and the band playing with him tonight, especially the leibedik drum player. Sorry I left without saying goodbye, but your were busy pretending that the Mazinka is an ancient Jewish custom. My wife was able to identify music from The Last of the Mohicans and Robin Hood. All I was able to identify was the soup as mushroom barley.]
Above all, criticism accentuates awareness of the human element. Toward its appreciation, a literary sensibility, trained to observe perceptively and to respond empathetically, its imagination honed to grasp a scene or a moment as the focus of complex interaction, its imagination honed to grasp a scene or a moment as the focus of complex interaction, is inestimable. Criticism sensitizes to both what is said and--what the Ramban so acutely perceived--unsaid...
The potential contribution of madda to our understanding of Torah is thus not merely technical or exegetical--important as that would be in its own right--but, in a broader and deeper sense, thoroughly substantive...
Gush Audio
I stumbled onto this: Podcasts from rabbis at Yeshivat Har Etzion. The latest podcasts can be found here.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Thirteen Principles Online Resources
I came across the following online resources regarding the thirteen priciples of faith:
The thirteen principles in Hebrew.
A rough translation of the thirteen principles.
Three of the four sections of Dr. Arthur Hyman's classic article Maimonides' Thirteen Principles
Solomon Schechter's essay The Dogmas of Judaism
R. Shmuel Yaakov Weinberg's book Fundamentals and Faith: Insights into the Rambam's 13 Principles, written by R. Mordechai Blumenfeld based on R. Weinberg's lectures.
R. Dovid Gottlieb (of Baltimore)'s lecture series on the thirteen principles.
Qualities of a Leader
R. Menachem Genack delivered today the following benediction at New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine's inauguration ceremony. I assume that it will soon be up on the OU website:
Glorified and sanctified be God’s great name throughout the world which He has created according to His will.
He sustains the living with kindness, and revives the dead with great mercy; He supports all who fall and heals the sick; He sets the captives free and keeps faith with those who sleep in the dust.Read more
Happy is the man who does not forget Him, who gains courage in Him. Those who seek Him shall never stumble, those who trust in Him shall never be disgraced, for He remembers and searches everyman’s deeds.
He crowns the kings, and dominion is His.
O Lord, protect and inspire this good, gifted and gracious man, Governor Jon S. Corzine. Endow him with courage, fortitude, wisdom, and crown him with humility and compassion.
In last week’s Torah portion, the conclusion of Genesis, Jacob remarkably, gives Kingship to Judah and not Joseph. While Joseph is perfect in every respect and suited for leadership by talent and experience, it is Judah, the ancestor of King David, upon whom the mantle of leadership falls. What we look for in a leader is not perfection, but the ability to admit a mistake, as does Judah, as does David. We look for a leader who is not isolated but engaged. We seek not perfection, but rather flexibility, humility and the ability to change course based on new realities in an ever-changing world drama.
May Governor Corzine, whose roots are in Illinois, Lincoln country, be enveloped with the spirit of Abraham Lincoln, who was resolute and flexible and supremely ambitious, but profoundly humble.
Governor Corzine, always be true to the high standards you have set for yourself and for us. “I desire to conduct the affairs of this administration,” Lincoln said, “that if in the end, when I lay down the reins of power, I have lost every friend on earth, I shall at least have one friend left, and that friend shall be down inside of me.”
May God bless Governor Corzine, and his new Administration, the people of New Jersey and this great enterprise for good – the United States of America.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Rabbinic Approbations
Does a book require a rabbinic approbation? R. Moshe Sofer, the famous Hasam Sofer (Responsa, Hoshen Mishpat no. 41) writes that the established custom is for author to publish a rabbinic approbation on every book, even on very old ones.
R. Hershel Schachter discusses this issue in his approbation to the first volume of R. Baruch Simon's Imrei Barukh (of which volume 2 has been recently published but which I have not yet obtained). After quoting the Hasam Sofer, he refers to the laws of demai. Demai is produce from which we are uncertain whether the required priestly and levitical portions have been removed. Food obtained from a haver is free of such uncertainty. In order to become a haver, which has implications to the laws of purity as well, one has to publicly and officially accept strict compliance to those laws. However, R. Schachter states, presumably referring to Bekhoros 30b, someone appointed to a respected position of teaching Torah need not go through such an official procedure. One can assume that he is trustworthy on such matters (cf. the glosses of R. Ya'akov Emden, ad loc.). Therefore, suggests R. Schachter, the same can be said of approbations. Someone who teaches and spreads Torah on a widespread basis can be assumed to be trustworthy and does not need an approbation.
Moving Books
1. This is a cute and handy little book that I bought as a teenager.
2. In Marc Shapiro's riddles from last week, the answer to the first question was the last Mishnah in Sotah. In regard to what part of our text is actually Mishnah and what is an addition, see R. Ya'akov Nahum Ha-Levy Epstein's Mavo Le-Nusah Ha-Mishnah, vol. 2 pp. 976-977.
3. I found my copy of Candide (and here), which I think should be required reading for anyone wishing to offer a religious reason for a tragedy.
4. R. Hillel Goldberg, Between Berlin and Slobodka, pp. 73-74:
Already within a year after his arrival Rabbi Hutner was delivering addresses in English. His appearance was modern: no East European, long black rabbinical caftan, and no beard... To all outward appearances--dress, language, easy camaraderie with American ways of thinking and the American street urchins who became some of his first students--he was the first American yeshiva dean.
The Lakewood Internet Ban
Dr. Marvin Schick on the Lakewood internet ban.
The money quote: "What the Lakewood schools have done needs to be challenged, lest what is toxic spreads."
His solution: "Technology to restrict what can be accessed has been developed. While apparently it is not totally effective, improvements are being made, and together with parental determination to establish firm rules regarding where computers are placed and how and when they can be used by children, we should be able to attain a comfort level regarding the availability of inappropriate material... Instead of following the well-trodden path of issuing bans, our rabbis and educators should deal with the obviously troubling consequences of Internet access by teaching and emphasizing how restraint and prudence can reduce and perhaps eliminate the potential harm to children."
And I'm sure he wasn't referring to Hirhurim when he wrote: "There is a gray zone occupied by bloggers..."
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Exodus Chapter 1c
(continued from here and here)
| 15 And the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah; 16 and he said: “When you do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, you shall look upon the birthstool: if it is a son, then you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live.” 17 But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the boys live. 18 And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them: “Why have you done this thing, and have let the boys live?” 19 And the midwives said to Pharaoh: “Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered before the midwife comes to them.” 20 And God dealt well with the midwives; and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty. 21 And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that He made them houses. 22 And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying: “Every son that is born you shall cast into the river, and every daughter you shall let live.” | טו ויאמר מלך מצרים, למילדת העברית, אשר שם האחת שפרה, ושם השנית פועה. טז ויאמר, בילדכן את-העבריות, וראיתן, על-האבנים: אם-בן הוא והמתן אתו, ואם-בת הוא וחיה. יז ותיראן המילדת, את-האלהים, ולא עשו, כאשר דבר אליהן מלך מצרים; ותחיין, את-הילדים. יח ויקרא מלך-מצרים, למילדת, ויאמר להן, מדוע עשיתן הדבר הזה; ותחיין, את-הילדים. יט ותאמרן המילדת אל-פרעה, כי לא כנשים המצרית העברית: כי-חיות הנה, בטרם תבוא אלהן המילדת וילדו. כ וייטב אלהים, למילדת; וירב העם ויעצמו, מאד. כא ויהי, כי-יראו המילדת את-האלהים; ויעש להם, בתים. כב ויצו פרעה, לכל-עמו לאמר: כל-הבן הילוד, היארה תשליכהו, וכל-הבת, תחיון. |
1:15–22 The Midwives
Failing to curtail the Israelite birthrate through hard labor, Pharaoh tries to actively kill Israelite newborns. Like the previous, this section has three stages. First Pharaoh talks to the midwives. Then the first phase of Pharaoh's plan is that the Israelite be killed by midwives and the second phase is that all newborn sons be thrown into the river (Hakham 17). This section parallels the prior in a number of ways. As in the previous two sections, this one also has a key word that is repeated seven times – midwives.
This section is structured as a chiasm as follows:
A: Pharaoh’s directive to the midwives (vv. 15-16)
B: The midwives’ fear of God (v. 17)
C: Pharaoh’s plan fails and God’s plan succeeds (vv. 18-20)
B’: The midwives’ fear of God (v. 21)
A’: Pharaoh’s command to all his people (v. 22)
(based on Wicke 101).
15 And the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives
Commentators debate whether these were Hebrew midwives or Egyptian midwives of the Hebrews (Leibowitz 31-38). If they were Egyptians, this parallels the previous section in which Egyptian taskmasters were given the job of persecuting the Israelites (Samet 164-165). It also explains why the text is surprised that these women feared God (Childs 16).
It is unlikely that there were only two midwives for the entire Israelite people. These two were probably the head midwives (Ibn Ezra).
the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah
Shiphrah is a Semitic name from the root meaning "to be beautiful." Puah is from Ugaritic and originally meant a fragrant blossom but came to mean "a girl" (Sarna). The non-Egyptian origins of these names lends support to the view that the midwives were Israelites (Jacob).
It is interesting to note that Pharaoh is here called “the king of Egypt” while the midwives are named, thus underscoring the irony in that the king of all Egypt rests his plan on lowly midwives (Fretheim 31-32). Mentioning only the two head midwives serves to emphasize this.
16 if it is a son, then you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live
There is a parallel here to Abraham's fear upon entering Egypt that "they will kill me, but they will let you live" (Gen. 12:12). His concern over a plan to murder the male and take the female was later fulfilled (Cassuto).
This plan of Pharaoh is on an individual level. He tells specific midwives how to deal with each child. Compare with v. 22 (Wicke 102).
17 But the midwives feared God
The word in Hebrew for fear is very similar to the word for seeing. Instead of seeing, the midwives feared (Cassuto). The name for God used here – Elokim – refers to an all-powerful God, in contrast to the highly limited king of Egypt (Hakham). On fear of God, cf. Gen. 20:11, 22:12. It is noteworthy that the Egyptian’s fear of the Israelites led to their failure while the midwives’ fear of God led to their success (Fretheim 31-32).
Pharaoh commanded, and presumably threatened, the midwives to follow his orders. The midwives, dedicated to the bearing of life, would naturally oppose this command. Neither of these concerns are mentioned by the text in order to emphasize the single overriding value in this episode – fear of God (Childs 17).
but let the boys live
They refrained from killing the boys. Cf. Num. 31:15 (Hakham).
18 And the king of Egypt called for the midwives
In v. 16, Pharaoh “spoke” to the midwives. Here he “called” for them. His anger was displayed in this more assertive tone (Hakham).
Why have you done this thing
The midwives did not technically act against the king, but rather they refrained from following his command (Cassuto). However, disobedience of a monarch is tantamount to rebellion.
19 And the midwives said to Pharaoh: “Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women
This answer to Pharaoh is a blatant and implausible lie yet Pharaoh was deceived by it, once again underscoring the irony of his desiring to “deal wisely with them” but in the end acting foolishly (Childs 17).
20 And the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty
Just like Pharaoh’s previous initial attempt to destroy the Israelites ended with them growing in number (v. 12), so does this plan (Samet 162).
21 He made them houses
Families (cf. v. 1), measure for measure. The midwives helped Israelite women have children and grow their families, so God rewarded them with families of their own (Cassuto). Alternatively, God protected them from retaliation by Pharaoh (Saadia, Rashbam).
22 And Pharaoh charged all his people
Pharaoh’s first command was to individuals – the midwives – and only later to the Egyptian people. This parallels the earlier effort which was initially given to individuals – the taskmasters – and only later to the entire people (Samet 162, Wicke 101-102).
Like the second part of the previous attempt to destroy the Israelites (v. 13), there is no indication given whether this second part of this effort succeeded. However, from the subsequent passage it seems that it did not (Samet 162).
Rabbi Kaduri -- Nothing to Fear
It seems the great kabbalist R. Yitzhak Kaduri has been having serious health problems lately. However, he has nothing to fear because the Lubavitcher Rebbe promised him that he would live to see the coming of mashi'ah. Arutz Sheva reported on September 14th of last year:
During a visit in 1990 with the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (of blessed memory), Rabbi Kaduri was told by the Rebbe that he would live to see the coming of the Mashiach.link
UPDATE: It seems that this post went over a lot of readers' heads. My point was simply not to take such predictions/prayers/blessings as absolute prophecy.
Jews and the Scopes Monkey Trial
Steven I. Weiss asks, "Were there Jewish responses to the Scopes Monkey trial?" Good question. Any of my readers know?
Saturday, January 14, 2006
The Day I Got Showered -- Almost II
I spoke with some cousins this Shabbos about hazing in schools and described the recent incident that sparked this discussion. Two cousins who are educators laughed at the suggestion that this is somehow unusual. One, who is a principal and used to be a rebbe (sorry, I can't give any more details), did not think that this is uncommon at all. Another, who currently teaches English to sixth graders in a Hassidic school in Boro Park, said that it is nothing compared to what he saw in his high school. Even the sixth graders he currently teaches frequently lock each other in lockers. He said that he discovered this when one day after recess a student was missing and he heard banging from the hall. He opened a locker and found a kid stuck in there. Sixth graders!
Again, I'm not saying that this is good. Far from it. I'm just saying that the school in question and its students are not somehow deviants from our communal norm.
Friday, January 13, 2006
S*x in Halakhah
Yes, this is the post you've all been waiting for. The post in which we have a frank discussion about... Read more
As someone correctly guessed in a comment to an earlier post, this post is about choosing the sex of a child. Is it halakhically permissible to choose the gender of your child in advance? Given today's technology, if you are using it due to need, it is possible to ensure that you are having either a boy or girl. Is this objectionable?
R. J. David Bleich, in his Judaism and Healing: Halakhic Perspective (2002 edition, ch. 22) makes a number of cogent points. First, it is clear that the Talmud offers on more than one occasion advice on how to conceive specifically a son, based on timing or behavior (cf. Nidah 70b-71b, Bava Basra 10b). If that is the case, there is clearly no objection to intentionally trying to orchestrate the conception of a child of a specific gender.
If that is the case, and no other laws are being violated, then presumably one would be allowed to preselect the gender of a child. R. Bleich is very emphatic that one is not obligated to do so. For example, a couple with a daughter is not obligated to ensure that they have a son next in order to fulfill the commandment to procreate that includes having at least one son and one daughter. (See also here and here)
However, R. Bleich states that society's allowing the preselection of gender "would undoubtedly lead to a sharp increase in the number of male births. This phenomenon would inherently lead to grave sociological repercussions." Therefore, as a matter of public policy, he opposes the practice.
Shooting the Breeze
I see that Israellycool interviews Jeremy Wimpfheimer, an old buddy of mine, in a new podcast. Consider this a shoutout and enjoy the interview.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Spontaneous Generation and NYC Water
As I mentioned in an earlier post, R. J. David Bleich has an article in the most recent issue of Tradition about the copepods in NYC water. As usual, he covers the topic with unbelievable depth, thoroughness and accuracy. His conclusion is that he is not yet convinced that there is sufficient infestation to be a problem but that if there is, then one must filter the copepods out of the water. On his way to that conclusion, he covers many interesting topics. One is, surprisingly, that of the spontaneous generation of insects.
As is well known, the Talmud (Shabbos 107b) states that lice may be killed on Shabbos because there is no prohibition to kill animals that are the product of spontaneous generation. As is also well known, scientists in the seventeenth century proved that spontaneous generation does not occur. In note 31, R. Bleich writes: "For an informative survey of the issues surrounding kinim see R. Nosson Slifkin, Mysterious Creatures (Jerusalem, 2003), pp. 191-204."
To reconcile or explain this contradiction, R. Bleich (ke-darko ba-kodesh) reviews all of the proposed views:
1. "Some scholars have taken the position that scientific reports based upon the clinical observations of researchers are unreliable"
2. There may be exceptions to the finding that spontaneous generation does not occur.
3. Lice today are not the same species discussed in the Talmud.
4. The Sages erred.
5. Reproduction that is subvisual is treated by halakhah as if it occured spontaneously.
6. There are more reasons to this ruling than spontaneous generation, which might very well have been incorrect.
R. Bleich himself sides with view #5, but I submit that it is correct to infer from both the reference in note 31 and the inclusion of the view in the list, that R. Bleich does not consider R. Nosson Slifkin's position on this subject to be beyond the pale.
Let me also add that R. Bleich does NOT include the reasoning offered by the Frumteens moderator (here):
So when Chazal say that lice do not reproduce but rather spring from sweat and dirt, they mean that lice do not impart into their eggs the same life-force that animals do, that their eggs have a Nefesh HaDomem, or partially a Nefesh HaDomem, and Halachicly their status is not that of eggs.
R. Yitzhak Herzog on the Sages and Science
You might recall that certain contemporary rabbis have said that it is no longer acceptable to follow the position of Rambam and his son, R. Avraham, regarding the Sages' knowledge of science. R. Yitzhak Herzog disagreed. Here is what he wrote in an essay that was published in his Judaism: Law & Ethics p. 152:
The attitude of the orthodox Jew towards the scientific matter embedded in this colossal mass of Jewish religious learning may be best summed up in the words of R. Abraham Maimuni, the great son of the greatest codifier of Jewish law and the foremost Jewish philosopher of the Middle Ages. "It does not at all follow," Abraham Maimuni declares in his classical introduction to the Haggadah, "that because we bow to the authority of the sages of the Talmud in all that appertains to the interpretation of the Torah in its principles and details, we must accept unquestionably all their dicta on scientific matters, such as medicine, physics and astronomy. We ought to be quite prepared to find that some of their statements coming within the purview of science are not borne out by the science of our times..." It is of importance to bear this in mind when we enter upon the study of science in the Talmud. The subject should be approached from the historic angle, and when it is thus approached, it will prove highly interesting.
Second Ave. Deli
I've heard a lot in the general media about the closing of Second Avenue Deli. I once had a Gentile colleague who wanted to take me there and decided to call up and find out whether the restaurant was sufficiently supervised for my standards. Not being Jewish, he just innocently asked whatever questions he had. "Would my Orthodox friend eat there?" They told him, "Let me put it to you this way, we're open on Saturday." In other words, no. So I never ate there. According to its entry in the Shamash Kosher Restaurant Database, the deli was under a Conservative supervision and was "sold" on Saturday to a Gentile.
This kind of arrangement is bizarrely mourned in this week's issue of The Forward:
The deli was also part of a disappearing culture, once prevalent in New York, of kosher restaurants that remained open on the Sabbath. Only a handful remain, as kosher authorities increase their stringency and a more casual clientele drifts away.Someone somewhere is probably going to show this as evidence of a "shift to the right" in Orthodoxy. Along with The Forward, they will fondly reminisce about how once upon a time you could violate Shabbos by buying kosher food that was cooked for you on Shabbos. Oh, those were the days, my friend.
A Bug Story II
I've received a good number of comments on my earlier post about the pre-washed romaine lettuce controversy, including many factual corrections. Additionally, I've seen an article in Kashrus Kurrents by the editor and an excellent article emanating from the OU (that I think might have been published in Hamodia). What follows is an attempt to accurately describe the situation.
I. Presumptions and Removing Them
It seems that there are three issues of contention regarding the Star-K's kosher supervision of pre-washed romaine lettuce. Everyone agrees that heads of romaine lettuce are infested with bugs and, because of this presumption of infestation, must be carefully checked before being eaten. However, a system was devised to wash the lettuce with a high-powered flood washer using a mixture of water and chlorine to remove the bugs. If this washing works, then the lettuce loses it presumption of infestation and can be eaten without any checking (a mashgi'ah supervisor checks three handfuls after the washing to ensure that they are bug-free and can establish the entire batch as bug-free). Just about all supervision agencies in the US had accepted the new washing system. However, questions have been raised about its effectiveness. The Star-K remains confident in the system, relying on its effectiveness in the past as attested by a few years' worth of records to that effect. Others -- particularly the OU -- contend that the washing system has been demonstrated to not be as effective as previously thought (or at least not consistently, depending on the level of infestation of the original batch). Therefore, according to this latter group, the romaine lettuce never loses its presumption of infestation and must be entirely checked before being eaten.
II. Non-Jewish Checking
The Star-K states that it relies on Non-Jewish checkers to find bugs or declare the vegetables bug-free. This has come under question since the Non-Jewish checkers generally do not have standing in testifying regarding ritual matters. While professionals may testify about their business practices if they will suffer from incorrect testimony, some supervision agencies do not apply this to our case because there is no question that the Non-Jewish checkers are satisfying the government's standards. Therefore, some agencies question whether Non-Jews may testify about standards above and beyond their regulatory requirements and industry standards. However, my information is that the Star-K uses this only as an additional, and halakhically unnecessary, layer of checking. Therefore, the Non-Jewish checkers' lack of legal standing in ritual matters is irrelevant. Nevertheless, R. Moshe Heinemann spent a good deal of time on this aspect of the supervision when he spoke at a recent conference about pre-washed vegetables.
III. The Meeting
Someone, I'm not sure who, convened a meeting in Brooklyn of rabbis about Star-K's lettuce supervision and showed them many bugs found in Fresh Express pre-washed romaine lettuce. Based on this, the rabbis signed a condemnation of all pre-washed romaine lettuce. This was repeated another two times (and videotaped), and one rabbi there who was certifying pre-washed romaine lettuce removed his supervision on the spot. After investigating this, the Star-K removed and retroactively revoked its supervision of Fresh Express pre-washed romaine lettuce. Additionally, due to the controversy, the Star-K dropped its supervision of pre-washed romaine lettuce from other producers despite its confidence in the washing process.
IV. Organizational Consensus
I have very sketchy information on this, but it seems that there was some sort of agreement about four years ago among the major kosher supervision organizations on standards of vegetable checking that are stricter than R. Heinemann's and R. Schachter's views. The consensus of posekim seemed to be strict, so the organizations agreed to proceed with strict standards. It is not clear why, but the Star-K did not follow the consensus agreed upon but, after the most recent scandal, has decided to conform to this agreement. Hence its decision to drop supervision of Dole and other pre-washed romaine lettuce.
This is what I've gathered so far. If you have any comments about this, please e-mail them to me with your name. Your confidentiality will be maintained. Thank you.
Riddles, Free Stuff and Public Service Announcements
1. See below for riddles and how to win free stuff
2. A reminder that you can vote in the JIB Awards every three days. Last time I checked, Hirhurim was winning handily in two of its three categories.
3. The big post about S** in Halakhah (my wife uncharacteristically checked my blog and then told me not to use that word) is coming up soon. The hint I can give as to its content is that it deals with choice.
4. RIDDLES AND FREE STUFF Read more
Dr. Marc Shapiro sent me the following:
The University of Scranton has just published my little book on Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox. Those who are interested in purchasing a copy (I think it costs $6) can contact me directly. There will also be many copies at the YU Seforim Sale. Students of Rav Soloveitchik will find the kuntres valuable in that I disprove the oft repeated story that in the 1950's the Rav supported a joint Beit Din with the Conservatives. This story is repeated everywhere, including by R. Rakefet and maybe even R. Lichtenstein, as fact.
Gil was nice enough to allow me to offer some free copies on his blog, to the first people who are able to solve any of the following three riddles.
1. Point to a part of a certain Mishnah which, without question, was written by someone who lived after R. Judah ha-Nasi (hint: cf. Deut. 34:5 and how this is interpreted by one opinion).
2. Give me a case whereby if someone commits a certain averah he is hayyav on a lav, and if he does another averhah of this very sort he is patur even retroactively for the first averah? (hint: I am not saying he hasn't committed any averah, just that he is patur for this specific lav.)
3. What two separate acts are forbidden according to the Shulhan Arukh (not the Rama), but if you do them at the same time, they are both permitted?
I will check the answers throughout the day. The last time we did this, one of the riddles was solved in a few hours, and the other took a day or two.
Marc Shapiro
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
R. Yitzhak Herzog on Taking Creation Non-Literally
The other day, Dr. Marc Shapiro directed me to R. Yitzhak Herzog's book Judaism: Law and Ethics. I found the following on taking Creation non-literally, which I suspect some (including the Toronto contingent) would consider heresy. Perhaps they can clarify whether they are prepared to state, less than fifty years after his passing, that R. Yitzhak Herzog held and taught heretical views. (Part of this excerpt is available online here)
Here is what the late Chief Rabbi and widely acknowledged Gadol had to say in his flowery English about taking the Creation narrative non-literally (p. 170):
The mysterious character which the Ma'asei Bereshit evidently bore, warrants the conclusion that the interpretations of the Pentateuchal account of the Creation included in that body of esoteric lore, was not of a literal nature. It may well be that questions affecting the relation between science and religion received due treatment in those two departments of esoteric learning. The method pursued by the Jewish teachers of the Middle Ages is exemplified in Maimonides' Guide. They did not, in the first place, accept as true everything taught by Greek science and metaphysics. Take, for instance, the doctrine of the eternity of matter taught by Aristotle. Maimonides rejects this, not because it conflicts with the letter of the Torah, but because he is not convinced of its truth. Were he absolutely convinced that Aristotle's position was immovable, he would reinterpret the words of the Torah accordingly, but as Aristotle could not really prove his case, Maimonides sees no reason for reinterpreting the Torah. When, again, our mediaeval thinkers felt that attempts at harmonisation were absolutely necessary, they did not hesitate to explain the words of the Torah in a manner deviating from the literal sense...Coming soon... Rav Herzog's position on the the Sages' knowledge of science.
I have hardly touched upon the border line of the subject, which, by the way, is only incidental to my present theme. But by way of a general remark I may say that it is well to bear in mind that already our ancient sages, to say nothing of our medieval theologians, would not seem to have insisted upon literalness in such transcendental matters as the account of the Creation.
(pp. 70-71)
The Taz and Shabsai Tzvi
Was the Taz, R. Davi Ha-Levi (1586-1667), a Sabbatean? Many -- including R. Ya'akov Sasportas and R. Ya'akov Emden -- relate the story of how in the summer of 1666, the Taz's son and son-in-law went to meet with Shabsai Tzvi, the false messiah, and investigate his claims. By all accounts, they were very impressed and returned to Poland with high praise for him. They also brought with them a "cure" for their elderly and ailing father/father-in-law.
Keep in mind that this was less than 20 years after the pogroms of 1648 (Tah ve-Tat) and there was a high messianic fervor in the air. Also note that the excesses of Shabsai Tzvi were not necessarily known to the Polish rabbis.
Nevertheless, while Gershom Scholem claims that the Taz was also a Sabbatean, R. Elijah J. Schochet, in his 1979 biography of the Taz, disputes this. He reviews all of the evidence and concludes (p. 23):
[T]here can be little doubt that Rabbi David's son and stepson were impressed with Shabbetai and convinced of the authenticity of his messianic visions. There is, however, no real evidence to back the claim that Rabbi David himself was a believer in Shabbetai Zevi.
Idolatrous Lubavitcher Messianist
The current "owner" of Heshy's House has started a new blog called Rebbe-YKVK our Righteous One. I wish this was a joke.
No, I don't think that he is representative of mainstream Habad.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
The Terrible Translation II
Continuing from this post, I found the following in R. Yitzhak Herzog's Judaism: Law & Ethics, pp. 200-202:
A certain Aggadah originally due to Bar-Kappara interprets in this connection Gen. 9:27 as predicting that the beauty of Japhet (the beautiful idiom of Hellas) would one day take up its abode in the tents of Shem... An old extra-Talmudic source -- Megillat Ta'anit -- strikes a somewhat different note. The eighth of Tebet, the day on which the Torah was translated into Greek, or rather on which the completion of the translation took place, in the reign of King Ptolemy is therein marked as a fast day: darkness came at that time upon the world for three day. Soferim 1:7 (35a) echoes the same sentiment in stating that the day on which the Torah was first rendered into Greek was as sad for Israel as that on which the golden calf was made, "because the Torah could not be adequately translated"...
Soferim, in fact, gives the impression of an attempt at harmonising conflicting traditions. Chapter 1:7, the passage just cited, speaks of a pre-Septuagint translation made for Ptolemy by five elders, while the paragraph immediately following refers, in terms practically identical with the Talmudic account to a second translation likewise written for Ptolemy by seventy-two elders...
The first impulse of the faithful watchmen of Zion would not improbably prompt them to an outburst of antagonism to so unprecedented a departure in the inner development of Jewish life. They would view with alarm the raising of a rival to the original text. Their apprehensions would be grounded upon a variety of considerations. Might not the Greek translation entirely supersede, in the course of time, the original Torah in those countries where the Greek language and Greek culture predominated?... Was it at all possible to produce a translation of the Torah that would fully represent the original? Was not the oral law indissoluble bound up with the Hebrew text, and would not the exclusive use of the Greek text by a considerable section of Jews lead to their alienation in spirit and practice from the oral Torah? What guarantee was there that the Greek version would not, in the process of time, suffer alteration and interpolation?
Side by side, however, with such forebodings and misgivings, justified in fact to a considerable extent by subsequent developments, a certain feeling would gradually assert itself which would take a pride in the fact that by means of the Septuagint the sublime truths of Judaism and the origins and early history of Israel had been made known to the outside world. The Mishnah asserts that the Torah was originally written not only in Hebrew, but in all the languages spoken at the time of the giving of the Law. Rabbi Simeon declares that the Torah was written in all languages to enable the contemporary nations to learn its contents. The sentiment underlying these assertions may very well have animated many a Palestinian teacher at a much earlier period and have brought about a certain modification of attitude with regard to the literary event "which happened under King Ptolemy."
Kashrus Alert II
Nosh Express, discussed in this post, is still under Kehillah Kashrus. I received a report that the problem that caused the Va'ad HaRabbanim of Flatbush to drop its supervision has been resolved (it had to do with potential bishul akum) but the VHF will not be continuing its supervision.
This does raise questions about supervision but since this was only a potential problem, and not a major one, I'll leave it at that.
Goyishe Zakh'n and Educating our Children
Interesting post at Joe Schick's blog. Suggestion to readers: focus less on the TV part and more about the different educational messages children receive.
(Goyishe Zakh'n means "Non-Jewish things")
Monday, January 09, 2006
The Terrible Translation
The Megillas Ta'anis explains that the eighth of Teves, which fell out on this past Sunday, was the day on which the Torah was originally translated into Greek and "darkness fell on the world for three days." This negative attitude to the Torah in Greek is hard to square with the Mishnah and Gemara in Megillah (8b-9b). The Mishnah and Gemara permit a Torah to be written in Greek. R. Hanina explains this permission with the following famous exegesis: "'May God make space for Japheth, and let him live in the tents of Shem' (Gen. 9:27) -- the beauty of Japeth will live in the tents of Shem." Clearly Greek is seen as a wonderful language and, if so, does this not contradict the negative attitude displayed in Megillas Ta'anis?
R. Gerald Blidstein, in his essay in Jacob Schacter ed. Judaism's Encounter with Other Cultures (p. 26), points out the following:
It is worth noting that the Sages did not take easily to the idea of translation, or more precisely, the reading from a translation as a written text in the synagogue in place of the original Hebrew. While the anonymous Mishnah does permit such translation into all languages, the point of R. Simeon ben Gamliel's allowance of Greek is to disallow translations into other languages. Similarly, both he and R. Judah use the term heter (permit) to describe the rabbinic policy even towards favored Greek -- hardly an enthusiastic endorsement; and this doubtless reflects hesitations about the use of translations rather than a negative stance towards Greek.See also here (Dr. Aryeh Reich of Bar Ilan), here (R. Berel Wein) and here (R. Eliyahu Kitov).
JIB Awards
The Jewish & Israeli Blog Awards have entered the initial voting round. This blog has been nominated in three categories. I humbly suggest that you vote as you see fit. Here are some links:
JIB Awards main page
Rules (note the following: "Readers may vote once in each poll group every three days")
The three categories in which Hirhurim has been nominated:
Jewish Religion - Group A
Best Series - Group A (The Religious Zionism Debate)
Best Overall Blog - Group A
The initial round of voting continues from today until January 19th. You can vote every three days within that time period.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Musings on Blogs II
(Musings on Blogs I is here)
Last night, I took part in AishDas' melaveh malkah event, that included bagels and a panel discussion on the topic of Simple Faith and Philosophical Knowledge. I was originally supposed to be on the panel but when we realized that there would be too many speeches, I was quick enough to get my name removed before anyone else did. R. Moshe Sokol spoke about the historical debate over whether philosophical knowledge is the only option. R. Yisroel Hirsch spoke about what the term emunah (belief or faith) means as opposed to how we use it colloquially. And R. Shalom Carmy spoke about the necessity of a firm faith underlying one's philosophical knowledge. The speeches and the following Q&A session were recorded and will hopefully be posted on the web soon.
Thinking about this event afterwards, and what I would have spoken about had there been time, got me thinking about the need to speak differently to different audiences. If you are taking an in-between position, as I would have and as Rabbi Carmy did, you need to emphasize different points to different audiences. To a group that is entirely simple faith, you might (if it is appropriate, of course) need to stress the value of philosophical knowledge. And to a group that consists of philosophically minded people, you might need to emphasize faith. Again, this depends on many details. You don't want to offend or to drive people away from Judaism. But in order to get your point across accurately, you have to recognize your audience.
The same goes for this blog. Astute readers will note many contradictions between different posts. There are two reasons for this. One is that I am simply human, and a poor example of one to boot. So I'm inconsistent. That's just how it is. The other reason is that I know that my readership is very heterogeneous, with vastly different backgrounds and outlooks. I cannot effectively get my point across in any single post because inevitably some readers will focus on one part but not the other. Which is more important: theory or practice, confidence or speculation, faith or confirmed knowledge, etc.? The short answer is: Yes.
My firm belief is that deep down we all need be a "Shtetl Yid", an old-school Jew from a small town. We have to approach the world with a firm and unwavering faith. We have to follow the rules, whether we understand them or not and whether we want to or not. We have to follow our own rabbis (whom we should choose wisely), even if we disagree with their conclusions. To me, home is a blatt (page) of Gemara. Anywhere else I may find myself is just a temporary digression.
Someone with that underlying foundation can face the world without sacrificing his Jewishness in thought or practice. Nothing is a problem to a man of faith. And an "I don't know" is OK but so is a speculative suggestion that solves the problem. Because there's nothing to fear.
So some posts will emphasize that while others will emphasize speculation and various options.
Translation Please
In checking links to this blog, I've found some people wondering what the caution at the top of the blog means:
Caution: This blog is la-halakhah ve-lo le-ma'aseh. Consult your rabbi before following any practices advocated here.It seems that some comment spammer has been posting it in various places (see here). That's nothing short of bizarre. But some blogs (e.g. I & II) wonder what it means.
It means that while this blog might have some discussion about Jewish law and might even occasionally reach some conclusions, these are not intended as practical advice and require further review by an expert.
Friday, January 06, 2006
Upcoming Post: Sex in Halakhah
In order to increase readership, I'm letting you know to expect a post next week about Sex in Halakhah. So stay tuned and let your friends know.
Read moreFULL DISCLOSURE: This is just a gimmick. The post will fit into that title, but not the way you think it will.
Teaching Torah to a Priest
There is an interesting letter in R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik's Community, Covenant and Commitment: Selected Letters and Communications, that was sent to a priest in Boston to explain the Jewish view of the mitzvah of pidyon ha-ben (redeeming the firstborn). The editor prefaced the letter with the following:
While the Rav vigorously rejected any interfaith dialogue on religious matters, he was not averse to explaining the Jewish point of view on various topics to those who requested information and insight.The letter is so long that it covers 10 pages of the book!
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Foreign Books
The famous Mishnah (Sanhedrin 90a) about who has no place in the World to Come quotes R. Akiva as saying: Also one who reads foreign books [has no place in the World to Come]. The Gemara (100b) explains that "foreign books" refers to books of the heretics. Rav Yosef adds that one is also not allowed to read from the book Ben Sira. After a long discussion of verses in Ben Sira -- that makes it quite clear that the Sages were very familiar with the book -- Rav Yosef concludes that one may teach from the good parts of the work (milei ma'alyasa de-is beih darshinan lehu).
R. Shnayer Leiman, in his The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture pp. 86-92, collected and analyzed all of the passages in rabbinic literature that discuss foreign books and in pp. 92-102 did the same to the passages that discuss Ben Sira. As he points out, Koheles Rabbah 12:12 explicitly permits reading Ben Sira on an occasional or non-intensive basis.
Do foreign books have the same status as Ben Sira? The Rif, and following him the Rosh, writes that one may not read from foreign books or Ben Sira, even the good passages. Thus, according to the Rif and the Rosh foreign books and Ben Sira seem to have the same status. However, the Pilpula Harifta (n. 7) points out that their position in general is difficult because it contradicts the explicit permission of the Gemara.
Historically, and this is an issue where the aharonim and historians agree, the reason for prohibiting reading foreign books and Ben Sira was that there were sectarians who were adding to the books of the Bible. This was a strong measure to guard the sanctity of the Biblical books. If that is the case, it makes sense that foreign books and Ben Sira have the same status. It also makes sense that later generations in the Talmudic era, after the danger to the Bible had passed, were more lenient on this issue.
The following are reasons to allow the study of foreign books:
1. The Meiri (Sanhedrin 90a) permits the study of heresy for the sake of le-havin u-le-horos -- to understand and to teach (or rule). R. Aharon Lichtenstein ("Torah and General Culture: Confluence and Conflict" in R. Jacob Schacter ed., Judaism's Encounter with Other Cultures: Rejection of Integration, p. 281ff.) attempts to extend this permission beyond what one might initially expect. Drs. David Berger and Lawrence Kaplan ("On Freedom of Inquiry in the Rambam--and Today" In The Torah U-Madda Journal, vol. 2 pp. 46-47) do likewise:
The assumption is that one understands the principles of the Torah and then uses these principles to judge what is acceptable or unacceptable in, say, a particular book or system of philosophy. The possibility that grappling with a particular book or system of philosophy may lead to a revised and deeper understanding of Torah principles to does enter into the picture [for the authors' disputant]. But precisely that possibility was a vital reality for the Rambam, and, we would argue, is the way we should understand the concept of lehavin u-lehorot today.2. The Rashbatz (Magen Avos 2:19) famously explained that his reason for personally studying philosophy and Christianity was in order to be able to respond to the critics of Judaism.
3. A more careful reading of the Rashbatz yields a very different reason. For this, I am indebted to R. Eliyahu Rahamim Zeini whose footnotes to his 2000 edition of Magen Avos proved illuminating (and very entertaining). R. Zeini deduces from a careful reading of the Rashbatz's words that we only entirely prohibit books that contain nothing of value. Books that have both good and bad are permissible to be read and, as the Rashba (Responsa 1:413) writes, reject the bad and accept the good (note that this very responsum is usually used to prove the exact opposite).
This can be deduced from the Gemara's words about Ben Sira. "Milei ma'alyasa de-is beih darshinan lehu." If foreign books have the same status as Ben Sira, then one may study foreign books and teach the good passages. I found an important posek who said this explicitly. In this post, I discussed the controversy over R. Yosef Zechariah Stern's citation from Moses Mendelssohn in a letter that was published in Sedei Hemed. In R. Stern's (among the leading Lithuanian rabbanim of his time) letter of defense that was published in the Pe'as Ha-Sadeh addenda to Sedei Hemed, he explicitly states that it is permissible to teach the good passages, applying the above Gemara regarding Ben Sira to foreign books.
The Day I Got Showered -- Almost
Since there seems to be a story crossing the blogosphere about an Orthodox high school in which a scared freshman was hazed, I'll share my own story. When I was a freshman in high school, it was not uncommon for upperclassmen to grab freshmen and throw them -- screaming and shouting -- into the locker room shower and soak them and their clothes. The freshman would then have to go to classes for the rest of the day in various stages of wetness and drying off. If you remember the awkwardness of being a high school freshman, especially for Jewish kids who are in a big school for the first time, that is quite tortuous.
Once, and only once, two seniors grabbed me, lifted me up and carried me horizontally, screaming, to the locker room. They took me in through the bathroom and as they were carrying me in -- still screaming -- another senior walked by and non-chalantly said, "Do you know whose brother that is?" My sister, at the time a senior, was quite popular, particularly among the type of guy who would throw a freshman into the shower. It was her popularity that saved me that day from getting showered (it also got me some free pizza every once in a while, but that's another story). Some of my classmates, though, were not fortunate enough to have a cool older sibling in the school and ended up wet.
I guess my point is, these things happen. You get over them and life goes on. I don't remember who the guys were who grabbed me, but I'd be willing to bet that they've matured and turned into productive members of the Jewish community.
UPDATE: To clarify, is it wrong? Of course! Does it represent bad midos? Without a doubt. Should whoever do it be punished, if possible? Certainly. Is it the worst thing in the world? No. Is it a condemnation of a school or a community? No. It happens in plenty of places. My father-in-law's famous black hat yeshivah had fistfights every day. Teenagers are rowdy, self-centered, obnoxious and often cruel. If it was in my power, I'd make it illegal to be a teenager. But until that time, that's life folks. Welcome to the real world.
Kashrus Alert
I called the Vaad HaRabbanim of Flatbush and confirmed the alert below. The restaurant technically also has supervision from Kehillah Kashrus but I suspect that it has been removed also.
FYI, I had dinner from there Monday.
Kashrus Alert
The following kashrus alert is from the Vaad Harabbanim of Flatbush on January 3, 2006.
Effective immediately the Vaad of Flatbush has terminated its hashgacha at Nosh Express Restaurant located at 2817 Nostrand Ave., Brooklyn, NY for kashrus reasons.
Rabbis on HODS II
I just received my copy of the Winter 2004 issue of Tradition (they're still behind but at least they're moving). It looks like a blockbuster, although I've barely had time to read it. R. J. David Bleich on copepods in NYC water; his son, R. Moshe Bleich (whom I recently had the pleasure of meeting), on the halakhos of class size; R. Hayyim Angel on Parshanut and more.
Dr. Joshua Kunin has an article on brain death in which he argues that statistics from the past 30 years indicate that brain death does not imply actual death. Studies show that even after brain death, there still remains physiologic function in the brain and patients have lived for extended periods of time. This, Dr. Kunin argues, undermines the medical facts assumed by those posekim who accepted the brain death criteria. Therefore, their decisions should be reversed.
A counterpoint was written by none other than R. Edward Reichman. He points out that the only issue under question by those posekim who accept the brain death criteria is that of breathing, and even these new studies show that ALL brain dead patients are incapable of independent breathing. The dispute among posekim is whether this is sufficient to render a person halakhically dead. However, the new studies do not undermine the medical assumptions underlying the rulings of those who accepted the brain death criteria.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Torah and Computers
A friendly librarian informed me of a new book titled Sefer Kol Ha-Omer Davar Be-Shem Omro: Be-Shas Bavli. It consists of an alphabetical list from the Babylonian Talmud where one person quotes another. I can imagine an historical purpose for this book but it certainly doesn't top the list of mose useful books ever written. Anyway, what is interesting about this book is one of its rabbinic approbations. My friend translates:
However, the novelty is intensified in that you have completed this entire endeavor without the counterfeit aid (siyu'a she-ein bo mamash) of machines that are being innovated constantly (ha-mitchadeshim la-bekarim), like the invention of the "computer" and the like. For anyone who touches one of them is touching the apple of the eye of the Torah! For the Torah cannot being acquired through the pressing of the finger on a button, rather through strenuous labor that literally brings one close to death! And I declare that the difference between the such labor and the workings of the computer is like the difference between machine matzah and hand-made matzah, and those who understand will comprehend (veha-meiven yavin).I hear what he is saying about the value of struggling to learn Torah. But what difference does it make to the reader how the book was researched? And what does he have against machine-made matzah?
Bargaining Ethics
Rabbi Dr. Asher Meir, author of The Jewish Ethicist column, gives high praise to Rabbi Aaron Levine's new book Moral Issues of the Marketplace in Jewish Law in his most recent column:I have been asked this question many times, and I have always had difficulty formulating a convincing response. However, I am going to present here a fascinating analysis of the question by Rabbi Dr. Aaron Levine of Yeshiva University. Rabbi Levine's insights have been frequently quoted on this site. His new book Moral Issues of the Marketplace in Jewish Law includes an extensive section on the important yet neglected topic of negotiation ethics. In my opinion, this chapter is an important contribution not only to Jewish ethics but also to the entire business ethics literature.(See full column here)
My Hanukah Pet Peeve
Here's what I hate about Hanukah:
The incessant articles and lectures about the ideological battle between Judaism and Greek philosophy that totally ignore the vast extant Greek literature.
Instead of making sweeping statements about the Greeks, how about acknowledging that they were not a monolithic group and intelligently discussing which Greek philosophies we fought against? Most of us have, at some point, been exposed to Greek thought, whether by taking Philosophy 101, reading Plato's The Republic, studying Moreh Nevukhim or otherwise. The Greek philosophers did not have one single approach to life. How about addressing that? Did the Hellenists at the time of Hanukah espouse any of these philosophies? Were they Stoics, Epicureans, etc. (see here)? Were the Hasmoneans fighting against every Greek ideology or just one (or some)?
It boggles my mind that someone can publish an entire book about the struggle between the Jews and the Greeks relying entirely on rabbinic descriptions of the Greeks and not once mentioning that we know a good deal about them from their own literature. I mean, come on! I learned some of this stuff in ninth grade.
Every time I hear someone say "The Greeks believed..." I immediately think "Which Greeks?" I'm surprised that even intelligent and well-read rabbis do this.
Monday, January 02, 2006
The History of Medicine and Halakhah
In case you missed it in this post, let me bring to your attention an article by Rabbi Dr. Edward Reichman titled "Impact of Medical History on Medical Halachah" (PDF). You might call him Rabbi Slifkin without the frum apologetics (and with medical training). I've only met him in person once, but something tells me that he'll appreciate that description. I'll add that when I mentioned his name to some roshei yeshivah, they responded very positively.
Here are some other essays and lectures of him that are online:
- YU Torah (including The Torah U-Madda Journal)
- End of Life and Sanctity of Life
- Review of Mysterious Creatures (PDF)
- Cloning, Between Panacea and Pandora's Box
- Aish.com article about him
- Google him
Aaron Chorin Rabbiner
Aaron Chorin, the (in)famous rabbinic defender of early Reform, was known in Orthodox circles as Acher, an acronym for Aaron Chorin Rabbiner and a clear reference to Elisha ben Avuya, the Tanna who left Jewish observance. Two online biographies of him can be found here and here.
I came across this interesting piece of information:
In circles close to the moderate reform movement, a very remarkable and undoubtedly authentic tradition had it that Aron Chorin, the first pioneer of reformed Jewry in Hungary was in his youth a member of the Sabbatian group in Prague.Source: Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, p. 304
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Yohanan the High Priest
We say in the "Al Ha-Nissim" addition to prayers that the lead player in the Hanukah story was Matisyahu ben Yohanan the High Priest. The question is whether this Yohanan, Matisyahu's father, was the famous Yohanan the High Priest or not. It is not entirely clear whether the term High Priest is going on Yohanan or Matisyahu. And even if it is going on Yohanan, it is unclear whether he is the Yohanan the High Priest mentioned in the Talmud, who served for 80 years and became a Sadducee at the end of his life.
There are three positions on the identity of the famous Yohanan the High Priest:
1. The Rambam (Introduction to Commentary to the Mishnah) and Roke'ah (Hilkhos Hanukah) are of the view that he was the son of Matisyahu, of Hanukah fame, evidently named after his own grandfather.
2. Sefer Yuhasin (1:16) and Seder Ha-Doros (2:Yohanan Kohen Gadol) state that Yohanan the High Priest was Matisyahu's father and is the one mentioned in the "Al Ha-Nissim."
3. Later scholars, including Doros Ha-Rishonim (part 2 p. 442) and Toledos Tanna'im Ve-Amora'im (vol. 2 p. 688), are of the view that Yohanan the High Priest was the grandson of Matisyahu and the son of Shimon.
R. Matis Kantor, in his THe Jewish Time Line Encyclopedia, has an interesting appendix on this subject.
Rabbis on HODS
Great new issue of Jewish Action. My copy actually got destroyed in an unfortunate breakfast table incident that is best left undescribed. But wouldn't you know it? Someone brought about a dozen copies to shul to give out that were leftover from his organization. Hasdei Hashem!
Interesting letter from my old friend R. Mordechai Torczyner:
An ad placed in the most recent edition of Jewish Action by the Halachic Organ Donor Society listed me among the rabbis who hold its organ donor card. I do indeed carry version 2 of the HODS card, but when ordering the card I had stipulated that my name not be used for any publicity materials. (The difference between the versions concerns the halachic definition of death.)Certainly an admirable position and I had actually wondered about his being in the ad.
I made this request of HODS because I am disturbed by the idea of having rank-and-file rabbanim inveigh publicly on halachic issues of the greatest magnitude. Yoreh yoreh semichah certifies that a rabbi has achieved a certain maturity in his learning and in his ability to teach, but it does not confer posek status on the bearer, certainly not for matters of life and death.
Rabbi Mordechai Torczyner
Allentown, Pennsylvania
(I'm sure that HODS just made an innocent mistake.)
The Bible in English II
Following up on this post, Richard John Neuhaus responded to it on the First Things website. I'll let him have the last word (except for pointing out that he missed one of my only two points -- read the paragraph starting with "It seems to me" in my original post.)
