Hirhurim - Musings

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.

Sunday, April 30, 2006

Gray Matter volume 1

Now available online, the original volume of Gray Matter. Buy it alone or along with volume 2: link

Friday, April 28, 2006

Death by Television

There was a terrible tragedy this week in which a young child was killed when a television fell on her (link). I know that someone, somewhere is going to say that this is what happens when you watch television. I'd only ask that this person also consider the tragedies that have resulted from bedikas chametz and metzitzah be-feh before using this story as a proof against watching TV.

Study Proves The Obvious

The experts are now saying that Orthodox Jews are growing as a percentage of the total Jewish population and are more Jewishly engaged than their non-Orthodox counterparts. Shocking, I know. But the next step of logic blows the mind: Therefore, these so-called experts say, "Orthodoxy will become a larger and more influential force in coming decades." Who could have seen that coming?

(link)

Shaving Today

Mishnah Berurah 493:5:

Even for those who follow the prohibition [against shaving and taking a haircut] also prior to Rosh Chodesh Iyar, nevertheless if Rosh Chodesh Iyar falls on Shabbos, since there is the additional joy of Shabbos and Rosh Chodesh, we can allow haircuts on Friday because of respect for Shabbos. One may even get married on that day, since the main meal will be on Shabbos and Rosh Chodesh.

(hat tip)

Thursday, April 27, 2006

Don't Ask On A Derush

R. Ya'akov Kamenetsky, Emes Le-Ya'akov al ha-Torah, p. 186 n. 20:

The rule that "We do not ask questions on a derush" is not due to the unimportance of derush in relation to peshat. Rather, peshat is an explanation of the verse itself and therefore one can challenge it. However, the intent of a derush is only to present an idea or an innovation from himself and only to attach it to a verse. If you refute [the connection] from this verse, he will attach it to another. Therefore, it is not appropriate to challenge it. Quite the opposite; the main point of the idea or the innovation is like the "it seems to me" of the Rishonim, that one cannot dispute because it comes from the strength of the Da'as Torah of the innovator and not from the text itself.

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Intelligent Debate About Intelligent Design

The past few issues of the Catholic periodical First Things has had a spirited and intelligent debate about the theological and scientific merits (or lack thereof) of Intelligent Design and evolution. I can't recall the last time I've seen any sort of intelligent debate on that subject in Orthodox Jewish periodicals. Why is that?

Do we have nothing to discuss on that subject? I don't think so. Perhaps people have already chosen their sides and have nothing more to say to each other on the subject. I doubt it. Frankly, I doubt that most Orthodox Jews, even the intellecutals, really understand what Intelligent Design is all about. For that matter, neither the Torah case for nor against evolution has ever been fully fleshed out in English.

Is it, perhaps, that we have divided ourselves into camps, so that anyone who would read a particular periodical that contains such a debate is already on one side of it? That could be true.

Or perhaps many of us are too scared to publicly voice our opinion on the matter.

I don't know why this is the case but, in the end, the silence is deafening.

Gedolim Biographies

These books look very interesting! Biographies of great non-Charedi Torah personalities. Ken yirbu.

(click on the images to go to their websites)

(before anyone feels the need to comment, of course I know that Rav Goren was highly controversial)

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Pollard in Prison

In last week's letters section of The Jewish Week (link), Shlomo Z. Mostofsky wrote to the editor:

A few years ago I visited Pollard at his prison. Despite what has been written, he takes full responsibility for his actions. He recounted that in one prison he was in, he was placed naked in a terminal AIDS ward. Each month, he told us, someone would come from Washington and show him a list of Jewish leaders in the U.S. He was told that if he checked off the names of those who were spies for the State of Israel his conditions in the prison would improve.

I found this shocking. So I checked the web to see if any prisoner rights organizations have taken up Pollard's cause. I couldn't find anything. I searched the ACLU website for this, but did not find any mention of Jonathan Pollard. Then I checked Pollard's website. There were lots of mentions of this alleged inhumane treatment -- in Springfield, where he was held from March 1987 until June 1988 -- but they were almost all after the year 2000. From the 1990s, there were very few mentions of this. This one, from 1993, says the following (link):

For almost a year, he was imprisoned in a ward for the criminally insane. The first month there he was kept stripped naked.

And this one, also from 1993 (link):

Before coming to Marion, Jonathan spent a year in a hospital for the criminally insane in Springfield, Mo. Most of his stay there, he was kept naked in freezing temperatures.

In other words, there do not seem to have been any allegations about this type of mistreatment until 5 years after the fact. Look at the articles on Pollard's website from the time period during which the mistreatment is supposed to have occured (link). I can't seem to find any mention of this mistreatment. Not even by R. Meir Kahane or R. Ahron Soloveichik.

From the people I know who have advocated for Pollard after meeting him, they have all simply taken his word on various matters of treatment without putting in any effort to verify it. Does the above simply mean that Pollard was put in the mental ward of a prison for a short time? That isn't necessarily nefarious. Maybe he was experiencing suicidal tendencies. Maybe he wasn't even in the mental ward but just in a prison that had a mental ward. Has anyone checked this stuff out? Was any complaint filed at the time? If so, there should be a public record of it. Where is the public record of him complaining about being left naked in a terminal AIDS ward? Most importantly, has anyone with any expertise on prisoner treatment in the US said that Pollard's treatment is unusual? Has any legitimate prisoner advocacy group condemned his treatment? All we seem to hear are claims of abuse that grow more extreme and stretch credulity as time passes. I mean, this guy was a high profile inmate, with articles about his plight being regularly published in the media. Would the department of prisons violate such a prisoner's constitutional rights so flagrantly? And if so, why didn't any in the media mention this until half a decade later?

It seems to me that rabbis and communal activists should look for outside verification of Pollard's claims before accepting them.

Blessing on a King

There is a special blessing recited upon seeing a king: "she-nasan mi-khvodo li-vsar va-dam". Is that recited upon seeing the president of a democratically elected government?

The Mishnah Berurah (224:12) writes that one recites the blessing over a ruler who is not a king but does not have a king over him and can have someone executed. One would think that since a president cannot have someone executed, he does not merit a blessing. However, many recent posekim have ruled that if he can pardon a criminal then he is considered to have life-and-death powers and merits a blessing. These include R. Ovadiah Yosef (Yechaveh Da'as 2:28), the Minchas Elazar (5:7), and R. Shlomo Zalman Braun (She'arim Metzuyanim Ba-Halakhah 60:6).

The reason offered for reciting this blessing is that the respect given to a king today will pale in comparison to the respect given to the king mashi'ach. Therefore, one should make an effort to see a king and the respect accorded to him and recite the blessing, so the contrast in the future era will be fully recognized.

Based on this reason, the posekim above add that the blessing only applies to a ruler who wears special royal clothes and travels with a retinue. Wearing a regular civilian suit and traveling with bodyguards does not count. Therefore, most presidents today do not qualify for the blessing.

Monday, April 24, 2006

Personal Needs on Shabbos

Why don't Ashkenazim recite "ve-hu rachum" (Ps. 78:38) before the Ma'ariv service on Friday night, like we do on all other nights?

The Gemara (Berakhos 21a) states that the reason that most of the Amidah prayer – 12 of the 19 blessings – is not recited on Shabbos is that the sages did not want to trouble us due to the honor of Shabbos. However, the Midrash Tanchuma (Vayera, 1) offers a different explanation:

One finds the 18 [originally 18, but later expanded to 19] blessings that one prays every day and are not entirely for the praise of God – only the first three and the last three, while the twelve in the middle are for man's needs. That is why we do not recite them on Shabbos. If one has someone sick, one mentions him in the blessing of rofei cholei amo Yisrael (who heals the sick of His nation Israel) and is troubled. However, Shabbos is given for holiness, joy and rest and not for pain. Therefore, one prays the first three blessings, the last three blessings, and the blessing for menuchah (rest) in the middle.

This midrash is quoted by the Or'chos Chaim (Seder Tefillas Shacharis Shabbos, 6) and the Kol Bo (37), while a similar explanation is given in Siddur Rashi (515), Sefer Ha-Pardes (p. 316), Shibbolei Ha-Leket (125), and Machazor Vitri (1:140), and by the Rambam in a responsum in Pe'er Ha-Dor (130).

(Then why does the leader say a mi she-beirakh prayer for the sick after the Torah reading on Shabbos? The author of the Shulchan Aruch discusses this in a responsum [Avkas Rochel, 12] and explains that we are not praying for the sick but simply stating our desire that God heal them in the merit of the mitzvah in which we are engaged.)

The Maharam Mintz (Responsa, 87) adds that the paragraph Elokai netzor that we recite after the Amidah is not an actual prayer, about which one might ask why we say it on Shabbos, but a confession.

I was always taught that the custom of the Vilna Gaon was to not recite any of the "ha-rachaman"s after Bentching (the grace after meals) because they are also prayers for personal needs. However, the Siddur Eizor Eliyahu records the Vilna Gaon's practice as reciting some of the initial "ha-rachaman" that, evidently, he did not consider to be prayers for personal needs.

For this same reason as above, the Rokei'ach (49) writes that we do not recite "ve-hu rachum" before the Ma'ariv service on Friday night. It is a request for personal forgiveness that is not appropriate for the joyous atmosphere of Shabbos.

Saturday, April 22, 2006

Bigdeh Shesh on Open Access

Open Access has another upload! Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer has graciously allowed Yashar's Open Access Project to provide for free the entire text of his recently published collected writings. Please take this exciting opportunity to spread Torah by making your friends aware of this download.

The Open Access book is available for free download at http://yasharbooks.com/Open/#current.

A hardcover copy of the book can be purchased at http://www.lulu.com/reuven.

Rabbi Bechhofer's blog can be found here.

Friday, April 21, 2006

Archaeology and the Wilderness Stay

Why is there no archaeological evidence of the Jews living in the desert for 40 years? James K. Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai, pp. 150-153:

One might logically think that tents would leave little or no trace in the terrain of Sinai and Kadesh-Barnea, and we would not expect nomadic peoples who only occupy a particular spot for a short period of time to leave tangible evidence of their presence. In fact there has been a rather energetic debate about this matter in recent years. Of special interest to the current study is the question of whether nomads are discernible in the archaeological record. Finkelstein and Perevolotsky, who were engaged in considerable survey work in the Negev and Sinai, argue for only negligible evidence, if any, which is true not only of ancient desert dwellers but even of nineteenth-century Bedouin, whose traces are "difficult to identify." They further observe that "nomadic societies do not establish permanent houses, and the constant migration permits them to move only minimal belongings. Moreover, their limited resources do not facilitate the creation of a flourishing material culture that could leave rich archaeological finds." They acknowledge, however, that nomadic people do leave such evidence of their presence as cemeteries, desert kites (for hunting), cult places, and rock drawings. But for the most part, they speak of the "nomadic lifestyle" as "archaeologically 'invisible,'" one that does not leave an "archaeological footprint"...

Curiously, when it comes to the Israelites in Sinai, Finkelstein [in his book The Bible Unearthed] is adamant that "some archaeological traces of their generation-long wandering in the Sinai should be apparent"...

Although these considerations [to the contrary] must be borne in mind, I find Finkelstein's argument regarding the problem of detecting nomadic peoples in the archaeological record to be quite plausible and think it may explain why there is no clear evidence for the presence of the Israelites in Sinai. In a new monograph on tents in the Bible and the ancient Near East, Michael Homan came to the same conclusion as did Finkelstein and Perevolotsky, that "tents by their nature leave
very little for the archaeological record"...

Additionally, people traveling in the Near East used skins rather than pottery vessels to transport liquids. Pottery is heavy, and thus not very useful for people traveling in the desert...

The point of the foregoing discussion on tents and skin canteens is that such objects would not leave their mark on the archaeological record in Sinai or anywhere else. Stone and ceramic vessels would have been used on a limited basis by travelers like the Israelites. So it is not surprising that no clear archaeological evidence for the Israelites in Sinai has been found. To expect otherwise is unrealistic.

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Oats

From R. Chaim Jachter, Gray Matter volume 1, p. 239 n. 1:

Some question exists regarding the identification of the Gemara’s “shibolet shu’al” as oats. Rav Yosef Efrati (Mesorah 13:66-71) notes Professor Yehudah Felix’s claim that shibolet shu’al could not possibly be oats, and Rav Efrati vigorously disputes this claim. He cites Rav Yosef Shalom Eliashiv as supporting the view that shibolet shu’al is undoubtedly oats (the view accepted by almost all Rishonim). Ezra Frazer reports that Rav Aharon Lichtenstein does not flatly reject Professor Felix’s claims, but he believes that one should continue to treat oats as shibolet shu’al, absent absolute proof that shibolet shu’al is something else. Rav Hershel Schachter has told this author that in case of great need one may use oat matzah at the Pesach seder. In general, Rav Schachter wrote this author that one should try to eat other mezonot foods together with oat products to avoid any doubt regarding the berachot before and after oats.

Monday, April 17, 2006

Chumras Ha-Pesach

There is a concept, quoted in the name of the Arizal, that any stringent custom on Pesach is to be praised because of "chumras ha-Pesach". That the Torah and the Sages treated Pesach very strictly is obvious. The same seems to have continued throughout the ages, including the custom of refraining from eating kitniyos. But this idea goes farther, and seems to approve any stringent practice.

I've seen this applied by Chassidic halachic scholars (e.g. the Shulchan Aruch Ha-Rav and Minchas Elazar) but not by non-Chassidic posekim. Is anyone aware of non-Chassidic scholars utilizing this idea from the Arizal in practice?

Sunday, April 16, 2006

Gedolim Album 2

I looked through my son's afikomen present, the second Gedolim album. Among those it includes are Rabbi Reisman from Long Island, R. Feivel Cohen, R. Chaim Dov Keller, R. Shlomo Miller, R. Shmuel Kamenetsky, R. Yosef Schneerson (the previous Lubavitcher Rebbe), a bunch of Sefardim, lots of Chassidic rebbes, but not ~~R. Yosef Eliyahu Henkin,~~ R. Yosef Soloveitchik (the American one), R. David Lifschitz, R. Hershel Schachter (the posek ha-dor)~~, R. Yisrael Belsky~~ or the last Lubavitcher Rebbe, R. Menachem Schneerson z"l. And certainly not Rav Kook, Rav Herzog or R. Shaul Yisraeli.

You know, when most of us see Rav Elyashiv called the "posek ha-dor," we kind of grin and know that it is just exaggeration and PR. But he is the only one labeled as such in this album and the only one being called by that title anywhere. I'm wondering whether kids and gullible adults are eventually going to assume it is true when it gets repeated enough times. Someone should put a stop to it. There is no one worthy of that title but, if anyone should get it, it should be R. Zalman Nechemiah Goldberg, who would certainly refuse the title out of modesty.

UPDATE: I made two mistakes. Both R. Yisrael Belsky and R. Yosef Eliyahu Henkin are in the first Gedolim album.

Rav Soloveitchik as a Posek

Not long after R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik passed away, I think it was within a few weeks, there was a big gathering in Lamport Auditorium at Yeshiva University where R. Norman Lamm, R. Hayim Soloveitchik and R. Isadore Twersky eulogized their teacher, father and father-in-law, respectively. I was there in Belfer Commons, watching what must have been a video feed (standing next to a now-convicted pedophile who was sobbing uncontrollably throughout the whole event). On the dais were various rabbinic figures, albeit very few from the "Yeshiva World" due to a reported but unconfirmed unofficial boycott of all things Soloveitchik. The only exceptions were Rabbis David and Reuven Feinstein, who were generally considered exempt from this alleged boycott due to being cousins of Rav Soloveitchik. Anyway, back to the event. I distinctly recall that Dr. Lamm, in his eulogy, referred to Rav Soloveitchik as the preeminent posek in America. A friend of mine said that he was sure that, at that point, Rabbis Reuven and David Feinstein gave each other "looks". Was Rav Soloveitchik really such a big posek or was his primacy, compared to his colleagues, as a teacher? (There is no question that Rav Soloveitchik saw himself primarily as a teacher.)

This issue was recently resurrected in Jewish Action. In the latest issue, R. Hillel Goldberg disagrees with an earlier article in which R. Simcha Krauss objected to claims that Rav Soloveitchik was not really a posek for Orthodoxy. Let me be clear: I like R. Goldberg and take anything he writes seriously. But in this case, I find the debate to be a bit meaningless and, regardless, think he is wrong.

R. Goldberg lists seven reasons why he thinks R. Krauss is wrong. Let me list them and respond to each one:

1. Rav Soloveitchik had little influence on certain segments of Orthodoxy.

No posek has influence on every segment of Orthodoxy. All agree that R. Moshe Feinstein was a great posek. But he was largely ignored, and at times outrightly opposed, by certain groups. The same goes for R. Ya'akov Kamenetsky, R. Yoel Teitelbaum and R. Aharon Kotler. I challenge anyone to name a posek who had influence across the board in Orthodoxy. There is no one like that.

2. Rav Soloveitchik left few publishable responsa.

Rendering halakhic rulings is not necessarily an exercise in writing. How many written responsa did R. Ya'akov Kamenetsky leave? For that matter, is not R. Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor the greatest proof? He was unquestionably the leading European posek of his time yet he left very few responsa.

The simple truth is that on thousands of occasions, Rav Soloveitchik was asked questions and rendered halakhic rulings. For hundreds of rabbis, Rav Soloveitchik was the highest halakhic figure and they regularly called him or visited him in person.

When I was a teenager, just about every halakhic discussion began with "The Rav holds..." My teachers, principal and rabbi were almost all students of Rav Soloveitchik and his rulings were considered final on all issues.

3. Rav Soloveitchik kept an important responsum private.

Big deal. He rendered an important communal decision but kept his involvement private. In the end, he was the one who made the final halakhic decision.

4. Most of his writings were only published posthumously.

See above, number 2.

5. Rav Soloveitchik was only active as a posek in his earlier years.

My understanding is that throughout the fifties, sixties, seventies and early eighties, Rav Soloveitchik's students and colleagues would constantly bring him their most difficult halakhic questions. These questioners were, generally, leaders of many parts of the Orthodox community.

6. Rav Soloveitchik was not a confident, unwavering individual.

Let me relate a story that R. Yaakov Klass told me about a week ago that he heard directly from the rabbi involved. Decades ago, R. Philip H. Singer was faced with the following dilemma. A church in his neighborhood wanted to have a memorial ceremony for the holocaust in its hall (and not its sanctuary) and invited R. Singer to come as a representative of the Jewish community. R. Singer was uncomfortable attending a church and decided to ask Rav Soloveitchik how to handle the situation, fairly certain that Rav Soloveitchik would instruct him not to attend. Rav Soloveitchik told him that he had to go, out of a sense of hakaras ha-tov (gratitude) to the Catholic Church. Not only did Rav Soloveitchik insist that R. Singer attend, but the day after the event, R. Soloveitchik called him and asked: "Singer, did you go?" Does this sound like someone whom R. Goldberg describes as lacking "sustained, consistent certitude and leadership as a posek"?

Here's another episode, from R. Avi Weiss' Women at Prayer, p. 112 n. 39:

For this writer, the distinction between public policy and a binding halakhic opinion became clear in a related discussion I had with Rav Soloveitchik concerning the carrying of the Sefer Torah by women through the ezrat nashim (women's section). In conversation with the Rav I asked whether he felt this was prohibited. I remember the Rav's response with great clarity: "Don't do it."

There is much more to say about that conversation (see here), but the point is that Rav Soloveitchik was unequivocal in his (nuanced) stance and made his opposition crystal clear, objections by those who wish it were otherwise notwithstanding (see here).

7. Making Rav Soloveitchik into the perfect human being makes it impossible for other rabbis to strive to reach his level.

He was what he was. No one is claiming that he was perfect but he was great. Our job is to be as great as we can be. When I get to heaven, I'm not going to be asked why I wasn't as great as Rav Soloveitchik. I'll be asked why I wasn't as great as I could have been.

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Have a Kosher and Happy Passover

In the current issue of Jewish Action, I am used as a source (without attribution) regarding a Pesach matter. Who can figure out what it is? (Hint: The information I provided was originally on an e-mail list that is still archived online.)

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

RJJ Journal

The new issue of the Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society (RJJ Journal) is out and it starts off with a short but powerful article by the prominent posek R. Feivel Cohen. He writes about dating. His main point is that it is a mitzvah to get married and people should approach dating with the same zerizus (zealousness) with which one approaches any other mitzvah. One should not postpone dates because it is "busy season" at work or one is planning a trip. He also touches on the importance of marrying even after the child-bearing years and of being realistic in expectations and dating someone within one's age range.

The issue has more interesting articles but, most interesting of all, is the new website for the journal that continues supplementary material and the full and expanded text of certain articles: RJJJournal.com

Kudos to David Shabtai (co-author of an article in the current issue) for developing this website (with permission from the editor).

Man and Beast

I am pleased to announce the publication of a new book by Rabbi Natan Slifkin, Man and Beast.

Man and Beast presents a comprehensive Jewish perspective on our relationship with the animal kingdom. From the blessings to be recited when visiting the zoo, to understanding what exactly sets us apart from animals, to the issues involved in keeping pets - an entire framework is presented.

"Rabbi Natan Slifkin's new book, Man and Beast, offers a comprehensive view of Judaism's attitude and concern towards the animal world. It is skillfully researched and it is a thoroughly enjoyable read on a subject that otherwise could be considered arcane. There is great information and wonderful insights provided into the worldview of Judaism and its relationship to the other creatures that inhabit God's world with us humans."

- Rabbi Berel Wein

"Man and Beast is a fascinating and important work. It presents an aspect of Judaism that many of us do not even realize exists - its comprehensive principles and laws regarding our interactions with the natural world, in this case, specifically the animal world. Rabbi Natan Slifkin, the world-renowned "Zoo Rabbi," has accomplished amazing things in his seminal works on these topics. This new book of his will doubtless be treasured by educators and anyone seeking to enhance their understanding of the Torah's view of man's interaction with his fellow-inhabitor of this planet, the animal kingdom."

- Rabbi Chaim Malinowitz

The book is currently available in Israel at Judaica Book Centre, Rechov Even Yisrael 5 in Jerusalem city center. It will certainly be distributed wider in Israel. The book is in transit to the US and will not be available until the end of May or early June. In the meantime, we are taking advance orders at the Yashar website. Although I encourage you to shop at your local Judaica store and support merchants in your community, particularly those who are willing to sell Rabbi Slifkin's books.

Monday, April 10, 2006

Chad Gadya

I asked Mar Gavriel whether the proper pronunciation of the refrain in the Chad Gadya poem is "de-zabbin abba" or "di-zvan abba". I've seen it both ways but the majority of printed texts seem to favor the latter.

He responded that "de-zabbin abba" means "that my father sold" and "di-zvan abba" means "that my father bought". The most common translation of this phrase is that this is talking about the goat that the father bought, so "di-zvan abba" seems to be grammaticall correct. Although the phrase could really mean that the father sold the goat.

Mar Gavriel seems to recall that Heinrich Guggenheimer, in his book The Scholars' Haggadah, argues that the original author was confused with Aramaic grammar and incorrectly wrote "de-zabbin abba", and later editors corrected it to "di-zvan abba".

Monkeys Say Dayenu

This is a pretty funny story (link):

Monkeys Say ‘Dayenu!’
It’s that time of year again at the zoo: when the monkeys get fat and lazy thanks to Orthodox Jews.

Security has been tight this week at the Central Park Zoo, with ticket takers, staff, and guards on the lookout for suspicious packages of cookies, pretzels, hot-dog buns, and pound cake. Observant Jews have till Wednesday to clear their houses of hametz (leavened products) before Passover, and every year many of them take their castoffs to the zoo. Baffled zoo staff note that the snow monkeys are the main beneficiaries of the pre-holiday pig-out, apparently because the polar bear’s glass wall is too high and the sea lions would only be interested if offered gefilte fish. “If a big group comes in carrying bags, admission is going to notice,” says zoo spokesperson Kate McIntyre...

Sunday, April 09, 2006

Off the Path

I've been meaning to blog about the book Off the Derech but have just not found the time to write my thoughts out fully. So let me do it partially. First, the book is daring in that it is written by an insider but still subjects our community to scrutiny and criticism. Second, the author took the time to interview many subjects who experienced the phenomenon she was investigating. Additionally, the author tries to be constructive and propose solutions. It is not just a long list of complaints.

On the other hand, I had trouble digesting the book because I did not know what it was. Is it an investigation of why kids go off the path of Orthodoxy? Is it a guide on how to stem the tide? Is it for parents, for communal leaders, for those who have left out community? I just did not understand the author's goal and that made it difficult for me to understand large sections of the book. As a parent, I was most focused on what I can do to prevent my children from leaving the fold. In that respect, I found the book disappointing. A clear message that I received was, "Don't bother." Unless you are a perfect parent in every aspect, you have a real risk. There was one story about a father who would send his daughter upstairs if, when he returned from synagogue on Shabbos, she had not yet prayed. That's so terrible? I'm sure I've done much worse. And then, even if you are the perfect parent, it doesn't matter unless your children have perfect teachers. Teachers, of course, have to be caring enough but not intrusive, challenging but not too difficult, rewarding but not punishing,... If I were a teacher, after reading this book I'd look for another job because it is impossible to be perfect.

I'm not a sociologist, but it seems to me that the author's research is simply not methodologically sound. Basically, she interviewed a lot of "experts," a lot of people who left the fold, and conducted an internet survey. The "experts" are, well, not necessarily the most objective observers. They have plenty of biases that should be obvious so I won't bother pointing out here. Except for one, which relates to an early chapter in which the author makes the claim that the problem of youth leaving the fold today is at an epic proportion, never before seen in our community. Balderdash. That is just hyperbole and historical revisionism. It's not the author's fault, because she was told that by "experts," but she is to blame for taking their comments uncritically. Additionally, there is a definition problem. Who, precisely, has gone "off the derech"? Is it someone Chassidic who becomes Modern Orthodox? What about someone Modern Orthodox who becomes Yeshivish? The author was certainly aware of this difficulty but I do not believe she resolved it satisfactorily.

There is just too much "fluffy" divrei Torah in the book to be taken as a serious study. This flows into the next issue.

The book reads as a manifesto for a certain stream of Judaism, what I call Left Wing Charedi. Now, the author might not have realized it. She could very well think that what she is advocating is "Torah True" Judaism with which everyone Orthodox agrees, or should agree. That is not true. There are ideological differences within the Orthodox community and this book touches on many of those issues, arguing that certain positions on these crucial issues are what cause kids to leave the fold. Aside from not winning any friends, it is somewhat of a pointless exercise to make that argument. Those who already agree will nod their heads and those who do not will say that she simply doesn't understand or that this is not sufficient reason to change their position. The statistics in this book may or may not be accurate. We have no way of knowing.

The problems identified in this book are not new. Quite the opposite. Most of the book reads like Shabbos table talk that I've heard for years. I found little insight in the book, although a lot of good stories and some quotes that were excellent (and others that made me cringe).

A friend once told me that when writing on a topic, you must be either first or right. This book is important in that it is the first on this subject. Let's hope that the next book gets it right.

Friday, April 07, 2006

Qinoa

R. Yaakov Menken posts about Qinoa and asks if anyone knows of rabbinic positions on the subject (link). I have in my possession (but cannot share it right now) a responsum by R. Yisrael Belsky in which he rules that Qinoa and similar products (e.g. Amaranth) have the status of kitniyos and may not be eaten by Ashkenazim on Passover. I have just confirmed that R. Hershel Schachter disagrees and permits these products.

I have been informed that that the OU's policy is past years has been that since Qinoa is shipped next to wheat and other chometz products, one would need to check each individual kernel carefully to make certain that there was no stray wheat kernels among the quinoa.

Thursday, April 06, 2006

Where'd You Put The Shampoo

When I was newly married and a recent arrival to Brooklyn, someone in my synagogue asked what I do on Passover about a certain product. I quietly confided in him that my rabbe'im followed lenient views and I do not observe all of the stringencies mention in R. Avraham Blumenkrantz's The Laws of Pesach: A Digest. The gentleman laughed and said that everyone is more lenient thant the book. Yet, I often find certain items missing in my home during the holiday. By now, I know not to ask. My wife, evidently, thinks I'm crazy when I tell her that we do not have to sell our shampoo to a Gentile for Pesach. The only book she can check is Rabbi Blumenkrantz's and he clearly states that one must sell such items.

I'm too tired right now to explain the sugya of achsheveih and what my rebbe explained in that long shi'ur he gave when we learned Pesachim, and how he copied for us the responsum of the Or Samei'ach and -- this is so uncharacteristic that it is shocking -- disagreed with the Or Samei'ach's conclusion (in short: it's only achsheveih if you eat it).

Rabbi Blumenkrantz, in the 1997 edition of his book it is at the beginning of chapter 10, rules based on an extraordinary stringency of R. Moshe Feinstein that all cosmetics and toiletries that contain chametz must be sold or otherwise disposed of before Pesach.

This year, I bought the Star-K's Passover Directory and I have so far found it to be excellent. It is graphically pleasing to the eye, lacking of the miscellany that make Rabbi Blumenkrantz's guide hard to follow (a discussion of sha'atnez in a Passover guide?), and seems to follow mainstream halakhah. The articles seem to be on the Star-K website but nothing beats having a book in your hands, especially when you are trying to convince your wife about something. This is what the guide says about cosmetics:

L’halacha, all non-food items not fit for canine consumption (nifsal mayachilas kelev) may be used on Pesach. This includes all cosmetics, soaps, ointments, and creams. Nonetheless, people have acted stringently with regard to these items.

There are several reasons why people are strict...

The list provides accurate information for those who wish to continue to follow the stricter opinion and prevailing custom when using such products.

Similarly, the Chicago Rabbinical Council has on their website (link):

All varieties of body soaps, shampoos and stick deodorants are permitted for use on Pesach regardless of its ingredients.

All types of ointments, creams, nail polish, hand lotions, eye shadow, eyeliner, mascara, blush, foot and face powders, ink or paint may be used regardless of its ingredients.

Colognes, perfumes, hairspray, shaving lotions and deodorants that have denatured alcohol (listed as SD, SDA, [or with a number or letter i.e. SD29C or SD40], SD Alcohol, Alcohol, Denatured Alcohol or Ethyl Alcohol) cannot be used on Pesach unless they appear on a reliable list. This only applies to products in a pure liquid state.

Lipstick, toothpaste and mouthwash that contain chometz should not be used.

So the people in this article have different opinions on which to rely.

(AS ALWAYS, ASK YOUR RABBI BEFORE FOLLOWING ANYTHING YOU SEE ON THE INTERNET)

Gray Matter 2 Reviewed

The Jewish Standard reviews R. Chaim Jachter's Gray Matter volume II: link

"[A] surprisingly accessible discourse on difficult contemporary issues from the viewpoint of halacha (Jewish law)."

UPDATE: Let me add that it makes an excellent bar mitzvah gift.

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

The Conspiracies of Israeli Politics

I tend to stay away from voicing a position on Israeli politics. This is partly because I don't live in Israel but also because I know that unless I take the position farthest to the right I will be attacked as being foolish and gullible. Israeli politics is rife with conspiracy theories. Things are never as they seem, partly because "we" know the truth and no one is capable of reaching a different conclusion. Additionally, these conspiracy theories are frequently joined with an unearned confidence that permits people to denigrate anyone who disagrees. You can see it on the Israel blogs but, oddly, it is even stronger in person. Just suggest that the Disengagement was about security and get ready to have your intelligence insulted. Of course, some readers will say that this is because anyone who would make such a suggestion is a moron. Case in point. Just today I received an e-mail about an old post decrying those who create a conspiracy theory around Baruch Goldstein's mass murder. Of course, I was accused of refusing to look at the facts.

The current issue of Jewish Action has a symposium on the Disengagement and the future of Religious Zionism. One of the questions posed to participants is what prompted the Disengagement. Here are the answers to this question -- notably lacking in arrogance, which is a testimony to the high caliber of participants:

1. Peter Abelow: The Disengagement was all about breaking up Religious Zionism. Here is a great quote: "Unfortunately, the successful execution of the expulsion plan is a strong indication that many of the official institutions of the State of Israel are 'anti-Jewish.'"

2. R. Yedidya Atlas: "Clearly, the disengagement/expulsion plan was not prompted by security considerations... [T]he 'Sharon Plan' was introduced to divert attention from corruption charges..."

3. R. Yuval Cherlow: "[T]he truth, I am sorry to say, is simpler: A large part of the public would like to remove the subject of security from the agenda."

4. Michael Freund: No opinion on this issue

5. R. Moshe Grylak: It couldn't be security. Maybe Sharon's legal problems. But, "The more the facts are revealed, the clearer it becomes that two main social factors combined to cause Sharon's dramatic turnabout: deeply-rooted hatred toward the settlers on the part of secular Israeli society and the Jewish identity crisis suffered by the latter."

6. R. Simcha Krauss: "[I]t was seen as one way of dealing with the major problem facing Israel, that of war and peace, of sheer physical security."

Out of the five participants who directly answered why the Disengagement came about, only two -- one of whom only recently made aliyah -- think that it was about security. The other three dismiss security and prefer abstract theories.

Maybe they're right. Maybe there really is this huge conspiracy and Ariel Sharon (remember -- the former spokesman for the Israeli Right who dedicated his entire life to what he believed was best for the future of Israel despite political costs) sold out Gaza.

Israeli politics is insane.

Cardinals and Crossing Lines

R. Yitzchok Adlerstein's post today about Chovevei Torah hosting Cardinals in its beis midrash seems to be generating some controversy. Let me direct readers to my posts about this issue when it happened, under different circumstances, at Yeshiva University.

Cardinal in the Beis Midrash I, II
Interfaith Dialogue III (less relevant: I, II, IV, V, VI)

As to the incident at Chovevei Torah, I just don't know enough about what went on, or the goal of the event, to have any sort of intelligent opinion on the subject.

Rav Soloveitchik's Zionism

The Adar 5766 issue of Alei Etzion (online here) has an article by R. Aharon Lichtenstein (really, an article based on a 2002 lecture he gave) on his father-in-law Rav Soloveitchik's approach to Zionism. R. Lichtenstein lists the following issues that define Rav Soloveitchik's Zionism:

1. Activism

During my research for my (JIB award-winning) series of posts on the Religious Zionism Controversy, I sent a question to a number of scholars about how to read a particular source. One of these scholars, R. Nati Helfgot, responded that, ultimately, the issue goes beyond any particular source and is really about, among other things, quietism versus activism in history. I think this is a particularly astute observation. Do we wait for God to redeem us or do we work for it ourselves?

On this, R. Lichtenstein argues that Rav Soloveitchik was a believer in human activism in a broad realm of initiatives. "The Rav had no patience for philosophies that glorified passivity and reliance on miracles" (p. 27).

2. Nationalism

Rav Soloveitchik was not a nationalist in the 19th century philosophical sense. However, he assigned importance to national, or -- perhaps better -- communal in the broadest sense, enterprises. He did not see religion on a purely individualistic level.

3. The Significance of a State

In Rav Soloveitchik's eulogy for his uncle, he makes it clear that he sees the State of Israel as falling into an halakhic category. It is not, in his view of the halakhah, merely the equivalent of a secular sovereignty.

4. The Land of Israel

Rav Soloveitchik expressed a strong emphasis on the metaphysical aspect of the land of Israel.

5. Relation to Non-Observant Jews

Rav Soloveitchik took his cue from biblical passages about non-observant kings and considered those passages as support for the idea that God will bring miracles through the hands of non-observant Jews. He explicitly applied this to secular Zionists.

6. Army Service

R. Lichtenstein points out that Rav Soloveitchik spoke with pride about his grandsons who served in the Israeli army (within the hesder framework.

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

Dr. Soloveitchik Leaves YU

Dr. Haym Soloveitchik is retiring from Yeshiva University (link). That's huge. He never had a big influence on the school, but he made a large impact on many of its individual students. His classes taught thousands how to read a Tosafos through the lens of history.

(hat tip)

On the Shelves Right Now

I just stopped by Eichler's in Manhattan (45th St. between 5th and 6th Aves.). Three new releases from Yashar are prominently displayed in the front. So if you are looking for these books, stop by today and get them without having to wait.

Monday, April 03, 2006

Schiffman on the Exodus

Another blog, admittedly insignificant and of limited interest, recently quoted an article from the LA Times (April 12, 2001) in which Dr. Lawrence Schiffman is quoted as saying that it is impossible to believe that 600,000 men left Egypt in the Exodus:

Virtually no scholar, for instance, accepts the biblical figure of 600,000 men fleeing Egypt, which would have meant there were a few million people, including women and children... Even Orthodox Jewish scholar Lawrence Schiffman said "you'd have to be a bit crazy" to accept that figure. He believes that the account in Joshua of a swift military campaign is less accurate than the Judges account of a gradual takeover of Canaan. But Schiffman, chairman of Hebrew and Judaic studies at New York University, still maintains that a significant number of Israelite slaves fled Egypt for Canaan.

I know that's not true. Even if Dr. Schiffman believed that, he would certainly not say it that way. He is very much a part of the Orthodox world and would not be foolish enough to denigrate its sacred beliefs in such a coarse way. So I e-mailed him about it and he sent back a long explanation.

Basically, he was discussing a number of possible positions and said that even someone who believed that you would have to be crazy to think that so many Jews left Egypt could still not use that as proof that the Exodus was a later fabrication. One could still believe that a smaller but significant number of Israelite slaves left Egypt and that the number was exaggerated through a common literary tool.

He added:

Regarding the Exodus, I view the texts that Josephus quotes from Manetho, who says that he quoted them from ancient Egyptian texts, as the closest we will come to Egyptian versions of the Exodus story. Since these accounts were created before the Bible was translated into Greek, they are not, contrary to what many think, simply anti-Semitic versions of the biblical story. Rather, they are independent evidence of traditions that circulated among the Egyptians. Interestingly, Josephus quotes one tradition that supports an early day for the Exodus, one that supports a later date, and then either he or his source in Monetho, conflates both.

Regarding the accounts of conquest in Joshua and Jugges, he wrote:

I do indeed believe that Joshua and Judges are to a great extent parallel accounts of the conquest and that the description in Judges is more to accord with the archaeological evidence. Indeed, I think that the evidence collected by Israel Finkelstein and used to support his claim that there never was a conquest can actually be correctly explained as resulting from our gradual infiltration and conquest such as that described in Judges. I realize that this is counter to the view of many who see Judges as having occurred after Joshua.

See also this article by Dr. Schiffman.

Because there are some who think that I am hiding important information from Dr. Schiffman's e-mail, here it is in its entirety (except for some personal information): Read more

Dear Gil,

The LA Times article was one of only two times in my career and I felt I wasn't correctly represented by someone from the press. What happened here was that we discussed the whole variety of possible positions, as I was trying to give them a survey of views held by various people. Let me now try to address what I tried to explain to them:

I explained to them that the Bible's numbers could conceivably be larger than the actual historical events, and in such a case if someone believed that you have to be crazy..., then they could still believe that the event had occurred with smaller numbers. What I meant to say was that one cannot judge the Exodus to be a later invention simply because one thinks that the numbers are exaggerated. It is common in all ancient historical texts for actual events to be portrayed as larger than they were in actuality.

I do indeed believe that Joshua and Judges are to a great extent parallel accounts of the conquest and that the description in Judges is more to accord with the archaeological evidence. Indeed, I think that the evidence collected by Israel Finkelstein and used to support his claim that there never was a conquest can actually be correctly explained as resulting from our gradual infiltration and conquest such as that described in Judges. I realize that this is counter to the view of many who see Judges as having occurred after Joshua.

Regarding the Exodus, I view the texts that Josephus quotes from Manetho, who says that he quoted them from ancient Egyptian texts, as the closest we will come to Egyptian versions of the Exodus story. Since these accounts were created before the Bible was translated into Greek, they are not, contrary to what many think, simply anti-Semitic versions of the biblical story. Rather, they are independent evidence of traditions that circulated among the Egyptians. Interestingly, Josephus quotes one tradition that supports an early day for the Exodus, one that supports a later date, and then either he or his source in Monetho, conflates both.

Let me take this opportunity to wish you a chag kasher vesameach... [Pesach plans deleted] Feel free to quote any of this that you wish. With best regards,

L. Schiffman

Lawrence H. Schiffman
Skirball Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies
New York University
51 Washington Square South
New York, N.Y. 10012
tel. 212 998 8980
res. 516 773 4264
fax 516 773 3684

Shidduchim II

With all due respect to my good friends who are trying so hard to make shidduchim, R. Uri Cohen has investigated the common claim that someone who makes three shidduchim (marriage matches) automatically goes to the World-to-Come and found it to be nothing more than an urban legend (link).

Sunday, April 02, 2006

Faith Over Reason

The Ralbag, that uber-rationalist medieval philosopher, says that when (if) we find conflicts between reason/science and faith, we must choose faith. Milchamos Hashem 1:14 (tr. Seymour Feldman, vol. 1 p. 226):

If anyone thinks that religious faith requires a conception of human perfection different from the one we have mentioned because of certain passages about the Garden of Eden and Gehenna in various Midrashim, Aggadot, and statements of the prophets, let him surely know that we have not assented to the view that our reason has suggested without determining its compatibility with our Torah. For adherence to reason is not permitted if it contradicts religious faith; indeed, if there is such [a contradiction], it is necessary to attribute this lack of agreement to our own inadequacy.

Shidduchim@gmail.com

A friend is trying to make a difference: Shidduchim@gmail.com

Etz Hayim and the Conservative Movement

Open Access has another upload! Tammi Rossman-Benjamin of UC Santa Cruz has written a critique of the Conservative Movement's Etz Hayim Humash and its halakhic methodology. This thought-provoking review is intended to spark discussion and study, and not serve as an attack. I should also add that it does not represent any official position of Yashar Books or me. It is merely, once again, easily available scholarship -- what Open Access is all about. Please learn, enjoy and spread the word.

The Open Access essay is available for free download at http://yasharbooks.com/Open/#current.