Wednesday, May 31, 2006
The Sanhedrin and Rabbi Slifkin
6:32 PM
Gil Student
It seem the "Sanhedrin" sides with Rabbi Slifkin. See introductions 1 and 3 here (Hebrew) or in the Preface pars. A and C here (English).
Comments
9:21 AM
Gil Student
I finally sprang for the "premium" account of Haloscan comments, and all past comments have been unarchived. You can now go back to old posts and see the comments, even if the comment counter is set to 0.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Shavuos Without the Chasam Sofer
10:54 PM
Gil Student
I've been going through the new volume of Afikei Mayim, essays by a student of R. Moshe Shapiro. In the beginning of this volume on Shavuos, there is a short pamphlet about faith in the Sages. Chapter 6 of that pamphlet discusses the holiness of the Rishonim (medieval sages) and those who were part of the transmission of the Torah. The first section of this chapter is titled "Ein Le-Fakfek Be-Divreihem Z"l" -- one may not question their words. What follows are select quotes from authors throughout the ages -- including R. Moshe Alashkar (AKA Maharam Alshaker) and R. Moshe Sofer (the Chasam Sofer) -- who state that it is forbidden to contradict a Rishon. A great quote is from the Maharam Alashkar: "One who disagrees with anything from their words is like one who disagrees with God and His Torah"
If I understand correctly the point of the editor/author of this pamphlet, the Chasam Sofer was a heretic. Why? Well, in his commentary to Nidah 17b, R. Moshe Sofer states that the commentaries of Rashi and Tosafos (and Maharam Lublin) contradict anatomy:
I'm also surprised that the editor/author did not add a footnote explaining how the Maharam Alashkar rejected Rabbenu Tam as contradicting reality in his Responsa (no. 96). Clearly, he did not consider himself to be disagreeing with God and His Torah.
If I understand correctly the point of the editor/author of this pamphlet, the Chasam Sofer was a heretic. Why? Well, in his commentary to Nidah 17b, R. Moshe Sofer states that the commentaries of Rashi and Tosafos (and Maharam Lublin) contradict anatomy:
אחרי החקירה מפי ספרים וסופרים חכמי וספרי הניתוח אי אפשר לנו להכחיש המציאות שאינו כפירוש רש"י ותוס' וציור מהר"ם מלובלין ואין לנו אלא מה שכתב הרמבם... ולכן לא הטרחתי כלל בבאור רש"י ותוס' בשמעתין כי אי אפשר להולמן לפי המציאות האמיתי ואתה דע לךIt's not just that the Chasam Sofer had a theological view which we are no longer allowed to hold (cf. p. 44 in the footnote), because here he is actually rejecting Rashi and Tosafos based on science! So this Shavuos, if you have a question on a Gemara, don't go looking in your Chiddushei Chasam Sofer. (If I recall correctly, the Nishmas Avraham on Yoreh De'ah 191 quotes R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach as agreeing with the Chasam Sofer, so preferably don't look up a halakhah in Shemiras Shabbos Ke-Hilkhasah because you might see R. Shlomo Zalman quoted in a footnote.)
I'm also surprised that the editor/author did not add a footnote explaining how the Maharam Alashkar rejected Rabbenu Tam as contradicting reality in his Responsa (no. 96). Clearly, he did not consider himself to be disagreeing with God and His Torah.
Monday, May 29, 2006
The Jewish Da Vinci Code
10:19 PM
Gil Student
There is a book that has been much touted as demonstrating the human authorship of the Torah, and I believe it is worth discussing the book because I see it as doing the opposite: demonstrating the methodological flaws in such arguments. The book is Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliott Friedman. Friedman is a professor at University of California San Diego. He received his doctorate from Harvard and was a visiting fellow at Cambridge and Oxford (link). In other words, he has solid academic credentials. However, this book is a popular work, a non-technical book intended for a general readership. Thus, it purports to present cutting-edge scholarship to the layman.
In the book, Friedman frames the authorship of the Pentateuch as a mystery which he unravels one layer at a time, until he is able to identify the various authors of the Bible to the point of even being able to name them. Quite a feat, considering he is dealing with history from thousands of years ago! However, the reader with a more solid background in traditional Bible and history will be quite surprised by this book.
Click here to read moreI. Texts and Proofs
The strength of the argument of the Documentary Hypothesis (DH) -- the theory that the Pentateuch consists of multiple documents, written at different times in different places and compiled together by a redactor -- is in its simplicity. Critical scholars have identified all sorts of inconsistencies within the Bible and have utilized the DH to elegantly answer all of those issues. With the DH, all of those problems disappear. This is not to say that there are not other ways of resolving the supposed inconsistencies while still maintaining the single authorship of the Bible. All will agree that such paths exist. However, the DH is presented as being much less complex than those approaches, much more elegant, and therefore by the rules of logic it is the preferred way to solve the problems in the text.
The cogency of Friedman's case is how his theory can explain all of the inconsistencies in the text in one fell swoop. Yet, a closer look at the texts shows that the DH is not as elegant a theory as Friedman claims it is. For example, on pages 53-60, Friedman shows how the Flood story (Gen. 6:5-8:22) can be split into two stories that are sitting side by side: "The very fact that it is possible to separate out two continuous stories like this is remarkable itself, and it is strong evidence for the hypothesis." That would be true, if his claim that there are "two continuous stories" were true. However, a perusal of how Friedman broke the story into separate sources shows that they are not continuous at all. For example, 7:6 is supposed to belong to one source, 7:7 to another, 7:8-9 to the former, 7:10 to the latter, 7:11 back to the former, 7:12 to the latter, and then 7:13 and on to the former. Those aren't two continuous stories but verses plucked out of a narrative that is apparently inconsistent and confused. And then when we come to 7:16, Friedman splits the verse in half! So much for elegance and simplicity. (See also these posts on the Flood narrative: I, II, III)
But the splitting of narratives is only part of the hypothesis. Friedman turns this into a political issue. One source was supposedly written in the kingdom of Israel and another in Judah, a concept for which Friedman finds support in fascinating places. For example, the story of the birth of Jacob's sons has an interesting change in style: the first four sons (Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Judah) are born in passages that use the four-letter name of God (YKVK) while all of the other sons (Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulon, Ephraim, Manasseh, Benjamin) are born in passages that use the name Elokim. This implies that the story of the birth of the first four sons was written by an author in the kingdom of Judah while the birth of the rest of the sons was written by an author in the feuding kingdom of Israel. As Friedman puts it, "In short, the Elokim group includes the names of all of the tribes of Israel. The group of stories that invoke the name of YKVK are the stories of: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah. The first three of the four names on this list are the names of tribes who lost their territory and merged into the other tribes. The only name of a tribe with existing territory in the YKVK narrative is Judah." (pp. 63-64)
At first, this seems fairly convincing. Judah's birth is told by the author writing in the kingdom of Judah while the other's births are told by the author writing in the kingdom of Israel. However, look at the passage itself (Gen. 29:31-30:24, 35:16-20, 41:50-52). Some of the sons are born with use of God's name YKVK, some with Elokim, and some without mention of God's name at all. Who is to say that the births without God's name are Elokim passages and not YKVK? Furthermore, look at the other stylistic differences, such as whether the mother's pregnancy is announced before the birth or not and whether one or two explanations are given for the son's name. The simple split of the passage into two sources fails to account for these stylistic changes.
Additionally, Benjamin is listed in the source supposedly from the kingdom of Israel, while the tribe of Benjamin was a proud part of the kingdom of Judah. And while Ephraim and Manasseh are listed in the source supposedly from the kingdom of Israel, Joseph -- their father -- is in the other source. The elegant solution of the DH is not so elegant after all. In order to explain all of these details, the hypothesis must get increasingly complex until it rivals, or surpasses, other more traditional approaches. (For a literary approach to this passage that accepts the single Divine authorship of the text, see R. Mordechai Breuer, Pirkei Bereishis, vol. 2 pp. 519-533).
Another example is the story of Korach's rebellion. According to Friedman (pp. 192-196), the Korach story is really two stories -- that of the rebellion of Dathan and Abiram against Moses and the rebellion of Korach against Aaron. Because the plot seems complicated, Friedman divides it into two separate passages that have been clumsily -- to the point of obscurity -- merged the two narratives together. This is based on two assumptions: that there were authors with different objectives, one against Moses and another against Aaron; and that a biblical plot must be simple, with clear good guys and bad guys. The latter assumption is quite presumptuous. In the real world, rebellions are based on complex considerations and the people involved usually have different motives. In fact, there is no difficulty in reading the passage straight through, utilizing literary methods to fully describe the story as it took place (see R. Elchanan Samet, Iyunim Be-Parashos Ha-Shavu'a, vol. 2 Korach -- here in Hebrew, and here abridged in English). On the former assumption, see below.
II. Creative History
Fundamental to the entire endeavor of discovering who wrote the Bible is revising the biblical history of Israel. The assumption is that the history as told in the Bible and as understood for millennia is incorrect. This leaves open the door for clever detective work in determining what is the "real" history, the hidden stories of the nation. Being that we are millennia distant from the events and there are very few records from that time, speculation on this subject is just that -- speculation.
Friedman is a master of speculation. He presents a view of history that seems to be just a collection of unproven conspiracy theories. For example, he repeatedly discusses the Mushite priests, priests descended from Moses rather than Aaron. Traditional students of the Bible will surely think, "But all priests are descended from Aaron and not Moses!" In Friedman's version of Jewish history, this is a fallacy promoted by the priests descended from Aaron, who eventually won the power struggle. Thus, the few criticisms of Aaron in the Bible are remnants from the history promoted by the Mushite priests and the few criticisms of Moses are from the hands of the Aaronide priests.
When I described the outline of this argument to my rabbi, he asked if this book is a Jewish Da Vinci code. I found that description so apt that I used it for the title of this post. Specious conspiracy theories with no historical evidence at all -- that's what these are. There is no reason that the Bible cannot occasionally criticize Moses and Aaron without these being based in epic political battles. Quite the opposite, people have been reading these stories for thousands of years and understanding them plainly.
During the time of David and Solomon, there was a rivalry between two leading priests -- Abiathar and Zadok. This is clear in the Bible. Friedman takes this rivalry and turns it into a centuries-long conflict between two competing factions of priests, with alternating periods of ascendancy. Again, this is baseless speculation along the lines of the Da Vinci Code. There is no evidence that this was anything more than a limited competition between two personalities.
However, these conspiracy theories serve as the basis for Friedman's ideas of who wrote the Bible. If one rejects Friedman's revision of history, one is left with some interesting textual phenomena that can be explained in a number of ways.
The value I find in Friedman's work is that it lays bare the specious bases of the Documentary Hypothesis. Yes, there are many important textual incongruities raised by the DH. But its proponents' claim, that it solves all of them in the simplest way and is based on historical considerations, is disproved by this popular work. Friedman's broad claims are a clear example of over-reaching and demonstrates that the DH is a complex and highly speculative explanation of a text that can be explained in other ways.
In the book, Friedman frames the authorship of the Pentateuch as a mystery which he unravels one layer at a time, until he is able to identify the various authors of the Bible to the point of even being able to name them. Quite a feat, considering he is dealing with history from thousands of years ago! However, the reader with a more solid background in traditional Bible and history will be quite surprised by this book.
Click here to read moreI. Texts and Proofs
The strength of the argument of the Documentary Hypothesis (DH) -- the theory that the Pentateuch consists of multiple documents, written at different times in different places and compiled together by a redactor -- is in its simplicity. Critical scholars have identified all sorts of inconsistencies within the Bible and have utilized the DH to elegantly answer all of those issues. With the DH, all of those problems disappear. This is not to say that there are not other ways of resolving the supposed inconsistencies while still maintaining the single authorship of the Bible. All will agree that such paths exist. However, the DH is presented as being much less complex than those approaches, much more elegant, and therefore by the rules of logic it is the preferred way to solve the problems in the text.
The cogency of Friedman's case is how his theory can explain all of the inconsistencies in the text in one fell swoop. Yet, a closer look at the texts shows that the DH is not as elegant a theory as Friedman claims it is. For example, on pages 53-60, Friedman shows how the Flood story (Gen. 6:5-8:22) can be split into two stories that are sitting side by side: "The very fact that it is possible to separate out two continuous stories like this is remarkable itself, and it is strong evidence for the hypothesis." That would be true, if his claim that there are "two continuous stories" were true. However, a perusal of how Friedman broke the story into separate sources shows that they are not continuous at all. For example, 7:6 is supposed to belong to one source, 7:7 to another, 7:8-9 to the former, 7:10 to the latter, 7:11 back to the former, 7:12 to the latter, and then 7:13 and on to the former. Those aren't two continuous stories but verses plucked out of a narrative that is apparently inconsistent and confused. And then when we come to 7:16, Friedman splits the verse in half! So much for elegance and simplicity. (See also these posts on the Flood narrative: I, II, III)
But the splitting of narratives is only part of the hypothesis. Friedman turns this into a political issue. One source was supposedly written in the kingdom of Israel and another in Judah, a concept for which Friedman finds support in fascinating places. For example, the story of the birth of Jacob's sons has an interesting change in style: the first four sons (Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Judah) are born in passages that use the four-letter name of God (YKVK) while all of the other sons (Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulon, Ephraim, Manasseh, Benjamin) are born in passages that use the name Elokim. This implies that the story of the birth of the first four sons was written by an author in the kingdom of Judah while the birth of the rest of the sons was written by an author in the feuding kingdom of Israel. As Friedman puts it, "In short, the Elokim group includes the names of all of the tribes of Israel. The group of stories that invoke the name of YKVK are the stories of: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah. The first three of the four names on this list are the names of tribes who lost their territory and merged into the other tribes. The only name of a tribe with existing territory in the YKVK narrative is Judah." (pp. 63-64)
At first, this seems fairly convincing. Judah's birth is told by the author writing in the kingdom of Judah while the other's births are told by the author writing in the kingdom of Israel. However, look at the passage itself (Gen. 29:31-30:24, 35:16-20, 41:50-52). Some of the sons are born with use of God's name YKVK, some with Elokim, and some without mention of God's name at all. Who is to say that the births without God's name are Elokim passages and not YKVK? Furthermore, look at the other stylistic differences, such as whether the mother's pregnancy is announced before the birth or not and whether one or two explanations are given for the son's name. The simple split of the passage into two sources fails to account for these stylistic changes.
Additionally, Benjamin is listed in the source supposedly from the kingdom of Israel, while the tribe of Benjamin was a proud part of the kingdom of Judah. And while Ephraim and Manasseh are listed in the source supposedly from the kingdom of Israel, Joseph -- their father -- is in the other source. The elegant solution of the DH is not so elegant after all. In order to explain all of these details, the hypothesis must get increasingly complex until it rivals, or surpasses, other more traditional approaches. (For a literary approach to this passage that accepts the single Divine authorship of the text, see R. Mordechai Breuer, Pirkei Bereishis, vol. 2 pp. 519-533).
Another example is the story of Korach's rebellion. According to Friedman (pp. 192-196), the Korach story is really two stories -- that of the rebellion of Dathan and Abiram against Moses and the rebellion of Korach against Aaron. Because the plot seems complicated, Friedman divides it into two separate passages that have been clumsily -- to the point of obscurity -- merged the two narratives together. This is based on two assumptions: that there were authors with different objectives, one against Moses and another against Aaron; and that a biblical plot must be simple, with clear good guys and bad guys. The latter assumption is quite presumptuous. In the real world, rebellions are based on complex considerations and the people involved usually have different motives. In fact, there is no difficulty in reading the passage straight through, utilizing literary methods to fully describe the story as it took place (see R. Elchanan Samet, Iyunim Be-Parashos Ha-Shavu'a, vol. 2 Korach -- here in Hebrew, and here abridged in English). On the former assumption, see below.
II. Creative History
Fundamental to the entire endeavor of discovering who wrote the Bible is revising the biblical history of Israel. The assumption is that the history as told in the Bible and as understood for millennia is incorrect. This leaves open the door for clever detective work in determining what is the "real" history, the hidden stories of the nation. Being that we are millennia distant from the events and there are very few records from that time, speculation on this subject is just that -- speculation.
Friedman is a master of speculation. He presents a view of history that seems to be just a collection of unproven conspiracy theories. For example, he repeatedly discusses the Mushite priests, priests descended from Moses rather than Aaron. Traditional students of the Bible will surely think, "But all priests are descended from Aaron and not Moses!" In Friedman's version of Jewish history, this is a fallacy promoted by the priests descended from Aaron, who eventually won the power struggle. Thus, the few criticisms of Aaron in the Bible are remnants from the history promoted by the Mushite priests and the few criticisms of Moses are from the hands of the Aaronide priests.
When I described the outline of this argument to my rabbi, he asked if this book is a Jewish Da Vinci code. I found that description so apt that I used it for the title of this post. Specious conspiracy theories with no historical evidence at all -- that's what these are. There is no reason that the Bible cannot occasionally criticize Moses and Aaron without these being based in epic political battles. Quite the opposite, people have been reading these stories for thousands of years and understanding them plainly.
During the time of David and Solomon, there was a rivalry between two leading priests -- Abiathar and Zadok. This is clear in the Bible. Friedman takes this rivalry and turns it into a centuries-long conflict between two competing factions of priests, with alternating periods of ascendancy. Again, this is baseless speculation along the lines of the Da Vinci Code. There is no evidence that this was anything more than a limited competition between two personalities.
However, these conspiracy theories serve as the basis for Friedman's ideas of who wrote the Bible. If one rejects Friedman's revision of history, one is left with some interesting textual phenomena that can be explained in a number of ways.
The value I find in Friedman's work is that it lays bare the specious bases of the Documentary Hypothesis. Yes, there are many important textual incongruities raised by the DH. But its proponents' claim, that it solves all of them in the simplest way and is based on historical considerations, is disproved by this popular work. Friedman's broad claims are a clear example of over-reaching and demonstrates that the DH is a complex and highly speculative explanation of a text that can be explained in other ways.
The Brilliant Bekiyus of Rav Daniel Feldman of YU
10:15 PM
Gil Student
Unhelpful Cynicism
9:48 AM
Gil Student
Just getting it off my chest:
When a restaurant mistakenly receives a delivery of non-kosher meat, notices it immediately and doesn't allow it in the restaurant, and then someone walks by, sees the package outside and reports it to his rabbi -- then, by all means, shout at the top of your lungs that the restaurant is serving treif meat, publicly embarrass the owner and drive him out of business. But when the physical and spiritual wellbeing of children is at serious risk -- "Hush hush, mush mush. We don't want to ruin his parnassah."
Of course, in both situations discretion must be properly utilized. But what really bothers me are the communal figures who don't usually watch their mouths but are suddenly being so careful. Don't they realize that when they are quick to denounce everything and then suddenly don't denounce this, they are sending a huge message with their silence?
When a restaurant mistakenly receives a delivery of non-kosher meat, notices it immediately and doesn't allow it in the restaurant, and then someone walks by, sees the package outside and reports it to his rabbi -- then, by all means, shout at the top of your lungs that the restaurant is serving treif meat, publicly embarrass the owner and drive him out of business. But when the physical and spiritual wellbeing of children is at serious risk -- "Hush hush, mush mush. We don't want to ruin his parnassah."
Of course, in both situations discretion must be properly utilized. But what really bothers me are the communal figures who don't usually watch their mouths but are suddenly being so careful. Don't they realize that when they are quick to denounce everything and then suddenly don't denounce this, they are sending a huge message with their silence?
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Confused Generation
10:33 PM
Gil Student
I saw the following two ads in the recent issue of The Jewish Press within pages of each other, and found it somewhat amusing. It seems that this generation has at least two poskei ha-dor, top halakhic decisors of the generation. Brings up the question the Gemara asks in Chullin 80b: Is it possible for two kings to wear one crown?
I have no doubt that neither Rav Wosner nor Rav Elyashiv chose this title but, rather, their handlers gave them the title without their knowledge. Regardless, it kind of makes the point that neither of them are the posek ha-dor. My informal poll of rabbis confirmed my suspicion that Rav Wosner has more authority, at least in YU alumni circles.But even he actually called for a world-wide fast on Yom Yerushalayim. Granted, it was "Yom Kippur Katan" (the day before the new month when some -- very few -- people fast). But there is a whole segment of Orthodox Jews who celebrate the day every year as a religious holiday with parties and the so-called posek ha-dor ignored that and declared it a fast day! My mistake (see here). So maybe Rav Wosner is the posek ha-dor.
I have no doubt that neither Rav Wosner nor Rav Elyashiv chose this title but, rather, their handlers gave them the title without their knowledge. Regardless, it kind of makes the point that neither of them are the posek ha-dor. My informal poll of rabbis confirmed my suspicion that Rav Wosner has more authority, at least in YU alumni circles.
Friday, May 26, 2006
Censuses in the Desert II
12:58 PM
Gil Student
Why are the censuses generally, but not always, rounded to the nearest hundred? If it was done with rounding, then all of the numbers should be in hundreds without exception.
Answer in last year's post.
Answer in last year's post.
Alienating Jews
11:16 AM
Gil Student
Attention Christian writers: Want to know how to alienate your Jewish readers? Write approvingly of Jewish-Christians/Messianic Jews (link).
Once you move from discussing the commonalities and/or differences among our religions to blurring the lines between them, we react with a visceral disapproval. Not that you do or should care.
Once you move from discussing the commonalities and/or differences among our religions to blurring the lines between them, we react with a visceral disapproval. Not that you do or should care.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Shofar on Yom Kippur
11:12 PM
Gil Student
(Sorry, from last week's parashah)
Lev. 25:9: "Then you shall have the shofar sounded loud; on the tenth day of the seventh month—on the Day of Atonement—you shall have the shofar sounded throughout all your land."
Rashi ad loc. asks:
However, one can ask that playing a musical instrument on Shabbos is biblically permissible. It is only prohibited on Shabbos and Yom Tov rabbinically, due to the concern that one might fix the instrument. And even blowing a shofar on Rosh Hashanah that falls out on Shabbos is only rabbinically prohibited because of "Gezeirah De-Rabbah," the concern that one might bring it to an expert.
If that is the case, and one is biblically permitted to blow a shofar on Shabbos, why would the Torah have to instruct us to specifically blow it on the Yom Kippur of the Jubilee even if it falls on Shabbos? Biblically, one can blow it on any Shabbos!
The Ramban (ad loc.) asks this question, and the Gur Aryeh answers that this entire discussion is only an asmakhta and not meant to be the literal intent of the Torah.
I would suggest, however, that perhaps the following could explain the Rashi. The Taz asked why we perform circumcision on Shabbos and are not concerned with "Gezeirah De-Rabbah." He famously answered that because the Torah specifically tells us to perform a circumcision even on Shabbos, the Sages have no authority to forbid it. The Sages are unable to contradict an explicit biblical permission (see this post and this post).
Based on this, one could suggest that the Torah was explicitly permitting blowing the shofar on the Yom Kippur of the Jubilee that falls on Shabbos to prevent the Sages from ever prohibiting it.
Lev. 25:9: "Then you shall have the shofar sounded loud; on the tenth day of the seventh month—on the Day of Atonement—you shall have the shofar sounded throughout all your land."
Rashi ad loc. asks:
On the Day of Atonement -- since it is said, "on the Day of Atonement," do I not know that it is on the tenth of the month? If so, why was it said,The Torah specifies that the shofar on Yom Kippur and on the tenth day of the seventh month to make it clear that we must blow the shofar even when that day falls out on Shabbos.
"On the tenth day of the seventh month"? Rather, to tell you [that] blowing [the shofar] on the tenth of the month supersedes the Shabbos in all your land...
However, one can ask that playing a musical instrument on Shabbos is biblically permissible. It is only prohibited on Shabbos and Yom Tov rabbinically, due to the concern that one might fix the instrument. And even blowing a shofar on Rosh Hashanah that falls out on Shabbos is only rabbinically prohibited because of "Gezeirah De-Rabbah," the concern that one might bring it to an expert.
If that is the case, and one is biblically permitted to blow a shofar on Shabbos, why would the Torah have to instruct us to specifically blow it on the Yom Kippur of the Jubilee even if it falls on Shabbos? Biblically, one can blow it on any Shabbos!
The Ramban (ad loc.) asks this question, and the Gur Aryeh answers that this entire discussion is only an asmakhta and not meant to be the literal intent of the Torah.
I would suggest, however, that perhaps the following could explain the Rashi. The Taz asked why we perform circumcision on Shabbos and are not concerned with "Gezeirah De-Rabbah." He famously answered that because the Torah specifically tells us to perform a circumcision even on Shabbos, the Sages have no authority to forbid it. The Sages are unable to contradict an explicit biblical permission (see this post and this post).
Based on this, one could suggest that the Torah was explicitly permitting blowing the shofar on the Yom Kippur of the Jubilee that falls on Shabbos to prevent the Sages from ever prohibiting it.
Jerusalem Unification Day
9:08 AM
Gil Student
See R. Mordechai Willig's recollection of Shavuos 1967 in Jerusalem (hat tip).
From Rabbi Haim David Halevy: Gentle Scholar and Courageous Thinker, p. 218:
(And a mazel tov to the new baby on my block who thankfully was not named Yerushalaymah but Yoninah, presumably because of the midrash about Yonah's wife going to Jerusalem)
From Rabbi Haim David Halevy: Gentle Scholar and Courageous Thinker, p. 218:
Throughout his writings, Rabbi Halevy expressed unwavering faith that the founding of the State of Israel, and the Six Day Way, were overt miracles. Anyone who denied the supernatural nature of these events was spiritually blind.[1] There were two options: to believe that this was the beginning of the messianic era, or to be wrong.[2] He never appears to have doubted this belief.[3]And from pp. 225-226:
[1] End Mekor Hayyim 4, pp. 367-368.
[2] Introduction to Mekor Hayyim 2, p. 9.
[3] See Mekor Hayyim 4:205, p. 191; 5:310, p. 508, where Rabbi Halevy used the formulation, "it is our hope and belief that this period is the beginning of the final redemption." From his other writings, it is evident that his profound hope led to a complete belief.
Rabbi Halevy's earlier writings expressed unreserved enthusiasm about the redemption process. Yet, many of his followers were perplexed by the Yom Kippur War. This war had exposed Israel's vulnerability. No longer did the messianic age appear to be marching forward with increasing brightness.
Rabbi Halevy opened his Asei Lekha Rav series with several essays addressing this problem. He paralleled the contemporary situation with the redemption from Egypt. During the exodus, God created a moment of panic at the Red Sea, when the Israelites thought they were doomed. Only when the sea split did the Israelites retrospectively understand God's plan of redemption. Similarly, the Yom Kippur War initially seemed like a setback, but it resulted in Egypt sitting down to talk peace with Israel for the first time.[27]
[27] Asei Lekha Rav 1:6. Cf. Dat uMedinah, p. 27; introduction to Mekor Hayyim 2, pp. 7-10, where Rabbi Halevy made a similar point regarding the Six Day War. Although the period preceding the Six Day War initially was a terrifying time for Israel, it brought about the return of Jerusalem and Hebron, our holiest cities. Rabbi Halevy also highlighted the stunning turnaround in the Yom Kippur War, which was enought to include that war as part of the redemption process, rather than an obstacle (Asei Lekha Rav 1:6; 1:7-12).
(And a mazel tov to the new baby on my block who thankfully was not named Yerushalaymah but Yoninah, presumably because of the midrash about Yonah's wife going to Jerusalem)
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
The Death of Titus
11:05 PM
Gil Student
The Gemara (Gittin 56b) tells how a mosquito flew in Titus' nose and picked at his brain. When he died, they opened his skull and found a mosquito the size of a bird.
R. Azariah De Rossi (Me'or Einayim, Imrei Binah ch. 16) famously, and controversially, argued that this is not a literal description of Titus' death but a parable intended to teach that God can use any aspect of Creation to punish sinners.
Similarly, the Maharal (Be'er Ha-Golah part 6) interpreted the passage allegorically. The difference, though, is that the Maharal consider the story to be entirely true, albeit not literal, and found significance in every detail of the story. R. Yitzchok Adlerstein, in his English adaptation of Be'er HaGolah (p. 240 n. 57), suggests that the Maharal was of the view that Titus died from brain cancer, with the story of the mosquito being an allegory to the cancer.
In the latest issue of Derech HaTeva, a journal of Torah and science published by Stern College (under the guidance of Dr. Harvey Babich), Rachel Rechthand surveys the views about Titus' death (I assume she ommitted the Me'or Einayim out of piety) and suggests that he died of a brain tumor. Summarizing articles from the past 15 years, she concludes that the causes of death from various ancient sources, including the Gemara, are all consistent with a brain tumor. And Titus' activities after developing this tumor are not inconsistent with that diagnosis.
(There is much more in this journal. Pesia Soloveichik, presumably R. Meir Ya'akov Soloveichik's sister, writes about the shivah for her grandfather in Israel, during which the American side of the family celebrated the second day of Yom Tov while the Israeli side began mourning. And a special shout-out to Jennifer Polin for citing an online article of mine in a footnote.)
R. Azariah De Rossi (Me'or Einayim, Imrei Binah ch. 16) famously, and controversially, argued that this is not a literal description of Titus' death but a parable intended to teach that God can use any aspect of Creation to punish sinners.
Similarly, the Maharal (Be'er Ha-Golah part 6) interpreted the passage allegorically. The difference, though, is that the Maharal consider the story to be entirely true, albeit not literal, and found significance in every detail of the story. R. Yitzchok Adlerstein, in his English adaptation of Be'er HaGolah (p. 240 n. 57), suggests that the Maharal was of the view that Titus died from brain cancer, with the story of the mosquito being an allegory to the cancer.
In the latest issue of Derech HaTeva, a journal of Torah and science published by Stern College (under the guidance of Dr. Harvey Babich), Rachel Rechthand surveys the views about Titus' death (I assume she ommitted the Me'or Einayim out of piety) and suggests that he died of a brain tumor. Summarizing articles from the past 15 years, she concludes that the causes of death from various ancient sources, including the Gemara, are all consistent with a brain tumor. And Titus' activities after developing this tumor are not inconsistent with that diagnosis.
(There is much more in this journal. Pesia Soloveichik, presumably R. Meir Ya'akov Soloveichik's sister, writes about the shivah for her grandfather in Israel, during which the American side of the family celebrated the second day of Yom Tov while the Israeli side began mourning. And a special shout-out to Jennifer Polin for citing an online article of mine in a footnote.)
Paintball
9:25 AM
Gil Student
I've never played Paintball, but Bari Ve-Shema has a post on whether or not it is permissible to play it (link).
I'll note that the same issues are raised regarding boxing, and discussed by R. Daniel Z. Feldman in his classic The Right and the Good: Halakhah and Human Relations (link to relevant excerpt).
I'll note that the same issues are raised regarding boxing, and discussed by R. Daniel Z. Feldman in his classic The Right and the Good: Halakhah and Human Relations (link to relevant excerpt).
Standing During Blessings
7:40 AM
Gil Student
R. Ya'akov Kamenetsky, as quoted in Bi-Mehitzas Rabbenu Ha-Ga'on Rabbi Ya'akov Kamenetsky pp. 43-44:
It is customary to stand while reciting Birkhos Ha-Shachar [the blessings at the beginning of the morning prayer service]. Eventhough we do not find a source for this in Shulchan Aruch or Mishnah Berurah, and in the Gemara (Berakhos 60b) it seems we should do the opposite -- it says that when one awakes and sits on one's bed one recites the blessing "matir assurim", and so in Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 46:1 -- nevertheless, it is a universal practice, and there is likely a source for it.And in the footnote of the editor:
See Siddur Beis Ya'akov of R. Ya'akov Emden (before the blessing on washing one's hands in the morning) where it says: A general rule is that all blessings that are praise and thanks are recited while standing.
Monday, May 22, 2006
Three Things to Do and Not Do to Missionaries
10:41 PM
Gil Student
This summer, Christian missionaries will make a greater than usual effort to convert Jews in New York to their religion. They will be specifically targeting Russian and Ultra-Orthodox Jews. So as not to give their website extra hits, I PDF'd their webpage about this "campaign", which you can read here (PDF).
Here are some suggestion from Gavriel Sanders, a former minister, on how to interact with missionaries. This is from his May 16th radio show (link):
Three things to do to a missionary:
1. Ask for all the literature they can give you, and then turn the corner and throw it all in the garbage
2. Give them phone numbers of outreach organizations (such as Aish HaTorah)
3. Thank them for reminding you to contribute to a countermissionary group like Jews for Judaism
Three things not to do to a missionary:
1. Don't get into a conversation about who is the messiah (say you don't have time)
2. Don't give them your contact information
3. Don't give them mussar or be angry or verbally abusive in any way
Listen to the show for more ideas.
UPDATE: Gavriels Sanders' audio archives: link
Here are some suggestion from Gavriel Sanders, a former minister, on how to interact with missionaries. This is from his May 16th radio show (link):
Three things to do to a missionary:
1. Ask for all the literature they can give you, and then turn the corner and throw it all in the garbage
2. Give them phone numbers of outreach organizations (such as Aish HaTorah)
3. Thank them for reminding you to contribute to a countermissionary group like Jews for Judaism
Three things not to do to a missionary:
1. Don't get into a conversation about who is the messiah (say you don't have time)
2. Don't give them your contact information
3. Don't give them mussar or be angry or verbally abusive in any way
Listen to the show for more ideas.
UPDATE: Gavriels Sanders' audio archives: link
RCA Resolutions
5:04 PM
Gil Student
The following resolutions are on the Rabbinical Council of America's website, dated May 18 2006 and presumably emanating from its recent convention:
- On The Importance of Preserving the Environment: RCA calls upon its members to educate concerning the importance of preserving the environment.
- On the Evacuees of Gaza and Shomron: The RCA calls upon the State of Israel to assist the evacuees of Gaza and Shomron in assimilating back into Israeli society.
- Responding to Dishonest Behavior of Prominent Jewish Figures: The RCA condemns dishonest behavior, especially that of prominent Jewish figures, and urges steps to educate against future recurrences.
- Maintaining Passion for the State of Israel: The RCA calls upon its members to help maintain and foster a passion for the State of Israel, especially during a time when Israel is making some of her most difficult decisions.
- Use of Prenuptial Agreement: RCA reaffirms that no member rabbi should officiate at a wedding unless a proper prenuptial agreement has been executed.
- Protocols for Interfaith Dialogue: RCA reaffirms the need for continued adherance to Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik's guidelines regarding interfaith dialogue.
- Increasing Demonization of the Settlers in Israel: RCA calls upon the government of Israel to deal with the settler population with respect, patience and within a context of brotherhood.
- RCA Urges Proactive Iran Policy: The RCA urges steps to counter the serious and growing threat of the current Iranian government.
- RCA Condemns Darfur Genocide: The RCA calls upon the Jewish community to do all that is in its power to put a stop to the genocide in Darfur, Sudan.
- Convention Issues Educational Support Initiatives: The RCA reaffirms the need to support and fund our Jewish day schools and Yeshivot, and make a quality Jewish education accessible and affordable.
- RCA Advocates Steps to Reduce Oil Consumption: The RCA urges the reduction of America's dependence on oil.
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Protecting Our Children, Protecting Our Teachers
7:38 PM
Gil Student
[IMPORTANT: This post is not an invitation for lashon ha-ra in the comments. As always, da lifnei mi atah omed.]
The big scandal over the past few weeks -- really months -- has been a local yeshiva elementary school that has a rebbe who is accused of molesting students for years and a principal who allegedly covered it up. I have no way of knowing whether or not the accusations are true and therefore prefer to let those most capable of evaluating such charges do so. Yes, the accusations are extremely troubling. Yes, the victims deserve our support, encouragement and profound sympathy. However, I know that false accusations of this nature occur and therefore cannot reach a conclusion on this matter. Let me state this, though: If these charges are proven to be true, the perpetrator and any accomplices who may have neglected their primary responsibilities as educators and human beings by allowing this behavior to continue (again, if it happened), should rot in jail for years.
Re-reading the above paragraph, I realize that it does not reflect my true horror and outrage about this matter. I recommend that everyone with the stomach for it read the Angry Soul blog, in which an adult graphically details the sexual abuse he suffered in an Orthodox sleepaway camp (already a few commenters on various blogs have said that they were there at the time but didn't know about the abuse). If this doesn't make you cry in sympathy and scream in outrage then you should check to make sure you have a pulse. Nevertheless, I believe it is necessary to reserve judgment on unproven matters, especially when one's only source of information is anonymous blogs and the general media.
Let me make a few points that I think are important:
Click here to read more1. There are rabbis who spend a good deal of time investigating and preventing such matters. Are they entirely successful? Probably not. Could they be better trained? Probably. But they are putting forth superhuman efforts (without being paid or appreciated for it). Perhaps greater acknowledgment of their contributions to our community will serve to enhance their efforts.
2. There are schools and camps that are extremely vigilant on these issues. There are camp administrators who make sure that there is a twenty-four hour watch for such deviant behavior. Just because you see a rabbi and his wife taking a stroll around the camp grounds does not mean that they are just out for a shpatzir (stroll). It is more likely that they are out on patrol. Call your children's camps and find out their policies. If they cannot immediately tell you how seriously they take this and how much they are doing to prevent incidents, consider sending your kids elsewhere. But, again, are these well-meaning and hard-working people always successful? Probably not, for the following reason.
3. Training is important. The best of intentions do not always lead to the best results if people are not properly trained to investigate and react in the optimal way. Schools, camps, organizations, etc. should be encouraged to seek professional advice on how to handle these matters from people who have thought about this extensively and consulted with experts. Experience in these matters counts. Schools etc. should to talk to R. Mark Dratch at JSafe and experts like him so they can learn how to handle these matters properly.
4. This is your opportunity as a parent to make a difference. Earlier today I had a long talk with a fellow parent and the principal of my sons' yeshiva (if you know which yeshiva it is, please do not publicize it). He told us what he does to avoid such problems and listened to our suggestions on what else can be done. His basic approach is to follow common sense and if a teacher violates that, fire him (or her). As his posek told him, his responsibility is the safety of his students. The teacher's livelihood is God's responsibility. (I don't want to go into any more detail about what he told me, but I'll write what I told him.)
I gave him some concrete examples of problems occuring today in other schools: for example, a friend told me that when his son was in seventh grade (two or three years ago), the rebbe would have "favorite" students who would sit on his lap and scratch his back. This is clearly unacceptable behavior and there would be a benefit in having definitions of what is acceptable in writing.
As I emphasized, this is as much about protecting the teachers from false accusations as it is about protecting the students from harm. Having policies in writing allows the teachers to know what lines not to cross and how to avoid many, maybe most, misunderstandings of this nature. But there are gray areas. Can a rebbe invite students over for Shabbos? Perhaps only in groups, but even that doesn't guarantee appropriate behavior. Can a rebbe give a single student a ride somewhere? I don't know the answer, but I do know that it is helpful to everyone to have guidelines in place.
It is also important to have guidelines for the administration. Many charges are false but some are true. When an accusation is made, it is helpful for the administration to have set procedures to protect themselves from charges of covering things up. For example: immediately contacting a representative of the parent body; having a child psychologist evaluate the student; if the truth of the charges are unclear, submitting a teacher to mandatory counseling.
"Chacham einav be-rosho". Everyone recognizes that there are troubled people in the world who can destroy other people's lives. We need to be vigilant in preventing that from happening while not making educators, who sacrifice a great deal to teach our children, feel like criminals.
Contact your children's principals and ask what they are doing and what else they can do. Contact your children's camp administrators and ask likewise. Speak respectfully and emphasize that this is not just about protecting children but also about protecting the staff and administration.
And if anyone has access to existing guidelines for schools or camps, please e-mail them to me (e-mail). I've already spoken with a principal about what Torah Umesorah has to offer and it isn't nearly detailed enough for what I have in mind. I'm sure that Catholic schools must have gone through this already and have excellent resources that we can adapt for our needs.
5. Finally, when a great Torah scholar is quoted on a blog or in a secular magazine as saying something that seems outrageous, assume that he is being misquoted. I believe you are halakhically obligated to do so.
UPDATE: Steven Weiss criticizes this post here and Ezzi defends it here
The big scandal over the past few weeks -- really months -- has been a local yeshiva elementary school that has a rebbe who is accused of molesting students for years and a principal who allegedly covered it up. I have no way of knowing whether or not the accusations are true and therefore prefer to let those most capable of evaluating such charges do so. Yes, the accusations are extremely troubling. Yes, the victims deserve our support, encouragement and profound sympathy. However, I know that false accusations of this nature occur and therefore cannot reach a conclusion on this matter. Let me state this, though: If these charges are proven to be true, the perpetrator and any accomplices who may have neglected their primary responsibilities as educators and human beings by allowing this behavior to continue (again, if it happened), should rot in jail for years.
Re-reading the above paragraph, I realize that it does not reflect my true horror and outrage about this matter. I recommend that everyone with the stomach for it read the Angry Soul blog, in which an adult graphically details the sexual abuse he suffered in an Orthodox sleepaway camp (already a few commenters on various blogs have said that they were there at the time but didn't know about the abuse). If this doesn't make you cry in sympathy and scream in outrage then you should check to make sure you have a pulse. Nevertheless, I believe it is necessary to reserve judgment on unproven matters, especially when one's only source of information is anonymous blogs and the general media.
Let me make a few points that I think are important:
Click here to read more1. There are rabbis who spend a good deal of time investigating and preventing such matters. Are they entirely successful? Probably not. Could they be better trained? Probably. But they are putting forth superhuman efforts (without being paid or appreciated for it). Perhaps greater acknowledgment of their contributions to our community will serve to enhance their efforts.
2. There are schools and camps that are extremely vigilant on these issues. There are camp administrators who make sure that there is a twenty-four hour watch for such deviant behavior. Just because you see a rabbi and his wife taking a stroll around the camp grounds does not mean that they are just out for a shpatzir (stroll). It is more likely that they are out on patrol. Call your children's camps and find out their policies. If they cannot immediately tell you how seriously they take this and how much they are doing to prevent incidents, consider sending your kids elsewhere. But, again, are these well-meaning and hard-working people always successful? Probably not, for the following reason.
3. Training is important. The best of intentions do not always lead to the best results if people are not properly trained to investigate and react in the optimal way. Schools, camps, organizations, etc. should be encouraged to seek professional advice on how to handle these matters from people who have thought about this extensively and consulted with experts. Experience in these matters counts. Schools etc. should to talk to R. Mark Dratch at JSafe and experts like him so they can learn how to handle these matters properly.
4. This is your opportunity as a parent to make a difference. Earlier today I had a long talk with a fellow parent and the principal of my sons' yeshiva (if you know which yeshiva it is, please do not publicize it). He told us what he does to avoid such problems and listened to our suggestions on what else can be done. His basic approach is to follow common sense and if a teacher violates that, fire him (or her). As his posek told him, his responsibility is the safety of his students. The teacher's livelihood is God's responsibility. (I don't want to go into any more detail about what he told me, but I'll write what I told him.)
I gave him some concrete examples of problems occuring today in other schools: for example, a friend told me that when his son was in seventh grade (two or three years ago), the rebbe would have "favorite" students who would sit on his lap and scratch his back. This is clearly unacceptable behavior and there would be a benefit in having definitions of what is acceptable in writing.
As I emphasized, this is as much about protecting the teachers from false accusations as it is about protecting the students from harm. Having policies in writing allows the teachers to know what lines not to cross and how to avoid many, maybe most, misunderstandings of this nature. But there are gray areas. Can a rebbe invite students over for Shabbos? Perhaps only in groups, but even that doesn't guarantee appropriate behavior. Can a rebbe give a single student a ride somewhere? I don't know the answer, but I do know that it is helpful to everyone to have guidelines in place.
It is also important to have guidelines for the administration. Many charges are false but some are true. When an accusation is made, it is helpful for the administration to have set procedures to protect themselves from charges of covering things up. For example: immediately contacting a representative of the parent body; having a child psychologist evaluate the student; if the truth of the charges are unclear, submitting a teacher to mandatory counseling.
"Chacham einav be-rosho". Everyone recognizes that there are troubled people in the world who can destroy other people's lives. We need to be vigilant in preventing that from happening while not making educators, who sacrifice a great deal to teach our children, feel like criminals.
Contact your children's principals and ask what they are doing and what else they can do. Contact your children's camp administrators and ask likewise. Speak respectfully and emphasize that this is not just about protecting children but also about protecting the staff and administration.
And if anyone has access to existing guidelines for schools or camps, please e-mail them to me (e-mail). I've already spoken with a principal about what Torah Umesorah has to offer and it isn't nearly detailed enough for what I have in mind. I'm sure that Catholic schools must have gone through this already and have excellent resources that we can adapt for our needs.
5. Finally, when a great Torah scholar is quoted on a blog or in a secular magazine as saying something that seems outrageous, assume that he is being misquoted. I believe you are halakhically obligated to do so.
UPDATE: Steven Weiss criticizes this post here and Ezzi defends it here
Saturday, May 20, 2006
My Yeshiva College in YU Today
10:34 PM
Gil Student
Yeshiva University's publication YU Today (May 2006) has an article about My Yeshiva College:
(click on image to enlarge)
(click on image to enlarge)
Friday, May 19, 2006
New Issue of Tradition
1:47 PM
Gil Student
Tradition Online already has the new issue of Tradition on its website (for subscribers only). Table of contents:
On another note, I think it's time for me to post about these raging scandals. Expect something Sunday night.
- Editor's Note
“A Religion Challenged by Science”—Again? A Reflection Occasioned by a Recent Occurrence
by Shalom Carmy - Of Marriage: Relationship and Relations
by Aharon Lichtenstein - Women’s Aliyyot in Contemporary Synagogues
by Gideon Rothstein - On Kohanim and Uncommon Aliyyot
by Joel B. Wolowelsky - Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature
Priestly Identity
Sonograms and the Unborn Kohen
Detached Buttons on Shabbat
by J. David Bleich - Review Essay
Covenants, Messiahs and Religious Boundaries: For the Sake of Heaven and Earth: The New Encounter between Judaism and Christianityby Irving Greenberg (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2004)
by David Berger - Communications
Orthodoxy and the Public Square
Brain Death
On another note, I think it's time for me to post about these raging scandals. Expect something Sunday night.
More on Gedolim Albums
11:43 AM
Gil Student
A husband-and-wife blogging team had some good posts about Gedolim albums that I missed when they were posted. See here for the husband's perspective and here (and here) for the wife's. Definitely worth the read.
I'm not sure if their identities are public knowledge, but I believe I was their first guest for a Shabbos meal after they got married.
While you're at their blogs, see the husband's post about his answer to questions about the authorship of the Torah here. In a word: perspective. Get some. I've been trying to give that advice to some of the J-blogosphere's skeptics but he has a more forceful way of saying it.
I'm not sure if their identities are public knowledge, but I believe I was their first guest for a Shabbos meal after they got married.
While you're at their blogs, see the husband's post about his answer to questions about the authorship of the Torah here. In a word: perspective. Get some. I've been trying to give that advice to some of the J-blogosphere's skeptics but he has a more forceful way of saying it.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Democracy in Judaism II
11:00 PM
Gil Student
The letters section of The Jewish Press has recently had some letters about democracy in Judaism. Following a parashah essay by R. Shlomo Riskin about democracy (here) and a column by R. Berel Wein (here), a writer sent in a letter to the newspaper arguing that democracy is not, in fact, a Jewish concept (link):
These issues have already been discussed at length by great scholars. R. Sol Roth, in his book Halakhah and Politics: The Jewish Idea of a State (ch. 11), raises two approaches to the idea of democracy in Judaism. The first, most famously advocated by R. Avraham Yitzchak Kook (Mishpat Kohen 144:15:1), is that when people democratically elect a government it is the same as if they appointed a king. The democratic government has the status of a sovereignty -- malkhus. The other is suggested by, among others, R. Shlomo Goren (Toras Ha-Medinah ch. 5). In this view, the democratically elected rulers serve the people as emissaries -- sheluchim.
Based on these two approaches, R. Roth answers a number of political questions. For example, may a government can pass a law that violates halakhah? One could suggest that according to R. Kook, that a government has the status of a malkhus, it is permitted to enact extraordinary measures that are contrary to halakhah. However, according to the view espoused by R. Goren, a democratic government has no more power than the individuals it represents, and may not. Yet, R. Roth suggests that even according to R. Goren's view, a government may pass extraordinary measures:
Finally, may women serve as elected representatives? R. Roth suggests that this boils down to the above two approaches. According to R. Kook's view, an elected official is part of a kingship and women may not serve in such a capacity. However, according to R. Goren's approach, elected officials are merely representatives and therefore perhaps a woman can also serve in the government since she can serve as an emissary.
In summary, while there is much more that can be written on this subject, the idea that democracy is contrary to Judaism is simply incorrect.
(see also this post)
Democracy is the best form of government for the nations of the world, who do not possess the Torah (Law) of Emet (Truth). But our Torah opposes Western democracy as the ultimate ideal government for Israel.While this quote from Rabbi Kahane is somewhat true, it is misapplied either by R. Kahane himself or by this letter-writer. The question is two-fold: 1) Is democracy a viable concept within Judaism? 2) If it is, can a democracy legitimately decide contrary to halakhah?
In his sefer Or Hara’ayon, Rabbi Meir Kahane writes the following concerning democracy and Judaism:
The nations and alien culture have crowned supreme the concept of "vox populi," decision-making by majority, come what may, and it is this which is called "Democracy." The Torah, by contrast, does not tolerate such foolishness. Abominable wickedness cannot possibly be rendered acceptable simply because a majority of fools, ignoramuses, or evildoers have declared it so. Bitter does not become sweet or darkness light, even if all the people say it is. One is not free to decide against the commandments of his Creator....
These issues have already been discussed at length by great scholars. R. Sol Roth, in his book Halakhah and Politics: The Jewish Idea of a State (ch. 11), raises two approaches to the idea of democracy in Judaism. The first, most famously advocated by R. Avraham Yitzchak Kook (Mishpat Kohen 144:15:1), is that when people democratically elect a government it is the same as if they appointed a king. The democratic government has the status of a sovereignty -- malkhus. The other is suggested by, among others, R. Shlomo Goren (Toras Ha-Medinah ch. 5). In this view, the democratically elected rulers serve the people as emissaries -- sheluchim.
Based on these two approaches, R. Roth answers a number of political questions. For example, may a government can pass a law that violates halakhah? One could suggest that according to R. Kook, that a government has the status of a malkhus, it is permitted to enact extraordinary measures that are contrary to halakhah. However, according to the view espoused by R. Goren, a democratic government has no more power than the individuals it represents, and may not. Yet, R. Roth suggests that even according to R. Goren's view, a government may pass extraordinary measures:
[I]t must be assumed that the community, as such, is endowed with extraordinary prerogatives not possessed by individuals. For if the result of agency is that the leaders are empowered to act contrary to law, that is, as sovereigns would, then certain powers must be vested in the people (which they can assign to leaders through agency) which individuals do not possess. Hence, in both perspectives, the community is perceived as endowed with extraordinary powers. Indeed, it may be regarded as the equivalent, in political power, of both prophet and Sanhedrin, who together, in ancient days, were vested with the prerogative of designating political leaders.Additionally, may elected representatives vote contrary to the view of their constituents? According to R. Goren, elected officials serve to represent their consituents and, therefore, must follow their wishes (although he goes into detail about various circumstances that yield different conclusions). However, according to R. Kook's general approach, this is not the case because elected representatives have power and not just the power of the people.
Finally, may women serve as elected representatives? R. Roth suggests that this boils down to the above two approaches. According to R. Kook's view, an elected official is part of a kingship and women may not serve in such a capacity. However, according to R. Goren's approach, elected officials are merely representatives and therefore perhaps a woman can also serve in the government since she can serve as an emissary.
In summary, while there is much more that can be written on this subject, the idea that democracy is contrary to Judaism is simply incorrect.
(see also this post)
Heart and Seoul
9:06 AM
Gil Student
The RCA released a press release about R. Avraham Horovitz, an army chaplain who was honored at the recent RCA convention. I was there for the presentation and heard R. Horovitz speak. His speech was so inspiring that several times during his address he received standing ovations. An irony he told about his life is that his father was one of the founders of Yeshiva Devar Yerushalayim. So there he was, as a young boy in the 70s, learning Torah with some hippies who had left the US to avoid serving in the army. Decades later, some of those hippies are roshei yeshiva and he, the rosh yeshiva's son, is serving in the US military!
Interestingly, he said that when he saw (and spoke with) President Bush, he recited the blessing on seeing a king, something on which there is a dispute (see this post). President Bush said to him, "For God and country, but God first".
R. Horovitz is currently stationed in one of the most dangerous places in the world, the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea. He had previously been stationed in Iraq and even visited the ruins of Nebuchadnezzar's palace (and recited the appropriate blessing for that event).
Interestingly, he said that when he saw (and spoke with) President Bush, he recited the blessing on seeing a king, something on which there is a dispute (see this post). President Bush said to him, "For God and country, but God first".
R. Horovitz is currently stationed in one of the most dangerous places in the world, the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea. He had previously been stationed in Iraq and even visited the ruins of Nebuchadnezzar's palace (and recited the appropriate blessing for that event).
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
The Sanhedrin Controversy
10:03 PM
Gil Student
R. Yirmiyohu Kaganoff on Semicha and Sanhedrin Controversies of the 16th and 21st Centuries.
See also: I, II, III, IV
See also: I, II, III, IV
Forbidden Songs
6:16 AM
Gil Student
When I was in yeshiva, I was one of a small groups of guys who would regularly stay in yeshiva for Shabbos rather than go home or to a friend's. Until probably my last year, when a number of my friends were married and living in the neighborhood, I would eat all of my Shabbos meals in the cafeteria. Whenever a particular rabbi was the official speaker of that Shabbos, he, and usually his family, would eat with the students in the cafeteria. I remember noticing that R. Hershel Reichman (who, aside from being a rosh yeshiva and authoring five books of Rav Soloveitchik's commentary to the Talmud, was one of the originators of the Math Made Easy tutorial program) would sing a particular zemer (Shabbos song for the meal) with a minor variation. While everyone was singing the chorus of "Ha-Shomer Shabbos", instead of singing "La-Kel, la-Kel, la-Kel yeratzu" he would stretch out the first "La-Kel" to last for the three and then join everyone else for "yeratzu". This struck me as weird. Was this some kind of odd variation of the song? I thought so. But later I realized that he was probably just following the Mishnah in Megillah.
The Mishnah (Megillah 25a) states that a prayer leader who says "Modim modim" must be silenced. The reason for this, the Gemara explains, is that by repeating the word he implies that there are two gods to whom he is praying. The Gemara adds that one is also not allowed to say "Shema shema" for the same reason (there is a debate over whether this applies to repeating just the one word or the whole verse, and the Beis Yosef [Orach Chaim 61] rules to be strict according to both opinions]).
Therefore, I assumed that R. Reichman was following this Mishnah and refusing to repeat a word used to refer to God in a song, so as not to imply that there are multiple Gods. There was a song a few years ago called "Ribbono Shel Olam" (Master of the World) in which the phrase "Ribbono Shel Olam" is repeated a number of times. I remember hearing (and this goes back over 15 years) that R. Hershel Schachter held that it is forbidden to sing this song (as well as the song "Aibishter"). A guilty pleasure of mine is enjoying a recent remake of the song when it is played on one of the online Jewish music stations. I also remember that my parents used to play a song from a Chassidic Music Festival in which the verse of "Shema" was actually made into a (pretty good) song and repeated over and over, in clear contradiction to the explicit words of the Gemara.
Is this still a concern or is this law just a throwback to the political battles during the emergence of the Christian religion? First of all, the Mishnah and the Gemara were both compiled long after Christianity separated from Judaism (as was the Shulchan Aruch -- see Orach Chaim 121:2, 61:9). Second, I have seen articles on Messianic Jewish (i.e. Christian) websites that have attempted to deduce from various repetitions in the prayer service (such as at the end of Yom Kippur) that Judaism really asserts belief in a trinity. This is not some long-forgotten concern.
So, now at my Shabbos table, we stretch out "La-Kel" like R. Reichman used to do. And since my son recently learned that Mishnah, he appreciates the reason for it.
[Then why is repetition allowed in the prayer service? I seem to recall that Rav Soloveitchik was against such repetitions. However, I assume that a justification for them is that there is a general rule that "chashad" -- concerns of impropriety -- does not apply to an entire congregation.]
The Mishnah (Megillah 25a) states that a prayer leader who says "Modim modim" must be silenced. The reason for this, the Gemara explains, is that by repeating the word he implies that there are two gods to whom he is praying. The Gemara adds that one is also not allowed to say "Shema shema" for the same reason (there is a debate over whether this applies to repeating just the one word or the whole verse, and the Beis Yosef [Orach Chaim 61] rules to be strict according to both opinions]).
Therefore, I assumed that R. Reichman was following this Mishnah and refusing to repeat a word used to refer to God in a song, so as not to imply that there are multiple Gods. There was a song a few years ago called "Ribbono Shel Olam" (Master of the World) in which the phrase "Ribbono Shel Olam" is repeated a number of times. I remember hearing (and this goes back over 15 years) that R. Hershel Schachter held that it is forbidden to sing this song (as well as the song "Aibishter"). A guilty pleasure of mine is enjoying a recent remake of the song when it is played on one of the online Jewish music stations. I also remember that my parents used to play a song from a Chassidic Music Festival in which the verse of "Shema" was actually made into a (pretty good) song and repeated over and over, in clear contradiction to the explicit words of the Gemara.
Is this still a concern or is this law just a throwback to the political battles during the emergence of the Christian religion? First of all, the Mishnah and the Gemara were both compiled long after Christianity separated from Judaism (as was the Shulchan Aruch -- see Orach Chaim 121:2, 61:9). Second, I have seen articles on Messianic Jewish (i.e. Christian) websites that have attempted to deduce from various repetitions in the prayer service (such as at the end of Yom Kippur) that Judaism really asserts belief in a trinity. This is not some long-forgotten concern.
So, now at my Shabbos table, we stretch out "La-Kel" like R. Reichman used to do. And since my son recently learned that Mishnah, he appreciates the reason for it.
[Then why is repetition allowed in the prayer service? I seem to recall that Rav Soloveitchik was against such repetitions. However, I assume that a justification for them is that there is a general rule that "chashad" -- concerns of impropriety -- does not apply to an entire congregation.]
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Missing Blog
2:07 PM
Gil Student
I'll admit it: I made a mistake. A blog that is glaringly absent from my list of blogs a rabbi must follow is the important and insightful blog of OrthoMom. I regrettably overlooked it when putting the list together. Sorry about that. It is definitely a blog you want to bookmark.
Monday, May 15, 2006
Tradition Online
11:10 PM
Gil Student
In case you haven't been checking back regularly, R. Yonatan Kaganoff has been updating the Tradition website with articles of interest: link
Articles of Interest
11:08 PM
Gil Student
Debating Modern Orthodoxy at Yeshiva College: The Greenberg-Lichtenstein Exchange by David Singer (Modern Judaism 2006:26). Singer doesn't include the more recent exchange in last year's Commentator, reprinted in My Yeshiva College, but it's still a good read.
UPDATE: Menachem Butler links to the original exchange in this post.
Sciences of What and the Science of Who by Georges Ansel (Azure Spring 5766 / 2006, No. 24). The son-in-law of Emmanuel Levinas writes about the conflict between Torah and science and claims that they never conflict, without ever addressing the cases where the two unquestionably conflict!
UPDATE: Menachem Butler links to the original exchange in this post.
Sciences of What and the Science of Who by Georges Ansel (Azure Spring 5766 / 2006, No. 24). The son-in-law of Emmanuel Levinas writes about the conflict between Torah and science and claims that they never conflict, without ever addressing the cases where the two unquestionably conflict!
Jews vs. Jews on Christians II
11:13 AM
Gil Student
In a past post, I commented on an essay by David Kilnghoffer in Feburary's First Things (now available online here). One of his claims is as follows:
Gavriel Aryeh Sanders has been discussing this on his radio show. I haven't listened to it but last week's show is available on his website (link).
Whenever I ask fellow Jews to explain their support of leaders such as Yoffie and Foxman, the most frequent response I get is that these men defend us against those who would pressure Jews to convert to Christianity. Yet no one I know can point to a personal experience of having been pressured to accept Jesus. Is it possible that Jews think that “Christianizing” is rampant only because the Yoffies and the Foxmans tell us so?In response, I'll note the following news alert from Shmais.com (link):
URGENT WARNING! MISSIONARIES TARGET CROWN HEIGHTS!I've been informed that it was not just Crown Heights that was targetted but also Boro Park and New Square. This is supposedly in advance of what one expert calls a "massive missionary outreach to Greater NYC like we have never seen".
11:02:PM Saturday, May 13, 2006
SNS has learned that over Shabbos many homes in Crown Heights got a DVD in the mail entitled "DAYS OF MOSHIACH".
PLEASE BEWARE THIS DVD IS THE PRODUCT OF MISSIONARIES AND SHOULD BE DESTROYED IMMEDIATELY!
PLEASE PASS THIS MESSAGE ON TO YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS
Gavriel Aryeh Sanders has been discussing this on his radio show. I haven't listened to it but last week's show is available on his website (link).
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Dr. Soloveitchik Leaves YU II
11:08 PM
Gil Student
So-Called-Orthodox Woman Rabbi II
9:41 PM
Gil Student
R. Uri Cohen sent me Rabbi Arieh Strikovsky's letter to The Jerusalem Post following the article claiming that he had ordained Haviva Ner-David. This letter appeared in in the print edition of The Jerusalem Post, In Jerusalem section, May 12, 2006, p. 15:
UPDATE: A reader commented that R. Strikovsky meant "Toreh Torah", that she should teach Torah, and not "Toreh Toreh" like "Yoreh Yoreh". Could be, and I guess we should accept his explanation and dismiss this entire episode. She wasn't ordained as a rabbi so there's no story.
FURTHER UPDATE: Steven Weiss is reporting that Ner-David is insisting that she was ordained.
CORRECTIONIf that is the case, I fail to understand the language he used in the "official recognition", as posted online by Steven Weiss (link):
In the article the term "ordination" was used throughout, whereas I clearly state that the document I signed read "... is more of an official recognition of her [Haviva Ner-David's] studies["] and was not intended to be construed as an ordination.
Dr. Arie Strikovsky
Jerusalem
בס"ד – י"ד ניסן התשס"וHe ends with "תורה תורה" which, if I understand the Hebrew properly, is a female version of "יורה יורה -- Yoreh Yoreh" which is precisely the language of ordination!
האמת ניתנת להגיד למאן דבעי למנדע, כי זה כמה שנים אשר
מרת חביבה נר-דוד שתליט"א
בת דניאל זאב ורחל קרסנר
למדה תורת ה' תמימה כדי לבצע את מגמתה לעבוד בכרם ישראל ולעזור לנפשות הקדושות בתוכו למצוא את דרכיהן המיוחדות להתחבר למסורת עמן ולקדוש ברוך הוא. כמה שנים למדה תחומי הסמכה לרבנות, כולל הלכות נידה (מסכת נידה כולה, ראשונים ואחרונים, וגם כתבה עבודתה לתואר שלישי בתחום של הלכות נידה), כשרות (סוגיות שונות וענינים שונים ביו"ד), ושבת (סוגיות שונות וענינים שונים באו"ח), לימדה נושאים הקשורים לנשים ביהדות במיוחד במישור ההלכתי, והכינה זוגות לחתונה ולחיי נישואין (במיוחד בקשר לטקס הקידושין ולהלכות נידה). דרך הכתיבה והפעילות החברתית נגעה בנשמות נוספות, והיא ממשיכה לשקוד בלימודיה התורניים. גם קיבלה השפעה וחכמה ממורים ומורות מומחים בענייני רוח והשקפה דתית ועשתה פרי בלימודי קודש עד כדי כך שיכולה היא לצאת ולהשפיע בעצמה. יש לה כח לדלות לצמאים לדבר ה' ממעיינות היהדות, לתת עצות הגונות לשואליה, לפתור בעיות אישיות באור היהדות ולהדריכם בתיקון העולם. היא ראויה, מוכנה ומוכשרה לכהן כמנהיגה, משפיעה רוחנית, מורה, ויועצת הלכה, ולכן תורה תורה כדת של תורה.
על זה באתי על החתום
UPDATE: A reader commented that R. Strikovsky meant "Toreh Torah", that she should teach Torah, and not "Toreh Toreh" like "Yoreh Yoreh". Could be, and I guess we should accept his explanation and dismiss this entire episode. She wasn't ordained as a rabbi so there's no story.
FURTHER UPDATE: Steven Weiss is reporting that Ner-David is insisting that she was ordained.
R. Moshe Shapiro in Teaneck
8:24 AM
Gil Student
I've learned that R. Moshe Shapiro will be speaking in Teaneck/Bergenfield this coming Sunday evening. He will be speaking in Congregation Beth Abraham, which is led by R. Ya'akov Neuberger. Note the follow article by R. Neuberger: Halakha and Scientific Method (PDF)
Friday, May 12, 2006
Adam's Genealogies II
1:01 PM
Gil Student
In my prior post on this topic, I noted the similarities between the genealogies of Cain and Seth, and how source critics propose that they are really the same genealogy from different sources. However, some scholars have pointed out that much can be gained from focusing on the differences in addition to the similarities.
Dr. David Sykes, in his unpublished doctoral dissertation Patterns in Genesis, raises a number of such issues. As he points out (p. 49):
1. Adam and Enosh
What seem to be going on here is that Adam was replaced by Enosh, for a new beginning of humanity that is devoted to Divine service. The name Adam reflects Adam's emergence from and connection to the ground (adamah). Enosh's spirituality is demonstrated in his name, that lacks the association with physicality.
2. Cain and Kenan
Cain was told that he would suffer seven-fold vengeance (4:15). Kenan, in contrast, had Mehalalel when he was seventy years old and lived to the age of eight hundred forty (7 x 120; 5:12-13). It seems that Kenan very pointedly lacked Cain's seven-fold punishment.
3. Enoch (Chanoch), Irad and Jared
After the Cainite Enoch was born, his father built a city and named it after him. The Cainite Enoch's son is named Irad, "ir" in Hebrew meaning city. There is a clear implication towards building and establishing civilization. The Sethite Enoch, on the other hand, is not connected to a city and his father, rather than son, is named Jared rather than Irad, thus removing the similarity to a city. Additionally, Jared raises memories of humanity's proper role in Creation: "ve-yirdu bi-dgas ha-yam -- and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea" (Gen. 1:26).
4. Mehujael, Methushael, Mahalel and Methuselah
It is unclear what Methushael means, but Mehujael means "erased by God." Among the Sethites, Mehujael is replaced with Mahalalel, whose name refers to praise of God. Methuselah, whose name is also unclear, had the longest life in the Bible. He was certainly not "erased by God."
What can be seen is that in both the Sethite and Cainite genealogies, "the third and fourth generations contain indications about human behavior exclusively, while the fifth and sixth involve divine response to that behavior as well" (p. 59). In the third and fourth generations, the Cainite Enoch and Irad represent focus on the physical while the Sethite Mahalel and Jared represent praising God and fulfilling man's proper role. In the fifth and sixth generations, the Cainite Mehujael and Methushael represent the destruction of their lines while the Cainite Enoch was taken up by God (Gen. 5:24) and Methuselah had the longest life. This accounts for the reversal of #3 and #5.
5. Lamech
Both the Cainites and the Sethites have a Lamech. The Cainite Lamech has three sons whose names recall the names of Cain and Abel, the first murderer and his victim, and are also closely related to the word mabul, flood. In contrast, the Sethite Lamech's son was Noah, who was pious and who, along with his three sons, survived the actual flood.
Cause of the Flood
R. Hayyim Angel, in his new book Through an Opaque Lens (pp. 112-118), adds that this entire consideration leads us directly to the flood. We see through the Cainites and Sethites that humanity was dividing into two separate groups -- "the godless, immoral Cain group; and the God-fearing descendants of Seth" (p. 117). The message of the genealogies was this separation in humanity. Then, at the beginning of Gen. 6, we learn of the "fall" of the "sons of God." Who were these "sons of God"? According to Ibn Ezra, these were people who had heretofore lived a Godly existence, i.e. the descendants of Seth. Their fall into immorality led to God's decision to destroy humanity and start over.
Are These Names Real?
What has been proposed so far is that there are interlinking themes among and literary connections between these two lists. This implies that they were not from two separate sources but were intentionally and carefully written in one document. But then were they historical or merely a literary tool? There is no reason to assume that they were not real. Either their names could have been prophetically given or, perhaps, the fluidity among names and usage of multiple names evident in the Bible was used by the Divine author of the Bible to present the story to fit the above messages.
Dr. David Sykes, in his unpublished doctoral dissertation Patterns in Genesis, raises a number of such issues. As he points out (p. 49):
Adam and Enosh have the same meaning, but they are different words; #3 and #5 are switched, and Cain, Irad, Mehujael and Methusael are not identical to Cainan, Jared, Mehalalel and Methuselah. Finally, there is another generation after the Lamechs on each side; the Cainite Lamech bore Jabal, Jubal, Tubal Cain and Naama while the Sethite Lamech bore Noah. These names are not similar at all.Sykes then proceeds to interpret the significance of these differences: Adam and the Cainites are all about settling the world and establishing civilization. Seth and his descendants, however, seem to be free of sin and perform acts of piety. Consider the naming of Cain and Seth. Eve gave him the name Cain because: "I have made a man with God" (4:1). Eve is the prideful subject. With Seth, on the other hand: "God has given me other seed instead of Abel, for Cain killed him" (4:25). God is the subject. The tone has already been set for the difference at their births. When Seth's son Enosh was born, "At that time people began to invoke the name of the Lord" (4:26). What Dr. Sykes proposed is that "[I]t would appear that the wicked line of the Cainites was replaced, pointedly, by the pious line of the Sethites" (p. 51).
1. Adam and Enosh
What seem to be going on here is that Adam was replaced by Enosh, for a new beginning of humanity that is devoted to Divine service. The name Adam reflects Adam's emergence from and connection to the ground (adamah). Enosh's spirituality is demonstrated in his name, that lacks the association with physicality.
2. Cain and Kenan
Cain was told that he would suffer seven-fold vengeance (4:15). Kenan, in contrast, had Mehalalel when he was seventy years old and lived to the age of eight hundred forty (7 x 120; 5:12-13). It seems that Kenan very pointedly lacked Cain's seven-fold punishment.
3. Enoch (Chanoch), Irad and Jared
After the Cainite Enoch was born, his father built a city and named it after him. The Cainite Enoch's son is named Irad, "ir" in Hebrew meaning city. There is a clear implication towards building and establishing civilization. The Sethite Enoch, on the other hand, is not connected to a city and his father, rather than son, is named Jared rather than Irad, thus removing the similarity to a city. Additionally, Jared raises memories of humanity's proper role in Creation: "ve-yirdu bi-dgas ha-yam -- and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea" (Gen. 1:26).
4. Mehujael, Methushael, Mahalel and Methuselah
It is unclear what Methushael means, but Mehujael means "erased by God." Among the Sethites, Mehujael is replaced with Mahalalel, whose name refers to praise of God. Methuselah, whose name is also unclear, had the longest life in the Bible. He was certainly not "erased by God."
What can be seen is that in both the Sethite and Cainite genealogies, "the third and fourth generations contain indications about human behavior exclusively, while the fifth and sixth involve divine response to that behavior as well" (p. 59). In the third and fourth generations, the Cainite Enoch and Irad represent focus on the physical while the Sethite Mahalel and Jared represent praising God and fulfilling man's proper role. In the fifth and sixth generations, the Cainite Mehujael and Methushael represent the destruction of their lines while the Cainite Enoch was taken up by God (Gen. 5:24) and Methuselah had the longest life. This accounts for the reversal of #3 and #5.
5. Lamech
Both the Cainites and the Sethites have a Lamech. The Cainite Lamech has three sons whose names recall the names of Cain and Abel, the first murderer and his victim, and are also closely related to the word mabul, flood. In contrast, the Sethite Lamech's son was Noah, who was pious and who, along with his three sons, survived the actual flood.
Cause of the Flood
R. Hayyim Angel, in his new book Through an Opaque Lens (pp. 112-118), adds that this entire consideration leads us directly to the flood. We see through the Cainites and Sethites that humanity was dividing into two separate groups -- "the godless, immoral Cain group; and the God-fearing descendants of Seth" (p. 117). The message of the genealogies was this separation in humanity. Then, at the beginning of Gen. 6, we learn of the "fall" of the "sons of God." Who were these "sons of God"? According to Ibn Ezra, these were people who had heretofore lived a Godly existence, i.e. the descendants of Seth. Their fall into immorality led to God's decision to destroy humanity and start over.
Are These Names Real?
What has been proposed so far is that there are interlinking themes among and literary connections between these two lists. This implies that they were not from two separate sources but were intentionally and carefully written in one document. But then were they historical or merely a literary tool? There is no reason to assume that they were not real. Either their names could have been prophetically given or, perhaps, the fluidity among names and usage of multiple names evident in the Bible was used by the Divine author of the Bible to present the story to fit the above messages.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
R. Chaim David Halevy on Sages and Science
11:35 PM
Gil Student
R. Chaim David Halevy, prominent and recently deceased halakhic authority, former Chief Sephardic Rabbi of Tel Aviv, is quoted as being of the following view in Rabbi Haim David Halevy: Gentle Scholar and Courageous Thinker:Rabbi Halevy remarked that Rambam, who was himself a prominent doctor, relied on contemporary medical and scientific knowledge, even when that information was at time in conflict with opinions of rabbis in the Talmud.[31] Indeed, the rabbis in the Talmud themselves admitted that non-Jewish scholars sometimes had more accurate scientific knowledge.[32] This was a tribute to our rabbis' commitment to truth.Evidently, he disagreed with those who signed the ban against Rabbi Slifkin's books that this view is unacceptable and heretical.
[31] Aseh Lekha Rav 2:1, p. 11.
[32] Aseh Lekha Rav 5:49.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Learning On and Before Holidays
9:46 PM
Gil Student
From R. Daniel Z. Feldman, on YUTorah.org (Pesachim 6a, no link available):
The Talmud (Pesachim 6a) states that thirty days before Pesach we are to “inquire and expound” (shoalin v’dorshin) the laws of Pesach, just as Moshe stood on Pesach and taught about Pesach sheni, one month later. Elsewhere, however, the Talmud (Megilah 32a) refers to such inquiry on the festival day itself (hilkhot chag b’chag, etc.) [BASED ON LEV. 23:1, IN THIS WEEK'S PARASHAH -- GS]. The Ran and the Ritva, in reconciling the two sources, suggest that the thirty day period does not represent a span in which expounding is obligatory, but rather one in which the topic is considered timely, so that a student who asks his rebbe a question in this area is considered “shoel k’inyan”, asking of the topic at hand, even if the rebbe is teaching different subject matter, and thus deserves prioritized attention. (See Taz, 429:1, for an interesting application of this point in the realm of monetary law.)I saw that R. Yitzchak Hutner (Pachad Yitzchak: Sefer Zikaron, I think around p. 249) explains differently. R. Yisrael Salanter (Or Yisrael, ch. 31) differentiates between a chok, a mitzvah whose reason we do not understand, and a mishpat, a mitzvah whose reason we understand. He suggests that learning Torah is always a mishpat because we need to know how to fulfill the mitzvos; even learning about a chok is a mishpat because, regardless of why we have to do the mitzvah, we know that we must learn about it to be able to perform it. (Learning about a mitzvah that one cannot put into practice, such as ben sorer u-moreh, is a chok.) Based on this, R. Hutner suggests that learning about a holiday 30 days in advance is a mishpat, because we have to know how to observe the holiday. But after 30 days of learning the laws, learning about them on the holiday itself is a fulfillment of the learning as a chok, because we already know how to observe.
The extent to which this period prior to the festival becomes an active part of the observance is emphasized by a query posed by R. Shlomo Kluger (Resp. HaElef Likha Shlomo, #384). He discusses a situation where two questioners simultaneously approach the Rabbi on Purim: one with a question concerning Purim, and one with a Pesach question. Which question should be answered first? He leaves the question unresolved; while one might think Purim issues would be prioritized, as it is Purim at the moment, the fact that it is also thirty days before Pesach (see Pri Chadash 421:1) makes Pesach a current reality as well.
Many other Rishonim, however, understand there to be an active obligation to expound the day from thirty days before. This leaves the question, then, as to how to reconcile the two passages. In the understanding of some commentaries (see Bach and Gra to O.C. 601) the fundamental rule is expounding on the day itself, but that obligation expands to begin a month earlier.
R. Chaim Aharon Turtzin (Kuntres Chanukah U’Megilah, Megilah #3) suggests that the two concepts are actually fundamentally different. The obligation that begins a month prior is for the purpose of knowing the relevant laws of the festival, and is structured as such. (See Mishnah Berurah for a discussion of the possibility that the period is shortened for less complicated festivals).The obligation on the festival itself, by contrast, is more of a homiletic nature, to publicize and underscore the theme of the day. Similarly, as R. Yitzchak Sorotzkin observes (Gevurot Yitzchak, Purim, 25) the Kr’iat HaTorah on the festival becomes a fulfillment of that second aspect.
Jewish Observer Obituary for Rav Soloveitchik
12:37 PM
Gil Student
On The Main Line has scanned in the 1993 obituary in The Jewish Observer for R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik. You might read it and wonder why people found this offensive. But anyone who regularly reads the magazine and is familiar with the lavish praise they heap on anyone can only see this as a slap in the face. Notice the big "zikhrono livrakhah" (may his memory be for a blessing) rather than the standard "zekher tzaddik livrakhah" (may the memory of the righteous be for a blessing). Given how freely the magazine gives out zt"l's, the omission is glaring. There are also a number of not-so-subtle digs at him and his philosophy in the obituary.
Monday, May 08, 2006
The Ten Plagues
11:45 PM
Gil Student
It is no secret that historians have long tried to give naturalistic explanations of the ten plagues. I recently reread James K. Hoffmeier's book Israel in Egypt, in which he continues that tradition. This always made me uncomfortable. I vividly recall as a teenager, arguing with Jules Gutin about this topic. He asked me what is wrong with saying that the plagues could be explained within nature and I responded that I'm not sure, but there's got to be something wrong with it. Well, maybe not. The following is from R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, The Emergence of Ethical Man, pp. 187-188:
The supernatural miracle is not very welcome in the covenant society. We prefer the regular flow of life. The Halakhah is completely integrated with the natural process. It never takes cognizance of any causalistic anomalies. Yet the central theme of the exodus tale is the miracle.I hope to follow up on the halakhic implications that emerge from this excerpt in a future post.
What is a miracle in Judaism? The word "miracle" in Hebrew does not possess the connotation of the supernatural. It has never been placed on a transcendental level. "Miracle" (pele, nes) describes only an outstanding event which causes amazement. A turning point in history is always a miracle, for it commands attention as an event which intervened fatefully in the formation of that group or that individual. As we read the story of the exodus from Egypt, we are impressed by the distinct tendency of the Bible to relate the events in natural terms. The frogs came out of the river when the Nile rose, the wind brought the locusts and split the sea. All archaeologists agree that the plagues as depicted by the Bible are very closely related to the geographical and climatic conditions that prevail in Egypt. Behind the passages in the Bible we may discern a distinct intention to describe the plagues as naturally as possible. The Bible never emphasizes the unnaturalness of the events; only its intensity and force are emphasized. The reason for that is obvious. A philosophy which considers the world-drama as a fixed, mechanical process governed by an unintelligent, indifferent principle, may regard the miracle as a supernatural transcendental phenomenon which does not fit into the causalistic, meaningless monotony. Israel, however, who looked upon the universal occurrence as the continuous realization of a divine ethical will embedded into dead and live matter, could never classify the miracle as something unique and incomprehensible. Both natural monotony and the surprising element in nature express God's word. Both are regular, lawful phenomena; both can be traced to an identical source...
In what, then, does the uniqueness of the miracle assert itself? In the correspondence of the natural and historical orders. The miracle does not destroy the objective scientific nexus in itself, it only combines natural dynamics and historical purposefulness. Had the plague of the firstborn, for instance, occurred a year before or after the exodus, it would not ahve been termed "with a strong hand" (be-yad hazakah). Why? God would have been instrumental in a natural children's plague. Yet God acts just as the world ruler. On the night of Passover He appeared as the God of the cosmos acting along historical patterns. The intervention of nature in the historical process is a miracle. Whether God planned that history adjust itself to natural catastrophes or, vice versa, He commands nature to cooperate with the historical forces, is irrelevant. Miracle is simply a natural event which causes a historical metamorphosis. Whenever history is transfigured under the impact of cosmis dynamics, we encounter a miracle.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Pirchei Politics
9:12 PM
Gil Student
I just came back from taking my 8-year old son to the Pirchei Agudas Yisroel siyum mishnayos. I saw (and spoke with) a rosh yeshivah from YU who was there. Guess: Do you think he was asked to sit on the dais?
At the end, they showed a video Dare to Dream about the building of Torah in America. Coincidentally, everyone who built Torah in America was a rosh yeshivah affiliated with Agudath Israel (they graciously included R. Eliezer Silver despite his being just a simple pulpit rabbi). Except for the Satmar Rav, who was nevertheless (rightly) included. Rav Soloveitchik? Evidently, he did nothing in building Torah in America. As I told my son as we left, if it wasn't for Rav Soloveitchik, the school I attended where I learned Torah would never have been built.
My wife says, "What do you expect?" I keep expecting truth from the world of Torah but I guess that's wishful thinking.
At the end, they showed a video Dare to Dream about the building of Torah in America. Coincidentally, everyone who built Torah in America was a rosh yeshivah affiliated with Agudath Israel (they graciously included R. Eliezer Silver despite his being just a simple pulpit rabbi). Except for the Satmar Rav, who was nevertheless (rightly) included. Rav Soloveitchik? Evidently, he did nothing in building Torah in America. As I told my son as we left, if it wasn't for Rav Soloveitchik, the school I attended where I learned Torah would never have been built.
My wife says, "What do you expect?" I keep expecting truth from the world of Torah but I guess that's wishful thinking.
Rabbi Shlomo Goren: Torah Sage and General
9:11 PM
Gil Student
I read over Shabbos the new book published by Urim, Rabbi Shlomo Goren: Torah Sage and General. It is excellent! There are a number of idiosyncratic aspects of the book, but that doesn't matter. It was simply a fascinating read. The book is not a thorough biography but a survey of Rabbi Goren's life and thought. Accessible, readable, gripping. And a lot of great pictures (including one of Rav Elyashiv). Plus, no shortage of criticism about R. Goren, albeit written from the perspective of a clear admirer. Coming away from the book, you get a picture of a great, learned and pious man who had a huge impact on history but was still a human being.This book should be on every Jewish bookshelf. Note that I write that without having any financial stake in the book. Buy it. Read it. Have your children read it.
Friday, May 05, 2006
So-Called-Orthodox Woman Rabbi
11:28 AM
Gil Student
The Jerusalem Post (link) is reporting that Haviva Ner-David has been ordained a rabbi by an Orthodox rabbi who is "well-regarded in modern Orthodox circles," Rabbi Aryeh Strikovsky (WHO???). Mrs. Ner-David is calling herself an Orthodox rabbi. Unfortunately for advocates of female Orthodox rabbis, they seem to have been given a radical for their poster-child.
According to this article, which could very well be wrong, Mrs. Ner-David has "been called up to the Torah twice since [her] ordination." She prays while wearing tefillin and tzitzis. And she speaks of the rabbinate as perpetuating a "patriarchal, hierarchical model." A book on which she is working discusses, among other things, "creating rituals for miscarriage [and] designing egalitarian Jewish wedding ceremonies that will guarantee women's equal status during the marriage and in the event of divorce."
In other words, this is a woman rabbi who speaks and acts like a Conservative rabbi. It's only news because she calls herself Orthodox. But, according to the article, she is no fool: "She knows that some Orthodox Jews will not accept her ordination and will not acknowledge her religious and social status as a rabbi." I'd say that "some" is the understatement of the year.
(See this post on the ordination of women.)
According to this article, which could very well be wrong, Mrs. Ner-David has "been called up to the Torah twice since [her] ordination." She prays while wearing tefillin and tzitzis. And she speaks of the rabbinate as perpetuating a "patriarchal, hierarchical model." A book on which she is working discusses, among other things, "creating rituals for miscarriage [and] designing egalitarian Jewish wedding ceremonies that will guarantee women's equal status during the marriage and in the event of divorce."
In other words, this is a woman rabbi who speaks and acts like a Conservative rabbi. It's only news because she calls herself Orthodox. But, according to the article, she is no fool: "She knows that some Orthodox Jews will not accept her ordination and will not acknowledge her religious and social status as a rabbi." I'd say that "some" is the understatement of the year.
(See this post on the ordination of women.)
Thursday, May 04, 2006
What A Rabbi Needs To Know About Blogs
10:04 PM
Gil Student
I will, God-willing, be speaking next Monday (5 pm) at the RCA convention on the subject of what a rabbi needs to know about blogs. The following is a brief outline of my planned remarks. As usual, feel free to comment. I'm more than prepared to change some of this speech if someone comes up with good ideas that I'm missing.
(Before anyone asks, this event is only open to members of the RCA.)
(Before anyone asks, this event is only open to members of the RCA.)
- Introduction
- Why should a rabbi care about blogs?
- 3 types of rabbis
- Why should a rabbi care about blogs?
- What is a blog?
- Technical definition
- 2 types of blogs
- Blog stats
- Technical definition
- Who writes a blog and why?
- Insiders, outsiders, professional commentators, the seldom-heard everyman
- Amateurs
- Outlet for the frustrated
- Anonymous commentary
- Get out a message
- Fun
- Outlet for the frustrated
- Professionals
- Immediate
- Less formal
- Testing ground
- Immediate
- Insiders, outsiders, professional commentators, the seldom-heard everyman
- What impact do blogs currently have?
- Media: source for stories and quotes
- Breaking news, immediate reports on events, inside perspectives
- News the media will not report, for better or worse
- Continuing discussion of stories
- Online learning
- Reach of blogs
- Chassidish and Yeshiva worlds
- Rabbis
- Academia
- Global village
- Chassidish and Yeshiva worlds
- Media: source for stories and quotes
- What blogs and topics are popular?
- JIB awards
- Inspirational blogs
- Commentary on current events blogs
- Torah blogs
- Israel blogs
- Skeptic blogs
- Prominent personality blogs
- Scandal blogs
- Hipster Judaism blogs
- Miscellaneous
- JIB awards
- Which blogs must a rabbi follow?
- NOT BEING POSTED
- Are blogs a permanent part of the Jewish community?
- Yes and no
- The fading thrill of scandal and skepticism
- Other internet media that have diminished in importance
- Communities/forums
- E-mail lists
- Communities/forums
- Yes and no
Adam's Genealogies
9:50 AM
Gil Student
Genealogies are pretty boring to the casual reader of the Bible, but scholars consider them juicy material for study. The following discussion will be about the genealogies of Cain (Gen. 4:16-24) and Seth (Gen. 5:1-32). Critics point out that the similarities between those two lists are very suspicious. Compare the names from Cain's and Seth's families:
The following similarities jump out at you when you compare the genealogies in this fashion:
CAIN
| SETH
|
- Adam and Enosh are homonyms, both meaning "man"
- Cain and Kenan are almost the exactly same name (the only difference in Hebrew is a "final nun" on Kenan)
- Enoch is number 3 in Cain's list and number 5 in Seth's list
- Irad and Jared are very similar names
- Mehujael (#5 in Cain's list) is very similar to Mehalalel (#3 in Seth's list)
- Methushael and Methuselah are very similar names
- Lamech is #7 on both lists
- Lamech had three sons who are listed, as did Noah
The two genealogical lists, one from J and one from the Book of Records, have some names that are the same or similar and others that are different, perhaps indicating a common, more ancient source...Prof. Umberto Caussuto was, to my knowledge, the first to counter this argument by highlighting the differences between the two lists to show that they are not the same. This was significantly refined by David Sykes in his unpublished 1985 doctoral dissertation Patterns in Genesis, and R. Hayyim Angel, in his recently published Through an Opaque Lens, briefly suggests how these genealogies advance the plot of the larger section of the text. All of this to come in the next post on this subject.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
The Legacy of Rav Aharon Kotler II
9:21 PM
Gil Student
Following up on this post, Dr. Marvin Schick writes the following in the RJJ Newsletter, as posted to his blog (link):
Our current instinct to go it alone also results in the distortion of the past in order to make it compatible with how we now act and feel. An English language book has just been published on the life and teachings of the great Roshe Yeshiva of Lakewood. I trust that it has much merit, but it also puts on display the problem we face. There is a photograph from the first Chinuch Atzmai dinner which was held more than a half century ago. Amazingly, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik has been cropped out of the picture. What makes this distortion especially egregious is that he was at the dinner because Rav Aharon Kotler pleaded with him to come and be the main speaker. I might add that his speech was a memorable occasion that I still cherish fifty years later. It served as an expression of how our most eminent leaders from different segments of Orthodoxy knew of their obligation to work together.
The Lubavitcher Rebbe and Belief in Messiah
9:17 PM
Gil Student
Rabbi Immanuel Schochet is quoted here as saying:
The worst thing is that even if Rabbi Schochet recognizes that he is merely making an exaggerated statement, there are plenty of people who read/hear things like that and believe it literally. They honestly think that the vast majority of frum Jews did not truly believe in a fundamental principle until the Lubavitcher Rebbe came onto the scene.
The Rebbe revived the fundamental principle of Judaism — to believe in the imminent coming of Moshiach — which had come into complete neglect. People basically ignored it... Before the Rebbe, who discussed the principle of Moshiach as a vital reality?While Rabbi Schochet is much older than I, everything I know about this contradicts his claim. In fact, his statement is extremely outrageous to the point of offensiveness. I don't know if he fully recognizes what he is accusing the world of being before the Lubavitcher Rebbe. I don't know if he understands who he charging with near-heresy or, at best, spiritual sleep.
The worst thing is that even if Rabbi Schochet recognizes that he is merely making an exaggerated statement, there are plenty of people who read/hear things like that and believe it literally. They honestly think that the vast majority of frum Jews did not truly believe in a fundamental principle until the Lubavitcher Rebbe came onto the scene.
The Strength to Repent
8:52 AM
Gil Student
Just a reminder that R. Yehuda Henkin's essay on the theological significance of the State of Israel is available on Open Access (link - PDF).
Also, R. Shlomo Aviner's booklet on the Religious Zionist principle of aliyah, Do Not Ascend Like A Wall, is available here (PDF).
Also, R. Shlomo Aviner's booklet on the Religious Zionist principle of aliyah, Do Not Ascend Like A Wall, is available here (PDF).
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
R. Moshe Lichtenstein on the State of Israel
10:08 PM
Gil Student
R. Moshe Lichtenstein has an excellent article in the most recent issue of Alei Etzion on the religious significance of Israel Independence Day (link). Let me summarize it, at least as I understand it. He has two main points which lead to his conclusion:
I. Secular Zionism
Secular Zionism is a renewal of the Covenant of the Patriarchs (Berit Avot*). This covenant includes connection of the nation to the land of Israel (cf. Gen. 17:7-8; Lev. 26:42). Secular Zionism reestablished a bond of Jewish nationalism and a link to the land of Israel, culminating in a state. While this does not include the Covenant of Sinai (Berit Sinai*), which involves observance of the Torah, it is still a significant renewal of a biblical covenant with God.
II. Covenants
Jewish holidays do not commemorate miracles per se, but covenants. Thus, there are miracles that have no holidays (e.g. Jericho) and holidays that have no miracles (e.g. Sukkot*). Chanukah and Purim, in particular, represent renewals of the Berit Sinai.
III. Yom Ha-Atzma'ut
Thus, Israel Independence Day commemorates the renewal of Berit Avot* and, therefore, qualifies as a Jewish holiday: "It is neither the actual establishment of the national entity, nor the claims of "the heels of the Messiah," but rather the renewal of the covenant on the part of the generation of Israel's independence that lies at the heart of this festival."
R. Lichtenstein's evaluation of Secular Zionism is, in my opinion, brilliant and innovative.
* Note that in honor of Israel Independence Day, I am transliterating in Modern Hebrew.
I. Secular Zionism
Secular Zionism is a renewal of the Covenant of the Patriarchs (Berit Avot*). This covenant includes connection of the nation to the land of Israel (cf. Gen. 17:7-8; Lev. 26:42). Secular Zionism reestablished a bond of Jewish nationalism and a link to the land of Israel, culminating in a state. While this does not include the Covenant of Sinai (Berit Sinai*), which involves observance of the Torah, it is still a significant renewal of a biblical covenant with God.
II. Covenants
Jewish holidays do not commemorate miracles per se, but covenants. Thus, there are miracles that have no holidays (e.g. Jericho) and holidays that have no miracles (e.g. Sukkot*). Chanukah and Purim, in particular, represent renewals of the Berit Sinai.
III. Yom Ha-Atzma'ut
Thus, Israel Independence Day commemorates the renewal of Berit Avot* and, therefore, qualifies as a Jewish holiday: "It is neither the actual establishment of the national entity, nor the claims of "the heels of the Messiah," but rather the renewal of the covenant on the part of the generation of Israel's independence that lies at the heart of this festival."
R. Lichtenstein's evaluation of Secular Zionism is, in my opinion, brilliant and innovative.
* Note that in honor of Israel Independence Day, I am transliterating in Modern Hebrew.
Rav Gustman and Israeli Soldiers
9:42 AM
Gil Student
A must-read article by R. Ari Kahn (link):
At the cemetery, Rav Gustman was agitated. He surveyed the rows of graves of the young men, soldiers who died defending the Land. On the way back from the cemetery, Rav Gustman turned to another passenger in the car and said, "They are all holy."
Another passenger questioned the rabbi: "Even the non-religious soldiers?"
Rav Gustman replied: "Every single one of them."
Monday, May 01, 2006
Holocaust Theodicy
10:45 PM
Gil Student
Last week was Yom Hashoah, Holocaust Memorial Day. I don't observe that day, less for of an ideological reason than simply because my memories of the observances of that day do not include anything religious. To me, the Holocaust must be remembered from a theological perspective and Yom Hashoah never provided that for me. In my synagogue, we remember the Holocaust on Tisha B'Av, and that is the Holocaust Memorial Day for me.
Nevertheless, let me bring up an interesting book about the Holocaust. R. Ezriel Tauber is himself a survivor of the Holocaust, which gives him the permission to discuss its theological ramifications that most others lack. Why did God allow it to happen? Why did God cause, or allow, such horrible suffering and death? In his book Darkness Before Dawn, R. Tauber attempts to answer those questions. The book is worth reading if only for the many stories it contains, some horrifying, all inspiring.
R. Tauber's basic answer is that the suffering and death were not Divine punishments but opportunities for spiritual growth through resistance. And even those who did not grow are surely not to blame, given the duress under which they were placed. As individuals and as a group, the martyrs and survivors of the Holocaust also serve as an inspiration to future generations and as guides for how to live our religious lives.
However, this idea ignores the medieval philosophers and commentators who discuss whether there is an exception to the idea that God will not inflict undeserved suffering. According to some, that is the definition of Yissurin Shel Ahavah. According to others, even Yissurin Shel Ahavah require sin.
Furthermore, it raises the question of Divine justice. It says that God would inflict horrific suffering on an individual to see if he will grow from it. In other words, it does not answer the question of the suffering of the Holocaust but only restates it in other words. One is still left with the same questions, even after reading the whole book.
R. Tauber is not unaware of the many Jews who became non-religious because of the Holocaust. Why did that happen? He answers that either they were destined to become non-religious anyway or their souls were of the Erev Rav whose "original conversion to Judaism was laced with questionable, ulterior motives" (pp. 255-256).
[One should not leave this post thinking that there is no other Jewish response to the Holocaust. See, for example, here and here.]
UPDATE: It has come to my attention that not everyone realizes that this post was a criticism of R. Tauber's view. That's what it is.
Nevertheless, let me bring up an interesting book about the Holocaust. R. Ezriel Tauber is himself a survivor of the Holocaust, which gives him the permission to discuss its theological ramifications that most others lack. Why did God allow it to happen? Why did God cause, or allow, such horrible suffering and death? In his book Darkness Before Dawn, R. Tauber attempts to answer those questions. The book is worth reading if only for the many stories it contains, some horrifying, all inspiring.
R. Tauber's basic answer is that the suffering and death were not Divine punishments but opportunities for spiritual growth through resistance. And even those who did not grow are surely not to blame, given the duress under which they were placed. As individuals and as a group, the martyrs and survivors of the Holocaust also serve as an inspiration to future generations and as guides for how to live our religious lives.
However, this idea ignores the medieval philosophers and commentators who discuss whether there is an exception to the idea that God will not inflict undeserved suffering. According to some, that is the definition of Yissurin Shel Ahavah. According to others, even Yissurin Shel Ahavah require sin.
Furthermore, it raises the question of Divine justice. It says that God would inflict horrific suffering on an individual to see if he will grow from it. In other words, it does not answer the question of the suffering of the Holocaust but only restates it in other words. One is still left with the same questions, even after reading the whole book.
R. Tauber is not unaware of the many Jews who became non-religious because of the Holocaust. Why did that happen? He answers that either they were destined to become non-religious anyway or their souls were of the Erev Rav whose "original conversion to Judaism was laced with questionable, ulterior motives" (pp. 255-256).
[One should not leave this post thinking that there is no other Jewish response to the Holocaust. See, for example, here and here.]
UPDATE: It has come to my attention that not everyone realizes that this post was a criticism of R. Tauber's view. That's what it is.
Fast of the Firstborn
10:58 AM
Gil Student
Before Pesach, I was asked whether a convert who is a firstborn should fast on the eve of Pesach, in the fast of the firstborn. On the one hand, a convert is considered like a newborn child in terms of his familial relationships so his parents are not halakhically considered his parents. On the other hand, he still retains the "metzi'us" (reality) of being descended from his parents and therefore, for one example, inherits from them. While being firstborn is normally a halakhic status rather than a reality, in the case of the fast of the firstborn, it is possible that what is needed is only a reality and not a status. After all, the plague on which this fast is based applied to all firstborns, even animals, regardless of halakhic status. See Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 570 and commentators.
So my thinking was that a firstborn convert should probably fast (or attend a siyum). I ran it by a prominent rabbi in Brooklyn and he agreed.
I subsequently found the following by R. Doniel Neustadt:
So my thinking was that a firstborn convert should probably fast (or attend a siyum). I ran it by a prominent rabbi in Brooklyn and he agreed.
I subsequently found the following by R. Doniel Neustadt:
The status of a bechor born by cesarean section (16), or of a first-born non-Jew who converts (17), is a matter of disagreement among the poskim. It is therefore recommended that these bechorim participate in a seudas mitzvah and thereby satisfy all opinions (18).link
16 See Chok Yaakov 470:2; Kaf ha-Chayim 470:3.
17 Shevet ha-Levi 8:117.
18 Harav Y.S. Elyashiv (Seder ha-Aruch, vol. 3, pg. 44).
Bad Questions
7:37 AM
Gil Student
R. Chaim Jachter, author of Gray Matter and Gray Matter volume 2, discusses how the same question can be asked properly and improperly: link
