R. Menachem Genack, in The Forward, on the move towards glatt kosher (link).
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Post-Disengagement Zionism
9:36 AM
Gil Student
Frequent commenter and infrequent blogger Nachum Lamm has a great letter in the current issue of Jewish Action:
Jews regard the State of Israel highly for a number of reasons. Citizens of Israel may have a patriotic feeling toward it; Jews worldwide may see it as a physical haven and home base. Religious Jews worldwide may see Israel as all that, plus a spiritual home, a gift from God and, hopefully, the stage of the redemption.
None of these reasons touch the government of the State, as terrible as some of its ideas or actions may be. I don't think, for example, that when Bill Clinton became president in 1992, conservative or Republican commentators in the United Stated agonized over whether they would have to stop being patriotic, or loving their country or serving in the armed forces.
As human beings with minds of our own, we will never completely agree with whoever it is who is governing us... But giving up on the whole enterprise when that happens is inexplicable.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Relations During War II
10:52 PM
Gil Student
The Beth Medrash of Avraham Avinu
10:47 PM
Gil Student
In September 2005, R. Nathan Lopes Cardozo gave a lecture at the David Cardozo Academy in Jerusalem about his vision of Jewish education and future. I don't quite know what to make of it. In it, R. Cardozo rejects a lot of things: both the Modern Orthodox and Charedi approaches; the lomdus method of studying Gemara; academia; basically the entire establishment and status quo. He proposes spending more time on aggadah and that Gemara be learned with a focus on Jewish thought and finding patterns among the different talmudic personalities. He suggests constantly questioning, even well-established beliefs.
Frankly, I'm a bit concerned. I have nothing but tremendous respect for R. Cardozo but I just don't know what this is all about.
Definitely worth the read: link
The Slifkin Torah-Science Controversy III
12:21 PM
Gil Student
The Jewish Press has published four more letters about my article and my response, all under the title "Slifkin Critics Have Their Say": link
(Prior posts: I, II)
(Prior posts: I, II)
BTs and Parenting
11:58 AM
Gil Student
Remember the post about why not to marry a BT? The blogger at Kallah Magazine directs readers to a column from "a certain RW-leaning family magazine" in which the author explains why BTs (returnees to Jewish practice) make bad parents (link). Lovely.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Relations During War
10:19 PM
Gil Student
Based on the Gemara in Ta'anis (11a), the Shulchan Arukh (Orach Chaim 240:12; 574:4) rules that a couple may not have marital relations during a famine. The Rema (240:12) adds that this includes other times of trouble. A notable exception to this is couples without any children.
R. Avraham of Botchatch (Eishel Avraham, 240) discussed the situation in his town, in which young men were kidnapped and forcefully drafted into the army. Does this time of trouble mean that couples are not allowed to have marital relations? He advances a number of leniencies, such as:
1. If the solution is prepared (i.e. money to pay off the kidnappers), then the trouble is considered to have passed.
2. A trouble that lasts many years is too much for people to handle refraining from relations.
3. This rule only applies to the specific locality in which there is trouble. People in other places need not refrain.
The Taz, in his Divrei David on Parashas Miketz (quoted by the Sha'arei Teshuvah) also says that people whose inclinations might overcome them and cause them to commit worse sins, should not refrain from relations. Additionally, if one's intention is to have relations in order to have children, rather than personal pleasure, then one may also not refrain.
Does this apply to times of war? From the simple wording of the Rema, it seems that it should. The Minchas Elazar, in his Nimmukei Orach Chaim (574:2), discusses whether there was an obligation to refrain from relations during World War 1. He concludes that one did not have to because, as above, the war lasted for many years. Additionally, because of these wars that last a generation, if Jews refrained from having children then this might, God forbid, lead to the end of the Jewish people.
What about when there is a war in Israel? While those of us who do not live in Israel might have the Eishel Avraham's leniency that it is not in our locale, this might not apply to a trouble in Israel, which really affects Jews all over the world. On the other hand, Israel has been in a state of war since its inception (cf. R. Hershel Schachter, Be-Ikvei Ha-Tzon, p. 206 in the name of R. Ya'akov Kamenetsky). Therefore, it would seem that relations would be permissible because the trouble has lasted for so long. But I'm certainly not in a position to rule on this matter.
R. Avraham of Botchatch (Eishel Avraham, 240) discussed the situation in his town, in which young men were kidnapped and forcefully drafted into the army. Does this time of trouble mean that couples are not allowed to have marital relations? He advances a number of leniencies, such as:
1. If the solution is prepared (i.e. money to pay off the kidnappers), then the trouble is considered to have passed.
2. A trouble that lasts many years is too much for people to handle refraining from relations.
3. This rule only applies to the specific locality in which there is trouble. People in other places need not refrain.
The Taz, in his Divrei David on Parashas Miketz (quoted by the Sha'arei Teshuvah) also says that people whose inclinations might overcome them and cause them to commit worse sins, should not refrain from relations. Additionally, if one's intention is to have relations in order to have children, rather than personal pleasure, then one may also not refrain.
Does this apply to times of war? From the simple wording of the Rema, it seems that it should. The Minchas Elazar, in his Nimmukei Orach Chaim (574:2), discusses whether there was an obligation to refrain from relations during World War 1. He concludes that one did not have to because, as above, the war lasted for many years. Additionally, because of these wars that last a generation, if Jews refrained from having children then this might, God forbid, lead to the end of the Jewish people.
What about when there is a war in Israel? While those of us who do not live in Israel might have the Eishel Avraham's leniency that it is not in our locale, this might not apply to a trouble in Israel, which really affects Jews all over the world. On the other hand, Israel has been in a state of war since its inception (cf. R. Hershel Schachter, Be-Ikvei Ha-Tzon, p. 206 in the name of R. Ya'akov Kamenetsky). Therefore, it would seem that relations would be permissible because the trouble has lasted for so long. But I'm certainly not in a position to rule on this matter.
Why I'm Buying The Challenge of Creation
10:17 PM
Gil Student
I received this e-mail last week and have been given permission to post it:
Dear Gil,Buy the book
I'm a Conservative Jew, who has recently started attending an Orthodox congregation. I am receptive to the Orthodox view of the world when it comes to matters of faith and practice, but find rigid, intolerant, literalism, particularly with respect to matters of science, a total "turn off." I could not dedicate myself to a Torah that requires blinding ourselves to empirically established facts.
I read the reference to Rabbi Slifkin's book in the Weekly Standard and was intrigued. (I read a book with a similar premise, that I recall as being "The Science of G-d" a decade ago or so, by somebody I recall as Gerald Schroeder...do you recall that book?)
This view opens a door to faith that would be closed to people like me if the rabbis who would ban this point of view were to prevail. This was a point you made in the article on your web-site in support Rabbi Slifkin.
Thanks for standing up for a Torah perspective open to scientific inquiry and facts. Well worth the extra $5.00 for shipping!
David
Kosher on the Net
1:06 PM
Gil Student
The OU has a program called Kosher Tidbits, in which rabbis from the OU speak briefly about various kosher issues (link). I have it on good authority that they are currently looking for topics. Put your ideas in the comments section and I'll make sure that it gets to the right people.
Family Values and Rabbis
6:05 AM
Gil Student
Somewhere around late 1992, I went to spend Shabbos at the home of someone who is now a popular rebbe in YU (R. Moshe Schapiro of the Gottesman Library went with me*). This fellow's father was just as much a character as the son, which is saying a lot. One thing I remember distinctly was the father saying at the Shabbos table that he felt that Dan Quayle's relatively recent "Murphy Brown Speech" was so great that it was sufficient reason to vote for Quayle for president if he ever ran (which he hasn't). That speech, regardless of the Murphy Brown reference, is what brought "Family Values" to the political arena (link). Whether you like it or not, it changed the political landscape.
It seems that this famous speech has an interesting history. Quayle's chief speechwriter at the time was a member of an Orthodox synagogue and based a portion of the speech on her rabbi's recent sermon:
* If you read this in the Gottesman Library, please shout over to R. Schapiro that he's mentioned on this blog. Unless you are Menachem Butler, in which case you already did that before getting to this footnote.
It seems that this famous speech has an interesting history. Quayle's chief speechwriter at the time was a member of an Orthodox synagogue and based a portion of the speech on her rabbi's recent sermon:
On Thursday, May 21st, 1992, Lisa Schiffren, then a member of my synagogue, called to ask what I thought of this already famous speech... "If it's okay with you, I will fax it to you?... Take a look at the paragraphs I have highlighted..."
[T]hree paragraphs were marked -- three paragraphs that paraphrased, quite closely, three paragraphs from the May 9th sermon on values I had given.
I called Lisa at her office where she worked as Vice President Dan Quayle's chief speechwriter and asked her what this all meant. She told me that the vice-president, for several weeks, had been discussing with his staff the idea of taking a strong public stand on an ethical issue that he cared about. After hearing my sermon in shul on Parshat Kedoshim, she had come forward with the suggestion that he might want to advocate something that would be called "family values". The rest, as they say, is history.
(R. Barry Freundel, Contemporary Orthodox Judaism's Response to Modernity pp. viii-ix)
* If you read this in the Gottesman Library, please shout over to R. Schapiro that he's mentioned on this blog. Unless you are Menachem Butler, in which case you already did that before getting to this footnote.
Monday, August 28, 2006
The Zoo Rabbi on JM in the AM II
11:37 AM
Gil Student
Nachum Segal's interview with R. Natan Slifkin can be heard online at Nachum Segal's website. I was in the studio during the interview and kept quiet while watching the great discussion.
Just a reminder that R. Slifkin will be speaking at Stern College tonight. Details here.
Just a reminder that R. Slifkin will be speaking at Stern College tonight. Details here.
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Shevach in Kedushah
10:12 PM
Gil Student
In the kedushah part of the Shemoneh Esreh prayer, there is a word that can be pronounced as either ve-shivchakhah or u-shevach'kha. While the former seems to be more standard, and is how it is vocalized in most prayer books, the latter is becoming more common as the practices of the Vilna Gaon become more popular. What is the history behind it?
R. Yosef Kimchi, father of the Radak, wrote in his Sefer Ha-Zikaron (quoted by many, including Dr. Seligmann Baer in his Siddur Avodas Yisrael p. 90):
R. Eliyahu Ashkenazi the Grammarian (I don't know who he is), in his analyses of Radak's Sefer Ha-Shorashim (printed in the back of my edition of Sefer Ha-Shorashim, sv. Sh.B.Ch.), quotes R. Yosef Kimchi but then points out that this seems to be contradicted by vowelizations in the Mishnah. Specifically, Avos 2:8 reads in his editions "hu hayah moneh sh'vachan". This seems to support the second pronunciation.
I once had a disagreement with Dr. Haym Soloveitchik over how to pronounce a word in a Mishnah, and I brought a Ra'avad to prove my point (regarding tapu'ach/tepho'ach in Avodah Zarah 55a). He responded that he knows I can look up a Ra'avad; he wants me to look it up in historical sources (he implied that he would give different direction to someone with a more academic background). Where should I turn next?, he asked me. The answer was the vocalized Kaufman manuscript of the Mishnah (which ended up supporting my and the Ra'avad's pronunciation). [UPDATED:] On Avos 2:8, the Kaufman manuscript vocalizes the word as sh'vachan, supporting R. Eliyahu Ashkenazi's position. Although it has an odd shiv' before the word sh'vachan, which might indicate that both are legitimate.
R. Aryeh Leib Gordon, in his Iyun Tefillah commentary (published in Siddur Otzar Ha-Tefillos), argues for the pronunciation of u-shevach'kha:
It is worth noting that in the Yishtabach blessing we recite "shir u-sh'vachah", which supports the Vilna Gaon's pronunciation, but elsewhere in the blessings prior to the Shema on Shabbos we recite "shevach".
R. Yosef Kimchi, father of the Radak, wrote in his Sefer Ha-Zikaron (quoted by many, including Dr. Seligmann Baer in his Siddur Avodas Yisrael p. 90):
Those who say "u-shevach'kha" have strayed from the path of intelligence. Rather, it is ve-shivchakhah...This seems to imply that it was not uncommon in his time for people to pronounce it u-shevach'kha, although most people pronounced it ve-shivchakhah. If it were otherwise, his objection would certainly have been worded differently.
R. Eliyahu Ashkenazi the Grammarian (I don't know who he is), in his analyses of Radak's Sefer Ha-Shorashim (printed in the back of my edition of Sefer Ha-Shorashim, sv. Sh.B.Ch.), quotes R. Yosef Kimchi but then points out that this seems to be contradicted by vowelizations in the Mishnah. Specifically, Avos 2:8 reads in his editions "hu hayah moneh sh'vachan". This seems to support the second pronunciation.
I once had a disagreement with Dr. Haym Soloveitchik over how to pronounce a word in a Mishnah, and I brought a Ra'avad to prove my point (regarding tapu'ach/tepho'ach in Avodah Zarah 55a). He responded that he knows I can look up a Ra'avad; he wants me to look it up in historical sources (he implied that he would give different direction to someone with a more academic background). Where should I turn next?, he asked me. The answer was the vocalized Kaufman manuscript of the Mishnah (which ended up supporting my and the Ra'avad's pronunciation). [UPDATED:] On Avos 2:8, the Kaufman manuscript vocalizes the word as sh'vachan, supporting R. Eliyahu Ashkenazi's position. Although it has an odd shiv' before the word sh'vachan, which might indicate that both are legitimate.
R. Aryeh Leib Gordon, in his Iyun Tefillah commentary (published in Siddur Otzar Ha-Tefillos), argues for the pronunciation of u-shevach'kha:
The word "shevach/sh'vach" does not appear in Scripture, either independently or connected [to another word], and we have no tradition on its proper pronunciation. Its existence is only in the language of the Talmud and the prayers. When we have no certain way to determine the correct pronunciation of such words, we must listen to the pronunciation of the people who use [these words]. We hear that anyone involved in the Talmud in all countries of the dispersion -- from Ashkenazim and Sephardim to those in the east and west, and Yemenites -- all say "One should always prepare sh'vacho of God and afterwards pray" (Berakhos 116a), "It is forbidden to recite bi-shvachan (Sotah 42b)... Since the long vowel is pronounced quickly, it sounds like a short vowel [i.e. a pasach rather than a kamatz]... But we never heard anyone in any of these places say "shevach", "shivcho", or "shivchan"... Therefore I say that the pronunciation of the Vilna Gaon is correct and should be accepted...[UPDATED:] It seems to me that the testimony of the Kaufman manuscript indicates that both pronunciations are legitimate. (click on this image to enlarge it)
It is worth noting that in the Yishtabach blessing we recite "shir u-sh'vachah", which supports the Vilna Gaon's pronunciation, but elsewhere in the blessings prior to the Shema on Shabbos we recite "shevach".
The Zoo Rabbi on JM in the AM
5:51 AM
Gil Student
Nachum Segal will be interviewing R. Natan Slifkin this Monday morning, August 28th at 7:35 am on the popular JM in the AM program.
Listen to it on:
91.1fm in NY/NJ
90.1fm in the Catskills
www.jmintheam.org
A recording will be posted to the JM in the AM website that morning.
Listen to it on:
91.1fm in NY/NJ
90.1fm in the Catskills
www.jmintheam.org
A recording will be posted to the JM in the AM website that morning.
Friday, August 25, 2006
Legacies of the Rav
6:08 AM
Gil Student
Yeshiva College's undergraduate newspaper, The Commentator, has a new section this year entitled "Legacies of the Rav". See here for the announcement of the section.
The first three installments are by:
R. Yosef Blau, The Impact of the Rav's Presence on Yeshiva
R. Menachem Genack, My First Year in the Rav's Shiur
R. Charles Weinberg, The Rav and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel (I found this to be extremely interesting)
The first three installments are by:
R. Yosef Blau, The Impact of the Rav's Presence on Yeshiva
R. Menachem Genack, My First Year in the Rav's Shiur
R. Charles Weinberg, The Rav and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel (I found this to be extremely interesting)
The Slifkin Torah-Science Controversy II
6:06 AM
Gil Student
Only one letter so far in response to my article on the Slifkin controversy: link
There should be more next week.
There should be more next week.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Right-Wing Conservative Synagogue Hires Woman Non-Rabbi II
10:58 AM
Gil Student
A letter in this week's The Jewish Week which, I believe, justifies the title of this post (link). Note that I know Rabbi Price personally (from about 15 years ago) and do not consider this post to be an insult to him:
Halachic Woman
While Kehillat Orach Eliezer (KOE) on the Upper West Side is an independent entity, its halachic decisor, Rabbi David Halivni, was also, until his move to Israel, the spiritual head of the Union for Traditional Judaism. (“Woman To Lead Halachic New York Shul,” Aug. 18)
Click here to read moreYour article states erroneously that Rabbi Halivni left the Jewish Theological Seminary more than 25 years ago over “the Conservative Movement’s decision to ordain women.” While that statement is part of the common wisdom today, if it were truly that simple it would make KOE’s decision shockingly dissonant with Rav Halivni’s approach. Since he was asked about this by KOE prior to his departure for Israel and he approved their potential choice of a halachic woman as congregational leader, either he has changed his mind over the years, or The Jewish Week had it wrong, as have others for more than two decades. The latter is the truth.
Rav Halivni did not leave JTS over women’s ordination. He and other UTJ founders’ concern was that, given the way the issue was being handled in the Conservative movement, with lack of both process and substance, it would lead to more wide-ranging breaches of halacha having nothing to do with gender issues.
In the case of KOE, Rav Halivni and the UTJ can comfortably support their decision. They are doing it right. They have brought on board a woman who does not claim to be a rabbi, although her work as teacher and preacher is rabbinic.
If a qualified woman becomes the leader of the community without breaching halacha and if her goal is to teach Torah rather than simply further the role of women (i.e. a political agenda), it is, in our opinion, a real kiddush HaShem (sanctification of God’s name).
Rabbi Ronald D. Price
Executive Vice President Union for Traditional Judaism
Teaneck, N.J.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
In Defense of Rabbi Hertz
10:53 PM
Gil Student
A recent article objected to certain aspects of the commentary to the Torah edited by R. Joseph H. Hertz. Below are his objections and some responses. But first, let me relate this story:
When I was in yeshiva, a friend of mine who lived in a shrinking Jewish neighborhood brought the following question to R. Ahron Soloveichik: His synagogue was dwindling and had just hired a new rabbi. This rabbi's first act upon assuming his position was to insist that all the Hertz chumashim be replaced with Artscroll chumashim. The congregants were upset over this and my friend asked R. Ahron what they should do. R. Ahron told him, "There is nothing wrong with the Hertz chumash." However, since this rabbi was the synagogue's last hope, they should let him do this. They did, and despite the new rabbi, the synagogue closed down within a few years.
And now to the objections:
Click here to read more1. R. Hertz writes: "Jewish and non-Jewish commentators have been freely drawn upon. 'Accept the true from whatever source it comes' is sound Rabbinic doctrine..." The author objects: "Unfortunately, he seems to have forgotten or ignored the Rabbinic dictum: 'If someone tells you that there is wisdom among the nations of the world -- believe it. That there is Torah among the nations -- don't believe it' (Eicha Rabbasi 2:17)."
This was not an innovation of R. Hertz. As noted earlier (link), Abarbanel quotes Christian commentators regularly. As to the midrash, we apparently have a problem. The simple fact, as easily verifiable by finding a good Christian commentary and looking at it, is that gentiles can and do have insight into the Torah. While they may have many comments to which we object, they can still have profound insight (e.g. Brevard Childs' classic commentary on Exodus). Either this midrash contradicts a clear and verifiable reality or we are misunderstanding it. I believe the latter to be the case. "Torah" in the midrash can easily mean a way of life, as R. Hershel Schachter has explained it (link). Alternately, it can mean a ruling on halakhic practice; i.e. do not look to gentiles for halakhic rulings.
2. R. Hertz explains Ex. 14:21 ("And the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all the night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided") as follows (quoting Kalisch): "As in all the wonders of Egypt, this also, the greatest of all, is based upon a natural cause; and in this the boundless power of God, who, by an insignificant change, knows how to convert the natural and common course of things into extraordinary and marvellous events, is sublimely manifest." About this, the author writes: "There is no miracle."
Reading the excerpt above, that is clearly an incorrect inference. The author quotes the midrash that the sea was split so that there were 12 paths, 1 for each tribe. However, the author seems not to differentiate between peshat and midrash. On a peshat level, there are no 12 paths, and that is the level on which R. Hertz's commentary is operating. Perhaps more importantly, the objection to the attempt to "naturalize" miracles such as the ten plagues is not necessarily anything wrong. As discussed earlier, the recently published book by R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, The Emergence of Ethical Man, does just that (I, II)!
3. The author quotes R. Hertz's commentary to Ex. 13:21 about the pillars of cloud and fire that represented God's presence as being similar to ancient practices of having fire signals in front of armies, i.e. being a "natural basis of the miracle." While there is nothing inherently wrong with such an approach, as above, it is worth quoting the next sentence of R. Hertz's commentary that the author cut off: "In that case, we should have in this narrative of the guiding Cloud and Pillar another instance of the interweaving of the supernatural and the natural in Scripture." Note the tone of a mere suggestion, rather than an authoritative interpretation and, perhaps more importantly, the explicit acceptance of supernatural. In other words, R. Hertz was saying, "Even if they are right and this was not a supernatural miracle, it does not detract from the wonder." That, I believe, is of a very different nature than the impression the author gave of R. Hertz trying to remove supernatural events from the Torah.
4. R. Hertz wrote the following in his additional notes to Genesis (p. 195): "There is much force in the view expressed by a modern thinker: '(The Bible) neither provides, nor, in the nature of things, could provide, faultless anticipation of sciences still unborn. If by a miracle it had provided them, without a miracle they could not have been understood' (Balfour)." The author interpreted this to mean: "In other words, He Who gave us the Torah, could not, chas veshalom, have anticipated the great wisdom of Darwin!"
I believe this to be a misinterpretation. In my reading, R. Hertz's meaning was simply that God, of course, knew how He created the world but could not relay that information clearly in the Torah because the recipients of the Torah were not ready to understand that complex biological mechanism. As R. Slifkin explores in his new book, there are parallels to this approach in the rishonim. It is certainly unthinkable that R. Hertz would claim that God did not know how the world was created. That would contradict everything that R. Hertz taught throughout his life, as evident in his many published writings.
5. The author notes a contradiction between the Additional Notes and the commentary itself. In the Additional Notes, R. Hertz suggests that man being created from the "dust of the ground" (Gen. 2:7) could refer to lower animals while in the commentary to that verse he quotes midrashic interpretations. However, that passage in the commentary is clearly written in a homiletic fashion and not on a peshat level.
6. The author objects to R. Hertz quoting Haeckel's "monera begat amoeba... man-like ape begat ape-like man, ape-like man begat man" (p. 195). The author writes: "[A]ll this with simple faith, as if Haeckel had been there, or at least had some sort of proof for the family tree!"
But that is all beside the point. R. Hertz was not accepting that as authoritative. He was quoting it as an example of how evolution could not have been recorded in the Torah. The order, the details, the exact language are all beside the point. His point still stands, if one take the time to think about it.
Toronto's Orthodox Community
5:32 PM
Gil Student
The Canadian Jewish News has an article about the widening split in Toronto between the Modern Orthodox and Yeshivish communities, evidently sparked in part by protests over Rabbi Slifkin's speech there last year (link). I guess there's damage to communal unity when a leader calls a large portion of the community heretics.
Zoo Rabbi in Stern and Bronx Zoo Tour
10:29 AM
Gil Student
From YU PR:
There will be a Torah Tour of the Bronx Zoo this Sunday at 10am. E-mail Rabbi Slifkin to reserve spaces. Price is $20 for adults and $10 for children, excluding admission.
Rabbi Natan Slifkin, a.k.a. the Zoo Rabbi, will be lecturing at Stern College for Women on Aug. 28 at 6:30 pm in the Levy Commons, 215 Lexington Ave. The lecture is open to the public and is sponsored by the Biology Department at Stern College for Women.ALSO:
Rabbi Slifkin will be talking about "The Heresy of Intelligent Design.” He is a lecturer at yeshivot and seminaries in Israel, the author of numerous books on Torah and the natural world, and has taught “Zoo Torah” to thousands of people worldwide.
There will be a Torah Tour of the Bronx Zoo this Sunday at 10am. E-mail Rabbi Slifkin to reserve spaces. Price is $20 for adults and $10 for children, excluding admission.
Kollel Eretz Hemdah on Sages and Science
6:38 AM
Gil Student
From Kollel Eretz Hemdah, Ask the Rabbi (link):
QUESTION: I heard that there is a written manual in the Jewish holy books which lists remedies to various illnesses; an ancient guide to remedies; my husband is currently on the waiting list for a liver transplant; pursuing a transfusion he contracted years ago hepatitis C(emphasis added)
ANSWER: There are some medical remedies mentioned in the Talmud, as well as other, later works (such as the Rambam’s book on medicine - he was also a doctor). However, these are not special, secret remedies. The Torah tells us “v’rapoh y’rapeh”, “and He shall certainly heal (Shmot 21:19)”. The Talmud learns from here that it is proper and required to seek medical help to deal with illness (Bava Kama 85a).
The remedies mentioned in ancient sources are based on the best medical information available to them at their time. Where modern medicine agrees, wonderful. When not, one should follow present-day experts. I hope and assume that your husband is receiving the best medical attention available to you.
We, of course, do not rely on medical help, alone. We are instructed to turn to Hashem for help, for He is the true Healer. However, we do this with different types of remedies. We rededicate ourselves to the proper service of Hashem, which is our purpose for being put in this world. We have a blessing in each Shmoneh Esrei prayer for health, in general. It is appropriate to insert there our requests regarding any specific people who need a refuah. We can say Tehillim on behalf of the ill. We can go to holy places to pray and ask holy people to join us in prayer.
Will all of these things heal? Maybe yes, maybe no. But the good deeds will all be remembered above and will manifest themselves in ways we may never know. The ancient “remedies” of prayers and good deeds, along with best in modern medicine, are the best we can do.
Our best wishes for your husband’s full and speedy recovery. If you would like to send us his name (Jewish name and mother's Jewish name), we will, G-d willing, include him in the list of the ill for whom we pray.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Faith and Intellect
9:42 PM
Gil Student
R. Shaul Yisraeli, Perakim Be-Machasheves Yisrael (6th ed.), pp. 85-86 (notes at the end of chapter 7):
The boundary line between faith and intellect is also the distinguishing line between two camps of views among the great Jewish thinkers. Is there a place for human intellect in questions about the source and purpose of the world? And is there an obligation in relation to these isses place upon the intellect? These are the questions, and the answers are conflicting.
The Intellectual Camp, whose main representatives are R. Sa'adia Gaon, Rabbenu Bachya and Rambam, answer: yes. "Know the God of your fathers and worship Him" -- the command of the Torah is to base the foundations of belief in intellectual proofs. However, even according to these views, there remains a tradition and an inherited quality of faith. The Rambam warns that, because of intellectual limitations and emotions, there will remain doubts... The conclusion to which we strive through intellect is known, and we are confident from the beginning of its correctness...
The contrary approach is described aptly by R. Yosef Albo (Ikkarim) and its foundations were already laid in the Kuzari. Its essence is: "Faith is above intellectual apprehension." The human intellect clings to the Divine spirit specificall through faith (R. Yosef Albo; compare with Kuzari 1:4, 13; 4:16-18). These views prefer in this issue feelings of faith and family traditions over intellectual considerations... However, even though these views do not prefer the intellect, only do so because they consider this field beyond the boundaries of the human intellect. But they still do not believe that it is possible to be obligated to believe something that contradicts the intellect: "God forbid that something in the Torah should contradict a proof or demonstration" (Kuzari 1:67)...
It is not up to us to decide between this debate among greats, and we will not come to rule on issues of belief on matters of eternal importance. We will suffice with just pointing to the lines of thought of different approaches, from which emerge great differences in each approach to Jewish thought.
Mazel Tov Canonist
9:36 AM
Gil Student
Mazel to Steven Weiss and Rachel Feinerman on their wedding last night (link). Steven is, in some ways, the godfather of Jewish blogs. For that and more, I owe him a good deal of thanks. May he and his new bride live many years together full of happiness and Torah.
(Oh, and time to change the name of Kosher Bachelor.)
Prof. Saul Lieberman on the Jacobs Affair
6:02 AM
Gil Student
In 1962, during the height of the "Jacobs Affair" in which Dr. Louis Jacobs was denied a position at Jews' College due to his alleged heresy (I read his book and agree with the conclusion that it is incontrovertibly heretical), Dr. Morris Sifman was speaking at a public meeting of Jewish students and someone asked what he thought of Dr. Jacobs – he responded as follows:
“I said I thought he is dishonest because Jews College is founded on the belief of a Divine Torah, therefore Dr. Jacobs is not qualified because he rejects “Torah min Hashamyim”, if he were honest he would not pursue the position in an institution like Jews College”
After the lecture a young man approached me and said, “I would like to thank you – that was the first time I received a straightforward answer about my father.”
Dr. Sifman then wrote a letter to Prof. Saul Lieberman to inquire of his view on this subject. Below is the letter he received in response, which Dr. Sifman gave to R. Ari Kahn (who gave it to me) with explicit permission to post. I must say, I have a lot of respect for Prof. Lieberman's response.
(click on the image to enlarge it)
“I said I thought he is dishonest because Jews College is founded on the belief of a Divine Torah, therefore Dr. Jacobs is not qualified because he rejects “Torah min Hashamyim”, if he were honest he would not pursue the position in an institution like Jews College”
After the lecture a young man approached me and said, “I would like to thank you – that was the first time I received a straightforward answer about my father.”
Dr. Sifman then wrote a letter to Prof. Saul Lieberman to inquire of his view on this subject. Below is the letter he received in response, which Dr. Sifman gave to R. Ari Kahn (who gave it to me) with explicit permission to post. I must say, I have a lot of respect for Prof. Lieberman's response.
(click on the image to enlarge it)
Sunday, August 20, 2006
A New History for Religious Zionism
9:36 PM
Gil Student
When I was in school, I was taught that Religious Zionism started with R. Yehudah Alkalai and R. Tzvi Hirsch Kalischer. While this is still essentially true, it seems that their views -- particularly R. Kalischer's -- were not as innovative as once thought. Over the past few decades, documents have emerged from the early 1800s that show that R. Kalischer's view of settling the land in order to bring the redemption was anticipated and actually acted upon. A little over 20 years ago, Dr. Arie Morgenstern published a book in Hebrew that attempted to demonstrate this thesis. Thanks to The Shalem Center, this book was recently translated into English as Hastening Redemption: Messianism and the Resettlement of the Land of Israel (another excellent translation by Joel Linsider). To scholars of this subject, this is probably old material. However, to me, this was eye-opening information.
Morgenstern made a careful study of letters, journals and publications from Palestine and Europe of the first half of the nineteenth century and arrived at the following fairly substantiated conclusion: The students of the Vilna Gaon, following his teachings, had determined that the messiah would come in the year 1840 and, in preparation for this event, began settling the land of Israel. Their belief was that any Divine act would have to follow a human act (Is'arusa Di-Li-Sasa), and their settling the land was the necessary requirement for the messiah to come. They explicitly stated that general repentance was not necessary and even tried tracking down the ten lost tribes who, according to some traditions, had maintained the chain of ordination (semikhah) that traces back to Moses and the reinstitution of which, again according to some traditions, is a necessary prerequisite for the messiah's appearance.
What of the three oaths that prevent Jews from settling the land of Israel? Morgenstern discusses this on page 87:
We have already seen how Israel of Shklov [author of the classic Pe'as Ha-Shulchan] argued, in one of his main epistles, that the Three Oaths do not bind the Jews unconditionally, but depend, rather, on the other nations' attitude toward them... When the nations break their side of the bargain and persecute the Jews intolerably -- as by the Russian army draft -- they thereby annul the Jews' obligations as well...However, when 1840 came and the messiah did not appear (and then also in 1846), and not only that but conditions worsened quickly and dramatically, there was widespread disappointment, with some (very few) even converting to Christianity in the face of heavy missionizing. (The decade following 1840 saw frantic printing of countermissionary tracts, such as Troki's Chizzuk Emunah.) After this, the leadership generally abandoned their messianic approach and focused more on communal and individual survival. Indeed, such messianic theologies lost favor and became criticized when they were later brought up.
Aviezer of Ticktin offers a different account of how the prohibition in the Three Oaths came to be annulled. In his view, the ban on pressing for the end, as referred to in the Talmud, remains in force as long as -- but only as long as -- times remain normal. Once the "time of divine visitation" (`et peqidah) arrives, as it now has, advancing the redemptive process by pressing for the End becomes not only permitted but even obligatory...
The Vilna Ga'on interpreted the oath's prohibition to apply not to aliyah to the Land of Israel or even to pressing for the End, but only to rebuilding the Holy Temple...
In a private communication, I asked Dr. Morgenstern why R. Tzvi Hirsch Kalischer did not quote any of this when presenting his similar theology. He responded that Prof. Jacob Katz had asked this question and answered that, since the community of the Vilna Gaon's disciples had eventually rejected this position after the disappointment of 1840, R. Kalischer did not want to associate himself with this rejected approach when he made his own push for settling the land some two decades later.
What I find interesting, albeit admittedly speculative, is that had the disciples of the Vilna Gaon lived long enough to see what their settlement has since turned into, I suspect that they might not reject their earlier approach. It could be just that history goes much slower than we might want or expect. Every two steps forward might include a step back, but the thrust of the resettlement of the land of Israel begun by those disciples of the Vilna Gaon has led to historically astonishing results. Just like they were expecting too much and, therefore, were disappointed, we, too, must be cautious not to expect too much too fast. The past 60 years has seen historically unprecedented events, but that does not mean that we do not still have to wait for the final events to take place on their own schedule, and not necessarily ours.
It is hard for me to evaluate the evidence for Morgenstern's thesis in translation and, I suspect, even in Hebrew I would want to see the original letters and other primary material in order to become comfortable with Morgenstern's interpretations. However, his book raises possibilities that I find amazing and that essentially rewrites the history of Religious Zionism. The book is academic and hard reading, but well worth the effort.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Torah and Reality
11:13 PM
Gil Student
I quoted this in a phone call just now, so if the caller comes this blog he can follow this link to it: R. Ya'akov Kamenetsky on asking a question on Torah based on reality
Friday, August 18, 2006
The Power of a Blessing
2:24 PM
Gil Student
Tuesday night, my wife's uncle was honored before the Yankee game. The award was given by a representative of the corporate sponsor and Johnny Damon, who evidently had been recently injured in a place better not mentioned. Here is a report from an eyewitness:
I can just hear this story being retold on the next kids' parashah tape, although I doubt it is going to be about a guy from the Five Towns who wears a knitted yarmulka (not that there's anything wrong with that).
(I should also note that tickets for relatives with blogs were not forthcoming. But I suspect that relatives who follow baseball, or at least know the rules of the game, would be first in line.)
So during the "ceremony" he gave Johnny Damon a bracha for a good game. Through the 6th inning the Yankees were doing miserably with no runs and very few base hits. Even with one run in the 6th or 7th they were loosing 3 to 1. Then Johnny Damon got up to bat in the bottom of the 7th and hit a 2 run homer! Tied the game! The next time he got up he hit a triple, sending a team-mate home and placing himself on third. Then with the next batter Johnny Damon ran home again. The Orioles never scored again and the Yankees won!Not only that, but on Wednesday and Thursday the Yankees lost!
I can just hear this story being retold on the next kids' parashah tape, although I doubt it is going to be about a guy from the Five Towns who wears a knitted yarmulka (not that there's anything wrong with that).
(I should also note that tickets for relatives with blogs were not forthcoming. But I suspect that relatives who follow baseball, or at least know the rules of the game, would be first in line.)
Yashar's Books in YU Review
8:58 AM
Gil Student
Yashar has five books highlighted in the current issue of YU Review. My Yeshiva College is featured as a story. And listed in the Bookshelf section are:
Where There's Life, There's Life
Gray Matter volume 2
Medicine and Jewish Law volume III
Moral Issues of the Marketplace in Jewish Law
Where There's Life, There's Life
Gray Matter volume 2
Medicine and Jewish Law volume III
Moral Issues of the Marketplace in Jewish Law
Guests
6:25 AM
Gil Student
Rama, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 333:1:
Every rabbinic prohibition they permitted for the sake of a mitzvah is also permitted for the sake of guests. They are not called guests unless they are staying with him in his house or he invited someone staying with others. But if he just invites a friend to eat with him they are not called guests and this is not a se'udas mitzvah (mitzvah meal) but a se'udas reshus (regular meal).In other words, inviting your friend down the block over for a meal is not called Hakhnasas Orechim.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Right-Wing Conservative Synagogue Hires Woman Non-Rabbi
1:20 PM
Gil Student
The Jewish Week is reporting that Kehillat Orach Eliezer, a synagogue founded around Prof. Louis Finkelstein of JTS and until recently led by Prof. David Weiss-Halivni of JTS and Columbia, has hired a woman as its Rosh Kehillah. This is news because the synagogue is "halachic" and not Conservative, nod-nod wink-wink. I suspect that only The Jewish Week will consider this news because everyone else can see that this has nothing to do with Orthodoxy and therefore is not particularly groundbreaking.
Moshe Leaving Midian
6:14 AM
Gil Student
After God commands Moshe to go to Egypt, confront Pharaoh and bring the Jews out of Egypt (Ex. 3:1-4:4:17, we face a very confusing record of Moshe's leaving Egypt. Ex. 4:18-23:
It seems like the verses in this passage are all out of order. Biblical critics try to solve this by positing that the various verses come from different sources (J1 & J2; J & E; J, E & N) but this alone does not explain why the verses were placed in such a confusing order.
R. Zvi Dov Kanotopsky, in his Night of Watching (pp. 86-92), resolves this difficulty by noting that in the prior passage, in which God attempts to recruit Moshe to redeem the Jews from Egypt and Moshe argues that he is insufficiently qualified for the task, Moshe never finally accepts the responsibility (p. 88):
18 Moses went back to his father-in-law Jethro and said to him, "Please let me go back to my kindred in Egypt and see whether they are still living." And Jethro said to Moses, "Go in peace." 19 The Lord said to Moses in Midian, "Go back to Egypt; for all those who were seeking your life are dead." 20 So Moses took his wife and his sons, put them on a donkey, and went back to the land of Egypt; and Moses carried the staff of God in his hand. 21 And the Lord said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders that I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. 22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, "Thus says the Lord: Israel is my firstborn son. 23 I said to you, "Let my son go that he may worship me." But you refused to let him go; now I will kill your firstborn son.' "In verse 18, Moshe tells his father-in-law that he will be returning to Egypt to see whether his brothers are in Egypt. But what about the mission with which God had just charged him? Why did he omit that? Then in verse 19, God orders Moshe to go to Egypt. Shouldn't that have preceded Moshe's telling his father-in-law that he was going? Additionally, the reason in verse 19 -- that those trying to harm Moshe had died -- seems strange. If Moshe had a Divine mission, that would not have been a consideration. Then verse 20 tells us that Moshe took his family and left, and then went back to take the staff of God. Shouldn't he have taken the staff before he first left? Then in verses 21-23, God advises Moshe about how to go about his mission. Shouldn't this have taken place before Moshe left?
It seems like the verses in this passage are all out of order. Biblical critics try to solve this by positing that the various verses come from different sources (J1 & J2; J & E; J, E & N) but this alone does not explain why the verses were placed in such a confusing order.
R. Zvi Dov Kanotopsky, in his Night of Watching (pp. 86-92), resolves this difficulty by noting that in the prior passage, in which God attempts to recruit Moshe to redeem the Jews from Egypt and Moshe argues that he is insufficiently qualified for the task, Moshe never finally accepts the responsibility (p. 88):
[O]ne can well imagine that the experience of his prophecy had its effect and continued to trouble Moses to the point that he came to his father-in-law and announced that he was going to make a journey to Egypt to visit his brothers and to inquire about their welfare. As a matter of fact, when he takes leave of Jethro, this is all he intends to do and this is all the text indicates. It is at this point that G-d appears to Moses and tells him that it is proper for him not merely to visit Egypt, but to return to Egypt and to live with his brothers again...
At first, when his intention was merely to visit Egypt, his plan was to make the journey alone. Now that he is going to live there, his entire plan changes: he takes his wife and children. But -- and this is the point -- almost as an afterthought, he also takes the 'rod of G-d' with him -- the rod which will serve as a symbol of leadership, as a sign of the Divine mission and as an instrument of miracles. This is really the first indication that Moses is still considering the possibility of accepting the mission of G-d, and of becoming the redeemer of Israel.
Verse follows verse so beautifully. It is at this very juncture that Moses decides to take the "rod" with him, though his acceptance of the mission is so far from definite, that G-d again appears to him and again outlines the major features of the mission. Noting that Moses is still vacillating, still undecided, but nevertheless taking the "rod of G-d" with him, G-d spells out the mission in its dramatic form -- and urges Moses to accept it and to pursue it to its triumphant conclusion.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
The Slifkin Torah-Science Controversy
10:40 AM
Gil Student
My front-page article in this week's The Jewish Press (link):
The Slifkin Torah-Science Controversy
An admittedly biased insider's perspective
The Jewish community is no stranger to conflict. Some controversies, however, transcend their local concern and reverberate in ways originally unintended. I believe we have witnessed such an event with the recent controversy surrounding three books about Torah and science by Rabbi Natan (Nosson) Slifkin. The bans promulgated on his books have come to represent more than just disapproval of those specific works; they have come to signify the lack of centralized rabbinic authority in our globalized world and the increased empowerment of the individual afforded by the Internet.
The Books
Let me start from the beginning. Rabbi Slifkin has been teaching about Torah and animals for a number of years and has written prolifically on these subjects. These issues led him to topics regarding Torah and science in general, and after careful research he published three books about the subject.
His first book in this genre was titled The Science of Torah and discussed the age of the universe and evolution. His next was Mysterious Creatures and addressed the seemingly mythical creatures mentioned in rabbinic literature, such as unicorns and dragons, and the general scientific orientation of the Sages. And the last was The Camel, the Hare, & the Hyrax, which discussed the kosher signs of animals and their relation to current zoological knowledge.
All three books had haskamos (approbations) from English-speaking Torah authorities and were initially well received.
Personally, I became acquainted with Rabbi Slifkin through e-mail and bought The Science of Torah, but was not particularly interested by it. Various theories of reconciling Torah, the age of the universe and evolution were old hat to me. I had already heard and read enough on the subject in my youth to recognize that there is no contradiction between various common scientific theories and the Torah.
I was not even going to buy the second book, Mysterious Creatures, until a number of people told me my name was mentioned in the introduction. It seems some personal exchanges with Rabbi Slifkin were valuable enough to him that he thanked me for my contribution. I did buy that book and greatly enjoyed it. I then rushed to acquire the third book when it became available and was likewise impressed with it. I even wrote a review of it for my blog (TorahMusings.com) and translated into English its laudatory approbation from a respected posek.
The Ban
You can imagine my surprise when I discovered, between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur two years ago, that Rabbi Slifkin's books had been condemned as heretical. I don't recall how the grapevine carried the news to me, but looking back I see that I still have my e-mail to him inquiring about it and now realize that I contacted him on the very day that everything started. What follows is based on Rabbi Slifkin's retelling of the story and my own recollection of the events of which I was aware.
Rabbi Slifkin received a phone call on September 21, 2004, informing him that he would shortly be receiving faxes of letters from rabbis stating that he must retract the three books mentioned above. He would have until the end of that day to do so or face public scandal and humiliation.
Rabbi Slifkin immediately tried to arrange meetings with the rabbis whose letters were faxed to him but they all refused to meet with him (one initially agreed but later changed his mind). Rabbi Slifkin also called the rabbis who had written haskamos for his books to see if they had retracted those approbations, as those condemning his books had claimed. This turned out to be false.
On the advice of his halachic authority, Rabbi Slifkin refused to recant his books until he would be able to meet with the rabbis condemning the books. As he wrote to me in his private e-mail late that night, "If they'll show me where I wrote something wrong, of course I'll change it, my website is full of corrections to my books." But he never had that opportunity.
On September 23, a major rosh yeshiva in America phoned Rabbi Slifkin to offer him encouragement and tell him to keep a low profile and let the whole thing blow over. But it did not subside. The next day, erev Yom Kippur, signs went up in Rabbi Slifkin's neighborhood declaring that the books are full of heresy and that one is forbidden to own them. The following months saw signs posted in Israel and pamphlets distributed in Israel and the U.S. vilifying Rabbi Slifkin.
In the week of January 2, 2005, the Israeli (Hebrew) Yated Ne'eman published a ban against Rabbi Slifkin's books signed by some leading rabbis in Israel and in America, including Rav Yosef Shalom Eliashiv, Rav Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg and Rav Dovid Feinstein, along with an accompanying article. The next week, the European (English) Yated Ne'eman published a translation.
That is where my direct involvement began. After the publication of the ban, Rabbi Slifkin's publisher and distributor decided to cease their involvement with his books. After consultation with a number of rabbis who wanted these books available for their communities, my new publishing house, Yashar Books, agreed to take on the distribution of the books.
As the arrangements were being made and afterward, I obtained support from a number of leading rabbis and roshei yeshiva. My position continues to be that a community whose rabbi rules the books are permissible should have access to them.
Subsequent Developments
Since the original publication of the ban, more rabbis have published letters against Rabbi Slifkin, some denouncing science in eneral while others addressing only the books in question. Due to the immediacy of the Internet, any letter or article condemning Rabbi Slifkin has been quickly disseminated.
In the meantime, Rabbi Slifkin did not simply stand back and allow his books to be denounced. After the ban appeared on Yated Ne'eman's website, Rabbi Slifkin added a section to his website (ZooTorah.com) to address the controversy. In this section, he calmly and responsibly presented an account of the events, relevant documents, and responses supporting him by various rabbis. He also posted a long list of sources that seem to directly contradict claims that his positions are unacceptable.
In addition to all this, the entire controversy was being carefully covered on various Internet media, most notably blogs. I posted frequently to my blog on this subject. While I tried to restrict my comments to respectful discussion of intellectual subjects, other blogs reflected less discipline, sometimes going well beyond the bounds of decency.
There was a sense of outrage over this ban and, more than that, personal pain. Whether from baalei teshuvah who felt pushed out of the community for which they had sacrificed so much to join, or rabbeim and kiruv workers who had just been informed that they'd been teaching heresy for many years, there was a very loud cry of anguish being voiced on the Internet. It was this new medium that served as the focal point of criticism of the ban and, ironically, the growing crisis of faith it has caused.
Of the three banned books, The Science of Torah had already sold out before the ban, and the other two sold out fairly quickly in the ban's immediate aftermath. The Science of Torah was recently thoroughly revised, expanded and published under a new title, The Challenge of Creation, with a foreword by Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb of the Orthodox Union. Because of the controversy, we have had the book reviewed by a number of knowledgeable rabbis, including an expert on both Torah and science from whom my posek insisted we receive permission before commencing with publication.
It was no surprise to me that a tremendous wave of support for Rabbi Slifkin was forthcoming from the Yeshiva University orbit. Rabbis, professors, students and alumni sent many supportive e-mails, looking for ways to help. The largest Jewish book sale in the country, Yeshiva's SOY Seforim Sale, stocked the banned books, all of which sold out very quickly.
(To the organizers' credit, they were hesitant to stock the books until I had them speak to Yeshiva's mashgiach, who insisted that they sell them. There have since been a number of lectures on this topic, some by roshei yeshiva and rabbeim and others by professors, all generally favoring Rabbi Slifkin's positions, even if criticizing him on minor points.)
But what surprised me most was the support from the yeshivishe world. I was expecting very little but received, and continue to receive, many letters, e-mails, phone calls, and even random stops on the street in Brooklyn from people who feel very passionately about this subject. Many rabbis and learned laymen seem to have tremendous sympathy for Rabbi Slifkin, both on a personal level for his public humiliation and on an intellectual level for his championing their views.
The Issues
From the beginning it has never been quite clear what the problems are with the banned books because none of the rabbis involved gave any detailed explanation.
The initial ban quotes Rav Yisroel Weintraub as saying vaguely tht Rabbi Slifkin denigrated our tradition. Rabbi Yitzchak Sheiner is quoted as saying the problem is that Rabbi Slifkin believes that the world is millions of years old. And Rav Elya Ber Wachtfogel is quoted as saying the problem is that Rabbi Slifkin claims that the Sages could, on rare occasions, err in scientific matters and any corresponding halachic issues. Rav Moshe Shapiro was unclear but seemed to object specifically to the issue of the Sages and science.
None of them, however, agreed to clarify the matter by meeting with Rabbi Slifkin and explaining their objections. Months after the ban, Rav Aharon Feldman cited as problematic Rabbi Slifkin's approaches to the age of the universe, the order of Creation, evolution and the Sages' knowledge of science.
In Rabbi Slifkin's books, he described the evidence for an ancient universe and discussed the various theories that have been proposed to explain this from a Torah perspective. He then offered his own theory, which follows in the footsteps of the Rambam, Rav Dovid Tzvi Hoffmann, Rav Aryeh Kaplan and others, and which takes the "six days" of Creation in a less than literal sense. This, the banners seem to claim, is heretical, while others either support this view or find it hard to condemn considering its respected pedigree.
Following the view of Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch and Rav Avraham Kook that if evolution can be demonstrated to be true it is consistent with the Torah, Rabbi Slifkin reviewed the evidence for evolution (as he defines it) and proposed a Torah perspective for understanding it. While it is understandable that people might disagree with his conclusion, the approach in general is not Rabbi Slifkin's but of those much greater than he. The strong Torah precedents for his views are even clearer in his new book, The Challenge of Creation.
Regarding the Sages and science, Rabbi Slifkin surveyed the many views on how to deal with the apparent discrepancy between current scientific knowledge and various Talmudic statements. He made it clear that he favored the view of the Rambam (most eloquently stated by Rambam's son), the Gaonim, and many authorities throughout the centuries and up to this day that the Sages sometimes relied on the scientific conclusions of their contemporary experts.
The banners seem to have been particularly disturbed by this position despite its being advocated by such recent luminaries as the Maharam Schick, Rav Hirsch and Rav Yitzchak Herzog. One banner reportedly dismissed Rabbi Slifkin's precedents among Torah authorities by saying, "They were permitted to hold this opinion; we are not." My rosh yeshiva has told me he strongly disagrees with this statement.
I am certain that some readers will be scandalized by Rabbi Slifkin's approach to these topics and others will wonder what the big deal is. I was among the latter, having heard for many years that Judaism has no problem with such ideas. It is not just the Modern Orthodox world in which these ideas have gained acceptance. The utter shock with which many within the American yeshivishe community reacted to this ban, the stunned expressions of the kiruv professionals, shul rabbis and high school rabbeim when they learned that the approaches they had been taught and were teaching are unacceptable, is testimony to how mainstream these ideas had become. Rav Aryeh Kaplan's writings certainly reach beyond Modern Orthodoxy.
To this day, I still have trouble understanding the intent of the ban. Were the Torah scholars who signed the ban really ruling that these views are heresy, other sages notwithstanding? Or were they just trying to protect the students in their yeshivas and members of their communities from views they consider dangerous but not heretical?
Rav Chaim Soloveitchik described mussar as a harsh medicine that cures those who are sick but makes ill those who are healthy. The banners may be concerned that the traditional views cited in Rabbi Slifkin's books are similar in that they might damage the faith of some readers. But even if true, dispositions and backgrounds vary and these views are essential for the faith of many others. It would therefore seem that this should be a local matter, depending very much on individuals and communities, and addressed by local rabbis and roshei yeshiva, rather than impersonal halachic rulings on posters and in newspapers.
The ban, as it stands, raises many difficult questions for a large segment of the Orthodox community. Ironically, the ban - both in terms of procedures and content - has generated questions of faith that are perhaps greater than those it was supposed to prevent.
We can only hope that in the future the concerns of the greater community will be specifically addressed - along with an explanation of how such a devastating personal blow can be issued without the accused being allowed to defend himself. That's certainly preferable to a proclamation issued from afar that leaves the public guessing about the rest of the story.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
The Haredization of Orthodoxy VI
10:25 PM
Gil Student
Menachem Butler, in his now defunct AJHistory blog, recently directed readers to an exchange in the 2005 issue of Contemporary Jewry (link). Samuel Heilman wrote an article about Modern Orthodoxy shifting to the right. You know, his regular material. I'm amazed how many articles -- and even a book -- he can turn that same material into. His article then received responses from David Ellenson and Marc Shapiro. The former doesn't seem to have much to say. The latter, however, does. His article can be found here (PDF). As someone living in the Modern Orthodox community and keenly observing, he presumably has a good deal of insight into it. Yet I found a lot of things in the article with which I disagreed.
1. Shapiro oddly states that Modern Orthodox students who adopt black hats and yeshivish dress do not do so in Israel but in Yeshiva University. In my experience, that is the exception (myself included) and the opposite is the general rule.
2. In the second paragraph, Shapiro defines Modern Orthodox as "people who go to college and are professionals." My friends and neighbors from Torah Vodaas and Chaim Berlin fall within that definition of Modern Orthodox, which leads me to suspect that it is overly broad.
3. In the third paragraph, Shapiro suggests that the right-wing Orthodox adopt stringencies in order to distinguish themselves from the Modern Orthodox. Now that the Modern Orthodox are being fairly strict, the right-wing has to become even stricter. I find that suggestion to be farfetched. The right-wing generally does not even realize that the Modern Orthodox community has become more strict, as can be seen in the still prevalent usage of outdated stereotypes about the Modern Orthodox.
4. Shapiro notes that even the Modern Orthodox who have adopted the haredi style of dress are still Modern Orthodox in many of their views. I find this to be a very perceptive and accurate observation. Many of my friends think they are yeshivish but are not. They just don't realize how deeply they have been influenced and that what they consider "normal" is just Modern Orthodox. (See this post by Joe Schick for just one of many examples.)
5. Shapiro writes: "There are now two types of modern Orthodox Jews: the old-fashioned type and the new type, which is modern in ideology but doesn't cut corners when it comes to halachah." I think his dichotomy is correct but that this is not a new phenomenon. In Avodah/Areivim-world, we refer to the MO and the MO-lite. The MO are the ideological Modern Orthodox and the MO-lite are members of the Modern Orthodox community who are lax in their observance. Similarly, there is the UO and the UO-lite referring to those who are Ultra Orthodox and members of that community who are lax in their observance. There have always been MO and MO-lite. It is just that recently the proportion of the MO vs. MO-lite has changed and the MO make up a larger part of the community.
6. Shapiro notes: "[T]here are no modern Orthodox works of practical halachah. This realm has been ceded to the haredim." This is not entirely accurate (e.g. I, II), but close enough. That could change, if I have my way.
7. Shapiro then proceeds to argue that the OU and other kosher supervision agencies have overly extreme standards. I find his portrayal to be exaggerated and laced with apparent Abadi influence.
8. Shapiro's example about the use of medicines on Passover is not a good one, because the right-wing Orthodox community is not in agreement on this. It is just that those who are strict advertise (literally) their positions while those who are lenient do not. Although even this is changing (I, II).
9. Shapiro agrees with Heilman's statement that Haredim are the main teachers in Modern Orthodox schools. I'm not denying this, but I'll just say that this was not at all the case in my high school.
10. Shapiro writes: "Modern Orthodoxy currently has no gadol, or authority figure. That means that halachic guidance comes from the haredim." I found that surprising. I grew up in Teaneck and visit for Shabbos on occasion. Not only is Rav Soloveitchik regularly cited as the top halakhic authority, but R. Hershel Schachter and R. Mordechai Willig are also frequently quoted. They are certainly the authorities with whom my rabbinic friends regularly consult.
11. Shapiro states that the various Ba'al Teshuvah movements are all Haredi dominated. I just don't know what he's talking about. Maybe he means that a lot of the outreach professionals are Haredi. OK, maybe. But dominated? Certainly not the Ba'alei Teshuvah themselves.
1. Shapiro oddly states that Modern Orthodox students who adopt black hats and yeshivish dress do not do so in Israel but in Yeshiva University. In my experience, that is the exception (myself included) and the opposite is the general rule.
2. In the second paragraph, Shapiro defines Modern Orthodox as "people who go to college and are professionals." My friends and neighbors from Torah Vodaas and Chaim Berlin fall within that definition of Modern Orthodox, which leads me to suspect that it is overly broad.
3. In the third paragraph, Shapiro suggests that the right-wing Orthodox adopt stringencies in order to distinguish themselves from the Modern Orthodox. Now that the Modern Orthodox are being fairly strict, the right-wing has to become even stricter. I find that suggestion to be farfetched. The right-wing generally does not even realize that the Modern Orthodox community has become more strict, as can be seen in the still prevalent usage of outdated stereotypes about the Modern Orthodox.
4. Shapiro notes that even the Modern Orthodox who have adopted the haredi style of dress are still Modern Orthodox in many of their views. I find this to be a very perceptive and accurate observation. Many of my friends think they are yeshivish but are not. They just don't realize how deeply they have been influenced and that what they consider "normal" is just Modern Orthodox. (See this post by Joe Schick for just one of many examples.)
5. Shapiro writes: "There are now two types of modern Orthodox Jews: the old-fashioned type and the new type, which is modern in ideology but doesn't cut corners when it comes to halachah." I think his dichotomy is correct but that this is not a new phenomenon. In Avodah/Areivim-world, we refer to the MO and the MO-lite. The MO are the ideological Modern Orthodox and the MO-lite are members of the Modern Orthodox community who are lax in their observance. Similarly, there is the UO and the UO-lite referring to those who are Ultra Orthodox and members of that community who are lax in their observance. There have always been MO and MO-lite. It is just that recently the proportion of the MO vs. MO-lite has changed and the MO make up a larger part of the community.
6. Shapiro notes: "[T]here are no modern Orthodox works of practical halachah. This realm has been ceded to the haredim." This is not entirely accurate (e.g. I, II), but close enough. That could change, if I have my way.
7. Shapiro then proceeds to argue that the OU and other kosher supervision agencies have overly extreme standards. I find his portrayal to be exaggerated and laced with apparent Abadi influence.
8. Shapiro's example about the use of medicines on Passover is not a good one, because the right-wing Orthodox community is not in agreement on this. It is just that those who are strict advertise (literally) their positions while those who are lenient do not. Although even this is changing (I, II).
9. Shapiro agrees with Heilman's statement that Haredim are the main teachers in Modern Orthodox schools. I'm not denying this, but I'll just say that this was not at all the case in my high school.
10. Shapiro writes: "Modern Orthodoxy currently has no gadol, or authority figure. That means that halachic guidance comes from the haredim." I found that surprising. I grew up in Teaneck and visit for Shabbos on occasion. Not only is Rav Soloveitchik regularly cited as the top halakhic authority, but R. Hershel Schachter and R. Mordechai Willig are also frequently quoted. They are certainly the authorities with whom my rabbinic friends regularly consult.
11. Shapiro states that the various Ba'al Teshuvah movements are all Haredi dominated. I just don't know what he's talking about. Maybe he means that a lot of the outreach professionals are Haredi. OK, maybe. But dominated? Certainly not the Ba'alei Teshuvah themselves.
How Many Truths?
12:08 PM
Gil Student
Beginning next week -- at the
Seymour J. Abrams Orthodox Union Jerusalem World Center
(the “Israel Center”),
22 Keren HaYesod Street, Jerusalem,
Wednesday evenings (opening session on 29 Av / 23 August), 7:30-8:30,
NEVER BEFORE PRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC...
AN EXCITING, UNIQUE, NEW SERIES FOR THINKING PEOPLE!
It will challenge your Judaism; it will change your life....
“Truth Will Sprout from the Earth”:
How Many Truths?
How Many Legitimate Pathways to G-d?
(Is ‘Pluralism’ a Dirty Word?)
Forays of the Mind and Spirit
Compiled by Chaim Eisen
SYNOPSIS: We readily perceive divine truths as monolithic -- indeed, we affirm that there is one absolute Truth that transcends this world. Yet, as this series demonstrates -- through analyzing numerous citations from the Talmud, the Midrash, and the writings of classic rabbinical commentators -- in this world, truth is inexorably manifold and subjective. Granted, this is no license to accept anything as true. However, it demands of us to rethink our definition of truth, our attitude toward those with whom we disagree, and, ultimately, the purpose and goal of our lives and of this world.
Unit 1. Introduction: How Many Pathways to G-d?
Unit 2. How Many Right Answers in Jewish Law?
Unit 3. How Many Right Answers in Jewish Thought?
Unit 4. How Many Ideal Careers in Judaism -- Individually and Communally?
Unit 5. How Many Paths to a Worthy and Everlasting Life?
Unit 6. How Many Nations Have a Significant Role to Play?
Unit 7. Conclusion: How Many Divine Truths Within?
Unit 8. Epilogue: Beyond Pluralism
R. Soloveitchik on Da'as Torah II
7:04 AM
Gil Student
Regarding this post, it was pointed out to me that R. Shalom Carmy's article does not say that Rav Soloveitchik did not change his mind about "Da'as Torah." Rather, it says that one can read the texts without being forced to say that he changed his view. Therefore, whatever change he may have made, if any, need not have been radical.
R. Nati Helfgot directed me to the following passage in an essay by R. Aharon Lichtenstein (Leaves of Faith, vol. 1 pp. 227-228:
R. Nati Helfgot directed me to the following passage in an essay by R. Aharon Lichtenstein (Leaves of Faith, vol. 1 pp. 227-228:
True, he did not, in the long run, hold aloft the banner of the ideology that is now termed "Da'at Torah," which maintains that every political question has an essentially halakhic character, and is thus susceptible to the obligatory and exclusive decisions of the gedolei Torah. At first he inclined to this view, and even asserted it with enthusiasm. As he said, in his eulogy for R. Hayim Ozer ז"ל...Also of relevance is the following passage from R. Hershel Schachter's recent article (p. 4):
After a time, he abandoned this view, and in the course of decades he accepted and even sharpened the distinction between matters involving mizvot (divrei mitzvah), which are to be decided by halakhic decision-makers, and other matters (divrei reshut), in which significant weight is attached to the opinions and authority of other leaders, or to private judgment. Nevertheless, although he rejected the decisive reach of rabbinic authority in political matters, he was insistent that such matters be determined from a perspective of refined spirituality and in consonance with Torah values. And he fully recognized that he was one of the few who could bring the proper measure of spirituality to bear upon Religious Zionism so as to ensure its standing as a Torah movement.
We also heard similarly regarding political matters, that many times R. Chaim [Soloveitchik] reached a decision and did not allow other rabbis to vote and disagree with him. This is in accord with the aforementioned view of the Vilna Gaon, that these Torah giants believed that they had succeeded in achieving an absolute conclusion from which there is no room to deviate right or left. However, our teacher [R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik] frequently said -- many times -- that he does not say "Accept my view." He would say this regarding both halakhic and political matters.
I heard from R. Norman Lamm that our teacher was once asked about a political matter, and the rabbi responded to the questioner on the issue. The questioner then asked, "Is our teacher's 'Da'as Torah' such-and-such?" Our teacher immediately responded, "I did not say 'Da'as Torah.' I only said my opinion and the listener will choose." It seems to me that his words mean as follows: People tend to use the phrase "Da'as Torah" as meaning an absolute conclusion from which the listener has no permission to discuss or disagree. This was not the approach of our teacher, as is famous and known to all.
Monday, August 14, 2006
Amazon Reviews
4:22 PM
Gil Student
Surprisingly, some of Yashar's books have not received any reviews on Amazon.com. If you have comments on the books, please feel free to share them to potential readers:
Between the Lines of the Bible by R. Yitzchak Etshalom
Gray Matter volume 2 by R. Chaim Jachter
The Legacy of Maimonides edited by R. Yamin Levy and R. Shalom Carmy
Man and Beast by R. Natan Slifkin
The Challenge of Creation by R. Natan Slifkin
Between the Lines of the Bible by R. Yitzchak Etshalom
Gray Matter volume 2 by R. Chaim Jachter
The Legacy of Maimonides edited by R. Yamin Levy and R. Shalom Carmy
Man and Beast by R. Natan Slifkin
The Challenge of Creation by R. Natan Slifkin
Thoughts on Israel
6:03 AM
Gil Student
Some thoughts from before announcement of the possible cease-fire...
Out of Step Jew had complained that many Jewish blogs have hardly mentioned the war. He's right. I commented to that post that I simply have little intelligent to post on that subject. That notwithstanding, here are some things about the war that have been going on in my life:
1. Aside from the youngsters here, most of us here remember the first Gulf War (Operation Desert Shield), in which every Israeli carried a gas mask and spent countless hours in an air-tight room in case of chemical attack. The war began on Wednesday January 16, 1991 and Iraq started shooting Scud missiles at Israel the next day. I was in Yeshiva Ner Yisrael in Baltimore at that time. That Shabbos was one of great concern among everyone. Aside from the frequent emissary to the security guard to find out what he had learned from the radio, each meal had a moving rendition of the song Acheinu that still resonates in my memory. Since the beginning of this war, I've been singing it at every Shabbos meal.
2. For years now, whenever I am called to the Torah on Shabbos, I add to the end of the list of people mentioned in my mi-she-beirakh soldiers in the IDF (chayalei Tzeva Haganah Le-Yisrael). The gabbai in my synagogue knows to expect it. Last Shabbos, it caught on for the first time and the man who was called up after me also addded it to this mi-she-beirakh.
3. This past Shabbos I read, and had my wife and daughter read, R. David Eisen's account of some of his experiences in this current war, which he gave me permission to link here (link - DOC, prior journals of his: I, II - DOC).
Out of Step Jew had complained that many Jewish blogs have hardly mentioned the war. He's right. I commented to that post that I simply have little intelligent to post on that subject. That notwithstanding, here are some things about the war that have been going on in my life:
1. Aside from the youngsters here, most of us here remember the first Gulf War (Operation Desert Shield), in which every Israeli carried a gas mask and spent countless hours in an air-tight room in case of chemical attack. The war began on Wednesday January 16, 1991 and Iraq started shooting Scud missiles at Israel the next day. I was in Yeshiva Ner Yisrael in Baltimore at that time. That Shabbos was one of great concern among everyone. Aside from the frequent emissary to the security guard to find out what he had learned from the radio, each meal had a moving rendition of the song Acheinu that still resonates in my memory. Since the beginning of this war, I've been singing it at every Shabbos meal.
2. For years now, whenever I am called to the Torah on Shabbos, I add to the end of the list of people mentioned in my mi-she-beirakh soldiers in the IDF (chayalei Tzeva Haganah Le-Yisrael). The gabbai in my synagogue knows to expect it. Last Shabbos, it caught on for the first time and the man who was called up after me also addded it to this mi-she-beirakh.
3. This past Shabbos I read, and had my wife and daughter read, R. David Eisen's account of some of his experiences in this current war, which he gave me permission to link here (link - DOC, prior journals of his: I, II - DOC).
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Conquering Israel
10:35 PM
Gil Student
Deut. 9:4-6:
Hear, O Israel! You are about to cross the Jordan today, to go in and dispossess nations larger and mightier than you, great cities, fortified to the heavens, a strong and tall people, the offspring of the Anakim, whom you know. You have heard it said of them, "Who can stand up to the Anakim?" Know then today that the Lord your God is the one who crosses over before you as a devouring fire; he will defeat them and subdue them before you, so that you may dispossess and destroy them quickly, as the Lord has promised you. When the Lord your God thrusts them out before you, do not say to yourself, "It is because of my righteousness that the Lord has brought me in to occupy this land"; it is rather because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is dispossessing them before you. It is not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart that you are going in to occupy their land; but because of the wickedness of these nations the Lord your God is dispossessing them before you, in order to fulfill the promise that the Lord made on oath to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. Know, then, that the Lord your God is not giving you this good land to occupy because of your righteousness; for you are a stubborn people.Deut. 11:22-23:
If you will diligently observe this entire commandment that I am commanding you, loving the Lord your God, walking in all his ways, and holding fast to him, then the Lord will drive out all these nations before you, and you will dispossess nations larger and mightier than yourselves.Granted, these verses are talking about the initial conquest of the land. But the implication is that, if we are not entirely righteous, we will still the conquer the land but in a long, drawn-out process.
Friday, August 11, 2006
Rabbi Slifkin in the News
10:02 AM
Gil Student
Jewish News Weekly of Northern California
Shul Gives Roar of Approval for "Zoo Rabbi" - Aug. 11, '06
New Jersey Jewish Standard
Genesis 1: A Tale of Two Torahs? - Aug. 11, '06
Shul Gives Roar of Approval for "Zoo Rabbi" - Aug. 11, '06
New Jersey Jewish Standard
Genesis 1: A Tale of Two Torahs? - Aug. 11, '06
Man of Truth, Man of Peace
7:34 AM
Gil Student
R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, The Lord is Righteous in All His Ways: Reflections on the Tish`ah be-Av Kinot, p. 131:
At the very dawn of creation, when Ha-Kadosh Barukh Hu consulted with the angels, as it were, as to whether or not He should create man, there was a disagreement in the heavenly court. The Midrah (Gen. Rabbah 8:5) says that the heavenly hosts were divided into different groups... [T]ruth was opposed, because, it said, man is basically a liar (she-kulo shekarim)... Peace was opposed because, it maintained, man is full of strife (dekhula ketatah). Truth and Peace were against the creation of man... Why were Truth and Peace opposed?
I once heard from my father zikhrono livrakhah, may his memory be for a blessing, that man can be either a perfect man of truth or a perfect man of peace, but he cannot be both at the same time. A man of truth does not know the secret of compromise...
In olam ha-zeh, this world, there is a conflict between truth and peace... But in the messianic era, the conflcit will be removed. This is what the verse means when it says "And love truth and peace." To be complete, man will not have to sacrifice either truth or peace, but will be able to act fully in accordance with both.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
YU Accessories
12:09 PM
Gil Student
After reading about YU's website being hacked (link), I went to take a look at it and saw that they are selling YU accessories. Highlights include silk ties, baseball caps and mugs. I'd think the tie is perfect for wearing to Agudah conferences, or for yeshiva bachurim on Purim. I would recommend against wearing one for yeshiva interviews for your children.
But beware when wearing such clothes in public. True story: When I was learning in the YU kollel, someone once came into the beis midrash and put down a box of "YU staff" t-shirts that were extra and were available for the taking. I took one (they were all XL) and my wife adopted it as hers. Because it was so large, the sleeves were long enough and it fit her stomach during pregnancy. Whenever my wife wore the shirt outside of the house in Brooklyn, she would always be stopped by people who knew a girl whom they wanted to "set up" with a guy from YU. It was an inevitable delay to her shopping and errands.
It also makes a great wedding gift for Steven I. Weiss.
But beware when wearing such clothes in public. True story: When I was learning in the YU kollel, someone once came into the beis midrash and put down a box of "YU staff" t-shirts that were extra and were available for the taking. I took one (they were all XL) and my wife adopted it as hers. Because it was so large, the sleeves were long enough and it fit her stomach during pregnancy. Whenever my wife wore the shirt outside of the house in Brooklyn, she would always be stopped by people who knew a girl whom they wanted to "set up" with a guy from YU. It was an inevitable delay to her shopping and errands.
It also makes a great wedding gift for Steven I. Weiss.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Ramban on Providence
11:02 PM
Gil Student
R. Moshe Eisemann regularly publishes short books that are used as fundraising tools for the Kishiniev Yeshiva. I recently received his latest book, which is an (extremely thoughtful and eloquent) analysis of the Ramban's position on the nature of man and divine providence (link). I was pleasantly surprised by this book on a number of levels.
In a post last year (link), I quoted R. Moshe Sternbuch's citation of the Ramban (to Exodus 13:16) that it is heretical to believe other than that everything that happens in the world is miraculous. I quoted Dr. David Berger's analysis of the Ramban's view and his conclusion that, according to the Ramban, all reward and punishment are miraculous but there are still things in this world that occur based on happenstance (i.e. nature). R. Eisemann's conclusion is the same (he initially had a different approach but his daughter's questions convinced him otherwise). Page 94:
If Ramban accepts Targum's interpretation, it would simply mean that these people are occasionally left to the vagaries of nature. There will be times when what happens to them will be directly brought about through hashgachah either to reward or to punish. During the intervening times they are left to their own devices.Interestingly, R. Eisemann asks how we -- average Jews -- are supposed to deal with the idea that God's continuous providence only applies to the most righteous (see this post). He suggests that we take it as an inspiration and encouragement to better ourselves so that we become worthy of God's providence. Page 96:
If what Ramban taught us sounds to our guilty ears like a form of caste system, that is not what the Ribono shel Olam wants us to feel. He hopes that, knowing that we have not measured up to the degree of deveikus which would place us among the "ins," we will fight long and hard to regain entry into His embrace. The degree to which we remain on the outside depends entirely upon ourselves. The Ribono shel Olam is waiting.This is similar to R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik's response to a similar concern regarding the Rambam's approach to providence (Halakhic Man, p. 128):
The fundamental of providence is here transformed into a concrete commandment, an obligation incumbent upon man. Man is obliged to broaden the scope and strengthen the intensity of the individual providence that watches over him. Everything is dependent on him; it is all in his hands. When a person creates himself, ceases to be a mere species man, and becomes a man of God, then he has fulfilled that commandment which is implicit in the principle of providence.
No True Torah Giant Would Say That
9:58 AM
Gil Student
I was recently talking to someone who told me that he was shocked by what he saw in writing in the name of a Torah giant, which he later verified in person. He considered this to be heresy [totally unrelated to Torah and science], and I asked him whether this was not proof that it is not heresy. His response was that this proved that the Torah scholar was not as great as people claim.
This is, I believe, a commission of the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy. Wikipedia defines it as such (link):
This is, I believe, a commission of the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy. Wikipedia defines it as such (link):
No true Scotsman is a term coined by Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking. It refers to an argument which takes this form:The definition of a Torah giant is not someone who agrees with you or your teachers. I would posit that it is someone who is greatly accomplished in Torah learning and continues in the path of his mentors. There is, of course, much more that could be said in regard to defining this amorphous term. However, redefining the term after finding a Torah giant who disagrees with you is a logical fallacy, perhaps committed too often.Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."This form of argument is a fallacy if the predicate ("putting sugar on porridge") is not actually contradictory for the accepted definition of the subject ("Scotsman"), or if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work.
Reply: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
R. Aryeh Kaplan on the Age of the Universe
11:10 PM
Gil Student
R. Aryeh Kaplan's position on the age of the universe has become quite famous over the years. R. Yitzchok Adlerstein summarized it in a Fall 1991 article in Jewish Action. It was subsequently published in a posthumous 1993 book Immortality, Resurrection and the Age of the Universe: A Kabbalistic View. A transcript of a lecture by R. Kaplan on this subject is available for free download here. R. Natan Slifkin discusses this position in his The Science of Torah on pages 115-118 and The Challenge of Creation in chapter 12.
In brief, R. Aryeh Kaplan quotes rishonim who understand literally a midrash that there are 7 cycles to the world of 7,000 years each. This is quoted by the Ramban and Rabbenu Bachya. R. Kaplan then quotes R. Yitzchak of Acre, a student of the Ramban, who writes that each of those years is a year of God. And, he writes, a day of God is 1,000 years, which means that a year of God is approximately 365,250 of our years. Thus, the duration of the universe is 7*7,000*365,250 = 17,897,250,000 or almost 18 billion years.
R. Kaplan writes that according to the view of the kabbalistic work Livnas Ha-Sapir, we are currently in the seventh cycle, which means that the creation discussed in Genesis happened after 42,000 years, which translates into an age of the universe of approximately 15 billion years at "creation" time.
R. Ari Kahn raises a number of question on R. Kaplan's position (see a post to the Avodah list, excerpted from his book Explorations). R. Kahn's objections are as follows:
1. According to Livnas Ha-Sapir, we are currently in the sixth (not seventh) cycle. But the Livnas Ha-Sapir does not mention the "day of God" aspect. According to R. Yitzchak of Acre, we are currently in the second cycle. That significantly diminishes the age of the universe.
2. The Arizal disputed this entire approach and understand the cycles to be spiritual and not physical. According to the Arizal, there is no basis for this entire approach.
The first objection is certainly correct: R. Yitzchak of Acre believed that we are in the second cycle. That would mean that he was of the view that the universe was slightly over 2.5 billion years old at "creation" (i.e. the creation described in Gen. 1). However, and R. Kahn certainly agrees to this, R. Yitzchak of Acre believed that the universe is billions of years old! That, in itself, is significant.
I'm not sure about the second objection. R. Aryeh Kaplan specifically raised the issue of the Arizal's view and denied its overriding significance (Immortality, Resurrection and the Age of the Universe, pp. 6-7):
In brief, R. Aryeh Kaplan quotes rishonim who understand literally a midrash that there are 7 cycles to the world of 7,000 years each. This is quoted by the Ramban and Rabbenu Bachya. R. Kaplan then quotes R. Yitzchak of Acre, a student of the Ramban, who writes that each of those years is a year of God. And, he writes, a day of God is 1,000 years, which means that a year of God is approximately 365,250 of our years. Thus, the duration of the universe is 7*7,000*365,250 = 17,897,250,000 or almost 18 billion years.
R. Kaplan writes that according to the view of the kabbalistic work Livnas Ha-Sapir, we are currently in the seventh cycle, which means that the creation discussed in Genesis happened after 42,000 years, which translates into an age of the universe of approximately 15 billion years at "creation" time.
R. Ari Kahn raises a number of question on R. Kaplan's position (see a post to the Avodah list, excerpted from his book Explorations). R. Kahn's objections are as follows:
1. According to Livnas Ha-Sapir, we are currently in the sixth (not seventh) cycle. But the Livnas Ha-Sapir does not mention the "day of God" aspect. According to R. Yitzchak of Acre, we are currently in the second cycle. That significantly diminishes the age of the universe.
2. The Arizal disputed this entire approach and understand the cycles to be spiritual and not physical. According to the Arizal, there is no basis for this entire approach.
The first objection is certainly correct: R. Yitzchak of Acre believed that we are in the second cycle. That would mean that he was of the view that the universe was slightly over 2.5 billion years old at "creation" (i.e. the creation described in Gen. 1). However, and R. Kahn certainly agrees to this, R. Yitzchak of Acre believed that the universe is billions of years old! That, in itself, is significant.
I'm not sure about the second objection. R. Aryeh Kaplan specifically raised the issue of the Arizal's view and denied its overriding significance (Immortality, Resurrection and the Age of the Universe, pp. 6-7):
Before going any further, it must be mentioned that most of the more recent Kabbalistic texts do not make any reference to these teachings. This is because two of the greatest Kabbalists, Rabbi Moses Cordovero (the RaMaK) and Rabbi Isaac Luria (the Ari) disputed this concept in general...That is presumably why the Tiferes Yisrael and Rav Kook felt comfortable citing this position. In a very recent article in the Torah U-Mada Journal on this doctrine of Sabbatical years, Raphael Shuchat suggests (here - PDF, n. 99):
Here, however, the second principle that was discussed earlier comes into play. Since this is not a matter of law, there is no binding opinion. Although the Ari may have been the greatest of Kabbalists, his opinion on this matter is by no means absolutely binding. Since there were many important Kabbalists who upheld the concept of Sabbatical cycles, it is a valid, acceptable opinion.
Despite the fact the R. Kook follows the Ari in most areas of Kabbalah, he felt that an idea found in the writings of Ramban and R. Bahya remains legitimate despite the Ari’s criticism.If Rav Kook felt that this position is kabbalistically justifiable, I certainly won't criticize it. Thus, while R. Aryeh Kaplan's approach might not be consistent with the most current view of the age of the universe, it demonstrates that a medieval kabbalist believed that the universe was greater than 2 billion years old, which offers justification for those in the contemporary society who believe that the universe is older than 5,766 years.
R. Soloveitchik on Da'as Torah
7:55 AM
Gil Student
R. Shalom Carmy has an article in the current issue of the Torah U-Mada Journal in which he analyzes R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik's approach to "Da'as Torah" (link - PDF). Here is a relevant excerpt (pp. 10, 12):
UPDATE: Additionally, and significantly, R. Soloveitchik was wont to discuss the relevant issues and allow his questioner to reach a decision rather than simply give a straight answer. My many discussions with his grandson, R. Mayer Twersky, found him to be similar.
There is enough public oral evidence that the Rav did not favor direct rabbinic intervention in political affairs, especially where they lack the requisite expertise to speak with authority. His 1967 ruling that decisions about possible territorial compromise in the land of Israel for the sake of peace should be made by experts in the field, rather than by rabbis, is currently the most discussed example of his outlook. While I am reluctant to rely on private comments, I am sure that many who enjoyed the Rav’s company can confirm my recollections of sarcasm on the subject of rabbis whose adherents encourage them to pontificate on matters of which they were inadequately informed. If his outlook can be inferred from his practice, it is appropriate for gedolei Torah who comment on public matters to recognize the complexity of human affairs and the existence of different informed opinions on most contested questions, and to modulate their voices accordingly. As noted earlier, such leadership inculcates the right “frame of reference” for individual and communal decisions rather than imposing such decisions from above. This model of teaching authority is alive and well in certain segments of our community, though not as much as one might wish, where laity and middle–level rabbinic scholars respectfully solicit and listen to multiple perspectives among their teachers, who, in turn, treat their audience and opponents with respect...In other words, giants of Torah scholarship have insight based on their unique perspectives. But they have to know the intricacies of what they are talking about in order to have insight into it.
The Rav’s practical orientation towards the idea of da‘at Torah has been presented by some of his most faithful talmidim. R. Aharon Lichtenstein, for example, has written about the importance of such guidance. And R. Walter Wurzburger, in arguing that religious ethics requires personal examples, model individuals who embody Torah and are worthy of emulation, especially in areas where right conduct cannot be formulated in precise halakhic categories, has observed the relation between this insight and the special status of gedolim. Though we believe, following the Mishnah (Avot 3:1) that wisdom is the ability to learn from all human beings, how can we not grant pride of place to those who have seen Torah steadily and seen in whole (to adapt Matthew Arnold’s line)? The alternative is virtually unthinkable.
UPDATE: Additionally, and significantly, R. Soloveitchik was wont to discuss the relevant issues and allow his questioner to reach a decision rather than simply give a straight answer. My many discussions with his grandson, R. Mayer Twersky, found him to be similar.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Rabbi Slifkin in the News
9:20 PM
Gil Student
The Weekly Standard
The Human Factor - Aug. 14
Five Towns Jewish Times
Zoo Torah - July 13
Letters to the Editor (PDF, pp. 34-35) - July 21
Torah and Science Meet - July 27
Letter to the Editor (PDF, pp. 32-33) - July 28
The Human Factor - Aug. 14
Five Towns Jewish Times
Zoo Torah - July 13
Letters to the Editor (PDF, pp. 34-35) - July 21
Torah and Science Meet - July 27
Letter to the Editor (PDF, pp. 32-33) - July 28
Bible and History
9:06 PM
Gil Student
In an essay titled "The State and Directions of Orthodox Bible Study" (in Shalom Carmy ed., Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah), Dr. B. Barry Levy offers 30 rules and principles for modern Orthodox Bible study (pp. 75-79). All of these are worthy of note, but I present here the final idea on the list, which I think is particularly relevant to blog readers:
30. Determinations of the validity of historical reconstructions, or of any suggested interpretations, will reflect changing thoughts, experiences, and beliefs of the educated reader. Commitment to a lifelong program of Bible study must be a priority of every educated Jew.In other words, what might seem implausible to you today may seem very plausible in five years' time.
You Need A Straight Tie
11:14 AM
Gil Student
Friday, August 04, 2006
Jeremiah's Scroll
5:56 AM
Gil Student
Jeremiah 36:1-4:
Abarbanel (Jer. 36:2-3) responds that Eicha does contain grieving over the status of Israel and Judah, in terms of their destruction and exile, and also mentions God's revenge on the nations that exiled them (e.g. Lam. 1:22 "Let all their evil doing come before you"; 4:21 "Rejoice and be glad, O daughter Edom..."). [Note that the Metzudas David follows Abarbanel's approach without citing him by name, as is his way.] Interestingly, the note in the Net Bible says as follows: "The intent is hardly that of giving a verbatim report of everything that the Lord had told him to say or of everything that he had actually said. What the scroll undoubtedly contained was a synopsis of Jeremiah's messages as constructed from his memory." This could more plausibly be applied to the Gemara's approach than R. Yosef Kara's.
Abarbanel continues that Jeremiah generally wrote down his own prophecies, that had the status of nevu'ah (prophecy) which compelled him to express them. However, the lamentations included in Eicha were said under divine inspiration (ru'ach ha-kodesh), a level lower than prophecy, which is why specifically those were written down by a scribe and is why they were not included in the part of the Bible called Nevi'im but, rather, Kesuvim. On this issue, see R. Shnayer Z. Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture, pp. 169-170 n. 294.
In the fourth year of King Jehoiakim son of Josiah of Judah, this word came to Jeremiah from the Lord: Take a scroll and write on it all the words that I have spoken to you against Israel and Judah and all the nations, from the day I spoke to you, from the days of Josiah until today. It may be that when the house of Judah hears of all the disasters that I intend to do to them, all of them may turn from their evil ways, so that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin. Then Jeremiah called Baruch son of Neriah, and Baruch wrote on a scroll at Jeremiah's dictation all the words of the Lord that he had spoken to him.The Gemara (Mo'ed Katan 26a) states that this scroll was the short book of Eicha (Lamentations), and Rashi (Jer. 36:23) follows this explanation. R. Yosef Kara (Jer. 36:23) finds this difficult because the command was to write "all the words that I have spoken to you against Israel and Judah and all the nations, from the day I spoke to you, from the days of Josiah until today." Eicha simply does not have all this information. Rather, it must be referring to a scroll containing all of Jeremiah's prophecies up to that day.
Abarbanel (Jer. 36:2-3) responds that Eicha does contain grieving over the status of Israel and Judah, in terms of their destruction and exile, and also mentions God's revenge on the nations that exiled them (e.g. Lam. 1:22 "Let all their evil doing come before you"; 4:21 "Rejoice and be glad, O daughter Edom..."). [Note that the Metzudas David follows Abarbanel's approach without citing him by name, as is his way.] Interestingly, the note in the Net Bible says as follows: "The intent is hardly that of giving a verbatim report of everything that the Lord had told him to say or of everything that he had actually said. What the scroll undoubtedly contained was a synopsis of Jeremiah's messages as constructed from his memory." This could more plausibly be applied to the Gemara's approach than R. Yosef Kara's.
Abarbanel continues that Jeremiah generally wrote down his own prophecies, that had the status of nevu'ah (prophecy) which compelled him to express them. However, the lamentations included in Eicha were said under divine inspiration (ru'ach ha-kodesh), a level lower than prophecy, which is why specifically those were written down by a scribe and is why they were not included in the part of the Bible called Nevi'im but, rather, Kesuvim. On this issue, see R. Shnayer Z. Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture, pp. 169-170 n. 294.
