The Legacy of Rav Soloveitchik

This Sunday in Toronto, but available for everyone online (register before Shabbos and participate from the comfort of home: online registration):

The Legacy of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik zt"l

Saturday December 2nd - 8:15-10:30 p.m.
Sunday December 3rd - 9:30a.m.-3:30 p.m.

Shaarei Shomayim Congregation
470 Glencairn Avenue , Toronto

Halachist, philosopher, teacher extraordinaire - the influence of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik on the history and direction of twentieth century Judaism was and remains immense. This conference will explore the many aspects of the Rav zt"l with those who learned from him, served him personally and continue his legacy.

Speakers include:

Rabbi Shalom Carmy, Professor of Bible, YU
Dr. Arnold Lustiger, Editor, Yom Kippur Machzor with commentary adapted from the teachings of the Rav
Ethan Isenberg, Creator and Director of a new documentary film on the Rav
Rav Hershel Schachter, Roch Kollel, Yeshiva University, pre-eminent student of Rav Soloveitchik
Dr. David Shatz, Professor of Philosophy, Yeshiva University ; editor MeOtzar Harav series


(link)

Read the rest of this entry »

Homosexuality in Halakhah VII

The Jewish media are reporting that the decision by the (Conservative) Rabbinical Assembly's Committee on Jewish Law and Standards on homosexuality, postponed from earlier this year, is scheduled for next week (Jewish Week, Forward). While proposals range from advocating therapy to full acceptance of homosexual behavior, it is pretty much a given that the majority will vote for a lenient view. This will lead the way to JTS allowing active homosexuals into its rabbinic program.

In truth, I think the most surprising thing is that this is even an issue in the Conservative movement. I applaud those in the Conservative movement who are struggling to uphold at least this biblical law.

(Those who are comfortable reading the writings of Conservative scholars might be interested in reading Prof. Joel Roth's 1992 article on this subject: link [PDF])

Read the rest of this entry »

Homiletics 101

Useful tidbit I learned in yeshiva:

Never, ever start a devar Torah with the words "In this week's parashah". People will tune you out before you even have a chance to get started. Open with an interesting question or story to capture people's attention and then you have a fighting chance to maintain their interest.

Read the rest of this entry »

Da'as Torah IV

Menachem Kellner has an article in a new journal Covenant. The article is titled "Maimonides Agonist: Disenchantment and Reenchantment in Modern Judaism" and is an excerpt from his latest book (link).

Setting aside many minor points, a central thesis to Kellner's article is the idea that to the Kuzari Jewish law represent metaphysical realities, while to the Rambam Jewish law is a social institution. For example, according to the Kuzari, something is tamei because it is inherently impure while according to the Rambam, it is labeled as such for social, educational, moral or historical reasons but not for any inherent reason. Again, accepting this distinction for the sake of argument, let us proceed to Kellner's next step -- Da'as Torah:

The modern doctrine of da'at torah is thus clearly Halevian and not Maimonidean. For Halevi, in order properly to determine halakhah one must tap into a kind of quasi-prophecy; for Maimonides, one must learn how to handle halakhic texts and procedures properly. If halakhah creates institutional reality, then, beyond technical competence (and, one hopes, personal integrity), the charismatic or other qualities of the individual halakhist are irrelevant to questions of authority; if, on the other hand, halakhah reflects antecedent ontological reality, then the only competent halakhist is the one who can tap into that reality, a function of divine inspiration, not personal ability or institutional standing.

I think this argument is fundamentally flawed in that it underestimates the "technical competence" required to render halakhic decisions. There are varying levels of expertise and there are some who are simply among the most outstanding decisors of their generation. That is Maimonidean Da'as Torah. It is non-mystical but still gives deference to the outstanding scholars of a generation on matters that impinge on areas of halakhah. Prophecy is not required but is replaced by complete -- emphasis on "complete" -- mastery of the entire corpus of Jewish law. Yes, rendering decision on such issues requires intimate knowledge of the circumstances. But assuming adequate knowledge, Da'as Torah is still a concept that exists within the rationalist framework. The question is what to do when knowledge of the circumstances is not equally distributed.

Read the rest of this entry »

Sherut Leumi

With the recent discussions of Sherut Leumi -- national service in Israel for women of army age -- I sent some questions about this issue to some friends and they came back with some interesting information. Keep in mind that the discussion has changed from what it once was: Sherut Leumi was originally proposed as a mandatory draft of young women, which great Torah scholars vehemently opposed. It is now an entirely voluntary program.

It seems that R. Tzvi Yehuda Kook generally viewed Sherut Leumi favorably provided that a girl is placed in a spiritually appropriate atmosphere. Someone spoke on my behalf with R. Ya'akov Shapiro, the son of R. Avraham Shapiro, and he said that girls who may be influenced negatively should not do it. But for other girls, it is fine provided that they are in a proper atmosphere. R. Mordechai Eliyahu, as related by his son R. Shmuel Eliyahu (link), seems to be cautious but not entirely against. R. Avigdor Nevenzahl is also quoted as having permitted Sherut Leumi, when in an appropriate environment (link).

Read the rest of this entry »

A Time to Act for the Lord

The following is an excerpt from my article "The Mehitzah Controversy: 50 Years Later" in BD"D vol. 17, an article that generally defends the requirement of a mehitzah and the positions of R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik and R. Moshe Feinstein in particular. Note that this excerpt is from an unedited draft of the article:

While this essay has focused largely on reasons to require a mehitzah, it will now address a powerful, if ambiguous, case to permit or even require mixed seating in the synagogue. The laws of the Torah are eternally binding. However, while they are free from annulment by human hand there is an internal mechanism within the law by which it can be temporarily set aside in accommodation of a greater need. The classic example of such an occurrence was the abrogation of the prohibition against sacrificing on a private altar by Elijah on Mount Carmel.[135] He saw that in order to save the Jewish people from mass defections to idolatry he had to forcefully and convincingly demonstrate the truth of his message, something he accomplished by temporarily setting aside a biblical prohibition. As the rabbis termed it: “’It is time for You to act, O Lord, for they have regarded Your law as void’ (Psalms 119:126) – Rabbi Nathan said: [This can be read as:] Void your law because it is a time to act for the Lord.”[136] This overriding of one law so as to save the entire corpus has occurred more than once in history. Another prominent case was the writing of the oral law in the form of the Talmud, an act that is technically prohibited because the oral law must remain informal and unwritten.[137] However, since the oral law was in danger of being forgotten, the leading rabbis of the time arrived at the bold conclusion that the law must be violated so as to be preserved. Maimonides codified this process in the following way:

If [a court] sees fit to temporarily neutralize a commandment or violate a prohibition in order to bring the masses back to religion or to prevent many Jews from stumbling in other areas, it does whatever the times require. Just like a doctor will cut off someone's arm or leg so that his totality will live, so too the court can rule at certain times to temporarily violate some commandments in order that they will all [eventually] be fulfilled.[138]

Just like amputating a part of the body can save the whole so, too, there are rare occasions when setting aside one law can salvage the entire Torah. Thus, when rabbis were presented with the ultimatum that if they did not permit mixed seating the majority of synagogue members would leave for a Reform temple, they were faced with a colossal dilemma. As members of an antinomian temple, as Classical Reform synagogues can be justly termed, these congregants would certainly lose quickly whatever observances they once maintained and, perhaps more importantly, they would no longer be under the influence of a tradition-minded rabbi who might influence these Jews to return closer to their heritage. If, however, the rabbi accommodated the congregants’ desire for mixed seating he could guide these members’ progress or at least prevent a major decline in observance. With the dilemma presented in this fashion, the conclusion naturally emerges that it would be better to set aside the requirement for separate seating in order to stave a mass defection away from traditional Jewish observance.

For this reason, more than any other, the leading halakhists of the early twentieth century Conservative Movement begrudgingly permitted mixed seating on a case by case basis.[139] They were cautiously willing to forgo the requirement of a mehitzah in the synagogue in order to keep thousands of Jews within the framework of a movement that generally respects halakhah.[140]

There is yet room to question this conclusion and to argue that, given the context of the demand for separate seating, accommodationism was counter-productive; it encouraged an already strong desire to restructure Jewish law according to one’s own wishes rather than urging congregants to change their lives to fit halakhic demands. This was the Orthodox counter-argument.[141] However, the ultimate conclusion of whether mixed seating was a necessary transgression or a destructive change to halakhah lay in the judgment of the halakhic decisor, a heavy responsibility for anyone to bear...[142]

---

[135] 1 Kings 18.
[136] Berakhot 54a. Cf. Berakhot 63a; Temurah 14b.
[137] Gittin 60a.
[138] Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Mamrim 2:4.
[139] Prof. Boaz Cohen, Proceedings (supra note 11), pp. 140-141; Prof. Louis Ginzberg, Responsa (supra note 10), nos. 7-9. A careful reading of Prof. Ginzberg’s writings on the subject shows that he considered separate seating to be a binding custom that he hesitantly permitted only because of the spiritual danger in the situation of that time.
[140] For a passionate halakhic argument against the entire “time to act” justification, see R. Aaron Felder, She’elat Aharon (Philadelphia: 2000), nos. 3-4. I thank my dear friend R. Daniel Z. Feldman for bringing this to my attention.
[141] Even those who concede that, were the conditions appropriate, mixed seating could be temporarily permitted were still able to honestly testify that mixed seating is prohibited. If not, one would never be able to say that anything, even eating pig, is prohibited by Judaism because there exist extenuating circumstances, such as a life-threatening illness that requires the eating of pig meat, in which the forbidden is allowed.
[142] Cf. R. Moshe Ibn Habib, Kapot Temarim, Sukkah 34b on Tosafot sv. ve-lidrosh regarding on whom such decisions fall.

To see the whole picture, you really need to read the entire article.

Read the rest of this entry »

Call the Police?

This Sunday, Dec. 3 at 8pm, R. Hershel Schachter will be speaking in Teaneck on the topic of "Should I Call the Police? Clarifying the Issurim of Mesira and Chilul Hashem" and R. Benjamin Yudin on "Talking to Our Kids About the Birds and the Bees: Sanctifying the Intimate".

Cong. Bnai Yeshurun, 641 West Englewood Avenue, Teaneck, N.J.
Organized by TorahWeb

Read the rest of this entry »

Rambam on Being Paid to Learn or Teach Torah II

(continued from here)

The Rambam wrote in his commentary to Mishnah (Avos 4:7) that one is not permitted to use Torah as a source of income, thereby implictly forbidding accepting a stipend for studying Torah and -- perhaps more radically -- receiving a salary for teaching Torah. And so Rambam ruled later in his Mishneh Torah (Hilkhos Talmud Torah 3:10). However, on this issue the Rambam was a lone voice and, even if not, his commentators are pretty clear that even the Rambam would permit it today because the economic environment demands it. As early as the sixteenth century, R. Yosef Karo in his Kessef Mishneh (ad loc.) wrote that the Rambam would agree that the situation demanded setting aside that law because of "Eis la'asos la-Shem" -- it is a time to act for the Lord by setting aside this rule.

However, what I would like to focus on is the talmudic prooftexts that the Rambam brought in his Mishnah commentary to prove his point. The Rambam states that we can see from the actions of the sages that they had gainful employment and did not benefit financially from their Torah knowledge. He cites the following examples:

1. Hillel worked as a woodcutter (Yoma 35b)
2. R. Chanina ben Dosa lived on almost no food at all (Berakhos 17b)
3. Karna [or Rav Huna] was a water carrier (Kesuvos 105a)
4. Rav Yosef would carry beams and Rav Sheshes worked at a mill [or vice versa]. They said that work is praiseworthy because it warms the body, implying that it is satisfying (Gittin 67b).

The Rashbatz (Responsa 1:142-148) disputed the Rambam's ruling and his proofs. He responded to the above in no. 147:

1. Hillel only worked as a woodcutter when he was a student but once he became famous he stopped working in that profession.
2. R. Chanina ben Dosa lived as a pious ascetic. He did not do it based on the law but for extra-pious reasons.
3. Karna [or Rav Huna] also had a job rather than earn a living from teaching Torah out of piety. He did not consider it required by the law.
4. Rashi explains that work warms the body, meaning that when one is sick one should work in order to sweat. This says nothing about having a job, just how to cure an illness.

The Kessef Mishneh also arrived at these responses to the Rambam's proofs. He added:

2. Had R. Chanina wanted to be rich, he could have simply commanded a miracle to occur (cf. Ta'anis 24b-25a).
3. Karna inspected wine storehouses, which is an easy occupation and not a proof. Rav Huna was a water carrier but, according to Rashi, he carried the barrels to water his own fields. Thus, it was not the respected position of being a landowner.

R. Yosef Kafach, his edition of Mishneh Torah (ad loc., n. 34), responds to these refutations:

1. There is no evidence to support the claim that Hillel only worked as a woodcutter when he was a young student.
2. The Rambam certainly would not have taken literally the story about R. Chanina ben Dosa being supported by a miracle.
3. The Rambam disagreed with Rashi's explanation of that passage and understood that Rav Huna was literally a water carrier.
4. The Rambam disagreed with Rashi's explanation that they only worked when they needed to cure an illness.

B"n more to come.

Read the rest of this entry »

Agudah on Blogs II

(Follow-up from this post)

After hearing speeches at the Agudah convention this past Thursday night, I experienced mixed emotions. Over the past few days, I've been discussing the three speeches with a number of people and I listened to R. Ephraim Wachsman's and R. Chaim Dovid Zwiebel's again (the recording of R. Matisyahu Salomon's speech was damaged).

To their credit, the planners of this convention recognized a very current issue and placed it front and center, allowing three of their top stars to address it. They made a major Kiddush Hashem by stressing the vital importance of showing respect to Torah scholars and generally keeping the tone of our conversations respectful. In general, the message all three related was in its essence something with which I think most reasonable Jews will agree: Torah leaders deserve respect and the benefit of the doubt, and those who fail to show proper deference are severely at fault and are undermining what litle structure our community has left.

However, despite the eloquence of the speakers, some of their formulations struck me as being extreme. Click here to read moreA prime example is R. Wachsman's description of Gedolim and Da'as Torah. He makes these great leaders into superhuman figures. If R. Moshe Sofer, the Chasam Sofer, were to come to us today and try to teach us, we'd never be able to fathom the depth of his teachings. We have no hope of understanding him, much less the Rambam or the sages of the Talmud. All we can do is turn to the Gedolim of our generation, who are able to understand the Gedolim of previous generations.

Again, the basic message is unquestionably valid. Gedolim are, by definition, steeped in wisdom and insight. We would be foolish not to seek out wise counsel and accept interpretations from those most qualified to render them. But R. Wachsman's formulation of this concept goes so far as to place us in a different ontological category than a Gadol. We are mere humans; they are superhuman. We know nothing; they know everything possible.

But don't claim that you follow a different Gadol, R. Wachsman said (in what I believe to be an implicit rebuttal of some of R. Slifkin's arguments), because some Torah scholars become famous simply because the laypeople like what they have to say and aren't really Gedolim. He held up R. Aharon Kotler as a true Gadol. He was sufficiently vague that I can't disagree with him. It is true that there are populists who are not as steeped in Torah learning as some unlearned laypeople think, but if R. Wachsman intended that argument to refer to such people as R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik or his brother R. Ahron Soloveichik then he is simply incorrect. He also said that one cannot quote a Gadol from 60 or 70 years ago because it is up to today's Gedolim to tell us what is acceptable and what is not. On the one hand, it is hard to disagree with the idea that an occasional great Torah scholar will have an idiosyncratic view that is generally rejected by the mainstream. But the context of such an argument makes it seem that the entire Modern Orthodox and Religious Zionist streams are idiosyncratic aberrations that were rejected by the "real" Gedolim. Maybe I'm being too presumptuous and defensive, but that's what I thought I heard between the lines. (See also these posts on the "length of influence": I, II)

R. Chaim Dovid Zwiebel was a welcome voice of moderation. He focused on the current lack of respect for Gedolim, and blamed it on the influence of secular society. However, I doubt the correctness of this thesis. I strongly suspect that bashing Torah scholars is a favorite pastime in that very society of Torah scholars, and has been for generations. R. Zwiebel also passionately defended the tireless servants of our community who are unfairly attacked by critics, particularly on blogs. However, he entirely failed to voice any positive aspects of blogs or other media. In truth, none of the speakers said anything positive about anything related to the discussion. I found that to be an unfortunate lack of balance in the entire evening. Rather than just a defense of Da'as Torah and a relentless attack on anyone who impinges on it, some comments about positive facets of the media and blogs, and even the attackers on Da'as Torah, would have been appropriate.

R. Zwiebel pointed out that our community's leaders are working tirelessly to address the problems that arise, and he even listed a few issues that I think are right on the money (including gambling, abuse and addictions). But he did not address some questions that have been raised about this leadership. Are the right people, those properly trained, addressing these problems? Are the issues being handled in a professional, methodical way or in an ad hoc fashion? Are there too few people dealing with these issues, which leads to a continuous stream of reactive rather than proactive leading? I don't know the answers to these questions for the following reason: I see very little transparency in our community's leadership activities. I am sure that there are very good reasons for this, and I can think of some myself. However, a communally funded organization that comes under criticism can best respond to this by becoming more transparent and actively encouraging constructive criticism. I know that Agudah responds positively to respectful, constructive criticism. But I don't know whether everyone else knows this and I certainly did not hear it at the convention. What I heard was, "We're handling it so stop complaining." I would have preferred to have heard, "We're handling it, and if you had asked nicely you would have been answered that we do this and that, etc."

R. Matisyahu Salomon had a generally positive message about strengthening ourselves and our respect for Gedolim, rather than knocking down those who disrespect them. He specifically said that we do not have a ta'anah (complaint) against those who ask questions with derekh eretz (respect). However, he did have a few lines that were somewhat startling. He referred to (disrespectful) blogging as a disease that is contagious and he said that the children of such people are a danger in our schools. I find such a statement to be very extreme. It is perhaps consistent with the ban on internet in Lakewood schools, but still shocking to me (see Marvin Schick's take on this here). He also made the point that many of our communal problems are being handled privately, but gave no details at all so we have to take his word on it. (I asked a local expert and he confirmed that there are many cases handled quietly.)

Going back to my comment about the lack of balance, I think that this is what bothered me most. A local rabbi, with whom I briefly discussed this topic, said that based on my description there seems to have been a lack of nuance. Maybe that's what I missed. Agudah saw a problem and attacked it with a 200-pound sledgehammer. I don't doubt that the speakers think with nuance. However, it was totally lost in the presentation, and I suspect that this was done intentionally. I find that approach to be utterly offputting and, for some people (e.g. me), counterproductive.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Beauty of Blogs

The Torah tells us that Ya'akov was a "quiet man, dwelling in tents" (Gen. 25:27). Why does it say "tents" in the plural? Rashi explains that Ya'akov studied Torah in the tent (i.e. academy) of Shem and the tent of Ever. But why did Ya'akov have to study in two different academies?

R. Baruch Simon, in his Imrei Barukh, quotes R. Baruch Dov Povarski as explaining that someone who loves Torah will seek out the insights of all of the great Torah scholars. The Gemara in Avodah Zarah (19a) says that someone who learns from only one mentor will never see success in his Torah studies. Why? Because one needs multiple perspectives in order to grow.

One of the wonderful aspects of the internet in general, and blogs in particular, is this access to Torah worlds that one would not ordinarily encounter. One of the best blog posts I've seen is that of Jameel of The Muqata, writing about how he served as the medic/guard for his son's second grade field trip to visit R. Avraham Shapira (link). There is one of the great Gedolim of today, of whom my only knowledge is a conversation he once had with R. Hershel Schachter that the latter likes to repeat. Now, thanks to blogs, I get a glimpse.

That case, of course, is just a personal story that struck me and not Torah itself. However, Torah is also transmitted in that form. There are countless other cases in which I have gained access to batei midrash in foreign lands and different communities thanks to the recent, amazing advances in communications, of which blogs are no small part. Sitting in my basement or my office, I can now access today's tents of Shem and Ever across the world.

Read the rest of this entry »

Agudah on Blogs

I just got back from the Agudah convention and I'm tired. I need to digest what was said before posting anything in detail. In short:

- Very little direct mention of blogs.

- R. Ephraim Wachsman made a number of statements that imply he knows very well what topics are discussed on blogs. I think he might have dinged me twice, but I'm not sure. [Once, if it was a reference to my recent post on the Rambam, is an understandable misunderstanding because I have not yet said, but will be"H soon be saying, "Eis la'asos la-Shem" on the subject.]

- R. Matisyahu Salomon was surprisingly restrained.

- Both R. Chaim Dovid Zwiebel and R. Matisyahu Salomon offered explicit statements of general tolerance, R. Zwiebel in saying "Aseh lekha rav" and R. Matisyahu Salomon in saying that questions and critiques that are respectful are acceptable [I think that's what R. Salomon said. I have to listen to a recording -- which I have -- to verify.]

- Clearly, a certain blogger was the villain of the evening. I won't name him, but let's just say that he goes by a three-letter acronym containing two vowels. I looked around but did not see that blogger there.

That's it for now. B"n more over the next few days.

Read the rest of this entry »

Thanksgiving in Halakhah

Lectures about Thanksgiving by R. David Hirsch and R. Dani Rapp: link

Read the rest of this entry »

Soul on Ice

R. Benzion Scheinfeld, my twelfth grade rebbe, in a letter to the current issue of The Jewish Week (link):

Soul On Ice

As a rabbi teaching in a high school and always keeping an eye out for insights that can penetrate the countless diversions and distractions that mask the true spiritual yearnings of a teen’s soul, I want to thank The Jewish Week for the beautiful front-page article on Benjamin Rubin, the religious aspiring hockey player. (“Jewish Soul On Ice,” Nov. 17)

In a world where many of our youth (and many of us) are removed from or skeptical of the idea of a personal connection to Hashem, Benjamin’s story is particularly relevant. Many teens may wonder in astonishment why anyone would sit in a hotel room alone and possibly forfeit a lifelong dream of playing professional hockey because of a personal conviction to keep Shabbat. The fact that Benjamin is not from a haredi background and is not really pressured by his parents to make his choice makes it particularly relevant and powerful.

In the United States, the greatest threat to one’s observance is not persecution but apathy. For some, this apathy is due to the complexity of modern life, while for others, it is due to the superficiality that pervades our society. A rabbi’s greatest challenge and most important mission is to help students nurture and develop a sensitive and wholesome sense of self that is infused and inspired by a committed and passionate relationship with Hashem. Your article about Benjamin is a great example of such a relationship. I plan on sharing it with all of my students.

Rabbi Benzion Scheinfeld
HANC High School
Cedarhurst, N.Y.

Read the rest of this entry »

Rambam on Being Paid to Learn or Teach Torah

This is the first post of a proposed series on the Rambam's position regarding being paid to learn or teach Torah. It is well known that the Rambam was of the view that it is forbidden to receive payment for learning or teaching Torah. However, some ask, did not the Rambam do precisely that? Did he not learn Torah while his brother, David, worked as a merchant and supported him? Only after his brother died tragically did Rambam start working.

The answer seems to be that this is not true.

Joel Kraemer, "Moses Maimonides: An Intellectual Portrait" in Kenneth Seeskin ed., The Cambridge Companion to Maimonides, p. 28:

Biographers have written that as result of David's death Maimonides had to relinquish the life of a scholar and take up medicine as a profession, but there is no evidence for such a transition. Maimonides had studied medicine in North Africa before coming to Egypt and attained prominence as a physician in his early days in Egypt even before David's demise.

On the advice of a scholar, I looked in S.D. Goitein's A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza and found the following about two brothers named Labrat and Judah (vol. 5, pp. 392-393):

The addressee [of a letter], his younger brother Judah, whom Labrat had brought up (probably because of the early death of their father) and for whom he harbored tender feelings (as did Moses Maimonides for his brother David), was later to become a great merchant and renowned philanthropist in Egypt...

It was customary in merchants' families that one member, usually a father or elder brother, stayed put and the others traveled. Labrat and Judah (like Moses and David Maimonides later) had divided the family business between themselves in such a way.

It seems that Maimonides worked together with his brother as well as being a practicing doctor on his own.

Read the rest of this entry »

Introducing the Bach: Rabbi Joel Sirkes

Now available from Yashar Books, Bach, Rabbi Joel Sirkes: His Life, Works and Times (expanded edition) by R. Elijah J. Schochet. Rabbi Joel Sirkes (1561-1640), better known by the acronym Bach, was one of the foremost Talmudic scholars and halakhists of Poland. He authored over 250 responsa as well as one of the premier commentaries upon the Arba'ah Turim of Rabbi Jacob ben Asher. Based on a careful analysis of Rabbi Sirkes' responsa and commentaries, Rabbi Schochet provides a vivid portrayal of the issues surrounding Polish Jewry at that time and Rabbi Sirkes' approach to Jewish law and thought.

Originally published in 1971, this unique biography is supplemented with a translation and analysis of an important lost responsum by Rabbi Sirkes which was published by Rabbi Schochet in 1973 under the title A Responsum of Surrender. This responsum explores the relationship between the Jewish and Christian communities in seventeenth century Poland.

This book is not yet available for purchase online but can already be found in Jewish bookstores throughout the US and Canada. Ask for it in your local store.

Read the rest of this entry »

Barukh Dayan Ha-Emes

Lamed is reporting that the great R. Eliezer Waldenberg, author of Responsa Tzitz Eliezer, has passed away. The great loss is felt by all those who love Torah.

Read the rest of this entry »

Before Torah

There is an interesting, albeit cynical (or, as some would say, realistic), post at Beyond BT about the dissonance between the interpersonal morals taught in the Orthodox community and how they are observed. As an "out-of-towner" (from New Jersey -- not Lakewood) who has lived in Brooklyn for over 12 years, this really came home to me a number of years ago regarding a man who sat near me in shul. He was usually learning Gemara, an admirable trait, but he did so even during the rabbi's speech despite sitting directly in front of the rabbi so that his disrespect was quite blatant. He also sat with his chair sticking out so that he blocked the narrow aisle between rows, and when anyone wanted to pass through (usually, his sons), he wouldn't budge. You'd have to squeeze and push, usually displacing a table or someone else's chair. And he also generally bumped into people (i.e. me) without ever apologizing, something his sons learned well from their father. He always seemed to me to be a great example of someone who learned Torah but never internalized its values. You can imagine my shock when I learned that he was my brother-in-law's rebbe in yeshiva! If men like that are teaching our youth, what hope does our community have to improve in this respect?

Read the rest of this entry »

Metzitzah Be-Feh VIII

The latest issue of Jewish Action has two excellent articles on metzitzah be-feh, one by R. Daniel Korobkin and another by Dr. Mordechai Halperin. Granted, the articles come about a year and a half late, but they still add to the discussion. In particular, Dr. Halperin informs us of some of the political/meta-halakhic considerations in Israel -- it seems that there is a strong anti-circumcision movement there. If anything, his article highlights why we need to receive halakhic guidance from decisors who are familiar with the situation in our locale rather than dashing off to Israel whenever we have a question.

Read the rest of this entry »

Challenge of Creation in Israel

After a delay due to shipping problems, The Challenge Of Creation has now
reached Israel! It is being distributed to stores by Judaica Book Centre in Jerusalem, 5 Even Yisrael St., Tel: 02-622-3215.

You can also buy it directly from Rabbi Slifkin.

Read the rest of this entry »

BD"D 17

A new issue of BD"D is out and an article of mine is in it -- The Mehitzah Controversy: 50 Years Latet. The article is slightly outdated because it was written before the collection of Rav Soloveitchik's articles was published, so the references are to the various articles in their original places.

בד"ד חוברת 17


דבר העורך היוצא

דבר העורך

זהר עמר - מתי פרצה טהרה יתרה בישראל ומתי פסקה?

נתן אופיר (אופנבכר) - התכלת: הלכה, צבע ומדיטציה

אברהם אופיר שמש - דטרגנטים, חומרי-ניקוי וסבונים במקורות היהודיים:

מציאות היסטורית והלכה מעשית

מדור "הגיון"

יעקב הכהן-קרנר,

אילון מלין, יצחק חסון - מערכת הלומדת לסכם כתבים תורניים הלכתיים

אריה קימלמן - נוסחאות בלוח היהודי

ביקורת ספרים

יעקב מ' לוינגר - אור חדש האיר על מסכת חולין

אליקים קרומביין - על הספר מועדי הרב מאת שלמה זאב פיק

תקצירים בעברית



חלק אנגלי

דבר העורך היוצא

דבר העורך

גיל סטודנט - פולמוס ה"מחיצה" לאחר 50 שנה

יוסף סאקס - הרב סולובייצ'יק והרבנות הראשית: הערות ביוגרפיות (1959-1960)

פמלה שטסקס - על הספר: Holocaust Hero by David Kranzler

אלי ד' קלרק - על הספר:

Contemporary Orthodox Judaism’s Response to Modernity
by Barry Freundel

תקצירים באנגלית

Read the rest of this entry »

Blessings on Types of Torah

The Gemara (Berakhos 11b) discusses exactly what consists the Torah on which one must recite blessings before studying. Rav Huna states that Scripture, the Written Torah, requires blessings but nothing else. R. Elazar adds Midrash, R. Yochanan adds Mishnah (meaning compilations of law) and Rava adds Talmud (meaning explanations of the compilations of law). The halakhah follows Rava. [On the order of this talmudic list, see Ma'adanei Yom Tov, ad loc. resh; Birkei Yosef, Orach Chaim 47:1.]

The Talmidei Rabbenu Yonah (ad loc.) explain that the blessing on the Torah refers to the Written Law (Tanakh), and those who add other works do so because those works contain verses from Tanakh in varying degrees. Rashi (sv. af), however, explains that, according to Rava (the dominant view), one must recite a blessing on Talmud because it is the main part of Torah, since practical ruling comes from it. According to Rabbenu Yonah, the blessing refers to Scriptural verses. According to Rashi, it refers to Torah in general and halakhah in particular. [Cf. Shulchan Arukh Ha-Rav, 47:2 and Levush 47 who follow Rashi's view. The Arukh Ha-Shulchan 47:8 understands Rabbenu Yonah as only requiring the blessing on halakhah. I understand Rabbenu Yonah as explained above, and I believe I was taught it that way but will refrain from mentioning names because I am not sure (what ever happened to the commentary on Berakhos based on Rav Soloveitchik's famous lectures that was supposedly in the works a decade ago?). According to the Arukh Ha-Shulchan, what was the logic behind the view that only Tanakh requires a blessing?]

With this debate in hand, we can ask whether the blessing on the Torah must be recited before learning various genres (first thing in the morning, because one's first blessing generally applies for the entire day).

Click here to read moreLet me add two important prefaces:

1. I am not qualified to rule on these matters. This is just thinking out loud for the sake of learning. Ask a qualified rabbi before acting on any of this.

2. I am distinguishing here between "it" and "about it". My unproven assertion is that discussions of Torah concepts are Torah but discussions about the methodology of such discussions are not Torah. They might be interesting and might be necessary prerequisites for the proper study of Torah, but that only makes them "handmaidens" of Torah and not Torah itself.

I. Kabbalah

Does studying kabbalah, for someone who is permitted to do so, require a blessing on the Torah? If one is studying Zohar, then it contains many verses and is a part of Torah. So according to both Rabbenu Yonah and Rashi one must recite a blessing before studying Zohar. But other works of kabbalah that do not quote verses directly would seem to be a matter of debate. According to Rabbenu Yonah it would not require a blessing while according to Rashi it would. Thus, the Arukh Ha-Shulchan (ibid.) leaves this matter unresolved due to the debate. The Kaf Ha-Chaim (47:3), however, rules that one must recite a blessing.

II. Jewish Thought

The classic works of Jewish Thought, such as Moreh Nevukhim and Sefer Ha-Ikkarim, contain many biblical verses and are also a part of Torah. Therefore, they would definitely require a blessing. However, secondary works that discuss the contents of the classic works might not have any verses at all. Thus, many academic works on Moreh Nevukhim and other such works that discuss issues themselves would require a blessing according to Rashi (since they are Torah) but not according to Rabbenu Yonah (because they do not contain verses). Works that discuss methodological issues are neither Torah nor contain verses, unless they have concrete examples of the methodologies they discuss, in which case they would contain Torah.

III. Talmud Commentaries

According to Rabbenu Yonah, Talmud requires a blessing because it sometimes contains verses. Commentaries to the Talmud contain even fewer verses, but they still contain some. Is it enough to warrant a blessing? Considering how few verses the Mishnah contains, I would suspect that it does (although the Gemara was not specifically referring to the Mishnah we have before us, I suspect that it is sufficiently similar to make such a comparison since our Mishnah is a highly edited compilation of prior versions). According to Rashi, there is nothing to discuss because these commentaries are Torah and the source of practical halakhah.

IV. Law Codes

Contemporary law codes, such as the Shulchan Arukh, Chayei Adam and Mishnah Berurah, are different from what the Gemara called Mishnah. These codes contain almost no verses at all! According to Rabbenu Yonah, someone who studies Shulchan Arukh need not recite a blessing on the Torah. According to Rashi, one must.

V. Jewish History

Classical history works contain many citations from the Talmud and the Bible. Thus, even though the books are "about it" and not "it", they still contain plenty of "it" and would require a blessing according to both opinions. However, more modern history texts do no contain such citations and would not require a blessing according to both opinions.

VI. Academic Talmud Study

There are three types of academic study of the Talmud. One deals with lower criticism -- the variant texts of the Talmud. This is essentially the same as studying Talmud in that it contains verses, is Torah and has practical halakhic ramifications (see this post). Another type is to extract the intellectual history of the various people, times and places in the Talmud. It could be that this is similar to history and has the same status -- i.e. if there are concrete examples then it is Torah and is essentially the same as Talmud commentary. The third type is form criticism, i.e. finding the historical layers within the text (see here for more information). Since this always deals with specific passages of the text, I don't see how it is different from standard Talmud commentary.

VII. Grammar

I think that grammar (of Biblical Hebrew) is "about it" and not "it" in regard to the study of Torah, even though there is a separate mitzvah to learn Hebrew (cf. the Rambam's commentary to Avos 2:1; R. Yosef Engel, Gilyonei Ha-Shas, ad loc.). However, the classical works of grammar are replete with biblical verses. Thus, according to Rabbenu Yonah, they would require a blessing. I would argue that a book that contains incidental verses would not require a blessing according to Rashi, although I acknowledge that an argument can be made that it would. Therefore, I would suggest that while Rabbenu Yonah would require a blessing on grammar books that contain verses, Rashi would not.

Modern texts on grammar that do not contain biblical verses would not require a blessing on the Torah.

Final Point

The Rema (Orach Chaim 47:4) permits one to issue a simple halakhic ruling (without explanation) before recite the blessings on the Torah. The implication that one may not explain the ruling implies either that I misunderstood Rabbenu Yonah or that the normative halakhah follows Rashi.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tek-Noy

This CD is by a friend of mine, Yossi Sharf, so I'll give it a plug. It makes a great Chanukah gift for that hard-to-buy-for relative who doesn't read, because otherwise you would obviously by him a book.

Read the rest of this entry »

Pitfalls of Kiruv

The relatively new blog Avakesh has a provocative post on the pitfalls of kiruv (outreach): link I'm not sure whether I agree with him or vehemently disagree.

Read the rest of this entry »

Internalizing Torah Values

R. Mayer Twersky (link):

In addition to mastery and retention we have to internalize these teachings and beliefs; faith is incomplete if we only know the tenets of Judaism. Similarly, chessed, without being internalized can only be inadequately practiced; our personalities must be suffused with and defined by chessed.

The transition from knowledge to internalization demands constant review and incessant reinforcement. Reinforcement upon reinforcement. This process, in our overly intellectualized climate of learning, seems alien and is oft times neglected. We study to master something new, to expand our horizons. Per force we review so that our horizons should not become constricted due to forgetfulness. But, once these aims have been achieved, it seems unproductive to undertake further review. Why review again what one already knows and has retained when one could study something new?

Parshas Chayei Sarah provides the resounding answer. The Torah tells and retells the story of Eliezer and its lessons of chessed to teach us that we must learn and constantly reinforce in order to internalize such teachings.

Read the rest of this entry »

A Concise History of Anti-Semitism in Persia

Yashar Books' Open Access Project has a new book for download. Rabbi Raphael Harris' The Concise History of Anti-Semitism in Persia documents the extensive history of Persian Jewry and the anti-semitism they faced throughout the ages. Rabbi Harris offers quick portraits of this illustrious community's history. Please take this exciting opportunity to spread Torah by making your friends aware of this download.

If you don't already know, over the past year Yashar has published a number of excellent books, many of which make excellent Chanukah presents. In particular, note the books The Legacy of Maimonides and Gray Matter volume 2. Details and links are available at http://www.yasharbooks.com/shop

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

Enjoy!

Read the rest of this entry »

Torah from Gentiles II

The Midrash (Eicha Rabbah 2:13) famously states that there is wisdom among the nations but not Torah. What does this mean? Does it mean that non-Jews are incapable of studying Torah and offering insights into it?

R. Itzelleh Volozhiner (Peh Kadosh, Deut. 33:4) explains that to gentiles the study of Torah is like the study of any wisdom, absent the singular metaphysical status we believe it to have. Thus, to them the study of Torah is merely the study of wisdom. It does not mean that non-Jews are incapable of studying Torah or offering insights into it, because students of wisdom can also comprehend it and offer insights into it.

(See also these posts: I, II)

Read the rest of this entry »

R. Dov Lior on Evolution

R. Dov Lior, Rosh Yeshiva and Rav of Kiryat Arba as well as head of Va'ad Rabbanei Yesha, was asked by a college student whether he is allowed to study evolution. R. Lior responds that he does not accept the theory of evolution but does not consider it objectionable:

We can accept the view that there was evolution, on condition that we remember that the world has a Creator. How it exactly happened are details that do not matter much, once we have established the principle that there is a Creator of the world.

אנחנו יכולים לקבל את ההנחה שהיתה אבולוציה, בתנאי שנזכור שיש בורא לעולם. איך זה קרה בדיוק, אלו פרטים שלא כל-כך משנים, אחרי שקבענו את היסוד שיש בורא לעולם.

link (hat tip to Tsvi)

On the subject of evolution, see R. Slifkin's article in The Jerusalem Post, The Problem with Intelligent Design.

Read the rest of this entry »

Spirit Renewed III

The Canadian Jewish News reports on the recent Torah in Motion conference, specifically the panel discussion with me and Drs. Samuel Heilman, Marvin Schick and Adam Ferziger: link to article

Read the rest of this entry »

Soloveitchik the Movie

Lonely Man of Faith: The Life and Legacy of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, coming soon to a theater near you. It's a cheftza that is all about the gavra.

Read the rest of this entry »

Culture

Avraham explained his lying about his wife to Avimelech because "רק אין יראת אלקים במקום הזה והרגוני על דבר אשתי - There is no fear of God at all in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife."

In 1936, after the Nazis had already risen to power, R. Elchanan Wasserman spoke at the Hildesheimer Rabbinical Seminary, and asked why Avraham used the word "רק only". That implies that the people of that place (Gerar) had other things but just not the fear of God. R. Wasserman explained that the people of Gerar were very cultured. They had literature, music and all the fine aspects of culture. But because they did not have the fear of God, they were liable to kill in cold blood a visitor.

The implication is two-fold and clear. In a timely message, R. Wasserman was criticizing the Nazi regime and suggesting that they were likely to kill people. (Incidentally, it is not surprising for an Eastern European rabbi living at the height of Stalin's reign to suspect Gentiles of wanting to kill Jews. He was clearly correct.)

The second implication is that culture, when accompanied with fear of God, is not dangerous. It is the lack of the fear of God that is the problem, not the culture in itself. Surprising, coming from R. Wasserman? Yes. But there it is. Perhaps he tailored his message for the German-Jewish audience he was addressing.

(On this visit, see the Peninim Mi-Shulchan Gavoha, Gen. 20:11; Artscroll Reb Elchonon, p. 234; Marc Shapiro, Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy, pp. 150-151. Shapiro points out that R. Wasserman refused to visit Yeshiva University but agreed to lecture at the Hildesheimer Seminary.)

Read the rest of this entry »

You Might Be Modern Orthodox If...

What does it mean to be Modern Orthodox (MO)? I don't think that there is a single definition because the MO community is, for better or for worse, a big tent. From my perspective, sitting on the fence between the Ultra-Orthodox (UO) and MO communities, I have an interest in where the division lies. Both communities have members who are not fully observant or, as some call them, the MO-lite and the UO-lite. The MO community is often more attractive to the O-lite membership because it generally allows for greater individualism and privacy. But there are plenty of O-lite people who like the heimishe atmosphere or simply prefer to have the Judaism that they don't fully observe be more "authentic" or at least consistent with their ingrained views of what Judaism should be.

But back to the main point, here are some views that would qualify someone as MO. For some of these people, it is possible that holding only one is insufficient and you need to accept more. Members of the left wing of the UO world, what Dr. Alan Brill calls the "Engaged Haredi" community, might hold some of these views. This makes defining the line between LWUO and RWMO somewhat difficult. But it is clear that you need not hold all of these views in order to be MO.

So, with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy, let me suggest that, assuming your beliefs are Orthodox, you might be Modern Orthodox if...

1. You approve of exploring some or much of general culture in order to find beauty and meaning in it (Torah im Derekh Eretz).
2. You believe that studying some or many areas of secular studies is valuable for more than just earning a living (Torah u-Madda type 1).
3. You see value in using some academic methods in the study of at least some areas of Torah (Torah u-Madda type 2).
4. You give the views of experts in any field serious consideration.
5. You believe that expertise requires serious training.
6. You encourage greater participation of women in the Jewish community.
7. Mingling of the genders, whether in educational or social contexts, is OK with you.
8. You dismiss the infallibility, omniscience and supernatural powers of rabbis.
9. You see the establishment of the State of Israel as a religiously meaningful event.
10. You think people should dress in the style of clothing they like rather than communal uniforms.

Note that stringency and meticulousness in halakhah is not on this list.

UPDATE: I should add that this post was partly a response to Joe Schick's recent post.

Read the rest of this entry »

Television, DVDs and Computer Games

After seeing this post in September, I sent in the following question to the Kollel Eretz Hemdah Ask the Rabbi function:

Does Halacha forbid a child from playing computer games and watching DVDs? I saw an online source arguing that such activity is forbidden on many levels and causes children to leave the fold of Orthodoxy. If there are other views, it would be valuable to have them available online also.

I received an answer in Modern Hebrew via e-mail last week. Below is my attempt at a translation followed by the Hebrew:
Click here to read more

The general rule to be applied here is "Don't look at the container but what it is in it."

The television/DVD/computer are tools that record and use different programs. The fundamental test has to be an evaluation of the content.

If there are, or are likely to be, in these computer games or movies immodest pictures that one is forbidden to watch, it is clear that this matter is forbidden not just for children but also for adults.

In addition to the rules of modesty, there are likely to be additional content problems due to which it is best not to watch these things -- such as verbal and physical violence, mockery (comedy films that are sometimes built upon exploiting the weakness of a person or image, outright damaging him, or the like), materialism, and exposure to startling emotional situations that are difficult to grapple with, such as fear, anger and stress.

These problems, as well, are relevant to adults, albeit sometimes at lower levels of influence and creation of conflicts.

One should also be careful about addiction to this tool and the spiritual relation to it regarding its importance in the daily routine of a person and a child.

Let us conclude and say that, as with any instrument, one should use it with wisdom in order to enrich the worlds of children and not to damage them, God forbid.

הכלל המנחה שראוי לנקוט בענין זה הוא: "אל תסתכל בקנקן אלא במה שיש בו".

הטלויזיה / DVD / המחשב הם כלים שדרכם קולטים ועוסקים בתכנים שונים ומגוונים. המבחן העיקרי צריך להיות מבחן התוכן.

אם ישנם או עלולים להיות במשחקי מחשב או סרטים אלו תמונות לא צנועות שאסור לצפות בהם, ברור שהדבר אסור ולא רק לילדים אלא גם למבוגרים.

מלבד איסורי צניעות עלולות להיות בעיות תוכן נוספות שמחמתן יש להמנע מלצפות בדברים אלו כמו אלימות בגוף ואלימות מילולית, ליצנות (סרטי הומור שבנויים פעמים רבות על ניצול חולשתו של אדם או דמות או פגיעה ישירה בו וכדומה), חומרנות, חשיפה למצבים רגשיים בעיתיים שקשה להתמודד עמם כמו אימה ופחד, כעס, מתח.

גם הבעיות הללו שייכות אצל מבוגרים אלא שלפעמים בעוצמת השפעה ויצירת קונפליקטים נמוכה יותר.

יש להזהר גם מההתמכרות לכלי זה והיחס הנפשי אליו בעניין חשיבות מקומו בסדר יומו של האדם והילד.

נסכם ונאמר כי כמו בכל מכשיר יש להשתמש בו בחכמה, כדי להעשיר את עולמם של הילדים ולא לפגוע בהם ח"ו.

Read the rest of this entry »

Sha'atnez-Potato Chip Alert

Are potato chips with sha'atnez a problem? Not yet.

Read the rest of this entry »

More Legacies

More in The Commentator's series on the legacies of Rav Soloveitchik (link):

On Translating Ish ha-Halakhah with the Rav - Part 2 by Dr. Lawrence Kaplan

The Rav: In and Out of the Classroom by R. Aaron Rakeffet

The Rav: My Rebbe by R. Hershel Reichman

Read the rest of this entry »

The Mishnah Berurah Reaches an Important Milestone

Today is the 100th anniversary of the completion of the Mishnah Berurah (link). At the end of the final volume, the author/editor -- R. Yisrael Meir (Poupko) Kagan -- writes that he finished it on the 19th of Marcheshvan 5667 (1906). The Mishnah Berurah is an important compendium and summary of explanations and rulings on the Orah Chaim section of Shulchan Arukh (link). The commentary has risen to the level of a standard and essential text. However, because it is so easy to overstate the work's importance, let me add some words to the contrary.

The Mishnah Berurah is not the final word on any matter, even though it is sometimes used as such by people incapable or uninterested in digging deeper. R. Hershel Schachter would often say that he never owned a Mishnah Berurah until his wife bought him a set after he was married. His point, I believe, is that it is not an essential work and one can study halakhah without referring to it. However, R. Schachter does quote the Mishnah Berurah on occasion.

Here is a case in point regarding hyperbole in which great praise can be misunderstood. R. Chaim Kanievsky, in his introduction to Shoneh Halakhos -- a summary of the laws in Mishnah Berurah, writes: "The book Mishnah Berurah has merited being accepted throughout Israel and is the final decisor in our generation regarding the laws of Orach Chaim..." Yet, later in the same paragraph, R. Kanievsky writes: "And in places where the Mishnah Berurah and the Chazon Ish disagree I listed both views." Well, which is it? If the Mishnah Berurah is the final decisor, why did R. Kanievsky quote his uncle's disagreements with the work? Clearly, he did not mean that the Mishnah Berurah is literally the final decisor. He only meant that it is a very important work.

R. Yehuda Henkin has a responsum on the subject of whether the Arukh Ha-Shulchan or Mishnah Berurah receives precedence in deciding halakhic issues (Bnei Banim 2:8). He writes:

In my opinion, my grandfather [R. Yosef Eliyahu Henkin] did not say that [we follow the Arukh Ha-Shulchan over the Mishnah Berurah] except where the Arukh Ha-Shulchan and the Mishnah Berurah disagree based on their own thoughts since the Arukh Ha-Shulchan was certainly sharper, was the master of the entire Shulchan Arukh and also saw the book Mishnah Berurah [yet still disagree with it]. See [Arukh Ha-Shulchan] 11:22, 12:4, 25:23, 22:4, 268:6 and other places where he refers to the Mishnah Berurah, and in 79:11 and 319:22 he disagreed with him, and there are many other instances. And in countless places he disagreed with him without mentioning his name. Two examples are 55:20, where he intended to rule against the Mishnah Berurah (there, no. 52), and 370:13, where he intended to rule against the Mishnah Berurah (there, no. 27), and this is clear to someone who delves into the matter. Therefore, it is a mitzvah to publicize that the Arukh Ha-Shulchan is not just a book unto itself but a reaction to the Mishnah Berurah. It is also a testimony to the value in which the author of the Arukh Ha-Shulchan held the Mishnah Berurah, even though it was a new book in his time (as one scholar pointed out to me). Also, my grandfather [R. Y.E. Henkin] was a great expert in the Mishnah Berurah.

See also the words of Dr. Haym Soloveitchik regarding the Mishnah Berurah and the Arukh Ha-Shulchan: link

I find the Mishnah Berurah to be a great starting point but that's all it should be. And even then, someone unfamiliar with the laws will have a difficult time learning them for the first time from the Mishnah Berurah. I pity the person who tries to learn the laws of Shabbos from it.

[As an aside, those interested in acquiring volumes 1-3 of Bnei Banim should try calling Beigeleisen in Boro Park (718-436-1165). Volume 4 can be purchased online here.]

Read the rest of this entry »

Bookjed on Gray Matter 2

R. Shalom Berger reviews Gray Matter volume 2 by R. Chaim Jachter (link):

...Every teacher who walks into the classroom should be well-prepared to present the assigned material for class. A good teacher also carries with him or her a valise full of "complementary educational materials" - vignettes of life experience, personal stories, anecdotes - that make the content of the class come alive and take on context and meaning. In this, the students at the Torah Academy of Bergen County are fortunate to have Chaim Jachter as their teacher. Aside from his position in the school, Rabbi Jachter serves as a Rabbinical judge on a New Jersey Bet Din, and his knowledge and expertise come to the fore not only in his books, but also in his classes. It is no accident that in the acknowledgements at the beginning of Gray Matter, particular thanks are offered to his students - many of them by name.

A perusal of his most recent volume of Gray Matter showcases his talents as a posek and teacher. The book covers a range of contemporary halakhic issues, from a presentation of the challenges presented by the World Trade Center deaths to an analysis of electrical devices and fulfillment of mitzvot like Chanuka candles. While some of the subjects that are dealt with are of greater interest to the community Rabbi than the classroom teacher - the lengthy chapter on mikva'ot is an example - the methodology should be of great interest to every pedagogue. Strewn throughout every presentation are personal accounts of experiences that illustrate the halakhic process...

Read more

Read the rest of this entry »

Spirit Renewed II

Audio from this conference are now available for purchase at the Torah in Motion website.

Read the rest of this entry »

Cancelled Agunah Conference

R. Yosef Blau discusses R. Shlomo Amar's decision to cancel the Agunah conference (link):

Rabbi Blau said that Rabbi Amar told them that some rabbis – without specifying which – felt that holding the conference would give the appearance that rabbis are responding to feminist pressure. However, Rabbi Blau says this accusation is an "insult to the chief rabbi of Israel and all the rabbonim who agreed to go."

On the contrary, Rabbi Blau argued, canceling the conference "has strengthened feminist tendencies because now the perception is that rabbis are not willing to deal with the issue of agunos. The argument is backwards and upside down..."

Ultimately, Rabbi Blau concluded, "this is not a women's issue; it's an issue of tzedek."

Read the rest of this entry »

Human Initiative and Divine Providence

Dr. David Berger on the Chanukah miracle:

Human Initiative and Divine Providence: A Hanukkah Sermon

David Berger

Parshat Miketz, which is regularly read on Hanukkah, begins with a reference to a two year delay between Joseph’s request that the butler mention him to Pharaoh and the dreams that finally led to the activation of that request. We are told that the reason for the delay was Joseph’s reliance on human intercession rather than providential intervention, in other words, his lack of bittahon. Because he used the verb zakhor twice in his request (ki im zekhartani…ve-hizkartani), he was punished by two additional years of incarceration. The butler did not remember him—and forgot him.

Click here to read moreThe disturbing character of this assertion was brought home to me with special force when I heard a dvar Torah built upon it. The speaker told a story of a European rabbi who was paid such a meager salary by his community that his wife and children were virtually without food and clothing. Despite his wife’s increasingly desperate importuning, he refused to ask for an increase in salary because this would bespeak a lack of bittahon. Finally, however, he relented, and the communal leaders agreed to his request. Upon his return home, however, he was tormented by feelings of guilt, and so he prayed to God that his employers forget the conversation. In his mercy, God acceded to the request of this great tzaddik, leaving him and his family as destitute as they were at the outset.

I was so agitated by this supposedly inspiring tale that I said to the person next to me that the religion described in the story is not mine. Still, I had to deal with the rabbinic comment about Joseph, and I told myself that the rules for a man whose very epithet is ha-tzaddik and who had been granted prophetic dreams are not the same as those for ordinary people. Still, the Sages clearly intended to teach us something by this observation, and I felt considerably better when I heard a comment about it in the name of a major rabbi (R. Chaim of Brisk, if my memory does not mislead me). The rabbi is said to have asked how many years Joseph’s liberty would have been delayed had he used the verb zakhor only once in his request for help. When the expected reply—one year—was forthcoming, he responded that this was a mistake. A request using that word once, he explained, was precisely what God wanted, and it would have produced immediate results. Human effort is a necessity, but it must be exercised in a fashion that does not indicate exclusive reliance on other people and an absence of trust in God.

This is no doubt the meaning of Jeremiah’s admonition, “Cursed is he who trusts in man, who makes mere flesh his strength, and turns his thoughts from the Lord” (17:5). The author of the Sefer Nizzahon Yashan argued that because everyone puts his trust in a prince or comparable figure, the verse must be a warning against trusting a human being as a deity, an interpretation allegedly verified by the end of the verse. While this is an acute point in the context of an anti-Christian polemic, the plain meaning is surely a warning against trusting a man so thoroughly that one turns away from God.

A key theme of both holidays originating after the time of the humash is the balance between human initiative and divine intervention in the salvation of Israel. Purim is the quintessentially naturalistic salvation, accomplished without overt miracles and recorded in a book omitting the name of God. A celebrated gemara says that because God coerced the Israelites into receiving the Torah by threatening to crush them beneath the mountain, the covenant was not fully binding until they agreed to its terms once again during the time of Mordecai and Esther. A particularly attractive interpretation of this gemara explains that the coercion in the first covenant, figuratively described by the metaphor of the mountain, refers to the impact of repeated, overt miracles experienced in Egypt, on the sea, and in the desert. After such experiences, the Israelites had no psychological choice but to accept. The miracle of Purim, however, which could have been attributed to naturalistic developments associated with the efforts of Mordecai and Esther, challenged an uncoerced Jewish people to recognize the hand of God. Since their efforts in this matter had always been predicated on divine aid—they fasted in the wake of Mordecai’s reminder to Esther that she had been put in her position for this purpose--they readily recognized God’s presence and accepted the covenant once again.

On Hanukkah, the tension and harmony between effort and providence are no less clear, even classic. There is the war, and there is the oil. Gedaliah Alon, in a classic article,[1] provided arguments against the widespread view that Hazal intentionally obscured the memory of the Hasmoneans, but there is no question that throughout post-Second Temple Jewish history the oil predominated. Jews in exile did not fight wars, which were the domain of Esau, and the central ritual of the holiday commemorated the overt act of God rather than that of men.

And then came Zionism, which turned the matter on its head. The Zionist bias in favor of human heroism was reinforced by the thoroughly secular, even anti-religious orientation of the movement’s dominant elements. This approach, to which I shall return, was further buttressed by arguments against the historicity of the miracle of the oil already raised in the nineteenth century. Both I Maccabees and II Maccabees, our earliest accounts of the Hasmonean revolt, say nothing of the cruse of oil, an omission that appears inexplicable if the miracle actually occurred.

This question has disturbed many religious Jews. In 1969, a student at Yeshiva University asked me whether the miracle was attested outside of the famous Talmudic account, and I replied that it was not. At the time, I did not have a satisfying explanation for this, and one individual took my response as a denial that the miracle occurred. This was not my intention, but this episode along with questions over the years from other Jews perplexed by the problem led me to struggle with it more than might otherwise have been the case. I now believe that I can propose an explanation that is absolutely convincing with respect to I Maccabees and reasonably satisfying with respect to II Maccabees.

1. A perusal of II Maccabees demonstrates that miracle stories regarding the Hasmonean revolt and the Temple circulated widely. It is virtually beyond question that the author of I Maccabees heard such accounts, and yet he records none at all. This means either that he did not believe them or that he excluded them as a matter of policy. In either case, the absence of a reference to the cruse of oil--which is troubling only because of the inference that the author never heard the story--poses no challenge to one who believes the account of the miracle on the authority of Hazal. Given the author's consistent historiographic approach, we can be almost certain that he would not have recorded this miracle even if he knew about it.

2. In the case of II Maccabees, the argument proceeds not from the absence of miracles but from their prominence. Here the author presents various miracle stories so public and so impressive (including, for example, the public appearance of angels) that the miracle of the cruse of oil, which was witnessed by relatively few observers, pales into near insignificance, and he may well have chosen to omit it along with other "minor" miracles. II Maccabees is an abridgment of a five-part work by Jason of Cyrene which has been lost. The full work almost certainly contained miracle stories that were omitted from the abridgment. To us, the story of the oil looms very large. To Jason--or to the man who abridged his work--it may have seemed trivial, particularly since he had an alternate explanation for the decision to celebrate for eight days.

In sum, there are plausible grounds to argue that the authors of both I and II Maccabees could have known the story and nonetheless omitted it from their histories. The absence of a reference in Al ha-Nissim, which is a thanksgiving prayer, need not trouble anyone. The miracle of victory requires thanksgiving; the miracle of the oil does not, and it is appropriately omitted.

Setting aside the historiographical challenge, the deeper ideological issue was the appeal to Hanukkah and the Maccabees by secular Zionists to express disdain for the miraculous and glorify unaided human initiative. A striking, though not anti-religious, invocation of the Hasmonean heroes as a contrast to the pusillanimous Jew of the exile appears in Bialik’s remarkable poem Be-Ir ha-Haregah, where he describes the cowering grandchildren of the Maccabees hiding in their holes as their wives and daughters are raped by pogromists. In his Metei Midbar, without reference to the Maccabees, Bialik specifically celebrated the defiant effort to conquer Israel whether God approved or not; if God does not want us to go, say his heroes, “then let us go up without him” (na’al na efo bil’adav). Modern Orthodox Jews, including myself ba-avonotay, continue to sing Mi Yemallel, a Hanukkah song that is in its very essence an anti-religious composition and cannot be entirely purged of its ideology by one or two emendations sometimes inserted in Orthodox circles. Thus, “Who can recount the valiant deeds of Israel?” instead of the deeds of God mentioned in the original verse. “In every generation there arises the hero who is the redeemer of Israel [goel ha-am]…. [Judah] Maccabee saves and redeems [moshia u-fodeh], and in our days all the people of Israel will unite, arise and be redeemed,” clearly on their own. Most explicitly, there is the later Hanukkah song declaring, “We experienced no miracle; we found no cruse of oil.”

Religious non-Zionists reacted to all this with a vigorous rejection of the entire movement as a rebellion against God. For them, the land of Israel would one day be returned to us through divine intervention alone. But religious Zionists would not be deterred by the exiling of God on the part of the movement’s mainstream. Driven by the conviction, rooted in the fundamental approach of the Torah in numerous contexts, that divine providence and human initiative are properly conjoined, they embraced the opportunity to act without sacrificing the everpresent consciousness of God’s hand. An awakening below would arouse an awakening above. In this ideological environment, Hanukkah can serve as an inspiration not by excising one of its two major components but by celebrating it in its fullness: the war and the oil, action and faith, human effort and the guiding presence of God.

---

[1] “Ha-hishkihah ha-ummah va-hakhameha et ha-Hashmonaim?” Mehqarim be-Toledot Yisrael I (Tel Aviv, 1957), pp. 15-25.

Read the rest of this entry »

Renowned Jewish Historian Joins YU

Yeshiva University has recently hired for a full-time position one of the great heroes of Modern Orthodoxy, R. Dr. David Berger (link). Because of Dr. Berger's strongly voiced objections to Lubavitch Messianism, there is an e-mail chain going around protesting his hiring and recommending complaining to certain highly placed officials within YU. The e-mail concludes:

You can help make a difference. Voice your concerns to the university administration by emailing:
President Richard Joel - [e-mail address]
Morton Lowengrub, PhD - [e-mail address]

The truth is, I don't think anyone can force this decision to be undone. Nevertheless, those of us who support Dr. Berger and applaud this decision might want to contact those administrators above and let our views be heard as well.

Read the rest of this entry »

Science, Genesis and the Wondering Jew

Paul Shaviv reviews The Challenge of Creation in Canadian Jewish News: link

Read the rest of this entry »

Is Milk Kosher?

It seems there is renewed discussion over whether milk (both Chalav Yisrael and plain milk) is kosher. The reason is that the percentage of non-kosher cows, particularly milking cows, discovered after slaughter is somewhere above 30% (some estimates are as high as 90%). If that is the case, then a large portion of milk comes from non-kosher cows and is therefore not kosher. The way milk is processed is that milk from a number of cows is mixed together. If milk in general is at least 30% non-kosher, then any mixture of milk -- which is what reaches the consumer -- contains at least 30% of non-kosher. The Shulchan Arukh (Yoreh De'ah 81:2) rules that if milk from a non-kosher cow is mixed in with milk from regular cows, the maximum allowed for bitul is one-sixtieth, 1.67%. Evidently, our milk supply contains huge amounts of milk from non-kosher cows, well above the bitul threshold. If this is the case, why is this milk kosher? Or isn't it?

This question was posed in the journal Ha-B'er (Nissan 5763/2003) and responses were published from three prominent scholars in Israel. What follows below are very brief summaries of extensive analyses of the complex concepts of rov and chazakah that, frankly, make my head spin. I apologize if this is not entirely correct. The articles can be found in this file (PDF). I am also including a summary of a recent responsum by R. Yisroel Belsky, which is an internal OU document for which I obtained permission to quote but not to disseminate.

I. R. Zalman Nechemiah Goldberg

R. Zalman Nechemiah Goldberg answered that milk is kosher because we look at each individual cow and, despite the percentage of non-kosher cows, each individual cow is considered kosher until proven otherwise. For example, if there was only one cow left in the world, we would assume that it is kosher and not automatically render it non-kosher based on the above percentage. Therefore, if all the cows in the world were gathered together we would also not assume that there are non-kosher cows among them. The milk is similar to a gathering of all the cows in the world, and we similarly do not assume that there is non-kosher milk in the mixture.

II. R. Asher Weiss

R. Asher Weiss writes that the rules of rov are not the same as statistical probabilities. For example, if one lives in a city that is 60% Jewish and ten men from the city gather to pray, must we say that only 60% of them are Jewish and they lack a minyan? Therefore, since each individual cow is considered kosher, the statistical incidence of non-kosher cows is irrelevant.

III. R. Levi Yitzchak Halpern

R. Levi Yitzchak Halpern points out that most of the cows we render non-kosher are not necessarily technically non-kosher, and are often due to various stringencies and doubts. It is therefore impossible to say what percentage is unquestionably non-kosher and what percentage is possibly non-kosher. Therefore, we have no conclusive proof that contradicts the general rule that most slaughtered animals are kosher.

As noted above, the Shulchan Arukh (Yoreh De'ah 81:2) rules that if milk from a known non-kosher cow is mixed in with milk from regular, unknown cows, the maximum allowed for bitul is one-sixtieth, 1.67%. It is relevant to note that the halakhah requires checking slaughtered cows for problems in their lungs, because the incidence of such problems is 10% or greater. Incidence of other problems (of the 17 problems) is evidently less than 10%. However, if you add them all together, it seems that somewhere between 20-30% are assumed to be non-kosher. Despite this, the Rama allows milks from a known non-kosher cow that is mixed in with milk from unknown but presumably kosher cows in a ratio of 1.67% or less. Evidently, this is because unless known for certain, other cows are presumed kosher despite the 20-30% assumed rate of non-kosher cows.

IV. R. Yisroel Belsky

In a recent responsum, R. Yisrael Belsky ruled that cows have a chezkas kashrus, a presumption of being kosher. Thus, even if a cow is slaughtered and found to be non-kosher, we assume that the problem that rendered this cow non-kosher is a recent development. Therefore, regarding the milk we do not have a known statistical majority of non-kosher milk. Furthermore, none of the milk-producing cows are definitely non-kosher.

R. Belsky also adds that the statistics for non-kosher cows includes many stringencies and doubts, and does not represent a true percentage of non-kosher cows.


It seems that R. Hershel Schachter remains in doubt about this matter and has not been convinced by R. Belsky's arguments.

Read the rest of this entry »

Stories of Depression

From R. Nati Helfgot (slightly edited):

In 2001 (5762) I wrote an essay in Jewish Action on my experience with major depression and my road to healing (link). At the time I chose to share my personal story because of the many people I met along the way in the observant community who felt stigmatized and afraid to talk about their illness. In addition, I felt and continue to feel that those stigmas as well as much of the misinformation that many observant people have about mood disorders sometimes get in the way of people addressing some of their health issues and getting the help they need.

Baruch Hashem, the essay was widely read and YCT Rabbinical School held a well-attended follow up conference co-sponsored by the OU and the Orthodox Caucus on the topic later that year in 2002. Today, five years later I continue to speak in many venues on the importance of recognizing the signals of mental illness and mood disorders, helping our friends and family, and giving hope to the many who can, with proper treatment, medication and therapy, can lead full, productive and happy lives. Unfortunately, many of the stigmas and deep rooted ambivalences still remain part of our community, even in pockets of the current Modern Orthodox community. To that end, in public and in private I have continued to urge the various people who have experienced depression or bi-polar disorder to express themselves in public and put the human face on these conditions and lessen the stigmas and fear factor. These conditions affect the cross-section of the observant population just as any other population. That means that they affect prominent rabbis and rashei yeshivas well as simple Jews who live totally private lives. It affects educators and students, men and women, old and young, rich and poor, shul presidents and shul secretaries, prominent members of the community and those on the fringes etc etc.

In that vein, I would like to reach out to you, readers of this blog, that if indeed you have experienced these mood disorders to share your story in writing (1500-2000 words) with me so that we can compile a small volume of testimonies and stories that can be shared with the broad observant public to help encourage awareness, breakdown stigmas, give people hope and courage, alleviate some of the pain and suffering, and maybe even indirectly help save a life.

If you would like to share your story please e-mail me at this address.

Read the rest of this entry »

Beis Yitzchak

Articles are currently being solicited for the next issue of Yeshiva University's Torah journal Beis Yitzchak.

Deadline: Jan. 15 (handwritten); Feb. 15 typed
Size: 12-15 pages
Format: All articles must be in Hebrew, preferably typed on MS Word.
Send all articles/questions/etc. to the editor.

Read the rest of this entry »

Can One Fulfill A Mitzvah Through A Microphone?

R. Chaim Jachter, Gray Matter volume 2, pp. 238-239:

A number of early twentieth-century authorities believed that one can fulfill the mitzvot of shofar and Megillah even through a microphone system (see Encyclopedia Talmudit 18:749–753). However, they lacked access to precise scientific information, so they formulated their opinion based on common-sense perception, without conclusively knowing whether a microphone simply broadcasts a human voice or first transforms it into electronic signals.

A number of prominent authorities who understood microphones more accurately nonetheless considered permitting their use for mitzvot that entail listening. The Chazon Ish (in an oral communication to Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, cited in Minchat Shlomo 1:9) suggests that perhaps, “since the voice that is heard via microphone was created [at first] by the [human] speaker and the voice is heard immediately,[3] as it would be heard in regular conversation, it is also defined as ‘actually hearing’ the shofar blower or the [voice of the human] speaker.”

Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 2:108) and Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank (cited in Teshuvot Minchat Yitzchak 2:113 and Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer 8:11) suggest a similar line of reasoning. Rav Moshe indicates that one never hears a sound directly from its source; rather, the vibration created when a person speaks then passes through the air to the listener’s ear. The vibrating air next to the listener is not the same air that vibrated near the speaker’s vocal chords. Thus, indicates Rav Moshe, perhaps any sound that reaches the listener as a direct result of the original sound shares the same halachic status as the speaker’s own voice. Nevertheless, Rav Moshe discourages the use of a microphone even for rabbinic mitzvot, such as reading the Megillah.[4] Rav Shlomo Zalman, however, attacks any possibility of claiming that one can equate an electronically reproduced sound with a person’s original voice...

Rav Shlomo Zalman concludes that the Chazon Ish’s possible leniency is highly questionable, “and I do not comprehend it.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Yashar Catalog

Download the new catalog for Yashar Books here (big PDF).

Read the rest of this entry »

Rav Hirsch and College

Did R. Samson Raphael Hirsch go to college?

R. Shnayer Leiman, "Rabbinic Openness to General Culture in the Early Modern Period in Western and Central Europe" in R. Jacob Schacter ed., Judaism's Encounter with Other Cultures, p. 183:

At Bernays' suggestion, Hirsch, at age twenty, left for Mannheim to study at the yeshiva of R. Jacob Ettlinger. His studies at they yeshiva lasted for little more than a year, after which Hirsch enrolled for a year of study at the University of Bonn, where he studied, among other topics, classical languages and literature and environmental physics. This was clearly part of a laid-out plan that would provide him with the education and credentials necessary to succeed in the German rabbinate. Like Bernays and Ettlinger, Hirsch did not earn a college degree.

Read the rest of this entry »

Spirit Renewed

I just flew back from Toronto for this conference, and boy are my arms tired.

When the audio becomes available, I highly recommend listening to the panel discussion entitled "Orthodoxy Encounters Modernity: A Dialogue on the Issues that Face Us" [UPDATE: It is now available]. Not because of my contribution but for the heated debate between Dr. Samuel Heilman and Dr. Marvin Schick. (Keep in mind that in this column, Dr. Schick referred to one of Dr. Heilman's ideas with the following: "To be generous, this is nuts.") Before the discussion, I whispered to the moderator that we should make sure the Heilman and Schick do not sit within striking distance of each other. It turned out to be a good call. [UPDATE: In all seriousness, Drs. Schick and Heilman are gentlemen and merely politely but strongly disagreed on a number of issues.]

And, another interesting program from Torah in Motion is:

Online live interactive classes beginning the week of November 14, 2006

Torah in Motion presents the e-TiM: This powerful technology allows both audio and video interaction with the participants wherever they may be, as top teachers form around the world are presented directly in your web browser on your computer - one-click, direct access

Register at www.torahinmotion.org and click on e-tim

From the Chumash to the Siddur: The Biblical Roots of Prayer
Tuesdays starting Nov 14 December 12 (5 weeks)
Time: 12:30 - 1:15pm Eastern Time (7:30pm-8:15pm Israel time)
Rabbi Menachem Leibtag

Architects of Modern Orthodoxy: From R. Samson Raphael Hirsch to R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg
Wednesday November 15th - December 13 (5 weeks) 9:00 pm
Dr. Marc Shapiro

Joseph and his Brothers: Textual Explorations
November 16- December 14 (5 classes) 10:00 am 11:00 am
Dafna Siegman

Zoo Torah: An Exploration of the Animal Kingdom in Jewish Law and Thought
Mondays Nov 20-Dec 18 (5 weeks)
Time: 12:30 - 1:15pm Eastern Time (7:30pm-8:15pm Israel time)
Rabbi Natan Slifkin

$18 (Canadian) for each 5 week course. Special all four courses for $39.99

The Canadian dollar is approximately 89cents USA

Please forward to your friends around the world.

Read the rest of this entry »

Knowledge and Belief

The Midrash Rabbah (39:1) relates the famous midrash about Avraham seeing a house lit up and saying that the house must have someone watching over it. He similarly concluded that this world must also have a Being guiding it. At that point, God revealed Himself to Avraham and said that He is the owner of the world.

R. Yitzchak Sorotzkin (Gevuras Yitzchak, no. 12) quotes the Brisker Rav as asking what purpose the last part of the midrash serves. Avraham had already deduced God's existence, so why did God have to reveal Himself to him?

The Brisker Rav quotes the Beis Ha-Levi (end of Bo, p. 27b in the old editions) who writes:

Whatever is clarified to a person through proofs is called knowledge and not belief. We are commanded to believe, but that is on matters that the mind cannot prove. As long as someone only accepts that which he can prove, he has no part of the command to believe.

Avraham could prove the existence of God but he could not deduce the extent of God's unfathomable being. Thus, after Avraham proved that God existed, God appeared to him in prophecy and informed him that God is an infinite and all-powerful being.

Read the rest of this entry »

Beyond A Reasonable Claim

I was recently at my brother-in-law's home and flipped through his copy of R. Shmuel Waldman's Beyond A Reasonable Doubt. I came across the following statement (pp. 98-99):

Virtually all contemporary Bible scholars no longer side with the conclusions of the early Bible critics. Except for a few real "diehards," they have retracted their claims. They all now agree that the evidence stands overwhelmingly against the Bible critics and their assertions. And, thus, nowadays most of them trust the Torah to be historically true and accurate even where no evidence has yet been found.

I will assume that R. Waldman believes this to be true and simply does not know that it is verifiably incorrect. My questions are as follows:

- Is someone who knows this to be incorrect allowed to repeat the claim anyway?

- More broadly, does it serve our community well to have people make such outrageous and incorrect claims if it keeps people who also don't know better within the fold?

I would suggest that if there was ever a reason to ban a book, it would be because it contains a blatant and outright, even if well-meaning, falsehood.

Please note that I believe the Torah to be historically true and accurate. Please also note that this is not an invitation for skeptics to come and debate the underlying issues. Such comments will be deleted. The issues for discussion are lying for the sake of outreach and the utilization of falsehood, even inadvertent ones, for the purpose of a greater good. I look forward to your polite and reasoned thoughts.

Read the rest of this entry »

Gedolim Who Went To College

Thanks to Tsvi, of these two blogs with Gedolim pictures: I, II

Read the rest of this entry »

The Problem with Proofs of God

R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, The Lonely Man of Faith (2006 edition, pp. 49-50n):

The trouble with all rational demonstrations of the existence of God, with which the history of philosophy abounds, consists in their being exactly what they were meant to be by those who formulated them: abstract logical demonstrations divorced from the living primal experiences in which these demonstrations are rooted. For instance, the cosmic experiences was transformed into a cosmological proof, the ontic experience into an ontological proof, et cetera. Instead of stating that the most elementary existential awareness as a subjective "I exist" and an objective "the world around me exists" awareness is unattainable as long as the ultimate reality of God is not part of this awareness, the theologians engaged in formal postulating and deducing in an experiential vacuum. Because of this, they exposed themselves to Hume's and Kant's biting criticism that logical categories are applicable only within the limits of the human scientific experience.

Does the loving bride in the embrace of here beloved ask for proof that he is alive and real? Must the prayerful soul clinging in passionate love and ecstasy to her Beloved demonstrate the He exists? So asked Soren Kierkegaard sarcastically when told that Anselm of Canterbury, the father of the very abstract and complex ontological proof, spent many days in prayer and supplication that he be presented with rational evidence of the existence of God.

Maimonides' term לידע (Yesode ha-Torah, 1:1) transcends the bounds of the abstract logos and passes over into the realm of the boundless intimate and impassioned experience where postulate and deduction, discursive knowledge and intuitive thinking, conception and perception, subject and object, are one. Only in paragraph five, after the aboriginal experience of God had been established by him as a firm reality (in paragraph one), does he introduce the Aristotelian cosmological proof of the unmoved mover.

Read the rest of this entry »