Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Dynamic Duo in LA

An OU West Coast Torah Convention inspired event
Confronting the Challenges
A Believing Jew in the Modern World


Rabbi Natan Slifkin
Famed author of several controversial books on Biblical Zoology and Torah and Science.

-and-

Rabbi Chaim Eisen
Gifted educator, author, and one of the most brilliant and creative minds in Jewish Thought.


Shabbat, August 4 ~ 6:00pm Mincha, Seudat Shelisheet and Panel at Beth Jacob (9030 W. Olympic Blvd.)
Da’at Torah: What are the Limits of Rabbinic Authority? Are Rabbis Infallible?

Tuesday, August 7 ~ 7:00pm Mincha and Panel at Beth Jacob (9030 W. Olympic Blvd.)
Cherem (excommunication): Who Decides the Acceptable Limits of "Mainstream?" What Lies "Out-of-Bounds?"

Wednesday, August 8 ~ 7:00pm Mincha and Panel at West Coast Torah Center (322 N. Foothill Rd.)
The Talmudists, the Halachists, and the Scientists: Is Jewish Law Based Upon Spurious Science or Did Chazal Know Quantum Mechanics?


Black Fire on White Fire

R. Chaim Eisen, "Mosheh Rabbeinu and Rabbi Akiva: Two Dimensions of Torah" in Jewish Thought vol. 1 no. 2 pp. 72-74:
While the Torah is repeatedly portrayed as the blueprint of the universe, predating Creation itself, it is noteworthy that this primeval Torah is pictured as “inscribed upon white fire in black fire” (Tan. BeReshith:1, Mid. Tehillim 90:12, Rashi on Devarim 33:2). The metaphor of fire is significant; G-d Himself is similarly described in the Torah: “For G-d your L-rd is [like] a consuming fire” (Devarim 4:24 and 9:3). The symbolism appears related to fire’s capacity to consume. Terrestrial fire cannot be grasped, and the mere attempt to grasp it would consume the tools with which we physically grasp (our hands). Only from a distance can we be safely warmed. In likening G-d to a consuming fire, the Torah emphasizes that G-d cannot be grasped -- intellectually -- and the mere attempt to comprehend G-d would consume the tool with which we intellectually grasp (our mind). Similarly, while the Torah that is given to this world is tangibly inscribed upon white parchment in black ink, a Torah “inscribed upon white fire in black fire” is one that, in human terms, cannot be grasped.

Indeed, the Midrash assumes such a distinction between the primeval, transcendent Torah (upon which the world’s existence is predicated) and the material Torah (which is imparted to us as the basis for our lives in this world and thus implicitly presupposes the world’s existence):
Click here to read more
No man knows [wisdom’s] value” (Iyyov 28:13) – Said R. Elazar: The sections of Torah were not given in order, for had they been given in order, anyone who would read them would be able to resurrect the dead and do miracles (alt. v.: immediately would be able to create a world). Therefore the order of Torah was concealed. But it is revealed before the Holy One Blessed be He, as it is said, “And who like Me can read and recount it and set it in order for Me” (Yeshayahu 44:7).

In its references to “order,” were the Midrash alluding merely to questions of chronology, reading the unmodified version obviously not enable “anyone... to resurrect the dead and do miracles,” much less “immediately... be able to create a world.” Evidently, the unmodified version relates to an ontologically different domain – the realm of the divine – in which the realities of this world (which normally exclude acts of resurrection, miracles, and creation) do not apply. This level of Torah, emphasizes the Midrash, was concealed from man, who by his very nature functions on a distinct, earthly level...

Apropos of the Talmud’s qualification of Mosheh’s ascent (Sukkah 5a, quoted above), Maharal comments on this Gemara that even “Mosheh did not receive all of the Torah... but only received what it is possible to receive” (Derech HaChayyim on Avoth 1:1, ד"ה משה קבל תורה מסיני)...

It should be emphasized that the implication of two distinct levels of Torah is not two different texts. Ramban cites a tradition that aptly characterizes our Torah:
We are in possession of a true tradition that the entire Torah is names of the Holy One Blessed be He, the words subdividing into names on a different level... And it appears that the Torah that was inscribed in black fire upon white fire was in the manner that we have mentioned: that the writing was continuous, without separation into words, and it was possible to interpret it in the manner of the names or in the manner of our reading...

R. Me’ir b. Gabbai amplifies Ramban’s description of the Torah as names of G-d, and concludes, “This is the primeval Torah that predated the world” (Avodath HaKodesh, “Chelekh HaYichud,” ch. 21). While in principle it is also our Torah, it is clearly not the Torah as we perceive it... [T]he level at which Torah is revealed to this world is specifically on physical parchment in material ink: palpable media presenting palpable instruction to earthly man on how to live in this world. From this world, the heavenly, fiery Torah of names – through which G-d created this world – cannot be grasped.


Monday, July 30, 2007

Reb Shimon at YU

To be clear, here is the timeline:
  • December 2, 1923: Yeshiva announces its plan to create a Jewish college and begins raising funds for the project through widely publicized campaign

  • September 25, 1928: The first day of classes at Yeshiva College

  • December 1928: R. Shimon Shkop, on a fundraising trip from Europe, comes to visit Yeshiva and deliver a lecture

  • March 1929: Reb Shimon agrees to become Yeshiva's rosh yeshiva (R. Shlomo Polachek having passed away the previous summer)

  • Summer 1929: R. Shimon Shkop complies with the requests of the Chafetz Chaim and R. Chaim Ozer Grodzenski, that he return to the yeshiva in Europe that he had left.
From R. Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff, Bernard Revel: Builder of American Jewish Orthodoxy, pp. 119-120:
In accordance with Revel's custom of inviting the leading rabbinical visitors to America to deliver guest lectures at the Yeshiva, Rabbi Shkop also gave a shiur which was highly praised. After this lecture Rabbis Revel and Margolies pleaded with Reb Shimon to remain with the Yeshiva as the senior rosh yeshiva. After much hesitancy Rabbi Shkop agreed, and during March 1929, he officially became its rosh yeshiva. In his press release announcing Rabbi Shkop's appointment, Rabi Revel stated:
The coming of the Gaon, Rabbi Shimon Shkop to the Yeshiva is not only a matter of great importance to the Yeshiva... but it is an important event for all American Jewry. He will, with the help of God, aid in planting the seeds of Torah in this land, just as he propagated the study of Torah in our old home.
Reb Shimon's acceptance of the Yeshiva position was greeted with hope and expectation. He was known to be a rosh yeshiva whose influence would spread far beyond the confines of the Yeshiva, with which he was now associated. The students warmly welcomed him, for they knew that they were once again privileged to have an accomplished rosh yeshiva. In the December 30, 1928, issue of the student publication, Hedenu, a student described his emotions and thoughts when Rabbi Shkop entered to lecture:
"Reb Shimon" is walking slowly. An electric current seems to pass through those assembled, and all eyes focus upon Rabbi Shkop. One thought seems to be uppermost in everyone's mind: this elderly man--who possesses keen eyes that move quickly, and a gentle smile on a delicate face that is surrounded by a clean, white beard--is "Reb Shimon." This is the same "Reb Shimon" of Telshe, Maltsh, Bryensk, and Grodno--whose deeds and accomplishments in each of these stations in his life, have gained for him the respect and love of all.
Rabbi Shkop was pleased with the students and enjoyed his stay at the Yeshiva. Revel found solace in his presence; and once again he set the example in the love and respect he expressed for Reb Shimon. However, Rabbis Israel Meir Kagan (the Chofetz Chaim) and Chaim Ozer Grodzenski, the acknowledged heads of Orthodox Jewry, missed his leadership and guidance. Rabbis Revel and Margolies urged Reb Shimon to remain in the United States--they felt the Yeshiva needed him even more. However, on August 22, 1929, Rabbi Shkop wrote to them:
When I arrived here [Miami beach], I was given your telegram in which you requested that I continue in the Yeshiva. It surprises me that you still ask that I do so. Haven't I already told you many times that I cannot fulfill this request. It is my fondest wish that God should help me return to my Yeshiva in Grodno before Rosh Hashanah.... May the good Lord aid you in selecting the proper man to head the Yeshiva.
At the end of summer 1929, when the arrival of Rabbi Moses Soloveitchik was imminent, Rabbi Shkop returned to Europe.
It seems to me fairly safe to suggest that R. Shimon Shkop did not share his student R. Elchanan Wasserman's zealous opposition to secular studies.


The Rambam on Sacrifices

R. Ahron Soloveichik, in a devar Torah on the Reishit Yerushalayim website (link - DOC):
We may consider an alternate understanding of the Rambam. Man has moral and spiritual needs, just as he has physiological ones. Among them is a profound, intrinsic need to sacrifice. Like other spiritual needs, this one has a positive outlet for it as well as a negative outlet. On the negative side, man has been willing from ancient times until today to sacrifice himself and his children to the various idolatries, such as the Molech. Hence the Germans were willing to sacrifice their lives for their Führer, and Arab terrorists readily volunteer for suicide missions. This illustrates an abuse of man’s need to sacrifice. The positive outlet of this need is the Torah mitzvah of bringing a sacrifice.

The Rambam implies that had it been possible, God would have removed the practice of sacrifices from the Torah. Abolishing the korbanos, though, would be as impossible as abolishing eating and drinking: The practice reflects a genuine need within man, a need to sacrifice.


Sunday, July 29, 2007

Don't Turn Your Back On Your Community III

R. Shalom Carmy weighs in on the blog of the newly resurrected YU undegraduate newspaper Hamevaser (now a magazine called Kol Hamevaser): link

Also see the various posts on this subject to Lookjed by various educators, including Paul Shaviv and R. Jack Bieler: link

There is also this article, which I haven't had time to read but commenters say is excellent: link

And on Jews medically treating Gentiles on Shabbos, see my article here.


Friday, July 27, 2007

Rabbenu Tam the Rationalist

R. Ephraim Kanarfogel, Peering Through the Lattices: Mystical, Magical, and Pietistic Dimensions in the Tosafist Period, pp. 166-167, 168, 186 (some footnotes omitted):
Rabbenu Tam, the greatest of the early tosafists, has been characterized as a rationalist.[86] Like Rashbam, Rabbenu Tam interpreted talmudic passages in ways that eliminated the roles of superstition and shedim, which had been left intact by Rashi and other predecessors.[87] Moreover, Rabbenu Tam was unswervingly talmudocentric. He was not even inclined, as Rashbam was, toward the study and interpretation of Scripture as a distinct discipline.

There are only a handful of passages in Rabbenu Tam's substantial corpus which, as far as I can determine, reflect mystical considerations, but their implications must be considered carefully...

Beginning in the middle of the twelfth century, R. Samuel b. Qalonymus he-Hasid of Spires and his son, R. Judah he-Hasid (followed by the latter's student, R. Eleazar of Worms), rejuvenated and greatly expanded (to include a highly developed theosophy) the mystical teachings and expressions of hasidut they had received from their Pietist ancestors and teachers who studied almost exclusively in Mainz. Perhaps the relative lack of interest in torat ha-sod shown by Rashbam, Raban, and Rabbenu Tam--despite their clear awareness of this material--was because the methodology of the academy at Worms in the last part of the eleventh century adumbrates and, through R. Meir b. Samuel (The father of Rashbam and Rabbenu Tam) and others, helped stimulate the development of tosafist dialectic. The influence of Worms, where mystical teachings were not in evidence, was dominant at the beginning of the tosafist period.


[86]See, e.g., Urbach, Ba'alei ha-Tosafot, 1:70-71, 88-93; Grossman, Hakhmei Ashkenaz ha-Rishonim, 94-95...
[87] See, e.g., Rashi, Menahot 32b, s.v. sakkanah; Tosafot Menahot 32b, s.v. sakkanah; and R. Yeroham b. Meshullam, Toledot Adam ve-Havvah (Venice, 1553), sec. 21, pt. 7 (fol. 179c). As opposed to Rashi, who itnerpreted the talmudic dictum that a misplaced mezuzah was harmful because it could not serve to eliminate shedim, Rabbenu Tam saw the potential harm merely as the risk of injury if one bumped into the mezuzah because of its poor placement. Cf. Teshuvot R. Meir mi-Rothenburg (Cremona, 1557), #108, and Daniel Sperber, Minhagei Yisra'el, vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 1989), 46-56. As compared to Rashi (above, n. 45), Rabbenu Tam cites Otiyot de-R. Aqiva in purely halakhic contexts (i.e. only as a source for the technical writing of sifrei Torah), as does Rabiah, with no concern for its mystical implications. See Israel Ta-Shma, "Qavvim le-Ofiyyah shel Sifrut ha-Halakhah be-Ashkenaz ba-Me'ah ha-Yod Gimmel/ha-Yod Daled," 'Alei Sefer 4 (1977):26-27; Rabbenu Tam's Hilkhot [Tiqqun] Sefer Torah in Ginzei Yerushalayim, ed. S. A. Wertheimer, vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 1896), 97-99; Sefer Rabiah, ed. D. Deblitzky (Bnei Brak, 1976), 220 (sec. 1149); Sefer ha-Manhig, ed. Raphael, 2:587, 620; R. Samson b. Eliezer, Barukh She'amar, ed. M. M. Meshi-Zahav (Jerusalem, 1970), 74 (sec. 41), 101. Cf. Tosafot R. Elhanan to 'Avodah Zarah 28b, s.v. shoryeinei de-'eina, and above, ch. 2, n. 67. [Not also the differences between Rabbenu Tam and R. Judah he-Hasid in defining the thirteen attributes. See, e.g., Tosafot Rosh Hashanah 17b, s.v. ve-shalosh, and SHP, secs. 414-15; Sefer ha-Manhig, 1:277-78; J. Gellis, Tosafot ha-Shalem, vol. 10 (1969):124-35;...]
UPDATE: I e-mailed R. Kanarfogel and asked about Rabbenu Tam's grammatical work and commentary on the book of Job. Don't they show interest in non-talmudic topics? Or does he assume that these were not sustained interests? He responded as follows (posted with permission):
Your formulation about sustained interest is exactly correct. Indeed, at the point in the book where I offer this assessment, the footnote on that very sentence refers the reader to an (earlier) article of mine on the study of Bible in medieval Ashkenaz. There I specifically note both the dikduk work (and the way that it was received in Provence), and the perush to Iyyov, as well as Rabbenu Tam's statements about the study of mikra recorded in Tosafot in Kiddushin and 'Avodah Zarah (and other related references), all of which support the contention in the book that certainly as compared to Rashbam (and Rashi for that matter), Rabbenu Tam's interest was not a sustained one (except, of course, in the context or through the prism of talmudic/rabbinic studies). This last point is reflected in my statement that Rabbenu Tam was essentially 'talmudocentric'. My larger argument in this part of the book as you may know is that both Rashbam and Rabbenu Tam play down the mystical impulses of the pre-Crusade Ashkenaz of which they were aware. Rabbenu Tam also plays down the pre-Crusade involvement with parshanut ha-mikra as a distinct discipline (noted fully by Avraham Grossman), while Rashbam (obviously) does not.

I should also note that in the seven years or so since Peering first appeared (pun partly intended), I've come across some additional factors that are worth mentioning in this regard. As I will discuss in my forthcoming book, The Intellectual History of Ashkenazic Jewry: New Perspectives, there are few comments attributed to Rabbenu Tam in the corpus of the so-called Ba'alei ha-Tosafot 'al ha-Torah (found both in print and in mss.) that are not either sugya related or specifically offered in the context of talmudic analyses of Scripture. Quite a number of exegetical comments attributed to Rabbenu Tam in these works can be shown to be those of his student R. Jacob (Tam) of Orleans, who like his contemporaries (and fellow students of Rabbenu Tam, R. Yom Tov of Joigny and R. Joseph of Orleans= R. Yosef Bekhor Shor) did offer comments/critiques on pesukim (and on Rashi's perush on the Torah) that are essentially exegetical, and not just a reflection of talmudic approaches. (A good example here would also be ms. Paris 167 which has been characterized as a perush of RT 'al ha-Torah--although he was probably not the actual author, and indeed, is mentioned by name only around 15 times. This perush consists of talmudic Tosafot-like or Shas material on the Torah, not an exegetical perush 'al ha-Torah.) The same is true, of course, for the several Tosafot that cite RT on biblical verses--he knows Tanakh by heart and is very interested in undertanding the pesukim in question, but does so fundamentally through the prism of talmudic or rabbinic interpretation--there's no theory of peshuto shel mikra or 'omeq peshuto shel mikra that Rashi and Rashbam developed and continued (although Rashi and Rashbam themsevles obviously related to rabbinic/talmudic exegesis in different ways in their biblical commentaries.)

In addition, the several perushim on Iyyov that we have from medieval Ashkenaz in the mid-twelfth century, including those of Rashbam and Rabbenu Tam, may have been undertaken precisely by these 'rationalists' who did not involve themselves in mystical or magical issues (as other, mostly later Tosafists did, as I show throughout Peering) to convery issues of sprituality/Jewish thought. In Rashbam's case, his many other biblical commentaries are reflections of his deep interest in parshanut ha-mikra as well. For Rabbenu Tam, however, the one commentary that we have (at least to this point) can be seen as an expression of these other disciplines as much as mikra per se. And finally, a colleague of mine in J-m has suggested--but hasn't published it yet--that the grammatical work of Rabbenu Tam may not have been written by him. This, of course, is still speculative, but it joins the many other sources mentioned and referred to here and in my writings noted above.

So, to repeat (and sorry for such a long answer to a short question), your formulation is correct. I've kind of dashed this off because it is erev Shabbos. If any further clarification is required, please let me know.
Note that I did, in fact, cut off footnote 87 where R. Kanarfogel references his article on the subject. My mistake.


Thursday, July 26, 2007

Rabbi Dolittle

The Washington Jewish Week on R. Natan Slifkin: link


Don't Turn Your Back On Your Community II

The Jewish Week and The Jewish Press weigh in: JP, JW

Gary Rosenblatt concludes:
He does owe Modern Orthodoxy an apology for pinning it with his anger over rejection, knowing full well the rules of engagement. But we in turn owe him a sense of gratitude for a wake-up call, however unpleasant, about the need to struggle more deeply and honestly with the moral and religious tensions and contradictions in Modern Orthodoxy that can never be reconciled, and about learning how to deal more sensitively with those on the outside who may be calling out — in anger and loneliness — for a way back in.
I disagree. All we owe him is a swift kick to the tuches.

(Please note that I do not mean that literally and am not calling for physical violence.)


Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Nazis and Repentance

I remember in elementary school (and beyond) hearing teachers point out the following problem with Christianity: If a Nazi believed in that religion then he would automatically be saved despite his sins. Not so in Judaism, where a person must be punished for his sins. As I grew older, I realized that this is not an accurate representation of either Christianity or Judaism. Regarding the latter, the question remains whether a nazi who repented his sins would be forgiven. While there is no real need to try to be God's accountant, I believe that there is merit in exploring this area of theology for the theoretical sake. On that note, I believe that this issue is a matter of debate between the Rambam and R. Yosef Albo.

The Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Teshuvah 6:3) writes (link):
It is possible to commit a great sin or a number of sins... which hinder repentance and do not allow one to return from one's wickedness, so one will therefore die and be destroyed because of one's sin.
This is how the Rambam explains God's hardening Pharaoh's heart. Because Pharaoh had already sinned so terribly, God prevented him from repenting. Similarly, Elisha ben Avuyah-Acher heard a heavenly announcement that he should not repent (Chagigah 15a). One can plausibly suggest that Nazis also reached this status where God does not allow them to repent.

R. Yosef Albo (Sefer Ha-Ikkarim 4:25) disagrees with this position and argues that God always leaves open the door for repentance. Every human being, while still alive, retains the ability to repent. However, generally God assists those who try to repent because it is very difficult for a person to do this without help. Those who have sinned greatly will not receive that assistance. But they can still repent if they are able to achieve it on their own. (Many other voices have added to this discussion and I am just presenting the two main views.)

Thus, one could suggest that according to the Rambam a Nazi would not be allowed to repent while according to R. Yosef Albo he could but would not receive divine assistance in the matter. One could point out that while repentance is conceivable for many sins, when dealing with the atrocious interpersonal sins of the Nazis, repentance is impossible. How can millions of dead people forgive them for their misdeeds? While this logic is compelling, I believe that the Gemara does not accept it. Regarding the Babylonian general Nevuzaradan, who killed thousands of innocent people, the Gemara (Gittin 57b) states that he repented and converted to Judaism. If he, murderer of so many innocent people, could repent, why not a Nazi? While the Rambam might say that he did not reach the state wherein God prevent one from repenting, the fact still remains that a mass murderer was allowed to repent. Clearly, interpersonal sins does not prevent repentance. (Unless one wants to suggest that conversion would neutralize the sins but not repentance alone.)

In his discussion of the Gemara regarding Nevuzaradan, R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik discusses the possibility of repentance for Nazis (The Lord is Righteous in All His Ways, p. 274):
Teshuvah helps, even for Amalek. I have often wondered whether if a Goering, a Goebbels, or a Hitler, yemah shemam ve-zikhram, may their names and memories be blotted out, showed signs of sincere penitence and was ready to change into a decent person, would we accept him? I have no answer. There is no doubt that no matter how cruel the murderer Nebuzaradan was, the Nazi gang was worse. Clearly Nebuzaradan was superior to Eichmann and to Hitler. I believe that the Nazi gang personified the most corrupt, the cruelest, and the most arrogant leaders or tyrants who ever existed in the history of humanity. But yet, the Rambam writes that "Nothing can stand in the way of teshuvah" (Hilhot Teshuvah 3:14).

The verse says about Manasseh, "Moreover, Manasseh shed much innocent blood" (II Kings 21:16). And Hazal tell us that when Manasseh was taken captive, he was subjected to torture and began to pray to the Almighty; he was ready to repent... But Manasseh, a king of the Jews, cannot be compared with the Nazi gang. Although he was a wicked man, he was a thousand times above them.
I am not sure why he does not quote the Rambam I cited above.


Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Sometimes Bigger Isn't Better

I don't get it. Why do so many people think that saying "amen" longer is better? (Rhetorical question!) Presumably because the long amen helps them think through all of the appropriate meditations and make the amen more meaningful. But the simple fact is that a long amen is not halakhically a good thing.

Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 124:8:
ולא יענה אמן קצרה אלא ארוכה קצת כדי שיוכל לומר קל מלך נאמן ולא יאריך בה יותר מדאי לפי שאין קריאת התיבה נשמעת כשמאריך יותר מדאי.

One should not say a short amen but a slightly long one, [long enough] that one can say "Kel melekh ne'eman". And one should not say it too long because the word is not heard when one lengthens it too much.
In another example of "the golden mean", the Shulchan Arukh rules that one should say a medium-length amen. It should take the amount of time takes to say the phrase "Kel melekh ne'eman", which is about 2-3 seconds. A longer amen is difficult to recognize. Perhaps people with 5+ second-long amens assume that listeners can understand what they are saying. But if that is so, what is the case that the Shulchan Arukh says not to do? A minute-long amen? I find that hard to believe.


Monday, July 23, 2007

Appropriate Reading for Tisha B'Av?

In a post last week, R. Dov Krulwich offered some recommended reading for Tisha B'Av (link):
  • Adjusting Sights by R. Haim Sabato about his experiences in the Yom Kippur War

  • Life in the Shadow of Terror by R. Nechemiah Coopersmith with personal accounts about life in Jerusalem during the recent Intifida

  • O Jerusalem by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre about the 1948 war of Israeli independence

In the comments section, R. Krulwich adds:
My post about recommending alternative reading is for people who for whatever reason do not find the more traditional reading inspiring. For example, many people nowadays devote the day to movies about the holocaust. Devoting some time to truly understanding the fear and pain of Israel's recent wars and terror attacks seems to me to be an equally appropriate endeavor.
I'm of two minds over whether all of his suggestions are appropriate for Tisha B'Av. I can see how Life in the Shadow of Terror is appropriate because it deals with the travails of exile, or rather the lack of complete redemption. That is certainly in the spirit of Tisha B'Av. But the other two books, particularly O Jerusalem, are more about the end of the exile than the exile itself. They are not about be-tzeisi mi-Yerushalayim but about be-shuvi li-Yerushalayim. Is that what we should be spending our time focusing on during Tisha B'Av? Or is it really distracting from the message of exile and turmoil? I can hear both sides. Perhaps they are only appropriate reading for the afternoon of Tisha B'Av. But certainly they are better than just wasting the day.


Harry Potter and Da'as Torah

One of the themes of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is the fallibility of Dumbledore. His competence is first challenged at the end of book six, when he is murdered by Severus Snape, someone whom he trusted despite universal doubt about his worthiness. The questioning continues throughout book seven, with gossiping childhood friends and a tabloid biography published about him. Is this man, the wise professor who so often gave advice, truly as righteous as he appeared or was he a fraud? (Warning: minor spoiler ahead.)

The conclusion is that he was not perfect. He had made mistakes, from which he had largely learned but not completely. In fact, his ultimate demise came from the same mistake to which he had succumbed as a youth. However, generally he was a wise and kind person whose overall character was not diminished by having flaws. Despite living in an "ivory tower", he was active in the trenches, learning what was transpiring and trying to personally solve problems. His judgement was spot-on, his guidance worthy of being followed, and even when he failed to give Harry all of the information it was for good reasons that would eventually become evident.

In other words, in the view of the book's author, Gedolim need not be perfect. Dumbledore was perhaps the greatest wizard of all times, despite having minor personal weaknesses. Rather than dismiss him as a hypocrite, one should learn what one can from him and take his counsel very seriously. He may have not been infallible, but he was wise and one would be foolish to ignore the guidance of a wise man of his caliber. I believe that this is consistent with R. Aharon Lichtenstein's view on Da'as Torah (link).


Don't Turn Your Back On Your Community And Then Badmouth It In The New York Times

Look, you're not stupid. After thirteen years in yeshiva, you knew very well that by marrying outside of the Jewish faith that you were committing the ultimate slap-in-the-faith to the community in which you were raised. It was and remains your choice. This is a free country and it's your life to live. But be a man and take responsibility for your choices. Don't for a minute act surprised and pretend that you don't understand the profound insult that your decision represents to the community that raised you and on which you turned your back.

The community in general does not want to completely cut off ties with you. But certainly a smart man like you knows that it can no longer hold you high as an example of one of theirs who succeeded. You didn't. Sadly, to everyone's great dismay, like many others before you, you failed.

Modern Orthodoxy is all about nuance; it's about combining Orthodoxy with modernity. But the key is that God always comes first. You don't go to school on Yom Kippur, even if it means failing a final exam. You don't eat non-kosher, even if it means that your department head gets offended and thinks that you are not qualified for a tenured position. And you don't marry outside of the religion. No one is perfect, and there are plenty of people who violate Jewish rules but are still accepted in our community. However, intermarriage is more than a mere violation of a technical law. It is more than failing to wear tzitzis or wearing a jacket that has not been checked for sha'atnez. Marriage is a life choice, one of the most important decisions you ever make. You alone made your choice and it was to exclude Judaism in a very public way and to hit the community in a place where it is already severely hurting. And you know this.

The door is still open. I am sure that there are plenty of people from your past who are more than willing to maintain relationships with you on a personal level. We want you to come to synagogue and participate fully in Judaism. But don't expect to be treated like a superstar by the community on which you turned your back.


Friday, July 20, 2007

What is Missing from Deuteronomy

R. Jay Kelman, in this week's Devar Torah, not yet available on the web:
Each one of the five books of the Chumash has a unique central theme(s), be it the choosing of the Jewish nation, redemption, Torat kohanim or missed opportunities. A quick perusal of Sefer Devarim, both its law and narrative, will quickly reveal that the main message of this last book of Chumash is Moshe Rabbeinu preparing his beloved people for entry into the land of Israel (finally)...

The 200 mitzvot recorded in Devarim focus primarily on our national institutions - our political and judicial system, the laws of war, social justice. Even the many laws of marriage are connected to the theme of creating a uniquely Jewish society, hence the prohibition in this context of intermarriage. Even the holidays mentioned are only those which we have an obligation to celebrate in Jerusalem.

Despite the focus on the land of Israel there is barely a mention of the Temple nor any laws of sacrifices. How strange yet how profound. Apparently the Temple is not integral to setting up a just society. Rather it is the natural outgrowth and culmination of creating such a society. We must focus on ensuring the total honesty of our business dealings (25:13), appointing judges of complete integrity fearful of none but G-d (1:17), a social welfare system second to none, maintaining our moral values even in war time (20:19), preserving Jewish unity (14:1), compassion towards the less fortunate (16:14), not encroaching on the rights of others (19:14) - all the above and so much more being mentioned in Devarim. If we succeed the Temple will take care of itself.


Harry Potter Spoilers

Yesterday, the New York Times and the Baltimore Sun published reviews of the forthcoming Harry Potter book based on advanced copies. The author is supposedly furious over this but, to me, these seem more like teasers than spoilers.

NY Times: An Epic Showdown as Harry Potter Is Initiated Into Adulthood

Baltimore Sun: An inevitable ending to Harry Potter series


Listen, Israel

Just about every English chumash and siddur translates the first verse of the Shema as "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one." Artscroll has it as "Hear O Israel, Hashem is our God, Hashem the one and only." In his recently published prayerbook, Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks translates the first word as "listen" rather than "hear", so the whole sentence is "Listen, Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord is one." (And he omits the unnecessary word "O"!) He explains his translation in the commentary to Shabbos Ma'ariv (pp. 277-278):
Shema means not only to "hear" but also "to listen, understand, internalise, respond and obey." It is translated here as "Listen" because listening is active, while hearing is passive. This, the most famous line of Jewish prayer, is a call to action on the part of the mind, emotion and will. It asks us to reflect on, strive to understand, and to affirm the unity of God. God speaks in a "still, small voice", and to serve Him is to listen with the totality of our being.

Secular terms for understanding are permeated with visual images. We speak of insight, foresight, vision, observation, perspective; when we understand, we say "I see". Judaism, with its belief in an invisible, transcendent God, is a culture of the ear, not the eye. The patriarchs and prophets did not see God; they heard Him. To emphasie the non-visual nature of Jewish belief, it is our custom to cover our eyes as we say these words.


A Love Affair With Books

Dvora Waysman in this week's The Jewish Press (link):
I once read a quote that I loved, by noted columnist Anna Quindlen: “I would be most content if my children grew up to be the kind of people who think decorating consists mostly of building enough bookshelves.” My sentiments exactly, for to me, writing, reading are synonymous with breathing. I would never want to live in a world without books...


Thursday, July 19, 2007

Shpilkes

Many people will be having shpilkes this week over a soon-to-be released book.

Similar shpilkes in history, from The Little, Brown Book of Anecdotes, p. 167:
Like most of Dickens's works, The Old Curiosity Shop (1841) was first published in serial form. The novel won a vast readership in both Britain and the United States, and interest in the fate of the heroine, Little Nell, was intense. In New York, six thousand people crowded the wharf at which the ship carrying the magazine with the final installment was due to dock. As it approached, the crowd's impatience grew to such a pitch that they cried out to the sailors, "Does Little Nell die?"


Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Lift-and-Cut Shavers

There is a website dedicated to adjusting Norelco Lift-and-Cut Shavers called Kosher Shaver. I always found this a bit amusing because when I was in yeshiva "everyone" used a lift-and-cut, after a senior rosh yeshiva declared it permissible (I confirmed this ruling today from someone very close to him. As is this rosh yeshiva's policy, he does not want his name mentioned in the media.). His reason: he tested it out on his hand and found that the shave was not very close. I used a lift-and-cut for a number of years, until I grew my current beard, and found no difference in the shave between that shaver and a screen shaver. I still had the same small stubble that I could feel with my hand after using either kind.

On the Kosher Shaver website, there is a write-up on the subject of electric shavers from the Torah sheet Halacha Berurah (link), of which the author is himself clean shaven. The write-up is fairly comprehensive, in that it discusses whether electric shavers are permitted at all -- many posekim forbid them entirely; others, such as R. Chaim Ozer Grodzenski, R. Tzvi Pesach Frank, R. Yosef Eliyahu Henkin and R. Moshe Feinstein, permitted their use. (I am still trying to find out whether R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, when he had a goatee, used depilatory cream or an electric shaver. If anyone knows, please inform us in the coments section.) R. Henkin's reason to permit electric shavers is that there is still a remaining stubble. R. Moshe Feinstein allows them because the cutting is done through both the screen and the blade, thus acting like scissors rather than like a single blade razor.

The article then progresses to Lift-and-Cut shavers and claims that according to R. Moshe Feinstein's position, these shavers would be prohibited because the hair is lifted up by one blade and then cut by another, single blade rather than by the screen and the blade. This is acting like a razor and not like scissors. The article's author writes that he confirmed this understanding with R. David Feinstein, R. Reuven Feinstein and R. Yisrael Belsky.

Evidently, the rosh yeshiva I mentioned at the beginning who permitted Lift-and-Cut shavers held a position similar to R. Henkin's -- that the shave must be close in order for it to be prohibited. Despite company marketing, in my experience the shave is not noticeably closer than most other shavers.

Missing from the article is the position of R. Nachum Rabinovich. In his Melumedei Milchamah (ch. 128), R. Rabinovich rules that all electric shavers are categorized as melaket and rahitni because they cut hairs individually, as opposed to razors that cut a large number of hairs at a time. Therefore, according to him, there is no difference between a screen shaver and a Lift-and-Cut shaver, and the latter is entirely permitted.

R. Moshe Feinstein's grandson-through-marriage, R. Shabtai Rappaport, wrote an article on electric shavers that is available in English translation online (link). Not surprisingly, he follows his wife's grandfather's position on electric shavers in general. However, when it comes to Lift-and-Cut shavers, he takes this reasoning in a different direction than described above:
Norelco (Phillips in Europe) developed a shaver that they claim (though other manufacturers denied their claim) gives a totally smooth shave. It is made of two interlocking sets of blades, with one of the blades of the first set placed between two of the second. The function of the first blade is to pull out the hair from the skin. Before it has a chance to sink back below the skin, the second blade cuts it off, achieving a very smooth shave.

It seems that this shaver is also not operating as a razor, but as a combination of a tweezers (melaket) and scissors. If one would pull out hair from the skin with a tweezers and then snip it off with scissors, one should also achieve a close shave; but the Torah never prohibited such a process. This similar process, though it achieves a very close shave, is not a razor cut.
The above is not intended to argue in favor of using a Lift-and-Cut. My point is that you should not assume that it is prohibited. As should be obvious, ask your rabbi about it.

(In case anyone is interested, the reason I used a Lift-and-Cut is because when I went to buy a new electric shaver some 15 years ago, it was one of the few shavers in the store and I saw no reason not to buy it. I still use it on the hair that grows below my beard line, where according to the Rema you can use an actual razor but according to some others you should not.)


Harry Potter on Shabbos

Three posts about whether you can open the package with the book when it is delivered this Shabbos: I, II, III

And one about whether you can read it on Shabbos: I


Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Googling Someone II

Following up on this post, R. Asher Meir has written a new column that provides sources and explains the rationale behind his ruling. He has given me permission to post it. Here is the relevant excerpt (link):
The second link is equally simple to demonstrate. Again, there are two distinct sources. One source is that listening to gossip is forbidden just as saying it is. In the same chapter Maimonides writes regarding gossips that "it is forbidden to dwell near them, so much the more to sit with them and hear their words". But this is mainly referring to passive listening. Rabbi Yaakov Chagiz explains that when we actively seek out private information, such as by reading a private letter, this is actually considered to be like telling it. What difference does it make, he asks, if I reveal private information to someone else or if I reveal it to myself? (2)

Let us know draw the final link. It is true that a special exception is made for information that is already widely known. The Talmud tells us: "Anything that is said before three people is spared from considered forbidden speech. Why? Your friend has a friend, and your friend's friend has [yet another] friend." (3) At a certain stage, it becomes assumed that a fact is common knowledge, and then there is no culpability to mention it.

However, the rabbis point out two critical reservations to this exemption:
  1. It only applies where the information actually is widely known. The fact that in one time and one place information was disclosed to three people doesn't mean that anytime and anywhere it is permissible to repeat it. (4)

  2. It only applies if there is no intention to spread the rumor. If everyone in town is talking about a particular scandal, then if I add my two cents I'm not causing additional publicity. But if I know that some people will learn about the rumor from me, I have no permission to spread it.
Maimonides writes in our same chapter:
If the things were said before three, [we may assume that] the rumor has already been heard and is known, and if one of those three tells it another time it is not considered lashon hara (damaging speech); this, on the condition that he does not actually intend to spread the rumor and disclose it further.
The conditions are that it is one of the three who retells it (that it, it is still within the original circle of people familiar with the story), and that there is no intention to spread the story. Both conditions are generally violated in sophisticated web-searches. The fact that some information (marriage, divorce, arrests, etc.) is available to someone who schlepps out to a remote country courthouse certainly does not make it common knowledge. If someone then goes out and digitizes those records it's still not common knowledge, partially because it may be improper in the first place to make them so freely available and secondly because the information is still not available without special knowledge and effort (and sometimes without spending money).

So the fact that information is available to people who have a the knowledge to seek it out and is permissible for people who have a genuine need to know (if there is a court case then finding out about previous marriages and divorces could be critically important) doesn't make it "common knowledge". The sin of the gossip is precisely taking information which is known to a few and available for the asking to those with a special need, and disseminating it to the masses.

SOURCES: (1) Maimonides Code, Deot chapter 7. (2) Responsa Halakhot Ketanot I:276 (3) Babylonian Talmud Arakhin 16a. (4) Chafetz Chaim I 2:6.


Funeral and Shivah

We regret to announce the passing of Lucille Schapiro, beloved wife of Dr. Norman Schapiro, mother of Donna and Rabbi Moshe Schapiro.

The levaya will tale place graveside at Beth Moses cemetery in Farmingdale (Wellwood) Long Island on Wednesday morning at 10:30 am. (link).

Shiva will be at the address in the comments.

Minyanim:
Shacharis at 7:30 am
Mincha/Maariv at 8:00 pm


Monday, July 16, 2007

Dumbledore and Rabbi Akiva

There is an important discussion between Harry Potter and Dumbledore, the wise and powerful headmaster of Hogwarts, towards the end of book 6. Dumbledore tries to impress upon Harry that the student is not being forced to fight the villain Voldemort, even though there is a prophecy that implies that he will. Dumbledore points out how Voldemort took this prophecy as the final word, and because of this ended up through his actions setting in motion the prophecy's fulfillment. Dumbledore argues that this is the wrong attitude. There are plenty of prophecies that are not fulfilled (note that I am specifically emphasizing this point because it is crucial). Even though Harry wants to confront Voldemort, he should do it as his decision and not out of compulsion (pp. 510, 512):
[Dumbledore:] "If Voldemort had never heard of the prophecy, would it have been fulfilled? Would it have meant anything? Of course not! Do you think every prophecy in the Hall of Prophecy has been fulfilled?...

"You see, the prophecy does not mean you have to do anything! But the prophecy caused Lord Voldemort to mark you as his equal.... In other words, you are free to choose your way, quite free to turn your back on the prophecy!..."

But he understood at last what Dumbledore had been trying to tell him. It was, he thought, the difference between being dragged into the arena to face a battle to the death and walking into the arena with your head held high. Some people, perhaps, would say that there was little to choose between the two ways, but Dumbledore knew -- and so do I, thought Harry, with a rush of fierce pride, and so did my parents -- that there was all the different in the world.
This is no small disagreement between Dumbledore and Voldemort. It is a fundamental debate over man's free will. According to Voldemort, people are restrained in their freedom and are predestined -- at least when there is a prophecy about them -- for a certain outcome. According to Dumbledore, however, man is free to choose his own destiny. Therefore, even if one ends up following a prophecy, it is not because of destiny but because one has chosen that path.

Note that without Dumbledore's comments about prophecies not coming true and Harry's ability to turn his back on the prophecy, one might have thought that he also believed in determinism but that one should choose one's fate with pride, even though it is predetermined. But the comments just mentioned indicate that Dumbledore believed in complete free choice, even in the face of a prophecy.

There is a distinct parallel between Voldemort and Oedipus. Recall that Oedipus had learned from an oracle that he would kill his father and marry his mother. Despite, or perhaps because of, his best efforts to avoid that fate, he ends up creating the situation in which the prophecy is fulfilled. Voldemort's situation is very similar.

In his book Be-Ikvos Ha-Kuzari, of which an abridged English translation appeared on VBM-Torah and a complete translation will be published by Yashar as In the Footsteps of the Kuzari (the passage discussed here is not in the VBM-Torah version and will be in volume 2 of the Yashar edition), Prof. Shalom Rosenberg compares the Oedipus story with that of the wedding of Rabbi Akiva's daughter. The Gemara (Shabbos 156b) tells the story:
R. Akiva had a daughter. Astrologers told him that on the day she got married a snake would bite her and she would die. He was very worried about this. On her wedding day, she took a brooch and stuck it into the wall and it sank into the eye of a snake. The following morning, when she took it out, the snake came trailing after it. "What did you do?" her father asked her. She answered: "A poor man came to our door at night and everyone was busy at the party and no one took care of him. So I took the food that was given to me and gave it to him." He said to her: "You did a mitzvah." R. Akiva went out and said: "'Charity will save from death' and not just an unusual death but death itself."
Prof. Rosenberg (ch. 42) explains:
This story is a powerful statement against the belief that everything is predetermined. The contrast between these two worlds is evident. The astrologers ascertained man’s predetermined fate. It would seem that they were right. Yet their prophecy is not absolute; escape is possible.
It seems to me that on this issue, Dumbledore and R. Akiva are exactly aligned.

(Note that one can equate the "prophecy" in Harry Potter with the Talmud's astrologers' predictions. However, even prophecies need not come true in many circumstances. See here and here for more details.


Sunday, July 15, 2007

Nachem Nowadays II

Last year, I posted a summary of the positions on reciting Nachem on Tisha B'Av nowadays (link). On thinking about it, I've become more understanding of the view that we should change the prayer or at least allow people to change it privately. Not that I am advocating such position, but I think I understand them better.

The Gemara (Yoma 69b) relates how Jeremiah and Daniel deviated from Moshe's formulation of prayer ("Ha-Kel Ha-Gadol Ha-Gibor Ve-Ha-Nora") because they saw destruction and exile that seemed to contradict God's greatness and awesomeness. The Gemara explains that God's seal is truth and these two sages could not bring themselves to lie about him. R. Eliyahu Dessler (Michtav Me-Eliyah, vol. 3 p. 276) explains that both Jeremiah and Daniel believed in God's greatness and awesomeness. However, because of what they saw they could not truly feel it and therefore could not honestly say it, even though they believed it to be true.

R. Chaim Friedlander (Sifsei Chaim, Mo'adim vol. 3 p. 253 n. 3) adds that the Mishnah (Berakhos 54a) says that we make the blessing "ha-tov ve-ha-meitiv" on good news and "dayan ha-emes" on bad news. But the Gemara (Pesachim 50a) says that in the Messianic Era, we will only recite "ha-tov ve-ha-meitiv". The explanation for this is that we currently do not see God's hand and see certain news as bad, when really it is always good. In the Messianic Era, we will realize that everything is for the best and always recite "ha-tov ve-ha-meitiv". If that is the case, asks R. Friedlander, why don't we who believe this to be true always recite "ha-tov ve-ha-meitiv" even now? Because even if we believe it, we don't really feel it. And for the same reason as above, we can't lie to God and contradict our feelings.

For this reason, I can understand and respect -- even if I disagree with them -- those who feel uncomfortable reciting in a prayer that the city of Jerusalem is destroyed when based on what they see, it has been rebuilt.


Thursday, July 12, 2007

New

New Tradition: http://traditiononline.org/
  • Editor's Note: Shall I Rejoice in the Second Month?
    by Shalom Carmy
  • Remembering the Six-Day War: Then and Now
    Norman Lamm
  • Renal Transplantation: Living Donors and Markets for Body Parts - Halakha in Concert with Halakhic Policy or Public Policy?
    Ronnie Warburg
  • A Rabbinic Exchange on the Gaza Disengagement, Part Two
    Aharon Lichtenstein & Avraham Yisrael Sylvetsky
  • Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature: Marriage of a Kohen and the Daughter of a Non-Jew
    by J. David Bleich
  • Into the Whirlwind: The Persistence of the Dialectic in the Works of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik
    William Kolbrener
  • Book Reviews
    Jeffrey Saks, Deena Zimmerman
  • Communications
    Alan J. Yuter, David Berger, Debby Koren

New Azure: http://azure.org.il/
  • Baby Bust
    NOAH POLLAK
  • The Photograph: A Search for June 1967
    YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI
  • Going South
    JAMES KIRCHICK
  • Forever Engaged, Never Married,
    to the Land of Israel
    ASSAF INBARI
  • The Quest for Self-Knowledge:
    Where Philosophy Went Wrong
    JONATHAN YUDELMAN
  • The Midrash as Marriage Guide
    IDO HEVRONI
  • Can This Regime Be Saved?
    Reviewed by MARLA BRAVERMAN
  • Defending the S-Word
    Reviewed by MICHLA POMERANCE
  • The World’s Oldest Obsession
    Reviewed by ALEXANDER H. JOFFE
  • The Other J.C.
    Reviewed by STEVEN F. HAYWARD
  • CORRESPONDENCE
    Cold War II, circumcision, etc.


Levites and Army Service

The Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Shemitah 13:12) famously rules that members of the tribe of Levi do not fight in the army. In the next passage, he adds that anyone who wants to serve God fulltime is similarly exempt from army service.

However, the Torah states in this week's portion, regarding the war against Midian (Num. 31:4): "One thousand from each tribe, one thousand from each tribe, for all of the tribes of Israel, you shall send into the army." On this, Rashi quotes the Sifrei (link):
For all of the tribes of Israel. This includes the tribe of Levi.
But why were Levites ordered to go to battle if they are exempt from army service? R. Yitzchak Sorotzkin, in his Rinas Yitzchak (ad loc.), suggests that Rashi disagrees with the above Rambam. The Rambam holds that Levites are exempt from all army service in any kind of war while Rashi holds that Levites must fight in an obligatory war and are only exempt from a permissible, but not mandatory, war.


Harry Potter and the Midrash

R. Moshe Rosenberg in the current issue of The Jewish Week (link):
If “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” were a midrash, how would it end?

This might seem like a strange question, but for a series kept antiseptically pure of overt religious references, the six volumes so far have been animated by values that are wholly in consonance with religious and even Jewish sensibilities. What’s more, the seventh and final volume by J.K. Rowling, which hits bookstores and doorsteps on July 21, revolves around that most Jewish of questions: Who shall live and who shall die?...
More on Harry Potter over the next few weeks, including a comparison of the views of Dumbledore and Rabbi Akiva on the issue of Free Will.


Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Moodiness in Religion

R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Out of the Whirlwind, p. 169:
Judaism resent moodiness in the field of religion. We have never attributed much significance to the impulsive religious emotion, to the impetuous onrush of piety, the sudden conversion, the headlong emotional leap from the mundane and profane into the sacred and heavenly; we are reluctant to accept all kinds of precipitate moods as genuine expressions of God-intoxications of the soul. Judaism is interested in a religious experience which mirrors the genuine personality, the most profound movements of the soul, an experience which is the result of true involvement in the transcendental gesture, of slow, painstaking self-reckoning and self-actualization, of deep intuition of eternal values and comprehension of human destiny and paradox, of miserable sleepless nights of dreary doubt and skepticism and of glorious days of inspiration, of being torn by opposing forces and winning freedom.

Therefore, Judaism has always avoided bringing man to God by alluring him with some external magnetic power or charm. It does not try to gain entrance to his soul by creating around it a soft, gentle and serene atmosphere, full of quieting beauty and tender charm, in which it should almost spontaneously feel relieved of all its worries; nor by suggesting the idea of the numinous and mysterious through different artistic means, in order to render the soul docile and submissive; nor by a display of majestic glory and splendor. Man, according to Judaism, must meet God on realistic terms, not in an enraptured romantic mood, when the activity of the intellect and the free exercise of the willpower are affected by hypnotic influences.

That is why the Jewish service distinguishes itself by its utter simplicity and by the absence of any cult-ceremonial elements...


Professors and Religion

From the NY Sun (link):
Contrary to popular opinion, the majority of professors — even at elite schools — are religious believers, a new study shows...

Mr. Gross said the study shows that professors who are more oriented toward research tend to be less religious. "At elite doctoral-granting universities, nearly all professors are oriented first and foremost toward research," he said via e-mail. He said also the study showed that professors whose parents completed college tend to be somewhat less religious.

Mr. Gross said the only consistent disciplinary predictor of being less religious was being a social scientist. Mr. Gross said some sociologists have hypothesized that social scientists are less religious than other professors because they are more inclined to think of religion as a social phenomenon to be explained. Others believe, he said, that it is because social scientists want to establish themselves as "scientists" and therefore distance themselves from anything appearing unscientific.

In general, professors in applied fields tend to be more religious and answer most like members of the general population in terms of their social and political attitudes and characteristics, he said.


Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Samsonite

Someone who vows to be a Nezir Shimshon must follow the rules that the biblical Samson had to follow: no wine, no haircuts but he could become impure. The question, though, is whether there is an actual concept of Nezir Shimshon or whether anyone who becomes one is merely imitating Samson. In other words, when God gave the Torah at Sinai, did he include a category of Nezir Shimshon? Or is someone who vows to become a Nezir Shimshon merely using a shorthand of saying that he follows all of the rules that Samson was commanded to follow?

The Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Nezirus 3:14) rules that once someone vows to be a Nezir Shimshon, he may never undo that vow. It is a permanent status. Rashi (Makos 22a sv. bi-nezir shimshon) seems to imply that only Samson was in that state permanently but not others.

One could suggest that if Samson was merely obligated to accept the pre-existing status that we call Nezir Shimshon, then it seems reasonable that if he was in the status permanently then everyone who is in that same status must also be in it forever. But if becoming a Nezir Shimshon is really just a regular vow with conditions just like Samson's status, then there is no reason why this vow cannot be undone like most other vows.

(All this sets aside the Chavos Yair's question in his responsum no. 16. See R. Hershel Schachter's answer to it in Ginas Egoz, p. 211.)


Religious MBA Programs

Businesweek has an interesting article about religious business schools (link):
For the most part, top business schools have the same curriculum requirements. It's what happens inside the classroom—the discussions, books, and examples—that makes one B-school experience different from another. At a religiously affiliated program, subtle choices on the part of the professor sometimes demonstrate the unique culture...

The main goal of religiously affiliated MBA programs is no different from other B-schools: to prepare students to lead businesses and manage people. "First and foremost, we provide first-class business education," says Ringuest. Religion, or the values of a particular religious faith, might come up once in a while during case-study discussions, but you're still going to learn the basics of accounting, strategy, marketing, general management, and so on.


Books That Should Be Written II

1. Who Wrote Tosfos?

The stories of the different personalities, approaches, locations and political considerations that accumulated over time into the text(s) with which every student of Talmud is familiar. Requires a flair for drama and at least two semesters with Dr. Haym Soloveitchik.


2. Torah Cliffs-Notes

Cliffs-Notes style summaries and analyses of classic works of the Rishonim (e.g. The Kuzari).


3. Jewish and General History Textbooks

Textbooks that fully cover both the Jewish and general history of a given era, so that history classes can be integrated and only one textbook be used. History here should be understood as including the use of all available historical material.


Monday, July 09, 2007

The (Almost) Gerrer Rebbe in America, from YU

In Turim: Studies in Jewish History and Literature Presented to Dr. Bernard Lander (ed. Michael Shmidman) vol. 1, Monty Penkower has an article that is a biography of a long-gone rosh yeshiva of YU, R. Avraham Selmanovitz (d. 1946). R. Selmanovitz became close with R. Moshe Soloveichik when they were both in Warsaw and R. Soloveichik was the rosh yeshiva of the Mizrachi-Tachkemoni yeshiva. After R. Selmanovitz moved to America, R. Bernard Revel invited him to become a rosh yeshiva in YU. R. Selmanovitz was also active in the Agudas Ha-Rabbanim, serving on its presidium. After the deaths of R. Revel and R. Soloveichik, R. Selmanovitz was one of the chief advocates of R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik taking his father's position. R. Selmanovitz was also a Gerrer chassid who was close to the Gerrer rebbe, the Imrei Emes, to the point that the rebbe asked R. Selmanovitz to serve as the Gerrer rebbe in America.

Penkower writes (p. 152):
Selmanovitz quickly became the head of the Gerer community there [in Williamsburg]. His ties to the rebbe at that time, Abraham Mordechai Alter (the "Imrei Emes"), had begun when he had been a boy studying in the Gur yeshivah in Warsaw. Abraham's bed in the dormitory was next to that of the young Alter, eldest son of Judah Leib... Once the latter [the Imrei Emes] became rebbe, he gave Gur Hasidim a dynamic, organized framework of schools and organizations, even while exploring the possibility of moving with his followers to Palestine. Like Torah chieftains Jacob Willowski (Ridbaz) and Israel Meir ha-Kohen (Hafetz Hayyim), Alter saw little hope forOrthodoxy in the United States. He requested Selmanovitz to care for the small contingent, perhaps 10, of Gerer Hasidim there; family members recall Selmanovitz refusing the role of Gerer Rebbe in America, saying that one must be born to the position rather than be appointed.


Sunday, July 08, 2007

How to Say Something New

In general, if you want to say something innovative there are four ways to do it:
  1. The first is to ignore anything said in the past. This can sometimes be misinterpreted as ignorance, so only established experts can get away with it.

  2. The second is to selectively quote from the past in order to build your way up to your jump-off point. This way, you minimize the radicalness of your idea and create the impression -- perhaps correct, perhaps not -- of being steeped in tradition. This is sometimes done disingenuously, either by cherry-picking minority views or by misrepresenting the past.

  3. The third is to quote the past and explain why you dismiss it. This can be seen as disrespectful but it is honest and direct. I wouldn't recommend it, though.

  4. And the fourth is to quote the past and then to humbly and deferentially offer an alternative approach, very carefully choosing every word and making sure not to offend those with whom one is disagreeing.


On Making Offensive Generalizations

This is one of the most offensive articles I have read in a long time: link

In it, Jonathan Rosenblum accuses professionals in general as having less faith than businessmen. Rosenblum's claims come from, from what I can tell, a total lack of experience in the corporate world. Or, at least, from experiences that vary dramatically from mine. From what I know, his description of the corporate world is correct for many people in their first few years of working, and maybe for a minority throughout their careers.

First of all, successful professionals are, essentially, businessmen. Whether we are discussing lawyers or accountants who become partners in their firms, or investment bankers or traders who need to make deals and sell products, or politicans who need to broker agreements, etc. etc.

Second of all, I personally chose my major (Math) based on my own abilities and the career possibilities. I also know doctors who chose Pre-Med for the same reason. I actually can think, right now, of only one person who chose his career path based on noble reasons, which, to some degree, is probably a sad commentary on me and my friends.

Third, people in the corporate world lose promotions and jobs, just like businessmen lose fortunes. Some of the computer programmers I know have gone to work every day for the past few years thinking (correctly) that there is a good chance that they will be told upon arriving that they have been fired. Not to mention that, for many, the bulk of their income comes from bonuses which vary greatly from year to year, often based on many factors that are beyond any individual's control (such as the multi-national company's overall success in the year).

Fourth, I do not have the statistics handy but my impression is that the vast majority of huge philanthropists in the Jewish community -- think people with institutions named after them -- live at the top of corporate ladders.

Fifth, pardon me for trying to read Rosenblum's mind but this article seems to me to be an attack on college education. He seems to be saying that people don't need a college degree to make a living. They can just buy a business and work it to success. That is true for a minority of people in the community. Those who are good at business do not necessarily need a college education. But God gives everyone different sets of skills and those who were not given business acumen will generally not succeed financially without a college education.

Let me add, and this is only slightly related to the article, that there seems to be an unrelenting attack on balebatim in the Yeshivish world that I don't think existed 25 years ago. The general impression given at every possible opportunity is that if you aren't a professional Jew, learning in kollel or giving millions of dollars to yeshivas then you are a bedi'eved Jew, a necessary evil to be pitied and denigrated. In my opinion, this is not only contrary to thousands of years of Jewish tradition, it is unwise because eventually such people will look elsewhere for leadership rather than endure second-class citizenship. The article under discussion here is essentially following this party line, which is understandable given Rosenblum's position in his community. So I do not blame him. Yet, I sense that this attitude is self-destructive; and that gives me little comfort because, while waiting for this community to implode under the weight of its lack of foresight, I see real people's lives and spiritual well-beings being destroyed as well.


Thursday, July 05, 2007

Graves in Jerusalem

UPDATED: The Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Beis Ha-Bechirah 7:14) writes that one is not allowed to have graves in Jerusalem except for the graves of King David and the prophetess Chuldah. The Kessef Mishneh points out the Rambam's source in the Tosefta (Bava Kamma 1:7), which explains that the graves of King David and Chuldah had underground tunnels that let the impurity escape into a valley. Otherwise, graves are not allowed in Jerusalem. This also explains the story about Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai's escape from Jerusalem's siege (Gittin 56a), in which he pretended to be dead and was carried out of Jerusalem in a coffin. Why did the Romans allow them to bury Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai outside of Jerusalem, if not for the fact that Jews never buried people in Jerusalem because it was forbidden?

If this is the case, then we have to ask why it is so common for people today to be buried in Jerusalem. In particular the Mount of Olives is full of graves, many of them centuries old. And the Gemara (Shevu'os 16a) seems to say that the Mount of Olives was sanctified as part of Jerusalem. How can this be, if it is forbidden to bury someone in Jerusalem? Additionally, the bottom of the southern side of the Temple Mount (Area G) was used as a cemetery in the past, as has been documented in historical texts such as R. Ovadiah Bartenura's letter about his travels in Israel. This became a famous issue in 1981, when archaeologists wanted to dig in this area and the Chief Rabbinate forbade it.

R. Yisrael of Shklov writes in his Pe'as Ha-Shulchan (Beis Yisrael 1:63) writes that this law only applied when we observed the rules of purity and impurity. Nowadays, when we do not, it is permissible to bury someone in Jerusalem. Presumably, when we rebuild the Temple and once again observe the laws of purity and impurity, we will not have a problem of graves in Jerusalem because there will already have been a general resurrection of the dead. That there will be a general resurrection of the dead by that time is not something that is fully agreed upon by all, but this must have been the view of R. Yisrael of Shklov.

R. Shlomo Goren (Toras Ha-Medinah, ch. 17, p. 262) suggests another possible explanation. He notes the famous debate between the Rambam and Ra'avad (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Beis Ha-Bechirah 6:15) regarding whether Jerusalem's holiness remains after it has been destroyed. According to the Rambam it does while according to the Ra'avad it does not. R. Goren quotes a Meiri who says that the Jews in Jerusalem acted according to the Ra'avad's view. If so, then we understand why they would bury their dead within the boundaries of Jerusalem.


Unworldliness

From the current issue of The Jewish Week (link):
There are many passages in Jewish literature that have no immediate application. Numerous laws have long since passed out of use along with situations that are no longer relevant or even possible. But serious students of Judaism still pore over these texts and feel enriched. How can that be? In Judaism this is called studying “lishma” for no purpose other than the mitzvah of studying Torah. As Rabbi A.J. Heschel poetically explains:
“What is nobler than the unpractical spirit? The soul is sustained by the regard for that which transcends all immediate purposes. ... The world is sustained by unworldliness.”
How straitened and sad is a world in which people study only that which they can use, as if life were a trade school writ large. “Read at whim!” cried the critic Randall Jarrell. Study that which will have no use; learn things for the simple sake of knowing. Let creation unfold before you in all its array.

When physicist Robert Wilson was asked at a congressional hearing whether the Fermilab particle accelerator would contribute to national security, he said: “It has nothing to do with defending our country except to make it worth defending.” All knowledge is a gift from the ultimate Source and is to be cherished.

David Wolpe
While I disagree with the seeming (probably unintended) equation of Torah with all other knowledge, I think the sentiment in general is well said.


Wednesday, July 04, 2007

Rabbis Hoffmann and Hirsch on Teaching Biblical Criticism

Alexander Marx (son-in-law of R. David Tzvi Hoffmann), "David Hoffmann" in Essays in Jewish Biography, pp. 197-198:
One of the fields in which Dr. Hoffmann's works were of outstanding significance was the study of the Pentateuch. Scientific research on the book which is the foundation stone of Judaism had been left entirely to the Protestant theologians... An interpretation of the Pentateuch, in accordance with modern scholarship, but with proper regard to Jewish tradition, was a crying need which was widely felt but from which the handful of Jewish scholars shied away. Hoffmann was the first and most outstanding scholar who successfully tried to fight the opponents with their own weapons.

In appointing Dr. Hoffmann as teacher of the Pentateuch at the Berlin Seminary, Dr. Hildesheimer felt that he was fulfilling the obligation of the new institution to equip the future rabbis with the ability to answer the constant attacks on the authenticity of our holiest book. Even a man like Samson Raphael Hirsch, who in his own writings avoided this subject, asked Hoffmann during the first year of his incumbency whether he paid attention to biblical criticism in his lectures, and, glad to learn that this was the case, strongly encouraged him to continue along these lines.


Books That Should Be Written

1. The Midrash Means

The equivalent to The Midrash Says but with explanations about the meaning behind the midrash and what message it is trying to give over.

2. A collection of philosophical commentaries on the Talmud

It would be great if someone went through all of the philosophical rishonim and collected the various commentaries on Talmudic stories/aggadata, organizing them into a running commentary on the Talmud. A great commentary that explains the background to these explanations, the views it represents and any contrary views would be a great addition.

(There is no implied guarantee that Yashar Books will publish these books, if they are written.)


Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Democracy in Judaism

In honor of July 4th, see this this post and this post on democracy and Judaism.


17th of Tammuz

What happened on the 17th of Tammuz? (from Aish):
Five great catastrophes occurred in Jewish history on the 17th of Tammuz:
  1. Moses broke the tablets at Mount Sinai - in response to the sin of the Golden Calf.

  2. The daily offerings in the First Temple were suspended during the siege of Jerusalem, after the Kohanim could no longer obtain animals.

    Jerusalem's walls were breached, prior to the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE.
  1. Prior to the Great Revolt, the Roman general Apostamos burned a Torah scroll - setting a precedent for the horrifying burning of Jewish books throughout the centuries.

  2. An idolatrous image was placed in the Sanctuary of the Holy Temple - a brazen act of blasphemy and desecration.


Office Microwaves

The OU Kashrut Department's answers in the current issue of Jewish Action, p. 70:
To use the office mircowave, one must double wrap the food. The wrappings do not have to be airtight; rather, the food should be covered on all sides in a manner that (a) does not allow it to come in contact with the walls or floor of the microwave, and (b) does not allow any of the condensation that forms on the ceiling of the microwave drip into the food. It is perfectly acceptable for one "wrapping" to be a loosely closed plastic container and the other to be a paper or plastic bag. It makes no difference if the food is a liquid or a solid...

One should remove any noticeable pieces of food from the spot where the kosher food will be placed. There is no need to clean out the rest of the microwave provided that the food is completely covered.


Sunday, July 01, 2007

The Answer for Blogs

At the Agudah convention this past November, R. Chaim Dovid Zwiebel asked why we see on blogs, and in our community in general, the willingness to publicly denigrate great Torah scholars (see this post). I believe that the answer is evident in this post by R. Jonathan Rosenblum to Cross Currents and in the comments. When we see supposed leaders of our community throw nasty accusations at great Torah scholars, why do you think we will not act in kind? If you want to know who encouraged this behavior, ask R. Shlomo Goren and R. Norman Lamm. I think they can give you some ideas.

Sure, when community leaders do it they have very good reasons. Their targets have dangerous viewpoints and the public needs to know that.

Fine. But then don't be surprised when private citizens decide that certain rabbis have dangerous viewpoints and act in kind. They are only doing what they were taught by their own leaders.

The bottom line is that uncivil behavior is a two-edged sworded. Those who wield it do so not knowing where it will point next.

(I don't mean to single out R. Rosenblum because he is certainly not someone who does this often. Besides, this issue goes all the way to the top, as R. Lamm and R. Goren can testify.)


Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Favorites More