The Aramean

The beginning of the passage recited upon bringing the first fruits to Jerusalem is "ארמי אובד אבי Arami oved avi". The question with which the commentators deal is who was this Aramean and what is this phrase saying about him.

Rashi quotes the Sifrei, which is familiar to us from the Passover Haggadah, that the Aramean was Lavan and "oved avi" means that Lavan the Aramean tried to destroy our father Ya'akov.

Ibn Ezra strongly contests this approach for contextual and grammatical reason. In terms of context, he asks what Ya'akov's going down to Egypt years later has to do with Lavan. Ya'akov left Lavan, settled down, and then some 20 years later went to Egypt. (Rashi's supercommentaries defend him on this point.)

Grammatically, Ibn Ezra points out that the word oved is an intransitive verb. For Rashi's explanation to be viable, the verb should have been in the form of me'abed or ma'avid.

Therefore, commentators other than Rashi offer different explanations of who the Aramean was. Ibn Ezra suggests that it was Ya'akov and oved means that he was perishing -- poor -- in Aram.

Rashbam suggests that it refers to Avraham and oved means that he was wandering. Hence the translation "A wandering Aramean was my father." Seforno takes a middle position between Rashbam and Ibn Ezra, suggesting that the father was Ya'akov but that he, too, can be considered to have been wandering. More recently, R. Elchanan Samet (Iyunim Be-Parashos Ha-Shavu'a, series 1 vol. 2 p. 391 n. 19) states simply that Rashi's explanation is not peshat.

However, R. Wolf Heidenheim, the famous 18th century grammarian, defends Rashi on grammatical grounds in his Havanas Ha-Mikra, cited briefly by Nechama Leibowitz and quoted extensively by R. Ya'akov Tzvi Mecklenburg in his Ha-Kesav Ve-Ha-Kabbalah. R. Heidenheim shows that the form of the word oved can mean continuous action in the past. For example, "And Devorah judged (shofetah) Israel at the time" (Judges 5:4) and "And Pharaoh dreamed (cholem)" (Gen. 41:1). He also points out that there is a similar use of verbs in Arabic. Therefore, he states that the true peshat is according to Rashi and the Sifrei.

It is worth noting that R. Ya'akov Kamenetsky, no slouch in Hebrew grammar, accepts Rashi's explanation. I wonder what Mendelssohn' Bi'ur says on this. I'd greatly appreciate it if anyone with access to it could post a summary in the comments.

UPDATE: I looked up the JPS Commentary (Tigay) and it does not even mention Rashi's explanation. It translates "oved" as either fugitive, perish or stray. It says:

Whichever of these interpretations is correct, it is clear that the Recitation means to contrast the homeless, landless beginnings of the Israelites with their present possession of a fertile land.

I also looked up Mendlessohn's Bi'ur. It quotes Ibn Ezra and argues on his translation of oved. It then quotes Rashbam, accepts his translation of "oved" as wandering, but suggests that "avi" refers to both Avraham and Ya'akov.

Read the rest of this entry »

Prof. Lawrence Kaplan Responds to R. Shlomo Riskin

In the comments section to another post, Prof. Lawrence Kaplan expressed the following (edited) objections to a recent letter to The Jewish Week by R. Shlomo Riskin(link):

I just checked Tradition, Summer, 1966, which has the article "A Modern Blood Libel: L'Affire Shahak," by Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovitz. It turns out that Rabbi Riskin's letter is even more incorrect than I had previously thought.

1) The supposed event, as Rabbi Riskin recounts it, of the religous doctor refusing to save a Gentile on Shabbat was first reported in a letter to Haaretz in Dec, 1965, by Dr. Israel Shahak. So Rav Unterman could have lectured at YU on the subject at the earliest in 1966, some 40, not 50 years ago.

2) As I already pointed out, contrary to what Rabbi Riskin said, the event NEVER happened, but was a malicious fabrication by Dr. Shahak, who is well known as a despicable sonei Yisrael.

3) Rabbi Riskin gets the supposed story wrong. It had nothing to do with a regligious doctor. According to Dr. Shahak he witnessed an incident where an Orthodox Jew (not a doctor) refused to let his phone be used on the Sabbath to call for help for a non-Jew who had collapsed nearby. Shocked by this, Dr. Shahak called the Rabbinate for a ruling and, so he claimed, they confirmed that the Sabbath could be violated only to save the life of a Jew. Of course, this story was a lie from beginning to end.

4) What does Rabbi Riskin mean he thinks it was Rav Unterman who was the Chief Rabbi at the time? Of course it was Rav Unterman.

5) Rabbi Riskin misrepresents the point of Rav Unterman's talk. Rabbi Riskin states that its main point was that one should save the life of a non-Jew on the Sabbath "mi-shum eivah." Wow. Rather Rav Unterman's main point, as is clear from his written responsum on the subject, which appeared in Kol Torah, Nissan 5726 (and which I assume was his main point in his talk at YU) is that "mi-shum eivah" is not just a prudential ruling, but is an integral element of Rabbinic ethics and is the other side of the coin of "Derakheha Darkei Noam" and "Darkei Shalom."

6) Rabbi Riskin reports that the Rav termed parts of Rav Unterman's talk nonsense, but does not identify which parts. Rabbi Riskin assumes it was Rav Unterman's claim that the reason for saving a non-Jew on the Sabbath was "mi-shum eivah." But 1) we just saw that the main point of Rav Unterman's talk was that "mi-shum eivah" is an ethical principle equivalent to "Darkhei Shalom;" and 2) We have reports from Rav Prof. Blidstein, from Rav Charlap, and from Rav Schachter (a wide ideological range)that the Rav's ruling to religous doctors to save non-Jews on the Sabbath was based on "mi-shum eivah." I would therefore very tentatively suggest the following: Rabbi Riskin got it exactly backwards. What the Rav found to be nonsense was Rav Unterman's argument that "mi-shum eivah" was an ethical principle equivalent to "Darkhei Shalom"! (IIRC, Rav Schachter in either Nefesh ha-Rav or Mi-Peninei ha-Rav, without mentioning names, reports that this, indeed, was the substance of the Rav's criticism of Rav Unterman.) Of course, as Prof. Blidstein famously related -- a point not mentioned by Rav Schachter -- the Rav found the rationale of "mi-shum eivah" to be morally problematic, but, nevertheless, intellectual honesty compelled him to say 1) that that was the rationale found in the sources; and 2) that, as much as he and we might like it to be otherwise, "mi-shum eivah," contra Rav Unterman, is NOT an ethical principle but a prudential one (which is precisely why the Rav found it to be morally problematic) and that to say otherswise is mere apologetics.
I emphasize that this is pure speculation. But it accords with more reliable reports of the Rav's position on this issue, and, for what it's worth, in light of everything I know about the Rav it rings true.

*****

The main lesson we should draw from Rabbi Riskin's unfortunate letter is that we should be very wary of reports 30 or 40 or 50 years after the event of what the Rav said to A or R or T.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Chief Rabbi Is Coming

What, more medical ethics? Yes. There's another conference on medical ethics at YU on October 14th (link). The topic is "Partners in Creation: Fertility, Modern Medicine and Jewish Law". These conferences tend to be more interesting to specialists in the field than average Joes like you and me. I wouldn't even post about it except that I noticed that one of the speakers is Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. He certainly isn't the only interesting speaker listed but it's worth it to go just to hear him.

In Brooklyn, whenever any sort of rebbe or rosh yeshiva comes to visit, no matter how obscure he may be, his supporters (illegally) hang up signs on lampposts informing the community that "Tzaddik Ba La-Ir", a righteous man is coming to the city. I don't like that kind of title inflation but certainly the Chief Rabbi coming to the city is worthy of mention.

And if you're a doctor or medical ethicist, this conference will certainly interest even without the Chief Rabbi.

Read the rest of this entry »

Time is Running Out

It's almost Rosh Hashanah and I still haven't posted any thoughts on the new Rav Soloveitchik Machzor for Rosh Hashanah. Don't wait for my post to buy it! I'll b"n post something about it soon but I already have a copy and if you want one for Rosh Hashanah, buy it now at your local Jewish bookstore. You can order it online at a number of websites including:
Levine Judaica
Hecht's Judaica

You can buy it at YU from Menachem Butler.

Read the rest of this entry »

What Is To Be Done With The Yeshiva?

An editorial in the current issue of The Commentator (link) calls for two minor changes in the Mazer Yeshiva Program:
1) Independent undergraduate Gemara study
2) Formal Bible study outside of the college

I strongly disagree with both suggestions. There already exists an option for independent Gemara study and it is called "Night Seder". Everyone needs guidance and someone only a year or two out of high school needs a rebbe. The simple truth is that no one becomes a talmid chakham by solely following the official curriculum. But you won't become one by neglecting it either. You have to add on more. In my day, the first question on the first test that R. Mayer Twersky asked his first year students was to list all of their set times for learning and their subject matters. I know he looked at it carefully because he gave me feedback. If you want to develop your learning skills you should do so in the way you will for the rest of your life -- finding time at all hours of the day. If an undergrad is serious about his learning then he will find extra time for it. Don't tell me that you're pre-med and have no time for a night seder. Find the time. If you can't, then you should be in sh'iur anyway.

What's the rush with you kids anyway? Take it from an old man - you'll have the rest of your lives to learn without a rebbe. Don't waste your opportunity now to study under a master. You will regret it.

2) You want to learn Tanakh? Here's a suggestion: early morning seder. Spend a half hour before davening every day learning Tanakh with the Metzudos. Once you've finished a large chunk, you'll gain greater appreciation for the truly excellent college Bible courses that are available to you.

What do you do Fridays? Maybe you should divide the time: half to Gemara and half to Tanakh and Machasheves Yisrael. You'd be surprised how much you can accomplish with one hour a week. And what about Saturday nights? During the winter you've got huge chunks of time to learn whatever you want. And Shabbos? Spend it in the beis midrash.

Read the rest of this entry »

Thoughts About Shemittah

R. Aharon Lichtenstein, Leave of Faith, vol. 2 pp. 179, 181-183 (originally published as a Hebrew article in 1973, translated and updated in 1994):

The simple fact is that the shemittah year of 5733 constitutes a halakhic tragedy...

Obviously, the subject of shemittah is first and foremost a body of Halakhah covering several areas... But the halakhic rules regarding shemittah reflect a multitude of values and serve to inculcate them in the body politic of K'lal Yisrael...

What remains for us today of this enchanting vision? Nothing but a hollow shell! The transition from an agricultural economy to an industrial one has taken most of the prohibitions of work off the agenda for nearly everyone... What options are available to the people who are anxious to observe the kedushah of shemittah with careful attention to all the details? They can rely on the legal fiction that -- woe to the ear that hear this! -- the fields of Eretz Yisrael, from Lebanon to Egypt and from the Mediterranean to the Jordan, have been sold or leased to non-Jews. I have no intention of questioning the halakhic validity of this sale, or the ability of a non-Jew's purchase to release the land from its kedushah. Let us assume that those who permitted this were correct in doing so; it is the phenomenon itself that we should examine.

Those who do not wish to rely on this heter have the option of going to the trouble of importing produce from abroad. If they are willing to rely on the ruling of the Bet Yosef that the kedushah of shemittah does not apply to produce grown by a non-Jew, even if the non-Jew's purchase cannot release the land from its kedushah, they may purchase produce from fields cultivated by Arabs. But what of this running to a lone fruit-and-vegetable seller in order to pay exorbitant prices for produce grown by non-Jews, when the people doing so are annoyed by the bother of the trip and the expense, on the one hand, and half-proud of themselves for their great righteousness, on the other? What has this to do with the biblical rule that "you may eat whatever the land produces during its sabbath"? Is there any recognizable connection between this (perhaps overweening) pride and the feeling of man's subservience and the Creator's supremacy that lies at the heart of the mizvah of shemittah, and is engendered by performing it? Among those who are punctilious about observing the prohibition on uncultivated produce, how many of them accept and live the shemittah year in simple joy, as opposed to the many who are waiting, with all but bated breath, for it to end?

I do not want to give the wrong impression; I am not criticizing those who rely on the heter of selling the land or the Chief Rabbinate for implementing it. If I were chief rabbi, I would most probably do the same... On the other hand, I am not suggesting, God forbid, that we should ignore our halakhic obligations, however unpalatable they may seem to us...

The reality is that there is no practical solution that can quiet our consciences... We take medicine -- but without a berakhah. We must not be seduced into believing that the bone stuck in our throats is actually candy. Perhaps there is no alternative -- but that is precisely the problem! That is the root of the halakhic tragedy.

Read the rest of this entry »

And They're Off

With the beginning of a new academic year this week, the Yeshiva College Commentator and Stern College Observer have new issues.

As the largest class in Stern College history arrives (link), The Observer takes up three big issues in our community from the summer -- the new dean of RIETS (link), a response to Noah Feldman (link) and a review with which I strongly disagree of the final Harry Potter book (link).

The Commentator only addresses one of these -- the new dean (link), but also other administrative appointments (I, II). It also addresses what I consider to be a non-issue, YU's drop in US News & World Report's rankings (link). And it has two strong editorials -- one about the rankings (link) and another about the future of the Jewish studies programs (link).

If I had to rank the two papers, I'd say The Commentator won for relevance but The Observer won for human interest.

UPDATE: It seem I missed the editorial in The Observer on the school's ranking: link

Read the rest of this entry »

Sending Away The Mother Bird

There is a commandment to send away a mother bird before taking away their children (Deut. 22:6-7):

If a bird's nest happens to be before you along the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, with the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young; you shall surely let the mother go, and take the young for yourself, that it may be well with you and that you may prolong your days.

The Rambam (Moreh Nevukhim 3:48) famously explains that the reason for this commandment is compassion for animals. This is problematic because it contradicts an explicit Mishnah (Berakhos 5:3) which says that we silence a prayer leader who says "Your mercy reaches a bird's nest [and should reach us as well]", implying that God's mercy on a bird is not the reason for this commandment. In the Gemara (Berakhos 33b) there are two views of why this declaration is problematic: 1) it implies that birds receive preferential treatment over other animals (which the Meiri explains means that it implies that there is individual providence for animals), or 2) it suggests that the reason for this commandment is God's mercy rather than just being a divine decree. (Cf. R. Natan Slifkin, Man and Beast, pp. 127-129.)

The Rambam addresses this by saying that he follows the former view, and not the latter that this commandment is not about God's mercy.

R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik is quoted as offering the following explanation of the Rambam (R. Abraham Besdin, Man of Faith in the Modern World, p. 97):

Maimonides' view is contradicted by the Mishnah... This is understood as referring to a public reader, sheli'ah tzibbur, who in leading a formal prayer service says: "Just as You have compassion on the mother bird in the mitzvah of Shilu'ah Hakan, so be You compassionate with us." Such manner of formal prayer is not permitted because it is based on an assumption that compassion is the reason for the mitzvah. This cannot be accepted with certainty, and it is wrong to render a prayer in behalf of the community contingent on an uncertain hypothesis.*

---

* In private prayer or in sermonic interpretations of a text, such would not be prohibited.

In other words, the problem in the Mishnah is that the reason for the commandment is included in a public prayer, which assumes the reason to be certain. I saw a similar explanation offered in the name of Rav Kook -- that it only applies to prayer -- but with a different reason that implies that it is improper even in private prayer (R. Chanan Morrison, Gold from the Land of Israel, 327-328):

When we serve God with our minds and intellect, it is proper to seek rationale for mitzvot. such pursuits contribute to the intellectual realm, to the realm of Torah study. Understanding is achieve empirically, as we try to discern the underlying principles from the myriad details. It is thus fitting to analyze each individual mitzvah, and attempt to understand its function and reason; and each individual analysis will then contribute to our overall understanding of the Torah.

Yet, we also seek perfection in our emotional service of God. And in the emotional realm, the details tend to obstruct and confuse. Especially when we serve God in prayer, our incentive should be a general desire to fulfill God's will. This universal motivation, simple and uncomplicated, applies equally to all mitzvot.

The distinction between our intellectual and emotional service of God surfaces in the difference between Torah study and prayer. One who prayse, "May Your compassion extend to us as it does for the mother bird," is confusing what should be the straightforward, simple emotions of noble service with complex calculations regarding the underlying rationale of mitzvot...

I don't see how Rav Kook's explanation can be read into the words of Moreh Nevukhim but, I believe, R. Soloveitchik's can.

Read the rest of this entry »

Rabbi Slifkin in the NY Area and in the NY News

Shabbos morning: Beis Medrash of Harbor View (Rabbi Kalish’s shul) -- "The Animal Kingdom in Jewish Thought"
Shabbos afternoon: Young Israel of Lawrence-Cedarhurst -- "Fabulous Monsters of the Gemara and Midrash"
Shabbos evening (7pm): Congregation Shaaray Tefila in Lawrence -- "Man and Beast"

Sunday night (8:30pm): Congregation Beth Aaron in Teaneck -- Book Launch and "The Fabulous Jewish Creatures of Harry Potter"


The Jewish Standard
His books banned by haredim, ‘zoo rabbi’ to speak locally
Animal house

Five Towns Jewish Times
Zoo Torah: The Greatest Show On Earth

Read the rest of this entry »

The Red String

The Red String

by Rabbi Ari Enkin
Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel

No doubt readers have come across individuals selling mysterious red strings at the various holy sites in Israel claiming that such strings posses mystical properties. Perhaps someone you know wears a red string on their wrist. Proponents for the mass distribution of this red string claim that it becomes infused with mystical protective powers when it is wound around the Tomb of Rachel in Bethlehem while reciting a specific series of prayers. While this intriguing piece of wool jewelry may appear to be a harmless lucky charm, there may actually be much more than meets the eye.

The Tosefta[1] teaches us that wearing a red string is a prohibited pagan practice. In fact, the wearing of a red string was in existence and far predates any documented Jewish practice of such. Its true origins are likely from Hinduism where it is referred to as the Kalava and is alleged to ward off evil from those who wear it. Both ancient and modern Buddhism advocates the use of a red string for protection and blessings. Indeed, such strings are frequently distributed by the Dalai Lama himself. The many cultures of East Asia have also used the red string (known as the “unmei no akai ito” in Japanese) attributing to it a number of superstitious phenomena. According to all accounts, it is to be worn on the left hand. There are even Christian associations with the red string in which it serves as a memento of the red garment that was placed upon their prophet prior to his crucifixion.[2] The wearing of a red string is also recommended according to Feng Shui practices.

The late Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, is said to have been opposed to the use and certainly belief in the red strings,[3] and Rabbi Hershel Schachter is reported to have ruled that wearing them is a Torah violation.[4] The Radak[5] argues similarly. The Rambam[6] goes much further than simply condemning the use of these red strings and similar superstitious practices -- he claims that relying upon them is not simply useless but rather will lead to misfortunes!

Nevertheless, the practice is not completely without some support. There are authentic kabbalistic sources to indicate that the color red has the power to ward off the evil eye.[7] Rabbi Moshe Stern confirms the existence of a custom to make use of red strings for protection against the evil eye. Interestingly, he specifically discusses tying it upon a baby carriage or crib with no mention of any additional usage or wearing of such by others.[8] Furthermore, the source[9] that Rabbi Stern offers for his legitimization of the red string practice is of questionable accuracy.

Rabbi Avraham Yehoshua Heschel quotes Chassidic masters who validate the custom of wrapping a string around Rachel’s Tomb and wearing it as a segula for pregnant women to carry safely to term. This account further mentions a practice seen among residents of Jerusalem to wrap such a string around the hand to effect all sorts of salvations.[10] Even according to the justifications mentioned above, this writer has found no association whatsoever between the red string and Rachel’s Tomb anywhere.

Perhaps the use of these strings can be tolerated according to the view that only pagan practices specifically mentioned in the Gemara, to the exclusion of all other sources, are those that should be prohibited.[11] Similarly, it is noted that the Tosefta specifically mentions tying the red string upon one’s “finger” as being a prohibited pagan practice, perhaps legitimizing that practice of wearing it upon one’s wrist.[12] There also exists a view within the halachic authorities that once a Gentile custom falls into disuse it is no longer prohibited and it may be renewed by Jews.[13]

It is indisputable that the place of the red string within normative Jewish practice is weak at best. With Elul upon us and the repeating theme of Torah, Tefilla and Tzedaka having the power to change Heavenly decrees, perhaps we should reconsider the role of strings, hamsas, and segulot in general and focus on those things which are tried and tested.

---

[1] Shabbat 7
[2] Mathew 27:28
[3] As related by Rabbi Leibel Shapiro
[4] As related by Rabbi Zev Meir Friedman
[5] Yeshayahu 40:21
[6] Moreh Nevuchim III:37
[7] Minhag Yisrael Torah Y.D. 179
[8] Be’er Moshe 8:36
[9] Teshuvot Harashba 2:268
[10] Yesod Likra Ohel Rachel Imenu p. 220
[11] Minhag Yisrael Torah Y.D. 179
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.

Read the rest of this entry »

New Dean of RIETS

Mazel tov to Rabbi Yona Reiss and the entire Yeshiva University community on R. Reiss' appointment as the new dean of RIETS (link). Here are some choice quotes from the Jewish Week article on the subject (link):

Rabbi [Yonah] Reiss[, new dean of RIETS,] told The Jewish Week, “To be able to educate students in the Torah U’Madah tradition, in the best sense of the word, is an extremely exciting opportunity for me.” He defines Torah U’Madah as “the notion of developing the full awareness and reverence for God’s presence in the universe by learning and understanding as much as possible about the universe as a whole; to excel in Torah learning while being mindful of general learning in all the sciences and in all the disciplines”...

[YU President Richard] Joel described Rabbi Reiss as “a poster child for both Torah commitment and halachic rigor coupled with a sense of wonder about the world and appreciation for excellence in those pursuits. He is not someone who sought this job, but the more I talked to him the more I concluded that this is someone whose destiny it is to be a partner in building this enterprise. New times have to make way for fresh perspectives” in what Joel calls, “the technicolor world of Torah U’Mada.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Don't Turn Your Back On Your Community VIII

More letters in The Jewish Week on this subject, including one from frequent commenter Mitch Morrison (link). Worth noting is R. Shlomo Riskin's letter:

Treating A Non-Jew

I wish to address a point regarding Noah Feldman’s issue of a Jewish physician tending to a non-Jewish patient on the Sabbath: About five decades ago the chief rabbi of Israel (I believe it was Rav Unterman) presented a lecture on this subject before the entire student body of Yeshiva College (a scandal had erupted in B’nei Brak when a religious physician refused to treat a gentile who had collapsed on the street on the Sabbath day), in which he proved that it is mandatory for the physician to treat the gentile “in order that the gentile world not come to hate us.”

The late Rav J.B. Soloveitchik, leading Talmudic scholar at Yeshiva University and widely acclaimed dean of Modern Orthodoxy, was present at the learned discourse, after which he gave his regularly scheduled lecture. Having participated in both of these events, I asked the “rav” what he had thought of the chief rabbi’s discourse. He suggested it was to some extent “nonsense.” Then he cited Ramban [Nachmanides], and a clearly stated verse in the Bible. I never asked my mentor for the sources he mentioned, but I am reasonably certain that I succeeded in discovering the references on my own. Nachmanides, in his “Strictures to Maimonides’ Book of Commandments” (Positive Commands No. 16), rules that one must even desecrate the Sabbath to save the life of a gentile who keeps the fundamental Noahide laws of human morality. The clearly stated Bible verse is obviously, “The Lord created the human being in His image, in the image of the Lord created He him, male and female created He them” (Gen 1:27).

Shlomo Riskin
Founding Rabbi of Lincoln Square Synagogue,
Chief Rabbi of Efrat, Israel

As a commenter pointed out in a previous post, this is also the position of R. Nachum L. Rabinovitch in his Melumedei Milchamah, no. 148. See also Rashbatz, Zohar Ha-Raki'a 81 n. 39; R. Meir Dan Plotzki, Chemdas Yisrael, Ner Mitzvah 52.

Read the rest of this entry »

Conversion Standards

I missed this article by David Ellenson last week on conversion standards (link). In response to an article by R. Avi Shafran in which he stated that the unequivocal halakhah is that a conversion must include an acceptance of the Torah's commandments (link), Ellenson brings sources that contradict this thesis.

He quotes R. David Tzvi Hoffmann in Melamed Le-Ho'il (2:83), who ruled regarding a pregnant Jewish woman's non-Jewish civil-husband that he should be allowed to convert. R. Ben Zion Meir Chai Uziel (Piskei Uzi'el 59) ruled the same in a similar case. Doesn't that directly contradict R. Shafran's thesis?

Actually, no, it doesn't. R. Hoffmann concludes his responsum by saying that the beis din needs to teach the converting husband the laws of Judaism -- particularly Shabbos and kashrus -- and have him promise that he will observe them. R. Uziel does not include such an explicit condition but neither does he state that the husband may convert without accepting on himself the commandments.

Yes, these were radical responsa. But one does not mention the issue under discussion and the other directly supports R. Shafran!

Dr. Ellenson also quotes responsa from R. Tzvi Hirsch Kalischer and R. Eliyahu Guttmacher but I have not had the chance to look them up.

(According to RAMBI, Dr. Ellenson has written two articles on this subject:
1. "On conversion and intermarriage: the evidence of nineteenth-century Hungarian Orthodox rabbinic writings" in Text and Context (2005) 321-346
2. "Retroactive annulment of a conversion: a survey of representative halakhic sources" in Conversion to Judaism in Jewish Law (1994) 49-66)

UPDATE: R. Mechy Frankel pointed out in the comments that R. Uziel does say what Dr. Ellenson claims he said. I looked further and found it in Piskei Uzi'el 65. However, what R. She'ar Yashuv Cohen has this to say on R. Uziel's view (link):

והנה עד כמה שעיינתי, מרן הרב עוזיאל זצ''ל לא כתב שאין צורך שיאמרו ''שמקבלים עליהם המצוות'', אלא כתב רק שצריך להקל ומצווה לגיירם, ובוודאי ''לא להרבות עליהם ולא לדקדק אחריהם'', כלשון הרמב''ם הידוע. ראה עוד בפסקי עוזיאל (סימן סה), תחת הכותרת ''גירות לנשי ובני ישראלים שאינם שומרי דת, הרוצים לגייר נשותיהם הנוכריות עם בניהם''. השואל שם כתב: ''והנה האנשים האלה אינם פוקרים לגמרי, ואינם רוצים להיבדל מחברתנו הקדושה ולהיחשב מחוץ לדת ח''ו, ובשם ישראל יכונו. ולפי הנראה חפצים הם להכניס בניהם תחת כנפי השכינה מלב ונפש''.

זה המצב כיום בעולי ברית המועצות לשעבר הנשואים לנוכרי או נוכריה, ובני הנוכרים מיהודי שמבקשים גיור כהלכה.

והנה הרב עוזיאל כתב שם: ''גר שמל וטבל, או גיורת שטבלה לשם גירות - הרי הם ישראלים גמורים מיד, בין אם מקיימים המצוות או לא, שהרי כל עיקר הגירות הוא להיכנס בבית ישראל וקבלת יחוד ה' וקבלת מצוות תורתנו''. ברור מדבריו שגם הוא הצריך שיאמרו בפיהם שמקבלים תורת ישראל ומצוותיה, וכל דבריו הם לעניין הקפדה על הביצוע אחר כך שאינו מבטל את הגירות, אם לא שפירש הגר חוץ מדבר אחד. ברור שגם לדעתו לכתחילה ודאי שצריך שיאמר בפיו את הקבלה (וראה גם בדבריו שם, עמוד שס''ב). לכן נראה לי כפי שכתבנו שגם לדעת מרן הרב עוזיאל צריך שיקבלו תורה ומצוות בפיהם, גם אם ידוע לנו וברור שלא יקיימו בפועל.

Read the rest of this entry »

Don't Turn Your Back On Your Community VIII

Marvin Schick weighs in: link

Dr. Schick points out:

I suspect that also at work is the familiar and lamentable tendency of many haredim not to care about the concerns of the Moderns whose lifestyle and attitudes are often out of sync with theirs. It is as if haredim believe the Moderns inhabit a different Jewish universe...

The Orthodox Union issued a sharp statement critical of the Times and the Feldman piece. It is silent when haredim are denigrated and demonized.

There is an obligation to become equal opportunity defenders of Orthodox Jews – not defenders of wrongdoing or missteps but of the way of life that is entirely responsible for meaningful Judaism being alive on these shores.

He also notes:

Rabbi Norman Lamm’s response to Feldman was appropriate and strong. However, it became apparent in the Jewish blogosphere that even among Yeshiva University alumni the question of relations with the intermarried is not easily decided. While halacha and hashkafa may require ostracism, there are religious Jewish individuals who behave otherwise.

I think that is precisely the issue at hand: do halakhah and hashkafah require this? It might have at one point, but does it still today? Ten years ago, many RIETS roshei yeshiva said that it does. But others might feel that they are not the final word on the subject.

He continues:

While it is clear what will happen down the road, we live and act in the present. And presently, for all the necessary rhetoric condemning it, there is, in various social interactions involving Orthodox Jews, considerable tolerance of intermarriage.

Perhaps the approach that should be taken is to distinguish between personal contacts where tolerance may be accepted and communal contacts where the response should not be as friendly.

Not a bad solution. But in some situations, such as truly tinokos she-nishbu who only became interested in Judaism late in life, perhaps even communal contact should be friendly. I'm not sure that the RIETS roshei yeshiva would disagree with this, either.

Read the rest of this entry »

Jonathan Rosenblum Advocates Torah U-Madda II

In a letter to the Jerusalem Post, Julius Berman, chairman of the RIETS board, responds to Jonathan Rosenblum's attack on the Maimonides school (link):

Sorry, but you're dead wrong

Sir, - After writing an excellent critique of both The New York Times in publishing, and Noah Feldman in authoring the article "Orthodox paradox" ("Feldman's bad faith," August 10), Jonathan Rosenblum veers off to conclude his piece with an appreciation of Feldman's "valuable service" in attacking modern Orthodoxy.

He first sets up a straw man by suggesting that modern Orthodoxy places "equal emphasis... on the curriculum of the dominant secular society and Torah learning," then knocks him down by claiming that, under such circumstances, Torah will necessarily lose out - witness Noah Feldman.

Rosenblum is dead wrong! The modern Orthodox Jew is not a bifurcated human being composed of half-secular and half-holy parts. Indeed, that seems to be Feldman's thesis, the only difference being that he wants to adjust the borders between the two parts so as to include intermarriage within the secular part, thus making it acceptable.

On the contrary, the modern Orthodox Jew is a whole, undivided, non-conflicted being. While he is prepared to integrate the best of the modern world, he does so through the prism of the Torah. He adheres to the same Shulhan Aruch as the haredi Jew; he studies the same Torah and Talmud. The same Rambam and numerous other commentaries are studied in the beit midrash of the modern Orthodox yeshiva.

In short, the cacophony of debate and discussion emblematic of a traditional yeshiva remains the same in a modern Orthodox yeshiva.

As to the alleged paucity of "distinguished Torah scholars" in the modern Orthodox world, I invite Rosenblum to visit Yeshiva University in New York and Israel and audit the Torah lessons given by the Torah scholars who are the yeshiva heads. Each of them is a college graduate, many with advanced academic degrees, including PhDs.

JULIUS BERMAN, Chairman
Rabbi Isaac Elchanan
Theological Seminary of
Yeshiva University
New York and Jerusalem

Read the rest of this entry »

Wearing a Tallis in the Street II

After my post on R. Yom Tov Schwarz's book, someone had pointed had that he had recently passed away. Actually, he is alive and well. I just wanted to clear that up.

Read the rest of this entry »

Do Priests go to War?

R. Judah Zoldan on Bar-Ilan University's Parashat Hashavua Study Center:

The opening verses of this week’s reading deal with the possibility of marrying a beautiful woman taken captive in battle. The gemara (Kiddushin 21b) discusses the question of whether the priests, as well, are entitled to wed a beautiful captive woman, which tells us that priests participated in the battle. We can also deduce from what Parashat Shofetim says about exemptions from fighting in an optional war (Deut. 20:5-7) that the priests, including the high priest, used to go out to battle in optional wars (milhemet reshut): “Then the officials shall address the troops as follows: ‘… Is there anyone who has paid the bride-price for a wife, but who has not yet married her? Let him go back to his home, lest he die in battle and another marry her.’” According to the Mishnah (Sotah 8.3) not everyone who has paid the bride-price for a wife returns home: “The following may not return: … someone who is remarrying a woman he has divorced; the high priest, if he is marrying a widow; and regular priests, if they are marrying a divorcee or a haluzah (childless widow whose brother-in-law does not wish to marry her).

However, it could be that a high priest who had become engaged to marry a widow, or a plain priest who had become engaged to a divorcee of haluzah, might be sent home from battle, although this would be for a different reason: he might fall into that category of those who are “afraid and disheartened.” “Rabbi Yose says: a high priest engaged to a widow, or a plain priest to a divorcee or haluzah … [who returns home, does so because] he is afraid and disheartened” (Mishnah Sotah 8.5). [Ed. Note: because such marriages are prohibited, priests who do so will be fearful of heavenly retribution.]

Commentators on Maimonides point to an ostensible contradiction in what he says regarding the participation of priests in battle. [1] Regarding a priest who wishes to marry a beautiful woman taken captive in battle, Maimonides ruled (Hilkhot Melakhim 8.4):

A priest may have intercourse with a captive woman, since the Torah’s injunction was with reference to restraining one’s lust. However, he cannot marry her later, because she is a convert.

Elsewhere Maimonides wrote (Hilkhot Shemitah ve-Yovel 13.12).

Why did the Levites not share in the apportionment of land of Israel and its plunder, along with their brethren? Because they were set aside to worship the Lord and to minister to Him, and to instruct the masses in His proper ways and just laws, as it is said: “They shall teach Your laws to Jacob and Your instructions to Israel” (Deut. 33:10). Therefore they were set aside from the ways of the world: they do not go to war, as do the rest of Israel, they do not receive an apportionment of land as an inheritance, and they do not obtain things for themselves by the strength of their bodies; rather, they are the Lord’s host (Heb. hayil), as it is said: “Bless, O Lord, his substance (Heb. Barekh hashem helo), [2] and He, Blessed be He, provides for them, as it is said: “I am your portion and your share” (Num. 18:20).

On the one hand, Maimonides ruled that a priest may marry a beautiful woman taken captive in war, from which we conclude that the priests did participate in battle; yet on the other hand he wrote that the Levites do not go to war. This contradiction can be resolved by the explanation that Rav Kook gives for the latter halakhah cited from Maimonides:

“Go to war” – this means to fight private wars, such as when one tribe goes to war for the portion of land that it would thereby obtain. But when all of Israel go to war, they must fight as well. And fighting in a war that involves the generality of Israel is also a way of serving the Lord. For whoever is more specially set aside for worshipping the Lord has an even greater part in it [the war] than the rest of the people. [3]

When the Israelites entered the land, all the tribes were commanded to participate in the war of conquest, and tribes of Gad and Reuben were even given a special warning in this regard. At a certain point, after most of the country had been conquered, the tribes were allowed to settle in their territories provided that each tribe complete the conquest of its portion independently (Josh. 13). According to Rav Kook, the Levites were exempt from the tribal battles that were intended to complete the conquest, but in the battles of Israel as a whole they too participated...

---

[1] References may be found in Maimonides, Frankel edition, Hilkhot Melakhim 8.4. In addition, cf. Rabbi David Ha-Cohen, Megillat Milhamah ve-Shalom, Jerusalem 1968, pp. 27-28; Rabbi Judah Gershuni, “Al ha-Gevurot ve-al ha-Milhamot – Giyyus Kohanim u-Leviim le-Milhamah,” Tehumin 4 (1983), p. 62-63; Rabbi Jacob Ariel, “Yetziat Rav Tzevai le-Milhamah,” Sefer Harel, Hispin 2000, pp. 193-202.

[2] This verse is taken from the blessing that Moses gave to the tribe of Levi, and from it Maimonides deduced that the tribe of Levi are the Lord’s host and are exempt from going to war, as it is said: “Bless, O Lord, His host (helo)” (Deut. 33:11). Rashi interprets this to arrive at the opposite conclusion: “He saw that the Hasmoneans were destined to fight against the Greeks, and prayed for them, since they were few in number.” The Lord’s hayil is interpreted here as those who fight the Lord’s wars. Indeed, the Hasmoneans, who were priests, were the leaders in the battle against the Greeks.

[3] This comes from Rav Kook’s commentary on Maimonides, Hilkhot Shemitah ve-Yovel 12.13. Rav Kook wrote a book, Shabbat Ha-Aretz, in which he explained the laws of the sabbatical year as set forth by Maimonides in chapters 1-8. This book was published in 1910, in Rav Kook’s lifetime. In 1994, Makhon Ha-Torah ve-Ha’aretz, formerly of Kefar Darom (presently in Ashkelon), re- published this work in 2 volumes with sources, explanations, and an index. Rav Kook’s further explanations of chapters 9-13 of Maimonides are yet in manuscript. The explication of the halakhah which we cited here was published by Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Neri’ah in Tzav be-Kav, Kefar ha-Ro’eh 2004, p. 35.

See also this post.

Read the rest of this entry »

Teaneck Book Launch

ATTENTION NEW JERSEYANS:

This Sunday evening, join the launch of something monstrously exciting...

SACRED MONSTERS
Mysterious and Mythical Creatures
of Scripture, Talmud and Midrash

by Rabbi Natan Slifkin


Lecture & Book Signing
Hear Rabbi Natan Slifkin, the famous “Zoo Rabbi,” speak on the topic of:

The Fabulous Jewish Creatures of Harry Potter

Sunday, August 26th, 8:30pm
(Mincha/Maariv 7:15pm)
at Congregation Beth Aaron
950 Queen Anne Road
Teaneck, NJ
www.BethAaron.org

Read the rest of this entry »

Don't Insult Anyone

The Mishnah (Avos 4:3) quotes Ben Azzai as saying:

Do not insult any man and do not dismiss anything, for there is no man who does not have his day and there is no thing that does not have its place.

It is telling that the Mishnah uses the phrase "kol adam -- any man." Rashi explains that this is to teach us not to insult "any man in the world," which I think clearly includes Gentiles and non-religious Jews.

While the Mishnah seems to imply that this admonishment is based on a utilitarian reason -- certainly no small concern -- the Tiferes Yisrael offers a different explanation:

Do not insult any man -- even a fool, a simple man and someone mindless, and even if he is a wicked man who is sentenced to death. Pity their ruined state and do not insult them because you are only offending their Creator. Even if you do not know why they exist, God understands his ways: "The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble" (Prov. 16:4).

Read the rest of this entry »

Yehoshua Ben Gamla II

Following requests from commenters, I am presenting a few other relevant views on the subject of Yehoshua Ben Gamla.

Tosafos (Bava Basra 21a sv. zekhor) say that the Yehoshua Ben Gamla who instituted the educational reform is the same one whose wife bought him the position of high priest. While he was completely righteous, there were other candidates for the position who were more important and therefore his wife had to buy him the job.

The Chasam Sofer (Responsa 5:21) writes that Yehoshua Ben Gamla was not listed in Yoma (9a) among the righteous high priests because he acquired his position as high priest from King Yannai. This partnership with a wicked man was sufficient to remove him from the list of the righteous and be considered wicked himself.

The Sheyarei Korban (Yerushalmi Kesuvos 8:11) writes that both Shimon Ben Shetach and Yehoshua Ben Gamla instituted the educational reform together.

The Avodas Ha-Melekh (Hilkhos Talmud Torah 1:7) suggests that there were two distinct decrees. Yehoshua Ben Gamla instituted that there be teachers in every locality so that children could have the option to go to school. Shimon Ben Shetach instituted that every child must go to school. (Kudos to the commenter who informed us about this source.)

And regarding Yehoshua Ben Gamla, R. Reuven Margoliyos (Nitzotzei Or, Bava Basra 21a) quotes a Gaonic responsum that explains that part of Yehoshua Ben Gamla's decree was that if there was a bridge between two areas then, rather than forcing children to cross the bridge, the local people were obligated to pay for a teacher on each side of the bridge. Because of this, he was called "Ben Gamla" (Gamla meaning bridge). This would seem to distinguish him significantly from the Ben Gamliel that Josephus mentions.

Read the rest of this entry »

Yehoshua Ben Gamla

Yehoshua Ben Gamla is famous for instituting that every town have a local Jewish school. For this, he is praised as having prevented the Torah from being forgotten (Bava Basra 21a). However, after piecing together the history we find a much more complex picture.

Nowhere is he mentioned with the appellation "Rabbi". The Gemara (Yevamos 61a) states that his wife, Martha Bas Baisus, bought for him the position of high priest. Josephus (Antiquities 20:9:4) describes a high priest Jesus Ben Gamaliel as being wicked and living right before the destruction of the Temple. The Gemara in Gittin discusses a Martha Bas Baisus who lived through the destruction of the Temple. If all of this is true, why does the Gemara in Bava Basra praise him for saving the Torah? And how effective could his educational reform been if it was eclipsed by the confusion and fighting surrounding the destruction of the Temple?

R. Yitzchak Isaac Halevi (Doros Ha-Rishonim part 2 [vol. 3] pp. 465-468) explains this based on a Yerushalmi in Kesuvos (end of ch. 8) that Shimon Ben Shetach was the one who instituded the educational reform. R. Halevi theorizes that Shimon Ben Shetach utilized Yehoshua Ben Gamla in his battle against the dominant Sadducees. Ben Gamla was sympathetic to the Pharisees but because of his great wealth, was not suspected by the rich Sadducees as being disloyal to them. Therefore, Shimon Ben Shetach planned that Ben Gamla would by the position of high priest and implement reforms that would be beneficial to the Pharisees, including the educational reform that was so effective.

The weak link in this recreation of history is that we have to posit that, prior and during the destruction of the Temple, there was another high priest with the name Yehoshua Ben Gamla and another woman with the name Martha Bas Baisus. R. Aharon Hyman (Toldos Tanna'I'm Ve-Amora'im vol. 2 p. 623) justifies this by pointing out that the Talmud does not name any of the wicked high priests during the era of the destruction in order not to perpetuate their memories. We only know of then from Josephus. So it is reasonable that the Yehoshua Ben Gamla mentioned in the Talmud was not the wicked high priest. And regardin his wife, R. Hyman notes that according to the Midrash the name of the lady during the destruction was Miriam Bas Baisus and not Martha.

Read the rest of this entry »

Don't Turn Your Back On Your Community VII

R. David M. Feldman, author of Where There's Life, There's Life, responds in an essay titled The Imperative to Heal:

It at first seemed counterintuitive that so liberal a set of concessions should apply as well to care of a non-Jewish patient. It did not seem to follow from the enabling principle, "Violate for him this Sabbath so that he be here to keep many Sabbaths." Yet, the desire and the instinct to do so were clearly felt, and two considerations were invoked to allow it.

One was "mi-shum eivah," that the Sabbath be set aside to offer such treatment, in order to "prevent enmity," to promote good public relations. The other consideration was "b’tselem Elokim," that all mankind is created "in the image of God," and the duty to break Shabbat and save life knows no ethnic boundaries.

It is told of the late talmudic giant Prof. Saul Lieberman that he figured in a public challenge as to which of these two considerations is the essential one. A newspaper reporter had heard of the dialectic, and asked Prof. Lieberman what is the real reason Jewish doctors do treat gentiles on the Sabbath. He offered the "image of God" reason. When the reporter left, satisfied, a student demanded: "But does not the Talmud first present the other reason, ‘to prevent enmity’?" Rabbi Lieberman answered "That’s what my response accomplished. It prevented enmity."

Full article here.

Read the rest of this entry »

Torture in the Torah

Ethicists routinely deal with if and when torture is permissible. YU's Center for Ethics had Michael Walzer discuss this topic a few months ago (link) and see this post about an article by R. J. David Bleich on the "ticking bomb" scenario.

I was thinking that there is a precedent in the Torah for a mild form of torture -- exhausting someone to the point of confession. The Mishnah (Sotah 7a) states that a Sotah was taken to the high court in the Temple in Jerusalem and was examined/interrogated with threats intended to scare her to confess to being unfaithful to her husband. If she insisted on her innocence, she was then taken up to the Temple. The Gemara (7b-8a) asks that she was already in the Temple so why would she have to be taken up to it? It answers that she was taken to the bottom of the Temple Mount and then back up in order to tire her (so she will be more scared and will confess - Rashi).

The Mishnah (14a) further states that she would have to carry a basket with her minchah offering in it in order to tire her. Why? asks the Gemara. So she will confess.

In other words, the Torah not only allows but requires trying to exhaust a woman into confessing to infidelity.

Is this exactly similar to contemporary situations? No. A woman who confesses is not punished, although she is forced to divorce her husband and loses financial support. And if she refuses to confess she is not continuously tortured. Rather, there is a clear end to the ordeal. Nevertheless...

Read the rest of this entry »

Colbert Three-Quarters Jewish

Warning: Don't press play if you don't like slightly off-color jokes.

Read the rest of this entry »

LA Book Launch

ATTENTION CALIFORNIANS:

This Sunday evening, join the launch of something monstrously exciting...

SACRED MONSTERS
Mysterious and Mythical Creatures
of Scripture, Talmud and Midrash

by Rabbi Natan Slifkin


Lecture & Book Signing
Hear Rabbi Natan Slifkin, the famous “Zoo Rabbi,” speak about dragons, mermaids, giants, griffins, and other weird and fabulous creatures from his new book, as well as the controversy surrounding its publication.

Sunday, August 19th, 8pm
(Mincha/Maariv 7:20pm)
at Beth Jacob Congregation
9030 W.Olympic Blvd, B.H.

[Please note that Rabbi Slifkin apologizes for being unavailable for the last part of his panel discussion with Rabbi Eisen, due to his unexpected emergency appendectomy. Baruch Hashem he is well on his way to a full recovery.]

There will, God-willing, be a book launch in Teaneck, NJ on the following Sunday, August 26th. More details to follow.

Read the rest of this entry »

Jewish Press on Intermarriage

The editorial page of The Jewish Press quotes at length from R. Ahron Soloveichik and R. Mayer Twersky regarding relating to people who are intermarried (link):

In early 1992, reacting to alarming statistics on the occurrence of intermarriage (52% as compared to 9% in 1965), a splinter group of rabbis in the Rabbinical Council of America, who earlier had formed what was called the “RCA Roundtable,” proposed that instead of “writing off” intermarrieds and driving them away, “we must respond constructively to the future of Klal Yisrael in the next generation” and “explore the full range of possible responses to this phenomenon.”...

The Roundtable proposal created something of an uproar – not in small part because it ran counter to the well-known views of the great gaon and spiritual mentor of Modern Orthodoxy, Rav Yosef Dov Halevi Soloveitchik, zt”l – and was ultimately rejected by the RCA.

The run-up to the RCA’s rejection of the proposal was fascinating. No fewer than fourteen leading roshei yeshiva of the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary (RIETS), including Rav Dovid Lipschitz (the Suvalker Rav), zt”l; Rav Aaron Soloveichik, zt”l; and, ybd”l, Rav Moshe Dovid Tendler and Rav Dovid Bleich, signed a statement denouncing the Roundtable’s proposal as inconsistent with halacha.

Also, on April 15, 1992, on official RIETS stationery, Rav Aaron Soloveichik sent a letter to the RCA, of which he was a leading member, explaining why the proposal should be rejected.

Continued here

Read the rest of this entry »

Harry Potter's Fabulous Jewish Monsters III

More letters about this article (I, II) in this week's The Jewish Press (link):

Breath Of Fresh Air

I was very pleased to read that Rabbi Natan Slifkin’s Sacred Monsters has finally been published (“Harry Potter’s Fabulous Jewish Monsters,” front-page essay, Aug. 3). Whereas the impertinent ban on the book’s predecessor, Mysterious Creatures, precluded my acquisition of that tract, I am glad to now have the opportunity to absorb Rabbi Slifkin’s wisdom regarding the more unusual creatures mentioned in our sacred literature.

I was stunned, therefore, to read Dovid Kornreich’s letter to the editor (Aug. 10) in which he takes Rabbi Slifkin to task for asserting that the Talmudic Sages were not infallible in matters of science. While Rabbi Slifkin insists that this approach allows Jews to reconcile science and Torah, Kornreich asserts that “it is completely counterproductive … to cater to a mindset (one perhaps shared by Rabbi Slifkin himself) that cannot accept, in principle, the real existence of a supernatural reality.”

Rather, says Kornreich, we should “firmly believe that the world of the spirit is more real than the world of the laboratory.”

I have no clue as to Kornreich’s intent. Is he saying that Rabbi Slifkin does not believe in miracles? I know Rabbi Slifkin, and I can categorically declare that this is untrue. Rabbi Slifkin has a firm belief in Torah. He does not deny the supernatural; rather, he understands that God created the natural along with the supernatural, and that the world generally operates according to God’s laws of nature. Miracles are the exception, not the rule. Legends in the Talmud often should be interpreted allegorically, not literally. And yes, the Talmudic Sages did err in matters of science.

This latter point is not novel. It is expressed by Rav Avraham, the son of the Rambam, in his classic treatise on the subject that is printed as a preface to Ein Yaakov. Moreover, Rabbi Yitzchak Lampronti, in his Pachad Yitzchak, argues that the Talmudic declaration that lice may be killed on Shabbat is grounded in the premise that lice are spontaneously generated. Writing in the eighteenth century, after spontaneous generation had been disproved, he states that one should not kill lice on Shabbos. The Pachad Yitzchak can be found in almost every yeshiva. No one has tried to ban it for stating that the Sages erred in a scientific matter, even though that matter affects Jewish law.

It is unfortunate that we live in a time when part of the right-wing Torah world chooses to turn its back on unassailable scientific truths. This element, with whom Kornreich evidently aligns, believes that if Chazal made any mistakes in science, the entire edifice of Torah crumbles. Rabbi Slifkin sees things differently. His view is that occasional errors by the Talmudic Sages, who were anchored to the science of their times, does not undermine their authority at all. It merely affirms their humanity.

The deplorable banning of Rabbi Slifkin’s books by segments of the extreme right achieves nothing except to make some of us skeptical of that element. For those of us who believe, as the Talmud says, that God’s seal is emmet, truth, Rabbi Slifkin’s intellectual honesty remains a breath of fresh air.

Avi Goldstein
Far Rockaway, NY

---

Science Not Infallible

Rabbi Slifkin in his front-page essay cunningly characterized science as the sine qua non of truth. With this model, any statement that even appears to be at odds with conventional scientific wisdom must be rejected out of hand.

It’s a simple matter to present various midrashim and Talmudic dictums which seemingly do not jibe with modern science and then suggest that our rabbinic teachings must therefore be flawed. The fly in Slifkin’s ointment is that science – yes, “holy science” – is by no means infallible. In fact, scientific information is subject to constant change.

I am no prophet, but I can predict with certainty that within twenty years most of what the scientific community presently believes will be relegated to the dustbin of history. It’s the height of foolishness to abandon the truths given by Hashem to Moshe Rabbeinu more than three thousand years ago, and faithfully recorded by our Sages in the Talmud and midrashim, because of slavish belief in scientific notions that will not survive their adherents.

As for Slifkin’s concern that our youth will become disenchanted because of certain enigmatic statements in the Talmud and midrashim, is he similarly troubled by problematic passages in the Chumash? Will he subject Toras Moshe to scientific scrutiny, and if so, would it pass muster? I’m quite sure the critics would look askance at Bilaam’s talking donkey, to cite just one example.

Dr. Yaakov Stern
Brooklyn, NY

Read the rest of this entry »

Teaneck

I'm looking for someone in Teaneck with about an hour to spare who is willing to hang up signs. Please e-mail me. Thank you.

Read the rest of this entry »

Rabbi Yishmael: About It and Not It

In the beginning of morning services, we recite passages regarding the sacrificial order. We then proceed to a chapter of Mishnah (Eizehu Mekoman) and then the introductory passage to the Sifra/Toras Kohanim (Rabbi Yishmael). The Avudraham explains that we specifically study passages of Torah, Mishnah and Talmud (in the classical sense) in order to fulfill the dictates of the Gemara (Kiddushin 30a) to study each day some Torah, Mishnah and Talmud. (See also Talmidei Rabbenu Yonah to Berakhos 11a.)

The Avudraham suggests that one reason "Rabbi Yishmael" was chosen is because it is at the beginning of the Sifra, which is largely about sacrifices. Also, because Midrash is consider Talmud.

Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks explains these reasons in his commentary to the Siddur:

It was chosen because it appears at the beginning of the Sifra, the halachic commentary to Leviticus, which is the source of most of the laws of offerings. It also reminds us of the indissoluble connection between the Written Law (the Mosaic books) and the Oral Law (Mishnah, Midrash and Talmud). Rabbi Ishmael's principles show how the latter can be derived from the former.

What I find interesting is that the choice of passage for Talmud discusses methodology rather than a specific law or issue. It is actually very unrepresentative of Talmud in general, which is supposed to explain and explore the reasoning behind laws of the Mishnah.

However, we can certainly see from this selection of passages that learning "about it" -- studying the methodology of Torah transmission and derivation -- is an equal part of Talmud Torah and not something to be dismissed or overlooked.

Read the rest of this entry »

Rashi the Egg Salesman II

In this post, I quoted Dr. Haym Soloveitchik's discussion of whether Rashi was a vintner by profession. There is an excellent post on the Seforim blog that investigates this issue in great detail: link

Read the rest of this entry »

New Comment Policy

In order to achieve more transparency in moderation of comments on this blog, let me be clear about a policy that I have not been implementing with sufficient consistency but will going forward. Comments that attempt to undermine Judaism will be deleted. It is not out of fear but out of annoyance. Find yourself another soapbox. Skeptics are welcome on this blog to read and to contribute comments, but not to preach their skepticism.

I have no doubt that skeptic blogs will take this as an admission that traditional Judaism cannot withstand criticism. Let them. It is nothing but a willful delusion.

And let me reiterate again: Please be very careful about what you say about other people. The laws of lashon ha-ra are not suspended on blogs.

Read the rest of this entry »

A Kedushah of Roses

I used to be surprised, and now am simply amused, when I hear the important kedushah prayer sung by the prayer leader to the tune of an Israeli love song. The most common is the song Erev Shel Shoshanim. It is possible that this tune was coopted from an earlier song that had no secular implications, but until someone provides me with details of this I will remain skeptical. Instead, I hear the whole congregation singing along (to the tune, not the words) and enjoying the soulful melody, while I'm left slightly amused and wondering what exactly a bustan is and why a couple would go out to one.

The halakhic question is whether it is permissible to use a secular tune from a love song for a prayer. I remember once as a teenager when someone slightly younger than me was leading services on Chol Ha-Mo'ed and started singing Hallel to the tune of Jingle Bells. Let's just say that people stormed out in protest and when the rabbi learned of the incident the synagogue had some new policies (I wasn't there but I heard all about it).

According to R. Moshe Feinstein (Iggeros Moshe, Yoreh Deah 2:111), because the actual singing itself is not for the purposes of a different religion, it is not technically forbidden. However, it is very distasteful (davar mekhu'ar). He says the same about secular songs, which would presumably include an Israeli love song. R. Yehudah Henkin (Bnei Banim 3:35:10) has a sensible approach to this very subject:

It is forbidden to use Non-Jewish songs -- even if they are not love songs or Hebrew folk songs -- as tunes for prayer if the congregation recognizes the songs and will think about the secular words during prayer time.

Since in my circles I'm probably the only one who knows the words to Israeli love songs, I guess the current practice is permissible according to R. Henkin and I'm out of luck.

Read the rest of this entry »

R. Jonathan Rosenblum Advocates Torah U-Madda

R. Jonathan Rosenblum does it again (link):

FELDMAN HAS performed one valuable service: His piece serves as a warning against the easy assumption that the best in secular learning can be readily reconciled with passionate Torah study. When equal emphasis is placed on the curriculum of the dominant secular society and Torah learning, the former will trump the latter. Maimonides has produced hundreds of Ivy League graduates, but few distinguished Torah scholars.

I take personal offense at this because my rebbe in yeshiva -- R. Mayer Twersky -- went to Maimonides! So did his brother, R. Moshe Twersky, a rebbe in Yeshiva Toras Moshe in Jerusalem.

In my time in yeshiva I learned with three different graduates of Maimonides, all of whom were serious learners. One eventually went into business and is a model of a successful businessman with one leg in serious lomdus, one into Jewish organizational life after a stint in high tech, and the third became a pulpit rabbi and Jewish librarian. That last one is, in my opinion, a brilliant talmid chakham who is known to many readers of this blog.

The truth is that I don't keep track of Maimonides graduates because I have no reason to do so, but I recently spoke to another who is a pulpit rabbi in New Jersey. And another was, until her recent aliyah, a rebbitzen in my neighborhood. And then there's one rabbi who works at the OU. I'm sure there are plenty more because I'm just thinking of those within a year or two of my age whose paths I happened to cross.

But, in R. Rosenblum's defense, he did write "few": "Maimonides has produced hundreds of Ivy League graduates, but few distinguished Torah scholars." Since most yeshivas produce only a few DISTINGUISHED Torah scholars, he might have actually been praising the school rather than insulting it. In that case, I am pleasantly surprised that he is now advocating Torah U-Madda.

Read the rest of this entry »

A Humble Wisdom

My Devar Torah at my daughter's Bas Mitzvah today, without the personal stuff:

There is a surprising commandment in last week's Torah portion. After we are told to remove the native inhabitants of the land of Israel (who refuse to accept a peace treaty) and destroy their idolatry, the Torah tells us (Deut. 12:30):

השמר לך פן-תנקש אחריהם אחרי השמדם מפניך ופן-תדרש לאלהיהם לאמר איכה יעבדו הגוים האלה את-אלהיהם ואעשה-כן גם-אני.

Take care that you are not snared into imitating them, after they have been destroyed before you: do not inquire concerning their gods, saying, "How did these nations worship their gods? I also want to do the same."

The Ramban (as opposed to Rashi) explains that this means that we are not to adopt idolatrous practices into our worship of God. The question remains, why is there a need for such a command? After destroying communities of idolaters and supplanting them in their land, why would any Jewish conqueror consider adopting the idolatrous practices of their defeated enemies?

Click here to read moreI think that the answer is that generally the Torah expects us to look at other cultures -- their science, philosophy, literature, etc. -- and see what truths there are that can be extracted and appreciated from a Jewish perspective. All people have insight into the human condition and sometimes we can gain understanding from elsewhere that we otherwise would not have attained had we refrained from exploring other venues. This is not to imply that the Torah is lacking insight into the human condition. Rather, we are all different and we all learn things differently. Some people might gain further insight from a poem that others might see it from a story. That is where looking at other cultures from a Torah perspective and appreciating their insights can help us grow in our own understanding. It is for this reason that a conquering people would examine the culture of the nations they vanquished.

However, the Torah tells us, this has to stop at religion. There is no room or desire for us to expand our religious practices based on other religions regardless of how brilliant their ideas may be. Even if a nation had discovered a creative architecture for their temples of idolatry in which the acoustics are designed perfectly, we may not copy it. When it comes to religion we simply do not incorporate insights from other religions.

The idea behind this is classically stated by Ben Zoma in the Mishnah in Avos (4:1):

Ben Zoma said: Who is wise (חכם)? He who learns from all men, as it is written (Psalm 119:99) "I have gained understanding from all my teachers."

Who is mighty (גבור)? He who subdues his passions, as it is written (Proverbs 16:32) "One who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and one whose temper is controlled than one who captures a city."

Who is rich (עשיר)? He who rejoices in his portion, as it is written (Psalm 128:2) "You shall eat the fruit of the labor of your hands; you shall be happy, and it shall go well with you." "You shall be" refers to this world; and "it shall be well with you" refers to the world to come.

The list of three in this Mishnah is quite puzzling. It appears in two other places in Torah literature. The Gemara in Nedarim (38a) lists four requirements for prophecy: גבור, חכם, עשיר, ועניו (mighty, wise, rich and humble). And Yirmiyahu lists three things that are not praiseworthy (Jer. 9:22): "Let not the wise man (חכם) glory in his wisdom, Let not the mighty man (הגבור) glory in his might, Nor let the rich man (עשיר) glory in his riches."

According to Yirmiyahu, wisdom, might and wealth are not things about which a person should be praised. If so, why does the Gemara in Nedarim say that they are a prerequisite for prophecy? The answer lies in a commandment that can be deduced from next week's Torah portion. The Torah describes a Jewish king and the special laws that apply to him. One is that he must carry a Torah scroll with him wherever he goes so that "his heart may not be lifted above his brethren" (Deut. 17:20). The Ramban points out that there is an implicit obligation here not to become haughty, i.e. to be humble, which seems to apply not only to the king but to all Jews. This is an implied command rather than one that is explicit. In R. Moshe of Coucy's introduction to his Sefer Mitzvos Gadol (Semag), he writes that he had initially omitted from his list of the 613 commandments a prohibition against being haughty, but when he had a dream in which he was chastised about this omission he revised his work and added in this prohibition (no. 64). Humility, it seems, is a fundamental requirement of a religious personality that did not even need direct mentioning in the Torah.

R. Chaim Volozhiner (Ruach Chaim 4:1) explains that wisdom, might and wealth on their own are not praiseworthy and are not the real prerequisites for prophecy. What is really needed is that last on the list in Nedarim -- humility. However, someone who has little about which to be proud cannot really be said to have mastered the trait of humility. Therefore, only someone who is already wise but is still humble enough to learn from all others, and already mighty but humble enough to look inwards, and rich but humble enough to recognize that it is all a gift and be satisfied with what God has given him rather than desire more, only such a person can be called truly humble.

Therefore, when Ben Zoma says in Avos that someone is wise if he learns from everyone, he means that when someone is already wise on his own (or through Torah) and still learns from all other people, he is both truly wise and humble.

Read the rest of this entry »

Rav Soloveitchik, Rav Kotler and the Slaughter Bill

Victor B. Geller, Orthodoxy Awakens: The Belkin Era and Yeshiva University, pp. 258-259:

In 1957, the Poage Bill was introduced in the United States Congress. Actively supported by the humane societies, the bill proposed the outlawing of the prevailing "hoisting and shackling" method used in slaughterhouses. The tone and further provision of the bill were viewed as a threat to kosher shechitah (slaughter).

In a rare demonstration of unity, the entire Jewish community rallied to fight the Poage Bill... At a critical moment, a prominent New York member of the RCA learned that Rav [Aharon] Kotler had changed his mind. He was going to break ranks and would not sign the statement [opposing the bill]. After verifying the truth of the report he had received, the RCA member called Rav Soloveitchik to tell him of this latest development. The Rav responded by asking the caller to come to Boston immediately. As soon as the New York rabbi arrive in Boston, the Rav said to him, "I am going to call Rav Kotler on the telephone. I want you to stand by to hear the results of my call."

When Rav Soloveitchik announced himself, Rav Kotler, at first taken aback, responded with warmth and deference. Rav Soloveitchik, however, was all business. He told Rav Kotler that he had received troubling news. He asked Rav Kotler if the report of his change of mind on the Poage Bill was true. Rav Kotler became uncomfortable. After some hesitation and equivocation, he admitted that he was having second thoughts.

Rav Soloveitchik responded in a very direct and firm tone. He told Rav Kotler, "You must sign. And don't try to give me any halachic reasons why you won't. We both know that I could refute them." The conversation ended with Rav Kotler saying, "Well, if that's he way you feel, I will sign."[6]

---

[6] Interview with anonymous RCA officer, August 1995.

Read the rest of this entry »

Jewish Leadership

Last week, R. Yaakov Horowitz ran a column about how frum boys and girls in the Catskills are hanging out with each other and doing all sorts of non-frum and illegal things late at night (It’s One A.M. – Do You Know Where Your Children Are?). This week, he published a column about the impact of that article and some take-away lessons (One A.M. – One Week Later):

Well, I am pleased to report that things were far better the previous weekend – in no small part due to the awareness generated by the dissemination of the column... Additionally, concrete steps were taken to improve things on the ground. Quite a few bungalow colony owners called staff meetings with their day-camp counselors and initiated curfews for those traveling off grounds on Motzoei Shabbos. A Brooklyn Rav and his lay leaders made arrangements with the pool hall owner in Monticello to have its use limited to boys after midnight. He also rented Liberty Lanes, a popular bowling alley in Liberty, New York, for the exclusive use of girls. The Rav arranged for adult supervision in both locations and provided homebound transportation for the girls after their time in the bowling alley...

As I see things, there are several important take-away lessons to be learned from this evolving episode:

To begin with, awareness matters...

Additionally, we need not throw up our hands and feel resigned to accept things as they are...

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we should resist the seductive route of merely ‘banning’ places and activities for our growing teen population.

Some might see this and applaud the wonderful leadership of our community. Certainly Rabbi Horowitz and the unnamed people who got involved have acted in a most praiseworthy fashion. But let's be serious for a moment. Real leadership doesn't wait for a wake-up call before acting. Leaders who care about their community will know what their community members are doing and will be actively involved in trying to improve the spiritual (and physical, where appropriate) level of these activities.

We need to be proactive and not reactive. We need to honestly care and take the time to get involved in people's lives. Wake-up calls and emergencies are signs that we are insufficiently involved to know what is going on.

Now, thanks to R. Horowitz's article, we've addressed this problem somewhat. But what is the next emergency that is lurking around the corner? If we really cared and we're honestly out to be active leaders, we'd already be trying to prevent it.

Read the rest of this entry »

Don't Turn Your Back On Your Community VI

Hillel Halkin: link
Andrew Silow-Carroll: link
R. Dovid Gottlieb: link

Read the rest of this entry »

Nora'os Ha-Rav

A message from R. David Schreiber, author of the highly acclaimed Nora'os Ha-Rav series:

The 15th volume containing an in-depth exposition of the Mussaf of Rosh Hashanah is still in print. This volume is cited extensively in Rabbi Lustiger’s newest Machzor, Masores Harav, and exhaustively describes the arrangement of the Pesukim in the mussaf as well as the various motifs expressed therein. However, the bookstores are reluctant to stock old volumes unless they first ascertain interest from their customers. Would you be able to alert your readership to this and ask anyone who is interested in purchasing the volume to make the request at their local book store. The bookstore will then be able to contact the distributor and arrange for delivery.

If you are interested in this book, please ask for it in your local Jewish bookstore and tell them that it is available from the distributor.

Read the rest of this entry »

Harry Potter's Fabulous Jewish Monsters II

Letters about this article in this week's The Jewish Press (link):

Sages And Infallibility

You are to be applauded for publishing Rabbi Slifkin’s essay (“Harry Potter’s Fabulous Jewish Monsters,” front-page essay, Aug. 3) – and on the front page, no less.

Thirty years ago it would not have been published, since the thoughts expressed were so mainstream as not to be newsworthy. Now, however, some of our “Torah leaders” would resolutely march us back to the Dark Ages. For the rest of us there is Rabbi Slifkin – and the Rambam, Rav Kook, Rav Hirsch, and others who share their approach.

What I do not understand is why people should be so disconcerted at the thought of Chazal not being infallible on matters of nature. Are we Catholics who believe in the infallibility of the pope? Chazal could, theoretically, be mistaken in matters of Torah as well: it’s called he’elem davar, and the Torah itself prescribes a special korban for it (Leviticus Ch. 4).

Zev Stern
Brooklyn, NY

---

Science Vs. The Supernatural

Rabbi Slifkin wrote: “When [young people] encounter statements in the Talmud or Midrash that run counter to their knowledge of the natural world, they are challenged in their faith. If their rabbinic leaders dismiss their questions or, worse, chastise them for asking, their difficulties become a crisis. For such people, learning that the great Torah authorities of history did not see any need to accept Talmudic statements of science as being infallible is a great reassurance, and can be a lifeline for someone whose emunah is drowning. Precisely that approach which causes a crisis in rabbinic authority for some, rescues rabbinic authority for others.”

But why are they challenged in the first place? Why is their faith in the sages’ mastery of all levels of reality so frail and their faith in science so strong? Believe me, I also wonder how to reconcile many fantastic statements of Chazal with empirical reality. The problems are quite perplexing, but they don’t challenge my faith.

I am in no way chastising such Jews for having little faith in the sages and enormous faith in science. Such chastisement is clearly inappropriate. They are clearly the innocent victims of a certain zeitgeist that has filtered down to even the very young. They apparently have become so assimilated into the mythology surrounding modern science that they cannot conceive of the physical existence of any mystical reality. Shooting the messenger of such a state of affairs is uncalled for.

But as Jews who firmly believe that the world of the spirit is more real than the world of the laboratory, we need to cry over such people, not berate them. Rabbi Slifkin’s books only extend such people’s complete acceptance of science into the realm of religion in general, and specifically the many clearly observed and directly experienced supernatural claims of Judaism that run contrary to science.

I humbly submit that it is completely counterproductive, in an attempt to strengthen faith, for Rabbi Slifkin to cater to a mindset (one perhaps shared by Rabbi Slifkin himself) that cannot accept, in principle,the real existence of a supernatural reality. Such a reality is attested to by many first-hand accounts of our sages which none of the classic commentaries (marshaled by Rabbi Slifkin in his books) categorically denies.

Dovid Kornreich
(Via E-Mail)

Read the rest of this entry »

Summer Clearance Book Sale

(This will remain the top post until the sale ends)

New and Classic Jewish Books from Yashar, Urim and Other Publishers
Discounted 40% – 50%
Direct from the Wholesaler!

Only August 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th, 2007
(11:00 am – 8:00 pm)
Sale at Lambda Publishers warehouse outlet
3709 13th Avenue, Brooklyn, NY. Tel: 718-972-5449 (Bet. 37 & 38 Streets)
sale@ejudaica.com Fax: 718-972-6307

Catalog available here: Word Doc

(click on the image below to enlarge)

Read the rest of this entry »

Internet, Intermarriage and Pornography

R. Mordechai Willig in this week's TorahWeb, invoking R. Eliyahu Dessler's concept of nekudas ha-bechirah -- a point of choice (link):

Many rabbonim, including myself, have dealt with marriages threatened by a wife’s discovering her husband’s viewing of internet pornography. One who believes that otherwise scrupulously observant Jews, ordained Rabbis, or Torah educators do not make the wrong choice on this matter is simply mistaken.

Some rabbonim have, therefore, advocated a ban on the internet. Such a ban may be impractical or above our point of choice. Yet we dare not trivialize the significant danger the internet presents, or limit our acknowledgement of the danger to our children. The internet and the evil inclination form a potentially lethal combination for all.

The Vilna Gaon has taught us that, with Hashem’s help, we can overcome the most ubiquitous yetzer hara. Bad choices of the past can be reversed, and sins erased. An eternally blessed future is within our reach. However, for this bracha to take effect, we must avoid klala, making poor choices on seemingly inconsequential matters without realizing the curse which may result. As we read parsha Re’eh, we must resolve to discern which choice is beracha, which is klala, and to choose beracha.

See also this recent article in Mishpacha (link):

“A computer is not a toy,” [R. Leib Kelemen] says. “It is a tool, like an electric saw. Ablanket ban on home computers is as foolish as a blanket ban on electric saws. But it is just as foolish to leave an electric saw plugged in, out in your living room where there are children. Chinuch is all about teaching our children how to use life’s tools. We must know when to teach our children to use each of life’s tools, and how to teach them. That requires daas Torah.”

A prominent rabbi and thinker consulted by Mishpacha feels that “there is no force stopping the Internet from being global — it is far too useful a device. It is one of the greatest discoveries in the history of mankind. Although there are those in klal Yisrael who think that they will be able to keep the Internet out of their homes and lives, they must realize that it will never go away. A person must learn to adapt. The way to win the war of the Internet is not getting rid of the Internet itself. How can we?”

He goes on to state: “The initiative to ban the Internet outright is crumbling, because people are beginning to understand how incredibly useful it is. The Internet can be compared to a light bulb. While light bulbs have infinite positive uses, the light they provide can also make it easier for a thief to steal. Is that potential robbery enough of a reason to outlaw the light bulb?”...

Rabbanim, educators, and computer experts agree: When allowing Internet access on their home computer, it is vital that parents accept an obligation to stay one step ahead of their children in understanding its mechanics. If a parent is not computer literate, then the children should simply not have access to the computer unless a capable adult is present.

However, it bears remembering that the problems of Internet usage aren’t limited to children, and as such, the solutions shouldn’t be limited to the younger generation. Parents must protect themselves as well. With hundreds of Internet filters and monitoring software on the market, however, it can be difficult to know which to choose.

Read the rest of this entry »

Top Ten Reasons Why I Am A Jew

Dennis Prager, writing in Moment magazine (link):

1. The Jews are the Chosen People. There is no other rational explanation for the centrality of the Jewish people in history and in the world today. Even anti-Semites—indeed, especially anti-Semites— recognize the pivotal role of this tiny group of people on the world stage. That is why “world Jewish conspiracy” is such a common phrase, while one never hears of “a world Chinese conspiracy” or any other group’s “world conspiracy.” If we are not the Chosen People, there is little compelling reason to raise one’s children as Jews. After Auschwitz, and with significant parts of the Muslim world today advocating another Holocaust, it takes a powerful reason to do so.


2. Just as people need an instruction manual for a camera, they need an instruction manual on how to lead a good, holy and meaningful life. Judaism provides the best one ever written: the Torah.


3. The Torah is a divine document. No book comes close in influencing the world and changing the way human beings behave and think. “Divine” means that God is, ultimately, the Torah’s author. Whether it was given all at once, whether it was dictated word for word, whether it was divinely edited from documents—none of that matters.


4. Understood properly and lived authentically, Judaism is a religion of moderation. Judaism’s approach to animals, for example, teaches reverence for them to the point of including a day of rest for them in the Ten Commandments. Yet it also teaches that human life is infinitely more valuable: humans, not animals, are created in the image of God.


5. Judaism provides immense joy. No religion provides such continuous joy-filled moments as Judaism. I am referring to the weekly celebration of Shabbat and the frequent holidays. Every week I look forward to Shabbat in a way unknowable to non-Jews or Jews who do not celebrate the Sabbath.


6. Judaism provides meaning. What could be more meaningful than being chosen by God to bring humanity to Him and His moral values? Meaning is the greatest human need, even greater than sex. There are people who live without sex and yet lead happy lives. But no person who lives without meaning has a happy life.


7. Judaism provides community. Whether on Shabbat or on holidays, whether in joy—the birth of a child, a wedding—or in crisis or mourning, our religion does not allow us to be alone.


8. Judaism is uniquely preoccupied with good and evil. I have the utmost respect for Christians as the people who made America the greatest country in world history. But their religions are concerned mainly with faith and salvation, and Islam is focused on submission to Allah. Both groups theologically divide the world into the faithful—“dar al-Islam” in Islam and the “saved” in Christianity—and the unfaithful. Judaism, by contrast, divides the world according to moral categories: those who do good and those who do evil. Thus, as the Torah tells us, “the good of all the nations have a portion in the world to come.”


9. Judaism is concerned with the present world. Though Judaism absolutely affirms the afterlife (it is axiomatic that if there is a just God, there is an afterlife), the Hebrew Bible says nothing about what happens to us after death. The moment religion dabbles in the afterlife, it begins to ignore the evils of this life and can even foment evil. The theology of Muslim terrorists and their supporters, for example, rests on a preoccupation with heavenly rewards and a consequent disdain for this life. As Hamas frequently says, “We love death as much as the Jews love life.”


10. Judaism allows, even encourages, a Jew to argue with God. The very name of the Jewish people, “Israel,” means “wrestle with God;” the word “Islam,” to provide a counter example, means “submission” (to God).

Read the rest of this entry »

Avraham's Fortress

I can't remember where, but I once read that the Chasam Sofer would review the Midrash Rabbah on the weekly Torah portion rather than Rashi's commentary and would joke that his congregants knew Rashi better than he. At one point, many years ago, I decided that I would also try to go through the Midrash Rabbah every week. Most weeks, I got nowhere near the end of the portion. But I did end up spending many hours each week studying the Midrash. Once you get the rhythm of the text, it is actually quite easy. Additionally, the commentaries published in the standard Vilna edition are excellent and offer great insight into the text.

That experience is why I was so hesitant to look at Simi Peters' book Learning to Read Midrash. After all, I thought, been there done that. What is there to learn? I was totally wrong. Mrs. Peters wrote a brilliant book. She offers a systematic methodology to learning midrash and shows you repeatedly how to use it properly. When I learned midrash, I instinctively used most of her methodology. But by systematizing it, she makes easy to do and, significantly, makes it much harder to miss important details. Without exaggeration, this is one of the most fabulous books I've read in a long time. Plus, she writes in a great style and elucidates a number of interesting midrashim. She does to the midrash what R. Yitzchak Etshalom does to the chumash.

Let me discuss here one midrash she addresses. I will not show her methodology because it does not lend itself to a short blog post but I will instead assure you that she opens up this midrash and shows you how to read it properly and ask the right questions. Bereishis Rabbah 39:1

(1) "And God said to Avram, 'Go, you, from your land...'" (Gen. 12:1).
(2) R. Yitzhak opened: (Psalms 45:11) "Listen, daughter, and see and turn your ear and forget your people and your father's house."
(3) R. Yitzhak said: This may be compared to one who was passing from place to place and saw a fortress (birah) illuminated/burning (dolekes).
(4) He said, "Will you say this fortress has no governor (manhig)?
(5) The master (ba'al) of the fortress peeped out (hetziz) at him.
(6) He said to him, "I am the master of the fortress."
(7) Thus, because our father Avraham would say, "Will you say this world has no governor?"
(8) the Holy One Blessed be He peeped out at him and said to him, "I am the Master of the world."
(9) (Psalms 45:12) "And the king will desire your beauty" -- to beautify you in the world;
(10) "because he is your master and bow to him," that is, "And God said to Avram..."

Mrs. Peters discusses all the lacks of parallel (manhig vs. ba'al, etc.) and other issues that arise. The most important part of this midrash is what the essential message of it is. And on this, I believe that it revolves around how you translated the word "dolekes". Mrs. Peters writes (pp. 39, 42):

In this midrash, we need to determine whether the word "doleket" meant "illuminated" or "burning" for R. Yitzhak, or whether he may have deliberately chosen an ambiguous word to create more than one possible interpretation of the text...

Perhaps we could say that an illuminated world is a world lit up with its own beauty and order, a world that shows every sign of being managed by a "Governor," a God Who is running things. By the same token, a burning world is an ordered structure which is being destroyed by uncontrolled forces, such as human corruption.

If dolekes means illuminated, then we understand why one would conclude that it has a master/governor. But if it is burning, why would the question make sense?

Rashi says that the message of this midrash is that Avraham is teaching everyone that God guides the world. The Yedei Moshe explains this within the translation of "burning" as follows. The fortress was burning and Avram thought that it had no current master to put out the flames. Then the master appeared and said that he is guiding the fortress and he wants it to burn. So, too, God is guiding the world and wants it to deteriorate as it has. Note that these interpretations say nothing about God having created the world.

Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks writes the following about this midrash (A Letter in the Scroll, pp. 55-56):

This is a deeply enigmatic passage, so much so that distinguished Jewish thinkers in our time have often misunderstood it. One of them translated the phrase "a palacca in flames" as "a palace full of light."[11] According to this interpretation, Abraham was seized by a mystic vision of the beauty of the universe and found God in the light within the light. Another theologian interpreted it as an early form of what later became known as the "argument from design"[12]...

These are both beautiful interpretations, and each has its own validity, but they are not true to the passage itself. Abraham sees a palace. The world has order, and therefore it has a creator. But the palace is in flames. The world is full of disorder, of evil, violence and injustice. Now, no one builds a building and then deserts it. If there is a fire, there must be someone to put it out. The building must have an owner. If so, where is he? That is the question, and it gives Abraham no peace.

---

[11] A.J. Heschel, God in Search of Man: A Philosophy of Judaism, John Calder, London, 1956, 112.
[12] Louis Jacobs, We Have Reason to Believe, Vallentine Mitchell, London, 1957, 23. But see also Louis Jacobs, Principles of the Jewish Faith, Vallentine Mitchell, London, 1964, 43, where the author correctly interprets the passage as a statement, not of the argument from design but of the problem of evil.

Read the rest of this entry »