Parashah Roundup: Chayei Sarah 5768

by Steve Brizel

Avraham and Jewish Continuity

R. Jonathan Sacks tells us why Avraham's actions in securing a burial place and in finding a shidduch are vital lessons today: link

R. Berel Wein informs us why Sarah Imeinu continues to play a vital role in our lives: link

R. Shlomo Riskin teaches us that all of the details surrounding the burial of Sarah are meant to emphasize that the spiritual life is immortal and that a life devoid of spirituality is temporary and fleeting: link

The Relationship Between Avraham and Sarah

Dr. Ruth Wolf explores the marital relationship between Avraham and Sarah and what we can learn from it: link

R. Zvi Sobolofsky discusses Chesed as the main ingredient and guide to a successful marriage: link

Avraham and Grief

R. Yissachar Frand investigates how Avraham Avinu was able to purchase the Meoras HaMachpelah in the time of his deepest grief: link

The Third Wife

R. Yaakov Medan explores who was Keturah: link

The Life of Sarah

R. Zev Leff analyzes how the life of Sarah inspired Queen Esther: link

Mitzvos, Halacha and Details

R. Avigdor Nevenzal tells us that even the most seemingly meaningless passages in the Torah are filled with the most profound meaning: link

R. Yaakov Haber (formerly of RIETS and now living and teaching in Israel) explores the sources of Gmilus Chasadim: link

Avraham, Eliezer & Rivkah

R. Chanoch Waxman discusses the detailed process of the selection of Rivkah: link

R. Mordechai Willig focuses on the key factors in choosing a spouse: link

R. Efraim Buchwald investigates what Avraham was looking for in a shidduch for Yitzchak: link

Read the rest of this entry »

Does Olmert Deserve Cancer?

Earlier this week, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced that he has prostate cancer (link). R. Shlomo Aviner was asked the following question: "Is it permissible to say, 'The Prime Minister is sick. He deserves it, because of what he has done and plans to do?'" R. Aviner responded as follows:

Of course not. It is forbidden because of three reasons, each of which is sufficient on its own:

A. How do you know why he is sick? You know the secrets of the Master of the Universe. How do you know that it happened because of this or that reason? Don't you know that there are bad people and sometimes good things happen to them, and there are good people and sometimes bad things happen to them?...

B. It is forbidden to cause anguish to another person with words (hona'at devarim)... It is true that there is a mitzvah to rebuke, but it has to be done with wisdom. This is not the way.

C. People who make comments like this think that they will help the Nation of Israel to repent. "You see, he did this and look what happened to him." This is repentance out of fear. A movie came out which said that anyone who had any part in the expulsion from Gush Katif is or will be punished. It has been explained over and over during the last one hundred years that this generation will not repent out of fear. This generation will only repent out of love. This is all explained by our Master, Rav Kook, in "Ma'amar Ha-Dor"...

It is therefore forbidden to say that he deserves this sickness: A. You're not a prophet. B. It is forbidden to distress another person. C. We do not help people repent out of fear, but only out of love.

Note also that R. Ovadiah Yosef called the Prime Minister to wish him a speedy recovery (link).

Read the rest of this entry »

Depression as a Sin

I can't remember where but I recently saw an article in which the author tells people that it is a mitzvah to be happy and, conversely, a sin to be depressed. This reminded me of a passage I had seen over Sukkos in a book by R. Avigdor Miller. R. Miller is speaking about the same topic and proves that one must be happy from the following passage in the first chapter Messilas Yesharim (translation adapted from R. Yaakov Feldman):

שהאדם לא נברא אלא להתענג
Man was only created to delight

This, R. Miller wrote, proves that a person must be happy because that is why he was created.

In my humble opinion, that is the exact opposite of the intent of the author of Messilas Yesharim. The following sentence is:

ומקום העדון הזה באמת הוא העולם הבא כי הוא הנברא בהכנה המצטרכת לדבר הזה.
But in truth, the place for this pleasure is the World to Come, as it was created, readied and prepared for just such a pleasure.

The Messilas Yesharim is teaching us that we must work in this world, by doing mitzvos, in order to reach the world of pleasure. This world is not necessarily for pleasure but for work.

Perhaps R. Miller was only writing homiletically and did not intend for his quote from Messilas Yesharim to be a proof but only a starting point for discussion. However, it seems to me that the intent of the Messilas Yesharim is the exact opposite of R. Miller's.

Additionally, and this is crucial, everyone at various points in life feel depressed. I am concerned about increasing this negative feeling by declaring it sinful. To the opposite, we should be telling people that it is normal and will pass. Why make people feel sinful about something that is perfectly normal? (Note that extreme depression to the point of being disruptive to an individual's social functioning and/or activities of daily living is a disorder that can and should be treated clinically.)

See here about why the saying "מצוה גדולה להיות בשמחה תמיד It is a great mitzvah to be constantly happy" is entirely wrong if taken at face value: link. How many people justify their alcoholism with that saying?

Read the rest of this entry »

Mainstream Views on Providence

This past Shabbos, I arrived at shul early enough to be able to grab the only copy of Talelei Oros (Bereishis, Hebrew edition, vol. 1). The book is a compilation of insights into the weekly Torah reading, mostly from recent Lithuanian-style Talmudic scholars, although there is an occasional insight from a Chasidic or Sephardic scholar and sometimes a medieval or early modern scholar.

To my surprise, on Gen. 18:19, Talelei Oros quotes a brief passage from Ramban's commentary in which Ramban states that Individual Providence only applies to the righteous (see these posts: I, II). There is no further comment, no attempt to limit the Ramban's statement or deflect its significant implications. There you have it. This is an approach with mainstream acceptability.

(Note: You can download Dr. David Berger's excellent article about the Ramban's view on Providence on this website: link at the end of the "updates and corrections" section.)

Read the rest of this entry »

Peshat in the Or Ha-Chaim Commentary

It is now a staple in the history of Parshanut (Jewish Bible commentary) that the term "peshat" has meant different things in different times and places. To some, it has meant the literal translation of the words. To others, it has meant a contextual meaning. This has been amply explored in a number of studies, two that come to mind are Prof. David Weiss Halivni's Peshat and Derash and a brief essay in R. Reuven Margoliyos' Ha-Mikra Ve-Ha-Mesorah.

This past Shabbos, I spent some time learning straight through R. Chaim ben Atar's (Morocco, 1696-1743) Or Ha-Chaim commentary, without stopping to look at any other commentaries, and I noticed something. Please note that this is all preliminary and requires further study. However, the Or Ha-Chaim seems to be insistent on offering peshat and feels free to reject explanations from Rashi or the Sages as not being peshat. However, when he offers an explanation that he considers to be peshat, it is often something that many other commentators would reject as not being peshat.

I would suggest that to R. Chaim ben Atar, peshat means an explanation that reads smoothly with the words of the text. It can be based on a midrashic expansion of the text and assume a backstory which is not mentioned anywhere in the text, but as long as the text itself reads smoothly based on this explanation then it is peshat. In other words, he distinguishes between a derash, which is a non-literal reading of the words, and a midrash, which is a backstory that is not mentioned in the text. Unlike many peshat-oriented commentators who will not consider information that is not contained in the text, he will utilize midrash to establish peshat, a literal reading of the text.

It is perhaps best stated by Rashi (Gen. 3:8): "אגדה המישבת דברי המקרא Aggadah which serves to clarify the words of Scripture in a way which fits those words". However, given the frequency with which R. Chaim ben Atar disagrees with Rashi, one would have to suggest that either Rashi does not consistently abide by this guideline or R. Chaim ben Atar disagreed with Rashi over how closely an explanation must "fits those words".

Read the rest of this entry »

New Periodical: The Jewish Word vol. 1 no. 2

I received another issue of The Jewish Word. The newspaper has a number of right-wing op-eds on various topics. There is also an article about R. Shlomo Amar that is quite good in that it tries to show his efforts regarding conversion standards in a positive light, which I think it succeeds in doing.

There is still no devar Torah. However, there is a picture on the front page of R. Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, the leading Torah scholar in the Lithuanian yeshiva world. I'm not sure why a Religious Zionist newspaper would publish such a picture on its front page, especially when it has no connection to any story. If I were the editor I would have published a picture along with a eulogy/obituary of R. Avraham Shapira, whose recent passing is unmentioned in the paper.

Later in the newspaper there is a picture of R. Shlomo Amar, Chief Sephardic Rabbi of Israel, and a different picture of... the pope. However, I think the pope might be part of an advertisement for Touro. The entire page is in a different font and it is a puff piece about Touro's medical school. So I suspect that it might be an ad.

Somewhat tone deaf is the front-to-back page eulogy for Rebbitzen Tendler by her children. There's no need to go into detail about why that editorial decision is just so, so wrong.

Read the rest of this entry »

Rav Soloveitchik and the Red Sox

As pointed out on this blog almost three years ago, Rav Soloveitchik was a Red Sox fan: link

Read the rest of this entry »

Announcements #005

Congratulations to Orthomom on winning the defamation lawsuit brought against her: link

David Linn of BeyondBT is co-chairing the Achdus Chinese Auction to benefit both the Bais Yaakov of Queens and Yeshiva Tifereth Moshe on Motzei Shabbos, November 10 at the New York Hall of Science. For more information and to order tickets, check out the website at achdusauction.com

(Announce your simchah or Torah lectures by clicking on the button in the top right corner of Hirhurim. See here for readership statistics.)

Read the rest of this entry »

Are College Newspapers a Waste of Time?

There is a full-page editorial by Zev Eleff in the latest issue of The Commentator in which he argues for the utility of a college newspaper in the life of a Yeshiva University student (link). His main point is that YU is a busy place and the various interested parties do not always have the time or opportunity to become aware of issues that require resolution. The student newspaper is the place to raise such issues and bring them to the attention to the students, faculty and administration so conversation can begin and problems can be resolved.

OK. But then is there any point for students who have little role in such problem resolution to read the newspaper? I think there is. There is a tendency among yeshiva students to see everything in the world in black and white, and not just because of the color of their shirts and hats. This is not surprising because they are, after all, teenagers and students in their early 20's. Reading other views is very helpful at that age to learn to respect people with different ways of looking at things. Seeing the world as yes or no, assur or mutar, treif or kosher, is immature. The real world has, in addition to yes and no, in-betweens, judgment calls, some say yes and some say no. It is important for a student's maturity to be able to recognize this. Those who fail to learn this, and I sadly know a few people like this, remain emotional children for the rest of their lives.

I remember when I was at YU, there was an issue of Hamevaser in which a semikhah and graduate student named Hayyim Angel wrote an article about women learning Gemara. Believe it or not, he wrote, there are people today who oppose women learning Gemara, and they aren't crazy. Here's what they believe and why. And here is why I disagree.

I found it amusing because I was from the side of the beis midrash that was uncomfortable with women learning Gemara. So of course there are people who oppose it. But there was something in Hayyim Angel's tone that struck me. He was from one side of the beis midrash and he was not only trying to understand the other side but even defend them and present their view in a respectable way. That is something that happens in no yeshiva other than YU. Only in YU are you exposed to fellow students with very different outlooks and approaches. This alone is a huge argument in favor of learning at YU rather than another yeshiva. You may have your derekh (approach), but by learning side by side with people who have a different derekh you learn to respect them even while you disagree with them.

People who learn seriously in the beis midrash do not often shmooze with the people sitting next to them. Yes, you'll notice that they have yarmulkas with different colors and that they wear different kinds of clothes. But when you're in the beis midrash you're focused on learning.

One place where dialogue opens is in the cafeteria, during meals. But people tend to eat with their own clique. A student newspaper, though, is an important vehicle for dialogue. It is an item that can help students mature emotionally and intellectually by opening up discussions and allowing students to see that multiple approaches are possible.

This, of course, assumes that the newspaper is run responsibly. If not, it is potentially forbidden and embarrassing to the institution.

Read the rest of this entry »

Jnews Roundup IIIb

A few more interesting news items from papers that posted to the web since the last roundup:

Celebrating Prof. Abraham Joshua Heschel's 100th anniversary of his birthday (NJ Jewish News: I, II)

Touro moves forward with medical school (NJ Jewish Standard)

Andrew Silow-Carroll's ideas for the big Jewish idea (Jewish News of Greater Phoenix)

Reform chevra kadisha begun in order to accommodate intermarriages (Canadian Jewish News) -- never forget the law of unintended consequences

Read the rest of this entry »

Responding to Fanatic Bullies

R. Yaakov Horowitz on how to respond to fanatics who act like bullies (link), as a follow-up to the discussion of the issues in Where are the Bans?:

I mention this because as I was reading the responses to Miriam Shear’s Enough is Enough!, column which I posted on my website, it struck me how many similarities there are between the phenomenon of school bullying and the actions of the criminal ‘tzniyus-patrol’ thugs who are assaulting our women. (For the record, I condemned their actions in the strongest terms in my essay They Don't Represent Us).

What is equally striking is how the reactions of many decent people to Mrs. Shear is similar to how well-meaning adults often mistakenly treat children who are victims of bullying – telling them to ‘just ignore it’ and questioning if their behavior provoked the attacker. (FYI; this is a also a classic response to victims of domestic abuse – implying that it is the fault of the victim and suggesting that they ‘ignore things’ and they will improve.)

Below, I share with you verbatim text from the excellent U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Stop Bullying Now website. I ask all decent, fair-minded people to read it carefully. Then; if you feel, as I do, that there are parallels, engage in a serious cheshbon hanefesh and think carefully if the time has come for ALL of us to say as Miriam Shear has said. “Enough is Enough!”

Read the whole article here.

Read the rest of this entry »

Yashar Books in the News

In this week's New Jersey Jewish Standard (link):

One of the most interesting from a sectarian perspective is Yashar Books, located in Brooklyn and the brainchild of Gil Student, who grew up locally and who graduated from the Solomon Schechter Day School and the Frisch high school. Yashar publishes what it calls "Orthodox Jewish books for the contemporary reader," but the books have a far greater appeal than that.

Yashar tends to be daring in its offerings. Take, for example, "Between the Lines of the Bible," by Yitzchak Etshalom. It is a commentary on the Book of Genesis, but it dares to go where other "Orthodox" commentaries fear to tread — into the world of modern biblical scholarship. It is, in fact, an outgrowth of a small, but growing trend within Orthodox erudition to bring history, archeology, linguistics, and literary criticism to bear on the Torah text.

Yashar also publishes a number of books by Rabbi Natan (Nosson) Slifkin, a brilliant scholar whose works were banned by several prominent haredi rabbis in 2005. That is because Slifkin dares to suggest that modern science provides a more accurate picture of the universe and all that is in it than the Sages of blessed memory.

Not every author Yashar publishes is Orthodox. One on its list is Rabbi David Feldman, rabbi emeritus of the Jewish Center of Teaneck. His book "Where There’s Life" offers readers "a comprehensive exploration of abortion, euthanasia and the right to die, martyrdom, the mandate to heal, the mind-body connection, embryonic stem cell research, organ transplants — including the controversial questions of heart transplantation," according to Yashar.

Read the rest of this entry »

Hakhnassat Orchim: The Eternal Model of Abraham

Hakhnassat Orchim: The Eternal Model of Abraham

by Rabbi Daniel Z. Feldman, author of The Right and the Good: Halakhah and Human Relations. This essay will be included in the forthcoming second volume of The Right and the Good.

I

Hospitality, or hakhnasat orchim, occupies a unique position of honor even within the distinguished plane of chesed. The Talmud teaches that its importance is such that it outweighs even receiving the Divine presence.[1] This is derived from the behavior of Abraham, who received a Divine visitation during his recuperation from his circumcision. Nonetheless, he interrupted that experience to greet the three mysterious guests, apparently in need of hospitality, who appeared afterward. This interpretation of events is based on a specific reading of the Biblical text, one that is itself debated, and, if understood in this manner deepens the astonishing nature of Abraham’s behavior.

Prior to welcoming his guests, Abraham says, “Please, my adon, do not pass from before your servant.” The Talmud[2] records a debate as to the proper understanding of this verse. According to one interpretation, the phrase “my adon”, my master, is a respectful eference to one of his potential guests. The verse thus relates his extending of hospitality to the travelers who were passing by. According to the second possibility, though, “my Adon” is meant to be read as G-d’s Name. If so, Abraham was essentially asking G-d to wait, and to not remove His presence, while he interrupted so that he could attend to guests.[3] The notion that Abraham not only ended a session with G-d, but asked that He wait in the meantime, makes the decision all the more remarkable.

R. Yonatan Eibshutz[4] emphasizes that Abraham had to chase after the guests. Consequently, he not only left the Divine presence, but turned his back on it, a more impressive act of prioritization[5] R. Yosef Tzvi Dushinsky[6] notes that in doing so, he proved himself a man of genuine chesed, not only unencumbered by ulterior motives, but also uninterested in even a spiritual reward, as he abandons a Divine audience to focus instead on the needs of his guests.

While Abraham’s descendants have the benefit of his behavior to learn from, it is unclear how Abraham himself knew such a bold move was appropriate. This difficulty was posed by the author of the Responsa Noda B’Yehudah, R. Yechezkel Landau, to R. Ya’akov Shimon of Shpitokova[7], who responded that this lesson was derived from G-d Himself. As Rashi relates,[8] G-d initially wanted to protect Abraham from being burdened with guests, and thus made the day unusually hot so that travelers would not be outside. However, this seems unnecessary. If G-d was visiting Abraham, this fact itself would have stopped him from interrupting the meeting to attend to guests. Apparently, that premise is incorrect, and extending hospitality is a greater priority than receiving the Divine presence.[9]

Similarly, R. Dushinsky suggests that Abraham, in his characteristic religious sensitivity, understood that God had sent the visitors just at that moment, to convey that attending to them should take priority. Others credit this sensitivity even further, asserting that Abraham’s instincts, fully refined in spirituality, correctly guided him to this conclusion.[10] R. Yechiel Michel Charlop[11] observes that hospitality, like other acts of chesed mentioned in the Torah, was also modeled by God Himself. This happened in the garden of Eden, where we are told “And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it” (Bereishit 2:15). The word for “put him” (va-yanicheihu) can also be read “He allowed him to rest”, indicating that God provided hospitality for Adam in the garden. Similarly, R. Nachum Matlin[12] suggests that Abraham derived this message from the fact of God modeling chesed as a whole, which is the underlying arena of imitatio Dei. Thus, Abraham understood that hosting guests, which benefits others, was a higher priority than experiencing the Divine presence, which benefits him. Along these lines, R. Eliezer Menachem Mann Schach[13] notes that following in G-d’s path may be understood to be even greater than receiving his presence.[14]

R. Mordechai Kahan, in his introduction to his book-length treatment of this obligation[15] theorizes as to why this activity is set aside from even other acts of chesed.[16] Citing the Alter of Kelm[17], he notes that hakhnasat orchim, when following a fully realized, “Abrahamic” model, involves placing one’s resources and attentions completely at the disposal of one’s guests. Other acts of kindness, generally fulfilled outside the home, can be accomplished in an exemplary fashion while still drawing upon one’s assets in a limited fashion. Haknasat Orchim, by contrast, involves bringing the beneficiary into one’s realm completely.

Most interestingly, the statement of “Hakhnassat Orchim is greater than receiving the Divine presence” is recorded not only as a statement of emphasis, but is brought by the Rambam in his practical code of Jewish Law, the Mishneh Torah.[18] The inclusion of this phrase in such a text is an implication that this dictum has a practical application.[19] The founder of the Chasidic movement, the Ba’al Shem Tov,[20] asserted that this statement does bear relevance to everyday life, in that welcoming guests often requires that one divert attention away from his own personal spiritual strivings. The demands of making small talk, with the possible inclusion of inappropriate speech, can serve as quite a frustration to one who is impassioned toward Torah study and exalted discourse. Nonetheless, we are therefore reminded that ultimately, extending hospitality is considered to be greater than more obviously spiritual experiences.[21]

(Continued here - DOC)

Read the rest of this entry »

Jnews Roundup III

I am still looking for someone to write this on a regular basis.

Israeli Supreme Court orders rabbinate to authorize Heter Mekhirah produce (Arutz Sheva, Haaretz)

Israel remembers Yitzchak Rabin (Arutz Sheva, Haaretz, Ynet, Jerusalem Post)

Israeli woman assaulted by youths for refusing to change her seat on a bus(JPost, JTA, Haaretz)

Iran forbids PDAs -- Public Displays of Affection (Ynet)

Study in the journal of the American Psychiatric Association says that 26% of Orthodox women suffer sexual abuse (Jewish Week)

The latest in the battle for control of the Satmar community (Jerusalem Post)

Gary Rosenblatt opposes the search for the "Big Idea" as being an attempt at a quick fix to all of our problems (Jewish Week)

Jason Maoz expresses hesitations about Bibi Netanyahu's political comeback (Jewish Press)

Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks publishes new book (links in this post)

Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel R. Shlomo Amar visits Yeshiva University (Commentator) and the RCA (Forward)

Editorial about the influence of Israeli rabbis on American halakhic rulings (Forward) which I think touches on the important issue of the recent lack of confidence among American rabbis, although conversion might be an inappropriate example because of its global implications.

A mi-she-beirakh blessing for the Colorado Rockies (Intermountain Jewish News)

R. Yair Hoffman asks whether Starbucks is kosher and answers (Five Towns Jewish Times):

So what can be ordered at Starbucks? While there are no guarantees here, it has been told to this author that the regular coffee and the espresso (even the triple one) are generally washed separately and therefore would not present a problem of kashrus.

(UPDATE: The OU on Starbucks: link)

Read the rest of this entry »

Announcements #004

New issue of Yeshiva College's The Commentator:

• YC Tries to Cope with Glueck Construction's Racket
• YU Hosts All-Star Scholars to Talk Ethics
• Israel's Sephardic Chief Rabbi Visits YU
• National Depression Survey Day Observed on the Wilf Campus
• The Yeshiva University Community mourns the loss of Rabbi Shimon Eider z'l
• Presidential Fellows Staying on as Staff at Yeshiva
• Our Yeshiva, Our Newspaper and Our Yirei Shamayim University
• "Enabled and Ennobled"
• Modern Orthodox vs. Yeshivish
• A Less Cynical View of Life at YU
• more

New issue of Stern College's The Observer

New issue of Azure

(Announce your simchah or Torah lectures by clicking on the button in the top right corner of Hirhurim. See here for readership statistics.)

Read the rest of this entry »

Where are the Bans?

Following a brutal attack on a woman by five Charedi men for failing to move to the back of the bus (JPost, JTA, Haaretz), R. Yaakov Horowitz published a column (link) in which he called for, among other things, the issuance of halakhic rulings that:

Violence is forbidden by our Torah under any circumstances

Those who commit violence constitute a real and present danger to the safety of the public and one is halachicly obligated to report them to the police, and

If one finds himself in the presence of a violent act perpetrated by criminals, he is halachicly obligated to defend the victim as the Torah says, “Lo sa’amod al dam re’echa”

More recently, he published an article by Miriam Shear, a victim of similar violence a year ago (link), in which she proclaimed:

As for all charedi Jews worldwide; it is high time that we collectively say in a loud and clear voice, “Enough is Enough!”

I'm not Charedi so my declaration that this is unacceptable is worth little. But I'm glad to add my voice. The real question, though, is why great Torah scholars are willing to sign statements denouncing all sorts of things as halakhically problematic, which are posted on walls throughout religious communities and published in newspapers, but -- to my knowledge -- have not done similarly for this issue. Why the silence? It seems like a no-brainer to condemn this.

Here are three possibilities that I've come up with. Feel free to add your own, provided that they are respectful:

1. Perhaps it is so obvious that it does not require pronouncements. However, even obvious things are sometimes announced in this fashion. Even moreso if they are not observed in a very public manner.


2. Maybe there are unintended consequences that I'm overlooking. Israeli society is so different from American society that I might just not get the subtle socio-political nuances of this issue. For example, maybe such a pronouncement will only encourage this type of violence.


3. Maybe anyone who signs a proclamation like this will be subject to violence himself.


4. Maybe, pronouncements are almost always signed when someone with the right connections is sufficiently energized to have it presented to the right people through the right channels, and this issue simply does not have the right advocate.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Differences of Dignity

Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks has published a new book, The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society. See here for excerpts: I, II and here for reviews of this new book: Times, Guardian, Totally Jewish. The last begins with a brief discussion of the controversy surrounding Rabbi Sacks' 2002 book, Dignity of Difference: How to Avoid the Clash of Civilizations. After a confrontation with the beis din of Manchester, R. Sacks revised his book for a second edition.

See here for Marc B. Shapiro's article on this issue and the ban on R. Nosson Kamenetsky's Making of a Godol.

Below are the revisions to the book's controversial third chapter after a comparison of the original and revised editions. It is possible that I have missed a few minor differences but I believe I have found almost everything. Text in parentheses is only in the original edition and text in brackets is only in the new edition. In order to fully understand the context of these changes, one has to have a copy of the book.

I see, in general, four kinds of changes:
1. Slight changes to avoid an unintended implication that religion is bad
2. Removing unnecessary references to issues of evolution and prehistory
3. Revising his use of the word "faith" to mean religion in general rather than religious belief, which some might have found confusing
4. Softening his claim that other religions are divine communications

This last claim of his is not new in this book, because it also appeared in his book Radical Then, Radical Now (=A Letter in the Scroll). He prefaces it with the statement that it is radical, and then argues that not only is there some truth in every religion -- which is obvious because a religion that teaches that it is good to honor one's parents already has one element of truth in it, and almost certainly many more. He suggests that God has given those religions to other nations intentionally, although I am not sure whether he means through actual prophecy or simply through divine guidance. The latter claim has a source in the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Melakhim 11:11).

The former, though, if that was R. Sacks' intent, is quite shocking. The sources escape me right now, but there are three views within Chazal about when prophecy ceased among the Gentiles but all agree that it was around the time of Moses. However, there is precedent for saying that the end of Jewish prophecy around the time of the destruction of the First Temple was not absolute and there are exceptions. Perhaps this can also be said about Gentiles. In which case R. Sacks is not contradicting any Chazal but merely making a radical proposal, which is after all exactly what he said he was doing. I don't see anything heretical about it, merely unique and, frankly, not very convincing.

In conjunction with the publication of the revised edition of the book, R. Sacks posted sources to his website on related topics (link). None, I believe, fully provide precedent for this radical view.

P. 46: The first recorded act of religious worship is (leads directly to) [directly followed] by the first murder, the first fratricide.

P. 46: I read this as a clear and fateful warning, at the very beginning of the book of books, that just as there is a road from faith to redemption, so there is a path from [the misuse of] religion to violence.

P. 46: The sense of belonging goes back to the (prehistory, to the hunter-gatherer stage in the evolution of mankind, when homo sapiens first emerged) [dawn of humanity, when being part of the group was essential to life itself].

P. 52: Babel – the first global project – is the turning point in the biblical narrative. [From then on, God will not attempt a universal order again until the end of days.] It ends with the division of mankind into a multiplicity of languages, cultures, nations and civilizations.

Pp. 52-53: (it) [Judaism] is a particularist monotheism. It believes in one God (but not in one exclusive path to salvation. The God of the Israelites is the God of all mankind, but the demands made of the Israelites are not asked of all mankind.) [but not in one religion, one culture, one truth. The God of Abraham is the God of all mankind, but the faith of Abraham is not the faith of all mankind.]

P. 53: God, the creator of humanity, having made a covenant with all humanity, then turns to one people and commands it to be different, (teaching humanity to make space for difference. God may at times be found in human other, the one not like us.) [in order to teach humanity the dignity of difference.] Biblical monotheism is not the idea that there is one God and therefore one (one truth, one faith, one way of life.) (gateway to His presence.) [On] (To) the contrary, it is the idea that (unity creates diversity. That is the non-Platonic miracle of creation.) [the unity of God is to be found in the diversity of creation. This applies to the natural world.] What is real and the proper object of our wonder is not the (quintessential) [Platonic form of a] leaf but the 250,000 different kinds there actually are…

P. 54: (Judaism is about the miracle of unity that creates diversity.) [Unity in heaven creates diversity on earth.]

P. 54: (The same applies to civilizations.) The essential message of the (Book of Genesis) [Hebrew Bible] is that universality – the covenant with Noah – is only the context of and prelude to the irreducible multiplicity of cultures…

P. 54: There is a difference between physis and nomos, description and prescription, nature and culture(, or – to put it in biblical terms – between creation and revelation)

P. 55: (The same applies to religion. The radical transcendence of God in the Hebrew Bible means nothing more or less than that there is a difference between God and religion. God is universal, religions are particular. Religion is the translation of God into a particular language and thus into the life of a group, nation, a community of faith. In the course of history, God has spoken to mankind in many languages: through Judaism to Jews, Christianity to Christians, Islam to Muslims. Only such a God is truly transcendental – greater not only than the natural universe but also than the spiritual universe articulated in any single faith, any specific language of human sensibility. How could a sacred text convey such an idea? It would declare that God is God of all humanity, but no single faith is or should be the faith of all humanity. Only such a narrative would lead us to see the presence of God in people of other faiths. Only such a worldview could reconcile the particularity of cultures with the universality of the human condition.) [So too in the case of religion. The radical transcendence of God in the Hebrew Bible means that the Infinite lies beyond our finite understanding. God communicates in human language, but there are dimensions of the divine that must forever elude us. As Jews we believe that God has made a covenant with a singular people, but that does not exclude the possibility of other peoples, cultures and faiths finding their own relationship with God within the shared frame of the Noahide laws. These laws constitute, as it were, the depth grammar of the human experience of the divine: of what it is to see the world as God's work, and humanity as God's image. God is God of all humanity, but between Babel and the end of days no single faith is the faith of all humanity. Such a narrative would lead us to respect the search for God in people of other faiths and reconcile the particularity of cultures with the universality of the human condition.]

P. 55: (This means that religious truth is not universal. What it does not mean is that it is relative.) [This means that though God makes absolute demands of the Jewish people, other than the Noahide laws these demands are not universal.]

P. 56: God as we encounter Him in the Bible is not simply a philosophical or scientific concept: the first cause, the prime mover, (initiator of the Big Bang) [necessary being]. He is a parent(, sometimes male) {'Have we not all one father?'(}, sometimes female {)'Like one whom his mother comforts, so will I comfort you'}(, but always) bearing the love that a parent feels for a child he(/)[or ]she has brought into being.

P. 56: He is a particularist, loving each of his children for what they are: Isaac (and) [but also blessing] Ishmael, [favouring] Jacob (and) [but also commanding his children not to hate those of] Esau, Israel and the nations, (choosing one for a particular destiny, to be sure, but blessing the others, each in their own way) [the God 'whose tender care rests upon all his works'].

P. 56: (God no more wants all faiths and cultures to be the same than a loving parent want his or her children to be the same. That is the conceptual link between love, creation and difference. We serve God, author of diversity, by respecting diversity.) [Just as a loving parent is pained by sibling rivalry, so God asks us, his children, not to fight or seek to dominate one another. God, author of diversity, is the unifying presence within diversity.]

P. 59: Indeed, (it is hard to avoid the conclusion that this is precisely the reason why the Israelites have to undergo exile and slavery prior to their birth as a nation) [that is what the Israelites are commanded never to forget about their shared experience of exile and slavery].

P. 59: (We encounter God in the face of a stranger. That, I believe, is the Hebrew Bible's single greatest and most counterintuitive contribution to ethics. God creates difference; therefore it is in one-who-is-different that we meet god. Abraham encounters God when he invites three strangers into his tent. Jacob meets God when he wrestles with an unnamed adversary alone at night.) [God cares about the stranger, and so must we. Abraham invites three strangers into his tent and discovers that they are angels. Jacob wrestles with an unnamed adversary alone at night and thereafter says, 'I have seen God face to face'. Welcoming the stranger, said the sages, is even greater than 'receiving the divine presence'.]

P. 60: The human other is a trace of the Divine (Other).

P. 60: The (supreme religious) challenge [to the religious imagination] is to see God's image in one who is not in our image.

P. 60: The God of Israel is larger than the (faith) [specific practices] of Israel.

P. 60: (Judaism was born as a protest against empires) [[Judaism has historically been a living alternative to empires], because imperialism and its latter day successors, totalitarianism and fundamentalism, are attempts to impose a single (truth) [regime] on a plural world…

P. 62: We will need to understand that just as the natural environment depends on biodiversity, so the human environment depends on cultural diversity, because (no one creed has a monopoly on spiritual truth;) no one civilization encompasses all the spiritual, ethical and artistic expression of mankind.

P. 64: Yes, humanity is capable of great acts of altruism (and self-sacrifice), but it is also constantly at war.

P. 64: (Truth on the ground is multiple, partial. Fragments of it lie everywhere. Each person, culture and language has part of it; none has it all.)

P. 64: (Truth on earth is not, nor can it aspire to be, the whole truth. It is limited, not comprehensive; particular, not universal.) [The divine word comes from heaven but it is interpreted on earth. The divine light is infinite but to be visible to us it must be refracted through finite understanding. Truth in heaven transcends space and time, but human perception is bounded by space and time.]

Pp. 64-65: (In heaven there is truth; on earth there are truths. Therefore, each culture has something to contribute. Each person knows something no one else does.) [God, wrote Rabbi Abraham Kook, 'deals kindly with this world by not putting all the talents in one place, in any one man or nation, not in one generation or even one world.' Each culture has something to contribute to the totality of human wisdom.]

P. 65: The way I have discovered, having listened to Judaism's sacred texts in the context of the tragedies of the twentieth century and the insecurities of the twenty-first, is that the truth at the beating heart of monotheism is that (God is greater than religion; that He is only partially comprehended by any faith. He is my God, but also your God. He is on my side, but also on your side. He exists not only in my faith, but also in yours.) [God transcends the particularities of culture and the limits of human understanding. He is my God but also the God of all mankind, even of those whose customs and way of life are unlike mine.]

P. 65: Only such a God would be truly transcendent – greater not only than the natural universe but also than the spiritual universe capable of being comprehended in any (one language, any single faith) [human language, from any single point of view].

Pp. 65-66: It would be to know that I am a sentence in the story of my people and its faith, but that there are other stories, each written by God out of the letters of lives bound together in community, (each bearing the unmistakable trace of his handwriting) [each part of the story of stories that is the narrative of man's search for God and God's call to mankind].

Read the rest of this entry »

Parashah Roundup: Vayera 5768

by Steve Brizel

Lot and His Daughters

Yael Zohar offers a new insight into the contrasts between Avraham's family and Lot's daughters: link

R. Herschel Schachter views the actions of Lot's daughters as one should always avoid developing a "messiah complex", even in the most laudatory aspects of Avodas Hashem: link

Avraham's Need to Teach

R. Efraim Buchwald tells us that Avraham moved to a different community so that he could continue his mission of imparting Chesed and monotheism weekly: link

Avraham's Seeking Advice From His Neighbors

R. Zev Leff explores why Avraham consulted with his neighbors after being commanded to perform the mitzvah of Bris Milah: link

Avraham and His Three Guests

R. Elchanan Samet explicates Rashbam's commentary to tell the reader why the three angels appeared as men both at the beginning of the Parsha and how these events are connected to the events concerning the destruction of Sodom: link

R. Jonathan Sacks tells us why Avraham Avinu was able to see the Divine Presence in a stranger: link

R. Shlomoh Wolbe zt"l tells us that Chazal explored every aspect of how Avraham Avinu responded to his guests to teach us the proper way of performing the mitzvos: link (RTF)

R. Michael Rosenzweig explores the hashkafic significance of Avraham's response to his three visitors: link

Avraham's and Sedom

R. Avigdor Nevenzahl explains what is a sincere prayer: link

R. Berel Wein shows us from the life of Avraham Avinu that an individual can make a critical difference in the course of human events: link

Avraham and Sarah

R. Yissochar Frand explains the difference between Chesed and welfare and why Sarah should have answered Amen: link

Avraham and the Akeidah

R. Shlomo Riskin explores the notion that the Akediah means that we are sacrifice our lives for God until and including Al Kiddush Hashem: link

Read the rest of this entry »

The Yartzeit of Rachel Imenu

by R. Ari Enkin

While all the other Patriarchs and Matriarchs of the Jewish people were buried in Chevron, Rachel Imenu was an exception. God[1] pre-determined that Rachel was to be buried along the side of the road on the way to Bethlehem in order for her tomb to serve as a place for prayer when the Jewish people would one day be led into exile by King Nevuzradan. When Rachel would hear the beseeching prayers of her children at upon her grave she would cry and plead on their behalf to God.

Although the date traditionally observed as the yartzeit for Rachel Imenu is the eleventh of Cheshvan, the accuracy of this date is far from unanimous within historical texts. The source for observing the eleventh of Cheshvan as the yartzeit is a Midrash[2] which lists the dates that each of the founding fathers of the 12 tribes were to have been born on. It states there that Benjamin was born on the eleventh of Cheshvan. As the Torah records that Rachel died as she gave birth to Benjamin, we can derive from here that this day would be her yartzeit as well.

Nevertheless it appears from no less an authority than Rashi[3] that Rachel's passing took place at the start of the summer, a view which is supported by others[4] as well. Yet other sources[5] contend that Rachel actually died between Pesach and Shavuot.[6]

Along with so many other issues in Judaism, there are often a multitude of opinions and traditions, and this is no exception. Even the yartzeit of Moshe Rabbeinu, traditionally observed on the 7th of Adar is disputed with eminent authorities[7] insisting that his yartzeit is to be observed on the 7th of Shevat. Nonetheless, there exists a concept within Torah thought that it is a Divine sign of legitimacy when ambiguous matters have been mainstreamed by the entire nation.[8]

Some commentators suggest an additional reason as to why Rachel was buried in a separate location away from the other Patriarchs and Matriarchs. While prayer at Ma'arat Hamachpela is certainly meritorious and worthy of Divine favor, some suggest that prayer at the tomb of Rachel is even more powerful. Indeed, it is only Rachel who in addition to her righteousness also has the tremendous merit of having saved her sister from embarrassment. It is owing to her concern about her sister's dignity over her own that God specifically shows Divine mercy to those who pray there.[9] Had she been buried along with everyone else we may not have been able to access her unique potential.

Be sure to make every effort to pray at Rachel's Tomb along with everyone else – on the eleventh of Cheshvan, the date Klal Yisrael has chosen to observe her yartzeit.

---

[1] Bereishit 48:7
[2] Yalkut Shemoni, Parashat Shemot; Rabbeinu Bechaya, Parashat Shemot
[3] Bereishit 35:16
[4] Siftei Chachamim, ad. loc.
[5] Pesikta 3 s.v. Bayom Hashmini
[6] Cited in Meoros Natan on Hilchot Chanukah by Rabbi Yitzchak Natan Kupershtok, in the introduction.
[7] Magen Avraham O.C. 580:8 in the name of the Yalkut Shimoni. Further study is required to understand why the Yalkut is relied upon as the date observed for Rachel's yartzeit, yet its registration of the yartzeit for Moshe Rabbeinu has been rejected.
[8] See for example Aruch Hashulchan O.C. 345:18 for a similar idea.
[9] A "must read" Midrash about Rachel's merits is to be found in Eicha Rabba, in the introduction.

Read the rest of this entry »

Announcements #003

Announcing the publication of Tradition 40:3 (Fall 2007). Subscribe here and receive new issues.

The Yeshiva University Center for Jewish Law and Contemporary Civilization at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law presents "Military Ethics in an Age of Terrorism: Comparative Perspectives"
October 28, 2007, 6:00-8:00pm, Moot Court Room, Cardozo Law School, 55 Fifth Avenue at 12th Street

Kollel Yom Rishon
Sunday, Oct. 28 -- Rabbi Shmuel Maybruch at 9:30 am and Rabbi Jeremy Weider at 10:30 am (topics TBA)
YU's Wilf Campus (Furst Hall Room 501, Corner of 185th St and Amsterdam Ave)

Midreshet Yom Rishon
Sunday Oct. 28 -- Rabbi Meir Goldwicht at 9:30 am and Dr. Smadar Rosensweig at 10:30 am (topics TBA)
YU's Wilf Campus (Schottenstein Center, West 185th St Between Audobon Ave and St. Nicholas Ave)

Nefesh B'Nefesh: Israel & The Diaspora: Our State, Our Statement, Our Destiny. Inspiration Lecture Series featuring Rabbi Yehoshua Fass and Ambassador Danny Ayalon.

• Monday, Oct. 22, 8-10 pm at the Young Israel of Woodmere, 859 Peninsula Boulevard, Woodmere, NY
• Tuesday, Oct. 23, 8-10 pm at the Young Israel of Holliswood, 86-25 Francis Lewis Boulevard, Holliswood, NY
• Wednesday, Oct. 24, 8-10 pm at Shomrei Emunah Congregation, 6221 Greenspring Avenue, Baltimore, MD

e-TIM is now free! Sign up here and start learning today. Courses include:

• How the Academic Study of Talmud can Enhance the Beit Midrash with Rabbi Jeremy Wieder
• Understanding the Text: How our Ancestors Really Learned Talmud with Rabbi Dr. Pinchas Hayman
• Architects of Modern Orthodoxy with Dr. Marc Shapiro
• We will Do, but will we Hear? The Reasons for the Commandments through the Generations wih Dr. Yoel Finkelman
• Midnight Midrash with Rabbi Menachem Leibtag
• Sefer Tehillim with Shani Taragin
• Understanding the Commentaries with Rabbi Alex Israel
• Parsha Perspectives in conjunction with the Rabbinical Council of America

(Announce your simchah or Torah lectures by clicking on the button in the top right corner of Hirhurim. See here for readership statistics.)

Read the rest of this entry »

Rav Soloveitchik and God's Name

The Artscroll siddur famously uses the word “Hashem” to represent God’s name of YKVK (some have named it the “Hashemite Siddur”). Since Artscroll is the basis of the Rav Soloveitchik machzorim, I was thinking about whether Rav Soloveitchik would have wanted the English translation to represent YKVK by “Hashem” or “God” and/or “Lord”.

R. Akiva Eiger (Chiddushei Rabbi Akiva Eiger [1983 edition], Megillah 17a sv. u-ve-yoter [second]) states that proper names cannot be translated, and the Rav reportedly agreed with this position (R. Hershel Schachter, Nefesh Ha-Rav, pp. 109-110). Therefore, he should prefer “Hashem” to “God” and/or “Lord”. However, Rav Soloveitchik consistently used the term “God” in his English writings, and “Lord” and “Almighty” sometimes as well. For Halakhic Man, he instructed the translator use the JPS 1917 translation (and not the newer one) with some modifications that did not include changing the names of God (see the Translator's Preface). In “Lonely Man of Faith”, he translated “YKVK Elokim” as “eternal God” (in Tradition 7:1 [Winter, 1964], p. 181). See the first chapter (“The Three Biblical Names of God”) of Reflections of the Rav, in which Elokim is rendered as “God”, YKVK as “Eternal” and ADNY as “Lord, Master, Owner”.

It is worth noting that Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks explains in the introduction to his siddur (p. xxxi): “Though I have followed convention, rendering the Tetragrammaton as ‘Lord’, it should be remembered that ‘Lord’ is not a translation but a substitution.” See also the commentaries of R. Samson Raphael Hirsch and R. Aryeh Kaplan (The Living Torah) to Gen. 2:4, where they both state that the names of God are untranslatable and they chose to use “God” for lack of an alternative. The second edition of the English translation of R. Hirsch’s commentary (ibid.) italicizes “God” in reference to YKVK so as to distinguish it from Elokim.

Read the rest of this entry »

New Periodical: Tradition 40:3 (Fall 2007)

by Jonathan Baker (crossposted from Thanbook)

A new edition of Tradition is out, Fall 2007, although the new issue is not yet online.

These summaries are based on bare skimming of the articles, I may have missed serious points.

• Editor's Note by Shalom Carmy, “End of a Leper’s Holiday: Carl Hubbell Comes Home”, on the power and perils of communicating through metaphor.


• Torat Hashem Temima: The contributions of Rav Yoel Bin-Nun to Religious Tanakh Study, by R. Hayyim Angel, on the ongoing argument between traditionalists and the new style of Tanach study, which involves critical issues such as philology and archaeology in understanding the text, while not departing from the truth of Torah.


• Married – with AIDS, by R. Alfred Cohen, on the thorny questions in such a situation – should they marry, but then the other one may become infected, so use condoms, but what about the mitzvah to have children, but then the children might get infected, so what right do they have to bring them into the world, so should the HIV-positive person marry? You see the problems. He offers some precedents, but not much concrete advice. He seems to advise divorce, because while married, the mitzvah to procreated argues against condom use, but leaves it as a series of issues to be balanced one against the other.


• The Pursuit of Scholarship and Economic Self-Sufficiency: Revisiting Maimonides’ Commentary to Pirkei Avot, by R. Aryeh Liebowitz: Rambam was not opposed to private arrangements, or self-sacrifice, to enable oneself to study Torah full time, only to communal arrangements for supporting scholars in full time learning. This was based on conditions in Egypt in his time.


• From the Pages of Tradition: Rabbi Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg: In Praise of Esther Rubinstein, by R. Shnayer Z. Leiman. R. Weinberg’s eulogy for the wife of the last “Chief Rabbi” of Vilna, who was a great person in her own right – Zionist leader, broadly educated, founded several schools for religious girls, taken untimely at age 42 in 1924.


• Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature: The $25,000,000 Funeral. A latter-day “Pearl of Great Price” story (in the Xtian bible, we have similar stories): one should forego worldly wealth in pursuit of mitzvot, e.g. honoring one’s parents or Jewish burial. Whether necessary or not, one who foregoes his large inheritance to ensure his parent’s proper burial is to be honored.


• Review essays: on E.J. Schochet’s biography of Saul Lieberman, which praises the huge quantity of data, while questioning the book’s lack of analysis of R. Lieberman’s personality and motivations; on R. Chaim Rapaport’s book on Jewish approaches to homosexuality, which rejects the “oness” approach (they’re biologically forced into such behavior), but offers “mumar letei’avon” (rebel for appetite, rather than rebel out of rejection) as a way to approach/accept the homosexual. His chapter of real-life letters to homosexuals puts his ideas into practice.


• Review of Elisheva Baumgarten’s “Mothers and Children: Jewish Family Life in Medieval Europe.” The last sentence: “… a critical work for understanding the medieval Jewish family and the daily realities of the Jewish experience in Ashkenaz during the High Middle Ages.” Social history and family life- both big trends in recent history works.

Read the rest of this entry »

The First Jewish Publisher in America

Dr. Jonathan Sarna, American Judaism, p. 82:

The same year that The Law of God (1845), [Isaac] Leeser's five-volume, exquisitely produced Hebrew-English edition of the Pentateuch appeared, Leeser also founded America's first Jewish Publication Society, designed "to support the noble fabric of our faith." "The press is at our service," he announced in an address to the "Israelites of America." He hoped that the new society would solve the problem caused by the fact that "our people live dispersed over so wide a space of country that we are precluded from waiting upon all individually." The American Tract Society and the American Bible Society, he knew, had long since used the press to spread Protestantism's religious message. Now, showing that he too had assimilated the lessons of the market revolution, he sought to emulate "the plan adopted by our opponents" and to "profit by them." He proposed to "prepare and publish works to be placed in the hand of all Israelites" and listed two major religious objectives for his new society: first, to provide American Jews with a "knowledge of their faith," and second, to arm them with the "proper weapons to defend... against the assaults of proselyte-makers on the one side and of infidels on the other." The publication society produced fourteen small English-language volumes, each an approximately 125-page tract, but in 1851 a fire consumed its entire stock of undistributed books, and it went out of business.

Yet even as the society's literary effort went up in smoke, Leeser's Bible, prayer books, monthly magazine, and textbooks remained in print, in some cases well into the twentieth century. His strategy for revitalizing American Jewish life--his use of print media, his willingness to borrow successful techniques from non-Jews, his focus on education and aesthetics, and his commitment to communal defense--proved equally long lasting.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Birth of non-Jewish-Jewish Communities

R. Nathan Lopes Cardozo offers a solution to the "conversion crisis", in which many Gentiles in Israel consider themselves Jews but are not willing or able to halakhically convert (link):

The answer, we suggest, is the “two brotherly people solution”: Jewish Jews and non-Jewish Jews. This would involve creating communities of “non-Jewish Jews” in which those who are not prepared to go the whole way could develop their own brand of Judaism. They could have their own synagogues in which to practice aspects of Jewish tradition that they wish to use. They could decide for themselves to what extent to observe Shabbath or keep kosher. Their wedding ceremonies could make use of many Jewish rituals and they could have their own “Jewish” cemeteries where they could adopt as many Jewish religious practices as possible rather than be forced to bury their dead in totally secular or non-Jewish burial grounds. We could set up outreach programs for them, enabling them to study Judaism and choose whatever aspects they wish to adopt. We could even create yeshivoth and seminars for this specific purpose.

This seems to me to be a recipe for schismatic disaster, not to mention the encouragement of intermarriage by those who will see this all as a technicality.

Perhaps it depends on one's judgment regarding whether the result will be better or worse than the current intermarriage situation. I have insufficient knowledge with which to form an opinion. However, the creation of "Non-Jewish Judaism" scares the bejabbers out of me.

Read the rest of this entry »

Jnews Roundup II

I am still looking for someone to write this on a regular basis.

Religious Zionist rabbis to perform conversions without recognition of the Israeli Rabbinate (Haaretz)

Outrage over the plan to split Jerusalem (Arutz Sheva, Jewish Week, OU)

Sephardim disenfranchised by Ashkenazic Charedim (Jpost blog, Yeshiva World)

Gary Rosenblatt starts a blog (Jewish Week, his blog)

Archaeologists challenge anti-Israel Barnard professor (Forward)

Shabbos in the age of technology (Forward)/li>

London Beth Din rejects heter mekhirah but permits food that is accidentally purchased (Jerusalem Post)

Reform rabbi argues that the siddur's text must remain traditioinal (JTA, and a counter-argument)

Extradition requested for pedophile rabbi (NY Daily News)

Pluralistic school rabbi charged with sexual acts with student (News Record)

Read the rest of this entry »

Shomer Shabbos Residency II

R. Hershel Schachter writes in this week's TorahWeb (link):

There is a terrible misconception that the laws of Shabbos do not apply to doctors. This is absolutely incorrect. No profession exempts anyone from any mitzvos. Medical students are certainly not exempt from Shabbos observance. And even after having completed his school years, the future doctor must take special care to make sure he has a Sabbath-observant residency. If this can not be arranged, the student must simply look for a different profession.

On the other hand, some doctors will argue that while this is absolutely correct, any residency can be made "Shomer Shabbos" if you know how to do it. See this post and the comments.

Read the rest of this entry »

Adam's Mating with the Animals

Rashi (Gen. 2:23) quotes a midrash and states: "Adam mated with every [species of] domesticated animal and wild animal but his appetite was not assuaged by them, until he discovered Eve." This is, to put it mildly, a startling suggestion. While it is based on textual clues, it still offers an historical scenario that seems quite difficult to accept (note the non-literal translation in the Metsudah Rashi). In two recent articles, Dr. Eric Lawee addressed the commentarial literature on this Rashi ("From Sepharad to Ashkenaz: A Case Study in the Rashi Supercommentary Tradition" in AJS Review 30:2 [2006]; "The reception of Rashi's 'Commentary on the Torah' in Spain: The Case of Adam's Mating with the Animals" in JQR 97:1 [2007]).

Early Literal Approaches

As Dr. Lawee points out, there are a minority of supercommentators* who take this midrash literally while the clear majority do not. R. Yechiel of Paris, in his disputation, took it literally, and so did Chizkuni.

Early Non-Literal Approaches

However, four supercommentaries from pre-Expulsion Spain -- the glosses to Rashi (incorrectly) attributed to Ra'avad, a colleague of Profet Duran, R. Shem Tov Ibn Shaprut and R. Shmuel Almosninu -- understood it non-literally. The pseudo-Ra'avad says that the entire episode is a sod (philosophical or mystical secret), R. Shmuel Almosninu and the colleague of Profet Duran explains that Adam investigated the nature of every species, and R. Shem Tov Ibn Shaprut said that Adam's cohabitation occurred only in his intellect. R. Moshe Ibn Gabbai (in his Eved Shlomo) wrote that this midrash cannot be taken literally because the Noahide laws would have prohibited Adam from mating with animals. Rather, he studied with his intellect the natures of the animals. His son-in-law, R. Aaron Aboulrabi, wrote a supercommentary on Rashi and reached the same conclusion. R. Yitzchak Arama (in his Akedas Yitzchak), R. Yitzchak Abarbanel and R. Moshe Alshich also understood the midrash this way. So far, among the Sefardim.

Later Non-Literal Approaches

R. Yom Tov Lipman Muelhausen of Prague, the author of Sefer Nitzachon, explained Rashi's comment as meaning that Adam went out to see if any of the animals lacked a partner, and found that they did not. R. Shlomo Luria understands Rashi as explaining the midrash as meaning that Adam literally mated with the animals, but then very cautiously suggests that Rashi misunderstood the midrash and that it really means that Adam approached them "in thought". R. Chaim Ben Betzalel, the Maharal's older brother and the author of the Be'er Mayim Chaim supercommentary, understands Rashi as saying that Adam mated with the animals "in thought" to see which would be appropriate for him. The Maharal (in his Gur Aryeh and Be'er Ha-Golah) explains in his symbolic philosophical way that Adam did not mate with the animals but rather was Form looking for Matter among them. R. Mordechai Yaffe, the Levush, dismissed the Maharal's explanation as being overly philosophical and instead explained that Adam arrived at a deep understanding of each animal. R. Yissachar Ber Eilenburg, in his Tzedah La-Derekh, explained that Rashi "came upon the nature of each beast and animal in his thought, mind and intellect."

Later Literal Approaches

However, R. Eliyahu Mizrachi, in his classic supercommentary (Gen. 4:1), took Rashi literally. The Maharsha (commentary to Yevamos 63a)also took it literally, as did R. Ya'akov ben Binyamin Aharon Slonik in his Nachalas Ya'akov supercommentary. R. David Ha-Levi, the Taz, takes great pain to explain this Rashi literally in his Divrei David supercommentary.

And finally, R. Shabsai Ben Yosef Bass, the author of the Sifsei Chakhamim compendium of supercommentaries, seems to prefer the non-literal explanation of Rashi.

---

* A supercommentary is a commentary on a commentary.

(I had been holding onto this for months and waiting for Parashas Bereishis, but I forgot. Better late than never.)

Read the rest of this entry »

Syrian Jews III

The edict (click on the image to enlarge it):

Read the rest of this entry »

Syrian Jews II

The following letter to The New York Times was forwarded to me (multiple times):

Oct. 15, 2007
Letters to the Editor, Magazine
The New York Times
620 Eighth Ave.
New York, NY 10018

To the Editor,

Jakie Kassin is the son and grandson of rabbis and a dynamic do-gooder, but he is neither a rabbi nor a scholar of Judaic studies. The statements attributed to him in “The SY Empire” (Zev Chafets, Oct. 14, 2007) are a gross distortion of Judaism as well as of the 1935 Edict promulgated in the Syrian Jewish community of Brooklyn. That Edict was enacted to discourage community members from intermarrying with non-Jews. It acknowledged the reality of the time that conversions were being employed insincerely and superficially. Accordingly, conversion for marriage to a member of the community was automatically rejected.

However, it is important in this regard to clarify the policy of the community rabbinate and particularly that of the long-time former chief rabbi of the community, Jacob S. Kassin (the originator of the Edict), and his son, the present chief rabbi, Saul J. Kassin. I quote from an official formulation of the Sephardic Rabbinical Council of several years ago that reflects their position: “1. A conversion not associated with marriage that was performed by a recognized Orthodox court – such as for adoption of infants or in the case of an individual sincerely choosing to be Jewish – is accepted in our community. 2. If an individual not born to a member of our community had converted to Judaism under the aegis of an Orthodox court, and was observant of Jewish Law, married a Jew/Jewess who was not and had not been a member of our community, their children are permitted to marry into our community.” Based on these standards a goodly number of converts have been accepted into the community. Genetic characteristics play no role whatsoever.

No rabbi considers sincere and proper conversions “fictitious and valueless.” (The comma in the English translation cited in the article that gives that impression was the result of a mistranslation by a layman, a matter I made clear to Mr. Chafets when we spoke.)

In addition, the quote claiming that even other Jews are disqualified from marrying into the community “if someone in their line was married by a Reform or Conservative rabbi” is a totally false portrayal of community rabbinical policy. Many Ashkenazim whose parents were married by such rabbis have married into our community.

Sincerely,

Moshe Shamah
Rabbi, Sephardic Synagogue
511 Ave. R
Brooklyn, NY 11223

Read the rest of this entry »

The Dialogue Continues

R. Natan Slifkin's letter in this week's The Jewish Press (link):

The Dialogue Continues:
Rabbi Slifkin Answers Critics

Last week’s letter-writers pointed out that the scientific jargon quoted by reader Amnon Goldberg in support of the notion of a stationary Earth actually provides no such support. Mr. Goldberg was correct in noting that many Acharonim were strongly opposed to Copernicus, but he is mistaken in believing that modern science supports their geocentrism. Relativity, even according to Mr. Goldberg’s mistaken understanding of it, does not lend any support to what these Acharonim were stating – they believed that the earth is absolutely stationary, not merely stationary from a relative perspective.

I explain this matter in greater detail in my book The Challenge Of Creation.

Reader Chaim Silver writes that he disagrees with my claims “that the concept of Divine Providence is limited to the chassidic movement and that God does not test our faith.”

Click here to read moreI, too, strongly disagree with such claims, which is why I wrote no such thing. I am at a loss to account for why he characterized my views in this way.

In Dr. Yaakov Stern’s latest letter, he (somewhat strangely) completely changes the topic that was the subject of my article and his first letter. Instead of discussing Chazal’s scientific knowledge, he writes instead about the age of the universe. But he does not offer any arguments against my position in this matter either, and soon switches the line of discussion to one of authority.

Dr. Stern, citing Rashi on the pasuk of Lo Sasur, argues that it is incumbent upon us to follow the views of the gedolim about my books, even if their rulings appear to be in error.

Yet, according to the majority of opinions, that pasuk is referring to the Beis Din HaGadol in Yerushalayim, not to contemporary rabbinic authorities. Sefer HaChinnuch states that it applies to the Torah authorities of every generation, but this is a decidedly minority view amongst the Rishonim. Furthermore, even the Sefer HaChinnuch’s view is limited to certain types of piskei halachah that would not include this case, for several reasons.

One reason is that most of the distinguished rabbonim who banned three of my books were condemning my position that Chazal’s scientific statements were not based on ruach haKodesh or a mesorah from Sinai and were therefore in some cases mistaken. Now, of course these rabbonim have every right to vehemently oppose this position, and to warn those in their community against it, and I would even agree that it can be a dangerous approach for their community.

But is their prohibition applicable to people outside of their constituencies – to the entire Jewish People?

My rabbonim have told me that this is inconceivable, since this approach was presented by Rav Sherira Gaon, Rambam, Rabbeinu Avraham ben HaRambam, Tosafos, Akeidas Yitzchak, Pri Chadash, Rav Yitzchak Lampronti, Maharam Schick, Rav Hirsch, and many dozens of other Torah giants throughout the centuries, right through to our generation, where I heard it from Rav Aryeh Carmell, zt”l, and Rav Gedalyah Nadel, zt”l. It is adopted or legitimized today by scores of bona fide poskim and qualified talmidei chachamim (including, but by no means limited to, Rav Zalman Nechemiah Goldberg, Rav Shlomo Fisher, and Rav Herschel Schechter).

Thus, Rav Ovadiah Yosef, when presented with the case of a Sephardic rabbi who was making use of this approach, wrote in response that while he is personally opposed to it, one cannot deny the right of someone to adopt it, in light of its authentic roots in the Rishonim.

Switching to the topic of the age and development of the universe, Dr. Stern notes that Rav Moshe Feinstein was of the view that the Torah’s account of creation was to be interpreted literally. Indeed he was – but he was also of the view that one is not obligated to follow the opinion of a different posek, even if he is the gadol hador. In Iggros Moshe (Yoreh De’ah 3:88), he tells someone moving to Bnei Brak that he is fully entitled to dispute the positions of the Chazon Ish, although he must do so with respect.

And the Chazon Ish himself wrote (Yoreh De’ah 150) that one need not follow the majority of rabbinic opinion, past or present, in determining a ruling; only with the Sanhedrin was the ruling determined by majority vote. One need only follow one’s own rabbinic authority (if one is not competent to form an opinion oneself).

All of the above is stated with regard to halachic rulings; it is all the more true with regard to matters of hashkafa that are not related to halacha, since, as Rambam states (commentary to Sanhedrin 10:3), such matters are not subject to psak. One might perhaps make an exception for beliefs that relate to the fundamentals of faith, but the nature of creation (as opposed to the fact of creation) cannot be said to fall into that category – it does not relate to any of Rambam’s thirteen principles of faith. An opinion on these matters may be right or wrong, but it is not subject to being “paskened” that one may not believe it to be true.

Of course, not every rabbi is of sufficient stature to have credibility in forming opinions in such matters. A Torah scholar must be not only a great Talmudist, but also possess a thorough knowledge of the diverse approaches of the Rishonim on this obscure topic. This is not so easy to find; for example, notwithstanding the pre-eminent status of Rambam, it is hard to find someone who is truly knowledgeable of his positions, and open to his approach.

Credibility in these topics also requires experience in dealing with such issues, and an appreciation of the seriousness of the challenges posed by science. Without this, we face a situation such as that with the Shevus Yaakov, one of the greatest halachic authorities of the eighteenth century, who dismissed scientists on the grounds that they believe the world to be round, in contrast to his understanding of the Gemara.

There are some great Torah authorities of this and recent generations who fulfill these requirements. For example, there is Rav Yitzchak Herzog, who was eulogized by Rav Aharon Kotler, zt”l, as a “prince of Torah,” and who was a rebbe of Rav Elyashiv, shlita; he was thoroughly versed in the philosophical approaches of the Rishonim and noted that they would not mandate a literalist interpretation of Bereishis (nor a belief that Chazal’s science was infallible). Rav Gedalyah Nadel, one of the foremost disciples of the Chazon Ish, also studied modern science; he accepted that the universe was billions of years old, and that life evolved.

Many other such qualified authorities have their positions quoted in full in my books, and my own mentor, Rav Aryeh Carmell, was certainly qualified to teach me my own approach in these matters.

Dr. Stern is fully entitled to follow his own rabbinic authorities; surely, however, is not entitled to deny others the right to follow theirs.

Rabbi Natan Slifkin
Jerusalem

Read the rest of this entry »

Joining the Twenty-First Century

I caved. After insisting for years that I prefer the written word, I finally bought an I-Pod with which to listen to lectures, primarily during my long commute. However, do not fear. I have not abandoned the written word altogether and since my inaugural I-Pod session this past Monday, I have read during 2 1/2 commutes and listened during 2 1/2.

For those curious/nosey, currently loaded on my I-Pod are lectures by R. Hershel Schachter and R. Mayer Twersky (both via TorahWeb), R. Dovid Gottlieb and R. Yoel Bin-Nun (both via YUTorah), and R. Yitzchak Blau (via Ki Mitzion Teitze Torah).

Regarding the last of these sources, KMTT, there is a new season beginning and here is the lineup:

Mondays: Rav Moshe Taragin - Tefillah (I heard him say shi'ur for a month during a YU summer kollel and this guy is a phenomenal learner. He REALLY knows his stuff.)

Tuesdays: Rav Chanoch Waxman - Parashat HaShavua

Wednesdays: Rav Binyamin Tabory - The Jewish Family in Halakhah (I don't know what this means but it sounds interesting.)

Thursdays: Rav Shlomo Rosen - Mishlei

Fridays: Rav Jonathan Snowbell - Erev Shabbat Program

Read the rest of this entry »