The Plagues and the God of the Gaps

R. Jonathan Sacks (link):

The response of the Egyptians to these first two plagues is to see them within their own frame of reference. Plagues, for them, are forms of magic, not miracles. To Pharaoh’s “magicians”, Moses and Aaron are people like themselves who practice “secret arts”. So they replicate them: they show that they too can turn water into blood and generate a horde of frogs. The irony here is very close to the surface. So intent are the Egyptian magicians on proving that they can do what Moses and Aaron have done, that they entirely fail to realise that far from making matters better for the Egyptians, they are making them worse: more blood, more frogs.

This brings us to the third plague, lice. One of the purposes of this plague is to produce an effect which the magicians cannot replicate. They try. They fail. Immediately they conclude, “This is the finger of G-d”.

This is the first appearance in the Torah of an idea, surprisingly persistent in religious thinking even today, called “the god of the gaps”. This holds that a miracle is something for which we cannot yet find a scientific explanation. Science is natural; religion is supernatural. An “act of G-d” is something we cannot account for rationally. What magicians (or technocrats) cannot reproduce must be the result of Divine intervention. This leads inevitably to the conclusion that religion and science are opposed. The more we can explain scientifically or control technologically, the less need we have for faith. As the scope of science expands, the place of G-d progressively diminishes to vanishing point.

What the Torah is intimating is that this is a pagan mode of thought, not a Jewish one. The Egyptians admitted that Moses and Aaron were genuine prophets when they performed wonders beyond the scope of their own magic. But this is not why we believe in Moses and Aaron. On this, Maimonides is unequivocal:

Israel did not believe in Moses our teacher because of the signs he performed. When faith is predicated on signs, a lurking doubt always remains that these signs may have been performed with the aid of occult arts and witchcraft. All the signs Moses performed in the wilderness, he did because they were necessary, not to authenticate his status as a prophet . . . When we needed food, he brought down manna. When the people were thirsty, he cleaved the rock. When Korach’s supporters denied his authority, the earth swallowed them up. So too with all the other signs. What then were our grounds for believing in him? The revelation at Sinai, in which we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears . . . (Hilkhot Yesodei haTorah 8:1).

The primary way in which we encounter G-d is not through miracles but through His word – the revelation – Torah – which is the Jewish people’s constitution as a nation under the sovereignty of G-d. To be sure, G-d is in the events which, seeming to defy nature, we call miracles. But He is also in nature itself. Science does not displace G-d: it reveals, in ever more intricate and wondrous ways, the design within nature itself. Far from diminishing our religious sense, science (rightly understood) should enlarge it, teaching us to see “How great are Your works, O G-d; You have made them all with wisdom.” Above all, G-d is to be found in the voice heard at Sinai, teaching us how to construct a society that will be the opposite of Egypt: in which the few do not enslave the many, nor are strangers mistreated.

(A reader had sent this to me in an e-mail a few weeks ago but I was waiting for it to be posted online.)

Read the rest of this entry »

Article Round-Up

• A new issue of the journal Hakirah has been published: link. I am continually surprised by the quality of articles they manage to publish. It seems that for now they are only putting online the first two pages of each article. I haven't seen the journal yet but I did read a relatively late draft of R. Chaim Eisen's article Maharal’s Be’er ha-Golah and His Revolution in Aggadic Scholarship. It is a must-read in order to understand the various traditional approaches to aggadah and, in particular, how the Maharal's approach has been often misrepresented. It is worth it to buy the journal for just this article. Other articles listed also look interesting but I have not seen them yet.
  


• A new issue of The Edah Journal, now called Meorot, has been published online: link. I'm not yet ready to comment on any of the articles but I find the topic of halakhah and warfare to be fascinating (although Tradition beat them to the punch by a few weeks). Dr. Marc Shapiro's article on R. Ovadiah Yosef, which I have not yet read, also looks quite interesting.
  


• Bar Ilan's JSIJ has posted some forthcoming articles from their next issue: link
  


• Chana over at Curious Jew took copious notes during a lecture by R. Mordechai Willig on genetic testing. Worth the read: link (audio of a similar lecture)

Read the rest of this entry »

Frisch Graduate to become Dean of JTS

JTS announced yesterday their new appointment of Conservative Rabbi Daniel Nevins to the position of Dean (link). According to his bio, he is a Frisch graduate (before my time).

Read the rest of this entry »

May a Doctor Get Paid?

The Shulchan Arukh (Yoreh De'ah 336:2) rules based on a Ramban in Toras Ha-Adam that a doctor may not receive payment for his expertise but only for his time (Sekhar batalah), i.e. what he is otherwise capable of being paid for that time (cf. Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat 9:5). How much can a doctor actually receive for his time spent not healing someone in any direct or indirect way? Maybe a lot, maybe not. But does this rule apply nowadays?

R. Shaul Yisraeli, Chavos Binyamin vol. 3 no. 110 (link, loose translation):

The gemara (Kiddushin 58b) brings an apparent contradiction regarding the question whether the workers involved in the para adumah purification process may receive a salary. The gemara, in answering the question, distinguishes that they can receive money for the filling and bringing of spring water but not for the actual purification process. The Ramban (Torat Ha'adam, end of section on "Sakana") applies this distinction to the medical profession. He states that the doctor "may not receive pay for knowledge and teaching, which is analogous to the purification process itself, but he may take pay for the toil involved, which is analogous to bringing the water." The Machane Ephraim (S'chirut,17) explains the distinction that the mitzva is the actual purification and not the preparatory bringing of water. Likewise, the demanding nature and the very substantial expense of the training which precede one's certification as a doctor [which were much less extensive in ancient times] are analogous to bringing the water and justify payment.

The preparation for a medical career is not a mitzva which is incumbent upon a given individual, but is embarked upon by free choice. It follows that one enters medical school with the intention to be repaid for his time, toil, and money by demanding appropriate compensation when he reaches the requisite expertise. Every patient who requires the doctor's help, throughout his medical career, is considered a part of the group of people on behalf of whom the preparations with their toil were carried out. Therefore just as one could be paid for bringing water for the para adumah, any given patient can be charged for part of the doctor's education. (Although the Ramban says that the doctor cannot demand pay for limud (education), this refers to the doctor's instructions to the patient, not the doctor's own training [see Shach 336:8]).

Read the rest of this entry »

A Remarkable Blending of Old and New

Four trends in Jewish scholarship in the early nineteenth century, as described by R. Jacob Shachter in his introduction to R. Zevi Hirsch Chajes, The Students' Guide Through The Talmud, pp. xxi-xxiii:

During the early part of the nineteenth century the leaders of Jewish thought divided themselves into two, three, or even four different groups. The leading spirits of the great majority such as Rabbis Landau,[1] Banett,[2] Eiger[3] and Sofer,[4] were permeated with the belief in the basic dogma of Torah Min Ha-Shamayim, i.e. that both the Written and the Oral Law were divinely revealed. As far as they were concerned this belief was based on such an abundance of convincing evidence as to be no mere opinion, and no efforts of faith, therefore, were needed for its acceptance. The trend of thought diametrically opposed to the above was led by Geiger,[5] Holdheim,[6] Einhorn,[7] and Mannheimer,[8] who initiated a campaign which tended utterly to deny the binding authority of the Oral Law, and consequently to discard several of its vital precepts. Besides these two groups, however, another movement arose whose protagonists, such as Zunz,[9] Krochmal,[10] Rappaport,[11] and Frankel,[12] aimed at steering a middle course. Whilst they were determined one the one hand to resist the negation of historic Judaism, they advocated, on the other hand, freedom of thought and the expression of critical opinions, declaring the Halacha in general to be the product of a long process of development, in the course of which elements from a variety of sources had been absorbed into the body of Judaism, and so tacitly admitted the desirability of changes in traditional Judaism. Thus, whilst the leaders of the first two groups each in his own way adopted rigorous attitudes of negation, the one by denying divine authority to all laws incorporated in the Talmud, and the other by negating that negation, and opposing the legitimacy of freedom for critical analysis of such laws as were claimed to have been handed down by Moses along with the written law, the third group adopted a view which was intended to secure an adjustment of tradition with the views of the new science and learning. How far, however, they were prepared to go in that adjustment, they did not determine…

One may, therefore, very conveniently classify these three groups as follows: Extreme right wingers, who jealously guarded every custom and observance handed down to them by their ancestors, lest the complete structure of Judaism tumble; extreme left wingers who tended to undermine the very fundamentals upon which that structure rested; and a central group that believed in the freedom of research and in historical and critical analysis, in consequence of which belief they propounded many advanced views on the origin of the Halacha or at least portions of it.

It would, however, be incorrect for the student to stop there. For it was just at that time that certain Rabbinic scholars of extraordinary distinction produced a viewpoint somewhat different from the above-mentioned. While their orthodoxy was beyond question, it possessed a peculiar flavour, and so they could be identified neither with the ordinary older type nor with the neo-orthodoxy of the scientific school. They were a remarkable blending of old and new. They remained throughout valiant champions and uncompromising adherents of tradition, but they also regarded it as their inescapable duty to initiate investigation into all the sources of halacha which might bear on the authority of the oral laws which were held to be binding for all time. These men were the eminent rabbinic scholars Malbim,[13] Meklenburg,[14] and Zevi Hirsch Chajes, who occupied a special place among their rabbinic contemporaries. While their contemporaries, mentioned above, had a remarkable knowledge of the entire field of Halachic and Aggadic literature, and were also possessed of penetrating minds which delved into many a complicated problem, they nevertheless made no attempt to elucidate the close relationship between the Written and the Oral Law, or to formulate, by analysis and classification, the various categories of Halacha belonging to Torah She-Be-Al Peh, an activity which was to prove so essential at that crucial period in the last century…

---

[1] Ezekiel Landau (1713-1793) or Prague, combined vast erudition with great beauty of character. He was one of the first rabbis of his time to trace in the invasion of the Medlessohnian Haskalah a danger to Judaism. Though he did not oppose secular knowledge, he differentiated between secular knowledge and that propounded by the Mendelssohnian school.
[2] Mordecai Banett, Hungarian Rabbi (1773-1854) of Neutra, of great reputation beyond the limits of his own country for his scrupulous conscientousness, self-effacement, and piety.
[3] Akiba Eiger (1761-1839) of Posen, universally known for his great Talmudic learning, noble and self-sacrificing character, and idealistic nature. An uncompromising opponent of reform, and a champion of extreme orthodoxy.
[4] Moses Sofer (1763-1839) of Pressburg, a disciple of Nathan Adler of Frankfurt-on-Main, famous for his Talmudic scholarship, combined with some knowledge of secular sciences, and for his fierce and unremitting warfare against the Reform movement.
[5] Abraham Geiger (1810-1874) theologian and Reform Rabbi of Frankfurt-on-Main and Berlin, advocate of radical reform ofsJudaism. In his principal work… he claimed to have discovered traces of alterations in the Hebrew text of the Bible, due to changing conceptions in various ages.
[6] Samuel Holdheim (1806-1860) of Berlin, opponent of Talmudic Judaism and leader of the extreme reform movement in Germany, held extremist views which even the reform rabbis of his day disclaiemed, as constituting a negation of Judaism.
[7] David Einhorn (b. Bavaria 1809, d. New York 1879) Reform Rabbi and author.
[8] Isaac Noah Mannheimer (1795-1865), and otustanding preacher and orator in Vienna, wrote on religious reform and political emancipation.
[9] Leopold Zunz, Jewish German scholar (1794-1886) regarded as the founder of the modern science of Judaism. His [book] was among the most important Jewish works published in the nineteenth century.
[10] Nachman Krochmal (1785-1840), Galician Jewish philosopher and historian, who paved the way for the critical study of Jewish history. His only work Moreh Nebukhe ha-Zeman, the result of careful study, touches upon the profoundest problems of Jewish science.
[11] Solomon Judah Leib Rappaport (1790-1867) of Prague, Rabbi and scholar, renowned for his critical investigations. He excelled all his contemporaries in the establishment of historical dates.
[12] Zacharia Frankel (1801-1875) President of the Breslau Seminary, Germany, an eminent exponent of the rationalistic view of history and a great advocate of freedom of research. His attitude regarding Sinaitic laws was that they are not of Mosaic origin. Gerenally, however, he was vague on the subject.
[13] V. supra, p. xviii, note 5.
[14] Jacob Zevi Meklenburg, Rabbi of Konigsberg (died 1865).

Read the rest of this entry »

Looking for a YU Student

Any YC or Stern student who wants to make a few bucks for a little work (an hour or two) during the Seforim Sale, please e-mail me.

Thanks

UPDATE: Student found. Thank you.

Read the rest of this entry »

Whose Life Is It?

R. David M. Feldman, Where There's Life, There's Life, pp. 100-104):

Whose life is it? If life is not the questioner’s, is it then for one’s family to determine what to do? No, neither is life the family’s to take, because members of the family are naturally prejudiced, either in favor or against. Either they care too much for the patient and want the doctors to “try everything,” actually to prolong the dying rather than the living, something also to be avoided; or they would hasten death out of genuine, altruistic compassion for the loved one. Conversely, the family could care too little for the patient, consciously or unconsciously, and care too much for ulterior considerations—material, emotional, or otherwise. Prof. Yale Kamisar wrote recently, and counterintuitively, in the Los Angeles Daily [Law] Journal, that “the family should be the last to be asked.” Members of the family may seem to be objective, but how can they really be? He points to the husband tending his cancerous wife who, in desperation, appeals to the doctor to “put her out of her misery.” What he is often really saying, subconsciously, is “It’s time to get on with my own life.” Others would understand his words, “Let’s put her out of her misery,” as meaning possibly, again without conscious awareness, “Let’s put her out of my misery.”

Nor is life the doctor’s to take, from the Jewish and indeed from a cross-cultural standpoint. Click here to read moreThe doctor’s mandate is to heal and relieve, not to kill for whatever reason. Halakhah yields to the physician’s judgment only when he or she offers an opinion that is medical, not personal. It accepts a medical opinion offered about the state of a patient’s health or risks for life or death, but never a personal opinion about whether that life, of diminished quality, is worth saving. In fact, because of the doctor’s mandate to heal, even most advocates of euthanasia have opposed the idea of physician-assisted suicide. This would violate the physician-patient relationship of trust, as well as that mandate to heal. The trust relationship is, in fact, a problem: The New York State Task Force on Law and Life raises the possibility that this trust might lull us into accepting an assisted suicide from someone whose authoritarian or paternalistic view we might accept implicitly.

Similarly, for reasons of preserving the healing function of medicine, the American Medical Association has declined to allow its members to administer lethal injections in criminal execution...

Whose life is it, then? Not the patient’s, not the family’s, not the doctor’s. Life is God’s, or, stated in different terms, life belongs to the principle that the right to life is inalienable, that it is a gift from the Creator, that it would be blasphemous to cast that gift back ungratefully, and that we, being creatures rather than Creator, are not the arbiters of the end of life for ourselves or fellow humans. And we are creatures “in the image of God,” which gives life a sanctity beyond our own estimations thereof, and beyond our right to dispense with...

The idea that “the family is the last to ask” shares a halakhic approach, as can be seen from a different corner of the law. There is a famous story in the Talmud (K’tubot 104a) where the action of the housemaid of R. Judah Ha-Nasi is described. She so sympathized with his suffering at his last illness that she prayed that God would end his life. She did so while his fellow rabbis and pupils prayed for him to live. When his soul left him and he was relieved of further distress, her actions appear to be the subject of praise. The fourteenth-century authority, Rabbenu Nissim (RaN), takes it as such in his Talmudic commentary (to N’darim 40a), and codifies, so to speak, the permission to pray for the death of a person in unmitigated suffering. But a pre-eminent modern authority, R. Eliezer Waldenberg (Tzitz Eliezer, V, addendum ch. 5) allows this to everyone except to close family members, making the obvious assumption of a conflict of interest. Their own relief from burdens associated with the illness would influence their prayers as much as their concern for the patient. Yale Kamisar was unaware that his conclusion is so halakhic; the argument is undeniable.

Read the rest of this entry »

SOY Seforim Sale

The world-famous SOY Seforim Sale begins this Sunday and continues through February 19th. If you are in the NEw York area, be sure to stop by and check out all the books from Yashar. If you need any help finding them, ask the staff. In particular, look for:

• The Rabbis' Advocate: Chacham David Nieto and The Second Kuzari by David Nieto, translated by Meir Levin
• Bach: Rabbi Joel Sirkes: His Life, Works and Times by Elijah J. Schochet
Click here to read more
• The Challenge of Creation: Judaism's Encounter with Science, Cosmology & Evolution by Natan Slifkin
• The Legacy of Maimonides: Religion, Reason and Community by Yamin Levy and Shalom Carmy
• Man and Beast: Our Relationships with Animals in Jewish Law and Thought by Natan Slifkin
• Between the Lines of the Bible: A Study from the New School of Orthodox Torah Commentary by Yitzchak Etshalom
• My Yeshiva College: 75 Years of Memories edited by Zev Nagel and Menachem Butler
• Gray Matter volume 2 by Chaim Jachter with Ezra Frazer
• Where There's Life, There's Life by David M. Feldman
• Medicine and Jewish Law volume III edited by Fred Rosner and Robert Schulman
• Moral Issues of the Marketplace in Jewish Law by Aaron Levine
• The Students' Guide through the Talmud by Zevi Hirsch Chajes, translated, edited and critically annotated by Jacob Shachter
• Rabbi Israel Salanter: Religious-Ethical Thinker by Menahem G. Glenn
• The Right and the Good: Halakhah and Human Relations (Expanded Edition) by Rabbi Daniel Z. Feldman
• Bnei Banim vol. 4 by Yehuda Henkin
  
  
• AND, AVAILABLE TOWARDS THE END OF THE SECOND WEEK OF THE SALE, The Pursuit of Justice and Jewish Law: Halakhic Perspectives on the Legal Profession by Michael J. Broyde

The Seforim Sale's calendar

Directions to the sale

Read the rest of this entry »

Ten Plagues II

R. Yissocher Frand on the natural aspects of the first eight plagues (link):

In all of the plagues up to this point, the Almighty did not change the order of nature. This means that all prior plagues could to some extent be given some "natural" explanation. For example, the Nile being filled with blood could have been the result of pollution, a type of 'oil spill', etc.; frogs can congregate in one place, occasionally; and so forth. None of the first eight plagues represented a fundamental change to the order of nature.

However, the ninth plague of Darkness did represent a change in the course of nature. Three days of consecutive darkness, was a miraculous departure from the natural day night cycle. Why now? The Medrash attributes it to a special Divine irritation with the king of Egypt.

This time Pharaoh did something that the Almighty would not tolerate. Pharaoh was cynical. He mocked the Jewish people. He treated Moshe Rabbeinu with derision. G-d has, so to speak, a special aversion to cynicism (leitzanus) and mockery. The trait of cynicism and the practice of acting with derision is abhorred by Heaven to such an extent that when Pharaoh engaged in that behavior, G-d increased the intensity of the plagues by changing the order of nature.

See also this post.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Maggid of Makov

I don't have any famous rabbis in my family history, at least not that I know of. But I once found some sort of connection -- a world-famous rabbi who was the maggid of my paternal grandparents' town in Poland (over a hundred years before they were born). One of the leading antagonists of Chassidim in the late eighteenth century was R. David Makover. He was the author of the anti-Chassidic tracts Zemer Aritzim and Shever Poshim (see vol. 2 of Mordechai Willenski's Chassidim U-Misnagdim).

R. David ben Benzion Yechezkel was the maggid (preacher) in the town of Makov, hence his title R. David Makover. My grandparents came from a town named Makow Masovietski. I assumed that this was the same Makov as R. David's and some historically-minded friends agreed with me bu one dissented. I recently asked Prof. Shaul Stampfer about this and he responded that in Pinkas HaKehilot - Polin, vol. 4 p. 265 it says that R. David the author of Zemer Aritzim was from Makow Masovietski.

I remember hearing that Chassidic legend has it that as punishment for R. David Makover's anti-Chassidic attitude, the entire town became Chassidic. However, I was reading Me-Rachok Kokhav Menatznetz, the recently published memoirs of Mordechai Ciechanower, a survivor from Makow (and a distant cousin of mine), and he writes about the different shuls from his youth: There were two batei midrash and shtiblakh for Gerrer Chassidim, Amshinover Chassidim and Alexander Chassidim. He writes that he used to attend the Misnaged beis midrash with his father.

Read the rest of this entry »

JCCs on Shabbos

Following up on this post, the following is the story of R. Eliezer Silver and the Cincinnati Jewish Community Center, as recorded in R. Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff, The Silver Era, pp. 303-306:

In 1961, The Cincinnati Jewish Community Center decided to open its facilities on Saturday afternoon. Rabbi Silver was consulted by the Center’s leadership to help plan a program of activity which would be in consonance with the Sabbath. Under his guidance, the Center adopted fourteen regulations for their Saturday afternoon events. These included:

1. No program shall be scheduled Friday evening or Saturday prior to 1:30 p.m.
2. No parking of automobiles or bicycles.
3. No smoking, card playing or cooking.
4. No sale of any kind, whether by cash or tickets, including vending machines.
5. No music, including radio and television.
6. Lights may be turned on and off but by non-Jewish personnel only.
7. Loudspeakers may be operated but by non-Jewish personnel only.
8. Steam room may be operated but by non-Jewish personnel only.
9. If showers are used, hot water tanks must be pre-heated and temperatures kept at no higher than 75 degrees.
10. No writing or cutting, no arts and crafts, power tools or work tools or electric-power exercise machines.
11. Public telephones will be blocked.
12. Swimming is permitted but bathing suits may not be carried to or from the Center, or wrung out on the Sabbath. The Center will supply polyethylene bags in which wet suits can be deposited to be picked up after the Sabbath.
13. The Health club shall be bound by all the rules applicable to all other areas of the Center.
14. No staff member who conscientiously objects to working as a matter of religious principle shall be required to do so.

In a supplementary statement to these regulations, Silver stressed that there could be no carrying of articles from one part of the Center to the other. The Center called attention to the fact that it did not have an indoor swimming pool. Its outdoor pool, used only in the summer, was heated by the atmosphere. The innovations in Cincinnati were soon detailed in national Jewish publications. An interview with Silver regarding Sabbath programming appeared in the Jewish Welfare Board Circle. Silver explained that he agreed to the Center’s opening under these conditions so that children could spend Saturday afternoons in a Jewish environment:

You see, for a long time I have been thinking that too many Jewish children spend Saturday afternoon in desecrating the Sabbath. They go to all kinds of commercial recreational places, movies, and other places which are bad for their morals and certainly violate Jewish tradition. It was therefore my thought, that if the Center could be open in accordance with Jewish tradition, our Jewish children could spend Saturday in a Jewish environment and, I had hoped, even get a taste of what the Sabbath really means. Of course, I was hoping that the leaders of the Jewish Community Center in Cincinnati would agree to create such an atmosphere in accordance with Jewish law and Jewish tradition.

Silver was also asked whether community centers in other cities should be opened on Saturday afternoons. In response, he stressed that only for Cincinnati could he accept this responsibility:

I was glad to advise the Jewish Community Center of Cincinnati on this matter. I would not presume to give advice to Jewish Community Centers in other cities. For one thing, I know the leaders of the Jewish Community Center in Cincinnati and I have confidence in their sincerity. I know they operate a kosher kitchen with adequate supervision. Besides, I live in Cincinnati and can “keep an eye” on what is happening here.

The Jewish Community Center leaders in other cities can consult with the rabbis in their communities and arrive at their own decisions. You may be aware that I am well known in the Orthodox Jewish community of American and that many rabbis in this country were my students and, in general, have confidence that my recommendations were based on a very sound knowledge and interpretation of the halakhah.

I would like to take this opportunity to emphasize at this time that in my opinion it is more important for the Center to be open on the Sabbath than on other days of the week. You see, on the weekdays Jewish people, adults as well as children, are busy and have many places to go for their leisure-time activities which are not harmful to them. However, on the afternoon of the Sabbath, the Jewish Community Center of Cincinnati will be the only place where I know with confidence they will be able to go and have a very positive experience in the spirit of Jewish tradition in a beautiful new Center building. I firmly believe that if this program is carried out properly it will help all of Jewish life in our community.

Controversy soon broke out as other communities desired to emulate the Cincinnati program. Their rabbis did not approve since they feared such functions would result in Sabbath desecration…

Silver was criticized for having publicized his local stand. While he could control the activities in his communal Center, other rabbis were not in such a strong position. Many roshei yeshivah and leaders of the Agudat Harabanim agreed with this viewpoint. Silver finally joined with his colleagues in issuing a ruling which prohibited the opening of Centers in other communities. In a June 23, 1961, letter sent to his rabbinic colleagues, Silver stated:

It is not correct that I have issued a general ruling which permits the opening of Centers on the Sabbath. My colleagues, the elder rabanim, inform me that this impression has resulted in religious transgressions. I therefore join with the other leading rabbis in prohibiting the opening of Centers on the Sabbath and Festivals. Every rabbi and teacher is obligated to stop this practice since it may result in massive Sabbath and Holy Day desecration. Please publicize my prohibition in this matter in conjunction with the similar stand of my distinguished colleagues.

Silver’s role in the controversy was mitigated with the circulation of his letter. Nevertheless, the Sabbath activities of the Jewish Community Centers was to remain an open issue.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Hat That Almost Got Away

This Shabbos was cold and windy. On my way back from shul, the wind blew off my hat (and both the hat and yarmulka off the man with whom I was walking). My hat flew under a parked car and became lodged far underneath it. I tried reaching it but could not. Then a few men from the same synagogue walked by and I asked a rather tall man to see if his long arms could reach the hat. He wasn't limber enough to do it and someone else in the group suggested that it would be forbidden to retrieve the hat because it would be carrying in public. I argued a bit but he was confident. So I let them walk away (the tall man turned back and offered on behalf of the group to buy me a new hat) but I learned my lesson long ago not to listen to halakhic proclamations from someone I didn't ask. Then a teenager came by and, limber as he is, got on his knees, stuck his arm all the way under the car and retrieved the hat. The question is whether what he did is permissible. There are a few reasons why I think it is.

1. We were within the boundaries of the Va'ad Ha-Rabbonim of Flatbush's controversial eruv. Without getting into the issues, I have a mesorah that the eruv can be used as an additional (senif) reason to be lenient and, for example, did not make a private eruv with my landlord at my previous residence because of this and one other reason.

2. The person retrieving the hat had his legs firmly placed and was doing the equivalent of standing in public and waving an item. That is not carrying. That is standing still and holding something. One could argue that he was dragging rather than carrying, but there is no difference. For example, see Kesuvos 31a-b that dragging (megarer) is the same as carrying. (When I asked a local rabbi about this [after the fact], he cited this as being a reason to be lenient but did not want to go on the record without doing further research.)

3. The carrying/dragging was done in an area of less than 4 amos (6-7 feet). The man who told me that this was forbidden contended that carrying less than 4 amos is rabbinically prohibited and I responded that it is entirely permissible. After the fact, I looked it up and it seems that we are both correct.

The Rashba (Shabbos 8b sv. ela) quotes Rabbenu Yonah as permitting carrying within 4 amos. The Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Shabbos 10:17) seems to permit it also, although the Ra'avad disagrees. The Chavos Yair (no. 15) writes that the Torah specifically permits carrying within 4 amos (according to Eruvin 51a) so, therefore, the sages lacked the ability to prohibit it. The Pri Megadim (general introduction to Hilkhos Shabbos) also permits it, as do the Eshel Avraham (349:5), Mishnah Berurah (349:16) and She'arim Metzuyanim Ba-Halakhah (82:1).

However, the Chasam Sofer (Responsa 1:60) prohibits (on a rabbinic level) carrying less than 4 amos, as does the Tiferes Yisrael (Shabbos ch. 1, Bo'az 4).

It seems to me that the majority view is that this is permitted, although there is a whole literature on the issue of chatzi shi'ur which might prove this judgment premature (cf. R. Daniel Z. Feldman, Binah Ba-Sefarim, vol. 1 ch. 9 and in particular p. 127 n. 88). Does anyone have a sufficient handle on this issue to give an opinion on what the majority view is?

Read the rest of this entry »

Orthodox Bible Scholarship, in Print

Orthodox Bible Scholarship, in Print

An Interview with Rabbi Yitzchak Etshalom


Rabbi Yitzchak Etshalom, who studied at RIETS in the early 80's, recently published his first book, Between the Lines of the Bible: A Study of the New School of Orthodox Torah Commentary, which will be available at this year's SOY Seforim Sale. Rabbi Etshalom agreed to sit down with The Commentator to discuss the publication.

Commie: What makes Between the Lines unique?

YE: Between the Lines presents a systematic program for reading Tanakh within the general framework of Masorah, while allowing breadth to enhance depth. In other words, by utilizing every possible tool available to us, we are able to discover new readings of the text, and that's what I tried to accomplish. This first volume deals with the book of Genesis.

Continued here

Read the rest of this entry »

Humrah Society IV

An often overlooked reason for people acting stricter in ritual matters is the increase in Talmudic learning. When one learns a new opinion and spends days analyzing and justifying it, there is a natural tendency to incorporate that view into one's behavior. Refraining from doing so could lead to a dissonance between one's study and one's practice, something that seems inauthentic. While a strong backing in the study of practical halakhah could avoid this, because one becomes comfortable with following only one (or a few) opinions of many, this is not always the case and, regardless, the current environment of Talmud study does not include much in-depth study of halakhah.

A similar idea is pointed out by R. David Horwitz in his 1982 review of R. Moshe Sternbuch's Mo'adim U-Zemanim ("R. Moshe Sternbuch's Halakhic Novellae" in Tradition 20:3 [1982], p. 266):

One of the salient features of Mo'adim U'zmanim, and one of which the author is quite proud, is the frequency of humrot (stringent rulings) that arise from the examination of a variety of halakhic issues. R. Sternbuch does not advocate practicing humrot that have no halakhic basis or that would entail other halakhic problems. Nor is his approach and advocacy of humrot as a "defensive measure," that is, either due to the ever-deteriorating spiritual position of the Jews, as the Shlah maintained, or as part and parcel of a personal mussar doctrine, as R. Moshe Hayim Luzatto suggested. And it is not a device to prevent assimilation into the general culture by increasing the regimen of the Halakhah. R. Sternbuch's position (one that is not a solitary view either) requires that the attempt to fulfill all the mitsvot with precision be combined with any fresh results from inquiry as to the nature of certain mitsvot. Thus the halakhic constraints of new theoretical possibilities must be accepted as practice.

R. Horwitz's point is more about acting strictly based on a new (conceptual) understanding of the law, but I believe that it also includes conceptual understandings of minority opinions that one would otherwise not follow. His idea does not stem from a lack of familiarity with the halakhic process, but merely new insights into the accepted rulings that leads to further practices. The idea I am adding is that often students will put into practice something they have learned, even if it was intended only as a theoretical study of a non-normative position.

Read the rest of this entry »

Commie Articles

Legacies of the Rav

• The Rav as an Aging Giant (1983-1985) by R. Howard (Chaim) Jachter: link
• Ma'aseh Rav ~ V'dok by R. Daniel Greer: link
• A Special Zechut: Serving as the Rav's Shamosh by R. Yosef Adler: link

The story behind the appointments of YU roshei yeshiva: link

YUTorah: link
I've been told by various people that a lot of Yeshivish people have been downloading R. Hershel Schachter's lectures, some because they have become big fans and others who are looking for things with which to attack him.

Read the rest of this entry »

Yeshiva Admissions Policies

From the Haggadah of the Roshei Yeshiva, pp. 103-104:

אחד רשע / a wicked one

Sometimes it happens that a man has a wicked son. The Torah tells us that this child must also be treated as a son. The Torah also gives advice as to how this son should be dealt with: Blunt his teeth; that is, respond to him with the same harsh tone that he used. There are many guidelines for dealing with this child, but are exhorted not to completely disenfranchise the wicked children among us.

R' Chaim Shmulevitz illustrated this idea with several actual cases, using the admissions policy of a yeshivah as an example.

Sometimes, when a boy seeks admission to a yeshivah, problems arise. They notice that the child has a personality problem -- he does not act nicely, he lacks manners, etc. There is a precedent for such a case in the Torah, R' Chaim said. Timna, the Gemara (Sanhedrin 99b) tells us, was the daughter of a king, and she sought to convert to the Jewish religion and throw her lot in with the Avos... The Gemara is telling us that whatever the justification of the patriarchs, they should not have rejected her so completely... The Gemara is telling us that the patriarchs were taken to task for not finding some way to accept Timna into their ranks despite her shortcomings. In an instance like this, the yeshivah should accept the student.

Often a child presents a somewhat different problem: In addition to his own shortcomings, the student will have a negative influence upon others in the school. Although this is definitely a serious consideration, there is a precedent for exhibiting sensitivity in this case as well... Avraham did not encourage Lot to leave his presence just because his own spiritual life was being hampered, but only when he began to be a menace to the broader community, when "there was a quarrel between Avraham's shepherd's and Lot's shepherds" (Bereishis 17:7)... It was only when Lot's behavior became injurious towards others that Avraham decided that it was time for him to ask Lot to depart from him. Nevertheless, Avraham was taken to task for sending Lot off: The Midrash (Bereishis Rabbah 41:11) tells us that God disapproved of his course of action, saying, "He becomes friendly to all people, yet to his own relative he is not friendly!" this, too, is not a reason to alienate. One must merely find the proper way to develop a relationship.

Another problem occasionally met with when deciding whether to accept an applicant into a yeshivah is an academic consideration. The boy's level is not sufficiently high; he will not understand the classes. Here too there is a precedent. The Gemara (Sotah 47a) tells us that the Nazarene (the founder of Christianity) was a student of R' Yehoshua ben Perachyah... This student misunderstood his rabbi's comment about their hostess; he did not comprehend that it was totally inconsistent with his rabbi's level of sanctity to make a comment about a woman's appearance. He was obviously not on the level to understand the rabbi's teachings. Yet the Gemara criticizes R' Yehoshua for unrelentingly pushing the Nazarene away... [On the identification of the protagonists, see this post - GS]

Another problem that often arises is that the new student may disrupt the yeshivah's program or sow seeds of dissent. These are such terrible acts that, in describing the malice of Geichazi, Elisha's attendant, the Sages consider them equal to idolatry (Sotah 47a)... Despite this, Elisha was taken to task for distancing Geichazi "with both hands"... No matter what, absolute alienation should not be the approach.

We must indeed rebuke the wicked son, or, as the Haggadah puts it, "blunt his teeth." Yet it is equally important to remember the lessons discussed above, and to take care not to renounce the rebellious child entirely. For he, too, is a child; a child of Hashem.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Internet And The Observant Community

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Fighting the internet is like fighting the telephone. You're never going to win. You'll have much more success teaching people how to use it responsibly.

From this week's The Jewish Press (link):

More than 120 rabbis, dayanim, heads of yeshivos and principals of girls schools in Boro Park and Flatbush, met on Sunday, Asarah B’Teves, December 31, to implement a takanah to counteract the sakanah (danger) of the Internet. The meeting was called for by Rabbi Yosef Rosenbloom, Rosh Yeshiva, Shaarei Yosher; Rabbi Yechezkel Roth, Karlsburger Rav; Rabbi Yaakov Perlow, Novominsker Rebbe; and Rabbi Moshe Wolfson, Mashgiach, Yeshiva Torah Vodaath...

The Novominsker Rebbe recalled that American Jewish history was replete with battles to protect Shabbos, kashrus, Taharas HaMishpachah, all of which are proudly adhered to in observant Jewish America today. However, the Rebbe stressed, the threat of the Internet is greater than all the previous perils combined...

The Karlsburger Rav reviewed the 60-page directives that were distributed to the meeting’s participants. The Rav elaborated on several of the key steps that are being taken and must be strengthened.

Several meetings of rabbis have been called throughout the years to review the threat of the Internet and its inroads into the observant community. At an Agudah meeting of rabbis in September 2003, a report of Internet usage within observant communities was given. Surprisingly, in Boro Park, Flatbush, and Williamsburg, more than 90 percent of the homes in each community had Internet access...

No detail on what the results, if any, of this meeting were.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Two Faces of Evil

Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks (link):

Simplest and most profound are the words of the Talmudic sages about yetser ha-ra, the evil impulse:

Rav Assi said: At first the evil impulse is as thin as a spider's gossamer, but in the end it is as thick as a cart-rope. (Sukkah 52a)

Rava said: At first the evil impulse is call a "wayfarer", then a "guest", then finally a "master". (Sukkah 52b)

Evil has two faces. The first - turned to the outside world - is what it does to its victim. The second - turned within - is what it does to its perpetrator. Evil traps the evildoer in its mesh. Slowly but surely he or she loses freedom and becomes not evil's master but its slave.

Pharaoh is in fact (and this is rare in Tanakh) a tragic figure like Lady Macbeth, or like Captain Ahab in Melville's Moby Dick, trapped in an obsession which may have had rational beginnings, right or wrong, but which has taken hold of him, bringing not only him but those around him to their ruin. This is signaled, simply but deftly, early in next week's sedra when Pharaoh's own advisors say to him: "Let the people go so that they may worship the Lord their G-d. Do you not yet realize that Egypt is ruined?" (10: 7). But Pharaoh has left rationality behind. He can no longer hear them.

It is a compelling narrative, and helps us understand not only Pharaoh but Hitler, Stalin and other tyrants in modern times. It also contains a hint - and this really is fundamental to understanding what makes the Torah unique in religious literature - of why the Torah teaches its moral truths through narrative, rather than through philosophical or quasi-scientific discourse on the one hand, myth or parable on the other.

Compare the Torah's treatment of freewill with that of the great philosophical or scientific theories. For these other systems, freedom is almost invariably an either/or: either we are always free or we never are. Some systems assert the first. Many - those who believe in social, economic or genetic determinism, or historical inevitability - claim the second. Both are too crude to portray the inner life as it really is.

The belief that freedom is an all or nothing phenomenon - that we have it either all the time or none of the time - blinds us to the fact that there are degrees of freedom. It can be won and lost, and its loss is gradual. Unless the will is constantly exercised, it atrophies and dies. We then become objects not subjects, swept along by tides of fashion, or the caprice of desire, or the passion that becomes an obsession. Only narrative can portray the subtlety of Pharaoh's slow descent into a self-destructive madness. That, I believe, is what makes Torah truer to the human condition than its philosophical or scientific counterparts.

Pharaoh is everyman writ large. The ruler of the ancient world's greatest empire, he ruled everyone except himself. It was not the Hebrews but he who was the real slave: to his obstinate insistence that he, not G-d, ruled history. Hence the profound insight of Ben Zoma (Avot 4: 1): "Who is mighty?" Not one who can conquer his enemies but "One who can conquer himself."

Read the rest of this entry »

People's Choice

I just learned today about the People's Choice Jewish and Israeli Blog Awards, so I wouldn't be surprised if many of this blog's readers do not know about it either. See Ezzie and Israelly Cool for more information. You can find the nomination page here. I'm not quite sure how the voting works and I don't really have time this week to look into it. But feel free to try to figure it out. Hirhurim's page is here.

UPDATE: It looks like the voting is already over. I guess I only learned about this thing on the last day. Am I the only one who had no clue about it? You'd think nominees would at least get an e-mail about it. Or maybe I did but ignored it. Whatever.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Ticking Bomb

The latest issue of Tradition has an interesting article by R. J. David Bleich on the subject of torture in halakhah, specifically are you allowed to torture someone in order to discover where a ticking bomb is placed in order to stop it from exploding. He generally approves of such measures, provided that the person being tortured is somehow involved in the bomb plot and not an innocent bystander (e.g. a spouse or child of an involved party). R. Bleich goes through a number of theories -- both secular and Torah-based -- for torture and analyzes them.

I found this article somewhat surprising. I suspect that R. Bleich originally wrote it for a secular journal because about half of the article is on secular theories and even the portion on halakhic approaches lacks his usual thoroughness and rigor in dissecting the halakhic issues. I do not mean to imply that he did not present a complete case or that he made mistakes -- you would have have to have a combination of foolishness and arrogance to take on R. Bleich. It just seems that he does not present his usual plethora of sources and disputes. This might be because he covers some of the issues in earlier publications, but I suspect that this does not fully answer the questions.

Here's an example: In section V he discusses where hora'as sha'ah (temporary emergency measure) can permit torture. The first four paragraphs discuss contemporary legal theories, the fifth paragraph the basis for the concept of hora'as sha'ah, and the last three paragraphs a responsum of Rav Kook. And in the footnote on Rav Kook (no. 36), he doesn't even note that the Maharatz Chajes (Toras Nevi'im, p. 24) and Keren Orah (Nazir 23b) agree with Rav Kook's thesis that is addressed in the footnote.

This is just a theory on the intended audience of the article and not a critique of it. And now here comes the foolish and arrogant part of this post. R. Bleich states that, according to Rav Kook (and R. Chaim Volozhiner, not cited by R. Bleich), hora'as sha'ah only applies to hatzalas kelal Yisrael, saving the entire Jewish people: "If so, his thesis is applicable only when the threat is of the magnitude of a nuclear holocaust" (p. 114). I don't understand this jump to nuclear holocaust. A prime example of hora'as shaah was Yael and Sisera in which Yael applied the concept of hora'as sha'ah to sleep with him in order to kill an enemy general (Nazir 23b). There was no nuclear holocaust and the battle even continued after Sisera's death. Why should not torture for the assasination of an enemy general during battle in our time also be considered a legitimate application of hora'as sha'ah? I would think that, based on this biblical/talmudic example, hora'as sha'ah is more applicable than just in the case of an immediate and total threat to the entire Jewish community (or the entire Jewish community in the land of Israel).

Read the rest of this entry »

Working Out on Shabbos

The Forward had an article about the recent trend in Jewish Community Centers being open on Shabbos (link).

Currently, two-thirds of JCCs open at some point during the Sabbath, according to a new study — but JCCs are constantly shifting their policies. The study, conducted by the JCC Association’s research branch, suggests that 40% of JCCs have changed their Sabbath policies during the last four years.

This raises a number of interesting historical and halakhic issues. For now, I'll leave the historical issue for a later post and address only one of the many halakhic issues -- may one exercise on Shabbos? I used to attend early Shabbos services (7am) and I would see one person jogging who would later come to shul for the late/regular services. Is this allowed?

Click here to read moreThe Mishnah in Shabbos (147a) states: "One may anoint with oil and massage [lightly] but not hard (lo misam'lin)" and the Tosefta in Shabbos (17:16) states: "One may not run on Shabbos in order to exercise (lehisamel) but one may travel normally and need not worry". Rashi explains that a hard massage is prohibited because of "uvda de-chol", it is a weekly, non-Shabbos activity. The Rambam, however, in Mishneh Torah (Hilkhos Shabbos 21:28) explains that the problem is that one tires oneself out to the point of sweating (cf. Rabbenu Chananel on the Gemara). The Shiltei Ha-Gibborim (Shabbos 62b in the Rif, no. 2) explains that according to Rashi, any kind of heavy exercise is prohibited while according to the Rambam, exercise that leads to sweating is prohibited.

This leaves us with two different distinctions regarding exercise:
1. Heavy vs. light exercise
2. Exercise that makes you sweat vs. that doesn't make you sweat

Everyone agrees that light exercise that does not make you sweat is permitted. Light exercise that makes you sweat (is there such a thing?) would be forbidden according to the Rambam but allowed according to Rashi. Heavy exercise that does not make you sweat would be forbidden according to Rashi but allowed according to the Rambam. And everyone agrees that heavy exercise that makes you sweat is prohibited.

R. Yosef Kafach, in his edition of Mishneh Torah (ibid., n. 83) deduces from the Rambam's language in an earlier halakhah that he only forbids exercise that sick people do but something that a healthy person does regularly is allowed. Based on this, he allows (within the Rambam's opinion, which is what he follows) someone to do on Shabbos his regular daily routine of running or exercise. However, I think there might be room to distinguish between what healthy people do to maintain their health and what they do for fun. The former would, possibly, be prohibited while the latter would be permitted (see below).

The Shulchan Arukh (Orach Chaim 327:2) rules like Rashi but later (328:42) rules like the Rambam. In other words, we must be strict like both opinions.

[It is interesting that in explaining the above Tosefta, the Minchas Bikkurim writes: "In order to exercise: to sweat, which is medicinal, but for pleasure it is permissible." However, R. Yechezkel Abramsky writes in his Chazon Yechezkel: "In order to exercise: to sweat, which is medicinal and forbidden because of grinding herbs, but for pleasure it is permissible." In other words, he removed the phrase "to sweat". Thus the Minchas Bikkurim explained the Tosefta according to the Rambam while the Chazon Yechezkel explained it according to Rashi (or both Rashi and the Rambam).]

However, what if one exercises for fun and not for health (or weight) purposes? The Shulchan Arukh (Orach Chaim 301:1) writes that young men who run around for fun may do so on Shabbos. The Taz writes that if one does not enjoy running but only does so to help one's appetite (or presumably also one's digestions) then it is forbidden. Apparently, someone who truly enjoys running or jogging would be allowed to do so. Since we are strict for both Rashi's and the Rambam's views, running must be considered light exercise and therefore only forbidden if it is done for health reasons (and causes sweating). But heavy exercise would be forbidden regardless of one's intentions.

R. David Zvi Hoffmann (Melamed Le-Ho'il 1:53) was asked about some sort of exercise on Shabbos that I believe was done in secular schools on Shabbos (there is a long footnote in German or Yiddish explaining what it is but I don't understand it). He ruled that one should not permit this exercise. However, in a place where people already do this, one should not forbid it because it all depends on the type of exercise and one's intentions (and there is an additional consideration of causing anti-semitism). (Cf. Responsa Maharshag 2:93 and She'arim Metzuyanim Ba-Halakhah 90:1 that if you are forced to do it in school, it is assumed that it is not fun for everyone.)

R. Eliezer Waldenberg (Tzitz Eliezer 6:4) addresses whether one may use some sort of home gym equipment on Shabbos. He considers this to be heavy exercise that induces sweat, which is prohibited according to both Rashi and the Rambam. He also adds the view of the Ramban (Commentary to Lev. 18:21) that there is a positive commandment of "Shabbason" -- to rest on Shabbos -- and such exercise is contrary to that commandment (on this Ramban, see this article of mine).

R. Yehoshua Neuwirth writes in Shemiras Shabbos Ke-Hilkhasah (24:22):

a. One may not do strenuous physical exercises on Shabbath.
b. Nor may one engage in muscle-building exercises with the aid of spring-fitted, physical-training apparatus.
c. One may do simple exercises with one's hand, even if one's purpose in so doing is to relieve or alleviate pains.

R. Gersion Appel writes in The Concise Code of Jewish Law (vol. 2, p. 351, n. 3):

One is permitted to go walking, but not running or jogging. Youths who enjoy jumping and running may do so on the Sabbath, as this is their enjoyment. One is not permitted to do exercises on the Sabbath that involve physical exertion and are intended to work up a sweat and tire oneself. Some permit one to follow a daily routine of calisthenics intended to maintain physical fitness. One may do breathing exercises to correct an impairment. One may use a small, hand exerciser to strengthen the hand and the fingers.

Read the rest of this entry »

Pamphlet about Chacham David Nieto

The English Hebraica blog has an interesting post about a pamphlet published by the London Bet Din in 1705, defending Chacham David Nieto, author of The Rabbis' Advocate, against charges of heresy. He was defended by none other than R. Tzvi Ashkenazi, author of the Chacham Tzvi. See the post and download the pamphlet here: link

Read the rest of this entry »

Amalek

It seems that the journal Tradition is now delaying the publication of a new issue online until a few months after the paper issue is published. I actually like this because I hated seeing the online version and then having to wait weeks for the paper issue to come in the mail.

The latest issue, Winter 2006 (the best way to catch up is to skip!), is a special issue on the topic of "War and the Jewish Tradition" with articles by R. Yitzchak Blau, Dr. Judith Bleich, R. Shalom Carmy and R. J. David Bleich. R. Carmy's article is about the moral implications of the commandment to destroy Amalek. The article is long and insightful, but essentially concludes with the following (p. 79):

In the final analysis it is hard to avoid the conclusion that it is morally and religiously preferable to regard the command to eradicate Amalek, and perhaps the commandment regarding the seven nations, as laws without rationale, justifiable only from the standpoint of Deus dixit. Anything else either cheapens the word of God or degrade human moral judgment.

Read the rest of this entry »

Reining in Abuse

In case you missed it, JTA had a series of articles last week about clergy misconduct, written by Eugene L. Meyer and Richard Greenberg (link):

• Clergy sexual misconduct: What´s being done to squelch it?
• Wayward clergy by the numbers: Is it rampant or an aberration?
• In jurisdictional jungle, where does the buck stop in misconduct cases?
• Inside the eruv: Are some Orthodox discreet or closing their eyes?
• Awareness Center a clearinghouse of concern — and controversy
• The aftermath of sexual abuse: How one synagogue coped

Read the rest of this entry »

Ruling from the Shulchan Arukh II

(Note that this post is not meant to imply that the Shulchan Arukh is not currently binding, as explained in this post. This current post is of an historical nature, and not halakhic.)

From Bach, Rabbi Joel Sirkes: His Life, Works and Times (pp. 67-70):

Sirkes thus speaks eloquently of the erudition and influence of Joseph Karo (d. 1575) upon the Jewish scholarly world.

…for he enlightened the eyes of all Israel…and opened for us the gates of justice and truth … enabling us to understand the method of the great legal authorities.

How great was his strength in (understanding) all of the Talmud, earlier and later legal authorities, and responsa. How great is his merit, for due to his compositions wise men and their disciples have gathered together and strengthened themselves.

When disagreeing with Karo, Sirkes usually employs only the most respectful phraseology: “an error escaped from the pen of the Beth Joseph”, “his learning overcame him”, “God should forgive him”, “An error escaped from before the ruler Joseph, who distributes sustenance to all of the people of the land.”

What complicated Sirkes’ attitude toward the writings of Joseph Karo was the latter’s Shulhan Arukh.

Click here to read moreA full decade after the publication of the Beth Joseph, Karo’s massive commentary and codification of Jewish law, the author issued a radically abridged version which he entitled the Shulhan Arukh. Its purpose was to serve as a handbook of law, with all sources omitted and only the final decisions recorded. It was meant to be a brief compendium for scholar and layman alike.

Objections to the Shulhan Arukh were immediate and intense for a variety of reasons: Mordecai Jaffe characterized the Shulhan Arukh as a “table well set with all manner of refreshments, however the dishes are tasteless, lacking the salt of reasoning which is able to cause the broth to boil and to warm the individual.”

The extreme brevity of the Shulhan Arukh and its lack of any commentary or interpretative material was held to be a grave deficiency in the work.

Karo was criticized for his great independence in rendering legal decisions and for the fact that he would occasionally incorporate decisions without taking into consideration the differing opinions of many great authorities. Moses Isserles comments that Karo is not always faithful to his own ground rules for rendering halakhic decisions. Many also objected to the Shulhan Arukh on the grounds that it neglected to cite Ashkenazic practices, reflecting Sephardic patterns to the exclusion of those of the Franco-German school. Virtually all Polish rabbis are understandably critical of this tendency.

Joel Sirkes no doubt concurred with all of these objections. He, too, considered the Shulhan Arukh to be too brief and sparse a work and found fault with many of Karo’s decisions. But these critiques, of and by themselves, fail to explain the intensity with which Rabbi Joel attacks the Shulhan Arukh and its devotees.

Furthermore, although Sirkes was well aware of Karo’s Sephardic bias, it is doubtful that this was the crucial factor in his objection to the Shulhan Arukh. He does not object so vehemently to the Beth Joseph which reflects similar Sephardic emphasis in far greater detail.

Sirkes’ central criticism of the Shulhan Arukh stemmed from his conviction that a Code of Law, any code of law, is by definition insufficient. Prerequisite to the rendering of any legal decision is a thorough knowledge of all primary sources. There are no short cuts in determining laws. Sirkes writes:

In the majority of instances it is impossible to render legal decisions from the Shulhan Arukh … he who is not well versed in the study of Talmud is incapable of correctly adjudicating cases.

In even stronger language, he asserts that:

…those who determine laws according to the Shulhan Arukh are teaching not according to the Halakha…

In Sirkes’ lifetime there developed around the Shulhan Arukh a cult of admirers whose enthusiasm for the work became a source of considerable concern to Rabbi Joel. Sirkes takes to task his colleague, Joshua Falk Cohen, for the latter’s great reliance upon the work, and objects vehemently to the sentiment expressed by a younger contemporary that “it is forbidden to change one thing in the Shulhan Arukh, for it is as the Torah of Moses.”

Sirkes was exceedingly disturbed by this idolization of the Shulhan Arukh, a book which he regarded as simply the work of one man, and not an authoritative exposition of Halakha. He objected, not so much because of the misinformation which he felt it to contain, but because of the fear he had that it would detract from the study of the Talmud. Sirkes was concerned lest the Shulhan Arukh render the study of Rabbinic sources obsolete by becoming itself a source book of Halakha!

Rabbi Sirkes was not alone in entertaining such apprehensions. Samuel Edels, Rabbi Joel’s contemporary, describes rabbis rendering decisions directly from the Shulhan Arukh without analyzing the Talmudic sources. He accuses them of failing to fully understand the legal cases they adjudicate...

However, Sirkes did not place any blame upon Karo personally for the excessive enthusiasm of his followers and their occasional neglect of the proper legal sources. On the contrary, he refers to Karo as cautioning his disciples not to rush into any legal discussions until such time as they have familiarized themselves with the necessary sources.

It is interesting to note this striking comment of Rabbi Judah Loew of Prague:

Had the authors (Karo and Isserles) known that these compositions (Shulhan Arukh and Mappah) would cause some to desist entirely from the study of Talmud and render verdicts solely from these compositions, they would never have composed them…it is better and more proper to render a decision from the Talmud, even where there is cause to fear that it may be an erroneous decision…than to render a decision from one such work without truly understanding the case at hand.

The aforementioned objections notwithstanding, Sirkes was not as bitterly opposed to the Shulhan Arukh as he has been made out to be. He refers to its rulings often, both in the Bayit Hadash and in his responsa. He makes mention of the fact that he had begun to write his own commentary upon the Shulhan Arukh, and he refers to an occasion at the Lublin Fair when the only book he chose to bring with him was the Shulhan Arukh. He obviously felt it to be an excellent guide book for legal discussions, in spite of its limitations as an expositor of sources.

Read the rest of this entry »

Exodus Chapter 1

See these posts: I, II, III

Read the rest of this entry »

Covering and Uncovering Scandal in the Jewish Community II

The audio for this event can be downloaded here, and is linked to on the host shul's website.

Read the rest of this entry »

How Welcoming is Orthodoxy?

How Welcoming is Orthodoxy to Its Newer Adherents? Can We Do Better?

Tuesday, January 16 @ 8 PM
Congregation Ohab Zedek, 118 W. 95th St.


Join us for a frank discussion with two converts and two born Jews who will describe their paths to Orthodoxy, their experiences with the Jewish community and the challenges they face/d with their families and friends, as well as in the workplace.

With Devorah Goldman (Former Assistant D.A.), David Klinghoffer (Author and Columnist), Dr. Alan Perlman (Nephrologist and U.S. Air Force Major) and David Schoen (Nationally-Known Criminal Defense Attorney). Moderated by Rabbi Maury Kelman (Conversion Guide and Attorney).

Sponsored by Congregation Ohab Zedek and Manhattan Jewish Experience

Read the rest of this entry »

Moshe's Name

See this post about the likely Egyptian origin of Moshe's name. R. Zvi Sobolofsky, in this week's TorahWeb essay, writes the following about his retention of that name (link):

His name “Moshe” tells us a lot about his personality. One would have expected Moshe not to use his Egyptian name given to him by the daughter of Pharoh. Yet Moshe insisted on keeping this name as an expression of gratitude to the woman who saved his life as an infant and raised him. Moshe’s commitment to showing gratitude to those who assisted him in times of need is evident from his approaching Yisro before returning to Mitzrayim. Hashem had commanded him to return immediately to begin the process that would free entire Jewish people from slavery. Yet before going, Moshe approaches Yisro and tells him of his plans to leave. Chazal comment that Moshe was not only informing him that he was going, but he was also asking him permission to leave. As critical as his mission was, it was inconceivable to depart from Yisro without his permission. Yisro took him in when he was in need and provided for him for many years. As important as saving the Jewish people was, Moshe would not act in an ungrateful manner to one who had helped him. It is this commitment to hakoras hatov – expressing appreciation to others – that Moshe personified.

Read the rest of this entry »

Facing the Torah

While reciting the blessing when being called up to the Torah, before the reading, does one leave the Torah open or closed, face straight ahead or to the side, close one's eyes or leave them open?

R. Simcha Rabinowitz, Piskei Teshuvos vol. 2 139:10 n. 62:

Regarding whether to hold the Torah open during the blessing [before the reading], see the Bi'ur Halakhah that every river has its path [i.e. there are different valid customs]. In Orechos Rabbenu ibid. [vol. 1 p. 71] and in vol. 3 p. 214 it says that the Chazon Ish would leave the Torah open, close his eyes and recite the blessing without turning right or left and R. Ya'akov Yisrael Kanievsky would close the Torah and recite the blessing. In Halikhos Shlomo ibid. [ch. 12 n. 68] it says that R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach would leave the Torah open and, during the blesing, turn his head to the right. It says similarly in Sha'arei Halakhah U-Minhag ibid. [Orach Chaim no. 85] that the Lubavitcher Rebbe would turn his head to his right even though the Torah scroll was closed (even though the Rema and Magen Avraham write that one should turn one's head to the left, see Mekor Chaim of the Chavos Yair who writes, "According to what we practice, that the one called up stands to the right of the reader, it is better to turn one's head to the right," presumably so it does not look like one is turning to bless to him; therefore, even those who close the Torah should act that way, and the above practices are proper, and the words of the Arukh Ha-Shulchan par. 53 to the contrary are difficult).

Read the rest of this entry »

Remembering Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik

An Evening of Reflections on the Rav

Saturday, February 3 at 7:30 pm
Nathan Lamport Auditorium, Zysman Hall, Yeshiva University
Amsterdam Avenue between 186th and 187th Streets

EVENT PROGRAM

• Introductory remarks by Rabbi Norman Lamm, Chancellor, Yeshiva University & Rosh ha'Yeshiva RIETS, and Rabbi Zevulun Charlop, Max & Marion Grill Dean of RIETS


• The New York premiere of “The Lonely Man of Faith: The Life and Legacy of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik,” a documentary by independent filmmaker Ethan Isenberg


• Conversation among four of the Rav’s former students:
  
  
  
  • Rabbi Kenneth Brander, Dean, Center for the Jewish Future
  
  
  • Rabbi Menachem Genack, CEO, OU Kosher, and Rosh Yeshiva, RIETS
  
  
  • Rabbi Hershel Schachter, Rosh Kollel, RIETS
  
  
  • Rabbi Meir Twersky, Rosh Yeshiva, RIETS
  
  
• The Student Organization of Yeshiva College’s Seforim Sale, the largest Jewish book sale in North America, whose proceeds benefit Yeshiva University student activities.

Tickets:
$10 (adults), $5 (students), $2 (YU students)
Buy tickets here

LINK

Read the rest of this entry »

Memorial Event for the Tzitz Eliezer

Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbinical School invites the entire community to

A Special Evening of Learning and Reflection

in memory of the Great Halakhic Decisor, Rabbi Eliezer Yehuda Waldenberg zt”l (1916–2006), author of the 22 volume collection of Responsa Tzitz Eliezer

Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2007; 27 Tevet 5767

Time/Location: 7:30PM–9:30PM, 606 West 115 Street 6th Floor (Between Broadway and Riverside Drive), Manhattan

The Debate Between Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l and Rav Waldenberg zt”l on Abortion
Rabbi Saul Berman, Director of Continuing Rabbinic Education, YCT Rabbinical School

An Independent Posek: The Tzitz Eliezer and Issues in the Life of the State of Israel
Rabbi Howard Jachter, Rebbe, Torah Academy of Bergen County and Dayan, Beth Din of Elizabeth

Moderator: Rabbi Jeff Fox
Rabbi, Congregation Kesher, Englewood-Tenafly, NJ and Faculty, YCT Rabbinical School

Free Admission. Open to the public.

(Please note that this is not an invitation to debate in the comments the pros and cons of YCT. This is just a public service announcement for anyone who wants to attend this memorial discussion of the Tzitz Eliezer.)

Read the rest of this entry »

The Rabbis' Advocate

A new book defending the Jewish oral tradition is now available from Yashar:

The Rabbis' Advocate
Chacham David Nieto and the Second Kuzari

by R. David Nieto, translated by R. Meir Levin

Matteh Dan, or Kuzari Hasheini, is a defense of the Jewish oral tradition against attacks by Karaites and skeptics. Rabbi David Nieto, Chacham of the Sephardic congregation in London in the early eighteenth century, responded to criticisms of the rabbinic tradition by writing this wide-ranging defense of the Talmud and the Oral Law. Matteh Dan is widely considered a classic of Jewish apologetics in the best sense of the term and is still widely studied and quoted, even into our day. Although the field of heresy has unfortunately undergone much growth and development since R. Nieto’s time, his contribution remains important, and his arguments continue to ring true today.

Rabbi Meir Levin has translated this important work into a readable English and added explanatory footnotes to make the book even more accessible. The book comes with rabbinic approbations from R. Mordechai Willig, R. Yisrael Simcha Schorr and R. Moshe Faskowitz.

More about the book here. You can buy the book here. And an excerpt from the book can be downloaded here (PDF).

Read the rest of this entry »

Seventy Souls

Exodus 1:1,4:

Now these are the names of the children of Israel who came to Egypt; each man and his household came with Jacob... All those who were descendants of Jacob were seventy persons.

Who are the seventy people who came down to Egypt? Gen. 46 lists the exact names by mother: Leah's children -- 33 (vv. 8-15), Zilpah's children -- 16 (vv. 16-18), Rachel's children -- 14 (vv. 19-22), Bilhah's children -- 7 (vv. 23-25).

However, if you count Leah's children as listed in the verses, they total 34 and not 33. Rashi (v. 15) assumes that Er and Onan (who did not go to Egypt) are not counted in the total, which brings it down from 34 to 32. He then adds Yokheved, a granddaughter who was born as they were entering Egypt, which brings the total to 33. Rashbam (v. 8) and Ibn Ezra (v. 27) instead add Ya'akov to the count of those who went down to Egypt. Ibn Ezra adds that if Yokheved had been born at that early time, then she would have had to give birth to Moshe at the age of 130. If she did, why doesn't the Torah mention this miracle? On this point, Ramban (v. 15) strongly objects to Ibn Ezra's question because life is full of miracles that aren't mentioned in the Torah.

One can ask Rashbam and Ibn Ezra how Ya'akov can be counted as one of the "children of Israel" and why he would be grouped with Leah's children rather than any of the other wives or simply independently.

One can ask Rashi why only one granddaughter is counted and not any other. However, one could perhaps answer that just like Dinah was counted, presumably because she figured prominently in an episode in the Torah, Yokheved was also counted because she was important in the Moshe story. However, at the time of the descent to Egypt she was a newborn.

The Netziv (v. 27) makes an important point. Just like the Ramban points out that there are really 13 tribes (Ya'akov's twelve sons with Yosef being counted twice for Ephraim and Menashe) but the Torah always counts them as 12 but sometimes with different ways of counting the 12, so too with the 70. 70, clearly, is a significant number and the Torah wanted to use that number, even if it meant finding different ways of reaching that 70.

R. Mordechai Breuer (Pirkei Bereishis, ch. 42) is certain that Er and Onan are counted in the 70 mentioned in Ex. 1, where it specifically says that this is a count of the descendants (yotz'ei yerekh) of Ya'akov and cannot include him. Rather, it is a count of the tribes of Israel, a unit that eventually descended to Egypt. In that original unit were Er and Onan, even if they died before going to Egypt.

However, the 70 mentioned in Gen. 46 is a list of those who actually went to Egypt and therefore cannot include Er and Onan. To make up for them, Dinah and Ya'akov were added to the list so it would add up to 70.

(I'm not sure what R. Breuer does with Gen. 46:26)

Read the rest of this entry »

Survey on Orthodox Attitudes Towards Psychological Help Seeking

A grad student is taking a survey of the Orthodox Jewish community regarding attitudes towards depression and psychological help seeking. I'm not sure how scientific an online survey will be, but regardless here's the link to the survey: link

Read the rest of this entry »

State of Eruvin

A letter-to-the-editor of HaModia by R. Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer from this past summer (link):

To the Editor:

Chanoch Bresler's report in Friday, Erev Shabbos Kodesh Parashas Eikev, 17 Av's Hamodia ("Rabbanim: State of Eiruvin in Israel 'Worse Than Expected,'" p. 12), highlights the deterioration of Eiruvin in Eretz Yisrael "due to lack of funding for normal inspections and repairs."

Clearly the situation is grave, with terrible ramifications for Shemiras Shabbos, R"L. However, at least in Eretz Yisrael there exists "the Eiruvin Center of Eretz Yisrael, a Rabbinical body established with the blessings of the Gedolei HaPoskim.

In Chutz La'Aretz, at least here in North America, no such Center. The decentralized nature of the North American milieu practically precludes the existence of such a Center.

Yet, if anything, due to the way in which Eiruvin are constructed here (heavily relying on utility poles and other pre-existing structures, as opposed to Eretz Yisrael, where the use of dedicated Eiruv poles and structures is far more widespread), the situation is much, much worse.

In numerous conversations with me, Rabbanim who are experts in the construction of Eiruvin have bemoaned both the lack of maintenance, and the lack of proper manpower, that have led to an extraordinary prevalence of Eiruvin in states of disrepair that render them invalid - according to even the most lenient opinions.

In a recent, somewhat impromptu, conference call among several concerned Rabbanim, the following suggestions were raised, and it would be an extraordinary Zechus and Zikkui HoRabbim for both Rabbanim and Askanim to do whatever they can to help bring them to fruition:

1. Every local Eiruv should have written protocols and plans for checking and maintenance.

2. Every local Eiruv should designate a Posek to whom they ask their shailos, and who oversees their procedures.

3. The standards of Eiruv Inspectors and Eiruv inspections should be uniform, and there should exist a "mini-course" and certification for Inspectors.

4. The local community should be aware of the boundaries and construction of the Eiruv and be alert to problems, so as to alert the local Rav.

5. The local Rav/Rabbanim must be involved on an ongoing basis with the Eiruv.

6. As is the case with Tefillin and Mezuzos, every Eiruv should undergo a major inspection by a Posek in twice in seven years.

7. It is essential that the complex issues of Eruvei Chatzeiros and Sechiras Reshus are regularly reviewed by competent Rabbanim or a Posek.May HKB"H assist us in enhancing Shemiras Shabbos, u'b'Zechus haShabbos Miyad Nig'alin.

Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Author: The Contemporary Eruv: Eruvin in Modern Metropolitan Areas

Read the rest of this entry »

Covering and Uncovering Scandal in the Jewish Community

LINK

This Saturday night, January 6th at 8:00pm, join Rav Yosef Blau, Mashgiach Ruchani of Yeshiva University, JJ Goldberg, Editor of The Forward, and Rabbi Gil Student, author of the Hirhurim blog, as they struggle to define ground rules that meet the demands of Halakha and the crisis of the day.

How do you protect the most vulnerable members of society from predators in positions of trust, without ruining the lives and reputations of honest leaders by granting credence to every accusation?

Moderated by Rabbi Moshe Rosenberg
Congregation Etz Chaim, 147-19 73rd Ave., Queens, NY
Info: Rabbi Moshe Rosenberg          $5.00 Admission

Read the rest of this entry »

A Peek Under the Rug

R. Mark Dratch in this week's The Jewish Week (link, the best part is at the end):

Just a decade ago, the issue of sexual abuse in the Orthodox Jewish community was merely whispered about by some, discussed behind closed doors by few, and hushed up by many. It was certainly not a significant part of many public discussions and forums.

And yet this Thanksgiving weekend it was featured prominently on the agendas of the annual conventions of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, where I had the privilege of addressing the topic openly, and the Agudath Israel of America.

Prominent rabbinical leaders who spoke for the Agudah included Rabbi Matisyahu Salomon, the mashgiach of Bais Medrash Govoha; Rabbi Ephraim Wachsman, rosh hayeshiva of Maor Yitzchok; and Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel, the Agudah’s executive vice president for government and public affairs.

Acknowledgment of a problem is the first major step in confronting it. So we have come a long way, but we still have a long way to go. After all, the emphasis of the Agudah presentations was not on helping victims of abuse, but on calling for decent and responsible speech (which was judged to be lacking in many blogs which bring allegations to light) and on protecting the dignity and honor of many prominent Torah leaders (who have been subject to harsh criticism for their perceived mishandling of abuse cases). Nothing wrong with that—as far as it goes. Lashon hara (derogatory speech), lashon nekiah (decent speech), and kevod ha-Torah (respect for Torah and its teachers) are fundamental values in our tradition. But there are other fundamental values as well.

It is most appropriate for an organization like Agudath Israel to address head-on the issue of the molestation of innocent bodies and souls, the issue of the honor due to the tzelem Elokim (image of God) in which everyone is created and is violated when a person is abused, and the issue of correcting the misguided communal values and pressures which discourage and prevent victims from coming forward and getting the help they desperately need.

With all due respect to Rabbis Salomon, Wachsman and Zwiebel, I do not believe that many of the bloggers and accusers they roundly condemn and label as “resha’im” (wicked) or “maskilim” (corruptly modern) were motivated by a disdain for rabbis, their authority or their opinions. At least not originally.

My experience with many victims/survivors of abuse is that they desperately want rabbinic leaders and the community and the Torah and the halachic system—which they were taught to revere and upon which they were raised to depend—to work for them.

Many believe that rabbis and rabbinic judges are advocates for those that were hurt and injured. Many, whose physical and emotional welfare were torn apart, want, at the very least, their faith to sustain them and remain strong. But many of those who speak out in crude and insolent ways have felt betrayed by those very rabbis and communal mores in which they desperately wanted to believe. Many felt revictimized by those they believed should have been there to help them. So they lash out with feelings of betrayal, disillusionment, abandonment and resentment. This is perhaps no excuse for crude behavior, but perhaps an explanation…and an indictment.

Rabbi Salomon responded to the accusation that these matters were being swept under the rug through denial and cover-up by stating that, in fact, he and his colleagues have dealt with cases of abuse (kudos for this public admission) and that they do indeed sweep these matters under the rug—in the sense that they keep their efforts discreet in order to protect human dignity. Unfortunately, it appears to many of us that in doing so the human dignity of many victims has not been protected. It appears to many of us that in doing so perpetrators have been allowed to remain where they can perpetrate again and again.

It appears to many of us that misrepresented piskei halachah (halachic decisions)—like that of the gadol who was quoted as ruling that without penetration there has been no abuse, or those who promulgate prohibitions of speaking out because of lashon hara and mesirah—have been detrimental to the welfare of victims and have not been publicly corrected. It appears to many of us that the opinions of poskei ha-dor (leading halachic figures) in these areas have been roundly ignored by many (like those of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv that obligate the reporting of known child abusers to the police in America).

When our community and its leaders will act efficiently, appropriately, and responsibly, their critics will be silenced. When allegations are listened to seriously and respectfully, and responded to effectively and properly—in accordance with the halachah and informed by the best expert resources contemporarily available—communal integrity and respect will be restored.

The problem with sweeping things under the rug, for whatever reason and for whatever motivation, is that the shmutz remains. Our communal carpet has been soiled for too long. And there’s just no more room under it to hide any more of our secrets. It’s time to peek under the rug and clean up the mess.

Read the rest of this entry »

Rambam on Being Paid to Learn or Teach Torah IV

R. Yitzchak Sheilat, Iggeros Ha-Rambam, vol. 1 p. 229n:

It seems from here that the Rambam was an actual partner in his [brother's] merchandise... And through this [R. David his brother] enabled him to "sit in peace" and study Torah. Perhaps it is specifically in this fashion, and not as a gift, that the Rambam understood the idea of Yissachar-Zevulun and Shimon the brother of Azariah, that are mentioned in the Midrashim of the Sages (see Bereishis Rabbah 72:5, 99:9; Vayikra Rabbah 25:2)... However, from the base law it is permissible [to support someone studying] even entirely for free [without a partnership], since the initiative to this arrangement comes from the brother who supports. However, as a pious practice the Rambam was a partner in his [brother's] property.

Ibid., p. 193n:

In the Commentary to Avos 4:7 it is explained that one should differentiate between someone learning Torah accepting support from others, which is prohibited, and assistance to Torah scholars in supporting themselves in a manner in which they will not need to spend much of their time, such as helping them invest their money or sell their wares, which is a desirable matter... The permission is that "these actions are done by some sellers to others out of respect even if there is no wisdom, and a Torah scholar can at least be treated like a respected ignoramus."

Ibid., p. 311n:

The Rambam agreed that "pay for not doing something else" (sekhar batalah) is permissible, as explained in Kesuvos 105a and as he ruled in Hilkhos Sanhedrin 23:5. Included in "sekhar batalah" is when he has an occupation through which he supports himself and others come to him and ask: "Teach us Torah or rule for us full-time and we will pay you a defined salary for your absence from your work." And so he ruled in Hilkhos Shekalim 4:7, that the judges of thefts in Jerusalem would receive a defined salary from communal funds. What the Rambam considered to be forbidden and a desecration of God's name is when the initiative to receive a salary or stipend from teaching Torah comes from the Torah scholar himself, which is the making of Torah into "an ax with which to dig" and a descent of it to one of many occupations, or even lower. However, it is preferable to refuse entirely a salary for [teaching] Torah, even in a manner in which it is permissible and even on the initiative of others...

Read the rest of this entry »

Mocking Gedolim

Excellent post by the Rabbi Without A Cause on his reactions to those bloggers who mock Gedolei Torah: link

Read the rest of this entry »

Buy the Bach

Bach, Rabbi Joel Sirkes: His Life, Works and Times by Elijah J. Schochet is available for online purchase on the Yashar website.

Read the rest of this entry »

Jewish Students on Campus

While I am not a big fan of Orthodox Jews living on the campus of a secular college, I recognize that every individual is different and for some it might be the only or the best choice. Additionally, I realize that this is entirely out of my control. R. Jack Bieler recently posted to Lookjed, an e-mail list for Jewish educators, some relatively simple but important suggestions to rabbis on how to substantively change the lives of Jewish students (link):

I would just like to add a constructive course of action for community Rabbis and educators. I believe that each of us should devote significant time to visiting campuses on a regular basis--during the week or on Shabbat, serving as Scholars-in-Residence, giving Shiurim, writing regular e-letters, etc. If we are so concerned about our students' welfare, then more than hand-wringing is called for. These students are not "lost"; many wish to have means by which they can stay connected, and we should contribute our time and efforts to providing them with such opportunities, whether or not we personally think that their situations are ideal.

Read the rest of this entry »

Hirhurim Reader Demographics

The results of this poll are as follows:

Under 20 years old	20	3%
20-29 years old	268	36%
30-39 years old	219	29%
40-49 years old	118	16%
50-59 years old	89	12%
60-69 years old	25	3%
70+ years old	9	1%

Not surprisingly, the bulk of the readers (68%) are under the age of 40 but there is still a subtantial number (16%) over the age of 50.

Read the rest of this entry »