Books Received X

I don't always have the chance to review each book, so I'll list the books that I receive. Some of them will be quoted or reviewed in future posts. Here are the books I've received recently:

• Amot Shel Halacha: Halachic Insights by R. Ari Enkin


• Created Equal: How the Bible Broke with Ancient Political Thought by R. Joshua Berman


• Ve-Rapo Yerapei - And You Shall Surely Heal: The Albert Einstein College of Medicine Synagogue Compendium of Torah and Medicine edited by Jonathan Wiesen

Read the rest of this entry »

Rav Soloveitchik's Greatest Hits, in Yiddish

Guest post by Dr. Arnold Lustiger

I have published two books containing English summaries of the Rav's oral discourses, drashos that were originally presented in Yiddish. My goal was not only to transmit the substance, but the form as well - to do my best to reproduce the Rav's cadences. To a large extent, I did not succeed. One reason is that a pure transcription of any oral lecture is choppy and reads terribly – of necessity any oral lecture has to be rewritten to be readable. Secondly, English is not Yiddish – nuances of language are not readily transmitted.

In his hesped for the Rav, Rabbi Mordechai Willig aptly observed that when the Rav spoke in Yiddish, his lecture was poetry. If so, then Dr. David Fishman, editor of Drashos un Ksovim, has given us a book of poetry.

Click here for moreIn his hesped for the Rav, Rabbi Mordechai Willig aptly observed that when the Rav spoke in Yiddish, his lecture was poetry. If so, then Dr. David Fishman, editor of Drashos un Ksovim, has given us a book of poetry. The two limitations that I faced in writing my summaries are obviated here. In most of the book, he worked directly from transcripts written by the Rav himself, and faithfully reproduced them in their original language. In the remainder, he reproduced articles that the Rav himself wrote for the Yiddish newspaper Der Tog-Morgen Zhurnal from November 1954- January 1955. Julius Berman, in his preface to this book, writes that the reader “will come as close to humanly possible to capture the experience of sitting in [the Rav’s] presence and listening to his brilliant expositions...” I can personally attest that after having heard hundreds of tapes of the Rav in Yiddish, I could seemingly hear the Rav’s voice while reading this book.

Interspersed through the book, Fishman reproduces a few pages of the Rav's handwritten transcripts, written in long hand. While the Rav's Yiddish may be poetry, his handwriting definitely is not art. I could not decipher ninety percent of the material on any of these pages. The efforts of Dr. Fishman and his assistants in reproducing the material seem just short of superhuman. While ellipses appear on a number of pages where even they could not make out the words, never was the continuity of the presentation compromised. And it is this continuity, the seamless transition from halacha to homiletics, that is the signature of the Rav's drashos in general.

Dr. Fishman’s introduction contains some surprising revelations regarding the Rav’s relationship with secular Yiddishists. The Rav presented a number of lectures to the Workmen’s Circle (Arbeter-Ring) in the 1940’s, one of which, on the topic of tzedakah, appears in this book. The Rav also gave a public lecture in Yiddish for YIVO in 1944. This latter lecture was described as an historic event in the secular Yiddish newspaper, Forverts: “I saw how a gathering of revolutionaries applauded a famous Rabbi, a descendant of our fanatical grandparents...We former youngsters, who feuded with Reb Chaim Brisker, came and listened to what Reb Chaim Brisker’s grandson had to tell us.” A tantalizing, unexplained phrase in this article leaves us hanging: “...he called for a renewed partnership in an important type of Judaism.”

The substance of three of the chapters in Droshos Un Ksovim have been published elsewhere. One of the chapters on Chanukah appears in English as Chapter 7 in Days of Deliverance, while a second, a drasha given on Rosh Hashanah appears in Hebrew as “Alei Te'inah Vekotnot Or" in Yemei Zikaron. The transcript of a now famous speech he presented at the Chinuch Atzmai dinner of 1956 appears in Amos Bunim's Fire in His Soul. Nevertheless, much can be gained by reading the original drashos in their original language. For those acquainted with the Rav’s drashos, familiar themes appear throughout the book: the centrality of self-sacrifice in Judaism, how gedolim in the past strove to remain anonymous, and the importance of day school education (with a specific emphasis on the Maimonides school).

Other material in this book is entirely new. In addition to the homiletic material which takes up the bulk of this volume, there is an undated philosophical discourse presented as a Yahrzeit Shiur in memory of the Rav’s father called Yachid Vetzibbur, regarding the tension between emes and shalom in the context of the responsibilities of the individual and community.

Here is a very brief summary of a portion of a drasha that appears in this book which the Rav presented on the second day of Shavuos 1957. (It is important to note that this a drasha, not a shiur - the Rav is not attempting to provide straightforward pshat - the material is homiletic in nature as a means to inspire the audience.)

The Torah states that real estate in Eretz Yisrael reverts to its original owner in the Yovel year. This law, however, does not apply to walled cities. After the first year of occupancy, the owner of a home in a walled city is allowed to retain his dwelling into perpetuity (Lev. 25:29)

The symbol of physical security in ancient times was the wall which surrounded a city. Today, such a wall is represented by atomic bombs, rockets, fighter jets, submarines and large armies.

But can any wall, real or symbolic, really provide security against merciless fate? To answer this question, one must look into the book of Ruth.

A wealthy aristocrat named Elimelech attempted to build a wall of economic security around himself and his family by moving from Bethlehem to Moab during a famine. Although he and his family had enough food in Bethlehem to survive the famine, Elimelech was worried that the great number of poor people approaching him for charity there would consume his estate.

On the other hand, Elimelech had a relative named Boaz who was not as prominent, rich or powerful. Unlike Elimelech, however, Boaz did not flee Bethlehem for a “walled city” in search of security.

Elimelech also had a daughter in law, Ruth, who insisted on following Naomi to an “unwalled city.” Because she was the daughter of the King of Moab (Sanhedrin 105b) she could easily have found the security of a “walled city” by staying in her home country. She could have lived an easy, secure life, but instead chose to travel with her mother-in-law to Bethlehem, where her sustenance would consist of nothing more than the gleanings of the poor person: Leket, Shikcha and Peah.

Yet it was in the unwalled city of Bethlehem that Ruth encountered Boaz and together they built the most secure, permanent entity in Jewish history: the eternal Kingdom of David and the Kingdom of Mashiach.

Another personality appears in the book of Ruth as well, the go’el, the "redeemer", a closer relative of Elimelech. Like Elimelech, he also desired security. As a result, when the opportunity came to act as Ruth’s redeemer, he refused: "I cannot, lest I destroy my own inheritance…" (Ruth 4:6)

So what became of this redeemer? We don't even know his name. He became the very personification of anonymity, a Ploni Almoni!

Yet, the Torah did give indeed give a special status to the walled city, in that it does not revert to the original owner at Yovel. So why were those who strove for such security, for the drive to build a personal "walled city", punished?

The answer lies in a difference between a how a word should be read in the Bible (קרי) and a how it is written (כתיב). Regarding the verse in Leviticus detailing the law of the walled city, it is written: וקם הבית אשׁר לא חוֹמה לצמיתוּת לקוֹנה אוֹתוֹ לדוֹרוֹתיו: “...the house which has a wall (i.e. is in a walled city) shall be secure in perpetuity to him that bought it, throughout his generations.” . The phrase אשׁר לא חוֹמה is written with an aleph, but is read as with a vav. With an aleph, the biblical phrase would be translated “...the house which does not have a wall [shall be secure in perpetuity].” Superficially Jewish destiny may seem to be “unwalled,” insecure, but this is only an illusion. Indeed, if one studies Jewish history, one must of necessity read the verse with a vav - Jewish destiny is protected by a mighty wall. The buyer who invests in this remarkable dwelling initially does not see the wall, אשׁר לא חוֹמה , but the house is indeed secure, אשׁר לוֹ חוֹמה. Boaz and Ruth, who invested in a home אשׁר לא חוֹמה ultimately attained the security of a home אשׁר לוֹ חוֹמה. The Sefer Torah of Elimelech and the redeemer, on the other hand, apparently contained only the קרי and not the כתיב, as they searched for security that was only superficial. Boaz and Ruth’s Sefer Torah contained both the the קרי and the כתיב, and thus the home they created continues through eternity.

In the final brief chapter of the book, the Rav states: “I am not a Yiddishist, maintaining that a language alone has absolute value.” However, he goes on to explain that there are gufei kedushah, items which have intrinsic sanctity, (such as a Sefer Torah or Tefillin) as well as tashmishei kedushah, the accouterments associated with such items (such as the covering for the Sefer Torah or the pouch in which the Tefillin are kept). The Yiddish language fits into the latter category. Yiddish was the language of the Ram”a, the Mahrsha”l, the Vilna Gaon, R. Chaim Volozhiner as well as the Baal Shem Tov, the Maggid from Mezeritch and the Alter (Lubavitcher) Rebbe. The Rav concludes that maintaining such a “pouch” is a great zechus.

Dr. Fishman, his assistants, and especially Mr. Julius Berman, whose enthusiasm for this project is clearly reflected in his preface, have all earned this great zechus.

Read the rest of this entry »

When Do We Celebrate Tisha B'Av?

All of the fast days (except Ta'anis Esther and Yom Kippur) commemorate various stages in the loss of Jewish independence in Israel. Presumably because of this, the prophet Zecharia (8:25) says that these fast days will be turned into holidays that we celebrate. The Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 18b) explains that there are three stages in these fast days that are not necessarily chronological and may recur in cycles:

Click here for more

1. When there is peace -- the days must be celebrated
2. When there is oppression of Jews -- the days are obligatory as fasts
3. When there is neither peace nor oppression -- the days are optional fast days (based on the decision of the community as a whole)

As Jews were in exile over the centuries, the universal tradition was to fast for these days even when there was no oppression, although sadly there was no shortage of oppression. However, given the events of the past century, we need to define peace in order to evaluate whether we are still allowed to fast. It is conceivable that, despite the ongoing battles with terrorists in Israel, we have arrived at a time when there is sufficient peace for us to be obligated to celebrate these days. This is not necessarily a theological statement about messianic redemption. Perhaps the cycles are not even over. But if right now there is peace, as defined by the Talmud, then right now we must celebrate these days.

Rashi (sv. she-yesh shalom) defines peace as national independence: "שאין יד הגויים תקיפה על ישראל -- that the hand of the Gentile nations does not dominate on the Jews". It seems to me that Israel's independence as a Jewish country is sufficient to qualify for this limited definition. However, Rabbenu Chananel (ad loc.) and the Ramban (Toras Ha-Adam in Kol Kisvei Ha-Ramban vol. 2 p. 243) write that the definition of peace is that the Temple in Jerusalem is standing (the Rashbatz in Tashbetz 2:271 also takes this position). On first glance, it seems that we have two positions in the Rishonim -- according to Rashi we must celebrate these days as holidays and according to the Ramban we must mourn and fast on them.

However, it seems to me that there is more to Rashi than meets the eye. In a previous comment on the page (sv. de-amar), Rashi says that these fast days apply nowadays when there is no Temple. Why does he mention the Temple at all? I think that Rashi has two qualifications for peace -- we need both national independence and the Temple. So, for example, during the Second Commonwealth when there were long periods of Roman domination of Israel while the Temple was still standing, according to Rashi the Jews should have fasted on those days. In fact, the Ritva (ad loc., sv. u-parkinan) explicitly states that there are two requirements -- peace and the Temple. Similarly, the Rambam, in his commentary on the associated Mishnah, writes that in the times of the Second Temple, these fast days were generally optional. In other words, there was no peace but there was also no oppression.

However, the Meiri clearly requires only national independence. He does not mention any requirement of having a Temple.

I would suggest, then, that according to almost all Rishonim, fasting on these days is still optional (for the community, which accepts it as a standard). We have one requirement for celebration -- independence -- but are still lacking the other -- the Temple in Jerusalem.

Read the rest of this entry »

Audio Roundup LII

by Joel Rich

Note: I’m still unsure of who at Cross-Currents approves or leaves posts in moderation purgatory. I guess the volume must be such that they can’t let posters know what the find objectionable so they can change their evil ways? Sad – since every word I say is true and I’m getting tired of waiting and fooling around – I suppose I’ll find some blog who won’t make me feel like a clown.

Rabbi Dr. Moshe J. Bernstein -"Orthodox Judaism and Modern Bible Scholarship: Where Should We Draw the Lines in our Pursuit of Peshat?": link

Kudos to Dr. Ed Berliner for returning the Vilna of Essex County (West Orange) to the center of the intellectual map with his 3 part Café Khochma series. The give and take with the audience allowed for some sharp focus on important issues (hmmm – guess who was giving and talking).
Rabbi Dr. Moshe Bernsrtein opened with some background on why academic study of Tanach was/is opposed within the orthodox community (agenda). However, many study it for the same reason we do – connection to Tanach – which isn’t intrinsically antithetical to our position.

Click here for moreMany Rabbis paskin on this study without knowing much about it. The goal of academic study is systemization versus ad-hoc approach. Medrash is ad-hoc, but that’s fine since it has a different purpose.
So why study academic “pshat” if it has little or no halachic/medrashic implications? It’s the dvar hashem (HKB”H’s word) and we use all the tools at our disposal to understand it.
This was the approach used by Rashbam et at. The challenge is when some of the tools/material are not traditionally found in the bet Medrash – it makes some people uncomfortable (calling Colonel Jessup?).
There are some red lines for the orthodox bible scholar. Primary one is Torah Misinai (note there are some orthoprax scholars who may be “soft” on this). R Dr B would react to scholarship results that question this axiom with, “HKB”H why are you testing me?” It’s an issue of emunah. He limits the areas he’ll study to avoid a “double truth” issue (me – it seems you get this in any event).
The study of pshat is ongoing – current literary approaches can be used with our values. There is a real need to distinguish pshat from drash – read the unfiltered word of HKB”H.
Sometime Tzarich Iyun Gadol (it bears great study) is an answer.

Rav Asher Weiss - Coping with tragedy: link

Hard to listen to R’AW reflect on the loss of a grandchild. Some things we must just accept, we’re not meant to understand, and it is not a lack of emunah to cry. He felt an incredible closeness to HKB”H (me-interesting how tragedy can drive different people to different extremes). That night he started shiur with lulai toratcha (were it not for your torah), I empathize – I hummed that the entire span of my aveilut for avi mori vrabbi Zll”HH

Rav Asher Weiss - Personal Risk for the Tzibur: link

Moshe – going back to Egypt – HKB”H says go because all those who were out to kill you are dead. Meschech Chochma implies that else don’t have to put yourself in danger to save others (even nation). Halachic opinions as to whether must put self into danger to save others range from can’t to permissible to forbidden. Interesting issue on the one canteen of water question – how do you “know” that they’ll both definitely die if they share it?

Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz - Bishul Akum: link

Sources and practical application. Discussion of the usual suspects – canned tuna, sushi, mashed potatoes, potato chips, french fries.
Question: Who is likely to marry the factory owner’s daughter?

Dr. Yael Ziegler - Megillat Eicha Chapter 4: link

All in the 3rd person. Two parts – first half is the suffering of children (why do the righteous sufer?) The second half talks to the destruction. Outlines parallels between Chapter 2 and Chapter 4.

Rabbi N Kaplan - shabbat-bishul-shehiya and chazara: link

Crockpots! R’SZA’s last Tshuva (never signed) dealt with this issue (I’m surprised no one said it was min hashamayim that he was niftar without a final psak here). Very technical discussion and analysis – Lmaaseh as well.

Rav Asher Weiss - Mikdash M'at: link

When can you build a breakaway shul? (me – empirical answer – when your brogez!) Is there a difference lchatchila or bdieved (if someone else did it inappropriately; can you daven there?). Is there a presumption of brov am (greater glory in #’s)? R’AW thinks R’M Feinsteins tshuva which turned on yored lumnat chaviero (unfair economic competition) is a chiddush (me – many shuls seem to be businesses).

Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz - Hasagas Gevul - Unfair Competition: link

Good summary of sources (although as R’AL points out, the issur is misnamed – odd, wonder how that happened?)
Chazal generally pro free competition , but it is a bit difficult to reconcile all the sources to one theory of everything.

Rabbi Dani Rapp - Topics in Geirus: Shitas Harambam in Kabalas Ol Mitzvos: link

The Rambam on Kabbalat ol mitzvot – clarified.

Rav Binaymin Tabory - Birkat HaChodesh and Kiddush Levana: link

Re-enactment of Sanhedrin declaring new month (Ravyah/R’YBS) or early version of twitter? Sources on how long must one wait and other details.

Rabbi Akiva Block -From Yom Kippur Morning to Tisha B'av Mourning: Two Models of Physical Abstinence: link

While many of the acts required or prohibited are the same on Tisha B’AV and Yom Kippur, the reasons for them are primarily different – yet each has aspects of the other (e.g. theme of repentance on Tisha B’AV).

Rabbi Ilan Segal - The Three Weeks, A Recurring Pattern: link

Aliyah and the message of Tisha B’AV (yes, we can). May we all be zoche to fulfill this message bderech hateva (I can’t think of many areas where Freud’s “all men are geniuses at rationalization” is more applicable).

Rav Asher Weiss - Aveiroh Lishmoh: link

Yael and Esther! Can you do an aveirah to save all Klal Yisrael (how defined?); a large group? another individual? or only if ruach hakodesh tells you to?
What about the implications – prohibited to husband? (me – is your soul stained anyway?) Fascinating range of opinions.
Some halachic examples where aveirah I’shma (sinning for reason of mitzvah?) comes into play.
An interesting Tshuvot Harashba – bet din could determine not to punish guilty in order to be mekarev the sinner. R’AW heart tells him this was only after destruction of temple (perhaps when bet din was acting through king’s power to assure civil order). [me – so what’s the chiddush?]

Rabbi Baruch Simon - Parshas Matos 5769- The Mida of Histapkus: link

Be satisfied with what you have mussar. Worthwhile if only for the tag line – but not on Tisha B’AV!!!

Rabbi Ari Kahn - The Source of Hatred: link

Tisha B’av mussar (really applicable year round).

Rav Asher Weiss - Dinim and Brocho: link

Chazal imbued the forum of each bracha with the ability to inform us of the nature and halachot related to the particular mitzvah.

Read the rest of this entry »

Parashah Roundup: Va-eschanan/Nachamu 5769

by Steve Brizel

Moshe's Prayer to Enter the Land of Israel

R Avraham Gordimer suggests that the denial of Moshe's prayer to enter the Land of Israel is an illustration of the binding and irrevocable nature of Torah for all generations: link

Ki Solid Banim

R Ephraim Buchwald reminds us that Tanach provides with many role models to remind us that despite that how far we seemingly stray as a people and individuals, there is hope for all of us: link

Click here for moreShma Yisrael

R Yitzchak Etshalom sets forth three lessons that are introduced by the Parsha of Shma Yisrael: link

R Sir Jonathan Sacks reminds us that when a Jew hears God, he or she apprehends His Will: link

Rav Soloveitchik ZL and R Asher Weiss discusses the mitzvah of Talmud Torah: link

R Daniel Z. Feldman explicates many halachic and hashkafic aspects of the mitzvah of Krias Shma: link 1 (audio), link 2 (audio)

R Michoel Zylberman discusses the halachos of Birkas Krias Shma: link (audio)

R Baruch Simon explores many Halachos involved in Hilcos Mzuzah: link 1 (audio), link 2 (audio)

R Joshua Flug discusses the mitzvah of writing a Sefer Torah: link (audio)

The Luchos Acharonos

R Mordechai Sabato discusses many differences between the Luchos Rishonos and Luchos Acharonos: link

R Yitzchak Blau explores the relationship between Torah SheBaal Peh and both sets of the Aseres HaDibros: link

R Yissocher Frand explains why honoring one's parents was repeated again as an independent mitzvah to the generation that was on the verge of entering the Land of Israel: link

R Mordechai Willig reviews many halachos related to Kibud Av VaEm: link (audio)

R Beinish Ginsberg discusses Zacor vShamor Bdibur Echad: link (audio)

Fear of God

R Dovid Horwitz discusses the mitzvah of the fear of God: link

Transmitting the Sinai Experience to the Next Generation and Maintaining One's Enthusiasm

R Ally Ehrman and R Beinish Ginsberg discuss how to transmit the Sinai Experiennce to the next generation and to maintain enthusiasm in one's observance: link 1 (audio), link 2 (audio)

The Prohibition Against Intermarriage

R Herschel Shachter discusses the differences between a “mishpachah” and an “am” and numerous halachic ramifications encompassed in the prohibition against intermarriage: link

The Cities of Refuge

R Avraham Gordimer suggests why the Parsha of the cities of refuge is in our parsha: link

Nachmu Nachmu

The Nesivos Shalom, as elucidated by R Yitzchak Adlerstein, suggests why the Haftarah includes a double dose of consolation: link

R Berel Wein explains why the Luchos Acharonos and the seven Haftaros of Consolation are a means of helping us prepare for the Yamim Noraim: link

R Shlomoh Riskin exhorts us to remember that the Torah commands attitudes as well as actions: link

Last year's roundup: link

Read the rest of this entry »

Tisha B'av - Megillat Eicha

By: Rabbi Ari Enkin

Megillat Eicha, also known as the Book of Lamentations, is read publicly in the synagogue on the night of Tisha B'av.[1] In some congregations Eicha is read from a handwritten scroll similar to Megillat Esther which is read on Purim. When read from a handwritten scroll, the reader recites the blessing of "al mikra megilla" before the reading begins.[2] In most other congregations, however, Eicha is merely read from a printed text, often by a number of different individuals who divide the reading of Eicha amongst themselves. It is seems to be universal custom that a blessing is never recited upon a megilla, even on Purim, when it is read from a printed text.[3]

Click here for moreNevertheless, even in congregations where the Megillat Eicha is read from a scroll, there are many congregations who have the to omit the preliminary blessing.[4] Among the reasons for this is the concern that a blessing is only recited prior to reading a megilla which is halachically required. The reading of Eicha, however, may be more of a custom rather than an outright obligation – an issue which is subject to some dispute. So too, it is suggested that the blessing can only be recited on a megilla which was written in accordance with all the specifications of writing a Torah scroll, something which is difficult to ascertain, and not found in most congregations. Finally, there is actually some dispute as to how the blessing recited before the reading of Eicha should be worded. Therefore, based on these and other considerations, the more widespread custom is not to recite a blessing before reading Eicha on Tisha B'av.[5]

Others, however, dismiss all these concerns and rule that a blessing should always be recited when reading a megilla directly from a scroll on a day which the sages decreed that it should be read.[6] This was the practice of the Vilna Gaon from who many congregations in Jerusalem have adopted the practice.[7] The only exception to this rule would be the megilla of Kohelet which is read on Sukkot. It seems to be the consensus of authorities that a blessing is never recited on this reading.[8]


Be Sure to Also See:

http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2009/07/new-book-by-rabbi-enkin.html

*******************************************************

[1] Sofrim 18:5
[2] Sofrim 14:1
[3] Mishna Berura 490:19
[4] Beit Yosef O.C. 559
[5] Teshuvot Harama 35. See also Rivevot Ephraim 3:358
[6] See Piskei Teshuvot 559:1 for a summary of the different views on the issue.
[7] Maaseh Rav 175
[8] Magen Avraham 490:9

Read the rest of this entry »

New Book by Rabbi Enkin

I'm please to announce the publication of R. Ari Enkin's new book, Amot Shel Halacha: Halachic Insights. For all of the regular readers of his posts, here is a book full of halachic essays in his usual concise and readable style.

From the book's webpage (link):

Rabbi Ari N. Enkin once again presents over 100 fascinating contemporary halachic issues in his latest work, Amot Shel Halacha. Each chapter is skillfully compiled from insights and rulings drawn from an extensive range of Halachic texts. The amount of information packed into every chapter is meticulously woven together to present each issue in a unique and holistic manner. The author, noted for his articulate and engaging manner of writing, possesses an exceptional ability to explain even the most complicated matters with extraordinary clarity. With well over 2000 references from the entire spectrum of Halachic sources, Amot Shel Halacha is simply an experience and education in Halacha like no other.

Click here to read more
Praise for Amot Shel Halacha:

"Rabbi Ari Enkin has successfully authored another outstanding sefer of modern day Halachic issues… It is written in a very clear manner that is balanced and easy to understand. The issues presented are extremely interesting and certain to provide every reader with something of interest.
Truly a worthwhile contribution."
–Rabbi Michael Broyde, Dayan, Beit Din of America

"I have used excerpts of Rabbi Enkin's book with my students and we have enjoyed them all. I have found his writings to contain a great deal of valuable material… This is a unique sefer by a talented and distinguished Torah scholar."
–Rabbi Ephraim Greenblatt, Noted Posek, Author, Shu”t Rivevot Ephraim

"I have read a number of Rav Ari Enkin's writings and I have enjoyed them immensely. He has a talent for choosing topics of interest and presenting the material in an enjoyable and balanced manner. I recommend his writings to anyone who desires to deepen their knowledge about important Torah topics."
–Rabbi Howard Jachter, Dayan, Beit Din of Elizabeth, Author, "Gray Matter" Halacha series

Read the rest of this entry »

Announcements #108: Live, Online Tisha B'Av Shiurim at WebYeshiva

Live, Online Tisha B'Av Shiurim at WebYeshiva

Our sages have taught us that one who grieves over the destruction of Jerusalem will merit to see its rebuilding. Join Rabbi Chaim Brovender, Rosh Yeshiva of WebYeshiva, and Rabbi Yitzchak Blau online on TIsha B'Av, Thursday, July 30th, for three sessions of live, fully interactive, online Kinot and special shiurim in memory of former WebYeshiva faculty member and beloved teacher, Rabbi Jay Miller. (To register for the classes, click here).

Click here for the schedule and list of classes9:15 AM Israel time
7:15 AM London time
4:15 PM Melbourne time

Explanatory Kinot Service with Rabbi Brovender
Rabbi Brovender will explain the themes of the various Kinot, with a close examination of the text and ideas. What was the historical background of the Kinot? Who are the authors of the Kinot? What themes in the Kinot resonate in modern times?

12:00 PM Israel time
10:00 AM London time
7:00 PM Melbourne time

Aggadot HaChurban with Rabbi Blau
Rabbi Blau will take a deeper look at the Aggadot HaChurban (stories dealing with the destruction of the Temple) including Bar Kamza, R. Zecharya and the Biryonim.

Chatzot in Jerusalem is at approximately 12:45 PM

10:30 AM New York time
7:30 AM LA time
5:30 PM Israel time
3:30 PM London time

Second Explanatory Kinot Service with Rabbi Brovender
Rabbi Brovender will explain the themes of the various Kinot, with a close examination of the text and ideas. What was the historical background of the Kinot? Who are the authors of the Kinot? What themes in the Kinot resonate in modern times?

All texts and materials will be provided online by WebYeshiva.

Both sessions are free and are open to WebYeshiva students and to the public.

To register, click here or check out our website.



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

Read the rest of this entry »

Conversations and Reunions

Twenty three years ago, I went to Washington. Or so the people at my Solomon Schechter Day School of Bergen County eighth grade class of 1986 reunion today told me; but I have no recollection of the class trip (my mother later showed me pictures I took, so I guess it really happened). For many of the people there, it was the first time we had seen each other since 1986 or 1987.

(Note that the above picture is blurry on purpose. I don't want to post clear pictures of other people without their permission. Also note that two classmates are missing from the picture. I'm in the first row, second from the left.)

As always, nostalgia makes for good times.

Click here to read moreAs always, nostalgia makes for good times. I got to catch up with some people whose lives were closely intertwined with mine for nine years -- most of us were together from kindergarten through eighth grade -- and then abruptly disconnected as we went our separate ways for the turbulent high school years. I've been amazed about how I could not have predicted where my friends from high school would end up. Multiply that a number of times for my friends from elementary school.

I have a lot of thoughts about my educational experience in the small school we attended -- some of which took me years to arrive at. It was long in coming but I eventually recognized that when they told us in school that we were receiving a unique education, they really meant it. One classmate expressed it well today when he said that all of our teachers were a bunch of hippies. Maybe not all, but pretty close. I listened to and watched Free to Be You and Me so many times in school that I thought it was a cornerstone of education. All schoolchildren in the country knew the songs and stories by heart, right? I was taught biblical criticism as a given from the day I started learning Torah. Simon and Garfunkle's tunes were religious songs, as was the theme to The Muppet Movie. And it was normal for girls to do everything that boys do, including leading prayers and wearing tefillin. (I've obviously moved on from much of my early education, but I still cherish the Muppets.)

One thing a few of us agreed on was that while our textual education did not compare well with that of our high school classmates who attended Orthodox elementary schools, the Hebrew language skills we learned were so strong that we easily caught up with -- and often surpassed -- those classmates. I never liked that Hebrew teacher who drilled the "binyanim" and other grammatical constructs into our heads through constant repetition, but I have to admit that her crude methods worked.

I was also not the only one to notice that going to such a small school (in sixth grade there were only two boys in our class of eight!) left many of us with limited social skills. So now I have an excuse for consistently saying the wrong things and being generally anti-social.

What I also found interesting was that there was a pretty good representation of a religious spectrum in the room, ranging from secular through, well, I guess me on the far right. When conversations got serious, meaning when we moved beyond nostalgia to just talking about the world, there was a very respectful exchange of thoughts. This got me thinking, partly because I am in the middle of reading the new book, Future Tense, by R. Jonathan Sacks. Chapter Nine is titled "The Jewish Conversation" and consists of R. Sacks lamenting the death of polite Jewish conversation. He offers his "Ten Judaic Principles" of conversation and adds (pp. 203-205):

The inability of Jews to contain their conflicts is a recurring tragedy, one that continues unabated to this day... Listening is a form of conflict resolution....

Jews have repeatedly brought disaster on themselves because, riven by conflict, they split apart. I began by noting that Hebrew lacked words for 'civility', 'tact', 'understatement' and 'diplomacy'. That is the mark of a people unused to power. It is very dangerous...

The irony, I have argued, is that Judaism contains a unique set of ideas that speak directly to this problem: language as holy, conversation as a kind of prayer, listening as a supreme religious act, justice as the willingness to hear both sides, and argument for the sake of heaven as a way of orchestrating conflicting perspectives into complex harmonies. These ideas, essential to Judaism, are the only way a highly individualistic people with strong beliefs and deep disagreements can stay together in a state of collective grace.

The main reason we could all get together and talk politely is that we have shared so many experiences together. That is clearly not something you can replicate on a larger scale. Not everyone in the world can go to school together. While that is true, it leads me to the conclusion that there is value in interdenominational (and interfaith) discussion. It doesn't really matter about what, but we need to meet each other and share experiences.

When you personally know people who are gay, your perspective on issues like gay marriage is based on the real people it affects. When you know women rabbis or learned Orthodox women who want to serve the Jewish community, your views on the matter are also shaped by the real lives involved. When you know Charedim and Chilonim, you think of the real people involved in whatever conflicts arise and your responses incorporate the recognition of the humanity of the "other".

Your views might not be any different. However, they are shaped by a sympathy and a respect for the people affected. Conversely, they recognize that you value their humanity and do not take your positions lightly or with personal animosity. The process of dialogue itself becomes the main point and whatever is said is much less important. It is the meeting together, getting to know each other personally, that is the key to civility, conversation and respect.

Read the rest of this entry »

Get Ready!

To my delight, it seems that we are slightly ahead of schedule for the publication of my new book, Posts Along the Way. It looks like pre-orders will begin shipping mid-next week. If you have not already done so, please consider taking advantage of the 20% pre-publication discount (only $17.60): link.

Don't forget that the Manhattan Book Launch will be on Monday August 10th from 1-2pm at Levine Judaica. The address is 5 West 30th Street New York, NY 10001. Mincha at 1:40pm.

The book's webpage is here (link) and includes a full table of contents as well as two blurbs and three excerpts. The book combines classic essays from this blog about prayers, rabbis and shuls with extensive new material from other places, all updated for new publications and feedback from readers and commenters. Learn about the halachah and hashkafah of shuls in the quick and enlightening blog style. Take a guided tour of the sources and see how they are relevant to the Judaism you live and experience.

Read the rest of this entry »

Audio Roundup LI

by Joel Rich

Please note-TIM shiurim are available at: http://www.torahinmotion.org/store/prod_search.asp

She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

Rabbi Dani Rapp -Topics in Geirus: Kabalas Ol Mitzvos: link

Short shiur with focus on the need for kabbalat mitzvot in geirut (has anyone seen anything official from KJ/OU/RCA on Ivanka?). Money quotes 1) “This is the famous tshuva of R’Chaim Ozer that many people rely on in these cases. The general assumption of the more recent poskim is not to accept this Tshuva. Yes, R’Chaim Ozer was the Gadol Hador, however, there are other tshuva’s we don’t accept of his” [me – reminds me of my mom’s famous absence note (IIRC – after cutting shiur – the big D gave me the wink and nod – to go to the UN protest in ’67) – “please excuse Joel for not being in school yesterday as he was unable to attend”]. 2] Growing up I remember I was modern orthodox you see which meant at that time you didn’t need hashgachot you just looked at the ingredients and if everything looked OK, it was good” [me – when was this? Everyone did that – what hashgachot existed to any large extent in the U.S. prior to the 60’s?].
Major source R’MF and anan sahade; (we – testify) that he didn’t mean it if we see by his actions (how immediate? You make the call – if you’re a bar hachi).

Click here to read more

TIM-Rav Soloveitchik and the Search for G-d - Rabbi Shalom Carmy

Excellent philosophical insights to R’YBS. Ish Hahalacha (Book) focuses on man but where is HKB”H in the story? On this basis, life would be a pure behavioral (MO or charedi) focus, but only an “intellectual game” (me – as it seems to be to many). Uvikashtem Misham (originally Ish Haelokim) adds mans’ search for HKB”H (R’YBS didn’t think there was a great demand for this later published work which is one of the reasons it remained unpublished for 30 years). Secular studies a part of this search.
R’YBS wasn’t interested in proofs of HKB”H (post-Kantian) and they limit your concept of HKB”H. When man can’t reach him, he looks for us.
Love and fear of HKB”H in halacha and hashkafa – we imitiate HKB”H knowing we can never close the gap. We try to imitate him by becoming part of a community of torah study – In action, thought and emotion (me – imho lots of people pick one almost to the exclusion of others)

TIM-Post-Modern Orthodoxy: Ideas and Ideals - Rabbi Dr. Marc D. Angel

Lesson of Sodom/bed medrash (make everyone one size) [me – foolish conformity is the hobgoblin of small minds]. Authoritarianism (because I said so) encourages conformity, demonizes those that speak truth to power and limits access to power. We should resist and not support those who delegitimize our approaches. (Hmmm – IIRC I saw a call for a boycott of Eidah hashgachot).

Rabbi Asher Weiss - Yissochor & Zvulun: link

What’s the deal with the Yissocher/Zevulen relationship? Well worth listening for some basic issues.
Do you need to make a tnai (condition)? Does it need to be a shutfut (partnership)? Does the supporter share in the learner’s reward or does he get the normal reward for assisting another in doing a mitzvah. [me – and who is HKB”H’s local accountant?]
R’M Feinstein understood it as a true complete partnership.
Can you really transfer reward between people? R’AW understands the zchut kria (reward for reading) Tehillim when someone else needs assistance, is not the same as prayer but rather when you do a mitzvah your tfilah is more accepted (i.e. it’s not tied to the zchut of the mitzvah!)
R’AW views the Yissocher/Zevulun reward relationship as zevulun being credited “kilu shneihem lomdim” (as if they were learning together) – like teacher/student relationship – HKB”H has plenty of credit to allocate! (much like some sales compensation programs).

Rabbi Reuven Spolter - Parshat Matot-Masei - Individual Wants vs Communal Needs: link

Good aliyah mussar – HKB”H never forces aliyah (see 2-1/2 tribes, Bavel…). I strongly agree with his ruminations on too much focus on the individual and not enough on the tzibbur (not only is it wrong, it’s counter productive for the individual). Also follows R’YBS’s ruminations on religious parties perhaps being counter-productive.

Rabbi N Kaplan - Maaser Kesafim: link

More mussar and stories at the beginning (perhaps since the status is really minhag , and it involves $, chizuk is needed). Lot’s of practical shűt (e.g. if you return a lost object that you didn’t halachically need to, do you both owe masser? What about Yeshiva students supported by parents?….)

TIM-Tefillah in the Wake of Crisis - Rabbi Yair Kahn

Prayer – purpose is to get close to HKB”H; the answer is secondary at best. Very nice drasha based on Avraham Avinu. He mentions a movie, I’m guessing it was girls praying that Gaza communities not be evacuated, his question is what did they do the next day, after the answer wasn’t what they wanted.
Current issue – youth who view everything as black and white, no pragmatism. Some times just have to accept the ratzon hashem.

TIM-Finding G-d: Seeking Community Acceptance and Rejection in the Book of Ruth - Erica Brown

An interesting lesson on Ruth, converts and being with HKB”H within a community. Some insights from paintings and woodcuts (not visible on the audio).

Rabbi Eliakim Koenigsberg - What Mourning Means: Reflections of The Rav on Tisha B'Av: link

Mourning and repentance on Tisha B’av as seen by R’YBS. Make a negative into a positive! (hmmm – Yom Kippur and sins and repentance from love – a consistent worldview from R’YBS).

Rav Binyamin Tabory - Rosh Chodesh: link

Examination of status of Rosh Chodosh – includes minhagim (some still do these) of a special meal (seudah), visiting one’s Rav and not doing mlacha (labors?). Nice insight from R’YBS on simcha in beit mikdash by Karbanot.

Rav Moshe Taragin - The Importance of a Rebbe: link

Knai lcha chaver (get a friend) – Many commentaries understand this as someone to increase your Torah learning, others in the more general nature.
Contradictory sources on having one rabbi or many? Perhaps difference is teacher for logic vs. for knowledge. R’MT feels you need to be grounded in a primary approach before trying out others.

Dr. Yael Ziegler - Megillat Eicha - Chapter 3 Part 2: link

Middle of 3rd chapter the individual begins to introspect. Provides guide from low point when one encounters suffering – moving back to communications with HKB”H.

Rabbi Yehoshua Grunstein -When will the 3 weeks and Tisha Bav be cancled? Is having the State of Israel a factor to change our mourning?: link

During the second temple did they commemorate Tisha B’av? Rashi, Rambam on whether the existence of the beit mikdash was the deciding factor. If not, what would be? Interesting insight from R’Moshe Soloveitchik on the language of the Rambam perhaps requiring no baseless hatred and the concomitant hashrat shechina (divine presence).

TIM-Jews Against Jew: How Strongly May We Fight for Our Principles? - Rabbi Mark Dratch

Importance of getting along with each other. Interesting comment at the end concerning democracy when you have halachic opinions on both sides – not sure that everyone would agree.

R Linzer - Hashgacha Requirements, Neemanut: link

Summary of rules on hashgacha including women, mirtat (fear), Yotzeh V’nichnas (not full time), tmidi (full time), Chshad (suspicion).

TIM-The Messiah and Redemption: Beliefs, Movements and Calculations from Talmudic Times to the Present - Dr. David Berger

Differing opinions on what will happen in messianic times (Rambam isn’t the only opinion!).
Good history of such movements up through current times (Hameivin Yavin).

Read the rest of this entry »

The Chief Rabbi on Women Rabbis

In a recent interview, Chief Rabbi (soon-to-be-) Lord Jonathan Sacks stated that he does not wish to comment on the discussion in the US and Israel over Orthodox women rabbis (link). However, I think we can gain from his wisdom by examining an article he presented to the first Orthodox Forum, in 1989, in which he discusses the at-the-time recent responsa from the Conservative movement endorsing the ordination of women. The article was revised and published in the 1992 book, Rabbinic Authority and Personal Autonomy (Dr. Moshe Sokol ed.). The following is from pages 165-167:

Click here to read more

[S]urely we are sociologically and philosophically sophisticate enough to realize -- given the wealth of studies on this very point -- that it is this modern consciousness that is radically subversive of tradition of all kinds. At the very heart of Judaism, biblical and rabbinic, is an insistence on standing apart from, sometimes maintaining an oppositional stance to, the secular ethos of the age. The very concept -- itself biblical -- of a "fence around the law" recognizes that there may be behaviors which, while not directly in conflict with Jewish law or values, are nonetheless subversive of them. It was remarkable, therefore, to find a series of "responsa" rejecting a set of halakhic assumptions in favor of an uncritical acceptance of a late-twentieth-century American view of what is "sexist" or undemocratic. This fails to pass a minimal threshold of sociological insight, let alone halakhic integrity.

I would hazard this view: that concepts like ervah and kavod are culturally determined, and that a general disposition to find them meaningless testifies to a failure of cultural transmission. I have argued that [Conservative Rabbi Joel] Roth's responsum fails the test of integrity, or what I have called Daat Torah, by concentrating on narrow and formal argumentation and ignoring the wider ambit of halakhic values. It fails, in fact, exactly on those grounds in which Conservative thinkers claim prowess: historical and sociological sophistication. But this is part of a wider failures.

Halakhah is often taken to be a set of rules, and as such is governed by the general jurisprudential considerations that apply to rules. This view governs, for example, the entire presentation of Roth's book, The Halakhic Process: A Systemic Analysis. But this is not so, as Maimonides makes clear in the Guide. The laws of Torah, he argues, are intended to do more than govern behavior. They are meant to shape character and cognition. That is why one cannot be halakhically indifferent to secular culture insofar as it shapes character and cognition in way antithetical to or subversive of Torah. We can go further. The extraordinary emphasis in both biblical and rabbinic Judaism on Torah not only or even primarily as law, but as an object of perpetual study, testifies to the degree to which Judaism finds its meanings not self-evident on the surface of either society or nature, but acquired through extended, indeed continual, education. A failure of talmud Torah will eventually lead to a failure of halakhah, for there will then be exactly the cognitive dissonance between law and sensibility that we find in the Conservative responsa. The answer to this is not halakhic change.

Read the rest of this entry »

Orthodox Women Clergy?

This post is an expanded version of the Op-Ed published this week in The Jewish Press: link

Orthodox Women Clergy?
by Rabbi Michael J. Broyde*

Introduction

You may applaud the prospect of ordaining women rabbis, or you may recoil in horror at the prospect, but the simple fact remains that women serve the Orthodox world in clergy-like positions regularly. Women, in fact teach Torah in many settings, answer questions of Jewish law on many matters, provide guidance on issues of Jewish theology to individuals and otherwise function in a way that we can only describe in fact as “clergy”. All Orthodox Jews ought to agree that we should insure that these women get the best training possible. Furthermore, we certainly all recognize that these women clergy ought to be entitled to parsonage under the Federal tax code. The best way to accomplish this goal is for our community to start many different training programs for Orthodox women who wish to work as clergy.

Click here to read moreTitles do, of course matter and the title of this article was picked with some care: “Clergy” is defined in the Webster’s Dictionary as “the group of men and women who are ordained as religious leaders and servants of God” and, for example in the Catholic tradition, nuns are certainly clergy, although they do not perform sacrament, are not priests and cannot provide communion, the central rite of Catholicism. Clergy is a term broader than rabbi – in a typical Christian Church, all those who are paid to serve the religious needs of the membership, no matter where they are on the hierarchy, are considered clergy.

Halacha, History and Women Studying Torah: A Brief Review

Jewish law generally does not change in its core principles, at least not as it is understood by the Orthodox community. Principles change in only three real ways: Innovative re-understanding [chiddush], Rabbinic decree [takanah] and emergency decrees [hora’at sha’ah]. Each of these has, at various times and places changed the very face and form of Jewish Law and community.

The first two are not the focus of this column, but worthy of brief explanation. Throughout Jewish legal history, scholars of halacha have advanced novel understandings of the classical sources that have changed the practice of Judaism, from Boaz’s assertion in Ruth that a Moabite woman may marry a Jew, to Rabbi Ovadya Yosef’s recent assertion that the DNA mother (and not the birth mother) is the mother according to Jewish law in cases of surrogacy. So too, change through rabbinic decrees prohibiting that which is otherwise permitted has also changed the face of Jewish law: consider for example Rabbi Gershon’s decrees prohibiting polygamy and coerced divorce, and their dramatic impact on Jewish law and society.

Neither of these mechanisms, however, are as far reaching or as powerful as exigent decrees (hora’at sha’ah), the rarely used power to abrogate Jewish law and do that which is prohibited in order to allow Judaism to survive. As the Talmud recounts with regard to the profound decision to abolish the practice of having an exclusively oral tradition and record every aspect of the oral tradition in writing “it is the time to act for the sake of God, to avoid destruction of God’s Torah.”

Women’s study of Torah was the subject of exactly such a process one century ago when a group of famous rabbis -- lead by the Chofetz Chaim and the Admor from Gur — decided to encourage women to study Torah. The Chofetz Chaim (R. Israel Meir HaKohen (Kagan), Likkutei Halachot, Sotah 20b) wrote:

It seems that all of this [prohibition against women learning Torah] applies only to times past when all daughters lived in their fathers' home and tradition was very strong, assuring that children would pursue their parents' path, as it says, ‘Ask your father and he shall tell you.’ On that basis we could claim that a daughter needn't learn Torah but merely rely on proper parental guidance. But nowadays, in our iniquity, as parental tradition has been seriously weakened and women, moreover, regularly study secular subjects, it is certainly a great mitzvah to teach them Chumash, Prophets and Writings, and rabbinic ethics, such as Pirkei Avot, Menorat Hamaor, and the like, so as to validate our sacred belief; otherwise they may stray totally from God's path and transgress the basic tenets of religion, God forbid."

This approach, which is written reflecting the needs of the times and the dangers of under-education in the modern world, stands in direct contrast to the formulation of Jewish law found in Rambam and Shulchan Aruch, which apparently prohibits such study. It is important to note that while the Chafetz Chaim’s formulation has the appearance of being less than ideal (bedi’eved), in reality, his construct – like the change from a purely oral Torah, to an oral Torah that is written down, as Rav Yehuda HaNasi mandated – is really an adaption to changing times. (To illustrate this, we do not view Torah scholars as superior if they decline to write down any of Torah Shebal pe, so as not to rely on the liberal view of Rav Yehuda Hanasi permitting writing down the oral law!)

Even those who paint a slightly less radical story of this change, and maintain that this statement of the halacha was a case of innovation (chiddush) as women were always technically allowed to study oral law (as the Rambam’s formulation of “tzivu chachamim” used to prohibit women’s Torah study does not create a formal issur,) agree that for centuries the practice was not to allow women to study Torah; and the change was still quite radical.

The Problems with the Status Quo

We all agree that a dramatic change has taken place in the last fifty years – by and large we live in a society where many women are studying Torah intensively and women participate extensively in a plethora of professional capacities, including many different roles in Jewish communal life: Women teach our children, found and run our schools, counsel troubled adults, run social service agencies, lecture on Torah topics and texts and serve as outreach professionals. Women study a large variety of Torah subjects and texts – far beyond what was studied a generation ago -- at sister institutions of numerous great Yeshivot and at many independent Torah institutions. Reflecting these changes, Rabbi Soloveitchik wrote simply and directly nearly fifty years ago:

not only is the teaching of Torah she-beal pe to girls permissible, but nowadays an absolute imperative . . . Boys and girls alike should be introduced into the inner halls of Torah Shebal pe.

Just like, in order to save Torah from total destruction, the oral law had to be put into writing, in direct violation of Jewish law 2000 years ago, the oral law now needs to be studied by men and women alike if Torah is to be preserved. One is hard-pressed to find an Orthodox high school that does not, in fact, teach portions of the oral law to girls.

What should those women who have studied Torah for a few years after high school or college do for a living? I confess that I have counseled many of them to “go to law school,” and I have assured them that if they can master a halachic tome by Rabbi M. Feinstein or Rabbi YM Epstein, they can master a legal work by Justice B Cardoza or Justice LD Brandeies. I had given that advice because there were few, if any, good careers in Torah for women, despite the personal realization that this represented a significant loss for the Jewish people. The lucky few who married rabbis and wanted a career in Torah did so under the title “Rebetzin,” but surely marrying a rabbi ought not to be a job requirement for a career being a pastor within our community for women!

Training Women as Orthodox Clergy

To be sure, some of the roles in which women currently serve seem to be adequately credentialed by secular programs and degrees. When women serve specifically within our Orthodox community, however, we expect more of them than of their non-Orthodox counterparts. We expect them to answer questions, provide guidance and Jewish insight, and teach Torah. Formal training of women in such a role, and granting them a degree which signals their mastery of the needed halacha, hashkafa, practical and pastoral skills, as well as their theological commitment to Orthodox Judaism needed for such a job, sounds wise: training people for a job is more prudent that expecting them to do such a job untrained. The opening of institutions to train women to be members of the Orthodox clergy is an excellent alternative to law school and a logical progression within the development of women’s Torah education in the Orthodox community that started as a movement a century ago to teach women to learn all that is needed to function as a halachic person in the modern world. Certainly, a variety of formal programs to train such women is a better idea than excluding them or letting them teach untrained. We have a shortage of well-trained and caring clergy within the Orthodox community and the addition of further clergy will only lighten the burden for the rest.

Some will insist that whatever role women clergy play, they may not answer questions of Jewish law, but this does not seem to be mandated by halacha. As the Chinuch (mitzvah 152) noted many centuries ago, as a matter of Jewish law, there is no issue with a woman answering questions of halacha that she is qualified to answer. Women involved in kiruv regularly answer questions of halacha and hashkafa. Should we not want to see to it that women in this field have adequate training to handle the issues that frequently present themselves?

Even more importantly, we all see and sense that there are aspects of the clergy role that women do better than men, and our community would be deficient if we did not, in fact, have women already serving in quasi-clerical roles. What the community needs is a training process – analogous to the one we have for men – to ensure that women are properly trained in halacha, theology, pastoral matters and practice to best serve our community. If they are serving in these roles and servicing our community well, the Orthodox community will grow.

This does not at all mean that women need to be given the title “rabbi;” it could be, either for reasons of formal authority (serarah) being limited to men, or because the title “rabbi” is limited to people who can serve as witnesses or function as a chazan, or simply as a matter of tradition, a different title should be given. So too, this does not mean that training for women in the Orthodox clergy has to be identical to the training for men in the rabbinate -- women sometimes bring different pastoral approaches that require different training. All of this is secondary to the fact that formal institutional training for women who wish to be part of the Orthodox clergy – teaching, preaching and answering questions of halacha and hashgacha – is an improvement over the current lack of any formal training and thus a good idea. Such programs, granting degrees conferring fitness to be a member of the Orthodox clergy, are a wise idea whose time has come.

One additional financial point is worth noting, particularly in these difficult financial times. Granting women this type of a clerical degree will make it clear that women, as well as men, are eligible for parsonage, and the significant tax savings that it generates. (As the Talmud tells use “just like Torah shows compassion towards the money of the Jewish people, so should we.”)

Some Objections to Training Women as Clergy and a Reply to these Objections

Of course, some will protest that no matter what the title granted is: even if a training program on its own is a good idea, this program should not be supported, they claim, as it will lead down a slippery slope toward egalitarian services. In addition, some will take issue with the world view (hashkafat olam) of one of those organizing this first program and his perspectives on key issues in halacha. Whatever my feelings about those who are organizing this first training program (and I have publically stated that the founder of the first program engaged in “rabbinic malpractice” in a different context), I think this slope is unlikely to slip. Pastoral and halachic matters undertaken by a member of the clergy are quite distinct within Orthodoxy from the liturgical matter of a chazan, the sexton matters of the gabbai or the rabbinical court matters of a dayan. In England, for example, different members of the Orthodox clergy go by distinctly different titles, reflecting different roles: Reverend, Minister, Rabbi, and Dayan and maybe that is a fine idea worthy of transfer to America.

Indeed, if anything, the process of training women as Orthodox members of the clergy will increase the speed of an already present bifurcation in the Orthodox religious leadership, between clergy who function as pastors and rabbis who function as dayanim. If not all members of the Orthodox clergy can serve as dayanim or eidim, then these tasks will become specialized tasks reserved for a smaller sub-group of specifically trained rabbis, who might not even be clergy at all. I suspect that in the future, pastors need not be rabbis and the rabbis need not be pastors within the Orthodox community. In fact Orthodox yeshivot do give semicha both to converts and blind people, even as the first cannot serve as dayanim in general and the second cannot read from the Torah. We all recognize that roles do not slip so quickly.

So too, if the specific people training Orthodox women clergy are thought unfit by some, the solution is to open alternate training programs with different faculty, staff or students. It would be a shame if this good idea was abandoned merely because some in the Orthodox community think ill of the people who started the first training program.

Conclusion

I think that certifying people – men and women -- as well-trained Orthodox clergy to teach, preach and counsel God’s Torah to the laity is also a good idea (and certainly better than the status quo, which allows essentially untrained women to function in pastoral roles). The Orthodox community will be better served by providing better training and firmer career paths to women wishing to serve as pastors within our community. Hopefully there will be competition in this process as well, producing even better programs, and competing programs that reflect ideological and halachic views more normative within Orthodoxy. In the end, our community can only grow and flourish with well-trained clergy, whatever title they might have. “Well-trained clergy” will come, as a general matter, only from programs that are designed to well train them.

I look forward to all my children – both my sons and my daughters -- being scholars and students of God’s living legacy on this planet.

---

* Michael Broyde is a law professor at Emory University, Chaver of the Beth Din of America and the Founding Rabbi of the Young Israel in Atlanta.


[Note that my posting this does not imply my agreement. That is a general rule for my posting the words of others, including the immediately subsequent post to this, but I emphasize it here because I suspect some readers will misunderstand. - Gil]

Read the rest of this entry »

Parashah Roundup: Devarim-Chazon 5769

by Steve Brizel

An Overview of Sefer Devarim

R Yitzchak Etshalom and R Mordechai Sabato discusses the themes of historical recounting, mitzvos, covenental ceremonies and Moshe Rabbeinu's fairwell that are the highlights of Sefer Devarim: link 1, link 2

R Baruch Simon explores many of the unique factors in Sefer Dvarim and how the explication of Sefer Devarim diiffers from the other sefarim of Chumash: link (audio)

Click here to read moreMoshe Rabbeinu-The Master Educator

R Aharon Lichtenstein explains why Moshe Rabbeinu was the master educator: link

Moshe Rabbeinu's Perspective After 40 Years in the Desert

R David Horwitz illustrates how Moshe Rabbeinu had a deep sense of empathy for those members of the Jewish People who were denied entry to the Land of Israel: link

From Yisrael to Kol Yisrael

Chief R Sir Jonathan Sacks, based upon the Kli Yakar, reminds us that tGod is found in the community, as opposed to the individual: link

Ingratitude and Lack of Self Worth

R Berel Wein suggests that Moshe Rabbeinu's valedictory address is a reminder of us to always express gratitude and to remember the Divine Mission, regardless of the surrounding environment: link

Learning Not to Say No

R Yissocher Frand reminds educators and parents that sometimes saying yes, when one would at first glance say no, is warranted when the negative answer will fall on deaf ears: link

The Resistance of Sichon and Og

The Nesivos Shalom, as elucidated by R Yitzchak Adlerstein, suggests that each of us must work at eradicating the Sichon and Og within our own personalities in order to reach a higher level in Avodas HaShem: link

Lo Saguru-The Integrity of the Judicial System

R Dovid Gottlieb explores the dimensions of this prohibition: link (audio)

Shabbos Chazon

R Shlomo Riskin explores the hashkafic underpinnings of a dispute after the Churban Bayis Sheni between R Yochanan Ben Zakkai and R Akiva and its post Holocaust ramifications: link

R Avraham Gordimer suggests why Parshas Dvarim is always read on Shabbos Chazon: link

Shoalim Vdorshin Department

R Soloveitchik ZTL discusses The Three Weeks, Tishah B'Av and Kinos: link

R Asher Weiss discusses the Issur of Talmud Torah on Tishah B'Av: link

R Michael Rosensweig explores the unique nature of Tishah B'Av and the question raised by the Chasam Sofer and R Akiva Eger ZTL whether a person who is not fasting can receive an aliyah on the afternoon of Tishah Bav: link 1, link 2 (audio)

R Yonasan Sacks explains how and why Tishah B'Av differs from Yom HaKippurim and why American Jews, in particular, need to commemorate Tishah B'Av: link 1, link 2

R Joshua Flug explores the many themes that are apparent in a proper appreciation of Tishah B'Av: link (PDF)

R Daniel Z. Feldman discusses the dual kindness of Nichum Aveilim: link (PDF)

R Reuven Brand investigates the relationship between the Seder and Tishah B'Av: link (PDF)

R Dovid Gottlieb explores many issues in Megilas Eichah and offers commentary on Kinos: link 1 (audio), link 2 (audio)

R Shmuel Marcus discusses many themes in the Kinos: link (audio)

Last year's roundup: link

Read the rest of this entry »

Halakhic Philosophies

When I first opened R. Ira Bedzow's recent book, Halakhic Man, Authentic Jew: Modern Expressions of Orthodox Thought from Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik and Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits, I was surprised. I had expected to find summaries of each thinkers' approach and then a constructive comparison and contrast of their views. That's not what I saw at all. Instead, I found something much bolder and more original.

Halakhic Man, Authentic Jew consists of four daring chapters, book-ended by a very brief introduction and conclusion. In the introduction, R. Bedzow states that Modern Orthodox thought is orthodoxy merely translated into contemporary language and thought structures. In the conclusion, he suggests that R. Soloveitchik and R. Berkovits did more than merely translate; they innovated and deviated from traditional Jewish thought.

Click here to read moreThe intervening chapters are where R. Bedzow attempts to prove this daring thesis. In the first two chapters, he raises point after point from each thinker and then critiques them, attempting to prove their incompatibility with Jewish tradition.

This is not some sort of hatchet job. It is a very thoughtful, respectful critique that attempts to analyze the subjects' ideas on their own terms. For example, on pages 47-58, R. Bedzow describes R. Soloveitchik's different typologies as being occupied entirely with the theoretical world: "For example, epistemological man's true ideal is the creation of mathematical constructs that can duplicate the functional relationships existing in the world, while homo religiosus leaves the physical world altogether. Even halakhic man has no inherent relationship to the real world, since his focus of concern is the ideal world of Halakha." R. Bedzow then proceeds to argue to the contrary, that Jewish tradition values action over all else.

R. Berkovits claims that the Jews were not inherently chosen. In R. Berkovits' own words: "God never chose the Jews; rather, any people whom God chose was to become the Jewish people." On pages 88-99, R. Bedzow argues from traditional texts that the Jewish people was chosen because of its unique worthiness.

These are just two examples of a series of ideas that R. Bedzow critiques, in chapter 1 of R. Soloveitchik and in chapter 2 of R. Berkovits. Chapter 3 is an essay on the subject of R. Soloveitchik's attempt to derive a philosophy of Judaism solely from halakhah. R. Bedzow concludes: "Halakha necessarily will shape the way people think by virtue of its pedagogical character; nevertheless, a Jewish Weltanschauung consists of more than just a normative system. The Torah encompasses history, poetry, mysticism, literature, philosophy, and many other facets of reality, as well as Halakha. A Jewish world view should do the same." (p. 147)

Chapter 4 is an essay on R. Berkovits' philosophy of ethics. As R. Bedzow describes it, R. Berkovits considers religion to be equated with ethics. This is an idea that R. Bedzow critiques at length.

After four chapters of critiquing the views of R. Soloveitchik and R. Berkovits -- one chapter each of short discussions and one long essay each -- R. Bedzow concludes as above, that both R. Soloveitchik and R. Berkovits misstated traditional Judaism in their religious philosophies. However, his conclusion is stated implicitly and not explicitly. He lets it flow from his arguments, in a way that seems respectful and maybe even tentative.

I have to admit that I am entirely incapable of evaluating the arguments in the book. The philosophical discussions are generally over my head. It makes me uncomfortable to see someone argue so extensively against R. Soloveitchik's ideas but I have no problem with honest discussions. I expect, and look forward to seeing, those more capable discuss these issues and fully evaluate the arguments.

Read the rest of this entry »

Shoes and Gentiles on 9th of Av

Shoes and Gentiles on 9th of Av: The Problem of Being Mocked
by Rabbi Michael J. Broyde*

There is a well established halacha that one may not wear leather shoes on the 9th of Av and this prohibition is listed in the Shulchan Aruch in the same manner as the other central prohibitions of the days. Consider, for example, the simple formulation in Shulchan Aruch OC 554:1.

תשעה באב אסור ברחיצה וסיכה ונעילת הסנדל ותשמיש המטה

On the 9th of Av, it is prohibited to bathe, anoint, wear leather shoes and have marital relationships…

Indeed, there are numerous Talmudic and post Talmudic sources supporting this understanding of the halacha which makes no distinction between any of these four prohibitions: none are permitted unless one is seriously ill and the violation of the prohibition is part of the cure.

Click here to read moreBut yet, the Tur (OC 554) seems to disagree with this formulation. He states:

ואיסור נעילת הסנדל כאיסורו ביה"כ דוקא של עור אבל של בגד או של עץ או של שעם וגמי מותר תנא אבל ומנודה שמהלכין בדרך מותרין בנעילת הסנדל ולכשיגיעו לעיר יחלוצו וכן בט"ב ותענית צבור כתב אבי העזרי נראה דבזמן הזה שאנו בין הא"י שאין לחלוץ אלא כשנכנס ברחוב היהודים או בבית ישראל.

The prohibition of wearing shoes on the the 9th of Av is like the prohibition on Yom Kippur, specifically of leather – but of cloth or wood or cork or rubber are permitted. The Mishnah recites that a mourner or one who is excommunicated who are on the road are permitted to wear leather shoes, but when they come to the city, they should remove them, and the same is true for the 9th of Av and a public fast day. It states in the Avi Ezri that it appears that nowadays when we live among the Gentiles, one should not take off one’s leather shoes until one comes into the street where Jews live or the house of a Jew.

Indeed, this leniency – that one need not go barefoot among Gentiles – is not unique to the Avi Ezri, but is quoted by many other rishonim such as Rabbenu Yerucham (18:2:164), the Mordechai (Moed Katan 934) and Hagahot Maimoniot (5:300). The basic rationale that they all repeat is that the Gentiles, when they see us walking barefoot as a sign of mourning, will laugh at us. Since they will laugh at us, these poskim aver, we ought to avoid being laughed at, and can wear leather shoes until we are out of their sight in our own street or house.

Bet Yosef, while he cites these poskim, rejects them completely and his reason is worth considering. He states (Bet Yosef 554):

ולענין מעשה אין להקל בדבר ואם ילעיגו עליו הגוים מה בכך

As a matter of practical halacha, one should not be lenient on this matter, and if the Gentiles mock us, who cares.

Rama disagrees and accepts the view of the Avi Ezri. He states (OC 554:17):

וכן במקום שדרים בין הא"י, לא יחלוץ כי אם ברחוב היהודים, וכן נהגו

So too, in a place where we live among the Gentiles, one should not take one’s shoes off and that is the custom.

The Magen Avraham explains the reason for the Rama (in his notes 554:17 & 18) as follows:

)יז( נ"ל הטעם דטורח גדול הוא לילך רחוק יחף אבל כשהולך לשדה סמוך לעיר אסור לנעול וה"ה לבית הקברות עבי"ד ססי' שפ"ב אא"כ יש טיט ורפש או בין העכו"ם ונ"ל דכשיושב על העגלה או רוכב צריך לחלוץ אפי' בדרך רחוק:
)יח( ואע"פ שמשכירין קצת חניות לעכו"ם ועכו"ם עוברים שם אסור (רש"מ סי' י"ט) ונ"ל דאם הרבה עכו"ם עוברים שם מותר:

(18) It appears to me that the reason [one may wear leather shoes] is that it is a great stress to go barefoot, but when one goes to a field close to the city, it is prohibited to take off one’s shoes, and the same is true when one goes to a cemetery. See also YD 382:4-5 that this is only true if there is tar or mud or one is among Gentiles. It appears to me that if one is in a carriage or on a horse one needs to take off one’s shoes, even for a long journey.
(17) Even though we rent some stores to Gentiles, and Gentiles go even in the Jewish area, it is prohibited to wear shoes; but it appears to me that if many Gentiles are present, it is permitted to wear leather shoes.

Understanding the Magen Avraham is important to this topic. What he really means by this is the fact that the Gentiles mock us for going barefoot on this day hurts enough that one need not go barefoot, as the Talmudic Sages did not decree this form of mourning in the face of such psychological pain. (Of course, as Kitzur Shulchan Aruch notes in 124:11, even in such a case, one should put dirt or dust on one’s shoes so one should not be perfectly comfortable, as others note.)

Chayei Adam rejects this rationale and accepts the view of the Bet Yosef. Indeed, he adds a modern anti-Semitic twist. While Bet Yosef tells us that we should ignore being mocked as who cares, Chayei Adam states this rule differently: He writes (135:11):

דמה בכך שילעיגו עלינו הנכרים, בלאו הכי מלעיגים עלינו.

What difference does it make that Gentiles laugh at us for going bare foot, even with out this, they laugh at us.

Chayei Adam seems to rule that since they laugh at Jews all the time, there is no reason to permit this leniency now. According to the Chayei Adam, our current times might be different yet, as a Jewish business professional is not generally laughed at, but might well be, if he went to work barefoot.

While the Mishnah Berurah quotes this Chayei Adam in 554:36, it is clear in context (see his notes 33-35) that he is inclined to accept the rule that Jews who work among Gentiles and will be mocked if they go barefoot, may wear shoes. This is made explicitly clear in Mishnah Berurah 554:1, where he states in passing:

אך אותן ההולכים בין הנכרים ועוסקים במשא ומתן אחר חצות אותן מותרין לנעול:

Those who go among the gentiles and work after mid-day are permitted to wear shoes.

(I saw one commentator who seems to have misread this Mishnah Berurah to only permit shoes after mid-day, but this is a mistaken read of the Mishnah Berurah. The Mishnah Berurah only permits work after mid-day (see Rama OC 554:22 and the comments of the Mishnah Berurah) and thus only permits shoes after mid-day. But those who work all day, may wear shoes all day even according to the Mishnah Berurah.)

The Aruch Hashulchan is similarly lenient (554:16) and he notes that many rely on this view to wear leather shoes in all the larger cities.

The crucial question is what is the basis for this leniency? Why should it matter if people poke fun at Jews for observance of mitzvot? Indeed, is that ever a license to cease keeping the mitzvot?

I would like to suggest two different approaches, each with its own intellectual insights and limitations. One approach is grounded in general rabbinic concern for human dignity. In this view, rabbinic decrees to do something (like go barefoot) or to not do something (like wear leather shoes) are simply not generally applicable in cases where their observance causes significant failures of human dignity. In this approach, being mocked by one’s Gentile neighbors is a failure of kavod habriyot and is grounds for declining to fulfill the positive commandment of going barefoot on the 9th of Av. As the fine Encyclopedia Talmudit article “Kavod Habriyot” notes (volume 26:477-542 at page 528) “Rabbinic commandments are pushed aside in the face of human dignity even by an active violation, as the Talmudic Sages permitted such violations.”

I would suggest that there is a second explanation as well. The second view centers more around unique aspects of the 9th of Av and argues that the obligation to go barefoot on the 9th of Av is different from the other prohibitions of the day. Just like the Talmudic Sages did not decree that a mourner ought to go barefoot on a long trip, or that a person on the 9th of Av should walk through a muddy field or a rainy puddle, so too, the rules of the 9th of Av are such that one need not mourn in a way that causes one to be very uncomfortable, whether physically or emotionally. I think this is the explanation adopted by the Aruch Hashulchan in 554:17 who links walking in the rain without shoes, walking a long distance and walking among Gentiles all together and contrasts the halacha with regard to these three activities on the 9th of Av with the same conduct on Yom Kippur, where even being uncomfortable is not a license to wear shoes (but a much higher threshold is needed). This thus explains as well the view of the Chayei Adam, whose style is never to reject the Rama and adopt the view of the Shulchan Aruch. His comment is not a rejection of the Rama at all in the case, but merely noting that Jews are so mocked in general society already, that this additional mocking hardly can make anyone uncomfortable, and is thus to be ignored.

Of course, there is the alternative view adopted by the Shulchan Aruch, which is that Jews ought not be sensitive to these kinds of mocking conversations by our neighbors, but that is a different side of this dispute and is directly rejected by the breadth and depth of Ashkenazi poskim who seem to mandate that shoes be worn if Gentiles will mock us going barefoot.

Three final thoughts in this very sad season:

First, like many difficulty questions of yesteryear, technology has made our life easier and in all but the most unusual situations (such as the military, or fire-fighters, both of whom are in unique categories and have to wear very specific shoes) even one who must go to work on the 9th of Av can purchase very nice looking non-leather shoes and avoid this dispute. That is the custom nowadays.

Second, we now live in a society where Jews ought to seek to conduct themselves in ways that cause the Gentiles around us not to mock us. Halacha frowns on letting Jews be mocked and certainly when not mandated by halacha must be avoided. Indeed, it is my view that the Rama mandates and does not merely permit the wearing of shoes when around Gentiles who will mock us for going barefoot, reflecting a realization that being mocked is such an unwise idea. This should govern our conduct as Jews in the public square all the time, and not merely on the 9th of Av.

Third, all of us yearn and pray for the return of the Bet Hamikdash to its proper place and the redemption of the Jewish people in our time, so that these matters cease to be relevant discussions of halacha as the 9th of Av will be a day of happiness and joy.

---

Written in honor of my son, Aaron Broyde, who has chosen to serve along with the rest of his hesder class as Yeshivat Petach Tikvah in the Israeli Army. He was inducted into the army right before the beginning of the three weeks, and starts his basic training in the IDF soon after the 9th of Av. May God watch over my beloved son – and all of our beloved children in the Israeli Army – with particular care and love.

* Michael Broyde is a law professor at Emory University, Chaver of the Beth Din of America and the Founding Rabbi of the Young Israel in Atlanta.

Read the rest of this entry »