Monday, June 30, 2008
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Endless Wisdom
9:37 PM
Gil Student
The Gemara (Berakhos 40a) distinguishes between divine and human (i.e. physical) ways. When a cup is filled it can no longer hold additional liquid. However, when it comes to divine wisdom it is the exact opposite -- something empty cannot hold anything and something full can hold more. In other words, non-initiates cannot begin studying on their own while those who are learned can continue studying, and even at a higher level.This is somewhat difficult because, while it is true that someone who studies Torah extensively is prepared to study at a higher level, it is also true in regard to just about any other subject matter. In any area of knowledge, someone who studies it at length will be able to find new depths and insights at an advanced level. If so, what can this Gemara mean?
Click here to read moreThe Torah gives an unusual requirement in the manufacturing of the menorah for the Mishkan and Temple -- the menorah must be made from a single block of metal. R. Yitzchak Abarbanel explains:
The lamp of the Lord is the soul of man. The seven lamps symbolise the seven degrees of wisdom to be found in the Divine law. All the lamps turned inwards to the middle one, towards the Holy of Holies symbolising that true wisdom must harmonise with the fundamentals of the Torah, housed in the ark. The candlestick was made of pure gold implying that wisdom must not be tainted by alien ideas. The cups, knobs and flowers symbolise the various sciences which branch out from each other. It was "beaten work" out of one piece, symbolising that all the various types of sciences have one common source.All forms of wisdom are from God. While they may differ in terms of holiness, source and priority, all knowledge ultimately emanates from God. Rabbenu Bachya (Ben Asher) even writes that six of the wisdoms are all a ladder to reach the seventh -- knowledge of God (commentary to Avos 3:18 in Kisvei Rabbenu Bachya, p. 592).
(Quoted in Nehama Leibowitz [Aryeh Newman tr.], New Studies in Exodus, vol. 2 pp. 502-503)
That all wisdom comes from God is a common refrain among those who examine potential conflicts of Torah and science. For example, R. Yehudah (Leo) Levi writes in his Torah and Science (p. 16):
From the Torah viewpoint, both Torah and science are revelations of God's will. Science reveals God's will as imposed coercively upon the world...This is regarding the hard sciences (see also R. Natan Slifkin, The Challenge of Creation, p. 37). But according to Abarbanel and Rabbenu Bachya, it applies to all wisdom. This is why the Gemara (Berakhos 58a) says that when we see a gentile scholar we recite a blessing to God for giving His wisdom to people, and the Mishnah Berurah (224:10) quotes the Peri Megadim as saying that this refers to a scholar who is expert in the "seven wisdoms" (i.e. everything, a renaissance man). Clearly, this wisdom is given by God.
If so, we can understand the Gemara better. It is referring to all wisdom that emanates from God, and not just Torah (which, as direct revelation, has primacy in holiness and priority). As our experience indicates, any area of wisdom allows for endless study of increasing complexity. The reason for this is its ultimate divine origin.
Announcements #045: NEW and FREE Pirkei Avot and Beginners Mishnah Shiur Starting Today at WebYeshiva
12:13 PM
Gil Student
Starting today Sunday June 29, 2008 WebYeshiva will offer two FREE classes for the rest of the summer Zman. They are the following:Pirkei Avot
Taught by Rabbi Chaim Brovender at 8pm Israel time, 1pm New York time on Sundays
Pirkei Avot ("The Ethics of Our Fathers") is one of the best known and most cited of Jewish texts. This beloved tractate of the Mishna composed of ethical maxims of the Rabbis is familiar for such maxims as "If I am only for myself, who am I?" (1:14) and "Say little and do much" (1:15). Rabbi Brovender will examine and teach a different chapter of Pirkei Avot each week, following the six chapter order of Pirkei Avot.
Beginners Mishna
Taught by Rabbi Jay Miller on Wednesday and Friday at 5am Israel time / Tuesday and Thursday 10pm New York time
Rabbi Miller will teach the principles of Torah She-ba'al Peh by studying Mishna in depth. The analysis will introduce the student to the way that Chazal thought and analyzed. The Mishnayot will be chosen in accord with their difficulty and conceptual denseness.
This is an excellent opportunity to try WebYeshiva for FREE.
You can register for these classes at: http://www.webyeshiva.org/student/free.php
(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.)Friday, June 27, 2008
The New Chief Rabbi of France
8:33 AM
Gil Student
The Israeli Yated Ne'eman has an interesting description of the newly elected Chief Rabbi of France (link):
The Jewish community around the country was saddened by the news of the election of Prof. Gilles Bernheim to the post of chief rabbi. The elections were held in accordance with the ancient system introduced by Napoleon Bonaparte 200 years ago, which grants 300 community leaders and activists the right to take part in the vote. The results do not reflect the will of a majority of French Jews.Note the following from last week's issue of the Forward (link):
The election of France’s chief rabbi is generally a quiet affair decided by insiders. This year, thanks to the freedoms of the Internet, the campaign has turned into a raucous, innuendo-filled cyber-battle featuring Facebook pages, video postings — some of them fabricated — and furious blogging.Why is Yated Ne'eman so upset about Rabbi Bernheim's election? This might explain it (link):
Bernheim, who won by an overwhelming majority, is an Orthodox rabbi who has frequently spoken out in public on a wide range of issues. A former university chaplain, he is the rabbi of the largest Paris synagogue, the Synagogue de la Victoire, and has been active in dialogue with Christians. Bernheim recently published "Le rabbin et le cardinal" (The Rabbi and The Cardinal), a long conversation with Lyon Cardinal Philippe Barbarin. This commitment to dialogue earned him some criticism from more traditionalist voices in what turned out to be an unusually lively election campaign.And from the Forward:
While both men are Orthodox rabbis, the charismatic Sitruk advocates a traditionalist worldview while the cerebral Bernheim stands for a more liberal approach and more openness to the world and to other faiths.Evidently, that is sufficient reason to call him Professor rather than Rabbi. I don't know what Yated wrote when the our teacher, the shining light of the exile, Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks was elected (appointed?) to his position, but in his case it would actually have been somewhat accurate to call him "Professor" because he did, at one time, serve in that capacity -- although it still would have been an insult. I'm not sure if Rabbi Bernheim ever served as a professor.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Freedom from Bondage IV
9:51 PM
Gil Student
(Continued from these posts: I, II, III)CHAPTER SIX: BIBLE CODES
In this chapter, Gold dismantles the codes that people have found by placing together equi-distant letters in the Torah. I agree with Gold. Whatever codes may exist are proof of nothing. These codes are a twentieth century phenomenon, and I point that out to emphasize that Orthodox Judaism has no need for them and existed for a long time without them. They are not mainstream and, based on my experience, are viewed by most rabbis as "cute, if they're for real". These codes are, in my opinion (and that of Professor of Talmud Dr. Yakov Elman of Yeshiva University's Bernard Revel Graduate School of Jewish Studies - link), contrary to a passage in the Talmud (see this post: link). Surprisingly, Gold fails to discuss this problem with the codes.
Click here to read moreIn the spirit of fairness, however, it is important to note that there are essentially two schools of Torah codes adherents. One believes that codes can tell the future and can be found on almost any topic under the sun. The other believes that legitimate codes can be found but that most codes are just statistical noise and can be found anywhere. These are the people behind a serious statistical study that sought to prove that codes are legitimate. They reject and resent the haphazard hijacking of codes research by popularists and amateurs. It is unfair to lump the latter group with the former (see this post: link). I, and I believe the vast majority of Orthodox Jews, am in neither group.
CHAPTER SEVEN: WHO WROTE THE BIBLE?
This chapter raises the issue of literary criticism of the Bible. Gold cites Plaut and Richard Elliott Friedman as his two authorities who state and prove that the Pentateuch (the five books of Moses) were written by a number of human beings. This is, without a doubt, the dominant academic theory of biblical composition. However, it is not based on hard facts and has hardly been proven. Keep in mind that literary criticism is a form of guesswork based on readers finding clues in the text. This is the same general approach that gives us theories that Shakespeare was really a woman and the like. No amount of literary analysis, no matter how rigorous, can ever amount to a mathematical proof. At most, literary criticism can tell us that the text makes it seem like there were multiple authors and that, therefore, this is the most reasonable explanation of the text. This leaves open the door for others to suggest alternate theories to explain why the text seems like it was written by multiple authors, something that Orthodox scholars in Israel like R. Mordechai Breuer and R. Elchanan Samet have done, in my opinion at times quite convincingly.
Precisely because Friedman is such a respected scholar, I found his book Who Wrote the Bible? to be an excellent example of the rampant speculation that is the basis of this type of literary criticism (see my review here: link).
Let me make a point here that is made often by Orthodox thinkers but is sometimes misunderstood: The original literary theories about human authorship have all been discarded by later scholars. What has happened over the past century is that the assumption that the Torah was written by God was replaced by the Wellhausean theory that there four authors of the Torah, which very elegantly solved many textual problems. Wellhausen has now been discarded himself. However, once the divine authorship was dismissed, instead of returning to it when Wellhausen was set aside scholars developed more elaborate theories to account for the reasons that Wellhausen had to be rejected. Now there are theories of many authors, borrowing from each other and being occasionally inconsistent. The theory is no longer elegant. It is no longer true to say that when choosing between divine authorship and multiple authorship that the latter is the simplest solution to the many textual problems. The truth is that real texts are complex regardless of who wrote them.
Parashah Roundup: Korach 5768
9:26 PM
Gil Student
by Steve Brizel[I'm sure all the readers join with me in wishing mazal tov to Steve on the birth of his first grandchild - Gil]
The Common Sense Rebellion against Moshe Rabbeinu
Click here to read more
The Role of a Levi
Gifts to Kohanim and Leviim
Tekheles Strings
8:56 AM
Gil Student
R. Shlomo Aviner on wearing tekheles (blue) strings on your tallis and tzitzis garments (link):Q: Should I wear the techelet (blue string) which is available today on my tzitzit?Let me state for the record that R. Hershel Schachter wears tekheles and tells people that Rav Soloveitchik would never have worn it.
A: Almost all of the great Sages of our generation do not agree with this new techelet and our eyes see that they do not wear it on their tzitzit. We should therefore act in the same way, except for a person whose Rabbi tells him to wear it, as we say, "Get yourself a Rabbi."
For a longer article in Hebrew by R. Aviner see here (link - PDF) and two responses here (link 1 - PDF, link 2 - PDF).
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
The End of a Tradition
10:58 PM
Gil Student
According to The Jewish Press, the rabbi of Washington Heights' Khal Adath Jeshurun recently said publicly at a memorial service for R. Samson Raphael Hirsch that the community's motto -- "Torah Im Derekh Eretz, Torah and Worldliness" -- is impossible without R. Hirsch (link):Speaking at the 200th birthday celebration of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch this past Shabbos, Khal Adath Jeshurun’s Rav Yisroel Mantel declared that the philosophical credo of Rav Hirsch, Torah Im Derech Eretz, is not viable in the absence of its chief advocate.The truth is that no one is to blame for this development other than the community itself, for hiring a rabbi that does not espouse its ideology. From what I can see from afar, the community's professional leadership has, for many years, taught values to the right of the community and attempted to bring it into the general right-wing Orthodox world. It seems a few decades too late to protest it now.
Rav Hirsch was a 19th century champion of Orthodoxy and the founder of Khal Adath Jeshurun’s parent community in Frankfurt, Germany.
Click here to read moreRav Mantel’s declaration, which angered many in the community, came at a sit-down kiddush at Dr. Raphael Moller Hall in Washington Heights after Shabbos morning services. He said that only Rav Hirsch, a great man who knew the fine boundaries between what is religiously permissible and what is prohibited, could make Torah Im Derech Eretz workable.
Our generation, he said, must follow today’s gedolei HaTorah (great Torah leaders).
After Shabbos, Dr. Eric Erlbach, KAJ president for over two decades, resigned.
(hat tip)
The Challenge of Belief
10:17 PM
Gil Student
I.In a much-discussed essay (Kovetz Ma'amarim pp. 11-12), R. Elchanan Wasserman asks how the Torah can command a Jew -- particularly an unsophisticated 13-year old -- to believe in God. Such a belief is so philosophically complex, and the repercussions of disbelief are so dramatic, that it is hard to understand how the Torah can make such a demand. R. Wasserman offers a powerful answer to this question but I'd like to propose a different answer.
II.
A 13-year old is not liable for religious lapses. While within Judaism a male becomes an adult at the age of 13 and a female at 12, this is only regarding the obligation to observe the commandments. Rashi (Gen. 23:1) quotes a midrash that teaches us that Jews are not punished by God for religious failures until the age of 20. The time in between is, evidently, a training period of physical, emotional and intellectual maturation (there is a dissenting view of the Chakham Tzvi no. 49 but see on this topic R. Matis Blum, Torah La-Da'as, vol. 4 pp. 53-56). It is much more understandable if the requirement is for a 20-year old to reach the philosophical understanding involved in believing in God. A 13-year old is commanded to believe but he is not liable for lapses until he reaches full intellectual maturity at the age of 20.
Click here to read moreHowever, this is somewhat beside the point. R. Wasserman uses a 13-year old as an extreme example but his question also applies to a fully mature adult. If Aristotle, with all his incredible wisdom, could not reach belief in God, how can anyone else who is less wise be expected to reach the Jewish conclusion? Rather, answers R. Wasserman (pp. 12-14, 18, 19-20), belief in Jewish ideas is a simple matter and largely self-evident. However, it is not only a matter of wisdom. A person's physical and emotional desires inevitably impact in some way on his scholarly inquiries. Even the wisest man in the world can reach a mistaken conclusion if he has a conscious or subconscious interest in a particular outcome. Only someone who subjugates his desires to his intellect can be unbiased and assured of reaching the right conclusion.
This response is troubling because it explicitly minimizes the real challenges to the cosmological proof of God and also expresses great cynicism about all non-believers in Judaism, including all sorts of ascetics.
III.
An alternative answer could be that belief in God is not necessarily related to wisdom. There is more than one way to achieve such belief and for a 13-year old, or anyone not philosophically inclined or capable, belief through tradition -- from what you learn from your parents and teachers -- is sufficient. The Sefer Ha-Chinukh (no. 26) states that the basic fulfillment of the mitzvah to believe in God is by simply believing. It is a higher level of fulfillment to arrive at that belief through philosophical inquiry (see this post for more on this: link).
We begin the shemoneh esreh prayer by praising "our God and the God of our fathers". The commentators are bothered by both the redundancy and the order. Why do we say both "our God" and "the God of our fathers"? And why are the father after us rather than before? The Dover Shalom commentary (in Otzar Ha-Tefillos) explains that we have to try to arrive at a belief in God on our own but when we reach the limits of our own efforts we rely on the tradition we receive from our ancestors.
This is significant for young adults and anyone who lacks the ability to arrive at belief on his own. Even if you -- or Aristotle -- are unable to reach a proper conclusion through philosophy, if you maintain a "simple belief" based on tradition then you have fulfilled the religious obligation.
The Tradition of Seforim
7:37 AM
Gil Student
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Symposium: Why People Become Orthodox II
9:57 PM
Gil Student
(continuation of this series: I)Conservative Rabbi Charles L. Arian is the rabbi of Beth Jacob Synagogue in Norwich, CT. He has served as a Hillel director, a staff member of the University of Judaism, a think-tank scholar and a Conservative pulpit rabbi.
Like most sociological phenomena, the phenomenon of Jews not raised Orthodox turning to Orthodoxy is a broad spectrum. There is little in common between the product of a Solomon Schechter school, USY and Camp Ramah who now belongs to a Modern Orthodox congregation, on the one hand, and the former beer-guzzling “frat boy” who now has multiple children and lives in B’nai B’rak. Lest one think I am conjuring up stereotypes, I am personally familiar with both of these individuals.
Click here to read moreAlmost twenty years ago, I was working as a Hillel director in Washington, DC. Since the Hillel I directed only rarely had services on Shabbat morning, I generally attended a large Conservative synagogue. This synagogue hosted a number of different types of services under its roof, and soon after I started to attend there, together with a number of other people in their twenties and thirties, I helped to found a service which we called the “Traditional-Egalitarian minyan.” This was a service which was liturgically Orthodox (including reading the complete Parasha rather than the more-common “triennial cycle” used by most Conservative shuls) but featured equal participation by men and women. At the time, I believe there was only one couple in our minyan that had children -- a boy and a girl, both in elementary school, who attended a Solomon Schechter school as had both their parents.
At some point, over Shabbat lunch, this family told me that they were looking for a house in the suburbs so that they could join a Modern Orthodox synagogue whose rabbi they admired. While ideologically they still considered themselves Conservative, they felt that for the sake of their kids they were better off in an Orthodox shul. Why? Because there were no other shomer Shabbat kids in the neighborhood. Shabbat was a lonely experience for the kids and the dissonance between their lifestyle and those of most of the other families in the congregation was increasingly untenable.
This phenomenon is a fairly common one. A young man or woman attends a Schechter school and learns about Shabbat and kashrut and tefillin and so on. At Camp Ramah, they live halachic Judaism (by Conservative standards if not Orthodox ones) 24/7. They may attend a college with a strong Conservative minyan at Hillel and many other Conservative Jews who participate in the kosher meal plan. Then they go out into the world and want to be a part of a community where this level of observance is maintained. If they happen to live in New York or Washington or Boston or LA -- and perhaps a handful of other places -- they can find either an independent non-Orthodox minyan or a “Library Minyan” within a larger Conservative shul where this level of observance is, if not the norm, at least not considered outlandish. If they are not so fortunate -- or if they are single and looking to find a spouse with the same observance level and want to broaden their dating pool -- they may well gravitate towards the Modern Orthodox community.
This is a sort of “Orthodoxy by osmosis” and it is not even clear to me that most of the people who go through this transition would necessarily even describe themselves as Orthodox. For sure, they do not subscribe to the formal delegitimation of Conservative Judaism which is the theoretical normative Orthodox position. They will still eat in their parents’ home, attend their parent’s Conservative synagogue when visiting, accepting an aliyah, davening for the amud, perhaps allowing themselves to be counted as the tenth in a minyan which counts women. They may even send their kids to Camp Ramah in the summer. But in their home communities, they function as part of the Orthodox community.
Other people make a more radical break with their past. Sometimes they manage to live bifurcated lives, earning a living as physicians or lawyers or accountants or in other professions, but practicing a type of Judaism that at best teaches isolation from, and at worst contempt for, the non-Jewish and non-Orthodox worlds.
One of the most puzzling conversations I ever had was with an attorney of my acquaintance. He had been a law student nearly twenty years ago at the university where I was the Hillel director, and at the time had just returned to the States after a year studying at a ba’al teshuvah yeshivah in Israel. Subsequently we both lived in Baltimore and I happened to mention to him that my office was on the same street as the house where F. Scott Fitzgerald once lived. He said to me “I got a lot of spiritual benefit reading him when I was in college. But I don’t want my kids to read him.”
Since it was a pleasant Shabbat afternoon and I was a guest in his home, I didn’t press the point – in retrospect I wish I had. But I recall another conversation I had with an emergency room physician who embraced Orthodoxy while doing his residency in Washington DC. He told me “I saw so much horror day after day; I needed to be a part of something unchanging, something which would give me an anchor and prevent me from going crazy.”
For the second group, then, turning to Orthodoxy provides certainty and stability in a world of rapid change and multiple sources of meaning. For the first group, a turn to Orthodoxy provides communal support for an observant lifestyle – a support which, to my chagrin and that of most Conservative rabbis, is sadly lacking in our own congregations.
There is another group who also adopt Orthodoxy for communal reasons, but they differ significantly from the Schechter/Ramah group. These are people who for various reasons have had difficulty fitting in elsewhere in the Jewish community and in society as a whole. Through the work of kiruv groups, particularly but not exclusively Chabad, they have found affirmation of their worth and a place to belong.
As a pluralist, I believe that most (not all!) of the different varieties of Judaism have something to offer to the well-being of the k’lal. We are fortunate that the American Jewish community is so diverse. As a Conservative rabbi, I am generally happy when someone chooses to increase their observance and if an assimilated Jew chooses to become Orthodox, he or she no doubt benefits as does the Jewish community as a whole. It is a path I myself have not chosen because I find some of the "truth claims" Orthodoxy makes to be manifestly lacking in credibility. I wish that we Conservatives were more successful in creating observant communities so that we did not "lose" so many of our best and brightest to Orthodoxy – but that is a problem we will have to tackle on our own.
Interview and Review
8:45 PM
Gil Student
R. Yoel Finkelman of ATID:
- Interviews Prof. Shalom Rosenberg, author of In the Footsteps of the Kuzari: link (MP3)
- Reviews Bondage of the Mind: link
Occasional Vort II
12:35 PM
Gil Student
by Netanel LivniSimcha Raz brings the following vort in his book שבעים פנים לתורה:
The parsha begins with the words (במדבר טז:א):
ויקח קרח - Korah tookRashi comments on these words:
לקח את עצמו - He took himselfRabbi Simcha Bunim of Peshischa expanded on Rashi’s comment. You see, Korah was a talented and well rounded individual – in truth, he deserved the mantle of leadership which he so desired. Why then, did he lose everything? Because, as Rashi says, he “took for himself”; he did not wait until his hour had arrived – the hour at which he would have been chosen by the people to be a leader. Rather, he impatiently tried to grab power through conflict and rebellion and thus (במדבר טז:לב):
ותפתח הארץ את פיה ותבלע אתם - And the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them upMeasure for measure! Just like he was not able to exercise patience until the hour of his leadership would arrive – the ground could not wait until he was returned to her dust.
וירדו הם וכל אשר להם חיים שאלה - So they, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit
Forcing a Divorce
3:10 AM
Rabbi Ari Enkin
By: Rabbi Ari EnkinWhile marriage is intended to be a once-in-a-lifetime arrangement, unfortunately it isn’t always the case. Just as there are stringent requirements on how to formalize a marriage within Jewish law, there are also very exact ways of dissolving one. The objective of it all is to ensure that a woman receives the divorce document from her husband known as a get. The get is vital, as without it, a woman is forbidden to remarry.
Sometimes, though, a husband will postpone or otherwise withhold this document from his wife for a variety of motives, thereby imprisoning her in a nonexistent marriage. A complicated question emerging from such behavior is whether or not it is permissible to compel a husband into issuing his wife the get. Sometimes the answer is yes, and even with the use of force, as will be discussed below.[1]
Click here to read moreThe Mishna[2] teaches us that several types of husbands are obligated to divorce their wives, and that the divorce may even be forced upon them. Among these categories are: one with bad skin afflictions, one with bad breath, and one who gathers manure for a living. A woman whose husband falls into one of these categories is entitled to divorce him at her leisure.
There is, however, another category of husbands for which there is no clear consensus whether a divorce may be forcefully imposed.[3] Rabbinical authorities are divided over whether the beit din (religious court) can impose a divorce on a severely strained marriage. On the one hand, there is the Rambam, who maintains that a man can be forced into divorcing his wife if she so desires for absolutely any reason.[4] Other authorities are a lot more hesitant to allow women this dispensation of forced or coerced divorces for fear of ulterior, unbecoming motives.[5] Normative halacha seems to accept this latter view.[6]
There is, however, an additional dimension that allows for imposing a divorce on a rebellious husband, such as one who refuses to support or cohabit with his wife.[7] Modern-day authorities permit forcing such husbands to issue a get.[8] The remaining and forever unsolvable issue is determining who is a “rebellious” husband, other than the example just cited. Does it include an adulterous husband? A thief? What about a husband who abandons Judaism? Furthermore, even when coercion is deemed permissible, it may almost never involve non-Jews in any way,[9] or the divorce could be invalid.
To properly appreciate why rabbis are so hesitant to ever exercise their authority to impose a divorce, it is vital to understand that a woman who remarries after receiving a get that is halachically invalid for any reason is deemed an adulteress, although that is certainly not her intention. Furthermore, any children born after an invalid divorce would be considered mamzerim (illegitimate children), a status that is permanent and irrevocable and that strongly affects the child’s future marriage prospects and the status of his or her own future children as well.
The emotional and psychological turmoil for women in this situation is unimaginable. The evil that such uncooperative husbands exhibit is indescribable. Sadly, there is no consensus on how these cases can be solved. In light of this, there are authorities in the orthodox rabbinate who have devised a prenuptial agreement of sorts, which combines Jewish and secular law in a way that simply precludes such horrible situations from ever arising. Young couples would be well advised to research this option prior to walking to their wedding canopy.
************************
[1] Based in part on “Coercing a Husband to Give a Get” in Gray Matter: Discourses in Contemporary Halachah by Rabbi Chaim Jachter with Ezra Fraser (New York: Noble Book Press, 2001), p. 3.
[2] Ketubot 77a.
[3] Ketubot 70b.
[4] Hilchot Ishut 14:8.
[5] Tosafot, Ketubot 63b.
[6] EH 77:2.
[7] EH 154:3.
[8] Igrot Moshe, EH 1:137.
[9] I.e., non-Jewish courts, etc.; Gittin 88b.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Organ Donation IV
12:16 PM
Gil Student
Yediot Acharonot is reporting that R. Zalman Nechemiah Goldberg -- probably the greatest living halakhic scholar who has near-universal acceptance in the Orthodox world -- has stated that one may sign organ donation cards (Hebrew article). The Muqata blog has a long write-up in English on this development (link) and I've received e-mails about this. I can't say that I see this as being a big deal. According to the article, R. Goldberg makes the point that his father-in-law, R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, was very strict on the definition of the time of death and that each person should write on his card that donations may only be made after consulting with the person's halakhic authority (he suggests writing a specific rabbi's name). In other words, people who are strict about time of death should put down a rabbi's name who will usually reject organ donation (because he considers the person dying but not yet dead at the time that doctors want to harvest organs). This is not a particularly revealing or groundbreaking ruling.
Click here to read more
To my knowledge, the only opposition to the idea of having organ donation cards is that it makes a life-and-death halakhic decision seem relatively minor. "I can check this box or that box." It is actually a very serious decision that should be made after extensive thought and discussion with your rabbi. I've heard rumors about new cards being designed in the US to represent this and satisfy certain American halakhic decisors but I'm not sure what the status of that is.On organ donation, see these posts: I, II, III, IV.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Calling Women to the Torah
10:24 PM
Gil Student
On the Seforim blog, Rabbi Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer writes a very substantial critique of Rabbi Prof. Daniel Sperber's recent book Darkah Shel Halakhah: Keri'as Nashim Ba-Torah: Perakim Bi-Medini'us Pesikah (link). Note that my criticism of Prof. Sperber's approach predates his citing me on page 45 note 55 of this book as "Mr. Gil Student" (and excluding me from the index of names). For previous posts on this subject, see here: I, II, III.
Audio Roundup III
9:50 PM
Gil Student
by Joel RichIntroductory Thoughts on Shiurim
I’m sure there are a lot of good websites out there for audio lectures. The ones I most frequently go to are YU Torah, Ki Mitzion (Har Etzion), and OU Radio. I’ve also used Yeshiva Gedolah of West Hempstead, and 613.org. I don’t see a tremendous value in simply listing the new Shiurim that come up on these sites, as it is easy enough for anyone to just go visit the websites themselves. As a result, this column will be basically brief notes on Shiurim that I’ve actually listened to based on my own taste and what I think is noteworthy based on what I know and what I like. In summary, and I suppose this is particularly appropriate for an actuary, this will be a semi random walk which is a function of my predilections, time, effort, mood, and the like. Any errors in the communication are strictly mine, and I don’t warranty anything.
Click here to read more
Friday, June 20, 2008
The Modern Challenge to Modern Orthodoxy
8:14 AM
Gil Student
R. Jonathan Sacks, One People? Tradition, Modernity, and Jewish Unity, pp. 88-89:
[B]y the end of the nineteenth century Reform and secular Zionism were powerful forces, and Orthodoxy was bound to part company with both.
But there were profound divisions within Orthodoxy itself. There were movements to hold together what secularization was dividing apart: Torah and secular culture, Judaism and Zionism, and the Jewish people. Paradoxically these three movements -- torah im derekh eretz, religious Zionism, and communally involved (Gemeinde) Orthodoxy -- have often been grouped together under the name 'Modern Orthodoxy'. Strictly speaking, however, they were the opposite, for they were an attempt to go against the grain of modernity. Contemporary culture replaces the traditional 'and' with a distinctive 'or': Torah or secular culture, Judaism or Zionism, Orthodoxy or the Jewish people as a whole. In each case religious principle suggested that the former must take precedence over the latter. So modernity favored those branches of Orthodoxy that made the choice, rather than those that resisted it. While in principle they retained their commitment to derekh eretz, the return to Zion, and Jewish unity, in practice the full implications of these tenets were neutralized. So the cluster of attitufes associated with secessionist Orthodoxy -- rejection of secular culture, an attitude of detachment towards the State of Israel, and a refusal to engage in joint action with the non-Orthodox -- has prevailed. Modernity has been hostile to 'Modern Orthodoxy'.
Announcements #044
8:10 AM
Gil Student
The wedding season is now upon us, and a question that is frequently asked is: "What should I get as a present that will be cherished for years to come"?Our theory is that the best items to give as presents are silver items, and here are a few reasons why:
1) Silver is a precious metal. The metal itself has an intrinsic value, and as such, it is held onto for far longer. Each time the recipient gazes on the silver tray that you bought for them, they will be flooded with loving memories of you.
2) The items can be engraved easily. This allows for customization and personalization of the gift, which will add to the item you are giving. A silver cup or goblet can be engraved with the name of the couple and the date of the wedding, and it will be cherished (and used) for years to come.
3) There is a lot to choose from. You can get items that range from travel candlesticks to a set of liquor cups or if you really want to splurge, why not get a candelabra?
Got any other ideas of why silver would make a great gift? Put it in the comments below.
(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.)Thursday, June 19, 2008
Parashah Roundup: Shelakh 5768
9:56 PM
Gil Student
by Steve BrizelThe Episode of the Spies
The Mitzvah of Tzitis
Announcements #043
9:12 AM
Gil Student
YCT Yemei Iyun on Bible and Jewish Thought
Come join us for the upcoming YCT Rabbinical School Yemei Iyun on Bible and Jewish Thought scheduled for Sunday, June 29-Tuesday, July 1, 2008. This event is co-sponsored with the Lookstein Center, Matan, Yeshivat Hamivtar, Yeshivat Maaleh Gilboa, the David Cardozo Academy, the Center for Modern Torah Leadership, Ramaz and Beit Morasha.
Feast on shiurim and lectures by leading educators and thinkers such as
- R. Hayyim Angel
- R. David Bigman
- R. Yoel Bin Nun
- R. Yitzchak Blau
- R. Shalom Carmy
- Dr. Erica Brown
- R. YItzchak Etshalom
- R. David Fohrman
- Mrs. Rachel Friedman
- R. Zvi Grumet
- R. Menachem Leibtag
- R. Dov Linzer
- R. Francis Nataf
- R. Moshe Sokolow
and many others.
(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.)Wednesday, June 18, 2008
A Spiritual Message in the Credit Crisis
9:48 PM
Gil Student
The current economic crisis in which we are in, which started with mortgage problems but spread to most of the banking system in the form of a credit crunch (that is hardly over!), has many lessons for those who are willing to look for them. Some of them are obvious, such as the need to perform adequate analysis before investing in a security. Others are more remote, like the importance of creating compensation packages that promote the right behavior. However, there is one lesson from this crisis that I find meaningful but have not seen anyone else discuss it. It is the fact that corporate denizens, the people who sit behind computer screens and roam the halls of large, faceless companies, created this mess. Why is this significant? I only heard R. Henach Leibowitz speak once, and one of the questions he was asked was how a yeshiva-trained student, someone who was taught for all his life that he was created to learn Torah, can find meaning in his participation in the working world. This is a critical dilemma for the working person who usually spends the majority of his waking hours in the corporate (or retail, etc.) world. All that time and effort is spent trying to make money. How can a Ben Torah find peace with himself when he spends most of his day on such mundane things? The guilty feelings of being inauthentic to your ideals can be overwhelming.
Click here to read moreR. Leibowitz's response was that people who go out into the workforce should look at it as an opportunity to glorify God's name through praiseworthy behavior. I think that this is a powerful answer because it enables people to find meaning in every potentially mundane act. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, it encourages people to be on constant guard to act properly in the office and not fall prey to the many ethical and other pitfalls that come across their path.
Notwithstanding R. Leibowitz's approach, rather in addition to it, I have always struggled to see how my actions in the corporate world benefit mankind. This is usually a stretch. When I worked as a property & casualty insurance actuary, I used to try to make the case that my work enabled people to buy homes, start businesses, drive cars, etc. All of these things are only possible because insurance is available. My colleagues never bought it because it is a rather remote benefit. However, it seemed to me that I was helping society and enabling it to function.
When I moved into Finance, it became harder to see my work as benefiting mankind. Moving money from one large corporation's account to another's hardly seems to make society function. It is very, very remote from the individual customer.
However, what I've learned from the slowdown of the economy is that work in Finance does, in fact, benefit society. It allows people to buy homes (studies show that the securitization of mortgages enables lower rates). It allows banks to lend to other companies, including both big and small companies. It allows local governments to improve infrastructure, and even maintains lower local taxes than would otherwise be necessary.
When things break, you realize that they are important. Finance is broken for the moment. One consolation is that we now know that, when it works right, it actually benefits the lives of many people.
Occasional Vort
12:08 PM
Gil Student
This is the first in a series of Torah insights based on the teachings of a variety of sages. Please welcome Netanel Livni who will be writing the posts. The posts are expected to be at least weekly and maybe even more frequent, depending on the week.by Netanel Livni
It is brought down in the name of Rav Kook that he once asked why Avraham's progeny is blessed with two similes (בראשית כב:יז):
כִּי בָרֵךְ אֲבָרֶכְךָ וְהַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה אֶת זַרְעֲךָ כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם וְכַחוֹל אֲשֶׁר עַל שְׂפַת הַיָּם
That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore.Click here to read moreWhy are the Jewish people compared to both the stars of the heaven and the sand on the seashore? Rav Kook answers that each Jew is blessed in two aspects that complement each other. On the one hand, each Jew has a unique light to shine onto the world. In this sense, he is like a star in the sky which is special due to its unique light and position in the sky. On the other hand, a Jew is special by virtue of their belonging to Klal Yisrael. In that sense, a Jew is lacking any individual significance, just as a single grain of sand lacks significance. It is only when all the grains of sand are united do they gain significance.
Thus, the blessing of Avraham is that his children build a society that is united and where all appreciate the importance of the Klal while at the same time, this identification with the Klal does not oppress each individual's unique creativity and light. For such a society to be built, we truely need Hashem's blessing!
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Announcements #042
10:49 PM
Gil Student
The Jewish Community of Allentown, Pennsylvania wants to help YOU find a job!We have launched Lehigh Valley Jobs to help you find employment. We list full-time job opportunities with Air Products and Chemicals, Lehigh Valley Hospital, Guardian Life and other large employers, and we link to the Human Resources departments of many more large employers.
Our site also links to the Jewish institutions in our area, especially our shul, Congregation Sons of Israel, sponsor of this ad. On our site you will find links to our Jewish Day School, Mikvah, Eruv website, Lehigh Valley Kashrut Commission, Jewish Community Center and more. You can also visit our shul website for information on the many weekly and special-event shiurim and programs we offer.
Click here to read moreOur warm and welcoming community offers affordable housing, lots of parks and playgrounds for young children, clean air and little traffic, and is 60-75 minutes from Philadelphia and 90-100 minutes from Manhattan.
For more information on our community, or for help locating a job, please email Rabbi Mordechai Torczyner.
(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.)Symposium: Why People Become Orthodox
9:26 PM
Gil Student
This is the first post in an ongoing series of guest posts by leaders from across the Jewish spectrum about why people become Orthodox. I left the question fairly open-ended so respondents can address the topic from their own perspectives. The goal is to gain insight from those who are able to observe many people from different communities and in different situations. In particular, I solicited views from rabbis of synagogues across the Jewish spectrum so that we can gain from what they have seen and the opinions they have developed about this phenomenon. Maybe they will confirm our suspicions, which in itself is worthwhile, but perhaps they will point out aspects that we have not considered before. Let me also add in advance, for those who are concerned about these things, that for better or for worse this is not a case of interdenominational dialogue. This is an example of listening to people with other perspectives. However, I will be listing each rabbi's denomination prominently to make it clear.
The first guest post in the series is from Conservative Rabbi David Wolpe of Sinai Temple in Los Angeles, among other things a columnist in The Jewish Week (full bio here: link).
Click here to read more
The three principal, positive reasons why I believe people choose to be Orthodox: community, coherence and connection.
Community. Orthodoxy creates a powerful caretaking community. Little wonder that so many step into an orthodox synagogue and feel instinctively, here is the emotional core of what religion at its best. The shul visitor to shabbes lunch quotient, which I propose as a measure of a community's fidelity to itself, is immeasurably higher in orthodox communities than in any other denomination.
Coherence. This is not only a feature of orthodoxy, it is the defining intellectual position. All of the tradition is essentially seamless. There may be opinions whose place we cannot yet define; some particularly outré speculations can be ruled out of court. But there is no degree of apparent discontinuity that would persuade the orthodox community that Moses, Rabbi Akiva, Maimonides and the Lubavitcher Rebbe were practicing essentially different faiths -- or, as one modern scholar puts it, "Judaisms." Positing a grand fabric lends coherence that is sometimes missing when parts of Jewish history or thought are dismissed, or opinions explained sociologically rather than harmonized halachically. No believer needs to seek footing on a slippery slope, because everything is understood (with but nugatory exceptions) as an integrated whole. The twists of the oral law, its periodic seeming implausibilities, are kept from challenging the system by the certainty that contradictions are flaws in understanding, not in revelational content.
Connection, theurgy. Why perform mitzvot? Ta'amei Hamitzvot is, as Jewish philosophers have always recognized, a dangerous enterprise. That which has a reason can be invalidated by a reason. But if mitzvah is, at bottom, ratzon Haboreh, then nothing can be greater than its fulfillment. God wishes it. A mitzvah can make a difference in the fabric of the universe. The kabbalistic, theurgic amplification is that performing the mitzvah can make a difference to (or in) God's self. How pale, by comparison, is the dutiful liberal explanation that the mitzvoth will make you a more sensitive person, a more caring person, someone closer to the history and destiny of your people. Of what power is such therapeutic encouragement beside God's expressed will?
There are good reasons to choose orthodoxy. Now, why am I not orthodox? Ah, perhaps that is a question I will have the opportunity to elaborate another day.
Table Manners and Meal Time
4:30 AM
Rabbi Ari Enkin
By: Rabbi Ari EnkinAlthough some exhibit behaviors which could have one conclude otherwise, table manners are an essential component of Torah-true Judaism. The ancient Persians were noted for their exemplary table manners worth emulating.[1] So severe are poor table manners that forgiveness for inappropriate table manners are included in the Yom Kippur confessional!
It is interesting to note that not only are table manners mandated by the Talmud, but dining times are as well, each according to one's class and personality.[2] For example, the Talmud teaches that cannibals should eat within the first hour of each day. Thieves should eat during the second hour and wealthy individuals should dine in the third hour of the day. Regular people should eat during the fourth hour though if one has an occupation that requires one to work with one's hands then the fifth hour is to be preferred. Finally, Torah scholars should eat their meals in the sixth hour of the day. Regardless of when one decides to eat, it should be at a set time every day.[3] Women should allow their husbands to partake of the bread at a meal first as it is said to ensure that wives won’t overeat![4]
Click here to read moreMeals are supposed to be held with family and other loved ones rather than alone, as King Solomon says: “Better is a meager meal of vegetables with love than a rich luxurious meal without love.”[5] Eating in public, however, is considered to be in poor taste.[6] Furthermore, one mustn’t eat until one is stuffed, but rather just enough so that one is no longer hungry.[7] Indeed, overeating is a grave sin.[8] One is also obligated to say divrei Torah at least once during the course of a meal.[9] Be advised that drinking hot liquids and eating warm bread Saturday nights has secret healing powers.[10] One should only eat when hungry and only drink when thirsty.[11]
It is strongly advised that one begin the day with an early breakfast,[12] and eating well protects one from the weather.[13] One should wait some time after eating before beginning any exercise.[14] One's eating should exceed the amount one drinks.[15] Never drink out of the same cup as someone else – it could kill you.[16] One should not make drastic changes in one's diet, as it can lead to severe intestinal disorders.[17] It goes without saying that wasting food is a serious sin.[18]
Eating should never be a rushed event – take your time.[19] The Talmud recommends that one not slice bagels or meat upon one's hands, as the blood that gushes from such a wound may spoil or otherwise ruin the taste of one's food.[20] Additionally, a guest should never serve food to the children of the host, lest there be a lack of food for other guests.[21] Never stare at someone when they’re eating.[22] It is prohibited to invite people for a meal if it is known in advance that they will not be able to attend.[23]
**********************************************
[1] Berachot 8b.
[2] Pesachim 12b.
[3] Yoma 75b.
[4] Shabbat 140b.
[5] Mishlei 15:17.
[6] Kiddushin 40b; some authorities even discourage restaurants based on this!
[7] Pesachim 114a.
[8] Eruvin 83b.
[9] Avot 3:4.
[10] Shabbat 119b.
[11] Sefer Chassidim 127.
[12] Pesachim 112a.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Shabbat 129b.
[15] Megilla 12a.
[16] OC 170:16; Mishna Berura 37; Sefer Chassidim 111.
[17] Nedarim 37b.
[18] Devarim 20:19.
[19] Berachot 54b.
[20] Berachot 8b.
[21] Chullin 94a.
[22] Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 42:13; OC 170:4
[23] Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 63:5
Monday, June 16, 2008
Announcements #041
10:32 PM
Gil Student
Announcing the "Question of the Week"! Win Real, Incredible Prizes!
Tzipiyah.com is proud to announce a new MEGA-Project through which our readers will be able to win REAL incredible prizes.Every week, on Tzipiyah.com, we will post a "Question of the Week" - a question which we will ask our readers to answer through the commenting system on the blog. Every week, we will put all of the answers found in the comments in a raffle from which we will draw one name which will get a special, real prize! Of course, participation is easy and COMPLETELY FREE.
All you need to do to enter is share your insight on the "Question of the Week" and in exchange you get a chance to win actual prizes!
We have already secured incredible prizes for the weeks to come including:
- Gift certificates towards free Kosher chocolates
- Gift certificates towards free Jewish MP3s
- Gift certificates towards free Sfarim
- Free CDs from incredible Jewish artists
- Free Books from great Jewish authors
Make sure to check back often in order to find the "Question of the Week" and give your input for your chance to be the winner! The first question with a prize will be posted this coming Sunday!
The latest Question of the Week will always be directly accessible at
http://www.tzipiyah.com/search/label/Question%20of%20the%20Week.
Tzipiyah.com is a Religious Zionist blog regrouping 15 talented young writers who write on a regular basis. For the Rules, please click here.
(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.)Audio Roundup II
12:06 PM
Gil Student
The following is the second post in a new feature that highlights recent Torah audio lectures that are available online. This is just a taste of what audio lectures are available online (for free) based on what I think will interest this blog's readers. Right now I am only listing lectures that are on YU Torah, KMTT and OU Radio because I think they are the most relevant and provide easy access to the newest lectures. It is important for me to note that I am not listening to all of the lectures. I simply don't have the time. I am basing my selections on my knowledge of the speaker and the topic.I am looking for a volunteer to continue this feature on a weekly basis. Please contact me via e-mail.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Freedom from Bondage III
9:34 PM
Gil Student
(Continued from these posts: I, II)CHAPTER THREE: PREDICTIONS AND FULFILLMENTS
Prophecies in the Bible are intended to teach us lessons about the consequences of proper and improper behavior. Prophecy is all about mussar -- how should we act and what happens when we do or don't act that way? The Sages tell us that there were many prophecies that were not included in the Bible because they do not contain lessons that are relevant to later generations, i.e. their mussar was limited to their times. While this primary aspect of prophecies is clear, when the prophecies we retain in the Bible have come true in subsequent history they also teach us about the truth of prophetic revelation. This ancillary aspect is one that some use to prove the Torah's truth.
In this chapter, Gold argues more or less correctly with the position that you can prove the Bible's truth by observing that its predictions have come true. This is an argument embraced by R. Dovid Gottlieb that Gold rebuts at length. However, contrary to Gold's claim, he has not disproven the Bible. What he has done is used a mistaken premise on which to base his argument.
Click here to read moreThe truth, as I see it and as I believe Orthodox Judaism has taught for millennia, is that the Torah's predictions are correct but -- like the rest of the Torah -- have to be properly interpreted. Since interpretations are to some degree subjective, it is hard to argue that the Torah has been proven correct because its predictions, as we interpret them, have come true. That is a fairly flawed logical argument. Nevertheless, the requirement of interpretation is the authentic Orthodox position.
For example, the punishments promised in Deut. 28 for disobedience of the Torah require interpretation as to their specific meaning and the time of their intended occurrence, particularly in contrast with the similar predictions in Lev. 26. Prof. Yishayahu Leibowitz (Sheva Shanim Shel Sichos Al Parashas Ha-Shavu'a, pp. 894-897) quotes three views on to which historical events these predictions point:
- Lev. 26 refers to the destruction of the First Temple and Deut. 28 refers to the destruction of the Second Temple and its subsequent exile (Ramban, Rashi, Rashbam).
- Lev. 26 and Deut. 28 both refer to both time periods (Abarbanel).
- Lev. 26 refers to the destruction of the Second Temple and Deut. 28 refers to the destruction of the First (Pesikta, Zohar Chadash -- I would add the Mishnah, Megillah 3:3; cf. this post).
A cynical person might find the wiggle room afforded by interpretation to be awfully convenient but there is nothing I can do about that. I think an honest person who has spent any amount of time studying the Torah with commentaries will recognize the importance of interpretation in understanding even the plain meaning of the text. And this has been a tradition of Judaism from time immemorial. Recent studies have even emphasized intrabiblical interpretation, in which passages in later books of the Bible can be shown to be interpretations of earlier passages.
What follows, then, is that these predictions are neither verifiable nor disprovable. Interpretation can always be used to call verification hindsight and to reinterpret (or choose alternate interpretations of) predictions that do not come to pass. So while Gold is correct that these prophecies cannot be used to prove the Torah's truth, his disproofs of the literal prophecies are also insufficient.
However, to the traditional reader of the Bible all of this is merely a sidepoint. The true focus of the prophets was on moral and religious behavior, lessons that last for eternity.
CHAPTER FOUR: REWARD AND PUNISHMENT
This chapter is probably the weakest in the entire book. For starters, Gold repeatedly uses the rhetorical trick of "argumentum ad Holocaustum" by accusing those who accept that suffering is due to Divine punishment as saying that the Holocaust was deserved and the Nazis were God's messengers. Once he raises the Holocaust and accuses his opponents of being soft on it, he presumes to win the argument. However, all Gold does is raise a number of basic philosophical points but fail to look at the Orthodox literature that grapples with them.
Does God's punishing a person for sinning make God immoral (p. 61)? Was the Holocaust punishment for sins (pp. 61-62)? And if it was, does that mean that Hitler was right in what he did (p. 62)? The medieval version of this last question is: If God decreed that the Jews should be enslaved in Egypt, why were Pharaoh and the Egyptians punished? There is a whole literature on this, generally agreeing that Pharaoh et al were wrong (e.g. they were too harsh, someone had to enslave the Jews but not necessarily those particular Egyptians, etc.). Entire books have been published about Orthodox responses to the Holocaust that are much more thoughtful than Gold seems to be able to grant Orthodox thinkers (e.g. Theological and Halakhic Reflections on the Holocaust).
As to the morality of punishment for sins, there are medieval thinkers who believe that the word "punishment" is a misnomer. According to them, God simply fails to protect those who sin from the vagaries of nature. According to others, suffering is a natural outgrowth from sin that is not a punishment (on these issues, see this essay of mine: link). However, I believe that, setting all this aside, Gold's premise is incorrect; punishment is not immoral. It is a basic parenting technique that God uses to encourage people to do what is right.
Gold writes, "I hold with the ancient Greek philosophers, who believed that virtue should be followed because it is intrinsically worthwhile" (p. 60). This is actually a very Jewish concept. The Mishnah in Avos (1:3) teaches us, "Do not be like servants who serve their master for the sake of receiving a reward." The ideal is to do what is right for its own sake but that is a high ideal for everyone to live up to. Not only are not all people capable of being so altruistic, individuals vary throughout their lives. Sometimes temptation is so strong that fear of punishment or promise of reward help a person do the right thing. That is why Judaism has a two-tier approach to observing the commandments -- observance from fear and observance from love. The former is a lower level but certainly better than nothing. On these issues, see R. Yitzchak Blau's article "Purity of Motivation and Desiring the World to Come" in The Torah U-Madda Journal vol. 14 (link).
Gold also raises here the issue of whether Judaism believes that morality is defined by God's word (i.e. the Euthyphro dilemma). He disagrees with what he considers an idea that is "fundamental to Orthodox doctrine", that "[T]hey know [that stealing is wrong] because God established a standard of absolute morality in which stealing, among other things, is and... you can't have a standard of absolute morality unless it comes from outside the human existence, unless it comes from God" (p. 61). This actually raises two points: 1) Do we know morality only because God taught it to us? and 2) Is morality possible without religion?
Regarding the first issue, the truth is that there are different views about this within Orthodox Judaism but there is a strong current that asserts that there are inherent moral obligations that come prior divine law (e.g. not murdering). The literature on this is vast but two important discussions of the subject are R. Aharon Lichtenstein's essay "Does Jewish Tradition Recognize an Ethic Independent of Halakha?" in Leaves of Faith vol. 1 and R. Avraham Grodzinski, "Toras Ha-Seikhel" in Toras Avraham. Suffice it to say that beginning with R. Nissim Gaon and continuing through great scholars today there is a view that people are expected to intuit certain basic moral principles and abide by them as religious principles.On the second issue, it is clear that there are other paths to morality and that this does not pose any kind of challenge to Orthodox Judaism. It is not, as Gold claims, any kind of fundamental tenet. A good discussion of this very topic can be found in R. Yitzchak Blau's "Ivan Karamazov Revisited: The Moral Argument for Religious Belief" in The Torah U-Madda Journal vol. 11 (link) and see also the exchange of letters (including one from me) in the following issue, which does not seem to be available online.
When all is said and done, there is no challenge to Orthodox Judaism in this chapter. Gold simply misunderstands the depth and complexity of it.
CHAPTER FIVE: THE CAMEL, THE HARE & THE HYRAX
In this chapter, Gold argues that the Torah is factually incorrect regarding its description of animals and kosher signs. I understand his confusion but he needs to immediately obtain a copy of R. Natan Slifkin's book The Camel, the Hare & the Hyrax (currently out of print, so find your way to a library), where he will find answers to all of his questions. Gold is hopelessly out-of-date when he quotes Plaut's almost 40-year old writings on the subject.
