Harry Potter and Epistemic Uncertainty

I. Harry's Dilemma

No, the subject of this post is not the title of an ill-conceived Harry Potter sequel. Rather, I'd like to discuss a subtheme of the seventh Harry Potter book (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows) that is relevant to Jewish law and thought.

In the first half of the book, rumors and details about the recently deceased Professor Albus Dumbledore, Harry's mentor and hero, begin to surface. A revealing biography is published and highlights are revealed in the press in advance of publication. As Harry learns these facts -- or alleged facts, because the sources are questionable -- he struggles over how to view the man he used to idiolize.

Click here for moreHarry admittedly had only some of the facts, and many of them were of questionable veracity, but the direction in which they pointed was clearly that Dumbledore was not as great a man as had been previously thought. Twice, in the book, he was advised to ignore the new revelations and retain a positive image of Dumbledore.

II. Choosing What To Believe

Here is the first discussion (pp. 152-153):

"Well, in that interview," Harry went on, "Rita Skeeter hinted that Professor Dumbledore was involved in the Dark Arts when he was young."

"Don't believe a word of it!" said Doge at once. "Not a word, Harry! Let nothing tarnish your memories of Albus Dumbledore!"

Harry looked into Doge's earnest, pained face and felt, not reassured, but frustrated. Did Doge really think it was that easy, that Harry could simply choose not to believe? Didn't Doge understand Harry's need to be sure, to know everything?

And here is the second exchange (p. 185):

[Hermione:] "Harry, do you really think you'll get the truth from a malicious old woman like Muriel, or from Rita Skeeter? How can you believe them? You knew Dumbledore!"

"I thought I did," he muttered.

"But you know how much truth there was in everything Rita wrote about you! Doge is right, how can you let these people tarnish your memories of Dumbledore?"

He looked away, trying not to betray the resentment he felt. There it was again: Choose what to believe. He wanted the truth. Why was everbody so determined that he should not get it?

Harry is advised that, absent conclusive information, he should ignore the preponderance of evidence regarding Dumbledore's hidden past. When the truth finally emerges, it turns out that while there was truth in the revelations, the facts were incomplete and distorted. What were really a fleeting, foolish endeavor and a tragic accident were turned on their head and made into a hidden agenda.

III. Inconclusive Evidence

This raises the question of what to do when you have inconclusive evidence. Should you follow the direction of the preponderance of evidence, even if you know that you are missing significant pieces to the puzzle? Should you remain without an opinion? Or should you choose whichever outcome you want, as long as it can somehow fit in with the evidence currently available? Harry was advised to maintain his original belief and assume that any new evidence is either incorrect or somehow explainable. Is this the right approach?

One area in which this dilemma arises in Jewish law is very similar to that in the story -- the rules of judging someone favorably (din le-khaf zekhus). If we hear gossip about someone, should we believe it? Should we assume that there are more details that we do not know that will somehow explain how the facts given are actually positive? Or should we just dismiss everything as unreliable?

There are multiple views about the details but, generally speaking, Jewish law teaches that if the gossip is about someone known to be wicked, we may believe it. If it is about someone who is average or is an extremely upright person, we should assume that it is either wrong or that there is a context that can explain the details in a positive way. (See this Hebrew article of mine: link - PDF)

IV. Belief

Another area in which this dilemma arises is that of belief in theological principles. For example, the Divine authorship of the Pentateuch. Evidence from biblical criticism and related fields indicate that the Pentateuch was written by different people. However, an honest observer will admit that the evidence is not completely conclusive, and perhaps can never be when discussing the authorship of a text thousands of years old.

If the current preponderance of evidence points to human authorship, must we accept that conclusion? Or can we choose which position to believe, since either can somehow fit within all the evidence? Or should we retain the traditional belief of Divine authorship and dismiss new findings as either incorrect or explainable?

The message of Harry Potter is that there is no reliable method. Until we have all of the information, even the preponderance of evidence might be misleading. There might be some significant mising piece of information that will entirely change the picture.

VI. Belief and Knowledge

That, the Beis Ha-Levi tells us, is the definition of belief (link). Where knowledge leaves off, that is where we have the opportunity to believe. Belief is, according to this approach, only relevant where there is no conclusive information.

Where does that leave us? Should we believe that vampires exist because they have not been conclusively proven to not exist? What about spontaneously generating lice? At what point do our beliefs become ridiculously irrational? What we have to say is that there comes a point, which cannot be objectively determined, when the evidence becomes overwhelming. We do not need 100% confirmation. At some point we have enough pieces of the puzzle that the conclusion is clear and we cannot ignore it.

Has the issue of human authorship of the Pentateuch reached a level of overwhelming evidence? I certainly don't think so, and I have written a number of posts on that subject. The message of Harry Potter is that when there is uncertainty then within the realm of rationally viable possibilities you are free to choose which to believe based on emotion (i.e. non-rational) reasons.

UPDATE: Dov Krulwich on the Harry Potter Torah blog points out that I missed the conclusion of Harry's dilemma, which has an important moral lesson: link

(Authentic Judaism)

Read the rest of this entry »

What Would Avraham Do?

From R. Asher Bush's weekly parashah e-mail:

A few years ago when asking Rav Aharon Lichtenstein about a particularly sensitive situation regarding such a matter [Jew/Gentile relations - GS] his response to me was, “What do you think Avraham Avinu would have done?!” This is a question that is not asked often enough, as it is only through a life based on his example that the world around us can come to say נשיא אלקים אתה בתוכינו [“You are a prince of God among us” - Gen. 23:6].

Read the rest of this entry »

Announcements #111: Two Exciting Year-Long Classes at LSS

Two Year-Long Classes at Lincoln Square Synagogue: Tanach B'Shanah (Bible Survey) and Tefillah B'Shanah: Exploring Jewish History, Philosophy, Liturgy and Theology through the Siddur!
(email mesh@lss.org for further info)

1.Tanach B'Shanah - a curriculum-based course was developed by the London School of Jewish Studies in consultation with Rabbi Menachem Leibtag, Survey the 24 books of the Bible in a Year!

When: Monday evenings, 7:15 – 8:45 pm (October through June)
Cost: Through  Sept.1: $250 for members, $300 for non-members
After Sept. 1: $300 for members, $350 for non-members

Click here for more informationFeaturing:
Rabbi Hayyim Angel, Rabbi, Shearith Israel, Faculty, Yeshiva College (YU)
Mrs. Rachel Friedman, Dean and Chair of Tanakh Studies, Drisha
Rabbi Nathaniel Helfgot, Chair, of Bible and Jewish Thought, Director, Continuing Rabbinic Education, YCT Rabbinical School
Rabbi Menachem Leibtag, Founder Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash, Faculty, Yeshivat Har Etzion  
LSS Clergy...and More!
More Information

2. Tefillah B'Shanah - based on the new Koren-Sacks siddur!
Special Guest Shiur by British Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks

Cost: Through Sept. 1: $225 for members; $275 for non-members
After Sept. 1: $275 for members, $325 for non-members)
When: Wednesdays, 7:15 pm - 8:30 pm(October- June)

Click here for more informationFeaturing:
Dr. Shawn-Zelig Aster, Faculty, Yeshiva College (YU)
Dr. Ephraim Kanarfogel, Faculty, Bernard Revel Graduate School of Jewish Studies (YU)
Dr. Aliza Lavie, Faculty, Bar Ilan University; Author of The Woman's
Prayerbook
Rabbi Menachem Leibtag, Faculty, Yeshivat Har Etzion
Rabbi Dov Linzer, Rosh Yeshiva, Yeshivat Chovevei Torah
Dr. Moshe Sokolow, Faculty, Azrieli Graduate School of Education (YU)
Dr. Avivah Gottlieb Zornberg, Noted Lecturer & Author
LSS Clergy ...And More!

More Information



(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 »

Audio Roundup LVI

by Joel Rich

Discuss amongst yourselves: The writing down of the oral law was required because ______________. This change was allowed because _________________ and is not reversible because _____________________.

Rabbi Hershel Schachter - History of the Torah She'be'al Peh: link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5, link 6, link 7

TSBP #1
Volozhin closed because Russian government would only let them learn Torah 3 hours a day.
Gaonim were fund raisers for their Yeshivot, not all were highly learned.
Review of Rambam’s categories of torah Shebal peh (TSBP) and rules for inclusion sefer hamitzvot.
Horaah only applies to TSBP, studying TSBP is not bittol torah on a duraita basis because it is a “cheftza shel torah”.

Click here for moreTSBP #2
R’HS’s Theory of Everything – Kol dtakun rabanem kein duraita (all Rabbinic ordinances follow model of Torah) and we can use them to better understand how Chazal understood torah. RHS’s universal conservation of rules – rules are considered consistent in different areas unless reason not to (e.g. derech gidulatan – how use agricultural items for all mitzvot).
Very “modernish” understanding of “left is right” if told so by Rabbi (see Talmud Horiyot) R’Elchanan says pasuk really applies to horaat shah (listening to Rabbinic emergency decree).

TSBP #3
Discussion of “Yesh Koach” (rabbinic authority to set aside torah commands). Specific example of prosbul. No gzeirot if it’s to protect another gezeirah (me – except when we do, then we call it all “one big gzeirah”). No gzeirot for infrequent occurrences. Rabbis make promulgations based on “Zkeinecha Vyomru lach” - they have a sense of what makes HKB”H happy when we “volunteer” to do it. Gzeirot – permanent, takanot – reversible by greater beit din, torah derivations – each generation beit din decides.

TSBP #4
Explicating from torah – was this just a convenient way to remember laws but no creative development (paging Rabbi Weider)? Some say yes, Rambam no! Whenever this tape was made, R’HS didn’t know that R’Steinsaltz had smicha!!

TSBP #5
Every generation’s Rabbis can reinterpret Torah (Nissuch hayayin changed from Bayit Rishon to Sheni). Are such changes retroactive? Not if that’s how you understand Elu V’Elu. R’Chaim Volozhin quoting Vilna Gaon – if you (my guess - not you or me) know Shulchan Aruch is wrong, it is a violation of Lo tisa panim to rule like Shulchan Aruch! Midat chassidut to be stringent – only do so when your whole game is at that level. (Me – like Marukva waiting between meat and dairy)

TSBP #6
Rabbi Akiva did not have the tradition of 2,000 years of Tohu, 2,000 years of Torah and 2,000 years of ymot hamashiach or else he wouldn’t have thought Bar Kochba could be mashiach (me – then Moshe couldn’t have been moshiach?!).
What does 2,000 years of torah mean – Moshiach couldn’t come then? Or it’s about time of Talmud – that’s why can’t argue with Talmud? Chazon Ish says all “new” concepts by then after that can only disagree on details. Example – treifot “fixed” then even if nature changed (me – interesting that no one before him articulates this).
Vilna Gaon – Ravina and Rav Ashi were “sof horaah” the change from oral to written transmission of Torah meant a degradation in level and therefore authorities after this point can’t argue with prior authorities.

TSBP #7
Dor Revi (David Glasner where are you?) asked why did chazal “tie the hands” of later generations by writing down the oral torah? They were afraid that Rabbis going into galut would be affected by other cultures!
R’YBS talked of communicating more than just technical halacha (but rabbinic personality as well).
R’Kook and Satmer Rabbi on shmita – if you say it is political, gemara says you should be in cherem (me – did not say apikores).
HKB”H directs which halachic opinions will be accepted!
R’HS
OK – I lost track somewhere! A few other points. A beit din gadol bchochma ubiminyan (greater in wisdom and number) really means that (i.e. bet din with more people!?!?)
Discussion of when Bet Din Hagadol ceased. Discussion of midot shehatorah nidreshet – doesn’t include gematria’s and fancy roshei teivot.
Only 1% to 2% of gzeirot had reasons given with them – Mishkenot Yaskov says only these can be changed with time (me – does data support??).

Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz -Kavanah b'Tefilah - Part 1: link

Discussion of kavanah. My summation – think about preparing and what works for you. R’Aryeh – why didn’t you want to talk about learning during davening?

Rabbi N Kaplan - Shmitat Kesafim and Pruzbol: link

Detailed discussion of the laws of shmitat ksafim. Is it duraita or drabbanan – today? Specifics of how it works and what one must do – Including issues of beit din chashuv and the practical psak of R’Elyashiv.

Rabbi A Klapper - Marit Ayin: Eating Kosher in Non-Kosher Restaurants: link

Is there a moral obligation not to give people a reason to suspect you.
Classic nut cases – then some contemporary examples. Interesting discussion of “Shabbosdik” and eating in non-kosher restaurants.

Rabbi Y Frand - Children Being Thankful: link

We want our children to be happy. The way to be happy is to feel gratitude to those who do for you. Manage expectations and be a good example! [sounds simple – no?]

Rabbi Reuven Taragin - Chodesh Elul Facing Teshuva: link

Elul Mussar. Discussion of why we blow the shofar daily and its relationship to the chet haegel (golden calf). Tshuvah (repentance) comes in different flavors – some work on surface issues, others come to terms with deeper identity issues (root causes).

Rabbi A Mintz - The Role of Precedent in Halakhic Decision-Making: link

The role of precedent – is it binding or just another consideration? Talmud discusses dictum of Rabbah - If you disagree with my psak and I’m around, come see me. If I’m not, keep it but don’t necessarily follow it – since Ein Idayan ela ma sheenav root (who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?). Rashbam extends this concept to svara (lo plug as well – follow your own opinion vs. precedent).
General rule (see R’Avraham ben ha Rambam 97) – weigh all data/sources and apply them (limitations to be discussed – e.g. post Talmudic sealing).

Rabbi Dr. Jacob J Schacter - Tisha B'av Kinnos 5769: link

Intro to Kinot. R’YBS set the mold for him regarding the tisha b’av experience – thinking and learning to experience and internalize the aveilut yeshanah (ancient mourning – of beit hamikdash). Interesting thoughts on rabbinical abdication of responsibility from the incident of Kamtza and bar Kamtza.

R' Yehoshua Grunstein - Halachot of vacation - How "crazy" must I go to attend a Minyan?: link

Is having/going to a minyan an individual responsibility or a community one? (differing opinions) Halachic parameters of how far (separate question – time or distance?) do you have to travel for a minyan (or is it for water to wash before prayer?). [me – be selfish, daven with a minyan! – see Rambam Hilchot Tfila]

Rabbi Baruch Simon - Parshas Re'eh 5769 - Yerushalayim and Yiras Shamayim: link

Perhaps it is ok to do a mitzvah for reward if the intended reward is Yirat Shamayim (fear of heaven).

Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff - Teaching Torah in Russia: link

Tales of intrigue from his days as a Mossad agent in the USSR. Some aliyah mussar as well.

Rabbi Baruch Simon - Parshas V'eschanan 5769 - The true reward for mitzvos: link

Taamei Mitzvot – problem is people think if they “know” the reason for a mitzvah, they don’t need to do the mitzvah since it doesn’t apply to them (wrong!)

Rabbi Gershon Yankelewitz - Sichos Mussar - Elul in Mir, Europe: link

A little history of what Elul was like in the Mir in Europe, a lot of Elul Mussar.

Read the rest of this entry »

Grape Juice During the Nine Days

The custom is not to drink wine during the Nine Days, from Rosh Chodesh Av through Tisha Be-Av (really, midday of the Tenth of Av). The question is whether even a non-alcoholic beverage like grape juice is also not allowed. On the one hand, as I mentioned in a recent post (link), today grape juice is treated like wine in terms of its blessing and use for kiddush. So perhaps we can assume that it is considered wine for these purposes also.

On the other hand, it is the alcohol in wine that makes you happy. Maybe that is why it is not allowed during the Nine Days. If so, grape juice has no alcohol and should be allowed.

Click here for moreOr maybe the issue is that wine was brought as a libation in the Temple. During the Nine Days, when we mourn the destruction of the Temple, we refrain from drinking wine. If so, grape juice is cooked and could not be used in the Temple. Therefore, it should be allowed.

The Shulchan Arukh (Orach Chaim 551:10) states that even freshly made wine is forbidden. The Mishnah Berurah (ibid., 66) explains that even though it is sweet and weak, and could not be used as a libation in the Temple, it is still forbidden. Why? Because the community accepted as a custom to refrain from all types of wine. Since this weak beverage is still considered wine, we do not drink it during the Nine Days.

Based on this, the Nechemas Yisrael* (p. 114 n. 295) writes that we do not drink grape juice during the Nine Days. The Piskei Teshuvos (551:42) deduces the same ruling from the Mishnah Berurah.

R. Yisrael Ya'akov Fisher (Even Yisrael, vol. 9 p. 110 - link - PDF) uses the same logic to reach the same conclusion. He writes that we refrain from wine because it was used for libations in the Temple. However, the custom is to refrain from all wine, even that which was unfit for use in the Temple, including grape juice.

---

* By R. Yisrael Tanchum Dardak, published in 2005. I thank R. Moshe Schapiro of YU's Mendel Gottesman Library for finding this source for me.

Read the rest of this entry »

Announcements #110: 101 at WebYeshiva and New Elul Zman

Torah 101 at WebYeshiva and New Elul Zman

Torah 101 at WebYeshiva gives thinking adults the opportunity to explore the richness of their Jewish heritage through live, fully-interactive, online classes.

Starting September 1st, Torah 101's team of expert educators will explore some of the fundamental ideas and concepts in Judaism, at a pace that is both comfortable and engaging.

For more information, visit www.WebYeshiva.org/torah101

And there's still time to register now for Elul zman at WebYeshiva!

Elul is a great time to deepen your learning and strengthen your Jewish practice. Take part in any of WebYeshiva's live, fully-interactive, online classes in Gemara, Chumash and Tanach, Machshava, Chassidut, Halacha, and more, all for free this Elul. The upcoming semester, which begins August 30th, includes over 40 hours a week of classes designed to help get you ready for the High Holidays.

Visit www.WebYeshiva.org/shiurim.php to see our full range of classes, and to register now!



(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 »

Try Visiting An Orthodox Synagogue

What Robert Novak should have done -- "His family's heritage was Lithuanian Jewish, but Mr. Novak said he grew disenchanted with liberal sermons at synagogue and fell away from religion until undergoing a conversion to Catholicism in the late 1990s because of 'spiritual hunger.'" (link)

My response to the symposium in the latest issue of Commentary (not yet online), with various Jewish thinkers answering the question, "Why Are Jews Liberals?"

Read the rest of this entry »

Parashah Roundup: Ki Seitzei 5769

by Steve Brizel

An Overview of The Parsha-The Jewish Family

R Yitzchak Etshalom provides with a guide to the various mitzvos in the Parsha and the theme of the Parsha: link

Yefas Toar and Overcoming Human Weakness

R Michael Rosensweig , R Yakov Haber and R Asher Brander demonstrate how the Mitzvah of Yefas Toar serves as a means of confronting and overcoming human weakness: link 1, link 2, link 3

Click here for moreThe Rebellious Son

R Ephraim Buchwald and R Berel Wein explore the seemingly theoretical Halacha of the rebellious son.and its practical applications to our generation: link 1, link 2

Man and Animal

R Dr Sir Jonathan Sacks explores the many halachos that govern man's relationship with animals as part of God's commandments in forming an ethical society: link

Fighting the War in the Proper Manner

The Nesivos Shalom, as explicated by R Yitzchak Adlerstein, reminds us that it is always preferable to strive for Kedusha as part of a community, as opposed to an individual: link

The Prohibition on Converts from Moav and Ammon

R Yissocher Frand, based upon an insight of R Nisson Alpert, ZTL, explains why the Torah prohibits converts from Moav and Ammon: link

R Avigdor Nevenzal examines the differences between the transgressions of Moav, Ammon and Amalek, and how to correct our outlook and character as we approach the Yamim Noraim: link

R Zvi Sobolofsky reminds us that the complete absence of Chesed in Moav and Ammon serves as a reminder to us of the antipathy of a Jewish marriage, that is built on Chesed: link

Marriage and Divorce

Rav Soloveitchik ZTL discusses the Biblical Philosophy of Marriage: link

R Mordechai Willig and Dr. David Pelcowitz discuss Shidduchim and Dating: link (audio)

R Dovid Gottlieb examines Halachos and Minhagim of Shanah Rishonah: link (audio)

R Shlomoh Riskin discusses the purposes and goals of the Mitzvah of getting married: link

R Mordechai Willig discusses Prenuptial Agreements: link (audio)

Gifts to the Poor

R Dovid Horwitz, based upon the views of Rambam, Ramban, Sefer HaChinuch as well as Nechama Leibowitz, Zicronah Livracha, examines the purpose and rationale of mitzvos concerning gifts to the poor: link

Building a Protective Railing

R Asher Weiss discusses the mitzvah of Maakeh: link

Lo Silbash

R Dovid Gottlieb examines the perameters of this Torah prohibition: link (audio)

Fighting the War Against Amalek in a Successful Manner

R Avraham Gordimer examines the relationship between the successive parshiyos about honesty in business and the war against Amalek: link

R Yehudah Henkin reminds us of the ultimate purpose of the war against Amalek: link

Shloshim Yom Department

Rav Soloveitchik ZTL, discusses the halachos and hashkafa of Selichos and Rosh HaShanah: link

R Herschel Schachter discusses many of the unique Halachos of Tefilah that are part of the Tefilos of Rosh HaShanah and reminds us of the true source of happiness: link 1 (audio), link 2 (audio), link 3

R Michael Rosensweig suggests that Ahavas HaShem is the true goal of the Teshuvah of the month of Elul: link

R Baruch Simon examines the nature of the battle of the month of Elul and the necessity of discovering the soul and essence of man, as belonging to HaShem: link 1 (audio), link 2 (audio)

R Shmuel Marcus explores the essence of Selichos: link (audio)

R Yonasan Sacks discusses the Halachos of Rosh HaShanah that occurs on Shabbos: link (audio)

R Mayer Twersky discusses how Tefilah serves as a means of defining our relationship with HaShem: link (audio)

R Yitzchak Breitowitz discusses why Teshuvah provides man with the ability to return to himself: link (audio)

Last year's roundup: link

Read the rest of this entry »

Wearing Tzitzis Out

The Jewish Press had a review a few weeks ago of Minhagei Lita: Customs of Lithuanian Jewry by R. Menachem Mendel Poliakoff. In the book, the author discusses the customs he observed in Lithuania in the 1930s. Here is an interesting quote from the review (link):

For instance, on page 63 of Minhagei Lita: Customs of Lithuanian Jewry, Rabbi Poliakoff writes, "No one in Lithuania wore his tzitzis hanging out as people do today - not even the Rabbonim, not even in Radin."

Read the rest of this entry »

Nomination for Free Trip to Israel

Nefesh B'Nefesh is sponsoring The Second Annual Jewish Bloggers Convention (link). This year they are allowing bloggers to nominate another blogger for a free trip to Israel to attend the convention. NBN will choose who wins. The winner will also have to blog about a family that makes aliyah on a NBN flight.

I would like to nominate two bloggers:

1. Ezzie, because he was kind enough to meet me and some other bloggers for dinner last year before we went off to Israel, although I doubt he can go because he has a job and family
2. Chana because she is in grad school and can play hooky for a few days, and she's an interesting writer who will probably do a great job blogging a family's aliyah story (and she also showed up at the end of the dinner last year)

(I am assuming that I can't nominate my co-bloggers, otherwise I would nominate Steve Brizel and Joel Rich.)

Read the rest of this entry »

The Seder and the Symposium

I know this is not seasonal, but I'd like to discuss the parallels between the Passover seder and the Greco-Roman symposium. The similarities are striking and have led some to believe that the seder is really just a Jewish version of this ancient secular event. I think that this is the wrong approach and have recently seen that Dr. Joshua Kulp says the same in his academic commentary published in the recent Schechter Haggadah.

I think most will agree that much of the seder has its origin in the times of the Mishnah, after the destruction of the Temple. Before then, Jews ate the Passover sacrifice with matzah and maror, and told the story of the Exodus. But much of the ritual we know as the seder did not exist. The four cups, reclining and text are all of rabbinic origin.

Click here for moreWhen the rabbis put together the ritual of the seder, did they intentionally copy the symposium to make a Jewish version of it? I think the answer to that is, "No." They simply made the seder into a fancy meal, using the normal customs of their time. The goal was to act like free people, and that is how free people of their time engaged in festive meals. Here is what Dr. Kulp says about the subject (p. 196):

When the rabbis of the Mishnah wished to create a banquet meal to replace the sacrificial ritual lost when the Temple was destroyed, they did so in a form which was recognizable to them as the proper way to conducting a meal, all the while ensuring that they achieved their ultimate goals of studying Torah and recalling the Exodus. Indeed, we witness here a classic example of typical Greco-Roman practices (questions at a banquet) being combined syncretically with midrashic readings of the Torah (the child should ask the question). In contrast, children would not have participated in a typical Greco-Roman banquet. For the rabbis, a question to open the meal would affix their innovative practice of an ordered meal to their constitutive text -- the Torah -- all the while being recognized by people living at their time as the proper way of stimulating discussion at a meal.

Earlier, he wrote (p. 12):

With regard to rabbinic "assimilation" of Greco-Roman practice, the rabbis clearly were a group living in the Greco-Roman world, which they could no more avoid than we can avoid living in a world dominated by Western culture. Rather than using the loaded term "assimilation" in describing rabbinic practices parallel to the Greco-Roman symposium, I would say that the rabbis participated in this culture, rejected practices anathematic to their beliefs and implemented those which they did not find disturbing.

The question, of course, arises when the normal practices of a banquet change: Should we continue observing the seder in the Talmudic way? This was addressed in the Middle Ages regarding leaning. In Talmudic times, leaning while eating was a sign of freedom; it is how wealthy people ate in a symposium. When that no longer was the case, such as in Medieval Europe, the rabbis discussed whether to continue leaning during the seder. While there were dissenters, the consensus was to continue leaning, and that is what we do to this day. In other words, once the rabbis of the Talmud established the seder as a fancy feast of Talmudic times, we continue to observe our seder that way.

Read the rest of this entry »

New Tradition Blog

New blog from the journal Tradition: Text & Texture

First essay: Is Halakha Insensitive to Non-Jews? The Case of Fraud by R. Gidon Rothstein

Read the rest of this entry »

Checking Tefillin

By: Rabbi Ari Enkin

Contrary to popular misconception, there is actually no true obligation for one to ever check one's tefillin. In fact, there were a number of great sages who never did so.[1] Indeed, one who personally prepared his own tefillin or purchased them from a reliable individual is not required to ever have them checked unless they get damaged or otherwise show extensive signs of wear or aging.[2] This is based on the principle of "chazaka", presumption, which teaches that once something is established there is no reason to suspect that its status has changed. In this case, once tefillin are pronounced kosher they are assumed to remain permanently kosher unless there is reason to suggest that the chazaka has changed.[3]

Click here for moreNevertheless, one who neglects to at least periodically check one's tefillin is not conducting himself properly and such conduct is an inappropriate deviation from universal practice. As the Aruch Hashulchan writes: "It is well known that after a few years the ink peels off the parchments…therefore it seems to me that one is halachically required to check one's tefillin periodically and one should be sure to do so."[4] There are, however, many different opinions and customs as to what exactly is to be defined as "periodically".

According to the Talmud one should check one's tefillin once a year.[5] Indeed, some authorities note that this is a practice alluded to in the Torah itself.[6] It seems that this was the strict custom of the Jewish communities in France.[7] Another, more popular custom is to check one's tefillin "twice in seven years" or approximately every three and a half years.[8] It is more than likely that this custom was adopted from the halachot of mezuzot, where checking one's mezuzot "twice in seven years" is actually halachically required.[9]

It is considered meritorious to check one's tefillin every year in the month of Elul - an initiative which is said to assist one in favorably tipping the scales of judgment ahead of the High Holidays.[10] One who finds tefillin may not wear them until they are checked. Similarly, one who inherits tefillin or is given the tefillin of one who had passed away should have them checked before using them.[11] One who had a dream that his tefillin are not kosher may want to consider having them checked, as well.[12]

One who wears a pair of tefillin infrequently, such as one who has multiple pairs of tefillin and rotates between them, is required to check them from time to time.[13] Additionally, sweat is known to slowly seep into the tefillin which can ruin the letters on the parchments and cause the batim to warp out of shape. Therefore, one who sweats while wearing tefillin should certainly ensure that they are checked with some frequency, as well.[14] One whose tefillin fell into water is obligated to check them and they may not be worn until this has been done.[15] So too, one who for whatever reason feels that his tefillin should be checked but there is simply no one in the vicinity who is able to do so may continue to wear such tefillin, though the accompanying blessings should not be recited.[16]

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


[1] Yerushalmi Eruvin 26a, O.C. 39:10
[2] Menachot 35a
[3] Rambam Tefillin 2:11, Tur O.C. 39
[4] Aruch Hashulchan 39:6
[5] Yerushalmi Eruvin 26a
[6] Shemot 13:10
[7] Orchot Chaim;Tefillin 29
[8] Tosfot;Menachot 43a
[9] Tur O.C. 39
[10] Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 128:3
[11] Lishkat Hasofer 18
[12] Mekor Chaim 39:10
[13] O.C. 39:1
[14] Knesset Hagedola O.C. 29, Magen Avraham 39:14, Mishna Berura 39:26
[15] Masechet Tefillin 8
[16] Rema O.C. 39:10, Mishna Berura 39:26

Read the rest of this entry »

Commentary vs. Novellae

In yeshiva, I never really differentiated between the different kinds of secondary literature on the Talmud, other than in regard to the time period in which it was written. The genres all blended together to me.

I only first came across the distinction between commentary (perush) and novellae (chiddushim) in R. Isadore Twersky's classic (and controversial) biography of the Ra'avad, Rabad of Posquieres: A Twelfth-Century Talmudist. R. Twersky notes that Prof. Samuel Atlas published the Ra'avad's commentary on Bava Kamma and titled it as novellae, "Sefer Chiddushei Ha-Ra'avad al Masekhes Bava Kamma. R. Twersky then points out (p. 82):Click here for more

Freimann, in a very learned review of Atlas' edition, remarks that "commentary" (perush) would be a more appropriate and accurate title. The nature of this work corroborates Freimann's contention; it is clearly a commentary and not a series of novellae like those of Nahmanides, Rashbah, or R. Yomtob b. Abraham (Ritba).

What is the difference between a commentary and novellae? A commentary is a running explanation of the text which is being commented upon (i.e. the Gemara). It is geared toward helping the reader understand the text. Some commentaries are glossarial -- like Rashi, they begin by quoting the text and then add words as glosses to fill in the blanks missing from the text. Others, like the Ra'avad's, are more expansive. But key is that they run through the text.

Novellae, on the other hand, use the text as jumping points for discussions of other topics. While they may sometimes comment on the text, they often ask questions on the text or from the text. Think Tosafos and also many of the familiar Talmudic commentaries (really novellae), like (as mentioned above), Ramban, Rashba and Ritva.

The Jewish Encyclopedia has the following under the entry for "Hiddushim" (link:

Technical name of a certain class of commentaries, consisting of a number of single, "new" remarks, additions, and explanations in connection with a text and its earlier commentaries. The ḥiddushim commentaries differ from the others ("perushim," "bi'urim") in that they do not form a continuous production, as do the latter, but contribute only "new" remarks upon difficult parts of the text or its commentaries.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Responsa of Prof. Louis Ginzberg

If you've been following Joel Rich's excellent audio roundups, you're certainly familiar with the name R. Adam Mintz. He evidently gives a series of fascinating lectures in his synagogue, structured around themes. Pardon me for commenting on a lecture from two years ago, but I've only recently noticed the treasure trove of audio files on his shul's website and I'm still catching up.

I want to discuss briefly a lecture he gave on the respons1 of Prof. Louis Gizberg: link (second row). R. Mintz discusses a number of responsa of this leader of the Conservative movement in the early twentieth century and acknowledged talmudic expert. R. Mintz advances the theory that Prof. Ginzberg was trying to balance the demands of Judaism and being a good American, without compromising on Jewish law.

Click here for moreI saw something different in these responsa and another not mentioned. I'll admit to not having gone through the responsa carefully. What I'm saying here is just an impression. But from what I've seen, Prof. Ginzberg had this tendency to rephrase obligations into terms of propriety. He tried to make Jewish law palatable by explaining them based on contemporary values. So, for example, when asked whether an opera singer can serve as a cantor, he could have quoted Shulchan Arukh (Orach Chaim 53:25) and said, "No." Instead, he wrote that there is no technical prohibition but it is inappropriate, essentially what the Shulchan Arukh says.

When it comes to the use of an organ in a synagogue, he essentially takes the position of the Chasam Sofer but begins by stating that accepting an organ would be unfair because it would prevent those who oppose the use of an organ from attending services. My recollection of his responsa on mechitzah is that he terms it as a matter of fidelity to the Jewish tradition, the abrogation of which he only allowed in the direst of circumstances. He does not use halakhic terms like "minhag" or traditional halakhic sources.

Perhaps his famous grape-juice-for-kiddush-during-Prohibition responsum was written on a highly technical level, but that had to be due to its controversial nature. Although, of course, it is standard practice in even the Orthodox community to use grape juice for kiddush. But at that time it was a controversial ruling. That is why it was an exceptional responsum.

Is his portrayal of Jewish law as matters of propriety due to the nature of his correspondents? Perhaps. Or maybe I just have a skewed perception of his approach because I haven't seen enough of his responsa. Or maybe it was an intentional attempt to make Jewish law more acceptable to the populace by framing it in terms of values that they held in the highest regard. In that respect, I think it was a sad failure. People will do away with propriety when it is inconvenient. And when propriety lost its hold on society, sometime around 40 years ago when Joel Rich chose not to get stuck in traffic on the way to Woodstock, the entire enterprise became irrelevant.

Read the rest of this entry »

Teacher Evaluations

Is it prohibited slander to give a teacher a poor evaluation? R. Dr. Asher Meir discusses this in a Jewish Ethicist column (link). Basing himself on the analysis of R. Dr. Aaron Levine in his book, Moral Issue of the Marketplace in Jewish Law, R. Meir responds:

[T]he answer to your question depends on what kinds of questions the survey asks and to what use the answers are put... For the individual student, the most important thing is to fill out the questionnaire honestly and not have any vindictive intentions when giving a negative evaluation. If the use of the questionnaire is improper, I think that there is seldom any benefit to an individual student withdrawing their participation, but it is appropriate to complain to the administration if you think that the results are being used inappropriately.

Read the rest of this entry »

Audio Roundup LV

by Joel Rich

The number 40 has a mystical ring to it (flood, years in the desert, ytzirat havlad). “Because we’ve got to find our way back to the garden” – Joni Mitchell was maseach lfi tumah as to our roles in life (Garden = Eden [not= MSG]). As I look back over 40 years since Woodstock (Bethel) [I missed it due to my allergic reaction to sitting in traffic] I can’t help but think “what a long, strange trip it’s been" – Grateful Dead. Interesting is – one forgotten performance (Bert Sommer) of Paul Simon’s America captures one goal of mine – “I’m aching, I’m empty and I don’t know why” – I think now I might be beginning to know (but as we move from the 3 weeks/tisha bav into Elul, it's incumbent on all of us to be thinking about this)

Click here for more

Rabbi Aryeh Klapper - A Conceptual Approach to the Laws of Family Purity: link

Worthwhile listening for the general approach more so than the specific application.
A review of the taamei dkra (do we assign reason for mitzvot and act upon them) debate. Some say we only do it when there is a practical halachic difference, others only when there is not! R’Klapper points out that when new situations arise one must either speculate as to rationale or flip a coin.
So, if there is no precedent, we try to understand purpose based on halachic tradition [he gets at a problem that a TOE (theory of everything) Brisker must address – if the prior data points (halachic decisions) are generated by multiple functions (“committee” type process) there may not be one clear consistent explanation of the data points(other than a n+1 degree curve) if we can’t recreate the original functions .
R’Klapper proposes we ought to understand these "functions" consistent with the past in a way that yields salutary results in the future (no one theory will explain all).

Rabbi N Kaplan - Eating Meat and Fish Together: link

Discussion of why fish is special for Shabbat (especially gefilte fish). Gives some “scientific” explanations of fish/meat problems. Some discussion of fish and chicken. Further analysis needed of the issue of gzeirot due to danger and how such a prohibition evolves over time.

Mrs. Daphna Fishman Secunda - Rambam's perspective on Iyov: link

Rambam’s take on Iyov. Follows the opinion that it is a parable. The friends reaction to Iyov reflect various takes on hashgacha pratit and clalit (HKB”H’s intervention in human affairs). The writing of these reactions is opaque because it’s not for the masses. They are:
1) Iyov was punished for his sins (“traditional” approach); 2) Iyov was punished because that’s what HKB”H wants; 3) Iyov was punished to be rewarded in world to come.
Rambam’s take – HKB”H really concerned about klalit (species) not so much on individuals. In the end Iyov comes out ok because he used his own mind to comprehend HKB”H’s full hashgacha when he’s fully intellectually connected to HKB”H.

Rabbi Michael Taubes - Parshas Eikev Is Tefillah Rabbinic or Torah Commandment: link

Rambam – prayer is a torah requirement – different psukim as sources. R’YBS on Rambam s. Ramban (see last audio roundup).

Rabbi Kenneth Brander - Warfare and Judaism: link

Secular philosophy posits 2 requirements for a just war 1) just cause (eg WWII); 2) responsibly fought (e.g. minimize collateral damage).
Rambam – Milchemet Rshut (voluntary war) requires consent of sanhedrin (R’Brander – implication= checks and balances). R’M Feinstein says even milchemet mitzvah (involuntary war) requires Sanhedrin consent (except if attacked) [me-Gulf of Tonkin?]
Perhaps ecological requirements as well.
Insight from R’YBS – King David couldn’t build Beit hamikdash not because of general concern of blood on his hands but rather because he prosecuted wars of expansion before appropriate!

Rabbi N Kaplan - Shabbat-kidush and tasting for those who heard: link

Discussion of classical Kiddush issues including why VaYihi Erev, Drabanan being motzi Duraita….
Count the number of possible chumra’s! [me – listening to some of the chumrah’s and when they were articulated makes me wonder when the mimetic/textual rubicon was crossed].

Rabbi A Klapper - Choni the Circlemaker - Dreams of Exile and Redemption: link

Review of the choni hamaagal stories in Bavli compared with Yerushalmi (where it has a happier ending) and some good mussar regarding seeing beyond your indivisual scorecard/performance appraisal.

Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz - The Mitzvah of Tefilah - Part II: link

Part II of discussion of prayer – focus on issues of rabbinic or torah sources.

Rabbi Asher Weiss - Mitzvoh Habo'oh B'Aveiroh: link

Discussion of making a bracha in adverse cases (e.g. not Kosher food, doing a mitzvah with non-halachically obtained items….) Good mussar on avoiding machlokot.

Rabbi Aryeh Klapper - The Book of Iyov: link

Why written in poetry (difficult to understand) and prose with sarcasm and irony?
Interesting comments on daughters, Iyov possibly projecting and HKB”H kavayachol speaking lashon hara. Discussion on the need for free will.
Review of Talmudic texts on theodicy and resolving the paradoxical answers.
R’YBS insight that Iyov’s problem was not expanding his circle of care outside his.

Read the rest of this entry »

Reviewing A Treatise

R. Natan Slifkin is posting a series of essays reviewing a recently published ideological treatise that is an indirect critique of his views. Check it out: Part 1, Part 2

Read the rest of this entry »

A Father’s Pride and Joy

A Father’s Pride and Joy

Guest post by R. Michael J. Broyde

It is not my style to share my family’s life events with the world, but there are certain events that seem to require some public acknowledgment. Below is a letter I wrote to my son, Aaron Broyde, on the day he commenced basic training in the Israeli army.

August 5, 2009 – Tu B’Av 5769

Dearest Aaron,

I write this letter to you on the day of your commencement of basic training in the IDF and I write as much for me as for you – but in truth, I write words from the heart to express my love and admiration of you and what you have set out to accomplish.

You come from a family of cowards.

Click here for moreYou come from a family of cowards. I never even thought of serving in the military, neither in Israel nor in America; your grandfather picked a profession in the 1950’s that was draft-exempt for a reason, and your great-grandfather (after whom you are named) bought an egg farm in Vineland, NJ in 1941 to make sure he would not serve in World War II. But yet – running directly against a multi-generational trend – here you are starting the IDF with the rest of your hesder class of the Hesder Yeshiva of Petach Tikvah, as a member in training of the Kfir Brigade. You are the first “Broyde” to serve in any army in centuries, to be honest.

I am exceptionally proud of you and I write to express both why I feel that way and how deep my feelings are.

We raised you to be a Religious Zionist full of the vim and vigor of that wonderful ideology and movement. Whether it is through the frequent trips to Israel, near constant learning with the members of the Atlanta Torah Mitzion Kollel or ongoing exposure to religious Zionist role models – you first met the Rosh Yeshiva of your yeshiva in our house during a shabbaton – we wanted living in Israel to be a real option for you. And it is. We are so proud of that.

That is not the choice I have made. I, like most of my own teachers and friends, have become an armchair Zionist. As involved as we might want to be in the religious Zionist enterprise, we all still seem to be living in America. The dreams that we have, we choose to keep as dreams, not daring to fulfill them. Whatever excuses we all might have – and I have my share – in the end, they remain but (good) excuses. To have a dream perpetually unfulfilled remains very sad to me.

You, on the other hand, have chosen bravely to act and fulfill your own dreams and you moved to Israel last year at (what we think is) the tender age of 17, and have started your adult life in Israel. Your choice not to seek to shirk any of your duties as an Israeli soldier – as Americans certainly can do – is a wonderful tribute to you and your character. Your decision to enter the IDF with your hesder class represents an ideal manifestation of what Torah and Avodah really can mean in our world: You are living a life that properly balances the various duties and obligations and many have told me that doing so in the army is difficult and stressful. Protecting Israel and her citizens is a life saving activity for the community as a whole, and reflects well on every person who does it. Even if you fail on occasion to live up to the ideals (and who never fails?) that you set for your self, the solution is to try again and again to be better – but the mission you are on is a proper and holy one. I am so proud of that.

Certainly, there are voices – even within our own community or family – who very much talk the talk of religious Zionism, but not only do they not walk the walk, they actively discourage the flowers of our community from actually fulfilling the obligations of Israeli citizenship. You should not listen to those voices. They are the voices of falsity and temptation. Every time you hear someone say “but why would you actually volunteer to serve” you should respond with the honest courage that I have heard from you many times: “if we do not serve, how can we actually claim to be real partners?” Indeed, sometimes the hollow and plastic nature of what passes for Orthodoxy in America is most visible in this area. American Orthodoxy, much as it engages in robust and diligent Israel advocacy and defense in America, hardly senses the centrality of military service to this process. You and I have both heard people tell you (and me) “but isn’t buying Israel Bonds – joining AIPAC – visiting for Pesach – spending a year studying – the same as actually joining the fight or living in the land?” But the answer is that it is not, and there is no substitute for the courageous thing that you are doing and I admire you for doing it.

I return now to where I began. You are on the cusp of a wonderful and remarkable transformative life choice: basic training after a year of Yeshiva study, followed by many more years of service and study. Your family in America is exceptionally proud of your. We know that this will take you to many emotional and social places that the historical Broyde family has never experienced and you will come out a different person than you entered: more Israeli, less American; more physically fit, less flabby; more communitarian, less individualistic. I am so sure that there will be so many changes that I imagine that you might almost come out a different person – but still a person that we love and cherish. And we are happy to welcome an Israeli branch in the Broyde family tree (and I personally await wonderful sabra grandchildren, all in the right time!)

I am proud and happy with what you are doing and I am sure it is a change for the better for you and for all of us.

You well know that it is not the custom or practice of the Broyde family to weekly bless our children (remember Australia?) but a letter of this type ought to end with a bracha.

Beloved Aaron: God should bless you and watch over you during your service in the IDF. Our Creator should protect you and your fellow soldiers, making certain that your missions are successful and whatever sacrifices have to be made should never be in vain. Our Lord should ensure that you leave in peace and return in peace.

With love from your father who admires you,

Dad


P.S. Of course, we always miss you and love you and we will miss you even more during basic training when even phone calls are restricted But remember, there are now direct flights from Atlanta to Tel Aviv (and even the reverse) and we look forward to visiting with you – Dad

Michael Broyde is a law professor at Emory University, a dayan in the Beth Din of America and the founding rabbi of the Young Israel in Atlanta.

Read the rest of this entry »

Truth and Faith: A Companion

Emes Ve’Emunah: A Sfas Emes Companion
by Dr. Chaim Nosson Leff
Published by Targum Press with approbations by R. Reuven Feinstein, R. Mordechai Willig and R. Zev Leff

Reviewed by Shmuel Sofer

Imagine if you were to discover Einstein’s notebooks containing his thoughts as he prepared his lectures, papers and experiments. Chances are the finder would be excited to hold in his hand “the master’s” very own words and thoughts, explaining the very laws of nature as he understood them. However, that excitement might well lead to disappointment when rather than a clear explanation of his ideas and thoughts you found a notebook filled with partial equations, and seemingly random thoughts written in a terse and cryptic way. Only someone who understood the material and spent time deciphering those thoughts might be able to help you appreciate the treasure in your hands.

Click here for moreIt is the sense of frustration which the novice encounters when he begins to study the Torah commentary of R. Yehudah Aryeh Leib Alter zt”l, the former Gerrer Rebbe who led Gerrer Chasidim in the latter half of the 19th century. A master of Polish Chasidus, R Alter, popularly known as the Sfas Emes after his commentary, was a central figure in Polish Chasidus as he led his Chasidim and created a movement which survives to this day as a major force in Orthodoxy. Centered in Ger, the Rebbe’s tisch was a major focal point of his teaching. Therein he would expound on the weekly parsha or deliver a discourse on the holiday using his unique understanding and insights into the various sources. His notes serve as the source material for his Torah Commentary – the Sfas Emes. These notes are the written legacy of his 35 years as the leader of one of the largest Chasidic groups in Poland. Yet, like the scientist’s notebook, the novice unused to the Rebbe’s thoughts and style is confronted by a terse work, cryptic and at times frustratingly opaque to the reader, especially one unfamiliar with various Chasidic and mystical concepts often mentioned in passing.

Dr. Chaim Nosson Leff has attempted to assist the novice in understanding the Sfas Emes. Emes Ve’Emunah is subtitled A Sfas Emes Companion. Dr. Leff has selected various maamarim (homilies) delivered by the Sfas Emes during his 35 year tenure as Gerrer Rebbe. The work contains selections with the original Hebrew text followed by Dr Leff’s elucidation. Both the original and this work are organized in sequence of the weekly Torah parsha, as well as a number of maamarim based on the various holidays. In his elucidation, Dr. Leff does an admirable job in leading the reader through the sometimes complex and intricate steps that the Rebbe took to make his point.

The origin of this book stems from a weekly e-mail correspondence/posting by the author going back several years. The original posts can be found at this link under the year 5764. With the exception of Parshas Bereishis, all of the maamarim that I read in Emes Ve’Emunah can be found on the web site. Other than including the Hebrew text in the hardcopy, the author has reproduced the material from the web site nearly verbatim, with only minor editing. This represents a missed opportunity. This work would have been greatly enhanced by some additional material. The author could have included additional maamarim not elucidated on the web site. Furthermore, a great benefit would have been a more expansive introduction. To include additional biographical material and background material. Including a discussion of the Sfas Emes’ approach to Torah commentary in particular or a more general discussion differentiating Chasidic and non-Chasidic approach to Torah text.

Notably, Professor Arthur Green, a non-Orthodox rabbi and academician, has also written a synopsis of the Sfas Emes entitled The Language of Truth. He includes a more elaborate discussion of Gerrer Chasidus and its origins and place as it relates to other Chasidic groups such as Kotsk. Professor Green’s work in general, however, is basically a translation of the Sfas Emes with a minimum of commentary. Similar material from an Orthodox perspective would have enhanced this book greatly especially for those whose knowledge of Chasidus is limited.

Overall, the book will be welcome to those looking to some classical Chasidic insights into the weekly parsha and Jewish holidays.

Read the rest of this entry »

Parashah Roundup: Shoftim 5769

by Steve Brizel

The Qualities Required for a Judge

Rav Soloveitchik ZTL discusses the means of appointing judges: link

R Berel Wein suggests that we emulate the moral caliber required for the appointment of a judge: link

R Ephraim Buchwald explains why bribery is a perversion of justice\, in all aspects of our lives: link

The Appointment of a King

R Sir Jonathan Sacks explores the ambivalence inherent in the appointment of a king: link

R Shlomoh Riskin investigates the interplay between the King, High Priest and Prophet: link

R Elyakim Krumbein discusses the image of the Jewish king according to the Torah: link

Click here for moreEmunas Chachamim

Rav Soloveitchik, ZTL, in a series of shiurim on Sefer HaMitzvos of the Rambam and the Hasagos of the Ramban, analyzes what is the binding nature of Mitzvos of a Rabbinical nature: link

R Yissocher Frand, based upon the Sefer HaChinuch and an insight of R Yitzchak Hutner, ZTL, explains why adhering to rabbinical authority, is a mitzvah of paramount importance: link

R Asher Weiss and R David Horwitz explore the perameters of Lo Sasur: link

R Yonasan Sacks, R Daniel Z. Feldman and R Dovid Gottlieb discuss the origins and limits of rabbinical authority: link 1 (audio), link 2 (audio), link 3 (audio)

R Avigdor Nevenzal explains why, in the absence of a King or Prophet, Torah scholars remain the authority for the Jewish People: link

Temimus as a Religious Imperative

R Michael Rosensweig and R Baruch Simon explains why striving for Temimus in our approach towards matters of faith is an important hashkafic goal and investigate the scope of this mitzvah: link 1, link 2 (audio)

Preparing Oneself for War

The Nesivos Shalom, as explicated by R Yitzchak Adlerstein, exhorts us to learn how to become good soldiers in our daily lives: link

R Herschel Schachter explains the relationship between the Jewish army and any group of ten male Jews gathered for Tefilah: link

R Avraham Gordimer discusses the message of the Kohen Mashuach Milchamah: link

Bal Taschis

R Asher Weiss discusses the Issur of Bal Taschis: link

The Judges and Eglah Arufah

R Yitzchak Etshalom discusses the role of the judges in Eglah Arufah and many other aspects of the Mitzvah of Eglah Arufah: link

R Aharon Lichtenstein shows how the Mitzvah of Eglah Arufah reminds us of the value of the individual and human life, even and especially in wartime: link

R Avraham Gordimer focuses on the element of communal responsibility in the Mitzvah of Eglah Arufah: link

Cities of Refuge, Cities of Flight

R Amnon Bazak explores and contrasts the cities of refuge and cities of flight: link

R Baruch Simon explains how the cities of refuge serve as a means of acquiring Torah and faith in HaShem: link (audio)

Shloshim Yom Department

Rav Soloveitchik ZTL discusses Selichos, aspects of Rosh HaShanah , Hilcos Shofar and Avodas Yom HaKippurim: link

R Michel Twerki discusses the importance of Chodesh Elul: link

R Dr. Avraham Twerski suggests that we focus more intensely on teshuvah for transgressions of an interpersonal nature: link

R David Brofsky investigates the uniqueness of Chodesh Elul and many halachos of Rosh HaShanah: link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5

R Noach Issac Oelbam analzes Shaarei Teshuvah: link

R Shalom Rosner reminds us that Teshuvah is a gift from God and a responsibility for man: link (audio)

R Michael Rosensweig and Rebbitzeb Peshi Neuberger discuss L'David HaShem Ori: link 1 (audio), link 2 (audio)

R Zvi Sobolofksy investigates the custom of checking Mzuzos in Elul: link (audio)

Last year's roundup: link

Read the rest of this entry »

The Reuel Dilemma

I. Traditional Solutions

An article by Yacov Balsam in the latest issue of Hakirah (link) addresses the Reuel Dilemma. Yisro is given three names in the Torah -- Reuel (Ex. 2:18), Yisro/Yeser (Ex. 3:1), Chovav (Num. 10:29). Having three names in itself is not necessarily a huge dilemma, but it gets more complicated. In Ex. 2:18, Moshe's wife and her sisters refer to Reuel as their father. However, in Num. 10:29, Chovav is called Moshe's father-in-law, and his father is Reuel. So is Reuel the father or grandfather of Moshe's wife Tziporah?

Click here for moreRashi (Num. 10:29), based on the Sifrei, resolves this by suggesting that Reuel was the grandfather, but sometimes people refer to their grandfather as father. This is actually seen a few other times in the Bible (e.g. Gen. 28:13, 32:10). Rashbam and Ibn Ezra on Ex. 2:18 agree with Rashi's explanation.

However, Ibn Ezra on Num. 1:29 has a different approach. He suggests that Reuel was the father and the names Yisro and Chovav refer to Moshe's brother-in-law (Tziporah's brother).

These are the two main solutions offered in the Medieval commentaries and they have retained their viability over the centuries. Even today, some contemporary scholars accept either of these two explanations. For example, Shadal (Ex. 2:18 - OK, not so contemporary) and Nahum Sarna (Exploring Exodus, pp. 36-37) accept Rashi's approach. Timothy Ashley (New International Commentary on the Old Testament, Num. pp. 195-196 - link) quotes both approaches. R. JH Hertz (Ex. 2:18) follows Rashi. JD Hays ("Moses" in Bible Review, August 2000) follows Ibn Ezra. Benno Jacob (The Second Book of the Bible, p. 507 - link) also follows Ibn Ezra.

II. A Third Way

Balsam does an excellent job of discussing the textual proofs and counterproofs for the views of Rashi and Ibn Ezra. He then offers an intriguing third approach. He suggests that Reuel is not a name but a title ("friend of god") used by the high priest of Midian. Therefore, both Tziporah's father and grandfather were called Reuel because the title and position were hereditary. Before I suggest a possible problem with this explanation, let's review some of the newer approaches that have been suggested in the academic literature.

III. Two Other Approaches

The great biblical archeologist William Albright wrote extensively about this dilemma and suggested two solutions (quoted in The New American Commentary, Ex. p. 99 n. 146 - link):

1. Reuel was the name of the clan, and therefore applied equally to Tziporah's father and grandfather.


2. Chovav was not Moshe's father-in-law but brother-in-law. The phrase "Chosen Moshe" should either be read as "Chasan Moshe" or translated that way (i.e. it refers to any in-law relationship, including brother-in-law).

The Documentary Hypothesis does not, on its own, solve this problem because the presumptive source that uses the name Reuel seems to contradict itself regarding who he is. Therefore, this approach requires further assumptions -- such as confused traditions that underlie the presumptive sources -- in order to resolve the dilemma, and even then it isn't very compelling.

IV. Different Names

What also needs to be explained is what the different names mean or represent. If Chovav and Yisro are the same person, why does he have two names? And if the Yisro and Reuel are the same person, the same question applies. Perhaps there is no need to answer, since biblical characters sometimes have more than one name. However, some commentators see more than that here.

Benno Jacob (ibid., pp. 507-509) suggests that Yisro was his external name while Reuel was the name he used with his family and the Jewish people. R. Hertz suggests that Yisro, which means "his excellency" or "his abundance", was a royal title while his real name was Reuel. Sarna (p. 36) also seems to accept that suggestion.

V. Reuel as a Title

Let's return to Balsam's suggestion that Reuel was really a title of the high priest. First of all, this requires rejecting the suggestion that Yisro was a title. It would be odd for the same person to have two titles, each used interchangeably in the Bible. More importantly, we see Reuel as an actual name in Gen. (36:4,13,17). It's a real name! Once you have evidence of it being a name and not a title, it become less plausible to suggest that in another instance it is a title rather than a name. That is why I prefer the other approaches and not Balsam's, although I admit that I have not conclusively refuted it.

Read the rest of this entry »

Torah Study on Shabbat...A Forbidden Activity?

By: Rabbi Ari Enkin

While it goes without saying that one should allocate time for Torah study on Shabbat,[1] it is interesting to note that a number of halachic authorities are of the opinion that one should not engage in intricate or in-depth Torah study on Shabbat. This is especially true with regards to Talmud study which is known to be one of the more difficult areas of Torah study. Indeed, some authorities have argued that one who delves deeply into Torah on Shabbat is considered to have desecrated Shabbat through excessive exertion, mental agony, and even transgressing the prohibition of "borer" when reflecting on different theories and arguments.[2] One may also want to consider avoiding learning completely new material on Shabbat.[3]

Click here for moreOne explanation for this unusual and intriguing prohibition is that one who studies Torah in-depth on Shabbat burdens himself in a way that detracts from the requirement to spend Shabbat engaged in pleasurable activities (oneg shabbat). We are told that Rav Zeira would interrupt those who spent too much time studying on Shabbat, insisting that they engage in more pleasurable pursuits.[4] Furthermore, it is suggested that one who generally studies in-depth during the week may be in violation of the prohibition of engaging in weekday activities (uvdin d'chol) by doing so on Shabbat![5] According to this approach, one should preferably study Midrash, Aggada,[6] or Mussar[7] on Shabbat. According to the Rebbes of Chabad one should spend "two-thirds" of one's Shabbat study time focused on chassidut. The Chafetz Chaim was said to have studied Chumash with commentaries on Shabbat.[8]

Although this position is not subscribed to by the vast majority of halachic authorities – it is authentic and interesting nonetheless and many individuals embrace it to varying degrees in accordance with their personal study needs and goals. Some suggest that the source for this practice is based on the Meiri who writes that a Torah scholar should focus on sleep, rather than study, on Shabbat.[9] Some authorities go so far as to suggest that even one who feels that intensive Torah study is pleasurable should avoid it on Shabbat as during the course of such study one is likely to encounter some intellectual frustrations which could detract from one's Shabbat experience.[10]

Nevertheless, normative halacha is not like this view and one is permitted to engage in any area of Torah study that one desires on Shabbat.[11] In fact, one is to endeavor to come up with new insights in the course of one's Torah study. Indeed, we are taught that when one's additional soul (neshama yeteira) departs each week at the conclusion of Shabbat and returns to its Heavenly repository, it is asked to present any new insights or thoughts that one came up with over the course of Shabbat.[12] It is even written that Shabbat was given specifically for engaging in Torah study.[13]


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

[1] Tur O.C. 290, O.C. 290:2
[2] Siddur Yaavetz;Beit Hayayin 8. See Yabia Omer 2:18 for an in-depth treatment of this issue.
[3] Nedarim 37b
[4] Rashi;Shabbat 119b
[5] Minhag Yisrael Torah O.C. 290:2
[6] Temura 14b
[7] Iggeret Hagra
[8] Kol Kitvei Hachafetz Chaim Hashalem p.31
[9] Tzipichat B'dvash 23, Meiri;Shabbat 118a
[10] Petach Hadvir 290
[11] Minchat Elazar 4:45
[12] Sharei Teshuva O.C. 290
[13] Yerushalmi Shabbat 15:3

Read the rest of this entry »

The Parashah as Political Theory

The Parashah as Political Theory

Guest post by R. Josh Berman

[R. Josh Berman is a professor of Bible at Bar-Ilan University in Israel and an Associate Fellow at the Shalem Center. His recent book, Created Equal, is discussed in this post: link. He has graciously contributed this guest post about this week's Torah portion, Shofetim. His book can be purchased here: link. - GS]

It is commonly known that the Torah understood that absolute power corrupts absolutely; that’s why it limited the size of the king’s treasury, and forbade him from acquiring a state-of-the-art army with horses for chariots (17:16-17). But with its delineation of the offices of the judges (16:18-20; 17:8-13), the king (7:14-20) and the navi (18:15-22), parashat Shoftim wrote a page in the history of political ideas, ideas, in fact, that would not resurface until the writings of the American Founding Fathers.

Click here for moreWhat emerges from our parashah is a highly advanced notion of the separation of powers. It is well known that in the Torah, the king has no role in the mikdash, the kohanim have no political role outside the mikdash, and that the judges described at the beginning of the parashah are not appointed by the king, but by the people. But the real insight that the Torah gave the world about the separation of the powers of government is only fully appreciated when we see how this issue was handled in other cultures.

A bit of constitutional history: think of the British parliamentary system. There's a House of Lords and a House of Commons. The idea was to divide legislative power so that the two houses could balance each other. But why Lords and Commons? The reason is that throughout history the idea of how to divide power was always the same: identify the competing classes within society and assign each a little bit of the power. Each class would naturally look out for its own interests and counterbalance the other. That meant that the balance of power was not a balance of institutions of government in which any citizen could participate – a Senate and a House of Representatives – as we are accustomed to today. Rather, the balance was achieved by allowing competing socioeconomic classes a functioning role within each seat of government.

From Greek times until the early modern period this system worked well, but it came at a price: when you assign political power to Lords because by birth they are Lords, and to commoners because by birth they are commoners you are helping to ensure that society remains forever divided along class lines of those that are elite and those that are not.

Only with the American Founding Fathers do we eventually find a new notion of political office, where a political office is not automatically assigned to this class or that, and which any citizen is eligible to hold.

This idea of political office has only one precursor in the history of political thought and it is in this week’s parashah.

Who can serve as king, according to our parashah? Later, in Sefer Shmuel, kingship would be restricted to the Davidic line. But according to our parashah, anyone who is mi-kerev achecha “among your brethren” (17:15) – that is, any citizen - is eligible to be appointed king. The same is true with regard to the judiciary: anyone may be appointed judge, The appointment of judges is mandated with the sole purpose of achieving the execution of justice, rather than the assignment of office to perpetuate the standing of a noble class.

It is telling that in the entire Tanakh we find no word for “class” and no word for “noble.” The Exodus from Egypt disallowed any Israelite to lay claim to elevated status, because all members of Bnei Yisrael had once been slaves, and all were liberated at the same time. Likewise, Ma’amad Har Sinai was not just a religious event; it was a political event. Elsewhere in the ancient world, the gods communicated only with the kings. But at Har-Sinai, Hashem spoke to all of Bnei Yisrael as equals, indeed, to everyone as a kingdom of priests.

---

To learn more about the Torah as political theory you may read Rabbi Berman’s essay, “The Biblical Origins of Equality,” featured in the current issue of Azure. To gain free access to the essay, visit Rabbi Berman's website at: http://createdequalthebook.com/publications.html.

Read the rest of this entry »