by Steve BrizelThe Enslavement of the Jewish People in Egypt
The Beginnings of the Process of Redeeming the Jewish People
The Personality of Moshe Rabbeinu
link
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Parashah Roundup: Shemos 5768
10:25 PM
Gil Student
by Steve BrizelThe Enslavement of the Jewish People in Egypt
The Beginnings of the Process of Redeeming the Jewish People
The Personality of Moshe Rabbeinu
link
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Everything Is In It II
10:17 PM
Gil Student
Two weeks ago, the Five Towns Jewish Times ran an article by Avi Meir in which he argued for a more open-minded attitude in the yeshiva world towards secular knowledge (link). In the course of his essay, he made sure to reject Dr. Norman Lamm's formulation of Torah U-Madda (from his book of the same name, p. 236):Torah, faith, religious learning on one side and madda, science, worldly knowledge on the other, together offer us a more overarching and truer vision than either one set alone. Each set gives one view of the Creator as well as of His creation, and the other a different perspective that may not agree at all with the first… Each alone is true, but only partially true; both together present the possibility of a larger truth.In the latest issue, Dr. Lamm's son-in-law, R. Mark Dratch, wrote a letter disagreeing with Avi Meir's understanding of this passage (link):
Click here to read more
No, Dr. Lamm does not equate Torah knowledge with secular knowledge. Dr. Lamm, like Mr. Meir, sees all wisdom as a means to appreciating the “nifla’os haBorei, the wonders of the Creator.” And as for viewing madda “as a separate area of knowledge requiring synthesis,” we all make havdalah every Saturday night and declare “haMavdil bein kodesh l’chol”!To this, Mr. Meir responded:
As to what Dr. Lamm meant by this comment, Rabbi Mayer Schiller pointed out in his article “Torah Umadda and the Jewish Observer Critique: Towards a Clarification of the Issues” (Torah U-Madda Journal, vol. 6, 1995–96), that Dr. Lamm’s statement that each is only partially true “seems to run counter to many statements of [Ch]azal, who see all wisdom as being present in the Torah. Accordingly, although Dr. Lamm’s choice of words might be seen as lacking in traditional reverence, he was merely stating the truth as we perceive it… Thus, the phrase ‘partially true’ refers not to any (G-d forbid) falsity in the Torah, but to the fact that for the average man Torah truth is limited to what the texts themselves reveal” (p. 122).
Dr. Lamm’s words as they were originally written are quite clear and well understood. His view of Torah as “only partially true” has been reinterpreted and re-explained on numerous occasions and, quite frankly, these explanations do not coincide with the clear “authorial intent” of the words in context.
I would like to disagree with both Mr. Meir and R. Dratch. I agree with R. Dratch that a complete reading of the relevant chapter in Dr. Lamm's book makes it absolutely clear that Dr. Lamm was only saying that Torah and Madda (secular knowledge) are different perspectives of the truth, and not that either is untrue in any way. Nor is there anything in the book to equate Madda with Torah.
However, I disagree with what R. Dratch and Mr. Meir both say -- that everything is in the Torah. I think this is clearly incorrect. R. Dratch seems to say that everything is in the Torah but people, due to their failings, are often unable to extract it. Does anyone really believe that Quantum Mechanics can be found in the Torah? The nature of the Circulatory System? Law of Large Numbers? Maybe those who believe that the Chazon Ish could perform brain surgery without any training but I'm not among them. I absolutely reject the idea that a big enough Torah scholar -- perhaps Moshe -- is capable of building a nuclear reactor without studying any secular science.
(See also this post.)
What Are You Doing Today?
9:57 AM
Gil Student
Alan Magill sent me the following story:
I have an incident I observed some years ago on December 25 that I want to share with you.
I was walking in Forest Hills, Queens, around 15 years ago on December 25, and I witnessed the following: A yeshiva boy of around 9 years old was walking home from school carrying his school books. A group of nearby boys were making fun of him, saying, "Ha Ha, you had to go to school today." The boy, without batting an eyelash, replied, "Ha ha, you didn't learn anything today."
Monday, December 24, 2007
The Tomb of Onkelos
10:31 PM
Gil Student
by Rabbi Ari Enkin
This story recently appeared on the Israeli news exposing a prank that a few Yeshiva bochrim pulled off in Jerusalem recently. Taking advantage of a site no one ever seemed to notice, these guys undertook some home made renovations and declared it to be the long lost Tomb of Onkelos the righteous convert. Complete with separate entrances for women and men, an authentic looking sign, and blue paint for a spiritual touch -- this prank even succeed in gathering the faithful for prayer in Onkelos' honor.....until they were caught. The lesson the pranksters were trying to send: Judaism is a religion of Torah and Mitzvot, not one of mystisicm and superstition.
This story recently appeared on the Israeli news exposing a prank that a few Yeshiva bochrim pulled off in Jerusalem recently. Taking advantage of a site no one ever seemed to notice, these guys undertook some home made renovations and declared it to be the long lost Tomb of Onkelos the righteous convert. Complete with separate entrances for women and men, an authentic looking sign, and blue paint for a spiritual touch -- this prank even succeed in gathering the faithful for prayer in Onkelos' honor.....until they were caught. The lesson the pranksters were trying to send: Judaism is a religion of Torah and Mitzvot, not one of mystisicm and superstition.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Nittel Nacht – Christmas Eve
10:46 PM
Gil Student
by Rabbi Ari EnkinThere has evolved a collection of legends and folklore over the centuries concerning Christmas Eve, referred to as "Nittel Nacht" in rabbinical parlance, and its place within Jewish thought and practice. There are a number of customs associated with Nittel Nacht which can be found in a number of communities, mostly Chassidic ones, the most common of which being to refrain from Torah study on Christmas Eve.
Before we delve into the history and roots for Nittel Nacht, it is vital for readers, both Jewish and Gentile, to realize that the issues discussed below were born out of political realities rather than theological ones. Nittel Nacht comes to us from an era when relations between Jews and Christians, the Church and Judaism, could be described as 'tense' at best. We are fortunate to be living in a day and age where relations between these two groups have flourished immensely in both the Catholic and Protestant denominations. As such, it is conceivable that such ideas may have never even been thought of had circumstances been different. To paraphrase the Chazon Ish, the customs of Nittel Nacht do not apply in a place (i.e. Israel and presumably others) where there is no reason to fear the Christians.
Click here to read moreTo begin with, there are a number of theories as to where the term "Nittel", or "Nittel Nacht" originate from. Some suggest that it comes from the Latin "Natale Dominus", meaning, "The birth of our God". Others surmise that the use of the word Nittel etymologically comes from the Hebrew "natal", meaning "to have been hanged". Nittel can also be construed as the Hebrew word for "being taken away". These latter interpretations of the word Nittel would seem to support an obscure theory that Jesus was actually killed on Christmas.[1] Alternatively, it may simply be a derogatory nickname that was used to refer to Jesus in all circumstances. The more likely meaning of the term Nittel is that of an acronym for "Nolad Yeshu Tet L'tevet", meaning, "Jesus was born on the ninth of Tevet."
As mentioned above, the most prominent custom commonly observed on Nittel Nacht is to abstain from Torah study, and there are a number of reasons offered for this. One explanation offered is that refraining from Torah study is intended to serve as a sign of mourning. Mourners, including all Jews on Tisha B'av, are forbidden from studying Torah, as it is an activity which makes one happy. The "mourning" in this context would be over the rivers of Jewish blood that have been spilled throughout the ages, all perpetrated in the name of Jesus. Some Chassidic Rebbes went so far as to even refrain from sleep on Christmas Eve lest they dream about Torah![2] The Tzemach Tzedek of Lubavitch was once "caught" learning Torah on Nittel Nacht but quickly repented.[3] Chassidic legend relates that wild dogs would visit those who "violated" the custom and studied Torah on Nittel Nacht.[4]
The most predominant and logical of explanations for the origin of Nittel Nacht customs, namely, the abandonment of Torah study and the closure of batei midrash on Christmas Eve was in fear of possible pogroms. It was common in the Middle-Ages for the Christians to unleash pogroms in honor of their holidays. By forbidding Torah study there was essentially no reason for anyone to leave their homes on Christmas Eve. It appears therefore that the entire Nittel Nacht enactment was simply a decree to save Jews from being beaten or killed.[5] Furthermore, Torah study at home was also not an option as it was quite rare for individuals to own their own books in those years. There were even some regions where the Jewish community was told to turn out their lights on Christmas Eve for their own safety. Some suggest that with Chanukah in close proximity to Christmas, the dreidel was a game invented in order to pass the time while sitting in one's home waiting out any fear of pogroms.[6] It is pointed out that the gematria of Nittel is the same as Chanuka alluding that proper observance of Chanuka can override the concerns of Nittel.[7]
A mystical perspective to the prohibition on studying Torah on Nittel Night has it that by studying Torah one is contributing positive spiritual powers to the world.[8] It was believed inappropriate to make such contributions on a night of widespread idolatry,[9] pogroms, and inappropriate merriment. There was also the concern that one's Torah study may go on to unwillingly serve as a merit for Jesus' soul, which was also undesired. This latter idea corresponds to the teaching that Torah study and prayer are said to give respite to the souls of all the wicked. Other sources simply state that Nittel Nacht is a night where impurities reign supreme and therefore Torah study, the most sacred of activities, would not be appropriate.[10]
Even the custom to refrain from Torah study on this night is in itself subject to a number of different variables. Some communities maintain that one is only to abstain from Torah study until midnight, while others did so until the next morning.[11] In other communities the custom was to go to sleep in the early evening and then wake up for a Torah study session after midnight.[12] This latter custom was the result of the belief that it would reflect badly in Heaven for Jews to sleep soundly throughout the night while the Gentiles were up in their places of worship praying to God.
We find a variety of opinions as well regarding when on Christmas Eve the customs of Nittel Nacht are to begin. Some sources indicate that the practices of Nittel Nacht are to commence at midday, while others contend that one need only begin observing them at sunset, or even nightfall. There was also a custom to refrain from marital relations on Nittel Nacht.[13] Indeed, it said in the name of the Baal Shem Tov that conception on Nittel Nacht will breed an apostate.[14] It is reported that the attempted seduction of Joseph by Mrs. Potiphar[15] occurred on Nittel Nacht.[16]
When exactly is the "halachic" Christmas Eve is actually subject to dispute as well. Some authorities recommend that the eve of December 25, as is Christmas in most of the Western World, is to be observed as Nittel Nacht, referred to as "Nittel Hakatan". Others suggest of course that the true Nittel Nacht is to correspond to the January 7 celebrations, the Christmas of the Greek Orthodox, referred to as "Nittel Hagadol". Common custom among most Nittel Nacht observers is to observe Nittel Nacht in accordance with the majority Christian community where one lives.[17]
It is interesting to note that the regions where the entire subject of Nittel Nacht was first developed, there was no such thing as Christmas on December 25. As such, Chassidim in those places always observed Nittel Nacht on January 6-7. Some point out that the "tekufa"[18] of Tevet which falls out on January 6 serves as an eerie connection between the superstitions associated with the night of the tekufa and Christmas Eve.[19] As readers may have already guessed, there are indeed some communities that are "machmir" to observe Nittel Nacht on both Christmas' regardless of where they live.
There is a view that when Nittel Nacht falls out on Shabbat one need not concern oneself with any of the Nittel Nacht customs owing to the holiness of the day,[20] though others disagree.[21] So too, there is a view that the Nittel Nacht customs were never established to be observed in the Land of Israel as Christianity had never been a dominant force there.[22] It is also argued that the holiness of the Land of Israel overcomes any of the mystical concerns surrounding Christmas, especially those related to superstition and impurity. Some modern day authorities have suggested that since the influence and even observance of Christianity has declined in the modern world, one need no longer be so particular regarding the Nittel Nacht customs at all.[23]
There was an ancient peculiar custom to fast on the ninth of Tevet with a lack of literature explain just why that was so.[24] Some have contended that it was intended to be a fast as a token of mourning for the tremendous amount of Jewish blood spilled in the name of Jesus, appropriately chosen for the day he was born. The existence of this custom lends credence to the view that December 25th in the year that Jesus was born was indeed the ninth of Tevet.[25]
Historically, Torah scholars would use the night to play cards, a practice frowned upon by many halachic authorities.[26] Some, including great rabbis, were known to play chess on Nittel Nacht.[27] Others humorously relate of a widespread custom to spend the night tearing toilet paper for Shabbat use throughout the year.[28] In some communities people would gather together to read the "Toledot Yeshu" every year on Christmas Eve.[29] Other recommended activities for the evening include spending the night managing one's finances,[30] reading secular works [31], working on communal projects,[32] learning a new language,[33] or sewing.[34] The prayer "Aleinu L'shabeiach" should be said out loud on Nittel Nacht as it is credited for sparing one from the forces of evil which are said to be dominant on that night.[35] It is also noted that there was a prominent custom to eat garlic on Nittel Nacht. The reason for this is attributed to the odor of garlic which was said to ward off demons, and by extension, Jesus' soul which is prevalent and possibly wandering on this night.[36]
Make no mistake; most communities in the non-Chassidic world never accepted any of these Nittel Nacht customs. Indeed, there continue to be eminent authorities who strongly oppose the Nittel Nacht phenomenon calling it a needless waste of precious Torah study time, though Chassidim quickly answer back that the observance of a custom is "Torah" in its own right.[37] Sefardim also have no tradition of observing Nittel Nacht, as there was no fear of Christian pogroms in the Islamic countries they lived in.[38] It seems that the emphasis on Nittel Nacht customs is no older than the 18th century, further evidence that it was the invention of the Chassidim.[39] It is interesting to note that some have suggested that the customs of Nittel Nacht are indeed without any known or logical reason and should be followed "just because".[40]
As mentioned above, it appears that the entire subject of Nittel Nacht was created out of a political climate rather than a halachic one.[41] Further evidence for this can be suggested by the observation that in other lands where Jews have lived throughout the ages where other religions were dominant, including idolatrous ones, no such comparable customs ever aroused on the eve of their major holidays. With Christian-Jewish relations at their most comfortable levels ever, let us hope that we are one step closer to the day that when all religions will worship in the rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem, as the prophet teaches: "I will bring [all nations] to my holy mountain and I will make them happy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar for My House will be called a House of Prayer for all nations."[42]
1. Regel Yeshara, 10, cited in Minhag Yisrael Torah O.C. 155:15. In an attempt to reconcile these views, there is the suggestion that there may have been [at least] two Jesus' - one a student of Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Prachia and the other a student of Rabban Gamliel. Yet there is another view that the Jesus of the Talmud is not the Jesus of the Christians at all. See Rabbi Gil Student: http://talmud.faithweb.com/
2. Nitei Gavriel Minhagei Nittel footnote 5:1
3. Igrot Kodesh 7:23 cited in Shut Reiach Hasade 1:17
4. Bnei Yissaschar, Regel Yeshara, 10
5. Taamei Haminhagim 500, Minhag Yisrael Torah O.C. 155:15
6. See the Shem Mishmuel Vol 2 p.75 for more on the connection between Jesus and Chanuka
7. Emunat Itecha (Rabbi Moshe Wolfson) Miketz; heard from Rabbi Faivel Smiles. (The Gematriatic connection is a major strech. A.E.)
8. Sefer Haminhagim Chabad, Hayom Yom p.12
9. There is an ongoing debate among the rabbis whether or not Christianity, and by extension, the Trinity is to be deemed an idolatrous belief. The normative view seems to be that modern-day Christianity is not idolatry, though this can vary between denominations.
10. Nitei Gavriel Minhagei Nittel footnote 5:4
11. Ibid. 2:4
12. Ibid. 4:11, as advised by the Chatam Sofer
13. Ibid. 5:1. See there for a custom for woman to refrain from going to the mikva on Nittel Nacht.
14. Sefer Baal Shem Tov Vol. 2:43a
15. Bereishit 39:7
16. Emunat Itecha;Miketz. Joseph could not study Torah that night, hence he went to do "his work" (v.11)
17. Nitei Gavriel Minhagei Nittel 2:2,3
18. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tekufah
19. Minhag Yisrael Torah O.C. 155:15
20. Mishmeret Shalom 27:3
21. Nitei Gavriel Minhagei Nittel 6:1
22. Ibid. 3:1
23. Teshuvot V'hanhagot 1:551
24. O.C. 580:1-2;Taz 1
25. Megilla Taanit (Vilna Edition)
26. Biur Halacha 670:2
27. The practice of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson and Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneerson. Nitei Gavriel Minhagei Nittel 4:10
28. The practice of the Chiddushei Harim, cited in Reiach Hasade 1:17
29. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu#The_medieval_Toledot_Yeshu_narratives
30. On Nittel Nacht the Maharsha would review his accounts and determine how much maaser money he had to distribute each year. One Nittel Nacht someone went and "reported" the Maharsha to the police that in hatred of the Christians the Maharsha wouldn't didn't study Torah on Nittel Nacht. The police decided to investigate this complaint. That night, as the Maharsha was sitting and reviewing his accounts, a sefer fell from his bookshelf. The Maharsha picked it up and opened it. As the Maharsha was reading the sefer the police burst into his home and began their "investigation." Needless to say, there was now no case against him. See Sefer Tochachat Mussar, in the introduction.
31. Especially Josephus and geography. Devar Chana Hashalem 2:43, cited in Shut Reiach Hasade 1:17
32. In the name of the Arugot Habosem
33. In the name of the Imrei Emes
34. Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, Chanuka 5750
35. Taamei Haminhagim 500
36. See Nitei Gavriel Minhagei Nittel 5:5 for another reason
37. A response attributed to Rabbi Yonatan Eibeschitz in his conversation with a priest over the matter. Minhag Yisrael Torah 155:15. See also Arugot Habosem to Shemot 5:1
38. Nitei Gavriel Minhagei Nittel 3:2, Yabia Omer 7:22
39. It is important to mention tat the word "Nittel" is found in the works of the Rishonim. However it used in relation to the ancient prohibition (Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 148:12) of doing business with Gentiles in close proximity to their holidays (Avoda Zara 2a) and not with regards to the practices mentioned above. See Shut Reiach Hasade 1:17 for more.
40. Nitei Gavriel Minhagei Nittel 5:7
41. See Meiri to Avoda Zara 2a and Bava Kamma 37a
42. Isaiah 56:7
Friday, December 21, 2007
Resurrection, Shovavim and Organ Transplants in Queens
9:58 AM
Gil Student
- R. Yonatan Kaganoff writes about Shovavim Tat: link
- R. Daniel Z. Feldman to speak about "Halachic Issues Involving Organ Transplants" in Congregation Ahavas Yisroel in Kew Gardens Hills on December 25th, 10:00 AM (link). R. Feldman is the author of The Right and the Good: Halakhah and Human Relations.
- R. Shlomo Aviner answered on the radio:
Spouses during the Resurrection of the Dead
(From the Rav Aviner Yahoo! Group: link)
Q: If someone was married to two different people during his or her lifetime who will they be with after the Resurrection of the Dead?
A: There is a responsum of a certain Rav in which there was a young woman who married a wonderful man who died relatively young. The young women did not want to marry again. She said, "Why should I get married to someone else? During the Resurrection of the Dead I will be married to my second husband, and my first husband is more dear to me than anything. I prefer to remain a widow all of my life and then be married to my true soul-mate." They asked the Rabbi: Who will be the true spouse – the first or the second? At first the Rabbi did not want to answer. He said that it is forbidden to answer a halachic question before someone who is greater than him in wisdom. Since this is a question of the Resurrection of the Dead, at that time there will be greater Rabbis than there are now, it is therefore forbidden for me to answer. If there are questions that arise now - what can we do? We have to answer them. Questions that have to do with the future, however, we leave for the greater Rabbis. Other Sages said that this is true, but this is all before the "Zohar" was revealed. After the "Zohar" was revealed, it contains the answer to our question. Regarding a Jewish servant, the verse says, "If he arrives by himself, he leaves by himself; if he is the husband of a woman, his wife leaves with him" (Shemot 21:3). This means that he enters the Resurrection of the Dead with his wife – his true wife. It can be the first spouse or the second spouse. It is the true spouse – the most successful marriage. - I'll add my voice wishing mazal tov to my recently discovered distant cousin, Yanky Leb, in his new endeavor: link
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Brushing Teeth on Shabbos
10:11 PM
Gil Student
This past Shabbos my eight-year-old son had a friend sleeping over. At night, I told my son to go brush his teeth with toothpaste and I told his friend not to brush his teeth. My son quickly went for the issue dearest to his heart, "That's not fair." Then he went for the piety argument, "It's assur." I quickly explained to him that we follow Rav Soloveitchik (and Rav Ovadiah Yosef and Rav Chaim Regensburg) who allowed it while his friend probably follows Rav Moshe Feinstein who did not allow it. But I also told him that I'll write something explaining the issues, even though he probably won't understand it. So this is for Shmuly.There are two main issues in brushing teeth on Shabbos – using a toothbrush and using toothpaste. It is, of course, possible to brush with a toothbrush but without toothpaste or with toothpaste on one's finger without a brush. This first installment will deal with using a toothbrush and the next installment with using toothpaste.
As always, follow your family custom and/or ask your local rabbi.
I. Bleeding
Click here to read moreThere are a few potential halakhic problems with using a toothbrush on Shabbos. The first is whether one may use a dry toothbrush because if can cause bleeding. Causing bleeding is prohibited on Shabbos. Therefore, brushing with a toothbrush should be forbidden unless one is fairly certain that it will not cause bleeding. This is the position of the Minchas Yitzchak (3:48, 50). However, the Seridei Esh (2:28) argues that one has to differentiate between an action that will definitely cause a forbidden result, which is a pesik reisheih and is forbidden, and an action that might cause a forbidden result, which is permitted. For example, the Shulchan Arukh (Orach Chaim 303: 27) forbids brushing one's hair because the brush will definitely pull out hair but the Rema allows one to brush with one's fingers because that does not necessarily pull out hair. For most people, brushing teeth does not always cause bleeding and is therefore permissible like brushing one's hair with one's fingers.
II. Squeezing
Another issue is using water on a toothbrush. The concern is that brushing with a wet toothbrush causes the water to be squeezed out, and squeezing (sechitah) is prohibited on Shabbos. The Minchas Yitzchak (ibid.) accepts this reason. R. Moshe Feinstein (Iggeros Moshe, Orach Chaim 1:112) merely writes that it is best to be concerned for this position. The Seridei Esh writes that there is no issue of squeezing for a few reasons. First of all, the nylon bristles of a toothbrush do not absorb water so the prohibition is only on a rabbinic level, like hair (Shabbos 128b). Therefore, the inevitable act of "squeezing" during brushing is a pesik reisheih on a rabbinic prohibition which, the Seridei Esh says, is permitted based on Magen Avraham (253:1). R. Chaim Regensburg (Mishmeres Chaim, no. 9) points out that the Magen Avraham cannot mean what the Seridei Esh claims it means because elsewhere (314:5) he quotes this position in the name of the Terumas Ha-Deshen and argues on it. However, R. Regensburg suggests that in our case—which is a double rabbinic prohibition (squeezing a non-absorbent item in an indirect way-ki-l'achar yad)—everyone would agree with the Terumas Ha-Deshen.
Additionally, the Seridei Esh argues, there are two types of prohibited squeezing on Shabbos: squeezing that is a subcategory of extracting (mefarek) and that is a subcategory of cleaning (melaben). That is widely acknowledged. When squeezing as an act of cleaning, it doesn't matter that the water is subsequently unused because regardless of that the cleaning was still done. However, when squeezing as an act of extracting, the discarding of the water is significant and renders the act permissible (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 230:18). When brushing teeth, the water is not used to clean the toothbrush and is quickly discarded. Therefore, it should be permissible.
III. More Squeezing
There is a further reason to permit and that is the case of a sponge. One may not use a sponge because of squeezing, unless it has a handle (Shabbos 143b). Rashi and the Rambam explain that the handle enables a user to utilize the sponge without squeezing out water. However, the Ra'avad explains that even if one squeezes with this kind of sponge it is permissible for another reason. The Seridei Esh points out that according to the Ra'avad one may use a toothbrush with a handle. However, the Minchas Yitzchak disputes his understanding of the Ra'avad based on a Chazon Ish.
The Seridei Esh cites the case of a towel (Shabbos 40b) that is permissible to use and we are not concerned about potential squeezing because, as the rishonim explain, if so we would prevent all washing on Shabbos. Just like most people cannot handle being unable to wash at all on Shabbos, so too they cannot handle being unable to brush their teeth on Shabbos and therefore we should permit using a toothbrush. R. Regensburg points out that the two cases are dissimilar in that the towel is only about allowing regular use and being unconcerned with potential squeezing while with the toothbrush the regular use is the squeezing.
R. Regensburg points out that we permit something that is prohibited by a double rabbinic prohibition (shevus di-shevus) when there is great public need (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 307:5). The public, he argues, has a great need to brush their teeth and therefore the double rabbinic prohibition of squeezing a non-absorbent item in an indirect way should be permitted.
R. Regensburg also points out that the Avnei Nezer (1:157) proves that according to Rashi and Rabbenu Tam, there is not even a rabbinic prohibition to squeeze a non-absorbent substance. On a rabbinic prohibition, he argues, we can be lenient like their position.
(B"n, more to come)
Jnews Roundup IX
10:50 AM
Gil Student
Raphael stepped down from doing the Jnews Roundup so if anyone would like to give it a try, please contact me.New Periodical: Jewish Action Winter 2007, 68:2
7:46 AM
Gil Student
There is a new issue of Jewish Action that is available on its website (link). This is a particularly relevant issue because one of my books--My Yeshiva College--is reviewed in it (link) and I have an article of my own in it, a review of the Machzor Mesoras HaRav (link). Here is the table of contents:- Letters (R. Daniel Korobkin and Prof. Marc Shapiro dispute R. Zev Leff's article about the 13 principles)
- President's Message: Touring Jewish America by Steve Savitsky
- Chairman's Message by Gerald Schreck
- Paintings from the Soul: New Women Artists Group Explores Art Through a "Different Lens" by Bayla Sheva Brenner
- Knowledge in the Realm of Science and Knowledge in the Realm of Religion: Are They Different? by Nathan Aviezer
- Special Section: Faith After Terror
- My Sister, My Home, My Life: The Story of Ruthi Cohen by Toby Klein Greenwald
- The Spiritual Power of Pain by Bayla Sheva Brenner
- Feeling the Hand of God by Sarah Shapiro
- Feeling the Hand of God by Sarah Shapiro
- A Life Change by Bayla Sheva Brenne
- A Woman's Faith by Andrea Simantov
- "She Might Have Been A Rebbe..." An Uncle's Hesped for Judith Young by Norman Lamm
- Confessions of a BT Wannabe by Charlotte Friedland
- On and Off the Beaten Track in... The Land of Olives by Peter Abelow
- Hope Amidst a War Zone: OU's Israel Center Offers Support and Comfort to Sderot Residents by Soriya Daniels
- Legal-Ease: What's the Truth about... Adam's Spare Rib? by Ari Zivotofsky
- Shemittah for the Clueless by Mordechai Kuber
- Meeting the Demands of Shemittah: Israeli Farmer Ariel Porat Speaks with Journalist Michael Freund
- The Chef's Table: Warm Winter Dishes by Helen Nash
- Books
- My Yeshiva College: 75 Years of Memories reviewed by Herbert Schlager
- Machzor Mesoras HaRav on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur reviewed by Gil Student
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Parashah Roundup: Vayechi 5768
10:31 PM
Gil Student
by Steve BrizelYosef's Reconciliation with His Brothers
The Location of Rachel's Tomb
R. Yaakov Medan explores the historical significance of Rachel's burial site: link
Yaakov's Blessings to His Sons
If I Forget Thee, O Jerusalem! II
10:27 PM
Gil Student
What High School Is For
1:49 PM
Gil Student
The Commentator has an article about a new program coming out of YU that encourages high school students to cover large amounts of Gemara, achieving dollar prizes for high marks on tests (link).In my mind, that is what high school students should be doing. Some in-depth study is necessary to train students to think and to give them a taste of what is to come. But the main goal should be to acquire an idea of what is in the Talmud and the breadth that serves as a basis for future in-depth learning. Young students need to know that they can conquer the entire Talmud, and that can only happen after they finish a few tractates and realize that it is a goal that they can accomplish.
Many schools have Mishnayos-by-heart contests and I always wondered why Modern Orthodox schools do not have something similar. While this program is aimed at high school rather than elementary school students, it seems to me that it is a great step forward that will encourage students to focus on what is important and will help generate additional excitement for learning Torah.
Announcements #017
10:28 AM
Gil Student
The program will take place at Lincoln Square Synagogue (200 Amsterdam Ave. corner of 69th street) from 9:30 AM-12:30 PM.
Speakers will include Rabbi Harel Gordin, Rabbi Nathaniel Helfgot, Rabbi Dov Linzer, Rabbi Ysoscher Katz and Rabbi Shaul Robinson. The program is free and open to the public. For more information please go to www.yctorah.org.
This 349 page volume, with over 50 contributors, hardbound, lists at $29.50 and will be available at bookstores in January. You can order the volume online here and receive a 20% discount ($23.60) including free delivery (provided your order is received prior to December 31, 2007). As of January 1, 2008, the shipping cost is $5.
We know you will find the pages in this collection enriching and as a valuable resource in understanding a giant who shaped the course of Yeshiva University and Orthodoxy in America and Israel for generations to come.
- Admissions Revving Up For Record Push
- Electrical Scare Evacuates Zysman and Muss Halls
- Hanukkah Dinner Honors Tulane President, Remembers Katrina
- YUCIS Progress Report
- Recollections And Reconsideration: Revisiting the Path of Rabbi Norman Lamm
- Yeshiva Introduces New Bekiut Learning Program for Yeshiva High Schools
- New Endowment to Harness Lamm Legacy
- Regret, Rejoinder and Reaffirmation - Zev Eleff regrets editorial against IBC
- IBC Redux - Immanuel Shalev disagrees with the editorial against IBC
- Letters to the Editor - Many letters about Young Israel
- Yeshiva in Academic Literature - bibliography of discussion about YU in academic literature
- Kol Hamevaser
(Announce your simchah or Torah lectures by clicking on the
button in the top right corner of Hirhurim. See here for readership statistics.)Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Yeshiva College Curriculum Review
10:33 PM
Gil Student
Untwain, Detwain, or Retwain?: A Hope for the Yeshiva College Curriculum Review
by Noah Greenfield
[Editor's note: Yeshiva College is currently undergoing a curriculum review (I II). This essay is a longer version of a thoughtful opinion piece by a current YC student published in the YC newspaper The Commentator (link).]
“I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.” - Mark Twain
The YC Curriculum Review (YCCR) should have two main goals: 1) To improve the education of YC students generally, and 2) Specifically, to take advantage of the Orthodoxy of YC students to that end. While the first goal is fairly obvious, the second is less clear. But either the Orthodoxy of the students is ignored (the current curriculum is not always innocent in this regard) or it is taken advantage of. Instead of ignoring it, or (worse) reacting to it, YCCR needs to take full advantage of it. In terms of YCCR, almost every student in YC has three relevant sides to their Orthodoxy: Involvement in Orthodox culture, values, beliefs; A year in Israel; Study in a religious Jewish Morning program. How can these be taken advantage of to improve the education at YC? And how, in general, can YCCR improve the YC education?
1) JEWISH STUDIED PROFESSORS
Click here to read moreThere needs to be a new requirement – for YC professors. Every single professor in YC needs to have a real understanding of Jewish culture. This is not a call for conversion or any other religious coercion. It is about improving the pedagogy and the student-professor relationships in YC. YC students all come to their education with their Jewish training. When the teacher knows substantially about Judaism, it is very helpful. When the teacher doesn't have the foggiest idea about Judaism, the experience is less rich. Of course, YC should hire the best people in the field, but taking into account that its students are Orthodox Jews, the education should be cultivated by people who have the capacity of dealing with these issues.
Non-Jewish professors, of course, have much to offer the parochial and sheltered cultural existence of YC students precisely due to their unique backgrounds and experiences. But kulturkampf isn't productive or smart. Without basic cultural literacy, at best, these professors' culture gets lost in translation; much worse, they misunderstand, are misunderstood, offend and are offended.
For those professors without Orthodox (or Jewish) knowledge, something more substantial than a tour of the Beit Midrash needs to be required. This is not to suggest that the new Physics professor needs to attend shiur (if you don’t know what this is, you just proved the point), but it would be wonderful if she were to have attended a shabbat on campus and/or have read 200 pages of basic Jewish reading, or any other requirements a student-faculty committee would put together. This is not just to improve things inside the classroom, but outside the classroom as well. If YC wants student-professor relationships to develop, an accidental impression of Orthodox culture, never mind complete ignorance of it, is simply unacceptable.
2) YESHIVAT COLLEGE
YC needs an academic base geographically located in Israel. This would provide a home away from home for YC professors to do research in Israel and to collaborate with Israeli academia. More significantly, from a student point of view, it would give YC the opportunity to take back the greatly desired 4th Year – not by insisting that students tack it on at the end of their college career, but by including it within their Year in Israel experience. If YC were to optionally offer (at least Jewish Studies and Hebrew) prerequisite courses to students spending their year in Israel, offered at nights or on Friday mornings, it would accomplish many of the goals of the 4th Year. Additionally, it would benefit greatly the many students who would take advantage of improving their (especially Hebrew and general Jewish) education during that year. Lastly, having an academic base in Israel would enable more students to take a semester or year abroad while staying within YC, providing them with Torah, Madda, and a change of climate.
3) TORAH UMADDA IN THE CLASSROOM
YC should create intensive first year seminars dealing directly with Torah Umadda. If nothing else, it would serve as a brilliant intellectual transition from the year in Israel. Torah Umadda is a topic of urgent relevance to many students arriving on campus, a topic much more relevant than other first year seminar topics, like Heroism, or Immigration (as important as those topics are). It is also a topic which students deal with deeply, in their personal and social lives. Just look at how many articles on the subject are written in every edition of The Commentator! Brandeis is not ashamed to require a History of Brandeis course. This is what YC is all about – it, too, should not be ashamed to teach it.
The courses should be writing and research intensive, giving small groups of students intimate exposure to a professor (or even two – with only 3 years on campus, early exposure to disciplines and personalities is key), interdisciplinary, with opportunities on and off campus. Possible topics are many and fit many departments, if not all, (and, arguably, would be much more interesting substitutes of other general requirements): Science and Religion, the History of YU, Judaism and Other Religions, Midrash (if you don’t know what this is, see 1 above) and Literary Theory, etc. The role models are many as well. Public lectures given by people like Chancellor Lamm, Dean Srolovitz, and the many Orthodox professors who deal with issues relating to Torah Umadda in their various fields would add fodder to the small class discussions and unite intellectually the incoming student body. Torah Umadda is at the heart of this place – it should be thought and taught. Why not?
4) YC BIBLE/RIETS TANACH
The YC Bible requirement aims to ensure that every YC graduate, as a responsible member of the Orthodox community, has solid familiarity with the Hebrew Bible. But is a YC SLO (student learning outcome) necessarily equivalent to a knowledge of Akkadian etymology? Is not R. Schachter's knowledge of Tanach also an excellent SLO (even if it would not pass as academia)? Knowledge of the Bible should be expected of every YC graduate, but this knowledge need not be academic. A knowledge of Rashi or Ibn Ezra should be at least as valued as one of Wellhausen or Kugel. A RIETS Bible option would be an excellent way for certain students to dodge unnecessary discomfort, for others to take advantage of other modes of Bible study, as well as provide more options for students and for professors, who can teach other courses pertinent to Near Eastern Studies. Ultimately, YC, in terms of its Jewish – and especially its religious – SLOs, must work in tandem with RIETS.
5) SEMESTERS QUARTERED
The University of California, MIT, Northwestern, among many other high-ranking schools, all work on the Quarter system, instead of YC's model, the Semester system. The Quarter system is a much better calendar for YC. Briefly, the Semester system has 2 sessions, each between 15 and 18 weeks long, with an optional 9 week summer session. The Quarter system, on the other hand, has 3 sessions, each between 8 and 12 weeks long, with an optional summer session of about the same length.
The UCLA Senate recently published a list of reasons why it prefers the quarter system:
1) There can be a wider range of course offerings, more subjects covered, and exposure to more professors;
2) Fundamental and introductory courses can be taught more often;
3) The consequences of failure in a particular course are less severe;
4) Students benefit from the intense focus of the quarter system;
5) From the student's perspective, the impact of “boring courses” is reduced;
6) Within the shorter time frame, instructors are more likely to set priorities and be more careful regarding content;
7) With more courses overall, quarters give more opportunities for courses in the professor's area of expertise.
There are other reasons why quarters fit YC better. The quarter system forces students to take fewer courses and fewer credits per quarter, giving them time to focus more carefully on each course without having to worry about 14.5 other credits being taken, besides for shiur. It also jives better with the Jewish calendar. UCLA, for instance, doesn't usually begin classes until late September or even October i.e. after sukkot (!), without being in any official sense a Jewish school. If YC were to do that, it would create the fantastic bonus opportunity for its students: A Torah-only Elul at YC/RIETS (which deserves an editorial in and of itself).
6) SHIUR – CLASS = TUTORIAL
Shiur provides an excellent educational model for Orthodox students. Given serious blocks of time to prepare (or else face the intellectual and social consequences), shiur consists of a mix of high level lectures, which for the most part assume the work done in preparation, and high level discussion of the issues, texts, and concepts at hand. The adoption of this model by YC would greatly enhance its education.
This is not an Orthodox invention. It is the current practice at Oxford and Cambridge, and several other Honors Colleges elsewhere. Ohio University Honors Tutorial College, for instance, employs a “program for students capable of a more independent approach to study [i.e. Orthodox chavrusa-trained students] than is usually available in a traditional classroom setting, where students meet weekly with their tutors for individual or small group sessions to discuss their week's readings and the essays they have written over that reading. Students also take part in weekly seminar discussions.” This model would provide students with less class time (and thus more time to prepare, think, breathe, etc) and more quality class, where the readings can actually be expected of them – or else.
7) ATTENDANCE ABSENT
The best classes in YC do not require attendance. Professor Johnson, for instance, introduces his Logic course by stating something along the lines of, “Feel free not to come to class. But don't expect to learn the material, or pass.” Logic is well attended precisely because the material cannot be learned without the teacher and/or the other students participating. Regrettably, not every YC class is like this.
If a student can get an 'A' without ever attending, given the minimal amount of time at YC as it is, it is imperative that that free time be given to him, to catch up on other work, Torah study, or even a trip to Central Park. No attendance is also quality control. If a YC professor has many students who perform well without attending class, what does that say about that professor? It does not say she is a bad person, but it does say that she is a waste of YC's money and the students' time (they, of course, have already figured this out.) If students are forced to go to class, it does not mean they will participate anyway. Many students forced to go to class surf the Internet, play computer games, or work on papers (which they would be better off doing in the quiet of a library). Attention, unlike attendance, cannot be enforced. Attendance is a policy that rewards poor teacher performance, infantilizes student decision-making, doesn't enhance classroom participation, and perpetrates the mistakes YCCR is trying to correct. Attendance must no longer be attended to.
8) REQUIRED KNOWLEDGE, NOT REQUIREMENTS
Requirements in YC, sadly, must first be understood in terms of turf; something akin to gang warfare is occurring on the 5th floor of Belfer. In South Central L.A., the Bloods and the Crips gained prominence because they had something which every addict needed: crack. In YC, the Bibs and the Crits (Bible and English departments) have achieved a similar prominence due to their having something which every YC student needs: general requirements. Departments that don't have access to this "good stuff" (like Speech and Psychology) have to watch their backs. It is dubious that any decision about requirements will be made without the pressures of this violent politic. To invoke 2Pac, "that's just the way it is."
If YC is to have any expectations of its graduated students, it will need to have general requirements. But if it is to have general requirements, then it must also have a system where such requirements can be bypassed, namely, by being able to test out of them. Requirements are about knowledge, not about the (often painful) experience of taking the requirement. If that knowledge is already obtained, then the requirement should not required. YC's expected SLOs should be translated both into requirements and into tests, which, if taken and passed, enable the student to move on with his education. If a requirement cannot be translated into a test, if the student cannot prove his adeptness in a particular subject, then what is the point? There is no point – so YCCR needs to end it. What YC should require is knowledge, not wasteful classes.
The requirement is often wasteful and excessive, but its sister, the prerequisite, is promising and neglected. Why must senior students sit in the same seminars as freshmen? Why must Foucault's thought (and name pronunciation) be taught in every humanities course? What is the point of an Intro course if the material will have to be repeated in the Advanced course? Currently, prerequisites are not enforced in YC primarily because requirements do not properly assess the knowledge of students.
(Like this overheard conversation between a Jewish Studies professor and a student wanting to get into his course: “The course requires Hebrew, but since you went to a yeshivat hesder, I'll let you in – you probably know Hebrew better than the guys who took 1205.”) So the same testing suggested for requirements should be applied by prerequisites. Firmly enforced prerequisites, complimented by well-structured majors, will replace the need for ill-regarded general requirements.
While some requirements may prove to be unnecessary if testing out is adopted (especially Physical Education), others requirements – really SLOs and very basic prerequisites – should be required: Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Internet, Email, and Personal Finance. If a student knows how to use Excel, then he should be able to pass out. But if one is expected to know how to use Word or PowerPoint for a class – let alone in the real world! – then it must be taught early on, and not haphazardly learned simultaneously with the content of the presentation itself. The entire university would gain tremendously if more students, professors, and administrators actually knew how to use the Internet and email in a skillful and efficient manner. And for YC to claim to forge responsible members of society, Personal Finance must be taught. Students without this knowledge are at major risk of doing financial damage to themselves and their families. They will need to know how to budget to be able to finance graduate schools, send their kids to day schools and, eventually, to their alma mater. Once again, this is something from which not only students have to gain – if nothing else, it will improve future alumni donations.
9) 4TH YEAR TRACK
The scholarship for students interested in staying an extra year in YC is a fine idea, but a 4th Year Track, offering the same financial incentive (3 years of tuition spread out over 4 years) makes more sense. Firstly, many students who decide to stay on only do so later in their YC career, so they end up treating their first 3 years in the same, rushed and frenzied way non-4th year students treat it. Besides, offering a track, with financial benefits, suggested course loads, guidance, and professional and academic opportunities will make the 4th year more tempting and more welcoming. YC must show the tangible benefits of staying the extra year and market it to incoming students as such. For instance, incoming students would be more likely to choose the 4th year track if it entailed opportunities with the BA/MA program at Revel, Research at AECOM or Cardozo, or a Great Books program like that at St. John's (this last idea also deserves a paper in and of itself). The 4th year works best not when it is a 4th year, but when it is 4 holistic years – coupled with financial incentives, professional opportunities and intellectual excellence.
Each of these 9 suggestions, if implemented, will drastically change the education at YC. Let this article arouse discussion and feedback from students, professors, and administrators. One can only hope that it will lead to real change, and for the better. Let not YC be contwained.
ADDENDUM:
Here is what I think: Asking which general requirements should be required and which should not be is simply asking the wrong question.
For starters, the term “general requirement” is too vague. Conceptually, I think there are three categories of such requirements, which, if clarified, will enhance the discussion.
- REQ (pronounced “wreck”) - The knowledge expected of a graduated student. An example: YC expects that every graduate will know how to write. This category includes the subcategory of OnceREQd, knowledge expected at one point of a graduated student. NYU, for instance, has a OnceREQd: President Joel is expected to have taken calculus, but he is not expected by NYU (his alma mater, or YU, for that matter) to know calculus now. (I wonder if he does...)
- PreREQ – The knowledge expected of a current student. An example: Every student in Physics II should have the knowledge of Physics I.
- X-REQ – The experience expected of a graduated student. An example: Harvard has every student complete a thesis. The thesis entails much content, but it also involves a certain experience, namely, writing a long paper, working with direct guidance on an advanced topic, etc.
What to do with these categories? (I don't want to deal with the very strange notion of OnceREQd here.)
The Pass-Out
The notions of REQs and PreREQs are not bad ones. If YC is to have any expectations of its students, it will needs REQs and PreREQs. But as opposed to X-REQs, they should be pass-out-able. We already do this with Advanced Placement exams. (Whether actual credit should be granted is a different question, which, I think, should vary depending on the subject.)
The question then becomes which courses should be experienced and which have pass-out-ability. (See The Scandalous Misuse of X-REQs below).
The point of this argument is not that students should take fewer courses. It is arguing that students should take more appropriate courses. If a student already has the knowledge taught in a given REQ, then he should not take that REQ. This would enable (and ennoble) that student (and the professor of the REQ) to take (and give) more advanced courses.
Thus, if a student, because of deep personal interest, already knows the material taught in Medieval Jewish History, and can pass a test to that end, then he will be able to take more advanced courses in Jewish History. And Jewish History professors will thus be able to teach more advanced Jewish History courses. (For the record, next semester there is only one Jewish History elective – this is scandalous considering the amount of professors – great professors! – in that department).
The Scandalous Misuse of X-REQs
Somehow, many courses at YC are treated as X-REQs. This, I believe, borders on scandal. It simply makes no sense for intro courses and science-for-dummies courses to not only be learned, but experienced.
Intro courses are not X-REQs. They must always be considered PreREQs.
Hebrew courses are not X-REQs. They must either be considered PreREQs or REQs. (Look out for a future post about YC Hebrew.)
Labs, of course, are X-REQs. From just about everyone I have spoken to about the subject, both science and non-science majors, just about the only thing gained from taking a lab was, indeed, the miserable, guinea pig-like experience. As one friend recently put it, “I spent 2 hours confirming that, in fact, gravity still works, at least at the time of my experiment.”
Whether labs should be required, in light of this categorization, is another (I think very good) question.
Physical Education, right now at least, is treated as an X-REQ. I personally do not understand why this should be required, or at least why it needs to be viewed as an X-REQ. I do not get what its role in YC is, besides, of course, sustaining itself and offering fun classes for people who want to take them or not. Should this be required? Why?
Great Expectations
What does YC want of its graduated students? Right now, I can think of 5 things:
- YC wants to give them a broad liberal education.
- It also wants them to have a religious education at one its affiliated morning programs.
- It also wants to give them a solid Jewish (cultural, historical, lingual) education.
- It also wants them to have depth in at least one specific major.
- During their free time, they should also have a “college experience”
For starters, YC is not going to be able to compromise the expectation of its students having a religious education with an affiliated program. The best it will do is to allow IBC students to take courses which count for YC credit or to allow Roshei Yeshiva to teach Bible, as I suggest.
So, how to balance the other 4 goals (liberal education, Jewish education, depth in a major, and a “college experience”) in 3-4 years?
I think consolidation can help. Having Bible as part of the religious education instead of the YC education gives YC greater ability to achieve its other goals by knowing that part of its Jewish education is being taken care of.
Offering more interdisciplinary courses that can cover more required knowledge in less time would also be wise.
Pass-out-ability will help too.
As for the rest, I have no miracle answers. But I think this is good thinking for the discussion.
Noah Greenfield is a contributor to THE YU VENT, a live, open forum where students, administrators and alumni talk about the present and future of YU.
Attention YU Students
2:34 PM
Gil Student
Attention YU students:Great news!
Flipping Out? Myth or Fact: The Impact of the "Year in Israel" by Shalom Z. Berger, Daniel Jacobson and Chaim I. Waxman--and with an introduction by President Richard M. Joel--is now available for purchase at Lake Como Pizza. Ask for it behind the counter.
The Reversing Vav
1:43 PM
Gil Student
Great article about the anomaly of Biblical Hebrew known as the vav ha-hipukh: link(with thanks to R. Uri Cohen)
Monday, December 17, 2007
Frum Blogs
10:03 PM
Gil Student
Frum Blogger – Hayelchu Yachdav?by Rabbi Asher Meir
Gil brought my attention to a recent article by Zvi Frankel in the Jewish Observer warning about the dangers of blogs, and asked if I could make some comments (Zvi Frankel, "Blogs: Transgressing a Major Sin 'In the Name of Heaven': Possibly a Lack of Chinuch?" available online [with permission] here [PDF]). I think the author made a number of valid points, which I hope to use as a starting point for discussion of some of the unique dangers as well as benefits of blogging.
The main concern mentioned in the article is lashon hara. Also prominently featured is disregard for Torah scholars and community leaders. These are obviously valid concerns. Based on the Chafetz Chaim, the basic criteria for permitting any kind of derogatory speech is as follows:
- The disclosure must be necessary for achieving some constructive purpose;
- The intention must also be constructive;
- The constructive aim must not be at the expense of undeserved harm to the subject of the disclosure (or anyone else).
- While we are commanded to judge every member of our people favorably, this mitzvah applies with greater force to Torah scholars and leaders. So information which might be considered damning to an ordinary person may justify a more charitable interpretation to these individuals.
- The damage done to the individual and the community is greater when leaders are scorned. So when we weigh the constructive purpose against the potential for harm, the equation will come out a bit differently.
The "credibility criterion" (mentioned in Chafetz Chaim) is dramatized by a scenario recounted on Pesachim 113b. A man named Zigod witnessed an instance of ervah by someone named Tuvia. Zigod informed the Beit Din what he had seen; in response he was given lashes! The reason is that a single witness is not given credence in such a situation, and so no benefit is obtained from the report. It is no more than simple lashon hara. (This is nothing like the recent case in Saudi Arabia where the crime had a victim and it was the victim who reported the crime – and who was disgracefully punished for defending her rights.)
However, this very scenario points out a seeming exception to the usual rules of lashon hara. Zigod was not a litigant. A litigant is never punished for bringing a case. No matter how outrageous the claim and how categorical the acquittal, no litigant has even been lashed for his accusations in court. I suggest that the reason that accusations in court are not considered lashon hara is the strict procedural regulations surrounding these accusations. The following apply to any accusation made in Beit Din:
- All claims and testimony must be made in the presence of the opposing party;
- The opposing party has the opportunity to rebut any claims made;
- Only substantiated claims are acted on by the court.
So while blogs are an ideal medium to spread lashon hara, they are an even more ideal medium to refute lashon hara. When rumors are spread furtively they have tendency to be vague, rapidly exaggerated, difficult to track down and nearly impossible to refute. But when they can be precisely tracked down to a public blog post, there is a full opportunity to make a proper refutation.
I think that we can all think of instances where blogs, including Hirhuim, have been instrumental in publicizing pertinent and reliable information defending people against hurtful and unfounded accusations.
Another important point is that blogs are not only a vehicle for discussing people. They are at least important as a forum to discuss ideas. The unique transparency of a blog makes it an ideal medium to discuss controversial topics. When controversies arise, it is both impossible and also unhealthy to suppress discussion on the appropriate position and direction for the community. We are not gifted with prophecy, but chacham adif minavi (a sage is preferable to a prophet) and nowadays we arrive at the truth by the method of the beit midrash – open and learned discussion within the limits of our beliefs. Many will promote positions that the community, and perhaps even the individual himself, may later conclude are mistaken. But there is a very broad opportunity to make one's thoughts and objections known.
I know for example that turning my columns into books was a weighty responsibility. In my columns, I could put in things when I was 99% sure, with the knowledge that first of all any factual or ideological mistakes would be uncovered by my many readers, and second of all that any mistakes discovered could be promptly disseminated to virtually the same individuals who saw the first, problematic version. I don't view this as a trap but rather a blessing. With the excessive caution which is absolutely justified in writing a book, many ideas would never see light.
One point made by Mr. Frankel which does not make sense to me is the claim that treif blogs somehow disqualifty kosher ones. I don't criticize the Jewish Observer for giving a hechsher to the National Enquirer, which is also a periodical. Any intelligent person can tell the difference.
So I agree with Mr. Frankel that many blogs are an irresponsible forum for spreading slander or plain old nonsense. It's a classic case of batala mevia liyedei zima/shiamum (Mishnah, Ketubot 59b) – idleness leads to license and mishegas. I think he is also correct to particularly warn about anonymous blogs. In response to a recent query on this topic, I told someone that anonymous blogs are fine if all of the content on them is also anonymous. Make up fictitious names for your friends and neighbors, make some composite characters for good measure, and tell the story of your neighborhood. But an anonymous or fictitious blogger peopling his blog with real people is a cowardly and forbidden mixture. The false identity serves as a shield against standing behind your statements. (I plan to dilate on this topic in a forthcoming column.)
However, I also acknowledge that blogs have unique advantages. They provide an easy tool to spread rumors, but also an unprecedented tool to respond to them in detail. The rumors are no longer in the control of the professional rumor-mongers. Controversial topics can be discussed openly and responsibly. Finally, the very legitimate problem of treif blogs raised by Mr. Frankel does not in my opinion reflect in any way on the many kosher ones.
Our Sages tell us that "falsehood has no stability" (hasheker ein lo raglaim). More precisely, falsehood has only one leg, and its standing is easily toppled, whereas truth has two legs and is hard to displace. (The source is a midrash of the letters shin-kof-reish versus the letters alef-mem-tav.) If we really believe this statement, then we should welcome any forum that gives equal time to falsehood and truth. Shadowy rumors are the home court of falsehood; truth cannot easily compete on its turf. But blog posts give full opportunity to clarify all sides of an issue, and this gives the greatest possible opportunity for truth to prevail.
Rabbi Dr. Asher Meir is Research Director of the Business Ethics Center of Jerusalem. Rabbi Dr. Meir received his PhD in Economics from MIT, and previously studied at Harvard. He subsequently studied at various Israeli yeshivot, and received his ordination from the Israeli Chief Rabbinate. Prior to moving to Israel, he worked at the Council of Economic Advisers in the Reagan administration. Rabbi Dr. Meir is also a Senior Lecturer in Economics at the Jerusalem College of Technology and has published several articles on the subjects of modern business and economics and Jewish law.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
God, Man and Nietzsche
10:50 PM
Gil Student
- Sponsored Review -
Learn more about God, Man and Nietzsche: A Startling Dialogue between Judaism and Modern Philosophers by Zev Golan here
In a recent book, God, Man and Nietzsche, Zev Golan sets out to examine some of the specific approaches of Existentialists and both compare and contrast them with traditional Jewish texts. In chapters with titles such as "The Eternal Occurrence: A Dialogue between Nietzsche and Kabbalah" and "The Gates of Eden: God and Evil, Man and Evil: A Dialogue between Schelling Luria and Maimonides", Golan extracts corresponding concepts and approaches in Existentialism and Judaism, showing where they are similar and different, and where Existentialists may have gone on a different path had they been more familiar with Jewish texts. In the process, Golan builds his own Existentialist description of Judaism, utilizing Kabbalah in particular.
It is this last aspect that leaves me a little concerned. I am insufficiently qualified to evaluate how accurately Golan represents Kabbalah and much of Jewish philosophy. Most of his readings are deep and one wonders whether this depth is on the entire literature or merely on a single passage, thus perhaps being a misrepresentation of the general thrust due to an over-reliance on a single passage. I simply don't know. One generally relies on the scholarship of an author but in this case I am unfamiliar with the author's qualifications.
Regardless, the book is a breath of fresh air. It is written with extreme care but is not overly complicated. In the areas in which I had pre-existing thoughts, I found Golan to be accurate and to carefully avoid common pitfalls. For example, when discussing Quantum Mechanics and its implications on Free Will, Golan is careful to note that human beings do not live in the quantum realm and he therefore proceeds very carefully and works hard to make his argument viable. And his one mention of R. Soloveitchik (p. 61), regarding repentance and the future determining the past, was an insightful reading that I had not previously appreciated.
You can learn more about the book here: link
Announcements #016
10:48 PM
Gil Student
* Shabbat program with -
Dr. Jeffrey Woolf, Senior Lecturer in Talmud at Bar-Ilan University
Rabbi Stuart Zweiter, Director of the Lookstein Center
* Saturday night program with Israeli comedian Yisrael Campbell - www.yisraelcampbell.com
* Sunday morning program on Web2.0 and Jewish education, presented by Lookstein Center staff members, Rabbi Shalom Berger, Ed.D. and Mrs. Esther Feldman, Director of Information Technology Services
For more information on the program contact The Lookstein Center at info@lookstein.org
While the rebbeim and the maintainers of the web site happily volunteer their time and services, there are costs associated with maintaining the web site and organizing the yemi iyun. Donations made to TorahWeb will help us continue our efforts. The TorahWeb Foundation is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization, and all donations are tax-deductable.
* Donations can be made online at http://www.torahweb.org/donate.html *
Checks can be made out to "The TorahWeb Foundation", and mailed to:
TorahWeb
94 Baker Ave.
Bergenfield, N.J. 07621
(Announce your simchah or Torah lectures by clicking on the
button in the top right corner of Hirhurim. See here for readership statistics.)Thursday, December 13, 2007
Mezinke Dance
10:54 PM
Gil Student
The Forward says the following about the origin of the Mezinke Dance aka Broom Dance (link):The mezinke tanz, or krenzel, is a special dance done by Ashkenazi Jews at a wedding to honor parents who have just married off their last child. The krenzel, or crown, is the wreath of flowers traditionally placed on the mother’s head during the dance. The parents sit on chairs in the middle of the dance floor, as friends and family dance around them in a circle, with each person kissing them as they pass...And the Philogos from a few years ago (link):
According to Hankus Netsky, founder of the Klezmer Conservatory Band and professor of Jewish music at the New England Conservatory, the dance is a Ukrainian custom, brought to America by Ukrainian Jews. Mezinke literally means “youngest daughter” in Yiddish. For Americans, who are a more egalitarian sort, it became custom to do the mezinke for the last child who is “married off.”
As is true of Mr. Zimilover, many people who do not know Yiddish know the word mezinke from the song “Di Mezinke Oysgegebn,” which is, among Ashkenazi Jews, a favorite at weddings and a must at the wedding of a youngest daughter. Often this song is accompanied by a dance known as the mezinke tantz, in which the parents of the bride sit in the center of a circle and the wedding guests dance around them with brooms. The explanation commonly given for this custom is that the brooms symbolize the “sweeping out” of the last unmarried daughter in the family, and while it sounds suspiciously ex post facto to me, I can’t think of a better one. In traditional Jewish homes it was once taken for granted that daughters were married in the order of their ages, and any parent of girls knows — may the spirit of feminism forgive me — that, far more than in the case of sons, it is a relief from worry when the last daughter has found a mate...
And yet there is one puzzling thing about this, which is that while the mezinke tantz is said to be a traditional one, the lyrics and music of “Di Mezinke Oysgegebn” were written in the second half of the 19th century by the songwriter Mark Varshavsky, who also composed the much-beloved “Oyfn Pripetshik.” Is the dance not as old as it is thought to be? Or was it (as is more likely) performed to different music before “Di Mezinke Oysgegebn” was written? I would be curious to know.
