Debate over the Rambam's 13 Principles - Post 4

This will sound strange but I studied under R. Parnes, and I'm

acquainted with Dr. Shapiro.  I don't know R. Leff but I did read his 

review



As I see it [aisi], they are not so much arguing as talking past each

other. R Parnes and R Leff are asserting a generality that all 

Observant Jews have come to accept the "13 Principles" Dr. Shapiro 

argues that the 13 Principles as specifically articulated by the Rambam 

has been quibbled with for centuries.



IMHO - both sides are essentially correct.



The acceptance of the 13 may be summarized - for example - By Yigdal. 

Everyone seems to accept these in principle. The original version as 

articulated by the Rambam was - as I understand it - never accepted by 

everyone without at least some objections.



To Reject the 13 as understood EG by R Parnes would indeed be beyond 

the pale. To reject the very specific formulation of Rambam and quibble 

about P'rattim would probably be quite acceptable. EG Anyone who 

recites Machinsei Rachamim or Borchuni L'shalom is rejecting the strict 

construction of the Rambam's formulation. Rather, those who recite 

these have a looser construction of the 13, one that in Yeshivishe 

Circles would not be deemed a "rejection".



Shalom

RRW

Hillel's Mitzvah to Bathe

Hillel declared that he was on his way to perform a Mitzvah. And subsequntly we learn that that Mitzvah was to bathe

No one questions Hillel's intention to maintain proper hygiene as a valid Torah Value. Yet
what seems "odd" is that Hillel's proof text is a Qal VoChomer from how Romans grace their idols. It seems strange to me that we would learn Torah values, and especially legislate behaviour, based upon non-Jewish norms.

After all, the Hanukkah Rebellion was a revolt against assimilating Hellenistic ideals. It would seem that - even if Hillel's practice is 100% valid - that his "drashah" is quite radical

What say you readers?

Shalom
RRW

Debate over the Rambam's 13 Principles - Post 3

To round out your knowledge of the subject, you may wish to talk a look at Credo 13, a tv series on the 13 principles that featured various Torah personalities including Nishma's Rabbi Hecht as well as Dr. Shapiro. The series is now available on Koshertube at http://specialnishmaforumoncredo13.blogspot.com/.

Q: Why was the Hanukkah Revolution led specifically by Kohanim?

Originally published 11/19/10, 2:38 pm.
Q: Why was the Hanukkah Revolution led specifically by Kohanim?
A: Because of the gzeira of "tibo'eil lehgmon". For Yisroelim and Leviim this was bad - but survivable.  For Kohanim it meant that every wife would thereby become a "zona-hallalah" [even as an anussah] and in a single generation the k'hunah would have been history. Hence the sense of urgency - davqa for Kohanim.

- As per my chaveir R. Joel Stern.

Shalom,
RRW

P. Vayishlach - Do Shimon and Levi = Nadav and Avihu?

An Interesting Rashi notes that Shimon and Levi acted recklessly when they attacked Sh'chem - in that they failed to consult their father Yaakov Avinu first.
See Rashi, Bereishit 34:25 D"H "Sh'nei V'nei Yaakov"
That "They failed to act like sons [of Yaakov] in that they didn't seek advice from him [namely Yaakov]"

This represents an interesting parallel to Nadav and Avihu - two "righteous" brothers - who failed to consult their elders - namely their father Aharon and their Uncle Moshe before bringing an "eish zarah" into the Sanctuary.

While Shimon and Levi were only castigated and were not executed, the parallel is nevertheless worth mentioning.

Recklessness COULD have been prevented by a simple consultation with the elders that they SHOULD have consulted in the first place.

Thus, in addition to the improper behaviour, one must also factor a form of insubordination or usurpation of authority into the equation

Shalom
RRW

Debate over the Rambam's 13 Principles - Post 2

Dr. Shapiro then, in the Seforim blot,
presented a response to Rabbi Leff.
See http://seforim.blogspot.com/2007/07/
marc-b-shapiro-response-to-rabbi-zev.html


Quick Comment by RRW
Interesting take on Rambam and the Holy Names

R Sadyah Gaon saw Sefer Yetzirah; I wonder if Rambam did?

Please "stay tuned" for some follow up philosophy

P. Vayishlach - Yaakov and The Taryag

"Im Lavan Garti"
Rashi:
"V'taryag Mitzvot Shamarti"

Question: How can any ONE Jew do all 613 Mitzvot? It's physically impossible! EG How can one be a "Koheim Gadol, and a Levi, etc. etc.

The answer may lie in the Unique Nature of Yaakov Avinu. As Patriarch of all the Tribes, only Yaakov contained the DNA of every future Israelite. As such he had the unique potential to encompass every possible Mitzvah as the progenitor of Am Yisroel

Shalom
RRW

Debate over the Rambam's 13 Principles - Post 1

The present-day debate over the Rambam's Principles and its force in Orthodox Jewish life really began with Rabbi Parnas' article in the Torah U'Madda Journal and Dr. Mark Shapiro's response to it in a subsequent edition of that Journal. Subsequently, though, Dr. Shapiro expanded upon his article in his book "The Limits of Orthodox Thought" which, in turn although not surprisingly, brought forth responses itself.

One of those responses, to some extent, was Rabbi Zev Leff's article in a recent edition of Jewish Action on "The Thirteen Principles of Rambam." This article can be viewed at
http://www.ou.org/index.php/jewish_action/article/14655/

We hope, in subsequent posts on this subject, to follow the debate from this point and to offer our own comments

Qodoshim: Degrees of Separation

Originally published 11/17/10, 9:44 am.
During the time of the Beth Hamiqdash the "sacrificial cult" was a given.

Despite any "alleged" protestations by N'viim, there was, as far as I recall, no call to recall Qorbanot. Hanukkah was, in fact,  a restoration of the Mizbei'ach.
Sacrifices had been terminated with the Hurban. Aside from the possibility that there may have been a brief restoration during the Bar Kochba Revolt.
What was the attitude of Hazal to the new circumstances? Apparently, they resumed this practice spiritually via "unshalmah farim s'fateinu". This has apparently manifested itself in several ways:

1. Prayers [Amidah in particular]
2. Recitation of Passages dealing with various sacrifices EG Olat Tamid
3. Study of Seder Qodoshim and related material on Qorbanot.

Tangentially, I'm looking to quantify how much of Seder Moed involves "Qodoshim."

So after "Temple" Judaism was destroyed, Rabbinic Judaism sought to continue Qodoshim via alternate means. Even the Talmud Bavli preserved about 90% of Qodoshim while ignoring many practical Masechtot in Z'raim and Tohoroth, like Miqvaot, Yadayim, etc..
This is the first degree of separation: preserving the sacrifices through just Text and Study.

What's fascinating is that Liberal Judaism thinks that "unshalmah" can be fulfilled without any mention of Qorbanot at all. This is apparently based upon "Prophetic" Judaism. Some of these Liberals even appeal to the authority of Bavli over Rishonim in other matters. Yet it is an anti-Traditional stance in that the Second Commonwealth rejected this read of Judaism, as did all of Rabbinic Judaism clear up until the 19th Century Reformation. Appealing to Prophetic Judaism to trump Rabbinic Judaism - given a 2500 year history to the Contrary seems a bit disingenuous - wouldn't you say?
So we have the second degree of separation, evolving away from ANY memory of Sacrificial Rites and using Prayer as a complete substitution - severing the link to its roots.

Will Sefer Vayiqra be sacrificed next? :-)

Shalom
RRW

Times have changed, not kashrut laws

Originally published 11/16/10, 10:24 pm. Link no longer works. 
Nishma's Rabbi Hecht is quoted on the "serious lack of understanding of kashrut and of Jewish law" that exists in the Jewish community in this Canadian Jewish News article.

Mevazeh et HaMo'adot

Kitzur SA 104:1,2 quotes several Talmudic passages re: disgracing Hol Hamo'ed, it is even tantamount to "Oveid Avodah Zarah"

See:
P'sachim 118a
Makkot 23
Avot 3:15

The question is how did Hazal equate disregard for Hol HaMo'ed as "Idol Worship"?

My late Rav, R William Cohen of W. Hartford told us a possible reason whilst studying Masechet Makkot. That is during the early Xtian era, disregard for the Jewish Holiday Cycle was one of their first breaks with Jewish Tradition.

Thus by dissing our Calendar, they were Crossing Over [pun intended] to the Greco-Roman Calendar and abandoning the Torah Yearly Cycle. This abandonment was tantamount to abandoning Torah Judaism altogether, because had they kept the Mo'adot, they may have found a path back towards Torah Judaism

Shalom
RRW

Naaseh v'Nishma 6 - Torah Lishmah 2

Previously we discussed how Brisker methodology might make sense for "lamdut" but might be problematic for Halachah l'maaseh.

Now I will focus on the Left Wing version of academics. This is known by various names:

Scientific Method
Critical Method
Hochmat Yisra'el
Wissenshaft [W-T]

Generally speaking When W-T is used for Parshanut, i.e. to understand the original meaning of a given text, it can be seen as just another valid way of textual interpretation. It is engaging, interesting, and often enlightening

Almost ALL LW Orthodox that DO use Critical Method either explicitly or intuitively know to draw the line and do NOT apply it to Halachah l'Maaseh.

But many DO apply it to Halachah l'maaseh, and imho they are not really Orthodox anymore when they do that. They have traversed a boundary into the realm of Traditional Conservative [or perhaps into other "Liberal" streams"]

EG R Dr. MS Feldblum explicitly told me that his scientific techniques were NOT intended to undermine the "Shulchan Aruch" though many might actually use those techniques to undermine it

Similarly, Rav Dr. D W Halivni has made it a point to emphasize that we LEARN "Bet Shammai" even though it we do not follow his opinion, because it's still "Torah Lishmah" This means the same is true for RDWH's scientific method - it is Torah Lishmah, not geared for Halachic Revisionism.

Left Wing Orthodoxy since Hildesheimer-Berlin days have been OK with this system of academic theory so long as it was not applied to revise or to undermine Halachic Practice. OTOH, RSR Hirsch had his reservations and MOST of the Hareidi world condemned it entirely.

There are also several Flavours of Criticism
Higher Criticism
And
Lower Criticism

W/O going into details Lower Criticism addresses innocent scribal and printer's errors.

And there are two arenas for Criticism
1. Tanach-Miqra-Scripture
And
2. Talmud or Torah SheB'al Peh [TSBP] in general

Few Orthos - if any - apply Higher Critical Methods to Tanach.

Lower Criticism has already been applied regularly to Talmud EG Hagahot haBach and Hagahot haGRA

Now the middle cases include R Feldblum and R Halivni who have applied Higher Methods to the Talmud, which has attracted much controversy

There are also Ortho Lower Critics Bible, we will set that topic aside for now.

Yet, AISI, if one draws the boundary and uses it for theoretical purposes it should be OK for Orthos to better understand Talmud via Critical Methods. There remains the risk of extrapolating and applying it to Tanach which could endanger "Emunah"

Shalom
RRW

Haredi university program marks 5 year anniversary

We invite you look at this article from the Jerusalem Post about a program in Israel for Haredi men that teaches them skills that can be applied in the marketplace. See http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=191765.

The idea is most interesting. The question is: will it be successful? in the short run? in the long run? What do we even me by success? The real, underlying question for me, though, is: what do we mean by the term haredi? I had the same question in regard to Nachal Haredi. In a certain context, the very attendance at this program would challenge certain individuals' very definition of haredi in the same way that one's involvement in Nachal Haredi would challenge it. The extended question thus is: how will this type of program impact the very definition of the haredi community?

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Mishnah P'sachim 3:1 and Peirush Rashi There

Here is the text of the Mishnah

מסכת פסחים פרק ג   ג,א  אלו עוברין בפסח--כותח הבבלי, ושכר המדי, וחומץ האדומי, וזיתוס המצרי, וזימא של צבעין, ועמילן של טבחים, וקולן של סופרים ; רבי אליעזר אומר, אף טיפולי נשים.  זה הכלל--כל שהוא מין דגן, הרי זה עובר בפסח; הרי אלו באזהרה, ואין בהן משום כרת.

My original Problem:

See the G'mara on this mishnah daf 42b beginning "Harei elu b'azharah" When learning the G'mara above - a light went on and I suddenly realized I had not yet fully grasped the Mishnah at the beginning of the Perek.  So, I went back - Lo and Behold - Rashi subtly makes a comment which makes the Mishnah mysterious to me.

In the reisha - Rashi asserts that the concern is Bal Yeira'eh and Bal Yimatzeh.  Thus "kareit" is not applicable

While In the Seifa during the Zeh hakklall, Rashi SHIFTS to "im ochlan"
Ostensibly because the klal deals with Kareis - which is not shayyach to bal eiraeh etc.

The idea that a zeh hakklal that is summarizing a Mishnah and  is dealing with a completely different LAV strikes me as mysterious.  It suggests that the Seifa [as per Rashi] is really as non-sequitor to the Reisha and dealing with a slightly different issue connected to Kareis

OK - after 3 sessions with my Havruta we finally had a "breakthrough" and hammered out p'shat in this Mishnah.

Here are some prep Questions:

1. What does Elu Ovrin mean?
2. How do we parse The Zeh Hakllal?
3.  What Lav Normally does have Kareis that does NOT have Kareis Here

Originaly I struggled with this Mishnah as Per Rashi because I assumed one continuous text
Rashi and Rambam assume Elu Ovrin is "on these one trnasgresses "Bal Yeira'eh and Bal Yimatzei" [BY BY]

And Zeh Haklal refers to EATING Hametz al y'dei Taaroves OR Hametz Nuqsheh.. To me this was problematic. the summary is summarizing a DIFFERENT point from the Reisha.

Namley
Reisha BY BY
Seifa Achila of Non-kareis

Lich'ora Making the Zeh Haklall a NON-SEQUITUR

Rabbeinu Tam [RT] - as Artscroll explains him - resolves this entire conflict while mainiaining a unified Mishnah. He does that by translating Ovrin as transgressing EATING.   Thus the Reisha and the Seifa are congruent in that they BOTH deal with eating Hametz that is NOT Hayyav Karies - I.E. Either a taaroves or Noqsheh

My Havruta finally came up with the definitive read of the Mishnah as per Rashi- Rambam etc. Who claim that the Reisha is about transgressing BY BY

That is that the Zeh Haklal is STILL really dealing with the Reisha's case

Rather the shift to achilah begins LATER with an independent statement of "Harei elu b'azharah..."  Only THEN is there a shift. Thus, the zeh haklal including Zeh Over is still addressing BY BY.

There is a hint that the Harei begins a new thought in that the ein mishpat has a superscript "Teis" [9] there indicating that this clause starts a brand new P'saq

So here is the Mishnah Reformatted

מסכת פסחים פרק ג   ג,א

  אלו עוברין בפסח--כותח הבבלי, ושכר המדי, וחומץ האדומי, וזיתוס המצרי, וזימא של צבעין, ועמילן של טבחים, וקולן של סופרים; רבי אליעזר אומר, אף טיפולי נשים.  זה הכלל--כל שהוא מין דגן, הרי זה עובר בפסח;

 הרי אלו באזהרה, ואין בהן משום כרת

Now the Zeh Hakklal IS Congruent with the Reisha and the switch to Achilah takes place AFTER the "Zeh Hakklal"!

Shalom<

RRW

Naaseh v'Nishma 5 - Torah Lishmah 1

Previously
R Hershel Grossman [RHG] has advocated a dichotomy - one to which I also have subscribed to for a long time. Namely that Talmud is for theory and that Shulchan Aruch [and similar codes] are for practical Halachah

In Yeshivishe this is stated "we don't pasken from the G'mara"

And as my daughter brought back from Israel - if you want to UNDERSTAND the principles of a Halachah the older the book - the better! If you want to know modern/current practice the newer the book the better. Or as the Talmud says: "hilcheta k'batrai"

In the cognitive dissonance arena there are two similar illustrations. One comes from the Right-wing of Orthodoxy and the Other from Left-wing Orthodoxy

This post will focus upon the Right Wing case of Brisker Torah.

Lamdut:

Brisker Torah modernized "pilpul" and dialectic into an almost laboratory replicable analytic system. By using dichotomies such as "gavra cheftza" distinctions or "tzvei dinim in X" it revolutionized analysis of Talmud and Rambam. So far so good.

As such Brisker Torah was originally a breath of fresh air in the Yeshiva World and injected Talmudic Learning with new enthusiasm.

In this sense, Brisk can produce that "spiritual high" suggested by RHG. It sets up incredible elegant solutions that at times can make a Litvak kvell with ecstasy.

Halachah l'Maaseh:

The problem? While RHG realizes that Talmudism is not about halachah p'sukkah - Brisk ignored that boundary and produced a system that could seriously revise Halachic practice and undermine trust in Mesorah.

This comes in two main flavours

The "Vanilla" flavour is that Brisk - following the GRA - DOES pasken directly from g'mara! As such, all this new sophisticated casuistry could pose a challenge or threat to all current practice - a right wing form of revisionism.

The secondary flavour - "Chocolate" - is about embracing the Rambam for practical Halachah, something neither the SA of RY Karo nor the Mappah of Rema did regularly. Only Teimanim do this regularly. And so Imposing a Maimonidean platform for PRACTICAL Halachah undermines the entire Halachic Mesorah in Ashkenaz.
Reductio ad absurdum If you want Brisker P'saq, read Rema or Kitzur SA and do just the opposite and there you have it - so to speak!

My Rebbe "muvhaq" R Yeruchem Gorelick was an arch-brisker, but he refused to teach us Hullin. At first he said ONLY if we do NOT learn it Halachah l'maaseh. Later he even backed off from even this and went back to Bava Kama and I went to the Rav's Shiur.

He did not articulate his reservations, but imho he didn't have to. AISI - he simpy realized that applying Brisker Torah to Hullin would clash with Yoreh Dei'ah as we know it and set up a case of cognitive dissonance that he felt was dangerous for us students to deal with.

More Dissonance

The oddball in this is that several "lefty" Rabbis I that I know regularly embrace the Rambam and oftentimes the GRA - as opposed to current mainstream practice. And in a sense - Brisk is but an amalgam an embrace of Rambam and GRA.

But these Rabbis vehemently oppose Brisk. I suspect they don't mind the revisionism at all - rather they don't like the Right-Wing Political Tilt

Shalom
RRW

Media Review: Sometimes You ARE What You Wear!: By R Eliyahu Safran

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=safran+you+are+what+you+wear&x=13&y=21

Sometimes You ARE What You Wear!: The Traditional Jewish View of Modesty [Paperback] BY Eliyahu Safran

My Review on Amazon.com

Perhaps the sole criticism of this book is that the title sells the book short! :-)

This is not simply a book on "how to dress modestly" it's a discussion of how modesty [tzniut] should define our posture as Observant Jews - and also as Human Beings. Our liberal, permissive society has spawned freedom of religion and tolerance. But our lack of sensibilities and good grounded boundaries based upon self-respect have fallen by the wayside. We need not return to a stodgy Victorian prudishness in order to increase our modesty quotient.

We simply have to realize that Modesty- Tzniut is how we can project ourselves with respect and engender some awe and even a bit of mystery. Rabbi Safran's book is written in the style of musing - a reflection via a stream of consciousness regarding the "prost" [decadent] nature of our current society. It seems addressed to Young Women, but it's much more than that. It seeks to shape the thinking of parents and young men too about about what is proper and what do we REALLY want our society to reflect and to project. The disarmingly simple title would lead us to think this is a simplified halachic [legal] book or dress code. Not so! Rather it's an introspection into the internals of what what makes modesty tick

--
Shalom uVRacha
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nishma-Minhag/

Naaseh v'Nishma 4 - Quibbles and Bits

Taking RHG's thesis as true, but liberalizing it with some quibbles we can come up with a slightly different model.

In part 3:
«Women are excluded from that part of Torah which is thoroughly theoretical

Only Male Israelites are enjoined in participating in this spiritual exercise known as Torah Lishma. To RHG, any woman going there, would be evading her duties and actually undermining this function.»

Quibble
We can say that society at large indeed should not be promoting women to do the masculine thing. However, some women can crossover; will crossover; and might even be OK when doing crossing over Yet, even so RHG could be correct, this should be discouraged. This explains EG "Rashi's Daughters" etc. The hashkafah remains, but exceptions may be allowed.

Previously:
«RHG has designated this pre-Naaseh Halachah l'maaseh as "Shulchan Aruch", and the Theoretical Torah Lishma as "Talmud". If we take these designations less literally, we can both agree in principle and quibble over the specifics - which I plan to do BE"H, [that is agree with RHG's paradigm but offer slightly different applications.]»

Let's take the principle and quibble with terminology.

R YD Soloveichik [RYDS] used to say that Talmud Bavli IS a book of practical halachah. So as per RYDS women would NEED to learn that for Naaseh

RRW would say Tur-Bet Yosef teaches Halachic principles, but Talmud [nowadays anyway] is theoretical.
So Tur-BY is as theoretical as women should ever get. SA-Rema, Mishnah Brurah etc. - are probably solid sufficient Naaseh for most women.

«Torah Lishma is NOT academics, it is a technique for experiencing a Litvisher form of "hisbonenus" and produces a spiritual ecstasy. It's NOT a Torah equivalent of a PhD,...»

So when women study Talmud not for practical Halachah, BUT for academic achievement - EG to earn a PhD, it's not really Torah Lishma either and therefore might not be off limits to women EVEN if we agree with RHG in principle.

We could reason that the only area off-limits would be genuine Torah Lishma w/o any practical benefit.

Shalom
RRW

Half Shabbos, Big-Tent Orthodoxy, Texting, and eBooks

Originally published 11/13/10, 1:01 pm.
Regarding Texting on Shabbat.
To Text?
Or NOT
To Text?
What will they
Think of Next?

«... it might mean that Orthodoxy has become more tolerant of non-observance in its ranks as much as it might mean that there is increasing non-observance in its ranks. In other words, there may or may not be a greater attrition rate from Orthodox observance, but even those people who give up observance are increasingly likely to remain within the Orthodox orbit..»

For example, I've witnessed many many Orthos not fasting on the "Minor Fasts".
On The Contrary: Half Shabbos, Big-Tent Orthodoxy, Texting, and eBooks

Shalom
RRW

Naaseh v'Nishma 3 - Cross Currents

In the Introduction to this series we referred to this article -

Women and Talmud Study | Cross-Currents

http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2010/11/02/women-and-talmud-study-a-hashkafic-perspective/

Written by R Hershel Grossman. [RHG]

-------------

Here is RHG's point as understood via MY paradigm

Women are excluded from that part of Torah which is throughly theoretical

Only Male Israelites are enjoined in participating in this spiritual exercise known as Torah Lishma. To RHG, any woman going there, would be evading her duties and actually undermining this function. [Maybe RHG would say any man having the maternal joy following childbirth
would also be crossing a boundary]

Note: We may also quibble and instead say that while ALL women should be discouraged, yet SOME individual women may emerge as exceptional cases.

Furthermore, this Torah Lishma is pure theory and represents a profound spiritual experience. This is akin to the spiritual high attained EG by Hassidim when experienced musical rapture while singing or dancing.

RHG has designated this pre-Naaseh Halachah l'maaseh as "Shulchan Aruch", and the Theoretical Torah Lishma as "Talmud". If we take this designations less literally, we can both agree in principle and quibble over the specifics - which I plan to do BE"H, [that is agree with RHG's paradigm but offer slightly different applications.]

Continuing to map out My thesis as helping to offer a rationale for RHG

Naaseh includes SA and applies to men and women equally

Nishma includes theoretical Torah [aka Talmud or Torah Lishma] and is associated with men only [or at least primarily]

Torah Lishma is NOT academics, it is a teachnique for experiencing a Litvisher form of "hisbonenus" and produces a spiritual ecstacy. It's NOT a Torah equivalent of a PhD, it's more a Torah equivalent of LSD [apologies to Timothy Leary -smile-]

It's a genuine high, and maybe likened to a form of d'veiqut, although AIUI RHG is basing himself upon the Nefesh HaChaim which eschews Hassidic d'veiqut.

Thus, we have RHG's as explained by a RRW-Nishma paradigm

Shalom
RRW

P. Vatyeitzei - A Dual Mission

Rashi on the very opening verse is bothered by the question of "why the redundant verb VAYEITZEI"!? It could could have sufficed - to say Vayeilech Yaakov Haranah?

Rashi offers a lesson al pi D'rash re: how the departure of a "tzaddiq" leaves an impression

Here is another answer to Rashi's same query based more on P'shat.

"Vayeitzei" - he left to escape Esav's wrath

"Vayeilech Haranah" - he went to find a "proper" shidduch

Quite similarly

"Vayeitzei" - he left as per Rivka's Command

Vayeilech Haranah - he went to Haran as per Yitzhak's Command [and technically also Rivka's command]

While this lacks the Beautiful Hidush of Rashi's Drash, it does seem to flow from the P'shat at then end of Tol'dot

Shalom
RRW

Naaseh v'Nishma 2 - The D'var Torah

The age-old question or issue grappled with by the Midrash is:
"Why did the Israelites precede Nishma with Naaseh"? IOW how could any Naaseh take place without a preceding Nishma to know WHAT to do first? Seems obvious!

There are several beautiful nuggets in Rabbinical Literature on this. The D'var Torah as I recall was originally based upon a Malbim. But in subsequent years, I could not locate it there. So, suffice it to say I didn't make it up but I've forgotten the precise source. Anyone who CAN identify the source is most welcome to fill the gap.

What's the p'shat of a NISHMA that follows a Naaseh? It seems obvious that in order to facilitate any Naaseh, SOME "how- to" handbook is a given - whether oral, mimetic, or even on video, Naaseh presumes a pre-existing prescription. As such, Halachah l'maaseh is a predicate for Naaseh, and therefore Kal vochomer must precede any Nishma.

So the sequence is
Mitzva
Performance [Naaseh]
THEN
Nishma!

So what is the definition of that term Nishma?

Nishma simply may be defined as Torah Lishmah. In fact, it is Torah WITHOUT any pragmatic ramification!

So when we learn Shulchan Aruch in order to Observe Shabbat, that is NOT a function of Naaseh, it is a preparation, a "hechsher mitzvah" for Naaseh.

Nishma goes beyond Observance. It is deeper. It is unique to Israel to go beyond the Divine Command.

As such, there are many implications to this. Most reserved for an upcoming post

The simplest and most straightforward Implication is that Men AND women have an equal obligation in [most of] Naaseh. Thus any "Torah" that teaches practical Halachah is equally required for both genders

However, Nishma is purely a Masculine Obligation of "Torah Lishma"

-----------------

To briefly expand the question of whether this theoretical Torah lishma is merely Optional to or Off-limits to women is the subject of debate.

At any rate, this is the essence of the d'var Torah - that Torah studied BEYOND that which is a prerequisite for Performance THAT is Nishma.

BEH in upcoming posts I will

• Tie this back to the Cross-Currents article

•.Expound on some of the other ramifications

• Offer some alternative understandings of "NISHMA"

Shalom
RRW

2 Kislev - Yahrzeit of the Two Pillars of American Orthodoxy

by Rabbi Doniel Z. Kramer, Ph.D., BCC

Jewish Chaplain

VA Hudson Valley Healthcare System
***********************************************

Given the widening discussion about how wide and broad is American Orthodoxy today—I am reminded of an observation shared with me by Dr. Joseph Kaminetsky, a"H, himself an amalgam—a member of Yeshiva College's first graduating class in 1932 and the long-time National Director of Torah Umesorah, the national day school organization under the guidance of Rav Aharon Kotler, zt"l.

Dr. Kaminetsky noted that 2 Kislev is the yahrzeit date for both Rav Kotler and Rav Dov Revel, zt"l, the founding President and Rosh Hayeshiva of Yeshivas Rabbeinu Yitzchok Elchonon (RIETS) and Yeshiva College.

Dr. Kaminetsky observed that each gadol was a major builder of Torah and Orthodox Judaism in America—though with very different hashkafot and at different times. Together—the Torah that is the result of the pioneering efforts of both Rav Revel and Rav Kotler have built and strengthened and defined the breadth of American Orthodoxy.

--
Shalom,
RRW

Naaseh v'Nishma - Intro

I delivered my first official "sermon" drashah at Brothers of Joseph Synagogue
in Norwich, CT - where the Mara d'atra WAS R. Michel Geller. I gave it on Shabbat Mishpatim, 1976 Note: My topic was Na'aseh v'Nishma, Years Before R Hecht founded "Nishma"

Also note: Just last night I spent an hour with R Geller's son Sh'muel - as we reminsced about Norwich, New London, Colchester, and Hartford during an engagement party [vort]. The "small world" connectivity was in high gear and I could give the readership a glimpse into Jewish Geography but I'd prefer to focus on the Torah aspect

First please see
Women and Talmud Study | Cross-Currents

http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2010/11/02/women-and-talmud-study-a-hashkafic-perspective/

Written by R Hershel Grossman. Full disclosure: R Grossman has recently taught me some Talmud and Nefesh Hachaim.

Especially see the comments by many including R Micha Berger, the esteemed Moderator of the Avodah List.

There may be some valid disputes with RHG's thesis, but most comments are AISI really not grappling with RHG's salient point at all, and are in essence attacking "strawmen" by failing to correctly perceive his main point.

Since I too might not perceive RHG fully, I'm offering instead my own d'var Torah on this subject in an attempt to define an important dichotomy.

This dichotomy IS the essence of Naaseh v'Nishma and will - I hope - help to map out RHG's sheetah in a more accessible manner.

Upcoming:
My d'var torah from 1976 - expounded anew.

Shalom
RRW

Esther Petrack

By now almost everyone has heard the story of Esther Petrack, the contestant on the tv show America's Next Top Model who stated that she was an Orthodox Jew who observed the Sabbath yet when asked, for the purposes of this contest if she would work on Shabbat said she would. It seems that the clip that went around the Internet was doctored and she didn't really say this. In fact, she has made a subsequent statement that it was actually very easy for her to keep Shabbat while on the show and that the show was actually very helpful in arranging for her to keep kosher.
For more on this, see http://www.jpost.com/ArtsAndCulture/Entertainment/Article.aspx?id=193915.

From what I have heard about Esther, this all seems to be plausible. It seems that she is really a committed person. This, though, may actually raise what may be a greater problem. Esther did appear in a two-piece swim suit on the show which would raise questions regarding tzniut. Even though she did not do any melachot on Shabbat, was participating in this tv show a true way to spend Shabbat? I am not trying to critique Esther and, in regard to this last question, I am not even trying to say this behaviour, while not a violation of melachot, was definitely assur. My point, though, is that these latter issues seemed not even to be seen as issues. How are we defining Orthodoxy? How is the community itself defining Orthodoxy? It is the very fact that, while arguing vociferously that Esther was committed and did not violate the melachot of Shabbat, these very same people did not perceive the wearing of this bathing suit to be an issue may be the greater issue.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

You ARE being watched!

Forwarded with the Kind Permission of Rabbi Yehuda L Oppenheimer

Something Powerful to Contemplate

-RRW
---------------------------------------------

You are being watched!

Several years ago, a rabbi from out-of-state accepted a call to a community in Houston , Texas . Some weeks after he arrived, he had an occasion to ride the bus from his home to the downtown area. When he sat down, he discovered that the driver had accidentally given him a quarter too much change. As he considered what to do, he thought to himself, 'You'd better give the quarter back. It would be wrong to keep it'.

Then he thought: 'Oh, forget it, it's only a quarter. Who would worry about this little amount? Anyway, the bus company gets too much fare; they will never miss it. Accept it as a 'gift from God' and keep quiet'.

When his stop came, he paused momentarily at the door, and then he handed the quarter to the driver and said: 'Here, you gave me too much change'.

The driver, with a smile, replied: 'Aren't you the new rabbi in town?'

'Yes' he replied.

'Well, I have been thinking a lot lately about going somewhere to worship. I just wanted to see what you would do if I gave you too much change. I'll see you in Shul on Shabbos'.

When the rabbi stepped off of the bus, he literally grabbed the nearest light pole, held on, and said, 'Oh Rebono Shel Olam, I almost sold a Yid for a quarter.'

Our lives are the only thing some people will ever read.

This is a really scary example of how much people watch us as "JEW", and will put us to the test! Always be on guard -- and remember -- You carry the name of HaShem on your shoulders when you call yourself a 'JEW'.

Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.

Self-Criticism vs. Rationalizations

I've seen a number of Blogs out there that exist mostly to take Orthodox Judaism or rather Orthodox Society to task.

I'm wondering out-loud, if the Orthodox community - from left through center to right - were more self-critical, more open, more honest, and less defensive, less prone to rationalization, and less in denial - would that de-fang these critical blogs?

In other words, because, we, the Orthodox are so quick to defend, rationalize and/or go into denial over every little thing, are we unintentionally fuelling our critics? Is the law of "unintended consequences" feeding the feeding frenzy?

Maybe if we disarmed ourselves we might disarm our critics?

I guess it would be naïve to think that everyone will simply fold-up their tents and go away, but maybe the volume could be lowered quite a bit

Just thinking out loud

Shalom
RRW

Bavli, Yerushalmi, and Qorbanot

It's hard to be certain as to why Bavli and Yerushalmi included certain Masechtot and excluded others.

It's a given though - that Bavli has a robust Seder Qodshim while Yerushalmi omits the Seder entirely.

A certain "Liberal" Rabbi - R "Simcha" - has insisted in maintaining that the Bavli is supreme in All Halachic matters

OTOH he has endorsed a Siddur minus all qorbanot - because he opines that this is the sentiment of the N'viim.

However, it appears he has actually endorsed the Yerushalmi over the Bavli in that - arguably - the Yerushalmi omitted the Qorbanot while clearly the Bavli included them

V'tzarich Iyyun

Shalom
RRW

P. Toldot - Be Careful of What You Pray For, Your Wish may be Fulfilled!

Havolim: Toldos, Breishis 25:21. Yitzchak's Tefilla & Unintended Consequences. וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ ה' וַתַּהַר רִבְקָה אִשְׁתּוֹ.

http://havolim.blogspot.com/2010/11/toldos-breishis-2521-vayeiaseir-lo.html

«We see that it is possible for a tefilla to be answered even when, unbeknown st to the mispallel, the desired answer is ultimately injurious. The one who is praying knows nothing about the collateral effect of the answer to his tefilla. He is only doing what the Torah teaches- when you need something, pray. But if he davens well enough and hard enough and long enough, sometimes the tefilla is answered as he desires, and this sets into motion a cascade of unintended and unexpected and unwanted consequences.

It's like Robert Merton's law of unintended consequences. a widely quoted admonition that intervention in a complex system always creates unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes. Does this sound reasonable to you? »

Shalom
RRW

The Talmud in its Persian Context

The Persian Talmud »
Main Feature » Jewish Ideas Daily

http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/content/module/2010/11/2/main-feature/1/the-persian-talmud/m

«If Persian history can be a significant resource for study of the Talmud, the Talmud can be a significant resource in turn for Persian history.»

Shalom
RRW

Pamela Anderson to Speak to Charedim

Originally published 11/4/10, 11:08 am.
Something about this just seems to cry out the disconnect that exists in our world and specifically in our Jewish world. See this article.

Pamela Anderson, who is a strong supporter of animal rights, wishes to speak to members of the religious parties in Israel that are blocking legislation that she favours. Does that make sense? I can understand if someone who favours a certain policy wishes to speak to those who are opposing it to try and influence their decision. But Pamela Anderson? I am not denying the sincerity of her beliefs and even the tenacity and force of her convictions - but let's face it, the reason she has such a public profile in regard to this cause is because of her standing as an actress. In this case, though, that very standing could actually work against her.
So why did those who support animal rights not mention to her that, maybe, in this case, her presence will not help? Could they not see this? That is a disconnect that could explain much in regard to why things seem to break down in the legislative world of Israel.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

In the "Moment" - More On Neo-Cons

Media Watch

«Do 1 Rabba, 2 Rabbis and 1 Yeshiva = a New Denomination?

As mainstream Orthodoxy moves to the Right, a liberal faction gains momentum

The audience watches with rapt attention as Sara Hurwitz, a slim woman in a demure gray and black suit with matching hat, approaches the lectern.»

MOMENT MAGAZINE
http://www.momentmag.com/moment/issues/2010/12/Feature-Orthodox.html

Shalom
RRW

When Torah Values Clash with Political Correctness ...

- How do we respond?

See for example

NYT: A Rabbi Keeps a Couple Company

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2010/10/31/fashion/31Modern.xml

------------------

And what about this case...

http://jstandard.com/index.php/content/item/the_answers_lie_in_our_love_for_our_daughter/

My approach is..

I have no clue how to best respond to a family in conflict

Rather let's realize that the Torah can be politically incorrect on many issues EG

1. Mamzerut
2 Euthanasia
3 Agunah
4 Certain Abortion cases - in either direction
5 Several cases involving Sacrificing an individual to save many.
6. Saving oneself first over saving others
Etc.

That said - somehow there must be a compassionate way to respond - And I just don't think we need to sell the Torah's position short But, I suspect Dr. Prager did.

Shalom
RRW

P. Hayyei Sarah & Toldoth - Navi vs. Halachah

There is a story told in Y'shivot

A Hossid will give you
15 answers to a single question

A Litvak will give you a single answer to 15 questions.

Here are two related knotty problems

In Hayyei Sarah, Eliezer - "Eved Avraham" is assigned to find a mate for Yitzchak. The Talmud admonishes us that his technique involved "Nichush" so we should NOT do it. This begs the question how could Eliezer use this means to select a proper shidduch? Alternatively, how can it be that the great match for Yitzchak was manifested using such "under-handed" means?

Similarly in Toldot, Yaakov "usurps" the brachah from Esav via deception. One may not violate Halachah on the say so of a parent, so obedience to his mother is no excuse. So how was Yaakov permitted to engage in such a masquerade?

My approach is similar and simple. In each case, the alleged offense was committed under the instruction of a Prophet/Prophetess; and Scripture actually makes this quite clear on a P'shat level

In the case of Eliezer he is told by Avraham that a Malach will accompany him and that Hashem will cause him to succeed. Given this CONTEXT, his Nichush was under Divine Providence and therefore did not involve superstition or "dark forces"

Similarly, Rivka was told by Hashem [directly so - if we set aside Rashi] that "Rav Yaavod Tsa'ir." Given that this n'vuah is also in the text, her command to Yaakov is therefore that of a prophetess and not simply that of a Mom. Yaakov is therefore engaged to commit this deception in this extraordinary circumstance.

This also explains why the text juxtaposes these Prophetic pronouncements immediately prior to the questionable behaviour, in order to set up a proper context so that we would not mis-understand the dynamic here and learn the wrong lessons re: Nichush and deception

Shalom
RRW

B'nei Elokim - Machloqet Rashbi and Zohar

Originally published 11/1/10, 1:53 pm.
There is a dispute on B'reisheet 6:2 regarding the definition of "B'nei Elohim".
Are they angels?
Or
children of the "judges"?
Note: Onkelos has a third read: children of the "powerful."

It turns out that Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai comes out on two sides of the dispute!

First, See Torah Temimah on B'reisheet 6:2: Ot 2
The TT quotes Yoma 66:b regarding "Azazeil" etc. and the Rashi on that passage and then TT says it is "mashma m'forash b'Zohar."
However, B'reisheet Rabba on THIS Passuq quotes Rashbi that
«B'nei Elohim elu b'nei dayyana» and that Rashbi would curse anyone who would say they were angels [B'nei Elohaya].

This contradiction is noted by the TT himself.
The TT supports the interpretation of the Talmud and Zohar from Avot d'rabbi Nathan ch. 31 that mentions a grave sin was a lack of judges during that era.
This conclusion may be somewhat disputed by Onkelos' definition above, that the Bnei Elohim were neither children of Judges, nor descendants of angels, but children of the "mighty"

Shalom,
RRW