Sukkah Sensitivity - A Paradigm for Communing with the Outside World

Sukkah Sensitivity

originally posted Sept. 23, 2013 

Sukkah Sensitivity (c) 2000 by Rabbi Richard Wolpoe

 
One of the laws of the Sukkah roof {aka SCHACH} tells us if the shade is less than 

50%  it is invalid. And on the other hand, any thatched SCHACH that is so thick that 

rain cannot permeate is also not valid.

So the cover must be more shade than Sun, yet not so shady that neither rain nor the 

Starlight can penetrate.

This can be considered a metaphor for how a Jew should deal with the outside world.

A protection or barrier of less than 50% is invalid,it is too prone to assimilation.
It is by definition more outside than inside, it is too permeable to be considered valid 

protection. However, any barrier that does not allow rain drops or Starlight, that is so 

thick-skinned as to be totally insensitive to the outside world, is also no good.  IOW, 

avoiding assimilation does not entitle us to erect barriers that completely eliminates 

sensitivity to the outside world at large.

-->

--
Kol Tuv- Best Regards,
Rabbi Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

Facing the TWO Fronts

We have highlighted two issues facing the Modern Orthodox or Centrist Orthodox world on Nishmablog over the past few weeks.

We have noted how, mostly in Israel, the world of the the Da'ati Leumi world is pitted against the world of the Haredim.
See such posts as:

• Koshertube: Interview with Rabbi Dov Lipman
• Jerusalem - Rabbi Dov Lipman: Time To Tell The Truth
• the entire Hareidism vs. Centrism series, with perhaps a focus on Part III

We have also noted that, mostly concentrated in the New York area of the United States, the greater population of this world in in conflict with those more to the left. See such posts as:

• UTJ, YCT, etc.
• From Open O to Neo-Cons 
• Just What is Orthodoxy Anyway?

Many people may not realize that these two conflicts may respect a larger war. Modern Orthodox seems caught between two opposing forces.  The comparison to a physical war with fronts on two opposite sides -- East-West or North-South -- may be very real. The Centrist World fights one battle in one direction. And then, it seems to fight a second battle in the exact opposite direction -- and the challenge of this battle is often times not even recognized. This is not to say that this two front war is inherently inappropriate or problematic. It, though, needs to be recognized and truly understood for what it is.

To be more explicit in this regard, notice how, in either one of the battles, those fighting against the Centrists on one side are their allies in the battle on the other side. In regards to the issue in Israel, for example, in the battle with the Haredim, those to the left are allies even to the extent that some of the issues in the very battle with the left can be ignored. Centrists take offense to the idea of inter-branch relations in the U.S. as expressed by, for example, Rabbi Asher Lopatin, but the statement of Rabbi Dov Lipman regarding generic Torah study in the Knesset is still met with applause -- even though this would include the involvement of Prof. Ruth Calderon whose theological leanings would be similar to the more non-traditional branches of Judaism. The focus on the battle with the Haredim may lead to Centrist Orthodoxy wavering in its battle with the left -- but is that acceptable? It must clearly force the Centrist world to reconsider the issue on the left.

The Haredim are the allies when it comes to the U.S. issue of how to relate to Yeshiva Chovivei Torah. Centrists even take Haredi arguments to bolster their own challenges against the left -- for example, also using the term Mesorah almost dogmatically -- even though they dismiss such usage in the argument in Israel. The focus on the battle with the left may lead to Centrist Orthodoxy wavering in its battle with the Haredim -- but is that, again, acceptable? It must also force us to reconsider the issue with the Haredim.

Clearly, there are differences between what is happening in Israel and what is happening in the U.S. Arguments can be made for the differences in approach on the two fronts. The challenge, though, is whether people even see the inherent issue of these two fronts.
Do we see the wavering? -- not that these waverings are inherently wrong but rather that they should really be forcing us to truly think about the overall issues.
Centrist Orthodoxy's is now truly caught in the middle. The two fronts are battles Centrism must wage to be true to its essential perspective.  It is time that we started to recognize the true challenge of this dialectic and challenge.


- Rabbi Ben Hecht

Hareidism vs. Centrism I

Which ideologies separate the Hareidi Hashkafah from the more Modern or Centrist Orthodox Hashkafah?

1. Autonomy

Hareidim think that authority trumps autonomy. Forcing people to comply is OK, and koffin oto ad she'omeir Rotzeh Ani is normative.

Centrists see a more autonomous nature as ideal. Authoritarianism is dangerous. Power tends to corrupt.

This might parallel the same issues that divided the Roman Catholics from the Protestants.

This is lav davka black and white, just a trend in thinking.

More Later BE"H

Best Regards,
RRW

The Times they are a-Changing - Orthodox Shul opens door to Female Spiritual Leader

«"In contemporary modern Orthodox synagogues, women fill many roles that would have been unheard of just a few short decades ago," Rabbi Barry Freundel of Orthodox Kesher Israel Congregation, in Washington, said in a statement. "Women speak from the pulpit (offer divrei Torah), teach any and all Jewish subjects, respond to questions of Jewish law from within our sacred sources, provide pastoral guidance to congregants, serve in leadership capacities up to and including synagogue president and more. Even though some of these remain somewhat controversial, there is a strong body of Orthodox rabbinic opinion that supports and encourages these developments. Some synagogues who are able to do so have employed women in positions whose job descriptions include many, if not all, of these items. Nonetheless the Rabbinical Council of America, the world's largest Orthodox rabbinical organization has publicly indicated that ordaining a woman or having her serve in a position that reflects ordination is beyond the legitimate halachic (Jewish legal) limits of our tradition (mesorah)."»

Orthodox shul opens door to female spiritual leader -
Washington Jewish Week - Online Edition - Rockville, MD
http://washingtonjewishweek.com/main.asp?SectionID=133&SubSectionID=273&ArticleID=19389


Best Regards,
RRW

Was Hanukkah a Reaction to Secular Liberalism? 2 - 2 Approaches

Originally published 12/9/10, 4:48 pm.
See:

Olas Shabbos - Chanukah, 5760 - Torah.org
What does the closing of the Wolozhiner Yeshivah have in common with The Maccabean Revolt?
 Hareidi Version:
Both the Maccabean Revolt and the closing of the Wolozhiner Yeshiva were protests by Torah Jews against the intrusion of any secular culture into our Torah culture.
A "Torah im Madda" Alternative:
Both the Maccabean Revolt and the closing of the Wolozhiner Yeshiva were protests against [a Government] IMPOSING any secular culture upon Jewish Society. However, it is OK for Jews themselves to incorporate certain secular studies - so long as it is subjected to Torah-based criteria such as R Hirsch did with Torah Im Derech Eretz in Frankfort.

Shalom,
RRW

RD Sperber and the Defitiniton of Modern Orthodoxy

Originally published 11/22/10, 9:32 pm.
First see:
In Good Faith: Sperber: Less modern, more Orthodox - In Good Faith: Christianity, Judaism, Islam and World Religions - baltimoresun.com
R Daniel Sperber [RDS] laments that Modern orthodoxy is losing it's Modernity at the expense of its Orthodoxy. RDS seems to be suggesting that Modern means "change" and that Modern Orthodoxy means a revised Orthodoxy - molding it to modern times
I would counter that Modern [or Centrist] Orthodox means more about having a positive attitude towards secular learning and being friendly to the world instead of being hostile to it.
Most of the Modern Orthodox "revisions" have been cosmetic in nature and centred about such issues as using the vernacular in preaching, using Mehitzot instead of balconies, modernizing modes of dress, etc.
The thrust of the Newness of Modernity has been more about accepting, for instance,  "Kant and Sartre" in our philosophic discussions.  My supposition is that, while neither Rema nor Rambam would go for major revisions in practice, they were quite open to modern ideas.
So Modern Orthodox does not necessarily mean revising the Shulchan Aruch - not its Halachah nor even its Minhaggim. Rather it's about an "openness" instead of an insularity.
I think of the The Leaders of the Berlin Seminary or of YU as paradigms of what that means. Would Rabbis Revel, Belkin, YD Soloveitchik or N. Lamm ordain women or have them lead Qabbalat Shabbat? Yet all the above had PhD's and thought in a modern way.
As far as Slippery Slopes go, whodathunk that "Modern Orthodox" circa 2010 would go for women's ordination when the Conservative Movement split over this very same issue just 25 years ago! How much more slippery can a slope get!
Modern Orthodox does indeed reject Hattam Sofer [HS] that all change is bad. But it does not mean that it is an advocate for change either! This is a straw-man approach.
RDS: Since HS Opposes ALL change
And since Modernity opposed HS
Ergo, all change [that can somehow be slightly justified] is good!
STRAW-MAN!

One would suppose that even Modern Orthodoxy would presume all Halachah and Minhag as valid and be highly reluctant to revise, unless somehow it ran into strong reasoning.
As far as not adding heaters or other technology, we see Hassidim engaging in modern technology regularly. So while this aspect of the HS has historical interest it really does not relate to the reality.

Shalom,
RRW

Clinton-Mezvinsky wedding - Good for the Jews or Bad for the Jews?

The Clinton-Mezvinsky wedding it a topic of heated discussion within the broad Jewish world -- and rightfully so for it raises many issues that need to be addressed within the context of Modern Jewishness. There is no doubt about what must be the straight halachic response to this event; the question is really what we must term the meta-halachic response. Given the reality of this event, with all its particulars and implications, how are we to respond?

A sampling of news clips

"Clinton-Mezvinsky wedding raises questions about intermarriage | JTA - Jewish & Israel News"

http://m.jta.org/news/article/jta/2010/08/03/2740329/mezvinsky-clinton-wedding-raises-questions-and-debate

NYT:Interfaith Marriages, Like Chelsea Clinton's, Stir Conflicting Feeling

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/us/04interfaith.xml

More on this - NB comment 2 containing a range of sources opposing intermarriage

"Chilul Hashem vs. Kiddush Hashem: The Clinton-Mezvinsky Wedding, Rabbi Asher Lopatin | Morethodoxy: Exploring the Breadth, Depth and Passion of Orthodox Judaism"

http://morethodoxy.org/2010/08/03/chilul-hashem-vs-kiddush-hashem-the-clinton-mezvinsky-wedding-rabbi-asher-lopatin/

«Clinton-Mezvinsky wedding - Good for the Jews or Bad for the Jews?»

My simplistic answer:

Good for non-Torah Jews

and

Bad for Torah-Jews

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From another perspective

Viewed from the proverbial TREE perspective, the Clinton intermarriage violates numerous Halachic sensibilities
EG
• Intermarriage
• Mixed Clergy
• Took Place on Shabbat etc.


Viewed from the proverbial FOREST perspective, the Clinton intermarriage may be good for the Jews in the way that Esther's Intermarriage with Ahashveirosh proved beneficial to us


Only Time will Tell

Shalom

RRW

Kinder, Gentler Orthodoxy?

Originally published 6/8/08, 5:01 PM. Link is dead.
Article of Interest...
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

ARTICLE ADVOCATES THAT
THE MODERN ORTHODOX SHOULD REACH OUT TO OTHER DENOMINATIONS
AND DISTANCE ITSELF FROM SELECT ULTRA-ORTHODOX POLICIES

June 6, 2008 – The inaugural issue of the journal Conversations includes an article by Targum Shlishi's director, Aryeh Rubin, entitled "Toward a Kinder, Gentler, More Tolerant and Flexible Orthodoxy." The article, which is pasted below and also linked to, contends that the modern Orthodox should play a leading role in healing the rift between different denominations, and should provide guidance and direction to a much wider range of Jews than only the modern Orthodox.

Conversations is published by the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals, which offers a vision of Orthodox Judaism that is intellectually sound, spiritually compelling, and emotionally satisfying."

Link to article: Link Here

Text of article:

Toward a Kinder, Gentler, More Tolerant and Flexible Orthodoxy
By Aryeh Rubin

Since the end of World War II, both in America and Israel, Jews have been at odds with one another for political, ethnic, ideological, religious and/or denominational reasons. That different groups have divergent worldviews has been the case since Biblical times. But the competing factions today appear more hostile than ever before. The Orthodox -- particularly the ultra-Orthodox with their high birth rates, expanding schools systems, and increased political clout, coupled with a sense of triumphalism -- are often perceived as the most vociferous and intolerant participants in these internecine squabbles of our people. ...--

Potential Split in Orthodoxy?

Originally published 5/13/08, 12:52 PM. Link to The Jewish Week no longer works.
Dr. Marc Shapiro's recent comments in the Jewish Week -- See

http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c55_a9351/Editorial__Opinion/Opinion.html# have initiated much discussion and debate. There is no doubt a growing friction between the Charedi and Modern Orthodox world, yet Dr. Shapiro's suggestion that MO should, so to speak, break away from the Charedi world has an essential problem for MO. It will demand the MO not maintain one of its fundamental principles.

The essence of Modern Orthodoxy can be viewed from two perspectives. One is the specific behaviour of MO that distinguishes it from the behaviour of, let us say, the Charedi world. For example, MO is more favourable to the State of Israel. Of course this distinction is not absolute. There are Charedi individuals with positive feelings for the State and MO individuals who are more distant from the State but this distinction in behaviour generally stands. In a variety of behaviour there is a distinction between the Charedi world and the MO world and how one personally behaves will define which world he or she is in or he or she is put in.

There is though another major distinction between the MO world and the Charedi world and that is the distinction based on wisdom and authority. The Charedi world advocates for the value of authority -- thus its fostering of commitment to the Gedolim simply in their person of Gadol. The MO world values wisdom, thus even as they also have Gedolim, it fosters allegiance to these Gedolim because of the arguments that these Gedolim present to support their positions. Of course this dividing line is not absolute and, as there is value in both authority and wisdom, one may find the advocacy of each value, at some time, in both communities, yet there is a greater stress on authority in the Charedi world, and in wisdom in the MO world. (For more on the issue of authority and wisdom, see my article Authority and Wisdom: the Slifkin Affair.

The result is the following. The Charedi world has an easier time discounting the opinion of one scholar, even a great Torah scholar, outside of its orbit. What it ultimately values is allegiance to the position of its Gedolim, simply as authority and discounts the value of wisdom, per se, especially wisdom that points to an opposing position. Yet in the MO world, the opinion of even a singular scholar cannot so easily be dismissed, for the wisdom that may be found in this viewpoint is valued and desired. MO scholars study the Satmar Rav, the Chazon Ish and other similar Charedi gedolim because MO wishes to embrace the entire spectrum of opinions and gain an appreciation of the entire realm of Torah thought. As such, the Charedim can more easily set up parameters that push their viewpoint for the wisdom in an opposing viewpoint falls in the face of the authrity the the Charedi position and the person of the Charedi Gedolim. That is not so for MO. It will always see value in knowing and studying the position of all Torah scholars even those out of the Charedi world and, as such, give respect to all Torah scholars.

So to call for what Dr. Shapiro is asking really presents a problem for, in a way, it is a call for MO not act as MO.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

The Artist and the Jew

Originally published 3/17/08, 1:28 AM. Link no longer works.
A commitment to Torah and Mada (or, in the definition of Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, Derech Eretz) presents a dialectic that is to push and inspire us to new understandings. The reality and the process, though, fosters a realm of conflict that challenges us on many levels and, while, perhaps, ultimately beneficial, tries us in the struggle that we must confront. This is most intense is the struggle of the self.

Tikva Hecht, a frequent contributor to Nishma, weighs in on this issue in an article she recently wrote for Kol Hamevaser entitled "The Artist and the Jew" This article is available on line at:
http://media.www.yucommentator.com/media/storage/paper652/news/2008/02/25/KolHamevaser/The-Artist.And.The.Jew-3245120.shtml

Kol B'Ishah and Halachic Methodology

Originally published 1/23/08, 10:19 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
From the Avodah List

From: Michael Makovi <mikewinddale@gmail.com>
-----

On Aishdas Avodah, it was said, "that the halacha of 'tzarichl'hisracheik min hanashim meod meod' is based on a totally different societal basis, one where men and women by default were entirely separate, and any contact between the sexes was dangerous. Nowadays,when society is in any case so mixed, I don't think the halacha expects me (or wants me) to be anti-social and davka avoid sitting at a table where a girl is sitting."

Rabbi Yehuda Henkin comes to this exact conclusion in his Equality Lost (Urim: 1999), in chapter nine, "Hirhur and Community Norms". He asks the question, "Is there halachic justification for the relatively open interaction between men and women in much of today's Orthodoxy, and if so, what is it?"

Rabbi Henkin first examines Ketuvot 17a and Berachot 20a, in which two rabbis justify social intercourse with women on the grounds that they personally on are such levels that this poses no problem of tzniut or hirhur for themselves.

Sefer haChinuch 188 says no one today may take such liberties with himself.

But Rabbi Hai Gaon in Rabbenu Yonah to Berachot 25a, Sefer Mitzvot Katan 30, and the Ritva to the end of Kiddushin, all say that if a man knows that he himself is on this level, he can permit for himself the same sorts of acts that the rabbis in the Gemara did.

But this only permits openness for exceptional individuals; what of societal openness? The Maharshal in his Yam Shel Shlomo to Kiddushin, 4:25, says that if an individual knows that he can overcome his impulses, he may speak to an ervah and such; he also quotes the Ritva
in full. But he adds, "The whole world relies on this in using the services of, and speaking to, and looking at, women". Rabbi Henkin notes that this is in contrast to Ritva, he spoke only of exceptional individuals; Rabbi Henkin notes that Maharshal's chiddush is that "When an entire community is accustomed to mingling with and speaking to women, on the other hand, their familiarity may be relied on to forestall sinful thoughts".

Rabbi Henkin notes that Maharshal's source is Tosafot to Kiddushin 82a. R. Acha bar Ada explained his special liberty saying "hakol leshem shamayim", but Tosafot there say "On [hakol leshem shamayim] we rely nowadays [in] that we make use of the services of women". Rabbi Henkin says, "The Tosafot employ this principle to justify widespread practicess. This is precisely the equation employed by Maharshal".

Rabbi Henkin says, "It can be said that the "whole world" of modern Orthodoxy relies implicitly on this Maharshal in using the services of and speaking to and looking at women".

Rabbi Henkin then notes two additional authorities who follow this approach:
1) The Maharshal's student, Rabbi Mordechai Yafeh, in the Levush haTechelet vehaChur (Orach Chayim), no. 36. There, as opposed to Sefer Chassidim 393, he permits saying "shehasimcha beme'ono" at a sheva berachot even when there is mixed seating.

2) Rabbi Yechiel Michal Epstein in the Aruch haShulchan (Orach Chayim 75:7) permits saying Shema in the presence of a woman with uncovered hair, for although she is forbidden to do thus, and although she is technically ervah in this, this has become normal, and men are inured
to it, and he may say Shema in her presence. (Rabbi Henkin notes and vehementally opposes the common misinterpretation, that the AH is permitting women to go without a hair covering - rather, the AH is saying that bedieved, men may say Shema in her presence, but she is still forbidden to dress thusly.)

Rabbi Henkin adds a caveat: "[T]he above applies only to mingling of men and women that is innocent in and of itself. No degree of frequency and familiarity can legitimize what is intrinsically or intentionally sexually stimulating. Examples are immodest or provocative dress, erotic performances and entertainment, and other pitfalls too numerous to be listed".

A second caveat: "[T]here is no halachic imperative to introduce mingling of the sexes where it does not already exist. What we have said here is a justification of community practices, not an agenda. It is much easier to legitimize existing practices than to justify new ones. To do the latter, we would have to take into account the approaches of far more acharonim than just the Yam Shel Shelomoh, the Levush, and the Aruch haShulchan". Rabbi Henkin had indeed previously said, "We have seen then, that there exists a trend - not a dominant trend, but a trend - within halachic thought that in interaction between the sexes that might ordinarily lead to hirhur, frequency and familiarity of contact can be a mitigating factor, and that a community can legitimately rely on this 'in using the services of, and speaking to, and looking at, women', to use the words of the Maharshal".

I am no authority in this, at all. But it occurs to me that when, in Pirkei Avot 1:5, we are told to not have too much sicha with women, many of the commentators say that this is speaking of davka inane or immodest conversation, but not meaningful conversation. At the very least, they say this of the stricture against too much sicha with one's own wife, and since this Mishna speaks of one's own wife and a
stam women as equals, and one's fellow's wife as kal vachomer, then any heterim on one's wife ought to apply to a stam woman, and even to one's fellow's wife (because of dayyo). Thus, it should seem that based on this, if one is sure to limit his conversation to meaningful matters, then social intercourse between the sexes is less problematic. In particular, Rav Hirsch in his perush to Avot makes a large point of the fact that sicha is davka inane conversation. And he
never limits this to only one's wife; one can only assume that Rav Hirsch applies this to the entire Mishna. It is thus interesting that Rabbi Henkin in a footnote says, "Mixing of the sexes at weddings, social gatherings, and even Torah lectures was also characteristic of the strictly Orthodox Germanic-Dutch communities".

As an aside, Rav Hirsch to Avot 3:4 says that divrei Torah doesn't mean davka Torah per se, but rather anything (ANYTHING, even something totally secular) that contributes to a Torah-type lifestyle of goodness and modesty and honesty, etc. The parallel to Torah im Derech Eretz is obvious: just as Rav Hirsch makes a large point of stressing that secular life and matters and learning are elevated to Torah when they infused with and directed based on Torah, so too he says that secular conversations become Torah when they are regarding a life that is conducted along Torah lines. In other words: secular conversations regarding a Torah im Derech Eretz lifestyle, these conversations are themselves divrei Torah.

Mikha'el Makovi

--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

On Torah And Superstition

Originally published 1/12/08, 11:35 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
Despite the Ghetto in Eastern Europe, North Americans are even MORE likely to accept superstition as a part of Torah Judaism.

See the follow direct quote from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_B._Soloveitchik

Own criticism of his students

Soloveitchik stated that although he felt that he successfully transmitted the facts and laws of Judaism to his students, he felt that he failed in transmitting the experience of living an authentic Jewish life. He stated that many of his students "act like children and experience religion like children. This is why they accept all types of fanaticism and superstition. Sometimes they are even ready to do things that border on the immoral. They lack the experiential component of religion, and simply substitute obscurantism for it....After all, I come from the ghetto. Yet I have never seen so much naïve and uncritical commitment to people and to ideas as I see in America....All extremism, fanaticism and obscurantism come from a lack of security. A person who is secure cannot be an extremist." (A Reader's Companion to Ish Ha-Halakhah: Introductory Section, David Shatz, Yeshiva University, Joseph B. Soloveitchik Institute).

We are commanded: Tamim Yihyeh Im Hashem Elokecha - Be STRAIGHTFORWARD, don't use magic etc. It is sad how many abuse superstition in the name of Religion!

Is there such a thing as an esoteric side to Torah and to Life? Yes, but as the Rambam warns us: this is province of the select few. The masses are not intellectually or emotionally ready to tread those grounds. As the Talmud itself has warned us - four entered Pardes - only ONE left unscathed.

--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

Getting the Facts Straight about Works of Fiction

Originally posted 11/27/07, 4:50 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
Recently I posted about a misquote about a Midrash. Several people on some lists plus a friend of mine seemed to say - Big Deal? The Midrash is not literal anyway! It's fictional, legendary etc.

Here is my response:

My original post was to point out how a text got misquoted and misconstrued.
Illustrations:
If a guest lecturer in Literature were to Confuse:

1. Hercules with Achilles in discussing Homer's Illiad or
2. Tom Sawyer with Huck Finn while discussing Mark Twain or
3. The Revolutionary War wtith the Civil war when talking on Gone with the Wind

Would they be wrong because these literary classics are ONLY fiction?

Many list members seem to be Treating the Midrash as LESS than a simple literary work! It was like hitting a raw nerve by articulating the N word or something! I would suppose [I cannot say for sure] that they would be critical of any speaker for mixing up facts about a work of literary fiction but when it comes to Jewish legend - who cares if the speaker misquotes? After all it's not a historical/factual book anyway? Frankly - I do not fathom the point. Misrepresenting a text is simply misrepresenting a text...

I used to laugh at the Song of Roland for projecting a Christian -style Trinity onto the Moslems. It was so silly. Now you could ask - as a Jew who cares what the Christians say regarding the Muslims? It's just the sheer inaccuracy of it all that bothers me, plain and simple. It just seems obvious to me that people who have a passion for truth must be concerned with accurately transmitting even fictional accounts

Bottom line, good quality demands quoting the Midrash accurately as no worse than any other piece of literature. Its intrinsic factual basis is irrelevant on that point

--
KT,
RRW

A New Approach to Modern Orthodoxy

Originally published 11/11/07, 6:04 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
The latest Nishma Introspection (5768-1) is out and features an article by R' Dr. Michael Schweitzer entitled "A New Approach to Modern Orthodoxy." The article's objective is not to give definite answers to what ails Modern Orthodoxy but to open a fresh discussion on how to revitalize Modern Orthodoxy. The article is available on line at The Blog of Garnel Ironheart. We invite you to look at it and comment either here or there.

You are also invited to request a copy of the latest Introspection, which contains the print version of the article, by joining the Nishma mailing list. Click on the icon to the left to sign up for more Nishma, then just complete the on-line form.

For Those Who Don't Not Watch TV (But Still Don't Watch It)

We direct your attention to the following article:
For Those Who Don't Not Watch TV (But Still Don't Watch It)
by Nishma Researh Assistant and Stern College student, Tikva Hecht,
appeared in Kol Hamevaser 1:2 and is available on line at: http://media.www.yucommentator.com/media/storage/paper652/news/2007/10/08/KolHamevaser/For-Those.Who.Dont.Not.Watch.Tv.but.Still.Dont.Watch.It-3021682.shtml

The article raises some important issues regarding the interplay of secular society, specifically culture, and Torah. We look forward to your comments.

Sukkah Sensitivity

Originally published 9/25/07, 7:10 PM, Eastern Daylight Time

Sukkah Sensitivity

Sukkah Sensitivity (c) 2000 by Rabbi Richard Wolpoe

One of the laws of the Sukkah roof {aka SCHACH} tells us that if the shade is less than 50% it is invalid. And, on the other hand, any thatched SCHACH that is so thick that rain cannot permeate is also not valid. So the cover must be more shade than Sun, yet not so shady that neither rain nor the Starlight can penetrate.

This can be considered a metaphor for how a Jew should deal with the outside world.

A protection or barrier of less than 50% is invalid, as it is too prone to assimilation. It is by definition more outside than inside, it is too permeable to be considered valid protection. However, any barrier that does not allow rain drops or Starlight, that is so thick-skinned as to be totally insensitive to the outside world, is also no good. IOW, avoiding assimilation does not entitle us to erect barriers that completely eliminates sensitivity to the outside world at large.

KT,
RRW

-->

The Value of Orthodox Paradox - Part 2

Originally published 7/25/07, 8:23 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
The article, "Orthodox Paradox",  by Noah Feldman that appeared in last Sunday's New York Times has received much attention across the Modern Orthodox world (and beyond). I would just like to take this opportunity to add some further insights.

As expressed below, much of the attention has focused on the conflict between modernity and Torah that seems to be at the root of Dr. Feldman's thoughts. He, thereby, criticizes his Modern Orthodox education for presenting the reality of this conflict and the potential values within the embracing of this conflict but, in turn, rejecting his specific way of living with this conflict which includes intermarriage.
Dr. Feldman is wrong on two points. First, the teaching of the conflict of values within Torah goes beyond the issue of modernity and Torah. It is inherent in Torah as Torah itself teaches the reality of conflicting values. All Modern Orthodoxy has really done is highlighted the extent of the issue as Modern Orthodoxy embraces a wide spectrum of values and embraces a wide spectrum of values -- but it is all within Torah. A major mistake that is often made is that Modern Orthodoxy is embracing values that really are outside of Torah and trying to figure out how to include these values in the world of Torah. This is incorrect. What Modern Orthodoxy sees is the enormous spectrum of Torah values and recognizes the Torah value in certain aspects of modernity -- but the value issue is within Torah.
Viewed this way, one further recognizes the important second part of the halachic equation. Torah does not just teach us to see the wealth of human existence and view the world as filled with a multitude of values; it then declares a process by which one can make decisisions in this world of complexity and, yes, declare what one must do. This is what would seem to have been missing in Dr. Feldman's analysis. The prohibition against intermarriage is not just simply our method of balancing conflicting values - so clearly brought out in this article - and in Rabbi Shmuely Boteach's supportive article, "Stop Ostracizing the Intermarried", in the Jerusalem Post. It IS the Torah decision and the demanded, legal conclusion whose negation has its own consequence.
I also wonder how much the acclaim that Dr. Feldman seems to have received as the boy genius may have affected his later decisions and views. There is another dialectic in Torah between humility and proper praise/encouragement of talent. Often, we must stress the latter to overcome a negativity in the former. Sometimes we need to stress the former. The real message of Torah is that we must present both simultaneously.

Is Darwin Kosher?

Originally published 7/8/07, 10:45 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
See this Wall Street Journal article for an interesting take on evolution and Modern Orthodox thought.

In a recent discussion with some of my chevra , we concluded that TRUE science and TRUE religion - since all of the above emanate from the same God - cannot be in any conflict.

However, in the human realm, we don't really understand the ultimate truths of science yet, as we probably only understand Torah or God superficially. One day, there will live a Rambam and an Einstein all wrapped up in the same person who will get to the bottom of both realms. He will discover that when you really comprehend both Torah and science, their only conflict is semantic.

I believe it was R. Sa'adya Gaon who first posited that we will grasp the rational meaning of more and more mitzvoth over time.

Here is an example: most meforshim interpret "Taninim Gedolim" as sea monsters or whales... This is loosely based on Hirsch on Parshat Vo'eira. He asserts, basing himself on the Haftorah, that we can interpret "Tanim" as crocodile and "Taninim g'dolim" as great lizards - dinosaurs. A little bit of archaeology,  some flexible etymology, and you can point to dinosaurs within the Torah.

What is definitively true of the Torah well before Darwin is that it describes a creation process progressing  from the simple to the complex. Thus, we see the confluence of Torah and Mada as an evolving process - pun most intended.

KT
RRW

History, Philology, & FOOLology

Originally published 6/8/07, 10:28 AM, Eastern Daylight Time

A Rabbinical Colleague of mine - let's call him Rabbi Philo - posited based upon philology:

Emunath Chachamim is the Emunah possessed BY Chachamim
NOT faith IN the Chchamim!

I counter that this means the following: according to the logic above:

1. Yi'rat hashem is the FEAR posssessed by God for something else (implicit heresy)
2. Bedikat Hametz is the inspection conducted BY the Hametz itself
3. Beth Hamidkash is a house OWNED by the Sanctuary
4. etc.

I did a reality check. I consulting 18 separate sources starting from Mahzor Vitry and forward, as to how to parse the meaning of this phrase.  R. Philip Birnbaum was the only dissenting voice. He translated "Emunath Chachamim" as "intellectual honesty."

Nevertheless, I do see my R. Philo's point. Hassidim and other Chareidim have unfortunately transformed Emunath Chachomim into worship of Sages instead of simply "trusting the Sages".

That said, I don't see how  his philology is accurate. Were his peshat accurate, the phrase should be "Emunatan shel Chachamim," the Faith possessed by the Sages. I consider this not Philology but FOOLology.

However, the bigger question lingers. How can one reject 800 years of commentary and go back and give a revisionist spin on a classic text? Is this within the parameters and boundaries of P'Sak as outline in the previous post?

Is it legitimate to go back and spin the meaning in order to drive even a VALID modern Agenda?

Frank Lloyd Wright Home - Dilemma in Modernization

Originally published 5/25/07, 11: 24 AM, Eastern Daylight Time

About five years ago the Bergen Record ran a story in the Real estate section. An owner of a Frank Lloyd Wright home had a 1950's kitchen and wanted to modernize it. he was faced with the following alternatives:

1. Don't touch a thing. This is a piece of art! One cannot improve on "near-perfection." Would you "modernize" a Mozart Concerto? But, faced with this choice, how could he function in the 21st century with an obsolete kitchen?!
2. Fuhgeddabout Frank Lloyd Wright. You godda do wahtcha godda do! Just rip out the kitchen and put in a brand new modern state-of-the-art kitthcn and don't give a hoot about teh consequences. Well, that would make the kitchen more livable, but it would devalue the house completely on the market place AND destroy a part of history.

What to do?
Baruch Hashem there was a third choice. There are specialists, architects who are steeped in the traditions and the mind-set of FL Wright who can visualize how to make a 21st century kithcen in the Frank Lloyd Wright Tradition. The new kitchen will not be the exact replica, but it will be congruent with the house in general. It will be BOTH Modern and Traditional - and preserve the beauty, the history, and (hopefully) the resale value. It won't come cheap, though. Balancing the tension between tradition and modernism would require a lot of extra effort. The owner felt that this was worth the price.