Rambam: Neither a Literalist Nor a Mocker Be

Originally published 1/25/08, 3:09 PM, Eastern Daylight Time
Dear Readers:

"Yediah" quotes the Rambam re: aggedeta. Yet, this same principle may be applied in all kinds of situations - Namely that at times being naively literal makes the Torah read as silly and similarly being a mocker/scoffer and taking the Torah to be also silly albeit by means of rejection also demonstrates the lack of wisdom.

Only the wise realize that the Aggedita [and other Torah passages] are neither meant to be overly literal nor downright absurd, but are actually communicating profound truths that require reading between the lines.

Some Fundamentalists [mostly on the right but not necessarily so] are K'sillim- fools. Some cynics [mostly on the left but not always] are heretics [kof'rim] masquerading as morally superior somehow.
While those who are mattunim badin - who patiently judge the requisite passages through the lens of intelligent analysis w/o naivite and also without cynicsm will arrive at the underlying truth.

Read More:

Having introduced the literalist groups, the fundamentalists who shame the Torah with their ignorance and the mockers who jump to conclusions and accuse the rabbis of being ignoramuses,


http://yediah.blogspot.com/2008/01/rambam-on-aggadeta-correct-approach.html

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

Yitro: Emunah

Originally posted 1/25/08, 10:52 AM, Eastern Daylight Time
From the archives of Nishma's Online Library at http://www.nishma.org/, we have chosen an article that relates to the week's parsha, both to direct you to this dvar Torah but also for the purposes of initiating some discussion.

This week's parsha is Yitro. Topic is emunah, which is generally translated as faith or trust. The question of how to translate the word actually reflects an issue involved in understanding the word. Is emunah something we control or is it a natural response of one's being? We invite you to look at an article on this topic at http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/spark5754-17.htm.

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

A Different Reason for a Jewish Israel

Originally posted 1/23/08, 3:33 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
Nishma's Founding Director, Rabbi Benjamin Hecht, presents another reason why some may be in favour of a Jewish state -- and its not because it is Jewish.

For more on this, please see Rabbi Hecht's recent article on the subject in the Jewish Tribune (of Toronto). The url for this week's edition of the paper is:

http://www.jewishtribune.ca/tribune/PDF/jt240108.pdf

The article is on page 4.

The Reunion Question

Originally published 1/22/08, 1:40 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
The Yeshiva of Flatbush sent out an e-mail that informed gay former graduates that their partners are not invited to the class reunion to be held in December 2007. Aside from graduates themselves, according to my understanding, spouses or fiances of graduates are also invited to yeshiva reunions but not others such a friends. The Yeshiva was simply making the point that it does not consider gay partners to be in the same category as spouses or fiances, and thus are not not in the category of those invited

From the point of view of political correctness, this is not in line with what many would think is expected. The Yeshiva, though, is an Orthodox institution and was simply acting within the guidelines of Orthodoxy. You might still expect those who challenge Orthodoxy to voice a complaint with Orthodox standards in the same way you have non-Orthodox feminists critique the separation of the sexes in the Orthodox synagogue - but you would expect most to understand that this reflects the view of Orthodoxy and to be expected by an Orthodox institution. That is why what most surprises me about the whole matter is how many graduates of this Yeshiva are joining in the criticism of the Yeshiva's stand. Whether a specific graduate is Orthodox or not, would you not expect such a person to recognize that this is the Yeshiva being true to its Orthodox roots?

You would expect a Yeshiva to have a reception with only kosher food. You would expect a Yeshiva to ask women who attend one of their functions to dress in a manner consistent with Halachic standards. All this Yeshiva did was ask individuals to respect was Yeshiva's values. You may disagree with these values but you can't challenge the Yeshiva for being what it is. Yet, strangely, so many of the graduates are doing just this. It may be a problem with an Orthodox institution attempting to reach out to the entire community as simply a Jewish place. It's time to recognize that there are major points of friction within the broad Jewish world. Many Reform leaders are in favour of same sex marriages, for example. In stating that I am against same sex marriages. I have to make the point that I don't stand for some generic Jewishness but stand for Orthodoxy. And, similarly, Yeshiva of Flatbush is Orthodox -- it should be respected as such.

Chumra and the Challenge to the Torah Ideal

Originally posted 1/15/08, 12:58 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
I draw your attention to the following post, entitled,  "Too Stringent By Half," at The Blog of Garnel Ironheart, (I have reproduced the post below but do still direct you to this blog for interesting posts.)

"I recalled years ago eating at the Shabbos table of a man who davened at the Agudah shul in Toronto. We spoke about various matters, amongst them how hard it was to find chalav Yisroel candy bars (for his kids, me I'm a Mars Bar kind of guy).
He sighed and, in what I can only decribe as a moment of unguarded weakness, noted: "When I was a kid, we used to stop in at the corner store on the way home from school and pick out any candy bar we wanted. We never heard of hecsherim on them. Now I can't buy a candy for my children unless it's chalav Yisroel. When did this happen? Uri Orbach of Ynet notes the same creeping stringency in the ongoing commotion surrounding separate seating in public buses that service the Chareidi population. He correctly points out that concepts and ideas that even the most stringent Jews would not have thought about thirty years ago have now become normative within the Chareidi community which, in turn, is attempting to impose its standards on the rest of the frum world.
This is how the process generally works. Someone comes up with a chumrah (you've all certainly heard of the Chumrah-of-the-Week club). Many times it's either a ba'al teshuvah looking for ways to up his observance so that he doesn't feel inferior to his frum-from-birth friends or it's a rabbi in an outreach setting who has a particular liking for this crazy stringency but knows that preaching to people who know what he's talking about will just get him laughed at. But ba'al teshuvahs? They'll try anything!
The next step is that other people see these stringencies being practised and when they ask about them they receive an innocent look back: "Well, it says in the that you're supposed to." And, either through insecurity or a fear of being left behind, these other people begin to pick up the chumrah. Finally, widescale observance spreads through the community and outsiders who refuse to hop on the bandwagon are categorized as "less frum" because they don't accept this chumrah which was almost universally ignored until recently.
Now, I'm not talking about actual halachos that fell into disuse over the centuries such as shaatnez, a married woman covering her hair, or chalav Yisroel in certain places. What I am talking about is sleeves that must go to the wrist (just below the elbow is fine according to most mainstream sources) and separate seating on buses.
All these little things slowly redefine what's considered normative in Torah observance and leave more and more people who are really shomer mitzvos out of the increasing rigid group of people who believe that it is they who define what a mitzvah is and what it isn't. It behooves us to remember that a way of observance, if supported by legitimate halachic sources, is as legitimate and "strict" as any other, regardless of the external differences."

The following is the comment I entered in response to the post.

"Why someone adopts a chumra of a certain nature reflects an overall gestalt in the person's understanding of the Torah ideal. Why someone does not adopt a certain chumra should be of the same nature -- reflecting one's perception of the overall Torah ideal and the perception that abiding by this chumra would detract from an ideal. We, throughout Shas, encounter many members of Chazal being described as having a specific chumra. Two important observations emerge. One is that the other members of Chazal who did not adopt this chumra still had respect for the person who had this chumra, recognizing that it reflected a specific value that this person desired to highlight in his observance of Torah. Two, that the other members of Chazal who did not adopt the chumra did not feel that they were missing something in their religious observance thereby. They understood that this chumra was not for them and would detract from their path to the Torah ideal that they wished for themselves.
"The difficulty of this new world of chumras, besides the obvious ridiculousness of some of these 'chumras of the month' is that they envision a monolithic vision of the Torah ideal for everyone, thus weakening the real dynamics of Torah. There is an ideal beyond the chumra; in fact there is a spectrum of ideals beyond a specific chumra and we have to find the ideal that connects to us -- and that incorporates a specific individual mixture of chumra and kullah that furthers the ideal. For example, it is strongly suggested that a talmid chacham not accept additional fasts -- as fasting will negatively impact on his learning. Thus for one person, a fast is a good thing, for another it is not. A monolithic vision that maintains that fasting is always inherently an act of tziddkus in simply wrong.
"But the reaction to chumra must include a recognition of a value in the kullah towards creating a specific Torah ideal. The case of the chocolate bar is on point. If the desire to have more chocolate is simply seen as a hedonistic, animalistic drive that wants to be satisfied and the kullah is simply allowing this over a higher religious commitment to chalav Yisrael, then the chumra will win and the kullah will be seen as negative -- and to some extent rightfully so. But if one perceives a value in the lifestyle that includes the ability to have easier access to chocolate and one understands the Torah ideal that includes this value and constructs a Torah lifestyle that includes the value, one has an argument to withstand the monolithic pressure of the chumra world.
"What is necessary is not the argument that the kullah is okay too. What is necessary is the argument that the kullah is part of an overall Torah ideal that one wishes to strive for, against the monolithic and narrow vision of the Torah ideal of the chumrah world."

Comments?

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Belief, Conversion and the Mashichist

Originally posted 1/14/08, 10:12 PM. Link no longer works.
A conversion issue has emerged in Israel regarding an individual who believes that the last Lubavitcher Rebbe was the Mashiach. This individual wishes to convert and the Bais Din supervising the conversion did not know how to rule. They have passed the issue on to the Chief Rabbi to render a decision. For further info, see http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c39_a1694/News/International.html

The issue has reinvigorated the debate regarding the Mashichists, those who believe that the Rebbe is Mashiach, and whether this belief is outside the pale of Orthodoxy. What is perhaps more significant about the issue in this case, though, is that it also forces us to truly consider the whole issue of conversion. The case here concerns belief, not action This individual will be a practicing Orthodox Jew -- the question is whether his beliefs meet the standards of Orthodoxy.While that is also a halachic question, we generally avoid such issues, especially in the determination of Orthodox affiliation. Now the issue is on the table. To be Orthodox demands adherence to a specific belief system, albeit in broad in definition. The very fact that the question was and is asked is, in a certain way, more significant than the answer. Orthodoxy has belief parameters.


And this clarifies and solidifies the whole issue of conversion. Orthodox conversion really demands adherence to the spectrum outlined by these broad parameters. The essential problem with non-Orthodox conversion is that the ones supervision the conversion generally do not these belief parameters, so how can they be the ones who have to make the decision that the prospective convert does? It is so interesting that, as evidenced by this article, people can understand an issue of whether a belief in a dead Messiah is acceptable within Judaism -- but they can't seem to understand that there are other issues of belief that also can't be ignored. It just seems that we define Judaism in terms of not being Christian -- and forget all the other issues of belief that are also fundamental in describing the belief structure of Torah. Of course, if we discuss these issues we will have to confront the beliefs arguments within the Jewish world and start understanding the real challenges that are before us. That is why this case is important. It makes us think about what we believe. It is unfortunate, though, that it still can allow us, as shown by some of the comments in this article, to think that the only faith issues that we may have is in comparison to Christianity.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Launch of Yad HaChazakah

Originally published 1/13/08, 4:12 PM, Eastern Daylight Time
On Sunday, Jan. 13, the Official Launch of Yad HaChazakah - The Jewish Disablilty Empowerment Center was held in Brooklyn. As the Rabbinic Advisor to Yad, I was invited to participate in the program but unfortunately I was unable to attend. The following greetings to those who attended were , though, read for me. I now share them with you. More information about Yad is available at its website, http://www.yad-jdec.org/, now http://www.yadempowers.org/.


"First, I wish to thank my daughter Dodi-Lee for reading my Greetings and I would also like to congratulate my daughter Tikva for her work on the Launch on behalf of Yad. I am sure that this event is most glorious and it deserves to be, for the launch of an organization such as Yad HaChazakah – The Jewish Disability Empowerment Center is significant. I am truly sorrowful that my health considerations caused me to personally be unable attend today but I look forward to attending Yad events in the future as we continue to mark the success of this organization.

"I first met Sharon and Wayne Lacks over 20 years ago as I was living in the New York area at the time. Sharon attended the various weekly classes that I gave – all of them! -- as she ran about in her motorized wheelchair. Through her participation in the shiurim, her brilliance was obvious. Her energy was contagious. Her commitment to Torah and Torah study was emphatic. In the close friendship that has developed over the years between my wife, Naomi, and I and the Lackses, we have gotten to know a couple whose dedication to Torah and humanity is a model and inspiration for all of us – and it is with deep feelings of pride and joy that I am able to voice these greetings as Sharon fulfills her dream of establishing a Torah organization to empower people with disabilities within our community,.

"Empowerment is the key word – and it has been a matter of discussion – sometimes heated discussion – between myself and Sharon and Wayne over the years. What does the Torah say in regard to people with disabilities? What does the Torah say about the secular, legal understanding, and actualization, of empowerment? The answers are not simple. The Torah response to the problems faced by people with disabilities may not be necessarily similar to the responses presented by American society – but that is not to say that we, the Torah community, do not have a problem or that there are not Torah responses to these problems. Yad HaChazakah’s mandate is to identify the problems that we must face and to determine the proper Torah response to these problems. This is its unique mandate. It is committed to act – and so it shall act, but al pi Torah.

"There is much work to be done. Unfortunately, the Orthodox community, at times, has a tendency to apply objective standards of evaluation that do not truly define the individual merit of each person. We look at the disability, not the person. This demands education and Yad is committed to this end. We also, often, lose sight of the full range of sensitivities that the Torah demands of us – including being sensitive to every individual’s right of dignity. We often, motivated by a drive to do chesed, lose sight of the fact that in our giving, we can often belittle the taker. The Torah call to help demands of us to also empower an individual so that he/she does not feel the negativity of this belittlement but rather is celebrated as one with inherent value. Yad is committed to this end as well.

"When Moshe Rabbeinu is approached by Hashem to lead Klal Yisrael out of Egypt, he responds by questioning who will listen to him as he has a speech impediment, a disability. Hashem responds by saying that Aharon can speak for him. The message would seem to be that the person with a disability has to live with his/her limitation and that one with a speech impediment, in order to be heard, should get someone else to speak for them. The Sfas Emet has a different understanding of Moshe’s concern – and it is only to this concern that Hashem finally listens. The Sfas Emet says that Moshe’s concern is the people’s ability to listen. Moshe has a speech impediment because communication demands a speaker and a listener and that, in this case, he is limited in his speech because the people are limited in their ability to hear. Similarly, Moshe Rabbeinu had a similar problem with Pharaoh – one for which he always needed someone to state his message for Pharaoh. But in regard to Klal Yisrael, Moshe eventually was able to speak directly to the people without another speaking for him. The people had learned. Moshe Rabbeinu’s speech impediment was effectively removed for the people learned the importance of listening to him – they understood this importance.

"We learn in the gemara in Sanhedrin, the importance of every single Jewish life – according to some girsa'ot, readings, of every single human being. This calls upon us to help every individual to achieve their Divine potential and their singular importance. Disabilities, though, do not only exist for the one who is disabled. They also can be impediments to our ability to see this simple value of the importance inherent in every person. We must overcome this impediment in ourselves as well. This is a message of Torah – and to this end Yad is also committed.

"My brachot for the success of Yad and my congratulations are extended to Sharon, Wayne and the entire Board of Yad on a successful launch. Mei chayil l’chayil. It is mine and my family’s – Naomi, Dodi-Lee, Chai, Tikva and Razi’s -- prayers that this launch will bring Yad to ever increasing heights as it continues its Torah mission for the Jewish community."

Rabbi Benjamin Hecht

Shoot First or Question First?

Originally published 1/12/08, 11:53 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
A colleague of mine posted on a list the following:

Quoting from:
http://www.rabbis.org/pdfs/GPSprotocol.pdf
the new RCA Bet Din Guidelines

What to Expect/Do when Moving to a New Jewish Community

i. A ger, or family of gerim, should inform the local rabbi of their status shortly after moving into the community. This is especially important where a woman converted after she had children (and the children converted together with her), or, as is not uncommon, where the female converted in a non-Orthodox manner before marriage and/or children, and later converted ke'halachah. As the female children in such a situation could not usually marry kohanim, this fact would be important for them – and for the rabbi – to know. If circumstances warrant, the regional Beit Din shall indicate in the conversion document that a female convert was pregnant at the time of conversion.

He then issued the following comment [judgment]:

I'm assuming I don't need to explain how evil this is to the present audience?

I find the tone of this judgment as a bit too judgmental! (Think of it now - ironically, I am now the one being judgmental!)

First of all, there is the sin of labeling. Why use an ad hominem like "evil" in this case? I would think that "evil" is an epithet reserved for the Hitlers or the Osama bin Laden's of the world...

But even if this is indeed evil:

1. Why not post:
   I find this evil - how about you?
2. Or perhaps even a bit less offensive:
   Isn't this evil? Or am I missing something here?
3. Or maybe a bit LESS strident:
   This type of statement seems to lack good judgment. It comes across to ME as offensive and I am sure to many others!

Why do people need to jump to conclusions?

Is it really better to shoot first and ask questions later -
or
Perhaps is it better to ask questions first and then only shoot later on ONLY when REALLY necessary?

E.G.: Why not check WHY the RCA issued these guidelines, and do research to see if they have a valid agenda and Halachic considerations? If this indeed lacked the proper due diligence in substance or form, THEN tell them privately FIRST before going public?
-

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

Launch of Yad HaChazakah - The Jewish Disability Empowment Center

Originally published 1/12/08, 6:41 PM.
On Sunday, Jan. 13 at 11:00am, Yad HaChazakah marks its official launch in Brooklyn. More details are available at www.yad-jdec.org, now http://www.yadempowers.org/.

As the Rabbinic Advisor to Yad, I invite you to attend this event marking the establishment of an important Torah organization.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Re: [Avodah] Prohibition of Eating Blood

Originally published 1/10/08, 11:52 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
From our Friend, Richard Wolberg:

On Jan 10, 2008 6:47 PM, Richard Wolberg,  cantorwolberg@cox.net, wrote:

It is interesting to note that with modern forensic medicine we have found that once the slightest amount of blood is left on any object, there is no way of removing every trace of it. There is a substance called luminol. Luminol is a versatile chemical that exhibits chemiluminescence, with a striking blue glow, when mixed with an appropriate oxidizing agent. It is a white to slightly yellow crystalline solid that is soluble in water and most polar organic solvents.

Luminol is used by forensic investigators to detect trace amounts of blood left at crime scenes. It is also used by biologists in cellular assays (tests) for the detection of copper, iron, and cyanides . There is no way in which one may eliminate every trace of blood once it has appeared.

It would seem to me that perhaps the prohibition of blood centers around the fact that the tum'ah it conveys can never be fully eliminated.

I see a parallel between the paradox of the ashes of the para aduma and blood. As the ashes can render someone tahor who is tamei, and someone tamei who is tahor, likewise, without blood already inside of you, you would die. And conversely taking blood from the outside in, will cause a spiritual death.

ri

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

Parsha: Hayei Sarah

This came from the Morasha list:

This past Shabbat, totally out of the blue, a congregant came up to me and asked me a question. Apparently I must have missed that class, because I did not know the answer. Forgive me as I post my ignorance, but as I do not have the answer, I turn to you...

When Sara hears that she will become pregnant, her response includes the fact that she says Abraham is old- the implication is that he is not exactly the stallion he may have been in his younger years.

Much later on, we discover that Abraham has married Ketura and had more children. How did he do it?

---A Morasha member

Here are 2 approaches:

1. Both Abraham and Sara had a rebirth/rejuvenation [reJEWvenation?] when their names got changed. A Convert is like a newborn [ger shinisgayer kekatan shenolad dami]
   
   
2. Ein mukdam um'uchar batorah. This story is out of sequence and it is simply catching up with old news that Abraham HAD Had in the past taken another wife named Keturah. This passage is a flashback to when Abraham "sowed" his wild oats and it is put here in juxtaposition to Abraham designating Isaac as his successor [to the exclusion of Isaac's half-siblings] before Abrahma's own death.

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

Is There a Unique Torah Understanding of Morality

Originally published 1/6/08, 10:43 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
I recently read an article on good and evil that I found in the Dec. 3 edition of Time magazine. As I read the article, I found that I had somewhat of an issue with the very definition of good and evil. The article never really defined it but it clearly presented a view of what it thought was good and evil. My problem with the article, though, was that I felt that I had a different definition as a result of my Torah studies. This led me to a question I posed in a Nishma publication many years ago:
Is There A Distinctive Jewish Ethical Perspective?
( See http://www.nishma.org/articles/update/update5755-2.htm#PERS)

What do you think?

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Do Scientific Paradigm Shifts Impact Halachic realities?

Originally posted 12/30/07, 7:20 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
Do scientific paradigm shifts impact Halachic realities?

On Dec 25, 2007 7:04 AM, Richard Wolberg cantorwolberg@cox.net
wrote on the Avodah List:

What I find most interesting is that the Gemara believed in spontaneous generation which has been scientifically disproven as the world was proven not to be flat. What I find to be ironic and paradoxical is that only God can create something from nothing. You would think this would have occurred to the great minds of the Talmud. True, their argument could conceivably have been that God put that law into motion, but it still could have raised a red flag. The following came from a link given in a previous discussion by Reb Micha [Avodah's Moderator]:

See http://www.aishdas.org/book/bookA.pdf

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

"It was frustrating" : The Rabbis Who Quit Shul

Originally posted 12/30/07. Link no longer works.
I received this from a rabbinical colleague:
There is an article in the Jewish Chronicle (England) that we all would do well to read...

I was about to go into the a shul meeting”, a rabbi recalled, “when a senior board member turned to me and said ‘You might be the rabbi, but remember I’m paying your wages. Make sure that you agree with everything I say’.”...

For the rest see:
http://jchron.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m13&SecId=13&AId=57017&ATypeId=1

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

Being Thankful Can Change the Way We see Ourselves and the World

Originally published 12/29/07, 11:08 PM, Eastern Daylight Time. This link no longer works.
From a Student/Talmid where I teach - Visit:
http://www.jewishaz.com/issues/story.mv?071116+thankful
to read the story.

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

Is Religious Zionism Racism?

Originally published 12/25/07, 11:54 AM, Eastern Daylight Time
Recently, the Blogger News Network featured a piece by Shimon Z. Klein entitled "Religious Zionism is Racism". See http://www.bloggernews.net/112424.

In Canada, free medical services are available to people who need them, but a person has to be a Canadian citizen or meet certain legal requirements under the immigration laws. That is discrimination. Some poor person from Central America who happens to be in Toronto can die from a disease for which a Canadian citizen will get free medical treatment. The fact is that distinctions exist between peoples based on a variety of criteria including nationalism, IQ, beauty, family, etc. The charge of racism cannot be simply thrown out because there are distinctions made between people. The challenge is to define the distinctions that are problematic, i.e. racist, and those that are not. This demands further definitions.
For example, are the territories won after the Six Day War occupied or liberated? Is it Jewish land that was taken from us close to 2000 years ago that we finally got back or are they new conquered land? Does the fact that we were exiled 2000 years ago, rather than yesterday, change the situation? How do we deal with those who started to live on this land in that past 2000 years? These are the questions we need to address -- but to do so one has to work on the definitions and confront the issue of language and differing definitions. In reading this article, I just found someone who really doesn't get the depth of the situation.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Incredible Shoah Story

Originally published 12/23/07, 2:00 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
Someone recently wrote me with the following story, asking me for the Halachic response. I thought I would throw it out to the blog to see what others may say as well.

A very close friend of one of my dearest friends recently went to a wedding in New Jersey. A Jewish wedding. Before the ceremony both families were on the stage or bima. The parents of both children had met before, although I'm not sure how many times, but the grandparents, who are all alive and in their 80's, had never met before. The grandfather of one of the children getting married who had been looking and looking at the grandmother of the other child, finally says to her, "you were my wife". There was silence and he says again, "you were my wife". After talking to each other they confirmed that they indeed were married. They were married very young in Eastern Europe, had no children and were taken by the Nazis and put into concentration camps where they were separated. Both looked for each other after WW2 ended, but each thought the other was dead. Since all of their relatives had been killed, they had no one to check with and records were terrible. Sixty plus years later after they had moved to the United States and had families of their own, there they were, sitting on a stage watching the grandchildren of their new families getting married to each other and once again becoming family.

I will present my thoughts on this case in a later comment.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Teddy Bears, Reverence and Affection

Originally published 12/18/07, 3:41 PM, Eastern Daylight Time. Note: link no longer works.
The events surrounding the teddy bear named Mohammed truly identifies how some people view their religion and their deity. In many ways, it shows that you cannot just dismiss this form of Islamic fundamentalism as a blip on the horizon but truly reflects a theological position albeit one that we may think is flawed.

For more on this, please see the article on the subject that I recently wrote for the Jewish Tribune in Toronto. The url for this week's edition of the paper is:

http://www.jewishtribune.ca/tribune/PDF/jt201207.pdf

The article is on page 5.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Why we don't hear all the news?

Originally published 12/13/07, 7:31 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
A friend of mine set me the following link, asking me why I had not written about it

I answered that I had not even heard of it. Between the two of us, that became the real question: why are these events not reported in our local media?

The story was about a baby that was used in a suicide bombing. Is that a surprise? Well, if one considers the frame of reference of the suicide bomber, one could see how a person could actually think that he/she is doing the baby a great favour, through purchasing them a ticket to heaven. That, in itself, raises many issues and matters to consider. While it is important to know the thought processes of those who wish to harm us, it may be more important to know why people ignore these realities. A suicide bomber is a suicide bomber; at least we know what we are dealing with. Hiding the truth and describing these people incorrectly, though, may extend the potential harm, for we thereby hide the truth.

The question is: why not tell the whole story?

Rabbi Ben Hecht

The Irony of Chanukah

Originally published 12/9/07, 12:48 PM, Eastern Daylight Time
In the Nishma Spark of the Week 5754-11, I wrote:

"...It, therefore, is most bizarre that of all the holidays of the Jewish calendar, the one that has been most influenced by the forces of the galut that surrounds us is Chanukah..."

(See http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/spark5754-11.htm for the full article)

Chanukah celebrates the victory of the Maccabees over the Hellenists, the victory of Torah over the forces of assimilation. Is it not ironic, therefore, that the most assimilated of the Jewish holidays is Chanukah? Ever think about it? People who don't celebrate many of the major Torah holidays seem to get into the "Chanukah spirit." Do you think that has something to do with the external influences that suround this time? What about the way in which Chanukah is celebrated, a bit of external influence there as well would you not say? Let's go beyond the holiday. Is there anything more ironic than the fact that the "Jewish Olympics" are called the Maccabiah?

The Spark concerns these issues, but in a larger way opens a whole new discussion on assimilation. That is what Chanukah is about. Your comments?

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Our hearts are in the East: a post-Annapolis reflection

Originally published 12/4/07, 12:11 AM, Eastern Daylight Time.
Posted with permission of the author Douglas Aronin.
daronin@prodigy.net

Regards,
RRW

"My heart is in the East, and I am at the end of the West." These well-known words of Yehuda Halevi, the medieval Jewish philosopher and poet, are an apt description of the pain of exile. Over the centuries, the identity of the West has changed -- as I sit in New York today, the Spain from which Yehuda Halevi wrote doesn't seem so far west anymore -- but the meaning of the East has remained constant. Jewish bodies may be in many places throughout the world, but the heart of the Jewish people is in Jerusalem.

There are places more distant from Jerusalem in geography, but in concept the farthest west last week was Annapolis, Maryland. There, on the grounds of the United States Naval Academy, representatives of Israel, the titular leadership of the Palestinian Authority, most Arab countries and an odd agglomeration of others (can someone explain to me what Senegal was doing there?) came together in a meeting/ summit/ conference/gathering (choose your own nomenclature -- the assembled representatives had trouble agreeing even on that) aimed at trying once again to find a viable foundation for real peace between Israel and the Palestinians. They didn't fail -- at least not yet -- but it requires a willful naiveté to call the results of their efforts a success. And one of the most important tactics that the participants at Annapolis used to avoid outright failure was to keep Jerusalem as far away from their minds, and especially their mouths, as possible.

Yes, I know. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas solemnly agreed at Annapolis that Jerusalem would be one of the issues to be discussed in the course of final status negotiations, which they promised that they will try to complete by the end of 2008. But promising to talk about Jerusalem is one thing, and agreeing on what to do about it is something else entirely. So for those seeking to make their own naiveté contagious, an important task in the months ahead will be to promote widespread amnesia about Jerusalem -- not only about its significance to the Jewish people throughout history but also about its current status as an almost certainly insurmountable obstacle to a negotiated peace agreement.

Anyone listening to the torrent of words, official and otherwise, that have flowed since the Annapolis gathering ended, can surely see the beginning of that amnesia promotion project. Not only political leaders and their official and unofficial spokesmen, but also many luminaries of the punditocracy, have sought to frame the negotiating process ahead in a way that ignores or at least downplays the centrality of Jerusalem as an issue. One op-ed in last week's Forward, though of no great significance in its own right, so well exemplifies the tenacity of those promoting Jerusalem amnesia that it deserves a closer look.

The op-ed in question was written by Daniel Levy, who is identified as a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and the Century Foundation, and who served in some unspecified position in the office of Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Levy's piece takes as a starting point the fact that last week also marked the sixtieth anniversary of the UN General Assembly's adoption of Resolution 181, which in 1947 sought to partition what was left of mandatory Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. As is well known, the Zionist leadership under David Ben Gurion, though far from happy with the contemplated borders of the proposed Jewish state, accepted the partition plan, but the Arabs preferred war.

Levy's op-ed takes note of the fact that the partition plan would have given Israel 55% of western Palestine while the Arabs would have received 45%. (He doesn't mention, of course, that eastern Palestine, which was originally part of the mandatory territory, had been separated out by the British in 1922 to create the Emirate of TransJordan, which today is the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.) By contrast, a complete withdrawal to the 1967 lines (including, he specifies, East Jerusalem, his only mention of Jerusalem in the entire piece) would give Israel 78% of that territory and the Palestinians only 22%.

From Levy's perspective, this plan appears to be a no-brainer. Is Israel really prepared to pay the price of continued conflict, he asks, "in order to edge the percentage we can call ours from 78% to, what, 80% or 81%?" To him, apparently, one acre is the same as another, whether in the Negev or on Har HaBayit (the Temple Mount). Jerusalem? What's Jerusalem?

It's precisely because they understand that amnesia is Jerusalem's enemy that a group of organizations -- including several right-wing Zionist groups and much of the institutional Orthodox Jewish leadership, as well as one Christian organization -- have come together to create a coalition that they call the Coordinating Council on Jerusalem. Its purpose, according to its website, is " to use all educational, diplomatic, political and other legal means to ensure that Jerusalem remains intact, secure, undivided and under Jewish sovereignty." Apparently spearheaded by the Orthodox Union, by far the largest Orthodox organization in the US, the CCJ has called on the Israeli government to take the sovereignty of Jerusalem off the table.

The CCJ is not the only locus of concern about the status of Jerusalem. Agudath Israel, the primary institutional address of the chareidi community, has not joined that coalition, but its convention (coincidentally held less than a week before Annapolis) passed a resolution expressing concern about the possibility of ceding any part of the Holy City to Palestinian sovereignty. And Jerusalem's mayor, Uri Lupoliansky, who was in the US to speak at the Agudath Israel convention, took advantage of his visit's timing to warn persistently about the danger of contemplating the redivision of Jerusalem.

Among the unreconstructed supporters of the "peace camp," the focus of attention on Jerusalem is unwelcome, to put it mildly. Steadfast peacenik Leonard Fein, in his weekly column in the Forward, attacks the CCJ's call to take Jerusalem off the table because "if Jerusalem were to be taken off the table there would be no negotiations at all." The Forward's editorial page makes its position on Jerusalem chillingly clear, stating that "when peace comes, Israel will have to make a deeply painful concession in Jerusalem, and the Palestinians will face an equally painful compromise on refugees." To the Forward, in other words, the ultimate peace deal would be for Israel to give up all claim to the eastern part of Jerusalem in return for the Palestinian concession that the Palestinian refugees' "right of return" will have to be limited to the new Palestinian state.

Is the Jewish future of Jerusalem really at risk? Unfortunately, the answer to that question may depend mostly on the Palestinians. If Abbas is able to take the interim steps required by the Roadmap, particularly serious steps against terrorism, and if the Palestinian leadership is willing and able to concede on the refugee issue, then Jerusalem would become the make-or-break issue, and the pressure on Olmert to give half the city to the Palestinians would be enormous. But given Abbas's political weakness, and with Hamas controlling Gaza, those two conditions will be tough ones for him to meet.

Back in 2000, when then Prime Minister Ehud Barak seemed desperate to give away the store, Palestinian terrorist-in-chief Yasir Arafat saved the day by storming out of Camp David instead of making a counter-offer. Abbas is nowhere near as popular among his people as Arafat was, but he may be more politically astute and thus better able to manipulate events to make Olmert seem like the bad guy when the negotiations break down, as they are likely to do. Jerusalem was so far down on Barak's list of priorities that he had to be briefed on the city's historical and religious significance. But one need not be a fan of Olmert (does he have any fans these days?) to recognize that he would have trouble even feigning Barak-level ignorance about Jerusalem; before becoming a minister in Ariel Sharon's government, after all, Olmert served for a decade as the city's mayor.

In an interview with the Jewish Week, Mayor Lupoliansky (who succeeded Olmert) acknowledged that Olmert's current intention is to limit concessions on Jerusalem to peripheral Arab neighborhoods like Abu Dis, many of which have been added to the municipality since 1967. But that doesn't give the mayor much comfort because he is "afraid about the influence of the world." If negotiations reach that point, he fears, the pressure on Olmert will be too great to resist.

He has a point. There are an awful lot of people out there -- including many whom we don't necessarily see as enemies -- who will automatically blame Israel for the failure to sign a peace treaty by the prescribed deadline, regardless of why the talks break down. Take New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, for example. (Please!) On Wednesday, the day after Annapolis, she wrote a column devoted to attacking the Bush administration for waiting so long to begin focusing on the Palestinians. In the middle of that column is this gem: "W. couldn't be bothered to stay in Annapolis and try to belatedly push things along and guide Israel with a firmer hand."

Guide Israel with a firmer hand? The negotiations haven't even started yet, but already Maureen Dowd "knows" that Israeli obstinacy will be the primary obstacle to be overcome. Never mind that the Palestinian Authority has failed to keep the commitments it made in Oslo. Never mind that it was Arafat who scuttled the proposed agreement in Camp David II. Never mind that Gaza is under the control of a group that doesn't even pretend a desire to live in peace with Israel. If peace is to come, Dowd and others of her ilk will tell you, it is Israel who must be pressured for more concessions.

On one level, unfortunately, she's right. Abbas can't make significant concessions and expect to live to the end of his presidential tenure. If anything resembling a peace agreement is to come out of this process, it will require Israel to pile one concession on top of another on virtually every disputed issue -- including, of course, Jerusalem.

So the amnesia promotion project has already begun. Not only the Palestinians and their Arab backers but supporters of the "peace process" in Europe, in the US and even in Israel itself want us to develop amnesia when it comes to Jerusalem. They want us to be so dazzled by the prospect of something that can be called, however tenuously, a "peace" agreement that we will forget both the centrality of Jerusalem to the Jewish people and the repeated proclamations of every Israeli government since 1967 that Jerusalem will never again be a divided city.

But we can't forget. Long ago, by the rivers of Babylon, our ancestors made a pledge that binds us still: "If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither; let my tongue stick to my palate if I cease to think of you, if I do not keep Jerusalem in memory even at my happiest hour." (Psalms 137:5-6, JPS translation)

Douglas Aronin

Recent Poll Results re: Original Purpose of Torah

Originally published 11/30/07, 1:16 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
Our recent poll produced the following Results:

For Which Principle Purpose Did God Give the Torah to Israel?

1. To Provide a Common Historical Narrative 0 (0%)
2. To Bring About the Messiah (4%)
3. To Justify Israel's Right to its Homeland 0 (0%)
4. To Provide a Basis for Humans to Relate to God 11 (50%)
5. To Provide a Roadmap for Self-Perfection 2 (9%)
6. To Provide Israel with a Constitution 0 (0%)
7. To Promote a Just and Holy Society 6 (27%)
8. To Provide a Text for Religious Instruction (4%)
9. To Make Israel Unique (4%)

As I see it, [aisi] the original purpose is stated in the Torah itself, just before the giving of the so-called "10 commandments". I construe this as analogous to the US Constitution's Preamble.

Can any0ne "guess" as to which verse I refer?

KT,
RRW

Vayeishev: What is Morality?

Originally published 11/30/07, 1:08 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
From the archives of Nishma's Online Library, we have chosen an article that relates to the week's parsha, both to direct you to this dvar Torah but also for the purpose of initiating some discussion.

This week's parsha is Vayeishev. The topic is the nature of morality. Does morality have its own inherent value or is it simply defined by the Will of God?

The story of Yehuda and Tamar begs this question. How are we to understand why a tzaddik, such as Yehuda, went to a prostitute. Was he coerced by the Divine? Or was there no problem, as prostitution was not forbidden until Sinai? Was it still immoral? What is morality? Nishma Spark of the Week 5754-10.

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

How Kosher Was Your Turkey?

D's note: originally published 11/27/07, 12:13 AM, Eastern Daylight Time. Note: Link is obsolete.
How Kosher Was Your Turkey?

Some Jews Demand Better Treatment for Birds

By JULIE WIENERwsj November 23, 2007; Page W11

Yesterday, 24 New York City households served turkeys that were not only free-range, organic and raised on a nearby family farm -- but also 100% kosher. For that, their guests can give thanks to Simon Feil, a 31-year-old actor who has devoted the past 1½ years to starting Kosher Conscience, a "kosher ethical meat co-op." The co-op, which 90 people have expressed interest in joining when it begins regular poultry and beef deliveries in a few months, will offer kosher meat that has been treated humanely "at every stage," he says.

Judaism's taboos on pork and shellfish, as well as the requirement to separate meat and dairy products, are well known even among gentiles. Yet for many contemporary American Jews the taboos can feel arbitrary, cumbersome and devoid of meaning (only 17% say they keep kosher homes). At the same time, some Jews who do find spiritual meaning in the dietary laws have become frustrated that kosher food production does not always reflect their values.

For the remainder of this article see:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110010896

Learning Hashkafa from the Gemara

Originally published 11/22/07, 7:02 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.Link no longer works.
How does one learn haskafa in and from the gemara? We are often instructed in how to learn, but generally we are taught how to approach a sugya connected to Halacha. How, though, are we to learn a sugya in Hashkafa? The question is often more difficult in regards to deriving the philosophical concepts of the Talmud properly, for how do we further analyze whether we are truly understanding what the gemara is saying or whether we are just reading it into our own philosophical perspectives?

Tikva Hecht, a frequent contributor to Nishma, weighs in on this issue in an article she recently wrote for Kol Hamevaser. entitled "A Hebrew Beyond Hebrew." This article is available on line at:
http://media.www.yucommentator.com/media/storage/paper652/news/2007/11/05/KolHamevaser/A.Hebrew.Beyond.Hebrew-3079234.shtml.

We welcome your comments here both on Tikva's article and the general issue of how to properly derive philosophy from the Talmud

History, Fires and Da'as Torah

Originally published 11/20/07, 6:45 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
See http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/shoah/03shoah.htm

If, on the other hand, our faith in the sages must be unequivocal, as Rabbi Dessler argues, then it is impossible for them to be mistaken. Therefore, there is no need to defend them on the level of historical analysis. This leads to the far-reaching conclusion that religious leadership has the all-encompassing authority to issue instruction in all matters pertaining to reality and history, but they are exempt from any criticism – including, apparently, even self-criticism.

So why did Gedolim back off from advocating duchening in the face of a few fires? If their p'sak is correct, then they are correct! Wouldn't Lo bashamayim hi preclude factoring in heavenly messages in the contemplation of the p'sak?

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

Vayetze: Reflecting upon Quality Control

All things considered. It is a wonderful thing to live in a Free Society here in North America. People are free to talk and say what they want. Unlike Driving an automobile, there is no license required, just find yourself a soap-box and speak away.

One of the consequences of this freedom is that since anyone may say anything, and speech is therefore 'free" you sometimes 'get what you pay for it!"

Upon reflection, I realize lately how much absolute nonsense can be passed off as "Torah". Perhaps more insidiuous, how many inaccuracies are passed off by speakers as 'fact" when they are really misquotes or half-truths.

Background

I worked many years in data processing. Usually some sort of quality control went into a product – such as a program, a design, or even documentation. Rarely was something written without texting or without some kind of peer review. At any rate, most errors were readily discovered by users, often accompanied by embarrassing results.

Illustrations

One of the early mis-steps I heard years ago. A member of my old Congregation [viz. COS] would fill me every Friday night on our way home from shul. He attended a local parsha class and would share with me some of the thoughts of the weekly speaker. This one week, he told me a D'var Torah re: Vayetze that it was the ONLY Weekly Sidrah that had no [i.e. zero] Parsha breaks. I exclaimed: "That is no true! Parshas Mikketz ALSO has zero parsha breaks!" FWIW, Mikketz was my friend's own bar-mitzvah Sidrah! The D'var Torah would have probably worked even if were not the ONLY exception but I was disappointed that the speaker was not more meticulous with his facts.

Fast Forward to this past Friday Night. The speak said an excellent D'var Torah all around, but at the end he inserted a very mis-leading interpretation. He stated [as per Rashi who quotes the Midrash Rabbah] that Vayishkav Ya'akov bamakom hahu meant Ya'akov had not slept his entire 14 years at Yeshivas Sheim vo'ever. I corrected the speaker later on, in private. I explained that Rashi/Midrash meant he had not "LIED DOWN to sleep" not that in fact had never slept! The implication is quite far different. Never sleeping for x number of days is an impossibility as per the Gmara re: Nedarim. OTOH, not lying down for a period of time merely presents Ya'akov as an ascetic not as a magician! After all, my own rebbe, R. Moshe Heinemann related to us that he slept in a sofa-chair for a period [a year or so?] whilst attending Lakewood. Sleep - Yes; lying down - No. Today, I confirmed that the Midrash Rabbah Hamevo'ar specifically interprets lack of Shechiva as meaning he did not lie down in a bed any sheinas keva. This can be further confirmed by the lack of Midrash on Vayalen SHAM. Point? A story of Ya'akov's p'rishus and hasmaddah is changed to a kind of Hassidic miracle story by lack of attention to the details!

But I'm not off MY soap box yet! In another faulty transmission, a noted Rav and Talmid Chacham was discussing the reading for Shabbos Hol Mamo'ed Sukkos. In his speech, he claimed that unlike the first luchos, Moshe himself WROTE the second set! Well the passuk says: "Pesal LECHA … v'chaszvTI" that God tells Moshe to CARVE the Luchos and God will write the 2^nd set! I avoided correcting this rabbi because I had corrected him in the past and I did not wish to become a pest! But it is a shame the his audience may be unaware of his transmission error.

I was just informed a few hours ago that yesterday someone in gave a D'var Torah that the argument between Ya'akov with Shim'on/Levi was that Ya'akov was in favor of assimilation while Shim'on/Levi were opposed. Even the audience found that one shocking! While we can question Dinah's motives "lir'os bivnos ho'oretz" as possibly wanted to assimilate local fashion into her wardrobe, attributing assimilation to Ya'akov himself is quote a stretch.

Conclusions

Maybe Torah Authors and Speakers should have their writings go through quality control first. In the meantime, caveat emptor.

--

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

The New Challenge of Atheism

Originally published 11/17/07, 6:07 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
Rabbi Ben Hecht:
The following link is to post on another blog by a former Orthodox rabbi who has become a secular humanist:
http://littlefoxling.blogspot.com/2007/11/guest-post-from-david-gruber.html
When this link was first forwarded to me, I was actually looking forward to reading it. Atheism is now all over the news. Books are being written declaring that it is new frontier in human understanding. For Torah Jews, it is the new challenge that must be faced and so it is our call to read such presentations as this one. The famous statement from Pirkei Avot, dah mah she'tashiv l'apikoprus, "know what to respond to a heretic, is to me more that a call to know how to defend the faith. In knowing how to respond to the heretic, one actually gains a better understanding of Torah for, in clarifying principles and concepts in order to respond, one gains further knowledge of it.

Unfortunately, I was somewhat disappointed. He really doesn't say anything new. The historical arguments are all old hat. It seems that on both sides of the fence we find arguments that make everything seem so simple when, in reality, it is not so. There is a reason why the Chazon Ish stated there were no real apikorsim today, as without open miracles, we do not have absolute proofs. Even miracles, the Rambam states, are not absolute proofs. And I think that all the secular arguments have their a prioris which are not questioned, as Rabbi Sholom Carmy described, a secular bias.
I thought that in hearing the path taken by this former rabbi, further issues would unfold. We would see some discussion of how we know truth, of how we evaluate the info placed before us. He touches upon this but only minimally. It is that indescribable personal yardstick within us that has to be viewed in all such discussions. He gave us a glimpse of his. Is that enough to open up our search for ours?

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.

Suffering, Evil and the Existence of God

Originally published 11/9/07, 12:41 AM, Eastern Daylight Time.
Enjoy a very thoughtful investigation on God, and Good vs. Evil by Stanley Fish!

See the Article here

Brief Bio of the Author:

About Stanley Fish - Think Again

Stanley Fish is the Davidson-Kahn Distinguished University Professor and a professor of law at Florida International University, in Miami, and dean emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He has also taught at the University of California at Berkeley, Johns Hopkins and Duke University. He is the author of 10 books.

--

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

Just what ARE the rules of p'sak anyway?

Originally published 11/6/07, 6:59 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
It took me a while to get some rules of p'sak - Klalei Hora'ah on the Avodah list.
Finally, Avoda's moderator, Reb Micha Berger, pointed us to this document. Menachem Elon's works are indeed more thorough, but are really difficult to encapsulate

Quoting Micha:

BTW, for a nice outline of some of these kelalim, see:
http://www.mucjs.org/Consensus.pdf

I am not endorsing every last conclusion, just having a point to start arguing from is nice. But the citations seem solid, so far.

-micha

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

Hatikva @ Bergen Belsen - A Chilling Sound

Originally published 11/5/07, 5:29 PM, Eastern Daylight Time. Note: either the link no longer works, or requires registration.

This week marks the anniversary of Kystallnacht; how appropriate! -RRW

It was recorded by a British reporter on April 20, 1945 in Bergen-Belsen when the British army liberated the few thousand survivors in the concentration camp, half of which were Jewish, most of them at the extremes of their strength. It was recently discovered and apparently was loaned to NPR by the Smithsonian Institute.

The British priest organized prayers for Kabbalat Shabbat for the Jews. It was the first time after six years of war and after more than 10 years of persecution. With a lot of effort the Jews organized themselves and, knowing they were recorded, sang " Hatikva".

As you can hear they sang the original version as it was written by Naftali Imber. Picturing them in the midst of the concentration camp singing after all they had been through renders this a very moving scenario.

Put Your Speaksers and THEN CLICK ON THE LINE BELOW - THIS IS A TREASURE TO HOLD.

http://genealogy.org.il/BergenBelsenHatikva.mp3

This is a rare recording of "Hatikva " from almost 62 years ago. If this doesn't give you goosebumps nothing will.

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

Chafets, Schick and the Intermarriage Problem

Originally published 11/3/07, 9:04 PM, Eastern Daylight Time
A comprehensive Media Comment from Douglas Aronin, esq.
Yishar Kochecha,
RRW

A couple of weeks ago, the New York Times Magazine, as part of an issue devoted primarily to money and wealth, ran a piece, written by Zev Chafets, about the Syrian Jewish community of Brooklyn. The article included considerable discussion of the community's affluence, but its main focus was what Chafets called the Edict -- a community-wide policy, apparently dating to 1935, that not only excludes from the community anyone who intermarries but refuses to recognize converts to Judaism and thus treats marriage to a convert as the equivalent of intermarriage.

Chareidi iconoclast Marvin Schick didn't like the article. In his regular paid column in last week's Jewish Week, Schick attacks both Chafets for writing it and the Times magazine for publishing it. Schick takes Chafets to task for some inaccuracies in the article, like reporting as fact the community's exaggerated claim of 75,000 members and accepting uncritically the inaccurate assertion that community members in good standing receive free day school education and other services for their children. Schick also criticizes Chafets for including a brief account of the financial and other shenanigans of Eddie Antar (a/k/a Crazy Eddie), one of the community's best known members, nearly two and a half decades ago. In addition, Schick questions the article's failure to explore in depth whether the community's reputation for affluence is accurate and ponders whether "the magazine's editors decide[d] that they could not publish a money issue without an article on Jews."

Some of Schick's complaints about the article's biases are valid, but some are overstated. Crazy Eddie was not a major focus of the article, but it would have been difficult to write a comprehensive article examining the Syrian community's history over the course of decades without mentioning him at all. As to the Syrian community's storied affluence, Chafets does attempt to temper the mythology with some realism, quoting one of his informants as saying that only about 50 Syrian Jewish families are "very successful" while another 20 to 30 percent of the community is "what you could call upper middle class."

These issues are probably not Schick's main concern, however, and they certainly weren't Chafets's. Schick correctly points out that "the main story" in Chafets's article "is the [Syrian] community's strong opposition to intermarriage." He notes that Chafets himself is intermarried and suggests, quite reasonably, that Chafets's own intermarriage could have interfered with his objectivity and thus should have been disclosed in the article. Recalling the pro-intermarriage piece by Noah Feldman that was published in the New York Times Magazine over the summer, moreover, Schick also ponders whether "the Times or the editors of the magazine are on a pro-intermarriage crusade."

Maybe they are, but that's really beside the point. Whether the Times magazine's publication of two pieces sympathetic to intermarriage in such close proximity is a product of design or happenstance, these articles underscore the undeniable reality that, in twenty-first century America, traditional Judaism's condemnation of intermarriage is substantially counter-cultural. It was not all that long ago that adamant opposition to intermarriage could be taken for granted among strongly identified Jews, even those far removed from traditional observance. Today, however, the corrosive effect of the larger society's pro-intermarriage bias often creates ambivalence even among strongly committed Jews.

One of the three letters that the Times magazine's editors published in last week's magazine in response to the Chafets piece clearly exemplifies that ambivalence. While insisting that she "absolutely" wants her children to marry other Jews, the letter writer criticizes the Syrian Jews for being "more fearful of their place in that society than they are of severing their relationships with their children." She sarcastically comments that she "must have missed the day in Hebrew school when you were taught to turn away from your children and grandchildren because they made a choice you don't agree with."

That last phrase says it all. When I was growing up in the 1960's -- not all that long ago, historically speaking -- most committed Jews saw the prospect of their child's intermarriage as a betrayal of a fundamental parental and communal value. Today, increasingly, it is seen merely as "a choice you don't agree with."

How did this happen? To a large extent, this change in attitude is the natural result of the attenuation of residual Jewish identity over time. For those of my parents' generation, who grew up as the children of Yiddish-speaking immigrants in the old immigrant neighborhoods, there was an ingrained Jewish loyalty from which they couldn't easily be severed. However limited their religious practice, they were still Jews, first and foremost -- a sense of identity that was further strengthened by the two "epoch-making" (to borrow Emil Fackenheim's phrase) events that occurred during their lifetimes -- the Holocaust and the birth of the State of Israel.

It was inevitable that the children and grandchildren of these Jews, lacking the formative experiences that shaped their parents' identity, would not necessarily share the previous generation's instinctive aversion to intermarriage. Growing up not in the Jewishly saturated immigrant neighborhoods of old but in the ethnically mixed and quintessentially American suburbs and quasi-suburbs to which so many American Jews flocked during the baby boom years, the baby boomers and those who followed them could be expected to value finding a Jewish mate only to the extent that active expressions of their Jewishness played a major role in their lives. Fackenheim's famous "614th" commandment -- "thou shalt not give Hitler a posthumous victory" -- helped for a little while, but it was inevitable that this post-Holocaust imperative would lose strength over time as the survivors died out and the historical memory of that era faded.

But whether we like it or not, there's also an ideological component to the destigmatization of intermarriage in recent decades. American society -- and much of the rest of the world as well -- has become obsessed with racism as the quintessential evil. Those Jews whose religious practice is a substantial feature of their lives may sometimes receive a pass, but for the rest, insistence on endogamy is seen by many in the larger society as a manifestation of racism. And since most American Jews inhabit the left side of the political spectrum, where the obsession with racism is most endemic, all too many Jews seem to have internalized this attitude.

In the context of this societal reality, the Syrian community's hard line against intermarriage is emphatically counter-cultural. By rejecting conversion entirely -- one of the most surprising vignettes in Chafets's article was the community's rejection of a personal appeal from Rav Ovadia Yosef, probably the most widely respected Sephardic rabbi in the world, to accept a conversion that he had performed -- the Syrian Jewish community provides further support for those who claim that opposition to intermarriage is fundamentally racist. If your aim is to put OPPOSITION to intermarriage in a bad light, focusing on the Syrian Jewish community's manner of dealing with it would seem to be an effective strategy. I have no inside knowledge, but it's hard not to wonder whether that's one of the reasons that Chafets wrote the article.

Regardless of what motivated Chafets to write his article or the Times magazine to publish it, the difficulty of fighting against intermarriage in the context of contemporary American society is an unavoidable reality. One of the most impressive aspects of the Syrian community's position, at least as Chafets described it, is its sturdy indifference to how its policies are perceived by the world outside. I'm certainly not recommending that the Jewish community at large adopt the Syrian approach to the problem in its entirety -- I do seem to recall that there's a halakhic prohibition against rejecting sincere converts -- but that community's willingness to ignore the opinions of the outside world is worth admiring, and emulating.

Douglas Aronin

Reform Judaism - Resurrecting Techi'yat haMeitim!

Originally published 11/1/07, 11:44 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
Is Reform Judaism finally resurrecting the idea of Techtyat Hameitim? Maybe it took a few "gilgullim" but it appears to be making a comeback! See this Cross Currents article, "Resurrection", containing Rabbi Safran's review of the New Reform Prayer Book

NB:
I submitted the following comments to the Cross-Currents blog:

It is refreshing to see that the Reform Movement is beginning to "See the Light". I suggest that Torah-True Jews pursue the following stance:

1) On the One hand be firm with our Beliefs and Practices
2) On the other hand - Be open to extend a hand to those who - though far away now - are heading back in the Torah direction. [Shalom Shalom larachok v'lakarov...]

Rabbi Safran has apparently fulfilled both of the above. While remaining loyal and Torah-True, he sees the glimmer of light {pintele-yid perhaps?] amongst those who used to abandon Torah more completely.

And if I may add a third lesson - Torah Education will help lead the non-Observant to a higher Torah Consciousness. While indeed it may be forbidden to teach non-Jews Torah, there is no such prohibition (at least as far as I know) to teach the not-yet-Observant. Eventually, that education will lead to greater observance. Today - unlike say 180 years ago - most Reform Jews ignore Halacha because they are ignorant of Torah. With a more Torah-True prayer book, they may work their way back. And with proliferation of many user-friendly tomes - such as the Shottenstein Talmud this possibility is greater than ever before.

Kol Tuv,
RRW