School revival, with an Unusual Twist

Originally published 6/3/08, 12:32 AM.
A Fine contribution by Douglas Aronin Esq:

On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 10:37 PM, daronin daronin@prodigy.net wrote:

Some of you probably read the New York Times regularly, and a few might even be willing to admit it. But for the benefit of those who don't generally see the Times, or who somehow managed to missed the feature story that began on its front page this past Friday, I'd like to call your attention to that story, which is one of the more interesting -- and unexpectedly heartening -- narratives I've seen for a while.

Running under the headline "In Bronx School, Culture Shock, Then Revival", Friday's feature story was largely typical of a journalistic genre that might best be called the school revival story. Written by Elissa Gootman, a Times reporter with extensive experience on the New York education beat, the article had most of the usual elements common to that genre. It started with a school in a dangerous inner city neighborhood, filled with mostly minority students and almost completely dysfunctional. Then there came a new principal who cared a lot, worked very hard and was willing to try unconventional approaches. The heroic principal faced the usual collection of stereotypical naysayers: time-serving teachers, skeptical parents and students used to defying authority with impunity. And as usual, after a significant but relatively brief period of time (about three years in this case), there was noticeable progress in turning the school around.

Friday's feature story about Junior High School 22 in the South Bronx, had all of these usual elements, but it also had another element, one that is decidedly unusual: the heroic principal, Shimon Waronker, is, as the story straightforwardly describes him, "[a] member of the Chabad-Lubavitch sect of Hasidic Judaism with a beard, a black hat and a velvet yarmulke."

Far from hiding this unusual twist, as most of us probably would have expected it to do if it ran the feature at all, the Times seemed to go out of its way to highlight that component of the story. The lead focuses, as the leads of such narratives almost always do, on the chaos that pervaded the school before the new principal arrived, but the focus quickly shifts to the rather unlikely identity of its hero. Not only is the cultural disconnect between the principal and the school community a prominent theme of the article, but the Times reinforces that theme by including four pictures -- including one on the front page -- in none of which would Waronker's Orthodoxy have been easy to miss.

The Times article doesn't exactly hide its motivation for focusing on Mr. Waronker's unusual role. Our self-styled newspaper of record, after all, has been a vocal supporter of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's takeover and attempted shakeup of the New York City public school system, and Friday's story notes approvingly that "the Bloomberg administration has put principals at the center of its efforts to overhaul schools." One apparent result of the Times's desire to play cheerleader for the Mayor's educational leadership is that one archetype that gets at least a cameo appearance in most school revival narratives -- the turf-protecting upper level education bureaucrat -- is completely absent from the Times's JHS 22 story.

Another result of the Times's determination to tout the Bloomberg's educational leadership is that the article is unusually direct in stating, in only its fifth paragraph, the moral that the Times wants its readers to draw from the story: "[T]he tale of Mr. Waronker shows that sometimes, the most unlikely of candidates can produce surprising results." Regardless of the Times's motivation for its prominent placement of the story, however, the inescapable fact is that its front-page feature story about JHS 22 depicts a visibly and unmistakably Orthodox Jew putting his heart and soul into the task of improving the education of public school students among whom, it's safe to assume, are few if any Jews and seeing positive results for his efforts.

Waronker's background is highly unusual in ways that presumably made his task easier. He is a native of South America who spoke no English until moving to the United States at the age of 11, and his fluent Spanish no doubt helped him connect to the school's many Hispanic students and parents. His military background -- he is an ROTC graduate with two years of active duty service, including six months studying tactical intelligence -- appears to have provided an appropriate frame of reference for overcoming some of the obstacles he has faced; at one point in the article, he is quoted as referring to his encouragement of student government as "textbook counterinsurgency." (If he ever gets tired of the Bronx, he might be useful in Iraq.)

But the Times story does not shrink from acknowledging the fact that Waronker, for all his obvious uniqueness, is very much, and unabashedly, an Orthodox Jew. (Not surprisingly, the unrelated controversy that has led some Orthodox Jews to question Chabad's Orthodox bona fides appears to be nowhere on the reporter's radar screen.) At one point in the story, Waronker cites an incident involving the late Lubavitcher Rebbe as inspiration. At the article's end, he gestures to one of the classrooms full of students and says "I feel the hand of the Lord here all the time."

The Times reporter may have seen the story of Shimon Waronker, from the classic journalistic perspective, as a man-bites-dog story. Her editors probably see it as an example of the success of the New York City Leadership Academy, which Mayor Bloomberg created to train promising candidates for principal positions and which Waronker attended. Most Times readers will probably view it mostly as an inspiring example of the triumph of hope in an unlikely circumstance.

The story of Shimon Waronker may well be all of those things, but to me at least, it is at its heart something far more important -- an example of Kiddush HaShem (the sanctification of God's name). Shimon Waronker, by his dedication and determination, has created that Kiddush HaShem in the minds and hearts of the school community that he serves. What is truly remarkable, though, is that the scope of Waronker's Kiddush HaShem has now been greatly magnified by the editorial decisions of none other than the New York Times. Waronker's Lubavitch connections aside, perhaps Mashiach is closer than we think.

Douglas Aronin

Lo Bashamayim Hee

Originally published 5/27/08, 12:37 AM.
Some give and take on Avodah:
First Cantor Wolberg:

The Sages relate that the angels complained to Hashem when He chose to share His precious

Torah with His people. They argued, "Your glory (Your Torah) should remain among the Heavenly beings. They are holy and Your Torah is holy, they are pure and Your Torah is pure and they are everlasting and Your Torah is also." One of the answers to that is three words from the Torah: "Lo bashamayim hee".

However, Midrash Shochar Tov 8 says that Hashem responded that the Torah could not remain amongst them because they are perfect spiritual beings with no mortality, impurity or illness. Hashem's true glory would ultimately come from man plagued by impurity and mortality.

ri

Then Yours Truly:

Hazal wanted us to know that once the Torah left the heavens it would no longer remain the pristine Perfect Handiwork of HKBH, but would henceforth be managed and interpreted by error-prone humans. Nevertheless - despite the loss of innocence for the Torah - this step was necessary. The time had come for the innocent Torah to mix it up with the mortals and to help us even if if would not remain in its original state.

>
> RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
>

Now for Michael Markovi:

A much-expanded version of a previous post of mine to this thread, regarding my...err...radical view of TSBP:

Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glasner makes a large point of this, saying that the truth of Torah She'be'al'pe is not what Hashem says but what we say (Rabbi Eliezer and the oven), in line with Drashot haRan #5 on theoven and Sefer haChinuch on the mitzvah of following the judges, that
we follow our rabbis even when they're wrong.

See also Rabbi Gil Student's "Halachic Responses To Scientific Developments"
(http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/science.html)
citation of Yad Yehuda 30:3, quoting Rambam Hilkhot Shekhita 10:12-13, that we cannot question Chazal's decisions regarding which animals are treifa, because all we have is Chazal's decisions, and they are sealed.

According to Rambam, drashot can be overturned by a later Sanhedrin.

In fact, Rabbi Glasner, quoting the Midrash Shmuel on Avot, "aseh sayag laTorah", says that the Oral Law was oral davka to make it flexible and subject to change. This explains the Gemara's apocalyptic permission to write the Oral Law, viz "eit la'asot lashem"; by writing the Oral Law, to save it, a vital piece of it was destroyed, part of its raison d'etre in fact! Because once a piece of the Oral Law was written, it became authoritative, and no longer subject to change and
evolution as was previously the case.

Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits (who received semicha from Rabbi Glasner's son, Rabbi Akiva Glasner) expands extensively on this point, that the writing of the Mishna, Gemara, and the Codes successively ossified the halacha in a way that the Oral Law was never meant to be, making us Karaites of the Oral Law.

See Rabbi Glasner's hakdamah to his Dor Revi'i, perush on Chullin. It is partially translated by Rabbi Yaakov Elman at
http://www.math.psu.edu/glasner/Dor4/elman.html.
See also the biography by David Glasner at
http://www.math.psu.edu/glasner/Dor4/Dorrev7.html.
As for Rabbi Berkovits, he makes his points in a variety of locations, including Not in Heaven: The Nature and Function of Halakha (aimed at secularly-educated scholars), Halakha: Kocha v'Tafkida (aimed at rabbinical scholars), Towards Historic Judaism, and Crisis and Faith.

Rabbi Glasner simply takes this entire philosophy a bit further than most. Likewise Rabbi Berkovits on Moshe seeing Rabbi Akiva's class and not understanding and learning from this that Torah does evolve overtime; both are more extreme than most, but the gist of what they say is quite normative, as far as it seems to me. In fact, once we say that

1) halachot could be forgotten and had to be recovered by humans, 2) many drashot were in fact used by humans to actually derive the law(often **but not always** they were asmachtot for laws already knownas kabbalot)

(See, for example, Dynamics of Dispute by Rabbi Zvi Lampel, "Interpretation" by Menachem Elon in Encyclopedia Judaica, Rabbi Isidore Epstein's introduction to the Soncino Midrash Rabbah, Rabbi Gil Student "Midrash Halakha" at
http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2004/11/midrash-halakhah.html)

we are admitting the human element of many halachot, and we can no longer say it is purely m'Sinai as most say Torah She'be'al Pe is, and we are forced, as it seems to me, to adopt some sort of opinion similar if not as extreme as those of Rabbis Glasner and Berkovits, as least as far as theory goes (Rabbi Berkovits's actualization of this philosophy is a matter for a separate debate.)

Therefore, for example, we ought to realize that an Amora's explanation of a Tanna may be his own personal thoughts, similar to any rav's understanding today of the intent of a prior authority. Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz in his Essential Talmud remarks on the peculiar Talmudic method of okimta, remarking that it aspires not for historicity, but rather, it attempts to make as many pieces of evidence agree as much as it possible.

There is thus no guarantee that a creative drasha is the correct intent of Torah, nor is there any guarantee that an Amora correctly understood a Tanna - see Tosafot Yom Tov Nazir 5:5 for permission to permit mishna differently than the Gemara.

Evidently, the Shadal (Shmuel David Luzzatto) held similarly to this whole line of thought, that Chazal's drashot on mikra are not necessarily "correct". See Shmuel Vargon's "Samuel David Luzzatto's Critique of Rabbinic Exegesis Which Contradicts the Plain Meaning of Scripture",
http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/JSIJ/sum2.html
(note: my Hebrew is insufficient to have read this article yet, so I am relying on the abstract).

Rabbi David Bigman, rosh hayeshiva of Yeshivat Maaleh Gilboa (on Har haGilboa in the Jezre'el), for example, advocates critical Talmud study, asking, for example, what the Tanna meant independent what the Amora thought he meant; what different codifications of Oral Law say (Bavli, Yerushalmi, Tosefta, etc.), each in their own light. See his "Finding a Home for Critical Talmud Study",

http://www.edah.org/backend/JournalArticle/bigman2_1.pdf,
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/talmud/Gemara/ModernStudy/BigmanCritical.

The Kuzari in 3:41 opines that the omer could be brought on any date chosen by Chazal, and it was Chazal who chose the second day of Pesach. If so, then it means the contrary opinions of the Tzadukim (that it was to fall on Sunday, as the literal mikra indicates) is wrong only insofar as it goes against the binding ruling of Chazal, and not because it was an invalid drasha. It seems to me that perhaps alternatively, we simply don't listen to Tzadukim even if they are correct; there is a story in the Gemara of one rabbi being put to death, and he realized it was because he once found a drasha of a min to be pleasing; even though the drasha was valid, he still should have ignored it. In any case, we can extrapolate that in general, freedom of midrash is restricted more by Chazal's binding decisions than any claim of theirs to being the only correct opinion.

I thank Rabbi Yaakov Elman of Yeshiva University for providing me with sources (most notably, he introduced me to Rabbi Glasner when I mentioned Rabbi Berkovits), as well as having extensive discussion with me on their implications. It should be noted, however, that this philosophy is still a work in progress by me, especially as I continue to learn more Chumash, Gemara, and Halacha. It should also be noted that any errors are mine, not Rabbi Elman's, as he has already pointed out certain errors in my thinking, and no doubt there are still more to be found.

Mikh'el Makovi

Parsha: Sh'mini - Olam Chesed Yiboneh

Another D'var Torah from Cantor Wolberg
--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
---------------------------------------

There's a verse in Parshat Shemini (Lev. 11:13) which states: "These shall you abominate from among the birds, they may not be eaten; they are an abomination..." In other words, fowl that are cruel are not eligible to be kosher. One will not always find cruel fowl necessarily exercising cruelty (we see this in the human species as well). It would therefore have been impractical and impossible to have positively identified a specific bird as being unfit. Therefore, the Torah must list all the fowl that are unsuitable for eating.

There is an overriding concept in the laws of kashruth that the characteristics of what we eat somehow have a great influence on the way we behave. The old saying: "You are what you eat." We do not want to associate ourselves for instance with cruelty, therefore we are forbidden to eat cruel animals, and in this case, some species of fowl. Among the fowl that are listed as being non kosher is the chasidah, the white stork. You may ask what cruel character trait does the stork possess. Rashi mentions that the reason it is called a "chasidah" is because it does chesed only with its friends regarding the food it finds. On the surface this seems strange. If the stork acts kindly with its food, why is it disqualified as being kosher?

A beautiful explanation to this difficulty has been given by the Chidushei Harim, in which he explains the nature of the stork. He says that the fact the stork only shows its kindness with its friends defines its cruelty. A fowl who is not in the circle of the stork's good buddies is excluded from getting any help from the stork in finding food. In other words, the stork is very selective in its kindness. This type of kindness is misleading. We, as Jews, are commanded even to help our foes. If we come across someone we dislike intensely who needs help, we are commanded to help. The stork, on the other hand, helps only his inner circle of friends. It is this character trait of differentiating between close friends and others when it comes to providing food that makes the stork non-kosher.

Chesed means reaching out altruistically, with love and generosity to all. The process of maturing involves developing our sense of caring for others. This is crucial for spiritual health. The Talmud likens someone who doesn't give to others as the "walking dead." A non-giving soul is malnourished and withered. It is only through unconditional love that our successful future will be built. In the words of King David (Psalm 89:3): Olam chesed yiboneh - "the world is built on kindness." The more this kindness dissipates and degenerates, the more danger of the foundation collapsing.

ri

A Friend Returns-- A True Story

Originally published 5/24/08, 10:44 PM.

I eceived this e-mail on the Internet and it has been reported as true. It is VERY touching,
KT,
RRW

Am Yisroel Chai By Rabbi Baruch Lederman

The gabbai's eyes moved rapidly across the familiar faces of the men packed into shul on this sunny shabbos morning. Shloime Kaufman, the gabbai, the grandfather of a beautiful, Torah-observant family, had been going through this routine for the past twenty years, looking out over the congregation and glancing, face by face, at his many friends and neighbours.

Mr. Kaufman scanned the rows of men as the Torah was removed from the ark. His eyes rested upon an unfamiliar face, a man about his own age with a short grey beard. He hadn't seen him in shul before. But there was something very familiar about this face. Suddenly, the man's features and expression jarred loose a powerful flash of recognition in Mr. Kaufman's mind.

It was Menachem Reiner, his closest childhood friend. It was Menachem, the boy with whom he had grown up in their small Polish shtetl, with whom he had attended yeshivah in Bialystock. It was Menachem, the young man to whom he had clung, and who had clung to him, as they began their cattle-car journey into the fearsome blackness of Auschwitz They had promised each other to stick together, they had given each other courage and hope. Bearing the numbers the Nazis had tattooed on their arms, they had found in each other the strength to hold onto their humanity and resist becoming only numbers. They had vowed to help each other survive, both in body and soul. And they did survive, Boruch Hashem.

But when the war ended, each went his own way, eager to begin anew. Menachem had settled in Israel , and Shloime Kaufman had obtained a visa for America . That was forty-two years ago. Now, with unbelieving eyes and trembling hands, Mr. Kaufman beheld the unmistakable face of his friend once again. Shlomie decided in his mind: Menachem Reiner would get the sixth aliyah. As the Torah reading began, the gabbai felt as if his heart could not be contained in his chest. He wanted to leap across the rows of men and fall upon his friend in a mighty embrace. 'This must be how Yosef felt when he finally saw his brother Binyamin,' he thought to himself. 'All these years!'

Nevertheless, he clamped a tight lid on his emotions and performed his duty, calling up each aliyah with the traditional chant of 'Ya'amod' followed by the honoree's Hebrew name. By the fifth aliyah, however, beads of sweat were sparkling on his forehead and tears were welling up in his eyes. He prayed that when the time came to call up number six, his voice would be able to break free of his tight throat.

There was no need to ask Menachem his name because he could never forget Menachem ben Yehoshua. For the first time, he began to wonder how would Menachem react when they came face to face?

It was time to call him up, but Mr. Kaufman could not open his mouth. The congregation began murmuring and looking toward Mr. Kaufman, fearing that the pale, trembling man was becoming ill. Mr. Kaufman turned in the direction of his friend and at last found his voice. 'Yaamod, 57200148!' he called.

The baffled men in the shul did not understand what had happened. What was this number? What had become of Mr. Kaufman? But in the back of the room, one man understood completely. The number was Menachem's number, tattooed on his arm as a lifetime reminder of the darkest period of Jewish history.

Menachem moved slowly toward the bimah. Finally, as they saw him approaching his long-lost brother, they understood the scene that was unfolding in front of them. Menachem needed no introduction. With tears coursing down his face, he cried out, 'Shloimele! Shloimele! Is it really you?'

'Yes, Menachem, it's really me!' Mr. Kaufman answered, embracing his friend. They wept into each other's shoulders, rocking gently. 'Ay, ay, ay, ay, ay,' Mr. Kaufman breathed. Words were powerless to carry his chaotic emotions.

As these two men stood together it seemed that the Heavens had opened up to declare, through them, that Hashem would never forsake His people. Am Yisrael Chai! The Jewish nation is alive, and Torah has been rebuilt in America. The Holocaust survivors who came to America planted the seeds, and it is up to us to reap the fruits of their labour and continue their legacy.

NB: The foregoing is documented in Stories for the Jewish Heart by Binyomin Pruzansky)

Autonomy in Authority - The Choice of Rabbi

Originally published 5/23/08, 6:50 PM.

re: NISHMA INTROSPECTION 5765 #1

Of course, to an extent, many societies elected dictators or even leaders with less power. E.G. the king of Poland used to be elected by the nobles who formed an "electoral college" of sorts.

But there is another issue. Autonomy as to when to consult an Authority! That is to say, when you choose to ask the Rabbi is also a factor in p'sak.

I had a lively debate with a member of Breuer's about this. I said that ultimately, everybody is their own posiek because they pick and choose when to consult the Rav and when to just look into the issue on their own. Sometimes consulting a Kitzur or Mishna Brurah represents a choice of which authority to choose instead of the Rabbi

Recently at a nursing home Minyan, I had to tell a fellow with Yahrzeit that a Shiva trumps Yahrzeit and we had a "Shiva" person there. The rather learned fellow did not accept my p'sak so readily but he did give in when I showed him the Kitzur SA on point. Baruch Hashem, we were able to split into two minyanim and make even King Solomon happy.

Good Shabbos
RRW

The Conversion "Crisis"

Originally published 5/22/08.
As anyone who has studied the laws of conversion knows, the topic is most complicated. It is understandable why there are many different understandings of the theory behind these laws and, as such, the many disagreements within Halacha in regard to halacha l'ma'aseh. The present "crisis" in Israel in regard to conversion, that is halachic conversion, based on differing opinions, i.e. machloket, is thus most distressing.
The issue is not gerut per se. The issue is how we respond to legitimate machloket in Halacha and the proper response to a psak with which one may disagree or, more correctly in this case, since gerut, conversion, is a decision of a beis din, to a din Torah of another beis din with which one may disagree. This is its own area of the Halacha and needs to be further elucidated. Suffice it to say, in general terms, that a decision of a beis din has its own weight and demands its one respect. It is this issue that really is the issue, not gerut.

After saying all this, though, and recognizing that anyone who has studied the laws of conversion and the laws regarding the authority of beis din must recognize all this, a need does emerge to truly explain what is going on in this matter of conversion. Beyond the question of the authority of a beis din in general, in the case of conversion there actually seems to be great leeway given to a beis din, specifically, at least, in regard to the post facto acceptance of a beis din's decision. So the question, even more so, is what is really going on?

Conversion ultimately would seems to be a policy decision of a beis din. It is the beis din who converts someone and while there are some technical demands that are made upon a potential convert, some of which if not met does prevent a beis din from converting someone even if the beis din wants to convert this person, it is really the beis din that makes the decision of whether it wants to convert a person or not. This is, ultimately, a policy decision as it reflects the theory of a beis din on how to respond to the various reasons why someone may wish to convert, especially in this modern world. I believe that this is really the point of essential difference in how people are responding to the present conversion situation.

The question is the value of non-Halachic Jewishness. Someone wishes to become a Jew, truly identifying with the Jewish People and, in the words of Rabbi Soloveitchik, truly committed to the fate of the Jewish People --- but this person does not wish to follow Halacha. His or her understanding of the essence of the spirit of our people is vastly different than the Halacha envisions, not based on Torah mi Sinai, which is, sadly, the prevalent reality of our people in general. The question is not simply how we view this person but how we view this person's desire and and connection to the "group" known as Bnei Yisrael on the whole. Within the halachic world there is a major disagreement on this issue. There are those who give no value to any non-halachic presentation of Jewishness and there are those who see in it some value albeit wishing for the eventual observance of Torah by all Jews.
How we respond to the issue of conversion, where halachic conversion is also the method by which someone joins the general Jewish "group" (a situation that we also seem to want) is all part of the issue. If we give no value to colloquial Jewishness then we may be strict in our standards of conversion and demand only a full commitment to the observance of Torah from a potential convert. If, though, we see some value in colloquial Jewishness and feel that, as such, a method of conversion that will serve the general Jewish world is necessary as well, then we may find reasons to be more lenient in our response to conversion.

I am actually torn in regard to this issue. Should we maintain relaxed standards on halachic conversion and thereby ensure that most people converting will turn to Orthodoxy in order to convert which will lessen the questions on Jewish identity into the future? Or should we, for the sake of Torah observance, maintain strict standards, thereby effectively sending people to Conservative and Reform rabbis for conversion and raising the potential for an identity crisis within our people in the future? The answer to that question does depend on how one understands the halachic standards of conversion itself but it, also, has much to do with this policy issue. As mentioned, I am really torn.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Eric Hoffer -- Prescient Prophet or Political Prognosticator?

Originally published 5/19/08, 10:22 PM.

enjoy this time capsule

--

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,

RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

WRITTEN IN 1968 - Astonishing

Do you remember Eric Hoffer?

He was a longshoreman who turned into a philosopher, wrote columns for newspapers and some books. He was a non-Jewish American social philosopher. He was born in 1902 and died in 1983, after writing nine books and winning the Presidential Medal of Freedom. His first book, The True Believer, published in 1951, was widely recognized as a classic. Here is one of his columns from 1968. CAN YOU BELIEVE IT?


This article was written 40 years ago!!! Some things never change.

ISRAEL'S PECULIAR POSITION by Eric Hoffer (LA Times 5/26/68)

The Jews are a peculiar people: things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews.

Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it, Poland and Czechoslovakia did it. Turkey threw out a million Greeks, and Algeria a million Frenchman.


Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese and no one says a word about refugees. But in the case of Israel, the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees. Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single Arab.

Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis. Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious, it must sue for peace.

Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world. Other nations, when they are defeated, survive and recover but should Israel be defeated it would be destroyed. Had Nasser triumphed last June [1967], he would have wiped Israel off the map, and no one would have lifted a finger to save the Jews.


No commitment to the Jews by any government, including our own, is worth the paper it is written on. There is a cry of outrage all over the world when people die in Vietnam or when two Blacks are executed in Rhodesia. But, when Hitler slaughtered Jews no one remonstrated with him.

The Swedes, who are ready to break off diplomatic relations with America because of what we do in Vietnam, did not let out a peep when Hitler was slaughtering Jews. They sent Hitler choice iron ore, and ball bearings, and serviced his troop trains to Norway.

The Jews are alone in the world. If Israel survives, it will be solely because of Jewish efforts. And Jewish resources. Yet at this moment, Israel is our only reliable and unconditional ally. We can rely more on Israel than Israel can rely on us. And one has only to imagine what would have happened last summer, [1967] had the Arabs and their Russian backers won the war, to realize how vital the survival of Israel is to America and the West in general.

I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us. Should Israel perish, the Holocaust will be upon us all.

Jewish Pirate, Jean Lafitte

Originally published 5/16/08, 6:05 PM.
A bit odd, but interesting. Vive Lafitte!
KT
RRW

This recent article is about the most famous Jewish Pirate, Jean Lafitte.

It was written by a former professor from Temple University, Professor Bernard Glick:

Many of the pirates of the Caribbean were Sephardic Jews who turned to piracy to get revenge on the Spanish Catholics who expelled them from Spain in 1492, murdered their families and stole their property. Six of Barbarossas chief officers were Jewish! This article sheds light on one of the most famous Jewish Pirates: Jean Lafitte the Jewish Pirate.

One of the things I do since I retired from Philadelphia's Temple University is lecture on cruise ships. My signature talk is the 50-century old history of piracy whose practitioners I call the Seafaring Gangsters of the World. A few weeks before my first gig, I sent a draft of the talk to my history buff sister, Phyllis. She liked it, but was very unhappy that I had not mentioned Jean Lafitte. I told her I didn't include him because I intended to deal with the economics, the sociology, and the politics of piracy. She said I simply had to talk about Lafitte because he was unique. He was a Sephardic Jew.

In his prime, Lafitte ran not just one pirate sloop but a whole fleet of them simultaneously. He even bought a blacksmith shop in New Orleans, which he used as a front for fencing pirate loot. And he was one of the few buccaneers who didn't die in battle, in prison, or on the gallows. Though I didn't lecture about Lafitte at first, a circumstance of serendipity has made me do so ever since. I was flying to Norfolk, Virginia. The man in the seat next to me wore a skullcap and he began chatting with me in Gaelic-accented English. Though born in France, the friendly passenger now lives in Switzerland. We quickly established that we were both Jewish and that both of us had taught in Israel.

Then we had the following conversation:

What are you doing on this plane? I asked.

I'm a mathematician. I work for an American company and I'm flying to Norfolk today because it has the US Navy's largest naval base and my company is trying to get a Navy contract. Now, what are you doing on this plane?
My wife and I are picking up a cruise ship in Norfolk.
Taking a vacation?

Not entirely. I'll be giving lectures on the ship...... as many, in fact, as there are full days at sea.

What do you lecture about?
Since cruise lines frown on controversial topics. I have talked about Israel once or twice, but I usually talk about Latin America, which is my second specialty, or the Panama Canal or Mexico's Isthmus of Tehantepec, or the voyages of Captain Cook to the South Pacific. But I always begin a cruise with a lecture on pirates. The kids love it and the old folks like it too.
Are you going to talk about Jean Lafitte?

No. And I repeated what my sister had told me.

He pulled out his wallet and handed me a business card. It had Melvyn J. Lafitte written on it. Then he said, I am a direct descendent of Jean Lafitte. Your sister, Phyllis, is absolutely right. Our family, originally named Lefitto, lived in the Iberian Peninsula for centuries. When Ferdinand and Isabella re-conquered Spain and expelled the Jews in 1492, most of the Jews fled to North Africa. Others went to the Balkans or to Greece and Turkey. But some Sephardic Jews, my ancestors among them, crossed the Pyrenees and settled in France, where Jean was born in about 1780. He moved to French Santo Domingo during the Napoleonic period. However, a slave rebellion forced him to flee to New Orleans. Eventually he became a pirate, but he always called himself a privateer because that label has a more legal ring to it.

In 1814, the British sought his aid in their pending attack on New Orleans. However, he passed their plans to the Americans and helped General Andrew Jackson beat them in 1815. A grateful Jackson, not yet President, saw to it that Lafitte and his family became American citizens. And, by the way, did you know that there is a town of Jean Lafitte, as well as a Jean Lafitte National Historical Park in Southwestern Louisiana?

I was flabbergasted, not so much by the saga of Jean Lafitte as retold by a proud descendant, but by the fact that the two of us had met so coincidentally in the skies over Georgia. Melvyn Lafitte lives in Geneva and I live in Portland, Oregon. These cities are 5,377 miles apart. Unlike him, I am mathematically challenged, so I don't know what the statistical probability is that a descendant of the Franco-Jewish-American pirate Jean Lafitte would board an airplane and sit next to me as I was agonizing over whether to mention his famous ancestor in my forthcoming talk.

Jewish history is replete with vivid coloring

An Unintentional Intermarriage - OU Article

Originally published 5/16/08, 5:39 PM. Link no longer works.
What can happen in this society!

"A strange thing happened on the way to my becoming a ba'alat teshuvah: I
discovered I was not a Jew."

For more details see the entire article
http://www.ou.org/jewish_action/article/38176

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

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

Responsa on Mother's Day and Kibbud Eim

Originally published 5/11/08, 9:12 PM.
Question: Since we are required to Honour our Mothers every day, is it appropriate to have a Mother's Day?
Response: We have a mitzva to remember the Exodus at least once or twice a Day. Is it appropriate to do more once a year? The answer is yes, one or two evenings a year we recited the story of the Exodus with a lot of pomp and circumstance. this in now way negatively impacts our daily obligation. Aderabbah, it enhances it!

Honouring one's Mother is a daily obligation. but there is no need to give her flowers, a card, and to treat her to dinner etc. There is only a need to honour and revere her. Once a year, we can add on to the daily obligation by going beyond the letter of the law [lifnim mishurat hadin]

Question: Would this also apply to thanksgiving?
Response: yes but I can make that into an extra Post on the Blog - so let's wait for that one!
--

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

Ivrith - back to Fundamentals or Evolving New Styles

Originally published 5/9/08, 4:45 PM.
Dear Readers:

Here is a really interesting debate on proper Ivrith Articulation from the "Leining Group"

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

From: bearpecs@aol.com
Date: Fri, May 9, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Subject: [Leining] Tiberian
To: Leining@yahoogroups.com

I think we should keep in mind that no community pronounces Hebrew just as the Tiberian Masoretes did. We need to balance the competing priorities of accurate and consistent reading on the one hand with preserving the legitimate and established minhag of communities on the other hand. In some cases (e.g. zekher/zeikher) accuracy and consistency must take precedence (although in that example it has been shown that it was not truly a reliable "minhag"); in others (e.g. thaw/tav/saf) minhag must take precedence. The goal is not to read Torah as the Tiberians did. The goal is meaningful reading that preserves grammatical and articulate Hebrew.

-Hayyim

==========================================================================================

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon jeremy.simon@nyu.edu wrote:

I would disagree. At least in term of the phonetic distinctions made, I think the goal is to come as close to Tiberian as possible without sounding odious to the congregation. From my first and second hand experience, in a modern askenazi shul, you can pronounce dagesh chazak and ayin, but not, soft gimels and dalets. Tiberian Hebrew represents the masorah that has been universally accepted, and we should strive to stay as close as possible. Of course, languages change in their phonetics, but kri'at hatorah is a specific kind of ritual performance, and so a certain degree of deviation from standard spoken Hebrew is acceptable and as it happen desirable. How else are we to make sense of the rambam's strictures on who can lein, the most famous one being that one must be able to distinguish between an ayin and an alef. Clearly, already in his time and place had been lost among routine speakers of Hebrew, and nonetheless, he felt the need to insist on in in kri'at hatorah.

- Jeremy

Controversy at the Chidon

Originally published 5/9/08, 1:56 AM.
To be honest, I have always had somewhat of a problem with the Chidon HaTanach. Of course, such knowledge of the Tanach is important and I am very impressed with the knowledge of Tanach that participants gained. But something always bothered me -- the written Torah can never stand alone. The very mark of our Torah, the uniquely Jewish understanding of Torah, is that it consisted of, right from the beginning, an Oral Torah and a Written Torah. The focus on the Written Torah in the Chidon, especially in all the preparation leading up to the contests, simply bothered me. Its not the Jewish way.

What occurred this week with the controversy over the Messianic girl who was a participant in this year's quiz only proves my point. The Written Bible is deemed to be significant to many beyond just the Jewish world. It was the fundamentalist Christian faith, in the guise of Messianic Judaism, that led to this girl's proficiency in the Bible. For the Chidon to be uniquely Jewish, it must apply the uniquely Jewish understanding of a written Tanach that cannot stand apart from the Oral Torah.

I am not sure how it would be implemented, but, to be uniquely Jewish, the Chidon must include the Torah She'b'al Peh. There must be questions from midrashim on the pesukim as well as from aggadata on the pesukim. This way, we would not again have a problem with a Messianic in the contest. More importantly, though, the contest would be uniquely Jewish.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Haggadah - Back to Basics [from Avodah]

Originally published 5/2/08, 5:39 PM.
Sometimes Gedolim are great because they focus on the simple things. As Grand Master Sober once said, in a real-life situation you will probably save your life with a simple technique like a Front-kick as opposed to some fancy advanced technique

The "Minhogei CS" [10:15] writes that the CS spent the entire Seder talking to the young children - translating every word of the Hagada and explaining 'tochen ha'inyan' to them. He didn't say any Drush at all during the Seder.

He was clearly following the psak of the Rema 473:6.

In his Droshos, he writes that the Seder is not for giving pilpulim etc, but purely to talk about the Nissim veNiflaos of Hashem. The fact that he had to point this out shows that even in his days people were saying Toros and pshetlech at the seder - rather than concentrating on poshuteh pshat.

SBA

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

Tzvia Greenfield of Meretz

Originally published 5/1/08, 12:57 AM. Link no longer works.

Left-wing firebrand via haredi seminary
By MATTHEW WAGNER

In the fall of 1968, Tzvia Greenfield, an intense 19-yearold philosophy student, stood on the lawn of the Hebrew University's Givat Ram campus warning her peers that it would be a big mistake to keep the newly conquered territories.

Most, intoxicated by the miraculous victory and dreaming of the fulfillment of ancient biblical promises, resisted Greenfield's passionate arguments, which seemed incongruous with her appearance.

....

When asked by The Jerusalem Post what a "nice Haredi woman" was doing in Meretz, Greenfield said, "For years Meretz has been saying what I believe in. Literally everything on Meretz's platform is in line with my opinions. I believe in the individual's rights. I believe in
citizens' rights. I believe in rights for everyone, including Arabs. I believe in peace. And I also believe in working toward an agreement with the Palestinians. "I believe in the right to protection for both rich and poor. Society has an obligation to all citizens to foster solidarity, to make sure people are not thrown out on the street because they cannot support themselves.

"I am a social democrat," she continued
....

For Further Details see: Jerusalem Post Article

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

Things are not always as they seem to be!

Originally published 4/30/08, 12:39 AM
Interesting comments upon the history of some masorah.
-RRW

THE DAF YOMI DISCUSSION LIST
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld daf@dafyomi.co.il

________________________________________________________________

General: The Three Zechusim

Barry Robinson asked:

Dear Kollel,

I have been asked to find the mekor for the well-known statement that Klal Yisroel were saved from Mitzrayim B'Zechus of the three things they kept - they did not change their names, their language and their clothing.

I have found several variants on this maamar in various Midrashic sources. Almost all of the variants list four Zechusim - for example, many of the variant versions remove mention of clothing and add that Klal Yisroel did not speak Lashon Hara and were careful about Arayos.

But everyone I talk to seems to remember learning the first version in school. Were we misled by our teachers or does this form of the Midrash really exist?

Thank You.
Barry Robinson
Cong. Or Torah, Skokie, Illinois, USA

-----------------------------
The Kollel replies:

The earliest source seems to be Eliyahu Bachur (c. 1500), who quotes it the way we often hear it in the introduction to his Sefer Meturgeman. Shlomo Buber, in his notes to Pesikta d'Rav Kahana (Parshas Vayehi Beshalach fn. #66) makes your point and says Eliyahu Bachur has absolutely no source in Midrash. (It is not clear to me how the quote became so popular, perhaps it was used to defend Chasidic garb.)

There is one Midrash (Lekach Tov to Shmos 6:6) which counts among the four Zechusim that they didn't change their names or their "Salmos" (clothes). However, almost certainly the Lamed is a scribe's mistake. In either case it doesn't use the word "Levushan."

To me it would seem that the truth is Eliyahu Bachur's source is Bamidbar Rabah 13:20 where 3 (not 4) Zechuyos are counted and the third is that they were Gedurim Min ha'Ervah (and not that they were not Parutz b'Arayos - as it appears in every other Midrash). Gedurim means they took measures to prevent Arayos and it might refer to adopting the immodest Egyptian mode of dress. We find such Gedurim m'Ervah in practice in Chazal, such as in Rashi,
Sanhedrin top of 74b.

May we be Zocheh to fulfill all these Midrashim ourselves!

Best wishes for a Chag Kasher v'Same'ach!

Mordecai Kornfeld,
Kollel Iyun Hadaf

Tight Clothing - You Know it when You See It

Originally published 4/29/08, 1:33 AM.
Another insight into Tight Clothing from Cantor Wolberg: [yes the double entendre was quite intended!] -RRW

Cantor Wolberg cantorwolberg@cox.net wrote:

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in 1964 stated: "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it." Obviously, his perception would be quite different from our perception.

Prohibition against tight clothing would be our "I know it when I see it" but it's all a matter of how high (or low) our individual bar of morality is. We certainly have much higher moral standards than the Constitution of the United States and yet, da'as Torah doesn't necessarily give us the unequivocal, definitive answers.

The Constitution doesn't contain chukim, so its orientation is quite different from ours. Living in a country such as the U.S. presents tremendous challenges in being able to deal with cognitive dissonances, and it's no wonder that we can't agree on many things with each other. This, IMHO, is what gives fertile soil for potential sinas chinam.

ri

Compulsary and Voluntary

Originally published 4/28/08, 1:20 pm. Link no longer works.
The following is a most interesting article on a distinction, presented by the author, between compulsory and voluntary presentations of Judaism or Jewishness.
http://web.israelinsider.com/views/12803.htm
The author concludes that what is needed is a mixture of the two. What is so strange about this conclusion is the perception that accepting Judaism as compulsory or voluntary is a choice.
If it is compulsory, it is in fact a decision not based on choice but on external forces that impose this perception of reality upon someone. Rather than describing a distinction between compulsory and voluntary Judaism, the author would have done a more important service in attempting to define why someone wishes to define himself/herself as a Jew.
That may also bring one back to a discussion of whether one feels compelled to be Jewish or simply chooses to be Jewish but in attempting to define the basic motivation for Jewishness, there is greater potential for discussing the issue and describing the underlying motivations for any type of Jewishness.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

HHH Hagaddah: What is the point of Ilu Keir'vanu lifeni Har Sinai, Vlo Nasan lanu es HaTorah?

Originally published 4/25/08, 5:35 pm.
In Dayeinu we have a line:

Ilu Keir'vanu lifeni Har Sinai, Vlo Nasan lanu es HaTorah - Dayyeinu?
If YOU had brought us near Har sinai but had NOT Given us the Torah - Dayyeinu?

What is the point of going to Sinai without receiving the Torah? What value is there to be at Sinai alone without even being commanded by G-d?

Hint:

1. What are the TWO Haftoros associated with the Parsha of the Asseres Hadevarim in Yisro?
2. What theme have they in common?
3. What theme do they omit?

Given that Ma'amad Har Sinai without the Torah has some significance:
Q: How is that significance manifested in Jewish Practice?

Hint: What Minhag-in-common is manifest during:

1. The Reading of Shiras Hayaom
2. The Recitation of Kiddush Levanah
3. The Reading of Asseres Hadibros

Moa'dim Lesimcha!
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

HHH, Anti-Xtian Polemics and the Third Blessing of the Haftara

Originally published 4/24/08, 11:22 PM.
During the recent first weekend of Passover, my sister pointed out to me that the theme of the third blessing of the haftarah is apparently an anti-Xtian polemic. Viz. Al kis'o lo yeshev ZOR v'lo yinchalu ACHEIRIMM es k'vodo...

I peeked into my Baer's Avodas Yisroel. Sure enough, he quotes Rav Amram Gaon and the Rambam as having the nusach paraphrasing Es Tzemach David Avdecha Meheira Satzmi'ach. It seems to be the same theme, but doesn't seem aimed at  the Xtians.

Could it be that since both Rav Amram Gaon and the Rambam lived in Moslem societies, they had a different nusach which didn't need the anti-Xtian polemic; while those who did live in Xtian societies inserted this anti-Xtian polemic into their nusach?

--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/

HHH - Who is suposed to read Mah Nistanah? Why?

Originally published 4/24/08, 1:19 pm.
Q: Who is supposed to lead the Mah Nishtana?
Q: Why?

Kol tuv,
RRW

Hagahoth, Hasgoth, and He'aroth

Originally published 4/24/08, 1:15 pm.
Dear Readers,
I am planning a new series of quick comments mostly on liturgy and Halachah called:

1. Hagahoth [glosses]
2. Hasagoth [challenges] and
3. He'aroth [notes or insights]

They will be prefaced by HHH (with apologies to the late Hubert Humphrey).

Mo'adim Lesimcha,
RRW

Lying to protect the simple of faith [From Avodah]

Originally published 4/23/08, 3:04 pm.
A very provocative post from the Avodah list:
Note: I have been procrastinating my review of Dr. Marc Shapiro's book and at times procrastination pays because you get to gather more data and information! --smile--

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:03 AM, Michael Makovi mikewinddale@gmail.com wrote on the Avodah list:

I've been having a debate on the Zohar at: Facebook Article Link
and at one point, I brought up ibn Ezra saying that there could be post-Moshe pesukim, and Dr. Marc Shapiro of course came up. I made the following post, from which, for Avodah, I would like to discuss my second point regarding a Torah authority lying to protect the simple
of faith (but I'll post my entire post).

I had previously there brought up an article by Dr. Shapiro that mentions this opinion of ibn Ezra, but then...

--------

Just this past Yom Tov Pesach, I saw Marc Shapiro's book, The Limits of Orthodox Theology, and I saw that it truly is a magnificent sefer - basically, he collects classical Torah opinions that controvert Rambam's 13.

I opened it up, and what do you know, but the page on ibn Ezra is what it immediately opened to! In this chapter, he makes several points:

1) When Rambam says the Torah we have is the same as given by Moshe, Rambam cannot possibly believe that this is literally true, for Rambam was extensively involved in textual study of different texts, and even advocated certain Masoretic texts (ben Asher, I believe) over others. Moreover, Rambam's son refused to pasken on which scroll is kosher, because there are so many, and who are we to advocate one over the other.

1a) Rather, then, Rambam is saying that no deliberate additions were made after Moshe. However, while Rambam is saying that this is the case, he cannot possibly be saying it is heretical to say otherwise. For ibn Ezra, as interpreted by a large list of authorities, held that
many verses are post-Moshe. Rabbi Yehuda heChasid went even further, and said that entire narratives could be added to. According to one authority, Ezra (not ibn Ezra) had the ability to add to narrative (not mitzvot-ic) sections of the Torah. Most importantly, the Gemara itself opines that Yehoshua wrote the end of the Torah - surely Rambam cannot declare Chazal to be heretics! So while Rambam says no post-Moshe additions were made, the contrary opinion is not heresy. As one prominent rabbi, quoted by Marc Shapiro (I forget his name), says, the basic principle is that "for all intents and purposes", the Torah we have is what Moshe gave, but in certain details and pesukim, it very well may differ. And the Gemara doesn't say that one must hold the Torah is from Moshe, but rather only that it is from Heaven, and this includes any divine source.

2) As an alternative to point 1 above: Rambam knew that there were textual variants in our Torah scrolls, but he could very well have lied about this, saying that there were no variants, and that we today have the exact same scroll as given by Moshe. In fact, in his Iggeret Teiman, Rambam makes exactly such an explicit lie. Back then, the Muslims were accusing us of falsifying the Torah, and any admission on our part would have harmed the faith of the ignorant and led them to heresy, for they would be unable to understand the complex picture as shown in points 1 and 1a. Better then to lie to the ignorant and simple of faith and tell them that we have the same scroll as Moshe bli safek; those who are more learned, and can accept the complex truth, will learn it.

--------

So I'd like to discuss my second point above, which seems ripe for controversy.

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

Why Do We Lean at the Seder?

Originally published 4/23/08, 1:20 AM
Q: Why do we lean at the Seder?

A: With all that food at the Seder, if it weren't for the lean we might become fat! --smile--

Zissen Pesach,
RRW

The Chametz Battle: Policy Concerns in Halachic Reasoning

Originally published 4/22/08, 9:34 AM, Eastern Daylight Time.Link no longer works
To be honest, I have only marginally been following the debate in Israel over the chametz law, so in many ways, I am really not prepared to comment. I found it interesting, though, to have found out that the judge who sparked this whole debate is actually observant. See http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1208179714721&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull.
This fact must inform us that the issue is not simple a battle between leftist forces attempting to liberalize Israel and observant forces attempting to foster a fully observant Israel. There is much more to the debate. In many ways, it may really be about how Orthodoxy should relate to the non-Orthodox.

Of course, at the root of Orthodoxy is a principle that observance of mitzvot is a requirement of all Jews. Kol Yisrael aravin zeh l'zeh. We all are guarantors for each other before God. The question is how to achieve this goal.
The law of lifnei iver, causing another or assisting another to violate halacha is pivotal in this regard. An investigation of this law, though, reveals a most interesting perception of the law by various commentators. They understand the law to be based on policy rather than the usual technical understanding of the law. In general, a law is concerned with specific behaviour without contemplation of the consequences of this behaviour. With policy considerations, consequences become important considerations.
So the question emerges in the mitzvah of lifnei iver. Is the prohibition technical, ie is its focus the specific technical behaviour before us? IOW is it absolutely forbidden for me to pass a piece of pork to another Jew (given the specific circumstances of lifner iver)? Or is the prohibition to consider policy considerations? Am I thus to consider how the person will respond to my not passing the pork and evaluate whether in not passing the pork, I will develop a negative response to Orthodox Jews that will ensure that this person will continue eating pork in the future, rather than passing the pork in this circumstance and developing a relationship with this person that may have more positive Torah implications in the future? Technical means the only concern is the battle; policy means the concern in the entire war.

Now of course, the issue in not black-and-while. Of course, if you can politely not pass the pork without evoking a strong negative reaction from the other person, that would be best. There must also be the consideration that in passing the pork, the person may incorrectly interpret your behaviour as permitting him/her to eat the pork and that you accept a pluralism of Jewish standards that is incorrect -- with further potential negative consequences.
Understanding lifner iver as a policy statement actually makes it much more complex, demanding more thorough analsyis of each situation. It may be that because we want things to be simple, we tend to gravitate to the technical -- that way we have the one right answer. The reality may be though that the issue is actually a policy one and what is really demanded is thought.

As I do not know the actual details of the chametz law, I really don't have a definite position on it. There are policy reasons for both sides. The key though is to recognize that it is, according to many commentators, a policy matter and, as such, demands thought and analysis. The rhetoric on both sides must end, in order to fulfil the goal of obseving the mitzvah of lifnei iver.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Hasiba, the Raaviya, and a Potential Halachic Sea Change

Originally published 4/12/08, 11:18 PM, Eastern Daylight Time
Given the Raaviya takes a very Liberal view regarding Hasiba [Reclining]. He declines to recline because, after all, in our day and age, we do not formally dine on cushions on the floor! This position is well and good - but is it a a truly Orthodox position to do away with a time-honored Halachah in the Talmud merely due to changed external circumstances?

The Bavli gives very demanding parameters, lean to the right not the left, lest one choke etc. Hasiba is very formal and very specific. How did the Raaviya ignore this? Was he acting like a proto-Liberal Rabbi?

A change occurred to me last year. Whilst slugging through the Bavli's 10th chapter of Pesachim [arvei pesachim] I took a short-cut detour and I did the much more compact Yerushalmi instead. There it was - Lo and Behold:

Q; Why must one do hasiba at the seder?
A: Lest one eat STANDING UP like a servant!

Could this alternate Talmudic source have coincided with the Raaviya's position?
Today, I ate my second S'eudah with Rabbi Dr. Kanarfgoel, a PhD in Jewish Medieval history and I mentioned this idea. While he did not respond specifically, he noted that the Raaviya was the FIRST Ashkenazic source to have a complete Yersushalmi at his disposal and he used it widely!

On a completely different topic, we have manuscripts in the Rambam's own handwriting. At times, he crosses out a Halachah and replaces it with the alternate read in the Yerushalmi. The Rambam USUALLY is very RIF-centric, but at times he follows Yerushalmi, probably AFTER considering the RIF first as the likely Halachah [as above]

==========================================================

What does this portent in the future? As Artscroll Shottenstein is publishing a user friendly Yerushalmi, people may see many concepts in a brand new light. Granted that MOST commentaries attempt to get the Yerushalmi to jibe with the Bavli, nevertheless, there will be brand new insights garnished from sources perhaps more ancient than the Bavli. Will this bring about a Sea change not only in how people view the Talmud, but will it impact pesak -as it apparently did for the R'a'aviyah and the Rambam?
--

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

You don't have to be Jewish to enjoy Hillel!

Originally published 4/7/08, 8:41 AM, Eastern Daylight Time. The link no longer works.
Hillel is opening up its facilities to non-Jews! Think of the Reprecussions!

To quote Attorney Douglas Aronin

But one thing that both the excerpt and the full JTA article make clear is that the change in orientation is one that Hillel professionals on many campuses feel is being forced upon them by the realities of campus life. If you want to attract Jewish students who are not already actively Jewish, you're going to need to offer something that they find attractive. In the pre-Richard Joel era, Hillels generally were satisfied with just serving the Jewish needs of those who were already actively Jewish. Would we be better off going back in that direction?

And to 1uote Rabbi David Willig:

I wonder what would happen if a group of Whites wanted to join the BLACK STUDENT ASSOCIATION, or Jews join the Moslem Student Union. DW

For full details see:

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/2008033120080327hillel.html)

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

Leining: Is it zeikher or zekher?

Originally published 4/2/08, 11:06 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
I looked up ZECHER in the Even Shoshan Concordance - and in it I located 2 occurences of Zecher - and BOTH were proper names!

Zecher is clearly wrong. Rav Mordechai Breuer OBM has confirmed this with unassailable research While the Ma'seh Rav attests to this idea of Zecher Rav Haim Volozhiner protested this very attestation [albeit very politely]. In NO way were TWO readings ever suggested

But if safeik D'd'oraiito lehumra re: Zachor why not go all the way? [Reductio ad absurdum indeed- after all it is read around Purim time! So why not

1. Read it from BOTH a Sephardic and Ashkenaic Torah...
2. Read BOTH Scrolls with every permutation of pronunciation [e.g. litvisher, Hungarian, Yekkish, Sephardic, Yeminite etc. etc.]?

The Vilna Gaon himself made fun of multiple pairs of Tefillin as ludicrous and came up with 32-64 possible permutations. Ironically we are beginning to perpetuate such a practice in his honor. [Incidentally, this proves there MUST be a God, or else it would make no sense to practice such a minhag to honor the one who felt such permutation was unnecessary.]

One Rabbi insisted that whilst reading Ki Tetze both Zeicher and Zecher must be read TWICE, one for Shevii'i and once for Maftir! His argument? since we have changed the form [tzura] for Zachor therefore THAT becomes THE normative way to read it EVERY time we read the Torah, including Ki Tetze! No, I am not kidding; I had a bar mitzva student who HAD to do it this way!



Kol Tuv / Best Regards,

RabbiRichWolpoe