The Ethical Rift

Fifty years ago, being frum meant basically that you had the same ethical standards as the general population but that you were more committed to what people called the ritual laws of Judaism (Shabbat, kashrut) and expected to be more scrupulous in observing these generally accepted ethical and moral standards (although the general population loved to find frum people who did not meet these standards).

Today, though, it has changed. Being frum now often means to be at odds with many moral and ethical views that are becoming more accepted. From gay rights to women's rights to abortion to euthanasia and so on, the world is in flux over many ethical and moral issues. It can no longer be said that there is even one generally accepted moral standard in the general population so for sure it cannot be assumed that frum individuals share basic ethical outlooks with the general population. The question is: how does this impact on our presentation of Torah? Does everything now become a chok even as we feel it is a mishpat?

The strangest problem, though, may be that those I, for example, side with in many conclusions are not necessarily the ones I side with in general outlook, even in general ethical/moral outlook and those with whom I disagree may also be the ones that I find more like me in general outlook. For example, I clearly am disgusted by the way the Taliban and other extremists treat an adulterer and, especially, an adulteress but in attacking such people I find myself joining with those who don't even think adultery is that wrong if wrong at all. And I express my views on adultery, I am, furthermore, almost immediately categorized with the Taliban. That is especially true in the matter of gay rights. If I express any opposition to homosexuality based upon my religious principles, I am branded as homophobic and racist.

I wonder where this will all take us in the future as I believe we are entering into a new dynamic in relating to the world.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

V'etchanan: Yashar and Tov

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 V'etchanan and the topic is the the terms yashar and tov, specifically the source of ethics. In our ethical behaviour, do we search solely for Divine approval or is there a value in human approval? We invite you to look at an article on this topic at http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/spark5754-40.htm

Reflections on The 3-week Season

Something to Ponder! FWIW I heard a great lecture on this Sugya.

KT, RRW

Time for courage

By Shammai Engelmayer

(C) 2002 - all rights reserved by the author

An Orthodox colleague approached me recently with a request. The Three Weeks are about to begin, he said; perhaps it is time to reprise a column I wrote over four years ago.

The Three Weeks, of course, is that period between the Fast of Shiva Asar b’Tammuz (17^th of Tammuz) and Tisha B’Av (9^th of Av) that is marked by an escalating level of mourning for the sacking of Jerusalem and the razing of the Temple both in 586 BCE and 70 CE. This year, that period began on Thursday (June 27) and will end well after 9 p.m. on July 18.

The column in question had to do with why Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. Of specific interest to my colleague was not the story itself, but the lesson it taught for future generations. The recent UJA-Federation study of Bergen County Jewish life, my colleague said, is not the triumphant document of vibrant Jewish life that it is being made to appear. Its references to the high number of unaffiliated Jews in the county and other statistics, such as the number of Jews under age 35 who have Christmas trees in their homes (it is over 30 percent), only reaffirm that American Jewry is in the midst of a demographic nightmare. American Jewry may disappear entirely in a generation or two, if the horrifying trends continue.

Yet, my Orthodox colleague said, the streams continue to fight among themselves as if there is nothing wrong. The story of why Jerusalem was destroyed, he said, had something to say about that.

What was most interesting (other than that a 4-year-old column had made such an impression on him) was that the story he was referring to usually is cited inaccurately. In fact, we have heard the inaccurate version so many times that we accept it as fact: Jerusalem was destroyed because of the sin of “baseless hatred” (sinat chinam); the Talmud says so, so it must be true.

Actually, the Talmud offers many reasons for why Jerusalem was destroyed by the Roman. In the Babylonian Talmud tractate Shabbat (119b), for example, it offers a laundry list of reasons. Among them are that “Shabbat was desecrated there”; “Jerusalemites neglected reading the Shema”; “neglected [the education of] school children”; acted without concern for how their actions looked to others; acted as though the most ignorant of the law were the equals of those most knowledgeable; “closed their eyes to the evil around them and did nothing to correct the situation”; or “that scholars there were despised by the general population.”

The Jerusalem that these scenarios conjures up was one rampant in secularism and disdain for “the religious.” A picture of another sort is painted in BT Yoma (9b), and it is here that we are given the most popular reason for Jerusalem’s destruction: “But the second Temple -- during which period they occupied themselves with Torah, mitzvot, and gemilut chasadim – why was it destroyed? Because there existed there sinat chinam. That is meant to teach you that baseless hatred is considered even worse [a sin] than the three sins of idolatry, sexual immorality, and bloodshed combined.”

That is strong stuff, but especially since the three sins it outranks are the only ones for which the Talmud insists a person should suffer martyrdom rather than be forced to commit the offense.

What is absent here, however, is an explanation of this “baseless hatred.” For that, another talmudic text, BT Gittin (55b-56a) is usually cited, the infamous tale of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza. There is only one problem with this citation: It has nothing to do with “baseless hatred” and makes no such claim. Those who cite it either have never studied the text, or deliberately cut off the tale at its knees to distort the true message before it reaches the general Jewish public.

“The destruction of Jerusalem came through a certain Kamtza and a Bar Kamtza in this way,” Rabbi Yochanan explains in this section of Gittin. “A certain man had a friend named Kamtza and an enemy named Bar Kamtza. He once made a party and said to his servant, ‘Go and bring me Kamtza.’ The man went and brought him Bar Kamtza instead. When the [host] found [Bar Kamtza] there, he said, ‘Behold, you are the one who tells stories about me. Why are you here? Leave.’ Said [Bar Kamtza to the host]: ‘Since I am already here, let me stay, and I will pay you for whatever I eat and drink.’”

The host said no, and all the efforts of Bar Kamtza to avoid being embarrassed proved futile. He even offered to pay for the whole party, but the host took him by the hand and threw him out, while all of Jerusalem’s elite reportedly stood by in silence.

“Said [Bar Kamtza], ‘Since there were Rabbis sitting there and [they] did not stop him [from behaving so boorishly], I understand from this that they agreed with him. I will go to the [Roman] government and inform on them.’”

Thus, according to the testimony of Bar Kamtza, the reason for his perfidy was the silence of the Rabbis, not the animosity shown to him by the anonymous host. That animosity, in fact, may not have been baseless, at all. The host cites his reason: that Bar Kamtza spread tales about him, presumably of an evil nature. Bar Kamtza does not deny the charge. Rather, he pleads not to be embarrassed in front of Jerusalem’s elite.

The story, however, is not over. Rabbi Yochanan has more to say:

“[Bar Kamtza] went and said to [the local governor, personal representative of] Caesar, ‘The Jews are rebelling against you.’ [The Roman] said, ‘How can I tell?’ Said Bar Kamtza to him: ‘Send them an offering and see whether they will offer it [on the altar].’”

Bar Kamtza, of course, had a plan. He knew that the Romans would choose a perfect calf for the offering. He hoped that he would be the one to take it to the Temple, and he was. “While on the way,” said Rabbi Yochanan, Bar Kamtza “made a blemish on its upper lip, or some say that it was on the white of its eye, in a place where according to our way of thinking it is a blemish [thereby rendering the calf ineligible as a sacrifice], but according to [the Roman] way of looking at it, it is not [considered a blemish].”

Now Rabbi Yochanan gets to his point:

“The Rabbis reasoned that it should be offered, in order to keep peace with the government, but Rabbi Zechariah ben Avkulas said to this: ‘They will say [in the future] that blemished animals are offered on the altar.’ [The Rabbis] then suggested that Bar Kamtza be killed so that he could not go and inform against them [a second time], but Rabbi Zechariah ben Avkulas said to this, ‘They will say [in the future] that someone who makes a blemish on consecrated animals should be put to death.’”

On both points, apparently, Rabbi Zechariah ben Avkulas was able to sway the majority to his viewpoint. Said Rabbi Yochanan: “Because of the humility of Rabbi Zechariah ben Avkulas, our House was destroyed, our Temple burnt and we ourselves exiled from our land.”

We are not certain who this Rabbi Zechariah ben Avkulas was, because he never again appears (at least by that name) in the entire Talmud, although a Rabbi Zechariah ben Eucolos makes a solo appearance in BT Shabbat in a discussion of how to get rid of the kernels of Syrian dates. The traitorous Jewish historian Josephus, who ascribes the beginning of the war to the refusal to accept the offering of the emperor in 66 C.E., mentions someone with a similar name and says he was an important figure in the rabbinic circles of the day.

Who he is, however, is less important than what Rabbi Yochanan meant by humility. From the context of the story, it is clear that he meant that Rabbi Zechariah refused to bend the law even though refusal to do so could lead to tragic consequences. It is as if he said, “Who am I, a mere human, to change God’s immutable law even this once?”

That is, in fact, how most sources understand Rabbi Yochanan’s use of the word humility (both the English Soncino translation and the Hebrew Steinsaltz translation define it as “stubborness”). For Rashi, the great commentator of the Middle Ages, this was an unacceptable definition, however. In his world – the world of Ashkenaz, the Crusades and the mass murder of Jews – extremism was the route to holiness. When offered the choice of “convert or die,” the Jews of Ashkenaz were instructed to choose death, even at their own hand. Rashi, therefore, offered his own translation of humility: patience. It is not a definition that makes sense in the context of the story, but it was one that suited Rashi’s world view. (This world view is reflected in the ArtScroll translation, which uses the word “tolerance” directly in the text, avoiding “humility” altogether.)

Rabbi Yochanan’s point, however, is clear: Jerusalem was razed and the Temple set afire because one rabbi insisted that God’s law was immutable and uncompromising, and the consequences be damned.

The true lesson of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza, and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, is that the consequences must be considered. If God was the ultimate author of the calamities of 70 C.E., then it was God Himself who rejected following a strict interpretation of halachah in the face of impending disaster. It was He who punished His people for not allowing a more liberal interpretation of the law to hold sway long enough to avert disaster.

Sometimes, God was saying, religious authorities must set aside their aversion to compromise. When the fate of the People Israel is at stake, they must be more accepting of other views and must be more honest in admitting that their views may not be the only ones that will please God. They can hold to their views, but they must neither demonize nor delegitimate those who think differently.

Put into the context of the demographic nightmare facing us, which was the point of my colleague’s request, it will take all three streams working together to stem the tide of disaster. Each must revisit its hardened opinions and decisions. Each must find ways to recognize the validity of the other and the usefulness of the other in trying to reawaken Judaism in the hearts of the born-Jewish. Each must set aside its triumphalism and its competitiveness, and sit together in formulating the battle plans for saving the Jewish future.

What was lacking in the Kamtza/Bar Kamtza story was rabbinic courage. The Rabbis at the party did not have the courage to stand up to the anonymous host. They lacked courage again in the face of the stubbornness of Rabbi Zechariah ben Avkilus.

If they lack the courage now, we are doomed.

Comparing the Holocaust and Assimilation

I believe it was Emil Fackenheim who said that we must vigilantly attack assimilation so that we do not give Hitler a posthumous victory. Bluntly, I have always had problems with that argument. I could contend that, in line with this type of argument, assimilation and more specifically intermarriage could be the best way to ensure that Hitler is not posthumously victorious. One of the first laws that the Nazis introduced were the Nuremburg Laws that made intermarriage between an Aryan and a Jew a criminal offense. The essence of Nazism was narrow racism built upon a belief that one person is inherently superior to another. The way to defeat such a concept, it would actually seem, is through the promotion of universalism and the treatment of all human beings as not only equal but inherently the same. Thus, if our sole concern is to defeat Hitler, the call should really not be to encircle ourselves in separate groupings and maintain distinctions between different people and peoples but to promote the common essence of all humanity and universalism. Of course, this is not what I advocate but then again my point in being Jewish is not to prevent Hitler from having a posthumous victory.

I have similar feelings in regard to a comparison between modern assimilation and the Holocaust. Such a comparison, in many ways, seems to me to be solely an attempt to bring the emotions a person feels towards the horror of the Holocaust into one's perception of assimialtion. As with most cases where the word Holocaust is used in comparison to some event, it is often just a marketing tool to try and evoke the passionate response that the user of this term desires. Is it truly comparable, though? The Holocaust was the imposition of one group upon another against the will and desire of those being imposed upon. Assimilation and intermarriage are, on the other hand, the actions of one group, based upon their will and desire, that is not viewed favourably by another person or group. Again, I am not, of course, promoting assimilation. What I am calling for, though, is seeing things honestly.

Of course, Torah calls upon the Jewish people to maintain a separation between us and other peoples; Inherently, there is thereby a challenge to universalism. Of course, Torah calls upon us to fight assimilation and to see the loss of Jewish identity and expression within a person as a tragic event, even if the person has so decided. Inherently there is thereby a challeng to the value of autonomy that is so significant within the realm of liberty. Does this mean Torah is against universalism and liberty? I believe that, of course, the answer to this question is no -- but to clarify the Torah understanding of universalism and nationalism, of imposition and liberty demands much work and effort.

Comparing the Holocaust and assimilation is such an easy thing to do -- and to thereby evoke emotions that would promote Jewish identity. The cost, though, is Jewish thought. The comparison is really inappropriate. There are reasons why the comparison is inappropriate. The comparison ultimately weakens the essence of what Torah really is all about. Such comparisons are used because their easy. Such comparisons, though, ultimately hurt Torah and Jewishness because what God has given us is not easy but demands much thought.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Controverisal Op-ed in the New York Times from the RCA

One quick comment:
If this institution were brought down, prices of Glatt Kosher meet would rocket higher than did Gasoline earlier this year.
KT
RRW

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Dark Meat
By
Shmuel Herzfeld
Washington

ACCORDING to the Jewish calendar we are now in the month of Av, a period of increasingly intense mourning that culminates with a total fast on the Ninth of Av, which this year coincides with Sunday, Aug. 10.

One of the customary practices in these nine days is the avoidance of meat: it's the way we commemorate the destruction of the Temple, where daily animal sacrifices were once brought.

Refraining from food is symbolic, of course. The idea is not just to avoid meat but to limit ourselves so that we can better focus on the spiritual.

Unfortunately, this year kosher meat has become a different type of symbol, one not of mourning and spiritual devotion but of ridicule, embarrassment and hypocrisy. In May in Postville, Iowa, immigration officials raided Agriprocessors Inc., the largest kosher meatpacking plant in the country.

What began as an immigration sting, however, quickly took on larger dimensions. News reports and government documents have described abusive practices at ...

Link to NY Times

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

Principles and Tolerance - Part 2

The second part of a two part presentaion on balancing principles and tolerance, by Nishma's Founding Director, Rabbi Benjamin Hecht, is available in this week's edition of the Jewish Tribune (Toronto). To view the article on line, go to http://www.jewishtribune.ca/TribuneV2/content/view/821/53/

Sinat Chinum

While most may wish to translate sinat chinum as "baseless hatred", I prefer to translate it as "purposeless hatred". It is learning how we are to deal with what we may refer to as our more negative emotions that must be our goal during the Three Weeks.

To understand why I translate sinat chinum in this manner and to further understand the lessons that are to learned through this term, I invite you to read the following articles from the Nishma website:
Defining Sinat Chinum (Part One)
Defining Sinat Chinum (Part Two)

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Principles and Tolerance - Part One

The first part of a two part presentaion on balancing principles and tolerance, by Nishma's Founding Director, Rabbi Benjamin Hecht, was recently published in the Jewish Tribune (Toronto).

To view the article on line, go to
http://www.jewishtribune.ca/TribuneV2/content/view/802/53/

Views on the News

Another obbservation by Rabbi Shamai Engelmayer - this time on the media itself.
(C) 2008 - All rights reserved by the Author.

NB: While there is great temptation for me to rant, the goal of this blog is more about insight, information, and education. We want readers to be both informed and stimulated and only occasionally alarmed.

KT
RRW

Fluffery, puffery and sockpuppetry

by Shammai Engelmayer

How do we get “news” today? Newspapers deliver a great deal of it to us with each edition, but is what is being delivered properly to be called “news”?

If one is to judge by what passes for news in the Jewish media, the answer is a very loud no. Jewish newspapers today seem far more interested in “look who’s Jewish” stories (such as interviewing Angelina Jolie’s Jewish ob-gyn) than they are about, say, the ever-rising cost of Jewish living.

Jewish newspapers, however, merely reflect the trend in the mainstream media away from substance towards fluff. Articles on the dumbest things, especially when unhealthily sprinkled with heavy doses of lashon ha-ra (bad speech; telling us things about other people we have no business knowing about), get better play than “hard news” stories. Jewish newspapers are just following the big boys.

On the television front, things are even worse for people seeking information about the important issues.

A recent survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism found, for example, that if you watched 300 consecutive minutes of cable news on any given day during 2007 (which actually translates to fewer than 200 minutes because of commercial interruptions, station breaks and the like), you would have seen one minute and 25 seconds about the environment; one minute and 22 seconds about education; one minute about science and technology; three minutes and 34 seconds about the economy; and three minutes and 46 seconds about health and health care. On the other hand, you would have seen 26 minutes or more of crime stories; 12 minutes of accidents and disasters; and at least 10 minutes of celebrity and entertainment news.

The broadcast networks are no better. For example, they devoted three percent of their airtime in the first 10 weeks of 2008 to the Iraq war.

And then there is the Blogosphere. There are bloggers who are well informed, maintain high standards, and sign their names to what they write. Then there are the bloggers who hide behind the anonymity of screen names to say anything they want in any way they want. No one is there to edit them or to check their excesses.

It would be easy to dismiss the rants, raves and rumors, but for three things: the speed at which they travel on the internet; the fact that net surfers believe what they read; and the fact that the mainstream media too often report blog entries as if they are holy writ. If an item is salacious enough or smells of scandal, wire services will carry it, newspapers will print it and broadcasters will air it. The routine professional checks—such as finding three independent sources of confirmation—do not exist when the item is from the Blogosphere.

Who are these people who wield such potential power to misinform? The disaffected, for the most part, often are the bloggers of record. They have axes to grind, or points to prove. Few consider themselves bound by normal principles of journalistic ethics.

Most have a cadre of hangers-on who add their comments to the bloggers’ own. Often, these hangers-on are actually shills, either for the official blogger or the blogger’s latest target. These people are called sockpuppets. A sockpuppet, as defined by the New York Times, is someone who assumes “a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company.”

Sockpuppets not only help make a blog site look important (“look at all that chatter; this guy must be on to something”), they are also a tool of the trade for public relations firms, according to articles in Business Week and elsewhere, and my son, an executive at a Jewish owned and oriented P.R. firm that uses sockpuppetry with abandon. Even governments engage in sockpuppetry, including the State of Israel, as do political campaigns (the New York Times traced anti-Menendez postings to a senior official of Tom Kean Jr.’s Senate bid). These sockpuppets are unleashed to counter negative blogs and build positive buzz for a client by posting phony entries. Sockpuppetry is so standard that some PR firms openly advertise for such people. Nevertheless, it is a deceptive tactic and, at times, a mean-spirited one.

If you are Jewish, it is also involves several violations of Jewish law. For example, it is g’neivat da-at (theft of knowledge) to hide one’s affiliation if it is relative to an issue; doing so also violates the Torah prohibition of putting a stumbling block before the blind. Then there are such matters as lashon ha-ra and motzi shem ra (spreading untruths about someone else). God did not give us the knowledge to create the Internet in order for it to become a way to subvert His laws of proper conduct.

The Jewish media violate the same laws, albeit for somewhat different reasons. Not reporting on information that is vital to the community is itself a form of g’neivat da-at, as well as a stumbling block, because the less information we have, the less able are we to deal with the problems that need solving. And articles that focus on “look who’s Jewish” personalities almost always violate lashon ha-ra and often enough also violate motzi shem ra.

Jewish media must not operate this way; Jewish P.R. firms must not operate this way; Jewish bloggers must not operate this way. Halachah does not stop at the keyboard. Internet anonymity does not provide a heter (in essence, a free pass) for sinning.

A little less than a month from now, Jewish bloggers will gather in Jerusalem for their first ever convention. Not on the agenda—but what should top it—is a clear statement that Jewish law is sacrosanct even on the information superhighway.

As for the Jewish media. they need to re-examine their priorities and we, the readers, listeners and viewers, need to let them know that we have had it with “fluff and puff” journalism; we want them to focus on the issues that really matter.

Say What? A Day in the life of a ....

A customer comes into the restaurant today.

Customer: When do the 9 days start?
Me: A week from tomorrow.
Customer: What's the date?
Me: August 2nd
Customer: And how long do the 9 days last?

Now try answering THAT question!
--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

Ethical Dilemma - Gabbai Abuse

My friend Sammy G. told me this one after the fast was over. Sammy G. is a Gabbai par excellence in New England who has formally retired and is a "gabbai" shlishi....

It seems that the Rabbi was away and Gabbais 1 & 2 were late to Mincha during an unusually hot day for New England. So Sammy, seeing all the people gathering 'round to go to minyan, ran ahead [well he is a bit old to really run...] and opened up the shul

A chiyyuv [call him Gavriel] approached him to daven - so Sammy obliged. Then a Kohein asked to be called since he had "yahrtzeit" the next day. Here is the conversation [no good deed goes unpunished or no wisecrack goes unappreciated?]:

Sammy: So you want Kohein I guess?
Kohein: of course what else is there?
Sammy: Well there IS hagbah! [Sammy was being tongue in cheek!]
Kohein: Well of all the @#$%^&*&^% things I have ever heard!!
and then Kohein storms out of the shul.

Sammy is a bit bemused and confused because he was really just making a quip.
Then Gabbais 1 & 2 enter and Sammy says "You should have seen Kohein today - he really flipped out."
Out of nowhere the Chiyyuiv [Gavriel] goes ballistic and starts screaming at poor Sammy

Sammy: But I was just kidding...
Gavriel: But Kohein WASN'T
Sammy: But I meant no harm;
Gavriel: YOU should know better [and he proceeds to lace it in]
Sammy: Well if you feel that way, I guess you should ask Gabbai 1 or 2 to daven because you obviously cannot accept MY appointment to the Amud!

Sammy was shocked. He later shared the story with me and then asked:
Rabbi Rich:

1. What did I do wrong?
2. What should I do?
3. Where is every one's sense of humor?
4. How could Gavriel daven for the amud after being so nasty in public?

I had a hard time calming Sammy down. Here are a few points:

1. Sammy, you really were not wrong.
2. You might apologize or TRY to explain the mis-understanding, but don't excpect Kohein or Gavriel to back down. Both seem to me to be a bit "amud happy"
3. Well they are fasting and it WAS a hot day, but granted, I think they way over-reacted. Perhaps an anger management course is in order!
4. Good question! See #2. Apparently Gavriel felt he was right so he had no problem with losing his temper

Sammy came back with a couple of new points:

1. Well If I were THAT angry I would not take the amud, I would walk away EVEN if I were a chiyyuv
2. I don't disagree that they could have talked back to be about the mis-understanding. But what excuse is there for screaming in public? Isn't that wrong to embarrass someone in public?

I had to agree.

1. Gavriel might have stepped away if he were really being a mensch about it and MERELY defending Kohein, but I guess he had another agenda, too
2. I agree also, had Gavriel just quietly shushed you it would have been much better instead of going ballistic

I also mentioned that hagbah is after a big kibbud, EVEN though people don't consider it so. But I guess in a small town they are not so educated re: the Mishna Brurah and the idea that Hagbah is the culmination of the laining etc.

• Anyway, was Sammy wrong to make light of Kohein's Yahrtzeit issue?
• Did the fact that the Yahrzeit was the next today a factor - iow since Kohein was not a REAL chiyyuv that day, he could always get an aliya on Monday morning.
• Did Kohein embarass Sammy by storming out?
• Was Gavriel justified in stepping in or did he really add gasoline to the fire!
  

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

"You've been Aish'd"

The Jerusalem Post recently published an article entitled "You've been Aish'd" whcih can be viewed on line at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215330995567&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull. The article basically attacks Aish and other outreach organizations as misrepresenting Orthodoxy in an attempt to promote it to other Jews. This misrepresentatin can be defined in two ways. First it creates an environment that is beneficial for their purpose, in other words it brings people into a world that favours a transition to Orthodoxy by the targeted individuals. Second it presents Orthodoxy in a totally positive manner with a view that people who abide by this system are totally happy and fulfilled. The author of the article then goes on to show how transient this created environment is and how untrue this presentation of Orthodoxy is. She basically concludes her article witht the message that she was someone who was taken in for a while, she knows why she was taken in and there were some nice things about this fantasy that she lived but, in the end, she came back to reality and saw through this presentation -- and she imples this is what happens with most people who encounter this experience although there are a few that stay part of this illusion.

Much can be said about this presentation. I am sure that many would like to come to the defense of the various kiruv organizations that were invariably drawn into this critique. I am sure that there are also many who understand the stance that this woman is taking and agree with her presentation of kiruv as a slick marketing model which spruces up Orthodoxy in order to make the sale. There are arguments both ways and while the marketing inherent in kiruv can be critiqued, we also cannot deny the benefit that kiruv has brought to many people and to the community, in many ways, in general. Yet, it may be time to, at least, start looking at kiruv with a more critical eye. Is there a better way of presenting Orthodoxy? What are the negative consequences of reports of such people as this author who, in challenging kiruv are also challenging Orthodoxy in general.?

I wish, though, to raise another concern. My question is: what is the effect of kiruv back on the Orthodox community in general? There are two parts to this question. What is the effect back upon Orthodoxy of these individuals brought into Orthodoxy through these totally bright presentations - what is the effect they will have on future Torah education? More importantly, what is the effect of the very marketing of Torah upon Torah? To sell Torah means to convince someone that Torah is good for them based upon their yardstick, but the very essence of Torah is to affect our yardstick? There has to be a coercive aspect to Torah to really present the full lesson of Torah -- what is happening to this aspect in a world of sales through kiruv? I invite you to read an article I penned a few years ago on this subject and share your comments here. The article can be viewed at http://www.nishma.org/articles/update/update5754-1.htm

Rabbi Ben Hecht

But, is an edict really necessary?

The following article at

http://www.5tjt.com/news/read.asp?Id=2731

describes an edict, from many who would be described in the Charedi world as Gedolei Yisrael, that calls upon landlords in Lakewood to be careful to whom they rent apatments. The concern is the renting of premises in areas populated by frum Jews to "undesirables". The "undesirables" being referred to are actually individuals who would be looked upon as problematic in almost any neighbourhood -- i.e. people associated with crime, drugs, promiscuity; this does not seem to be a call to only rent to frum people. So the question is: why the need for such an edict? While I applaud these rabbis for their stance -- and clearly our sensitivity to others should demand of us to be careful about placing undesirables as neighbours to others, especially those we share commitment, values and community with -- I wonder what this need for an edict tells us about our Torah educational systems, our understandings of Torah and our practice of the mitzvot bein adam l'chaveiro, the commandments between people. Do we also now need an edict that pork is prohibited according to Torah law? This edict is specifically directed to people who would follow a directive of these rabbis -- so I wonder, how could such individuals, committed to Torah, not know that they should be careful to whom they rent apartments close to other Jews? I don't think this is a problem in only the Charedi world but is something of concern within all of Orthodoxy.

Yerushalayim - Letter and Response

Below, in the post entitled Yerushalayim Must Maintain Jewish Sovereignty, we referred you to an article in the Jewish Tribune (Toronto), written by Nishma's Founding Director, Rabbi Benjamin Hecht, on the topic of the sovreignty of Yerushalayim.

The Tribune this week published a letter to the editor in response to Rabbi Hecht's column and a response to this letter by Rabbi Hecht. We invite you to now look at this correspondence at http://www.jewishtribune.ca/tribune/PDF/jt100708.pdf (page 5).

Why evolution is not our hot button issue

Another article from Rabbi Shammai Engelmayer. I have posted many times in the past that TRUE Science and TRUE Torah can never be in conflict because they all emanate from the same source. Perhaps we humans PERCEIVE a conflict, but this is probably an issue of semantics or communication.

BTW, the Rema reputedly said the sam things about Philosophy and Qabbalah, that the differences were merely a matter of semantics. Thus, different discipplines may speak in different metaphors, nevertheless, Provided that they are sincere, they are saying the same thing.

That said, I don't accept Evolution as dogma without first questioning it and using scientific inquiry, as well as good logical thinking.

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

Why Evolution is NOT our "Hot-Button" Issue

by Shammai Engelmayer

(C) 2008 by Shammai Engelmayer - Re-Printed with the author's permission

The anti-evolutionists are at it again and this time, they think they have come up with a winning strategy. Rather than teach alternative theories (creationism or intelligent design, for example), they are now pushing for new laws that would force schools to teach "the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory."

Bills to do just that are in various stages of development—one may say they are evolving—in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri and South Carolina.

In Texas, the "strength and weaknesses" language actually has been on the books for more than 20 years, but only now may be put into force. The state board of education, seven of whose 15 members believe in intelligent design, is spending the next month trying to figure out how. If it succeeds in finding a way that will pass muster with the courts, it will be a victory for fundamentalist Christians who equate teaching the science of creation with promoting a godless society by undermining the Bible's authority.

One would think that Jewish schools would be the primary battleground for defending God's word against the "heresies" of godless science, since Genesis 1, the first chapter of Bereishit, was a Jewish text long before it was a Christian one. Yet this is not the case. In some yeshivot, the issue is simply irrelevant; in other yeshivot and in day schools, the attitude is that since God created science, there can be no conflict.

Behind this attitude exists another one that would drive fundamentalist Christians up a wall: Judaism has never been wedded to the literalness of every word in the Torah. "The Shechina [the Spirit of the Lord] never descended to earth, nor did Moses or Elijah ever ascend to heaven [even though it is so stated in the Bible]," declares Rabbi Yosi in the Babylonian Talmud tractate Sukkah 5a.

Do not misunderstand me: We do accept the literal truth of what the Torah says about creation and other matters; it is the words and images the Torah uses to express that truth that is in doubt. In other words, using creation as an example, while we accept that God created the world in six days, we also accept the fact that we do not understand what "day" means or what is actually meant by "created."

We also accept the fact that there are concepts that go beyond human understanding and that the Torah, which is meant to be a document for humans to understand, had to express those concepts in a way that we could understand.

The great commentator Maimonides, writing 1,000 years after Rabbi Yosi's declaration, considered belief in the literalness of the words to be a form of heresy.

Particularly irksome to the Rambam, as Maimonides is also known, was the insistence of some that God has a physical form merely because the Torah talks of His pointing fingers and outstretched arms and of His speaking, presumably through a mouth. To the Rambam, these are obvious metaphors. He codifies this in his Mishnah Torah: The Laws of the Fundamentals of the Torah 1:7, where he states as a positive commandment the requirement to know (not merely to believe) that God has no form of any kind.

As he explains in MT Fundamentals 1:9, the anthropomorphic terms used to describe God and His actions are expressions "adapted to the mental capacity of the majority of humankind..., [because] God's essence as it really is, the human mind does not understand and is incapable of grasping or investigating...."

The Rambam even made this the second and third of his 13 articles of faith: "To believe that God is one, the cause of all oneness. He is...not one in the sense that a simple body is—numerically one, but still infinitely divisible. God, rather, is uniquely one....To believe that He is incorporeal, that His unity is in no way physical, either potentially so or actually so. None of the attributes of matter—motion, say, or rest—can be ascribed to Him. They cannot refer to Him accidentally or essentially....Whenever Scripture describes Him in such corporeal terms as 'walking,' 'standing,' 'sitting,' 'speaking,' and the like, it speaks metaphorically." [See "Chelek," the Rambam's essay to Chapter 10 of BT Sanhedrin]

In The Laws of Repentance, 3:7, he goes so far as to state that anyone who does not accept this is a heretic.

Now, it could be argued that such other great commentators as Rashi and Nachmanides (a/k/a the Ramban) believed in the absolute literalness of every word, but that is wrong. They believed, rather, that often, what the text says and what it really says are two different things; that there is a "hidden text" lurking amid the words of the plain text.

Hidden texts aside, the plain text makes quite clear how God, the Creator, went about creating:

^"And God said, 'Let the earth generate plants, vegetation that produces seed, fruit trees, each making fruit of its own kind, which has its seed in it, on the earth.' And it was so: The earth brought out plants, vegetation that produces seeds of its own kind, and trees that make fruit that each has seeds of its own kind in it." (See Genesis 1:11-12.)

Notice what God does here: nothing! God "says" (by whatever means God communicates His thoughts) and nature goes to work doing what comes naturally. There is not even a concept of instantaneous fulfillment here. Nature does what nature does in the time it takes nature to do it naturally.

Does the first chapter of Genesis tell us how creation happened? Yes, but not in terms that will satisfy a scientist. Then again, Genesis was not written to satisfy a scientist.

Does Genesis contradict science? No. Science tells us, as best it can, what the technical aspects were of creation, but not in ways that will satisfy the theologian. Then again, science does not exist to satisfy the theologian.

Put another way, we Jews are secure enough in our faith in God as the Creator of All Things to recognize that one of those things—science—is just another way God communicates with us.And that is why the kinds of continuing battles against evolution do not have counterparts in Jewish schools.

Thinking about Thinking

Originally published 7/6/08, 7:34 pm.
Did you know that:

1. My rebbe is better than your rebbe?
2. My Sevara [logic] is better than your Sevara?
3. I am Holier than Thou?
4. My community has it right, yours is wrong or at best mistaken?
5. God thinks just like I do?
6. Since I have always believed it to be this way it must be true?
7. I know others cannot be infallible because I see the errors of their ways?
8. etc.?

I made an "early" foray into the world of "egolessness" not by studying Zen or New Age spirituality, but by being introduced to a very insightful book by a very observant and sincere Convert to Judaism. This friend of mine helped mentor me into becoming a computer programmer and he highly recommended the following tome, The Pscyhology of Computer Programming. In it, the highly rational author, Gerald Weinberg, preached the "gospel" of ego-less programming. imagine if we had egoless debating on blogs and discussion lists when it comes to matters of Torah. I now this is possible because the B'nai B'seira set an amazing example of egolessness in deferring to Hillel the Elder. So this trait is in our genes and in our legacy.
I realize that I, myself, allow my ego to get in my own way, and I am astounded at the way some of my cyber-debaters are so wrapped up in their pet paradigms that they fail to see it. I guess I am only ahead of some others in that I can usually show how my own pet paradigms and prejudices lead me to think the way I do. Whereas my colleagues are often clueless as to how they are really seeing things through ego based distortions. In an effort to raise all of our consciousness, I will from time to time post some useful info on how we can see through the egocentric thinking and arrive at a more objective truth.
My late dear Student, Reb Tony Yeni, died tragically last year at a rather young age. He left me several pamphlets including one from this website:

• http://www.criticalthinking.org/

Below is a blurb regarding Egocentric thinking. There is a more definitive blurb on page 6 of The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts & Tools. For now this blurb will do.
For complete details on this, please see the
Critical Thinking Website

KT,
RRW

Strategy Six: Deal with Your Egocentrism. Egocentric thinking is found in the disposition in human nature to think with an automatic subconscious bias in favor of oneself. On a daily basis, you can begin to observe your egocentric thinking in action by contemplating questions like these: Under what circumstances do I think with a bias in favor of myself? Did I ever become irritable over small things? Did I do or say anything “irrational” to get my way? Did I try to impose my will upon others? Did I ever fail to speak my mind when I felt strongly about something, and then later feel resentment? Once you identify egocentric thinking in operation, you can then work to replace it with more rational thought through systematic self-reflection, thinking along the lines of: What would a rational person feel in this or that situation? What would a rational person do? How does that compare with what I want to do? (Hint: If you find that you continually conclude that a rational person would behave just as you behaved you are probably engaging in self-deception.)

For Canadians Only

Originally published 7/6/08, 2:27 am.
Yes, G-d can be found in Canada, too. And No, I did not forget July 1 [Un Juillet] I was just too busy celebrating to post!

Chorus:
The Maple Leaf, our emblem dear,
The Maple Leaf forever!
G-d save our King and Heaven bless,
The Maple Leaf forever!

I suggest consulting the following article for more details.


Or you can sing:

G-d keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

KT,
RRW

Stem cell research and Jewish law

Originally published 7/6/08, 1:40 am.
Enjoy this recent Article from the NJ Jewish Standard - reprinted with permission.
KT,
RRW

Stem cell research and Jewish law

By Shammai Engelmayer (c) 2008 all rights reserved

Science" is a campaign issue in 2008. That is because the presumptive Democratic nominee, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, has made reversing what he calls the "anti-science" stance of the Bush administration a cornerstone of his campaign.

Inevitably, discussion of "science" and "anti-science" leads to whether federal funds should be used to encourage embryonic stem cell (ESC) research. The Bush administration opposes this, but Obama supports it. Ironically, so does his presumptive opponent, Sen. John McCain, who only eight years ago was firmly on the Bush side of the debate, but was helped to see the light by Nancy Reagan and some "very smart people," as he once told a television interviewer.

To be sure, the issues involved are complex. The two main questions are:

1. Is it moral and ethical to extract stem cells from unused human embryos in order to use them in research that could lead to the saving of lives in the future, particularly in cases of people suffering from Parkinson's Disease and diabetes?

2. Is it permissible to clone embryos in order to increase the availability of the stem cells needed to conduct such research?

Various Christian groups, from the Catholics to the evangelicals, say no to both questions.

Most Jewish legal authorities support embryonic stem cell research, including on the Orthodox right. The main dissenting voice, ironically, comes from the Reform movement. The only real debate is whether cloning embryos for ESC research is permissible.

First, a couple of halachic principles need to be explained. One is the concept of choleh l'faneinu (literally, the ill person is before us). Jewish law prohibits deriving any benefit from a corpse short of the immediate saving of another life. Obviously, this does not apply to ESC research. No one can seriously suggest that someone currently ill will derive any immediate life-saving benefit from research that remains in its infancy.

On the other hand, choleh l'faneinu has undergone considerable expansion since it was first conceived by Rabbi Yechezkel Landau nearly 230 years ago. Rather than an actual beneficiary, authorities today seek to create a statistical choleh l'faneinu in deciding on such matters as, say, organ transplantation. Thus, in an ESC context, the issue is whether any of the current victims of Parkinson's Disease or diabetes, say, will be alive when the research hopefully bears fruit. Since that is a virtual certainty, choleh l'faneinu, the ill person is before us.

The other issue is how we define piku'ach nefesh, regard for human life, the principle of Jewish law that overrides nearly all the other laws. Does the threat have to be both real and immediate? The sages of blessed memory offered a simple and direct answer: No. The potential for danger is sufficient for pikuach nefesh to kick in (see the Babylonian Talmud tractate Yoma 84b-85b).

The lives of victims of Parkinson's Disease or diabetes are at actual risk. If they are truly "the ill person before us," as many current interpretations of halachah would have it, then anything it takes to save their lives is halachically sound.

"In stem cell research and therapy, the moral obligation [is] to save human life, the paramount ethical principle in biblical law," according to Rabbi Moses Tendler in testimony he gave to a federal commission in 1999. Rabbi Tendler, very much to the right of the Orthodox center and also one of the nation's most respected biologists and bioethicists, added, "Mastery of nature for the benefit of those suffering from vital organ failure is an obligation [derived from Genesis 1:28]. Human embryonic stem cell research holds that promise."

Tendler would extend this to cloning, as well. It is here, however, where there exists serious debate among halachists.

Sephardic authorities in Israel agree that cloning embryos for research purposes is permissible. They see this as an extension of the permission they give to performing autopsies for research purposes. Most often cited regarding autopsies is the opinion of the late Sephardi Chief Rabbi Ben Zion Meir Chai Ouziel, who permitted them because "there is a possibility of thereby saving life." (See his responsa, Mishpetei Uziel, 1:28 and 29.)

Many, but not all, Ashkenazic Israeli authorities oppose cloning embryos (although many do support ESC research). This is in sharp contrast to the United States, where there appears to be majority support even for cloning among the Ashkenazic Orthodox rabbinate.

Ironically, as mentioned earlier, a Reform responsum on the subject agrees with the Israeli rabbis regarding cloning embryos for research. According to the responsum, issued by the Central Conference of American Rabbis in 2001 (5761.7), "It is not permissible to create embryonic human life for the purpose of destroying it in medical experimentation."

The CCAR responsum, however, goes much further. It disapproves of ESC research in general. "Let us not mince words," it states. "Although the fertilized egg may be called an 'embryo,' a 'zygote,' or a 'blastocyst,' these labels can mask the fact that we have here a human being, an organism that contains all the genetic material that would, under the proper conditions, develop into a full legal person….The embryo may not have attained the status of a nefesh, a legal person, a member of the human community, and its unwarranted killing may not be defined as 'murder.' It is, however, a human being, and by that token it partakes of the sanctity of all human life."

The responsum is also not impressed by the pikuach nefesh argument.

"This argument does have persuasive force, but that force lies in the sheer power of calculation," it says. "It depends upon the assignment of relative values to the human organism at different stages of its development: the nefesh receives a higher score than the not-yet-nefesh….This mathematical approach is elegant in its simplicity, but...it ignores some vital moral issues raised by the destruction of embryonic human life.…[E]ven there, in the microscopic fertilized egg, lies the supreme potential for humanity."

The Reform position aside, the majority still favor ESC research, including, when necessary, the cloning of embryos to harvest their stem cells. That may change, however, because of new research suggesting that adult stem cells scraped off of human skin can be "reprogrammed" to work just like the embryonic ones. To date, the new research remains highly speculative, but the halachic wheels are turning nonetheless.

Yerushalayim Must Maintain Jewish Sovereignty

Originally published 7/1/08, 12:50 pm. Link no longer works.
An article in regard to the sovereignty of Yerushalayim -- with a bit of a twist -- by Nishma's Founding Director, Rabbi Benjamin Hecht, was recently published in the Jewish Tribune (Toronto).

To see the article on line, go to http://www.jewishtribune.ca/TribuneV2/content/view/729/53/.

Controversial Moments At Rav S. R. Hirsch Memorial Celebration

Originally published 6/26/08, 11:02 pm. Link no longer works.
Hot off the Press - The JEWISH Press at that!

Speaking at the 200th birthday celebration of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch this past Shabbos, Khal Adath Jeshurun’s Rav Yisroel Mantel declared that the philosophical credo of Rav Hirsch, Torah Im Derech Eretz, is not viable in the absence of its chief advocate. Rav Hirsch was a 19th century champion of Orthodoxy and the founder of Khal Adath Jeshurun’s parent community in Frankfurt, Germany.

Rav Mantel’s declaration, which angered many in the community, came at a sit-down kiddush at Dr. Raphael Moller Hall in Washington Heights after Shabbos morning services. He said that only Rav Hirsch, a great man who knew the fine boundaries between what is religiously permissible and what is prohibited, could make Torah Im Derech Eretz workable. Our generation, he said, must follow today’s gedolei HaTorah (great Torah leaders). After Shabbos, Dr. Eric Erlbach, KAJ president for over two decades, resigned. The Torah Im Derech Eretz philosophy calls for the active engagement between Torah and culture and society.

Link to Jewish Press Article


My own Brief Comments:

Rabbiner Hirsch was apparently aware of the danger to Torah im Derech Eretz from those on the left who coddled Reform. Yet, he apparently was not so aware that coddling the Right would make Torah im Derech Eretz moribund from within. What a shame. Imagine a movement torpedoed by its own designated Master?

KT,
RRW

Secular Conversions

Originally published 6/26/08, 11:23 AM.
I recently saw an article, written by a secular Jew, that proposes, in response to the present conversion controversy, that it is time for Israel to develop what this person termed "secular conversions". What an interesting term -- but what does it exactly mean?
In a certain way, we already have something like secular conversion; they are the secular immigration laws for Israel. But that still doesn't define a person as a Jew? But then again, if we term the process of becoming a Jew as conversion, doesn't that imply some religious connotation to the term -- then what is secular conversion?

What is really happening, is that this secular Jew is simply stating that there should be a procedure that allows individuals to become a Jew like him, i.e. a secular Jew. The problem with the present method of conversion, in this person's mind, is that it does not allow this but rather demands people to become, in some respect Orthodox, religious Jews.
He may have a point, but the real issue that this person still is not willing to face  what this actually says about Jewish identity. Behind the conversion issue and this specific controversy is not simply the question of how someone becomes a Jew but rather, what a Jew, what this term, really means.
If we are simply a national entity like every other nation than like every other nation we should simply have an immigration procedure to let people into our land as citizens. But if we think that there is something unique about being Jewish, that it extends beyond national borders and therefore we define entry into this group in terms such as conversion, it is time to recognize the implications of this and to re-examine what it really means to be a Jew.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

HHH Artscroll Contradiction

Originally published 6/22/08, 12:27 AM.
Disclaimer:
In general: I am a big fan of Artscroll in these areas:

1. Liturgy
2. Torah She'b'al Peh TSBP [viz. Mishnh and Talmud]

I have some significant reservations regarding their works in Tanach, but with the above areas I am very pleased and happy. But even excellence can leave room for improvement. I do NOT mean to slam Artscroll at all. Just to fix a few errors

• In the Artscroll Schottenstein, Talmud Hullin 104b4 footnote 28 re: "ho'omer davar besheim omro" Schottenstein attributes this to a MISHNA in Avoth 6:6
• If you look at Artscroll Avoth, you will see that the ENTIRE Chapter 6 is composed of Brasisoss [braittot] - viz. Kallah 8. [se any Artscroll Siddur with commentary. The Inter-linear is on page 582 in the notes

Hence, we have a contradiction! The Siddurim are correct and there is an error in the Talmud - albeit not an egregious error. I DO like to keep Mishnah and Braissa as discreet as possible. The hagahos on the Talmud [such as masores Hashas] are very fussy regarding T'nan's vs. Tanya 'sfor this very reason. I am only perpetuating this fussiness, not inventing it. -smile--

KT,
RRW

Halachic Texts: More Background

Originally published 6/21/08, 11:35 PM.
Earlier I posted:

Just as the Talmud has been elucidated and somewhat modified by various commentators same for Shulchan Aruch. Generally the Halachic world has accepted the Shulchan Aruch [with Rema] as a Hatima in the same way as Hatimat Hatalmud. This is "Hatimat haRishonim:. E.G.; . in biographies of Rav J. Breuer he constantly refers to Talmud-Shulchan Aruch as being companion volumes of authoritative Halachah. This is a widely held model.

Since the Advent of the Shulchan Aruch, the VAST majority of Halachic works are indexed by ITS indexing as opposed to the Talmud or Rambam. Even Teshuvot are usually divided and indexed by the 4 Turim . There are an estimated 350 published commentaries written on the Shulchan Aruch. Plus at least a dozen review books on issur v'heter follow this model se'if by se'if.

Note: Hermann Strack in his work on Talmud and Midrash specifically states [19th century]
Now the task of the poseiq is to consult the codes and to work BACK to the Talmud.

IOW, Halchic methodology has evolved since the 12th Century [Though I am acquainted with several rabbis who like "Chone hame'agel were probably born just before 1204 and just woke up!] Maybe the Rif and Rambam did not have enough Codes to consult so they still went to the Talmud. Nevertheless, it is evident in MANY cases that Rambam went back to the Rif and NOT to the Talmud itself. [see Kessef Mishna in Rambam's intro]. It is absolutely true that both Rosh and Mordechai used the Rif as their basic text and the Bet Yosef used the Tur as HIS basic text

Now the Shulchan Aruch has been canonized as THE TEXT. That does not mean we always FOLLOW it, We don't always follow the Mishna either even though it is the cornerstone of BOTH Talmuddim

A story I have mentioned before...
I was learning Kitzur Shulchan Aruch [KSA] one day before mincha and I had a conversation with a fellow:

He: Hassidim learn Kitzur!
I: Do you mean they pasken like the Kitzur?
He: No they just learn it.

IOW this is the text book of Halachah for many Hassidim - and for yeshiva Boys THE textbook is Mishna Brura. But MOST intelligent Yeshiva students do not follow EVERY Mishna Brurah lehalachah. [one Yeshiva boy at Breuer's couldn't believe that the Hazzan says BAtzitzis [hataf] instead of B'tzitzis [sheva] because this is against the Mishna Brura. Apparently, he did understand that the Minhag of KAJ/Breuer goes back to the ear of PRE-Shulchan Aruch!]

So WHY learn Talmud NOW?

Good Question! There are many answers. I would say that this is in order to understand Tosafos! --smile-- All kidding aside, after say the 1500's the MAIN reason is to read the commentaries ON The Gmara. The Halachic action is there, between Rif/Rosh/Ran etc.

Artscroll has done a masterful job in BOTH its Mishna and Talmud to connect the texts with the CODES such as Rambam/Tur and especially Shulchan Aruch . One of the earlier works to do this was the Tiferes Yisrael on the Mishnah. A VERY new book called "Hazarat haShas" [pun intended] by the Sephardic Hacham Rabbi Avrahm Portal collects references from Ein Mishpat and puts them in book form - plus some key Me'eerees. I call this a modern day Rif. NB: Steinsaltz actually paraphrases Rambam and SA in his Halachic commentary - but this sefer QUOTES them.

Rav Kook began a project of showing Halachah from the Talmud. Actually, I agree with the Rambam on this. Halachah is to far removed from Talmud nowadays, Talmud is more for the THEORY, and the CODES are more for practice. At times, you need both of course. But Bet Yosef changed everything  by giving the sources you need. If you add Darchei Moshe et. al. you have 98% of all bases covered.

More on this series about the future, etc.

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

Evolutionary Patterns in Halachic Texts

Originally published 6/18/08, 11:55 PM.
Below, I have outlined a very simplistic model. The common theme is expansion and contraction or condensation - much like a Chiastic structure. Let's start with the era of Tanna'im and Amora'im:

1. Rebbe redacts the Mishnah
2. This was vastly expanded, mostly into the two Talmudim etc.
3. It was re-condensed by Rambam into Mishnaic form
1. Ashkenazim add Hagahot Maimoniyyot to make code acccessible to is own community

Now a secondary pattern emerged during the era of Rishonim. [Treat early Rishonim as analogous to Tanna'im and later ones as analogous to Amora'im.]

1. Tur redacts a NEW Mishna - Mishnat Rishonim
1. It includes diverse opinions - unlike Rambam
2. Bet Yosef VASTLY expands this into a virtual "Talmud" of Rishonim etc.
1. Rema [Darchei Moshe] redacted a quasi alternative Talmud - similar to above
3. And RY Karo then condensed it to a Mishna form in the Shulchan Aruch -
   
1. Expanded by Rema's Hagaho
2. lRema paralles Hagahot Maimoniyyot

Just as the Talmud has been elucidated and somewhat modified by various commentators, same for Shulchan Aruch. Generally, the Halachic world has accepted the Shulchan Aruch [with Rema] as a Hatima in the same way as Hatimat haTalmud. This is "Hatimat haRishonim:. E.G.; . in biographies of Rav J. Breuer he constantly refers to Talmud-Shulchan Aruch as being companion volumes of authoritative Halachah. This is a widely held model.

Since the advent of the Shulchan Aruch, the VAST majority of Halachic works are indexed by ITS indexing ,as opposed to the Talmud or Rambam. Even Teshuvot are usually divided and indexed by the 4 Turim . There are an estimated 350 published commentaries written on the Shulchan Aruch, plus at least a dozen review books on issur v'heter follow this model se'if by se'if.

This, too shall pass. I will BEH post on this in the future what to do next.

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

Rabbi Riskin on Conversion

Originally published 6/18/08, 12:16 AM. Link doesn't work.
A provocative posting by Rabbi Shlomoh Riskin
--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

My favorite night of the year has always been the night of Shavuot, when I go from hill to hill of the seven hills of my beloved city of Efrat, giving Torah study class after Torah study class until the early-morning daybreak service.

....

This year, however was different. Instead of joyous songs, I heard jarring sobs. Instead of the Torah scrolls in the arks and the Torah books on the shelves dancing with rapture and rejoicing, they reeled with dismay and disappointment. The very letters of black fire were weeping, the very parchment of white fire was wilting.
Yes, this Shavuot night, my beloved Torah was crying.

For the remainder of this article please visit:
Jerusalem Post Article

Disturbing Article Regarding Ba'alei Teshuvah

Originally published 6/15/08, 12:58 AM.

The Yeshiva World and the Children of Ba'alei Teshuva:
The Ugly Secret,

By Catriel Sugarman,
Researcher on Jewish Issues, Social Critic, Lecturer,
acatriel@netvision.net.il

Ba'alei Teshuva—sometimes translated to mean "penitents," but, more commonly used to refer to Jews from secular backgrounds who have become religiously observant, often hareidi, or ultra-Orthodox—have been held in high regard by Jewish tradition. In the Talmud (Berachot 34b), Rabbi Abbahu says: The [elevated] position that ba'alei teshuva attain, tzadikim gemurim [those who were always righteous] are unable to reach." Try telling that to Avigail Meizlik, who recently wrote a controversial article in Mishpacha, a highly regarded English hareidi magazine, about "issues" a'alei teshuva (BTs) face when they try to affiliate with various hareidi communities in Israel. According to Ms. Meizlik, when it comes time to register their children in mainstream hareidi schools, the BTs are rejected, finding, to their dismay, that they were never really part of their chosen community after all. This  is true not only in Israel. In the United States, too, the children of BTs—along with the offspring of Jews of Sephardic background—are increasingly denied entry into mainstream hareidi schools.

For details see:

http://jewishvoiceandopinion.com/pdf/200806.pdf

In your PDF readers, go to page 29.

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

You be the Poseik: Are Two Kiddushim Better Than One?

Originally published 6/12/08, 9:22 AM.

Are Two Kiddushim Better Than One?
OR To Make Kiddush or NOT to make Kiddush?

Situation:

1. There is a Friday Night minyan in a shul at a Nursing Home.
2. The Minhag there is to make Kiddush at the Minyan in the shul.
3. Recently, the few residents who DO attend this minyan want to have a 2^nd Kiddush for themselves in the adjacent dining room after minyan.

Q: Given the fact that the residents will be making Kiddush later anyway in the same building - should Kiddush be made at In the Shul anyway?

Two Rabbis are in dispute on this issue: Rabbi Avraham [RA] & Rabbi Yitzchok [RI]

Rabbi Avraham says:Say Kiddush twice. First, the one in shul is due to Minhag only. Second is a real Kiddush for residents.

Rabbi Yitzchak argues and says say only once in the dining room, Since the original Takanah of Kiddush for orchim is actually being ignored by the only people subject to it.

RA says that Minhag is to say, original Takanah is ignored, anyway.

RI says: does a shul say Kiddush twice on Sukkos once in the shul and again in the Sukkah in order to keep up the minhag of saying in shul?

RA counters that regarding Sukkah, it over-rides the Minhag

RI then asserts that given that those who benefit from kiddush in shul are mochel this benefit it's a bracah levatalah. That the second Kiddush over-rides the Minhag of the first Kiddush. PLUS since in Yeshivos, Kiddush is said on premises in the dining room it exempts the minyan in Yeshiva from saying Kiddush in the Beis Midrashl. This analogy exempts Kiddush from shul given that it will be repeated for locals in dining room.

RA opines, but not all those in minyan eat in dining room so for THEM, Kiddush in shul is needed.

RI then argues that since the main takkanah is for Orchim in the shul, those who daven there but do not eat there don't really count anyway. And since the residents are taking the role of Orchim the Kiddush is levatalah.

And on it goes. So YOU make the call!

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

Kinder, Gentler Orthodoxy?

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

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

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

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

Link to article: Link Here

Text of article:

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

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

Assorted Quotations from RSRH On Avodah

Originally published 6/4/08, 11:59 PM.
Some interesting selected quotes from Rabbi SR Hirsch. They were collected by Gershon Seif and posted on the Avodah List.
Enjoy
KT
RRW

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Gershon Seif gershonseif@yahoo.com; wrote:
"I was recently sent these and I thought many readers would appreciate this as much as I did. I am seeking the sources of these quotes...."

"We should not wonder at why the Torah does not conform to the times, but rather why the times do not conform to the Torah"

"Never must we think that the Jewish element in us could exist without the human element or vice versa."

"There is one particular danger which is to be feared by a Jewish minority. It is what we would like to call a certain intellectual narrow-mindedness . . . it may easily come to regard all other knowledge in 'outside' domains as unnecessary, or even as utterly worthless. It may reject all intellectual activity in any field outside its own as an offense against its own cause . . . Rather, it has cause to regard all truth, wherever it may be found on the outside, as a firm ally of its own cause, since ALL TRUTH STEMS FROM THE SAME MASTER OF TRUTH."

"But it would be a mistake if . . . we were to educate our children only for isolation and keep them from all contact with the nations. We must teach them to understand and appreciate the genuine values of the nations and not only to fear them. no matter what we do, our children will certainly be thrust upon a life among the nations. We have to prepare them for this test."

"Why should others respect Jews and Judaism if the Jew himself bears his Judaism unwillingly, if the Jew himself does not serve his God with a joyful heart, if the Jew himself is always eager to make comparisons between his own Judaism and non-Jewish values and consistently seeks to infuse his own Judaism with non-Jewish admixtures?"

"I think, therefore I am." - Rene Descartes
"I am thought about, therefore I am - my existence depends upon the thought of a Supreme Being Who thinks me." - Rabbi S.R. Hirsch

"I know my own limitations . . . But I believe that, in a time of such profound significance, and for a cause which is to us the most sacred, it is every man's duty openly and honestly to express what he sees as the truth."

"Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness which is seldom fully achieved and can easily be lost again. Its fullfilment lies not in the final goal, but in an eternal striving for perfection."

"The Torah is not a mere credo to be satisfied with a few philosophical concepts and declarations of faith . . . Torah is the law for all life; it seeks to embrace man in his entirety. It lays claim to all his inclinations, needs, sensations, and emotions, to all his thoughts and words, his pleasures and his actions at every moment of his life."

"Every transition or change entails pain. For in every change for the better, old ties must be broken so that new ties may be formed. Everything to which we are accustomed is pleasant, but everything new is alien."