Problems in the Rational-Mystical Dialectic

Everyday, it seems, we read of a new story of some Orthodox group, individual or leader that is, for many of us, embarrassing. Oftentimes it specifically concerns some segment of the charedi community which, by distinguishing them, allows for us to distance ourselves from them. Other times, however, that distancing is not so easy: what we see as embarrassing does concern individuals with whom we associate; the statement made is from someone steeped in Torah knowledge, demanding of our respect. When this occurs, our only response is dismay.

We could join those, in blogs and other means of communication, who ignore the problem of distancing -- perhaps even want to distance themselves from everything Orthodox -- and simply attack anyone and everyone who seems to make a statement or do something that is perceived as embarrassing. But to do so, would demand a distancing from Orthodoxy -- for what we may not recognize is that much of these problems emerge from the very complexity of Orthodoxy. Perhaps, more correctly, from the very need for us to understand and recognize the complexity of Orthodoxy.

In a certain way, many of these bloggers and those they criticize are actually in the same world -- they want simplicity, a simple world, a simple reality. This is the real problem. These Orthodox individuals want a simple to understand Orthodoxy. Those who critique this world also want this simple to understand Orthodoxy so they can attack it from their own simple understanding of reality. The fact is that at the root of Orthodoxy is a powerful complexity. Those who attempt to be Orthodox while challenging this reality simply yield so many of the problems we are now facing. This is not to say that those wishing to attack Orthodoxy would drop their attacks if confronted by the reality of the complexity of Orthodoxy. No, I don't think so -- but they could not simply attack a foolishness.

What is, though, this essential complexity that is at the core of Orthodoxy. It is the Rational-Mystical Dialectic. On one hand, we believe in a God without limitations. This means that everything is possible. On the other hand, God has instructed us to think and to apply this process of the mind in our decision making even within Torah. Thought demands parameters: a recognition of cause and effect, a perception of consequences. This is a realm of potential conflict. From the latter rational perspective, we arrive at certain conclusions. We, then, may potentially encounter statements of Torah that challenge these conclusions. The simple Torah person will say there is no problem because God can do anything anyways and the conclusion derived from rational analysis is thereby limited and not binding. The problem is that God also demands of us to apply such reasoning in our decision making processes.

The fact that God is able to do anything is limited, by Him, because He wishes for us to think. Yet, the further problem, though, is that God did not just leave it like that. That would yield a world of philosophy and the results of thought alone. God, though, also revealed the Torah and thereby gave us directions outside the realm of rationalism, cause-and-effect, and this world. On one hand, He tells us to think and work our our decisions. On the other hand, though, He presented to us decisions he mandated, through the revelation of the Torah, that we are to follow that challenge the parameters that enable us to even think and analyze. Balancing this -- therein lies the essential complexity of Torah.

Take for example the recent statements of Rabbi David Batzri at a conference for woman wishing to get married. See http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3744525,00.html. He told all these women that, even on their first date with someone, they should commit in their hearts to have, at least, 12 children and to not worry about becoming pregnant after 40 for they need not be concerned with statements from doctors to the contrary. From a rational perspective, there are so many potential critiques of such a blanket statement to a group of women. I am sure, though, that these critiques could and would be dismissed as challenging the very ability of HaKodesh Baruch Hu to take care of them. Just do the mitzvah. God will take care of any perceived problems. Is this not a message of Revelation itself -- that God intervenes in this world and makes demand beyond our abilities of reason. But the challenge is that God still wants us to think, analyze, contemplate. Can we afford 12 children? Can I, as a parent, properly raise 12 children? What about other aspects of my life? What's the problem, the challenger would hear: can't God make sure that everything works out? These questions are only a reflection of lack of faith. Yet, without these questions and applying them within our lives, we do meet God's very goal for us to think.

The call of Torah is to be rational, work within the parameters of existence as we know it through our senses and the processes of philosophy AND to be mystical, work within the recognition of a reality beyond these perceptions that is centred in the existence of One Who is unbounded. The problem is that we are always fighting this truth, this complexity of life.

We are suffering the problems of the Rational-Mystical Dialectic.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Jerry Manuel and Mixed Messages

We were discussing both in cyberspace how the same author can contradict himself in 2 works
One of my favorites is a minor one re: Tallith before Tefillin

• Bet Yosef: Due to tadir V"sheino Tadir
• SA: Ma'alin BeQodesh

(FWIW I like BY's reason better!)

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

On Sports radio a caller noticed that Mets Manager Jerry Manuel seemed to be flip-flopping...

• In one interview: We need more hitters!
• In a 2nd interview: We have a good enough team as is!

The wise host (IIRC a woman) used first class Talmudic reasoningJerry wasn't changing his mind!

• In the first interview he was sending a message to his General Manager Omar Minaya: "Get me some sluggers, NOW!"
• In the 2nd interview he was patting his current line-up on their proverbial backs saying "I have confidence in you guys"

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

Similarly, an author may be addressing 2 audiences, or 2 situations:

Ideally X
But Y is technically OK
Or
Talmidei Chachamim should do X and Y is fine for baalei batim

Or

In ivory tower academics it's X
But
In the real world it's. Y

Or

Al pi Halachah do X
And
Al pi Qabbalah do Y

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

• Bet Yosef is aisi written primarily for scholars
• Shulchan Aruch primarily for simple students. (Caveat: it can also be utilized by rabbis to make a "P'saq/decision" between alternate choices)

KT
RRW

Course Outline for Hirschian Thought

Here is a program for Yeshiva High School and Beis Midrash based upon the Works of R Samson Raphael Hirsch


Grade 9:

1. 19 letters
2. Dayan Grunfeld's Hakdama to Horeb
3. Hirsch Haggadah
4. Pirke Avos - First Chapter
   

Grade 10

• Complete the Horeb both in class and homework
• Pirke Avos - Chapter Two
  

Grade 11 As introduction to Hirsch on Chumash

1. Siddur - Note Use the Siddur's Ezehu Mekoman as intro to commentary on Vayikra
   
2. Psalms
3. Wisdom from Mishle
4. Pirke Avos -Chapters 3 and 4
   

Grade 12

1. Hirsch Chumash - Vayikra
4. Pirke Avos -Chapters 5 and 6
   

-----------------------
Beis Midrash level:

1. Complete Hirsch Humash - one Volume per Year
2. Cover Collectted Writings - On volume per Semester
3. Add Writings by Dayan Grunfeld and the Breuers
   

KT
RRW

The real question is: WHY? What the riots really show!

Of course, there is always the journalistic question of whether this article correctly portrays the truth -- but based upon these facts, the problem is pretty apparent and this article in the Jerusalem Post presents a most powerful challenge. See:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443817985&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Doesn't the term Chilul Hashem come immediately to mind? Can there be any justification for this behaviour? What, though, really is going on? It would seem that these rioters could not possibly have any connection to Torah; it must be that they are ascribing to some other system that is absent Torah values. Yet, here we have individuals who define themselves as adherents of Torah -- in fact, devout adherents of Torah -- acting in this manner. It is easy to dismiss them, to criticize them -- but that does not get to the root of the issue. The question is: what are they thinking? How could they possibly act in this manner yet declare that they are adherents of Torah? It must be that they actually do not see themselves as violators of Torah but the issue is even more bewildering. They actually see themselves as upholders of the values of Torah and that through this behaviour they are promoting Torah values, that through their behaviour they are actually demonstrating their adherence to Torah values. This is an even greater problem. It is one thing if someone is acting contrary to Torah but knows and admits that he/she is doing so. We may wonder how criminals can still do what they do and, furthermore, still live with themselves -- we may specifically wonder how Bernie Madoff or a religious child molester could live with himself -- but, at least, they are not declaring that what they did was in fact correct and a fulfillment of the values of the religious system. It is quite another matter, though, if someone is acting in this manner -- or cons someone as Madoff did or molests a child -- and not only thinks that he/she is not violating Torah law but actually thinks he/she adhering to it, supporting it, promoting it. This latter situation is, for so many reasons, a greater problem -- and this is sadly what, I believe, we are witnessing here -- and it is to this issue that we must directly respond. Its not enough to yell that they are wrong. We must discover what they are thinking and respond to the problem that allows for this reasoning.

Let's start at the most basic way of looking at this situation. A very sick Neturei Karta child is brought to a hospital, a chiloni hospital. The hospital determines that this child's illness is due to a psychiatric disorder of the mother, the charedi mother. The mother is arrested. The mother also denies the charges. So what does the mother's community say -- must be another example of chiloni oppression of Torah. This assertion obviously can't be true for how could a frum charedi woman be psychologically ill? After all, frum people can't be as the doctors are describing this woman for they are frum, she is frum Such an asssertion may also imply that there is a problem in the community; what is the connection between this psychological illness and her upbringing and environment? Can't be! This is the ideal Torah community. There can't be anything wrong within it. Must be that the chilonim are inventing problems and critiques to thereby attack us. This, I believe is the starting point, the place where all this begins. Its not just Neturei Karta or charedim but, sadly, permeates the whole frum community. We are frum. We are God's chosen. Can't be something wrong with us -- especially if it means that the chiloni person is right or doing something better.

When the Rambam said that one could learn from everyone and anyone, he was making a most powerful statement about education and thought. You don't think simply through adopting a code of behaviour or memorizing a collection of rules. Thinking demands observation and analysis -- with an openness to reconsider one's thoughts. The problem in the frum world, in so many ways, is that we think we know it all and approach existence with a sense of surety. The humility that instructs us to be somewhat unsure of ourselves, of approaching life with caution and consideration is almost a thing of the past. We're right and we'll take on anyone that says we aren't, regardless of the facts. And the more in the minority that your are, the more adament you become. Of course, the fact that one is in the minority should not lead this person to necesarily dimiss himself/herself. One does need the strenght to stand by one's opinion in the face of challenge and adversity. Yet when one is in the minority, one should also be open to questions, to investigate in order to be sure. It a balance, a dialectic that God demands of us. It's time that we demonstrated the thought inherent in the recognition of this reality and not demonstrate to illustrate an allegiance to a simplicity that only shows foolishness.

Bottom line, there was a two year old kid whose very life was at stake. Wouldn't you think that the concerns, even if you want to call it safek sakanot nefashot, a possible life-threatening situation, would, at least, make people think twice before adamently adopting a position? But how can there be a safek? We're frum and they're not. We are the bastions of Torah and their not. But what is this foolish representation of Torah that they are promoting? Its a Torah that says not to think but just to follow your assumed rote viewpoint.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

14. The Fringes

I asked someone recently about the health of her faith. She responded with a despondent, but not vanquished, glance, telling me that lately she is “having trouble remembering.”

She did not refer to a weakness in belief or focus or practice, but in the particular area of memory. The philosophically-minded religious person is the perfect prey for this form of memory-attack.

What do we find in memory? From a scientific perspective, the memory is imprecise—a risky tool when it comes to exactitude and reliability. It taunts us, tricks us, aggrandizes here, demoralizes there, this memory is really from that time, that memory really from this time, a fact is ignored, a face is distorted, weather is altered, context is abandoned. In many ways, it is a mystery to us, in a category with God, heaven, the soul, and the like.

But to unconditionally categorize memory in such a way would be inaccurate—the memory is not entirely transcendent. It is a physical part of the human organism. It is no more transcendent, in this sense, than, for example, the fingers or the spleen are transcendent. It is untrue to suggest that the memory is a complete mystery to science. It has been studied and will continue to be studied. It certainly has a provable, this-world component, a characteristic that could not likewise be corroborated by scientists in regard to God or the human soul.

This duality presents us with a recurring challenge: what do we do with a memory that haunts us? What do we do when a memory weakens or vanishes?

If we turn to the scientist, he will put a microscope over the mind and seek an understanding of the corporeal source of the memory. This will forsake the memory’s vital mystery component.

If we turn to the metaphysicist, he will proceed consistent with the contention that the memory originates beyond the physical realm, housed in an unreachable domain, transmitting messages with a specific purpose, heard but not touched. Such an approach will forsake the biological reality of the memory.

Since neither the empiricist nor the mystic will be able to provide adequate assistance, there may arise a desire to abandon memory (as a tool) entirely. It is not manageable and it is not worthy of worship—where does it fit? But God confirms the indispensable nature of memory when He tells us to “remember and do all My commandments and be holy unto your God,” isolating the process of remembering from the action: it is not enough merely to ‘do,’ one must also ‘remember’—this is the key to being ‘holy unto your God.’

From a simplistic religious perspective, the focus on memory seems odd. Why is it not enough to believe in God and do His commandments? What is the purpose of memory?

The question can be asked more specifically in regard to the many other times that we are commanded to remember: Amalek, the creation, the seventh day, the exodus from Egypt (among others). Why are we halachically obligated to engage in the process of remembering? Why are the relevant actions associated with the memory (destroying Amalek, resting on Shabbat, eating matzah, etc.) not sufficient?

The religious lifestyle can lead to a divided existence, comprised of the so-called ‘spiritual’ aspect and the so-called ‘practical’ aspect. When we pray in the morning, we might be involved in a spiritual pursuit. Going to work, then, would be a practical pursuit. Our faith in God, in such a model, exists in an isolated realm. We seek ‘holy’ experiences and then, when that hunger is satiated, we return to the secular. There is nothing connecting the two worlds.

But, unlike scientifically proven and metaphysically speculative entities, memory crosses into both the realm of the ‘spiritual’ (‘I remember feeling uplifted.’) and the realm of the ‘practical’ (‘I remember paying my taxes.’). It can neither be considered entirely a part of this world (it refers to something absent) nor entirely apart from this world (it exists as a biological entity in the brain). Instead, it is a connection between the tangible and the intangible and can act as a bridge between the two worlds.

The bridge functions by virtue of the act of remembering. It is a two-step process: 1) We take something that is non-existent—the past—and we give it form in the present; 2) We take something housed in the body—the physical memory—and we admit its inherent mystery. These two effects work in tandem to create a bridge that goes in both directions simultaneously.

When there is “trouble remembering” (of an existential nature), it means that the bridge between the realm of the mysterious and the realm of the apparent is not functioning effectively. Though there is a sense that there should be constant interaction between the worlds (supported by the Biblical affiliation of memory, action and holiness), the “trouble remembering” makes such interaction difficult. For someone who is comfortable with a divided existence, the lack of memory can actually be relieving. But for someone who cannot accept the divided existence, the trouble infects both realms—making the ‘spiritual’ seem concocted and desperate and the ‘practical’ seem trivial and degrading.

What, then, is one to do when he or she suffers from memory trouble? As Rambam teaches in Shemoneh Perakim (1:4), the source of memory is the imagination. That is why a trouble remembering can be linked with a trouble imagining. In a sense, this can be a somewhat uncomfortable association. It is unappealing to consider that our memories and our fantasies share a common source as it could lead us to lose faith in our memories. But I think the reverse logic is more apt: since we can find reality in our memories—despite the fact that they emerge from the imagination—we should search attentively for reality in our dreams.

The significance of the imagination clarifies the role of the tzitzit as a mnemonic device. Even considering the famous, hidden 613, the fringes do not seem to be the best possible choice for their assigned purpose, namely, “that you may look upon [them] and remember all the commandments of the Lord.” There is nothing inherent in the fringes to convey this message. Without the involvement of the imagination, the memory will not emerge. In a sense, each time we look down at our tzitzit and “remember,” we are affirming the incredible and essential role of the imagination in our daily, religious life—and, perhaps, it is specifically the need for a strong and sharp imagination that is at the heart of the mitzvah of tzitzit. Because whether we were all present at Sinai or not, it requires the imagination—not the scientist’s telescope or the metaphysicist’s meditations—to see Moshe descend the mountain.

So before a person can “remember all the commandments of the Lord,” she has to attain (or regain) a faith in her imagination, as it is the imagination, Rambam explains, that “has the strength to remember impressions of experiences when they have vanished from the senses involved.” Truly, what instrument could be more crucial to the ideal Torah scholar than the photographic imagination?

Parshah: Huqqat: Mixed Messages?

It seems according to many that Moshe Rabbeinu erred at mei meriva in that he HIT the rock instead of speaking to it. That seems pretty pashut! However, when HKBH tells Moshe "asei le saraph" And Moshe Rabeinu actually: "Vaya'as Moshe Nechash Nechoshes.."

Now HKBH said "Saraph" and Moshe instead made "Nechash nechoshes" lich'ora is this not, too, a deviation - albeit minor - from HKBH's statement? Does anyone comment on this apparent contradiction?

KT
RRW

Three Weeks - A Siyyum on Ta'Anit

NB: This Siyyum was done Three years ago at my son's Bar Mitzva. Being that his Hebrew Birthday is Rosh Chodesh Av and he did a Siyyum on that Masechta in partiular.

This _ In conjunction with the Siyyum on Masechet Ta'anit - I will say a D’var Torah connecting: The 3rd to last Mishna in Ta’anit WITH The Final Mishna in Ta'anit.

Background:
Ta'anit Chapter 4 Mishna 6 lists 5 catasrophes that occured on the 17th of Tammuz and 5 catastrophes that occured on the 9th of Av:

TA'ANIT: CHAPTER 4: MISHNAH 6

Five things befell our ancestors on the seventeenth of Tammuz, and five on the ninth of Av. On the seventeenth of Tammuz the Tablets were broken and the tamid ceased, and the city was breached, and Apostomos burned the Torah and placed an idol in the sanctuary. On the ninth of Av it was decreed against our ancestors that they would not enter the Land, and the Temple was destroyed the first time and the second time, and Betar was taken, and the city was ploughed up. When Av enters they reduced rejoicing.

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

Mishna 8 lists the 2 most joyous occasions are the 1 5th of Av and Yom Kippur - i.e. the 10th of Tishrei?


TA'ANIT: CHAPTER 4: MISHNAH 8

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said, There were no holidays for Israel as the fifteenth of Av and as Yom Kippur, for on them the daughters of Jerusalem go forth in borrowed white garments, so as not to embarrass whoever does not have; all the garments require immersion. And the daughters of Jerusalem go forth and dance in the vineyards. And what would they say? "Young man, lift up your eyes and see, what you choose for yourself. Do not set your eyes on beauty, set your eyes on the family: 'Grace is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman that fears the Lord, she shall be praised' (Prov. 31:30), and it says, 'Give her the fruit of her hands, and let her works praise her in the gates' (ibid., v. 31)." And similarly it says, "Go forth, O you daughters of Zion, and gaze upon King Solomon [ha-Melekh Shelomo], even upon the crown with which his mother has crowned him on his wedding day, and on the day of the gladness of his heart" (Cant. 3:11). "His wedding day" is the giving of the Torah, "on the day of the gladness of his heart" is the building of the Temple, may it be built speedily in our days. Amen.


Questions:

1. 1. How is it that the 15th of Av and the 10th of Tishrei the most joyous of occasions. Aren't Holidays such as Purim and Sukkot even more joyous?
2. 2. What is the connection between these 2 dates in Mishna 6 - Namely the 17th of Tammuz and the 0th of Av - with the 2 dates in Mishna 4 - namely the 10th of Tishrei and the 15th of Av?
3. 3. Furthermore, what is the connection between the 2 catastrophes in the "Wilderness Generation"

Answers:

a the 2 catastrophes are:

1. The worship of the Golden Calf.
2. The Sin of the Spies leading to the Death Decree for the Wilderness Generation.

Regarding Question #2 the events are:

1. The final forgiveness for the Sin of the Golden Calf culminated with the reception of the 2nd tablets.
2. The discovery that the death decree had been completed and no longer would anyone die from that decree.

Thus, the juxta-position is no mere co-incidence. Rather, the catastrophes that instituted the 17th of Tammuz and 9th of Av as days of Mourning for all generations, were originally forgiven on Yom Kippur and the 15th of Av respectively. Therefore, these are days of "original forgiveness!" Thus, the joy of 10 Tishrei & 15 Av - at least in terms of Masechet Ta'anit - ARE THE greatest Joys.

In the merit of completing this Tractate - may we Merit the Final Redemption

KT
RRW

To Take Hazal at their word - or is there a Hidden Agenda?

Pursuant to a thread on Avoda re: Midrashim. As I like to say:

Midrashim are true but not always to be taken as LITERALLY True!

In other words [as I stated]:

Actually I think Hazal were doing political comments regarding their own time and used proxies just like Gulliver [lhavdil]

Thus:

• Attacks on Esav/Edom were frequently veiled attacks on Rome
• And attacks on Sodom were frequently veiled attacks against the hedonisitc Hellenic culture.

And the need for the veil? So that the predominant civilization would not reek vengence upon the Jews for criticising the excesses of the "Emperors without Clothes

KT
RRW

Why I don't learn much Nach

It is hard enough to learn peshat in the Midrashim of Hazal which are between 1500 and 2500 years old. Nach is older. The idioms, images, similes, metaphors, etc. Are very difficult to fathom. Most mefarshim are aiui guessing.

And from what I can see in most schools, the bottom line patch quilt of what the peshat is, is highly speculative. Too much hit and miss. Occasionally a gem of an insight is found amongst the sifted sands of time.

Of course elements of Nach are essential. Some texts are less esoteric. Ruth, Esther, Mishlei are quite assessable. Most haftaros are also quite meaningful. Only a handful are obscure.

If we can discover a "Rosetta stone" to decipher the imagery of nach as originally intended, this would shift everything.

Meanwhile, I put my energies elsewhere

KT
RRW

Women kosher supervisors on the rise, earning respect | JTA - Jewish & Israel News

Women kosher supervisors on the rise, earning respect JTA - Jewish & Israel News



http://jta.org/news/article/2009/06/28/1006182/women-kosher-supervisors-on-the-rise-earning-respect

Teaser:

SAN FRANCISCO (JTA) -- Evelyn Prizont does it for the glamor.

"And the respect," she adds with a smirk.

Prizont, an Orthodox woman in her early 40s, is a mashgicha, a female
kosher supervisor in Seattle...

KT
RRW

Rambam on Esoterica - Is It Good For All?

Hil. Yesodei Hatorah 4:11 (Touger-Moznayim)

Rambam:

"... Because not every person has the vast knowledge to grasp the interpretation and the explanation of these matters in a complete manner."

Touger: In his commentary to the Mishna Chagiga 2:1 the Rambam writes:

The masses will understand very little of these matters. Should a simple person be exposed to them, his faith will be confused and he will think (THINK) they contradict the truth"

Shma mina Trei:

1. 1 That There are esoteric sections of Torah. The Torah has components for both the masses and components for "yechidei segulah"
2. 2. That Esoteric Sections are subject to abuse by the un-initiated.

Here we see the Mithnaged position on Qabbalah etc.

• That it exists
  YET
• It's not for everyone.

Disclaimer: Rambam's view of ma'aseh merkaba may or may not correspond to what we NOW call Qabbalah. That is not essential to this point about Esoterica in general.

KT
RRW

On Learning Qabbalah - Some Concerns

One of the concerns re: learning Qabbalah was articulated by Reb Shloymie as follows:

"It [spirituality] means that everything we do is done in Hashem's Presence (first se'if in Shulchan Aruch from Moreh Nevuchim). It's goal is not to map the cosmic circuitry (if there is any) and to make metaphysics resemble physics. The latter seeks to make spirituality physical rather than the other way around."

Thus, a major potential error is conflating physics and meta-physics or worse morphing meta-physics into physicality. This Ch"V Is a potential violation of "ein lo demus haggoof"

The Rambam to the rescue.

It has been argued that the metaphysics of the Rambam equates to the metaphysics of the Qabbalah. This is a dubious extrapolation. However R Sasha Pecaric has demonstrated a different but essential relationship between the two, a relationship that the Rambam himself probably never anticipated. The Moreh Nevuchim was so strong and so firm in rooting out any physicality or anthopomorphic aspects of HKBH that a "new world order" :-) became possible.
In other words, given the Moreh as a prerequisite to Qabbalah, the danger of making the conceptual sprituality into anthropomorphic reality was removed or at least diminished.

Thus the Rambam's Moreh created at least 2 dynamics:

1. 1 The abandonment of seeing anthropomorhic references as literal - following the lead of Targum Onkelos
2. 2 Permitting Qabbalistic speuclation in a purely conceptual way w/o fear of it devolving into heretical notions of physciality regarding HKBH (iow HIS so-called "Godhead"). I.E.That a firm grounding in Rambam would save souls from going astray.

As I best understand it, anyone without this firm rooting in the definition section of the Moreh IS indeed in danger. And so to divorce the two paths into metaphysics is risky.

Caveat: The first chapters of the Moreh do not deal with the Haqira investigatory aspects of understand G-d. As such, they should be kosher and safe even for those who otherwise oppose Haqira. Also, this post does not address the need for - or the legitimacy of - Qabbalah itself. There are those who opine that the metaphysics of the Moreh covers all the necessary basis.

It would seem that both Rema and Rabbi Pecaric would advocate mastering Moreh Nevuchim first but not to stop there, but rather to investigate Qabbalah, too.

KT
RRW

Avot deR. Reuven - 3 Types of Rabbis

There are 3 types of Rabbis

1. 1 Those who are headstrong whether right or wrong
2. 2 Those who cave-in whether right or wrong
3. 3 Those who are at times headstrong and at times pliant and submissive.

The first type to what may he be compared? To a superstar who exhibits the trappings of infallibility. By dint of sheer will and personality he convinces many of his "omniscience." However, when his headstrong positions based upon charisma instead of scholarship break down, his crediblity is undermined and soon even his utterly correct stances become suspect.

The second is too humble, too meek, too timid. Not only does he fail to champion his hypothesese, he fails to stand up even for his positions when they are black-and-white correct. He becomes a pushover and loses influence over people.

The third is judicious. When solid evidence supports his position he confidently advocates from a position of strength. However, when he merely is guessing, supposing, or proposing, he is willing to refine or withdraw his position in the face of hard evidence And kesheim shekibbeil sechar al haddrisha, kach yekabbeil sechar al happrisha.

KT
RRW

Rav Ovadiah Yosef on the Holocaust

I really was not surprised that more than one person sent me the link to the Jerusalem Post article on Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef's latest statement regarding the Holocaust. (See
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1246443718416) I recogninzed that it clearly would bother many people. What I pointed out to these individuals, though, was that Rabbi Yosef's words were, in fact, within the pale of Torah so what was the real problem. Obviously, those outside the pale of Torah would have their problems but within the world of Torah -- especially given eilu v'eilu -- what was the problem. You can disagree but you can't dismiss -- yet there was this attitude of dismissal. What I really was trying to get at was -- what really bothered them.

We define Moshe Rabbeinu's famous question as tzaddik v'ra lo, why do bad things happen to good people? We all know the many answers that are attempted -- with merit -- yet Moshe was still bothered. The issue, I believe, went beyond this classic question. The real question was the whole concept of judgement and punishment. Can we think of anyone deserving of the punishment of the Holocaust? Can we think of any sin deserving of the terrible tortures that many Jews endure throughout the ages? Therein lies the real problem -- we just don't understand the whole system. Especially in our world with its view of 'cruel and unusual punishment', we just cannot understand the realm of Divine punishment. That's what really bothers us with Rabbi Yosef's statement, at least, I believe. True, other issues emerge with his introduction of the theme of reincarnation but, bottom line, whenever the Holocaust is mentioned within the realm of punishment, we become unnerved. Yet this actually is the basic Torah approach to any misfortune that befalls our people. The real problem is that we just don't understand it -- and I believe that started with no one less than Moshe Rabbeinu.

And herein lies what I believe was the essence of what bothered people about Rabbi Yosef's statement. It was really just a basic Torah approach. But sometimes even the most basic Torah idea is still beyond our comprehension -- and I think people just wanted to see in Rabbi Yosef's statement a recognition that, while this idea may even be true, it is still not understood

Rabbi Ben Hecht

What is Evil?

The judge, in sentencing Bernie Madoff to 150 years in prison, called it "extraordinarily evil."

A friend, though, who I was talking with over the phone stated that you really can't call him evil. No doubt, the damage was catastrophic but was it "extraordinarily evil?"

Let's look at the total picture. He was doing this for over 30 years, through other recessions, and throughout this time, for years, he gave people "returns on their investments" that were extraordinary. This time, though, the recession was just too intense and so clearly unforeseen that he could not whether the storm caused by the great number of calls for the principle. Somehow, he must have just thought that he would never be caught and that the whole scheme would come crashing down. Wrong? No question. But is this extraordinarily evil? I would think that there are other crimes, perhaps not as extensive, that may "deserve" that label more.

Yet, he did destroy the lives of so many who, because of their age, cannot recover and are faced with spending their last years in misery. Individuals who worked hard so they would have some nest egg in their retirement -- and now are left with nothing. What about all the charities that lost so much and now are not able to meet the needs of their constituencies? Yet these same charities had extraordinary returns for years and were able to, thus, serve their constituencies better.

Evil. Is it measured by the harm it caused? Is it measured by some malicious intent and the extent of this extent? Or is it possibly to be just measured by the deviation from the truth? Regardless of anything else, Madoff misrepresented what he was doing. Maybe he thought, in some misguided way, that it would all work out in the end. Maybe the thought the that benefit he would bring to some people would cover the pain he would cause others. Maybe it just got out of hand and he did not know how to fix it. Applying all these various yardsticks will leave us eternally arguing about whether it was extraordinary evil. It would leave us arguing over the very nature of evil. In a certain way, though, it all comes down to emet, truth. The seal of God is emet. When you start to deviate from that simple standard, you really don't know where it will end up. And the result is Madoff. And regardless of the consequences, its all the same root of evil.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Defining a Halachic Issue

I just recently read Garry Rosenblatt's analysis of the tension that Rabbi Avi Weiss felt in creating the new position of Maharat, effectively a term for a woman rabbi without using the term rabbi. This review can be read at:
http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c52_a16167/Editorial__Opinion/Gary_Rosenblatt.html
The sad truth is that, if Mr. Rosenblatt's analysis is correct, he misses the point and rather than showing the tension that should be experienced within a world of Orthodoxy that is confronting modernity is actually explaining why so many, in fact, are bothered by Rabbi Weiss' method of dealing with this issue.

The real question is: how is Orthodoxy suppose to respond to the challenge of modernity? The response of the extreme right wing is simply to ignore it. What they are saying is that the only source for values is the Torah, so what does it matter what another presentation of values is saying. Those who say, though, that the question is a real one are thus faced with this first issue -- why does it matter? This is exactly the point in contention.

To many, a confrontation between Halacha and modernity is ultimately personal. The person feels that there is value in Halacha and that there is also value in modernity. As such, there is a confrontation with a goal to try and satisfy both value desires. The objective is, thus, to find a way to meet the value of modenity within the halachic system -- and anyone able to find this path, this heter, is praised. The goal is the conclusion of satisfying both value desires.

This is exactly the problem. The halachic conclusion reached is thus perceived by others as simply serving the individuals wishing this answer. The conclusion is seen simply as a heter, couched in the unfortunate way that people often use this term to mean that its a way to have your cake and eat it too. This is an unfortunate misrepresentation of what a heter actually is and should be and, similarly, a gross misrepresentation of what the confrontation of modernityand Halacha is and should be.

The halachic system is a broad area of conflicting values that we are called upon, using certain methods of analysis and decision making, to stucture. What modenity does is present to us different ways of looking at and considering these values. Modernity should not be understood as a value system that confronts the halachic system but a presentation of ideas that uncovers new insights in the Halacha and causes us to highlight certain values that are already existent within the system. For example, when I think about the issue of women as halachic decision makers, I am drawn to the statement of the Minchat Chinuch that states that qualified women with a certain level of halachic knowledge must be considered in the evaluation of the numbers in making a decision based upon the majority. Modernity really doesn't introduce, to me, new values but causes me to be sensititve to values already existent within the Torah corpus. The result is, thus, not a confrontation between modernity and Torah but an issue within Torah with my goal to find what the Torah really wants. My goal is the emet, the truth. Modernity simply led me to highlight certain concepts within Torah and to undertake to look at Torah anew to see new structures within it -- something that has been done throughout the generations.

The goal is thus not to find a heter but to find the emet. As such, positions I may not like are not simply to be ignored because I have arguments to defend my view. I am not just looking for ways to okay what I want but to find the real Will of God, as I best understand it, which demands of me to consider that fact that, in His Revelation, God has presented conflicting values because that is the reality.

So if you want to promote women getting the title of rabbi, tell me the arguments why they should not. If your only perception of that argument is that it is an archaic result of the past that should be swept away with our new recognition from modernity of the value of women, you missed the point. If you know the real reasons and now -- through modernity highlighting Torah values that were perhaps, for various reasons, not highlighted in the past but nonetheless are still there -- wish to reconsider the whole matter in light of other Torah values that, perhaps, were not given the same consideration in the past (or did not have to be given the same consideration in the past), than that, I believe, is legitimate. But the goal is to find the emet haTorah, not the heter. And the goal is not the conclusion but the methodology. And when the goal is not exactly what you originally thought it should be -- but it changed because of reasons within Torah -- you are happy.

In the end, it would have been nice if the term Maharat was not simply a concession to concern for critique from the right wing while really wanting the title "rabbi." It would have been nice if the Torah arguments for why women should not be called "rabbi" were confronted, and giving women the title of Maharat was actually deemed to be what was really proper according to the emet haTorah. That, of course, would only happen if the goal is emet haTorah and not simply to find some way to have your cake and eat it too, have some way of still being able to call yourself Orthodox while really abiding to the value system of modernity.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Chutzpa

In a world that is constantly debating the merits and weaknesses of the "two state solution" to the problems of the Middle East, is it not strange that it seems to be forgotten that this solution was once on the table before, and those most in favour of this solution today violently rejected back then (1948)? Rabbi Hecht, in his latest article in the Jewish Tribune (Toronto) has a word to describe this: chutzpa.

To view this article on line, go to http://www.jewishtribune.ca/TribuneV2/index.php/200906091735/Chutzpah.html

Reflections on Aveilus 3 - What is appropriate at the Shiva?

A Big Yasher Koach to Rabbi Laurence Rothwachs of Congregation Beth Aaron of Teaneck for allowing me to reprint this with his permission. This appeared as a reprint in the Beth Aaron Newsletter right around the time I myself was recently sitting shiva - RRW

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

The wise King Shlomo wrote: “[There is] a time to be silent and a time to speak” (Koheles 3:7). For most of us, learning to master the art of silence is no easy task. One can find numerous examples where our Rabbis have placed great value upon the acquired trait of silence, identifying it as a virtue worth aspiring towards.

If it is general truth that silence is virtuous, it is undoubtedly true in a house of mourning. Chazal teach that there is nothing of greater value in a house of mourning than silence (Brachos 6b). Thus, it is particularly disturbing that so many well-intentioned individuals fail to conduct themselves in accordance with this principle. I have decided to briefly outline the main guidelines regarding communication in a house of mourning. This is not intended to be a thorough analysis, nor will I attempt address the myriad of issues and complexities one may encounter in these situations. This brief set of guidelines is meant merely to lay out and concretize the ideal state of conduct in a house of mourning.

The halacha (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 376:1) prohibits a visitor from initiating any conversation with a mourner. This includes seemingly innocuous comments such as “how are you?” or “I am so sorry.” Rather, the visitor must wait for a cue from the mourner. Only then is he permitted to speak. Historically, it was not unusual to observe great Torah scholars (who in all likelihood possessed something substantive to say) enter a house of mourning, remain for a few minutes and leave without saying a word, other than the traditional recital of “ha-makom.” Such a visit should not be viewed as a failed attempt to console the mourner. Quite to the contrary, one’s mere presence and sincere expression of concern can be profoundly comforting (even to a total stranger!).

The following list of “Do’s” and “Do Not’s” is intended to serve as a short guide for one who seeks to comfort mourners in a proper and meaningful way. Not surprisingly, the Torah guidelines provide an excellent framework through which a mourner can experience grieving in a manner that is healthy and ultimately therapeutic.

“DO NOT’S”:

1. Do not try to distract the mourner from his/her mourning. Diverting the mourner’s attention is not the objective of a shiva visit and can often make the mourner uncomfortable.
2. Do not tell jokes or make jestful comments in an effort to “cheer up” the mourner.
3. Do not ask the mourner for details relating to the death. Despite our burning curiosities and, at times, confusion regarding conflicting accounts that we have heard, it is highly inappropriate to ask questions about the circumstances of death.
4. Do not ask intrusive questions regarding personal issues and family matters, even as they relate to the deceased.
5. Do not chastise or even mildly preach to a mourner who expresses anger at G-d or questions basics of belief. Do not offer explanations as to why (you believe) the deceased suffered in his life or why his suffering was purposeful. Similarly, one should never describe the timing, manner or circumstances surrounding the death as a “blessing.” These points, in particular, are the most difficult of all because, according to many, the visitors should ideally assist the mourners to be “matzdik es ha-din” (accept the decisions of G-d as just). More often than not, it would be best to save important thoughts and perspectives on suffering, theology, etc. for a more appropriate occasion, unless one is certain that the mourner will be comforted by his words. “When in doubt, do without.”
6. Do not discourage a mourner from crying, no matter how excessive one may feel it is. Mourners (during shiva) should never be encouraged to suppress their grief.
7. Do not tell a mourner that, with the passage of time, everything will return to normal.
8. Do not say to the mourner “I know how you feel” (even if you feel you really do). At times, the mourner may suggest an association between his suffering and yours, but that should never come from the visitor.
9. Do not carry on any side conversations with other visitors. Even the simple exchange of formal greetings with other visitors is inappropriate at a house of mourning (as well as a funeral). If others in the room are indulging in personal side-conversations, that does not warrant my participation.
10. Do not stay longer than necessary. If there is not much conversation taking place, one needn’t remain in a house of mourning for more than a few minutes.
11. Lastly, PLEASE do not enter a house of mourning with a cell phone that has an audible ring tone.

“DO’S”

1. Do LISTEN (without interruption) to whatever expressions of grief, concern, sorrow, anger, etc. are shared by the mourner.
2. Do show concern for the mourner through facial expressions that reflect the concern and sadness that you feel. It is okay for a visitor to cry along with the mourner.
3. Do allow the mourner to talk about the deceased. One may gently even initiate such conversation, but do not push too hard if the mourner does not respond to your initial cues.
4. Do speak about the deceased’s goodness and fine character and the positive traits that he possessed. Do share personal anecdotes that reflect the above points.
5. Do speak about how the deceased LIVED. All too often, a disproportionate amount of time is devoted to how the person died. Repeating these descriptions can be very taxing on the mourners. Naturally, a mourner will be more easily uplifted when the conversation deals with the deceased’s actions when he was alive and well.
6. Do attempt to tactfully restore a conversation that has been sabotaged by another visitor who has tried to distract the mourner.
7. Do remember that the purpose of a shiva visit is to comfort the mourner, not oneself. If one leaves a house of mourning saddened, that does not indicate a failed mission.

As I mentioned above, this brief set of guidelines is not meant to address every set of circumstances that may arise. I hope, however, that it does remind all of us that whereas it may be relatively easy to enter a house of mourning, properly fulfilling our mission is no easy task. May Hashem grant us the wisdom and strength to fulfill this great mitzvah in the most proper and effective manner.

Reflections Upon "NISHMA" - The Intellectual and the Emotional

Our flagship name is Nishma. Now same attribute this to the penultimate verse in Qohelles:
"Sof Davar Hakkol NISHMA! In parshas Mishpattim we encounter the singular event when the Children of Israel declared their loyalty to the Torah by declaring in unison: "Na'aseh v'NISHMA" While in Several other passages in the Torah the term Na'aseh is used in isolation.

Commentaries into Parshanut have delved into the implications of the term "Nishma" and the Midrash takes note of the the sequentce - That Israel specifically preceded Na'aseh with Nishma

Avodah's esteemed moderator Micha Berger and I had an exchange of ideas regarding this concept, with particular attention paid to the Philosophy, Hashqafa, and Weltanschauung of Rabbiner Hirsch.

As I termed it Na'aseh is the performance of the a given Mitzva. This can be dry and rote especially in those societies that perform normative Halachah by peer pressure without any internal feeling. Adding the NISHMA dimension can transform performance into a religious experience. FWIW Reform tried to capture the experience and suspend the performance. This high-minded approach was just that, it produced Jews in the Mind only at best. However, given the mindless performance of Jewish practice by Observant Societies, this over-reaction was somewhat understandable. Hirsch actually tried to restore Observant Judaism to its Sinaitic roots by a synthesis of both aspects. The narrow question of how this NISHMA experience is to be defined was the subject of our debate.

Micha:

(Re: Hirsch and "nishma"..) I also wonder how much the response is formal reflection in conscious thought as opposed to experiential.

RRW:

Both. It is aisi both intellectual contemplation like a RYDS [Rav Yosef Dov Soloveichik] might do but also the touchy-feely kind that maybe someone like a R Shlomoh Carlebach might do.

Micha

Look how similar TIDE [Torah im Derech Eretz] and Slabodka are in terms of objective. The ideal Herr Rabbiner Doctor is cultured, refined, pays attention to his dress and the impression he creates. An emphasis on human dignity as part of Jewish expression. The Mensch-Israel. Ands what would I have to change of that to describe Slabodka's ideal alumnus? Less value assigned to cultural development -- although they valued personal creativity in poetry and music, secular education was relegated to satifying curiosity on the side. It was expected that you were well read; but nothing like a PhD.

There is a fundamental difference in how they define refinement. R' Hirsch speaks in terms of culture. Slabodka, unsurprisingly, in terms of middos. The overlap is large, but they are far from identical. I think that also underlies their difference in approach to taamei hamitzvos.

RSRH makes it about internalizing messages. And therefore when the message is unclear, he invokes symbology. Symbols do present messages in a manner where they can be better internalized. Thus the power of poetry over prose. (They also provide metaphor, and therefore can convey more than is explicitly stated. A symbol not only allows a message to go from mind to heart, it also allows the heart's message to be more fully grasped by the mind.)

Mussar looks to mitzvos to behaviorally change the person. Mitokh shelo lishmah ba lishmah via hergel. "Smile, and eventually you'll be happier." Therefore one needn't bring everything down to comprehensible terms. The human soul is understandably more complex than human understanding; the mind isn't big enough to contain itself.

This allows for an answer to the value of mitzvos even when you don't have the symbol key. ... I was thinking more of that dichotomy than RSCarlebach as a as a contrast.

KT

RRW

Source Reconcilliation

Perhaps one of the more controversial aspects of Talmudic learning is the ubiquitous efforts made to harmonize statements that seem. to obviously in conflict. It is perhaps a source for some of the anti-Talmudic diatribe found amongst scoffers, anti-Semites, etc. So pray tell why does this persistent effort to make conflicting voices agree still prevail after several Milennia? While studying a daily dose of Shulchan Aruch I ran across this statement in ChoshenMishpat 30:2

"Anywhere that we can reconcile the words of the witnesses, that they do not contradict each other, we do such reconciliation"

Thus, if the Oral Law is a tradition passed down as a form of testimony from one generation to the next, then each teacher is in a sense a testifier. And if the multitude of testifiers are in apparent conflict, and if we assume that they are based upon a commonly observed phenomenon, then we are really compelled to treat the conflicting testimony as different viewpoints describing the same thing.

Illustration: if an old-timer says that Babe Ruth was great and another states that he was a glutton - wouldn't it be obvious that he was a GREAT Glutton? :-). All kidding aside we would not take the two statements as conflicting, only as supplemental in that describe different aspects of the same man, and within their respective contexts are each quite accurate!

Another illustration. The Misha in Pesachim discusses conflicting customs re: candles in the home on Yom Kippur: In some places it is required and in others it is forbidden. Yet the commentaries agree that the motivating concern is the same: the Prohibition of marital relations on YK. Only the method of manifesting this principle differs, the application can vary according to context.

Now indeed there are times when this principle of reconciliation is out-of-bounds. And any worthwhile idea may be overused at times. Nevertheless, the essential approach is sound: that we presume that

1. The testifiers are likely to be honest
2. That differences may be attributed to how something is described but the facts described are presumed to be identical.

KT
RRW

The "Assumption" Divide

Recently, I was drawn into a discussion, over at Garnel's blog (http://www.garnelironheart.blogspot.com/), specifically at the post on Goodness and Righteousness, that developed into a dialogue (or, rather, mutual soliloquies) on the issue of science and religion or rationalism and religion. The dialogue reminded me of a paper that a friend of mine, with a Ph. D. in Philosophy, once submitted a paper to Nishma for publication which we, unfortunately, did not get a chance to yet publish.

In it, he proceeds to describe the distinction in frame of reference between the Greek perspective on life and the Jewish one. What I found most significant in his presentation was his perception that never or rarely the two shall meet. What he argued was that someone with a Greek perspective just simply cannot accept answers or ideas that are based upon the acceptance of the Jewish perspective. And similarly, those with a Jewish perspective simply cannot accept a similar insistence on the Greek perspective. Perhaps, using the terminology of Rabbi Sholom Carmy, there is a secular bias and a religious bias -- and this bias should be recognized in any discussion that brings those with differing frames of reference together.

Let me give an example. One may look at something in the Torah and argue that this clearly proves the Torah's Divine origin. This argument is then presented to someone with a secular bias -- and it goes nowhere. What may ensue is a fight over the specific issue -- but that is not really the point in conflict. The one with the secular bias just simply cannot accept the conclusion of the one who maintains that this statement in the Torah proves the Torah's Divine origin because he inherently rejects that assumption. Any real discussion must therefore focus on the realm of the assumption and why one is insistent on it. That actually may yield an interesting dialogue and discussion.

This is similar in regard to someone arguing that something in the Torah proves that the Torah (chas v'sholom) is not of Divine origin. The argument is really not going to get anywhere because the one that this person may be trying to convince already accepts this position inherently and as an assumption. So the argument may surround this particular area of the text but that really doesn't accomplish anything. The real focus should be on the assumption -- not just why it is made but its repercussions. I, for example, recognize that in accepting the Divine origin of the Torah I am also accepting a presentation of a world with very different rules of nature that would seem to apply. Maybe this historical world had the same basic rules that we have today but clearly there was much more Divine intervention and open miracles. As such, the world, practically, functioned within a very different perspective. The result for me is that while I may not fully understand what a specific text may be saying as I don't really understand this perspective found in the ancient world, I also cannot deny that something unique may have happened. The point, as my friend put it, was that I accept a view of time and history that maintains that different epochs may have different basic rules. This is why I can believe there was a Sinaitic Revelation thousands of years ago while any open Revelation is not existent today. The secularist, though, accepts, as my friend put it, a democratic view of time and thus cannot accept that one period in history or time is fundamentally different in natural laws from another. With such and assumption. no arguments of Sinai effectively would work. You have to go back to the assumption.

I invite you to view the discussion over at Garnel's blog but I also invite you to comment on this, what I term, The "Assumption" Divide. Its not the arguments nor the conclusions that is at the essence of many debates but the assumptions that are not even articulated. Can you articulate yours?

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Let's Face it -- We are different

Something just dawned on me. We always speak in awe and praise of the Jewish nation for having survived for close to 2000 years without a land. What other nation has even been able to survive outside their land for a minimal amount of time? But has it ever occurred to us that this very anomaly of our existence may also be the reason the other nations of the world cannot understand us? What kind of nation is it that can survive 2000 years without a land? To the nations of the world, this ability to survive without a land may only be seen as an indication of something quite abnormal about us. It may actually be the reason that the other nations just can't seem to understand us. We are different -- and this difference may be the seed of what is not liked about us.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

A Qabbalistic Prayer for Forgiveness Before Bedtime

Introduction to Qri'as Shema al Hamittah - The prayer Before Sleeping

Master of the Universe!
I hereby Forgive all who those who:

• Angered me or
• Anteganoized me or
• Who sinned against me -

Whether Against:

• My body or
  
• My property or
• My honer or
  
• Anything else that is mine

Whether:

• Against his/her will or
• Wilfully, or
• Negligently or
• Wantonly,

Whether via:

• Speech or
• Deed or
• Deliberation or
  
• Fleeting Though - Passing fancy

Whether during:

• this incarnation or
• another incarnation

On behalf of any Fellow Human Being.
And May no one be punished on my account...

-RRW

The Two Faces of Alien Worship Pt. 2

RRW:
: OTOH alien worship in terms of a "HOW" to worship is not directly or
: so obviously prohibited. Yet the torah unambiguously condemns such
: a practice.

Micha Berger:

This is the whole issur of derekh emori, no?

One can say that conceptually it's a subspecies of AZ, but it's a
different one of the 613.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha"

FWIW Three other mitzvos come to mind

1. Matzeiva
   Even maskis
   Asheira

Which are all prohibited EVEN in the worship of HKBH. That is the form is tainted regardless of the Target - Similar to "Eish Zara" IOW the HOW is rejected even if the WHO is Kosher.

-RRW

What's New in Nishma Cyberspace - May 28/09

In addition to the blog, you may also wish to look at these other items from Nishma in the world of the web.

On the Website
http://www.nishma.org

1) New
Hollywood and Sinai
Star Trek

Elsewhere in Cyberspace

1) www.Koshertube.com

Videos of Rabbi Aaron Selevan's recent shiur on Shavuot

Part One
http://koshertube.com/videos/index.php?option=com_seyret&task=videodirectlink&Itemid=1&id=2212

Part Two

http://koshertube.com/videos/index.php?option=com_seyret&Itemid=4&task=videodirectlink&id=2213

Don't forget Rabbi Hecht section
in Koshertube's Rabbis We Like

2) Avrum's blog

Rabbi Hecht has a guest post on Capital Punishment
http://avrum.net/2009/05/15/a-must-read-judaisms-take-on-capital-punishment-by-guest-author-rabbi-benjamin-hecht/

***************
Don't forget to join the new Nishma-Minhag
a Yahoo advanced group discussing Jewish customs

with Rabbi Wolpoe

Last 10 posts by Rabbi Richard Wolpoe

Some of Rabbi Wolpoe's Posts on the Web

Last 10 posts by Rabbi Richard Wolpoe

• Is Pesach “Passover” or Something Else? - April 28th, 2009
• Fifteen Steps to the Seder - April 24th, 2009
• How could we STILL be Slaves to Pharaoh in this Day and Age? - April 21st, 2009
• Psak from Primary Vs. Secondary Sources - April 12th, 2009
• Purim And Tisha b’Av - The Liturgical Parallels - April 5th, 2009
• Eizehu Meqoman – A Centrist Solution - March 29th, 2009
• Labeling Rabbis by Affiliation - March 13th, 2009
• The Legacy of Demonization - March 3rd, 2009
• Siyyum Ta'anit - July 1st, 2007
• Sukkah Sensitivity - June 29th, 2007

Cigarettes and Shabbos - Humour

Cantor Richard Wolberg:

"I have seen very frum smokers who claim that they are addicted and cannot stop. Then, like magic, as soon as Shabbos arrives, they put down the cigarettes "

RRW:
That's easy to explain: Shabbos brings with it a neshima yesiera! :-)

-RRW

Mishnah, Braisso, and Tosefta - Pt. 1

I recently chatted with R Hillel Danziger at a reunion of "Hartford" people

I posited this model: AIUI before Rebbe there was a "Sea of Tannaitic statements" Rebbe (OK his predecessors ;-) redacted these statements into a coherent whole. Rebbe organized them by seder, maseches, and chapter. One of his biggest tasks was to decide what NOT to include.

After Rebbe finished, Rabbi Chiyya and Rabbi (H)Oshiya said: "wait a minute! A LOT has been left out!" And so they gathered alternate or supplementary collections of their own. And thus we have different anthologies of Tannaitic material

-RRW

A Black Woman's Journey to the Rabbinate...

The title of this post is the title of an article on CNN.com at http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/05/21/north.carolina.black.rabbi/index.html
and it is worth looking at -- but maybe for different reasons than one might at first think.

What hit me about the article is this woman's statement that while she was not born to a Jewish womb, she was born Jewish. I am sure we have all met a ger, a convert, who has made this type of statement -- and in many ways we find the events of this person's life intriguing and even mysterious. It just seems that there are some people who, almost from the point of birth, are searching to be Jews. They talk about how they gravitated towards Jewish friends even as a child and that the stories and lessons of Judaism touched them right from the beginning. Many of us see such individuals as Jewish souls born into non-Jewish bodies who have found their way home.

The fact is, though, the people who we define within this mold are, basically, gerim k'Halacha, converts who converted according to Halacha who are personally observant of Halacha. What is to be said in the case of this woman. Without entering into the question of whether her conversion would be accepted by Halacha (of course, applying lenient standards that, while often ignored today as a legitimate position in gerut, nonetheless are within the spectrum of halachic opinion)m how do we respond to her view of herself as a person who seems to always have been searching for Judaism, of course her view of Judaism? Is there something in a specific soul that could attract a non-Jew to Reform Judaism? And how would we look upon such a non-Jew? While maybe not technically Jewish, would this person not still meet the standard of a righteous Gentile?

I have always found these stories, of individuals who have felt that they were Jewish before even knowing what Judaism is, to be most interesting. I must admit my initial reaction is inherently one of skepticism -- yet when I hear the details of their lives, I often find myself amazed by their uncanny inherent connection to Jewishness that seems to be within them before they even could articulate the concept of Jewishness. What can I now say about this woman? She seems to have also exhibited a similar attraction to Jewishness -- yet this attraction has left her outside the pale of Torah. Did she just miss the mark in following this innate feeling inside her? Is the feeling truly real? Or was her feeling actually some type of inner motivation that took her to something that, although not truly Torah, would be a fine lifestyle for someone not really Jewish -- even as she might think it is?

I have always found the stories of non-Jews, who seem to have been internally motivated to become Jews, fascinating. Now I am wondering how to look at this story. I would appreciate some ideas.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Is Sefirat Ha'Omer 1 Mitzva or 2

Here is what I posted several years ago :

The Rambam firmly construes Sefirat Ha'Omer as 1 Mitzvah. Sefer HaHinuch concurs with the Rambam's read. ... Case Closed.

http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/search?q=sefirat

But it is NOT closed Here is more information gained with a bit of persistence and a lot of assistance!

See Sefer Hamitzvot of the Rambam Mitzva 161 and his reference to Mitzva 140.

Kol Tuv,

Yitzchok Zirkind

And From Micha Berger

See

http://www.vbm-torah.org/shavuot/shav67-mt.htm and
http://www.vbm-torah.org/shavuot/shav68-mt.htm

It's a machloqes. Rabbeinu Yerucham says that the qorban and counting weeks is one mitzvah, and counting days another. Therefore, counting weeks today is a derabbanan zeikher lamiqdash. The Rambam (asei 161) refers back to asei 140, counting yoveil, as well as points to the fact that there is only one berakhah to show that it's one mitzvah. He also notes that we do mention the weeks daily, unlike the Baal haMaor who only required numbering the week weekly.

In either case, R' "Meish" (Moshe) Taragin discusses it at length. Ayin sham.

The Rambam assumes that tefillah shel rosh rosh einah me'aqeves es shel yad and v.v. proves that they are separate chiyuvim. (Tekheiles and lavan within a single mitzvah of tzitzis is the exception.) I know this is the converse aand not the contrapositive, but does holding that counting days and counting weeks are mutually me'aqvos force one to count them as a single one of the 613?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

And so the Beat goes on. The Count goes on, Too

-RRW

Reflections on Aveilus 2 - Mourning and Comfort - Mixed Messages?

Getting up from Shiva and reflecting...

• Is Shiva about healing the wound?
• Is it about mourning?
• Is it about adding suffering to the bereaved?
• Is it about processing grief?
• Is it about exacerbating a tough time?
• Is it about the mourner?
• Is it about the deceased?
• Is it about the comforters?
• Is a mourner pampered?
• Is the mourner entertainer-in chief?

How is a mourner after shiva to feel? Relieved? Or once the comforters leave is the letdown provide even more intense grief - lacking the well-wishers?

Should the mourner discuss:

• The deceased?
• The relationship WITH the deceased?
• The mourner's feelings of shock and grief?
• The kindness of the consolers?

...

• If a mourner needs to be comforted then why does halachah oppose virtually every creature comfort?
• If a mourner has lost joy why is joy restricted?
• How come a consoler can bring the mourner joy via his favorite meat balls but the simple joy of bathing is restricted?

-RRW

Varikra and Catholic Israel

See Leviticus 4:13
"When the entire congregation errs..."

Hazal equate the following :

• "The entire congregation errs" ==> The Sanhedrin errs.

Now, In the absence of any Sanhedrin it makes sense to go back to the original text. And it follows now to imply the converse - Viz.

• The Sanhedrin ==> The entire Congregation of Israel.

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

Illustration:
In the USA Congress - or in Canada the Parliament - Represents all of the people. In the absence of such a representative body then all of the people represent themselves.

RRW

Sefer Shmiras Halashon - A Protoype for Other Works?

Originally posted on Avodah during Hol Hamoed Passover

Shmiras Halashon deserves a longer review, but on Chol Hamo'ed I'll be briefer...

The sefer Shmiras Halashon is a tremendous compendium of machshava on why NOT to speak lashon hora, motzie sheim ra, and rechilus. Many may criticise it as "over-the-top" but when taking in small daily chunks as recommended by the limud yomi it makes a profound impact upon one's Machshava

I would likve to divert attention from the MAIN and most obviosu thrust of the work to two "fringe benefits" that imho make this Sefer a real treasure and a pardigm.

Treasure: Aside from the mussar and preaching against gossip, etc. I found the author's Call for Ahavas Yisroel even MORE compelling. It is really difficult to be 100% vigilant in our speech yomam volayla. However, we CAN turn our hearts around and learn to love our fellow Jew and to give him/her the benfit of the doubt "betzedek tishpot amisecha" As such this work's exhortations to love each other strikes a resonatn chord with me

Paradigm: This sefer is a treasury of Aggadah, Midrash, and Zohar on its topic. Bialik's Sefar Ha'Aggadah attempted to do the same for a number of subjects. However, it is quite limited in depth. The Shimras Halashon is a re-arrangement and a re-sequencing of classic Midrashic style texts the way the Mishneh Torah and Shulchan Aruch did a resequencing of Talmudic and Halachic Texts.

I would therefore love to see more sefarim based upon this model addressing different topics. The number of topics coulb bes nearly infinte but here are some
anyway:

1. Iyyun Tefillah
2. Chaggim
3. Business ethics [eg Moznei Tzedek, fair treatment of customers]
4. Managment Ethics [lo sallin p'ulas sachi, fair treatment of employees]
5. Bikku Cholim
   
6. Nichum Aveilim
   

Just to name a few. And the Halachos need not be repeated. The ikkar goal would be to produce a systematic, and topical compendium of Aggadah, Midrash and Zohar in the same mold as the Shemiras Halashon, only the topics would differ.

The Sefer Mishnah Brurah has set a paradigm in designing modern Halachic comentaries [e.g. Badei Hashulchan] The Shmiras Halashon could do the same for machshava

Kol Tuv - Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

Bike Riding on Yom Tov - A Halachic Perspective

For a fascinating article on Bike Riding on Yom Tov see

http://www.judaic.org/halakhot/yomtob_bicycle.htm

Avot DeRabbi Reuven - Four Halachic Perspectives

There at least 4 perspectives on how to view a halachic norm:

1. The Rationalist
2. The Fundamentalist
3. The Consensus-Finder
4. The Rebel

The Rationalist sees everything as either making sense or as nonsense. He tends to see that Halachah should not play dice (similar to Einstein - G-D does nto ply dice with the univserse)

The Fundamentalist sees Halachah as a fixed target. Stable, but rigidly unyielding. He sees Halachah as another set of Tablets written in stone.

The Conscensus-Finder relies on peer review. He takes a wait-and-see attitude. Like R Joshua at Tanur Achnai, proofs don't matter, votes do.

The Rebel takes an ipcha mistavra point of view. He sees everything opposite of the common wisdom. He is creative and stimulating, but also divisive and needing to call attention to himself.

Let's play this game with a recent query regarding riding a bicycle on Shabbat:

Rationalists will concur that this is a close analogy to existing principles and equate it to musical instruments: Just as guitars are forbidden lest they be adjusted, so too with bicycles.

Fundamentalists will protest against anything but a rigid narrow construction of the text no matter how mindless. So musical instruments set no precedent re: bicycles even if the analogy were otherwise perfect

Consesus-seekers will see which team above wins the vote and follow THAT. They defer their ego reasoning to the greater whole (somewhat analogous to Catholic Israel). Therefore, If most posqim agree with the Rationalists, so do they.

Rebels will do the exact opposite of consensus seakers no matter how unreasonable that position might be in order to be "original". They will make convincing cases to show that the conventional wisdom is "wrong". Sometimes they serve as a check and balance. At other times they seek attention. Therefore, If most posqim agree with the Rationalists, so they protest it and find the few dissenting voices.

Eclecticism

Someone suggested that Qitniyyot was a foolish custom day one so why bother? OK if Rema is in error let's ask the following questions re: deviations from Talmudic fundamentals:

1. Why mourn during Sefira?
2. Why observe Lag Ba'omer?
3. Why prohibit polygamy?
   

• Why do we not follow Talmudic mores in mourning e.g.
• Covering the head
• Turning over the bed
• Baring one's shoulder.

The Rema says that nonGlatt is acceptable. The mechabber R Y Karo who permis Qitniyyot has a very strict version of GLATT. Much stricter than American Glatt

So are those kvetching re: the "humra" of Glatt the same ones kvetching re: Qitniyyot? If so do they look for eclectic leniencies and favor every lenient position?

The Dialectic of Capital Punishment

Avrum's blog recently had an interesting discussion/debate on capital punishment and Nishma's Rabbi Hecht was asked to submit a guest post on his view of the Torah's view. This post is available at :

http://avrum.net/2009/05/15/a-must-read-judaisms-take-on-capital-punishment-by-guest-author-rabbi-benjamin-hecht/

Reflections on Aveilus 1 - The Holocaust

In learning Hilchos Aveilus I came accross sh'mua q'rova and r'choqaHow was this manifest at the end of the Holocaust? Unknown yahrzeit's were assigned to existing fast days. But how about K'ria following the news that a parent had perished? How was this accomplished?

-RRW

The Spirit and the Mind

I just again heard a case of this dilemma of choice. I remember when a close friend of mine mentioned this to me over twenty years ago. He had a choice. He was a relatively new ba'al teshuva and he was at a crossroads. Should he join the charedi world or the modern Orthodox world? He knew the latter was more intellectually challenging and even more intellectually honest but the former had a spirit that was not found in the world of MO. He chose to enter the charedi world. I keep hearing this issue arise again and again. Intellectually, people like my friend recognize the intellectual correctness of the thoughts of Modern Orthodoxy -- yet they still become members of the charedi community, knowing full well that they are thereby compromising the intellectual backbone of their commitment to Torah. Yet they feel that they must do so -- for they need a spirit in their Torah observance that is just generally not found in the world of MO. And this keeps happening again and again.

To be honest, I have met charedi individuals that do meet the highest standards of intellectual struggle, curiousity and honesty. There are possibilities of intellectual heights in the charedi world -- but it is not forthcoming. Any system that places great restrictions of the permitted conclusions must, by definition, restrict intellectual movement. The truth is that these charedi individuals who meet these high intellectual standards somewhat are restrained in their world. They have their reasons for their viewpoints and often it also a result of their intellectual honesty.

Yet finding this elusive spirit that attracts many individuals into the charedi world, even at the expense of their intellectual honesty, is elusive in the MO world -- and the question must be: why? One problem is that while many know what is being alluded to, this spirit is hard to define. Still is it inherent in MO that there be this lack of spirit or is there a problem within the practice of MO that yields this lack of spirit? And if it is the latter, how do we correct it? Do we want to correct it?

Last year, Nishma published an article that, to some extent, dealt with this problem. The article can be seen, on line, at the Blog of Garnel Ironheart at http://garnelironheart.blogspot.com/2007/11/new-approach-to-modern-orthodoxy.html
The fact is that this issue keeps arising again and again. It is time to start thinking about this lack of spirit in the world of Modern Orthodoxy.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Changing Religions

It seems that many people are now "changing religions." See, for more details,
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/27/changing.religion.study/index.html.

The real question is, though: what does it mean? We are told that Yitro went through every religion in his world before he found Torah. That, though, was because he was in search of the truth. Is the truth also what all these people changing their religion searching for? Or is it something else? And then what is it that they are looking for? And is their goal a good one or not?

There are people who may argue that change reflects instability. There are those who would argue that it actually reflects a dynamic personality. The point is that the phenomena of changing religion is not as isolated as one might think. The question, though, is what does it all mean?

Getting closer to home, how much does this national phenomena impact on the movement of individuals both into Orthodoxy and out of Orthodoxy? When I read this article, I wondered what it meant -- but not in terms of the general community but regarding phenomena that we face in the Jewish world.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

What Happened to Hakeret HaTov?

Recently someone asked me the following question. In a discussion with a major Rabbinical figure from the Charedi world, he noted how much significance this individual gave to the concept of hakeres hatov, acknowledging the good that has been done for you. This individual thus wondered why that Charedi world, as such, did not demonstrate hakeres hatov to the State of Israel, and especially its soldiers, for protecting them and assisting them in the furtherance of their Torah lifestyle. If the value was so significant to them, and it would seem to be from the views expressed by the Rabbinic individual in regard to another issue, why was it not applied by the Charedi world towards Eretz Yisrael? Its one thing not to celebrate Yom HaAtzmaut but wouldn't they at least integrate into their lives some aspect of hakeres hatov? (I would direct you also to http://garnelironheart.blogspot.com/2009/04/unfair-compariso.html which raises the problem within, albeit, somewhat of a different context but further indicates the problem in regard to Yom HaZikaron.)

I should, perhaps, point out that the person who raised this issue is not one who is totally unconnected to the Charedi world. He, in many ways, is supportive of it. Nevertheless, he is bothered by this question especially in that he heard a major figure express the significance of this concept albeit in a different context. I wonder, though, about the matter more generally. I find that hakeres hatov is generally not really stressed not only in the Charedi world but in the general Torah world. Its not only in regard to Israel but in general why is hakeres hatov not stressed? I see people doing almost everything to lessen their school tuitions or their synagogue dues and then extend themselves to give tzedakah to some institution to which they have no connection. Not to take away from the value of tzedakah but why aren't they thinking of hakeres hatov and extending themselves in regard to tuition, dues and other matters from which they benefit? I am not commenting on the final conclusion of such a process but simply the absence of this very process.

So my question is broader. If this Rabbi maintains the significance of hakeres hatov, why isn't he getting it out to his community in general? Why, in general, is this value not truly stressed? But then there is the specific question that I was asked, why is it not expressed towards Israel? I look forward to your comments -- in regard to all aspects of these questions including its assumptions.

Rabbi Ben Hecht