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."

School revival, with an Unusual Twist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Douglas Aronin

Lo Bashamayim Hee

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

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

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

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

ri

Then Yours Truly:

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

>
> RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
>

Now for Michael Markovi:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mikh'el Makovi

Parsha: Sh'mini - Olam Chesed Yiboneh

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

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

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

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

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

ri

A Friend Returns-- A True Story

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

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

Am Yisroel Chai By Rabbi Baruch Lederman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Autonomy in Authority - The Choice of Rabbi

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

re: NISHMA INTROSPECTION 5765 #1

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

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

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

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

Good Shabbos
RRW

The Conversion "Crisis"

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

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

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

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

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

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Eric Hoffer -- Prescient Prophet or Political Prognosticator?

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

enjoy this time capsule

--

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,

RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

WRITTEN IN 1968 - Astonishing

Do you remember Eric Hoffer?

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Jewish Pirate, Jean Lafitte

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then we had the following conversation:

What are you doing on this plane? I asked.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jewish history is replete with vivid coloring

An Unintentional Intermarriage - OU Article

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

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

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

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

Potential Split in Orthodoxy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rabbi Ben Hecht