While Noah Feldman is trying desperately to push the envelope leftward, the Haredi leadership is pushing in the other direction. At least, that what it looks like from this item:
Rabbinical "Ban" on Hassidic Music Concerts
by Hillel Fendel
(IsraelNN.com) Hassidic music stars Avraham Fried and Yaakov Shwekey are to perform in Jerusalem before over 10,000 Thursday night - but Rabbi Elyashiv, the Gerrer Rebbe and others say it's forbidden to participate or attend events of that nature.
Flashy posters all over Jerusalem and elsewhere advertise a high-powered Hassidic music concert scheduled for Thursday evening at Teddy Stadium. It features two of the genre's greatest stars, Fried and Shwekey, as well as guest appearances by Aharon Razel and the up-and-coming Elad Shaar. Called "L'Chaim in Jerusalem," the event commemorates the 40th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem, and will feature an extra-large orchestra.
A damper was placed on the event, however, in the form of a grave rabbinic ban appearing in the hareidi-religious press. The ban is signed by leading rabbis including Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, the Gerrer and Bezler Rabbis, Rabbi Aharon Leib Shteinman, Rabbi Shmuel HaLevy Vozner, Rabbi Chaim Pinchas Sheinberg, and more.
The ads state: "We trembled at hearing about the terrible breach in our camp of 'music evenings' and 'concerts' in which musicians sing before men and women sitting together, Heaven forefend, and even not together. All Torah leaders have in the past clearly forbidden these events, even when men and women are separate." The rabbis say the ban applies to men, women and children and of course the performers. Newspapers are not permitted to advertise these events, according to the ad, and musicians who sing "in front of men and women together" must not be invited to sing at other events.
Now, I've seen these ads and all of them say there will be so much segragation of the sexes that there might as well be two concerts. So what gives here? I'm not really sure. However, if the extremely dour Rav Eliashiv, and the legendarily dour Gerrer Rebbe keep it up they will make the lives of Haredim so bitter that they will have created a crisis that will be heard around the world. You can't take away people's parnassah, forbid them to educate themselves, forbid them to go hiking and take away their very few forms of entertainment without a reaction.
Oh, as long as we're at it the same article reported:
"It is known that Rabbi Moshe Feinstein [the pre-eminent Torah authority in the U.S. in the 20th century - ed.] permitted events of this nature if the proceeds were for charity," a source close to one of the rabbis said, "as is the case in Thursday's concert, so I'm not sure how to understand this."
Reb Moshe Feinstein? Who's he? Oh yes, I remember. He's the rabbi who, a prominent Haredi Rav objected to, because he had the temerity to disagree with the Mishnah Berura and the Hazon Ish.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Shedim (Dis)incorporated
Avishai Ben Hayyim shares the following vignette, which has a lot of unmeasured valance.
(And they wonder why in the Yeshivot Ger, Alexander, Sochatchov and Izbitz are considered honorary Litvaks.)
ובכל זאת, רבנים חשובים מדגישים שהאמונה בשדים אינה מעיקרי הדת היהודית, ושאפשר להיות יהודי טוב גם בלי להאמין בהם ולהתעסק בהם.
מספרים שפעם שאלו את הרבי מקוצק: איך יכול להיות שהרמב"ם אומר שאין שדים והרי בגמרא כתוב במפורש שיש? "בתקופת הגמרא היו שדים", השיב הרב, "משעה שפסק הרמב"ם שאין, אז גם
בשמים פסקו כמוהו, ומאז אין שדים".
(And they wonder why in the Yeshivot Ger, Alexander, Sochatchov and Izbitz are considered honorary Litvaks.)
Subscription Woes
I need some expert advice from my fellow bloggers.
Bloglet appears to have died and I need to replace a subscription service. Any ideas? I have seen references to RSS and ATOM but have no idea how to use them. (I"d rather transcribe MS Budapest Kaufman 150A than try to figure out the web pages I've seen on these).
All assistance appreciated: woolfj@gmail.com
Bloglet appears to have died and I need to replace a subscription service. Any ideas? I have seen references to RSS and ATOM but have no idea how to use them. (I"d rather transcribe MS Budapest Kaufman 150A than try to figure out the web pages I've seen on these).
All assistance appreciated: woolfj@gmail.com
Shalom Carmy on Noah Feldman (and a Postscript)
Professor Shalom Carmy has, in typically perceptive and lucid fashion, produced a pointed and penetrating response to the challenge raised by Noah Feldman's article. Of especial note is his discussion of the question of a Jewish physician violating the Sabbath in order to treat a Non-Jew. As Carmy notes, this claim has long been a weapon in the arsenal of anti-semites. Indeed, it was used as a vicious anti-religious weapon in the fifties by secularists here in Israel.
Inter alia, Carmy writes:
An honest understanding of the Halakha about saving a Gentile on Shabbat is grounded in the fact that not all mitsvot can be violated to save life. Idolatry, sexual offenses and murder may not be allowed even to save life, however this flies in the face of our utilitarian mentality. Shabbat has much in common with the so-called “big three.” [Note R. Shimon’s view in Yerushalmi that a bystander may intervene to prevent Shabbat violation even at the cost of the transgressor’s life.] For Jews Shabbat may be violated to save life, but only on the basis of a special limmud (inference)—“desecrate one Shabbat so that he may observe many Shabbatot.” Where this principle does not apply, Shabbat is inviolable.
Where people understand that religion may on occasion make life and death demands, the law that Shabbat is so important that it is overridden only for those who are members of the community that observes it is difficult but not scandalous. In our culture this understanding is lacking; thus the failure to treat Jews and Gentiles identically will be interpreted as indifference to the fate of the non-Jew, and will be perceived as tantamount to connivance in his death. It will provoke hatred, and understandably so. In this case, the theoretical gulf separating secularists from halakhists is not universalism vs. particularism but the recognition that Shabbat is, in principle, worth the sacrifice. It is common to stress that Judaism, compared, let us say, with Hinduism, affirms the value of human life and eschews such sacrifices. That the value of human life is overridden only in exceptional circumstances is a significant element in generalizing about Jewish ethics. But an almost absolute principle is not the same as an absolute one.
In any event Feldman presumably knows very well that his high school teacher’s remark is not representative of grown-up halakhic thought, and he knows even better that it is not a guide to the practice of Orthodox Jewish doctors. Nonetheless, in his desire to satisfy himself against those who failed to properly esteem his choices and flatter his vanity, he has resorted to one of the most potent weapons of 19th-20th century anti-Semitism. He has made it easier for individuals or groups in medical schools to sideline or bar Orthodox Jews, in the name of high-sounding universalistic moral ideals, from positions in the medical profession. Whether he intends these consequences or not, and whether or not he envisions, in his wise shrewdness and genteel outrage, further punitive consequences to his classmates and their children, he has employed his power and prestige to those ends. He, and we, must live with the consequences of his decision.
Not only Feldman’s actions have consequences. There are rabbis and teachers, who sometimes feel that they must show their cleverness at any cost. At times it seems that the less they have to contribute, the more they wish to stand out. Like precocious children impressing the adults, they vie for the attention of their students with forced displays of cleverness and provocation. The point is to come up with something that nobody else would think of saying and to say something shocking and memorable. Surely the teacher whom Feldman quotes succeeded eminently in this game of pedagogical one-upmanship. He, and we, will have to live with the consequences of his judgment.
Postscript:
I recall reading that Professor Gerald Blidstein once asked the Rov if he was satisfied with the fact that Sabbath deseceration for a non-Jew was due to איבה, or the hostility toward Jews that would be thereby engendered. The Rov, reportedly, responded that while he was happy with the legal results, he found the actual argument morally unsatisfactory.
I've thought a lot about this issue lately, and I've come to two conclusions. First, any fine moral impulse must still find its expression within the terminology of the Law. Sometimes, indeed oftentimes, that terminology is somewhat jarring to the non-professional ear. Thus, making all sorts of allowances for non-observant Jews because they are 'תינוקות שנשבו' sounds paternalistic, arrogant and dismissive of the rich cultural context within which someone might have been raised. That, however, is the legal tool we have. That, however, does not mean it should be bandied about supercilliously and hurtfully. (Indeed, I've often thought we should create some sort of new category.)
The same is true, or so it seems to me, about the allowance of Sabbath violation for a non-Jew on Shabbat. As Carmy points out so well, saving a Life is not always an absolute value. Even saving a Jew on Shabbat requires special license. Recall that, according to the First Book of Maccabees (2, 32-40) there were those who fled Antiochus' decrees and were slaughtered because they thought that self-defense did not justify desecrating Shabbat. Modern society is based on absolute human autonomy, together with a very strong dose of narcissism. Thus, the idea that Human Life takes second place to anything is at best impossible, at worst, an anathema.
Jewish Law realized that the question of treating a non-Jew on Shabbat had to be addressed and allowed. Halakhah came up איבה. Yes, in marketing terms it's terrible. That, however, is not the point. The genuine, Jewish moral impulse did find a cogent, principled legal category within which to function. Halakhah doesn't operate in philosophical categories, it operates in legal categories. One might add, though, that it's not much of a stretch to go from absence of hostility to co-fraternity. Or, alternatively, who says that Hobbes was wrong? Perhaps, Hazal and Rishonim had a more Hobbesian view of man than we (ostensibly) possess? Certainly, based upon the empirical evidence, Hobbes has the competition beaten, hands down.
Inter alia, Carmy writes:
An honest understanding of the Halakha about saving a Gentile on Shabbat is grounded in the fact that not all mitsvot can be violated to save life. Idolatry, sexual offenses and murder may not be allowed even to save life, however this flies in the face of our utilitarian mentality. Shabbat has much in common with the so-called “big three.” [Note R. Shimon’s view in Yerushalmi that a bystander may intervene to prevent Shabbat violation even at the cost of the transgressor’s life.] For Jews Shabbat may be violated to save life, but only on the basis of a special limmud (inference)—“desecrate one Shabbat so that he may observe many Shabbatot.” Where this principle does not apply, Shabbat is inviolable.
Where people understand that religion may on occasion make life and death demands, the law that Shabbat is so important that it is overridden only for those who are members of the community that observes it is difficult but not scandalous. In our culture this understanding is lacking; thus the failure to treat Jews and Gentiles identically will be interpreted as indifference to the fate of the non-Jew, and will be perceived as tantamount to connivance in his death. It will provoke hatred, and understandably so. In this case, the theoretical gulf separating secularists from halakhists is not universalism vs. particularism but the recognition that Shabbat is, in principle, worth the sacrifice. It is common to stress that Judaism, compared, let us say, with Hinduism, affirms the value of human life and eschews such sacrifices. That the value of human life is overridden only in exceptional circumstances is a significant element in generalizing about Jewish ethics. But an almost absolute principle is not the same as an absolute one.
In any event Feldman presumably knows very well that his high school teacher’s remark is not representative of grown-up halakhic thought, and he knows even better that it is not a guide to the practice of Orthodox Jewish doctors. Nonetheless, in his desire to satisfy himself against those who failed to properly esteem his choices and flatter his vanity, he has resorted to one of the most potent weapons of 19th-20th century anti-Semitism. He has made it easier for individuals or groups in medical schools to sideline or bar Orthodox Jews, in the name of high-sounding universalistic moral ideals, from positions in the medical profession. Whether he intends these consequences or not, and whether or not he envisions, in his wise shrewdness and genteel outrage, further punitive consequences to his classmates and their children, he has employed his power and prestige to those ends. He, and we, must live with the consequences of his decision.
Not only Feldman’s actions have consequences. There are rabbis and teachers, who sometimes feel that they must show their cleverness at any cost. At times it seems that the less they have to contribute, the more they wish to stand out. Like precocious children impressing the adults, they vie for the attention of their students with forced displays of cleverness and provocation. The point is to come up with something that nobody else would think of saying and to say something shocking and memorable. Surely the teacher whom Feldman quotes succeeded eminently in this game of pedagogical one-upmanship. He, and we, will have to live with the consequences of his judgment.
Postscript:
I recall reading that Professor Gerald Blidstein once asked the Rov if he was satisfied with the fact that Sabbath deseceration for a non-Jew was due to איבה, or the hostility toward Jews that would be thereby engendered. The Rov, reportedly, responded that while he was happy with the legal results, he found the actual argument morally unsatisfactory.
I've thought a lot about this issue lately, and I've come to two conclusions. First, any fine moral impulse must still find its expression within the terminology of the Law. Sometimes, indeed oftentimes, that terminology is somewhat jarring to the non-professional ear. Thus, making all sorts of allowances for non-observant Jews because they are 'תינוקות שנשבו' sounds paternalistic, arrogant and dismissive of the rich cultural context within which someone might have been raised. That, however, is the legal tool we have. That, however, does not mean it should be bandied about supercilliously and hurtfully. (Indeed, I've often thought we should create some sort of new category.)
The same is true, or so it seems to me, about the allowance of Sabbath violation for a non-Jew on Shabbat. As Carmy points out so well, saving a Life is not always an absolute value. Even saving a Jew on Shabbat requires special license. Recall that, according to the First Book of Maccabees (2, 32-40) there were those who fled Antiochus' decrees and were slaughtered because they thought that self-defense did not justify desecrating Shabbat. Modern society is based on absolute human autonomy, together with a very strong dose of narcissism. Thus, the idea that Human Life takes second place to anything is at best impossible, at worst, an anathema.
Jewish Law realized that the question of treating a non-Jew on Shabbat had to be addressed and allowed. Halakhah came up איבה. Yes, in marketing terms it's terrible. That, however, is not the point. The genuine, Jewish moral impulse did find a cogent, principled legal category within which to function. Halakhah doesn't operate in philosophical categories, it operates in legal categories. One might add, though, that it's not much of a stretch to go from absence of hostility to co-fraternity. Or, alternatively, who says that Hobbes was wrong? Perhaps, Hazal and Rishonim had a more Hobbesian view of man than we (ostensibly) possess? Certainly, based upon the empirical evidence, Hobbes has the competition beaten, hands down.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
That, My Friends, is a Successful Aliyah (1)
In about three weeks, we'll be marking the fourteenth anniversary of our Aliyah (August 18/19, 1993). That anniversary always prompts me to consider what, exactly, constitutes a successful Aliyah. Obviously, such a determination is somewhat subjective and there are many different variables that need to be considered. However, some cases are so self-evident, they demand immediate consent.
One such example is provided by Ms. Lisa N. Goldman, journalist and blogger extraordinaire. Lisa's Aliyah has been followed by thousands (at least) through her autobiographical narrative, 'How Lisa Came to Israel.' Her blog, On the Face, is one of the best-known in the relevant sectors of the blogosphere. Indeed, she's a blogging pioneer in more ways than one.
That, however, is not the point. Lisa worked over-time to find her place here. Through talent, grit and alot of very hard work she succeeded at carving out a place in the generally closed shop that is Israeli journalism. Recently, she appeared on Channel 10's London et Kirschenbaum, describing her trip to Beirut (sic!). It was incredible (and wonderful) to see the collegial respect accorded her by Yaron London (who I know somewhat, and can be difficult) his sidekick. A part of that respect, no doubt, was also due to Lisa's flawless Hebrew. (The lack of which is one of the biggest drawbacks among Anglo Olim.)
Now, let me just add a few notes. I've never met Lisa (though we did have a few e-mail exchanges). I know that we disagree on most things political (and, I assume, more than a few things religio-cultural). All of that, however, is quite beside the point. She is here, in Israel, successfully. She is living proof that one can make it here, even without Nefesh b'Nefesh.
So, on the eve of my Aliyah anniversary, kudos to Lisa. תרבינה כמותה בישראל.
One such example is provided by Ms. Lisa N. Goldman, journalist and blogger extraordinaire. Lisa's Aliyah has been followed by thousands (at least) through her autobiographical narrative, 'How Lisa Came to Israel.' Her blog, On the Face, is one of the best-known in the relevant sectors of the blogosphere. Indeed, she's a blogging pioneer in more ways than one.
That, however, is not the point. Lisa worked over-time to find her place here. Through talent, grit and alot of very hard work she succeeded at carving out a place in the generally closed shop that is Israeli journalism. Recently, she appeared on Channel 10's London et Kirschenbaum, describing her trip to Beirut (sic!). It was incredible (and wonderful) to see the collegial respect accorded her by Yaron London (who I know somewhat, and can be difficult) his sidekick. A part of that respect, no doubt, was also due to Lisa's flawless Hebrew. (The lack of which is one of the biggest drawbacks among Anglo Olim.)
Now, let me just add a few notes. I've never met Lisa (though we did have a few e-mail exchanges). I know that we disagree on most things political (and, I assume, more than a few things religio-cultural). All of that, however, is quite beside the point. She is here, in Israel, successfully. She is living proof that one can make it here, even without Nefesh b'Nefesh.
So, on the eve of my Aliyah anniversary, kudos to Lisa. תרבינה כמותה בישראל.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Let All the Others Look to Their Own Lives
'When one of a company dies, the whole company should fear' (אחד מבני חבורה שמת - תדאג כל החבורה כולה), Shabbat 106a
The case of Noah Feldman has elicited the expected mixture of outrage and condemnation (from Modern Orthodox circles), glee and support (from non-Orthodox and secularist representatives). One quarter from which I have yet to see a reaction, though it will doubtless come, is the Haredi/Hardali world. With undisguised glee and horror, the Jonathan Rosenblums will declare that Feldman proves the bankruptcy of Modern Orthodoxy (as if Agudah would have been interested in Rosenblum, if he hadn't earned a JD at Yale). These latter will be just as off the mark as the others.
At the same time, as my wife cogently observed, something clearly went wrong here. It could have been a matter of personal psycho-pathology, or of the vagaries of romance, but that's too neat an answer. It lets the rest of us off the hook far too quickly. Is it possible that, somewhere along the line, Dr. Feldman got the message that secular achievement is of equal value (or superior to) devotion to God and the Torah? Is it possible that somewhere along the line his loyalty to Torah was taken as a given? It certainly seems like a plausible scenario. The fact that Hazal constantly warned us not to become spiritually or intellectually complacent, arrogant or conceited would appear to indicate that this is a signal danger on our spiritual path (cf. Avot 2, 4 and Berakhot 29a). As such, perhaps it was specifically this young man's promise that should have set off alarm bells that he should receive more, not less, special attention and followup? [ I admit that I don't know the specifics. I do, however, know the then principals at Maimonides School and many members of the faculty at the time. They are wonderful, devoted educators and Modern Orthodox Jews in the finest tradition of the Rav, and Prof. זכרונם לברכה and תילחטו"א Dr. Twersky. I, therefore, want to emphasize that my comments here are in no way meant to imply criticism of them. I am discussing a more general phenomenon.]
Does this, therefore, put the lie to the entire Modern Orthodox enterprise? If the Rav's own school can produce this type of product, is his life's work thereby refuted. Some, it may be sure, will reach exactly that conclusion. However, such a conclusion is patently unfair. Would the same critics totally dismiss the Netziv because of the bad apples that grew in Volozhin? Are we to devalue great Hassidic Rebbe'im because some of their disciples apostasized? Was R. Yehiel of Paris a failure because of Nicholas Donin? Was R. Eliezer of Tarascon a nobody because of Paulus Christianus?
I categorically reject such a conclusion.
Nevertheless, the case of the Noah Feldmans in our community should give us pause. Those of us who firmly believe that Judaism has nothing to fear from the wider world must ask ourselves some serious questions. At what price do we engage that world? Given that there are tangible risks involved in our path, how do we provide for them? Obviously, there are no guarantees in this world. It does, however, behoove us to be forearmed (as we are all fore warned).
It seems to me, and this is only the starting point, that our point of departure must be intellectual and spiritual humility. This is a very difficult quality to develop, especially in a neurotically narcissistic culture such as ours. It is, however, a conditio sine qua non for a Jewish existence.
By humility, I mean that we are obliged to cultivate in ourselves, in our children and in our students the readiness to withhold judgment. Human knowledge and understanding are, by definition, conditional. That is the essence of the scientific method. For an Orthodox Jew the truth of Torah is not conditional. There may, albeit, be a number of legitimate doctrinal or halakhic alternatives on specific issues. The whole, however, is a datum. It is a given. That given requires tremendous sacrifices of the Jew. It determines what one eats, who one marries, where one lives, and how one behaves. That, as the Rov said so many times, is the essence of Qabbalat Ol Malkhut Shamayim. One is encouraged to master the totality of human creativity and culture. However, it remains just that, human, conditional. God's Torah, the Divine logos, trumps it. Period.
Acknowledging this fact of religious life is very difficult. It requires an ongoing, titanic struggle with doubt, misgiving and sincere feelings of humanity. The struggle is legitimate. Impulsive, ultimately self-serving resolutions are not. As Reb Haim Brisker is reputed to have said: Fun a kashe shtarbt man nit. One doesn't die from a question. One does, however, need to develop and hone the emotional, spiritual and intellectual muscles to sustain that question. The greater the intellect, the more pressing the need to cultivate exactly these tools of question-maintenance and surrender that balance it. [This is not a new circumstance. The achievement oriented, individualizing tendencies of Tosafist France led to the cultivation of German Pietism (חסידות אשכנז) with its heavy emphasis on humility. Ultimately, both were correct.]
Tisha B'Av starts with mourning and ends with consolation and the possibility of repentance. Rather than simply mount the barracades against someone who is clearly having an immature tantrum, we should look to our own souls and develop the emotional and spiritual modalities required to both constructively engage the wider world, while simultaneously surrendering to God's greater wisdom.
The case of Noah Feldman has elicited the expected mixture of outrage and condemnation (from Modern Orthodox circles), glee and support (from non-Orthodox and secularist representatives). One quarter from which I have yet to see a reaction, though it will doubtless come, is the Haredi/Hardali world. With undisguised glee and horror, the Jonathan Rosenblums will declare that Feldman proves the bankruptcy of Modern Orthodoxy (as if Agudah would have been interested in Rosenblum, if he hadn't earned a JD at Yale). These latter will be just as off the mark as the others.
At the same time, as my wife cogently observed, something clearly went wrong here. It could have been a matter of personal psycho-pathology, or of the vagaries of romance, but that's too neat an answer. It lets the rest of us off the hook far too quickly. Is it possible that, somewhere along the line, Dr. Feldman got the message that secular achievement is of equal value (or superior to) devotion to God and the Torah? Is it possible that somewhere along the line his loyalty to Torah was taken as a given? It certainly seems like a plausible scenario. The fact that Hazal constantly warned us not to become spiritually or intellectually complacent, arrogant or conceited would appear to indicate that this is a signal danger on our spiritual path (cf. Avot 2, 4 and Berakhot 29a). As such, perhaps it was specifically this young man's promise that should have set off alarm bells that he should receive more, not less, special attention and followup? [ I admit that I don't know the specifics. I do, however, know the then principals at Maimonides School and many members of the faculty at the time. They are wonderful, devoted educators and Modern Orthodox Jews in the finest tradition of the Rav, and Prof. זכרונם לברכה and תילחטו"א Dr. Twersky. I, therefore, want to emphasize that my comments here are in no way meant to imply criticism of them. I am discussing a more general phenomenon.]
Does this, therefore, put the lie to the entire Modern Orthodox enterprise? If the Rav's own school can produce this type of product, is his life's work thereby refuted. Some, it may be sure, will reach exactly that conclusion. However, such a conclusion is patently unfair. Would the same critics totally dismiss the Netziv because of the bad apples that grew in Volozhin? Are we to devalue great Hassidic Rebbe'im because some of their disciples apostasized? Was R. Yehiel of Paris a failure because of Nicholas Donin? Was R. Eliezer of Tarascon a nobody because of Paulus Christianus?
I categorically reject such a conclusion.
Nevertheless, the case of the Noah Feldmans in our community should give us pause. Those of us who firmly believe that Judaism has nothing to fear from the wider world must ask ourselves some serious questions. At what price do we engage that world? Given that there are tangible risks involved in our path, how do we provide for them? Obviously, there are no guarantees in this world. It does, however, behoove us to be forearmed (as we are all fore warned).
It seems to me, and this is only the starting point, that our point of departure must be intellectual and spiritual humility. This is a very difficult quality to develop, especially in a neurotically narcissistic culture such as ours. It is, however, a conditio sine qua non for a Jewish existence.
By humility, I mean that we are obliged to cultivate in ourselves, in our children and in our students the readiness to withhold judgment. Human knowledge and understanding are, by definition, conditional. That is the essence of the scientific method. For an Orthodox Jew the truth of Torah is not conditional. There may, albeit, be a number of legitimate doctrinal or halakhic alternatives on specific issues. The whole, however, is a datum. It is a given. That given requires tremendous sacrifices of the Jew. It determines what one eats, who one marries, where one lives, and how one behaves. That, as the Rov said so many times, is the essence of Qabbalat Ol Malkhut Shamayim. One is encouraged to master the totality of human creativity and culture. However, it remains just that, human, conditional. God's Torah, the Divine logos, trumps it. Period.
Acknowledging this fact of religious life is very difficult. It requires an ongoing, titanic struggle with doubt, misgiving and sincere feelings of humanity. The struggle is legitimate. Impulsive, ultimately self-serving resolutions are not. As Reb Haim Brisker is reputed to have said: Fun a kashe shtarbt man nit. One doesn't die from a question. One does, however, need to develop and hone the emotional, spiritual and intellectual muscles to sustain that question. The greater the intellect, the more pressing the need to cultivate exactly these tools of question-maintenance and surrender that balance it. [This is not a new circumstance. The achievement oriented, individualizing tendencies of Tosafist France led to the cultivation of German Pietism (חסידות אשכנז) with its heavy emphasis on humility. Ultimately, both were correct.]
Tisha B'Av starts with mourning and ends with consolation and the possibility of repentance. Rather than simply mount the barracades against someone who is clearly having an immature tantrum, we should look to our own souls and develop the emotional and spiritual modalities required to both constructively engage the wider world, while simultaneously surrendering to God's greater wisdom.
Tace Shmuel Boteach! Amore Deo, Tace!
Why am I surprised? What did I expect from Shmuley Boteach, who trusts in fame, fortune but not in God? Of course, he never heard about personal responsibility. Of course, he never heard of paying a price for one's choices. He has no idea that sometimes 'tough love' is the only kind of love.
As someone observed last night in shul: 'Would he have been so open minded about a Jew who adopted an 'in your face' attitude when marrying out, if that Jew were not a famous Rhodes scholar, known as the 'Rock star of the Legal Profession'?
I wonder....
As someone observed last night in shul: 'Would he have been so open minded about a Jew who adopted an 'in your face' attitude when marrying out, if that Jew were not a famous Rhodes scholar, known as the 'Rock star of the Legal Profession'?
I wonder....
The Waning Minutes of Tisha B'Av 5767
One of the most remarkable customs on Tisha B'Av is that we avoid prayers of consolation until the afternoon. Thus, according to the Ashkenazic usage, the prayer of consolation (נחם) is not inserted into the prayers until Mincha. The reason, declares the Rema, is because Titus didn't set fire to the Temple until late on Tisha B'Av afternoon. God had decided to 'pour out his wrath on wood and stones' and to save the Jewish People. It's a remarkable statement.
In his unforgettable Tisha B'Av shiurim in Boston, the Rav זצ"ל, pointed out that this expressed God's commitment to us, as a People, to preserve us for another day; to offer us the opportunity to do Teshuvah, to rebuild the Land of Israel, to rebuild the Temple.
The comfort, the consolation is the our covenant with God cannot be broken and we willnot break it.
It is not true that Amor vincit amnia.
It is true that Amor Dei vincit omnia.
In his unforgettable Tisha B'Av shiurim in Boston, the Rav זצ"ל, pointed out that this expressed God's commitment to us, as a People, to preserve us for another day; to offer us the opportunity to do Teshuvah, to rebuild the Land of Israel, to rebuild the Temple.
The comfort, the consolation is the our covenant with God cannot be broken and we willnot break it.
It is not true that Amor vincit amnia.
It is true that Amor Dei vincit omnia.
Noah Feldman: Second Take (Tisha B'Av 7:40 PM)
In an interview posted today, Noah Feldman confirms the points I made in yesterday's posting. He is a true believer. He cannot understand how faith commitments can be absolute, and lead one to categorically reject the alternatives. From his Olympian perch, full of his own sophistication, he sits in judgment on his former faith community (and others), evaluating them in terms of his dogmatic system, without having the decency to respect how each religion grows in line with its own postulates. What you have here is a type of intellectual narcissisim, fed by a truly impressive academic CV. Narcissism it remains. Nothing more. Engaging him in dialogue, responding to him publically or privately, is, by definition, to engage in a dialogue des sourdes.
Monday, July 23, 2007
שייבנה בית המקדש במהרה בימינו ותן חלקנו בתורתך
ותחזינה עינינו בשובך לציון ברחמים. בא"ה המחזיר שכינתו לציון
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)