[I received the following from Rabbi Chaim Ilson, the Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Derekh ha-Talmud, and one of the Rav זצ"ל's תלמידים מובהקים. It speaks for itself.]
This is what Rav Lazer Brody posted today about one of the students killed in Merkaz HaRav. This is an unbelievable story:
Doron: Story of a True Tzaddik
Doron Mahareta of blessed and saintly memory HY"D was one of the eight Yeshiva students that were massacred last week in Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav in Jerusalem.
Last night, I paid a shiva (condolence) call to Doron's family. Every single type of Jew was sitting together, from Ethiopians to Polish Chassidim, from knit kippot to Yerushalmi white kippot, from jeans and sandals to long black frocks. Too bad that it takes a martyr of Doron's magnitude to unite everyone.One of the rabbis from Mercaz HaRav told me the most amazing story you'll ever hear about Doron's dedication to learning Torah, a story that competes with the Gemara's account of Hillel's near freezing on the roof of Shmaya and Avtalion's Yeshiva (see tractate Yoma, 35b).
Doron wanted to learn Torah in Mercaz HaRav, one of the best of Israel's yeshivas. But, since his early schooling was in Ethiopia, he lacked a strong background in Gemara. The Yeshiva rejected him. He wasn't discouraged. He asked, "If you won't let me learn Torah, will you let me wash the dishes in the mess hall?" For a year and a half, Doron washed dishes. But, he spent every spare minute in the study hall. He inquired what the yeshiva boys were learning, and spent most of the nights and all of his Shabbatot with his head in the Gemara learning what they learned.
One day, the "dish washer" asked the Rosh Yeshiva to test him. The Rosh Yeshiva politely smiled and tried to gently dismiss Doron, but Doron wouldn't budge. He forced the Rosh Yeshiva into a Torah discussion; the next day, he was no longer a dish washer but a full-fledged "yeshiva bachur".On weekends, when Doron would come home to visit his family in Ashdod, he'd spend the entire Shabbat either in the Melitzer Shul or the neighboring Gerrer shtiebel learning Shulchan Aruch and its commentaries.
Three weeks ago, he finished the entire Shulchan Aruch and principle commentaries. Doron achieved in his tender 26 years what others don't attain in 88 years. He truly was an unblemished sacrifice, who gave his life for all of us.
The next time you want to close the Gemara to watch TV, think of Doron.
The next time your son doesn't want to do his Torah homework, tell him about the price that tzaddikim like Hillel the Elder and Doron Mahareta paid to learn Torah. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Doron wasn't a reincarnation of Hillel.
May his holy soul beg mercy for the grieving nation he left behind, Amen.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Barukh Dayyan ha-Emet: Mrs. Erica Jesselson ע"ה
It is with much sadness and a deep and abiding sense of personal loss, that I heard of the passing this morning of Mrs. Erica (Rivka) Jesselson nee Papenheim, wife and life's partner of Mr. Ludwig Jesselson ז"ל.
I have had the זכות of knowing, and being close to, many outstanding and legendary leaders and teachers of our people. The Jesselson's, though, were in a class all by themselves when it came to vision, moral values, commitment to the Torah, the Jewish People and to the State of Israel, and absolute and unwavering love and devotion to their families and friends. Their legendary philanthropy, in its massive scope and unparalleled צניעות, was the natural expression of who they were and all in which they believed.
The news is too fresh to express all the feelings that are welling up in my heart at this moment.
For now, all I want to say is 'Thank you, Mrs. J' for your friendship, your affection and for making me and my family, a part of your life.
תהי נשמתה צרורה בצרור החיים ותהי מנוחתה כבוד.
עד ביאת הגואל, אמן.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Conversion Imbroglio
The debate about the RCA/Rabbanut concordat on conversion continues to intensify. The new edition of the New York Jewish Week has no less than two articles and a joint letter on the subject (not to mention the New York Times Magazine's piece from last week). Closer to home, my posting from last week also attracted a significant amount of attention (as borne out by the number of hits it received, and the comments I received off-line). As a followup to the latter, and after having read the full text of the concordat, I think it's important to clarify a few of the points that I raised.
1) My concern was, and remains, the ongoing independence of the Orthodox rabbinate in the Diaspora. Millennia of halakhic practice demands that the acts of recognized and responsible Bate Din abroad be honored and acknowledged by their counterparts in Israel's Chief Rabbinate (some of whose members can't shine the shoes of Talmide Hakhamim in the Golah).
After reading the RCA's Gerut policy in full, and especially the elaboration published by the chairman of the commission, Rabbi Dr. Barry Freundel, I am satisfied that my colleagues abroad have created a framework that preserves the integrity of the Modern Orthodox Rabbinate in North America. The system is set up by, and for, the members of the RCA. The fact that this was acknowledged by the Rabbanut and that no questions would be raised as to the actions of RCA Bate Din is a signal achievement. In addition, the RCA has pledged to appoint qualified judges who reflect the full spectrum of its membership.
2) That having been said, it is absolutely critical that the RCA stand on constant guard to prevent encroachments upon its prerogatives. The Rabbanut has become a hostage of forces that categorically reject everything in which the RIETS/RCA community believes. I have no doubt that this is but the first round in an ongoing struggle, and here the critics have a real point. ראו חבריי, הוזהרתם.
3) There are two other issues hovering in the background here. These do not relate to the question of rabbinic authority, but to a) the nature of conversion and the requirements for conversion and b) the future of Modern Orthodoxy.
The former topic requires longer treatment. I have already stated my personal belief that the bare minimalist definition of קבלת המצוות is neither justified legally and nor historically accurate, I will אי"ה expand upon the topic in another context.
The latter is rooted in a broader sense of crisis that has marked the Modern Orthodox Community for almost three decades. I sense that the fear of these critics is not so much of the Rabbanut, but of rightward trends within their own communities, and among their own colleagues. The question here, for which I have no clear answer, requires rethinking the lines between the possible and the desireable, the justified and the wise in responding to the changing face of Orthodoxy in the twenty-first century.
1) My concern was, and remains, the ongoing independence of the Orthodox rabbinate in the Diaspora. Millennia of halakhic practice demands that the acts of recognized and responsible Bate Din abroad be honored and acknowledged by their counterparts in Israel's Chief Rabbinate (some of whose members can't shine the shoes of Talmide Hakhamim in the Golah).
After reading the RCA's Gerut policy in full, and especially the elaboration published by the chairman of the commission, Rabbi Dr. Barry Freundel, I am satisfied that my colleagues abroad have created a framework that preserves the integrity of the Modern Orthodox Rabbinate in North America. The system is set up by, and for, the members of the RCA. The fact that this was acknowledged by the Rabbanut and that no questions would be raised as to the actions of RCA Bate Din is a signal achievement. In addition, the RCA has pledged to appoint qualified judges who reflect the full spectrum of its membership.
2) That having been said, it is absolutely critical that the RCA stand on constant guard to prevent encroachments upon its prerogatives. The Rabbanut has become a hostage of forces that categorically reject everything in which the RIETS/RCA community believes. I have no doubt that this is but the first round in an ongoing struggle, and here the critics have a real point. ראו חבריי, הוזהרתם.
3) There are two other issues hovering in the background here. These do not relate to the question of rabbinic authority, but to a) the nature of conversion and the requirements for conversion and b) the future of Modern Orthodoxy.
The former topic requires longer treatment. I have already stated my personal belief that the bare minimalist definition of קבלת המצוות is neither justified legally and nor historically accurate, I will אי"ה expand upon the topic in another context.
The latter is rooted in a broader sense of crisis that has marked the Modern Orthodox Community for almost three decades. I sense that the fear of these critics is not so much of the Rabbanut, but of rightward trends within their own communities, and among their own colleagues. The question here, for which I have no clear answer, requires rethinking the lines between the possible and the desireable, the justified and the wise in responding to the changing face of Orthodoxy in the twenty-first century.
Choosing Your Comforters
I can't stand our Minister for (Re)Education, Yuli Tamir. The woman is a dogmatic, politically correct, radical Post-Modernist, neo-Stalinist demagogue. Judging from her essay in a book about secular Israelis, she never met a Jew (and a fortiori a settler) she ever liked or respected. She has spent her entire tenure devoted to two purposes: 1) Recasting the school curricula to advance her political agenda. (This led to her departure as head of the Rabin Center. She was even too much for them.) 2) Eviscerating the national-religious educational system. (Ostensibly, she is redirecting funds for the legitimate purpose of advancing the education of Israeli Arabs. The problem is that she is taking money solely from the religious stream.)
Yuli Tamir will go to the ends of the earth to delegitimize anything or anyone who is Jewish or Zionist. I have no doubt that it is for that reason that she made a highly publicized, unannounced visit to Merkaz haRav, in the wake of Thursday Night's massacre. She got what she was looking for. A few students shouted epithets at her, and she responded:
"I left the place with great pain but not with a decision to do anything at this painful moment. It is enough for us this pain that has to be dealt with and it is not necessary to add to it. But behind it is something that should concern us greatly. Again, we are talking about a state school, funded by the State, part of the body of the State. It cannot be that the messages that it passes on to its students - also in an hour of dispute - and this wasn't the only dispute that there was nor the only dispute that there will be in the public life of the State of Israel. And we ask and require that our schools will know to bridge disputes and not deepen them. We are tested during times of crises and the questions is if the education that is given at the yeshiva and places similar to it is truly an education that accepts the State and it democratic institutions with honor. I cannot say to you that as the minister of education I am confident there is true democratic activity there," Tamir warned.
Tamir, who as I said puts Mikhail Suslov to shame, never heard of free speech. She never heard of the right of people to express their pain. Free Speech, in her book, like democracy is limited to those who think as she does. (Recall Yitzhak ben Aharon's famous declaration that Begin's election was not binding. Why? Because a non-socialist was elected.) She also never heard of the rule that mourners have a right not to receive certain people as comforters.
Nevertheless, I think it's a mistake to act out with such people.
All we do is hand them more ammunition with which to attack us. The incident with Tamir gave the media an opportunity to rid itself of the intolerable need to relate positively to the 'Source of all Evil' (i.e. Merkaz HaRav and all it represents), and to return to the ongoing campaign of villification and demonization of Religious Zionism upon which it thrives.
It would have been much better to allow the visit, carefully limit it and come out looking better.
As my mother, who had an innate sense of what to do inimpossible situations with people you absolutely can't stand, would say:
'Do the Correct Thing.'
Yuli Tamir will go to the ends of the earth to delegitimize anything or anyone who is Jewish or Zionist. I have no doubt that it is for that reason that she made a highly publicized, unannounced visit to Merkaz haRav, in the wake of Thursday Night's massacre. She got what she was looking for. A few students shouted epithets at her, and she responded:
"I left the place with great pain but not with a decision to do anything at this painful moment. It is enough for us this pain that has to be dealt with and it is not necessary to add to it. But behind it is something that should concern us greatly. Again, we are talking about a state school, funded by the State, part of the body of the State. It cannot be that the messages that it passes on to its students - also in an hour of dispute - and this wasn't the only dispute that there was nor the only dispute that there will be in the public life of the State of Israel. And we ask and require that our schools will know to bridge disputes and not deepen them. We are tested during times of crises and the questions is if the education that is given at the yeshiva and places similar to it is truly an education that accepts the State and it democratic institutions with honor. I cannot say to you that as the minister of education I am confident there is true democratic activity there," Tamir warned.
Tamir, who as I said puts Mikhail Suslov to shame, never heard of free speech. She never heard of the right of people to express their pain. Free Speech, in her book, like democracy is limited to those who think as she does. (Recall Yitzhak ben Aharon's famous declaration that Begin's election was not binding. Why? Because a non-socialist was elected.) She also never heard of the rule that mourners have a right not to receive certain people as comforters.
Nevertheless, I think it's a mistake to act out with such people.
All we do is hand them more ammunition with which to attack us. The incident with Tamir gave the media an opportunity to rid itself of the intolerable need to relate positively to the 'Source of all Evil' (i.e. Merkaz HaRav and all it represents), and to return to the ongoing campaign of villification and demonization of Religious Zionism upon which it thrives.
It would have been much better to allow the visit, carefully limit it and come out looking better.
As my mother, who had an innate sense of what to do inimpossible situations with people you absolutely can't stand, would say:
'Do the Correct Thing.'
No Money for Migun
We recently purchased a new (used) car. Seeing how things are rapidly deteriorating, I started the process of installing rock-resistant plastic windows therein. These windows, which my own personal experience in the Oslo War (aka Intifadat Al-Aqsa) proved to be life-savers, are paid for by the government. (With a 49% tax rate, one should hope so).
Anyway, yesterday I called to schedule an appointment to install the windows and was told that there was no more budget for the windows and that I'd have to scramble to get an authorisation.
The guy I called for the latter told me not to worry and to just get the papers ready. Meanwhile, it emerges that quite a few people are worried about this. One local citizen elicited the following information that she posted on the town listserve.
I called misrad habitachon and this morning they called back and I spoke to a very pleasant man who explained that misrad habitachon just covers half of the budget - the rest of it comes from misrad haotzar. The amount that misrad habitachon put in is the same as every year but misrad haotzar hasn't come through yet and they're fighting with them about it. At this point the budget of 2007 has been used up and that is why there are no ishurim for those wanting to do migun now.
So, there's money for everything under the sun except for protecting people's lives.
Oh, I forgot.
Settlers aren't people.
Anyway, yesterday I called to schedule an appointment to install the windows and was told that there was no more budget for the windows and that I'd have to scramble to get an authorisation.
The guy I called for the latter told me not to worry and to just get the papers ready. Meanwhile, it emerges that quite a few people are worried about this. One local citizen elicited the following information that she posted on the town listserve.
I called misrad habitachon and this morning they called back and I spoke to a very pleasant man who explained that misrad habitachon just covers half of the budget - the rest of it comes from misrad haotzar. The amount that misrad habitachon put in is the same as every year but misrad haotzar hasn't come through yet and they're fighting with them about it. At this point the budget of 2007 has been used up and that is why there are no ishurim for those wanting to do migun now.
So, there's money for everything under the sun except for protecting people's lives.
Oh, I forgot.
Settlers aren't people.
Friday, March 07, 2008
The Face of the Enemy
This morning, in Hallel, we said:
It is better to take refuge in the the Lord than to trust in man.
It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in princes.
All nations compass me about; verily, in the name of the Lord I will cut them off.
They compass me about, yea, they compass me about; verily, in the name of the Lord I will cut them off.
They compass me about like bees; they are quenched as the fire of thorns; verily, in the name of the Lord I will cut them off.
Nothing further need be said.
ה' יקום דמם.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
A Collapse of Will
The papers are trumpeting the new RCA-Rabbanut agreement concerning conversion procedures. According to the Jewish Week: 'The new arrangement requires that all judges overseeing conversions in the U.S. be approved by Israel’s Chief Rabbinate, with the RCA providing domestic oversight.' Opposition to the new deal is, predictably enough, confined to the left wing of the Orthodox rabbinate, which supports the minimalist theory of the requirements for conversion (as discussed below). The rest are, meanwhile, silent.
The rest are making a mistake.
Now, let me be clear. As I wrote the other day, I am far from being a minimalist in matters related to conversion (except in the case of child conversion, which is an entirely different matter, and on which I wrote one my only responsum. Even there, I based the conclusion on an explicit responsum of Reb Moshe Feinstein זצ"ל).
The issue here, though, is not only one of conversion. The issue at hand is the integrity, autonomy and authority of the American Orthodox Rabbinate. Except in rare cases, the acts of one Bet Din have always been accepted and respected by other Batei Din. א"כ במה מצינו כח בית דין יפה? By what right does the Israeli Chief Rabbinate arrogate to itself the authority to sit in judgement upon the acts of colleagues abroad? Do they know anything about Diaspora Jewry? Would they dare pasken a קורקבן without looking at it in context? Are they familiar with the codes and nuances of diaspora life? Do they understand, or accept, the fact that the education and דרך הלימוד imparted at RIETS might be different than that taught in Porat Yosef or Hevron, and that it might lead to different though אויסגעהאלטענער פסקי הלכה? As the Rav זצ"ל, once said in shiur: אווירת ארץ ישראל מחכים, אבער איך זאג א בעסערער סברא.
It will be averred that the new arrangement puts מורי ורבי Rav Herschel Schechter and Rav Mordekhai Willig in charge of approving the new דיינים. That may ameliorate the situation, but only partially since the Rabbanut has maintained right of veto over their decisions. Will they, would they, excercise it? I have no doubt that they would, and will.
Don't forget that the rabbanut is, largely, composed of second and third rate appointees (the ones who didn't rate becoming Rashe Yeshiva or senior Ramim, but who need the high salaries to support their families). It's a system based on power politics, and rife with nepotism. Many, many of the rabbanim and dayyanim with whom I've spoken have only contempt for the great Talmide Hakhamim of the Golah. As I noted before, one senior dayyan stated that it is absolutely impossible that any rav in the Diaspora should be able to learn as well as a rav in Eretz Yisrael! When Rav Schechter's name was mentioned, it took a few minutes for him to begrudgingly admit that Rav Schechter knows how to learn (sic!).
In a word, this new agreement bodes ill for relations between the Orthodox communities in the world (and Europe hasn't weighed in on the issue yet.) It drives a knife into the back of רבני צוהר and the wonderful תלמידי חכמים produced by כולל ארץ חמדה.
What, one may ask, is the correct model for international rabbinic relations, prior to the reestablishment of the Sanhedrin? I suggest we take a new look at the Gemora in Horayot 11a:
Rabbi enquired of R. Hiyya: 'Is one like myself to bring a hegoat?' 'You have your rival in Babylon,' the other replied. 'The Kings of Israel and the Kings of the House of David,' the first objected, 'bring sacrifices independently of one another!' 'There,' the other replied, 'they were not subordinate to one another, here, however, we are subordinate to them.'
והמבין יבין
The rest are making a mistake.
Now, let me be clear. As I wrote the other day, I am far from being a minimalist in matters related to conversion (except in the case of child conversion, which is an entirely different matter, and on which I wrote one my only responsum. Even there, I based the conclusion on an explicit responsum of Reb Moshe Feinstein זצ"ל).
The issue here, though, is not only one of conversion. The issue at hand is the integrity, autonomy and authority of the American Orthodox Rabbinate. Except in rare cases, the acts of one Bet Din have always been accepted and respected by other Batei Din. א"כ במה מצינו כח בית דין יפה? By what right does the Israeli Chief Rabbinate arrogate to itself the authority to sit in judgement upon the acts of colleagues abroad? Do they know anything about Diaspora Jewry? Would they dare pasken a קורקבן without looking at it in context? Are they familiar with the codes and nuances of diaspora life? Do they understand, or accept, the fact that the education and דרך הלימוד imparted at RIETS might be different than that taught in Porat Yosef or Hevron, and that it might lead to different though אויסגעהאלטענער פסקי הלכה? As the Rav זצ"ל, once said in shiur: אווירת ארץ ישראל מחכים, אבער איך זאג א בעסערער סברא.
It will be averred that the new arrangement puts מורי ורבי Rav Herschel Schechter and Rav Mordekhai Willig in charge of approving the new דיינים. That may ameliorate the situation, but only partially since the Rabbanut has maintained right of veto over their decisions. Will they, would they, excercise it? I have no doubt that they would, and will.
Don't forget that the rabbanut is, largely, composed of second and third rate appointees (the ones who didn't rate becoming Rashe Yeshiva or senior Ramim, but who need the high salaries to support their families). It's a system based on power politics, and rife with nepotism. Many, many of the rabbanim and dayyanim with whom I've spoken have only contempt for the great Talmide Hakhamim of the Golah. As I noted before, one senior dayyan stated that it is absolutely impossible that any rav in the Diaspora should be able to learn as well as a rav in Eretz Yisrael! When Rav Schechter's name was mentioned, it took a few minutes for him to begrudgingly admit that Rav Schechter knows how to learn (sic!).
In a word, this new agreement bodes ill for relations between the Orthodox communities in the world (and Europe hasn't weighed in on the issue yet.) It drives a knife into the back of רבני צוהר and the wonderful תלמידי חכמים produced by כולל ארץ חמדה.
What, one may ask, is the correct model for international rabbinic relations, prior to the reestablishment of the Sanhedrin? I suggest we take a new look at the Gemora in Horayot 11a:
Rabbi enquired of R. Hiyya: 'Is one like myself to bring a hegoat?' 'You have your rival in Babylon,' the other replied. 'The Kings of Israel and the Kings of the House of David,' the first objected, 'bring sacrifices independently of one another!' 'There,' the other replied, 'they were not subordinate to one another, here, however, we are subordinate to them.'
והמבין יבין
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
A Response to Aaron Rakeffet
In the latest issue of BaDaD, Rabbi Dr. Aaron Rakeffet published a letter criticizing my critical review of his book, The Rav. Most of the communication requires no comment. However, I would like to correct one error in his letter.
In the review, I noted that in his biographic introduction, Rakeffet fails to mention the important work done by Marc Shapiro and Seth Farber. Rakeffet responded that I was being sloppy in my criticism since 'In order to cite them I would need a double measure of רוח הקודש, Divine Spirit. Their scholarship was not completed or published when I was writing The Rav.'
Rakeffet, however, is wrong on both points. Shapiro's research was effectively completed in 1995, with the acceptance of his doctorate at Harvard (upon which his book is based). Farber's PhD was submitted in 2000, a year after 'The Rav' was published. However, as Rakeffet himself declares, he was well aware of (and involved in) both projects while he was preparing his book. All he had to do was pick up the phone (or log onto his e-mail) to obtain a copy of Shapiro's PhD, and drafts of Farber's work (which were already extant). No prophetic capacity was required, only responsible scholarship.
Anyone purporting to write a biography of the Rav, or even a biographical introduction, is obliged to avail himself of the best sources at his disposal. The failure to do so, as I wrote, renders the introduction (even in its limited form) 'stunningly inadequate.'
[Update: I noticed tonight that Rakeffet possessed a copy of Shapiro's PhD, but didn't use it for the information it contains about the Rav. Furthermore, his book was completed while Rakeffet was still writing his (though they appeared the same year). My point still holds.]
In the review, I noted that in his biographic introduction, Rakeffet fails to mention the important work done by Marc Shapiro and Seth Farber. Rakeffet responded that I was being sloppy in my criticism since 'In order to cite them I would need a double measure of רוח הקודש, Divine Spirit. Their scholarship was not completed or published when I was writing The Rav.'
Rakeffet, however, is wrong on both points. Shapiro's research was effectively completed in 1995, with the acceptance of his doctorate at Harvard (upon which his book is based). Farber's PhD was submitted in 2000, a year after 'The Rav' was published. However, as Rakeffet himself declares, he was well aware of (and involved in) both projects while he was preparing his book. All he had to do was pick up the phone (or log onto his e-mail) to obtain a copy of Shapiro's PhD, and drafts of Farber's work (which were already extant). No prophetic capacity was required, only responsible scholarship.
Anyone purporting to write a biography of the Rav, or even a biographical introduction, is obliged to avail himself of the best sources at his disposal. The failure to do so, as I wrote, renders the introduction (even in its limited form) 'stunningly inadequate.'
[Update: I noticed tonight that Rakeffet possessed a copy of Shapiro's PhD, but didn't use it for the information it contains about the Rav. Furthermore, his book was completed while Rakeffet was still writing his (though they appeared the same year). My point still holds.]
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
The Leniencies Of Bet Shammai
One of the more intriguing comments of Hazal regards the question of judicial and ideological consistency. The Talmud (Eruvin 6b and parallels) writes:
The Halacha is always in agreement with the House of Hillel, but he who wishes to act in agreement with the ruling of the House of Shammai may do so, and he who wishes to act according to the view of the House of Hillel may do so. [He, however, who adopts] the more lenient rulings of the House of Shammai and the more lenient rulings of the House of Hillel is a wicked man. [While of the man who adopts] the restrictions of the House of Shammai and the restrictions of the House of Hillel, the Scripture says: But the fool walks in darkness (Ecclesiastes 2:14). A man should rather act either in agreement with the House of Shammai both in their lenient and their restrictive rulings or in agreement with the House of Hillel in both their lenient and their restrictive rulings.
In Modern Orthodox circles (and among Haredim, behind closed doors), much satisafaction is derived from the second part of the highlighted passage. [While of the man who adopts] the restrictions of the House of Shammai and the restrictions of the House of Hillel, the Scripture says: But the fool walks in darkness (Ecclesiastes 2:14). The stringency obsession of the contemporary Halakhic community is often maddening. Indeed, it serves to turns the Torah into the categorical opposite of 'its ways are ways of pleasantness.' (Of course, the most prominent attempt to address is etiology is found in Professor Haym Soloveitchik's classic essay, 'Rupture and Reconstruction.' See also the exchange here and here, along with Professor Samuel Heilman's Sliding to the Right.)
At the same time, the first part of the statement also deserves careful attention. [He, however, who adopts] the more lenient rulings of the House of Shammai and the more lenient rulings of the House of Hillel is a wicked man. There is, it is true, nothing wrong with ruling leniently when that is both appropriate and thoroughly based halakhically. However, it is illegitimate to exclusively seek leniencies and 'ways out' that violate halakhic integrity, personal intellectual and religious consistency and/or seek to render personal convenience (ideological or otherwise) superior to the plain dictates of Torah observance. [In fact, I vividly recall that in a Saturday Night lecture in 1973, when the Rav זצ"ל was teaching the first paragraph in הלכות עבודה זרה he characterized 'kula searching' as a form of עבודה זרה. More specifically, he used the Rambam's formulation: מתנבא בשם השם לעבוד עבודה זרה. The immediate context was the then recent Conservative decision to include women in a minyan. He extended it to people who search through Shulhan Arukh to look for קולות.]
Respect for the halakhic process, and judicial/methodological consistency are the hallmark of the Jew, for whom 'Accepting the Yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven' (קבלת עול מלכות שמים) is an essential part of his spiritual makeup, even when it is difficult or inconvenient.
I was thinking about this when I read Rabbi Professor David Berger's Apologia pro Vita Sua,
'Identity, Ideology and Faith: Some Personal Reflections on the Social, Cultural and Spiritual Value of the Academic Study of Judaism' (published here). In a particularly pertinent passage, Professor Berger writes (25-26):
In the realm of concrete decision-making in specific instances, it is once again the case that the impact of academic scholarship does not always point in a liberal direction. In other words, the instincts and values usually held by academics are not necessarily upheld by the results of their scholarly inquiry, and if they are religiously committed, they must sometimes struggle with conclusions that they wish they had not reached. Thus, the decision that the members of the Ethiopian Beta Israel are Jewish was issued precisely by rabbis with the least connection with academic scholars. The latter, however much they may applaud the consequences of this decision, cannot honestly affirm that the origins of the Beta Israel are to be found in the tribe of Dan; here, liberally oriented scholars silently, and sometimes audibly, applaud the fact that traditionalist rabbis have completely ignored the findings of contemporary scholarship. Some academics do not hesitate to criticize and even mock such rabbis for their insularity and their affirmation of propositions inconsistent with scholarly findings, but on occasions like this the very same people are capable of deriding other rabbis for their intolerant refusal to ignore modern scholarship. (Emphasis Added)
One need not, however, go so far afield as to the origins of Ethiopian Jews (who may yet be deemed to be Jews, irrespective of their purported Danite origins), in order to make this point.
One glaring example of self-imposed cognitive dissonance (albeit in a non-Festingerian mode) is found in the current debate over the minimum requirements for conversion. There are two schools of thought. The minimalist school (most prominently associated with R. Ben Zion Meir Hai Uziel, based primarily on the Maggid Mishneh ad Hil. Issure Bi'ah 13,7) maintains that a priori acceptance of the commandments is desireable but not critical for the effecting of a valid conversion. The other school maintains that conversion without a meaningful, longstanding and proven commitment to full religious observance (with varying shades of opinion as to the extent) is meaningless (This was emphatically the opinion of Rav Soloveitchik. In shiur, on a number of occasions, he suggested that while the convert who was less than qualified might be Jewish as far as his or her personal obligation to perform mitzvot was concerned, it would be absolutely insufficient for marriage. Such a convert would be barred from marrying a Jew until he or she had proven himself (cf. Hil. Issure Bi'ah 13, 15; Shita Mequbetzet ad Keritot 9a. See also the comment by R. Hayyim Ozer Grodzensky in ShuT Ahiezer III, 26 s.v. ומהאי טעמא נראה).
In contrast to other scholars, however, my own research I carried out over the past five years) has led me to the conclusion that the latter opinion is historically the most authentic. Without going into details (which will appear when the study is published), suffice it to say that prior to the Emancipation, it never occurred to Hazal or the post-Talmudic authorities that their could be any other type of conversion short of absolute and proven devotion to a life of observance. This requirement is not stated, because in law that which goes without saying usually does. The minimalist interpretation developed as a result of the exigencies of the Jewish entry into modernity, and is no more than 250 years old.
My point here is not to argue against the cogency of the minimalist interpretation (though I, personally, believe that the more demanding approach is correct). Law has its own life and dynamic. What I do wish to point out, is that resort to historical/academic methods and results in the act of halakhic decision-making (as opposed to its legitimate use in the discovery of realia or the determination of texts) is a problematic enterprise. At the very least, though, the religious integrity of the practitioner demands consistency in application.
As the Gemara concludes:
A man should rather act either in agreement with the House of Shammai both in their lenient and their restrictive rulings or in agreement with the House of Hillel in both their lenient and their restrictive rulings.
The Halacha is always in agreement with the House of Hillel, but he who wishes to act in agreement with the ruling of the House of Shammai may do so, and he who wishes to act according to the view of the House of Hillel may do so. [He, however, who adopts] the more lenient rulings of the House of Shammai and the more lenient rulings of the House of Hillel is a wicked man. [While of the man who adopts] the restrictions of the House of Shammai and the restrictions of the House of Hillel, the Scripture says: But the fool walks in darkness (Ecclesiastes 2:14). A man should rather act either in agreement with the House of Shammai both in their lenient and their restrictive rulings or in agreement with the House of Hillel in both their lenient and their restrictive rulings.
In Modern Orthodox circles (and among Haredim, behind closed doors), much satisafaction is derived from the second part of the highlighted passage. [While of the man who adopts] the restrictions of the House of Shammai and the restrictions of the House of Hillel, the Scripture says: But the fool walks in darkness (Ecclesiastes 2:14). The stringency obsession of the contemporary Halakhic community is often maddening. Indeed, it serves to turns the Torah into the categorical opposite of 'its ways are ways of pleasantness.' (Of course, the most prominent attempt to address is etiology is found in Professor Haym Soloveitchik's classic essay, 'Rupture and Reconstruction.' See also the exchange here and here, along with Professor Samuel Heilman's Sliding to the Right.)
At the same time, the first part of the statement also deserves careful attention. [He, however, who adopts] the more lenient rulings of the House of Shammai and the more lenient rulings of the House of Hillel is a wicked man. There is, it is true, nothing wrong with ruling leniently when that is both appropriate and thoroughly based halakhically. However, it is illegitimate to exclusively seek leniencies and 'ways out' that violate halakhic integrity, personal intellectual and religious consistency and/or seek to render personal convenience (ideological or otherwise) superior to the plain dictates of Torah observance. [In fact, I vividly recall that in a Saturday Night lecture in 1973, when the Rav זצ"ל was teaching the first paragraph in הלכות עבודה זרה he characterized 'kula searching' as a form of עבודה זרה. More specifically, he used the Rambam's formulation: מתנבא בשם השם לעבוד עבודה זרה. The immediate context was the then recent Conservative decision to include women in a minyan. He extended it to people who search through Shulhan Arukh to look for קולות.]
Respect for the halakhic process, and judicial/methodological consistency are the hallmark of the Jew, for whom 'Accepting the Yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven' (קבלת עול מלכות שמים) is an essential part of his spiritual makeup, even when it is difficult or inconvenient.
I was thinking about this when I read Rabbi Professor David Berger's Apologia pro Vita Sua,
'Identity, Ideology and Faith: Some Personal Reflections on the Social, Cultural and Spiritual Value of the Academic Study of Judaism' (published here). In a particularly pertinent passage, Professor Berger writes (25-26):
In the realm of concrete decision-making in specific instances, it is once again the case that the impact of academic scholarship does not always point in a liberal direction. In other words, the instincts and values usually held by academics are not necessarily upheld by the results of their scholarly inquiry, and if they are religiously committed, they must sometimes struggle with conclusions that they wish they had not reached. Thus, the decision that the members of the Ethiopian Beta Israel are Jewish was issued precisely by rabbis with the least connection with academic scholars. The latter, however much they may applaud the consequences of this decision, cannot honestly affirm that the origins of the Beta Israel are to be found in the tribe of Dan; here, liberally oriented scholars silently, and sometimes audibly, applaud the fact that traditionalist rabbis have completely ignored the findings of contemporary scholarship. Some academics do not hesitate to criticize and even mock such rabbis for their insularity and their affirmation of propositions inconsistent with scholarly findings, but on occasions like this the very same people are capable of deriding other rabbis for their intolerant refusal to ignore modern scholarship. (Emphasis Added)
One need not, however, go so far afield as to the origins of Ethiopian Jews (who may yet be deemed to be Jews, irrespective of their purported Danite origins), in order to make this point.
One glaring example of self-imposed cognitive dissonance (albeit in a non-Festingerian mode) is found in the current debate over the minimum requirements for conversion. There are two schools of thought. The minimalist school (most prominently associated with R. Ben Zion Meir Hai Uziel, based primarily on the Maggid Mishneh ad Hil. Issure Bi'ah 13,7) maintains that a priori acceptance of the commandments is desireable but not critical for the effecting of a valid conversion. The other school maintains that conversion without a meaningful, longstanding and proven commitment to full religious observance (with varying shades of opinion as to the extent) is meaningless (This was emphatically the opinion of Rav Soloveitchik. In shiur, on a number of occasions, he suggested that while the convert who was less than qualified might be Jewish as far as his or her personal obligation to perform mitzvot was concerned, it would be absolutely insufficient for marriage. Such a convert would be barred from marrying a Jew until he or she had proven himself (cf. Hil. Issure Bi'ah 13, 15; Shita Mequbetzet ad Keritot 9a. See also the comment by R. Hayyim Ozer Grodzensky in ShuT Ahiezer III, 26 s.v. ומהאי טעמא נראה).
In contrast to other scholars, however, my own research I carried out over the past five years) has led me to the conclusion that the latter opinion is historically the most authentic. Without going into details (which will appear when the study is published), suffice it to say that prior to the Emancipation, it never occurred to Hazal or the post-Talmudic authorities that their could be any other type of conversion short of absolute and proven devotion to a life of observance. This requirement is not stated, because in law that which goes without saying usually does. The minimalist interpretation developed as a result of the exigencies of the Jewish entry into modernity, and is no more than 250 years old.
My point here is not to argue against the cogency of the minimalist interpretation (though I, personally, believe that the more demanding approach is correct). Law has its own life and dynamic. What I do wish to point out, is that resort to historical/academic methods and results in the act of halakhic decision-making (as opposed to its legitimate use in the discovery of realia or the determination of texts) is a problematic enterprise. At the very least, though, the religious integrity of the practitioner demands consistency in application.
As the Gemara concludes:
A man should rather act either in agreement with the House of Shammai both in their lenient and their restrictive rulings or in agreement with the House of Hillel in both their lenient and their restrictive rulings.
Muhammad A Dura Redux: Or, How Rachel Corrie Really Died
First George Orwell, and then, Jean Baudrillard warned that the media world was ripe for the manipulation of the truth. The tireless efforts of Richard Landes, Philippe Karsenty, and Nidra Poller demonstrated how the icon of the Oslo War (aka Intifada II), Muhammad al-Dura could not possibly have been killed by Israeli bullets in September 2000. (More likely, he's still alive or conveniently elsewhere.)
Now, proof has surfaced that Rachel Corrie, the ISM anarchist, was not killed while protecting a Palestinian house. She died accidentally while trying to prevent the closing of a tunnel used to smuggle arms and the component parts of Kassam rockets into Gaza from Egypt.
The videos and background are here.
Now, proof has surfaced that Rachel Corrie, the ISM anarchist, was not killed while protecting a Palestinian house. She died accidentally while trying to prevent the closing of a tunnel used to smuggle arms and the component parts of Kassam rockets into Gaza from Egypt.
The videos and background are here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)