The House of Hock

New Home for Dilbert

2005-10-20T12:44:00.000-04:00

All new posts from me(Dilbert) will now be posted at Bava Dilbert because of the problem with spam comments(I dont have access to the controls to stop them. Its been a fun time squatting here and my thanks to Nisht and company for the hospitality and wish him all Hatzlacha(he's kind of like Charlie, occassionally heard, but never seen by the principles).

Doing what God wants you to

2005-10-10T17:39:00.000-04:00

There has been a very interesting post and discussion over at Shira's house about the sacrifice of Isaac. Specifically, would you be willing to follow God's directive and do the deed?

It seems to me that if you are certain the directive is from God, and there is absolutely no ambiguity about what is being asked, then, as a believer in an all-Powerful, all-Merciful, all-Just(you get the idea) Deity, one must obey, believing that the All-Powerful has His/Her reasons, espcially ones that are not apparent to mere mortals.

Following God's word is easy when it coincides with what is pleasurable. And, if there are few to no rules, its even easier. Also, even orthodox Jews do not have monolithic certainty about exactly what it is that God wants us to do. However, I think that the hallmark of the religious person who has faith in God is that he or she is willing and does perform the acts that he/she believes that God has commanded, even when they are not pleasureable or seem reasonable. Now, one can argue that suicide bombers fall in this category. Unfortunately, that is true. Anyone can skew a religion(or even make up a religion) so that their actions conform to the beliefs. But, that is making the religion fit your beliefs, not believing in your religion.

What is the point? The believer in God walks around with the idea that they are doing God's will, and at frequent junctures stop and ask themselves, am I doing what God wants me to? Am I making choices consistant with my beliefs? This is a heavy burden to bear, but after all, if you believe, it is the only way.

The walls we put up are not sukkat shalom

2005-09-23T12:16:00.000-04:00

I finished reading the recently published biography of R. Saul Lieberman. It not only gives a fascinating view on R. Lieberman, but also sheds light on how the denominations of Judaism view themselves and others. R. Lieberman from the outset had impeccible credentials, went to Yeshiva at Slobodka, studied at a Mussar Yeshiva , was the cousin of the Chazon Ish, and came from a distinguished line of rabbonim. However, there also were aspects of what he did that put him "outside the club" or cast doubt in some people's eyes about his "kashrut." R. Ruderman(of Ner Yisrael fame), a classmate at Slobodka, noted that R. Liberman was suspect even back then because he went to movies and read books. Others, like R. Kamenetsky, admired him tremendously for his learning.

R. Lieberman tried going to medical school in France, but wound up in Israel, and learned and taught at Hebrew U., where he was exposed to "critical methods of scholarship"- in other words, how to approach Shas not just from the point of view of the Rishonim and commentators, but looking at the text and the history and the context. However, he maintained that the text of Shas was something to be learned, not a corpse to be dissected. He published his first studies of Yerushalmi, and since Hebrew U. would not hire him full time, looked around for other employment and was offered a job at JTS. Others who were considered for that job were RYBS, and R. Belkin.

R. Lieberman viewed the position at JTS as an opportunity to study, since he only had to teach 6 hours a week, and also a way to influence the American rabbinate. At the time, R. Louis Ginsburg and R. Finklestein, the heads of JTS, viewed the institution as traditional, aligned with the orthodox in opposing the changes introduced by the reform. In fact, later they tried to have a joint bet din with the RCA(they also tried to have one with the reform rabbis) but it fell through when the RA(conservative rabbis) refused to be bound by the decisions, and R. Lieberman didn't want to force the issue.

R. Lieberman did not view himself as the halachic decisor for the conservative movement. More telling, he viewed himself as trying to keep the rabbis as traditional as possible and influencing them as much as possible to stay on "the path." All agree that personally his shmirat mitzvot was impeccable. His religious influence lasted only until his death, and obviously we have seen JTS and the Conservative movement move to the left, until sometimes it is hard to distinguish Conservative from reform at times.

In summary: He had yichus, went to impeccable yeshivot, was a genius and wrote brilliantly, was personally shomer mitzvot, tried to keep JTS traditional and yet, there are those who would not put a R. in front of his name, or put his books in a brown wrapper to study from them. And apparently(I dont know if this is true) a major publishing house wont even allow his name in its books.

Worse, it appears that there was an opportunity for intellect-based traditional judaism(my substitute for what would pass as modern orthodox) to flourish. After all, how much difference was there really in the approaches of R. Lieberman, R. Ginsburg, RYBS, or R. Belkin? Couldn't they have all worked together, instead of having been pulled to extremes? Or at least have their legacies claimed by those who are more to one side or another? It was very interesting reading the introduction written by the present chancellor of JTS. Obviously, someone who does not have the same Hashkafa as R. Lieberman did. He does all sorts of gymnastics to cast R. Lieberman in a more liberal light, which is clearly not accurate at all.

So now, we have a small part of the what used to be the Conservative movement, the true heirs of R. Lieberman, the UTJ(Union for Traditional Judaism) on one side, and the dwindling masses of Conservative Jews heading leftwards at an increasing pace(it seems that gay/lesbian ordination is on the horizon)on the other. On the orthodox side, we dont seem to have a true heir to RYBS(R. Aharon is probably closest in intellect and learning), but a group holding down the more liberal end(Edah, Chovevei Torah) and a group moving rightwards(rest of the YU world).

The sad part is that when you put a label on someone or some group, like Conservative, or Orthodox, people automatically make assumptions about what you do, and decide whether to affiliate or invite you to things, based on that label. If R. Lieberman had taught at any other school(except obviously the reform seminary), he would not have been denigrated by those termed orthodox. Similarly, RYBS would have commanded a lot more respect in the "yeshiva" world, if he had taught at a different school. Neither would have had to say a thing different, do a thing different, just have a different address and title. Interestingly, those who had an open mind and were scholarly enough to recognize genius and erudition, usually held both of those rabbis in great respect, regardless of the affiliation, but usually were not able to publically express it because of the political ramifications.

Worst, we continue to have these artifical walls and continue to make decisions on who to listen to and who not to, just based on an address. And this goes both for the right and the left, selective hearing has no prediliction for sides.

Outside culture and Jewish philosophy

2005-09-09T09:03:00.000-04:00

If you look around at what Jews wear, eat and, pray in, it is very clear that surrounding cultures have affected us. Chassidim wear the dress of Polish noblemen. Ashkenazim eat Russian/Polish/German food. Sefaradim build shuls that look a bit like mosques, while the Ashkenazim seem to reflect churches a bit. Look at Jewish music. It is quite clear that the outside culture affected food, dress, architecture, and other aspects of Jewish life. What about philosophy? How much have non-Jewish philosophical trends and developments affected what and how Jews think about their religion? Have the non-Jewish trends affected our basic beliefs and attitudes?

Clear examples:

the Rambam reflects classic Aristotilian philosophy.

The Rav(RYBS) reflects Kant and Hermann Cohen(obviously a Jew, but not observant and so would not count as a philosopher of Judaism)

As noted in the post below, R. Nadler notes that ascetic trends in Judaism seem to reflect the non-Jewish religious philosophy of the surrounding time and culture.

It may be possible(and I am sure someone has done it, if you have a reference, please let me know) to look at when ideas are first noted in Jewish philosophy(life after death, eternity of the soul, etc) and see how it compares with the presence of those ideas in the history of philosophy in general.

Has Jewish philosophy simply used the tools provided by general philosophy to refine and better express what we think and believe? or have our beliefs been significantly affected by what has been believed around us? It could be that different aspects of our beliefs have been muted or expressed to a greater or lessor extent either to agree with or provide more seperation from the outside philosophical milieu.

Shabbat Shalom

I have been a lazy blogger, but here is a topic for discussion

2005-08-26T16:16:00.000-04:00

I have not posted recently because of laziness, a tremendously busy schedule, meetings, etc. However, I have managed to finish a number of books, including Rabbi Allan Nadler's "Faith of the Mithnagdim". I hope to discuss it in more depth in the future. One point caught me eye, and I am in the process of researching it more fully. R. Nadler notes that the Mithnagdim had a tremendously pessimistic view of life in this world, viewing it as sort of a neccessary evil that needed to be endured in order to reach the next world. Only the study of Torah and doing good deeds mitigated the uselessness of this world. Therefore, they believed that one should not derive pleasure from this world. One ideally should eat only what is neccessary to be able to study Torah, sleep in order to study Torah, have shelter and clothing only what is neccessary to study Torah etc.. Not that in the main they advocated pain or self inflicted punishment for its own sake, because the did not believe in any benefit from that either, rather an anhedonic existence.He then went on to briefly review the role of asceticism in Judaism. He notes that the Bible promises worldly rewards for good deeds, and only with the Mishna and Gemara does the idea of the world to come spring into prominence. He also claims that the main sources of asceticism in Judaism were directly influenced by other religions, namely Sufi Islam and ascetic versions of Christianity. So..... what is the role or place of asceticism in Judaism?

Moshe, b'not Tzelofchad, and the details of the Law

2005-07-26T11:00:00.000-04:00

Most kids who go to day school know the story of the daughters of Tzelofchad, part one of which is in this last week's parsha, and part two is at the end of Ma'asei. However, a careful reading of the peshat tells us a lot about Hashem's law and how it is applied. The problem: Even Divine law can't account for every single possible situation in one or two sentences. For example " Do Not Kill" seems to be straightforward. However, what about someone who is coming to kill you? can you kill them? what about war? That one sentence doesn't cover all the eventualities. We apply the Divine rules to situations as they come up.

The daughters of Tzelofchad, who was dead, wanted to take part in the inheritance of the land, which was declared to be for the male head of the household. Since there was no male head of their household, they were being left out. Moshe brings their case to God. The reply from God comes in the form of "vayomer Hashem el Moshe laymor." The classic, "God spoke to Moshe saying....." and proceded to set out rules for daughters to inherit the land of their fathers when there weren't any sons. God also sets out rules for how the extended family inherits, a sort of heirachy.

At the end of Ma'asei, the elders of the tribe of Menashe(the tribe of Tzelofchad and his daughters) complain to Moshe that, should the daugters who own land marry someone of a different tribe, the land will eventually become the property of that other tribe(because the land will be inherited by male children who will by definition be members of that other tribe), and the land of Menashe will diminish. In this case, the Torah doesn't record Moshe going to Hashem and asking a question. Instead the wording is "Va'Yitzav Moshe et b'nai Yisrael al pi Hashem lamor" Moshe instructed/commanded the children of Israel according to the word(lit. by the mouth) of Hashem saying: Ze hadavar asher tziva Hashem l'vnot Tzelofchad lamor- this is the word that Hashem commanded to the daughters of Tzelofchad saying.

In other words, Moshe doesn't go back and ask Hashem for the answer, like he did the first time. This time he instructs the people 'according to the word of Hashem.' Now, the believer can say that what that the words literally mean from the mouth of Hashem. However, it seems to me the common usage of al pi in Torah is that it does not denote a new utterance, but means consistant with or in accordance with a previous utterance. So, Moshe takes the rule that Hashem gave, and interprets it govern the circumstances that he is confronted with. Clearly what Moshe comes up with is not contained in the initial rule, or at least it wasn't written out, and the elders of Menashe obviously didn't know this new info, or they wouldn't have asked the question. We are left with the conclusion that Moshe derives the new rules on his own, based on his understanding of the previous utterence of God. And his solution is that women who want to maintain their inherited land have to marry someone from their own tribe. Ironically, the new rules serves to eliminate 11/12ths of the eligible men from the dance card of the daughters of Tzelofchad, or any other land owning woman who wants to maintain her ownership of that land.

What is my point? Firstly, we have(I think) the first instance of interpretation of what you could call Halacha to make it apply to a situation that was not obvious from the letter of the Law. Secondly, for the liberal in me, it shows how the Law of God can be interpreted, starting with the Word of God protecting the rights of women, and winding up with the words of man(albeit Moshe) restricting the rights of women(a theme expanded upon at length by R. Eliezer Berkowitz in Jewish Women in Time and Torah and to a lessor but still signficant extent by R. Y.H. Henkin in Equality Lost).

Artscroll redux

2005-07-26T10:46:00.000-04:00

The ADDeRabbi has a review of the Artscroll women's siddur here. and a further comment here. I had earlier posted my objections to the Artscroll translation/commentary on Shir ha'Shirim. The bottom line is that certainly Artscroll has made many texts available to many many non-Hebrew speakers. They have simplified learning. But they have also used their Bill Gates-like near monopoly(not their fault that they have this monopoly, but it is one none the less) to promulgate their view of Judaism, rather than a more ecumenical(covering the spectrum of orthodoxy, I am not meaning that they need to include reform perspectives) Orthodox view. Since Judaism takes "facts on the ground" into account in issues of Law(minhag has halachic power) establishing "minhag artscroll" and reinforcing it via myriads of publications diminishes those who do not hold by this minhag. Also, by presenting one view as THE Way when in reality there are a number of legitimate opinions, Artscroll manages to eliminate any debate or thinking from those whose sole source of information is Rabbenu Artscroll.

While I certainly agree that they are entitled to print what they want, and to push their viewpoint above any other, It is wrong to portray halacha as a monolith supporting only what they see as correct.

The Role of God in psak

2005-07-19T11:46:00.000-04:00

When I first started thinking about halacha, I assumed that there was a "right" answer for halachic questions. That, if one knew enough, thought hard enough, and had the right intangibles, one could find the answer that God wanted. Or, even if one couldn't find the right answer, that right answer did exist, and finding it was the goal. In other words, God has the answer for all of our halachic questions, but sometimes we cant find it.

The Gemara records the famous story of the dispute over the oven, and despite R. Yehoshua calling in miracles, and even a bat kol(voice from heaven), the issue is decided by a majority of rabbis, not the voice from heaven. In fact, Moshe is the only prophet from whom we take explicit normative data. "Lo ba'shamayim he"- it is not in Heaven, the law is for us to decide.

So, it turns out that there may not be an exact right way that God wants, and, even if that way exists, it only has validity if the majority agree with it. But who are the majority? Who gets to be counted? How do they decide? Obviously, there are tools and parameters to establish psak: Torah, Nach, the ways to establish concepts(rabbi Yishmael's 13 for example), Mishna, Gemara, and then Rishonim, Acharonim, and more books and opinions. But, not everything published gets accepted.

We seem to rely on those who we think have an idea of what God would want. In other words, some form of da'at Torah. Now, da'at Torah can have a minimalist meaning: only that the person possessing it(by studying the Torah) has an idea of what the Torah intended, with no supernatural implications. It can also mean that the person, either by dint of study, or being chosen in some way, has Supernatural help and vision to see what the Torah intended. The difference, although small, is that in one case it is totally dependent on the person their talents, and study, and in the other case, there is some sort of Divine intervention in addition to the talent and study. God, in this scenario, influences halacha by whispering in the ear of the posek.

Are we supposed to look for those with divine guidance? In the same paragraph as "lo ba'shamayim he" we find "mi ya'ale lanu ha'shamayma v'yikacheha lanu" who is going to ascend to the heavens and take it(the Torah) for us. We are not supposed to use this paradigm, because the Torah is "b'ficha oo'b'levavcha la'asoto" it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to do.

Conclusion: We have guidelines from God on how to decide halachic questions, but aside from creating parameters, God has left it up to us to discern His will. In the absence of a Sanhedrin(not the one being constituted in Tiveria), the ideal situation is for each of us to achieve the learning neccessary to be decisors. Techically, those who claim to have Divine assistance actually should not have an advantage over those without Divine assistance.

Approaches to Chazal and implications for present day halacha

2005-07-12T13:39:00.000-04:00

The brouhaha over R. Slifkin has revealed that most of the center-left(probably even moderate right) orthodoxy believe that the Tannaim and Amoraim in the Gemarah were not always right with regard to science. Once that opening is established the next question obviously becomes: is there anything else that they were not right about? The answer to this question obviously has profound implications for Halacha and Judaism as we know it today.

Scientific facts(as we know them) are facts because they are verified by repeated observation and validated by fitting a theory that not only explains the observations but predicts new findings that can also be verified by observations. That is the scientific method that we are familiar with. Seen in this context, we can establish a category of statements by Chazal that are in the realm of "natural science", ie biology, astronomy, agriculture, medicine, chemistry, physics, etc. We are also not surprised that statements made 2000 years ago regarding these topics reflect the scientific understanding of the day, and are frequently wrong, given what we know about these topics today.

Taking one step away from the purely "natural" sciences(those based on observation of nature or human BIOLOGICAL function), are the social sciences, those based on observations of human interactions. It is harder to prove or disprove contentions in this arena, because of the variability of human behavior. An observation that might apply to one person may not apply to a different person. A generalization about one society may not apply to a different society. Chazal made a number of statements regarding society and human behavior as well, and a number of them have become normative. Were they accurate in these assessments? or were they again somewhat reflecting the social attitudes of the times? One statement for example, that a woman would rather be married(implied that it is not an ideal marriage) than not married, has had significant impact on marriage law. Does this statement reflect Torah m'Sinai, or is it a turn of the era sociological observation? Similarly many statements, particularly regarding women and the place of women in society have obviously had significant impact on Halacha. R. Eliezer Berkovits(Jewish Women in Time and Torah) wrote that when these statements contradicted Torah directives and values, they can be put aside. (R. Shalom Carmy, in the most recent edition of Tradition, reviews one or R. Bekovits's books and rebuts this approach). However, the initial question is still valid and unaswered, are the social statements in the Gemara refective of society, or Torah m'Sinai?

If that wasn't a difficult enough problem, we now come to the legal statements of the Gemara. Are they entirely Torah m'Sinai, or do they too contain at least some element of the times? This outside influence could come in at least two ways: simply reflective of the general culture, and/or, specifically shaping statements to achieve a goal related to a certain contemporary situation. In other words, are there notes of general Greek/Roman law that crept into the Talmud? Did the Tannaim write, in some cases, not for the ages, but to shape practice in response to specific situation? Obviously, trying to unravel, if there is any unravelling to be done, one bit of law from another, or looking at the political/social situation and trying to identify an attitude or legal statement that was more to address that situation but not reflective of a tradition for the ages would be incredibly difficult and uncertain.

The final question is: what is Torah m'Sinai? What are the actions and beliefs that define Judaism? Can we go through the gemara, weed out what we think are outside influences, and go back to a 'pure' form of Judaism? is it possible? Leopold Lipman(Yom Tov) Zunz, one of the first to advocate the academic study of Judaism(who also put together clues and theorized the existance of pesikta d'rav kahanna, which was subsequently found- no lightweight) tried this approach and basically came out with Reform Judaism- discounting the Talmud in favor of prophetic Judaism.

Ordhodox Jews do not want to throw away the Talmud, and believe that at the very least the legal statements reflect the path that God wants us to be on. I have not addressed the issue of the path being right becuase it is the one we are on, or if it is intrinsically right(majority rule trumping heavenly voices and deeds). This has to be an item of belief, or at least acceptance. There is no way to "prove" the validity of the gemara. However, while accepting the legal decisions, it seems reasonable to be skeptical of the science when it contradicts what we know today, and following that rationale, to judiciously look at the social science carefully as well. The opposite views, either totally rejecting the gemara, or claiming its infallibility in all cases, to me are unacceptable. comments appreciated, as always

Belief and rabbinic interpretation part 2

2005-06-30T11:32:00.000-04:00

(see part I below)
Lets start with not saying amen to a blessing by a heretic.

R. Yosef Karo follows the Rambam and says(S.A. 215.2)

One who hears a Jew recite any of the blessings...must say amen. But if the one who recites the blessing is an apikoros, a Samaritan, or a minor(who is practicing) or an adult who alters the fixed form of the blessing, one does not respond amen.

R. Moshe Isserles adds:

One responds amen to an idolator if one heard the entire blessing from his mouth.

The basis for these statements is in Mishna Brachot:

One responds amen to a Jew who blesses, but one does not respond amen to a Samaritan(kuti) who blesses, unless one hears the entire blessing(this is in response to berachot nehenin("enjoyment bracha") the wording in the Tosefta(3.26) is similar but there the discussion is on the brachot of the Amida)

The Rambam and the Shulchan aruch go against this, but the Tur, paskens according to this mishna. The Vilna Gaon wrote:

These words(or R. Yosef Karo) indicate that one should not respond amen to a Samaritan, even if one heard the entire blessing. All this is simply astonishing. It seems to me necessary to conclude that there is a scribal error in Rambam. For the law is perfectly clear that one responds amen when one hears teh entire blessing from a Samaritan, and even part of a blessing from a Jew. But the ruling of Rambam..simply cannot be explained. (Biur HaGR'A, OH 215.2 s.v. v'onin)

(Most of this is obviously not my scholarly work, I will be happy to provide a reference on request. R. Moshe Feinstein extends the rule of not saying amen to the brachot of conservative and reform rabbis, but that is a discussion for another day)

The conclusion of the Mishna, Gemara, Tosefta, Vilna Gaon, Tosfot Yom Tov, Tur and others is that one does say amen to a bracha of a Samaritan. How can this be? Does the Samaritan not hold heretical beliefs? The answer it seems to me is in the bracha. If you hear the entire bracha, it is the bracha that counts, not the beliefs. The problem with the shechita by a sectarian would now seem to be not that the intent is wrong, but the worry that it would not be done according to code. Therefore, the problem is not that the person is a sectarian, or an apikoros, and his beliefs are non-halachic, rather that his ACTIONS will be non-halachic, and the use of apikoros or sectarian is only a marker for someone whose actions might turn out to be objectionable. In other words, a apikoros/sectarian is one upon whom there is suspicion that they will not perform the ritual act correctly. There is an assumption that one with proper beliefs is not suspect, but one with improper beliefs is a suspect. Theoretically, by this construct, an apikoros who could not(for some reason) do shechita incorrectly would not be banned from performing it.

Part III to follow

Are Principles of Belief Subject to Rabbinical Interpretation?

2005-06-30T09:59:00.000-04:00

R. Gil Student, in his essay reviewing Marc Shapiro's book on Principles of Faith(and discussed in a few places on his excellent blog), makes the following points, among others(and if I have misconstrued anything, I apologize):

1. In the Shulchan Aruch(code of Jewish law), those in certain categories cannot perform certain functions: the shechitah of an epicurian is not kosher, a Torah scroll written by a sectarian must be burned, one must not say amen to a blessing by a sectarian.

2. Because of these limits, a definition of these states in neccessary, ie we need to know what a sectarian is, what a epicurian is.

3. These definitions, in keeping with how Halachic issues are usually decided, are in the hands of the poskim-decisors.

4. Therefore, a posek can determine what is a sectarian and what is not, what beliefs constitute heresy and what is not heresy, and this definition can be different over time and place, depending on the posek and what he/they deem appropriate, of course, as long as it is within the bounds of tradition.

5. The conclusion is that not only are beliefs mandatory in Judaism, but that the mandatory content of that belief can be different, depending on the posek. Therefore, according to this line of reasoning, a ban such as the one that came out on R. Slifkin's books, declaring them to be heresy, is not only a reasonable Halachic outcome, but binding on those who choose to follow the rabbis who pronounced the ban.

Part II to follow(sorry, too much work)

Clean clothes vs. a happy tummy

2005-06-30T09:56:00.000-04:00

Interesting discussion of Torah im Derech Eretz(TiDE) vs. Torah u'Maddah(TuM) courtesy of R. Bechhofer(a very impressive talmid chacham, for those who do not know him or have read his works, he used to teach in my town)

belief and action vis a vis modern orthodoxy

2005-06-16T09:19:00.000-04:00

"It is neccessary to distinguish between two types of modern Orthodoxy. One may be called philosophical, while the other is more appropriately characterized as behavioral. Within the category of philosophical modern Orthodox, or centrist Orthodox, would be those who are meticulously observant of halakhah but are, nevertheless, philosophically modern. Within this context, being modern means, at minimum, having a postive perspective on general education and knowledge, and being well disposed to Israel and religious Zionism.

The behaviorally modern Orthodox, on the other hand, ore not deeply concerned with philosophical ideas about either modernity or religious Zionism. By and large, they define themselves as modern Orthodox in the sense that they are not as meticulously observant as the right wing states one should be. "

Chaim Waxman, in "Towards a Sociology of Pesak" found in Tradition 25:3 12-25 and Rabbinic Authority and Personal Autonomy, ed by Moshe Sokol.

My childhood, by Dr. Waxman's definitions, would have been a combination of the two types of MO. My parents actually were deeply concerned and involved in the philosophy of MO, and inculcated it in us, but as far as observance, we were behavioral. In thinking about where I want to be, and should be, it is quite obvious that the only place is strictly philosophical MO. If one believes in Torah and mitzvot, and wants to call oneself Orthodox, then one should observe the details of mitzvot, big and small. One can of course argue about the exact details fo the mitzvot, but for most mitzvot there isn't much debate.

My children frequently have little friends over at the house, most come from MO homes and go to day school. I rarely hear any of them say a bracha before eating. Even more rare is hearing them say a bracha afterwards before they run off and play. To be honest, my children dont have a perfect record either, but they remember more often than not, and when I remind them, smile and say it, without looking at me as if I was from Mars.

A valid criticism of behavioral MO from the right is the lack of attention to mitzvot. Public mitzvot, like going to shul or observing Shabbat in public, or even keeping kosher in the home(counts as a public mitzva because the public wont eat in your house if you dont) are easy to keep. Its the little things. Brachot before eating. Washing hads in the morning. davening three times a day. Kashrut when eating out or away from the 'hood. The behaviorly MO(and I have been there, and am trying to escape) seem to lack a constant awareness of God, or at least a frequent awareness of God. God only appears on Shabbat, Holidays, school, or other specific occasions, but not as part of regular life. I think that keeping the minutiae of mitzvot, and the small(as far as time commitment) mitzvot, keeps the idea of God around. If you say "asher yatzar" after using the bathroom, you mention God, even if only with minimal attention, a few more times a day.

The philosophical MO are the leaders of the MO movement. There are some more to the right, like the YU Roshei Yeshiva, who seem to attract philosophical MO followers(and those who are behaviorly strict), and some more to the left, like R. Saul Berman, Edah, R. Yitz Greenberg and others. They seem to attract both the philosophical MO, and those who are a mix of philosophical and behavioral. (The strictly behavioral would lean to the left, but may not be very involved in looking at the philosophy and beliefs of orthodoxy). In other words, there is a significant group who care deeply about the philosophy, but are lax(by traditional standards) in observance. It seems logical that one of the goals of the left wing of MO should be to increase the levels and standards of observance in their followers. Halachically based differences about beliefs and large issues like the place of women in religion certainly are items for discussion. Making a bracha before and after eating should be taken for granted by all who call themselves orthodox.

Nachas

2005-06-15T16:42:00.000-04:00

My 9 year old was bugging me because she wanted to go to tikkun leil Shavuot. She had a busy Sunday, what with preparing for the chag, a dance recital(ballet and jazz), and enjoying a very nice day. I tucked her in at 9, and told her I would wake her at 11, and if she could get herself out of bed, she could come with me. I figured she would mumble something about being tired, roll over and go back to sleep. NOPE. She bounced out of bed, got dressed in a jiffy(much faster than her usual, in fact) and we went and learned for 2 hours(actually, I was the one who was getting tired). Not only did she absorb a pretty adult shiur on Ruth, but we had excellent discussions on the walks to and from shul. And she certainly didn't go because of the snacks. One of the things I worry about is passing on a love of learning and Torah to my children. So far, so good.

Pre Shavuot belief check

2005-06-07T09:54:00.000-04:00

I started reading Professor Menachem(Marc) Kellner's book Dogma in Medieval Jewish Thought..(I have not yet read Marc Shapiro's book on the 13 principles of faith). He states that Torah and Rabbinic Judaism actually was pretty dogma free. It was much more concerned with actions rather than beliefs. Dogma was introduced first by Saadya Gaon in Emunot v'Deot as a response to the challenges of other faiths, mainly Karaiites and Islam. Other religions(including Christianity) had been considered Avoda Zara and therefore did not pose a theological threat. It was only the rise of monotheistic beliefs with a defined theology that required a Jewish response in kind. Obviously, Rambam(Maimonides) further catagorized and classified Jewish beliefs into his famous 13 principles.

The Mishna in Sanhedrin discusses people who have no part in the next world. As Prof. Kellner puts it, dogma is neccessary only to define who is part of the group, and who will achieve salvation(however you want to define salvation). He posits that the Mishna that discusses those who do not have a part in the world to come really doesn't constitute dogma, because many of the things that make one inelgible are actions, not beliefs. I would add that the use of the word "says"(as in " one who says....") may reflect an action as well, and may not apply to a privately held(and unspoken) belief.(I have not looked up the gemara in a while, so I may be wrong, feel free to correct).

Prof. Kellner holds that Judaism was more concerned with "belief in" rather than "belief that". If you think about the Ten Commandments, the first is "I am the Lord Your God." It is a statement, not a command, like "keep Shabbat" or "you may have no other gods." According to this, we are obliged to have belief in God, and follow His dictates, not neccessarily to believe a whole list of things about God. An analogy can be made to an earthly king or government(lehavdil). It is sufficient to accept the rule of the governement and keep the laws. One doesn't neccessarily have to believe all sorts of other things about the government.

However, Prof. Kellner doesn't address the command of v'ahavta, you should love God. That wouldn't be a belief, but a state of mind, something else entirely. Food for thought, to go along with the blintzes.

PS. R. Gil Student references a critique and Charles adds historical context in the comments.

Telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth

2005-06-07T09:40:00.000-04:00

The Yated Ne'eman wrote recently that they purposefully do not always give all the biographical details when they write articles and stories on people. They want people to learn a moral lesson and a behavioral style, rather than give the complete and unvarnished truth. Their goal is shaping morals, not being a completely accurate recording of history.

This is in contrast to what Rabbi Nathan Kamenetsky write in the introduction to his book, The Making of A Gadol. Thanks to R. Gil Student and his open access program(yes, I am giving it an advertisement, but it is well deserved), the introduction to the book is available here.

R. Kamenetsky writes about his thinking and the pros and cons of writing history, as opposed to moral storytelling. He quotes R. Shimon Shwab in favor of moral telling, and R. Shwab's brother on the other side. Ultimately, with few exceptions, he comes down on the side of telling the truth as best as he knows. It is too bad his attitude is not more common.

I highly reccomend spending a few minutes and reading what R. Kamenetsky wrote. Not only because of this issue, but insights into other issues as well. Hopefully the entire book will be more accessable soon.

Why I blog

2005-06-03T12:21:00.000-04:00

Lisa, in a comment on the previous post, noted that I seem to spend(waste) a significant amount of time blogging. Probably more than most, less than some. I find it is fun, but the main reason is that it allows me to have a dialogue on topics that I care about.

Bloggers and commentors come with their own backgrounds. Some are incredibly well educated, some are well read, some are curious, some are just curious, but there is a wide variety of experience and education mixed in.

I come from a kind of maskili(enlightenment) background. My parents, while not Israeli, spoke Hebrew at home to me, and while I only spent two years in day school, I had tutors in Hebrew literature, Nach, and we read parshat hashavua at home every week. My family drifted from driving to shul(orthodox) on Shabbat to not doing that. I have always considered myself orthodox, but didn't know a lot about hashkafa and other topics. As an adult I have always been shomer shabbat and kashrut, but didn't really look into all the details. I also essentially took 11 years off from life to go to medical school and train in my speciality. Now that I have had time to read and think, I am trying to find my way to the hashkafa and practice that I think is right and true. Believe it or not, blogging, and reading other blogs has helped me sort out what I think, order my beliefs, and plot out what I want to impart to my children, which I think is most important. I will probably address this issues(among others) in the future. So, 8 months into my blogging experience, I would like to thank all the commentors, and ba'alei ha'blogs for helping me, and even thank Lisa for making me think about the topic. I certainly will admit that blogging is fun, but it has been immensely helpful to me, and I dont regret doing it (yet).

Sushi for thought

2005-06-02T11:04:00.000-04:00

Over the weekend it was reported that a few World War Two Japanese soldiers were still hiding in the Philipines. About 20 years ago the last known soldiers were found, still hiding out, not knowing that the war was over. They had to find thier 82 year old former commanding officer to convince them that the war was indeed over. The more recent soldiers apparently had left their unit back in 1945 or so, and were hiding out for fear of being court martialled if found. Which gets me to my point: Is that a life? Has sad is it to spend 50 years either fighting a war that is already over, or hiding needlessly? How do they feel when they find out that the main governing objective in their life is null and void?

Obviously, one can say the same about those who pursue pleasure and then find spirituality, and realize that hedonism, ala King Solomon in Kohellet, is a futile pursuit as well. But, at least they had fun, and enjoyed themselves while doing it. However, there are people for whom achieving the goal, no matter how purposeless or futile, bring fulfillment.

A friend in his young and foolish days ran up large amounts of credit card debt, and over 10 years has gradually paid it down. Recently, the companies have raised the interest rates to over 20%, although he has never missed a payment. He still has a rather large balance, and over time, has repaid in interest several times the initial loan amount. His has put his life on hold until he gets it all payed off. He refuses to declare bankruptcy because for 10 years he has dedicated his life to this goal, and now, even though the finish line has been pushed back a few years(or more), he refuses to take a short cut. Paying off his credit card debts rather than living the life he wants to live, has become the purpose in his life. I wonder if he will be happy when he accomplishes it, or if he will look back and regret not taking an easier way out.

Does your Gadol understand you?

2005-05-31T16:51:00.000-04:00

Someone reading my posts may think I am against the gedolim. They would be wrong. I admire everyone who dedicates their life to learning Torah, teaching others, spending their time in leadership positions of our people, and making difficult decisions about what Hashem wants from us, and what path He wants us to take. As I have noted previously, Halachic decision making often requires balancing competing views and values. I think the people usually identified as gedolim dont have the same values as I do. Now, they may claim that my values are not consonant with Torah, while I would have to bring proof that they are. Lets take a specific example:

The role of women in learning and society. I encourage my daughters to learn mishna and gemara. All the fairy tales in our house end with the princess getting an advanced degree in something before she gets married to the prince. Since it was published in Yated, I assume many gedolim agree with this . For those who dont want to read the whole thing, it is an article about careers that are appropriate for Jewish women, the emphasis being on those that can avoid problems of yichud(being alone with another man) and maintain tzniut(modesty). I am certainly in favor of modesty, but my definition of modesty is different than that of the author of this article.

In my previous post I mentioned a poster(I cant find my copy, if anyone has it, or a link, please let me know) requesting women to leave shul before adon olam so as not to have mixing of the sexes after shul. This was signed by some identified as gedolim. Again, they are balancing the need for seperation with the desire of women to daven.

The Gedolim in these situations decided that tzniut(modesty) is more important that career aspirations for women-indeed, that there is no way around the tzniut issues in most careers, and that it is better to eliminate even a small chance of mixing, rather than have women stay in shul for the entire davening. From a strictly halachic point of view, it is an easy decision to make. Career aspirations or a desire to stay in shul and daven are subjective things, difficult to quantify. There isn't anything in Shulchan Aruch that says to let women have a career or have them stay in shul. However, there is lots in Shas and Poskim about tzniut and keeping women and men apart. So, one would have to put a significant amount of halachic value on what the women want to counterbalance the lessening of observence of tzniut, and in order to come out in favor of women staying in shul, or being allowed to have different careers.

My challenge to those who say we have to follow the gedolim, or those that say the gedolim understand women's issues: Do you(for a woman) or your wife leave shul before adon olam to avoid mixing? do you(for a woman) or your wife have a job that goes against the yated article? If you do, contact R. Elyashiv or one of the other gedolim and ask if it is ok.

If you are going to claim that the article or the poster applies only to women in the chareidi community, then the logical inference is that the gedolim only understand the women in that community, and dont understand that a lot of frum women want to daven, and want to have a wide variety of jobs. And they really dont understand that a lot of frum women want to learn more than a few halachot and stories of our forefathers. So, either the gedolim understand you, and pasken for you, or they dont understand you. If they dont understand you, are they still going to pasken for you?

(Sorry for the loss of the last sentence)

Note: the gedolim in this article refer to the eidah hacharedi type that sign posters. I am not referring to RHS, or other "modern orthodox" type of gedolim.

What do gedolim know about women- a response to Mrs. Toby Katz

2005-05-27T16:50:00.000-04:00

Mrs. Toby Katz, over at Crosscurrents, makes the claim that gedolim(the great decisors of the generation) understand women and women's concerns. She answers the question of:

regarding the tendency of some in feminist quarters to question the ability of “the rabbis” to evince sufficient empathy for female concerns….

with this statement

The notion that only blacks can understand blacks, only women can understand women, and so on, undercuts the bedrock of our common humanity.

Gedolim rise to an exceptionally high level of refinement, but all humans who are sufficiently mature and intelligent can understand the feelings of other humans.

An understanding or a response to women can be either on a personal level, or on a policy/communal level. She and some of the other CC bloggers bring nice stories about the personal kindness and generosity of some gedolim. This personal concern for a fellow human being reflects kindness, concern for others, charity and other middot tovot(good traits). However, being nice to people, women included, is different from recognizing problems that are unique to women as a group of people. For example, many people, faced with a demonstrably poor person will give the person money, or help him. It is(I hope) human nature to do so. And, it is only some change, or a few dollars. But how many then go on vote against increasing taxes to help the poor? or give large amounts of money to a faceless organization that will provide better housing for the poor? There are two differences: With one there is a name and a face on the problem, and it is a personal issue related to that one person. With the other there is no one face to the problem, and it is not a personal issue, it is a societal issue unique to one set of societies members. There is a big difference between being nice to a person who shows an obvious need(one which you yourself probably has had, or can imagine yourself having) and understanding the needs of a group of people that you have been shielded from for the majority of your life.

I posted a response noting that male members of the Chareidi community have limited to no interactions with members of the opposite sex except for their immediate family, and their wife. However, Mrs. Katz maintains that the gedolim understand the needs of women. How do they obtain this understanding? A number of possibilites occur to me:

1. By being a gadol, one axiomatically understands the needs of all. This is a bit mystical and since we require proof of miricles, we will put this claim to the side for know.

2. One can only be a gadol if one understands the needs of others. In other words, understanding the needs of women is a criteria for being acclaimed a gadol. Is this in operation? It seems to me that the gedolim are more noted for learning and paskening and PERSONAL middot, than for learning the issues relating to women. We have instances of gedolim who did not suffer fools lightly. Not to be critical, but would they have been less than awesome in the middot of pity or concern for others?

3. Gedolim understand women through their vast learning of Tanach, Shas and Poskim. Obviously, one criteria for being a gadol is tremendous knowledge. However, are women only the sum total of what is written about them in Shas and Poskim? Are men? Can one understand and relate to either sex if all they have is our mesora, but limited to no personal experience?

My answer to that question is a paraphrase(I forgot the author): I truly believe that all knowledge is to be found in the Torah, but that we do not know how to find it all. Even knowledge of plumbing can be found, if one is on a deep enough level. However, until we have reached that level, when I need plumbing work, I will call a plumber.

The proof in the lack of understanding on the part of contemporary gedolim of women's issues is in the posters that went up last year requesting women to leave shul early so as not to have mingling of the sexes after davening. Mrs. Katz, are you leaving shul early? Do you think that the gedolim who signed this understand your desire to daven? to attend shul? If they do, they felt the possibility of your mingling with men was far more dangerous than the benefit to you of finishing davening. Have you asked a gadol how he can accept the instances of heter meah rabbonim that have been increasing? Why they have not put a stop to it? put the perpetrators in cherem?

One of course could argue that the gedolim understand the women's issues in their community- which is the very chareidi one. However, what about the issues of a more moderate chareidi woman? Or the Modern Orthodox? Where can the understanding end?

Summary and Comments on the previous 3 posts

2005-05-26T14:28:00.000-04:00

I appreciate the comments and corrections on my posts. Please feel free to leave more, and I do read them all. I was hoping for more discussion of the thrust of the posts, that Orthodoxy today still reflects in part the changes wrought by the battle against reform. Feel free to leave those comments on this post, leaving the other comment sections for more discussion of the particular details.

historical Persepectives on current issues part 3

2005-05-24T14:42:00.000-04:00

(parts one and two are below)
The modern orthodox are pretty much the inheritors of the legacy of R. SR Hirsch, R. Ettlinger, and R. Hildesheimer. The response of these three to modernity and the challenge of reform was to embrace the secular scholarship that was available, while maintaining strict standards in Judaic learning and practice. It is the task of the modern orthodox to find the path between non-Halachic leniencies on the left, and the knee jerk reaction of stringency on the right. It is a matter not only of practice, but also one of hashkafa/belief/dogma. The issue of what a Jew must believe to be considered orthodox was germaine in the 1840s, and remains so today. Cutting off an entire branch of thought ala banning Slifkin clearly is inappropriate, but so is wandering into non-Sinaitic Torah. The task of the MO is to articulate beliefs that are consonant with our Mesorah, but also do not treat the people as non-thinking school children. This has been the goal from Saadia, Rambam, on down.

From a practice point of view, strict observance of Halacha is the sine qua non of orthodox Judaism. MO has to beware of the path that was taken by the reformers. That does not mean that every humrah in the kitzur shulchan aruch has to be treated as Torah from Sinai. However, any changes from traditional practice need to be based on solid Halachic ground. MO certainly should look at the responses from the last 200 years with history in mind, and realize that some of what was decreed was a response to the times. But one cannot throw away 200 years of psak just on those grounds.

With regard to relations to the Charedim to the right and the non-traditional to the left, MO has to be steadfast in its beliefs and practices. While attention should be paid to Chareidi poskim, it should be realized that they pasken out of a different attitude and cultural milieu than the one that MO lives in. It is unclear to me why the early deference on the part of the Chareidimshown to R. Hirsch, Hildesheimer, Wienberg and Hoffman was not continued to their students and followers. One side would argue that their ideals, practice and standards of Torah learning were not upheld. The other side would argue that the degree of intolerance for nonconforming beliefs and behavior increased, and the limits of tolerated beliefs narrowed. Also, those pioneers came from the same roots as the chareidim, while the next generations were more removed. It could be argued that the first generation was one of personal friendship and admiration, although of differing hashkafa, and the only thing that was passed on to the next generation was the differing hashkafa, but not the personal friendship and admiration.

With regard to non-traditional Jews, MO has to maintain the orthodox beliefs, and represent them accurately and faithfully, even when it means not participating in a communal activity. As R. Ettlinger noted, engagement and education are the imperatives, not seperation and shunning. With regard to clergy, R. Akiva Eger noted that a posek needs to be one who is knowledgeable and believes. A non-traditional rabbi is not fit to be a posek. Either he lacks the knowledge, or he is knowledgeable but does not acept talmudic law as normative. If he is ignorant, how can he presume to issue legal rulings? If he is knowledgeable, but knowingly repudiates talmudic law, how can he be regarded as a rabbinic decisor?

By looking at reform and the response to it, we see the rationale behind a lot of the contraversy that involves our community. If we keep history in mind, we can untangle a lot of what has become complicated. We can also understand others, even if we dont agree with them, at least we know "where they are coming from." And we all continue to try to serve God in the best way we know how.

(I again strongly reccomend reading Prof. Bleich's essay, Rabbinic Responses to Nonobservance in the Modern Era for a much more thorough and elegent treatment of the history mentioned here)

Historical persepectives on current issues part 2

2005-05-24T12:37:00.000-04:00

(part one is below)

There were other orthodox responses to reform besides communal stringency. R Tzevi Hirsch Chajes in Minhat Kenaot critcized his fellow rabbis for a number of failings: Being unaware of the changes that were taking place, and having no knowledge of what the reform advocated, defects in religious education(focusing only on halachic issues and ignoring history and other subjects), those that did not take part in opposition to reform but considered it beneath their dignity to debate those that were not their equals in scholarship. One quote

Even that segment of the youth that prepare to devote themselves to a rabbinical career have not the vaguest notion of the scope of that office... they study only the laws of passover, and eventhat section not in its entirety..if even one of them has a smattering of proficiency, even if he does not know that David reigned after Saul, he will be recommended by the Rabbis as the most qualified rabbinical candidate"

One other response is one that Prof Bleich terms the "positive response." R. Jacob Ettlinger, in Minhat Ani called on leaders to concentrate on education and instruction geared to those whose faith had faltered. He stated that criticism alone would be ineffective. He, along with R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, and R. Azriel Hildesheimer, started the movement now known as Torah u'madda(Tum), enouraging high standards of Torah learning, but also mandating high standards of secular knowledge as well. It is interesting that these early TuM leaders, along with a few subsequent leaders such as R. David Tzvi Hoffman and R. Y. Y. Weinberg were highly regarded by their more right wing(and usually Hungarian or Lithuanian) contemporaries, but later advocates of Tum were not given similar respect. Additionally, while gedolim such as R. Hayyim Ozer Grodzinski referred to R. Hirsch as "the Gaon, and scholar", R. Hayyim did not support Tum outside of Germany, feeling that it was a particular solution to the particular problem of modernity in Germany, rather than a model that should be adopted by Orthodoxy in general.

Times have changed since the start of the reform. However, the 3 broad groups that emerged are still under far too much influence of those years gone by. Non-traditional Judaism(I group reform, non-practicing, and most if not all of conservative in that group, please dont argue this point) is the majority. There is no communal religious authority(outside of Israel). Most of the Jewish world lives in social freedom, exposed to secular culture, or at least with that culture all around. Each group has new and different aspirations and problems:

non-traditional Jews: Non-traditional Judaism will not be accepted by orthodoxy as a ligitimate expression of the faith. To quote Eugene Borowitz(a reform theologian)

Theologically, Orthodoxy cannot recognize the teaching of Progressive Judaism as valid. The basic, authoritative texts of Jewish las clearly classify our modernist re-interpretation of Judaism as our tradition's equivalent of heresy. I deally, it can never be condoned, We cannot ask Orthodoxy to violate its own faith and accept Progressive Judaism, de jure, as a fully equivalent, if alternative interpretation of Judaism.

With regard to Jewish unity, as the orthodox are frequently accused of limiting unity because of theological and halachic concerns, R. Borowitz says this:

Had Kelal Yisrael(the unity of the people of Israel) been our most significant concern, we could never have brought Progressive Judaism into being, for its creation seriously divided the Jewish community by defying the accepted community leadership and the established traditions of our people.

In fact, a common mode of early orthodox responses was a plea for unity. This is possible, as long as the non-traditional accept that from the orthodox point of view they are not the true carriers of the Mosaic tradition. However, from the orthodox side, there needs to be a recognition that non-traditional judaism is not going away, and that the approach of education, commonality and unity as much as possible is preferable to shunning and excommunication. The early path of stringency and ignoring reform clearly has not worked. There are obviously limits as to what is acceptable to Jewish tradition(for example, Jews for Jesus is totally out), and more discussion and thought needs to go into figuring out what those limits are.

For the Chareidim, who are the descendents of the stringent approach to reform and modernity, there needs to be a recognition that the battle against Reform is over. And, that the halachic arguements that were made to bolster orthodoxy against reform may not be the halachic arguements that are appropriate to a different day and age. As a small example, the Hungarian rabbis forbade praying in a shul where the bimah was not located in the center of the shul(no davening if the bimah was in the front). R. Moshe Feinstein later wrote that this was a horaat shaah(a ruling applicable only to that time and place). Stringent rulings about metziza befef, mechitza, and other issues, which were viewed as walls to protect against the reform, need to be reexamined without the outward pressure of the barbarians at the gates, so to speak. Issues of belief and dogma, such as what R. Slifkin wrote, should also be reassessed. What may have been an appropriate approach when dogmatic belief could stave off reform 150 years ago,is not appropriate today. The problem is that the Gedolim of the past 200 years all were surrounded by the seige mentality of the day, and there are volumes of written material regarding their rulings, and it is difficult for one today, even if they wanted to, to go against the cumultive writing and awe/respect for the writers.

However, while there exists lots of writing against dealing with non-traditional Jews, there are many anecdotes of how those gedolim interacted with non-tradtional jews(how can I have an essay without mentioning Haim Soleveitchik?) R. Yehiel Mikhel Epstein was very friendly with a non-traditional maskil in his town, saying "yes, I am obliged to hate him, but I cannot hate a Jew". R. Avraham Hakohen Kook, in dealing with secular Jews in Israel said "better that I err in engaging in groundless love than in groundless hatred"

The problem, it seems, is that the chareidi community is still fighting the old battle. And, the new reform are.... the modern orthodox. Recall that the first debates between reform and orthodoxy were halachic in nature. R. Tzevi Hirsch Chajes, in Minhat Kenaot writes

the rabbis at their forefront justify their actions, saying the law is on their side, and they are acting in accordance with Torah...based on some isolated dicta that are found in the talmud or Midrash with regard to other matters, and they endow them with alien connotations...."

Of course, the difference between MO and classic reform is a chiasm. But from a chareidi perspective, one could see some similarities. The obvious difference of course, is that MO by definition are totally committed to Torah, Mitzvot, and tradition, both in words and in deeds. However, in issues like women reading Torah and other things, there may be a superficial resemblance.

To be continued

A Historical approach to most every contraversy in Judaism

2005-05-24T09:26:00.000-04:00

Note: Much if not all of the information here was culled from the articles by Prof. Judith Bleich and Rabbi Norman Lamm that appear in: Jewish Tradition and the Non-traditional Jew, part of the orthodox forum series.(Maybe some energetic blogging rabbi will republish the series so I wont have to buy used copies off of alibris)

Physicists have long been looking for the unified field theory, a construct that would explain, in one tidy package, all the forces in the known universe. I think that most of the problems that beset Judaism, especially those that involve relations between groups such as reform, orthodox, mo, chareidi, etc, can be organized and percieved with much more clarity by looking back 200 years at the rise of Reform, and the response to it. With this view, even seemingly disparate issues such the Slifkin ban, what is orthodox dogma, metziza befeh, relations between orthodox and reform, even the dispute mentioned in the previous blog entry between R. Greenberg and R. Lichtenstein, can be understood in relationship to basic attitudes. If everyone would realize how their position is a reflection of a stance taken 150-200 years ago(unlikely), some progress could be made in resolving some of the divide that seperates us. I am sure that this is not a novel idea from me, and may seem quite simplistic, but its my blog(well, Nisht's).

There had always been small groups in history that differed from Tradition Orthodoxy, way back from the Kariites, to the followers of Shabbatai Tzvi. There had also been individuals who did not follow Jewish Law exactly. However, Reform was different in a number of ways: The large scale, the institutionalization of differences, the claim that Reform was authentic Judaism, and very importantly, the decline of the organized social structure in the community along with the emancipation. Because of the new freedoms in society, the traditional community no longer had the power to physically enforce religious behavior, and the population had the freedom to follow the community, or not, options that previously were not available.

The first literary activity between orthodox and reform was in the form of classic she'elot and tshuvot(questions and answers), with Reform trying to show from classic sources that their beliefs and actions were based on tradition, citing sources from Bible, Talmud, and commentators, including codes of Jewish Law. The first written response was in Eleh Divrei ha-Berit(these are the words of the covenent) published in 1819. It was a collection of 22 responsa. It not only covered halachic answers to the issues raissed by reform, but also predicted that this start would lead to the abandonment of allegiance to halakhah.

In the face of this tremendous challange to orthodoxy, one response was to treat each and every detail of practice, no matter how minor, as a red line, that could not be crossed or tampered with. Thus, things like changing the place of the bimah, wearing robes, having weddings in the synagogue, sermons in secular languages all became important issues. The Hatam Sofer and others brought out the phrase "chadash assur min haTorah" to eliminate any change in practice, for fear of encouraging or providing a foothold for the reform.

The response to reform was not only on an institutional basis, but also on a individual basis. A decision had to be made as far as who was a member of the reform, and how that person should be treated. Thus standards as far as practice and beliefs, previously more of a theoretical or minimally applied issue, became an important fulcrum of debate. According to the Gemara, violators of Shabbat were to be considered apostates(Hullin 5a). R. Jacob Ettlinger(a pioneer in what would be called Torah u'madda) made a distinction between those that violated Shabbat for economic reasons, and those who did it on ideological grounds. Distinctions also were made based on education. The leaders were assumed to know better, and therfore were more culpable. The masses, not having had proper education, were looked more upon as tinok sh'nishba(a child who was abducted- and not raised with a proper education) and could not be found willfully guilty because they had not been given the appropriate information.

to be continued

Goodbyes and Hellos

2005-05-24T09:14:00.000-04:00

Two blogs closed up shop this week, Gadol Hador, and the ADDeRabbi. GH always had something witty, provocative, and informative, besides asking the tough philisophical questions, and searching for answers. The ADDeRabbi provided an equally interesting point of view, more involved divrei Torah, and a similar questing intellectual experience. I learned much from both, and the will be missed. I wish both of them much hatzlacha in their real and virtual lives.

Menachem Butler and R. Gill at Hirhurim referenced a fascinating printed debate of sorts between R. Yitz Greenberg and R. Aaron Lichtenstein that occured in the pages of the YU paper the Commentator. For anyone interested in the history of Modern Orthodoxy in America, it should be mandatory reading. The links include all the letters to the editor in a particular edition of the Commentator. As I was reading through them, I found a letter signed by Steve Brizel. My first thought was - hey, I know that guy!. After thinking about it, I realized that I do kind of know him, but only through his always erudite and respectful, if acronym filled comments on this and other blogs. And, now I know what year he graduated law school! It truly is a small world

Summertime

2005-05-23T18:21:00.000-04:00

There is an ad on TV where a father takes his kids outside during twilight, and they go chasing after fireflies. After the kids are in bed, he checks off "go chase fireflies" off his list of things to do for the summer. As someone who finds the end of summer comes way to fast, this seems like a great idea. Make a list of all the things you want to do, and make sure you schedule them. By the way, it works not only for summer activities. Learning, chessed projects, all can be accomlished with better scheduling. The only problem is that you cant just look forward to a scheduled activity, because then you dont pay attention to things in the intervening time, and you lose that time. Its hard sometimes to enjoy things just as they come, without anticipating a particular event or day. However, unless you enjoy every day, the anticipated event comes, and then is gone, and you wonder where it went, along with all the time that went by before it. I always have a sad feeling on the afternoon of Simchat Torah. All the preparation for Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, building the Succah, all the yom tov, and then it is all over, and worse, winter is around the corner. Guess the old adage of taking time to smell the roses each and every day is more apt then I realize. Of course, I advocate cow philosophy, taking time each day to eat the roses.

Mourning for the Omer

2005-05-17T12:53:00.000-04:00

Just a historical post, for this season of mourning and avodas hashem. It seems to me fairly obvious that Rabbi Akiva's 12,000 pairs of students died as part of the Bar Kokhvah (a.k.a. Bar Kochbah, Bar Kozivah) revolt and its tragic aftermath in 130-135 CE.

Which in no way diminishes our mourning nor makes the loss of life no less tragic.

Or course, I could bring up the crusades, but that is for another post.

Theodicy

2005-05-11T15:18:00.000-04:00

The featurette in the Shoah post shows very plainly and simply why the idea a just God(from a human point of view) is incompatible with an absence of some sort of afterlife, however you want to define it. You can think of an afterlife as Olam Haba(life in the next world, ie, heaven/purgatory), techiyat hameitim(resurrection-some form of return to earthly life), gilgul(your soul comes back in someone else), or something else or a combination of the above. However, the stark evil and horribleness(it may not be a word, but it fits) has to be counterweighed by something good, some enjoyment, SOMETHING. Otherwise, through human eyes at least, there is no justice. The final frames of the video, showing the child in the clouds, playing with his paper airplane is so neccessary. Without it, for this child, evil wins. That cannot be.

Stuff DovBear missed?

2005-05-10T14:12:00.000-04:00

George W. Bush declares Jewish Heritage week. Close reading of the bottom shows a little less respect(although it probably is standard wording in all his proclaimations):
.....I proclaim May 8 through May 15th, Jewish Heritage Week...

.....this 5th day of May, in the year of our lord, two thousand and five......

thanks Dubya

Anyone notice the movie about the crusades opening during sefira?(No, I am not going to see it anytime soon)

Yom HaShoa, and currents that cross me

2005-05-10T13:45:00.000-04:00

Firstly, if you haven't already been, go to this link. PSA(attention PT and Doc Bean, PSA here means public service announcement): The graphics are accompanied by piano music(Mendelsohn's song without words) which is very sad sounding. If this is not consonant with your sefira practices, watch it with the volume down, although the music does add a tremendous amount. If you are not moved to tears, go back to the emerald city and ask the wizard for another heart.

Toby Katz over at Cross currents posted on why she was against commemorating Yom HaShoa. I would take the opposite tact, and challenge her and her supporters with this question: Why are you so opposed to it?

Start with some facts. Yom HaShoa is widely commemorated in the United States, even if the gatherings themselves do not attract huge numbers. Most Jews in the US, if asked what was the greatest tragedy that occurred to the Jewish people, would answer that it was the Holocaust. We, as Jews, frequently commemorate tragedies, both personal and communal. In fact Sefira, besides being a mourning period for R. Akiva's 24000 students, also is noted to commemorate those that died during the crusades and the Chilminiski massacres.

Why is there opposition to Yom HaShoa? It was started by secular Zionists? I dont know the whole history, but lets deal with what it is now, not what it started as. Now it is a communal remembrance/mourning of our murdered co-religionists. No mourning during Nissan? well there always is Sefira. We have Tisha B'Av? Yes, we have Tisha B'Av. But is Tisha B'Av the only day to mourn? does all mourning have to be done then, to the exclusion of other days? Lets face some reality. Yom HaShoa is during the school year, and far more people are reached by it, than Tisha B'Av, which is during the dog days of summer, when people who are less conscious of religion are thinking more about swimming, trips and camps. That is not to say that Yom HaShoa can replace Tisha B'Av, and it certainly shouldn't, and convenience should not be a significant consideration. However, by attracting people and participating in Yom HaShoa, more people attach themsleves to the Jewish community, and can be taught about the other, greater tragedies and the appropriate ways to mourn those events. To say nothing about teaching all the positive, happy aspects of Judaism. There is a problem with making the Holocaust the only attachment point to the community, but one attachment is better than no attachment. Besides, the point of Yom HaShoa is to honestly remember and grieve, the other aspects are only side benefits.

Those who refuse to participate in Yom HaShoa are cutting themselves off from the rest of the community for reasons that I cannot understand. Is it assur to say Keil Ma'lay Rachamim on that day? to sing ani ma'amin? to read lists of our dead ancestors? What is the problem? In this instance, it appears to me that those who refuse to participate are poresh min ha'tzibbur.

More on Sefirah(siman taf tzaddi gimel)

2005-05-06T08:28:00.000-04:00

Being one of the few non-Chabadniks in my community with a full set of shulchan aruch haRav(its a long story), I bring you some thoughts from the first Lubavitcher Rebbe. He goes through the usual prohibitions of sefirah, weddings, haircuts, then discusses the issue of keeping the first 33 or the last 33. He acknowledges that there are different customs, some keeping the semi-mourning for the first 33 days, others for the last 33 days. He then goes on to say that one cannot take the makhil(lenient) position, and limit the mourning to the middle 16 days, as one should pick one path or the other, and taking the leniency of both makes no sense. He goes on to say that keeping the entire 49 days is not proper either, unless one is doing it out of a desire to be yotze l'chol hadeyot(erring on the side of fulfilling all the opinions). He then reccomends that one keep the prevailing custom in the community, to avoid transgressing on lo titgodidu(the prohibition of dividing into little bands of different practices).

Rav Lichtenstein reccommends shaving before Shabbat because kavod Shabbat supercedes the mourning. Interestingly, he compares the sefirah mourning to the practices of the year of mourning, rather than shiva(the initial 7 day mourning period) or shloshim(the first 30 days of mourning). More from Yeshivat Har Etzion here. The OU gives a short list here

In thinking about the whole issue, I have obviously leaned to the makhil side of things. However, when I see non-Orthodox getting married this week, the first thing that comes to my mind(to my dismay) is: Hey, they shouldn't be doing that, its Sefirah. Technically though, if the couple have not yet fulfilled the mitzvah of having children, if the marriage does take place during sefirah, they are not punished, and the marriage is valid.

I think I am done now. I welcome any comments, especially from those that know a lot more about this than me.

Song of Songs, Sefira, and the question of ascetism

2005-05-05T13:28:00.000-04:00

My Chavruta didn't show last night, so I pulled out a few books from the kollel library. Psychotoddler had asked about movies during sefirah, so I found the Shulchan Aruch on that topic, and also the one volume Artscroll Shir HaShirim(song of songs). I previously had criticized artscroll for not printing a real translation in their Chumash, or in their little book of 5 migillot(the ones you would find in synagogue and would be the ones that the listener would follow along with the reader, with the little bouncing ball), so I was curious to find what was printed in the long version.

In the intro, they straight out tell the reader that the book is not to be taken literally, and so a real translation must incude the allegorical meaning. They also do print a leteral translation, although they admit it is "guided by Chazal" and it is only below in the commentary, not the English that faces the Hebrew. And, if I wanted to be picky, the translation of "shtei shadayich" does not include the number "two."

The introduction also includes a story told about the Chofetz Chayim, who lost his son. At the burial, he told the story of a woman who lost a son in a pogrom, and as he lay dying in her arms, she addressed God and said "I used to split my love, with half to You and half to my son, now You will get all my love." The Chofetz Chayim echoed this sentiment. This is obviously a great show of love for God, even in the face of tremendous loss and pain.

With great respect to the Chofetz Chayim, I have a problem with such a statement. The first is that love should not be a zero sum game. When you have a second child, do you love the first one less? If you love your family, do you have less love for God than if you didn't love your family? Secondly, is the love of God a similar and competing love to loving flesh and blood people, or material things/sensations? Obviously love of God can be compared to physical love,(the whole idea behind Song of Songs) but it seems to me that it should be transcendant, not tied to notions of physicality. This very story brings Shir HaShirim back to the physical notions that the allegorical meaning is trying to escape. The story also introduces an element of ascetism, loving God even more, though one is in pain. Are we an ascetic religion? do we value retreat from physicality and enjoyment?

This brings me to Sefira, and Psychotoddler asking about movies. The early sources say that it is Minhag(custom) not to get married and in some places not to get a haircut. Later, it says that everywhere we dont get a haircut. The Mishna Brura says those that get a haircut get fined. The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch says it is forbidden to get a haircut. The rationale for the minhag is "lo l'harbot b'simcha" literally, not have too much simcha. It doesn't say to be sad, to be in avelut(mourning)(although there are later references to sefirah being a form of aveilut, but as best as I can tell, this is a later reference, I certainly could be wrong) It says not to overdo the simcha. However, in the present day and age, we seem to have moved to a much more ascetic practice of sefirah than initially practiced.

Obviously, the opposite of asceticism, hedonism, is in contradiction to our values. And certainly there are parts of the community where the scale has unfortunately tipped in that direction. But is the answer codifying a long list of restrictions. Denying love of people? Denying that physical love exists and is not in opposition or competition with love of the Divine?

Awake!

2005-05-05T12:45:00.000-04:00

A nice interview with Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz in Parabola Magazine can be read here.

Goyim & God

2005-05-05T10:24:00.000-04:00

Because of the recent discussions, on and off line about the passing of the Pope JPII, i spent some time thinking about how to evaluate non-Jews, both in public & in private.

Of course, one could fill a library about the roles of non-Jews in the world, God's relationship with them, etc. (For an extentive discussion see this essay.)

But overall one could summarize how to evaulate someone like JPII by three criteria. One can see these themes in the recent Tradition issue about Judaism & the public square:

1) Is it good for the Jews? This was the basic question for most "Jewish" evaluations of the late great Pope.
I can see why people choose this approach, especially after thousands of years as a minority and the tradition role of the shtadlan. However, i think that once you have your basic needs covered and are safe, you really need to get beyond your provincial narrow perspective.

2) Do they increase morality & ethics in the world? Do they make the world a better place?

3) Do they increase Torah in the world? (See the revised version of Maimonides theory of Christianity & Islam in the end of Hilkhos Melakhim). I am deliberately separating this from #2. Using the criteria of Halakha. Do they make the world more monotheistic? Do they increase the observance of Sheva Mitzvos B'nei Noach?

If you play these three criteria off each other, one can create interesting distinctions.

Tough choices

2005-05-03T16:45:00.000-04:00

The Brooklyn Wolf has a number of posts that are quite interesting regarding attitudes towards other Jews, and winds up with a question: If you had to choose one path for your children, would you want them to be good nice people, but not religious, or outwardly religious, but despiciable human beings? In essence, would you rather they be great at mitzvot bein adam l'chavero(between people) or those that are exclusively bein adam lamakom(between man and God)?

If you go back to the prophets, you see them railing against those that ignore the poor, the widow, the downtrodden, and ask things like "lama lee rov zivcheichem.." what do I need all these sacrifices, the implication being that they are not accompanied by good deeds. However, the mitzvot between man and God in the time of prophetic and sacrificial Judaism were somewhat different than they are now in the time of Rabbinic Judaism. It would be interesting however to scan Nevi'im and see which thought stream predominates, my guess is that there is more outrage about the absence of charity and justice than the failure to keep Shabbat and other mitzvot between man and God.

It seems to me that the evidence from Nach(the Prophets and Writings) indicates that good deeds between people are preferable to good deeds between man and God, if you have to choose one. However, in our day and age, there is another concern, that may not have been operational in the distant past. How will the Torah be passed on to future generations? If you compare a non-practicing Jew(or even reform) who is a wonderful person, and raises his/her kids to be nice, kind people, what is the chance that any of them will turn out to be Jews that practice mitzvot between man and God? What is the chance that they will pass on any Jewish traditions besides those of lovingkindness, and even then, will that tradition of lovingkindess be identified as Jewish tradition? or a humanistic one? or something else? On the other hand, a despicable human being who keeps Shabbat and Yom Tov and identifies as a Jew is more likely to pass on Jewish traditions and observances. And, somewhere down the line, I think it is more likely that one of the kids will turn out not only outwardly observant, but a good person as well.

Obviously we should strive for ourselves and for our kids towards excellence in both interpersonal and person-Divine commandments. And on a personal level, if I absolutely had to choose, I would rather my kid be a good non-religious person than a despicable outwardly frum person. But the edge for long term survival of the religion might reside with the second choice. Is it worth the price?

Organized Religion

2005-05-03T16:25:00.000-04:00

Gil/Simcha @ Hirhurim recently quoted Telushkin & Prager about why we need organized religion.

Its obvious to anyone self-aware the humanist bias in the very question. To question why we need "organized religion" is to assume that real religion is personal/feeling religion. Its starts off assuming the primacy of personal individual religion & its just a hop, skip, & a jump to Friedrich Schleiermacher & religion of the heart.

But why assume that individual religion is ontologically prior to national (K'neset Yisroel) religion, communal, or family based religion.

It is only in narcissistic America, that we begin our discussion of Judaism with the assumption religion is primarily individualistic.

With Much Thanks...

2005-05-03T11:14:00.000-04:00

I would like to take a spare moment to thank Dilbert for his continuing stint as guest blogger at the House of Hock & express my wishes that he stay blogging as long as he would like.

I would also like to wish him good luck on his new blog. (Insert Bab/bawab/blog pun here.)

If anyone would like to take over as guest blogger, please submit names & email addresses in the comment section below.

The comments, they work

2005-05-02T18:07:00.000-04:00

Like an Okie, going outside and seeing a few rainclouds and having a few drops of water fall on my face, I am happy to note the comments are now working. Feel free to comment on the last few posts(or not).

I have been guest blogger here at the House for quite a while, and have decided that now that I am grown up, I should have a bayit(ne'eman) of my own. Bava Dilbert is now open and I will be cross blogging for a while. Feel free to comment either here or there.

I would like to publicly thank Nisht(whom, like Charlie, I have never met) for hosting me and my various rantings. I hope that I have not embarrassed him in my stay here. I have kept the parties to a minimum, that disorderly conduct arrest was a total misunderstanding, and so far the neighbors have not complained too loudly(that episode with MOChassid's chihuahua was blown soooo out of proportion- it didn't go all the way down the toilet).

translation, Shir Hashirim, and R. Nosson

2005-05-02T14:09:00.000-04:00

What is a translation? The simple answer is that it changes the words in one language to words in a different language. However, we all know that some words, phrases, and expressions do not translate exactly, and therefore translations are subject to some subjectivity. There are translations that try to be totally literal, those that go more for a "feel" and are a bit more loose, and then those that deliberately add some level of interpretation. And those that translate with an agenda, so the result reflects not only the meaning, but someone's slant on what it should mean. Then, on another level,there is what artscroll has done to Shir HaShirim(Song of Songs).

R. Akiva said that the song of songs is kodesh kodashim(holy of holies). There is poetry in the words, intense imagary, and words about physical love. Much has been written about the allegorical meaning and interpretation. Artscroll, in its infinite wisdom, totally eliminated the translation of Shir Hashirim. In the place of the love story and poetry is the allegorical conversation between Israel, God, and the nations. Why did they do that?

If you were not fluent in Hebrew, and owned only the artscroll publications chumash(I haven't checked the other publications)you would never know what was written in Shir Hashirim. Only the interpretation "based on Rashi and other commentators". In otherwords, Artscroll doesn't trust the reader to read the literal translation. It felt the need to CENSOR the translation. "You want the truth? you cant handle the truth?" R. Nosson Scherman plays Jack Nicholson in a remake of the classic movie. It was ok for Sholmo(going by the usual attribution) to write it. R. Akiva gave it good reviews. But Artscroll knows what is best for our delicate constitutions and belief structure.

I am going to check in shul in the artscroll siddur. I wonder when they lift the Torah, does it say "v'zot haTorah asher sam Moshe, l'fnei b'nei Yisrael al pi A-doshem, b'yad, Moshe? or have they changed it to b'yad Nosson Scherman?" it does have a little better rhythm to it. These are some books by a rav named Nosson that are banned from my house.

crossed blogged to bava dilbert where comments are active, and I will be establishing a new home in the future.

Amazing Pesach Chocolate chip cookies

2005-04-28T10:20:00.000-04:00

Attention Dov and Godol hador and all others with poor food habits: These are also really bad for you, but taste awesome:

1 1/3 cup margarine
1 cup brown sugar
1 cup regular sugar

cream it all together

add

2 eggs

2 teaspoons vanilla(the artificial stuff, since the real is not pesachdic)

mix the following dry stuff together

1 1/2 cups cake meal

1/2 cup potato starch

1 teaspoon baking soda

1 teaspoon salt

add to the wet stuff and mix(with your fingers, this is like toll house cookies)

add 1 12 oz bag of chips(minus a few that you feed to the kids who are helping)

make into logs the shape of gefilte fish loaves. refrigerate for an hour or two

cut slices about 1/3 inch thick(or just make a little mound)(it doesnt really cut well because of the chips, but make an approximation)

and put on cookie sheets.

bake for 10 min or so(less for smaller cookies, more for larger ones, keep an eye on them) at 375.

let them cool completely before taking them off, they are fragile when hot.

Enjoy

What made the Rasha(wicked son) a Rasha?

2005-04-27T12:22:00.000-04:00

When we read about the 4 sons in the Haggadah, three are somewhat self explanatory: the wise son, the simple, the one who doesn't know how to ask. But labelling one of the sons as wicked begs the question: Why is he wicked? what did he do or say or believe to deserve the title?

One start at the answer is in the response "l'fi sh'hotze et azmo min ha clal kafar ba'ekar" because he removed himself from the community he violated a basic belief. What was that basic belief? one of the Rambam's 13? Go on to the next part "ilu haya sham lo haya nigal" If he had been in Eygpt, he would not have been redeemed. Who didn't get redeemed? The midrash tells us that many Jews perished during the plague of darkness, those that were not worthy of being redeemed. It seems that they were in the catagory of Rasha as well. What was their misdeed? The children of Israel had been commanded to take a lamb in preparation of the korban pesach(pascal sacrifice). My father in law quoting a 10th century midrash says that those who did not do so died during the plague of darkness. Those who were not redeemed did not perform an act which would have symbolized their belief that redemption was around the corner. They didn't actually have to believe that the redemption was near, only do an act. Those that believed, but didn't do an act, also died. As is common, it is the action that is important, belief is good, but not essential. A similar use of the word Rasha is when Moshe sees two Jews fighting and says "Rasha, lama ta'ke rayecha" bad man(rasha), why are you hitting your neighbor. Again, rasha refers to someone who is doing an act, rather than a belief(or lack or belief).

We see that Rasha is someone whose ACTIONS take him away from the community, and who does not join with the community in actions that reflect belief. However, the Rasha does not earn the name simply with beliefs.

(thanks to Irina for asking the question and making me think about it, and thanks to my f and fil who always have answers to such questions)

Comments are geshluben

2005-04-27T11:56:00.000-04:00

I know that my comments are not working. I have no idea how to fix them. If you have any suggestions please email me. Maybe my comments are very frum and will start to work after yomtov.

Dizban, or disaben?

2005-04-27T11:43:00.000-04:00

The Scholar's Haggadah by Guggenheim is an excellent compilation of Haggadah material, as well as commentary. It also held the answer to the question my kids asked, now that they are old enough to read Hebrew well, and have the chutzpah to ask these sorts of questions, " in Chad Gadya, why do we say disaben, when it says disban, right there in the Haggadah?"

Dizban means bought, and is the correct pronounciation. Disaben actually means sold, but has become the traditional/accepted way of saying it, and is the minhag in most places, including minhag sepharad. However, in the arabic and yiddish translations(you mean you didn't say them at your seder?) it is translated correctly as bought. Apparently zuzim didn't translate so well, but my kids weren't asking about it.

There was a post somewhere(sorry, I forgot where, but will be happy to give credit where it is due) crowing about how the poster thinks there is only one version of the Haggadah, and the early Shacharit part is consistant with minhag ashkenaz. The Scholar's Haggadah has the ashkenaz, sepharad, and edat hamizrach texts next to each other on the same page, so comparisons are easy. Needless to say that each minhag has a silghtly different Yishtabach/shacharit and it aint all ashkenaz. Sorry. (by the way, I am a galitzianer, not biased against ashkenaz, just reporting the truth)

Random Pesach thoughts

2005-04-26T16:20:00.000-04:00

My three year old stood up on a chair, sang Ma Nishtana with no help, and took a bow at the end. My mother had tears in her eyes. Of course, as I was putting the little tzaddik to bed last night, he told me he wants Pesach to be over ASAP. I think his specific words were "No more Pesach". He refused to believe that it was Shabbat because there was no challah.

My in-laws told me the story of a friend who hadbeen a nun and converted to Judaism in the 1930's. During the war, she threw out her conversion papers, put on a habit, and saved thousands of Jews. After the war, she had to convert again because she had no papers. She described to them the scene in shul, when, for the first time after the Holocaust, in 1945, Yizkor had to be said, and the unending crying and screaming that accompanied it. Even third hand and 60 years later, it sends a shiver up my spine and tears to my eyes.

After last year being away for the Chag, it was very nice to be home.

Happy Pesach

2005-04-20T15:43:00.000-04:00

Since I probably will not be posting anymore before Friday, I would like to wish everyone a Chag Kasher v'sameach. I have been concentrating on conveying the simchat chag, happiness of the holiday to my kids, rather than complaining about the amount of work, expense, and general tirchah of switching the dishes, cooking, shopping, and having 5 relatives staying in the house for 10 days. In fact, Pesach is one of my favorites, and I am genuinely looking fowards to it. On the other hand, my experiments with quinoa flour as a substitute for matzo meal or real flour have failed miserably, so once again desserts will consist of maneshevitz cakes, fruit sorbet, and compote, the anti-matza(ha'mavin yavin- I have always wanted to put that in a post, but never had a chance).

For those with time, check out yashar books open access, as R. Gil has posted another free book, this one dealing with Pesach. I printed it out, all 77 pages, and hope to read it in shul on shabbat during haftorah and chazarat ha-shatz(just kidding, dont send me flaming emails about appropriate times to read), and look really educated and smart at the seder.

Conference at YU

2005-04-15T10:15:00.000-04:00

I received the following announcement in my inbox and a quick check on YU's website seemed to confirm its accuracy. So I am reposting it for the blog-o-sphere:

THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM and YESHIVA UNIVERSITY

Building American Jewish Communities in Our Time: Real Conversations on New Directions

Thursday-Friday, May 12-13th, 2005, 3-4 Iyar,5765
At Yeshiva University, Wilf Campus, Weissberg Commons, Belfer Hall ( 2495 Amsterdam Avenue ( at 184th Street).

Thursday, May 12 / 3 Iyar
[8 30 AM]: Registration, light refreshments
[9:30 AM]: Opening
"Greetings" Pres. Richard M. Joel, Yeshiva University
Prof. Harvey E. Goldberg, The Hebrew University
"New Challenges and New Directions in Jewish Community-Building" Prof. Steven M. Cohen, The Hebrew University
Moderator - Shifra Bronznick, AWP

[10:15 AM]: Changing Practice of Religious Leadership
Prof. Isa Aron, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Los Angeles
Prof. Lawrence Hoffman, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion,
New York Prof. Jack Wertheimer, Jewish Theological Seminary
Rabbi Kenneth Brander, Yeshiva University

[12:30 PM]: Lunch
Israel at 57 and Our Imagined Community
Dr. Leonard Fein, Boston

[1:45 PM]: New and Emerging Forms of Jewish

Organizing
Rabbi Andy Bachman, Brooklyn Jews
Rabbi Jennie Rosenn, The Nathan Cummings Foundation
Rabbi Jen Krause, Center for Learning and Leadership
Roger Bennett, ACBP
Response: Prof. Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, New York University

[4:15]: "American Jewish Communities in Perspective: A History of Challenge and Adaptation" Prof. Jeffrey Gurock, Yeshiva University

[4:45 PM]: Strategic Intervention for Major Social Change - Session 1
Prof. Paula Hyman, Yale University
Rabbi Rachel Cowan, Institute for Jewish Spirituality
Barry Shrage, Combined Jewish Philanthropies, Boston

[6:30 PM]: Dinner

[8 PM]: Strategic Intervention for Major Social Change - Session 2 Pres.
Richard Joel, Yeshiva University
Shifra Bronznick, AWP
Dr. John Ruskay, UJA-Federation of New York

Friday morning - May 13 / 4 Iyar
[8: 45 AM]: Alternative Modes of Creating Jewish Connections
Sharna Goldsecker, ACBP
Dr. Shaul Kelner, Brandeis University
Laurie Blitzer, McKinsey and Company
Response: Prof. David J. Schnall, Yeshiva University

[11:00 AM]: Implications for Policy and Practice -
Reflecting on The Conference
Dr. Jeffrey Solomon, ACBP
Dr. Jack Ukeles, Ukeles Associates, Inc.
Marion Blumenthal, New York & Jerusalem

[1 PM]: Lunch
Conclusion - and where we go from here

Conference Organizing Committee :
Marion Blumenthal, Shifra Bronznick, Steven M. Cohen, Jeffrey Gurock

Sponsors:
Yeshiva University
Institute for Advanced Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
With acknowledgments to: Advancing Women Professionals and the Jewish Community[AWP], Andrea & Charles Bronfman Philanthropies[ACBP], Florence G. Heller/Jewish Community Center Association Research Center

comments

2005-04-12T17:13:00.000-04:00

for some reason, comments are not active on the previous post. Hopefully they will work here. I am all ears if you have technical advice on this problem

Terry Schiavo, the pope, and the definition of a "good death"

2005-04-12T12:17:00.000-04:00

(Dovbear touched on this topic briefly, but I beat him to it, only this is the third time I am writing it, and hopefully it will not be eaten again by the blog monster)

No one protested the pope's dying. Why? he chose not to have intensive treatment for his illnesses, treatments that had a good chance of prolonging his life, and of getting rid of the life threatening infections. Lets review the facts as we know them. The pope had parkinson's disease, which affects the movements of the body, and in his case, he could barely move well, and had trouble swallowing and talking.(the tracheostomy tube was so he his saliva would not get into his lungs, and it also made cleaning out the lungs with suction easier). Really bad Parkinsons can have an associated dementia(called parkinson's dementia, appropriately enough) but from all reports the pope was mentally with it. In essence, he had lost a lot of control over his body, but his brain was sharp. Unfortunately, he also was unable to talk or swallow because of the disease.

Infections are usually treatable with antibiotics. They get to be a problem when they are untreated(or undiagnosed) for a while, and then the infection causes organ failure. It would be quite unusual for the infections to reach that stage without doctors noticing. Even at the impending organ failure stage, the organs can be supported, the infection treated, and sometimes people and organs recover. However, it usually takes being on a respirator, maybe going on dialysis(for kidney failure) and having lots of stuff done. At some point along the line, we dont know how bad the situation was, the pope made a decision(or it was made for him???- if the organ failure is bad enough, the brain can be affected as well) not to aggressively support the organs, not to go on a respirator, not to go on dialysis. I have not seen any criticism of this decision. What is the difference between the pope and Ms. Schiavo? lets make a graph

problem. ................................ pope ................... Ms. Schiavo

conscious and brain working.......... assume yes ............... no

has life threatening illness.......... yes ................... no

potential for recovery from. .......... yes ............. n/a
above illnes.

arms and legs working well........... no .......... theoretically yes

awake to be aware of infirmity.......... yes ........... no

making own decision on care. ......... yes ............. no

Has potential for further............ yes ............ no
conscious enjoyment of life.

needs active intervention. ................ yes .......... no
for life to go on.

probable limited life span................ yes ........... no
even with treatment

Summary: the pope had a life threatening illness that needed active treatment, was conscious and aware of how badly his body was not working(potential or actual suffering), and made his own decisions. Ms. Schiavo had no potential for conscious enjoyment of life, did not specifically make her own decision, and did not require active intervention to continue living. In fact, required active intervention to make her die. Are these distinctions enough to account for the vast difference in reactions?

Minhagim

2005-04-04T18:31:00.000-04:00

As my wife and I put together menus for the upcoming Passover holiday, being very careful and mindful that we can eat no kitniyot, I see that after the pope died they very carefully destroyed his ring and sealed his chambers, to prevent forgery and looting respectively. It pleases my heart to see that we do not have a monopoly on customs that have lost their significance.

life, brain function, death and in between- a brief guide

2005-03-30T14:36:00.000-05:00

The cells in the body require energy not only to function, but to stay alive. If they do not have a source of energy(oxygen and other stuff) they first stop working, and then die. It is like the ice cream in your freezer. If you shut off the electricity for a short time, it will soften, but will still be ice cream if you get the electricity back on in time. If you wait too long, it will be melted goo, and even if you freeze it again, it will never be ice cream again.

The oxygen comes by breathing air through the lungs, and it gets pumped around by the heart. So, the cells can die if either the breathing stops, or the heart stops. The electrical system of the heart is kind of on automatic. It will pump as long as there is a supply of oxygen. It doesn't need any outside signals to tell it to pump. You can take a frog heart out(a common experiment in biology classes) and watch it keep on beating. It is pretty much self triggering. The lungs are different. There is an area in the brain(brainstem to be exact) where the signal to breath starts. It gets sent down the spinal cord, then to nerves(phrenic) that go to the diaphram, that moves up and down. If the signal is interrupted anywhere along that path, from brainstem to diaphram, then there is no breathing. Therefore, breathing can stop becuase of brain injury, or spinal cord injury(think Christopher Reeve). And, unless the person is put on a respirator(breathing machine) death will follow pretty quickly.

Consciousness is a bit more complicated. There is an area in the brainstem called the reticular activating system that is kind of an on/off switch for consciousness. If you damage it enough, you will be unconscious. You can also lose consciousness from extensive damage to both sides of the front part of the brain(cerebrum- the part that makes our foreheads stick out and distinguishes us from apes).

Brain death is a situation where the brain has been totally and irreversably damaged. There are criteria(known as the Harvard criteria, for the place where they were first promulgated) for brain death. Unfortunately, not eveyone always goes by the criteria, the criteria themselves are vague in places, and actually the definition is different in other countries. There is a bottom line however: there can be absolutely no brain function, no breathing, no brain reflexes(a bunch of things your face does that you have no conscious control over, like your pupils getting smaller in light, etc), studies that show overwhelming brain damage(like a CT or MRI), no blood flow to the brain (you inject dye into the arteries and take pictures that show that the blood doesn't enter the arteries of the brain). You can have spinal reflexes(there is a cool one that is rarely seen, called the reflex of Ivan, where all the muscles contract at once, makes it look like the person is sitting up, but it is just a reflex). Measuring brain waves(EEG) doesn't help a whole lot, although if one is done it needs to be flat(no activity). Then you have to repeat the exam at least 12 hours later to make sure that there is no brain function, especially no breathing(have to disconnect the ventillator and watch the patient for a while to see if they breath or not).

(For those interested, the skull can be thought of as a box, filled with the brain, blood vessels, etc. When the brain is injured, it swells, taking up more space. IF there is a blood clot, or a tumor, that also takes up space. As the volume of brain, swelling, blood clot, etc increases, the pressure in the skull increases, because the skull does not expand. If the process is bad enough, the pressure in the skull gets very high. Remember blood pressure? that is the force that the heart is exerting to push the blood around the body. If the pressure in the skull gets to be equal(or higher) than the blood pressure, then no blood gets into the skull(or the brain). This makes more brain die, and adds to the swelling, which increases the pressure, and it is this cascade of events that lets one establish that a person is truly brain dead- the pressure in the skull is too high for blood to get in, and the brain cannot last for much longer than 5 minutes without blood supply.)

What happens with a brain injury? this can be from car accidents, gunshot wounds, episodes where the heart stops or the blood pressure drops and no blood gets to the brain for a while(called a stroke), bleeding in the brain(also called a stroke, sometimes hemorrhagic stroke) and other reasons. Sometimes a lot of brain is injured, sometimes just a little. Sometimes the pictures(CT or MRI scans) show a lot of damage, sometimes they dont. Sometimes parts of the brain are only temporarily not working, and take a while to get better. Sometimes there is permanent damage. Many times it is hard to tell how much better a person will get. Frequently with severe brain damage, the patient isn't breathing enough, and needs to be on a breathing machine. Over time, unless there is severe damage(or brain death), most start to breath on their own. Most patients who are going to get better will start to do so in the first few weeks. Most improvment happens in the first 6 months. It is very rare to have significant improvement past 1-2 years after the injury. The scans of the brain also will change with time, but after a week or two will usually show the extent of the injury, and unless there is an additional problem, will not change significantly after 6 months.

Coma, or persistant vegetative state(pvs) is a description of someone who does not respond to their surroundings. It is a description of the patient, therefore established by observation and examination, not by scans, EEG's or anything else. Obviously, the CT and MRI scans can show why, and define the anatomic extent of the brain damage, but you can have people in pvs with not a whole lot wrong on their scans(maybe damage in the on/off reticular activating system), or people with almost no brain left whatsoever, but enough that their breathing centers are telling the diaphram to move.

What is concsiousness? How do we measure it? These are tough questions. Usually we consider consciousness to be evidence of non-reflex behavior, or, a little more stringent, purposeful behavior. Moving a hand away in response to pain(or more accurately, a stimulus, because feeling pain implies that one is conscioius enough to have a response to a stimulus that we recognize as pain) does not imply consciousness, it can be a reflex. Slapping the hand that is pinching the person implies consciousness. As you can see, there is a significant grey area where a person could be considered conscious or not, depending on the interpretation of the movements and responses. We have a not of reflexes- movements that are not dependent on thinking, that happen automatically, and these sometimes are confused with purposeful behavior as well.

In view of recent events and discussions, I hope this has been helpful. The amount of ignorance, especially on the part of some of our elected officials has been astounding. To quote R. Gil, this has been only for purposes of education , not l'halacha. for specific problems, please consult a competent authority.

music review- The Moshe Skier Band(well, not exactly)

2005-03-30T13:55:00.000-05:00

This past motzei Shabbat I talked my wife into going to see the Moshe Skier Band. But first a little background. My wife, quite a skilled musician herself, and someone who appreciates alternative rock and all sorts of pop music that inhabits the radio, does not appreciate shiny shoe music, to say the least. She had assumed that we were going to sit for a few hours and be serenaded by the shiny shoe brigade, and, to her credit(and against her best judgement), agreed to accompany me. I, of course, had heard some cuts of the band, and had seen the ads from Adam Davis, and had some idea of the experience ahead. Also, the concert was at a club.

I will dispense with the following complaints quickly: My clothes smelled of smoke, my ears rang for a few days, and it took about 45 minutes for my liver and other solid abdominal organs to stop vibrating. In addition, I was one of the few males who not only brought a female with me, but left with same said female.

That being said, it was a very nice crowd, not rowdy, a mix of many singles, a few middle-aged couples that were there for the music(guess I fall into that catagory, middle aged), a sprinkling of kippot, and a few in costume in honor of purim.

The first act was heedoosh, which featured Yaniv. He was accompanied by the always excellent Matt Kantor(drummer for Even Shesiyah, and drummer for what seems like 99% of the Jewish gigs in the city-even I have had the zichut of playing a gig with him, but that is anothe story), a very earnest and quite good Zev Goldberg on rhythm guitar, and unknown(to me) bass and lead guitar players. Yaniv has a very good voice, good range, and is usually seen with his band, dressed in shiny shoe uniform, velvet kippah, dark pants, and the occassional suit jacket, singing with an ashkenazic accent. It was different to see him with a kippa serugah at a jaunty angle, shirt unbuttoned a little, and what looked like jeans, singing in his native sephardic accent. They rocked. They played a few original songs, the best version of Yo-Ya I have ever heard(kind of a surf rock attack), and even covered a rock song(deemed to be excellent by the in-house rock afficianado)

The second act was Ari ben David, or Moshe, or somebody. He looks a bit like Pauly Shore, and tossed his hair more often than a group of flirty 8th grade girls. He also had an affection for David Copperfield like hand movements. When he wasn't using his hands to demenstrate choreic movements, he did play a pretty good piano/organ, and was accompanied by his band. The music was reggae, with shouted platitudes that seemed to be related to Judaism in some fashion. I did not appreciate it, but the in house rock critic thought it was ok.

The concert was supposed to start at 9, but actually started at 10. Unfortunately, the baby sitter had to be home by midnight, so we left while Pauly Shore was still banging on his Kurzweil, waving to the crowd, and yelling something about being good. We never did get to hear the Moshe Skier band. However, I did get a chance to talk toMoshe, and he is going to send me some cd's. And, my wife actually had an excellent time and enjoyed the music. Kudos to Adam Davis, kfar, and the kehilla and all the sponsors. I think most everyone had a good time once the blood stopped running from the ears. For those who were there and are wondering if you saw me in the dim light, you may have. Clues: kippah, with his wife, by the stairs.

An oversight

2005-03-30T13:37:00.000-05:00

My list of blogs of thinking and educated people was not meant to be exhaustive, and I did not include the chief rabbi of the blogosphere, R. Gil Student over at Hirhurim, because I assumed pretty much all of my readers were familiar with him and his blog. If not, his blog is an excellent source of Torah and opinion. For penance, I will post the links he has sent, as his publishing house has placed an entire book online. The book is Rabbi Israel Salanter, Religious-ethical thinker. I have seen a number of good reviews(well, one was from R. Gil).

Information about the book can be found at : http://www.YasharBooks.com/Salanter.html

The book can be downloaded from the Open Access webpage: http://www.yasharBooks.com/Open/

The Open access site is a very nice one for reading and discussing issues. I encourage all who are interested to visit and participate.

Gadol Hador also has good Torah when he isn't off outing the Gedolim, not to mention aspaklaria, Orthodox caucus, and many others.

Jewish values and public policy

2005-03-29T10:34:00.000-05:00

Rabbi/Lord Immanuel Jakobovits, in Medicine and Jewish Law(edited by Fred Rosner, a compilation of talks at the `AOJS physicians' conference in 1989) addresses the topic of The Role of Jewish Medical ethics in shaping legislation:

There is a basic difference between secular medical ethics and Jewish medical ethics. Secular medical ethics seeks to turn ethical guidelines ..into law... the law is a product of moral intuition or consensus.

Jewish medical ethics operates in reverse. Out of legal verdicts..we distill the ethical guidelines and principles responsible for the legal judgements. Jewish medical ethics derives from legislation, it does not lead to legislation... the legislative rulings have been given as Halachah, and we then have to extrapolate the rules and principles from them....

As Jewish citizens, we clearly have certain moral obligations, perhpas even halachic duties, at least to contribute to the public debate on moral issues in medicine, but perhpas also to apply our influence in the formulation of legislation.

(discussing autopsies and abortion vis a vis israeli law)

In principle, I have always opposed the idea of seeking to enforce halachic discipline in Israel by way of Knesset legislation, thus subjecting the majority..secularists, to "religious coercion.". As a rule this can only further alienate the secular majority from the religious minority and their beliefs. But there are bound to be certain exceptions.

(regarding abortion, which is an exception to the above rule)..I believe that precise legislation was vital, but its presentationi was all-important. In light of the fact that the majority of Knesset members do not share our respect for Halacha, it was imperative that legislation..be presented in a manner that would be persuasive to them and lead them to consider our concerns.
It seems strange that for a long time ther was absolutely no agitation on abaortion in religious circles. Even the Agudah did not raise the matter until the mid-1970's. It had evidently been of no major concern to them or to the otherreligious parties. Why?.... (it) did not affect the religouis community. No one forced anyone to have an abortion, so the religious community felt no need to seek legislation on the subject. (he goes on to say that the thrust of his arguement against abortion was framed in the context of national survival-abortion lessens the number of Jews, rather than simply a religious basis)
I use this illustration to show that in terms of legislation what is at stake is not merely the strit demands of Halacha. Of critical importance is the effect that the discipline of Halachah has on the Jewish public.

(on non-Jewish legislation)

To what extent must (I) bring (my) Jewish moral convictions to bear on society in general and the laws governing it?

...the major areas of medical ethics ..come under the heading of the Seven Noahite Commandments...We should endeavor to ensure, as best we can, that non-Jews fulfill the Seven Commandments incumbent on all humans, and for that legislative enactments are required.

(he then goes on to bring examples from his speeches in the House of Lords of his opposition to abortion on demand and his bringing a tradional Halachic viewpoint to other topics.)

We have a duty as custodians of what we believe to be the universal moral order as enshrined in the Seven Noahite Commandments, and more extensively in the divinely ordained laws of the Torah, to do our utmost to advance the appreciation oand the rule of these moral values.

Notice all of his efforts are within the legal system, not street protests. Also his aim is a general societal acceptance of moral values, not a case by case intervention.

An opinion on " mercy killing" of non-Jews

2005-03-29T09:20:00.000-05:00

NOTE: I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS OPINION. IT IS BROUGHT FOR EDUCATIONAL INTEREST ONLY.

HaRav Moshe Sternbuch, Rosh Yeshiva of Rosh Ha'ayin, in Pathways in Medicine, 1984 discusses the following case:

A critically ill non-Jew has only a short time to live and was in intense pain. He and the family requested the doctors give him drugs to cause a speedy death. They agreed, but needed approval of the director of the hospital, a frum Jew, who asked if it was permitted to allow it. He was concerned if he did not allow it, his career would be harmed.

Rav Sternbuch starts with the assumption that shedding blood is prohibited and that this also applies to a Jew killing a non-Jew. He then states that "The Rabbis in our generation have considred the question of whether in our day non-Jews should be considred to be in the same category as the idol-worshippers of Biblical days. They generally come to the conclusion that the non-Jew in our day could be considered an idol-worshipper. Now, according to the Torah, an idol-worshipper is deserving of death. One could suggest taht, in this case, since the Jewish doctor is not actually administering the drugs himself, and since the patient could perhaps be classified as an idol-worshipper who is deserving of death, a Rabbi may give the Jewish doctor permission to sign the authority. One could also say that the strict prohibition against killing a non-Jew refers to an actual killing in a cruel manner, and may well not apply to a case of "mercy-killing" done out of love for the patient, where the Jewish doctor himself would not carry out any physical action in a cruel manner.

Rav Sternbuch in fact did give permission for the doctor to sign the order, considering that the patient was fatally ill, with only a short time to live in any case, noting that "some Rabbis are of the opinion that killing a non-Jew who is on the point of dying need not always be classified as murder."

He then goes on to make it clear that if the hospital treated both Jews and non-Jews, he would certainly not give permission, for fear that mercy-killing would be done on Jews as well. "It should be made clear to all in a Jewish hospital that such an act is out of the question."

Note that he uses a lot of "could", and "some" and "opinion", leaving the impression that l'katchila he is opposed, but is trying to find a way to allow it so(I assume) the director/doctor's career will not be harmed. I may be over reading, but that is how it appears to me. He is certainly not being definitive.

At the end of the chapter he emphasizes that "permission for a Jewish doctor to violate the Sabbath to treat a non-Jew is only to be given in exceptional cases" and discusses those issues.

Unfortunately, there are no footnotes or sources, so I do not have any further information on the basis for the opinions.

Risk/benefit analysis in Halacha

2005-03-29T09:07:00.000-05:00

the discussion of metzitza b'feh involved the issue of balancing the risk of harm with the benefit of performing a mitzvah. I found the following opinion on a similar issue:

In 1772 the Duke of Mecklenburg ordered that burials could not be done until 3 days after death, in order to be absolutely sure that the person was really in fact dead. R. CHaim Yosef David Azulai wrote: "If one in several tens of thousands of buried persons turns out later to be alive, we should not see this as a basis for a prohibition(against prompt burial), for that was decreed upon him.. if they erred... this is Divine Will...." from Responsa Chayim Sh'al part 2, no. 25. Quoted by Rabbi/Dr. Abraham Steinberg in Medicine and Jewish Law, edited by Fred Rosner. I wonder if he would apply the same numbers to getting disease from metziza b'feh(ignoring the possibility that the halachic imperative for prompt burial may not be the same as for doing metziza b'feh). Also, are there any other t'shuvot that put a number out like this one does?

Also, note the acceptance of Divine Will as a rationale for accepting the error that may occur.

clarity of thought

2005-03-28T17:30:00.000-05:00

Its been an interesting few weeks. I have had to examine what I do when Halacha(or medical ethics derived from Halacha) conflicts with accepted western ethical/moral/legal standards. I have also been beset with some accusations. The accusations, when they have come, have mostly been of standing passively by, and/or condoning murder. I must ask those accusers, and even those who dont believe it was murder(or who dont think we have an obligation to intervene) the following questions:

1. why have you not been this agitated with other cases of withdrawal of care?

2. If Ms. Shiavo had a living will that specifically expressed her desire not to remain in a persistant vegetative state, would you still call it murder?

3. Is it the uncertainty over her condition and/or her wishes that provokes this reaction?

4. Is Halacha supposed to be the law in the United States with regard to medical care?

5. Would it make a difference if Ms. Schiavo was Jewish?

6. How would you treat a person who had a spinal cord injury, could not breath without a breathing machine, who asked to be withdrawn from the machine?

7. If Ms. Schiavo had a life threatening infection, would you insist she be given antibiotics?

8. What are the factors that determine how loud we raise our voices to ensure that the laws of the land are in consonance with Halacha? if at all?

9. Assuming that we will never have a society in the us governed by halacha, is it better to err on the side of too much freedom? or too much restriction? In other words, too much freedom allows Jews to practice as they want, without any restriction, but also allows looser societal values. Whereas restriction may limit our ability to practice, but societal values and practices would be more in keeping with the moral values of the Torah. You can err at the extremes like the French, who do not allow kippot in school, or with the inquisition at the other side. More moral values in society at the expense of the occassional mention of Jesus in school? Which is more preferable?

I came across some articles that I will try to abstract in the next few days that address the role that Judaism should play in the public sphere in general, and a little specifically dealing with cases like Ms. Schiavo.

Great blogs from knowledgable and thinking Jews

2005-03-28T17:19:00.000-05:00

(many of us are thinking, but not so knowledgable, some of us are neither)

if you haven't already, go visit these people:

Rabbi Doctor Jeffrey Woolf at My Obiter Dicta

The ADDeRabbi

Naomi Chana at Baraita(mazel tov on the upcoming nuptials)-

Ben Chorin

Also see R. Adlerstein quoting and giving respect(although disagreeing vehemently) to R. Broyde

Random Megillah thoughts

2005-03-28T14:04:00.000-05:00

From a literary point of view, Megillat Esther is rather cumbersome. There is a lot more detail, a lot more repetition, and much longer sentences than most other books of Tanach. I paged through my artscroll megillah book, and in Esther there is about 7-10 Pesukim(sentences) per page. In the other four megillot, there were 10-14 pesukim per page. From a trop point of view, since there can be only one etnachta per pasuk, this means that there are a lot more zarka-segol, kadma-v'azla, revi'e, darga-t'vir and pazer trops than other books. Some of the pesukim reach 30-40 words in length.

The extra words consist not only of additional descriptors(medina oo'medina kechitava, v'am v'am kelishona, or shisha chodashim b'besamim....) but also a lot of repetition in the form of "tell someone to do this... I told him to do it... he did it... what did he do...."

Why? I have no idea. I really don't. ADDeRabbi has an excellent post on yeridat hadorot, how over time as we get further from the word of God we compensate by codifying more of the details. Perhaps the megillah, being the first without a specific reference to Hashem, spells everything out in great detail to compensate for the distance from HKBH. As if the author wanted to be absolutely sure we got everything exactly as they wanted it said, not depending on Inspiration to fill in the blanks. Please comment if you have an answer.

2. Haman goes home, tells Zaresh and the friends(the name of my next rock group) that life isn't good as long as Mordechai HaYehudi(the Jew) is in the gate. They tell Haman to hang Mordy. The next day, after Haman comes home with garbage on his head, Zaresh and the friends, quite unsolicited tell Haman " Im m'zera ha'Yehudim, Mordechai, asher hachilota linpol l'fanav lo toochal lo.." If from the offspring of the Jews, Mordechai, that you have started to fall in front of, you will not succeed, for you shall surely fall in front of him(translated literally). Z and friends are tell Haman that he is not going to succeed, and it seems that he isn't going to succeed because Mordy is a Jew. But Haman made that pretty clear the day before, saying that he wasn't happy as long as Mordy the Jew was in the gate. All of a sudden Z and friends realize he is Jewish? I found two answers, both peshat based, and it hinges on what is different in the phrasing.

1. they say "from the offspring (zera) of the Jews". One commentator says that zera refers to the tribe of Binyamin, but the plain sense is that if Mordy is acting as a Jew, following in the traditions of his forefathers and mothers, and because of his actions and the protection of his ancestors, haman will fail.

2. The key is actually in the words "asher hachilota linfol.." that you have started to fall. The scary thought is that there may have been a window of opportunity for Haman to succeed. However, now that he has started to slip, for whatever reason, that window is closed. When Haman first decided to kill the Jews, he rushed the messengers out to all the lands, announcing the news, although the event wasn't to take place for about a year. One explaination is that he wanted the Jews to worry about it, and have their death hanging over their heads for a year, knowing that they would be annihilated. However, this time allowed Mordechai and Esther to mobilize the repentance movement. Perhaps if Haman had satisfied himself with just killing the Jews, and not adding the psychological torture of knowing their demise for a year, the outcome may have been different.

Post-Nuptual Agreements

2005-03-23T10:32:00.000-05:00

Someone recently brought to me attention that noone has been pushing the BDA, post-nuptual agreement, which is basically the "agunah" pre-nup for couples that are already married.

Although Rabbis & others have been encouraged to not marry couples without a pre-nuptual agreement, the way to really effect change would be to have entire Synagogues and Communities sign them en masse. Just as synagogues have a "Shabbos Tilamdeni" or a Shabbos for Jewish Hospices", they should have a post-nup Shabbos.

I will not get into why the major Orthodox Jewish Org's have dropped the ball on this one, at that would serve no purpose, but rather I will just post the post-nup herehoping for this to bubble up through the blog-o-sphere.

THE BETH DIN OF AMERICA BINDING ARBITRATION AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT MADE ON THE ________________ DAY OF THE MONTH OF _____________________________ IN THE YEAR 20 ___, IN THE CITY/TOWN/VILLAGE OF ______________________________STATE OF______________________
between:
HUSBAND: _________________________________________________________
RESIDING AT:_______________________________________________________
and:
WIFE:______________________________________________________________
RESIDING AT: ___________________________________________________________
The parties, who were married on , hereby agree as follows:

I. Should a dispute arise between the parties, so that they do not live together as husband and wife, they agree to refer their marital dispute to an arbitration panel, namely, The Beth Din of the United States of America, Inc. (currently located at 305 Seventh Ave., New York, NY 10001, tel. 212 807-9042, www.bethdin.org) for a binding decision.

II. The decision of the Beth Din of America shall be fully enforceable
in any court of competent jurisdiction.

III. The parties agree that the Beth Din of America is authorized to
decide all issues relating to a get (Jewish divorce) as well as any issues arising from this Agreement or the ketubah and tena'im (Jewish premarital agreements) entered into by the Husband and the Wife. Each of the parties agrees to appear in person before the Beth Din of America at the demand of the other party.

IV:A. The parties agree that the Beth Din of America is authorized to decide any monetary disputes (including division of property and maintenance) that may arise between them in accordance with the general principles of arbitration and equity customarily employed by the Beth Din of America.

IV:B. The Beth Din of America may consider the respective
responsibilities of either or both of the parties for the end of the marriage, as an additional, but not exclusive, factor in determining the distribution of marital property and maintenance.

V. Failure of either party to perform his or her obligations under
this Agreement shall make that party liable for all costs awarded by either the Beth Din of America or a court of competent jurisdiction, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by one side in order to obtain the other party's performance of the terms of this Agreement.

VI. The decision of the Beth Din of America shall be made in
accordance with Jewish law (halakha) or Beth Din ordered settlement in accordance with the principles of Jewish law (peshara krova la-din), except as specifically provided otherwise in this Agreement. The parties waive their right to contest the jurisdiction or procedures of the Beth Din of America or the validity of this Agreement in any other rabbinical court or arbitration forum other than the Beth Din of America. The parties agree to abide by the published Rules and Procedures of the Beth Din of America (which are available at www.bethdin.org, or by calling the Beth Din of America) which are in effect at the time of the arbitration. The Beth Din of America shall follow its rules and procedures, which shall govern this arbitration to the fullest extent permitted by law. Both parties obligate themselves to pay for the services of the Beth Din of America as directed by the Beth Din of America.

VII/A. The parties agree to appear in person before the Beth Din of
America at the demand of the other party, and to cooperate with the adjudication of the Beth Din of America in every way and manner. In the event of the failure of either party to appear before the Beth Din of America upon reasonable notice, the Beth Din of America may issue its decision despite the defaulting party's failure to appear, and may impose costs and other penalties as legally permitted.

VII/B. Husband acknowledges that he recites and accepts the following: I hereby now (me'achshav), obligate myself to support my Wife from the date that our domestic residence together shall cease for whatever reasons, at the rate of $150 per day (calculated as of the date of our marriage, adjusted annually by the Consumer Price Index-All Urban Consumers, as published by the US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics) in lieu of my Jewish law obligation of support so long as the two of us remain married according to Jewish law, even if she has another source of income or earnings. Furthermore, I waive my halakhic rights to my wife's earnings for the period that she is entitled to the above stipulated sum, and I acknowledge, that I shall be deemed to have repeated this waiver at the time of our wedding. I acknowledge that I have effected the above obligation by means of a kinyan (formal Jewish transaction) in an esteemed (chashuv) Beth Din as prescribed by Jewish law. However, this support obligation shall terminate if Wife refuses to appear upon due notice before the Beth Din of America or in the event that Wife fails to abide by the decision or recommendation of the Beth Din of America.

VIII. Husband and Wife execute this document to further enhance the continued harmonious marital relationship between themselves as husband-and-wife. Furthermore, the mutual promises of the parties are consideration each for the other, and this agreement shall be fully enforceable in a court of competent jurisdiction.

IX. This Agreement may be signed in one or more duplicates, each one of which shall be considered an original.

X. This Agreement constitutes a fully enforceable arbitration
agreement. Should any provision of this Agreement be deemed unenforceable, all other surviving provisions shall still be deemed fully enforceable; each and every provision of this Agreement shall be severable from the other. As a matter of Jewish law, the parties agree that to effectuate this agreement in full form and purpose, they accept now (through the Jewish law mechanism of kim li) whatever minority views determined by the Beth Din of America are needed to effectuate the obligations contained in Section VII and the procedures and jurisdictional mandates found in Sections I, II, III, IV and VI of this Agreement.

XI. Each of the parties acknowledges that he or she has been given the opportunity prior to signing this Agreement to consult with his or her own rabbinic advisor and legal advisor. The obligations and conditions contained herein are executed according to all legal and halachic requirements.

In witness of all the above, Husband and Wife have entered into this Agreement.

SIGNATURE OF HUSBAND: ____________________
WITNESS: ____________________________________
WITNESS: _________________________________

SIGNATURE OF WIFE:________________________
WITNESS: ____________________________________
WITNESS: _________________________________
END OF DOCUMENT

[THIS DOCUMENT SHOULD BE PROPERLY NOTARIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RELEVANT LOCAL REQUIREMENTS]

Putting your nose where it doesn't belong

2005-03-21T18:19:00.000-05:00

Hard to believe, I know, but I am chairman of my hospital ethics committee. A few weeks ago, as part of a presentation on ethics to the hospital staff, I used the Terry Shaivo case as a source of discussion on the principles of ethics and how they are applied. But first, a few facts, from the public articles and discussions that I could find: 1. There isn't a lot of money involved. There was a 1 million dollar settlement, but most of that has been eaten through with medical bills.

2. 5 independent neurologists have decided that Ms. Schaivo is in a persistant vegetative state.

3. A court trustee observed her for a long time and did not feel that she responded to her environment, not even to the parents when they were there.

A quick discussion of persistant vegetative state(pvs): this is where enough of the brain(or small specific parts) have been damaged so that the patient does not seem to be aware of his/her surroundings, does not respond to stimulation, and does not interact with the environment(no purposeful movement). This is very different than brain death, where the brain is totally not working so that absolutely nothing works(no breathing, no reflexes, no nothing). People in a persistant vegetative state breath, can swallow sometimes, can blink, can have non-purposeful movements, can spontaneously grasp(makes you feel like they are holding your hand when it is really a reflex) and have other signs of life.

Here in the US, a person is allowed to chose treatment, or no treatment. One is allowed to refuse feeding/water. We are also allowed to designate a surrogate, someone to make decisions for us when we are incapable of making one. If there hasn't been a person designated, then the spouse is the person to make the decisions, unless there is a specific reason that the spouse shouldn't be the decision maker.

According to Halacha, the issue is very simple. Halacha is paternalistic in this case, and one is not allowed to refuse food/water. End of story.

However, in the US, it is allowed to refuse food and water, and it is allowed for a surrogate to request no food/water. In this case, the spouse has not been found to be a lacking surrogate, and the request is reasonable by US legal/ethical standards. The parents have no standing. There is absolutely no reason for any court to listen to the parents, unless they are making a claim that withholding food/water is not whata Terry wanted and that there is a good reason that they would know better than the husband. The arguements about how conscious she is are legally immaterial.

There is absolutely no reason for the governer of Florida, the Congress, and the President to be involved. It is a horrible legal precedent. If they dont like the legality of witholding food/water to people in PVS(a position I would agree with) then they should addresss that issue. But getting involved in a proceeding that has proceded legally and fairly just because they dont like the outcome, but dont have the guts to tackle the underlying issue, that is an abuse of power. They should all be ashamed.

Obviously this is a complex issue, and one could argue that the end of saving the life of Ms. Schaivo outweighs the horrific injustice of meddling in settled legal affairs. But they are not trying to change the underlying law. They are just trying to score political points and brownie points with their constituencies at the expense of poor Ms. Schaivo's feeding tube.

interestingly, at my overwhelmingly Catholic institution, on one had a problem with withholding food/water from Ms. Schaivo. There was some uncertainty as to who had her best interests at heart, but the large majority sided with the husband.

Yes, I am still (sometimes) here

2005-03-18T13:40:00.000-05:00

I apologize to those who asked questions in the comments and I have not had time to answer. Also, you may have noted the dearth of significant posting. Unfortunately, there has been a significant increase in demands on my time, and so blogging seemed to the best place to make a cut in time committment(as opposed to work, time with my family, study time, etc.) I will try to post as possible, but it seems frequency will be way down. If Nisht wants to have another guest blogger, I would welcome him/her.

Shabbat Shalom to all

Money and medicine

2005-03-11T11:39:00.001-05:00

I consulted on a patient in the hospital and my physician's assistant(PA) called to tell me the neurologist on the case had ordered an electroenecephalogram(EEG- measures brain waves, good for determining if a patient has a seizure/epilepsy problem). There wasn't any doubt in my mind that the patient did NOT even have a question of seizures. My PA asked why the EEG was ordered. The only answer I could give her was that it was a procedure, and the neurologist can bill not only for doing it, but for reading it, and procedures are a good source of revenue(better than just doing consults or office visits).

I referred a patient for a procedure that was recently approved by the FDA(food and drug administration). It has been in use in Europe for a long time, and is a significant improvement on what was available previously. The insurance company declined to pay for it, saying there was insufficient evidence for effectiveness. This despite FDA approval, and many scientific studies from other countries. Are they really trying to protect people from unproven procedures? Of course not. They dont want to pay for another procedure. They said they would revisit the issue in 3-5 years.

Doctors get paid for doing more procedures and having more office visits. Insurance companies make more by limiting what they will pay for. No one has the patient's interest solely at heart, except for those who specifically and narrowmindedly put aside any financial motive and focus exclusively on what is good for the patient. I try my best to be one of those, and in all honesty I think I am successful in keeping away any thoughts about reimbursment when I am deciding about patient care. There are many doctors who do. Unfortunately, there is a significant number who let greed infuence their decision making.

GREED. That is the problem with our society in general and the practice of medicine in particular. Greedy doctors, greedy health insurance companies who want to look good for wall street and pay their CEO's millions and millions of dollars, greedy malpractice insurance companies who want to recoup what they lost on natural and other disasters and also pay their CEO's millions of dollars and look good for wall street, greedy patients who want excellent care but dont want to pay a lot for it, greedy lawyers who are willing to file lawsuits they know are not justified but have a chance of winning large sums of money.

There are no specific checks on any of this greed activity. It is hard for a patient to know if the doctor is making a recommendation based on what is good for the patient or what is remunerative for the phsycian. It may be hard to tell even by someone looking at it from the outside. Sometimes it is little things like an extra EEG. Sometimes it might be surgery. But as long as something looks reasonable, there is no check on what is reccomended, and because medicine is frequently subjective, there usually is some justification for the test, or procedure, even if it wasn't totally neccessary.

There is little recourse if your insurance wont pay for a procedure. Well, you can argue with them, and you and your doctor can paper them with letters, phone calls, etc. You can call your congressman, call your human resources person and try to threaten them with transferring your company insurance coverage, but it takes a lot of effort and time to get anything done, with no guarantee of success. Ultimately, sometimes it takes a law suit to get coverage.

There is also little recourse for physicians who get charged exorbident rates for malpractice insurance. There is a market, but very few companies offer insurance, and the rates are always pretty similar. Going without coverage is against the law in most states, and also not allowed by a lot of hospitals. The option is to move to a state with lower rates, limit your practice, or stop practicing.

Any lawyer can file a malpractice lawsuit as long as he can find a doctor to certify that there is a cause for the case. Unfortuantely, there are a lot of doctors needing money, or wanting more, who, for a fee, are willing to say almost anything with a bad outcome is malpractice. Even if the suit is thrown out, it is very difficult for the doctor to go back and sue the lawyer for filing a frivolous lawsuit. Most of those get thrown out. So, there is very little repercussion for filing lawsuits. There is no penalty for losing, and the client pays your expenses anyway.

In order for there to be a fair system of health care, all these problems need to be addressed. taking care of one or two, and neglecting the others will just skew the system, not fix it.

carefully putting away my soap box for use at another time.

Shabbat Shalom

medicine and business, like oil and water

2005-03-08T15:44:00.000-05:00

One of the business people associated with my practice gave a presentation recently. She emphasized that we had to be committed to achieving certain business goals. I raised my hand and told her I that while I was certainly willing to take part in pr, community outreach, education programs and other similar activities to promote the business aspect, as far as patient care, there really no way I was going to change, I was committed to practicing the best I could, no matter what the business down side was. It was just incredible to see the look on her face. Business people have the approach that you set financial or production goals, then do what is neccessary to achieve them, and sometimes with little regard for the consequences, as long as the goal is reached. Health care cant be approached like that without risk to the care that is extended. It never was so clear to me in such stark terms. I am sure that if I told her that I could off all my patients and her goals would be reached, she would have said "ok" with out batting an eyelash. Good thing she is not the voice at the top(luckily it is a physician run practice, and she only gives advice)

Papal Medicine

2005-03-02T16:25:00.000-05:00

A bit off my usual topics, but I thought it might be interesting to talk a bit about the Pope and his medical condition. It is well known that he has Parkinson's disease, and you can see his tremor, masked facies(not a lot of facial expression), slow movement, and other manifestations. In late stages(I am not making a claim that this is going on, merely that it is possible) you can see dementia, trouble with swallowing and the gag reflex, and other things. Obviously he had pneumonia once or twice, and recently had a tracheostomy(making an incision in the front of the neck and inserting a tube that goes into the trachea, thus for the purpose of breathing the mouth and upper airway is bypassed). A tracheostomy is usually indicated if a patient has been on a ventillator(breathing machine) for a long time(more than a week or so), if long term breathing machine usage is going to be neccessary, or if the patient cannot clear their secretions(cough out the inevitable junk that winds up in the trachea)(it is easier to pass a suction tube into the lungs through a tracheostomy than down through the mouth, which is nearly impossible while awake). It is NOT the usual treatment for pneumonia, unless one of the above conditions is present as well. Conclusion: The Pope's Parkinson's has worsened to the point he cannot keep his lungs clear, and the tracheostomy is probably a permanent neccessity. The sad part is that it is difficult to talk with a tracheostomy, unless it has a special attachment that lets the air flow up and out the mouth in the usual fashion(called, of course, a talking trach). If it weren't for that device, we might never hear the Pope speak again. It may be time to start stocking up on wood for the Cardinal's convention.

Da'as Torah and the first person pronoun

2005-02-28T12:44:00.000-05:00

I have been reading some articles on Da'at Torah(cant type Da'as more than once a day). Obviously there are many interpretations of what exactly it means, when it applies, etc. However, I was looking the position that da'at Torah implies that the Gadol in question is endowed with something akin to ruach HaKodesh and is therefore better equiped to answer the questions of the day. I was struck that this ability is usually ascribed to others, and that few claim it for themselves. If I am wrong in this conclusion, please let me know(and provide sources if you can.) But if I am right, this means one of a few things: Those that have this ability are too humble to claim it for themselves, The ability is being claimed erroneously for them, or, it is a bit of the emperor's clothes phenomenon. No one really has it, no one wants to be the first to admit not having it, but no one wants to lie and say they have it.

Time for more sects?

2005-02-21T20:09:00.000-05:00

We have had "sects" in Judaism: Karaites, Sadduccees, Essenes, Dead Sea Sectarians and more. Even now we have divisions into Orthodox Conservative, Reform, etc. Orthodoxy in particular has tried to define itself in relation to the left, thus lack of adherence to the strict tenets of Halacha as defined generally by the Shulchan Aruch, and/or lack of believe in the commanding power of mitzvot/Torah seperates the Conservative from the Orthodox. Can there be a line to the right of the orthodox? Where those to the right are not considered by the orthodox to be the true carriers of the Mesorah? How would we view the Essenes if they were still among us? Would we accept everything they advocated? would we adopt their views, practices and philosophy?

Imagine a sect that denies the validity of opinions of a respected group of our sages. Imagine this sect also has claimed that each and every word of a particular book, not the Bible, is the sacrsanct word of G-d, unchanging and unchangable. What if this sect had codified its views vis a vis women and society in the 16th century, and this view continued to this day. Let us grant that this group insists that its way is the true and right way, and that those who deviate are heretics. Also, they study Shas and Poskim with an intensity that is admired, and held in awe. However, they seem to violate values of Judaism, insisting that risk to human life is not as important as obeying each and every dictum of a group of sages who lived 150 years ago.

Who carries the true mesorah? What is the true and authentic Judaism? Is there an area to the right of orthodoxy, where the beliefs and practices are not true to the Judaism that we(or I) believe in? A line similar the one that divides Orthodoxy from Conservative, a line that means that those on the other side are not considered sages and saints, but misguided individuals who have distorted our sacred Torah and Mesorah into something that it isn't and shouldn't be?

What do you know? Not the quiz show

2005-02-14T17:59:00.000-05:00

When I go to professional meetings or teach courses, people usually listen to what I say because I actually do know what I am talking about. And, I am confident in what I know. Not arrogant or overweening, and certainly respectful, but I have spent a lot of time and effort to be good at what I do. I would love to have the same confidence when talking about Torah stuff, but I don't. Unfortunately, I have not spent the equivalent amount of time and effort in Torah study, and therefore not only are there gaps in my knowledge, but unless I have researched something exhaustively, I am not as confident as I want to be in my pronouncements. I always have a worry that somewhere there is a rashi, or a tosfos, or some rishon known to all but me that blows my position out of the water. The answer, of course, is to study more, and I that I have been doing, but it is slow going, and my brain doesn't seem to accept more stuff the way it used to. Also, when one is on the MO side of things, as opposed to chareidi, or even the right wing of the MO, usually the first question in response is to question how much I know, not the rightness of my arguments. And I realize that this is what I do when confronted with some responsa from the conservative or reform, my reflex is.."Well, what do they know?" sometimes it is not so much, sometimes it is a whole lot more than I do. Obviously arguments need to be made on the merits of the arguments, not on the merits of the arguer. Sometimes it is hard to make that distinction.

Do you really fear God?

2005-02-12T22:09:00.000-05:00

R. Yehuda Henkin, in his comments on parshat Yitro(yes, I am behind in my reading), looks at the concept of fear of God. He asks why there had to be loud noises, lightning, and a whole production associated with the giving of the Torah? In answer, it says there that because of the noise etc, the nation feared haShem. He also looks at the midrash where haShem holds the mountain over the nation and threatens them. Wasn't it enough that they already had said "na'aseh v'nishma?" they has already accepted the Torah, why did He have to threaten them with burying them? The answer, according to R. Henkin, is that fear of God is a neccesary element of our religion. While loving God is a higher form of closeness, it can not be counted on as a consistant impetus for behavior. In Devarim we are also told, in response to the question, what does haShem want from you? - to fear haShem, and to love Him. It seems that fear is neccessary and love is optimal.(another interpretation is that you start with fear and wind up with love, following the order given in the text)

R. Henkin closes his essay by noting that those who say they love God, but do not fear Him, sometimes actually do not believe in Him.(by the way, as usual, his writing is much more eloquent than my paraphrasing)

It occured to me that I dont walk around all the time fearing God. I fulfill my commandments sometimes out of a sense of duty, sometimes out of what I think is genuine love of haShem, and happiness to serve Him, lots of time(unfortunately) out of rote. But rarely(except for around the three weeks or elul) do i think a lot of fearing God. I guess it is that when I daven, , thanking Him for what I have, asking Him for things, the feeling I have is not knee-trembling fear. Even on Yom Kippur I mostly feel insignificant, or fearful for the future of loved ones or(on a lesser scale) for my future. As I write this, I realize that because I have a deep belief that haShem is all-Merciful, and truly cares about His creatures, it is hard for me to truly fear Him, and my greatest fear is that I have let Him down. I think that is the fear I should carry with me at all times.

I cant understand why everyone cant see that I am right

2005-02-11T15:31:00.000-05:00

I have been having protracted discussions/arguements with a number of people via email and comment sections on a variety of topics. Some of the arguements are mind-numbing. There is an endless back and forth and they still dont understand why they are so very wrong. I have been blessed(or cursed, depending ) in that I usually understand the opposing point of view and where they are coming from, even though I vehemently disagree. Unfortunately, that ability doesn't seem to be universal. I read Toby Katz on Cross currents discussing da'at Torah, and started a comment to show how and why she is mistaken, but I just didnt have the energy. And, it wouldn't have made a difference. So I am cutting back on the arguements. Not giving in, just walking away, taking R. Jeffrey Woolf's advice(excellent blog, btw, My Obiter Dicta). But just so that I have the last word, at least on my blog, let me say:

1. The risk of transmitting Herpes to babies outweighs any halachic arguement in favor of metziza bepeh

2. science is an avenue to truth, and there is truth in science

3. Da'at Torah in the way it is usually understood is a modern concept, not one that goes way way back.

I wish thatI was a drinker and a member of a kiddush club, because then I would feel that I was supporting the OU when I dont go to kiddush club this Shabbat.

Shabbat Shalom to everyone

classical music- get it in before sefirah

2005-02-08T13:24:00.000-05:00

I went back to listening to music in my car. For a while there I was using the time for thinking about stuff, but that got old. I borrowed a bunch of cd's from the library(I actually own them and have them at home somewhere, but this was far more convenient.) I have been listening to the classics: Mendelsohn's violin concerto, the sweetest most beautiful piece of music I have ever heard, Mozart's piano concerto #21, especially the middle slow movement, just flows beautifully, in and out of major and minor, Rachmaninoff's piano concerto #2, in my humble opinion the most masterful piece of music ever, each movement packed with memorable melody along with piano pyrotechnics. I am always amazed not only at the ability of composers, but the awesome talent and dexterity needed to play them, and make them sound so good. If you haven't heard these, check them out, and there is so much more awesome music out there. If you know them well, but haven't heard them in a while, go back and reacquaint yourself with some old friends. You will be glad you did. Coming up: Grieg piano concerto, Tchaikovsky violin concerto, and some Prokofiev(not sure which number piano concerto is the really good one, have to check). By the way, to my way of thinking, classical music ended around the 1930-40's. most everything afterwards does not make harmonic or melodic sense to me. I know that some of it isn't supposed to, but that doesn't make me appreciate it more.

Articles in medical journals regarding herpes and circumcision

2005-02-08T08:58:00.000-05:00

I have posted these in comments elsewhere, but here are the articles I could find with a quick search that address the risk of Herpes transmission with meetziza b'peh.

article online: pediatrics

abstracts available on line: here

and here

Science in the Gemara and Brit Mila

2005-02-07T13:49:00.000-05:00

My wife saw it on the CNN ticker, and lots of people have been talking about the mohel in New York who was ordered to stop doing metziza bepeh(sucking blood with the mouth after completion of a circumcision) but did not. There is a question if he transmitted herpes to babies. R. Gil as usual has good sources at Hirhurim. Besides discussing the purely Halachic issues, this is a great example of what I think is wrong with segments of the Jewish spectrum.

To begin, the Gemara is pretty clear(Shabbat 133) that metziza is of medical benefit. Therefore, since it is clear nowadays that metziza has no known medical value(and some risk), it should be easy to say that nowadays we dont have to do it, and in fact, it is assur, because of the additional risk. I looked at Otzar Habris, a book by R. Yosef Dovid Reisberg(with haskama's from R. Feinstein and R.Elyashiv, among others, I refrain from making additional comments on haskama), where he states that metziza should be done by mouth, but it is ok to use a pipette if there is risk. He also has a chapter on metziza in the index, where it is clear that when the risk of metziza was raised(1800's) many poskim said it should not be done, or done with modifications. Only after the reform agreed that it should not be done, did poskim go back and say it should be done. In fact, the Maharam Shick, in his teshuva, says metziza should be done, that there is no risk, and the doctors who say there is risk are lying. It is quite clear that the motive behind his pesak is against the reform. Those who refuse to take the historical and sociological surroundings into account when looking at a pesak obviously miss this fact. Those who cite the Zohar as added evidence for metziza should keep in mind that at most it is a da'at yachid against the rest of the gemara.

So, if you are a thinking Jew, who accepts the validity of science, who is not wedded to the notion that every single bit of science in the Gemara is halacha l'Moshe m'sinai, and is willing to look at the context of pesak, there is no way in the world that you would advocate metziza b'peh in this day and age, knowing what you do.

It is interesting to note that a number of gedolim of the mid 1800's said that metziza bepeh is not neccesary given the risk. This would mean that THEY accepted the science that was being told to them.

Another interesting issue is that of neonatal jaundice. (the halachic specifics were related to me by a friend who is a mohel and a pediatrician, I have not seen the teshuvot myself). The liver produces factors that help the blood clot, and if the liver is not working well, not only will the blood not clot, but chemicals(bilirubin) circulate in the blood that make you look yellow, or jaundiced. This connection between looking yellow and poor clotting was noticed, and blood tests were found to measure the blood level of bilirubin. Early on, poskim accepted certain levels of bilirubin as signs of poor clotting, and brises were postponed until the levels went down. More recently, better testing and specific clotting tests are available, and so those original levels actually are too stringent, and it is safe to do a bris when the bilirubin levels are elevated somewhat. However, some poskim still hold by those originally set levels, because they dont want to go against the poskim of the previous generation. So, you have a situation where earlier poskim listened to science, and now that the science is better, the present poskim wont listen to the new information. You also wind up with people who insist on exposing the baby to the risk of metziza bepeh, but also insist on unnecessarily postponing a bris because of a bilirubin level that we now know is ok, but 75 years ago was felt to be dangerous.

Daas Torah???? how about Daas Rofeh?

2005-02-04T08:50:00.000-05:00

Marvin Shick over at Cross Currents and others have been discussion Da'as Torah a bit. I hold by what I blogged here. R. Gil recently discussed if one needs to respect crazy parents. I started to wonder if there is a point where those that believe in the strict definition of da'as Torah have a point where they dont have to listen? what happens if the gadol is demented? how would you know? What if, chas v'shalom, at the meeting of the council of Torah Sages all the rabbonim eat a cow that has bovine spongiform encephalopathy and all of them develop dementia(the initials for Jakob-Creutzfeld disease, ironically is JC)? Are there criteria for demoting a gadol? How do you know if/when they are making mistakes?
R. Dessler and others, in response to the question about why the Gedolim of the past generation did not tell their flock to get out of Europe before the holocaust, have said that sometimes Hashem clouds the vision of the gedolim, so that their "mistakes" are actually the will of God. The other time I have seen that concept is in a discussion of the problem of involuntary manslaughter in our time. The question is if the perpetrator has to go into exile. For most of you, this is a theoretical point, as not many are liable to kill someone by accident. However, some of us see death on a regular basis. If a patient dies because of a doctor's mistake, does the doctor have to put himself in exile? Obviously, doctors of a skill level of the psychotodler would never have this problem, but others are not so lucky(no, I dont think any of my patients have died because of a mistake on my part, in case you are wondering). The Tashbetz's view on this is "shegigat ha rofeh, ratzon haBoreh." the mistake of the doctor is actually the will of Hashem. I certainly hope I am fulfilling the will of Hashem even when I am not making mistakes (I wonder if there is a kal vachomer in there somewhere).

My ratzon is for everyone one to have a Shabbat Shalom, a Gut Shabbas, and may the superbowl outcome be a quantum mechanics marvel, where victory for both sides exists simultaneously, only to be brought to reality by observation(if you really feel the need to look it up, see here).

Good Bye Mr. Bond

2005-02-03T14:36:00.000-05:00

I think that I am done blogging about Rabbi Mordecai Plaut, editor of Yated in English. I spent a lot of time, effort, thought, and blog space on his articles, which, by the way, he suggested we read. I found that they were well written, superficially coherent, but on close analysis, full of unfounded assumptions and poor logic. Despite many invitations he has not pointed out any specific disagreements he has with any of my critiques. He also has never specifically explained his view on the age of the universe.

I have had a bit of an email exchange with R. Plaut, and he strikes me as a nice person, although I would have prefered to demonize him for publishing what he did regarding R. Slifkin.

Since he is a fellow Jew, and seems to be a decent fellow, I wish him bracha. I wish him some hatzlacha, but not total hatzlacha, because hatzlacha for him would mean eliminating Yiddishkeit the way I believe and practice it. Usually we have a live and let live attitude towards others in our religion. Although we believe "kol Yisrael areivim ze la'ze", in reality, if someone doesn't want to change, we dont force them, or try to. We leave our reform, reconstructionist, and conservative brethren alone, not trying hard to change them, unless they show(on a personal level) an interest in changing. Since I hold similar views as R. Slifkin, in R. Plaut's eyes(if he believes in what he publishes), I am a kofer. In fact, it seems to me that denying the Mesorah that allows one to believe these things would make the banners kofrim, but that is another debate. The bottom line is that although R. Plaut and I both identify as orthodox Jews, learn the same Talmud, put on the same tefillin(mine is only Rashi, I dont know his minhag), daven reasonably the same thing three times a day, keep reasonably the same laws of Kashrut(I dont hold Cholov Yisrael, unless it is more tasty than the alternative), we are incompatible in our religious outlook. And, with so few orthodox Jews in the world, it is a very sad realization.

I respond to Rabbi Plaut

2005-01-31T14:07:00.000-05:00

As seen below, Rabbi Plaut responded to my reviews of his articles. He notes that I wrote that I didn't understand his need for differentiation between what is easily observable and what is not. To clarify, I wrote that R. Plaut says that

Science at present does not seek to describe reality as readily observed, it seeks to describe events that can be seen only with instruments and other technology. "Since science is practiced at such a remove from everyday experience, it is clear that understanding our familiar world cannot provide a credible motive for the practice of science as it is now done."

My objection was not only differentiating between the easily observable and the not easily observable, but making the leap that understanding the not easily observable was not a credible motive for the practice of science. I have certainly read positions of those in the philosophy of science that question the validity of observation, but no where have I seen anyone take the position that the difference between easily observable and not easily observable is a basis for invalidating a motive for the practice of science. Since R. Plaut claims that this is quite common, I will be happy to see his citations on this specific point.. Despite his view that this is common in textbooks, I reviewed my books and happened to be at the library(501 in the Dewey system) and could not find a reference to this.

Otherwise, R. Plaut does not give any other specific refutations of my comments, so I cannot address any more of his concerns. I would be gratified if he could address more of them. I noted other problems with logic and unsupported assumptions in his papers. I especially hope he addresses the ambiguity of his position on the age of the world. He notes again that

The world is 5,765 years old and counting,

but has not cleared up if he believes that he is counting from the begining of creation, or the begining of man. Also, there is ambiguity in his position if all the years, days and hours are the same as we understand them to be today, or if his 6765 years allows the first days to be defined as something other than days as we know them.

I look foward to his responses.

R. Plaut responds to my critiques and the comments

2005-01-30T09:27:00.000-05:00

Rabbi Plaut sent me this response to my critiques and your comments:

Right near the beginning of his comments, Dilbert writes: "I don't
understand why there needs to be a difference between what is easily
observable and what is not easily observable." He has correctly
identified
this as one of the critical points of the essay, but confesses that he
does
not understand it. I, for one, would have been happy to take him at his
word. However Dilbert seems to think it important to prove that he is
honest, for he continues on with several hundred more words of comments
that make it absolutely clear that the first comment is correct.

The distinction is not one that I made up and it is not obscure. Any
undergraduate text on philosophy of science should have several essays
explaining it. It is not controversial.

While the misunderstandings in the comments to the second essay are not
as
egregious, I would nonetheless suggest that interested readers not rely
on
the comments. but read the essays for themselves.

How to Succeed in Knowing Without Really Seeing is at
http://www.geocities.com/mplaut2/htsikwrs.html

The Scientist as Poet; the Baal Mesorah as Scientist is at
http://www.geocities.com/mplaut2/tsap1.html

and a third essay that was referenced is

And How is the Way to Love of Him? which is at
http://www.geocities.com/mplaut2/ahistwtloh.html

To answer some of the comments and questions that have cropped up:

I do not condemn, ignore and certainly do not regret any science that
leads
to concrete, practical results and the knowledge that underlies the
same. I
make a distinction between the parts of science that are involved with
this
(called technology) and parts that are not, which are pure scientific
"knowledge." Some entire fields are part of the the latter such as
cosmology, and in other cases the same field can include both, such as
evolutionary biology. In ancient times, the first type of field was
called
an "art" and only the second was called "science." The usage today is
not
the same, but it must be borne in mind. My critical remarks are only
directed at the second area, in which science presumes to deal in
knowledge
and not just problem solving. I am happy with technology, in general.

On a related topic, even in the medieval era, science was full of the
study
of the purpose of the world and, as all the science text books say
derisively, it did very little experimentation. It was quite different
from
what is called science today. Here is a quote from Peter Gay: Medieval
science, then, like medieval philosophy, took its place, prominent but
secondary, in the hierarchy of human activities: it was, like
philosophy,
guided by man's search for holiness and salvation. . . . Medieval
science
was thus double teleological: its purpose was knowledge for the sake of
G-d; and its discoveries were discoveries of purposes -- G-d's
intentions
for His creation. ("The Enlightenment," p. 248)

Gay is not chareidi and he does not like this (so you do not have to be
suspicious of him), but he describes it. I have a whole series of
quotes
from him, but I do not think this is the place to post them all.

In my opinion, anyone who realizes and appreciates this difference will
see
that applying the statements that were made about science by the
rishonim
to what is studied today is problematic, and in some important cases it
is
downright wrong.

It is one of the proudest achievements of modern science that it has
banished all discussion of purpose, even from biology where the last
vestiges existed only 40 years ago and it is the first to distinguish
itself from the science of earlier eras.

At first the distinction seems to apply only to the atmosphere and
environment in which science was conducted in those days, and it is
tempting to think that it is just similar to the different ways in
which a
modern believing scientist and an atheistic scientist approach their
work.
But this is superficial and wrong since the differences go very deep
and
embrace the very subjects studied and how they are/were evaluated.

I do not think that the observation that modern science can help only
in
emunah and not in ahavah as the Rambam says about his science, should
really be that controversial once all the ideas are sorted out
properly,
though it is very surprising and it is surprising that it was never
noted
before.

The world is 5,765 years old and counting.

I am not a one issue blog, really, I am not

2005-01-28T16:40:00.000-05:00

Looking back at the past few weeks, I find that most of my posts have been related to R. Slifkin or R. Plaut. the main reason is that I have been quite interested in the issue, and that I haven't had much time to blog about anything else. That is about to end. I plan to have a final thought posted early next week, and unless I get any other info, that will be the end of that.

In other news, long time readers may remember a concern about a pizza place with very nice people, good food, but no organization. When I stopped by there this week during lunch time, they were closed. I knew it would happen.

I wish everyone a Shabbat Shalom, Gut Shabbos, or however they wish their Sabbatical felicitations. I am going to a lecture on Halacha and cloning sometime motzei Shabbat, and may have some new insights. Or not. Maybe I will figure out what I think about the topic.

How to succeed in identifying unsupported assumptions and faulty logic

2005-01-24T18:23:00.000-05:00

I have read R. Mordecai Plaut's "How to Succeed in Knowing without Really Seeing." The essence of the arguement is this: If you can prove that a certain body of knowledge, call it 'b', is true, and then prove that subsequently a series of parties know with 100% certainty that the proceeding party knew that knowledge 'b' was true, then there is certainty down the line that knowledge 'b' is true. This has an obvious connection with Mesorah, where, if you accept that what was given to Moshe is true, and you are certain that each teacher down the line of Mesorah knew with 100% certainty that what his teacher knew was true, then, we here today, can know, with 100% certainty that our Mesorah is true. This is what R. Plaut terms mathematical induction, and the basis of his claim that Mesorah can be proven mathematically to be more true than science.

As I have found with the other articles written by Rabbi Plaut, this conclusion is based on a number of unstated(and possibly false) assumptions, and faulty logic.

The first question is, what is Mesorah? What does Mesorah include? What does it exclude? Is the body of knowledge at the begining of the chain the same body of knowledge at the end of the chain? has it changed? (you could also add the question: who gets to decide what is Mesorah and what isn't?)

Obviously, Hashem gave the Torah to Moshe at Sinai. We believe it was the written and oral Torah. Did it include Neviim and Ketuvim? Are Neviim and Ketuvim part of the Mesorah? It appears that what was given at Sinai may not be the entire Mesorah. Was the Gemara in its entirety given at Sinai? what about the Shulchan Aruch? Shulchan Aruch Harav? Moreh Nevuchim? Mishneh Torah? what exactly are we claiming as being given at Sinai at the source of this chain? Unless one is going to claim that all of the above were given to Moshe, in addition to numerous books that have yet to be written, we have to come to the conclusion that the Mesorah we have now is not exactly what was given to Moshe.

Next: has the Mesorah been transmitted with total accuracy? 100%? The proof of this from R. Plaut is a quote from Chagigah "If a Rav is like an angel of the God of hosts, one should seek teaching from him...."
One Shouldseek teaching from such a teacher. It doesn't say that one must. It also doesn't say that neccessarily all teachers are going to be like angels, or that a teacher fitting the criteria is always going to be available. Therefore, there is no proof that the Mesorah has been transmitted with 100% realiability. Incidentally, assuming a piece of the Mesorah(in this case Chagigah) is true, and relying on this piece of Mesorah to prove that Mesorah is true, is a no-no in logical reasoning.

On a practical level, If we did have 100% reliability, how do we explain kri/kitiv? or the puncta extraordinaire(dots on top of certain words in the Torah)? or the fact that Sephardi sifrei Torah have a different letter than Ashkenaz(somewhere in Devarim there is a difference- one has a heh, one has an aleph)? Is a claim being made that Hashem told Moshe that many years from now He wants certain Jews to eat beans on Pesach, and some not to?

One other problem, which R. Plaut glosses over. Just because I know with certainty that you know a certain truth, doesn't mean that you have passed that truth on to me, or that I know that truth. R. Plaut says "If b know (a piece of knowledge) p, then p must be true. If (person) a knows that (person) b really knows p, then (person) a should reason that p is true, and hence should know p himself..." That is a big jump, from knowing that someone knows the truth to knowing that particular truth himself, and there does not appear to be a logical justification for it. Let us assume, for example, that I know with 100% certainty that R. Gil knows the truth about when Mashiach is coming. That doesn't mean that I know when Mashiach is coming, just that I am certain that what R. Gil knows about the topic is true.

If you can have 100% certainty of transmission, R. Plaut's equation in theory allows you to prove that we have certainty that what was given to Moshe by Hashem is true. It doesn't say anything about what we know today. It again, is only a theory, marred by human reality. It doesn't address what Mesorah is, what was added, if anything, and what has been lost.

I have not addressed R. Plaut's comments on science, and the lack or reliability of science. I would only say that science is proven by the realiability of the explainations and the predictions that it makes. And, out of all other modes of knowledge, only science can make that claim. Therefore, anyone can theorize that we are like the matrix, only a computer program, and that reality doesn't exist, or that reality isn't anything like what we percieve it to be, but those are unprovable theories. And in the absence of any other evidence, science has the best proof. As is said about democracy, it is the worst form of governement, except every other form.

In summary, R. Plaut has not succeeded in proving that everything in Mesorah is in a direct line from Sinai. He has not even proven that we have certainty of truth in Mesorah. I for one, would rather rely on belief in Hakadosh Baruch Hu, and the Mesorah, rather than trying to scientifically prove Him into existance. Additionally, it is quite clear even from the Mesorah that the majority of our Mesorah(Neviim and Ketuvim were transmitted via Nevua, but written by humans, Mishna on down was written by humans) was written by human beings and human beings, saintly though they may be, are human beings by definition, with all the frailties associated with that definition. It doesn't mean that mistakes or errors in transmission had to made, but it certainly doesn't rule out the possibility.

Out or order entries

2005-01-24T17:11:00.000-05:00

There are a number of entries(go back about 3 or 4) that are new, but because they languished in draft status, did not get published at the top of the blog. For those that are interested, please read down 3 or four entries. Sorry

The age of the universe-how did we get that number?

2005-01-23T18:27:00.000-05:00

This information is straight from the Encyclopedia Judaica(see articles entitled Chronology, and Seder Olam). Even the idea for looking for this info wasn't mine, but a suggestion from a friend.

In the Biblical period, years were counted according to the regnal years of the Israelite and Judahite kings. There was never a fixed era.... In the Hellenistic period, the Seleucid reckoning came into use. The victory of Seleucus.. in 312 BCE was the mark of a new era. The Seleucid era was in vogue among the Jews until the Middle Ages.

The era at present in use.. is the minyan la-yetzira(Anno Mundi). This era came into popular use about the ninth century c.e. In various rabbinical computations the "Era of the Creation" began in the autumn of one of the years between 3762 and 3758 B.C.E. From the 12th century C.E. in became accepted that the Era began in 3761 B.C.E.(Oct. 7th). This computation is founded on synchronisms of chornological elements expressed in the Bible and calculations found in early post-biblical literature.

The earliest Jewish chronological works have not survived. Demetrius deduced historical dates (third century C.E.). In the Book of Jubilees, events are dated by cycles of jubilee and sabbatical years. The earliest and most important work extant is the Seder Olam, which, according to tradition, was complied by Yose b. Halafta in the second century C.E. THe author was possibly the first to use the rabbinic "Era of the Creation. "

Seder Olam is mentioned in the Talmud. The most significant confusion in the author's calculation is the compression of the Persian period, to no more than 34 years. According to the calculations in the book, the destruction of the Temple took place in the year 68, which is in contradiction to the accepted chronology that it took place in the year 70 C.E.

It was a long time until the reckoning according to the anno mundi era took root in Jewish chronology. For many centuries, Seder Olam Rabbah was of interest only to talmucdic students who tried to satisfy their curiosity for historical reconstruction. The usual calculation accepted by Jews in Talmudic and even post talmudic times wa that of the Seleucid era, referred to as minyan shetarot.

The first mention of the anno mundi date is in the chronological book Baraita di-Shemuel(8-9 century), on tombstones in southern Italy(9th century), and in the commentary of Shabbetai Donnolo(10th century) on Sefer Yezirah. From the 11th century on, it became dominant in most of the communities. In the 16th Century, Azariah de Rossi, was the first to doubt the antiquity of the usage of this era (Me'or Einayim, ch. 25).

So, what exactly are we arguing about? Seems like the exact number may not be as fixed as we believe. It would be nice to chase down those 8-9th century references and see exactly what they say.

Rabbi Plaut responds

2005-01-23T18:25:00.000-05:00

I recieved this email from R. Plaut

For better or - mostly - for worse, people commented on my one-sentence
summaries of the much longer papers I referenced. I would just say that
if you are about to do something like that, you should at least not ignore
any of the words in the sentence. If I am trying to summarize (and a bit
provocatively at that) a 3,000 essay in one sentence, each word counts.

I wrote: "philosophically, a tradition (mesorah) is a much more
powerful and better path to knowledge than sensory observation based on
induction." The comments ignored the last three words. Simple sensory observation
only yields very simple facts that are important in day-to-day life but are
of little universal value and not what most people call real knowledge of
the world. A white pages telephone book is packed with tons of truths, but
so what?

I did not challenge direct sensory observation at all. Rather the
reference is to the consequences of modern scientific observation which, as
philosophers of science have pointed out at great length and in great
detail, rest on induction and elaborate theories including assumptions
(and presumptions) of how the world is and of how instruments work and what
they show.

This does not mean that the instruments are unreliable but it does mean
that anyone's understanding of what they show is subject to change.

Direct sensory observation does not challenge the Chumash. The
challenge comes from elaborate theories built on direct sensory observation but
that nonetheless require large inductive leaps of faith, as Hume pointed out
in the 18th century and as philosophers pointed out in most of the 20th
century.

Modern science thus rests very heavily on what may broadly be called
interpretation of the data that it generates in such tremendous
quantities. I did not make this up. This is standard philosophy of science.

There is a conflict between science and Torah about the age of the
universe. This conflict is logically resolvable, and then, logically
speaking, it does not matter whether you force Torah to bend or science to
bend in settling on a way to think of things. However it does matter
very much philosophically and religiously which side is forced to make way
for the other.

There is a concept in Pirkei Ovos of making one's Torah "keva."Rabbonim
explain that this means that one's daily Torah learning should be the
fixed point in his life. Everything else is ara'i. Just the Torah is keva.
Even if much more time is spent on everything else, the Torah time must be
qualitatively the main part of one's life. Logically you can wiggle
around either to make them not conflict. But religiously and really you should
do all the wiggling to science. I have argued that science deserves it on
its own merits, and not just on the a priori religious obligation.

On a separate but related issue that was raised, in my opinion, you
cannot apply statements made by rishonim about science to the science of our
day. The physical world and its knowledge was a very different thing in
those days and what the rishonim said about science in their days does not
apply to science of our day. This is clear from the rishonim, and, lehavdil,
from what modern historians have written. I have an essay about this on my
personal website (http://www.geocities.com/mplaut2/ahistwtloh.html) but
have seen very little interest in the issue so I have not posted
anything further.

To summarize that essay, the Rambam says that we acquire Ahavas Hashem
from contemplating the universe. I argue that modern science has nothing do
to with ahavas Hashem. The only thing that can possibly be gained from
modern science is emunah and not ahavas Hashem. Emunah and Ahavah are quite
different and it may not seem easy to confuse them. However when I once
wrote about that modern science cannot (not does not, cannot) bring to
ahavas Hashem, a very respected authority wrote back indignantly, and
argued fervently that modern science brings to Emunah. Unfortunately,
few people think about the distinction between Emunah and Ahavah even
though it is obvious when attention is focussed on it.

In any case, the rishonim were talking about the scientific knowledge of
their day, which assumed emunah as an unshakable premise. They saw the
world as full of purpose. Modern science has banished purpose from its
discourse and is very proud of that. This is a policy decision and not
something that the data forced upon it in any way. Hence, theoretically
modern science may lead to emunah but cannot lead to ahavah. In practice
modern science paints a cold world of hard facts that are not conducive
to emunah.

A person should not have his thinking planted in the scientific world
of today. If he deals in science he must make it ara'i and make Torah
keva.

I(Dilbert) will have more to say later.

Science and why Stevie Wonder is god

2005-01-22T21:08:00.000-05:00

I read R. Mordecai Plaut's "The Scientist as Poet; the Baal Mesorah as Scientist." It is well written, compelling, and, well, not only inaccurate, but logically flawed. Before I get into details, I readily admit that I have not heard of, nor read, of the experts he quotes, whom, he admits, have been in relative obscurity. I have to say that, based on the quotes provided, it is well deserved. My background in science has been mostly doing it, not studying the philosophy behind it.

R. Plaut's argument can be summarized as follows:

1. Science at present does not seek to describe reality as readily observed, it seeks to describe events that can be seen only with instruments and other technology. "Since science is practiced at such a remove from everyday experience, it is clear that understanding our familiar world cannot provide a credible motive for the practice of science as it is now done."

comment: The goal(motive) of science is to explain the world. I don't understand why there needs to be a difference between what is easily observable and what is not easily observable. The motive for science is to explain all observations, readily observable or not. The fact that technology is neccesary to collect observations does not negate them. Understanding our world is a credible motive for the practice of science as it is now done. Here R. Plaut appears to say that explaining subatomic particles, the inner workings of cells, research on a molecular and cellular level, to say nothing of astrophysics, are not a credible motive for the practice of science, since all are done "at a remove from everyday experience."

2. R. Plaut then goes on to say that science must have some other function.

comment: The comment on number one shows that science does not need to have any other motives, so the arguement has already failed. The function of science is to organize and explain the function of the world. However, since R. Plaut has his own definition of what are the motives for science, he can procede with this erroneous assumption.

3. And that function is to ".. achieve .. a psychologically satisfying world view." Furthermore, "this subjective motive has a decidedly unscientific character to it...the motive behind it all is reminiscent of what drives poets and creative writers."

comment: Actually, it is the function of philosphy and sometimes religion to give man a psychologically satisfying world view. Science is concerned with how the world works, bit by bit, part by part. Science is based on data, and proving hypotheses. Here it seems that R. Plaut is trying to redefine science to fit his purposes yet again, transforming science from the rational to the irrational, from data based to figments of the imagination.

4. Next, R. Plaut states that "the material which remains of the efforts of other cultures to answer this need we call myths..(which is).. the attempt to deal with the larger questions that confront.. the authors." Furthermore, he says that modern science and "earlier mythologies" are not directly related to truth, and "there is no reason to think that modern scientific answers are true.

comment: Science, as noted previously, is data based. A proof is accepted in the scientific world if it: explains the known data in a rational fashion, accounts for any lacunae in the data, and predicts correctly other verifiable data. Therefore, there actually is good reason to think that modern scientific answers are true, when they adhere to these concepts. Modern science is directly related to the truth. since science is always ready to accept new evidence and new theories, as more data is added to the knowledge base, the closer one comes to the truth. Here, R. Plaut appears to deny any validity to scientific conclusions, saying that they are "not directly related to the truth."

5. Finally, he says "Science aims..at literary creation. It tries to produce a mythology for modern man." In essence, since science attempts to explain experience, and is not true, and myth attempts to explain experience, and is not true, then science is myth.

comment: lets start with some definitions(taken from the webster online dictionary)

science- : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b : something that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws

myth;
a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon .

So, the difference is that myth is a story that explains a practice or belief, or natural phenomenon. Science is the system of knowledge covering general truths obtained and tested through scientific method. I guess if you dont want to accept scientific method, or that the world works in an orderly fashion, you might start to believe that science is a myth. However, the logic is still flawed. Just because science and myth share the same characteristic(trying to explain the world) doesn't mean that they are the same. By the same logic, you could say that

Stevie Wonder is blind
love is blind
god is love
Stevie Wonder is god.
QED

Time must be relative, or, a rose by any other name

2005-01-21T08:18:00.000-05:00

R. Mordecai Plaut, in his comments on this site states " I discuss the age of the universe in the article he(that would be me) references, but my conclusion is that the Torah age is fine."

Well, maybe. It depends on what is meant that "the Torah age is fine." If what is meant is that the Torah age means exactly 5763(using the year R. Plaut uses in his article) years have elapsed since the begining of creation, with years being defined in the usual 365 day fashion(and day being defined as 24 hours as we know it now), then R. Plaut has not proven his point. If 5763 years is defined from some other starting point, or the term years is allowed to have meanings different than 365 days as we know them now, then R. Plaut has substantiated his conclusion. However, that conclusion is not the definitive statement "5763 years have elapsed since the begining of creation as we reckon years."

R. Plaut starts by discussing measurement, and correctly stating that measurement requires a standard, and a point of reference. He then comes to three explainations for the difference between the Torah age, and the scientific age:

1. the word yom, especially in the first days, does not a day as in specifically 24 hours.

2. the age of the world is calculated from the creation of Adam, not from the very begining of creation

3. yom can have a qualitative, not just quantitative aspect, and before the presence of man, "a much larger amount of change is necessary for it to be spoken of as a qualitative equal to a human day."

So, R. Plaut comes to the conclusion that 5763(at the time the article was written) "is fine."

However, if you look at caveats 1-3, that 5763 comes with an asterisk. When you look at the bottom to see what the asterisk means, it means either(following the list above)

1. the first few days may have been more than days, in fact "we may grant that the events described in the Torah account of creation took many(perhaps billions of ) days." So, if you add those perhaps billions of days to 5763 years, you get, billions of years.

2. 5763 only counts from day 6, and who know how much time elapsed from the very begining of creation until day 6. Therefore, the real number of years from the very begining of creation is 5763 plus an unknown, but real number, therefore 5763 is not the correct number.

3. Similar to the previous arguements, an arguement that time has a qualitative, not just quantitative aspect, does not annul a quantitative measurement of time, and again, converting the qualitative to quantitative appears to result in a number greater than 5763.

In summary, by R. Plaut's own data and reasoning, the Torah age, 5763, only works when enough caveats are arranged around it. And, so many are there as to make the number meaningless as a definitive quantification of an amount of time on its own. Maybe I should have stuck with 'gasp'.

Time does not allow me to comment on the two articles R. Plaut referenced in the comments section, but B'N I will have something posted by Monday

Conversation and respect

2005-01-20T18:37:00.000-05:00

I wanted to let all the commentors know that the comment on the previous post from R. Mordechai Plaut is indeed authentic. I ask that he be treated with respect(not like what happened to others who have brought their views here). I for one have printed out the articles he referenced and am going to try to read them this evening. As before, disagreement is ok, disrespect is not. Thank you

my limited media watch

2005-01-18T18:01:00.000-05:00

The Science of Torah is available here. Go to R. Gil's house to buy the rest. Ben Chorin has an excellent spoof(in Hebrew) here. Aside from the one Cross Currents entry and Hirhurim, silence reigns. As noted by others, R. Mordecai Plaut, who appears to also be the editor of Deah v'Dibbur, has an article on, gasp, the age of the universe here.

Erratum

2005-01-18T08:23:00.000-05:00

I apologize to anonymous for the length of time it took to put this out. References to dress in the time of the Gemarah can be found in part here, and I will find the rest for you. Epstein's book did not go into that area. This is what I get for posting from memory, without the books in front of my. I am sorry if I misled anyone regarding the accuracy of the data. I still hold by it, and will get the rest of the references as soon as I can remember where it was.

I have a dream

2005-01-17T14:03:00.000-05:00

I thought of what might happen if those who were distressed by the kefira issue decided to get together and issue a joint statement. If the leaders and faculty of Yeshivot got together and say something. Starting on the left(take your pick where you want to start, this is where I would)) you would have the UTJ, Chovevei Torah, YU/REITS, (I dont know what the heirarchy is, I am kinda making this up, just for example), Skokie Yeshiva, Ner Yisrael, Chayim Berlin, Chofetz Chayim.....On and on towards the right wing. Somewhere along the line, someone would look at the rest and say..." I am not going in on a joint statement with THEM"

The saddest quote I saw today was in the Hirhurim comments, from Ari Adlerstein(I assume it was from him, obviously anyone can post with anyone's name) son of R. Adlerstein who posted a defense of R. Slifkin in Cross Currents. He berated those(including me) who were attacking his father, seeing as R. Adlerstein is the only Rav(aside from R. Gil) who has come out in support of R. Slifkin. He says

Unfortunately there are people who will see to it that for one simply expressing his opinion his children could be excluded from certain yeshivas or prevented from making some shidduchim.

Ari is right. I applaud his father for saying what he did. It is appalling that Ari Adlerstein or his father could suffer consequences for it. As I posted before, a lot has to go into deciding when is the time to get off the fence, and when making a statement is worth the consequences. If more people stood up and said something, maybe the majority will be with the those that disagree, and the social pressure will be on those that support the bans. While I applaud R. Adlerstein for his courage, and sympathize with Ari because of the possible fallout, I still hold by this. I certainly do not fault him for not saying more, but there is more that could have been said. I am glad I am not in his shoes.

I have a dream........ maybe when Mashiach comes it will work out.

Science and Torah

2005-01-17T13:35:00.000-05:00

In my row in shul there used to be a dentist, pediatrician, anesthesiologist, nuclear physicist, cosmologist, surgeon, psychologist, and chemist, not to mention the banker, butcher, and candlestickmaker, but no rocket scientist(cosmologist was close.) We had similar views on the interaction of science and Torah. Ultimately, the Torah contains all knowledge, but to understand the world, we need science. (I forgot where I got this, but in a discussion on Da'at Torah, it was mentioned that we believe thath the Torah contains all knowledge, but until you find someone who can find particulars on pipes and water flows in the Torah, when you have a plumbing problem, you need a plumber, not a Talmid Chacham.) Science was science, Torah was Torah. Science was the study of the laws of nature(happens that Hashem set them up), and if you wanted to see the hand of Hashem in nature- fine, if not, fine also. Being frum and being a scientist was not a contradiction, nor a dichotomy. We believe that Hashem runs the world of course, but in the general scheme of things, He has laws of nature and a world for us to discover, use, and master. Therefore, I would be hard pressed to think of a discovery in science that could shake my faith in Hashem, because my faith in Hashem is not based on any connection to science. Also, not having a doctrine of Chazal infallability,there is no threat from proving Chazal wrong about some scientific/natural world fact.

Inquiries into the nexxus of science and Torah fall into three catagories: The first is simply descriptive, finding out what exactly the Torah and Chazal meant, delving into what they said as can be understood from the viewpoint of modern scientific knowledge. The second, is trying to jive the findings of science with what the Torah and Chazal said. This is important to those whose belief depends on Judaic teachings being compatable with scientific findings. People in this catagory are in danger of losing their faith if science is found to contradict Torah. This approach is useful as one way to counteract those who try to prove that frum Judaism is incompatable with science knowledge. The third catagory is, l'havdil , parlor magic Judaism, trying to induce faith by showing how Torah/Chazal predicted scientific findings, and other discoveries. Successfully done, this demonstrates the supernatural quality of Judaism, predicting the future or nature unkown at the time. I am not opposed to any of these types of inquiries, but inconsistancies found in types 2 and 3 can shake the faith of those who depend on them.

Left handed support

2005-01-16T09:15:00.000-05:00

I dont personally know any of the bloggers at Cross Currents. I dont know what positions they hold in the community. Please excuse my ignorance. Actually, I have read Marvin Shick and know a little of what he does from his columns in the Jewish week. I have to agree with Shmarya(who appears to have posted comments everywhere I visited) that R. Adlerstein's post is a very carefully worded response regarding R. Slifkin. I do give him credit for posting, and initially saying "unqualified support" for R. Slifkin. But, by usings words as "thrust" and bringing in the 'kiruv' aspect, It does not appear that he is giving unqualified support for R. Slifkin. If you support the thrust of the book, you can still disagree with details. Obviously, by reiterating his support of the 'thrust' of the books, he is going against the ban against the books, but it clearly isn't total and unqualified. Why? And why have we not heard more?

In my shul, I dont think the rabbi addressed the issue. My small and unscientific survey revealed few who knew about the ban, and even fewer who cared. It is a pretty stereotypical middle of the road MO shul, if you need a label. NO ONE CARED. The rabbi could have made a huge speech against the ban, and it would have made no waves at all. Obviously, this ban right now only affects those in the Yeshivish and Chareidi world. It is there that the words of the banning rabbis carry weight. So why have we not heard more?

Possibilities:

1. they haven't decided where they stand.

2. they dont want to make waves, create contraversy

3. they want to try to resolve it without causeing a big fuss(probably too late)

4 true respect for the gedolim who signed the ban

5. fear. yup.. sad but true. fear of either looking like a kofer themselves. fear of taking on the gedolim signed onto the ban. fear of personal and professional repercussions.

Take this example out of the sphere of religion and look at it in a different context. Suppose a geologist came out and said the theory of plate tectonics is wrong. I would assume that all prominent geologists who still agreed with plate tectonics would howl in protest. They wouldn't just sit in their office and say, "well, I wrote a book agreeing with plate tectonics 3 years ago, and I haven't retracted those views." They would stand up for what they thought was right, and not want to leave the public with the mistaken impression that the guy was possibly right.

If the gedolim who signed the ban really believe it, and it wasn't instigated(as my informant tells me) by a rabbi who was looking for more chareidi "street cred", then I respect their right to hold those beliefs, even if I think they are wrong.(and that is another issue to blog about later) That is a seperate issue. But the way it was done, with no due process, and the silence of those who dont hold by it, that is even more troubling. It is sad that fear, or the suspicion of fear, taints this whole conversation.

I guess I am not one of the mevinim.

If you are going to wear the hat, be the hat

2005-01-16T08:58:00.000-05:00

I grew up being the only one(along with other members of my immediate family) to waear a kippah in my school. You haven't lived until rich spoiled Presbyterians throw pennies down the hall to see if you will go pick them up. Even now, frequently, in my metropolis, in my office, and many other places, I am the only one wearing a kippah. I know that I am seen as a representative of Judaism. Not only that, but a representative of orthodox Judaism by other Jews. Knowing this(and also, because I was brought up properly), I am very careful about not making a scene, being nice to people, because I know that my poor actionswill be attributed to "those Jews". Even if I have to legitimately return something to the store(broken, or not working, etc) I take off my kippah, so they wont think "that money grubbing Jew is trying to take advantage of the system."

In shul this week, a few visiting 16-17 year olds got into a shoving match in the back of the shul during aleinu. I had to break it up. The guy sitting next to me looked at them, shook his head, and said "and you are wearing hats." and peyos. and suits. Not many in my shul wear hats. seems to me, your clothes should reflect who you are. I know many people who wear hats and suits and they are perfects examples of bnei Torah and middot. People to look up to respect, and aspire to imitate. In retrospect, I am kind of glad the boys weren't wearing kippot serugot. That would have looked bad for my mode of dress. But I guess the guy in my row expected more out of a hat wearer than a kippah serugah wearer. Go figure.

What is Courage? What is self destructive unproductive idiocy?

2005-01-14T13:18:00.000-05:00

I wrote yesterday asking where are the public views opposing the ban of the books. I haven't seen anything in print. Obviously, a chareidi, or yeshivish rav, or public person, coming out against the ban, puts himself in a precarious position, open to criticism and retribution.

John F. Kennedy, in Profiles in Courage, defined Courage as "grace under pressure." I think what he meant was finding the right thing to do under trying circumstances. Sometimes it is "better to fight and run away and live to fight another day." Sometimes it is better to fight to the death. The only story I remember from the book is about Edmond G. Ross, a member of congress during the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. His was the key vote, if he voted to convict, the president would be convicted. If he voted against, he would be acquitted. He gave a speech, and the most memorable line was

".. I look down upon my open grave.."

(or something like that). Voting against would mean the end of his political career, being subject to intense criticism and abuse from members of his own party.
Despite the pressure, he followed his conscience, and voted against conviction. His prediction came true, and that was the end of his political career. He had no regrets.

Pasuk of the week: Viyikra(Leviticus) 19:15 "... lo tehedar penai gadol, b'tzedek tishpot amitecha." (In matters of justice).. do not give reverence to the (face of ) the mighty(literally gadol), with justice you should judge your neighbor"

I cant ask anyone to put their career at risk, and I cant guarantee that I would have the courage to follow the correct path, only that they should try to do the right thing.

Shabbat Shalom

Kefira-last word of the day(from me)

2005-01-13T19:19:00.000-05:00

Shmarya points out that the Aish HaTorah web site has deleted an article by Dr. Gerald Schroeder regarding the age of the universe(like Big Macs, billions and billions served) and put up a notice instead that the page is under review with consultation with Torah authorities. R. Gil tells us that Feldheim is not going to publish the books, but Yashar will(Yashar Koach). What are the implications?

Depends on where you are and if you care. For me, this does not affect me in the least, except for taking a lot of my time blogging it all(luckily they have been slow days). I am not Chareidi, few if any in my 'hood are going to look funny at me for having the books. The Rosh Yeshiva at my kollel(a very fine frum black hat and suit wearing fellow), when I talked to him about this, made these points(in no particular order):

1. Its sad, because there are a lot of good things published in Yated, except only these things get publicized in the non-Chareidi community

2. He(Slifkin) is probably going to sell a lot of books, but he(the Rosh K) feels very sorry for him

3. the Rosh K thought they were good books, and I could see he was not in a rush to take them off the kollel shelves

4. he arched an eyebrow when I told him that R. Dovid Feinstin was one of the signatories, and he said he would be happy to look at the whole thing and tell me more of what he thought.

So why, as someone usually id'ed as MO, should I care? because it gives me an opportunity to bash the Chareidi? NO. because it affects me personally? NO.

Because, if not opposed, it moves the whole community, whether you are chareidi or not, to the right. New standards are set. It may seem like just a little, or not at all, but all these little and not so little decisions and issues have an effect. The only way not to be affected is to declare independence from the chareidi. That they are so far out and different that what they say and do does not affect us. Who is ready to say that? Maybe in one matter like this. But the next time there is a big water or sheitel issue, we will hear the opinions of the Gedolim quoted and some will go by them. More drift to the right. More chumra.

Last week at kiddush, before the story broke, one of my friends was telling me that one of the problems that afflicts Modern orthodoxy is that they are too respectful of the Chareidi. His opinion was that just as MO does not hold by Conservative views, the MO should not hold by Chareidi views. If they happen to coincide- fine. If they dont- we agree to disagree. I was, and still am not sure about this approach. It does in fact at times appear to be operative as we speak. I doubt any MO institutions are going to take R. Slifkin off the shelves. This ban will either open the divide even more, or, if not opposed, drag the community to the right.

WHERE ARE THE RESPECTED GEDOLIM WHO OPPOSE THE BAN? How can they remain silent? they dont want to look less than frum? they dont want to banned from the club? An innocent Rav is being tormented. Revision is happening. What happened to Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof? As Bob Dole said, where is the outrage? Miriam Shaviv rightfully asks where are the respected bloggers at Cross Currents? I agree with the Bear, send respectful emails of support and questions to all involved, and respectfully ask for answers. We do not have a doctrine of Gadol infallability, regardless of what the most right wing Da'at Torahnik might say. To paraphrase, all that is neccessary for this to contnue, is for thinking people to be silent.

(Note: I am taking down the two notices because they are accessable all over the web, and only taking up space here. If anyone wants me to email them to you, please let me know. D)

R. Slifkin defends himself

2005-01-13T10:57:00.000-05:00

As I and others noted, there is a discrepancy in what Deah v'Dibbur claims and what R. Gil Student notes in the banned books saga. D'vD claims that R. Slifkin refused to meet with the Gedolim. R. Student noted that R. Slifkin offered to meet but was refused. Here is a quote sent to me. As usual, I have no independent confirmation of this, but so everything from this source has been accurate. I assume that the I refers to R. Slifkin

The Real Story - On September 21st I was given the
ultimatum that I had six hours to withdraw my books
and publicly recant my views or face public
humiliation. I immediately tried to contact the four
Rabbonim who were about to condemn the books in order
to find out their precise objections (obviously I
would be willing to retract anything in the books that
was mistaken or, chas ve'shalom, heretical) and to
discuss the matter. Two of them immediately sent a
response that they refused to meet or speak with me.
One of them initially agreed to meet with me, and we
set a time to meet. The fourth, I was not able to
reach despite extensive efforts, but I left a message
that I was trying to reach him. The person who gave me
the ultimatum then contacted me and said that he had
heard that I was trying to arrange meetings, and he
said that I would not be permitted to meet with any of
the Rabbonim. The Rav with whom I had arranged a
meeting then called me back and said that he had
changed his mind and refused to meet with me. He said
"I am not one of the gedolim in this," and "you will
only try to argue and defend yourself." Approximately
two months later, someone who was not at all involved
said that he would be able to force this Rav to meet
with me, even though this Rav did not want to do so,
and this person would accompany me. I said that I
would think about it, and I ultimately decided against
it, for several reasons. One is that this Rav's letter
of condemnation had already been posted on walls
everywhere. Another reason was that this Rav had made
it clear to me over the phone that he was adamantly
opposed to hearing anything I had to say to defend
myself. I also had other reasons, but I will not make
them public at this time. A wise person may be able to
guess them.

R. Slifkin also has posted a lot on his web site here(lifted from a comment by Dov left on the Hirhurim site). Lots of good info

One more on the ban

2005-01-12T18:12:00.000-05:00

Required reading from R. Gil Student at Hirhurim here, and the English translation in Deah v'Dibbur here(thanks to Yoinoson Schreiber(my fingers kept typing Yonatan for a while) for providing links)(guess my translation wasn't too far off)

I recieved this email from my usual source. I do know him, except what he puts in the email. I cant vouch for his veracity, but up to now I have had no reason to doubt what he has sent.

R.Slifkin does live in a predominatly "frum" area,
ramat modeian. His life is in shambles now. In fact,
before the Yated thing there was another broadside
that was pasted up mainly in his neighborhood The true story,
and I don't have documentary sources on this, but I
have this an excellent authority is the following.
One of the signors(I dont'rembember the name) has a
ba'al teshuva yeshiva in Beni Brak. This particular
yeshiva is for people that are not sucessful anywhere
else (read not that bright). Because he is only the
head of this particular type of Yeshiva he feels that
people don't think he is "haradi" enough. One of his
students showed him the book and he found his
oppurtunity to "make a name for himself." He then
went around and got the rest of the signators and as
you can imagine it snowballed. I realize that you may
read this and say "no one can be this mean, just for a
little respect" However, I must tell you that I did
get this from an unimpeachable source, albeit not the
actual person in question, but good enough for me.
The way in which he was sucessful in getting these
people to sign on was to do exactly what you
intimated. He noted that R. Slifkin is from their
world and seems to be broadcasting the "haradi" view.
Thus, if he would not have been one of them it woudl
have been less problematic.

Where are all the voices of Rabbanim who dont agree with the cherem? Are they going to let R. Slifkin be, excuse the word, crucified, even though they agree with him(and wrote haskamot)? The poor guy's life is in shambles, I am sure his family is suffering, where are the people who have standing and respect in the community comming out to support him? kudos to R. Student for blogging what he did, and to Yashar books for picking up the publishing of the books. I plan to buy them all. Everyone should.

Incidentally, when comparing what R. Student at Hirhurim wrote versus what is in the Deah and Dibbur article(but not in the Hebrew version), one notices a very significant difference in who didn't want to meet with whom.

I will try to post the original poster of the cherem, and you will see the names of the original instigators .....

the Jack NIckelson view of Judaism

2005-01-12T17:10:00.000-05:00

"you want the truth... you cant handle the truth."

guess we cant. R. Gil(hard to stop calling him Simcha) points out censorship of responsa. Books get banned. R. JJ Shachter has a whole article on censorship/revisionism. Way back when I blogged the revisionist history of the Belzer Rav. What gives? Bottom line- some people do not want to face history, and do not have confidence in their flock to be able to find the right path without being steered. Unfortunately, some people want to be steered. Not me.

And one more thing

2005-01-12T16:53:00.000-05:00

The person who sent me the Yated article has read R. Slifkin's books and informs me that they are 70-80% made up of quotations of sources, such as the Tiferet Yisrael, R. Avraham ben ha-Rambam, and many others. Does the claim that this book is full of heresy imply that those quoted are themselves heretics? The more I find out about this, the more surreal and incomprehensible it gets. I feel most sorry for R. Slifkin and his family. Did the Gedolim think this through? Did they contemplate what effects this would have on someone who appears to be a frum and ehrlich yid? If he lives in a charedi area his neighbors may not talk to him. I think he has kids. Hope they are not in a chareidi school. I have studiously avoided saying anything derogatory about people who devote their life and time to clal yisrael and avodat Hashem, learning Torah day and night in a way that I dont think I ever will be able to do. But I am getting close.

Can you teach an intellectual appreciation of God? yes, but its hard to do

2005-01-12T15:07:00.000-05:00

Dov Bear blogs about my post on my and my wife's grandparents, and the commments are quite good. As I noted, my grandparent's connection to Judaism was more intellectual and also more innate. I am not sure they were constantly trying to think of what Hashem wanted them to do next, but they were comfortable with their relation to HKBH. I think this sort of relationship between man and God is what R. Haym Soloveichik was referencing in his landmark article. In the absence of a constant feeling of God's presence, or a feeling of deep obligation to follow each dictate of the Torah, can a religious sensitivity and affiliation be preserved? Here is my answer to DovBear's question as to what happened to the children of the grandparents.

On one side, they grew up speaking Hebrew at home(in the USA in the 30's), were very zionist, affiliated ortho, but did not keep all the personal/indevidual mitzvot(davening 3/day, tzitzit). 2/3 got advanced degrees(not in religious studies). One made aliyah and they(and their family) are all personally frum and in the MO spectrum, and most of the kids have or are pursuing advanced degrees as well. One stayed in the states, kids all in the MO spectrum, all finished college, 2 went for advanced studies. The third and family still affiliate, but are not personally observant.

On the other side, they grew up in an English speaking home, went to afternoon Hebrew school, affiliated conservative, kept kosher at home. One went on for advanced studies, married someone a bit to the right of themself, and today and family is found in the MO spectrum. One went to college, affiliates reform,2 kids, one of whom married out and the other one affiliated peripherally .

In one case, the intellectual love and comfort of yiddishkeit was passed on essentially intact, in the other case some(but not a lot) was lost.(recall that conservative 50 years ago was much different than what it is now). And more was lost in one case going into the next generation.

I would disagree with MoC that it is impossible to keep it going for generations. It is difficult to maintain a path, especially when there is no support around you. When on one side there is assimilation and deviation from tradition, and on the other side there is detailed frumkeit, to make up a term. It is hard to maintain a practice without support, especially when it comes under attack as being less than frum. Nowadays I think there is more of an awareness of the specifics of halacha, whereas previously there was a comfort that one was serving Hashem adequately in doing what one was doing. Now I worry about everything I do, rather than be happy with what I am doing. Some call what had been before laziness in following Mitzvot. I dont know. Now people worry about the shiur of matza, I knew someone who had eaten at the seders of gedolim of 100 years ago, and he said the shiur of matza they ate was what they put into their mouth after hamotzei.

Clearly, there are new benchmarks of practice, or at least more awareness of those benchmarks, and that makes the casual observance of Judaism more difficult. Either you are in, or you are not.I think many of those 100 years ago were able to substitute zionism, intellectual excitement, or other connection to Judaism for detailed practice. For the reasons cited above, it is next to impossible today. The idealism isn't there for one. There still is intellectual excitement about Judaism, but it is to be found more often in the context of religious belief, whether it be formally ortho, conservative, or reform.

In answer to the question about whether love of poetry, hebrew and zionism was the norm: In certain areas and circles, many schools sprang up that taught in Hebrew, and encouraged thought and art/culture. I am not sure how many schools and how big they were, but certainly there is a segment of the Jewish population that grew up like this, well schooled, appreciative of the arts, zionist, hebrew speaking, idealistic, and varying degrees of personal observance.

More on heresy and Gedolim

2005-01-12T14:17:00.000-05:00

Thanks to all who commented and sent me emails about R. Slifkin and his books. I have been informed that only one person who gave a haskamah has retracted it. Unfortunately, the article in Yated allows the impression to be formed that many if not all retracted- a case of genevat da'at, if you ask me.

"ki eleph shanim b'einecha k'yom etmol" Tehillim. 1000 years in your(God's) eye are like yesterday. 30 years ago I remember a (devoutly Orthodox) rabbi using this verse to explain that some sort of evolution and creation were not neccessarily mutually exclusive. And now, this belief gets labelled as heresy. I have to call him right away.

I think that most of the readers would disagree that this is heresy. So I wonder a lot of things:

Do those rabbis really believe that it really is heresy? or are they trying to keep their flock from even coming into contact with these beliefs(a fence around the fence, around the fence around the Torah)?

Does the fact that R. Slifkin went to Mir, and has some chareidi credentials inflame the Gedolim even more than if he had been, say a YU grad? my guess is they would have just ignored the book in that case.

If we can feel free to disagree with the Gedolim on this subject, and state with confidence and good backing that they are wrong, why should they be listened to on other subjects? Or does this claim of heresy come under the rubric of Da'at Torah and other things come under pesak halacha, and a differentiation can be made?

Who are those people we label as chareidi? Is it all the roshei yeshiva who signed the article? is it my neighborhood rosh kollel, the nicest sweetest person in the world, who goes out his way to make time to learn with me at odd hours? Does the whole chareidi world agree with this? I didn't see any Roshei Yeshiva from Ner Yisrael Chaim Berlin, or the Skokie Yeshiva on the list. I guess I dont know enough about the chareidi world to say. I would be happy to hear more. The floor is open. I have one more post on this topic that has been germinating even before this heresy issue

More BANNED BOOKS?

2005-01-11T17:42:00.000-05:00

I recieved an email from a gentleman, I am not sure if he wants his name used, if he does, I will be happy to give credit where credit is due. It is a page which is supposed to be from Friday's Yated in Israel, and is a ban on the books of R. Nossan Slifkin. R. Slifkin has written 8 books. his bio and web site are here. He studied at Midrash Shmuel, Mir Yeshiva, and got smicha from Ohr Somayach. He is an expert in biblical zoology. Here is in part my poor translation of the (unfortunately poorly reproduced) page:

The great rabbis are revealing their thoughts against the disqualified books that were published in english by someone who learned in yeshivot..and found new beliefs and brought in his books ..words of heresy and nonbelief..

When these books were distributed and brought to the sages who speak english..(gets too flowery here to translate accurately).. a few months ago the Gaon R. Yitchak Shiner Shlita, head of the Kamenetz yeshiva, member of the moatzot gedolei hatora, sent a letter to the Gedolim of the generation, who stand on guard for the Torah. And in it is said: " as one who speaks English, I testify that a talmid chacham who worries about the honor of the Torah showed me the books written my R. Nosson Slifkin, that the hairs on the head stand on end from what I read in it. I dont know if I was over on the prohibition not to read things that appear to be heresy...He(Slifkin) believes that the world is millions of years old..things like this, that are forbidden to be heard, and cannot be believed. and there are many other things like this. In summary, it is forbidden to bring this books into a house where there is belief in Hashem and His Torah.

On top of this letter, the Gaon Rabbi Eli Dov Vichtfoigl(sorry, cant transliterate it that well) added " also it is written that Chazal, could have been wrong Chas V'Shalom, in details of the world, and from this, Cv"S, also in halacha...and the whole book is full of total heresy. and even the things that are not total heresy, nevertheless, the reader who accepts them is destined to be a total heretic....

The publicity of the book, generated a general storm, in that the horrible hidden obstacle, in particular, that the author puts himself out as one who has Torah standing.... Those Rabbanim who gave a haskama(approbation) to the book, reversed themselves in a letter in which they explain that they gave approval to the author, in that they knew that he learned in yeshivot.. they wrote "we are deeply distressed about the book(literally obstacle to observance- michshol) that was put out under our hand, and we warn all who read this... should distance themselves from this book.. because of the danger buried within it....

further on, a quote from another rabbi. " it is forbidden to own(these books) or to publicize them, like the laws dealing with books of heresy"

It goes on. in the end it is signed by a long list of rabbis in Israel, and a bunch in the US. Lots of Roshei Yeshiva, Telz, Beit Medrash Gavoah(R. Kotler), R. David Feinstein(Yeshiva Tiferet Yerushalayim). and many others.

I think I need to read the books and figure out for myself if it is heresy or not. With an incrdible amount of respect of for the learning, erudition, Yirat Shamayim, and personal middot of all the signatories, and total disagreement with their hashkafa, they books can be found here

cultural influences in halacha

2005-01-11T11:26:00.000-05:00

A number of books that I have been reading have coalesced and ganged up on me. Louis Epstein, in Sex Laws and Customs in Judaism(among others) have documented how talmudic views on women's clothing mirrored the society around them. It is well known that the customs of the Seder mirror a Roman banquet. R. Eliezer Berkowitz, the student of R. Ya'akov Yechiel Weinberg, and one of the more reknown graduates of the Rabbinical Seminary in Berlin, in Jewish women in time and Torah, holds that the negative remarks regarding women in the Talmud reflect the culture of the time, and not a halachic imperative. In this manner, statements such as 'he who teaches his daughter torah is as if he taught her tiflut(foolishness, some translate liscentiousness) are reflections of the common understanding of the time, not a Torah based commandment or view.

This view is not widely accepted, even in MO circles. R. Emanuel Rackman, in trying to help agunot, tried to argue with the widely held concept that a woman would rather be married than not at all, which has implications in divorce(get) law. RYBS criticized him severely for this.

We know that at least some of the science in the Talmud is not accurate, and it is not reasonable to expect human beings 2000 years ago, even on the level of tannaim and amoraim to have knowledge that we have unearthed only in the last few hundred years. Can this admitted imperfection be generalized from the "hard sciences" to "soft sciences" or culture? One could argue that "human nature" has not changed, and that the talmud bases itself on mesorah, and observations and knowledge of human nature and desires, not on changing cultural values. it would be a coincidence, that these statements just happen to reflect popular culture exactly at that time.