Sunday, July 31, 2005
Orthomom posts that the following Top Ten List of New York City's worst landlords is a 'Big Boosha'.
The boosha she is referring to is the fact that quite a few names on that list are clearly Jewish. However I would bet that the majority of the Jewish names are not just Jewish, but are also Chareidi.
In fact, committing an offense such as tax evasion, mortagage fraud, or just being an unethical landlord are not really counted as crimes in Chareidi society. After all, who are you really cheating? Just the goyim, and they are only background players, monkeys in sportswear, or a different 'min' entirely. It's not so bad.
Take this book for example: 'Don't Give Up', published by Artscroll. The author has allegedly been involved in multiple scandals, and has even allegedly served time in jail. Yet Artscroll desribes him as follows:
The author, Rabbi P, is a noted scholar and a man with great sensitivity and experience. He has known, consulted, and read the works of many of the greatest rabbis and spiritual guides of the last two generations - and distilled a wealth of wisdom into a book that provides guidance, hope, and optimism in the face of adversity.
You might think that being involved in fraud on multiple occasions would disqualify you from being an expert on spirituality. But no, not in Chareidi land. Fakhert! The trials and tribulations experienced at the hands of the goyish courts just makes you a man of 'great sensitivity and experience'. Sure.
Orthomom is right, it is a Boosha. But the Boosha is on the Chareidim.
posted by XGH @ 4:44 PM 
Spirituality, a warm gooshy feeling
One of my commenters described Spirituality as a 'warm gooshy feeling'. And he is not alone. This attitude seems to be pervasive amongst Orthodox Jews, especially of the UO variety. What went wrong?
I think the answer is as follows: As usual, when the gentiles or irreligious pick up on something, the UO's run in the opposite direction. Zionism was picked up by the irreligious - so now Zionism is trief, and never mind about the centrality of Eretz Yisroel in Judaism. 'G-d loves you' is a theme of Christianity - so now we never talk about G-d loving us. Spirituality became a mass phenomenon amongst goyim and Reform - so now Spirituality is not something we want to talk about either.
If instead of Spirituality I said 'Dveykus', would that make you feel better? (it makes me feel worse).
Listen, Spirituality is not a 'warm gooshy feeling'. If you want a warm gooshy feeling, take a bubble bath. Spirituality is about being close to G-d, or at least the spiritual side of things, and about being less materialistic, with all the implications thereof.
One of my commenters insisted that Suicide bombers were spiritual. No! Suicide bombers may be religious fanatics, but they are not spiritual. Studies have shown just the opposite. They are usually disaffected teens who have been brainwashed. Perhaps they were also motivated by promises of 72 virgins in Heaven.
But that's hardly spiritual, is it?
posted by XGH @ 8:19 AM
Friday, July 29, 2005
In the first edition of the Sefer haYuchsin, there is a detailed discussion about R. Isaac of Acre, a 14th century Kabbalist and student of R. Moses Nachmanides, which attempted to ascertain the authenticity of the Zohar.
R. Isaac went to Spain and to visit R. Moses de Leone in order to investigate the Zohar find. R. Isaac briefly met R. Moses de Leone. Soon after his meeting, R. Moses de Leone passed away. R. Isaac and a wealthy man, R. Joseph de Avila, hatched a plan to prove one way or the other regarding the Zohar. The plan was as follows: R. Joseph’s wife would approach both R. Moses’s widow and his daughter and propose that the daughter marry his son and he would also support R. Moses’s widow. The only condition to this proposition would be the actual manuscript of the Zohar. R. Isaac then describes how the plan was borne out:
On the next day and he said to her [R. Joseph’s wife], “Go to R. Moses’s wife and say to her: 'I wish for my son to marry your daughter, you will lack nothing for the rest of your days, we will provide you with food and clothing. I only request the Zohar manuscript'. You should approach the wife and the daughter separately, listen to their responses. This way we will insure that they are being truthful.”
She [R. Joseph’s wife] went and did this. R. Moses’s wife answered R. Joseph’s wife and said, “. . . this book was in my husband’s possession, but from the very beginning I realized he was the actual author. In fact, I confronted him and asked him why is that you tell people that you copied this work from a manuscript when it is really your own? Would it not be more beneficial to say that it is your own, will it not raise your honor? He answered, if I were to reveal this secret that I am the writer, no one will pay any head to the book, no one will spend a perutah on it, because they will say I made it all up. However, now that people hear that I am copying the Zohar that Rashbi [R. Simeon ben Yohai] with divine knowledge [wrote], they will purchase it for significant sums.” After she approached his widow, she approached his daughter . . . and her reply was the same.
Y. Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, Israel 1957 vol. 1 p. 30 quoting Sefer haYuchsin, see page 28 note 2.
This testimony was deemed so damming that it only appeared in the first edition of the Sefer haYuchsin, published in 1566. In the second edition, published in 1580, the testimony of R. Isaac Acre is missing. In fact, in all subsequent editions this passage is missing and was only restored close to three hundred years later in the 1857 edition.
posted by XGH @ 2:04 PM
It's sad that due to the various distortions of Judaism caused by the Ari, Chassidim, Carlebach and others, some people seem to think that Spirituality is either bad, nonsense, not a part of Orthodox Judaism, or not something to aspire to. I have noticed this attitude amongst a few ‘Rational’ bloggers. Unfortunately, in their zeal to throw out all the Kabalah crap, Carlebach crap, Chasidic crap and other crap that has accumulated over the years in Orthodoxy, they end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Of course the point of religion is to induce Spirituality. Depending on how precisely you define Spirituality, that’s either the entire point of religion, or at least a major point of religion. And Orthodox Judaism is no exception. I think our overly rational friends need some education.
1. As the Rambam says many times in Moreh Nevuchim, only fools and sad people maintain that G-d had no intelligible reasons for giving us the Halachah. The Rambam goes to great lengths to show how the Halachah’s goal is to improve our character and intellect. The Rambam’s conception of ‘spirituality’ was a little more intellectually based than the typical definition, but the ultimate concept is the same. The Halachah is there to cause spirituality.
2. We may not always understand the reason behind a particular Halachah. The Rambam went to great lengths to discover as many Taamei Hamitzvot as he could, but even he admitted that some of them stumped him, but that he didn’t want to give up trying.
3. In those cases where we do not understand the point of a Halachah, we still have to keep it. Halachah would not be a workable system if each person made their determination about whether a particular Halachah was useful to them or not. The Framework is all encompassing, and is aimed at the general population. The Rambam himself in the Moreh says this, that Halachah does not always work for everybody. However the alternative to having a normalized system is anarchy.
4. Although one of the goals of the Halacha is to cause Spirituality, its quite possible to keep Halachah 100% and not be Spiritual at all, commonly called ‘Naval birshus Hatorah’. This is unfortunate, and should be avoided of course.
5. Likewise, it’s quite possible to be very spiritual without keeping Halachah. This doesn’t mean we can all just give it up. G-d commanded us to keep it and I assume He knows what’s best for us. However if you have a (theoretical) situation whereby someone was able to achieve a high spiritual (and moral etc) level, without keeping Halachah, it’s clear they won’t do too badly in Olam Habah. In fact they would probably do better than someone who was 100% Halachik but was still a Naval. This is not an argument for not keeping Halachah. This is an argument for keeping Halachah properly, and not being a Naval!
6. Accepting Spirituality doesn't mean wearing new age clothes and going to Carlebach Kumsiztes. Or reading the Zohar and wearing a red string. I am talking about true Spirituality. And if you can't comprehend what that is, then you need to go and find out. I think some of the Spiritual Skeptics are confusing Spirituality with a 'Feel Good Emotion'. Whilst being Spiritual may certainly cause such an emotion, they are not the same thing at all. You need to go and think about what Spirituality really is, and not what the uneducated masses mistakenly think it is.
7. The worst attitude of all is to discount spirituality, and say that we simply keep the Halachah because we are commanded to, and nothing more than that. The Rambam has some harsh words for people with that attitude.
SECTION III CHAPTER XXXI
THERE are persons who find it difficult to give a reason for any of the commandments, and consider it right to assume that the commandments and prohibitions have no rational basis whatever. They are led to adopt this theory by a certain disease in their soul, the existence of which they perceive, but which they are unable to discuss or to describe. For they imagine that these precepts, if they were useful in any respect, and were commanded because of their usefulness, would seem to originate in the thought and reason of some intelligent being. But as things which are not objects of reason and serve no purpose, they would undoubtedly be attributed to God, because no thought of man could have produced them. According to the theory of those weak-minded persons, man is more perfect than his Creator. For what man says or does has a certain object, whilst the actions of God are different; He commands us to do what is of no use to us, and forbids us to do what is harmless. Far be this ! On the contrary, the sole object of the Law is to benefit us. Thus we explained the Scriptural passage," for our good always, that He might preserve us alive, as it is this day" (Deut. vi. 24). Again," which shall hear all those statutes (hukkim), and say, surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people" (ibid. iv. 6). He thus says that even every one of these" statutes" convinces all nations of the wisdom and understanding it includes. But if no reason could be found for these statutes, if they produced no advantage and removed no evil, why then should he who believes in them and follows them be wise, reasonable, and so excellent as to raise the admiration of all nations ? But the truth is undoubtedly as we have said, that every one of the six hundred and thirteen precepts serves to inculcate some truth, to remove some erroneous opinion, to establish proper relations in society, to diminish evil, to train in good manners or to warn against bad habits. All this depends on three things: opinions: morals, and social conduct. We do not count words, because precepts, whether positive or negative, if they relate to speech, belong to those precepts which regulate our social conduct, or to those which spread truth, or to those which teach morals. Thus these three principles suffice for assigning a reason for every one of the Divine commandments.
posted by XGH @ 12:49 PM
The Big Question: Spirituality
Introduction
Lets kick off the analysis of the Big Question by discussing spirituality. Someone said recently that the only true spirituality is as attained through Halachah. However I think most people would disagree with that. Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, in ‘Divine Law and Spirituality’, tells a story that after RYBS met one of the non religious Rothschild’s, he remarked that he was a very spiritual person, and I doubt RYBS was referring to some new agey type concept of spirituality. Also, the tradition is clear that ‘Chasidei Umos Haolam’ have a chelek in Olam Habah. It’s hard to imagine that these people get into Olam Habah without being in any way spiritual, and clearly the Halachah they keep is minimal, just the basics. So I think it’s safe to assume that it is indeed possible to be spiritual without keeping Halachah. The important question though, is whether Orthodoxy is more successful at achieving this goal.
Is Spirituality a common goal?
So, lets examine Spirituality in the context of Reform, Conservative, MO, and UO. I think it’s safe to assume that all denominations of Judaism which believe in G-d aspire to spirituality. Some may place more emphasis on it that others, but all agree it is at least a significant goal of religion. I also think that each group will have a fairly similar definition of spirituality. They may disagree on how to achieve it, but there is general agreement on what it is.
What is Spirituality?
In short, Spirituality is the experience of being close to G-d. More spiritual, less physical. An uplifting feeling. But it’s not just about feeling good, or being on a high, you can get that from drugs too. People who are spiritual are less concerned about the petty things in life. Less concerned about materialistic desires. More in tune with G-d. They feel more connected with other people, and are less selfish. They love their fellow man more, and are more inclined to put themselves out for other people.
Halachic Goals
I think its obvious that the majority opinion in Orthodoxy has always been that one of the goals of the Halachik framework is to instill spirituality. Just read one of the many mussar books or Chovos Halvovos, or even Moreh Nevuchim. Likewise, there is a long standing tradition that one can be ‘Naval Birshut Hatorah’, i.e. keep all the Halachot but still be a low life. So the question is whether Halachah is successful in its goal, and also whether Reform and Conservative Jews have found equally or even more effective ways at achieving spirituality.
Spiritual Quantity
In order to achieve spirituality, it seems one should concentrate and focus their efforts and thoughts towards G-d, away from materialism, towards their fellow man and away from themselves. All of these concepts are amply contained in the Halachah, and strongly reinforced through customs, minhagim and the daily Halachic cycle. For example, davening three times a day has the potential to reinforce a connection to G-d. Hilchos Loshon Horoh has the potential to reinforce a sensitivity to our fellow man. Clearly, following these Halachos with the right intentions will have the power to create Spirituality.
Halachic Framework
The lack of most of this framework within Reform and Conservative would therefore seem to be a problem. How will Reform and Conservative Jews become spiritual, in the absence of any framework? You could argue that Spirituality is an intensely personal attribute, and it’s better left to the individual to figure that out. But I think it’s clear that when you leave people to their own devices, they don’t do too well. People need guidance and reinforcement. Also, too often people confuse a ‘feel good’ feeling with spirituality. Attending a kumzits or equivalent guitar service may make you feel good but it’s not really spirituality.
Does Halachah achieve its Goals
So it would seem that a Framework such as Halachah is a good idea. Not having a framework would seem to be a bad idea. What happens in practice? I think we are all familiar with the Nevolim Birshis Hatorah people. They take great pains to ensure that they are technically compliant with the (at least public) minutiae of law, whilst in private they are really not that spiritual. However these people are the minority. When properly practiced, Halachah is certainly a good way of achieving Spirituality.
Shabbat
Shabbat has long been acknowledged as the epitome of Jewish spirituality. Some people like to complain about Shabbat. ‘Why does not switching on a light make it Shabbat?’ they complain. ‘How could such an insignificant act possibly make any difference?’ True enough, but they are missing the big picture. Without a clear definition and boundaries, there is no Shabbat. Everyone is free to do as they see fit, the unique spiritual quality of Shabbat would quickly be degraded. Clearly, as with anything else in life, one needs rules and boundaries to define the experience. Yes, it seems that sometimes the minutiae become absurd. But that’s the logical outcome of any legal system at its limits. The boundaries have to be drawn somewhere. If electricity is permitted, then Shabbat quickly becomes a TV day or worse. I think Chazal knew what they were doing when they delineated the laws of Shabbat.
Law & Spirit
It’s clear to me that it’s hard to be spiritual without any direction. And lacking a Halachik System, direction is hard to come by. This does not mean that keeping Halachah will turn you Spiritual, but it’s a good start. Those of us who keep Halachah need to constantly remind ourselves of it’s goals, rather than just focusing on the details of the technical observance.
Men & Spirituality
I think Men approach spirituality a little different than women. I like to draw an analogy to men’s hobbies. Ever read a fishing magazine, a golf magazine or a photography magazine? The emphasis is rarely on the fish, the photos or the sport. The emphasis in these magazines is always on the equipment: the best camera, the best fishing rod, the best golf clubs. Men like toys, it’s a fact of life, and I think our religion recognizes this. However it takes that mentality and channels it into more spiritual directions. The esrog, lulav and the succa are the religious equivalent of the golf ball, golf club and fishing rig. Everyone want the best equipment, with the greatest features. But rather than being just a physical acquisition, each of these artifacts are endowed with religious symbolism and significance.
Conclusion
I would argue that overall, Orthodox people are more spiritual. However there is a danger in purely technical ritual observance that should not be ignored. It’s just a means to the end, not the end in itself. Judaism heartily rejected the philosophy of Christianity, that faith& spirit is important but not the law. But that doesn’t mean only the law is important. You need to have both. Without the Law, I fail to see where one can become Spiritual, except through ad-hoc, individual and ultimately less successful efforts.
posted by XGH @ 10:21 AM
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Chafetz Chaim's Relative Gives Mussar
UPDATE: Turns out Rebbetzing Carly Simons is mishpachah to the Chofetz Chaim. Here is someof her mussar from the 70's.
You walked into the bes medrash like you were walking down the block
Your hat strategically placed upon your head
Your reckle it was all black
You had one eye on the clock as you gave a gemarah shiur
And all the bochrim dreamed that you'd be their rebbe
You'd be their rebbe.. and
You're so frum, you probably think the world is about Jews
You're so frum, I'll bet you think the world is about Jews
Don't you? don't you?
I heard you several years ago when I was still quite naive
Well you said that Chazal were always correct
And in that I had to believe
But you banned away the things I loved and many of them were true
I had some books, they were banned by Gedolim
Banned by Gedolim, and...
You're so frum, you probably think the world is about Jews
You're so frum, I'll bet you think the world is about Jews
Don't you? don't you?
Well I hear you went up to Baltimore and Ner Israel naturally went frum
Then you flew on El Al up to Bnei Brak
And did a total eclipse of reason
Well you're where you should be all the time
And when you're not you're with
Some right wing fanatic or with R Elyashiv your close friend
R Elyashiv your close friend, and...
You're so frum, you probably think the world is about Jews
You're so frum, I'll bet you think the world is about Jews
Don't you? don't you?
posted by XGH @ 10:53 PM
The Jewish Press had an article on Modern Orthodoxy last week, which contained this passage on Daas Torah:
The gap between the authority of the rabbi and the lay person is a function of the knowledge and ability of the two, and not the mere fact that one is a rabbi and the other is not. I believe that a rabbi or posek earns respect and deference to his authority by demonstrating a comprehension of Torah, its values, and the reality of the world to which Torah is to be applied. These skills allow one (rabbi or lay) to insightfully navigate the complex world we inhabit in a way that our Creator favors; those without these navigational skills should seek the association of one who has them.
However, the Latin maxim 'quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus' (literally "sometimes even Homer nods), meaning that even brilliant people sometimes err – and yet remain extraordinary individuals worthy of praise, remains true and even the best of Torah scholars or rabbis can make mistakes; there is no obligation to follow their rulings when they are in error. Indeed, it is prohibited to do so – although one must always be meticulously polite when one indicates disagreement with a scholar. This is precisely what the Jerusalem Talmud means when it states:
"Is it possible that if the Sages tell you about right that it is left or about left that it is right that you should listen to them? Torah says to the right or to the left, meaning that one should follow the Sages instruction only if they tell you about right that it is right and about left that it is left." – Yerushalmi Horiyot 1:1; see also Shach, Yoreh Deah 242:31; Ran commenting on Avodah Zarah 7a s.v. hanishal lachacham; Hagaot Maymoniut, Talmud Torah 5:1-2; and Rosh Meluneil, Hilchot Talmud Torah 28.
This approach is a rejection of some rabbis conception of Da`as Torah, which assigns to rabbis a sense of rabbinic infallibility that creates an appearance that rabbinic pronouncements are nearly a manifestation of the Divine. This approach can be found in Sifri, Mishpatim 154 which states: " To the right or to the left : even if the Sages tell you that the right hand is the left and the left hand is the right, obey them," which is quoted by Rashi on Deuteronomy 17:11, Ramban in the introduction to his Hasagot Lesefer Hamitzvot and in his commentary on Deuteronomy 17:11 and Chinuch, Mitzvah 492.
posted by XGH @ 9:56 PM
Many people noticed that Dr Brill's article below contained a mistaken quote from rashi. Some people went so far as to say that they questioned his scholarship because of that. I thought that was extreme since Dr Brill is well respected, and I assumed it must have been a simple mistake. I contacted Dr Brill and this is what he said:
Dear Gadol,
Thank you for fact checking. That is what journalists do. You may post this response.
I am in Jerusalem and responding from wifi, so I will keep this brief. In short, yes indeed, I know there is a mistake in Rashi. There are other mistakes as well. I am aware of them. I had to deliver the paper from notes on a Tuesday morning. But I had to deliver a copy to a non-Jewish transcription service-organizational planner by Thursday morning.
Know that the paper was far from where I wanted it to be on Thursday. And not a model of clarity. But in the world of politics you need to live in real time. They need to make a formal copy for distribution to give to the simultaneous translators into French and other languages (like at the UN).
I worked on it all weekend and had a list of those corrections. When I gave the paper, I received comments from former Chief Rabbi Lau, other Chief Rabbis and Rabbis who may not want to be mentioned, and scholars like Prof Schiffman. When I revised the transcription to hand in to BC, my goal was to incorporate the comments of the listeners. I did not catch the mistake in the Rashi section until after it was posted. It has long since been corrected in my copy.
When the newspaper makes a mistake in a governmental speech there is an errata the next day. Here there is not the time and funding for that. BC has at this point a 200 page version of the paper with the correction.
Yours,
AB
This is what genuine scholars do, they admit when they made a mistake. If Dr Brill had been chareidi, no doubt he would have claimed Nishtaneh Hatevah and the Rashi mysteriously changed. (Relax, just a joke).
posted by XGH @ 7:14 PM
Rabbi Mordechai Breuer on The Documentary Hypothesis
Rabbi Chaim Navon quotes Rabbi Mordechai Breuer on The Documentary Hypothesis. This is the only quote from Breuer in English that I have ever seen. He's pretty passionate about accepting the DH's findings, but not its conclusions:
That simple exegesis, which sees the Torah as one consecutive structure, without contradictions and uniform in style, has been irretrievably contradicted and rejected. The Torah's division into "sources" to which "were added" "interpretive comments" and "editorial supplements," is an irrefutable truth, which jumps out at the student, against his will, according to all linguistic standards and "the plain interpretations of Scripture that present themselves anew each day." All the forced harmonistic resolutions cannot stand up to the inner truth of the ingenious work of Wellhausen[3] and his colleagues. As midgets before a giant, as collectors of crumbs beneath the table of a wealthy man, so stand Cassuto and his colleagues, when they disagree with the school of biblical criticism…
Come and see the glorious wreath of the Torah, go and ponder the glory and splendor of its pages: they go and slowly spread out, page by page, each in its unique channel – and you find before you living expressions of that Divine quality that crosses generations: the trait of the Tetragrammaton, the trait of the name of E-lokim, and the trait of the name of E-l Shad-dai – hidden traits that embrace all the worlds and bestow their bounty on high and below… So too the contradictions in the Torah are but imaginary contradictions regarding the ways of God's providence!
Now, then, is it any wonder that the pages of the Torah clash, and the human intellect finds it difficult to reconcile the contradictions? Does not God's providence in the world – the visible expression of God's traits and holy names – does it not, as it were, clash with and contradict itself, God forbid, in the eyes of man and according to his human understanding? If the Holy One, blessed be He, embraces both justice and mercy, both lovingkindness and might, if He appears to Israel as an old man in a yeshiva and also as a young man at war, as merciful and gracious, and also as zealous and vindictive – how then can it be imagined that His Torah – all the letters of which constitute His holy names – will go forward in peace and calm, as a single continuum that settles in the heart of all?…
Were all the sages of the east and the west to assemble and seek a solution to the contradictions between the first two chapters of the book of Bereishit, they would not come up with even a broken shard.(Rabbi M. Breuer, "Emuna u-Mada Befarshanut ha-Mikra," De'ot)
Had He given us a homogenous book that could also have been written by a single person, such a book would have been appropriate for children who on any given issue are capable of seeing only a single truth. This, however, was not the intention of the Lawgiver. He wanted to give us a book appropriate for adults, who understand that every issue has multiple perspectives, and also contradictory truths, each one constituting truth, though only partial and one-sided truth. It is only the combination of such truths that gives expression to the absolute truth. (Rabbi M. Breuer, "Bikoret ha-Mikra veha-Emuna Betorah min ha-Shamayim," Daf Kesher #864)
There is only one way to confront the heresy of biblical criticism. Neither ignoring it nor fighting against it will work. Rather, we must follow the path outlined by the author of Or ha-Chayyim: We must "set our eyes" on the kernel of truth that is mixed into the falsehoods of the biblical critics… We must remove the slander from their mouths and restore the truth to its borders. For all their words are absolute truth, according to their assumptions. And therefore, with a change of form, they could become true even according to our assumptions. (Rabbi M. Breuer, "Torat ha-Te'udot shel Ba'al Sha'agat Arye," Megadim II, pp. 21-22)
11
Although Breuer bashes Cassuto as a midget when it comes to the DH, I assume he did hold of him in the whole counter-mythology strand of exegesis. Likewise, Joel Wolowelsky in this article seems to hold of it too, even though he is careful to say:
The Torah, after all, is not a history book. In saying this, we are not suggesting that the Flood story—or any other specific part of the Torah—is necessarily allegory rather than fact.
Note that he uses my suggestion of calling Cassuto 'Moshe David' rather than Umberto. Makes him sound much frummer. I would suggest Harav Moshe Dovid sounds even better.
posted by XGH @ 1:31 PM
UPDATED WITH NEW QUESTIONS
Not sure if you are learning? Take this handy chareidi quiz and find out!
My text is:
1) In Aramaic +10 points
2) In Hebrew + 5 points
3) In English 0 points
4) In Ugaritic – 10 points
My chavrusoh is:
1) Male and Orthodox + 10 points
2) No Chavrusoh 0 points
3) Male and Non Orthodox – 5 points
4) Female and Orthodox – 10 points
5) Female and Non Orthodox – 15 points
My location is:
1) Orthodox Bes Medrash + 10 points
2) At Dining Table or Shtender at Home + 5 points
3) In Armchair 0 points
4) In bed or lying on couch – 5 points
5) In University – 10 points
My subject matter is:
1) Halachah / Talmud + 15 points
2) Kabbalah + 10 points
3) Mussar / Tenach + 5 points
4) Jewish History –5 points
5) Jewish Scholarship -10 points
6) Anything by Slifkin or Marc Shapiro -15 points
My Derech Halimud is:
1) Traditional Chareidi + 15 points
2) Modern Orthodox 0 points
3) Critical / Scholarly – 15 points
My motivation is:
1) Purely lishmoh + 15 points
2) To acquire knowledge / spirituality + 5 points
3) I enjoy learning 0 points
4) To prove the chareidim wrong – 1000 points
My Medium is:
1) Book + 15 points
2) Torah Tape + 5 points
3) Internet Site - 5 points
4) Blog -10 points
My Author is:
1) G-d or any accepted Chareidi rabbi +1000 points
2) Anyone else at all (gentile /non orthodox / Chareidi but not accepted) -1000 points
posted by XGH @ 11:37 AM
We thought it worthwhile to expatiate on the truth of these matters. For since the sages of blessed memory were exclusively devoted to and immersed in the study of Torah and did not distract themselves by the conceit of idle talk or read documents about the remote past, it will not come as a surprise to us should they make some mistakes or give a shortened account of any of those stories. For when people are not interested in a subject, they do not normally engage in investigation of all its facets. They simply transmit the version that they themselves were given.
A similar opinion is expressed by the wise author of the Aqedah (Isaac Arama -Aqedat Yitzchak) when he accounts for certain errors that our Rabbis made in the field of astronomy. He writes: The rabbis of blessed memory only had recourse to that science in order to inform themselves about the intercalation of the calendar and the calculation of the equinoxes and new moons in accordance with the precepts of the Torah. As for the rest, they regarded it as alien and as a waste of time spent on extraneous matters that they were only permitted to study casually and at a time ‘that is neither day nor night’.”
posted by XGH @ 8:08 AM
Another Rabbi Feldman Response
Here is another response to Rabbi Feldman, from a choshuv guy. It gets a little kiruv clowny in parts (Chazal could have invented the atomic bomb had they set their minds to it) but he makes some very good points overall.
Rabbi Sander Goldberg studied for fifteen years in the Mir Yeshiva in Brooklyn, has Yoreh Yoreh, Yodin Yodin and Hora’ah B’ Gittin from Rav Isaac Leibes O”bm, has Kabala in shichita, is a practicing sofer, mohel, dayan and to’en Bais Din. He is a Rav in Baltimore and the Mechaber of Sefer Nachal Chaim al HaTorah. He also has twenty years experience in the computer field, studied engineering, has several patents pending, and serves as a judge on the Maryland Tax Court.
Rabbi Goldberg studied for four years in Yeshiva Bais Hatalmud in Jerusalem and has known Rav Aharon Feldman, (a Maggid Shiur and Mashgiah in the Yeshiva) for the past thirty-six years. Rabbi Goldberg has published this critique only after having shared it with Rav Feldman for his response. This critique is written and publicized in accordance with the dictum of Chazal, “Kaul Makom Sh’yesh Chilul Hashem Ain Cholkin Kavod L’Rav.”
Response to Rabbi Feldman
| posted by XGH @ 6:25 AM
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
The blood of my heart, the blood of my soul
Rav Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg in a letter to his friend, Professor Samuel Atlas, dated September 15, 1957, wrote:
I have bitter thoughts about the very existence of the nation and its hopes for the future. The entire world hates us. We assume that this hatred is due to the wickedness of the nations, and no one stops to think that we also bear some guilt. We regard all the nations as similar to an ass. It is forbidden to save a Gentile, it is forbidden to offer him free medical treatment, it is forbidden to violate the Sabbath to save his life, his sexual intercourse does not render a woman forbidden to her husband according to R. Tam because their issue is like that of horses. Can the nations resign themselves to such a deprivation of rights? It is permitted to deceive a Gentile and cancel his debt as well as forbidden to return his lost object! What can we do? Can we uproot our Torah teaching with apologetic formulae or clever deceptions? God knows that I have written this with the blood of my heart, the blood of my soul.
From Marc B. Shapiro, "Scholars and Friends: R. Jehiel Jabob Weinberg and Professor Samuel Atlas", The Torah U-Madda Journal, VII, 1997.
posted by XGH @ 11:33 PM
Extreme Chareidim: Goyim are evil
This story broke before my blog existed, but in light of recent discussions, I think its appropriate to review it at this time.
Read the following articles:
- http://www.forward.com/issues/20....19/ news4a.html
- http://forward.com/issues/2004/ 0...9.lakewood.html
- http://njjewishnews.com/ njjn.com...jracialist.html
A few things stand out:
- The perverted atmosphere in the extreme Chareidi world which allows or even promotes this kind of thing. I would bet that they only disavowed the book because of Darchei Sholom, not because they inherently disagree with it.
- The spin by Rabbi Kotler after he realized his $500k was in jeopardy
- The fact that Kotler admitted that his Haskamas are meaningless (also a lie though)
- The scam by Lakewood to get $500k for a 'Holocaust Memorial Library'. What a bunch of baloney. As if anyone in Lakewood Yeshivah is interested in a Holocaust Library. It's just a scam to get money. Is gneyvus daas muttar? I guess from goyim it is.
- The pathetic response of the Agudas Yisroel in attacking the Forward and defending Grama
It's really amazing. Was Grama put in cherem? Any bans on his book? The more I hear about Lakewood the more I realize how morally bankrupt that place is. To my Lakewood readers: You should be embarrassed to learn in such a place. You should leave and go learn in Philly instead.
posted by XGH @ 10:51 PM
Alan Brill, in this article on Jewish-Gentile dialogue, says:
Rabbi Shlomo ben Yitzhak, the great eleventh-century commentator on the Bible and Talmud is a standard in the Jewish curriculum. Because Rashi is seen as the indispensable commentator, it is difficult to overstate his influence on contemporary discourse. In traditional settings, Torah and, later, Talmud are approached first, and often exclusively, through the lens of Rashi’s commentary. He cites many of the polemical and negative rabbinic statements about gentiles or their typological equivalents in Noah, Esau, and Bilaam. Even his very first comment on the Bible contains his own gloss on the Midrash, viewing the gentiles as armed robbers. His particularism is shown in statements such as: “I ask from You that Your Shekhinah should not rest anymore on the nations of the world and we will be separate from all other nations. (Commentary to Exodus 33:16)
Rashi typified the particularism of many of his successors in Franco-German Jewish culture. I will not delineate these variants, nor will I relate all the negative images of Christianity left in the writings of medieval Ashkenaz Jewry. Ours is not the first generation of Jews bothered Rashi’s exclusionist, anti-gentile tone. Sifthei Hakhamim, by Rabbi Shabbatai Bass, a sixteenth-century commentary on Rashi, consistently reworks Rashi to impose a more ethical reading. However, the role of these comments of Rashi in the Jewish education system today remains problematic.
Ouch. While we are talking about this, let’s be honest: Chazal were pretty anti goy too. I don’t mean to criticize Chazal, in their day this attitude was understandable. Same goes for Rashi. But just like their science doesn’t apply today, likewise some of their social attitudes too. After bashing Rashi, Brill moves on to the Ari:
For Luria, the historical situation of exile is a manifestation of the cosmic reality of rupture and evil. The gentiles are not merely the Other, or the anti-Israel, as in the less metaphysical approaches of Rashi; they are the same stuff as the evil at the beginning of creation. The internal logic of this myth leads to the radical notion – unsupported by classical Jewish texts – that non-Jews have no souls.
While the influence of Luria on subsequent Jewish history has been overstated, his notion that non-Jews lack souls was a significant, and dangerous, innovation. It moved the exclusivity of Rashi to a new and potentially dangerous realm.
Finally he gives it good to Rav Tzvi Yehuda Kook, comparing him to Wahabi Islam and deeming his attitudes xenophobic:
Zevi Yehudah Kook resurrects many of the classic anti-Christian polemics with a vigor not seen for centuries. Among them: Christianity should be dismissed as an internal Jewish heresy; God the creator clearly cannot be a man; the Jewish God is alive whereas the Christian’s is dead. Christianity is the refuse of Israel, in line with the ancient Talmudic portrayals of Jesus as boiling in excrement.
If asked: What about the many arguments that, despite the falsity of Christian truth claims, the religion still constitutes a path to God? Like Wahabi Fundamentalism within Islam, Zevi Yehudah denies the continuous relevance of the cosmopolitan ages of synthesis, choosing instead to return to the polemical Midrash and Maharal.
Why was his position formulated at the end of the twentieth century? His theology shows the change that comes about from living in a non-Diaspora context that enables this rejection of western culture. The state of Israel can lead to a secure acceptance of the other, especially other religions, or it can also allow for a complete xenophobic rejection.
Just in case we have any non Jews reading, let me assure you that these attitudes are only prevalent today amongst the extreme ‘Chareidi’ section of Judaism, a somewhat distorted and backwards theological strain, and amongst some extremist Zionist elements. Here is a nice quote from Rav Shimshon Refoel Hirsch:
The Torah calls Israel a treasured nation. However, this does not imply, as some have mistakenly assumed, that Israel has a monopoly on God's love and favor. On the contrary, Israel's most cherished ideal is that of the universal brotherhood of mankind. (Nineteen Letters of Ben Uzziel, tr. Bernard Drachman [New York, 1942], p. 15.)
posted by XGH @ 4:37 PM
A critical outsider comments:
To any critical outsider, these discussions are just ways of raising the self-esteem of Jews who feel insecure about their own version of religious beliefs by putting the other versions down. The whole blogosphere is full of MO's and UO's and O's of all types who are constantly, if not subtly, bashing all the other versions. Of course, this is all done under the guise of "trying to improve ourselves".
Is this true? Maybe. But for good reasons. Judaism is important, and to Orthodox Jews, Orthodox Judaism is important. Our entire lives are wrapped up in it. What we wear, what we learn, where our kids go to school, what we eat, even what we think, are all affected by what strain of Orthodoxy we subscribe to. (And some people do find it a strain). I don’t spend my whole day thinking about this stuff. Well…. I guess I do. But that’s not normal.
Many people have criticized my blog (and others cough db cough) as being too negative and critical. But this is just a reaction to the prevailing chareidi triumphalist mentality which quite frankly pisses a lot of people off, even though they may be correct about many things.
Also, there is a long history in Judaism of ‘Machlokes Le’Shem Shomayim’. I find that in the outside (i.e. gentile) world, when you debate someone too vigorously, they get all offended and go off in a huff. This often happens at work. However with the Bes Hamedrash (or it’s modern equivalent, the jblogosphere), vigorous arguments are expected, even cherished. How can we win our arguments without vigorously arguing our positions? How can we get at the truth without vociferously debating the issues?
And most importantly, how can we score points without bashing our opponents?
posted by XGH @ 3:05 PM
A debate is raging on one of my posts about the importance of learning. One commenter maintains that the tremendous emphasis on learning is yet another UO distortion, which MO people should reject. Personally, while I am quite happy to point out UO distortions, I don't think this is one of them. It's hard not to notice the centrality of Torah study within the Jewish Religion, at least going back to Chazal. I suppose you could say Chazal were Chareidi too, but I think we all know they were not. The first perek of Tehilim and Yehoshua both mention 'Toil' in Torah. We are not called the people of the book for nothing.
Of course I am not arguing that we should all sit and learn all day. But learning should be maximized where possible. It's easy for me to learn, I enjoy it and I'm quite academically inclined anyway. But many people just don't like learning. So for those people here is some advice:
1. It doesn't have to be Gemarah
Learning doesn't have to mean Gemarah. Its unfortunate that the focus on Gemarah in Yeshivot have created this impression that if you are not learning Gemarah, then you are not really learning. That's baloney. Gemara is just one type of learning. If you dislike or are unable to learn Gemara for whatever reason, there are plenty of other subjects you can study, including:
- Tenach (with or without meforshim)
- Mussar (It's not all just self help)
- Machshavah (Ancient or Modern)
- Kabbalah (OK its krum, but it's still better than watching TV)
2. It doesn't have to be in Hebrew
You don't have to learn in Hebrew (or Aramaic). While it's usually better to learn in the original language, if you have problems doing so it's not so bad. Sometimes this attitude of only learning in Hebrew is taken to the extreme. I have a chavrusoh who insists on learning Moreh Nevuchim in Hebrew, even though the original was written in Arabic.
3. It doesn't have to be difficult
In Yeshivah, you get the impression that unless you are shteiging away on a piece of Gemarah, with Rishonim & Acharonim, it's not real learning. If it's an easy to read book, then it’s not learning. Baloney! Breaking your head over poorly punctuated text, with 2000 years worth of overlaying commentary is not inherently a mitzvah. It might be good mental exercise, but its not inherently part of the mitzvah. It’s more akin to if you go live 5 miles from shul and think you are doing a great mitzvah by walking 30 miles every Shabbos. Sure, you may get some s’char halichah, but you would have been better off if you lived next door to shul and used the extra time to learn.
4. It doesn’t have to be be’chavrusoh
If you find your chavrusos annoying, or can’t find any good ones, or they keep canceling on you, or you shmooze too much, then just dump them. Many great things have been achieved by people on their own. Chavrusos are not mentioned in the Torah.
5. It doesn’t have to be ancient
You can read a modern book in English and still be learning. Try RYBS, RAL, Levinas, Rav Dessler or whatever takes your fancy.
6. It doesn’t have to be Orthodox
OK, I’m pushing it a bit, but there are some very good non-Orthodox writers, like Heschel. Sometimes you might come across a heretical idea, but then you can encounter those in life too, you should be immune to it, or use it as a challenge to see why you disagree.
7. It doesn’t have to be reading a text
If you really can’t stand reading a text, you can always combine learning with some other fun pastime, like blogging. Blog about Torah, and you might enjoy it more.
8. It doesn’t have to be learning
If all else fails, go do something constructive, like bikku cholim. True, it will be a lot harder and require more mental, emotional and physical effort. Sitting and learning a geshmak sugyah with your buddy is a lot easier and much more fun that shlepping to the hospital to visit some sick dude. But just think of the s’char! You will get a tremendous aliyah for your neshamah, constructively help out some poor nebuch, and generate a tremendous tikkun for the world.
Whoa ! Just hold on a minute. If chessed is so great, then why are we all spending so much time learning? Shouldn’t the emphasis be on going out and doing chessed, rather than sitting selfishly and learning?
What a great kashye! I think there’s a gemarah which talks about this, let me go and learn it ……..
posted by XGH @ 1:16 PM
Bluke has posted his schedule. Seems the guy is quite a masmid, and a hard worker too. Well, not to be outdone, I shall post my schedule. Here you will see my true gadlus.
5:30-6:30 Dream in bed before getting up about blogging / learning
6:30-7:15 Get up, while getting up I dream about blogging / learning
7:15-7:745 Help spouse get the kids up, while I dream about blogging / learning
7:45-8:00 Shachris (so I daven fast – you wanna make something of it??????????), try not to dream about blogging/learning
8:00-9:00 Take kids to school and drive to work, while driving I dream about blogging / learning
9:00-5:00 Serious blogging / learning, occasionally interrupted by some work
5:00-6:00 Drive home & pick up kids from school, while driving I dream about blogging / learning
6:00-8:30 Have dinner, play with kids, talk to spouse, while I dream about blogging / learning
8:30-9:00 Help spouse put the kids to bed, while I dream about blogging / learning
9:00-12:00 Serious learning / blogging (is there a difference?), occasionally interrupted by some housework
12:00-5:30 Sleep, have strange dreams about kannoim breaking into my house and attacking me
UPDATE: The same schedule applies to my wife, except that she doesn’t take the kids, and 9:00-12:00pm is of course a mixture of Jonathan Kellerman Novels, CSI and The OC. Just kidding! She does lots of cleaning, laundry, making dinner, and lots of other things too I’m sure, which I think just happen but really she spends a tremendous amount of time making sure they happen. (Did I get that right?). Not sure what she dreams about, probably housework. Or possibly having a husband who is not obsessed with blogging / learning.
posted by XGH @ 9:53 AM
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Satyaman says:
I think the article below gives some insight into the move to the right. Maybe this move is not so much a rubber stamping of the Chareidi hashkafah as much as it is a visceral fear and disgust of the crudeness and vacuous nature of popular American or Western culture. As I commented earlier - People are not so much running to Emes as much as they are running away from Sheker. Obviously this is just one aspect of the culture. Thank G-d there is still much to admire about the US.
I would add that as much as I dislike certain aspects of Chareidi Haskafah, if there is one thing that will turn me into a raving Chareidi it is this issue of pritzus. It bothers me to say it, but it's a fact that the MO world in general is too lax on this matter, especially during the high school years. Whether there are any longer term effects can be debated. The only thing I can think of in response is that once you become desensitized to it, it bothers you less. But then you can say that about genocide too.
Note: this article contains some concepts which are offensive. However, if I take them out, it reduces the meaning of the article. I apologize if anyone is offended.
Culture-Whipped
All too often, our children are exposed to the loud, frenzied, garish spectacle of adult sexuality.
By Gil Reavill
EDITOR'S NOTE: This is an excerpt from Smut: A Sex-Industry Insider (and Concerned Father) Says Enough is Enough, released today.
Let me sketch out a day I spent with my middle-school age daughter. It started with an episode of a "tween" sitcom — that is, a show targeted for kids between the ages of nine and twelve. I passed through the room where my daughter was watching the program and just happened to catch a scene where twin seven-year-old girls tried out a new cheerleading routine they were practicing.
"Shake it, shake it, shake it," the seven-year-olds squeaked, sticking out their fannies, slapping them, and then reacting as if they'd just touched a hot stove. I looked at my daughter, who gazed at the tube with the vacant-eyed look that is, if statistics about TV watching are right, the most common facial expression in America. I felt upset at the clear sexualization of a pair of prepubescent girls, and especially annoyed that their antics were played for laughs. "Shake it, shake it, shake it," chanted the seven-year-olds.
Ha, ha, ha, went the laugh track.
"How cute" was the barely subliminal message being conveyed to my daughter. "Look at these tykes acting like a pair of pole dancers!"
Real funny, I posed my unspoken thought against the canned laughter. But I resisted the impulse to point out the inappropriateness of the message. Just the day before, my daughter and I had talked about a Ludacris song she liked, about thuggin' and clubbin' and ho's (street slang for "whores"), and I didn't want to come off as constantly preaching. In present-day America, we learn to swallow many of our responses to modern culture, so as not to appear prudish, vanilla, or outré.
A commercial interrupted the seven-year-old lap dancers. A trailer for The Girl Next Door, the latest theatrical movie from Fox about to open. "I want to see that," my daughter said. I let that pass, too. The movie is rated R, and my daughter is not allowed to see R-rated movies. The plot involves a porn star moving in next door to a teenage boy.
Why are they advertising an R-rated movie on a program aimed at twelve-year-olds? That was my thought, but again I said nothing out loud.
We got into the car for a drive, my wife up front next to me, my daughter in back with her beloved iBook laptop. She had just received the computer as a present for her birthday and had already downloaded seventy-five songs into her iTunes jukebox. She sang along as the iBook trolled automatically through her playlist.
My wife and I were talking, not really paying much attention to what was going on in the backseat, when I heard my daughter mouthing the words to D12's hit "My Band," featuring Eminem (who was born Marshall Mathers) as lead rapper. "I swear to *****n'God," my twelve-year-old sang, "Dude, you *****n'rock! Please, Marshall, please, let me **** **** ****."
"What was that?" I asked, twisting my head around and almost running off the road. In our household, which is not a free speech zone, we have well-articulated boundaries about what sort of words are inappropriate. "You don't even know what that means!"
"I do, too!" my daughter responded, even though I know she doesn't, and she knows I know she doesn't. It turned out she had downloaded "My Band" from the Internet, where there was a choice of the cleaned-up "radio" version (which she is allowed) and the unbleeped explicit version (which she is not allowed). My wife and I fell asleep at the switch, not monitoring which version our daughter actually chose.
But what happened next we could not have stopped or avoided through any action of our own. We drove into Manhattan along the West Side Highway, through a commercial district of warehouses and garages. The carriage horses that operate in Central Park are stabled here, and across the highway the military museum installed in the decommissioned aircraft carrier USS Intrepid looms massively on the docks. Also located in this neighborhood, so that it acts like something of a portal to all of New York City, is Larry Flynt's Hustler Club, a sprawling burlesque house situated in a former automobile showroom. Flynt adorns the side of the building with a billboard-sized sign showing a woman, her mouth pursed, blowing on her hand.
I glanced back at my daughter, who was gazing out the window, keeping an eye out as she always does, for a glimpse of the carriage horses. What she got instead was a teasing display of adult sexuality. I didn't say anything, but I tried to imagine what was passing through her mind.
She had asked about the club before. "What's that?" How to explain a strip joint to your pre-teenage daughter? Keep it simple, my wife always advised, when communicating grown-up concepts to children. "Some men like to watch women dance," I had told her, back when she first asked about it.
Even for someone such as myself, with experience in the world of commercial sex, the explanation sounded lame and incomplete. I recall suddenly feeling unworthy of the charge of being a parent. How could I unravel the tangle of politics, morality, exploitation and hedonism that represents the knotted sexuality of America today? I had trouble explaining it to myself, much less to my daughter.
That specific day was not atypical. My family has been treated to X-rated movies on the DVD screens of cars in the lanes next to us. The Howard Stern radio show has boomed out of what seemed like nuclear-powered car stereo speakers when we were attempting to enjoy a morning in a riverside park. Now as I watched her gazing out at Larry Flynt's smut emporium, I realized the degree to which we have failed our children.
In a political sense, the young are powerless, voiceless, totally reliant on adults. In myriad important ways, in providing them with health insurance and legal protection, our record as a society is spotty at best.
But we also have left unfulfilled our function as guardians of their cultural environment. The boundaries of their world have been repeatedly breached, many times by people interested in making money and dismissive of all other considerations. All too often, our children are exposed to the loud, frenzied, garish spectacle of adult sexuality. They get their faces rubbed in it. So within the course of one hour of one very ordinary day, I had been treated to a vision of twin seven-year-old fanny slappers, a sex professional taking up neighborhood residence, and groupies begging for sex. I didn't like it. It made me mad. What had happened to my family that day was that we had been "culture-whipped," a term that measures the gulf between the expectations of the viewer (or listener) and the content of the media. When you whip your head around, asking "What was that?" not believing your eyes and ears, you've been culture-whipped.
In today's media climate, whether we want it or not, we are inundated, saturated, beaten over the head with sex. Television, our national public commons, has an ever-mounting percentage of explicit sexual content on cable, shading down to the mere leering double entrendre and snickering innuendo of broadcast sitcoms. It's difficult to find a program that doesn't reference sex. It's egregious, it's out of control, it's too much. Media, advertising art, and entertainment constantly shove images at me that I am just not interested in seeing.
The average child in America puts in a full workweek, forty hours, consuming media. That means our kids are getting a snootful of this stuff, all day every day, week in and week out. I am reminded of Groucho Marx, who once had a guest on his interview program You Bet Your Life, a woman who said she had nine children and that she and her husband liked it. "I like my cigar," Groucho responded, "but I take it out of my mouth every once in a while." In today's culture, the "cigar" of smut has been permanently and surgically stapled to our lips. We can't take it out of our mouths at all, much less every once in a while.
posted by XGH @ 2:48 PM
The discussions going on over at DovBear's blog on Modern Orthodoxy are quite interesting and sometimes amusing. AskShifra, a former Chareidi, finally came out of the closet and admitted to herself what her friends apparently knew along, that she was in fact (or had become) Modern Orthodox. This generated many comments (somewhat of a record for DovBear), including the following from Bluke:
Here are some things that are accepted MO practices in many communities:
1. women don't cover their hair (most probably a chiyuv d'oraysa),
2. women wear pants
3. kids go to co-ed schools
4. emphasis on secular studies not torah
...
This earned him a fair amount of vitriol from some commentors who should know better. Of course Bluke is correct, to deny that is foolish. However it is not the whole story.
Likewise this quote from Prof. Waxman, originally quoted by House of Hock and picked up by Krum both on his own blog and also on DovBear, is flawed too:
"It is necessary 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 Halachah but are, nevertheless, philosophically modern. Within this context, being modern means, at minimum, having a positive 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. "
Waxman’s analysis is somewhat flawed because the exact same distinction can be made of the UO’s too. Plenty of UO’s talk the talk, but in their private lives are not really that ‘frum’. However due to social pressure they must appear to conform, at least publicly.
I guess it's going to take a Godol to sort this mess out.
1. The Basics
First, we need to cover some basics.
In every community, religious or otherwise, you have people who identify with that community for various reasons. Broadly speaking we can define the following categories:
- Hereditary & Happy: People born into that community, and are happy to stay there.
- By Choice: People who moved into that community by choice
- Desperate To Leave: People who either were originally hereditary or born again, but now, for whatever reason are desperate to leave.
In religious communities, you also have further categorizations:
- Serious: People who take the ideologies and practices of the community very seriously
- Average: People who take the ideologies and practices of the community less seriously
- Not Serious: People who don’t take the ideologies or the practices of the community seriously at all.
Clearly, there is some correlation between these two categories. For example, ‘By Choice’ people will often tend towards the 'Serious' category, since if they were not that serious they probably would not have moved into that community. This is less true though for people moving from right to left religiously i.e. A former UO might become MO because he is less serious in general, and so is more comfortable in an MO setting, rather than a strong identification with MO ideals. (Just an example).
To further complicate matters, as you move from left to right, ‘Prax’ (Practice) becomes increasingly more important as a defining factor, in addition to ‘Dox’ (Ideology). So, for example, people in UO communities will typically identify with both the Prax AND the Dox to a significant extent, while in a Conservative Community, since Prax is inherently less of a focus, identification is caused more by Dox.
In addition, you also have the fact that some people are just naturally serious, and some people are just naturally lazy. We can assume that those people are equally well spread out amongst all communities.
So, with that preamble, lets get down to business.
2. The UO Community
The most significant section of UO in the US is the Hereditary section, typically people with Eastern European ancestors, and typically people whose families moved to the US more recently, often since World War II. Its rarer to find UO’s whose families moved to the US in the 1880’s, though of course they do exist.
There is also quite a significant group of By Choice UO’s, mostly due to the success of the Kiruv movement, and the emphasis placed on Kiruv in the UO Community.
More recently, it has become apparent that there is also a small but vocal (at least on the web) minority who are ‘Desperate to Leave’, but can’t.
Now, here is where it gets complicated. We need to discuss which percentages of the UO community are ‘Serious’, ‘Average’ and ‘Not Serious’ (also termed ‘Faker’).
UO Communities clearly place a major emphasis on both Prax and Dox, and very specific interpretations and customs thereof. There is very little freedom of interpretation, either in Dox, (as the Slifkin ban has shown), or in Prax (at least publicly), as everyone is familiar with the various dress codes for example. Of course this varies by community, and there is more freedom in Flatbush than Bnei Brak for example.
The expected and aspirational standards of UO Prax and Dox are typically strongly and constantly reinforced through shiurim, education and social pressures to conform. This has the result of establishing a norm of Prax and Dox in those communities, which are very difficult to defy, at least publicly.
Of the main section of UO’s who are happy where they are, its fair to say that the majority identify strongly with both the Prax and the Dox expectations of their community, (whether LW, Center or RW UO). The Slifkin ban is interesting in this context because it is one of those rare examples where there was a substantial disconnect, between a ‘Dox’ which the UO community had come to accept as normative, and the sudden (and somewhat unexpected) announcement to the contrary of the Gedolim.
However, identification with a Community does not always lead to commitment to the Prax and Dox of that community, and we all know many UO types who, while they will strongly affirm that Gedolim, Torah and Mitzvos are the be all and end all to life, yet in their private lives, they fall far short of this ideal. When challenged, they will typically admit that they are ‘sinners’, but hope for better from their children. Very, very few people in the UO community will justify their lack of commitment from an ideological perspective, unless they belong to the ‘Desperate To Leave’ Group.
UO Conclusion
I think its fair to say in conclusion that there is a high percentage of Serious and Average people in the UO group, who, while they are UO for Hereditary reasons, are continually strongly influenced by educational and social factors to strongly conform to the accepted norms for UO Dox and Prax. There is also a large percentage of UO’s, who while outwardly will confirm the values of that community, in private fall far short of that ideal. The relative percentages of these two groups is very significant. Unfortunately I only have anecdotal information, but in the US I would say it falls out to be 30% Serious, 30% Average and 30% Not Serious (remaining 10% are desperate to leave and don’t count). If we categorize Average here as someone who conforms both in public and private to the generally accepted Prax and Dox levels of the UO community, this means that a good 60% of the UO community is really quite genuinely frum. Not a bad achievement.
Of course, we can always discuss whether the accepted norms for Dox and Prax as defined by UO are correct, but that is the subject of another post.
3. The MO Community
Untangling the MO community is more difficult. There is no doubt that a significant section of those people who identify as ‘MO’ are significantly less committed to their own communitie's Dox and Prax standard than the equivalent UO's. These are deemed ‘Behavioral’ MO by Waxman, and slammed by Bluke. The question is, why? Is it due to a weakness in MO Ideology, or some other factor?
The answer is complicated.
As we discussed, the bulk of the UO Community is Hereditary UO. Their Dox and Prax have been fairly standard for decades if not centuries, and throughout many parts of the World (though with some regional variances and an obvious shift to the right in recent years).
The MO Community has a much more recent and localized history. RSRH in Germany, Rav Kook in Israel, and RYBS in America all formed MO Style communities which were more location specific, and generally smaller than their UO counterparts. Each community had their respective slant, and were more heterogeneous than the various UO Communities which tend towards homogenization. Some MO’s are descendants of those communities, and in general these MO’s tend to be more committed to both the Prax and Dox standards of their communities. So for example, talmidim of RYBS or Rav Kook, and their immediate circles, can be seen to be very committed indeed.
On the other hand, you have a large constituent within MO who are there for other reasons. These include:
- Descendents of emigrants from Eastern Europe UO communities who emigrated in the 19th and early 20th Century. These descendents have spent many years away from strong UO centers and have drifted, both in Dox and Prax. However they still wish to identify with Orthodoxy, as opposed to Conservative or Reform. Often, children of these people have moved to the right.
- Former Conservative (and even reform) who have moved to the right to become ‘Orthodox’, but are still far less committed than the average Orthodox.
- Some proportion of former UO’s who moved to MO because they preferred a more relaxed lifestyle (i.e. less commitment), and found the MO community a less judgmental place to practice that lifestyle. Personally, I think this group is very small. Recent ‘I am MO’ announcements from various people are misleading. Most of these people grew up MO, ‘frummed’ out in Yeshivah / Seminary, and are now returning back to their roots. Very few genuinely UO people turn MO in later life, the social pressure, ‘anti MO’ attitude and associated stigma are just too great.
A further, and very significant factor is that the MO ideology by definition is more nuanced and balanced. Its easier to convince people to learn Torah when the message is ‘Torah is everything’ and ‘Secular Learning is Trief’, than when the message is ‘Torah and Secular learning are both valuable and need to be balanced’. Fundamentalist values are simpler to convey, and have more effective consequences (to a point). Balanced values require more thought and dedication from the community, which is not always easy to achieve.
Of course some may take this as evidence of the correctness of UO ideology itself, in that it can be more effective in its goals. I wouldn’t go that far. Its quite possible for the ideology to be wrong, yet very effective, for example Islamic Jihad. This will be discussed in the ‘Big Question series of posts.
Due to the makeup of most MO communities as described above, the amount of emphasis and focus on commitment to Dox and Prax is unfortunately diminished. For example, giving a strong ‘mussar’ type drashah, extolling the virtues of Talmud Torah and Mitzvot in a UO shul, is acceptable and expected. Of course not everyone will listen, but it will get through to many people.
However such a drashah in an MO shul will not go over well. Many people would be offended, and consequently the Rabbi’s are more reticent to give such drashas. The same situation applies in the Schools. The MO community is fearful of a shift to the right, and consequently will resist any such movement. Instead Rabbis in MO shuls tend to focus on more philosophical and abstract issues, which are less offensive. Does this mean that the MO ideology is itself incorrect or flawed? Not neccessarily, however the social reality of the MO community prevents the MO ideology from achieving its goals more fully.
4. Conclusion
Its fair to say that the commitment to Prax and Dox is significantly stronger in the UO community than in the MO community. It is also fair to say that the UO community places more emphasis on promoting and reinforcing its own Prax and Dox standards through education and social pressure than does the MO community. This is somewhat due to social issues, and less due to ideological reasons, though ideological reasons (balance vs. fundamentalism) plays a part too. It is also true that many UO’s talk the talk, but in their private lives fall short of their own ideals. This is less true in MO, since there is less pressure in the first place to ‘talk the talk’ if you don’t really buy into it.
posted by XGH @ 10:54 AM
Monday, July 25, 2005
Mitpachat Sefarim by R Yaakov Emden
posted by XGH @ 12:11 PM
The Big Question: Defining Categories
In this post, we talked about performing an analysis as to which strand of Judaism achieves its goals better. This is an extremely important analysis, since in the absence of clear proofs, demonstrating practical superiority is of enhanced importance.
There seems to be genral disagreement as to the relative achievements of the various groups within Judaism. For example, here is a typical exchange, between I assume an Orthodox and a Conservative/Reform Jew (though in truth it makes no difference who they are):
Mr. Orthodox:
Maybe only 1% of Reform/Conservative Jews ask basic questions about Torah, life, purpose, etc. As a general rule, Conservative/Reform is religiously shallow, uninspiring, and meaningless with almost zero reverence for G-d.
Mr. Conservative/Reform
This is the statement of someone who is ignorant about the practices of Reform and Conservative Jews. It is a simplistic and convenient way to try and marginalize those groups so that you can prop up your own and is not based upon reality.
I shall try to be unbiased. I have a wide range of readers, with many UO’s, MO’s, Conservative and some Reform / Secular too who will hopefully keep me honest.
Clearly, it would be more of an apples to apples comparison if we could extract some common goals and determine which group does better. If each group has an entirely different set of goals, it won’t be easy to compare. As a reminder, here is our methodology:
- Gain a more concrete understanding and agreement as to the goals of life and Judaism
- Gain agreement as to which groups do a better job at meeting those goals
- Gain understanding as to what the causes are of some groups performing better
- Plan activities and group affiliations accordingly
To set the stage, we need to more clearly define the different groups we are talking about. Clearly, there is a continuous spectrum of ‘religiosity’, extending from Secular to Chareidi with everything in between. In fact, it is not really a spectrum, with many groups having overlapping and conflicting ideologies and practices. For the purpose of our analysis though, we must have some defined categories.
I propose the following categories, based on a series of posts back in February.
Primary Categories: UO, MO, Conservative, Reform, Secular
Secondary Categories: Left, Center, Right
Tertiary Categories: Serious, Average, Not Serious
Quaternary Categories: US, Europe, Israel
Not all combinations make sense or are statistically significant. For example Left/Right and Serious/Not Serious may not make sense in a Secular context. But we will try our best.
I shall ignore Chassidim, Chabadniks, Carlebachians, Cookniks and other odd groups beginning with the letter ‘C’. Also, I think we need to focus on the American Scene primarily, but we should take Israel and Europe into account where significant differences arise.
It is clear that the left and right often blend into each other at the borders, for example with Conservadoxy. We will have to deal with that too. How do I intend to categorize specific individuals or communities? Simple. Whatever label that individual or community attaches to itself will be the one I shall use, unless there are clear reasons why there has been an incorrect label applied.
posted by XGH @ 12:06 PM
Rav Chaim Navon has an interesting series of shiurim on Philosophy of Halachah. This quote from Professor Ta-Shema, in the third shiur 'Halachah & Custom' caught my eye:
"According to the point of view described above, 'practice' precedes 'law' not only in importance, but in logic as well. This is not like the question, which came first – the chicken or the egg. For we know with certainty that the practices existed first, and only later were the halakhot formulated. The relationship between Halakha, that is to say, the Talmud, and actual conduct may thus be compared to the relationship between the rules of grammar and a living language. Our ancestors started with actual talk, and not with learning the grammatical rules, which are nothing but an a posteriori description of 'standard' linguistic practice. Halakha is nothing but an attempt to generalize in an abstract manner the wealth of diversified practices." (I. Ta-Shema, Minhag Ashkenaz Ha-kadmon, p. 69)
Although the shiur in general seems to be talking about Minhag, one of DovBear's pet peeves, this quote seems to be talking about Halachah. This is an interesting idea that we have spoken about before. Certainly there are significant similarities (and also significant differences) between certain laws in the Torah and other law codes of ancient times, in particular the Hammurabi code. But, like everything else, Judaism took the existing codes and cleaned them up.
Although some people may have their doubts about some Halachah, for example regarding homosexuality and the like, in general it's hard not to appreciate how well balanced everything is. I was listening to the radio this morning, to an interview with some British Imams. Radical Islam is a real problem in that country, and its getting hard for the moderates to reach out to the young. And this is in Britain, not some refugee camp in Gaza. Its easy to point to some pesukim about killing Amalek, and claim Judaism is a bloodthirsty religion too. But the proof is in the pudding.
posted by XGH @ 10:26 AM
100 Most Mispelled Misspelled Words
acceptable, accidentally, accommodate, acquire, acquit, a lot, amateur, apparent, argument, atheist, believe, bellwether, calendar, category, cemetery, changeable, collectible, column, committed, conscience, conscientious, conscious, consensus, daiquiri, definite(ly), discipline, drunkenness, dumbbell, embarrass(ment), equipment, exhilarate, exceed, existence, experience, fiery, foreign, gauge, grateful, guarantee, harass, height, hierarchy, humorous, ignorance, immediate, independent, indispensable, inoculate, intelligence, its/it's, jewelry, judgement, kernel, (colonel), leisure, liaison, library, license, lightning, maintenance, maneuver, medieval, memento, millennium, miniature, minuscule, mischievous, misspell, neighbor, noticeable, occasionally, occurrence, pastime, perseverance, personnel, playwright, possession, precede, principal/principle, privilege, pronunciation, publicly, questionnaire, receive/receipt, recommend, referred, reference, relevant, restaurant, rhyme, rhythm, schedule, separate, sergeant, supersede, their/they're/there, threshold, twelfth, tyranny, until, vacuum, weather, weird
Surprisingly, 'rediculous' didn't make the list. I guess that must be limited to people from Brooklyn.
posted by XGH @ 10:14 AM
I bought a new car a while back, and one day realized that I had never actually looked under the hood, or even taken note of any of its specifications. The car drove comfortably, had all the features I wanted, so I bought it. A friend of mine had a similar experience, with a car he had inherited from his father. One day he decided to look under the hood, but found such a mess in there that he longer drives the car. I guess he never really liked driving it in the first place. Probably he hadn’t kept up with the maintenance properly.
I do feel sorry for those people who bought a SAAB 97 though. Its really just a dressed up Chevy Trailblazer. Some people say there’s nothing wrong with that. SAAB took the Chevy, fine tuned it and added all the SAAB essentials that make it worth the extra money. However that would never suit me, it’s just not authentic.
So my friend gave up his car, and claims he is much happier not having to drive that pile of junk anymore, constantly worrying that it’s going to break down at any moment. I feel sorry for him though, now he’s just stuck at home, not going anywhere. He bought a bicycle instead, but that’s hardly going to take him and his family on any big vacations.
Recently, I looked under the hood of my car, and to my untrained eyes it looked like a mess too, I just couldn’t figure out what the heck was going on. However my car drives really well, and consumer reports rated it one of the best buys, so I am not about to give up driving it just because I don’t understand how it works.
Vehamayvin Yavin.
posted by XGH @ 9:26 AM
Sunday, July 24, 2005
The 13 Principles: Do I believe?
On The Main Line has a new feature in which he will be going through the 13 principles and discussing whether he truly believes in each one or not. That was actually an idea I had a while back, so being The Godol Hador, I shall have to do one better. I will therefore be starting a new series in which I will discuss 13 collections of 13 principles.
- The 13 principles of faith
- The 13 principles of Nia
- The 13 principles of Wiccan belief
- The 13 principles of success
- The 13 principles of effective treatment
- The 13 principles for brain-compatible teaching and parenting
- The 13 principles of a master
- The 13 principles of Wing Chun
- The 13 principles of remote access
- The 13 principles of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Development Corporation
- The 13 principles of Herut
- The 13 principles of Ngati Whatua
- The 13 Principles of moisture transfer in multi-domain cereal systems
I shall not fail to be honest. Call me a heretic, but I'm not too sure about principle number 9 for brain-compatible teaching and parenting.
Seriously though, what is it with the number 13 and principles? Is it likely that Rambam davkah had 13 ikkarim, or maybe he just wanted to use a 'special' number? The same question could be asked of the Aseret Hadibrot, or the Brooklyn Bridge Park Development Corporation for that matter.
Other special numbers in Judaism:
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,18,any multiple of 18, 248, 365, 613, 770, 24,000 and 600,000.
Imagine if the Rambam had decided to use the number 10 instead, to parallel the Aseret Hadibrot, the whole of Orthodoxy might have turned out different. I guess we will never know. Still, we shouldn't complain. At least he didn't chose 18, or 770.
posted by XGH @ 10:19 PM
The debate about TV being evil is kind of stupid. In fact, it is stupid. Nobody (in their right mind) thinks that the technology is inherently evil. Also, nobody (with a clue) thinks that all TV programming is bad. Clearly some shows are good, educational and valuable. Really, the arguments are about what percentage of shows are bad, and is it realistic to think that we can successfully control what our kids (or ourselves) watch.
We can debate the former, and spill mountains of ink on the relative evils or harmlessness of sitcoms and cartoons, but that is all entirely subjective. As to the latter, the amount of ‘gezerah’ or ‘fence’ around something is also pretty subjective. At one extreme we all must live in caves, at the other extreme we give our kids total freedom and expect them to make the correct moral choices.
My personal opinion on TV, speaking both as an authority on TV as well as an authority on my own personal opinion, is that 95% of TV programming is crap: Boring, clichéd, displaying bad values, a waste of time, violent, overtly sexual, insensitive, and well, just crap. That doesn’t mean it’s not enjoyable, personally I sometimes quite enjoy watching crap. Though I don’t usually feel too fulfilled afterwards. But I have to admit it’s crap.
As to the question of ‘gezerah’, I stake my position in the middle ground. A small TV (<27”)>
posted by XGH @ 1:50 AM
Friday, July 22, 2005
I promised the Chareidi Rav who wrote the Zohar article that I would blog about TV. So here I go. Rabbi Adlerstein has a post on TV here, in which he says:
On the other hand, there was pressure to segregate the kids from the “better” homes (i.e. ones without TV) so that they could achieve more of their potential without being subject to the educational drag of children from less spiritually rarified families. (The assumption was a gross generalization, but it harbored a good deal of truth.)
DovBear, in one of his regular 'I hate Cross Currents' posts, says:
What you mean is that kids with TVs are less holy, and that, too, is laughable. How many of us know kids who grew-up in the "spiritually rarified" air of homes that had no TVs but overindulged the moment they could? As one of your own commenters said, "The problem is not television. It’s bad television. If you restrict your kids... television can be a good influence." To which I'll add, lousy parents can ban their kids from watching TV, and if they are lousy parents the kids will still turn out bad. TV is not inherently evil.
I doubt anyone, even Rav Elyashiv, thinks that a cathode ray tube (or plasma if you have the money) is inherently evil. Obviously they are talking about the programming, not the medium itself. And everyone acknowledges that there are some educational and worthwile programs on TV. So the question is, is there enough good prgramming on TV to warrant having one. And if yes, can one successfully limit viewing to only the good stuff? Most people would say no and no.
As someone who tries not to watch TV (in fact I have almost watched nothing in the last year), but in the past watched a TON of TV, I have to agree with Rabbi Adlerstein. 95% of all TV is really quite bad. I would not want my kids watching it. Even the cartoons are overly violent and have an attitude. Have you ever seen 'Cyberchase'? I really don't know what I will do when my kids grows out of Thomas The Tank Engine and The Wiggles.
And as far as 'adult' TV goes, it gets even worse. The reality shows are moronic. Low class, white trash, exhibitionists finding love, danger or whatever. Who cares. Sure, I watched the whole series of Paradise Hotel, I really wish I hadn't though. Never again! The CSI type shows are twisted and disgusting. How do decent people get a kick from watching such horrific violence? The same goes for Jonathan Kellerman Novels and that whole genre. Sick and twisted. The sitcoms are mostly stupid, though sometimes you can learn something about social behaviors and how to deal with situations from some of the more sophisticated shows. Even the news is dumbed down.
The only things really worth watching are the Discovery Channel and old classic comedy reruns. is it worth having a TV for that? And can you ensure that the only thing your kids ever watch are shows about Dolphins and old episodes of Monty Python? Even something as harmless and popular as Friends and Seinfeld have issues. Remember the 'Master of your domain' episode? Do you want your 12 year old watching that? I think not.
So what about DovBear's claim that kids from 'frum' homes go off the derech too, and try and watch TV at every opportunity? It's a good question. Clearly, protecting your kids from harm does not always work. But you still have to try. I think I would advocate having a small TV, and occasionally allowing kids to watch something harmless, just so that it's not forbidden fruit. However the parents need to follow this example too. Having a large screen in the master bedroom will send a hypocritical message to the kids.
And what about DovBear's initial comment: "What you mean is that kids with TVs are less holy, and that, too, is laughable". If there is such a concept of "Holy", which I believe you must say there is if you are Orthodox, then it's hardly laughable. I don't want to get into defining 'Holy' right now. But whatever it means, I would argue with conviction that a teenager who spends hours each night watching the OC and similar shows absolutely has to be less 'Holy' than someone spending the same time learning, or even playing sports. If not, then many of the major tenets of Orthodox Judaism are a joke. Is DovBear arguing that Orthodox Judaism is a joke? I don't know, you will have to ask him that question.
I don't like Rabbi Adlersteins somewhat triumphalist chareidi tone, but I have to agree with the sentiment.
TV is evil and you should limit it as much as possible.
posted by XGH @ 2:49 PM
The most frequent question I hear regarding the Cassuto mehalech is 'How could G-d have lied in the Torah'. Here is what Rav Chaim Navon has to say, quoted from this article
We are not dealing here with a "lie," God forbid, just as the creation story in Bereshit is not a "lie," even according to Rav Kook who maintains that it may not correspond precisely to the events that actually transpired. The Torah never claimed to mirror historical reality with any degree of exactitude; it expects its students to read it after they have already mastered its historical background. According to those who advocate this approach, God never meant to give us the impression that the biblical stories reflect historical reality. When both the author and the reader understand that the Torah does not reflect historical reality, there is no room to talk of a "lie." The key point is that the Torah and science, including historical science, are two separate realms, the objectives of which are entirely different, so that there cannot be any contradiction between them.
You may recall that there is no ikkar which says the Torah is historically true, just that G-d gave the Torah. Likewise, the 8th ikkar says that G-d 'dictated' the Torah to Moshe, which does not neccessarily preclude the texts having been existant in one form of another prior to that.
Note: This mehalech answers Science & Torah questions. It does not attempt to address Documentary Hypothesis questions, though it may be of value there too.
posted by XGH @ 2:08 PM
In light of recent developments, Gartner Group have modified their Gedolim Survey. Here is the new magic quadrant.
posted by XGH @ 12:42 PM
Cassuto: Breishis as Counter-Mythology
Long time readers of my blog will know that while I don't claim to have THE answer to all those Science vs Torah questions, I have always strongly felt that the most correct mehalech was not Schroeder or Slifkin (and obviously not Rav Shternbuch, Shapiro and Kiruv Clown friends), but was in fact Umberto Cassuto's mehalech.
Was Cassuto frum? Well, he had semichah, according to this:
Born in Florence, Italy, he studied there at the university and the Collegio Rabbinico. After graduating in humanities and receiving his rabbinic diploma, he took up teaching positions in both institutions. At this time his main research was on the history and literature of the Jews of Italy. From 1914 to 1925 Cassuto was chief rabbi of Florence and then in 1925 became professor of Hebrew language and literature in the University of Florence and then took the chair of Hebrew at the University of Rome. Here he began to catalogue the Hebrew manuscripts in the Vatican but the 1938 anti-Semitic laws forced him out of his positions and he continued his academic career at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. He edited a Bible with Hebrew commentary that has remained an Israel school classic. His interests focused on Bible exegesis in which he contested the documentary theory of Wellhausen on the origin of the Pentateuch, postulating its redaction to a school around the 10th century BCE. Cassuto also made important contributions to Ugaritic studies.
Wikipedia has this to say (it needs some editing if you want my opinion):
He studied there at the university and the Collegio Rabbinico. After getting a degree and Semicha, he taught in both institutions. From 1914 to 1925, he was chief rabbi of Florence. In 1925 he became professor of Hebrew and literature in the University of Florence and then took the chair of Hebrew language at the University of Rome La Sapienza. When the 1938 anti-Semitic laws forced him from this position, he moved to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Umberto's son Nathan was also a rabbi in Florence. He went into hiding during World War II, was betrayed and perished in the Nazi death camps. Nathan's wife and children were saved and emigrated to Israel. One child, the architect David Cassuto (born 1938), played a key role in rebuilding the Jewish quarter in the old city of Jerusalem. In the 1990s he was for some years deputy mayor of Jerusalem.
Basically, Cassuto's mehalech, like Nahum Sarna in Understanding Genesis (also frum), and also like Chief Rabbi Hertz in The Soncino Chumash (also frum), see the stories in the first part of Breishis as a response to the prevailing Canaanite/Sumerian Mythology, which doubtless the Israelites would have been aware of. Each myth is taken, stripped of its polytheistic and other nefarious content and replaced with pure monotheistic content. I am not sure if Sarna and Hertz were influenced by Cassutto or not, it seems likely.
Is anyone aware of any other frum (or traditional) scholars who had a similar mehalech? Please let me know. I am not aware of any, so I was gratified to see Hirhurim link to this article on the Gush Virtual Bet Midrash site by Rav Chaim Navon. Rav Navon explicitly condones the Cassuto mehalech, at least with respect to the Taninim mentioned in Breishis.
Cassuto argues that the Torah does not totally reject this mythological tradition; but rather it modifies it. "New ideas were attached to it in consonance with the conscience and ethos of the Hebrew people" (U. Cassuto, Biblical and Oriental Studies, vol. II, p. 98). According to Cassuto, the Torah continues to use the Tanin and Leviathan as symbols of the forces of evil against which God contends. The Torah eradicates the idolatrous meaning of these myths and turns them into a symbol of the war against the forces of evil and suffering.
Also interesting is that Rav Dovid Gottleib in this article talks about Cassuto's book on the Documentary Hypothesis, but adds the following disclaimer:
[[Cassuto’s book does not represent the position of Traditional Judaism. Some of his remarks would be considered false textually, and objectionable religiously. Nevertheless, his critique of the methods and results of “Biblical Criticism” are devastating and deserve to be known. – D.G.]]
So was Cassuto frum? Well, there is a street in Bayit Vegan named after him, but I'm not sure if that proves it definitively. Either way, I continue to maintain that this is the most correct peshat in Breishis. As for those people (like Boruch) who counter 'Why would G-d write mythology in the Torah?', my response is that it's really no more of a kashye than asking why would G-d write long (and boring?) geneologies and travel itineraries in the Torah which don't seem to add much value. And the answer to those kashyes?
I don't know, go ask the Author, not me.
posted by XGH @ 11:58 AM
I found the following story from a commenter on Frumteens of all places !
There is an interesting story told about HaGaon Rav Yitzchok HaLevi, the author of a Torah-true history of the Jewish People, the Doros HaRishonim (written to counter the history of the maskilim). Rav Yitschok HaLevi was also an important figure in the founding of Agudas Yisroel. His living room was the setting in which gedolim from all parts of Europe and all sectors of Yiddishkeit (Chassidish, Litvish, Yekkish, etc.) came together to meet and discuss building a political organization that would represent Torah-true Judaism before governments around the world.
Anyway, according to the story, the Doros Harishonim said to Rav Chaim Soloveitchik of Brisk the following: "I am ready to swear on a Sefer Torah on Yom Kippur that R. Shimon Bar Yochai did NOT write the Zohar."
Rav Chaim's response: "You don't need to swear."
Frumteens response? It was written by RSBY's talmidim! Actually, if you read the whole thread, you will see the Moderator contradict himself quite clearly. In the beginning of the thread he says:
The Zohar was indeed written by Rav Shimon bar Yochai, as confirmed by all our Torah experts, including the Arizal, who was the greatest expert in Kabbalah ever.
Then, after being debated by people who were clearly knowledgeable on the facts, he changes his claim to the following:
That RSHBI didnt write the Zohar meaning the all the exact words are not written by him is pretty clear - and yes, you dont need to swear to that. The Zohar was clearly edited by students of RSHBI, or even Geonim (the Steipler said that).
So first, "all our Torah experts" confirmed that RSBY wrote it, and now "the Steipler said the Geonim edited it!". I guess the Steipler was not a Torah expert. All this stuff is bogus apologetics anyway. The mistakes, contradictions and chronological impossibilities show that substantial portions MUST have been written in the 12th or 13th centuries.
posted by XGH @ 9:39 AM
Mitpachat Sefarim by R Yaakov Emden
UPDATE: I will have the Mitpachat Sefarim online next week, iy"h.
I had never heard of this sefer until recently, but it is reasonably well known amongst the scholars. R Yaakov Emden wrote it to point out all the flaws in the Zohar, though ultimately he confirms the Zohar as holy, based I think on the Ari. Seems strange to me why he would bother writing the sefer then.
It seems that this sefer is extremely hard to get, the chareidi stores don't like to sell it anymore. I have a copy in Word document form, if there is significant interest, I can post it. I haven't read it. I found the following message from Rav Daniel Eidensohn on a Internet mailing list:
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 18:48:08 +0200
From: Daniel Eidensohn
Subject: Zohar & R'Yaakov Emden
It was implied by a recent posting that Rav Yaakov Emden did not hold by the authenticity of the Zohar. This is not accurate. He did do an exhaustive analysis of the text and concluded that there were a number of statements which were written in relatively recent times - but he did not reject the validity of the Zohar. G Sholem writes "In Mitpachat Sefarim (1768), Emden concluded on the basis of a large number of specific errors in the Zohar that many sections, and particulary the Midrash haNelam were late although he still assumed that there was an ancient foundation for the main body of the book.....19-century scholars of Judaism, Zunz...& Graetz went further that Jacob Emden and saw the Zohar as a product of the the 13th century...." Rav Kasher wrote an extensive article on the validity of the Zohar (published in Sinai - Sefer Yovel) on page 51 he wrote "...I brought in the name of the Yaavetz from his Sefer Mitpachat Sefarim that many statements and terminology are in a later style and were introduced into the Zohar by scribes during transcription. ...There is no doubt that the scribes wrote these on the margin of the Zohar and it was integrated with the text by the printer. These types of additions are often found in medrashim. And even in the Babylonian Talmud there are additions and comments of the Goanim which were inserted into the text itself. On this basis the Yaavetz wrote to explain all the places where the form and style indicated that they were from a more recent period - that they were inserted by scribes and thus remove the problem [ of the authenticity of the Zohar] because the Zohar should not be judged invalid because of these additions."
Finally the Mitpachat Sefarim was republished two years ago. I saw it in a sefarim store in Meah Shearim and asked why they were selling such "maskilidic" sefarim. The owner got indignant and said that the sefer is important in *validating* the authenticity of the Zohar.
Daniel Eidensohn
posted by XGH @ 9:17 AM
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Best Mussar of the 60's, 70's and 80's
Forget Der Alter, the best Mussar comes from Harav Michoel Yaeger:
You can’t always get what you want
You can’t always get what you want
You can’t always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you just might find
You get what you need
posted by XGH @ 1:16 PM
I spoke to my niece who just returned from Kfar Maimon, where she spent the last two days. She said there was a positive atmosphere there, and she and her friends made sure to express their good wishes to the soldiers and police, shouting 'chayal, ani ohevet otchah' over and over, to try and ensure that there were no confrontations or bad feelings. (Maybe the soldiers were cute too). She grew up in the Shomron, so of course she is anti-disengagement, but she has a good attitude in general.
It's quite probable that if I was there now, I would feel very differently about the disengagement. Not due to reason, but due to emotion. Likewise, I am usually moved by the kabalistic piyutim and zmiros, and even by various kabalistic passages I have read. But I can't figure out if that's a good thing or a bad thing. Is it better to be passionately and emotionally involved, or does that just cloud your judgment? Logic tells me the latter is true, but if we all became dispassionately involved in every cause, not much would get done. On the other hand, if we all became intensely emotionally involved in everything, correct decisions would be hard to come by.
Perhaps this tension between emotion and reason is also reflected in religious life. We have the rational side, and we have the emotional, mystical side of religion. Although some of kabalah seems suspect, it's hard to believe that G-d would create the Jewish religion without a mystical aspect to it. Finding the correct balance is difficult, but one we should strive for.
The rationalists seem to suffer from a lack of emotion, which is probably why, during the trying and very emotional years of the 14-18th centuries, the Zohar won out over the Moreh Nevuchim. And again, during the turbulent years of the founding of the state, the people turned to Rav Kook, and his brand of emotional mysticism. Possibly if things calm down both in Israel and in general, over the next few (hundred?) years we may see a shift back to a more rational and less emotional/mystical Judaism.
Some people might wonder if I am confusing emotion and mysticism as if it were one thing. Why can't we have passion and emotion without mysticism? It seems to me that there are very strong connections between these two concepts. Sure, some people manage to get passionate over the minutae of Halachah on Shabbat, without any mystical connection at all. But that's only some people. And are they really enjoying Shabbat, or are they just obsessive compulsive? Most people need that warm spritiual feeling, and the spiritual/mystical connection is where they get it from. It's no co-incidence that the mekubalim wrote many of the most beautiful piyutim and zmiros.
So here's my compromise. Let's be honest about who really wrote the Zohar. But let's also not dismiss all kabalah and mysticism as entirely bogus. How about it?
Rav Loch Sheves be'emek habochoh vhu yachmol olayich chemlah
posted by XGH @ 12:50 PM
Survival of the Fittest Religion
John Scopes was found guilty of teaching Darwinism, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, in a Tennessee high school on this date in 1925. Though Scopes was fined $100, the Tennessee Supreme Court overturned the verdict on a technicality. The trial, which became known as the Scopes Monkey Trial, was tried by two very famous lawyers, Clarence Darrow for the defense and prosecutor William Jennings Bryan. The ACLU financed the defense. It was only in 1968 that the US Supreme Court overturned a similar law in Arkansas.
Charles Darwin, quoted on the picture, said:
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives,nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change."
Does this apply to religion too? Does religion need to be adaptable to change? Or is it just the contrary. Maybe a religion needs to stay strong and davkah not change, or else it's in danger of losing its way?
In general, being adaptable to change is important. In the corporate world, with the threat of reorganization always looming (yikes!), you need to always be prepared to work in a new team or with a new boss at the drop of a hat.
In personal life too, marriage, children and other life changing events clearly require adaptive skills. But what about religion? Should Orthodoxy adapt to the new morals of the west? Should Orthodoxy adapt to the latest historical findings on the Zohar and other aspects of religion?
The ikkarim and the Torah itself seem to davkah include a principle of non-adaptation, that the Torah will never be changed, no matter what. Extra 'fenceguards' are possible, there is some leeway in various things, and some smaller changes are possible, but major things such as Shabbat, or the sin of forbidden relations seem to be impossible to change.
It would seem that according to Darwin, this is a recipe for failure, for non-survival. Yet here we are 3,000 years later, still keeping halachot as strongly as ever (in fact more strongly).
Boruch Elokeynu Shebraanu Lichvodo, VeHivdilanu Min Hatoim, VeNosan Lanu Toras Emes, Vechayei Olam Notah Betochaynu
posted by XGH @ 11:10 AM
Ashrei Haam Shekocho Lo, Ashrei Haam SheHashem Elokov
Boruch Spinoza, in reference to the Zohar discussion, and the differences between criticizing The Zohar and Torah SheBaalPeh said the following:
Godol Hador in summary:
Logic is like a powerful weapon that can destroy buildings. I will only use this powerful weapon to destroy ugly and dilapidated houses. The houses that I like, I will not touch since I value them.
Mis-nagid in summary:
If something has a logical flaw, then that shows it’s crap, and if you ignore it you are just fooling yourself. So you should want to reveal any logical flaws in your beliefs no matter how much you value them.
Of course there are other differences between the Zohar and TSBP too. The evidence that the Zohar was written in the 13th Century is very, very strong. The ‘evidence’ 'against' Torah is much, much weaker. However Spinoza hits upon an extremely important point.
Skepticism, cynicism and logical arguments can destroy many beautiful things. In addition, cool hard logic doesn’t make the world go round. Most of the amazing man made achievements in this world came about through passion, commitment, faith and zeal. Discussing logic and reason can only get you so far. The emotional aspect of all this is sorely lacking from my blog, since it’s very difficult (and personal) to convey emotions on a blog.
This same issues apply to the Gaza discussion. While it’s easy from a distance to be cool, calm and critical, when you are actually in the midst of things, everything can look very different. Of course this can work against you too. However whenever I go to Israel, and frequently the Shomron too, it’s hard not to feel the powerful pull of the land. The emotions are very strong and not easily explained.
The same goes for Torah and Judaism. It’s a magnificent edifice, and there’s too much value in it to simply throw it away based on some skeptical arguments. One can say the same for the Zohar too. While it may not have been written by RSBY, it’s still a magnificent piece of work. That doesn’t mean we should blindly follow everything in it, or discard scientific facts in favor of mystical explanations, but we also shouldn’t be too quick to discard items of great beauty and value.
Furthermore, the idea of ‘Continuous Revelation’, and the great spiritual intuition of the Jewish people is a very powerful one. Although there have been mistakes and slip ups over the years (Shabtai Ztvi, The Lubavitcher Rebbe or Rav Kook depending on your POV), by and large, the mass of Klal Yisroel tends to stay on the right track. There are enough checks and balances that things don’t ever get too crazy. I may scream and yell at the Chareidim, but relative to Islamic Fundamentalism there’s no comparison.
The Chareidim balance the MO’s lack of commitment, and the MO’s balance the Chareidi tendency to mysticism and obscurantism. It may not be perfect, but compared to anything else, I am confident we truly can say with complete Kavanah:
Ashrei Haam Shekocho Lo, Ashrei Haam SheHashem Elokov
posted by XGH @ 9:40 AM
Irrespective of whether you are for or against the disengagement, we should all daven together for a peaceful and proper resolution to this issue. We should always remember:
'That which unites us is greater than that which divides us'.
posted by XGH @ 9:08 AM
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
It was sixty years ago today
R Soloveitchik taught at YU without pay,
The chareidim didn't like his style,
But the MO's will revere him for a while,
So may I introduce to you,
The book you've known for all these years,
R Soloveitchik's Lonely Man Of Faith Book.
Its R Soloveitchik's Lonely Man Of Faith Book.
We hope you will enjoy the read
Its R Soloveitchik's Lonely Man Of Faith Book.
Sit back and take it at a slow speed
R Soloveitchik's Lonely
R Soloveitchik's Lonely
R Soloveitchik's Lonely Man Of Faith Book.
Is this a good book? Some of RYBS's writing can be difficult. I especially don't like the word 'ontic' appearing in every paragraph, I suppose that was the cool buzzword back in the 50's. 'Hey you groovy cat, I'm ontic'.
Unfortunately it still seems to be out of print.
posted by XGH @ 11:54 PM
1. The concept of YENEEKA and the importance to the place of birth and where one lives.
In the same way we eat and drink, giving our body energy to live and survive, our soul needs spiritual energy to survive .
יניקה מלמעלה - Yeneeka Milmaala - is the place where one receives ones energy from spirit world. It is a specific place in this physical world . This is the physical place where you should be living, and is the place your soul is yearning and searching for your physical body to move to.
If you are not living or were not born in that place, then you will find that you need to sleep more than most people, so that your soul can travel to that place whilst you sleep and feel recharged and energised ( especially in the daytime ) . These signs should identify to you that you must MOVE from where you are living.
However, before you contemplate moving, you need to ask yourself honestly, why have you been born and put in the situation you are in . Is it because you have made mistakes in your life and got SIDE-TRACKED (see "side-tracked" chapter) . Or have you had no choice, and this is where your life has placed you in this situation. In either case, now that you are with knowledge from spiritual learning. It is time to CHANGE, your soul is looking and ready to make the changes .
If you have been born in the situation and place you are in , then you must consider honestly the reasons why GOD and spirit world , put you in this situation . King David in Psalms, actually considers this place and compares it to being born AMONGST YOUR ENEMIES . King David, refers to the people around you as enemies because they are trying to kill your soul, draining your soul of any spirituality, vitality and life energy. Therefore, considering the danger to your soul, it becomes a critical emergency and vitally important to WAKE UP your soul to CHANGE.
You have been placed in the "wrong place" for a reason. GOD, spirit world and YOUR soul on a higher level, made the choice of your life circumstances before you were born. You chose the difficulties in your life, so that your soul would learn the lessons. These lessons are needed to learn from previous lifetimes, in order to release your soul from the past lives mistakes - making a TIKUN HAGILGUL.
The Place of Birth
In the spiritual concept of "YENEEKA", it is vitally imperative that you consider the place of your birth and if you can find out the place of your conception, ( if it's different, this is specially important - as your soul started its journey in one place, with the energy of that place and the energy of everywhere your mother travelled until your birth).
This is place where your soul started your physical journey in this world. This was the best place chosen by your soul to come to earth, in order that you would have this energy attached and infused in your soul.
In considering the place of birth, one needs to understand the energy that town/city is famous for and at the time of your conception and birth, the energy that was associated with that place.
For example:- Liverpool UK, everyone has heard of Liverpool after 1963 when the Beatles revolutionised the music world. The creative loving transformation they made, catalysed a whole generation to change. Rebelling against the past, encouraging freedom of expression life by living freely and lovingly.
Anyone born in Liverpool will be associated with that energy, however, anyone born in liverpool in 1963 and 1964 has the potential energy to catalyse a CHANGE in the world like the Beatles did for the music world, culture and society.
This has 2 reasons, firstly the harmonious astrological influences of planets of MARS and VENUS in 1963 and 1964 where moving - "dancing together" in the sky . These two planets of aggressive and assertive MARS and loving VENUS were travelling in each of the star signs together for 2 weeks in each month for 1963 and 1964, which has infused an energy withing ALL the children with that aspect throughout the whole world, with LOVE . An outlook of life that wants and can change the world with LOVE . All of these children are indeed becoming leaders of this next generation and influencing the world to change positively with love and peace.
The second reason applies specifically to children of Liverpool born 1963 and 1964, ( and for many years following as they are infused with the initial energy received from the whole world in 1963 1964) . The reason is that the whole world was fixated with the Beatles from Liverpool. The positive energy of the world was focused on Liverpool. Which energised the city and people who lived in Liverpool.
Other examples of places of birth, that just the name has implications and energies that are associated with it :
New York, considered be many to be the number 1 city of the world, with the tallest of sky scrapers on Manhattan. The centre of capitalist business and materialism in the whole world.
Paris, city of love and romance. Rome, thoughts of the Roman Empire and of religion of christianity. Istanbul, untrusting, deceitful and potentially dangerous to Christians and Jews.
Similarly, places can have meanings in peoples mind as places of death, tragedy, bad luck. Once labelled by our minds and thoughts, people born and associated with that place carry this negative energy. For example, Beslan Russia, Chernobyl, Izmit Turkey ( the 30,000 dead in earthquake in 1999), Bam Iran ( earthquake of Dec 26th 2003), Sri Lanka, Nicobar and all the places affected by Tsunami todal wave of Dec 26th 2004) . Even whole countries can have a negative and uncomfortable energy and label upon them, like Ethiopia, Turkey, North Korea, Nigeria. Even if the place has overcome its problems the label and energy is still there !
Constantly in the world there are energies transcending, places being given the gift of LOVE and life vitality, and those places that are a focus of negative emotions hatred violence and death.
Just think of the following places as potential holiday destinations, which of these appeal to you and which dont ( and ask yourself why? and why not ?) :- Paris, Rome, Brussels, Jerusalem, Bagdad, Istanbul, Chernobyl, Addis Ababa, Damascus, Moscow, Warsaw, Prague, New York, etc etc ., now do you understand ? that each place has an energy . A YENEEKA from heavens above, therefore :-
Learn about the PLACE of your conception and birth.
Learn about the history and events that occured in the world at the time of your conception and birth.
Learn about the history of the place you are currently living in, what energies are associated with this place? What lessons do you need to learn in living there? What type of energy is your soul receiving ? Is it life giving good and constructive or draining and deadly destructive ?
In the pages of CHANGE on this website, we discuss how easy it is to change and move home by connecting with a place that gives your soul strength vitality and a desire to love and live .
Wow!
Lucky for me I was born in Liverpool in 1964 (the same day that 'I wanna hold your hand' was released), and not some bad luck place like Izmit or Addis Ababa (chas vesholom). I now have the power to change the world !
All together now (all together now):
You say there wasn't any evolution
Well, you know
It doesn't fit with the facts
You tell me that it was all a nes-nissayon
Well, you know
It just doesn't fit with the facts
And then you talk about spontaneous generation
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the article
You ask me for my simple devotion
Well, you know
We're all doing what we can
But when you want tzedakah
for askanim with minds that hate
All I can tell you is Rabbi you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
Ah
ah, ah, ah, ah, ah...
You say we can't change our masorah constitution
Well, you know
We just need to change our heads
You tell me we need the Bnei Brak institutions
Well, you know
We should follow YU instead
But if you go carrying pictures of the Gedolai Hador
You ain't going to make it with anyone anymore
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
posted by XGH @ 10:56 PM
NOTE: I am not attacking the Mesorah. Only the Zohar. Believing in the Zohar is not an ikkar. There's no chiyuv to believe in sheker.
We all know how the Mesorah works. Moshe Rabbeinu handed the Torah to Yehoshua, who handed it to the Neviim, etc etc, all the way down to us today. An unbroken chain.
What is more interesting is the Reverse Mesorah. How do we know the Zohar is authentic, against all the evidence? Because the Ari said it was.
And how do we know the Ari is correct? Because the GRA held of him.
And why do we know the GRA was correct ? Because Rabbi X held he was ...
And how do we know Rabbi X is credible? Because R 'Elyashiv held of him.
In other words, the Reverse Mesorah leads all the way forward to R Elyashiv. It has to, there is nowhere else it can go. So if we can only show that R Elyashiv is not credible, the whole Reverse Mesorah falls apart.
Now, I wonder how we could possibly do that?
posted by XGH @ 3:50 PM
Zohar is Fake: The Document !!!
NOTE: I personally removed the Author's name and the Gedolim's names from this document. Neither he nor they were anonymous in the document I have. The Gedolim are all household names. This document is 100% verified as the work of a genuine chareidi Rabbi who is not a crackpot.
UPDATED: DOC
UPDATED: PDF
UPDATED: RTF
Sorry for the delay with the Zohar document, it was a bit of a mess. Proof positive that the guy who wrote it is a Chareidi. I have fixed many spelling mistakes, and tried to create a table of contents and structure the document somewhat. Here is the table of contents:
1 INTRODUCTION 3
1.1 MOTIVATION 3
1.2 MESORAH. 3
2 A BRIEF HISTORY OF KABALAH 5
2.1 ORIGINS 5
2.2 INITIAL INTERPRETATIONS 6
2.3 FIRST MEKUBALIM 7
2.3.1 Rav Chamai Gaon 7
2.3.2 The Raavad 7
2.3.3 Rabbi Yitzchok Sagi Nahor – Rabbi Isaac The Blind 8
2.3.4 The Ramban 8
2.4 CLAIMS OF THE MEKUBALIM 8
2.5 RAV YITZCHAK DMIN ACCO 10
2.6 R' ELYAHU DELMEDIGO 13
2.7 THE ARI 15
2.8 SEFER ARI NOHEM 16
2.9 NECHEMIA CHAYUN 18
2.10 R YAAKOV EMDEN 19
3 PROBLEMS WITH THE ZOHAR 21
3.1 INTRODUCTION 22
3.2 ERRONEOUS CHRONOLOGY IN THE ZOHAR 25
3.3 ELEMENTARY MISTAKES IN THE ZOHAR 26
3.4 MISQUOTED PESUKIM IN THE ZOHAR 27
3.5 FRAUDULENT DROSHOS IN THE ZOHAR 29
3.6 MALEVOLENT INTENT IN THE ZOHAR 30
3.7 BLASPHEMY IN THE ZOHAR 30
4 PROBLEMS WITH THE ARI 32
4.1 THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE ARI 32
4.2 FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKES OF THE ARI 32
4.3 STRANGE PRACTICES OF THE ARI 32
4.4 BLASPHEMOUS CLAIMS OF THE ARI 34
4.5 HISTORY OF THE MITPACHAS 37
4.6 OTHER ANTI ZOHAR WORKS 38
5 CONCLUSION 39
5.1 CONTEMPORARY GEDOLIM’S OPINIONS 39
5.1.1 Rav M 39
5.1.2 Rav A 39
5.1.3 Rav K 39
5.1.4 Rav G 39
5.1.5 Rav S 40
5.2 MY CONCLUSION 40
This is going to be good.
posted by XGH @ 3:00 PM
With apologies to Harav Yerucham Davies.
When I was young, it seemed that Kabalah was so wonderful,
A miracle, oh it was all so mystical, magical.
And all the birds in the trees, well they'd be singing so happily,
Joyfully, talking to the Ari.
But then I started to become much more sensible,
Logical, responsible, practical.
And they showed me a world where I could be so dependable,
Clinical, intellectual, cynical.
There are times when all the world's asleep,
The questions run too deep
For such a rational man.
Won't you please, please tell me what you've learned
I know it sounds absurd
But please tell me who I am.
Now watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical,
heretical, fanatical, modern-orthodoxical.
Won't you sign up your name, we'd like to feel you're
Acceptable, respectable, shidduchable, a fundie vegetable!
At night, when all the world's asleep,
The questions run so deep
For such a rational man.
Won't you please, please tell me what we've learned
I know it sounds absurd
But please tell me who I am.
posted by XGH @ 2:13 PM
Zohar, Kabala, Ari: I Told You So !
I just got the most amazing document from a choshuv chareidi rav. He shows how the Zohar is mostly fake using many many proofs and other sefarim, and that the only reason we believe it is because the GRA said it was good. And the only reason the GRA said it was good is because he was relying on the ARI. And he shows how the ARI was clearly mistaken and how the Ari also made up a bunch of stuff, much of which is just wrong. Its a house of cards.
How could the great GRA have been so wrong, you may ask? Well, the GRA famously said that the Rambam was misled by Greek Philosophy. So surely, if the GRA could say this about the Rambam, we can say it about the GRA!
The author also asked a bunch of Choshuv Gedolim about this and they all said that while his proofs were basically correct there is a core of truth to the Kabalah and the Zohar, and anyway the Zohar has been accepted by Klal Yisroel for so long so what can you do.
I have to go through the document and edit it for clarity before posting it (its 27 pages long!), but it basically proves what I have been saying all along. For those people who thought I was a huge kofer for dismissing the Zohar and the Ari, I have one thing to say; Nya nya nya. This Rav is way more sharfe than I ever was.
I can think of a number of responses to the article:
1. The Tamar Ross Response
Its not fake, its continuous revelation. Moses DeLeon and the Ari were zocheh to new divinely inspired theologies, and they quite rightly became part of our mesorah. This is how it's supposed to work. Oh and by the way can we change Judaism to be more feminist, thanks.
2. The Gedolim Response
Kefirah! You're banned! (In other words, you have some very good points but we can't go around showing the flaws in the mesorah, it's just not healthy, so please don't talk about it and go learn something else. This is what one Godol basically said).
3. The Skeptic Response
See! The whole masorah is krum. You can't trust any part of it. A major section of Orthodox ideology turns out to be fake. Typical. I wonder what else is fake?
4. The Kiruv Response
Nu, so believing in Kabalah or the Ari is not an ikkar. If it really bothers you so much, so don't say Brich Shmei or Kabalat Shabbat, and make sure to wear Tefilin on Chol Hamoed. It's not such a big deal.
5. My Response
Again Chareidi Ideology turns out to be krum. Enough already! Lets ditch all the bogus Chareidi stuff and return Judaism to its rational roots.
posted by XGH @ 1:47 AM
Lets get out of Gaza today,
Lets get out of Gaza
Lets get out of Gaza today,
Lets get out of Gaza
Leaving Nezarim there and Gush Katif there
Lets get out of Gaza.
Seriously though, a commentator called Uncle Moishe had this to say:
The disengagement makes sense if you anticipate an ultimate resolution of "two states for two people" (or something similar). The next step will be to complete the security fence (shoulda been done long ago). Steps after that (e.g., negotiations, withdrawal from beyond the fence) will depend on the Palestinian response. Thus, I agree with Conservative Apikorus' take that Gaza is a pilot for the West Bank.
Is there an endgame other than a two-state solution? Maybe, but it would have to include a bad fate for the Palestinians: permanent grade B citizenship (non-voting); expulsion; maybe worse. As GH has already noted here, none of the rightists seem to have another alternative handy.
Those who ask when the US will be returning its land to the natives from whom it was usurped ask a legitimate question. Such possibilities are never taken seriously here or in Australia or New Zealand. Clearly, the passage of time and the current demographic balance push such questions to the background. But more recent experiments in British Colonialism (why are they always British?) haven't fared as well -- i.e., South Africa, Zimbabwe. Regardless, for the same logic to work in Israel, someone will have to slaughter the Palestinians, then hope that the other 21 Arab nations don't take it personally. Even if the latter could be assured (and let's face it, the other Arab countries care little for their Palestinian brethren), I for one am not volunteering for the assignment.
Regarding the argument that Gaza is sure to become a "terrorist state," my response is maybe, but maybe not. It's hard to predict the future. For example, in 1974, no one could have predicted that a peace treaty with Egypt would be signed within five years of the then-recently-completed Yom Kippur War. Some historians have claimed that it was the initial success of the Yom Kippur War that allowed Egypt to "save face" from its disaster in 1967 and negotiate a treaty with Israel in 1978 (Of course, in Egypt, the official history claims that those wars were won).
Another, more recent example, comes from the Israeli pullout from Lebanon. Rightists also predicted that southern Lebanon would become a terrorist launchpad after Israel pulled out. But the post-pullout reality has been mostly quiet and it's easy to understand why: the threat of the IDF re-entering Southern Lebanon if Hezbollah acts up too much. Moreover, having pulled back to a UN-certified border, Israel now actually gets UN support (imagine that?!) for its current border, despite Hezbollah claims over the "Shebaa Farms" area.
Another point: The rules for states differ from the rules for non-states. At some point a Palesinian government will be responsible for Gaza and for preventing hostile acts (i.e., rocket fire) into Israel. To the extent that said government fails to do so, the IDF is sure to respond, perhaps by reoccupying the northernmost strip of Gaza now being vacated. But if/when it does so, it will be purely as a matter of self-defense. There will be no legitimate counterclaim of occupation, nor of territorial expansion. I actually read somewhere yesterday (probably in Haaretz) speculation that Hamas has stepped up its rocket launches because they realize that after the pullout there will be pressure on them to behave too (ha-le-vie!).
Finally, there is what I term the "behavioral" argument. Many anti's on this issue note that it is easy for the Palestinians to view disengagement as a victory (see the link by a previous post to Danny Rubinstein's Haaretz article) and that that makes disengagement a reward for terrorism, and a bad "lesson" for the Palestinians to learn, just as giving in to your tantrumizing child only teaches the child to throw more tantrums. Further, as Mirty noted on her blog, the Palestinians' "culture of death" and their endless inculcation of hatred for Israel and its Jews are surely bitter pills that cannot be overcome in less than a generation's time. There is probably a lot of validity to these points.
However, I believe we need to be conscious of the extreme imbalance of power between Israel and the Palestinians. Israel has a highly sophisticated and proficient army and intelligence corps, while the Palestinians' most (only?) potent weapon is the suicide bomber. While there probably isn't an Israeli who is more than two degrees of separation from a terror victim, Israel's society and economy continue to run on most of its cylinders. Tourists are back (try booking a flight or room for Sukkos this year), high tech remains a growth industry, daily life continues. In contrast, Palestinian unemployment is closer to 50% than to zero, there is talk of malnutrition in some quarters, and life -- let's face it -- pretty much sucks.
Of course, much of this can be laid at the feet of the Palestinians themselves, especially their leadership. I believe that Arafat's response to Camp David, particularly his not presenting a counter-offer and continuing negotiations, was a colossal blunder. His people will never get that offer again, just as they will never get the green line again, let alone the UN's original partition borders. But none of that alters the basic reality of occupation, which is subjugation by a military power, loss of freedom of movement and, it seems, confiscation of lands (talk about your eminent domain) for purposes of security (as defined by the occupation army) and colonization by settlers. And it is now twice as many years since occupation as it was between 1948 and 1967. Having made formal peace with Egypt and Jordan, with de facto coexistence in place with its other neighbors, and no real threat to its acknowledged military superiority (possible exception: Iranian nukes, but that's not for today), shouldn't Israel be taking the lead in defining an acceptable two-state solution to the only real issue that matters? Isn't that what Sharon is effectively doing?
In my (probably naive) mind, I often compare today's Palestinians with the Israelites of the Exodus (l'havdeel). As we know from our religious commentators, the Israelites had descended to the 49th (nearly irredeemable) level of impurity before their liberation from bondage. They were not prepared for freedom, nor to receive the mitzvot of the Torah, and ultimately, that generation was doomed to die out in the desert. It was only the next generation that was able to accept the concomitant responsibilities of freedom and who merited entry into Eretz Yisrael. If this analogy is even a little valid, then there is reason to believe that Palestinian society need not remain the way it is today forever.
Someday we may yet look back at the Palestinians' "victory" in Gaza as the first step towards a solution to this seemingly intractable mah-tzav.
posted by XGH @ 12:36 AM
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Some moron is going around impersonating me (and other's) on other people's blogs (and mine). On 'Blogger' comments, you can tell if its really me or not by clicking my name. If its me, it will tell you my profile is hidden. If its the fake guy, you will just be linked to my blog. If you use 'Haloscan' comments, you will have to check the IP address, but please keep those confidential. In general, if you see a comment which is rude (to other bloggers), or rude (i.e. pritzusdick) then you can be sure it's not me. In general, IP addresses should not be disclosed or shared. However for an impersonator we should make an exception.
The following IP addresses has been proved to be an impersonator:
24.185.129.156
207.127.40.3
posted by XGH @ 3:35 PM
A commentator writes:
With all [of] Orthodoxy’s problems, and whether its doctrines are true or not, there is [still] real spirituality and a commitment from the [Orthodox] laity to what they perceive as G-d’s will (not their own). In the Reform and Conservative movement, especially among the laity, I find minimal spirituality and almost zero commitment to any religious ideal outside of their own personal desires. Maybe [only] 1% [of Reform/Conservative Jews] ask basic questions about Torah, life, purpose, etc. As a general rule, [Conservative/Reform] is religiously shallow, uninspiring, and meaningless with almost zero reverence for G-d. The leadership looks to sociology rather than Torah. I would achieve greater connection to G-d as well as greater opportunity to refine my character in a Church (even a liberal one), Mosque, Hindu or Buddhist temple than a Reform or Conservative temple.
I think this is a little harsh, especially the bit about ‘zero reverence for G-d’, and obviously there are always exceptions, even significant exceptions, but ultimately the above is generally true. Most Reform and Conservative Jews are simply less religiously involved than their Orthodox counterparts. I am not making a judgment here as to the correctness of Conservative / Reform doctrines versus Orthodox doctrines. However it certainly does seem to be the case that the more Orthodox you get, the greater the passion and commitment to the Jewish religion and to G-d.
Likewise, this same distinction seems to be equally true for Modern Orthodox versus Ultra Orthodox Jews too. The UO's are generally more committed, more passionate and spend more time on religious and G-d centered activities than their MO counterparts. Of course there are exceptions here too, sometimes significant exceptions. However in general it is the case that the more Orthodox are the more committed.
So, the question is, why? What is the nature of this correlation? Is it causal or incidental? If causal, how does this causality work? Does having a more rational view of religion automatically cause one to be less committed? Does keeping Halachah automatically cause one to be more committed?
I can think of a few answers to this question, probably all of which are true to some extent:
1. Rational Answer
From a purely rational perspective, those people who feel more strongly that Halachah is divinely ordained are obviously more likely to keep more of it. And since Halachah pretty much covers every sphere of life, its no surprise that this group of people are therefore the more committed.
2. Mystical Answer
Torah is not just a system of laws, but a divinely ordained framework, which has beneficial spiritual consequences in this world as well as the next. Those people who keep Halachah properly and have the correct Hashkafot will automatically benefit from these consequences and will be better, more committed Jews as a result.
3. Demographic Answer
By definition, those living in more Orthodox environments are the type of people who will tend to be more committed. Those in Orthodox environments who are not so committed, tend to drop out of Orthodoxy. Likewise, those in Reform & Conservative households are typically the less committed types. Those who wish to be more committed tend to become Baal Teshuva's and join Orthodoxy.
4. False Question
The question is false, since the definition of ‘more committed’ is pretty much the same as ‘more Orthodox’, so asking why ‘more Orthodox’ people are also ‘more committed’ people doesn’t make sense. It’s the same thing.
The other aspect of this which cannot be ignored is the question of what is the value of being more ‘committed’ anyway? Is it actually important to be more committed? To be more G-d centered? Does keeping more Halachah automatically translate into being more committed and more G-d centered, or are we confusing these concepts? To answer that question we have to have a common agreement as to the goals of life. If the two sides have two different conceptions as to the ultimate goal of life, then arguing over who is more committed is pointless, since each side will see themselves as more committed to their definition of the goal.
So, the methodology for this analysis should go something like this:
- Gain a more concrete understanding and agreement as to the goals of life and Judaism
- Gain agreement as to which groups do a better job at meeting those goals
- Gain understanding as to what the causes are of some groups performing better
- Plan activities and group affiliations accordingly
If no common ground can be found as to the goals of life and Judaism, then further analysis becomes pointless. However it is my expectation that we can at least find some common ground there, and in the next few posts we shall try.
posted by XGH @ 2:24 PM
I have resisted blogging about the Gaza Disengagement because my feelings are complicated. I have strong Zionist tendencies, but am also fairly liberal. However Jameel at the Muqata wrote to me this morning and said:
Its Jews being kicked out of their homes. Shuls, Yeshivot, and Mikavot being destroyed. Its transferring dozens of Jewish graves. Its an entire industry of kosher food produce (10% of Israel's total agricultural export) being destroyed.
Kfar Darom is a settlement in which ALL the people learn in kolell/yeshiva and are entirely financed by their greenhouses and successful businesses. No handouts needed! No government financing - they support themselves and their learning with this industry!
Where is the outcry? Thousands of Charedim will demonstrate over road construction which may affect Jewish graves -- yet where are they when it comes to evicting LIVING Jews from their homes of 30 years in Eretz Yisrael?
There are children's yeshivot in Gush Katif that learn 365 days a year- every single day of the year they learn. All of this is being slated for destruction?
Think about this. Post about this. Talk about this.
Daven about this.
And cry. May Hashem have mercy on Am Yisrael and prevent this evil decree from happening.
So here is my post:
Jonathan Rosenblum on Cross Currents writes about the effect of the planned Gaza withdrawal on the National Religious youth:
From the creation of the State (“reishit tzmichat geulateinu – the first flowering of the Redemption”) to the lightning victory of 1967 and the return to our historic heartland to the mass immigration of the early ‘90s, the national religious world has lived in a state of heightened expectations to which the writings of Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook gave the most fervent expression. The dashing of those expectations could well prove to be the most tragic consequence of the Gaza withdrawal.
A commenter called Tzvi Noach wrote this:
Simply put, for those of us born after the Holocaust, this would be the most tragic and devastating event that the Jewish people will ever have experienced in our lifetimes. There is simply no parallel, no precedent, for the destruction of over 20 Jewish communities in our lifetimes. Dozens of shuls, yeshivos, kollelim, bais yaakovs, chadorim, and schools—not to mention a cemetery—are to be destroyed. Thousands of yidden are to be displaced, thrown out of their homes. And there are virtually no plans to replace or rebuild these communities or Torah institutions elsewhere, either on the part of the government, or on the part of the residents, who are still focused on fighting the expulsion.
To which Ori responded:
Sorry, but you’re overstating your case... But you’re forgetting the Yom Kippur was in 1973. About three thousand soldiers died. They didn’t lose their homes and have to find new ones. They got Beit Olam (= grave). They didn’t feel like the government betrayed them, if anything they felt the intense heat of a burning tank or the pain of a bullet. Their children did not have to put up roots in a new community. They had to grow without their fathers. I’m not saying being betrayed by the government and losing your home is easy. But I assume it is a lot better than dying in a war.
And Micha added:
WADR to Zvi Noach, the primary thing that caused this disengagement is American Jews. Arik Sharon (may H’ grant him the wisdom to lead our people) isn’t talking about disengaging from Efrat, Gush Etzion or Maalei Adumim. Rather, from Azza, where only 9,000 or so Jews live amongst a Palestinian population time bomb.
In PM Sharon’s eyes, giving up Azza is like amputating a gangrenous leg before it spreads. All the while one cries for the patient, even if you agree with its need.
But more than that, I’m feeling overwhelming guilt. The leg is in danger because of a lack of flow of lifeblood. The guilty party is not Arik Sharon, it’s myself—I chose to build a large family in the comfort and familiarity of a NY suburb. And so infection gained a foothold… And if we all had built communities in Aza or northern Shomron instead of all us self-proclaimed Zionists in North Jersey?
Yep, that pretty much sums it all up.
Personally, I think I agree with the withdrawal plan, and I do not buy into the almost knee-jerk MO (even Chareidi) reaction that if you’re frum you must be against it. It’s not a tragedy, it’s common sense. The tragedy will be if it degenerates into civil war, loss of religious faith and any one of the other bad consequences which are totally within our ability to control.
Comparing the Gaza disengagement to pogroms, the Holocaust or similar tragedies of Jewish history cheapens the memory of those atrocities and is a manipulative cheap shot. Its not the same thing at all. If you are against the disengagement for well argued political (or even religious reasons) then fine. But don’t go on and on about Jews being dragged from their homes, and yeshivot being destroyed. Its 8,000 settlers vs.1 million Palestinians. You do the math.
posted by XGH @ 12:28 PM
Monday, July 18, 2005
There's a Rabbi who's sure the Gedolim are all pure
And he's trying to get into heaven
And when he gets there he thinks though his article really stinks
With protectziyah he can still get what he came for
Woe oh oh oh oh oh
And he's trying to get into heaven
There's a sign on the wall that the Gedolim won’t recall
Which bans those who say ‘day’ has two meanings
In the tree by the brook there's a songbird who sings
And you must believe the Ari understands what its saying
Woe oh oh oh oh oh
And he's trying to get into heaven
He feels rather meek when he looks to the east
And his spirit is crying for leaving
To Bnei Brak he has been, R Elyashiv he has seen
And he heard the voices of those in Bayit Vegan
Woe oh oh oh oh oh
And he's trying to get into heaven
And he whispers that soon, if we all sing his tune
Then the Ari will lead us all from reason
And a new day will dawn for those who follow him
But the rationalists will echo with laughter
And it makes me wonder
If there's a chuckle in the backrow (of the Beis)
Don't be alarmed now
It's just letzonus for the Kanno-eem
Yes there are two paths you can go by
and in the long run
There's still time to change the road you're on
Your head is humming and it won't go because you don't know
The Gedolim are calling you to join them
Dear Rabbi can't you hear the wind blow and did you know
Your path should lie on the intelligent side
And as we wind on down the road
Our sechel smarter than our souls
There walks a Rabbi we all know
He’s seen the light and wants to show
That he can be a true Godol
But if he listens very hard
The truth will come to him at last
He must heed the golden rule
To be a baal sechel not a fool
Woe oh oh oh oh oh
And he's trying to get into heaven
posted by XGH @ 10:09 PM
Don't know much about history
Don't know much biology
Don't know much about a science book
Don't know much about the French I took
But I do know that the Torah is literally true
And I know that if you would believe this too
What a wonderful world this would be
Don't know much about geography
Don't know much trigonometry
Don't know much about algebra
Don't know what a slide rule is for
But I know that Chazal are always right
And if you are mevatel your daas without a fight
What a wonderful world this would be
Now, I don't claim to be the Godol Hador
But I'm trying to be
For maybe by being the Godol Hador baby
I can win your love for me
posted by XGH @ 12:48 PM
Now, don't get me wrong. Gemarah is important. Chazal are important. Halachah is important. If you are Orthodox that is. But here are some myths I will try to debunk from within an Orthodox perspective. Obviously if you hold that Torah Shebaal peh is man made you will probably have a different perspective.
1. The Gadlus Proof
I don't buy it when people say 'Just read one line (or sugyah) of Gemarah and you will see the amazing gadlus', and from there try to bring a proof for the divine origin of Torah SheBaal Peh. Its a poor proof. There maybe some gadlus in seeing the entire worldview of Chazal, and seeing how sensible and on the money they were (mostly), considering the time they lived in and especially compared to some other faiths I could mention. They weren't perfect, and they didn't know 21st century science (or even 2nd century science in some cases), but they were still great men.
But you won't see that from one sugyah, or even many sugyot. Having multiple levels of confusing arguments because of lack of punctuation and clarity is not gadlus. It's just confusing. Having an additional two thousand years worth of multiple layers of commentary to add to the confusion might demonstrate the incredible passion and attachment that the Jews have for Torah (and might in itself be evidence of the divine nature of TSBP), but its not Gadlus either. Its just even more confusing.
2. Gemarah is everything
There have been plenty of debates throughout history as to how primary should the study of Talmud Bavli be. The Rambam seems to indicate that he thought he could do away with the Bavli entirely, and everyone would just learn the Mishne Torah instead. Others have also sought to limit Gemara study in favor of other disciplines, e.g Kabalah, Chasidut or Mussar. In the same way that Judaism has become slightly perverted in the over acceptance of Kabalah, I think we have also made a mistake in the over acceptance of Gemarah, at the expense of all other disciplines. Yeshivot need to cut down on the endless Gemarah and start to focus on other things too, including machshavah, tenach, spirituality and the like.
Maybe we won't get such bekiim in shas with such an approach, but at least we'll get more well rounded individuals, and as recent events have shown, we are sorely in need of some or even many of those. The super shas bekiim make poor leaders, and ultimately poor poskim too.
3. Gemarah is so much more complicated than Science
Someone who I couldn't possibly name here maintains that the different sedarim in shas are so different that each could be likened to a different branch of the sciences, e.g. Physics, Chemistry etc. Gedolim and Talmidei Chachomim have to be experts in each branch, and its rare if not impossible to find a scientist who knows more than one branch, or even one branch in its entirety. Therefore to be an expert in Shas you have to start learning a huge amount from early childhood. I hear this claim a lot. I don't have the evidence to dispute it, but my gut tells me its not true. I can well imagine plenty of scientists who have been 'learning' for many years 'behasmodoh' and 'beiyun' who have mastered equal or more complex amounts of subjects, and didn't start from early childhood.
The only way to do an honest and fair comparison is to come up with some objective means of quantifying knowledge, taking into account quantity (i.e. amount of facts to be memorized) and quality (i.e. complexity of facts), plus maybe creativity and some other things too. Then, and only then, can we compare science to gemarah and see which is really more complex. Just because Gemarah is written without good punctuation, with lacunae in the text, and in an ancient language, doesn't make it inherently more complex. It just makes it more difficult to study.
posted by XGH @ 9:59 AM
Sunday, July 17, 2005
Two more responses were recently written to Rabbi Feldman's article, the first by Prof. Yehudah Gellman is here, the second by 'Meir Ben Tvzi' is here. Both articles pretty much rip R Feldman's article apart. I would reprint them in full, but I think it's a waste of space. No one I have spoken to has had anything good to say about Rabbi Feldman's article, and I still maintain he doesn't really believe it all himself.
Two other blogs are worthy of mention. Dark Blue Hat is doing a good job of responding to the ban, though at times his irony can leave one a little confused as to which side he is actually on. Another excellent blog of late has been Jewish Worker, who debunked the whole Nishtaneh Hatevah nonsense.
So, I guess I shall have to consign Rabbi Feldman's article to the folder titled 'Kiruv Clownery & Other Nonsense', where it can share filespace with R David Orlofsky and R Moshe Shternbuch's comedic works. Are the Charedi Olam incapable of fielding an intelligent response to Slifkin? Evidently. The longer this saga continues, the sillier they look.
The 'vital crisis' that Rabbi Feldman talks about is really only a crisis for the Gedolim and their followers. For everyone else, it's a positive development which provides some of the strongest and best evidence to date that the Chareidi conception of 'Daas Torah' & 'Gedolim' is not only a myth, but is actually a lie, as these so called 'Gedolim' have proved incapable of displaying common sense, and in some cases basic yashrus.
Actually I shouldn't be so harsh on them. In the primitive 16th century intellectual enviroment which they inhabit, this behavior is perfectly normal. If anything, we should probably commend them for their restraint. I mean, at least they haven't suggested we use one of those heresy tests from the middle ages on Rabbi Slifkin. You know, the one where they tie lead weights around his legs and drop him into a lake. If he drowns, he's innocent, but if he floats, he is guilty and must be burnt.
So does all this mean that 'Emunas Chachomim' has been destroyed? Of course not! There are plenty of Chachomim around. And it's now even easier to find them, since there are 23 less places you need to look.
posted by XGH @ 9:43 PM
Friday, July 15, 2005
Bertrand Russel said:
There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dares not face this thought! Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not rational, he becomes furious when they are disputed.
I would love to use this against the fundamentalists, but then the atheists will just turn around and use it against me.
Its tough to be in the middle.
Hat tip: JewishAtheist
posted by XGH @ 3:23 PM
My kids are gorgeous. I’m sure yours are too. But mine are more so. So sweet, innocent and cute. I delight each time they learn a new word, figure out a new trick, comprehend a new concept. I then watch movies of them when they were younger, and lament how much cuter they used to be, how much more innocent, how much more helpless.
What gives?
Do I want them to grow up and become wise to the world, or do I want them to stay young and innocent? Do I want them to graduate, leave home, get married and make a new home for themselves? Or do I want to continue to come home every night for the rest of my life and have my little cuties come running, shouting ‘daddy daddy’, so excited to see me?
I’m torn.
Is this the story of Breishis? Is this how G-d works? On the one hand, He wanted us to be naïve, innocent, simple, without sin. Hence the story of Gan Eden. On the other hand, we need to grow up, leave G-d’s care and go out into the world. Should we be simple, naïve, innocent? Or should we be all knowing, wise and inevitably a little bit cynical?
I don’t know. But I enjoyed thinking about it.
Good Shabbos.
posted by XGH @ 1:44 PM
Move a bit to the right, a little more, a bit more, more, a bit more, almost there
S, a.k.a. Mississippi Fred Macdowell, a.k.a. On The Main Line, a truly excellent blog, showed me this comment from Hashkafah.com:
A while back Rabbi Aaron Feldman, Rosh Yeshiva of Ner Israel, addressed the yeshivah and admonished us for pursuing A's in school as we are only supposed to achieve the minimum necessary to pass. He also said that he doesn't know why we need degrees in the first place as most wealthy people he knows didn't go to college.
In other words Ner Yisroel is becoming more right wing by the minute and is not accomodating of college as they used to be.
It's startling how a rosh yeshivah could get up there and utter such nonsense...
It is true that many wealthy people didn't got to college. Bill Gates, one of the richest people in the world, dropped out of college. I don't think the Sultan of Brunei went either. Not sure about Richard Branson or Donald Trump. Or the Reichmans, the Tannenbaums and the Schottensteins.
However it is also true that the poorest people in the world, almost exclusively, didn't go to college either.
More poor logic from someone who should know better.
Just who are these wealthy friends of Rabbi Feldman anyway? Who are the top dogs in Baltimore ? We need to do a survey and find out if this is even true. Or maybe he's talking about Bnei Brak? Then its probably true, the wealthy people there didn't go to college.
But then again, should he really be promoting illegal money laundering as a career for NI graduates?
No comments:
Post a Comment