I object when someone approaches me and suggests that my grandparents and great grandparents right up to Aaron the Cohen Gadol,
all need to be saved
I object when someone feels the need to attempt to convert a Jew to their belief system, either in this world or posthumously.
One of my colleagues at work likes to drop in almost each day to discuss his bible reading. He is what you’d call an Erliche Xtian. The problem is that it’s not simply about his bible reading. Subliminally, he feels that somewhere along the line he might be able to interest me in his parroted interpretations.
Yes, I could say “live and let live” in the way that Rabbi Levi Brackman suggested in this article. I have been too nice; that’s why he still comes. From now on, I will put a stop to it, in very genial terms, but he will know exactly why.
I reject Brackman’s view in the context of that article, in the strongest possible terms. I cannot accept that Brackman wants us to turn a blind eye to their shenanigans simply because the souls they seek, are in another world.
I agree with live and let live. My colleague can both
go on practicing his xtian beliefs and wag his tongue in tongues
try to discuss his ideas with me
But, and this is my limit, if I recommend him that I do not wish to discuss his beliefs and I do not want him to approach me anymore in this regard, then he must desist—that is also live and let live.
The Mormons are a rather odd Xtian cultic sect. They have great power and are expanding. They are rejected as lunatics by the mainstream Xtian Church. Mormons love genealogy. They love family trees because they can examine your family tree and then conduct services to baptise your relatives after they have passed away. Indeed, here is an interesting Halachic question: is one permitted to make their family tree accessible on the internet to anybody, given that Mormons may use this and perform idolatrous practices (at least D’Rabbonon) because of the information that you passively allow them to see. I will ask R’ Schachter this question next time I speak with him.
Rabbi Levi Brackman is entitled to his opinion, however, I reject it in the strongest terms. Every Jewish soul is precious. They are precious both in this life time and in the world to come. Some souls, such as those belonging to those who were murdered in the Holocaust and other anti-semitic events through our history, are special: they are Kedoshim. Whether the souls are Kedoshim, or just the normal variety like you and I, it is offensive in the extreme for any religion to leech onto their souls, so to speak, and attempt to involve those souls in a “religious” service which converts them to Mormonism (against their will).
The symbolism of such conversion post death, is enormous, when and if Jews remain silent about it, or adopt the Brackman approach of turning his right cheek and exclaiming “live and let live”.
Yes, it’s about “live and let live”. That dictum demands that they leave people alone, both in life and in death.
I agree with the calls to Mitt Romney (a card carrying Mormon) to disavow this protest and to suggest that they leave Holy Jewish Souls out of their rituals.
How dare they attempt to touch the soul of Anne Frank, or any other Kodosh?
It is proper and laudable when concerned brothers and sisters pray for those who are dangerously ill. We say private prayers in the Amida, make a Mishebeyrach, say an extra chapter of Tehillim, sometimes privately, and other times as a collective group.
Recently, several prominent Rabbis continue to be dangerously ill. These include: R’ Ya’akov Yoseph, R’ Yisroel Belsky, and R’ Yosef Shalom Elyashiv. Rav Aviner recently addressed a question about R’ Elyashiv, who is 100+, and as I understand, on a ventilator and in need of רחמי שמים.
R Ya'akov Yosef
The question was:
Should we pray for Ha-Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv to heal from his illness, or – as one Rabbi suggested – should we pray for Hashem to take his soul on High since he is suffering so much?
This is a very bold question to ask (I think that most people who ask such questions either are on an exceedingly high level or are asking להלכה and not למעשה.
Rav Aviner’s answer was:
It is correct that the Ran writes in Nedarim (40a d.h. Ain. And see Baba Metzia 84) that if a person is suffering terribly and seems to have no hope of recovery, it is permissible to pray for him to die. The source for this idea is the Gemara at the end of Ketubot (104a), where it is told that Rebbe Yehudah HaNasi was suffering terribly; his maidservant saw and prayed that he should die. Even though she was not a Torah scholar, but a maidservant, the Sages greatly respected her and the Ran rules according to her example. In Shut Tzitz Eliezer (vol. 5 Ramat Rachel #5, 7:49 Kuntres Even Yaakov chap. 13, 9:47), it is written that this applies only if one is davening for the benefit of the sick person who is suffering a fatal illness, and not in order to lighten our own burden. It is clear that our intent in this case it is to lighten the burden on Ha-Rav Elyashiv.
The Ran writes that it is permissible to pray for a person’s end in such a situation, but he does not write that one is obligated to do so. After all, the Gemara itself relates that while the maidservant prayed that Rebbe should die, the Sages prayed that he should not die. In the book “Midbar Shur,” in his eulogy for Ha-Rav Yitzchak Elchanan (pp. 332-336), Maran Ha-Rav Kook asks: Why did the Sages pray that he should not die? Their view is difficult to understand. After all, Rebbe Yehudah Ha-Nasi was bed-ridden, suffering, could not teach or give halachic rulings, and was seemingly of no benefit to this world. If he would ascend on High, he would continue to teach Torah there. So why didn’t they pray for him to die? Maran Ha-Rav Kook explains that the influence of a great Torah scholar is not only through his teaching, halachic rulings, etc., but also in the presence of his holy soul in this world. The fact that his soul is located in this world brings blessing, even when he is unable to provide practical benefit, is closed in a room and cannot converse with others. This is similar to the Vilna Gaon, who for many years was closed in a room learning Torah. This world with Rebbe Yehudah Ha-Nasi is not the same as a world without Rebbe Yehudah Ha-Nasi.
When Rabbenu Ha-Rav Tzvi Yehudah taught us this idea, he would say that Maran Ha-Rav Kook also suffered greatly, and he told him: Each and every moment that Abba is in this world, despite the suffering, he brings it light. And our Rabbenu would relate this with tears in his eyes.
If so, the same applies in our case. This world with the Ha-Tzadik, Ha-Gaon, Ha-Gadol, Ha-Rav Elyashiv is not the same as a world without him, even though he is currently unable to teach, give rulings, etc. The Rabbis who called on us to pray for Ha-Rav Elyashiv’s healing are therefore correct, and we hope that he will truly be healed and will once again actively bring the blessing of Torah and holiness to this world.
May Hashem send him a speedy and complete recovery.
R’ Hershel Schachter recently discussed the question of davening for a Refuah Shelema for someone who is close to being a גוסס—basically on their deathbed with no hope of survival, short of a miracle. R’ Schachter notes that the Mishna in Brachos is clear that one is forbidden to pray for a revealed miracle. As an example, he describes a man rushing home from work after being told that there is a major fire burning around his house. While driving, the man prays that his house is not one of those engulfed by flames. R’ Schachter notes that such a תפלה is ridiculous. Either the house is, God forbid, in flames or it is not in flames. Asking that it not be in flames is tantamount to praying for an overt miracle to transform a readily observable occurence.
R' Shmuel Rozovsky ז'ל
R’ Schachter then to retells a story that he experienced when visiting the Ponovitzer Yeshiva in B’nei Brak, during the time that Reb Chatzkel Levenstein ז’ל was the Mashgiach. Apparently, someone was very sick due to a certain cancer, רחמנא לצלן, and there was a request that everyone say Tehillim for a Refuah Shelema. Reb Chatzkel, who was sitting in Mizrach, refused and exclaimed that it was forbidden. The mood was incredulous; who would refuse such a request? At that time, the famed Rosh Yeshivah, R’ Shmuel Rozovsky ז’ל was seen leaning over to Reb Chatzkel and talking to him. Tehillim commenced. R’ Schachter was to subsequently learn that R’ Shmuel had explained to R’ Chatzkel that there were people who were successfully treated for the particular cancer afflicting the person for whom Tehillim had been requested, and it wasn’t one where there was “no hope” because the doctors had no more new ideas or one where the patient was effectively in palliative care. Had it been someone in palliative care, R’ Chatzkel would have been right.
Importantly, R’ Schachter explains that it is still proper to say Tehillim. However, one does not ask for a רפואה שלמה. Rather, one should ask for רחמי שמים, mercy from Heaven.
In reflecting on the question to R’ Aviner, in light of R’ Schachter’s insight, I think it’s most appropriate, when someone is effectively in a palliative state, to ask for רחמי שמים and not assume that we should suggest to Hashem how that רחמנות should be manifest (e.g. by death חס ושלום).
Let’s hope that we don’t need to say Tehillim for anyone because we have merited the realisation of the pasuk of אני ה’ רופאיך, “I am God your Healer”.
The question is not a new one. If one needs to undergo an extended and deep treatment regime, where there is much fundamental discussion about one’s life circumstances and all the confidential issues surrounding such, is it permitted to see a therapist of the opposite gender.
Some poskim will not permit any gender if the medical provider is an “apikorus” or not religiously inclined, as they fear that the treatment may well eventually involve the religious patient being influenced to unburden themselves from the yoke of Torah and Mitzvos. I have witnessed this therapy being applied to another individual. Such therapies sometimes assume that if a patient’s life circumstances have brought them into a spiralling and uncontrolled level of descent, that one must rebuild afresh and cast away all and every vestige of the former life to avoid these. This can mean ceasing to adhere to a religion-based lifestyle and/or cutting oneself off from the familial environment.
On the matter of gender separation, other Poskim contend that since there is a tendency, and indeed a need, to unload all of one’s deepest secrets and intimate feelings, it is best not to do so with a medical therapist of the opposite gender, as this may place both people in a position where they are sexually vulnerable. Such an opinion was recently published by R’ Yitzchak Zilbershtein, an expert in Halachic Medical Ethics,
R' Zilbershtein
and the Posek for the Ma’aynei Hayeshua hospital in Bnei Brak. R’ Zilbershtein is a son-in-law of R’ Elyashiv, grandson of the saintly R’ Aryeh Levin ז’ל, and brother-in-law of the famed R’ Chaim Kanievsky.
The ruling was countersigned by eminent Poskim, including R’ Ovadya Yosef, R’ Yisrael Belski, R’ Vosner and R’ Karelitz. It concludes with the observation that if there is a clinical need to engage someone of the opposite gender because of their expertise, one should first ask the Rabbi of the Hospital. Presumably, the Rabbi of the hospital will be in a position to reflect on the medical therapist in question and whether there is a risk of a developing intimacy versus the immediate need of the patient.
It can be expected that many will howl with derision about such a Psak, as it suggests that there is professional compromise at play. On the other hand, it can also be viewed as a sensible suggestion because it engenders הרחקה, a distance between situations that may be likely to involve deep intimacy of thought. At the end of the day, it would, in my opinion, be wrong to compromise on the efficacy of treatment and possible cure on account of gender issues. I am presupposing that the “best” person for some treatment, or even the person who has a record of great success might be of the opposite gender.
החכם עיניו בראשו
“The wise man has eyes in their head”, and acts accordingly. For the masses, especially in B’nei Brak where gender separation is extensive and where seeking a psychologist or psychiatrist (and not a Rabbi) to deal with one’s innate problems is rarer, this is a Psak that will hopefully encourage people to seek a medically qualified therapist.
Having recently read a book by a religious psychologist whose domain of expertise is Child Molestation, it was interesting to note that in most cases it was he who discovered that molestation had occurred. Parents usually have no idea. This is especially so in a frum community where feelings are taboo and extreme conformance is a way of life. It was only because parents sought professional help for “strange behaviour” that he discovered the tell-tale signs of molestation. Let’s hope that this Psak encourages the religious community to also deal with the myriad of psychological ailments and propensities that our generation is facing by referring these to experts.
R’ Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, may he have a רפואה שלמה, is still critically ill, although reports today suggest that he has emerged from a medically induced coma and is gesturing with his hands and eyes. R’ Elyashiv is a widely acclaimed Posek who is over 100 years of age. I have asked two Shaylos to him in the past. These were over 20 years ago and before he was named or considered the “Posek HaDor”.
Recently, various Charedi press outlets have reported that a young man allegedly bequeathed one year of his life to R’ Elyashiv. Symbolically, this is a nice gesture. However, it troubles me on a few fronts.
It is reported that the young man went to speak about his proposal to a range of Poskim and Rabonim and that they advised the young man to speak to his family first. I gather that he sought to find out if it was “possible” to do so, from a halachic perspective.
If it is indeed possible to do so, which is what is implied in the press, then I’d be interested to be educated as to which section of Shulchan Aruch discusses this phenomenon. In particular, where does it suggest in our Mesora/tradition that we have the right to dispense with a year of our lives, even for a so-called noble cause? It also troubles me that the young man didn’t discuss this proposition with his own family before he asked permission from the Poskim. I’d imagine that the young man checks with his wife (and not his Posek) about the details of the bread and milk order. Why wouldn’t you discuss this minor matter with her first, as well?
Another aspect troubles me. It seems to imply that we have the ability, as opposed to the permission, to enact such an extension of life. How many people have had, and continue to have, parents and children who are critically ill and who wouldn’t do the same thing if it was indeed possible?
What about 20 people donating a year each. Does that mean the person will live another 20 years?
Are we going to see jewbay sales where people auction a year of their lives to the lucky winner, together with a “Buy it now” clause?
If it wasn’t so sad, it would be funny. I see this as the natural outgrowth of the unreasonable and non halachic veneration accorded to human beings, albeit great human beings. Ironically, this time it isn’t occurring amongst Chassidim, who have generally owned the mortgage on this level of veneration. Rather, it is coming from the newer Misnagdic forms of veneration, where “the Rebbe” is replaced by a “Posek HaDor” or “Gadol HaDor” or “Manhig HaDor” or “Zekan Roshei HaYeshivos” et al.
I received a link to a video which explicates the positive acts performed by Charedim (hat tip Moshe)
It’s important to not fall into the trap that sees all or even most Charedim as lazy parasites who spit on little girls. We all know that it only takes one group of extremists to tar many others. In Melbourne, although our own Adass community has many more extreme Neturei Karta, Toldos Aharon extremists than 30 years ago, one has to say that there are exemplary icons who are more visible and who also contribute to a positive image for Charedim. Icons like Izzy Herzog ז’ל come to mind immediately. I know from many people, including my Uncle, that Izzy was magnanimous with his Chesed. He didn’t check to see if the recipient was ‘truly‘ frum before he interacted with them in exactly the same way that he would react with members of his own community. The Charedi volunteers from Hatzola are an incredible group of people. I know some of them personally after having performed at their children’s weddings. They are Mentchen in the true sense of the word and still stand poles apart from the growing extremist fringe that questions every Eruv string and Animal Sinew, but won’t bother saying “good morning” if they see you in the street because you might infect them. So while we should be positive and proud of the special Chesed acts performed in our own Charedi community, we should not be afraid to voice our opinions.
Last night, in a matter of ten minutes, two young men came to our house. One was a Vizhnitzer Sofer Stam, who needed help with his children, and the other was the son of the Stropkova Rebbe who was collecting for a Kollel for “off the derech” types. I could have just pulled out my wallet and given them something, but I was in somewhat of a fiesty mood. After ascertaining that they weren’t Satmar, I asked them about their attitudes to the Sikrikim. Both condemned them as a Chillul Hashem. I suggested to the Sofer that he find a new gig so that he doesn’t have to feel so bad as to have to knock on people’s doors for a crust. I felt sorry for him. What can he do? A Melamed? He’s a prisoner of his system. Mind you, he had “married off” three kids, and looked a lot younger than me (no smart comments please).
The second guy said that his father the Stropkova davka lived in Kiryat Moshe because he wanted to live amongst a range of “normal” people. I asked him why a Kollel was appropriate for “shvacher” people? Perhaps they should be taught a trade. I asked him what intervention was in place for people like this when they were in Cheder. At any rate, I gave them both. I felt I did the right thing. If you travel out to Australia, I’ll tell you what I think of the extremists who are associated with your dress code.
The news out of Israel is that the Av Beis Din of the Edah, together with some of his fellow Dayanim issued a letter requesting that their community daven for a Refuah Shelema for the critically ill R’ Elyashiv. R’ Elyashiv is described by non Chassidic Ashkenazim as the “Posek HaDor”. However, R’ Elyashiv is seen by the Neturei Karta and their ilk as tainted on account of his previous employment and relationship with the Rabanut.
The Beis Din of the Edah Charedis took the sensible view that when a man of this stature and learning is critically ill, one should cast aside any aspersions and genuinely pray for his recovery. The “Askanim” or Committee of the Edah, like Askanim in many groups have their own agenda. They parade and market allegiance to “Daas Torah” but they pick and choose when they listen to their own Daas Torah. This is a very dangerous situation and further marginalises the importance of Rabbis in our world.
Daas Torah is a new invention: an outgrowth of the chassidification of Jewry post Holocaust. Ironically, Daas Torah isn’t under threat from those who don’t subscribe to that weltanshaung. Rather, it is being undermined by the very people who created and now misuse it like a political football to further their own often sinister agendas.
which means that a Jew is not permitted to participate in (loosely translated) omens and superstitions. We normally associate that with things like the red “kaballah” string which some Poskim rule, based on a Tosefta, is forbidden to be worn as a Torah prohibition of the above.
Perhaps more interestingly, poskim such as R’ Hershel Schachter contend that not following evidence-based (scientific) medicinal practices and treatments also contravenes this biblical command. They claim this is why the Rambam (and Magen Avraham and others) omitted the prohibition of easting fish and meat all together. If Science (peer reviewed evidence based research) indicates that something does not pose a health danger, then it is prohibited to adopt a former practice that relies on faulty medicine of the time.
It could be argued that homeopathy and its cognate areas, elements of whose treatments have not been scientifically evaluated for efficacy, pose a similar Torah prohibition. That is not to imply that all alternate medicine (now also known as complementary medicine) falls under this prohibitive rubric. Rather, unless there is a known, scientific, evidence-based peer-reviewed study which shows that a homeopathic or alternate approach is indicated as a complementary approach to a medical condition, it could be cogently argued that it is forbidden to use these alternate approaches.
RMIT has a research group in Complementary Medicine. I don’t think Halacha has any problem with that, nor would it have a problem with going to a regular doctor who is also well-read and skilled with alternative, evidence-based, scientifically-sound, complementary alternative approaches to medical conditions.
An interesting set of letters has appeared regarding the phenomenon of boys who seek to get married around the age of 23 or more. The gist of the letter is that this is not spiritually healthy, especially in our day where there are many forms of attraction. They state that if a person is as mature and ready at 20 as they will be at 23+ then they should not delay the process of seeking a partner until later. There are numerous ramifications. Time will tell if this advice is efficacious or established.
R’ Shimon Allen and his wife Adina are to be commended for this incredible gesture of Gemilas Chesed on behalf of the community. Shimon sits near me at Shule, and I know of many examples of his generosity. He would not want me to highlight it, however, I am doing so as an expression of הכרת הטוב—acknowledging good deeds.
Of course, it would be far better if there were no sick children and this facility was not needed. Unfortunately, the reality is otherwise.
A bikur cholim home is now available in North Melbourne to assist Jewish parents who have children receiving treatment at the Royal Children’s Hospital. Beit Rafael Bikur Cholim is a non profit organisation dedicated to easing the physical and emotional challenges endured by parents whilst their child is hospitalised.
Established in 2011, by Shimon and Adina Allen, Beit Rafael offers a quiet place where family members can relax and recover their emotions in a private setting, by providing accommodation, at no charge, directly across the road from the hospital.
A fully furnished and serviced, two bedroom apartment will be at your disposal to enable you to be close to your child, and will remove the need for you to commute back and forth to your home. A pantry stocked with kosher non perishables and a freezer containing kosher meals will be in the apartment.
The challenges of remaining with your hospitalised child during the week and over Shabbat and Yom Tov will be minimised.
Beit Rafael will be available to all members of the Jewish community, and parents will be welcome to stay at Beit Rafael for the duration of the child’s treatment, at any given day or time. When a child is hospitalised their greatest comfort is the presence of family.
It is suggested you enter the telephone number for Beit Rafael in to your telephone – emergencies do not give us warning.
Beit Rafael appreciates and respects your need for privacy and confidentiality is assured.
Please call the number below to verify availability and to arrange access to this apartment. You will be given the address and security code to enter the Beit Rafael apartment.
It is difficult for mainstream Shules to survive in their earlier form. A powerful method of attracting people back to Shule membership is to court iconoclasts and embellish them with a podium. A Melbourne Shule is seizing the moment, so to speak, as I understand they are sponsoring a visit from Rabbi Shmuley Boteach.
Rabbi Boteach is a controversial figure. Ostracised by Chabad, I haven’t noticed him gaining traction with Modern Orthodox organisations. let alone right wing or ultra orthodox. He is visible amongst non-Jews and those outside the pale of traditional orthodoxy. I expect he is also motivated by a wish to influence Jews to become more devout as well as inspiring non-Jews to commit to the seven noachide laws. Is he the best man to do so? Boteach did himself no favours when he poorly debated Christopher Hitchens. That debate was embarrassing, to put it mildly.
Boteach described himself thus:
… then the Rebbe died and I had a major falling-out with the Chabad leadership because of my outreach to non-Jews. Ever since then, I have reconciled myself to the somewhat lonely status of being a Lubavitcher without a community. I compensated for my sense of isolation by becoming integrated into the mainstream Jewish community
It came then as little surprise when a senior figure in Chabad, Rabbi Dr Immanuel J. Schochetbranded Boteach’s most recent book as heresy. R’ Schochet forbids the provision of a platform for Boteach to promote this book. R’ Schochet’s words are chosen in the context of the book. R’ Boteach, in his response to R’ Schochet, sought to popularise being banned by stating
We Jews are the people of the book, not the people who ban books.
This statement is shallow. There are Halachos about heresy. Books have been banned because they are deemed heretical. He can argue that his book is not heresy, but this “people of the book” line is something that might appeal more to Madonna and Michael Jackson. We are the people of the book even without including books that are deemed heretical. To be sure, R’ Schochet’s statement is an Halachic one. I do not see the category of “people of the book” influencing Halacha. Schochet chooses not to elaborate on his reasons, but I surmise that they be based on Rambam Hilchos Tshuva, 3:6-8
המורדים, ומחטיאי הרבים, והפורשין מדרכי צבור
Shmuley Boteach and Michael Jackson
Boteach expresses the view that he does not understand how Schochet could argue against missionary activity and at the same time choose not to discuss Boteach’s book in any detail.
Rabbi Schochet seems to have significantly changed his approach to Judaism and Christianity since his lectures under my auspices. Back then he orated openly on Jesus and the New Testament, rebutting missionary claims and engaging missionaries in public dialogue and exchange. There are hundreds of his tapes that attest to this fact.
R’ Schochet undoubtably considers it more difficult to engage in dialogue with missionaries and/or those who are ensnared by them precisely because of Boteach’s new book. Boteach admits as much himself quoting this review [light editing from me]:
“Kosher J” is, after all, a book which Publisher’s Weekly — the platinum standard in book reviews — called an “informed and cogent primer on J. … a brave stab at re-evaluating J through an intensive look at the Xtian Testament and historical documents … and a well-researched analysis that will certainly reopen intrafaith and interfaith dialogue.”
R’ Schochet may or may not agree that it is “well-researched” but he too clearly feels that it will reopen intra and interfaith dialogue. Does Boteach expect us to be convinced that his book can’t be heretical because of the review by Publisher’s Weekly?
R’ Schochet’s son, R’ Yitzchak Schochet, is also a prominent Rabbi in the UK and has been considered a possible future Chief Rabbi of the Commonwealth. He had this to say about R’ Boteach
I question whether Rabbi Boteach has brought even one Jew involved in Christianity back to their roots through his debates, and suggest that it is little more than image and soundbite.
R’ Boteach reacted with:
Indeed, his father [R’ Schochet], who wrote this bizarre attack on me out of the blue calling me a heretic,
I don’t see anything in the letter that calls Boteach a heretic. Rather, R’ Schochet carefully crafted his words to refer to Boteach’s book as problematic.
Boteach has a liberal view of Apikorsus/Heresy in general. In the September 2000 issue of Nishma, Boteach stated in response to R’ Avi Weiss (who is considered a paragon of left wing modern orthodoxy, and who ordained the first female rabba)
I know that for Rabbi Weiss, even the willingness to be open to talking to apikorsim is a risk. But when the goal of the discussion is already a foregone conclusion, the conversation isn’t very risky.
Rabbi Boteach might not think it’s risky; others clearly do, and they do not feel an obligation to elaborate and give Boteach more airtime, as this would simply provide fuel for the fire.
Let’s be under absolutely no illusions here. R’ Boteach is not a Rabbi Slifkin. Rabbi Slifkin’s books were banned by people who couldn’t read English, let alone who had read Slifkin’s books. R’ Slifkin is an author of erudite and learned Jewish books based on Rishonim and Acharonim. Time will show that Rabbi Slifkin’s approach to documenting an orthodox perspective on Evolution eminently sound and commendable. I’m a fan of Rabbi Slifkin and his essays.
Boteach isn’t a Rabbi Kamenetsky either. Kamanetsky’s book “the Making of a Gadol” was unfairly banned and later modified because it was seen to embarrass R’ Aron Kotler ז’ל and other Lithuanian Rabbis look “too human”.
The audience for Boteach’s book, however, is mainly the non-Jewish world and perplexed Jewish fringe dwellers. Is the correct approach to attempt to re-educate our co-religionists that they should see themselves as derivatives of Judaism? They worship J, and see him as “above Judaism”. What will Boteach achieve through this passively aggressive attack on their well-seated belief system? Will the world become happier and a pluralistic paragon of peace? Does Boteach think that he’s the first who realised that Saul of Tarsus was the man who fashioned what that religion is today?
I have a religious colleague at work who likes to regale me daily with his “inspiration”. I’m quite tired of it, to be honest. In the last week I asked him to come back to me with the historical record of when Shabbos became Sunday, who initiated this, and why. It has quieted him. I don’t see any value whatsoever in challenging his belief system (he thinks he can speak in tongues) and I don’t expect him to challenge mine.
The Rav, in his famous 1964 essay “Confrontation” was firmly opposed to theological disputation or cooperation with the Church, except when dialogue was limited to shared societal values such as feeding the poor, helping the sick etc and where Jews needed to be partners with all people in advancing such activities. His grandson, R’ Meir Soloveitchik put it thus:
The Rav’s opposition to communal, and organizational interfaith dialogue was partly predicated upon the prediction that in our search for common ground — a shared theological language — Jews and Christians might each sacrifice our insistence on the absolute and exclusive truth of our respective faiths, blurring the deep divide between our respective dogmas. In an essay titled “Confrontation,” Rabbi Soloveitchik argued that a community’s faith is an intimate, and often incommunicable affair. Furthermore, a faith by definition insists “that its system of dogmas, doctrines and values is best fitted for the attainment of the ultimate good.” In his essay, the Rav warned that sacrificing the exclusive nature of religious truth in the name of dialogue would help neither Jews nor Christians. Any “equalization of dogmatic certitudes, and waiving of eschatological claims, spell the end of the vibrant and great faith experiences of any religious community,” he wrote.
A left-wing organisation known as YCT—Yeshivat Chovevei Tora—a brainchild of R’ Avi Weiss, has over the years promoted a stance which sees Rabbi Soloveitchik’s ruling as no longer binding in our time. YCT planned to join the Rabbinic Council of America (RCA) but withdrew those plans when they realised they would not be acceptable to the RCA. In a learned panel discussion on this topic, Rabbi Dr David Berger, one of the outstanding academics in this field, said:
Rabbi Soloveitchik worried that theological dialogue would create pressure to “trade favors pertaining to fundamental matters of faith, to reconcile ‘some’ differences.” He argued against any Jewish interference in the faith of Christians both on grounds of principle and out of concern that this would create the framework for reciprocal expectations. Now, the changes in Catholic attitudes detailed by Dr. Korn are real, welcome, and significant, but they do not undermine these concerns. Quite the contrary. The trajectory of dialogue to our own day has confirmed the validity of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s analysis to an almost stunning degree.
With this background clearly in mind, perhaps the Melbourne Shule that has now invited R’ Boteach to speak has also broken ranks with the Rav and the RCA and embraced the views of YCT. As noted above, R’ Boteach’s views are seen to be even more left-wing than YCT. It should make for a controversy that will occupy the Jewish News and further seek to redefine the relevance of Shules and methods for attracting and retaining membership.
See this article in the Sun. I thought I had a pretty good grasp over who is who in Melbourne. I’ve never heard of Chayim Ben Ariel and had not seen the use of this Kabbalistic אלד which is meant to ward off the Ayin Hora and ostensibly stands for אנא למדני דתך
Chayim Ben Ariel (pic from the Sun)
I haven’t heard of this person or his mate. Does anyone know who they are?
pitputim 
You must be logged in to post a comment.