Uncategorized – Page 2

When your wife talks, you listen

I have tried on many occasions to cajole wordpress to remove what could be called advertisements (from which they make money) from this blog. It hasn’t worked. Personally, I never saw the advertisements so didn’t know how offensive or commonly offensive they might be to our expectations, although one reader sent me a screen shot.

“She who must be obeyed” then sent me the following

Is there any way to get rid of those advertisements …

There is, but I have to pay annually. I’ve paid. There’s a nice way to start the new year 🙂

You can also access the blog via pitputim.me as a side-effect of the “benefits” I have accrued.

Policing Tznius

The halachic definition surrounding the limits of Tznius are the discussion of many a book and Responsa in Halacha, let alone Shulchan Aruch. In general, though, these tend to focus on the female aspect of Tzniyus. A good recent fundamental discussion of the issues (although it is technical and deep) is that of R’ Yehuda Herzl Henkin, author of שו’’ת בני בנים who is a grandson of the great Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin ז’ל, and who undertook shimush with his grandfather.

There are a range of views in the arena of female Tzniyus. Some relate to more fundamental aspects, and other relate to what we term Minhag HaMakom (the custom in a given place). I am certain that if someone lived in the New Square, or Williamsburg enclaves, there are strict minhagim of those micro Makomos. That does not mean that anybody from outside such communities needs to follow their dictates. It’s a free world, bound by Halacha.

It is well-known, that the Orthodox world accepted the lenient definition of Shok (section of the leg) as enunciated by the Mishna B’rura, and, as such, defined it as “over the knees” in a sitting situation (if the knees are visible while sitting then one would need to make sure they always stood?). Others, such as various Chassidim, Chardal and more are stricter and only accept skirts which are extended to the calf area. In general, none expect that the skirt should be “skin-tight” to the extent that it advertises the outline of the anatomy. Each to their own Rav HamuvHak, and one should not blithely condemn anyone for following an acceptable Psak. To do so, is the antithesis of the halachic process and an insult to the honour of respected Poskim who established their criteria with the permission of the Torah (even if we arguably no longer have Smicha today).

Other areas of the anatomy are always a matter of Minhag. I’m not aware of a Minhag that a female has to wear gloves. Her hands from the wrist bone to the tips of her fingers are never considered Erva by any opinion I have come across. If a reader knows of one, please tell. On the other hand, from the ankle down, is a matter of rather strange contention, with some saying that unlike hands, the foot area is a matter of Tzniyus, while other say it is a matter of the Minhag of the place, and others stating that since there is generally no accepted minhag in a larger city, one may follow any minhag. Some are careful on this matter on Shabbos, but not during the week. That is usually a matter of being elegantly dressed or a function of the heat in a particular place. Each to their own. To criticise someone for clearly halachically valid views is not effective and according to most Acharonim, even when a practice is halachically invalid, a stranger would have no liability to admonish, as their words would not be listened to, and we have lost the “art” of admonishment. Certainly, the Satmar Rebbe, who was extreme in all matters, and who one does not have to accept as the yardstick Rabbinic authority, specified a curious view of stockings, in particular:

“The rebbe taught that even 70-denier stockings should not be worn. The numerical value of sod (secret) is 70, so the secret is out that this [stocking] is also transparent.” There then follows a lengthy account of Teitelbaum’s creation, with the help of a Brooklyn businessman named Lipa Brach, of an exclusive line of fully opaque women’s hosiery:

Money in hand, Reb Lipa Brach began to work on the project. He went to several hosiery manufacturers, collected samples, and brought all of them to the rebbe to inspect. The rebbe was very pleased with the progress, and he tested each sample by pulling it over his own arm. If his hair showed, it was no good…. The new stockings were given the brand name, “Palm,” the English translation of the Rebbe’s surname…. To this day every Satmar woman and girl wears Palm stockings.

Fast forward to schools and acceptable Tzniyus practices as recently described here. This is not only applicable to Schools, but also to camps (where I have a reliable source to confirm that often girls have to put on socks as soon as they emerge from a women-only pool, and cannot even walk to the bunk house in any other fashion).

I do think that it is critical that Schools (and Camps) enunciate what is acceptable, and anyone who enrols their child in a school should not complain about that level. They do have a choice. They might wish to send their children to another school if views on Tzniyus are considered too right-wing. Often Schools are either inconsistent and/or lax. This can be constant or may reach a crescendo, from time to time. In such a case, the question is how one now educates existing girls about the need to adhere to the standards in the shadow of inconsistent practices of enforcement.

I am opposed to the approach of having non-Jewish (or even Jewish) Tznius “police” casting their eyes up and down girls as they enter the gates and either expelling or calling them out if they breach an aspect. If the school had been inconsistent in the past, then it needs to take a far more sophisticated and educative approach than simply policing with halachic batons. Such policing will simply turn people off, possibly forever, and make them respect no Tznius Police style people or their comments.

What would I do? For a start, I wouldn’t try to single girls out especially publicly. I would take silent note of what the issues are, and away from the school gaze, enunciate the views of the school and source these in a halachically mature and respectful way. That way should not disqualify other approaches but should contextualize the varied approach(es) adopted. It may be necessary to have a weekend seminar, and bring in thoughtful and soft people who are knowledgeable both about the halacha and mind-set of those who sometimes get excited only by these issues. Failure to do that (and there may be other solutions) are likely to be doomed and disenfranchise and cause more underlying dissension than had existed before.

Once a consistent standard has been in place for a few years, a different approach can be adopted, but, again, I’d try not to shame someone in front of their peers.

There are halachic views, as I recall, mentioned by Chacham Ovadia Yosef stating that if the approach in a Xtian country is for a unmarried girl to wear a hat to Church as a matter of modesty and respect, that a Jewish girl should do so no less! It cannot be that the אומות העולם grab the high ground. At the same time, there are limits. Burkas and the like are not within the confines of reasonable halachic parameters (although we see demented people in Yerushalayim and Beit Shemesh following such antithetical and condemned practices).

Women may well argue, and do argue, that there is a degree of misogyny on display. Why is it that the focus appears to be largely on females and not males? This is a good question. I recall in Malaysia and Indonesia where I often saw a poor (hot) female dressed from top to toe (inclusive) in a gown that allowed only her eyes to peak out. Her husband and kids were walking along in tow. The often bearded husband ironically wore shorts, a singlet and flip flops! That is, the type of clothing many people wear in hot weather. I couldn’t understand why Islam seemed to have two standards. Does Judaism have the same attitude? It could be argued that a man wearing floppy shorts, a t-shirt and flip flops isn’t technically breaking any law of Tzniyus, save a possibly “Minhag HaMakom” where “Makom” doesn’t purely exist, such as in places like Melbourne, where a multiplicity of views is extant. Sure, during davening, men have dicta, some of which are relativistic, but it seems that the female folk are the ones who are getting all the attention. There is a level of existentialism in this, although some may argue.

Is the approach taken by a school and others that “yells” and “calls out” right? Is it fruitful? More importantly, is the shouting, embarrassing, policing style approach likely to achieve anything positive?

I think not. Most attitudes are formed at home. That is the place for education, and it needs to start early.

Sofer Case Means Draft Haredim

(Hat tip MD)

From

http://tiny.cc/9hcplx

By David Benkof

The disappearance of Aaron Sofer in the Jerusalem forest is of course alarming.

But far more important is the instruction of Rav Aharon Shteinman shlita, today’s leading Lithuanian haredi rabbi, that Israeli students at the monumental Mir yeshiva put down their Talmuds and search for Sofer five days after he went missing.

Now, the odds that Sofer was simply lost among the trees are quite small. And he’s just one person.

But he’s a yeshiva bochur.

At the same time, haredim and their leaders have refused every single proposed compromise that would draft their youth – or at least some of them – into the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). They won’t even discuss national service. While the children of secular and religious Zionist Jews fight and die to protect our People and our Land, haredim have argued that they, too, play a key role in protecting Israel.

Torah study, they say, is a spiritual shield for Israel, which is as important as the military’s physical shield.

So why would Rav Shteinman order Mir students out of the yeshiva and into the forests? After all, many non-haredim were already physically searching for Sofer. Shouldn’t the Mir be a place to spiritually search for Sofer?

We can now see the obvious hypocrisy of haredi excuses not to participate in the IDF or at least perform national service. If they can put down their gemaras to look for one of their own, they can do the same to defend our nation against hostile enemies.

The premier argument for exempting haredim has been demolished.

I say draft ‘em all.

David Benkof is a freelance writer living in St. Louis. Follow David Benkof on Facebook or E-mail him at DavidBenkof@gmail.com.

Rabbi Lookstein was wrong, and had the courage to say so

R’ Haskel Lookstein is a respected figure, albeit on the left side of Centrist Orthodoxy. I had posted about wearing a Yarmulka B’Davka and suggested that even those who don’t normally wear one, should undertake to wear one especially in this day and age when we are under attack. Afraid to be seen you are Jewish?

I was shocked that R’ Lookstein had suggested parents consider telling their kids to wear baseball caps. Perhaps it’s mandated according to Halacha: one shouldn’t place oneself in a dangerous position. My Zayda Yidel ע’’ה always expressed discomfort when I left the house wearing a Yarmulka, and not a hat. He was a miraculous holocaust survivor, and I was his grandchild. I was one of the few Balbin males. He was agitated if I “flaunted” my Jewishness unecessarily. I understood his feelings. My attitude was that I would never be afraid of גוים who hated me because I was Jewish. He had suffered, but I somehow wanted someone to start with me so I could exact some macabre revenge. Sorry Zayda. Forgive me.

I was pleased to see that R’ Lookstein had recanted, changing his mind. Although not quite advocating what I suggested, which was more of an aggressive “in your face, anti-semite” sentiment, he at least saw that his Galusdik approach was retrograde.

Come clean on meat kashrus, melbourne

Last night, I enjoyed a Simcha. It’s common for me to attend a Simcha, except that I usually eat with my band, and prefer to for professional and menchlich reasons, even when I am often also a guest. Last night, though, I was a regular guest sans any musical involvement. I was just a Moshe Kapoyer.

As we sat down to the main course, I noticed two fine members of Adass who appeared to be vegetarians. The catererer was a fine Adass caterer, however, there was a sign advising that the meat was from (Chabad supervised) Solomon’s Butchers. Clearly Chabad prefer their meat at their functions. Some Chabadniks will eat Adass meat, others will not.

There is nothing new about the fact that there are different approaches to Shechita. There is Beis Yosef, Chassidish, Litvish, and variations. These can vary because of whether there is freezing of the meat with the blood intact before latter processing, the expectation of the morality of the Shochetim (do they have an iPhone for example) and their supervisors, the Bodkim, and more.

Now, everyone is free to have a preference for their own home. You can have two people who are Mehader in meat preparation, and one prefers shop A, and the other shop B. In my mother and father’s house, meat always came from Chedva Butchers, and later from the (Tzaddik) Yankel Unfanger’s Melbourne Kosher Butchers. That was their preference. Later, they included Solomon’s as well.

But, and this is a big but, there is a far cry between choosing what you use in your own home and what you may find yourself presented with at a Simcha. I can relate many stories involving Rabonim bigger than anything we have in Melbourne, including R’ Moshe and R’ Shlomo Zalman, who wouldn’t dream of not participating in a Simcha if there was a reliable hechsher, even though their wives might buy meat or other produce elsewhere in their own homes.

[There is a famous case of a line of Rabonim sitting together all deciding to eat Fish instead of meat. Rav Moshe Tendler was in that line of seats, and went up to each Rav, and asked them how many potential Issurei D’Orayso were involved with Fish versus Meat. There are more with fish!, so he suggested they were actually being Meikel with their Fish and should have chosen the meat. There is no accounting for truth, of course though in our Olam HaSheker].

Returning to our story, I simply didn’t get it. Was a Chabad Shechted Chicken not Kosher enough to the extent that the fine men from Adass became instant vegetarians? Is it correct to implicitly cast aspersions on the Kashrus of others at the same table from an empirical level? What of the B’alei Simcha? Maybe they should have purchased latkes at a take away for them instead?

Now, it works both ways. We never bought from Continental Butchers. I understand it has come a long way in leaps and bounds from the days of yore, and is probably more closely supervised than the disgrace in Monsey (below) where people were eating Mamash Treyf as supplied by “Heilige Butchers” who learned Daf HaYomi each day.

What do I do, though, if I am invited out, and I notice, for example, I am served Wurst from Continental, or something similar? Can I honestly conclude that it is mamash Assur with Timtum Halev and all the shvartze klollos that go with it, or do I conclude, that it’s not my first choice at home, but I’d never embarrass a baaleh booste et al by even remotely making them think that their home was “not kosher enough”.

I was advised that Rabbi Beck had issued instructions that Chabad Meat was never to be eaten. Why? Is it Meshichism? Was he worried that Meshichisten=elohisten? Frozen? Split Chicken? What are the reason(s)? Can Rabbi Beck discuss any issues he or his son-in-law may have with Rabbi’s Telsner and Groner? Is it impossible to fix anything that may appear “wrong”. In the beginning, Misnagdim wouldn’t touch a Chassidic Chalaf Knife. Now, they are all happy with them because they are better. What changed?

While we are at it, Melbourne Kosher describes mehadrin and non mehadrin products. What is the status of Continental? Are they mehadrin? Are the fertile rumours circulating that things aren’t quite as strict as they might be under Melbourne Kosher’s control as far as Meat production is concerned true or scuttlebutt? If so, what are these issues. Can they be fixed? Why the silence.

[Let me state: I am not interested in the slightest in the maverick views of those like Meir Rabi and his ilk].

I’m writing about the respected big three butcher shops. What’s the story? Can we either spill the beans or fix up operations?

PS. I have seen enough in 30 years as far as Kashrus is concerned; I’d not want to write it down though. Ironically, some of the best practices are from Yidden who aren’t the biggest Frumaks, but I trust them any day of the week, at any time, based on what I see.

PPS. Please Adassniks who want to respond, stop the silly games where you continue to fake your identity and expect me to post your comments. Be man enough to put your name to your opinion. Rabbi’s Gutnick, Sprung et al, can you tell us if you LECHATCHILA buy from Contintental in your own homes and if not why not. What is all the scuttle butt about certain chumros and practices. Are they untrue. Is it Mehadrin? If they are untrue put out a bulletin and knock it on the head!

Emergency: save this little boy

[this is real]

Hi all,

I’m appealing to all of you to not only donate to this cause, but to also tap into your various networks to help me to raise the necessary funds. Please send the attached appeal letter out to EVERYONE & anyone, every single donation helps, the more people that we get this out to, the greater the chance of saving this child’s life.

Please feel free to contact me should you have any queries.

Kind Regards,

Albert Bardavid

albert@solteam.co.za

DANIEL ROCK APPEAL

Daniel Rock is a 10 year old King David Sandton schoolboy who lives in Woodmead

Springs with his twin brother, older sister and parents. He has an eternal smile and an

amazingly positive outlook on life, just like any 10 year old – except Daniel is not like any

other 10 year old.

Since he was first diagnosed with cancer, Daniel has undergone extensive surgery and

radiation. It appeared that the treatment was successful and we celebrated the miracle.

Unfortunately, as often occurs with this insidious disease, the celebrations were short-

lived and Daniel’s most recent brain scan and spinal MRI have revealed that he has a

progressive tumour.

According to Dr Jonathan Finlay, the Director, Neuro-Oncology at Nationwide Children’s

Hospital, Columbus Ohio and one of the pre-eminent specialists in the world in the

treatment of this specific cancer, Daniel’s only chance for a cure is to undergo

“reintroduction of remission” chemotherapy followed by collection and cryo-preservation

of stem cells and their reintroduction, culminating in irradiation to any residual lesions.

Unfortunately, this treatment is not registered in South Africa. Nor is there the expertise

available to administer this treatment in South Africa.

Daniel is currently receiving the first phase of chemotherapy treatment in South Africa.

This is mostly being covered by our Medical Aid. However, the continuation of phase two

of the treatment, as described above, can only be performed overseas. We intend taking

Daniel to the USA for the completion of this second phase shortly.

The estimated cost of this treatment, which needs to be paid upfront, is $450 000. To

date, we have been successful in raising approximately half of this amount.

We have established a Trust Fund which will be administered by Werksmans Attorneys to

raise these funds. Your urgent donation would be greatly appreciated to ensure Daniel

may begin treatment by the end of September 2014 at Nationwide Children’s Hospital,

Columbus Ohio.

The details appear below –

The Daniel Rock Medical Trust Account

Standard Bank of South Africa

Account number 252295889
Branch code 019205

Ref [Name of Donor]

If you need any further information, please contact –

Albert Bardavid 083 658 8119; or

Sidney Isaacson 082 576 9371
With gratitude and appreciation.

Jonathan & Michelle Rock

I’m just embarrassed, to be honest

At such a time to have these ‘hats perched backwards on their heads’ gathering in Israel for such a thing?

See here

Does Kolel Beis HaTalmud in Melbourne follow Rav Shteinman or Rabbi Auerbach on this issue.

Where do they stand?

I’m sure of one thing. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, a giant of our generation, would have told his son to put his head elsewhere. What an embarrassment to Yiddishkeit.

The ONLY yoresh of Rav Shlomo Zalman’s enormous Gadlus is his son in law Rav Zalman Nechemia Goldberg shlita.

I cringe.

Hopefully these are G or PG RATED

Dear Isaac,

Given some of the reactions to the conflict with Hamas over recent weeks, I believe it’s important that we refocus and celebrate the diverse and sophisticated modern culture that is represented by Israel. This is why I am writing to you about the 11th annual AICE Israeli Film Festival.

With the festival quickly approaching, I urge you to show your support by attending and sharing this event with anyone who may be interested.

This is the first time the festival is operating in all cities and in my view it is vital, particularly in light of the recent Operation Protective Edge, that it is strongly supported by the Australian Jewish Community. If you don’t already know, the AICE was launched in 2002 through a ‘joint declaration’ by the Australian and Israeli Governments, and the Film Festival is one of its premier bilateral cultural events.

As Israeli Ambassador to Australia H.E Mr. Shmuel Ben-Shmuel has stated, “Israeli films present a unique perspective of our nation, and provide an insight into our vibrant national character and dynamic culture”.

Please follow this link to see the program for the Film Festival.

Regards,
Michael Danby
Member for Melbourne Ports

P.S: I recently wrote an article on the disturbing coverage from some members of the Australian media, particularly in the online sphere. You might also be interested in these two Youtube videos (from French and Indian TV) showing Hamas firing rockets from highly populated areas. They are a spectacular indictment of CNN and BBC.

Rabbi Sacks on “the Jewish Condition”

This is an excerpt (no doubt copyrighted to Rabbi Sacks), of his explanation to the conundrums that envelop us בכל דור ודור.

At the beginning of time God created the universe in a burst of energy that eventually gave birth to stars, then to planets, then to life. Among the millions of forms of life that eventually emerged was one different from all the others: Homo sapiens, the only life-form known to us capable of asking the question, “Why?”

On this one being, God bestowed the highest token of His love, setting His image and likeness on every human individual regardless of colour, culture, creed or class. He invited humanity to become His “partners in the work of creation,” calling us to create what He himself had created: freedom and order, the order of nature and the freedom that allows humans, alone in the universe, to choose between good and evil, healing and harm.

What the Torah tells us early on is how humanity failed. They did so in two ways. They created freedom without order. Or they created order without freedom. That is still the human tragedy.

Freedom without order was the world before the Flood, a state of anarchy and chaos that Thomas Hobbes famously described as “the war of every man against every man,” in which life is “nasty brutish and short.” That is the world today in Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Mali, the Central African Republic and other conflict zones elsewhere, a world of failed and failing states and societies wracked and wrecked by lawlessness. That is freedom without order, what the Torah calls a “world filled with violence” (Gen. 6: 13) that made God “regret that he had made man on earth, and it grieved Him to his very heart” (6: 6).

But the alternative was a world of order without freedom, epitomised in the Torah by the Tower of Babel and Egypt of the Pharaohs, civilizations that achieved greatness at the cost of turning the mass of humanity into slaves. That too is an affront to human dignity, because each of us, not just some of us, are in the image of God.

Having seen these two kinds of failure, God called on one man, Abraham, and one woman, Sarah, and said in effect: I want you to be different. I want you and those who follow you to create, out of a tiny people in a tiny land, a nation that will show the world what it is to sustain both order and freedom; what it is to build a society on the threefold imperative of love, love of God “with all your heart, with all your soul and all your strength,” love of our neighbour “as yourself,” and love of the stranger, a command reiterated in the Torah, according to the sages, 36 times.

I want you to become the people who keep the laws of tzedek and mishpat (justice and law), chessed and rachamim (grace and mercy), not because of the coercive power of the State but because you have taught your children to hear the voice of God within the human heart. I want you to show the world how to create freedom without anarchy and order without tyranny. That has been the Jewish mission for the better part of 4,000 years.

The result was that Jews found themselves, time and again, in the front line of the defence of humanity. Where there is freedom without order – anarchy – everyone is a potential victim. Jews played no special part in this history. But where there is order without freedom – imperialism in all its guises – Jews have often been the primary targets because they are the people who more than any other have consistently refused to bow down to tyrants.

That is why they were attacked by the empires of the ancient world, Egypt Assyria and Babylon; of classical antiquity, Greece and Rome; the Christian and Muslim theocratic empires of the Middle Ages; and the two greatest tyrannies of the modern world, Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. The face of tyranny today is radical political Islam in the form of Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Islamic Jihad, Hizb at-Takrir, Hizbollah and Hamas that are creating havoc and destruction throughout the Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia. They constitute a real and present danger to the liberal democracies of Europe also. And despite the fact that Israel is an almost microscopic element in this global disturbance, it is once again in the front line.

Why? Because Jews throughout history have recognised tyranny for what it is, and have refused to be intimidated by power, threat, terror and fear. Somehow, in the most dangerous region of the world, Israel has created a society of freedom and order: a free press, free elections and an independent judiciary on the one hand, and constant innovation in the arts and sciences, agriculture, medicine and technology on the other.

Israel is not perfect. We believe – the Hebrew Bible is the most self-critical national literature in all of history – that no one is perfect, that “There is no one on earth who is so righteous that he does only right and never sins” (Ecclesiastes 7: 20). But today’s Israel has been doing what Jews have been charged to do since the days of Abraham and Moses, to create freedom without anarchy and order without tyranny. And if that puts Israel on the front line yet again, there is no nobler cause in which to be so.

Moses’ words ring out today with as much power as they did thirty three centuries ago: “Choose life so that you and your children may live.” If Hamas were to do that one thing, the Palestinians of Gaza would have peace. Innocent lives would not be lost. Palestinian children would have a future. Because Israel did make that choice, it has created a society of order and freedom while all around it rage the godless fires of chaos and terror.

So although yet again we will shed tears this Tisha b’Av, let us at least thank God for the courage and greatness of the people of Israel. For, knowing what we know of history, we would surely rather have the state of Israel and the condemnation of the world, than, God forbid, no state of Israel and the sympathy of the world. And as we read the last line of Eichah, let us be fully aware of what those words have come to mean in our time:

הֲשִׁיבֵ֨נוּ יְקֹוָ֤ק׀ אֵלֶ֙יךָ֙ וְֽנָשׁ֔וּבָה חַדֵּ֥שׁ יָמֵ֖ינוּ כְּקֶֽדֶם

You brought us back, O God, and we returned. Help us to renew our days as of old,” in peace, speedily in our days, Amen.

Excellent editorial

(Hat tip md)

Ironically I sat next to a frum businessman last night who was complaining because his phone kept beeping from non Jewish workers and clients about who? Neturei Karta and Moshe Ber Beck and his band of living Chillulei HaShem. He showed me his phone. They were pointing to ‘not all Jews are Zionists’ type publications featuring these rodfim who have to publicise their views to the world. Cherem is too kind for them. Moshe Ber Beck should go and tend to the injured in Gaza. He could become the head of their Mosques.

this is from the Jerusalem Post.

Ban Ki-moon’s shameful message in Israel’s hour of need
By ANNE BAYEFSKY
07/22/2014 09:41

One rule for Israel and another for everybody else, evidently appeals to both the UN and the Obama administration. A shameful scheme in Israel’s hour of need.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon speaks at a joint news conference with Qatar’s foreign minister.

By ANNE BAYEFSKY
07/22/2014 09:בחר שפה▼

One rule for Israel and another for everybody else, evidently appeals to both the UN and the Obama administration. A shameful scheme in Israel’s hour of need.

It is hard to imagine two more unwelcome, uninvited visitors to Israel in the middle of a war against Palestinian terrorists than UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and US Secretary of State John Kerry. But even more unwelcome is that they are working together.

Their common cause is that although Israel has a right of self-defense in theory, Israel ought to be prevented from exercising this right in practice.

Events over the past week have provided an extraordinary demonstration of this reprehensible nexus.

On July 16, 2014, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) issued a report stating: “the Israeli military delivered text messages to virtually all the residents of Ash Shuja’iyya and Az Zaitun neighborhoods in eastern Gaza city, approximately 100,000 people, warning them to leave their homes by 8 am today (16 July), ahead of attacks to be launched in the area.” The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) also made phone calls and distributed leaflets.

OCHA then describes what came next: “Subsequently, the Palestinian Ministry of Interior in Gaza reportedly instructed the residents to…not flee the area.” As a result, OCHA admits: “the vast majority decided to stay.”

This story tells us both that Israel adhered to the Geneva Convention demand of providing “effective advance warning” to civilians and that Hamas violated the rule forbidding parties to “direct the movement of …civilians in order to shield military objectives from attack.”

What was Hamas trying to protect when it used Palestinians as human shields in Shuja’iyya?

The IDF refers to Shuja’iyya as the Hamas’ “terror fortress” in the Gaza Strip. The IDF has found more than ten openings to tunnels in Shuja’iyya and since July 8, Hamas has fired over 140 rockets at Israel from this neighborhood alone. As IDF Chief of General Staff Benny Gantz put it: “Hamas has built a war machine in residential areas.”

This is another violation of the laws of armed conflict. By deliberately locating its terrorist infrastructure in the midst of Shuja’iyya’s civilian population, Hamas violates the prohibition on “locating legitimate military targets within or near densely populated areas.”

Following the warnings, the IDF went into the Shuja’iyya neighborhood – and is still there – for the purpose of destroying the tunnels that have been designed and used to attack Israeli civilians. This is Hamas’ most basic war crime of all. In the words of the Geneva Conventions, civilians “shall not be the object of attack.”

On the night of July 19, 2014 in separate incidents in the Shuja’iyya area, Israel lost 13 soldiers, more soldiers in a single night than Israel lost in the whole of the three week 2008-2009 ground offensive Operation Cast Lead. These soldiers died in an ambush. An anti-tank mine. Trapped in a burning building.

The IDF affords us the context. They “encountered fierce Hamas fighting in the dense urban environment” as Hamas tried “to defend their tunnel infrastructure.”

In these circumstances, Palestinian civilians who remained in Shuja’iyya – despite the warnings – died. Data on fatalities, in OCHA’s own words, are “preliminary and subject to change based on further verification,” so the number of civilian casualties is unclear.

What is clear is the outrageous reaction of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. On July 20, 2014 he said: “dozens more civilians, including children, have been killed in Israeli military strikes in the Shuja’iyya neighborhood in Gaza. I condemn this atrocious action. Israel must exercise maximum restraint and do far more to protect civilians.”

Ban Ki-moon said nothing about Hamas having failed to protect Palestinian civilians. He said nothing about Hamas having put Palestinian civilians directly in harm’s way. In fact he said nothing about any “atrocious action” by Hamas. He also made no demand that Hamas “restrain” itself from fulfilling its stated goal, namely, that “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it.”

For the UN, no move that Israel makes short of surrender to the Palestinian mob, will ever be sufficient.

When Palestinian civilians did heed Israel’s warnings and did not die, on July 16, 2014 OCHA complained “the relocation experience has been…traumatic…Women have reported stress due to their inability to maintain…modesty norms…[in] overcrowded spaces…”

Five million Israelis have just seconds to run for a bomb shelter and save their lives. Older people have died from heart failure when the sirens go off. Small children flee rockets raining down on their kindergartens and spend hours trapped between four walls day after day. Let alone the parents and brothers and sisters of the 50,000 plus heroic young men and women on the front lines who spend every waking minute dreading a phone call, haunted by the prospect of kidnapping by very real monsters.

The truth is the UN doesn’t give a damn about the suffering of Israelis.

On July 18, 2014 the giant UN apparatus assembled in Geneva for the world press. There was OCHA, and the World Food Programme (WFP), the World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF, and the UN Palestinian refugee agency (UNRWA). Not one of these organizations said one word about Israelis.

This is not merely indifference; it is gross negligence and collaboration. On July 17, 2014 UNRWA confessed to “discovering” rockets in one of their schools, then refused to make the photographs public, and promptly gave the rockets back to the rocketeers – or as UNRWA spokesman Chris Gunness delicately called them, “the local authorities.”

UNRWA had the audacity to claim “this incident is the first of its kind…” knowing full well that Hamas has directly involved UNRWA schools in its war crimes before – with video evidence over the past decade to prove it.

Canadian reporter Patrick Martin happened to be visiting UNRWA’s Fakhoura School on July 15, 2014 and described the experience this way: “Heading toward the exit, we were overwhelmed by the jet-like sound of two rockets being launched from somewhere near the school. Hamas, or some militant group, clearly is hoping the Israelis won’t strike at the launchers…because they’re close to the school.” He adds that the kids were enthusiastic and knowledgeable about the weaponry; “as the Hamas-made missiles screamed off into the sky…the kids all cheered,” and one boy identified the make and model as the kind aimed at Tel Aviv.

Israelis, by contrast, are not cheering Palestinian civilian deaths.

On June 20, 2014, the UN Secretary-General gave a major speech on UN action on Syria and unashamedly declared: “Since June last year…the United Nations has not been issuing any statistics of death tolls. It is impossible and very sad and tragic to count all these dead bodies.” The UN does not count Syrian dead because it’s too sad, but throwing around unverified numbers of Palestinian civilian casualties serves a more palatable political endgame.

When Ban Ki-moon comes knocking, therefore, his bona fides are non-existent. So why is Secretary Kerry by his side?

On June 20, 2014, responding to a question from CNN’s Wolf Blitzer about Palestinian civilian casualties, Prime Minister Netanyahu said that Israel is “trying to be as pinpointed as we can.” Shortly thereafter, Secretary Kerry was caught on camera by Fox News talking to an aide who was apparently briefing him on the CNN conversation. Kerry reacted “It’s a hell of a pinpoint operation.”

Set aside the 273 civilians across Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, who have been killed unintentionally during the Obama administration’s limited endeavors to reduce terrorism. Think back to the President’s speech on America’s right to self-defense in the context of Syria – a country not on the U.S. border and not posing an imminent threat to three-quarters of the American population. Addressing the nation on September 10, 2013, Obama declared “the United States military doesn’t do pinpricks.”

One rule for Israel and another for everybody else, evidently appeals to both the UN and the Obama administration. A shameful scheme in Israel’s hour of need.

Director, Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust
Follow @AnneBayefsky

Gil-Ad Shaer הי’’ד

[Hat tip MT]

This is spooky to say the least.

Yisroel Nuret, Rav Yitzchok Dovid Grossman’s assistant (renowned Rav of
Migdal HaEmek etc.) related the following on the Israeli radio station Kol
Chai:

“About three years ago, I got a phone call. ‘Hello’ the voice said, ‘I’m
a13 year old boy, and I’d like to meet with Rav Grossman for five minutes.’

I explained to the boy that the Rav is a very busy man, and I wasn’t sure I
could arrange a meeting for him. I couldn’t see what huge need a young boy
would have to meet with the Rav. .. Then the boy’s father called, and he
said to me. ‘Listen, my friend, my son is celebrating his bar mitzvah soon.
We bought him a tallis and tefillin, and we asked him what present he would
like, expecting him to ask for a new bicycle, or maybe a special trip. But
he insisted, “Ima, Abba, I don’t want any presents except for one thing. I
want to meet Rav Grossman. That’s the biggest present I could get.”

So I gave him an appointment, and the boy all excited, went in with his
father to Rav Grossman’s office. It was scheduled to be a five-minute
meeting, but it went on for an hour and forty minutes.

These are the questions the boy asked the Rav: Kevod Harav, how does a
person merit doing chesed? How can one do chesed at a high level? And how can one be Mekadesh Sheim Shomayim (sanctify God’s name publicly)?

Stunned, the Rav explained to the boy how to do chesed in our generation.
and then the boy asked, “How does one merit sanctifying the Name of
HaKadosh Baruch Hu?”

The boy’s name was Gil-Ad Shaer Hy’d from Talmon – one of the 3 kedoshim
who was murdered by the wild beasts of the desert.”

מי כעמך ישראל

Gut wrenching.

השם ינקום דמם

LotzyBachy. Your final warning

You have attempted to make comments defending Adass. I have NO problem with that. They are fine people in the main, but I cannot stomach Neturei Karta and disagree with the Satmar philosophy. Until you get out of your hiding place and use your real name, I will continue my practice of not even entertaining publishing your comments, or responding to them. You have made some decent commentary, and some I disagree with, but if you persist in hiding, then I’m afraid I will just have to add you to my ban list, and I will no longer see your comments. The choice is yours LotzyBachy.

If you aren’t allowed to use the internet, then I suggest just go away and stop using it. If you are, then have the guts to use your real name. I don’t publish my blog because I get crave commentary although I do appreciate the many excellent commenters who have a real intellectual contribution to make.

A feeling of warmth from my brethren

I tightened up the rules for commentors on my blog so that people don’t hide behind fake names. Of course, since then, there has been a small volcano of comments from a certain section of the community, all valiantly trying to hide their identity and adding nothing of substance to what I wrote. Here is the latest from someone parading as ‘Navardok’ presumably because he is a misnaged, or more likely, a chassid trying another level of obfuscation. For Novardok Bachi, please. Note that I’m neither a member nor do I daven at Mizrachi. I’m a member of Elwood, Yeshiva and Ohel Dvora. All for nostalgic reasons. If my readers are looking for either a laugh or wanting to understand the mind set of an extreme group in our community, I thought I’d give Navardok Bachi, a guest post comprised of his latest comment.

Isaac,

I have a message for you on behalf of Real Torah Yiden in Melbourne.

People are tired of your anti Hareidi & anti Chassidic vitriol.

You are little more than a filthy Zionist piece of human garbage. You are not welcome at Adass or the Kollel or for that matter at any other Torah true community. Why don’t you just remain at Mizrachi where you belong or in the alternative please consider moving to Tel Aviv & hang out with the Chiloni garbage you like to defend.

Enough is enough.

Can you please just shut down your blog and do us all a favor and get lost.

I have another solution for you, Navardok Bachi, you are NOT allowed on the internet. Turn off your computer and stop breaking the gezeyros of your Gedolim.

PS I don’t hate people, but I can disagree vehemently with their philosophy. Have a great day. 😘

Inappropriate Advertisements on the pitputim blog

You may not know, but I use this service for free and don’t have control (nor do I see!) the ads that are served up. It is housed at wordpress somewhere in the ether. I could pay to remove them, but my prime motive has always been, as per my about page. It’s just a blog where I put down issues that invade my headspace. If there are respectful comments, then that is great. If there are no comments, then it’s still fine. I actually enjoy putting down my thoughts because I’ve always enjoyed writing. (I often don’t proof-read, so apologies for errors of English and typos or missing words that are undoubtedly extant.

I have heard that some ads are really inappropriate to put it mildly. If you can do me and all of us a favour, follow the instructions below, which will help wordpress spare me the embarassment of hearing about ads that I would not ever want to see on my blog (or any blog!)

I can’t do it, as I don’t see ads!

If you saw an inappropriate ad, please report it to support@wordpress.com. Please include the address of the site (e.g.,http://example.wordpress.com), the date/time the ad appeared, and a screenshot of the ad.

Thoughts to Ponder by Rabbi Cardozo

Nathan Lopes Cardozo

Spinoza’s Sub Specie Aeternitatis, Yeshiva Students and the Army
Whenever I think of the huge demonstration of Chareidi yeshiva students at the beginning of this month, I think of Gateshead Yeshiva in England where I spent many years studying Talmud. It is Europe’s most famous yeshiva and a bastion of Torah study in the Chareidi world. Paradoxically, I also think of Spinoza’s incomparable masterpiece, the Ethics, written in a small room in Voorburg, the Netherlands.
I come from a completely secular background with no Jewish education, but good schooling in secular philosophy where Kant, Hume and Wittgenstein reigned supreme. When I ventured to have a look at Gateshead Yeshiva with the intention of learning Talmud, I did not know what was awaiting me. I expected a Jewish university for talmudic studies where enlightened teachers and students would discuss the latest problems in theology and talmudic historiography. But nothing was further from the truth. This was not even Yeshiva University. It’s not just that there were no secular studies and no talk about Plato’s theory of immortality or Leibniz’s famous theodicy; this was an altogether different planet. There was nothing but one supreme endeavor: learning Talmud, combined with Rabbi Aryeh Leib Heller’s (1) classic Ketzos HaChoshen and Rabbi Yaakov ben Yaakov Moshe Lorberbaum’s (2) Nesivos HaMishpat, two brilliant talmudic works.
There were 300 of us, and we slept in our overcoats in what some people called a bedroom, where the temperature was far below zero. Our neigel vasser (3) was frozen in the morning. There was no lobby in the yeshiva where we could relax, nor was there a cafeteria. We knew that the food we ate was practically taken from the mouths of our roshei yeshiva. Our menahel ruchani (spiritual mentor), Rabbi Chizkiyahu Eliezer Kahan z”l, was as poor as a church mouse but looked like a king in his spotless frock coat and with his long, carefully combed white beard. He was a “Nevardoker” – a student of the famous Nevardok Yeshiva (called after a city in Lithuania) of pre-Holocaust Europe, which was dedicated to strict discipline and unfailing religious devotion. The non-Jews in Gateshead knew that when Rabbi Kahan, who walked as upright as a soldier, passed by in the afternoon, it was exactly 4:00 p.m. – not a minute later and not a minute earlier. They could not help but take their hats off to this remarkable human being who was a great tzaddik.
When you entered the yeshiva, you were no longer sure in which century you were living – the 5th, 12th, 17th or 20th. This was a world unto itself, made up of singularly focused people. There was no walking out to the street for a few minutes to get some fresh air; no option of going to a kosher restaurant to get a cup of coffee or have a falafel; no chance of meeting a religious girl studying at the famous Gateshead Seminary. Although 150 of them were right around the corner, they were light-years away from our yeshiva. Not only was it dangerous to walk in the streets, since so many drunken people wandered around, but no one even had any interest in doing so. It was considered bitul zman (a waste of time). There was one supreme goal: shtaigen in lernen (excelling in learning). The roshei yeshiva showed incredible integrity, deep religiosity and a total absence of any personal agenda. There was no competition between them, no scandals and no quarrels. Just Torah in all of its splendor. What counted was the service of God through learning the Talmud, a holy text of infinite sublimity. This monumental text took them back to Mount Sinai, and through its pages they relived the greatest moments in all of Jewish history. There was much naiveté, a withdrawal from the world, which made the rabbis seem like human angels while studying the laws of damages and injuries. There were also mussar shmoozen. These were not intellectual discourses like Kant’s sophisticated insights about ethics; they were emotional, often spontaneous, outbursts of love for God and man. Through the singsong chants, they would lift us up to heaven and ask of us to be supreme human beings and Jews. Nothing in this world comes close to those religious experiences.
I spent 12 years in yeshivot, and then completed my Ph.D. Today, when I speak with many people who reject the yeshiva world and criticize it harshly for its faults, I realize that although I agree with many of their critical assessments, they fail to understand the inner music of these institutions. They do not realize that this introverted but remarkable world somehow lifted the Jews out of their misery throughout history and gave them the strength to survive all their enemies under the most intolerable conditions brought on by anti-Semitism. It was this denial of time that made the Jews eternal. The yeshiva world was no doubt very small compared to what it is now, but until the emancipation it was the pride of the entire Jewish world. The Talmud afforded the Jews wings, enabling them to fly to other worlds; to return to the past that no longer existed; and to look toward worlds that were still to come. It became the Jews’ portable homeland, and their complete immersion in its texts made them indestructible even as they were tortured and killed. The Talmud became their survival kit, which ultimately empowered their offspring to establish the State of Israel, nearly 2000 years after they were exiled from their land. This is unprecedented in all of the history of mankind.
For nearly 2000 years the yeshiva world made Jews view life sub specie aeternitatis, as Spinoza called it – from the perspective of eternity. Indeed, it allowed them to leave behind ordinary history and become a-historical. Jews stepped out of history because it was the only way to survive in history. And so the yeshiva world gave the Jewish people a tool for survival, which no one could match for the last 2000 years. Had the yeshiva world not done so, the Jewish people would never have endured, the State of Israel would not have been created, and no Jews – neither religious nor secular – would have lived in this wonderful country. All Israelis owe their lives to the wondrous yeshiva world, whether they like it or not.
In some way, Spinoza was a yeshiva student. He lived in his small room in Voorburg, and that was his beit midrash. Like the yeshiva students, he nearly never left it. There he built his universe and wrote his magnum opus. Consistent with his own philosophy, he too lived outside of history. His deep thoughts, insights and noble feelings are not of this world. They too are the product of sub specie aeternitatis and therefore suspect. In the long run they will break down, because one might be able to escape this world, even for a long time, but ultimately one needs to return. Thoughts that are eternal and untouchable are too beautiful and, for most people, unreachable. And so it is with the yeshiva world. Learning Talmud without being able to put much of its teachings into practice is too abstract and too unworldly.
With the establishment of the State of Israel, Jews were forced to re-enter history. But after 2000 years of living as yeshiva students and followers of Spinoza’s saintly teachings, it is a painful transformation. Most of our leaders, our government, and the roshei yeshiva have not yet realized that we are still hanging in suspense. We live with one foot in the world of the yeshiva and Spinoza, and the other foot on the ground with all its challenges and harsh realities. Our political leaders want us to come down and stand with both feet on the ground, while the yeshiva world wants to stay in the beit midrash of Spinoza, in heaven. Both will have to realize that their goals are unrealistic. It is much too early to decide whether we should come down with both feet on the ground, or continue to stay in heaven with at least one foot. We still find ourselves at a crossroads. One is reminded of the story told about a former premier of China who was asked what the impact of the French Revolution was on modern European history. His reply was, “It’s too early to say.”
What our political leaders have to ask themselves is whether it is already possible to fully return to history. Our enemies surrounding us are getting stronger and stronger. Their hate increases daily. Israel now finds itself in an unprecedented and precarious situation, more and more isolated. We are close to becoming, once again, a nation that “dwells alone,” as our biblical arch-enemy Bil’am stated thousands of years ago. (4) Can we really afford to fully enter into history bound by its normative rules, and be defeated by these very rules because we are not yet strong enough? Wouldn’t it be better to stay with one foot in the world of sub specie aeternitatis, outside of history? In fact, isn’t the very existence of the State of Israel a bit too miraculous to fit the norms of history? Perhaps we should make sure that some of our people, our yeshiva students, continue to live outside of history so that they can rescue our nation if history does not accept us as real players and we would otherwise disappear. Isn’t it true that we are treated as a people with no history, as the United Nations, many European countries, and even the American administration use double standards when judging us, not allowing us to be part of conventional history? We are still living through the birth-pangs, as yet unable to say what the baby will look like.
On the other hand, it is our Chareidi roshei yeshiva and those recognized as the gedolei hador who are guilty of not realizing that we Jews must return to history at some point, and if they don’t want to join us they may lose us altogether and they themselves may not survive. They seem to be completely oblivious to the radical change that has taken place in the Jewish world – including their own yeshiva world – after the Holocaust and the establishment of the State of Israel. We have been taught that in the long run it is impossible for all of us to stay outside of history. The Holocaust has taught us that we cannot survive ad infinitum without entering history. We have too much eternity and too little geography. To argue that our yeshiva students are the ones who really defend us against our enemies, and that we do not need soldiers, is an escape from reality and as anti-halachic as can be. It is a rewriting of Judaism that the Chareidi leadership cannot even accuse the Reform of doing.
Both the secular and the Chareidi utterly lack historical perspective. The secular have to learn that we may need to keep some people outside of history, and the Chareidi leadership will have to realize that now that we have a state of our own, all of us, without exception, must serve in Tzahal because we are trying to get back into history. In fact, every young Jewish male outside of Israel should feel it his absolute moral obligation to serve for a few months in the Israeli army, because by now world Jewry is depending on the State of Israel, if only so that when it really goes wrong in Europe or the United States there will be a haven for them.
It cannot be denied that the Israeli government made a major blunder in the way it handled the need to draft yeshiva students for army service. Some Knesset members believe that they won, but in reality it was a monumental loss and they became the laughing stock of Israeli society by arguing for equal service by all. Everyone knows that there’s no such thing as equality in the army. Some people risk their lives, others do not. If all were equal, the army wouldn’t function. We also know that a Jewish State will never be able to put people in jail because they learn Torah.
Both parties should have learned from the great British Jewish philosopher Isaiah Berlin who states that there are no ideal solutions in this world. There are only tradeoffs. “You cannot combine full liberty with full equality… Justice and mercy, knowledge and happiness can collide,” says Berlin. It is not that such perfect harmony cannot be created because of practical difficulties. It is that “utopian solutions are in principle incoherent and unimaginable… so there have to be choices.” One can only choose how much equality and how much liberty, how much mercy and how much justice. Belief in a perfect world “cannot but lead to suffering, misery, blood, terrible oppression.” (5)
The only thing the government can do is suggest that Chareidi yeshiva students go for basic training and build yeshivot in the army. The students would have to walk around in uniform and learn full time, learn with other soldiers, do community service, or something similar. Fair? Certainly not. But fairness is not a value that can always work in the military. Only a tradeoff can work; there is no other option. And by allowing these students to study while in the army, we at least remind ourselves that we may still have to be an a-historical people and that we cannot yet afford to live solely within history. It is still too dangerous. If some of us are full-time cooks in the army, others can be full time learners in the army. Much too expensive? Sure! But you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Still, the greatest mistake was not made by the government but by the Chareidi leadership. When it organized a demonstration in which nearly 600,000 black-hatted yeshiva students participated to show their love for Torah, one could hear a pin drop just before the crowd burst out in an unprecedented cry of Shema Yisrael. That was the perfect opportunity to prove their love for our brave soldiers and all of Israeli society by having all 600,000 men and women recite prayers for the welfare of the soldiers and all Jews in Israel. That would not only have been a great kiddush Hashem; it also would have turned Israeli society around and healed much of the animosity between the Chareidi and non-Chareidi communities. Yeshiva students would have been seen in a different light. Instead of having upset hundreds of thousands of Israelis, among whom many have lost their sons and daughters in combat, it would have created an entirely different atmosphere in the country. There is little doubt that most yeshiva students would have done it with great love. The failure to ask them to do so is not just a missed opportunity. It is completely irresponsible and a terrible tragedy. When the world-renowned, Chareidi halachic authority Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Aurbach z”l was asked to which graves of tzaddikim one should go to pray, he said to go to the military cemeteries. The fact that the Chareidi leadership did not tell 600,000 of their followers to pray for our soldiers proves beyond doubt how small-minded are those who are recognized as gedolei hador.
To paraphrase Spinoza: All noble men are as great as they are rare.
*************************
1. Rabbi, talmudist and halachist in Galicia, 1745-1812.
2. Rabbi and respected posek in Lissa (today known as Leszno), Poland, 1760-1832.
3. Water put near one’s bed at night for washing hands upon arising.
4. Bamidbar 23:9.
5. Ramin Jahanbegloo, Conversations with Isaiah Berlin (London: Halban Publishers, 2007) pp. 142-3.

What aren’t there pluralist Shiurim in Melbourne?

I don’t mean pluralist in the sense of non Orthodox, or conservadox (aka Shira Chadasha).

I notice there are lots of Shiurim on Tanya. It is a very important work. I know that the Nefesh Hachaim came after it, and depending on who you ask it was written in response, or in parallel.

I’m interested in a Shiur from someone who knows both Tanya and Nefesh Hachaim inside out, and who is familiar with the Ramak, Tomer Dvora, and Maharal (of which much is based on).

My own knowledge is a rather old recollection of learning various Sifrei Maharal too many years ago.

Do such people in Melbourne exist, who are able to give such a Shiur, including comparative explanation, or is this the sort of thing which only happens along party lines.

I will note the Mori V’Rabbi R’ Schachter quotes both Tanya and Nefesh Hachaim at will and uses each in context as it relates to what he is saying (on other topics)

May women wear Tefillin

This is an excellent article from the articulate and thoughtful Rabbi Mayer Twersky, a grandson of the Rav.

I

The Ruling of the Ramo and Modern Reaction

ואם הנשים רוצין להחמיר על עצמן מוחין בידן
and if the women wish to act stringently [and don tefillin] we rebuke them
(Ramo, Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 38:3)
Recently, some rabbis have publicized and implemented their view that women wishing to don tefillin should be accommodated, contra Ramo’s ruling. A firestorm of controversy has ensued. But seemingly there is ample justification for their position.

The argument runs as follows. What, in effect, have these rabbis done? To best serve their students/congregants they have, simply, sensitively aligned themselves with the Rambam, et al, whose view, contra Ramo, allows women to don tefillin. Surely, the view of Rambam, et al is valid.

The nominal argument continues. Times have unquestionably changed. We do not live in sixteenth century Krakow, eighteenth century Vilna, or even fin-de-siecle Radin. In today’s world, women wishing to don tefillin should be accommodated.

II

Modern Mistakes

The beguilingly simple argument/psak outlined above is plagued by, at least, three egregious errors.

Error number one: the unequivocal ruling of the Ramo, subsequently silently endorsed by, inter alia, the Magen Avraham, Taz, Gaon of Vilna, Ba’al HaTanya, Aruch Hashulchan and Mishna Berurah, rejects the position of Rambam et al, and has stood unchallenged for over five hundred years. Moreover, Ramo’s ruling has been accepted in Sephardic circles as well [2]. Overturning five hundred plus years of precedent and overwhelming consensus is anything but simple. Only the most eminent ba’alei hora’ah could even possibly entertain the notion. For anyone of lesser stature to tamper with five hundred plus years of tradition represents the height of brazenness and goes well beyond the pale of Orthodox Judaism.

The person of lesser or no halachic stature may feel that he has a crucially important perspective on the human dimension of the women and tefillin issue. Even if he were to be correct in his assessment, however, having perspective in no way compensates for his lack of Torah knowledge and qualification in psak. Instead of paskening the layman should share that perspective with the most eminent ba’alei hora’ah.

The rabbi who is not a ba’al hora’ah may nevertheless feel that within his school or shul the question of women and tefillin is his call. Even according to his proprietary premise he is profoundly wrong. It may be his school or shul, but it is the Rebono Shel Olam’s Torah. (This point is elaborated in Section VII below.)

Error number two: even if the five hundred year consensus on the issue of women and tefillin had not existed, the recent “psak” would still be a perversion of Halachah and halachic process.

Difference of opinion in the Rishonim or Shulchan Aruch does not create a halachic smorgasbord from which everyone is free to make his own selection. At a culinary smorgasbord or in a commercial venue such as a clothing store every guest/consumer is entitled to have, and act upon, his preference. He can choose what he likes and select what suits himself/his charges best. But that modus operandi has no place in Halachah and psak Halachah. One is not allowed, much less entitled, to opine that, “I think the view of Rambam and Rashba suits me/my charges best.”

ולא יאמר האדם אפסוק כמי שארצה בדבר שיש בו מחלוקת ואם עושה כן הרי זה דין שקר אלא אם הוא חכם גדול ויודע להכריע בראיות הרשות בידו
a person may not say regarding an issue where there is difference of opinion “I will decide the Halachah as I wish”, and if he did so, the ruling is false. But if he is a great sage and capable of deciding the Halachah based upon proofs it is his prerogative [to do so]
(Ramo, Choshen Mishpat 25:2) [3]
Psak Halachah is rendered by chachomim who are ba’alei hora’ah based upon canons of psak, not by anyone else, regardless of vocation or title, and not by engaging in crass religious consumerism.

Error number three: the recent “psak” reflects myopic perception. What, in the year 5774, is the core issue regarding women and tefillin? Is it “technical”, yes guf naki or no guf naki? Or perhaps it is educational, accommodating sincere youth or rebuffing them? Alas, if it were only so simple.

In modern times women did not begin donning tefillin to emulate Michal bas Shaul, be devout Maimonideans or invoke shem Hashem upon themselves. Women donned tefillin because men do so. Within the secular modern mindset adopted by Reform and Conservative wherein equality = uniformity women who don tefillin thereby attain a measure of equality with men [4]. And thus the defining issue is axiological: can the secular value of egalitarianism be grafted onto Halachah?

The answer is obvious. Egalitarianism rejects a vital, essential, divinely ordained dimension of Halachah. Halachah does not discriminate against men or women. Most assuredly, however, it distinguishes between the genders. A genuine commitment to authentic Halachah per force entails rejecting the socially dominant, false philosophy of egalitarianism.

When individuals, regardless of vocation or title, grant license to women to don tefillin, nolens volens, they validate the insidiousness of egalitarianism.

We would do well to hear the voice of Rav Soloveitchik speaking to us across the generations regarding the obligation to staunchly resist false, socially/religiously dominant philosophies which assail Torah and its values.

In my opinion the Halachic dictum, bishe’ath gezerath ha-malchuth ‘afillu mitzvah kallah kegon le-shinuye ‘arketha de-mesana, yehareg ve’al ya’abor [at a time of religious persecution through governmental decree, even for a minor custom, such as one involving a shoelace, let one suffer death sooner than transgress it] (Sanhedrin 74b), requiring of us a heroic stand in times of adversity, applies not only to political and religious persecution originated by some pagan ruler, but also to situations in which a small number of God-fearing and Torah-loyal people is confronted with a hostile attitude on the part of the majority dominated by a false philosophy. [5]
A word of elaboration is in order. The issue is not what motivated two particular highschoolers to request permission to don tefillin in school. Their personal motives could be innocent, pure, and noble; I have no reason to think otherwise. The issue is the substance of their request – i.e., what the practice of women donning tefillin in 5774 represents.

This point can be more easily grasped by considering the following historically fictional scenario. The setting is nineteenth century Germany. Two sincere, innocent highschoolers regularly attend Reform Shabbos services. Not knowing any better, they view the playing of an organ as normative halachic behavior. What’s more they are very moved by the musical accompaniment. On weekdays they begin davening at home to the accompaniment of an organ. This prolongs their tefillah. Nonetheless they happily cut back on much needed sleep to arise early because they feel that this mode of tefillah enhances their personal avodas Hashem. Eventually, in all innocence, they approach the principal of the local Orthodox day school and request permission to softly play the organ in the ezras nashim during davening.

How should the principal respond? Should he be “sensitive”, mindful of their mesiras nefesh, and create space for their expression of their personal avodas Hashem?

Once again the answer is obvious. If the principal makes space for the organ, he does not respect their personal avodas Hashem or reward their mesiras nefesh. He grievously misleads; he egregiously reinforces reform behavior and values with tragically predictable consequences.

Correcting the students’ home behavior may not fall within the principal’s purview but he certainly cannot countenance Reform values and practices within school. He should commend their sincerity and commitment to tefillah. But he also should sensitively yet clearly explain why accompaniment of an organ has no place in authentic tefillah. His mandate is to educate. He rewards their mesiras nefesh by inspiring and encouraging genuine, basic shemiras hamitzvos – Shabbos, kashrus, tznius, etc., not by acquiescing to anti-halachic behavior. He respects their personal avodas Hashem by teaching them authentic, beautiful avodas hashem, according to the Shulchan Aruch.

All this is abundantly and indisputably clear. Today’s contemporary analogue, women donning tefillin, is equally clear.

III

Truth and Accommodation

In the first section of this essay we mentioned a commonly asked question, surely it is preferable to march in step with the times and accommodate women on issues such as tefillin rather than risk losing them? Actually, the preceding remarks have already, in part, implicitly addressed this question. Due to its seminal importance, however, let us be explicit and more elaborate.

Once again the sagacious, authoritative voice of Rav Soloveitchik continues to speak to us.

I know beforehand the reaction to my letter on the part of our apostles of religious “modernism” and “utilitarianism”. They will certainly say that since the great majority of the recently constructed synagogues have abandoned separate seating, we must not be out of step with the masses. This type of reasoning could well be -employed with regard to other religious precepts, such as the observance of the Sabbath, or the dietary laws. However, we must remember that an ethical or Halachic principle decreed by God is not rendered void by the fact that the people refuse to abide by it. Its cogency and veracity are perennial and independent of compliance on the part of the multitudes. If the ethical norm, Thou shalt not kill (Exodus 20:13), has not lost its validity during the days of extermination camps and gas chambers, when millions of people were engaged in ruthless murder, but on the contrary, has been impregnated with deeper meaning and significance, then every Halachic maxim assumes greater importance in times of widespread disregard and unconcern. The greater the difficulty, the more biting the ridicule and sarcasm, and the more numerous the opponent – then the holier is the principle, and the more sacred is our duty to defend it. [6]
The Rav was confronting the “Christianization of the synagogue”; today’s morei hora’ah confront the egalitarianization of Torah. The halachic directive, which the Rav so powerfully articulated, remains the same.

The “women’s” issues which in certain circles fuel much of the opposition to Halachah today had already begun percolating in Rav Soloveitchik’s lifetime. The Rav sensitively and unapologetically addressed himself to the surface issues as well as their underlying etiology.

(W)e must not yield — I mean emotionally, it is very important — we must not feel inferior, experience or develop an inferiority complex, and because of that complex yield to the charm — usually it is a transient and passing charm — of modern political and ideological sevoros (logic). I say not only not to compromise — certainly not to compromise — but not to yield emotionally, not to feel inferior, not to experience an inferiority complex. The thought should never occur that it is important to cooperate just a little bit with the modern trend or with the secular, modern philosophy. In my opinion, Yahadus (Judaism) does not have to apologize either to the modern woman or to the modern representatives of religious subjectivism. There is no need for apology — we should have pride in our mesorah, in our heritage. And of course, certainly it goes without saying one must not try to compromise with these cultural trends, and one must not try to gear the halachic norm to the transient way of a neurotic society, which is what our society is. [7]
In forming political coalitions or clinching business deals, negotiation, accommodation, and concession are the watchwords. They play, however, no legitimate role in determining truth. One ascertains truth through honest, rigorous, erudite inquiry – not by negotiating, accommodating, or conceding. What holds true for truth in general holds true for halachic truth (=psak) in particular. Of course, psak Halachah is always an exercise in applying Halachah to real life situations. As such, a fully nuanced, sensitive understanding of the prevailing socio-political, religious situation forms an integral part of the question. But the answer – psak – is neither conciliatory or non-conciliatory. These utilitarian categories are entirely misplaced when speaking of Halachah and psak Halachah. The psak represents what Halachah, truthfully and unapologetically, directs for the situation at hand.

IV

Ein Kol Chadash Tachas Hashemesh

The argument that contemporary morei hora’ah should march in step with the times and make concessions to prevent assimilation is hauntingly familiar.

We similarly state in our program for the revitalization of the Sabbath that the traditional interdiction of riding on the Sabbath for the purpose of attending the synagogue service may, in the discretion of the local rabbi, be modified … we must learn to adjust our strategy to the realities of our time and place, in keeping with the realistic genius of the great builders of our faith. Thus, our Sages cautioned us, tafasta m’rubah lo tafasta – “to overreach is to court failure,” when you attempt to grasp a great deal, you will grasp nothing … In crucial periods, our sages did not hesitate to make special enactments for their own time or for a limited period of time, in order to meet the challenge of new circumstances. [8]
Conservative rabbis who adamantly insisted they were operating within, and according to principles of, Halachah promoted these arguments. In their ignorance they misconstrued and misapplied the sources they cited, and distorted halachic process and Halachah. Today Conservative Jews – Hashem yeracheim – are disappearing.

V

Truth Endures, Falsehood Does Not [9]

One final note about the myopic argument for accommodation on issues such as women and tefillin is in order.

As already explained, the real, underlying issue is the Torah’s religious gender differentiation. Accordingly, any accommodation nolens volens accepts and reinforces the inimical premise that avenues and expressions of avodas Hashem for men and women must be identical.

Such acceptance is wholly unacceptable. First of all, it distorts Torah. Moreover, such acceptance and accommodation actually alienate women from Torah.

The process of alienation is tragically straightforward and frighteningly quick. As just noted, accommodation validates and reinforces the inimical egalitarian impulse but cannot satisfy it. Brushing aside the Ramo’s ruling does not make Halachah conform to the egalitarian creed. Seen from the twisted perspective of egalitarianism, women still suffer from discrimination. They are excluded from serving as shliach tzibbur, the halachos of marriage and divorce are most decidedly unegalitarian, etc. By reinforcing the egalitarian impulse without satisfying it, every accommodation intensifies the demand for further accommodations. But that demand can never be met because Torah and egalitarianism are fundamentally incompatible. And thus accommodationism, ר”ל, inevitably results in alienation and assimilation.

Tragically, this process of assimilation has already partially materialized. Yesterday’s women’s tefillah groups which stemmed from the same egalitarian impulse no longer suffice. Today tefillin, “partnership minyanim” and women rabbis are sought. And the handwriting on the wall is unmistakable. Tomorrow these stopgap, anti-halachic concessions will no longer suffice. The current path leads inexorably to a black hole of complete assimilation, ר”ל [10].

The alternative to aiding and abetting assimilation ר”ל is to assume our spiritual, educational mandate. Our mandate is to teach Torah (including, but obviously not limited to, elucidating the halachic process), and engender a profound appreciation for authentic Torah values, thereby guiding men and women alike to genuine avodas Hashem and religious experience.

VI

Tefillin and Talmud Torah

Let us digress for a moment. In recent decades whenever people agitate for changing Halachah they trumpet the alleged precedent of women and talmud Torah. It is vitally important to recognize the wholesale distortion created by that analogy.

The Belzer Rebbe, Chofetz Chaim, Rav Soloveitchik and other gedolei Yisroel who advocated Torah she’b’al peh instruction for women were not accommodating them or conceding to heretical, egalitarian, societal trends. Women were not agitating for talmud Torah opportunities. They were ר”ל happily assimilating. The gedolim recognized that our mesorah disapproved of optional, theoretical learning being imposed upon women. Our mesorah always mandated necessary, practical learning. In the modern era Torah she’b’al peh instruction within the guidelines provided by the gedolim for women was/is vitally necessary [11].

The issues of talmud Torah and tefillin for women could not be more different. The chachmei hamesorah upheld Halachah and combated assimilation by supporting talmud Torah for women. Initiatives such as allowing women to don tefillin tamper with Halachah and fuel assimilation.

VII

Students and Sages

Let us pause for a moment’s reflection. We have outlined three egregious errors – the brazenness of brushing aside precedent and consensus, the smorgasbord mentality and approach to psak, and myopic perception of halachic issues. Each of these errors in its own right is so elementary and so glaring. The confluence of all three within the recent “psak” regarding women and tefillin is simply mind boggling. How could this possibly come to pass?

The Shulchan Aruch addresses our issue head on.

כל חכם שהגיע להוראה ואינו מורה הרי זה מונע תורה וכו’
Any sage who is qualified to issue halachic rulings but does not do so – he is withholding Torah
[Shulchan Aruch 242:14]
תלמיד שלא הגיע להוראה ומורה הרי זה שוטה רשע וגס רוח ועליו נאמר כי רבים חללים הפילה
A student who is unqualified and renders halachic decisions is a delusional, wicked, and arrogant person, and about him it is said, “(s)he has caused many casualties”
[Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah ibid. 13, quoting Rambam verbatim]
ותלמידים הקטנים הקופצים להורות ולישב בראש להתגדל בפני ע”ה מרבים מחלוקת ומחריבים העולם ומכבין נרה של תורה
And students of small stature who leap forward to issue halachic rulings and to assume positions of authority, aggrandizing themselves before the masses cause discord to proliferate, destroy the world and extinguish the lamp of Torah
[Ramo’s gloss, also quoting Rambam, ibid.]
Let us try to get a feel for who is a chacham she’higi’a l’hora’ah. Rabbi Akiva Eiger (d.1837), the epitome of Torah mastery and majesty, seemed not entirely convinced that he himself qualified [12]. Ultimately, he wrote and published his responsa but only for the consideration of morei hora’ah. No moreh hora’ah, he insisted, should simply accept his conclusions. In more recent times, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, widely acclaimed as the posek hador, felt the need to justify how he could write and publish responsa [13]. His justification, in part: hi’gi’ah l’hora’ah is determined relative to one’s own generation. In our generation the range of our greatest sages extends over Shas, Rishonim, Shulchan Aruch, and poskim. Clearly, the bar for hora’ah remains very high.

Let us now turn our attention to the extraordinary, stinging words of censure which the Shulchan Aruch reserved for the talmid shelo hi’gi’ah l’hora’ah who paskens: shoteh rasha v’gas ruach (delusional, wicked, and arrogant.) We have generally excised such stinging epithets from our parlance because we tend to soften or sugarcoat the truth. But softening or sugarcoating also leads rachamana litslan to erosion. Accordingly, we need to take the Shulchan Aruch at its word, and try to retrace the thought process which yields the stinging censure.

Does the educator, rabbi, or layman not realize that he lacks the breadth and depth of knowledge required of a ba’al hora’ah? Does he, in a flight of Walter Mittyish imagination, think himself an expert in Shas, Rishonim, Shulchan Aruch, and major responsa? Halachic queries are never directed to him qua ba’al Halachah because he is not. They come his way only because of the professional position he occupies. Is his hubris so great and grip on reality so tenuous that he fails to recognize this distinction? How can he possibly arrogate the right to render halachic judgments, make public pronouncements about what is or is not consonant with Halachah and/or override five hundred plus years of halachic precedent and consensus?

Everyone intuitively understands and instinctively feels that a doctor who masquerades as a medical authority in an area beyond his expertise is not only dishonest but wicked. He may be very personable, affable, and even sincere in his desire to help. His personal graces and sincerity, however, do not ameliorate the evil of his masquerade. Inevitably and invariably, people will grievously suffer from his misguided medical guidance. Is a halachic masquerade any less immoral? Are spiritual fraud and injury of lesser import than medical fraud and injury?

When individuals act presumptuously and issue reckless rulings, the truth of Yoreh De’ah 242:13 becomes searingly painful. We are deeply pained by the thought that, as codified by the Shulchan Aruch, a fellow Jew is acting as a shoteh, rasha, v’gas ruach. We instinctively recoil at that thought. And yet our vulnerability to truth does not diminish its compelling veracity even an iota. The Shulchan Aruch’s stinging words of censure for the masquerading halachic authority are formulated with razor like precision.

So too Shulchan Aruch’s assessment of damage done by irresponsible psak- rabim chalalim hipila, it inflicts many spiritual casualties. Here too the Shulchan Aruch speaks with prescience and precision. Non Orthodox behavior is certified Orthodox. Secular, heretical values are accommodated and re-enforced, thereby promoting assimilation, ר”ל. A mockery is made of authentic halachic values such as sensitivity when so grossly misapplied. And sincere mevakshei Hashem are steered in the wrong direction.

Perhaps the best way to highlight the danger of irresponsible psak is this. Hakadosh Baruch Hu entrusted us with His Torah and its traditions – to study, interpret, and implement. In the hands of humble sages the integrity of Torah is secure. Their thinking and values are molded by a lifetime of immersion in Torah, and vast Torah erudition. Conversely, in the hands of non-experts the integrity of Torah is impossible to maintain. There is no end to the distortions that brazenness, a smorgasbord approach, and myopic perception will cause.

And, tragically, as per Ramo’s gloss quoted above, discord proliferates. Machlokes inevitably follows irresponsible psak because we are not allowed to remain silent. We have an obligation to protest the distortion and protect the integrity of Torah.

VIII

U’vacharta, And You Should Choose

תורת השם תמימה משיבת נפש עדות השם נאמנה מחכימת פתי פקודי השם ישרים משמחי לב מצות השם ברה מאירת ענים יראת השם טהורה עומדת לעד משפטי השם אמת צדקו יחדו
The Torah of Hashem is perfect, restoring the soul; the testimony of Hashem is trustworthy, making the simple one wise; the orders of Hashem are upright, gladdening the heart; the command of Hashem is clear, enlightening the eyes; the fear of Hashem is pure, enduring forever; the judgments of Hashem are true, altogether righteous
[Tehillim 19:8-10, Artscroll translation]
Acceptance of Hakadosh Baruch Hu’s Torah does not simply entail practical compliance. Acceptance also reflects firm belief and evinces a reverential attitude. We accept Torah with a sense of awe, joy, privilege and pride because we perceive it for what it is – Hashem’s chochmo, perfect, upright, gladdening, enlightening, true, etc. Accordingly, we accept Torah with humility and submissiveness.

This is what acceptance of Torah ought to be. What acceptance of Torah is, however, in today’s world in some circles does not correspond.

We are witness to a profoundly disturbing, religiously untenable phenomenon. Consciously or unconsciously, people want to hold fast onto some secular, anti-Torah Western values and, simultaneously, Torah. Their commitment to some anti-Torah values casts Torah, to a degree, in an adversarial role. And thus, consciously or unconsciously, in a futile attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable they push, twist and manipulate Halachah to make it more congenial to their opposing Western values. Somehow or other Torah has to be made malleable enough to accommodate their dual loyalties.

ראה נתתי לפניך היום את החיים ואת הטוב ואת המות ואת הרע וגו’ החיים והמות נתתי לפניך הברכה והקללה ובחרת בחיים
Contemplate that I have placed before you today life and good, death and evil, etc. Life and death, I have placed before you, blessing and curse, but you should choose life.
[Devarim 30:15, 19]
To genuinely live a life of Torah and serve Hakadosh Baruch Hu, we are called upon to choose blessing (=good) and forsake curse (=evil). Grafting evil onto good is simply not an option. Choosing what’s right per force means rejecting what’s wrong.

The choices we make define our lives and determine our destiny.

ותן בנו יצר טוב לעבדך באמת וביראה ובאהבה

[1] Rav Schachter shlit”a has authoritatively dealt with this question in his recent responsum. This essay, disseminated with his approbation, merely seeks to expound and expand upon some of the relevant, seminal issues in a popular forum.

[2] עי’ ילקוט יוסף שהאריך בזה כיד השם הטובה עליו, ובין היתר ציין לדברי האר”י ז”ל והחיד”א

[3] דברי הרמ”א נאמרו בקשר לפסק ב”ד בד”מ מקום שישנו מושג של שודא, וקו”ח בשאר חלקי התורה

[4] By definition there can be no adequate response to quibblers who dispute incontrovertible facts. Nevertheless, for purpose of illustration, note the following candid, representative, programmatic remarks, “Ultimately our problem stems from the fact that we are viewed in Jewish law and practice as peripheral Jews. The category in which we are generally placed includes women, children, and Canaanite slaves. Members from this category are exempt from all positive commandments which occur within time limits. These commandments would include hearing the shofar on Rosh Hashanah, eating in the sukkah, praying with the lulav, praying the three daily services, wearing tallit and tefillin, and saying Shema…Moreover, it is both feasible and desirable for the community to begin educating women to take on the positive time-bound mitzvoth from which they are now excused; in which case, those mitzvot would eventually become incumbent upon women.” Rachel Adler, “The Jew Who Wasn’t There”, reprinted in Susannah Heshcel, ed. On Being a Jewish Feminist.

[5] “Message to a Rabbinic Convention”, reproduced in Baruch Litvin, The Sanctity of the Synagogue, p. 111.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Transcript of a 1975 shiur delivered to RIETS rabbinic alumni, available at arikahn.blogspot.com

[8] “A Responsum on the Sabbath”, in Mordechai Waxman, ed., Tradition and Change, 1958.

[9] קושטא קאי שקרא לא קאי (שבת ק”ד.)

[10] See my article in Tradition Vol. 32 No. 3, Spring 1998 (posted in 2003 on TorahWeb.org in its entirety), presenting and explaining Rav Soloveitchik’s psak opposing women’s tefillah groups. The following passage is, unfortunately, especially relevant: “These groups are predicated upon the mistaken notion that the experience of tefillah is enhanced by assuming active roles and conversely is stunted when such roles are off-limits. And yet women’s tefillah groups, conducted with even minimal technical allegiance to the particulars of Halakhah, cannot provide their participants with the same or even equivalent active roles to those that are available to men praying with a quorum. Within such groups it is impossible to recite devarim she-bi-kdusha as such, fulfill the mitsva of kerias haTorah, etc. And thus, according to the mistaken premise of the tefillah groups, women’s religious life remains muted even within such groups.

The participants in women’s tefillah groups will, within the present generation, become intellectually and existentially aware of the failure of such groups and the concomitant false yet inevitable conclusion regarding women’s standing within Yahadut. We must recognize that the possible ramifications of this falsehood are especially frightening and particularly tragic. Propelled by negative momentum and misguided by erroneous teachings, some women, God forbid, could reject all remaining halakhic constraints in an unrestrained attempt to enhance their (inauthentic) tefillah experience in particular and religious experience in general. Needless to say, this development would be especially tragic.

Accordingly, we presently have a grave responsibility to act wisely, and not be drawn into a fool’s paradise of religious accommodationism. We must understand and help others to understand that women’s tefillah groups, sincere intentions notwithstanding, both reflect as well as generate distortions of Torah principles. Instead of forming such groups we must disseminate authentic Torah teachings regarding tefillah, thereby fostering genuine, profound religious expression and experience.”

[11] See also my article about the Rav in Tradition vol. XXX, no. 4 (reprinted in Rabbi Joseph B Soloveitchik: Man of Halachah, Man of Faith, edited by Rabbi Menachem Genack) and in Jewish Action Vol. 57, No. 4, Summer 1997 (also posted in 2003 on TorahWeb.org in its entirety.)

[12] ע’ הקדמת בניו לשו”ת רעק”א

[13] ע’ הקדמה לאג”מ או”ח ח”א

Copyright © 2014 by The TorahWeb Foundation. All rights reserved.

The original statement from Mizrachi

STATEMENT CONCERNING THE COMMUNAL PRAYER RALLY

This afternoon a “Communal Tefillah Gathering” has been arranged in protest against a law passed yesterday by the Knesset that will end the blanket exemption of the Haredi community from national service.

A poster signed by leading Rabbis from the Adass, Yeshivah, Beth HaTalmud and Heichal HaTorah communities calls upon men, women and children to participate in this public gathering.

The Mizrachi Organisation deeply regrets that such a public rally has been called.

It is a matter of great concern that members of the Melbourne Jewish community have decided to publicly protest against a law of the State of Israel, especially one that recognises that it is the duty of all able-bodied adults to share the responsibility of protecting and defending the State of Israel and all of its inhabitants.

Legitimate dissent and debate should not be stifled. However, a public rally in Melbourne, which by its nature has been designed to attract the attention of the general community and the media, portrays those who organise and support it not merely as critics but as opponents of the State of Israel.

Ian Waller SC
President

Mizrachi Organisation

Unintended outcomes from blogging software

Yesterday, I published a few new blog posts. While I had some time to look at my blog, it being a public holiday, I noticed that I had a very high count of “Uncategorized” posts. That is, posts which had been written probably on my iPad and I hadn’t tagged them with any Category and/or Tag. In some, I noticed a spelling error, and corrected these.

All of a sudden my wife says from downstairs, “Why are you posting so many blog posts all of a sudden”. I said, “I didn’t do that many, what are you talking about”. As an example, she mentioned one about Zephania from quite a while ago. I replied that I had not blogged about him in ages. It then dawned on me that the “dumbish” software decided that an edit, such as adding a category or a spelling correction turned it into a “new” post. Of course, these aren’t new posts and I regret that they gave that impression. It was unintended. I will see if there is a way to keep an original (old) article and make a minor change without causing it to be “republished and seem like a new post”. Sorry for the bother to those affected by this deluge of not “new” posts, and those who are wondering what is actually new in something that was published a while back.

I’m also (failing) to organise it that the advertisements that are foisted on my blog by the blogger software (from which I make no money) are less risqué and more appropriate, but I’m not sure if I succeeded. Regrettably I don’t see the ads!

Remembering Ariel Sharon ע״ה

[hat tip yw]

I enjoyed reading this article from commentary magazine.

Thank you

To my readers et al who have wished Mazal Tov on the ‘quick fire’ double Brocha on the engagement of two of our daughters to chasanim from South Africa ( where I am at the minute)
Coupled with our soon to be married niece, I can only acknowledge חסדי השם כי לא תמנו. I’m soon to complete a year of aveylus after אבי מורי הכ״מ who no doubt has been involved and who I miss daily, especially at these auspicious occasions.

Nice post from Rabbi Wein

(Hat tip BA)

Read it here

What is the Yiddish for …

A hardware store. Does anyone know an authentic phrase/word?

This is a BIZARRE Chuppa

What the heck is with this guy?
[hat tip benseon]

It becomes very ‘interesting’ at the 2:15 mark

I thought this type of meshugass only set in when someone was oiver-botel

watch this

New meta-analysis checks the correlation between intelligence and faith

From Ars Technica.

More than 400 years before the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, Greek playwright Euripides wrote in his play Bellerophon, “Doth some one say that there be gods above? There are not; no, there are not. Let no fool, led by the old false fable, thus deceive you.”

Euripides was not an atheist and only used the word “fool” to provoke his audience. But, if you look at the studies conducted over the past century, you will find that those with religious beliefs will, on the whole, score lower on tests of intelligence. That is the conclusion of psychologists Miron Zuckerman and Jordan Silberman of the University of Rochester and Judith Hall of Northeastern University who have published a meta-analysis in Personality and Social Psychology Review.

This is the first systematic meta-analysis of 63 studies conducted between 1928 and 2012. In such an analysis, the authors look at each study’s sample size, quality of data collection, and analysis methods and then account for biases that may have inadvertently crept into the work. This data is next refracted through the prism of statistical theory to draw an overarching conclusion of what scholars in this field find. “Our conclusion,” as Zuckerman puts it, “is not new.”

“If you count the number of studies which find a positive correlation against those that find a negative correlation, you can draw the same conclusion because most studies find a negative correlation,” added Zuckerman. But that conclusion would be qualitative, because the studies’ methods vary. “What we have done is to draw that conclusion more accurately through statistical analysis.”

Setting the boundaries

Out of 63 studies, 53 showed a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity, while 10 showed a positive one. Significant negative correlations were seen in 35 studies, whereas only two studies showed significant positive correlations.

The three psychologists have defined intelligence as the “ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience.” In short this is analytic intelligence, not the newly identified forms of creative and emotional intelligence, which are still subjects of dispute. In the various studies being examined, analytic intelligence has been measured in many different ways, including GPA (grade point average), UEE (university entrance exams), Mensa membership, and Intelligence Quotient (IQ) tests, among others.

Religiosity is defined as involvement in some (or all) facets of religion, which includes belief in the supernatural, offering gifts to this supernatural, and performing rituals affirming their beliefs. Other signs of religiosity were measured using surveys, church attendance, and membership in religious organizations.

Among the thousands of people involved in these studies, the authors found that gender or education made no difference to the correlation between religiosity and intelligence; however, age mattered. The negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence was found to be the weakest among the pre-college population. That may be because of the uniqueness of the college experience, where most teenagers leave home for the first time, get exposed to new ideas, and are given a higher degree of freedom to act on them. Instead, in pre-college years, religious beliefs may largely reflect those of the family.

The gifted, the atheists

Is there a chance that higher intelligence makes people less religious? Two sets of large-scale studies tried to answer this question.

The first are based on the Terman cohort of the gifted, started in 1921 by Lewis Terman, a psychologist at Stanford University. (The cohort is still being followed.) In the study, Terman recruited more than 1,500 children whose IQ exceeded 135 at the age of 10. Two studies used this data, one conducted by Robin Sears at Columbia University in 1995 and the other by Michael McCullough at the University of Miami in 2005, and they found that “Termites,” as the gifted are called, were less religious when compared to the general public.

What makes these results remarkable is not just that these gifted folks were less religious, something that is seen among elite scientists as well, but that 60 percent of the Termites reported receiving “very strict” or “considerable” religious training while 33 percent received little training. Thus, almost all of the gifted Termites grew up to be less religious.

The second set of studies is based on students of New York’s Hunter College Elementary School for the intellectually gifted. This school selects its students based on a test given at a young age. To study their religiosity, graduates of this school were queried when they were between the ages of 38 and 50. They all had IQs that exceeded 140, and the study found that only 16 percent of them derived personal satisfaction from religion (about the same number as the Termites).

So while the Hunter study did not control for factors such as socioeconomic status or occupation, it did find that high intelligence at a young age preceded lower belief in religion many years later.

Other studies on the topic have been ambiguous. A 2009 study, led by Richard Lynn of the University of Ulster, compared religious beliefs and average national IQs of 137 countries. In their sample, only 23 countries had more than 20 percent atheists, which constituted, according to Lynn, “virtually all higher IQ countries.” The positive correlation between intelligence and atheism was a strong one, but the study came under criticism from Gordon Lynch of Birkbeck College, because it did not account for complex social, economical, and historical factors.

Overall, Zuckerman, Silberman, and Hall conclude that, according to their meta-analysis, there is little doubt a significant negative correlation exists (i.e. people who are more religious score worse on varying measures of intelligence). The correlation is more negative when religiosity measures beliefs rather than behavior. That may be because religious behavior may be used to help someone appear to be part of a group even though they may not believe in the supernatural.

So why do more intelligent people appear to be less religious? There are three possible explanations. One possibility is that more intelligent people are less likely to conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious dogma. A 1992 meta-analysis of seven studies found that intelligent people may be more likely to become atheists when they live in religious societies, because intelligent people tend to be nonconformists.

The most common explanation is that intelligent people don’t like to accept any beliefs that are not subject to empirical tests or logical reasoning. Zuckerman writes in the review that intelligent people may think more analytically, which is “controlled, systematic, and slow”, as opposed to intuitively, which is “heuristic-based, mostly non-conscious, and fast.” That analytical thinking leads to lower religiosity.

The final explanation is that intelligence provides whatever functions religion does for believers. There are four such functions as proposed by Zuckerman, Silberman, and Hall.

First, religion provides people a sense of control. This was demonstrated in a series of studies conducted between 2008 and 2010, which showed that threatening volunteers’ sense of personal control increased their belief in God. This may be because people believe that God makes the world more predictable and thus less threatening. Much like believing in God, higher intelligence has been shown to grant people more “self-efficacy,” which is the belief in one’s ability to achieve goals. So, if intelligent people have more control, then perhaps they don’t need religion in the same way that others do.

Second, religion provides self-regulation. In a 2009 study, it was shown that religion was associated with better well-being. This was interpreted as an indication that religious people were more disciplined in pursuing goals and deferring small rewards for large ones. Separately, a 2008 meta-analysis noted that intelligent people were less impulsive. Delayed gratification may require better working memory, which intelligent people have. So, just like before, intelligence is acting as a substitute for religion, helping people delay gratification without needing divine interventions.

Third, religion provides self-enhancement. A 1997 meta-analysis compared the intrinsically religious, who privately believe in the supernatural, to the extrinsically religious, where people are merely part of a religious group without believing in God. The intrinsically religious felt better about themselves than the general public. Similarly, intelligent people have been shown to have a sense of higher self-worth. Again, intelligence may be providing something that religion does.

Last, and possibly the most intriguing, is that religion provides attachment. Religious people often claim to have a personal relationship with God. They use God as an “anchor” when faced with the loss of a loved one or a broken relationship. Turns out intelligent people find their “anchor” in people by building relationships. Studies have found that those who score highly on measures of intelligence are more likely to be married and less likely to get divorced. Thus, intelligent people have less need to seek religion as a substitute for companionship.

Give me the caveats

This meta-analysis only targets analytic intelligence, which surely is not the full measure of human intelligence despite the ongoing debate about how to define the rest of it. Also, although the review encompasses all studies conducted from 1928 to 2012, it only does so for studies written in the English language (two foreign language studies were considered only because a translation was available). The authors believe there are similar studies conducted in Japan and Latin America, but they did not have the time or resources to include them.

Zuckerman also warns that, despite there being thousands of participants overall, ranging among all ages, almost all of them belong to Western society. More than 87 percent of the participants were from the US, the UK, and Canada. So after controlling for other factors, they can only confidently show strong negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity among American Protestants. For Catholicism and Judaism, the correlation may be less negative.

There are some complications to the explanations too. For example, the non-conformist theory of atheism cannot apply to societies where the majority are atheists, like Scandinavian countries. The possible explanations are also currently just that—possible. They need to be empirically studied.

Finally, not all studies reviewed are of equal quality, and some of them have been criticized by other researchers. But that is exactly why meta-analyses are performed. They help overcome limitations of sample size, poor data, and questionable analyses of individual studies.

As always, the word “correlation” is important. It hasn’t been shown that higher intelligence causes someone to be less religious. So, it wouldn’t be right to call someone a dimwit just because of their religious beliefs. Unless, of course, you are an ancient playwright looking to provoke your audience.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2013. DOI: 10.1177/1088868313497266 (About DOIs).

matzav.com stands condemned

matzav.com reports news. It allows comments, and disallows comments. It has some “editorial policy” in this regard. No problem so far. I have sometimes not had my comments printed (using my real name) but I have no problem with that. It’s their website. They went way too far though the other day and showed themselves to be irresponsible, heartless and downright stupid.

There was the tragic article of the drowning of little Zev Aryeh Glick ע’’ה in the USA. I know the grandparents, and feel for them. Matzav then had the gross and sickening temerity to allow the following comment from a nameless and gutless non-entity. For those who don’t understand Hebrew, pop the text into google translate.

In short, it includes a diatribe against the evil zionists in Israel who are stopping the redemption (and of course the need to improve Tznius etc). Lock the commenter and editor up in a mental home until they understand that this is an inappropriate statement to make now. Apart from the fact that I can’t imagine my Aybishter “decreeing” that a toddler should drown because of Zionists in the State of Israel who (for example) want to provide funding to schools only if Talmidim who accept such funds learn the basics of Reading, Riting and Rithmetic.

Where does matzav.com get off? What “editor” would allow such a comment in this context. The only comments that should have been allowed at a time like this are condolence messages and the like. Who the heck are we to pretend to know why Hashem didn’t step in and stop a kid from drowning? The parents will live an internal hell for their whole lives. Give them space. Spare them this disgraceful style of commenting.

This makes me sick in the stomach (once more) and I guess given that it’s the nine days, is probably the way I’m meant to feel anyway. Sorry, “Mark Spicer”, I don’t have anything uplifting to say (yet), given that complete fools allow this to be printed in its entirety. I did try to highlight the Yohr Tzeits of the Ari Zal and R’ Chaim Ozer last night at Ma’ariv, but nobody seemed interested.

אוי מה היה לנו

אתם חושבים שיהא הסוף עם הגזרות הקשות בארצינו הקדושה מהרשעים הארורים, שאין להם יראת שמים, ואני לא מקנא בגיהנום שלהם על החילול השם שהם עושים כל הזמן,

כל בעל דעת יודע שלא צריכים לפתוח את העיניים הרבה, בשביל להבין שכל העולם מתהפך בשנים האחרונות, בצורה מטורפת לקראת בואו של משיח צדקנו, שתפקידו יהיה להביא שעבוד מלכויות, ובית המקדש השלישי וכו’, ואז ידעו כי ד’ אחד ושמו אחד….בלי הציונים.

וּבְכֵן צַדִּיקִים יִרְאוּ וְיִשְׂמָחוּ וִישָׁרִים יַעֲלזוּ. וַחֲסִידִים בְּרִנָּה יָגִילוּ. וְעולָתָה תִּקְפָּץ פִּיהָ. וְהָרִשְׁעָה כֻּלָּהּ כְּעָשָׁן תִּכְלֶה. כִּי תַעֲבִיר מֶמְשֶׁלֶת זָדון מִן הָאָרֶץ: וְתִמְלךְ אַתָּה הוּא ד’ אֱלהקינוּ מְהֵרָה לְבַדֶּךָ עַל כָּל מַעֲשֶׂיךָ. בְּהַר צִיּון מִשְׁכַּן כְּבודֶךָ. וּבִירוּשָׁלַיִם עִיר קָדְשֶׁךָ. כַּכָּתוּב בְּדִבְרֵי קָדְשֶׁךָ. יִמְלךְ ד’ לְעולָם אֱלקיִךְ צִיּון לְדר וָדר………

שותפי ממשלת השמד והשנאה – יתנו את הדין. היום יום עצוב לעם ישראל. אבל לזכור, “והיא שעמדה לאבותינו ולנו.. שבכל דור…והקב”ה מצלינו מידם” “עוצו עצה ותופר דברו דבר ולא יקום כי עמנו קל”

אנחנו גם חייבים להתחיל לשפר מעשינו המצות ומעשים טובים, ולהתעורר מיד, ולשוב ולבקש על נפשינו מהקב”ה, זה חייב להיות “‘הנושא היחידי” שלנו, זה חייב לבעור בעצמותינו יומם ולילה, ואז בודאי ישמע אותנו בורא העולם, ויחון אותנו לפליטת עולמים ויגאלנו גאולת עולם בקרוב ממ”ש אמן ואמן

שותפי ממשלת-מדינת איזראיל-השמד והשנאה – יתנו את הדין בקרוב. הצילני נא מיד אחי מיד עשו, אבל אנחנו צריכים להמשיך לקדש שם שמים. הזמן הגיע להתפלל בכונה, ולשפר הצניעות בכל הארץ, ובזכות זה יהיה ישועות גדולות לכל עם ישראל בכל העולם כולו, אמן.

הטרדות שמקיפות כל אחד ואחד, מסיטות ומונעות מאיתנו האמת הנכון, לבקש ולצפות באמת גמור, לגאולה שלמה, למשיח, “לבית המקדש השלישי”, לאושר הנפלא הזה השמחה האמיתית בעולם הזה.

לוּ באמת היינו צועקים והיינו כואבים את חסרוננו זה, בודאי היינו כבר נגאלים,

וזאת על פי דברי המדרש (ילקוט איכה פרשה א’): “אמר יצחק לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא: שמא אין חזרה לבנים?! אמר לו: אל תאמר כן, (אם) יש דור שהוא מצפה למלכותי – מיד הם נגאלים, שנאמר ויש תקוה לאחריתך נאום ה’ ושבו בנים לגבולם”.

חייבים להכניס זאת טוב טוב למוחנו ולליבנו: אין לנו פתרון אחר, זהו הפתרון האמיתי היחידי!

אנחנו חייבים להתעורר מיד, ולבקש על כך מהקב”ה, זה חייב להיות ‘הנושא’ שלנו, זה חייב לבעור בעצמותינו יומם ולילה, ואז בודאי ישמע אותנו בורא העולם ויחון אותנו לפליטת עולמים ויגאלנו גאולת עולם בקרוב ממש אמן ואמן!

כשנשאל ר’ יששכר דוב רוקח זצ”ל על מי צריך לכוון בברכת ולמלשינים, הוא ענה כי יש לכוון על הציונים ועל המזרחים. וכמה שהוא צדק !!! כמובן שיש הרבה מה להרחיב בנושא, אך לא כאן המקום.

רק אציין עוד עניין אחד – ר’ אלחנן וואסרמן הי”ד טען כי אלו הלוקחים כסף מן הציונים כפופים ומשועבדים להם לעשות רצונם. ואני מוסיף שכל הצרות וגזרות בגלל הפאות והפריצות החרדית. נשות החרדים נראות כגויות זו התוצאה

Got in Himmel!

[Hat tip to RB]

Sir David Frost’s interview with Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks

[Hat tip to MosheT]

A must watch interview. In front of an audience of nearly 2,000 members of the United Synagogue at The Barbican, the (then) Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks was interviewed by Sir David Frost on a range of issues as part of a community event to mark the Chief Rabbi’s 22 years of leadership.

‘Fill the Void’ A movie directed by Rama Burshtein

[Hat tip Moshe]

Rama Burshtein’s new film, “Fill the Void,” takes place in a setting that will be unfamiliar to most viewers: the confined world of the ultra-Orthodox in Israel. In this sphere, gender roles are strictly defined and every aspect of life, from the spiritual to the mundane, is governed by a complex array of laws and customs designed to emphasize the perceived needs of the community over individual desires.

Marriages are arranged. Social interaction between men and women is limited and regulated. Fathers are the authority figures in families, and the rabbi is the authority figure in the community. And yet, under Ms. Burshtein’s direction, “Fill the Void,” which opens on May 24, is a love story in which an 18-year-old girl is largely able to determine her destiny.

That such a film, Ms. Burshtein’s first feature, was made by a female Orthodox director is evidence of the growing maturity of Israeli cinema.

“Not for a moment is she trying to be someone else,” Isaac Zablocki, director of the Israel Film Center at the JCC Manhattan, an Upper West Side community center, said of Ms. Burshtein. “It’s a sign that Israeli culture is coming into its own. Filmmakers like Rama Burshtein are confident enough to tell a story from within and know it will have an audience. For Israelis to understand their own experiences — this is a revolution in Israeli cinema.”

Ms. Burshtein, who is 45, hardly comes across as a revolutionary; on the contrary, at least by outward appearance, she could easily pass as a character in her own film. Following the custom among married women in devoutly religious Jewish communities, she covers her hair, a coiled scarf framing her round face and concealing every strand. She wears long sleeves, and with her soft voice and frequent small smiles, her manner is a study in modesty.

See more here.

On advertisements

I don’t see any advertisements when I visit pitputim. A few months ago, I was advised that some “chosen” advertisements would be included by wordpress. I had assumed they would be reasonable, although I wasn’t expecting they would pass through a hechsher. Two readers alerted me to the occasional advertisement which haven’t been anything like what I’d like to see. I will contact wordpress and see what can be done.

Change your default search engine

According to this article, the omniscient Google has decided that Palestinian Territories will henceforth be referred to as Palestine.

I long ago changed my default search engine to Microsoft’s Bing. There are others, such as blekko or duckduckgo. Whatever tickles your fancy.

I say, stick it up google and use a different search engine.

By the way, I also recommend that everyone use the incredibly useful DoNotTrack me extension available for most browsers. Install it from here

For those of you whose Universities have adopted Google as their mail engine, write to your Vice Chancellor and ask whether service providers should be dabbling in grave and divisive political determination.

Frankly, to hell with Google and its financially-driven political escapade into grave issues.

And this, a company that is owned and operated by Yidden. We read the Tochacha today. Is that a coincidence?

Updated free translation of Pirkei Avos

The indefatigable Reuven Brauner has updated his Pirkei Avos translation here. I should have published this earlier, just after Pesach but … it’s never too late. More can be found on halacha.com

In his words:

I am pleased to inform you of the availability of my new updated, revised version of Pirkei Avos wherein I have included the complete Hebrew text of the Perek and my translation thereof. Although the “synthesized” Perush is about the same as in the earlier version, I have now added important footnotes based on the commentary of Prof. Hanoch Albeck in his commentary on Mishna, which I found to be to succinct and enlightening, very much in step with the rest of this work.

The new Pirkei Avos is now more useful and user-friendly, and looks wonderful when printed out. If anyone wants the Word version, I will be happy to send it to you. It has a very nice page background which is aesthetically pleasing on the screen, and in print. I hope you like what I have done.

This is really right for these days between Pesach and Shavuous, too. Great to read to the kids at the Shabbos table.

Anyway, enjoy and let me know what you think of it. – and please pass this email on to your friends…………

Kol Tuv and B’hatzlocha,

Reuven

Fascinating find in Beit Yerach

Mysterious rock pile structure found beneath Sea of Galilee off Israeli coast

from the Sun

An Israeli couple relax on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. Archaeologists have discovered a massive rock structure they believe could be more than 4000 years old beneath the waves. Picture: AFP

ARCHAELOLOGISTS have discovered a mysterious, ancient monumental stone structure in the waters of the Sea of Galilee.

The giant structure is cone-shaped, made of “unhewn basalt cobbles and boulders,” and weighs around 54,400 tonnes, researchers wrote in the International Journal of Nautical Archaeology.

The mysterious rock pile is 10 metres high and 70 metres in diameter – about twice the diameter of Stonehenge. The basalt boulders weigh a total of about 60,000 tons.

Researchers believe the structure is a giant cairn, or rock pile that is often used to mark burials.

But its age and purpose are are not yet certain.

“The shape and composition of the submerged structure does not resemble any natural feature. We therefore conclude that it is a man-made and might be termed a cairn,” researchers wrote.

They speculated it was either built under water to attract fish, or was built on dry land that has since been covered by rising sea levels.

Cairns exist around the world, marking ancient burial sites.

The structure was first spotted during a sonar scan of the Sea of Galilee in 2003, prompting researchers to don scuba gear for a closer look. The structure is made up of large boulders around 1-metre long. There appear to be no walls, divisions or construction pattern.

The “effort invested in such an enterprise is indicative of a complex, well-organised society, with planning skills and economic ability,” researchers wrote in their paper.

“Close inspection by scuba diving revealed that the structure is made of basalt boulders up to 1 meter long with no apparent construction pattern,” the researchers write in their journal article.

“The boulders have natural faces with no signs of cutting or chiselling. Similarly, we did not find any sign of arrangement or walls that delineate this structure.”

A sonar survey (top) shows the circular nature of the structure while the height diagram shows its cone shape. Pictures: Shmuel Marco

One of the researchers, Ben-Gurion University’s Israel Antiquity Authority Yitzhak Paz said the structure could be 4000 years old, similar to other ancient structures found nearby.

“The more logical possibility is that it belongs to the third millennium B.C., because there are other megalithic phenomena [from that time] that are found close by,” Mr Paz told LiveScience.

The ancient Khirbet Beteiha, which is made up of three concentric stone circles and dates to the Bronze Age, is 30 km north east of the underwater discovery.

The Sea of Galilee find is also just north of the site of ancient city Khirbet Kerak, which was one of Israel’s largest and most heavily guarded cities in third millennium BC, researchers said.

Paz said a new expedition to examine the site was being organised.

The search will focus on finding artifacts and organic material in order to accurately date the site.

Excavation was also a possibility, he said: “We will try to do it in the near future, I hope, but it depends on a lot of factors.”

One of the Two Grey Cairns of Camster in the United Kingdom. Archaeologists have discovered a massive rock structure they believe could be more than 4000 years old beneath the waves.

Come and hear a Gaon in Torah give shiurim

He is somewhat alternate, enigmatic and at times phlegmatic. He always calls it as he sees it, although at times, I’d some would prefer if he was somewhat a little more diplomatic with his comments about those who are clearly less-learned than he.

Whenever I bump into him, I am enthralled by his ריתחה דאורייתא and his very carefully researched contributions on the internet under a pseudonym. I speak about HaGaon R’ Dovid Segal, a child prodigy at Kfar Chabad whose chavrusa used to be the more well-known, but certainly no less a genius:.

If I am stuck in a סוגיא and/or seek to find the true Mekor for certain Dinim and Hanhagos, Dovid will disappear for a few moments, and come back with Seforim Hakdoshim, opened at the points that I should be looking at. He is a מעיין הנובע albeit a quirky one.

R’ Dovid doesn’t just learn יומם ולילה, he also possesses a strand of chessed which materialises in his התנדבות towards organisations such as the Montefiore Homes and Jewish Care where he makes himself available of his own free will and initiative.

If you have the time to set aside, this shiur will be well worth it. Just make sure he speaks slowly 🙂

I remember when he first came to Yeshivah, and was known as “Kagan’s Eidem”. He was widely proclaimed as a גאון אדיר.

The link to the shiur is here. CORRECTION. It is here

New Science and Prophecy

“If the New Science brags that it has been liberated from Theology, it must know that by the same token, Theology has been freed of Science, which bound her in human chains. However, certainly a new name is required for the sublime subject, not a name coined by men, but a new name given by God.

Theology freed of the fetters of Science is Prophecy, the treasure of Israel, which will be revealed to us soon”

Rav Avraham Yitzchak HaCohen Kook ז’ל, ‘Arpiley Tohar’, page 40.

Rationality and Imagination

I love this quote from the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim, “guide for the perplexed”, Chapter 2, No. 37

The intellectual influx, flowing on the rational faculty alone, and not in the imaginative faculty—this is the condition of the class of men of science engaged in philosophical speculation.

On the other hand, the influx impinging on both the rational and imaginative faculties—is characteristic of the class of the prophets.

And again, the flow reaching the imaginative faculty alone, while the rational is deficient—characterises the class of politicians, legislators, magicians, soothsayers, clairvoyants, and wonder workers. Seeing as they are not men of science, they all belong to the third class

The Rambam was criticised, among other things, for writing this Guide, and it is not permitted to be read in many “enlightened” Yeshivos today. My view is that each generation needs a new edition of the Guide for the Perplexed.

Remembering Les Erdi ז’ל

Les Erdi passed away a little over a week after my father, הכ’’מ.

I knew Les Erdi as a little boy in Elwood Shule, over 40 years ago. He was different. The Shule was basically made up of Polish holocaust survivors, and he was one of a handful of Hungarians. There was and remains some antipathy between Hungarian and Polish Jews. The Poilishe Yidden were essentially snobby to the Hungarians and vice versa. In Elwood, the Poles held the upper hand. They were culturally apart. Polish Jews never spoke anything but Yiddish in Shule whereas Hungarians seemed to converse in Magyaro.

The so-called “frumer Hungarians” immigrated to Melbourne and settled in Adass and Ripponlea. The founding fathers were moderate, but their grandchildren are fundamentalist charedim, and often rabidly anti-zionist. My father complained that they wouldn’t greet him in his street, let alone say Good Shabbos. Sydney, however, absorbed the “other” Hungarians, some of whom came from traditional homes, but most of whom were more remote from practical observance. On the other hand, the Sydney variety were staunchly Zionist. I know I am generalising. There are very special exceptions.

Les was somewhat like a Sydney-style Hungarian residing in Melbourne.

Les wasn’t just a typical Hungarian, though. Until the last day I spoke to him, he presented a thick and broad Hungarian accent which seemed immovable, and like Les, refused to moderate over time. Despite being a busy businessman, Les never lost that severe Magyar twang. His wife, Eva, may she live healthily until 120, also exhibits that strong accent.

I wanted to visit Les when he became rather ill, but was advised that he didn’t want visitors. You must respect the wishes of a sick man, and so I stayed away. I also understood his reasons, knowing the man. He was a powerhouse, and that’s how he wanted to be remembered.

Yet, despite the HungarianPolish divide Les was a landsman. How so? Les was a Cohen, and as long as I can recall, when the President and Vice President of the Shule descended the Bima immediately before Bircas Cohanim, Les would walk up the stairs to the Bima and stand alongside my father, both leaning their siddurim on the little table vacated by the President and Vice president.

As a little boy, I used to sneak in between them. Les was always short, and it didn’t take long for even my modest height to exceed his. Eventually, I stood behind them both. Elwood Shule, a love of Rabbi Chaim Gutnick ז’ל, Chazan Avraham Adler ז’ל, Reb Chaim Yaffe ז’ל, the shared experience of being a survivor: all these elements cut a swathe through the cultural differences of Polish and Hungarian Mispallelim. Les and Dad הכ’’מ often had an arm around each other. They would joke together and there would always be a predictable joke about who should go up first to the Duchan (after Mr Blass, of course, who was always considered and called the “Cohen Goodoil”. Mr Blass passed away at the age of 99, and had all his faculties till the last day I visited him in hospital, just days before he passed away. His last words to me were “thank you, I will never forget you”.)

2002-02-25_20-27-03 — My father הכ’’מ on the left, and Mr Yisroel Tovya Blass ז’ל, the “Cohen Gadol” whose Yohr Tzeit was this week, and who came from an important Gerrer family

I was a young man, then newly married, and at that time didn’t serve as Chazan for Rosh Hashono and Yom Kippur. I was enveloped in my own davening, and would commonly daven Shmoneh Esreh on Rosh Hashono/Yom Kippur for 40 minutes or more. I was remote by nature, intentionally oblivious to the surrounding and somewhat of an intolerant “frumak”. I didn’t engage much. It could have been seen as haughtiness, but that wasn’t what it was. I recall that upon returning from learning in Yeshivah in Israel, I approached the then President, Mr Mottel Roth, and in front of others on Yom Kippur between Musaph and Mincha (much to my father’s shock and horror) asked Mr Roth how he could conceivably remain the president of an Orthodox Shule when he drove every Shabbos. I suggested Roth should resign on the spot. I was young, very black and white (perhaps more black than white), and didn’t engage my mind before my mouth.

I mellowed over time, and continue to do so. I grew to love each and every one of those “Poshei Yisroel” (“sinners”) after I came to the stark realisation that I was not ever even remotely in a position to understand their life experience. I had enjoyed a closeted, altruistic, and somewhat untroubled life full of opportunity. These Poles and Magyars eventually ceased to be Poshei Yisrael in my blinkered view. Each one of them morphed into a precious jewel, a Kadosh, a holy person. Rabbi Chaim Gutnick was right: anyone who walked into a Shule after emerging from the furnace of the Holocaust was someone about whom one should treat with awe and derive inspiration.

Over time, my sons, first Tzvi Yehuda and then Yossi, came up to Duchan with me and my father. Yossi used to stand next to his “mate” Mr Hoppe ז’ל but Tzvi Yehuda stood with me, right behind Mr Erdi and my father, הריני כפרת משכבו. Some of my more sensitive and charitable feelings rubbed off on my sons, and I’m pleased that they never developed my Charifus, and only had kind, meaningful and friendly interaction with this special brand of Jew.

Les surprised me. He would always engage in philosophical discussion. He knew I was an academic and that I was religious, and loved to lecture me that he had a unique one on one relationship with God. He felt privileged and blessed that he had survived, and wore the responsibility to proudly behave like a Mench in keeping with the (obviously traditional religious) education he had received in Hungary. Les truly believed that he had a personal and unique dialogue with God, and that any success he enjoyed was because of his partnership. His partner was God! Yet, despite these clearly religious undertones, he wasn’t what you’d call a dramatically practicing Jew.

Who can forget when Les’s loving wife Eva was seriously ill. Les was due to receive an Aliyah as Cohen on Rosh Hashono so that he could make a special Misheberach for her. Les was late. We had just put away the Torah. Panting, he ran to Rabbi Mottel Gutnick, and asked if there was a way to still make a Misheberach for Eva. Of course there was a way, and we readily obliged. Les was relieved. Despite wondering why God had hidden his countenance during the Holocaust and failed to personally interfere with the Nazi scourge, Les knew that God was now with him, and that God still had a say over his wife’s health, and not just his own business success.

We don’t need to extol Les’s incredible sense of charity. If he believed in a cause or a venture, he was there. He had deep pockets, and was acutely aware that he had to leave a legacy and make a difference.

I noticed a strange array of people at his Shloshim, and it was suddenly clear to me, that Les must have supported some of their causes. He took a micro interest in every aspect of his Tzedaka projects. He wasn’t simply an observer who wrote out a cheque for the inevitable plaque or honour. He had a keen and ongoing interest in what transpired and was achieved.

Les was a mench. I am sure this came from his home, parents and education. His desire as a survivor was to have an honest relationship with God. Les felt he has been spared, and must have been spared for good reasons.

In one of his early business ventures as a migrant, Les manufactured suits together with his then partner. Managing to lay the golden goose, Les procured an order for those suits from the coveted “Myers” company. I remember my father also gloating when he got orders from Myers. It was always seen as a major achievement: the competition was ferocious amongst the Shmatte industry. The Myers family was an older pre-war Jewish family.

Les visited the Myers store and noticed that the suits he had supplied didn’t contain the requisite component of wool that he had promised as part of the order. Les apologised to Mr Myers, and offered to replace the suits. Mr Myers responded that the suits were just fine, and that he had already sold most of the stock, and that he was sure that Les’s next batch of suits would have the correct wool content. Les argued. He was not averse to arguing. and said that he had not done the right thing, and would like to reimburse Myers for the difference. Mr Myers again dismissed Les’s entreaties, and suggested Les forget it.

Les was not one to take no for an answer—ever. Returning to his partner, Les suggested that they pay Myers the difference. Les’s partner was taken aback, arguing that the buyer was Mochel (happy to forgo the difference) and there was no good reason to pay money for “nothing”. Les did not react kindly to this suggestion and promptly dissolved the partnership, and paid Myers the outstanding amount. I’m told that Les then went on to succeed and his ex-partner languished in comparison.

Who would behave with such moral virtue? Even more: in those days, when every cent counted, as new migrants tried to rebuild their lives, who would have blamed someone for not returning the money? Les Erdi was a bastion of charity and business ethics who refused to adopt a lesser ethic, irrespective of his circumstance.

I found it difficult to engage Les meaningfully in our philosophical discussions. This was not because I was stuck for words. Rather, with Les, one couldn’t get a word in edge-wise. Furthermore, Les “just knew”—everything. He was sure that his relationship with God was something special and his job was to tell people about it, and not to ask for their comments or critique.

As a benefactor to Elwood, Les and Eva were notably giving but I think the aspect I will miss the most is that heavenly scene on Kol Nidrei night.

I customarily stand nervously and with trepidation on the middle of the Bima, ready to intone the ancient “Al Daas HaMakom”. Before that happens the elderly Cohanim are given the honour of each taking a Sefer Torah up to the said Bimah, standing on my left and right. As they got even older, I was careful to make sure that people like Les and my father הכ’’מ were always close enough so that they could lean on the Bima with their Toras, given their now waning strength. Alas, this year, neither Les nor my father will be near me in that physical sense. There will be a palpable vacuüm. I don’t want to think about it now.

Les didn’t have a good voice, but I can still hear him accompanying me to “Venislach Lechol Adass, B’Nei Yisroel” in the time-old Nusach of my teacher Chazan Adler, albeit with that distinctive Hungarian accent.

It won’t be easy. May he be a מליץ טוב for all of us.

Hungarian Jews

There has long been conjecture about this group. Their cholent isn’t; it’s a legume soup (highly recommended if you are constipated). They speak Hungarian (Goyish) in Shule, whereas Poles and Russians speak Yiddish and considered it anathema to speak “Goyish” in Shule. Polacks often sneeringly (in jest) deride Hungarians. They drink this poisonous harsh on the palate drink called Slivovitz (which is now being considered as injurious to health as DDT) etc.

In response, once often hears that the person isn’t really Hungarian but they are Czhecoslovakian or born on the “border”. One startling fact, however, is that of the non Czech style Hungarians, the percentage of Cohanim is lower than among any other group. There have been many theories about this phenomenon. One that has gained traction over the years is that the Hungarian Jews are descended from the Khazars (Khuzarim) who converted to Judaism, as mentioned by R’ Yehuda HaLevi in his Sefer HaCuzari.

We’ve all read anecdotes such as:

“I recenly met a Jewish woman from Hungary. She is in her eighties. She told me that her family were descended from the Khazars who travelled with the Magyars into what is now the lovely land of Hungary. She said that they were part of the ten arrows. She said that her family converted to Judaism thousands of years ago after the Khazars met ancient Hebrews.”

While nobody questioned the Poles and Russian’s Jewish heritage, these two groups were considered the “peasant” class especially in respect of the “cultured” German jews. I fondly after my engagement to my wife, who is of half German origin, that they asked me what foods I liked. I answered that herring would be great. My wife’s grandmother, Ella Herzberg ע’’ה was seeped in Germanic traditions. She liked me despite my ‘Polish Peasant’ lineage. Herring just wasn’t served at a high-class Yekkishe meal, so she needed to come up with a good line in front of her friends. It went something like this:

“You know, when we were younger, Herring was for the poor people. Now there are almost no Herrings left, and it has become a delicacy”

This always brought a smile to my face 🙂

Back to the issue of Hungarian Jews, another intriguing addition to the jigsaw puzzle appeared in Yediot, which I produce below.

Jews of European origin are a mix of ancestries, with many hailing from tribes in the Caucasus who converted to Judaism and created an empire that lasted half a millennium, according to a gene study.

The investigation, its author says, should settle a debate that has been roiling for more than two centuries.

Further Research
Genetic map of Jewish Diasporas defined / Ynetnews
Findings of new study support historical record of Middle Eastern Jews settling in North Africa during Classical Antiquity, proselytizing and marrying local populations, forming distinct populations that stayed largely intact for more than 2,000 years
Full story
Jews of European descent, often called Ashkenazim, account for some 90% of the more than 13 million Jews in the world today.

According to the so-called Rhineland Hypothesis, Ashkenazim descended from Jews who progressively fled Palestine after the Muslim conquest of 638 AD.

They settled in southern Europe and then, in the late Middle Ages, about 50,000 of them moved from the Rhineland in Germany into eastern Europe, according to the hypothesis.

But detractors say this idea is implausible.

Barring a miracle – which some supporters of the Rhineland Hypothesis have in fact suggested – the scenario would have been demographically impossible.

It would mean that the population of Eastern European Jews leapt from 50,000 in the 15th century to around eight million at the start of the 20th century.

That birth rate would have been 10 times greater than that of the local non-Jewish population. And it would have occurred despite economic hardship, disease, wars and pogroms that ravaged Jewish communities.

Seeking new light in the argument, a study published in the British journal Genome Biology and Evolution, compares the genomes of 1,287 unrelated individuals who hail from eight Jewish and 74 non-Jewish populations.

Geneticist Eran Elhaik of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland, trawled through this small mountain of data in search of single changes in the DNA code that are linked to a group’s geographical origins.

Such telltales have been used in past research to delve into the origins of the Basque people and the pygmy people of central Africa.

Among European Jews, Elhaik found ancestral signatures that pointed clearly to the Caucasus and also, but to a smaller degree, the Middle East.

The results, said Elhaik, give sound backing for the rival theory – the “Khazarian Hypothesis.”

Backed by archaeological findings

Under this concept, eastern European Jews descended from the Khazars, a hotchpotch of Turkic clans that settled the Caucasus in the early centuries AD and, influenced by Jews from Palestine, converted to Judaism in the 8th century.

The Judeo-Khazars built a flourishing empire, drawing in Jews from Mesopotamia and imperial Byzantium.

They became so successful that they sent offshoots into Hungary and Romania, planting the seeds of a great Diaspora.

But Khazaria collapsed in the 13th century when it was attacked by the Mongols and became weakened by outbreaks of the Black Death.

The Judeo-Khazars fled westwards, settling in the rising Polish Kingdom and in Hungary, where their skills in finance, economics and politics were in demand, and eventually spread to central and western Europe, according to the “Khazarian Hypothesis.”

“We conclude that the genome of European Jews is a tapestry of ancient populations including Judaised Khazars, Greco-Roman Jews, Mesopotamian Jews and Judeans,” says Elhaik.

“Their population structure was formed in the Caucasus and the banks of the Volga, with roots stretching to Canaan and the banks of the Jordan.”

Many things are unknown about the Khazars, whose tribal confederation gathered Slavs, Scythians, Hunnic-Bulgars, Iranians, Alans and Turks.

But, argues Elhaik, the tale sketched in the genes is backed by archaeological findings, by Jewish literature that describes the Khazars’ conversion to Judaism, and by language, too.

“Yiddish, the language of Central and Eastern European Jews, began as a Slavic language” before being reclassified as High German, he notes.

Another pointer is that European Jews and their ancestral groups in the Caucasus and Middle East share a relatively high risk of diseases such as cystic fibrosis.

The investigation should help fine-tune a fast-expanding branch of genomics, which looks at single-change DNA mutations that are linked with inherited disease, adds Elhaik.

New free seforim from Reuven Brauner

I am pleased to inform you that several new ETC publications are NOW available on Rabbi Tzvee Zahavy’s wonderful Torah resource site http://www.halakhah.com (http://halakhah.com/index.html).

Newly uploaded are:

1. An updated and revised edition of 25 RULES FOR PERFORMING MITZVOHS derived from the famous Halachic compendium, the Chayei Odom. This is available at http://halakhah.com/rst/25rules.pdf.
2. A completely new translation with commentaries of SEFER MISHLEI (the Book of Proverbs). This you can find at http://halakhah.com/rst/mishlei.pdf.
3. The first volume (Bereishis) of Dr. Seligmann Baer’s (author of Siddur Avodas Yisroel) famous MASORETIC TEXT OF THE TANACH. This can be accessed at http://halakhah.com/rst/baer1.pdf. The remaining books of Tanach (except for Shemos through Devorim which were never produced) will be available, too, but due to their large size we are trying to figure out if it should be made available as zip files or on Drop Box or something like that.
4. Another volume in the Hadgashas Hane’emar series, SEFER YONA http://halakhah.com/rst/yona.pdf. Soon to be available on halakhah.com, please G-d, will be Sefer Esther (in time for Purim) and Sefer Ruth http://halakhah.com/rst/ruth.pdf. BTW, the entire Tanach has been formatted like this and, please G-d, will be made available in due time, as well. I think this format is an excellent study tool, particularly for young students, facilitating faster and better comprehension of the text.

Besides these items, halakhah.com hosts a number of other ETC monographs and works including the comprehensive Hebrew Verb Root thesaurus Shoroshim http://halakhah.com/rst/shoroshim.pdf, hundreds of non-esoteric passages from the Zohar http://halakhah.com/rst/kkz.pdf, an index to the usage of all verses and passages from Tanach in our liturgy, called Shimush Pesukim http://halakhah.com/rst/pesukim.pdf, a nice translation of Pirkei Avos with many unique and interesting lists http://halakhah.com/rst/pirkeiavos.pdf and lots more unique, fun and educational material.

On top of all this, you have the entire two-column, easy to read and download, REFORMATTED SONCINO TALMUD – the only complete, online, English language translation of the Talmud at http://halakhah.com/indexrst.html as well as the more traditional format of the Soncino, found scrolled-down lower on the same page. Rabbi Zahavy has made available some of his excellent works there, too, including access to an outstanding, world-class and highly-recommended philosophical exposition called Whence and Wherefore written by his late father, Rabbi Zev Zahavy, ztz”l. This book explores the most fundamental issues of the purpose and meaning of the creation, life and existence.

Do You Practice ‘Gadolatry’?

[Hat tip to Norm]

What are people’s views on this?

Appeals to a gadol and gedolim suggests that there does in fact exist within Judaism an elite class with the final authority over legal, theological, and public policy questions.

Published: January 31st, 2013
I first heard the term “gadolatry” attributed to the late professor Arthur Hertzberg. A portmanteau of “gadol” and “idolatry,” the word “gadolatry” refers to a perceived phenomenon in Orthodox Judaism where select rabbinic leaders are treated with a degree of deference or reverence, bordering on worshipping the person of the rabbi himself. That Dr. Hertzberg would coin such an inflammatory term is not surprising given his personality, such that reactions offense or outrage are as intentional as they are predictable. However, it has been my experience that those strong passions on either side have turned the reasonable question of the role of the gadol in Judaism into the single greatest impediment to intelligent religious discourse in the Orthodox Jewish community.

While I have no expectations of resolving this divisive issue, I do hope to explicate the rationales implied when one invokes a gadol, and why others may find such an argument unconvincing.

In order to participate in an intelligible or meaningful debate, opposing sides must accept certain mutually agreed upon assumptions or premises relevant to the discussion at hand. This prerequisite can be particularly challenging in religious debates where the logical foundations are not based in empirical fact as much as one’s subjective faith, though such statements of faith are often presented as fact. Thus if only one side assumes an idea as a religious truism, the conversation will quickly deteriorate into personal attacks on the other’s religious integrity.

To illustrate this distinction between “fact” and “faith,” consider an instance where one cites a passage in the Talmud to support a halakhic or theological position. Whether or not the passage appears in the Talmud is a matter of “fact” which one can easily verify by looking up the citation in the Talmud. However the significance of that passage – i.e. the degree to which it is determines normative Jewish thought or practice – is a subjective matter of “faith” Often based on one’s tradition. For example, according to Maimonides the Talmud is final authority in determining the universally obligatory or prohibited laws for all halakhic process (Introduction to Mishnah Torah). For others popular practice takes an equal if not superior role in determining halakha, as demonstrated in the idiom “the custom of Israel is Torah” (Ramban Commentary to Pesachim 7b). Today it is not uncommon to hear from Orthodox rabbis, “we don’t pasken from the gemara.” To some degree the fact/faith dichotomy is at the core of any argument in which one invokes a “gadol” to support a position in an argument.

The term “gadol” means “great one” or more specifically a “great rabbi,” whose opinions because of his greatness, are treated not only as superior to those of ordinary rabbis (let alone common Jews) but may also be considered to be the definitive religious position on any given subject. Similarly, its plural form “gedolim” refers to a collective of great rabbis, which in addition to the implication of rabbinic greatness, also conveys the perception of consensus among the religious elite. Thus, when one invokes a gadol or attributes a stated position to a gadol or the gedolim, he is not only appealing to the higher authority in support of a position as much as arguing that the gadol’s affirmation itself determines the correct Jewish position. Conversely, any position which contradicts or criticizes a gadol or the gedolim on matters of halakha, theology, or even public policy is inherently illegitimate if not an outright heretical affront to the Jewish religion or even God’s will. In either case, any position contrary to that of a gadol is summarily dismissed purely on the authority of the elite rabbinic persona.

Appeals to a gadol and gedolim are primarily predicated on two categorical assumptions of faith.1 The first set of assumptions are ontological, in that there does in fact exist within Judaism an elite class with the final authority over legal, theological, and public policy questions to which all Jews must adhere and all lesser rabbis must defer. It is important to distinguish this elite class from the Sanhedrin which was a formal judicial and legislative body with its own qualifications, procedures, and regulations. Even if the other party in the argument agrees that certain rabbis are greater in some way than others, he may not necessarily bestow upon those rabbis the superior authority implied by the designation of “gadol.”

The primary obstacle with this assumption is that it is nearly impossible to verify or reject without similar assumptions of faith regarding the source(s) of religious authority in Judaism. Were one to support the existence of such an authoritative informal institution, one must provide some basis to justify that position. One such option would be to find supporting (or opposing) sources in Jewish texts such as the Bible or Talmud. However, even if these sources are considered part of the religious canon, their respective authority may be disputed and their meanings reinterpreted. In the Talmud itself we find differing opinions relating to the legal normativity of the books of the Prophets,2 and the Rabbinic sages often reinterpreted Biblical verses outside of their literal meaning – the most famous example of which being Ex. 21:24 “an eye for an eye” to mean a monetary penalty (B. Bava Kamma 83b-84a). Finally, as noted above, even the normative role of the Talmud is disputed among Orthodox traditions, not to mention the authority of interpreting Talmudic sources.

In other words, the very question of religious authority in Judaism requires a priori assumptions of faith regarding the very sources of religious authority with which to justify one’s position. After all, rabbinic authority is defined by the Rabbis, and the gadol’s authority would only be validated through the authority of other great rabbis, even those of an earlier era. The authority of any institution must come from some place outside of itself, and unless that source of validation is agreed upon a priori, the question of any authority is never answered, only deferred. Therefore, arguments for the existance of an authoritative gadol class through Jewish texts will not result in definitive conclusions.

And yet, if the existence and authority of an elite rabbinic class is granted, the second set of assumptions which need to be addressed relate to its membership. In particular, two questions which must be answered are 1. who is considered to be a gadol or among the gedolim and 2. what is the criteria by which one makes those determinations. Rarely (if ever) will an individual rabbi declare himself to be a gadol – such a declaration would be not only the mark of arrogance but blatantly self serving. Thus membership in the gadol class must come from an outside source.

Given the elite status of the gadol one may suspect that only one who has attained this elite status could in turn bestow it upon others. Rabbis can only be ordained by other Rabbis, members of the Sanhedrin appoint their own colleagues. To attain a high rank, one suspects the authority must derive from an equal or higher authority. However, there is no such formal mechanism of meritocracy for gedolim. There is no formal election, recognition, or proclamation indicating when a rabbi has achieved greatness. Thus, despite the magnified importance and authority attributed to the gedolim, there is no objective criteria to identify or define them.3

None of this is to argue that great rabbis do not exist. Every field of knowledge has it experts, and indeed, some may argue that similar to other areas of knowledge the gedolim are the recognized authorities in their field such that their opinions ought to carry greater significance. In other words, even if deference to gedolim is not mandated by Jewish texts it should still be expected by dint of the gedolim‘s superior expertise.

However, there are three important differences between the expertise of secular scholars and gedolim and the expectations in relating to that expertise. First, there are important differences in how such expertise is determined. Usually this is measured in terms of the academic output of publications or contributions to a field, except that each field has its own criteria for evaluating the quality of another’s work. Works in the sciences or social sciences must include a section on methodology – how is data collected and why were those conditions valid (if not optimal) for collecting data. In the humanities where there is more subjectivity, scholars not only justify the veracity of their claims or interpretation, but in many cases must justify the very existence of their scholarship. After all, who needs another essay on Hamlet.

As noted above, there no objective criteria by which to similarly evaluate the expertise and contributions of gedolim. In fact I would argue that this is by design. Secular experts seek to convince others of the validity and importance of their research, and so much meet certain formalistic requirements evaluated by peer review. But gedolim by definition of their elite status could only be properly vetted by other gedolim. Gedolim have no need to convince others of the correctness of their positions when those others lack the stature to use their own judgements.

Along these lines, the second difference between secular experts and gedolim is the expectation of obedience. Unless one is a university student dependant on GPA or a PhD advisor’s approval, there are no practical negative consequences for rejecting any expert’s theory. Even an expert’s devotees cannot expect to attract followers if they simply demand obsequiousness to their chosen mentor. On the other hand, a gadol is responsible for determining Jewish law, in which case his word becomes the law itself – which all Orthodox Jews must ostensibly follow. Due to this religious authority, it is not surprising for gedolim to attract a cult like following who will in turn attempt to get others to follow the gadol’s authority because after all, the religion commands it.

The third difference between secular experts and gedolim is also perhaps the source of the most of the controversies in Judaism. Specifically, what are the expectations when one speaks beyond their respective fields of expertise? Secular experts rarely venture beyond their training if they have not done appropriate research, and if they do, there are usually well defined rules of engagement for making a persuasive case. But gedolim frequently issue proclamations affecting public policies of economics, bioethics,4 criminology, or international and local politics. Instead of acknowledging that perhaps a gadol may contradict actual experts, supporters may argue epistemologically that all knowledge is encoded in the Torah, such that an expert in Torah is automatically an expert in all fields of knowledge. But this too is ultimately an assumption of faith, not fact.

One final point which must be mentioned is that not all references to gedolim follow this pattern. It is difficult to discuss contemporary Jewish law without at least consulting with the works of R. Moshe Feinstein or R. Ovadia Yosef, both of whom are considered gedolim even beyond their immediate constituency. Yet, not everyone who cites these undeniably influential sages does so with the expectation that their positions must be normative law binding on all Jews. The distinction between citing an invoking a gadol is in the expectation of unquestioning deference to the gadol’s position.

In conclusion, despite any pretense of a logical rational argument, most appeals to gedolim in religious arguments are not intended to advance a discussion but to end it through the imposition of one’s faith, or at least several components thereof. And as with most arguments of faith, it is usually a pointless exercise to counter argue on those terms. In this regard Dr. Hertzberg was correct in coining the term “gadolatry” – not in the sense that those who follow gedolim are idolaters, but in the minds of a non-trival segment of the Jewish population, when one disputes the sacred authority of a gadol, he might as well argue with God himself.

1. There are of course factual assumptions as well, such as if the person is accurately representing the gadol or gedolim’s position. Sometimes these representations are based on hearsay and on occasion may contradict a rabbi’s published position. In such cases the correct attribution of a position to the gadol is itself a matter of “faith” as well, but since in most instances it is empirically verifiable, for the purposes of this essay I will treat them as facts.

2. For one example, R. Elazar and R. Nachman Bar Yitzchak cites Hosea 2:1 as source that one who counts Jews violates one or two, ostensibly Biblical, prohibitions (B. Yoma 22b), yet B. Chagigah 10b rejects a legal argument based on Amos 5:25 staying, “divrei Torah medivrei kabbalah la yalpinan” – we do not derive words of Torah (i.e. law) from words of tradition. Space does not permit a full treatment of the legal sources of the Prophets, but for the purposes of my argument it does demonstrate at least two approaches codified in the Talmud.

3. Based on my own observations, it seems to me that the designation of “gadol” is more of the result of populism, that there is some communal recognition that someone has attained this rank. Even if other gedolim deem someone worthy, it is still dependent on a community to accept that person as such. And despite the deference one ought to bestow upon gedolim, in rare instances a community can turn against a gadol when he takes certain controversial positions. One such example is R. Saul Lieberman, who upon accepting a position at the Jewish Theological Seminary became went from being respected to reviled in the Orthodox community. See Marc Shapiro’s wonderful monograph, Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox

4. R. Moshe Tendler, a PhD in biology, once complained in shiur about having to argue brain death with people who never went to college.

About the Author: Rabbi Joshua Yuter was ordained in 2003 from Yeshiva University’s Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary. He also holds a B.A. in Computer Science from Yeshiva University, an M.A. in Talmudic Studies from Yeshiva University, and a Master’s Degree in Social Sciences from the University of Chicago. Rabbi Yuter is also an alum of Yeshivat Har Etzion. He is currently the rabbi of The Stanton St. Shul on New York’s historic Lower East Side.

Spooky

If you look at my about page, you will notice that on my father’s side הכ’’מ we have links to Amshinov, and on my mother’s side תבלח’’א we have links to Brisk. It’s also no secret that I’m a fan of the Rav.

My son pointed out that the day of my father’s הכ’’מ Yohr Tzeit ג שבט coincides with the Yohr Tzeit of the 3rd Amshinover Rebbe, R’ Yosef, ז’ל (a great-grandson of R’ Yitchok Wurke) from Ostrov Mazowiecka. By chance, I “stumbled” on the additional fact that it was also the same day as R’ Moshe Soloveitchik ז’ל, the eldest son of R’ Chaim Brisker and father of the Rav (and whose wife was a cousin of R’ Moshe Feinstein ז’ל).

The 3rd Rebbe of Amshinov, R' Yosef of Kalish, ז’ל — The 3rd Rebbe of Amshinov, R’ Yosef of Kalish, ז’ל

The circle of life

Some of my readers will be wondering if my thought processes have dried up over the last few weeks. They haven’t. My father, הכ’’מ passed away on the 3rd of Shvat, and I’ve obviously been under a non-self imposed emotional embargo and an halachic odyssey with הלכות אבילות (may nobody ever have to study this). I will resume soon, as soon as I catch up with life’s backlog.

Me+Dad — My father and I, at the Bris of his first Great Grandson.

Wit under extreme adversity

So my father is very weak and the kind nurses come in:

Nurses: Are you comfortable Mr Balbin
Dad: doesn’t reply, his eyes are closed and he is uncomfortable
Nurses: We will move you around to a more comfortable position
Dad: says nothing
Nurses complete the re-arrangement and ask ‘Are you okay Mr Balbin, does anything hurt
Dad: only my pocket

Gold!

Brechedik

[hat tip to benseon]

The apocryphal philosopher’s advice

I’m not sure if this is true, and you may have seen it before, but I liked it enough to repost.

A professor stood before his philosophy class and had some items in front of him. When the class began, he wordlessly picked up a very large and empty mayonnaise jar and proceeded to fill it with golf balls. He then asked the students if the jar was full. They agreed that it was.

The professor then picked up a box of pebbles and poured them into the jar. He shook the jar lightly. The pebbles roll

ed into the open areas between the golf balls. He then asked the students again if the jar was full. They agreed it was.

The professor next picked up a box of sand and poured it into the jar. Of course, the sand filled up everything else. He asked once more if the jar was full.. The students responded with a unanimous ‘yes.’

The professor then produced two Beers from under the table and poured the entire contents into the jar effectively filling the empty space between the sand.The students laughed..

‘Now,’ said the professor as the laughter subsided, ‘I want you to recognize that this jar represents your life. The golf balls are the important things—-your family, your children, your health, your friends and your favorite passions—-and if everything else was lost and only they remained, your life would still be full. The pebbles are the other things that matter like your job, your house and your car.. The sand is everything else—-the small stuff.

‘If you put the sand into the jar first,’ he continued, ‘there is no room for the pebbles or the golf balls. The same goes for life.

If you spend all your time and energy on the small stuff you will never have room for the things that are important to you.

Pay attention to the things that are critical to your happiness.

Spend time with your children. Spend time with your parents. Visit with grandparents. Take your spouse out to dinner. Play another 18. There will always be time to clean the house and mow the lawn.

Take care of the golf balls first—-the things that really matter. Set your priorities. The rest is just sand.

One of the students raised her hand and inquired what the Beer represented. The professor smiled and said, ‘I’m glad you asked.’ The Beer just shows you that no matter how full your life may seem, there’s always room for a couple of Beers with a friend.

Why pursue the why?

When it comes to God, any answer to ‘why?’ is limited, by definition. Answers may approach the truth but The truth, is God Himself and only He knows and chooses when, how and what to transmit. This is an axiom. סוד ה’ ליראיו-the secret of God is [transmitted] to those who [truly] fear him-does not contradict this axiom.

Yet, it is part of the human condition to seek God, ולדבקה בו, and to attempt to approach him. We were created בצלם אלקים in the ‘image‘ of God. A similar transcendental urge that drives man to seek a wife, עצם מעצמי, because she is ‘derived’ from the rib of man himself, drives man’s pursuit of God. This pursuit takes place in spite of the axiom. It is no less than an irresistible magnetism sourced from spiritual connectedness. The pursuit defies logic and is materially translated into an axiology through Torah and Mitzvos.

Imagine training to run 100 meters in X seconds, where X was physically impossible, and you knew this to be the case. Would you train and improve and further train and improve with the ultimate aim of running in X seconds? Many would not. They would consider this a pursuit of folly. Even though we know we cannot reach Him, as Shlomo Hamelech said in Koheles 7:

אמרתי אחכמה והיא רחוקה ממני,

“I said that I am wise(r) and it is still remains distant from me”,

many of us still try. Trying isn’t defined by learning Torah and keeping Mitzvos. Trying also includes attempting to make sense of (rationalise, understand) the world around us and the sublime Heavenly purpose, through the prism of events that form our lives. For many, merely running the race in a time of X+Y, with Y>0, is worthwhile even if Y is somewhat large, because the exhilaration of approaching the time (essence) can itself constitute immense gratification. Using a different parlance, involvement with Kedusha is meaningful even if one cannot become completely Kadosh at the exalted Godly level.

Hurricane Sandy was a tragedy for many and represents a continuing challenge for those affected and those who assist in their rehabilitation. The pursuit of ‘Why’ in the context of the Hurricane is perhaps another expression of man trying to run the race in N seconds. Man seeks to reach a level of Godly truth and understanding. Man wants to know what he has done (wrong) to witness and experience such awful and awe filled ‘natural’ phenomena.

Recent medical research claim that during a time of trauma, MRI scans of the brain indicate significant interference with those components of the brain responsible for the transmission of speech. In one sense, this is the וידום אהרן phenomenon. When Aharon faced the untimely traumatic death of his sons, Aharon was silent. Perhaps current medical research argues that it was not simply a case of Aharon choosing not to speak; rather, Aharon was so traumatised, he simply could not speak.

In our world, there are professedly many self-styled experts who know via ‘Godly’ imbuement or a ‘conclusive’ deduction from textual sources, why Hurricane Sandy, or indeed any tragedy, was meant to be. Yet, these experts don’t seem to agree!

Rav Amnon Yitzchak is reported to think it is God huffing and puffing at America
Rabbi Noson Leiter is reported to think it is because of gay marriage proposals.
Rav Shteinman is reported to have advised the strengthening of keeping shabbos in order to protect against the effects of the Hurricane.
Mrs Katz notes that the Hurricane happened on the Chazon Ish’s Yohr Tzeit and cut out electricity. The Chazon Ish was known to be stringent on the indirect use of electricity on Shabbos.
Some organisations are reported to have sent emails that suggest it was because of Lashon Hara.
Some have been suing the Government over the Metzitza B’Feh issue. “Bright” sparks have attempted to linguistically connect the two issues in a distasteful manner והמבין יבין.

No doubt there are even more reasons, and new ones will emerge. At a time when people are suffering, and literally מעשה ידי טובעים בים drowning, is there really a need to engage in this attempt to run in less than those elusive X seconds? Is this the time to be spouting (sic) across the ether one’s “sure-fire” theory of why Hashem allows things to happen (הסתר) and/or causes them to happen.

I don’t think the trauma has really affected those who provide us with ‘here’s the reason for the hurricane’. If they had truly experienced trauma, their mouths may have been rendered silent, or in the least, speechless until recovery and renewal was in place.

As a lad, I remember seeing the Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Goldvicht ז’ל attempting to say a few words during the Yamim Noraim. For 15 minutes, he couldn’t get a word out. He just cried. He was overcome with shock, awe, regret and repentance. I watched on with incredulity. My reaction was silence. I simply hadn’t seen anyone unable to speak because the days were איום ונורא.

So, you might be thinking, okay Mr Chacham, what’s your “answer” to the “why”. Well, I don’t have any answers. Instead, I’ll quote the Etz Yosef on Shemos Rabba 8:2 referring to the hurricane-like wind storm that carried Eliyahu HaNavi up to the heavens.

סוסו של הקדוש ברוך הוא סופה וסערה. דבר זה הוא מסודות התורה.

The horse (chariot) of God is a whirlwind and storm. This is [one of] the secrets of the Torah.

Postscript: I, of course, recognise that victims of such trauma will need professional counselling and support and those conversations may touch on the “why”. I do not believe, however, that any of the reasons attributed to those mentioned above will offer the magical healing panacea.

Multiculturalism in the work place

Here is my blogpost on that topic at my workplace.

Elderly Specialist incarcerated in UAE

Professor Karabus, currently 78 years old was arrested when in transit through Dubai for manslaughter. He is a senior paediatric specialist who headed Red Cross Childrens Hospital Oncology unit for many years. Apparantly in 2002 while he was doing a locum in Sheik Kalifa’s medical centre a patient died of leukaemia. Later in his absence he was “tried” and found guilty of manslaughter. He is sentenced to a period in prison without this ever being communicated to him. This is not justice. He was not given an opportunity to defend himself. Medical patients die, particularly when they have serious illnesses such as leukaemia.

Please sign the petition. And please do it before the fast.

Sign HERE

Inspirational Jews

He has no idea I am posting about him. I’ve seen him at Elwood Shule for many years, but have known little about him. He sits in the back of the Shule, about ten rows behind us. His name is Mordechai (Mark) Oyberman. A Russian Jew who immigrated to Australia from the Soviet Gulag, Mordechai was forced to add the surname “Borisovich” to identify him with his father. Mordechai and the Oyberman family are committed to Judaism. He attends Elwood Shule for Shachris, Mincha+Ma’ariv each and every day. He is one of the last, if not the last to leave the Shule.

For many Russian Jews, reading Hebrew is a hurdle especially given that they weren’t lucky enough to attend a Jewish School, like Mount Scopus or similar. If you are middle-aged when you are finally exposed to the brand of free Judaism in our democratic Australia, the task is that much harder.

Mordechai doesn’t cut corners. With a Russian/Hebrew Siddur perched on his paunch, he assumes a slow and determined sideways swagger, otherwise known as “shockling”. Each word is pronounced lovingly and slowly; but not without difficulty. Mordechai cares enough to ascertain whether at all times he is saying the correct prayer for that time of the year.

Yesterday, on Parshas Ki Tavo, Mordechai blew me away. I assume it was the anniversary of his Bar Mitzvah Parsha. I also assume that he never enjoyed a formal Bar Mitzvah in the way we know, and it was unlikely that at 13 years of age, he recited Maftir+Haftorah in a Shule. I do not know if Mordechai has done this before, but yesterday, he was called up for Maftir. I was taken aback. Sadly, there are not many at Elwood who can navigate the Haftorah at will. This task is usually rotated amongst Rabbis Gutnick, Karnowsky, Aron and myself.

Mordechai acquitted himself with great aplomb. Confident, and with no apparent reticence despite the larger than usual attendance, he sang at “the top of his voice” faultlessly and meticulously reciting the Haftorah. The scene certainly moved me, and in his sermon, Rabbi Gutnick felt likewise to the extent that he mentioned it explicitly.

This might seem like a trivial observation, but it is not. He and his wife’s determination and fealty to our religion, translates not only in deeds, but in tackling a hurdle that a Jewishly educated Bar Mitzvah spends almost one year perfecting. This was a humbling experience. Many of us fought hard to free soviet jews. When liberated the toxicity of freedom adumbrates into assimilation. When someone grapples to hang onto each vestige of our religion, we should exult.

In the month of Elul, preparing for the long day of Judgement, this was a perfect lead in, a segue if you will, into the High Holidays.

Hats off to you, so to speak.

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Mysterious rock pile structure found beneath Sea of Galilee off Israeli coast

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this: