מחשבות של מישרים

Moving On...

2008-12-11T21:12:00.000+02:00

go to kolech.blogspot.com

The Final Farewell?

2008-01-13T00:12:00.000+02:00

I sort of figured that after sporadic posting over the course of two years and no posting at all for some months now, people would realize that I was retiring from the world of blogging completely. However, my counter tells me that I still have quite a number of recurring visitors...
My decision to stop one of my favorite activities was motivated on many counts - being otherwise occupied, no longer recognizing the person who started this blog, and being entirely unconvinced that I have anything novel to say.
But, of course, someone of my disposition can be removed from their soapbox for only so long before they, not to mention those around them who have to hear their incessant raving, begin to feel its loss. And so, I have come to rethink my decision.

No conclusions yet...

Satire in Yonah

2007-09-23T10:13:00.000+02:00

Although it is after Yom Kippur I did write this beforehand and even posted it in my shana bet facebook group. Not that I need to defend posting Torah which isn't inyanei diyoma...

Yonah lived during the time of Yeravam ben Yoash, a king who ruled over Yisrael during the first Bet Hamikdash. The era is one in which the Prophets urge the people to end their iniquity or else destruction would be imminent. Sefer Yonah is included amongst these other nevi’im in Trei Asar despite its very different style – it seems to not address the Jewish people at all, and is written mostly in prose unlike the other books which are composed largely of poetry. So what is Yonah doing in Trei Asar? This is a question that has bothered me for the longest time.
Perhaps the key to understanding how the story of Yonah relates to those of the other nevi’im is by exploring the method of satire that seems to be utilized in the book. Satire is a literary method which holds up a specific act, idea, or society up to ridicule through exaggeration, irony, and other subtle means.
Our protagonist boards a ship headed for the city of Tarshish in order to escape his charge by God to urge the people of Ninveh to repent. During the journey, a fierce storm encroaches threatening to capsize the ship. Through a series of turns of event the people on the ship are made aware that Yonah is the reason for the storm, and that it is his god, “YKVK” who is targeting him. They proceed, at Yonah’s own behest, to throw him overboard. Following which, the storm immediately quiets. All those who are on board the ship immediately begin to serve “YKVK:”
"וַיִּירְאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים יִרְאָה גְדוֹלָה, אֶת-יְהוָה; וַיִּזְבְּחוּ-זֶבַח לַי-וָ- וַיִּדְּרוּ נְדָרִים"
Translation: ‘And the people awed a great awe of YKVK and they sacrificed sacrifices to YKVK and vowed vows.’
Eventually Yonah does reach Ninveh to warn them that they will be destroyed if they do not stop their wickedness. As opposed to other nevi’im acharonim whose rebukes come in the form of poetry, Yonah addresses the entire “עִיר-גְּדוֹלָה לֵאלֹ-ים” (Translation: ‘Large city before God’) with a simple five word statement:
“עוֹד אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם וְנִינְוֵה נֶהְפָּכֶת”
Translation: ‘Another forty days and Ninveh will be turned over.”
The reader is struck by, not only the lack of poetry, but the generic nature of the statement – the words instantly recall the Flood (forty days and forty nights) and Sdom and Amorah (turned over). And yet, in contrast with the lengthy, poignant, and poetic rebukes of the other Prophets, this message does not fall on deaf ears. The people of Ninveh immediately repent; donning sackcloth and fasting – from king to animal.
It appears that everyone that Yonah comes in contact with will engage in fervent teshuva with very little prompting. How stark of a contrast is this to the other nevi’im who beg and implore all for naught? Sefer Yonah is placed here in Trei Asar as a message - sent through satire - to the Jewish people that they have had enough warnings and that it is time to act, not unlike the characters of Sefer Yonah, who are not even Jewish and have still managed to internalize the message of the navi.

Hope everyone had a meaningful and easy fast. Shana tova.
TM

Shtetilization at its Best

2007-09-17T18:02:00.000+02:00

I don't know whether to laugh or cry!
"New Doll Family that Reinforces a Torah Lifestyle"

My favorite features:
- The lady and girl dolls have subtly feminine features (not like the immodest "fashion" dolls)" - i.e. Did you know that it's not tznius to have breasts?
- The men come in your choice of socio-political affiliation - you choose: hat, streimel and bekasha, and beard or no beard (no kippa sruga option).
- The women all wear turtlenecks and wrist-length sleeves.
- The girl's skirts are so long you can't see their feet, except "bubbie" who is wearing bullet-proof tights
- The females are all half an inch shorter than the men because part of a "Torah Lifestyle" is showing the girls who's boss.
- The bedroom set comes with an option of two beds or one...

Because you know what happens to good frum kids when they find out there are people in the world who aren't like them...

Of Slaves and Ears

2007-08-31T07:02:00.000+03:00

I haven’t posted in a long time because of the many demands on my time. Now that I’m back from camp and school is so far in the future, I think posting will pick up.

Let’s play the game of weirdest mitzvah in the Torah...(Good game. Played it late Friday night in the Bet Midrash in camp. Possibly better than the Halakhic Man game.) I pick piercing the ear of an eved ivri who won’t go free after 7 years. What is that?!

If one reads through The Code of Hammurabi they will probably notice that most of the punishments are pretty repetitive - drowning, burning, etc. However, there is one punishment that appears only twice in the entire corpus that is accessible to us and that is the punishment of having an ear cut off. It happens only if a slave tells a master that he is not his master, or if he cuts of the privates of a free-born man.
If you think about it, that is actually the best punishment for a slave.Killing him wouldn't do because he is not even alive in the classic sense of the word - he is a piece of property. His death is the loss of property to his owner. Cutting off any other appendage - like for example the hand by which he cut a man’s privates, which would be very fitting for the quid proquo theme of the Code - would detract from his value as a tool. An ear is perfect - he has another one so he can still hear commands, and he is not impaired from his work as a slave by the loss.

The correlation between the ear as punishment and slaves comes up in the New Testament - Paul cuts off the ear of Malchus, the slave of the Kohen Gadol who has Jesus arrested. Assumedly the typical punishment for a slave who steps out of line.

Everyone knows the drash of Rav Yochanan Ben Zakkai in Kiddushin (22b):

רבן יוחנן בן זכאי היה דורש את המקרא הזה כמין חומר מה נשתנה אזן מכל
אברים שבגוף אמר הקב"ה אזן ששמעה קולי על הר סיני בשעה
שאמרתי (ויקרא כה) כי ליבני ישראל עבדים ולא עבדים לעבדים והלך זה
וקנה אדון לעצמו ירצע

Rabban Yochanan Ben Zakkai would explain the text like a "chomer" (machlokes rishonim regarding what this means - ayen sham). Why is the ear different than any other organ in the body? Hakadosh Baruch Hu said, "The ear - that heard at Har Sinai when I said 'Because to me Bnei Yisrael are slaves' and not slaves to slaves, and he acquired a master for himself - should be pierced."

What always bothered me was the fact that in theory, according to this, any sin should be punished by ear piercing since any mitzvah was heard at Sinai through the ear. Furthermore, is ear piercing such a punishment? I personally think its really gross, but a lot of my friends have pierced ears and they like it. Rabban Yochanan Ben Zakkai explains that the slave who stays in his human masters house is actually rebelling against the mastery of Hashem.
To teach him that that is what his actions mean we pierce his ear - reminiscent of the means through which we punish a slave who tells his master that he is no longer master over
him, and how we punish a slave in general. The Torah seems to be using a symbol of a societal norm to send this very potent message.

Also, I haven't really given this enough thought - but in Yirmiyah when he talks about ears that are "arel," read: need circumcision, could he be referring to this slavery-ear connection as well? Or is that readin too much into it?

The Amish

2007-06-30T02:18:00.000+03:00

This week I got to go to the home of an Amish family for a little while. Besides for being a fascinating expirience in its own right, it was also very educational for me Jewishly. A few points of interest:

(1) I find it fascinating that most religions with an old tradition have women covering their hair. Coincidence? I think not.

(2) It was getting dark when we got there and a teenage girl was making a quilt with a flashlight. Basically, halakhic development at its best - we all re-read sources when certain situations present themselves, it's just a question of whether or not we admit to doing it.

(3) I like to think that I'm a pretty tzanua person. And yet, amongst two women wearing all black and with covered hair and covered legs, etc. I felt not tzanua. Not objectively, but I felt uncomfortable being in the same room as a teenage boy who is used to only seeing women who dress to a very different standard. Minhag hamakom anyone?

I guess that's it for now. Mifkad is in 4 minutes...

An Eventful Shul Experience

2007-06-11T04:21:00.000+03:00

I spent this past Shabbos in Riverdale, and therefore had the opportunity to daven in a shul I have heard much about - HIR. Hebrew Institute of Riverdale, is an "open Orthodox" shul. The Rabbi, Avi Weiss, is also known for his position as President and founder of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah.

When discussing the possibility of this post with my friend, the idea was to document and reflect, and indeed I apparently got the "full HIR experience," and therefore have a lot to document. Besides for the singing and dancing at convenient intervals over the course of the Tfilah, there was also a Bar Mitzvah for a boy who's family is clearly completely unaffiliated - so much so that his father had to be called up to the Torah to be give him a Jewish name before being called up in honor of his Bar Mitzvah, there was a graduation of a "Jewish Jurisprudence" course given by the "Madricha Ruchanit" of the shul, and along with that ceremony came the Bat Mitzvah of a woman who looked to be in her mid-70s.

And yet, despite all that there is to document and reflect on, there is really one thing that struck me in a much more profound way. There was one very obvious theme that ran through the course of the entire service...and it wasn't God. Remarkably enough it was Ahavat Yisrael.

I'm a bit ambivalent about this.
On the one hand - I'm a fan. It's about frieking time that someone in Orthodox leadership shows any concern for the greater Jewish community. In my opinion, and I'm pretty sure that in God's as well, being a good religious Jew means being dedicated to klal yisrael as a WHOLE - not just the frum folks. Rabbi Weiss makes me feel proud and optimistic about what the Orthodox community might accomplish if we put our minds to it.
However, a wise man (the wisest ever) once said, "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven." Is it possible there is a time and place for Ahavat Yisrael too? Call me a radical, but something about infringing on the tfilah/avodah shebalev experience with statements of solidarity and shows of inclusiveness and diversity just rubbed me the wrong way. Klal Yisrael is one of my foremost concerns, even more than the global community, but that is only because I have God in common with each member of it. Once my relationship with Him is downplayed, what worth is my relationship with you? This is not at all to imply that the shul is not full of yarei shamayim who are very focused and passionate about their relationship with God, but rather a bit of a hodge podge attitude about when and how to show it.
I don't know. I'm sort of torn in both directions.

Why Am I Religious?

2007-06-01T02:08:00.000+03:00

This blog started as an opportunity to write out and share things that were bothering me that I didn't feel I could discuss. Since then, it has taken on a personality of its own which is divorced from that. This post is more in the spirit of the blog that once was.

My sister sometimes worries about me. She told me that she thinks that the older I get and the more time I spend learning Torah, the less "frum" I get. To a certain extent, I guess, she's correct - I'll explain what I mean by that later.
In the context of her voicing these concerns she told me a story about a friend of hers who has a brother who was in Gush for 6 years and one day decided to stop being frum (I imagine it was more of a process). The way he apparently describes it is that made an intelligent decision to stop observing halakha because he had too many issues with it. My sister said that this was a perspective that she couldn't conceive of - what reason could someone have to not be frum? I proceeded to give her a bit of my list for reasons to give it up. I think that worried her a bit...

Honestly though, the question I don't have an answer to is not at all why someone would choose to give up a halakhic way of life, but rather why someone would choose to follow this way to begin with. I know I am religious, but if you press me I couldn't quite tell you why.

I've posted before on my belief in God and the fact that I don't put any stock in the "proofs" for His existence. I believe in God because I experience him. And I guess, to a certain extent I am religious because of that same type of phenomenon. I basically grew up being frum (although I do remember a time when my family was seriously chiloni, and I did have a stage of my own) and the way I feel by continuing in this path is, for some reason, enough to motivate me to continue in it. While to most that might not be a satisfying reason, in theory, at least, it sounds good to me.
However, how much of that feeling/experience is real, and how much is it an "opiate" - the solace I find in being a part of this "Covenental Community" is what makes me attribute more to the experience than is really there.
The truth is, that I don't have the answer. I don't know why I choose to make that leap - on a daily basis. And, I don't imagine I ever will be able to answer this question with certainty.

About my being less frum than I was when I knew less Torah - I think that's definately true. That's not to say that I'm not very frum. I keep halakha. I learn Torah. I find that I am pretty dedicated to klal Yisrael. But that's not what she meant. I'm also more skeptical and doubtful. I'm constantly involved in a frustrating dialectic - I will learn Gemarah, but at the same time suggest that a mitzvah, such as hair-covering, is a result of surrounding culture. There's no nafka mina - I'll still do it, but I'm less "frum" about it than many Orthodox people will feel comfortable with.
I told my brother-in-law that there are times that I will be sitting and learning a Gemarah and I will think to myself, "God, this religion is so primitive and archaic and its ridiculous that I'm spending my life studying this nonsense." And then I get over it and keep learning because I believe doubt is healthy and at the end of the day I really do believe in the system, despite its flaws. My BIL nearly fell off his chair. (The best part of this post is that this sister and BIL are the most "modern" people in my family, so you can only imagine what the rest of my family thinks of me...)

At this stage in my life, I'm a little worried about the coming years. Starting next year, I am majoring in Talmud, which is not necessarily going to be taught from a religious perspective. I think that there is value in studying what I am chossing to and that's why I have chosen to major in it. I don't believe in living a life of fear and hiding from the possibility of becoming secular. If I am destined to stop being religious, then so be it. On the other hand, I am worried. I am not taking this laying down. I hope that certain Rabbis that I have developed relationships with over time will be available for me to turn to when pressing questions do come up, and that I will continue to seek out their advice and guidance. But, if I choose to stop taking that leap, is that the worst thing in the world? The me that I am now would respond with an adamant "Yes!" That other side of me is not as sure. If, at the end of the day, it's all about buying into the system, then who's to say that the me I am now can dictate to the future me how to feel and how to experience.

It may be a bit odd to read this product of the pen of a second year yeshiva student. It's a more than a bit odd to be the yeshiva student herself. However, I can find solace in the fact that I have friends who are equally serious and religious who find themselves struggling with the same question. And, I imagine that there are countless more who struggle, but don't admit it to others, and maybe even themselves.

Irrepressible Angst

2007-05-25T01:58:00.000+03:00

This blog post is dedicated to the worst limmud for a halacha ever, which is found in this week's parsha.

וְהֶעֱמִיד הַכֹּהֵן אֶת-הָאִשָּׁה, לִפְנֵי יְהוָה, וּפָרַע אֶת-רֹאשׁ הָאִשָּׁה

Vehamaskil yidom.

Yaakov and Mikdash - Yom Yerushalayim 2007

2007-05-17T01:02:00.000+03:00

This is a little late for those of us who live in the holy land, but for you chutznikim it's still YY.

Every kindergarten kid knows that the story in the beginning of Vayetze in which Yaakov dreams happened in makom hamikdash. However, the truth is that it is a machloket between the two camps of parshanim.
The pashtanim - see Radak, Rashbam, and Sforno - suggest that it was just some random place along the way. They seem compelled to suggest this because Yaakov names the place Bet El and the psukim explicitly state that it was called Ulam Luz before and with all this talk of the names we don't hear any hint to it being Yerushalayim.
IMHO, Rashi had the right idea when he identified the spot as Yerushalayim.
(1) The passuk states bamakom as opposed to bemakom - a clear indication that it is a very specific spot. Rashi himself notes that in his perush and therefore associates it with the previous makom that we heard of, namely Moriah, in the Akeidat Yitzchak narrative. Furthermore, the word "makom" appears no less than six times in the narrative, clearly suggesting that there is some significance in that particular place.
(2) As Rav Hirsch notes, the root "pagah" is usually meaningful and intentional and used in the context of going out to battle or making a request.
(3) Most noteworthy is the fact that Yaakov himself refers to the spot as "Bet Elokim."
Derech agav, it is interesting to note that the Gemarah in Hullin 91b which darshens this entire narrative suggests that Yaakov passed by the place and realized that it was where his fathers prayed and he decided to go back so that he too could pray there. Rashi on the spot suggests that the Akeidat Yitzach happened there as well as Yitzchak's going out "lasuach basadeh."

Yaakov goes to sleep and has a really weird dream in which he sees angels traveling up towards heaven and down towards the earth. For some reason, this inspires Yaakov to build a matzevah and cut a deal with God. Why? What did he see in his dream?

There is an obvious tension, or dialectic if you prefer (or you're a Gush guy), between God's transcendence and His imminence. I don't feel that I need to belabor this point because it's obvious - intuitively and through the text of our tefillot. I would like to suggest that before this point God was viewed as a wholly transcendent Being. For example, when Avraham davens for Sdom every other word is an apology lest God destroy him for his speech. The interactions between God and man are very limited. Suddenly, upon arising, Yaakov feels that he can "cut a deal" with God. We don't really find that kind of interaction beforehand.
Yaakov sees in his dream a symbol of interaction between the two worlds and thus that within His transcendence, there is an imminence to Him as well. The angels go up, the angels go down - two worlds interact.
I was thinking about the following last night and then Rabbi Bick sort of said it in his shiur today so baruch shekevanti I guess: The chiddush of "veshakhanti betokham" and the concept of a mikdash is that although God is so far from us, we can still create a place, through our own efforts, in which we can work towards serving Him. And that is what Yaakov learned from his dream and therefore he doesn't only build a matzevah and cut a deal with God, but in this deal he promises to build a "bayit" for God if God fulfills His side.

The Gemarah in Pesachim 88a explains why the passuk in Yeshayahu 2 describes the mikdash as "Beit Elokei Yaakov" as opposed to any of the other Avot. The Gemarah answers that even though Avraham refers to it as "behar Hashem yera'eh" and Yitzchak goes out "lasuach basadeh" (probably Rashi's source in our psukim in Vayetze), Yaakov is the first one who calls it "bayit." Yaakov revolutionized the concept of mikdash and the unique way of relating to God that it represents.

This is also evident in Vayishlach, when Yaakov comes back and builds a mizbeach in that very same place. In Vayetze he builds a matzevah which is completely natural in character - it is made of only one rock and requires no human manipulation. In Vayishlach, God tells him to build a mizbe'ach which is made of many stones built up to create an alter. This action brings the story full circle - at the outset, when he was just beginning his lesson a matzevah was in order, but now God tells him to build a mizbeach because after everything has worked out he can fully conceive of humans building something so as to make God more imminent.

Chag Sameach.

Old Yom Yerushalayim Posts

2007-05-16T13:44:00.000+03:00

This years iyun of inyanei deyoma was also very productive. I'll try to get around to actually writing it up and posting it.

Last year Yom Yerushalayim was Erev Shabbat so I didn't post anything, but here are my posts from two years ago:
Psalms 48 I
Psalms 48 II
Psalms 48 - Finale
Yom Yerushalayim Audio

Ish Hahalakha - To Be or Not To Be

2007-05-13T18:50:00.000+03:00

My friend and I play a game called the "Ish Hahalakha Game." One of us points to, say, a roll of toilet paper and asks the other, "If you were an Ish Hahalakha what would you say about that?" The idea is to see who can come up with the most ideas. (If the Steipler was machmir not to sit on shatnez, can someone be machmir not to wipe with shatnez?)
While the game lends itself to hours of halakhic fun, I can't imagine actually living my life that way. It's all well and good when it comes to seeing a sunset and automatically thinking about sha'ot zmaniyot, but when it comes to real life...

The Shulchan Aruch says that if someone is in a situation of sakana on Shabbat, it is a mitzvah to be mechalel Shabbat and the faster the better and anyone who asks a shaila is a murderer.
This case along with many many other examples draws the fine line between the Beit Midrash and the real practical world. In the Beit Midrash we can discuss what constitutes sakana, but when it comes to real life the important thing to do is act and hope that you've developed your instincts in accordance with halakha.

That's what I personally take out of the Midrash that says that Chizkiyahu would have been Mashiach if he had sung shira, but alas he did not. He may have been halakhically motivated - after all, rov am yisrael, etc. We can discuss it back and forth and upside down a la Yom Ha'atzmaut style, but, at the end of the day, its all about you and God. Do you live a life of paraliysis and anxiety, or do you hope you have developed your religious instinct enough that you feel confident expressing it? Again, it's all about the fine line between the Beit Midrash and real practical life.

Don't get me wrong, halakha is my life and I spend a heck of a lot of time studying it. I don't believe in shrugging off halakhic concerns in favor of other motivations. However, there are other Torah values that must be considered when make real life practical decisions: "darcheyha darchei no'am," and sometimes even mentchlichkeit.

I have dozens of stories I could share, but not in this particular forum. Think of things like negiah when a woman slips on ice and every possible variation of "lo techanem" imaginable and you may have an idea of what motivated this post.

Moshe vs. Aharon - 2 Paradigms of Leadership

2007-04-13T17:53:00.000+03:00

As far back as I can remember my teachers have told me that in this week's Parsha it says "Vayidom Aharon" as a praise for Aharon's tzidduk hadin even when facing the loss of his two sons. Well, this week when reading the parsha I noticed, for the first time, that that vort is not exactly true to the context of those words.
Here are the psukim in full:

א וַיִּקְחוּ בְנֵי-אַהֲרֹן נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא אִישׁ מַחְתָּתוֹ, וַיִּתְּנוּ בָהֵן אֵשׁ, וַיָּשִׂימוּ עָלֶיהָ, קְטֹרֶת; וַיַּקְרִיבוּ לִפְנֵי יְהוָה, אֵשׁ זָרָה--אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוָּה, אֹתָם. ב וַתֵּצֵא אֵשׁ מִלִּפְנֵי יְהוָה, וַתֹּאכַל אוֹתָם; וַיָּמֻתוּ, לִפְנֵי יְהוָה. ג וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-אַהֲרֹן, הוּא אֲשֶׁר-דִּבֶּר יְהוָה לֵאמֹר בִּקְרֹבַי אֶקָּדֵשׁ, וְעַל-פְּנֵי כָל-הָעָם, אֶכָּבֵד; וַיִּדֹּם, אַהֲרֹן.

"Vayidom Aharon" is clearly not in response to the death, but in response to Moshe.

I have always found the contrast between Moshe's and Aharon's leadership style very striking. Moshe is aloof and detached - he needs to be told by his father-in-law, a foreigner, that his being solely responsible for the judgement of the people is not best for them; he pitches his tent outside the camp; his brother begs him to daven that Miriam not die when she speaks lashon hara about him; the midrash suggests that he even seperates from his wife. Aharon, on the other hand, is very much a part of the people - he's present during chet ha'egel; the mishna describes him as an "ohev shalom verodef shalom," someone who brings the people together. In modern terms Moshe is the Rosh Yeshiva and Aharon is the community Rav. (There's a lot more that can be said about this, but I'll leave it at this for now."

The 2 stark personality differences come to a bit of a head in our psukim. Following the death of Moshe's nephews his response is to quote a halakha. And then - "vayidom Aharon" - he does not respond to Moshe's seeming callousness (or insert more PC description here in lieu of callousness.)

Shabbat Shalom

Ga'al Yisrael

2007-03-21T02:15:00.000+02:00

And so in the wee hours of the morning, the fateful decision yet again lays before me. Should I finally take those over-the-counter sleeping pills and for once get a good night’s rest, or should I once again make use of the insomnia that I am cursed with despite exhaustion. Hmm...

There’s an interesting debate regarding leil haseder and its apparent lack of birchas hamitzvah. One shitah – I believe it is Rabbenu Binyamin in the Shiltei Giborim – that suggests that perhaps the bracha of ga’al yisrael that is said at the end of hallel on leil haseder is the missing birchas hamitzvah. (He suggests a reason that it is at the end of the sippur as opposed to the beginning, etc., but that is beyond the purview of this post.) The implications of this shitah is rather fascinating.

The Gemarah in Psachim (116b) records a machloket between Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akivah on what the text of the bracha of ga’al yisrael should be:

ר"ט אומר אשר גאלנו וגאל את אבותינו ממצרים. ולא היה חותם
רבי עקיבא אומר כן ה' אלהינו ואלהי אבותינו יגיענו למועדים ולרגלים אחרים הבאים לקראתנו לשלום שמחים בבנין עירך וששים בעבודתך ונאכל שם <מן הפסחים ומן הזבחים> [מן הזבחים ומן הפסחים] כו' עד בא"י גאל ישראל

Rabbi Tarfon has no chatima because his bracha is short and straightforward. Rabbi Akivah, on the other hand, has a long and multi-themed bracha which incorporates the hopes of a future ge'ulah as well. (Ve'ayen beTosfot sham.)

Ostensibly, a birchat hamitzvah reflects the action occuring in the fulfillment of the mitzvah. ("Likroh et ha'hallel" and "Lehadlik ner shel Chanukah", etc.) Therefore, within this shitah of Rabbenu Binyomin, the machloket between Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akivah would then be whether seder night is a commemoration of a specific redemption or redemption brought by God in general.

We, of course, pasken like Rabbi Akivah.

On that note, two other ideas that I believe are noteworthy:

This understanding of this view of Rabbi Akivah seems to be very in character. The Gemarah in Makkot, cherished by all, portrays Rabbi Akivah consoling his friends when they spot a fox walking in the ruins of Yerushalayim. He displays tremendous foresight coupled with the ability to take one experience and to project it onto a confidence that other ge'ulot will come about. Who better to view leil haseder as an assurance that ...כן ה' אלהינו ואלהי אבותינו יגיענו למועדים ולרגלים אחרים?

I recently found a haggadah created in the second year after Hakamat Hamedinah by a left wing secularist kibbutz in order to encourage people in America to observe the Pesach seder. The haggadah has very little of the authentic traditional one and is mostly a compilation of psukim and Israeli poetry. The very obvious underlying message in it is that Pesach is a time to celebrate our current Independence, read: Redemption. It seems that Pesach is a prime time to appreciate galut and ge'ulah that occurs in every generation, a la "vehi she'amdah." And, therefore, we indeed pasken like Rabbi Akivah.

Mr. Deity Episode 1: Mr. Deity and the Evil

2007-02-27T03:12:00.001+02:00

I originally saw this video because someone on Lookjed suggested it as a trigger for philosopichal conversations. While that point is somewhat well taken, I personally appreciate it solely for its comedic value.

The Final Post on Women's Education

2007-02-12T19:44:00.000+02:00

Because this blog has become a springboard for many of the conversations in my real life, I have been speaking about women’s education a lot this past week. As a result a lot of new and insightful observations have been related to me as well as things that I’ve known all along, but needed to be reminded of desperately. Seeing as I’ve pretty much exhausted this topic, at least for the meantime, I hope this compilation of points that have come up can serve as some sort of conclusion. Hopefully there will not be another post about this for a VERY long time.
(I’ve also been told that my blog is depressing and even I will admit that I rarely post when I am happy about something; this should be a welcome aberration from that norm.)

- Irrespective of how I may personally feel about the state of women’s education today, no one can deny the impressive strides that have been made in that arena. To a certain extent it may be unfair to complain that men’s education is better because it has been developing for that much longer. If anything, our education seems to be improving much more quickly than theirs is, so who knows how things will turn out.

- On that note, I think that I should take the opportunity to once again to thank all those men and women who have dedicated themselves to that cause. A special thank you goes to those who have really dedicated themselves to educating women as opposed to teaching men and making a hobby out of teaching a shiur or two in girls’ schools.

- The phenomenon that I was bemoaning also has a flip side: The goal of seminary, as I said is very different than that of yeshiva. As pretty much everyone yelled at me, that also has a positive side. Girls tend to emerge more well-rounded, with a much more holistic experience, etc. Furthermore, the development in my skill level between now and what it was at the beginning of shana aleph is immeasurable and on the one hand it means that I can’t stay shana gimmel (this is only an example!) because of that gap, but on the other hand, part of what allowed my skills to develop in that way is that the curriculum is so tailored to the age and skill level of incoming students.

- I also learned that just because I felt like the rebbeim in girls’ schools take the education less seriously, it is not necessarily so. I have been told that over and over AND OVER again. So, even though I may be frustrated about there not being a post-high school institution that means to turn its girls into talmidot chachamot, I’m going to have to leave the rabbis out of my bemoaning.

I believe that will be all on this subject for a very long time.

The Paradox of Women's Education II

2007-02-07T18:03:00.000+02:00

It is clear that the post on “The Paradox of Women’s Education” needed a follow-up post. There are many reasons for that, most important of which is the fact that I unintentionally offended Rebbeim to whom I owe the utmost hakarat hatov. Also, it appears that my point was not well-made since the only person who understood it was Jordan.

In an ensuing conversation with Rabbi Katz, he identified three primary stages in any given individual’s Torah learning:
1) Pre- Yeshiva
2) During Yeshiva
3) Post-Yeshiva
This break-up is very useful in clarifying the thrust of my previous post.

The point had nothing to do with my frustrations about stage three. I don’t need to be told that it may be different for me. I don’t need to be told that I will find a balance. I don’t need any of the other hundreds of responses that people offer in terms of those frustrations. At the end of the day there is nothing anyone can possibly say that will make me feel better about the realities of stage three.

What I chose to rant about in my previous post is stage two and how it is affected by stage three.

Should the practical realities of stage three have any influence whatsoever on the intensity of stage two? The answers to that vary, but they can generally be grouped into the following three categories:
1) No
2) Of course – and therefore we risk it for boys because they have a chiyuv in Talmud Torah, but when it comes to girls’ education it’s an unfair tease and it is better that we teach them the practical stuff that they need to stay frum and solid and marginally educated,
3) Yes, there’s always a chance with boys that they will become the next gedolim and therefore although the majority of graduates will hardly have time to pick up a sefer, rigorous study is necessary. However, because girls won’t have time to be scholars and nor should that necessarily be their goal, we educate them intensely so that they can, in theory, have the same educational opportunities as anyone else because they should find Torah and not just Secular studies stimulating and/or we want them to be able to play an active role in educating their children and/or they need to know halakha well in order to live properly, etc.

My assumption in my last post, whether warranted or not, is that most Rabbis who teach in Modern Orthodox women’s institutions of higher Torah learning fall into the third category. And as much as people deny it, I respectfully maintain my reservations.

The issue is not whether or not I feel that I am being educated. Thank God, I know how to learn now a heck of a lot better than I did not very long ago; and for that I owe a tremendous amount of hakarat hatov to many exceptional people. In fact, I could probably learn Gemarah just as well as a lot of guys, and my time in a co-ed Bet Midrash has shown me that.

The issue at hand is the following: Is it possible that given the realities of stage three, Rebbeim can/do teach girls on the same level as they teach boys? And, the question is not solely one of Torah Sheba’al Peh, it’s a question of educational methodology. I contend that it is impossible for my Rebbeim to take my learning as seriously, knowing that it will have to wane considerably given my gender, as they would if I was not a girl. (And, again, whether this is true in actuality is not determinable because it’s a function of the subconscious. Also, even it isn’t true it clearly affects my learning in that I cognize it in my teachers and mentors.) Furthermore, I think it is therefore a phenomenon in the “seminary world” to teach to the norm and the general populace of the school instead of the top – again, unlike in boys’ schools where they teach to the top in the hopes that they will grow to be talmidei chachamim. Anyone who denies that fact that the options available for a girl whose goal it is to be a scholar are significantly more limited than that of a boy of the same intellect is kidding themselves.

I hope this is clearer.

Follow-up

2007-02-07T04:41:00.000+02:00

I have written a follow-up of my previous post. After posting it, I decided that given the slightly sensitive nature of this topic I should rewrite it. However, another post is on its way, sans retractions (except the one), plus clarifications.

The Paradox of Women's Education

2007-02-05T01:52:00.000+02:00

I’ve recently spent quite a bit of time bemoaning the fact that no post-high school pre-university institutions of higher Judaic learning for women seem to take the studies of their students that seriously. Unfortunately, everyone seems to misconstrue my criticism either purposefully or unwittingly – they think that I am lamenting the lack of scholarly women. They give me lists of such women and tell me that one day I might be one of them. Clearly I do not doubt for a moment that these schools are CAPABLE of turning out talmidot chachamot of the highest caliber only that they have no intention of doing it.

At the end of my shana aleph one of my teachers, albeit one with a more yeshivesh bent, gave us a shmeusse. He told us that it’s nice that we’ve gotten a taste of some good Torah, but once we’re in college we’re lucky if we can muster a few chavrutot and when we’re married with kids we can basically forget about learning seriously again. I was so angry and for some reason everyone thought that the way to console me was to explain to me that I needed to face that reality. No one seemed to understand that I found it frustrating that the same is true for the majority of guys and yet their rebbeim tell them at the end of their year that if they’re not “kove'a ittim” they’re bums. Why didn’t any of my teachers think that they can hold me to that standard? In guys’ schools it’s also only the yechidim who are really going anywhere with their learning, but their teachers teach to them; while in girls’ schools they are teaching to the norm.

The best answer I got was from one of my rebbeim who simply validated me and told me that it was up to me to change it. But honestly, how can I change it if no one will educate me?

Clarification

2007-01-26T03:04:00.000+02:00

I don't think that it is a positive phenomenon that we view frumkeit independent of halakha as a value. I was bemoaning too many things so that some of you did not keep track. That is all.

The Frustrated Contingency of the Functionally Illiterate

2007-01-18T02:54:00.000+02:00

There is a distinct possibility that I am going to get shechted for this. Either that or I’ll make one heck of a future story. Either way this was too good of an epiphany to keep to myself.

Like many things, there is something that I have been obsessively pondering for quite some time. However, a certain friend of mine made a comment, which along with certain other recent happenings, has pushed this issue ever closer to the forefront of my mind. The comment was, “You know you’re not so frum. I mean, you’re halakhic, but you’re not so frum.”
While to many of you this may sound like an enigmatic statement, it made perfect sense to me. She was remarking on my poo poo-ing of unfounded religious sentiments and unnecessary ritualistic behavior. I won’t wax poetic about the beauty of hashgacha pratis and I won’t necessarily make any effort to switch eating utensils between fish and meat. What’s worse is that I’m mercilessly cynical and sarcastic about all those things that I view as meaningless, or just plain dumb, gestures.
Therefore, although I am extremely devoted to halakha and what I at least view as being authentic Jewish (not “religious”) behavior based on that study of halakha, I don’t seem all that “frum.” (Maybe I should get a bracha from a gadol to help me walk the walk and talk the talk better. See? I just can’t help it.)
I never thought this was particularly noteworthy behavior. However, as I said, this has been turning in my head unceasingly. Is there a value to religiosity independent of halakha?

And here’s the part that may get me in trouble:
Last night Rabbi Katz gave his annual “Functional Illiteracy” sicha in MMY. (You’re not supposed to understand the title unless you go to the sicha.) The main thrust of this sicha is his frustration with the philosophy (a la Frumteens Moderator) that our schools’ curriculum should be floaty and hashkafic because analyzing Ramban’s isn’t going to make high school kids get interested in their Judaism or answer their fundamental questions that often get ignored. Although their claim is understandable and hashkafic issues should be dealt with, that should not be at the expense of substantive study. “Strive for Truth” may be a good book to read (for some people at least), but you just don’t need a chavrusa in it! Case in point: Yeshivas with high level and rigorous study are having difficulty getting students because graduates of those schools aren’t “well-rounded” and therefore schools which opened as alternatives that seem to require tambourines and hilltops are bursting at the seams.
Furthermore, there IS a value in study for the sake of study. Utilizing Artscroll translations for everything means that you miss a large part of the Talmud Torah experience. If I recall correctly, he quoted a Bais Halevi that explains the reason that the saying of “Na’aseh Venishma” was such a monumentally positive act. He suggests that it can’t be that they were willing to act in accordance with the Torah without hearing what’s in it because it’s impossible to follow the Torah without first undergoing “Nishma.” Instead, it must mean that the Jews learned and behaved in accordance with the Torah, but then continued to study and delve into the depths of the Torah. Why? Because there is an inherent value in the study of Torah. In fact, Rabbi A. Berzon suggests that the fulfillment of the mitzvah of Talmud Torah occurs within the action of study and the outcome is irrelevant. In Brisker terms – it’s a din in the asiyas hamitzvah and not the totza’as hama’aseh.
When hearing this sicha I argued with the practicality of implementing such a curriculum in any school, but I nodded in agreement with the point he was trying to make. Clearly this is something that I believed in – after all, didn’t I spend all that time in 9th grade teaching myself how to read Rashi? These were my values! I hardly suspected that Functional Illiteracy had secretively crept up on me.

As I said, Rabbi Katz gave this sicha recently, so I found myself being drawn into multiple conversations with shana aleph girls who needed to discuss certain aspects of it. Hence, my epiphany. Now this may be a stretch or, to the other extreme, completely not a chiddush, but perhaps my frustration with my lack of “frum” persona is part of this same phenomenon. Meaning, now that we value tambourines and other such fluff to an unprecedented degree, it becomes an independent value. Suddenly, developing a relationship with God based on the concrete and substantive is not enough, you need to be inspired and inspirational and all together taken by the beauty of something or the other.
As I said, I’m not sure if this is a stretch or maybe it’s totally not a novel idea at all and I’m just slow. Take it or leave it.

Must Read

2007-01-08T02:06:00.000+02:00

It's two posts in one week so it must be good...

Gan Eden and Olam HaBa: Immorality and Omniscience

Out of the Mouths of...

2007-01-05T15:03:00.000+02:00

My sister asked me to pick up some books in Meah Shearim earlier this week. I was standing in line to pay and at the top of the pile was a Rav Samet set. The guy standing in line behind me pointed to the set and asked me if it was mine. I responded that it was and he told me, "tizahari." (translation: be careful) I must have made a face because he then said, "I read the whole book and some of it was very nice, but some of it...::face scrunch::"

If he was urging me to be intellectually honest in general, I'm a fan of that, but something makes me assume that was not his intention. He was lucky I was in a hurry and not in an exceptionally confrontational mood. (I was ready to respond, "This is nothing, you should see some of the other stuff I read.") I can at least be thankful that he invested some time in the thing that he was choosing to warn me about and that he admitted that it had value to it and didn't unilaterally condemn it. Maybe the world is getting better after all?

The Lost Patriarch

2006-12-14T01:26:00.000+02:00

This cannot fairly be termed an idea, but it is the beginning of an idea.

There is a piece of the haggada that has bothered me for some time:

צא ולמד מה בקש לבן הארמי לעשות ליעקב אבינו שפרעה לא גזר אלא על הזכרים ולבן בקש לעקר את הכל

(Oh, by the way, Rabbi - if you're reading this, I may use it at the seder, so I hope you're OK with that.)

1) So, here we are at the seder, the antagonist of the night is the evil Pharoh who enslaved us all. Of course we have the token digs at the nations of the world in general because of their constant quest to destroy us - but on the whole, Pharoh is the order of the day. So what's the deal with Lavan? Not only do we point him out as a villain, but we even proclaim that he is WORSE than Pharoh!

2) Where do we see Lavan trying to uproot everything? Ok, so he tricked Yaakov here and there, but uprooting everything?! What are we talking about.

So let's take a closer look at Yaakov and his experience in the house of Lavan and perhaps we can make some sense out of this enigmatic statement.

It is best to examine the meeting of Lavan and Yaakov not in a vacuum, but rather within its larger context. Yaakov is fleeing from his home and in a very real way is now estranged from his immediate family. Think about it:

Rivka convinced him to deceive his father, which besides for being painful in its own right, causes him to need to flee for his life. Even if you say that he is grateful for her intervention and assistance, he probably can't help but feel emotionally distressed as a direct result of her actions.
It might not even be such a jump to suggest that their relationship never recovers. I don't remember where I read this, but someone, in an answer to why we learn of the death and burial of Devorah meineket Rivkah, but never of Rivkah's is because of the emotional estrangement between Yaakov and Rivkah as a result of this episode.

Yitzchak is never again reunited with Yaakov in his lifetime. The passuk states "יָצֹא יָצָא יַעֲקֹב" and the only other time that Yaakov speaks to him after stealing the bracha, Yitzchak is telling him to leave home and find a wife.

Esav and Yaakov's relationship can only be described as tenuous at best. Period.

Yaakov, in running away, is in an emotional state of upheaval. This may even explain why he needs to re-affirm the nature of his relationship with God. He is being forced to leave all his relations behind and so he must assure himself of at least one relationship.

Then he bumps into Rachel and he kisses her and then breaks down into tears. Why this strange reaction? Well, the psukim identify her numerous times as the daughter of "achi imo." After running from his family, he bumps into what he views as the only family he has left and it causes him to recall it. On the other hand, he must be grateful to finally have someone to solve his sense of alone-ness. An emotional outburst is definitely called for.

Now he becomes part of the house of Lavan, because after all that is the only family he has left. Which explains why, despite all the trickery and lies, he sticks around until he has a family of his own. And what happens when Yaakov finally does leave? What does Lavan say?
He refers to everything as if it is his own, because it is.

One can only imagine the internal struggle that raised as Yaakov realized that he would once again have to disengage from his family. This may be the true test of Yaakov - he remembers that he is a ben brit and is thus able to leave. If he hadn't done this, the story would have ended before it began. Yaakov would have been the lost patriarch and all woul have been for naught. Instead, Yaakov manages to rip himself away once again.

What Would You Do?

2006-11-27T00:59:00.000+02:00

This post will toe the fine line between an honest reading of the text and homiletics. You have been warned.

טז וַיִּיקַץ יַעֲקֹב, מִשְּׁנָתוֹ, וַיֹּאמֶר, אָכֵן יֵשׁ יְה וָה בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה; וְאָנֹכִי, לֹא יָדָעְתִּי.

יז וַיִּירָא, וַיֹּאמַר, מַה-נּוֹרָא, הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה: אֵין זֶה, כִּי אִם-בֵּית אֱ לֹהִים, וְזֶה, שַׁעַר הַשָּׁמָיִם.

יח וַיַּשְׁכֵּם יַעֲקֹב בַּבֹּקֶר, וַיִּקַּח אֶת-הָאֶבֶן אֲשֶׁר-שָׂם מְרַאֲשֹׁתָיו, וַיָּשֶׂם אֹתָהּ, מַצֵּבָה; וַיִּצֹק שֶׁמֶן, עַל-רֹאשָׁהּ.

What function do the two underlined verbs play? The use of the two underlined verbs seem completely unneccesary.

For some reason the Torah feels the need to tell us that Yaakov went through two stages - awakening and arising. Why?

Put yourself in Yaakov's place. Running from his home and family, distraught, he ends up on some random hill and because he sees the skies darkening decides to settle for the night. He then experiences an interface with God - an amazing dream that is clearly a message of re-assurance from God. It causes him to awaken, but the night is too dark and there is nothing he can do.

What would you do?

ד וַתֹּאכַלְנָה הַפָּרוֹת, רָעוֹת הַמַּרְאֶה וְדַקֹּת הַבָּשָׂר, אֵת שֶׁבַע הַפָּרוֹת, יְפֹת הַמַּרְאֶה וְהַבְּרִיאֹת; וַיִּיקַץ, פַּרְעֹה. ה וַיִּישָׁן, וַיַּחֲלֹם שֵׁנִית; וְהִנֵּה שֶׁבַע שִׁבֳּלִים, עֹלוֹת בְּקָנֶה אֶחָד--בְּרִיאוֹת וְטֹבוֹת.

Pharoh also experiences an intense dream that can only be termed prophetic. He too is awakened by it, but he chooses to return to his slumber.

In contrast, Yaakov chooses to lay in contemplation instead of falling back asleep. And then, as soon as the "boker" comes - as soon as the opportunity to act is given to him, he arises and builds a matzevah and re-affirms his relationship with God.

Are you a Yaakov or a Pharoh?

Ignorance is...Creativity

2006-11-22T23:27:00.000+02:00

This is post is a product of a bit of observation, personal experience, and the kind of non-concrete musing that I am so fond of. So, this is a bit of a rant, but so be it.

It is with amusement that I look back at one of my first experiences at MMY: Even though I had never learned Gemarah in an institutional setting, I had engaged in it in what can only be termed "dabbling." An alumnus had advised me to go straight into the more advanced Gemarah track anyway.
It is the custom of the teacher to go around the room on the first day of class and have each girl say what her background is so that people can make informed decisions when choosing a chavrusa. I was one of the first girls to share, but the few that went before me made me seriously doubt my decision. I could feel myself sinking further into my seat as the girls one by one said, "Bava Metziah, Sanhedrin, Makot, etc." Then the Rabbi reached me and I said that my highschool didn't teach Gemarah, but I had learned it on my own. He said, "Ok, what did you do?" And I said, "Brachot." And so he asked the logical question, "Which perek?" To which I responded, "All of it."
You see, up to that point I had really believed that the way to learn Gemarah was to do a daf a day and spend a few hours on it, start at the beginning of the masechta and finish the whole thing. The few moments of silence and certain other responses to what I had just said indicated otherwise. As my studies progressed I realized how wrong I was.

What's the point of that story?

Gemarah is a more classic example of this, but I think it extends to most areas of study. Now when I pick up a Gemarah, it's so much more familiar to me, I know where to look, I know how to approach a Tosafot. I won't pretend for a second that I am a champion of Gemarah study, but I am comfortable in my study of it in a way that I wasn't before.

On the down side, I am comfortable in my study of it in a way that I wasn't before.

No, that wasn't a typo. Before, when I studied I came up with chiddushim and peirushim that were so far from the realm of halakhic possibility, but they engaged my creativity in an unbelievable way. I wasn't achieving truth, but I was very much involved in the Talmud Torah experience.

It's the same thing with Tanach, your creativity becomes stifled the more you become acquainted with the text. You can't make up a pshat about an apisode in Tanach if it completely contradicts a passage elsewhere, unless you're unaware of that passage. Your creativity is much more unbridled when you are less informed.

Clearly being educated is the more ideal situation, but I think that it is the challenge of the educator, and hence the reason that I am pre-occupied with musing about how to do this practically, to conserve that creativity that comes with ignorance - for that is what it must be termed.

The only suggestions I can make are what I have seen - students being active participants in a dynamic classroom and (perhaps ironically) studying the text prior to shiur so as to limit the frontal elements of the classroom. Unfortunately, this is mostly dependent on how motivated the students are, which is another topic to muse about in and of itself.

Ad kan rant of TMeishar.

Akeidat Yitzchak and the Ideal Religious Persona

2006-11-06T00:31:00.000+02:00

We all know the traditional approach to Akeidat Yitzchak - God commands Avraham to go against his dominant middah of chessed, Avraham does so willingly without so much as questioning God, another home run. (Yay team!)

There are a number of reasons why I do not find this approach so compelling:
1) We find Avraham fighting tooth and nail, not long before, trying to convince God not to kill out Sdom. He uses such harsh language that he has to literally apologize to God and ask Him not to deal with him harshly in return.
2) Is it really so worthy of applause to accept such a barbaric and astonishing command without even the slightest response? Is that what we are all striving for? How would that translate into modern day theology?
3) This is a textual issue - 22;12: "ki ata yadati ki yareh Elokim atah." (Now, I know that you are a yarei Elokim.) This interpretation will not only solve the glaring issue of why it is only specifically now that God is made aware of his God fearing nature - what about everything that has happened until know?
But, also, we must struggle to understand the bizarre phraseology of "Yarei Elokim." When someone has overcome a hurdle as large as this one, they are not simply called a "yarei Elokim." Why? We already know that "Elokim" is the word that is used when the relationship between God and man is only on a very basic/general level. Furthermore, "yirat Elokim," is consistently used to explain basic moral behavior - for example Avraham tells Avimelech that he lied to him because he sensed no "yirat Elokim" in the place, did he expect them to be "Jewish?" Yosef tells his brothers that he is a "yarei Elokim" before he reveals his identity, why would he blow his cover unless this is something common amongst the rest of the world?
Is this what you term someone who has been willing to literally sacrifice his son?

Possible alternative approach:

The narrative can easily be divided into two halves – Plan A and Plan B. Textual support: notice 22;4 – “Vayisah Avraham et einav vayar…” When this phrase is used in Tanach it connotes a significant peering out. Compare this to 22;13 – “vayisah Avraham et einav vayar,” this time it is post angelic communication…we’ll return to that in a second.
Also, compare the response of God in the first half, 22;12 – “ki ata yadati ki yareh Elokim atah…” to His response (via angel) in the second half, 22;15-18 which is a promise of zera with the addition of the comparison to the numerousness of the stars, etc. This clearly indicates that somehow Avraham’s behavior in the second half of the story is better than the first.

So, what was so good about the second half and what made the first half not as good?

In the first half of the narrative Avraham says the word, “hineni” three times. Obviously, this is a positive phrase, but at the same time we get an impression of Avraham as being subjected to the will of others. Whenever someone calls, he is there to respond to their any command.
The most poignant phrase, to me, is his response to his son’s sincere question about a lack of animal to sacrifice. Avraham answers that God will show them the “she le’olah.”
Avraham can best be described as passive in his activity. He is not a dynamic or creative character, instead he just does what he is told.

How does this compare to the Avraham that we find in the second half?
First, as we have already pointed out, we have the significant peering out. Except, now, instead of being the place that has been pointed out to him by God, it is something completely new. He takes the animal of his own initiative and sacrifices it. Then, he names the place of the Akeidah of his own initiative. Very much in contrast to the character that has been evolving within this story so far, Avraham doesn’t just do what he is told, but he finds a way to make his religious behavior personal and unique. Clearly, to God, this is a loftier level than just following commands and therefore in Part I he is only a “yarei Elokim,” while in Part II he is to be the progenitor of a nation.

But, one may claim, is Avraham really a passive individual? Did we not see his fiery and impassioned response to God’s suggestion to kill Sdom? Indeed we did, but what exactly is Avraham arguing there? If you take a careful look you will find that Avraham’s claim is that God will, in essence, cause a chillul Hashem if he destroys Sdom. This argument does not stem from personal frustration, but religious fervor.

Perhaps, what God is trying to teach Avraham with this test is not the ability to subject his Personal Will to Divine Will – we already know he could do that. What Avraham needed to learn how to do was to use his Personal Will to serve God as well. Maybe we shouldn’t be glorifying his unquestioning readiness to sacrifice his son. Maybe a more ideal response would have been a fight of pre-destruction of Sdom nature.

(I am aware that this interpretation is problematic because we are specifically told that Avraham is rewarded, "ya'an asher lo chasachta..." This is generally understood to mean withheld. Ibn Kaspi says - and thank God I have an obscure Rishon to lean on here - that this means 'cause to be removed.' He suggests that Avraham was so caught up in religious fervor that he wanted to kill Yitzchak. In fact, the Midrash states that Avraham did in fact go through with Akeidat Yitzchak even though the Malach told him not to. Even though this is obviously not a historical reality, it does seem to be driving at the idea we developed here.)

Musings on Halakhic Development

2006-09-19T12:17:00.000+03:00

TB Brachot 2;1, Rashi s.v. "Ad sof ha'ashmura harishona":
Kriat shma of the evening must not be read before "shlish halayla" and if it was read before you're not yotze because it's not called "beshochbecha." In that case, why do we read it beforehand in shul? In order to fulfill the shita of the Yerushalmi of "kedei la'amod betfilah mitoch divrei Torah." And we are yotzei our chiyuv when we say the first parsha of the Shma before going to sleep.

TB Brachot 45;2, Tosafot s.v. "Sha'ani hatam de'ika de'ot":
It appears from here that women are obligated in zimun. However, it is clear that people don't do that. So, it must be that what the Gemarah really means is that women have the option of making a zimun, but it is not mandatory.

What do these two piskei halakha have in common?

There's a dissonance that is common amongst the Rishonim, and, to a certain extent, amongst the Acharonim. It's a dissonance that arises out of an objective reading of Talmudic text and the fact that the halakha that is being learned has been practiced for centuries.
To a certain extent most people have seen a similar phenomenon before. The one that stick out in my mind the most is when my Hilkhot Shabbat teacher taught the class that you can tear tags off clothing on Shabbat. The class was in an uproar! For the past 18 years of their lives they've been coming up with creative ways to remove the tags and pretend that they don't think they're doing anything wrong. Suddenly they found that they could have just ripped the tags off all along.
So, how did these Rishonim deal with that dissonance? Something's gotta give, so they gave into their experience. If a majority of the klal is behaving a certain way, it must be me who is mistaken in my approach.

I think that the question is, how do we deal with this phenomenon? Can we change the way we practice halakha based on these types of piskei halakha on the assumption that they are erroneous. On the other hand, must we assume that they are not erroneous. And, of course, there is the possibility that they are erroneous, but we continue to behave in accord with them because that is the psak of the rishonim. I find the last approach to be the least compelling for obvious reasons.
For example, many attempts have been made to find creative loopholes within halakhic norms to aid agunot. I'm not sufficiently well-versed in this subject to cite specific examples, but if one would find an example of this phenomenon in the texts that deal with this issue it could hypothetically assist in this effort.

Bava Metzia 55

2006-09-19T00:13:00.000+03:00

I have lately been reading Levinas's "Nine Talmudic Readings" and therefore while caught up in the spirit of aggadita, I have picked up a few old aggaditas that I have always known about, but never truly understood. One of those being, Bava Metzia 55 - "Tanur Shel Achnai." For the past hour or so I have been utilizing my very limited internet access (a.k.a. I'm finally back in my sister's house) to do some research that the Beit Midrash doesn't lend itself to. I think that what I find most fascinating about this particular aggadita is, that like so many other aggaditot, people will twist it to fit into their own preconceived theological axioms.

A small sampling of this phenomenon:

- The interpretation that I always heard in the context of my somewhat right wing upbringing: The power of "da'as Toirah" is so great that it can even trump Divine will. Always listen to the Gedoilim.

- At the other end of the spectrum, the progressive Conservative interpretation: Divine will is no longer the absolute truth, but is in the hands of human intellect to discern and re-interpret. The original intent of the text is irrelevent because God's will is no longer the sole determining factor in the decision of right and wrong.

- Gushie: There is such a thing as mutually exclusive truths. The Chachamim have a handle on halakhic truth while Rav Eliezer has a handle on Divine truth, but ultimately they are both truths - a la Eilu v'Eilu.

I, personally, am inclined to believe that the message of this story is that halkhic logic supercedes human logic. Even if technically Rav Eliezer is correct, his argument holds no water because he does not prove it through halakhic reasoning and it cannot, therefore, be accepted. Of course I am also projecting my own theological axioms onto the text.

2 other interesting ideas that I found, but don't neccesarily resonate with:

- Rav Amital: From a whole and perfect Divine perspective, the oven is fragmented and not whole. From a real and human perspective it is complte because it has been reconnected despite its previous fragmentation. Rav Eliezer sees things from the ideal and Divine and therefore Rav Yehoshua must respond with "Lo Bashamayim Hi." Rav Eliezer is wrong because halakha doesn't exist in the real world, but in th human world and hence we must interpret it within the confines of human imperfection.
(I personally have a hard time with this because, lefi aniyut dati, I believe that halakha is a reflection of the ideal and not the human. How we apply the halakha, on the other hand, takes into account the human imperfections of a non-ideal world.)

- Rav Tzadok: Rav Eliezer is wrong and only being assisted by miracles because "bederech she'adam rotze lelech, molichim oto." These serve as tests for the Chachamim to ascertain whether they will be swayed or stick to their principles.

What's In a Title

2006-08-26T22:03:00.000+03:00

Anyone who ever visited frumster or other sites of that genre (for kicks like myself or for any other reason) knows of the drop-down box. For those uninitiated among you (I'm sure there are very few because, let's face it, the site is freaking hysterical) I will share its secrets with you.
In order to search frumster for a mate you have drop-down boxes in the following topics: "Seeking" (as in gender), "Age", "Country". All very innocent and practical. The last topic, however, is "Outlook," otherwise known as, "Describe your entire philosophy and view on the world with all its subtleties and complexities in 2 words or less."
The options you can choose within "Outlook" are: Jewish: "Traditional," "Traditional and Growing," "Conservative," "Conservadox," "Reform," "Other." Jewish Orthodox: "Modern Orthodox Liberal," "Modern Orthodox Machmir," "Yeshivesh Modern," Yeshivesh Black Hat," "Hassidish," "Carlebachian," "Shomer Mitzvot."
To their credit, the frumster people have expanded. The last time I looked at this site, a few years ago, they only offered those options under Jewish Orthodox. I see they are now also attempting to simplify the lives of every Jewish person and not limit themselves to the Orthodox crowd.

This tendency in the world to identify one's self with virtual drop down boxes has been something that has irritated me to no end for years. In fact, one of the things that I found so endearing in MMY was that its hashkafa flew in the face of all of that.
So, why am I blogging about this now? Well, I have been itching to say something about it since I took lamedzayin's "Orthodoxy Test."
You see, on the one hand I enjoyed taking it, convinced others who are equally confused/hashkafically random to take it, and have been dying to convince others to take it, but have been too scared to ask. (If you are reading this and you think you fall into the latter category you are probably right and should please take it evem though I don't have the courage to ask you.) Despite my disagreement with many of its assumptions*, I found that generally speaking it tended to be pretty nuanced.
On the other hand, the very idea that a multiple choice test can define where I stand in the spectrum of Orthodoxy is disturbing and wrong.

I truly understand the feeling of security that comes with identifying with a certain crowd. I know who I should be friends with and which schools I can send my kids to. If one shul is "Black Hat" and the other is "Modern Yeshivesh" then I can fit myself perfectly into a little box. BUT PEOPLE DON'T BELONG IN BOXES! (Funny story about that, ask me later...)
It might be naive to assume that we don't need titles and stereotypes and we should get to know each other based on conversation. It might be naive to assume that people might realize they have more in common with the people in the shul which they don't step foot into if only they didn't have a certain title. I am willing to admit that it probably is naive and we probably will never live in such a world. In the meantime I will hope that more people will develop an outlook to complex to fit in a drop down box and they will influence the people around them to do likewise. (Or maybe we should all band together and create our own yishuv...stam.)

So go out there and be complex. Enjoy the complimentary anxiety of not fitting in anywhere.

*Maybe one day I'll write a post about those assumptions, but that's beyond the scope of this particular rant.

Why I'm so behind on everything...

2006-08-15T22:50:00.001+03:00

The ADDeRabbi never fails to astonish me as he keeps his blog in tip top shape despite his approaching Aliyah date. So let me just say that SOME OF US are not so talented. SOME OF US are swamped with e-mails they must write, phone calls they must make, and books that languish unread. SOME OF US have so many things they intend to write on their blog, but have hardly had time to breath.

Technical Difficulties

2006-08-02T07:57:00.000+03:00

Until quite recently I had a snazzy counter at the bottom of my blog and a list of blogs I read on the side. Somehow, the two mysteriously disappeared and now I have had serious issues installing a new counter and out of sheer laziness have not re-written the outdated list of blogs I read.
That is all.

Update: Thank God, both problems now solved. All is well with the world.

TMeishar's Big Issue

2006-08-01T07:16:00.000+03:00

A dear friend of mine and I were once browsing in a used book store in Jerusalem when we happened upon a book entitled, "Through a Hole in the Sheet." ::blush:: Anyway, according to the blurb on its flap, the book was all about how Orthodox Jewish women are treated badly, are discriminated against, etc. The author was a previously Orthodox woman who had 'seen the light' and now wanted to spread awareness of what she perceived to be total injustice.
I should mention that said dear friend is not what I would call "Yeshivesh," (but she might call herself that for shidduch purposes) but she is significantly more right wing than me. So obviously we had a conversation about the merits of this woman's argument. She felt that the only person who would see Orthodoxy as discriminatory is clearly mistaken and viewing it as an outsider. I, however, resonated with the feelings of this woman and even nodded in agreement to some of the claims she made.
Don't get me wrong, I am a proud Orthodox woman, but I feel more than a little bit of bitterness to Halakha's approach to women.

I couldn't have said it better myself:

"The seriousness of the issue which Ross raises was made quite clear to me in a recent class I taught to Orthodox Jewish women taking their first steps in Talmud study. We interrupted our regular learning to consider the issue of women's obligations to study Torah. The sources, by our reading, not only defended, but encouraged women's study of any field of Torah. However, my students asked a set of questions to which I had no satisfactory answer. "We understand that we can and should study Torah. We do not understand why we need a special dispensation to do so. We do not understand why our Torah study is justified by the claim that it will defend us from punishment in a case of adultery! (Mishnah, Sotah 3:4) We do not see ourselves as exceptions to the general rule that most women are neither smart nor serious enough for Torah study!" (Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Talmud Torah 1:13).
I had, and still have, no adequate response."
- Rabbi Yoel Finkelman in his critique of Dr. Tamar Ross's book, "Expanding the Palace Torah: Orthodoxy and Feminism"

There are excuses that I have created to allow me to feel better about the issue - The Rabbis were really projecting onto Halakha because of the surrounding culture, Halakha was really more progressive in terms of giving women their rights, but it evolves slowly to complement our own day because that is the only way that the system can preserve itself, etc. But I too still have no adequate response to these issues.

Thoughts on the Haftara

2006-07-31T00:02:00.000+03:00

This past week's haftarah was especially powerful. Because it happens to be one of the nevuot that is more personally significant to me, I thought I might share a few ideas:

יְשַׁעְיָהוּ פרק א

א חֲזוֹן, יְשַׁעְיָהוּ בֶן-אָמוֹץ, אֲשֶׁר חָזָה, עַל-יְהוּדָה וִירוּשָׁלִָם--בִּימֵי עֻזִּיָּהוּ יוֹתָם אָחָז יְחִזְקִיָּהוּ, מַלְכֵי יְהוּדָה.	1 The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.
ב שִׁמְעוּ שָׁמַיִם וְהַאֲזִינִי אֶרֶץ, כִּי יְה וָה דִּבֵּר: בָּנִים גִּדַּלְתִּי וְרוֹמַמְתִּי, וְהֵם פָּשְׁעוּ בִי.	2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth, for the LORD hath spoken: Children I have reared, and brought up, and they have rebelled against Me.
ג יָדַע שׁוֹר קֹנֵהוּ, וַחֲמוֹר אֵבוּס בְּעָלָיו; יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא יָדַע, עַמִּי לֹא הִתְבּוֹנָן.	3 The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib; but Israel doth not know, My people doth not consider.
ד הוֹי גּוֹי חֹטֵא, עַם כֶּבֶד עָו‍ֹן--זֶרַע מְרֵעִים, בָּנִים מַשְׁחִיתִים; עָזְבוּ אֶת-יְה וָה, נִאֲצוּ אֶת-קְדוֹשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל--נָזֹרוּ אָחוֹר.	4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evil-doers, children that deal corruptly; they have forsaken the LORD, they have contemned the Holy One of Israel, they are turned away backward.
ה עַל מֶה תֻכּוּ עוֹד, תּוֹסִיפוּ סָרָה; כָּל-רֹאשׁ לָחֳלִי, וְכָל-לֵבָב דַּוָּי.	5 On what part will ye yet be stricken, seeing ye stray away more and more? The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint;
ו מִכַּף-רֶגֶל וְעַד-רֹאשׁ אֵין-בּוֹ מְתֹם, פֶּצַע וְחַבּוּרָה וּמַכָּה טְרִיָּה; לֹא-זֹרוּ וְלֹא חֻבָּשׁוּ, וְלֹא רֻכְּכָה בַּשָּׁמֶן.	6 From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and festering sores: they have not been pressed, neither bound up, neither mollified with oil.
ז אַרְצְכֶם שְׁמָמָה, עָרֵיכֶם שְׂרֻפוֹת אֵשׁ; אַדְמַתְכֶם, לְנֶגְדְּכֶם זָרִים אֹכְלִים אֹתָהּ, וּשְׁמָמָה, כְּמַהְפֵּכַת זָרִים.	7 Your country is desolate; your cities are burned with fire; your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by floods.
ח וְנוֹתְרָה בַת-צִיּוֹן, כְּסֻכָּה בְכָרֶם; כִּמְלוּנָה בְמִקְשָׁה, כְּעִיר נְצוּרָה.	8 And the daughter of Zion is left as a booth in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city.
ט לוּלֵי יְה וָה צְבָאוֹת, הוֹתִיר לָנוּ שָׂרִיד כִּמְעָט--כִּסְדֹם הָיִינוּ, לַעֲמֹרָה דָּמִינוּ.	9 Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, we should have been like unto Gomorrah.
י שִׁמְעוּ דְבַר-יְה וָה, קְצִינֵי סְדֹם; הַאֲזִינוּ תּוֹרַת אֱלֹהֵינוּ, עַם עֲמֹרָה.	10 Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.
יא לָמָּה-לִּי רֹב-זִבְחֵיכֶם יֹאמַר יְה וָה, שָׂבַעְתִּי עֹלוֹת אֵילִים וְחֵלֶב מְרִיאִים; וְדַם פָּרִים וּכְבָשִׂים וְעַתּוּדִים, לֹא חָפָצְתִּי.	11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me? saith the LORD; I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats.
יב כִּי תָבֹאוּ, לֵרָאוֹת פָּנָי--מִי-בִקֵּשׁ זֹאת מִיֶּדְכֶם, רְמֹס חֲצֵרָי.	12 When ye come to appear before Me, who hath required this at your hand, to trample My courts?
יג לֹא תוֹסִיפוּ, הָבִיא מִנְחַת-שָׁוְא--קְטֹרֶת תּוֹעֵבָה הִיא, לִי; חֹדֶשׁ וְשַׁבָּת קְרֹא מִקְרָא, לֹא-אוּכַל אָוֶן וַעֲצָרָה.	13 Bring no more vain oblations; it is an offering of abomination unto Me; new moon and sabbath, the holding of convocations--I cannot endure iniquity along with the solemn assembly.
יד חָדְשֵׁיכֶם וּמוֹעֲדֵיכֶם שָׂנְאָה נַפְשִׁי, הָיוּ עָלַי לָטֹרַח; נִלְאֵיתִי, נְשֹׂא.	14 Your new moons and your appointed seasons My soul hateth; they are a burden unto Me; I am weary to bear them.
טו וּבְפָרִשְׂכֶם כַּפֵּיכֶם, אַעְלִים עֵינַי מִכֶּם--גַּם כִּי-תַרְבּוּ תְפִלָּה, אֵינֶנִּי שֹׁמֵעַ: יְדֵיכֶם, דָּמִים מָלֵאוּ.	15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide Mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood.
טז רַחֲצוּ, הִזַּכּוּ--הָסִירוּ רֹעַ מַעַלְלֵיכֶם, מִנֶּגֶד עֵינָי: חִדְלוּ, הָרֵעַ.	16 Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings from before Mine eyes, cease to do evil;
יז לִמְדוּ הֵיטֵב דִּרְשׁוּ מִשְׁפָּט, אַשְּׁרוּ חָמוֹץ; שִׁפְטוּ יָתוֹם, רִיבוּ אַלְמָנָה.	17 Learn to do well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
יח לְכוּ-נָא וְנִוָּכְחָה, יֹאמַר יְה וָה; אִם-יִהְיוּ חֲטָאֵיכֶם כַּשָּׁנִים כַּשֶּׁלֶג יַלְבִּינוּ, אִם-יַאְדִּימוּ כַתּוֹלָע כַּצֶּמֶר יִהְיוּ.	18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD; though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
יט אִם-תֹּאבוּ, וּשְׁמַעְתֶּם--טוּב הָאָרֶץ, תֹּאכֵלוּ.	19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land;
כ וְאִם-תְּמָאֲנוּ, וּמְרִיתֶם--חֶרֶב תְּאֻכְּלוּ, כִּי פִּי יְהוָה דִּבֵּר.	20 But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword; for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken.
כא אֵיכָה הָיְתָה לְזוֹנָה, קִרְיָה נֶאֱמָנָה; מְלֵאֲתִי מִשְׁפָּט, צֶדֶק יָלִין בָּהּ--וְעַתָּה מְרַצְּחִים.	21 How is the faithful city become a harlot! She that was full of justice, righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers.
כב כַּסְפֵּךְ, הָיָה לְסִיגִים; סָבְאֵךְ, מָהוּל בַּמָּיִם.	22 Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water.
כג שָׂרַיִךְ סוֹרְרִים, וְחַבְרֵי גַּנָּבִים--כֻּלּוֹ אֹהֵב שֹׁחַד, וְרֹדֵף שַׁלְמֹנִים; יָתוֹם לֹא יִשְׁפֹּטוּ, וְרִיב אַלְמָנָה לֹא-יָבוֹא אֲלֵיהֶם.	23 Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves; every one loveth bribes, and followeth after rewards; they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them.
כד לָכֵן, נְאֻם הָאָדוֹן יְה וָה צְבָאוֹת--אֲבִיר, יִשְׂרָאֵל: הוֹי אֶנָּחֵם מִצָּרַי, וְאִנָּקְמָה מֵאוֹיְבָי.	24 Therefore saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts, the Mighty One of Israel: Ah, I will ease Me of Mine adversaries, and avenge Me of Mine enemies;
כה וְאָשִׁיבָה יָדִי עָלַיִךְ, וְאֶצְרֹף כַּבֹּר סִיגָיִךְ; וְאָסִירָה, כָּל-בְּדִילָיִךְ.	25 And I will turn My hand upon thee, and purge away thy dross as with lye, and will take away all thine alloy;
כו וְאָשִׁיבָה שֹׁפְטַיִךְ כְּבָרִאשֹׁנָה, וְיֹעֲצַיִךְ כְּבַתְּחִלָּה; אַחֲרֵי-כֵן, יִקָּרֵא לָךְ עִיר הַצֶּדֶק--קִרְיָה, נֶאֱמָנָה.	26 And I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning; afterward thou shalt be called The city of righteousness, the faithful city.
כז צִיּוֹן, בְּמִשְׁפָּט תִּפָּדֶה; וְשָׁבֶיהָ, בִּצְדָקָה.	27 Zion shall be redeemed with justice, and they that return of her with righteousness.

Realize that the haftarah is read to the tune of Eicha which hopefully only adds to the impact it makes on the audience, especially because of the very intense time we are currently in.

Surprisingly, the navi tells the people that destruction occurs not because people talk in shul or the women are not makpid enough in matters of tznius, but because of a lack of social justice: "Learn to do well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow."
In fact, God specifically despises the very approach that Judaism is about the ritual. The navi tells them that all their sacrifices, etc. are disgusting and burdensome if they are missing the key component of social justice.

I have previously touched on a possible connection between Sdom and Bnei Yisrael. God informing Avraham of his "mission statement" is immediately juxtaposed to Hashem's destroying Sdom - we must be better so as to influence those around us so that a society like Sdom does not arise again. By calling the people, "ye rulers of Sodom" and "ye people of Gomorrah," the navi is driving home the message in the sharpest way he can : you have sunken to the very depths from which you were meant to save the world.
Furthermore, he calls what the people are doing, "abandoning" God - service of God is not solely ritual, but also doing what he expects of us as a nation.

One of the brachot of the Amidah mimics verse 26, "Restore our judges as at the first, and our counsellors as at the beginning..." The bracha then ends, "Blessed are you...who loves righteousness and justice.

In a previous post I mentioned the difference between "Tzion" and other names of Yerushalayim. "Tzion" is a refernce to the lofty more metaphysical aspects of the city. It is not a coincidence, therefore that the closing passuk of the haftarah reffers to the city as Tzion as opposed to "Yerushalayim," "kiryah," "ir," etc. "Zion shall be redeemed with justice, and they that return of her with righteousness." - this passuk fits in perfectly with the idea that the Navi is trying to communicate. As opposed to what we might think, the main function of the city is not the Beit Hamikdash as much as the seat of Justice and Righteousness. ("...She that was full of justice, righteousness lodged in her...") Only if it fulfills this purpose is it "Tzion."

"Contact" and Why I Believe in God

2006-07-21T07:02:00.000+03:00

WARNING: I will ruin the movie for you. If you don't want me to stop reading right now.

How do I know that God exists?

We have all heard the classical proofs:

(1) Argument From Design - If you found a watch in the desert you would assume that it was made by a watchmaker. Similarly, when you see this beautiful mechanism, the world, it is logical to assume that it has a Maker.
(2) The Ontological Proof - God is the perfect being. As He is most perfect, He must have all perfections. If God lacked existence He would not be perfect, as He is perfect he must exist. (?!)
(3) The Cosmological Argument - Everything that exists has a cause and prior to every cause there must be one Unifying Cause.
(4) Universal Morality - All civilized cultures have emerged with a pretty standard moral code, they must have all developed from one Primary Source.
(5) My Personal Favorite (because it's even worse than the Ontological Argument) - Because you don't know everything in the world that DOES exist, it is illogical to assume that any one thing DOESN'T exist.*

To address this question the Rav approvingly quotes Kierkegaard in his "Lonely Man of Faith":
"Does the loving bride in the embrace of her beloved ask for proof that he is alive and real? Must the prayerful soul clinging in passionate love and ecstasy to her Beloved demonstrate that He exists?"

That pretty much sums up my own personal approach towards this question.

I think there's a subtle danger in a Belief in God that rests on proofs. Many of them are based on faulty logic and any belief that is based on this faulty logic is in extreme danger. Also, for every proof that you have of God, I can offer 10 disproves. Finally, belief based on proof is at best intellectual assent to the concept of some entity termed "God."

At the urging of my Rosh Chinuch, I recently watched the movie, "Contact."
To summarize in as little detail as possible: A woman spends her entire life trying to contact extra-terrestrial life. In the meantime she enters into what can only be called a pseudo-relationship with a very religious man who later becomes the religious advisor to the President (he ostensibly represents religious man). When the woman is questioned about her belief in God she answers that she can not believe in Him because there is no objective verifiable evidence that He exists (she ostensibly represents all atheists). She is constantly put at odds with this man throughout the film. Finally, the aliens contact humanity with a blueprint of a machine that will allow someone to travel to reach them. For our purposes, the woman's struggle throughout the movie to be allowed to head the project, ride in the ship, etc. is irrelevant. She is finally able to travel to these aliens, however the camera that is attached to her that is meant to document all her travels fails in the very beginning and shows only static. In the meantime, the main character experiences 18 hours of travel which climaxes with her meeting an alien who disguises himself as her father to make the experience easier for her. She then proceeds to wake up inside her travel pod and is told that 43 seperate cameras recorded her going straight through the machine and not actually leaving the Earth at all. A Congressional inquiry is started to ascertain whether the main character really saw anything that she insists she saw, or whether she hallucinated the entire thing. Finally the National Security Advisor asks her why she doesn't just withdraw her testimony and admit that nothing really happened. This is her answer:

"Because I can't.

I...I had an experience. I can't prove it, I can't even explain it, but everything that I know as a human being, everything that I am tells me that it was real.

I was given something wonderful, something that changed me forever. A vision of the universe that tells us undeniably how tiny and insignificant...and rare and precious we all are.

A vision that tells us that we belong to something that is greater than ourselves; that we are not, that none of us are alone. I wish...I....could share that. I wish that everyone, if even for one moment could feel that awe and humilty and that hope. But....that continues to be my wish."

Afterwards she leaves along with the religious man who makes the statement that he believes her bcause, like him, she is fueled by the same purpose - a quest for the truth.

Beautiful!

*I'll concede that this is more of a disproof of Atheism than a proof of God.

My Orthodoxy Test

2006-07-17T07:38:00.000+03:00

I took Lamed Zayin's Orthodoxy test and this is what I got:

Left Wing Modern Orthodox: 85%
Right Wing Modern Orthodox: 82%
Left Wing Yeshivish/Chareidi: 26%
Right Wing Yeshivish/Chareidi: 3%

This means you're: Left Wing Modern O.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does it mean?

You're religious, but you like pushing the edge. We must modernize to survive! You hate comparisons to the early maskilim and to right wing Conservatives even though you secretly idealize Saul Lieberman. Why can't everyone else in Orthodoxy get a clue?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison Summary:

Of the 6180 unique test takers...

For: Left Wing Modern Orthodox

1% scored higher, and
99% scored lower.

The average Raw Score is: 29.0, your's was: 70.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For: Right Wing Modern Orthodox

10% scored higher, and
88% scored lower.

The average Raw Score is: 43.8, your's was: 60.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For: Left Wing Yeshivish/Chareidi

96% scored higher, and
3% scored lower.

The average Raw Score is: 39.9, your's was: 18.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For: Right Wing Yeshivish/Chareidi

96% scored higher, and
2% scored lower.

The average Raw Score is: 25.4, your's was: 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Schocker! Despite my mostly Chareidi upbringing and having gone to MMY, they haven't managed to purge me of my apikoris inclinations.

Personal Discoveries About Education

2006-07-07T04:00:00.000+03:00

I have really been wanting to finish the analysis I started last year on Mizmor Shir Leyom HaShabbat. Fortunately or unfortunately, I have been swamped with other work and once again my blog has been shoved to the back burner.
Also, I am beginning to wonder at the value of writing my thoughts out. Reading many of the things I wrote when I first started this blog, I realize how many of my opinions have changed. But then again, it could just be that the Brisker derech has influenced me more this year then I care to admit.

Anyway, the past few weeks I have been in an informal educational setting. While I have been involved in chinuch in other capacities, I am finding this job so completely and utterly different than the positions I previously held. There is one issue that I have been struggling with.

Sotah 20a is a Gemarah that is famous for its implications in terms of Torah study for women, to the extent that I believe that some of its other messages are largely ignored. The discussion is about a women who is suspected of having cheated on her husband, the Kohen mixes a drink that carries out a gruesome punishment. However, if she has a zchut (merit), the punishment is delayed. Because of this Ben Azzai says that a man is obligated to teach his daughter Torah, while Rav Eliezer disagrees and says that this proves that this teaches that a man is prohibited from teaching his daughter Torah. It is possible that these two Amoraim are arguing on fundamental pedagogic principle. Rav Eliezer is aware that a woman might abuse this knowledged and therefore decides that it is forbidden to give her that knowledge, while Ben Azzai, recognizing the harm of providing her with this information, thinks that it is worth it.
Another example of this is the Yitro narrative. Is Moshe not intelligent enough to understand that delegating his work is a better way to judge the people? Perhaps Moshe was worried about what would happen once knowledge was given to the people. His concerns are lended legitimacy when Korach rebels, claiming that the entire Edah is holy. Furthermore, many of the Midrashim have Korach posing his claim couched in Halakhic arguments. For example, one Midrash states that Korach asked why a garment made of tchelet still required a tchelet string.

This issue became an issue for me when 2 of my girls asked me to discuss with them negiah shelo bederech chibah. I was perfectly aware that anything I taught them on the matter could be manipulated and abused. I struggled for a while over what I would share and what I wouldn't and whether or not I should even be filtering it at all. Ultimately, I ended up sharing with them everything I found on the matter while presenting the material in a way that clearly communicated my own opinions. I am still not sure whether I did the right thing.

Bikkurim Baskets

2006-06-14T18:01:00.000+03:00

Well I'm back. :-( I will be back in Israel in 8 weeks and a day, but who's counting.

On my way to the Kotel on Shavuous my friend, chavruta, and in some ways my rebbe, shared this dvar Torah with me. So, in an attempt to remain connected to MMY and Torat Eretz Yisrael, I'm going to share it with you.

משנה ביכורים ג;ח
העשירים מביאין את ביכוריהם בקלתות של כסף ושל זהב, והעניים מביאין אותן בסלי נצרים של ערבה קלופה; הסלים והביכורים ניתנין לכוהנים.

Loosely translated: The rich bring their bikkurim in containers of silver and of gold, and the poor bring theirs in baskets of straw, and the baskets and the bikkurim are given to the Kohanim.

The bringer of bikkurim is obligated to bring them in a container of some sort ("וְשַׂמְתָּ בַטֶּנֶא"), however only the poor give the container along with their bikkurim.
The Sifrei explains this phenomenon:"בשביל לזכות מתנה לכהן" (loosely translated as, 'to improve the gift of the kohen.') This seems counterintuitive, if you want to improve the gift to the Kohen, you should give them the silver and gold baskets!

There are a couple of ways to understand this Sifrei:
1)Based on this Sifrei, the Tosfot Yom Yov, as explained by the Kehati, explains that because the poor have so little of their own, it stands to reason that they are also bringing very little as bikkurim. Therefore, by giving the basket as well, there is more value to their gift.
2)My friend had a bit of a chiddush based on the Malbim. She explained that the rich people who brought containers of silver and gold had only to buy them. However, the poor people had to put in the extra effort to make their own baskets. Instead of monetary value, we see this extra effort as increasing the value of the gift.

Rabbi...

2006-05-16T23:33:00.000+03:00

Rabbi Katz, I couldn't resist...this one's especially for you.
Michlelet Mevaseret Yerushalayim
Rabbi David Katz
Frumteens

Vehamayvin yavin!

Yehoshua

2006-04-12T00:01:00.000+03:00

I know that I haven't written in months and that probably no one will read this. However, I've been doing Nach Yomi and found some excellent material on Yehoshua that I was hoping to further develop. This is very rough and not well written, but i would love to hear your ideas on this.

There are 4 elements of Yetziat Mitzrayim that are repeated in the beginning of Sefer Yehoshua. Robert Alter says in his "The Art of Biblical Narrative" (and this should be fairly obvious) that whenever basic elements of one story are repeated in another narrative, one can find immense significance within the contrasts of the two.

The four elements are:

1) Kriah –
In contrast to Kriat Yam Suf, where Bnei Yisrael had no idea what was about to happen, here Yehoshua specifically tells them. Furthermore, this is not a miracle that results from necessity (i.e. Bnei Yisrael are on the verge of annihilation). Also, here, a matzeivah is built. In the kriah, the aron plays a pivotal role; in fact it appears in the text no less than 14 times. Also, at the Yarden, the nation is viewed as a major actor: Kohanim carrying the Aron cause kriah, one representative from each shevet is chosen to build the matzeiva, "ha'am" and "goy" appear together a total of 10 times.
There are two things that tie the two miracles together, clearly implying that the two are meant to be associated despite their differences. First, the command to build the matzevah is introduced: "ki yeshalun beneichem machar lemor, 'mah ha'avanim ha'eleh lachem.'" Compare that to the command to do the Pesach: "ki yomru eleicham beneichem, 'mah ha'avodah hazot lachem.'"(Shmot 12;26) Also, at the end of the kriah the navi points out, "Vayiru oto ka'asher ra'uh et Moshe kol yemei chayav." And, in fact, one might recall that at Kriat Yam Suf, Moshe was elevated to a new status in the eyes of the nation.

2) Brit Milah –
This one is a bit more esoteric in that it is not explicitly mentioned in the text. However, Rashi gleans an en masse Brit Milah from the words, "mol et Bnei Yisrael shenit" (Yehoshua 5;2) It seems that the text specifically implies this from the following psukim, "ki mulim hayu kol ha'am hayotzim…" If we assume that Rashi's assumption is pshat, and it seems very likely that it is, it is a very significant contrast that there it is only implied while here it is explicitly stated and commanded by God.

3) Pesach –
The text itself connects this back to Yetziat Mitzrayim, "hayom ga'alti et cherpat Mitzrayim me'aleichem." (Yehosua 5;9) Compared to the first Pesach, this one is pretty anti-climactic. One thing of definite interest to note is that at the first Pesach it says, "vahaya ki tavo'uh el ha'aretz asher Hashem noten lachem ka'asher diber veshamartem et ha'avodah hazot." (Shmot 12;25) and in Yehoshua this Pesach marks the end of the fallimg of the maan and the beginning of "vayochlu mitvu'at Eretz Cana'an."

4) Malach –
Towards the end of Parshat Mishpatim Hashem promises that an angel will accompany the Jews on their travels. According to the text this angel is a representative of God who must be listened to, etc. Presumably, the angel accompanies the camp from that point onward, but God continues to communicate with Moshe directly. When the angel appears to Yehoshua he says, "Sal na'aleicha me'al raglecha ki hamakom asher atah omed alav kadosh hu." (Yehoshua 5; 15) That should be recognizable as the statement that Hashem made to Moshe at the sneh, when He spoke to him directly.

I believe that the contrasts paint a definite picture of the transition from Moshe's era to Yehoshua.

The first element, that of kriah, has definite implications about the nature of the nation in contrast to its predecessors. The nation standing on the banks of the Yam Suf could hardly be called that – they were a group of redeemed slaves without any specific structure. The nation on the banks of the Yarden are actually a nation – they know the miracle will happen, not because their fate as slaves must be intercepted, but because they have come to expect a miraculous existence. Perhaps signifying this is the building of the matzeivah. The matzeivah, according to Rav Hirsch, is about thanking God for his action which is wholly His through something which is wholly His. Therefore, the matzeivah is unadulterated by as opposed to the built mizbe'ach. Perhaps by stressing the role of the people in the miracle, the navi communicates that they are, in fact, now a people. We also see this in the role that the Aron played, the generation that was redeemed from Egypt didn't have an Aron, but these are a people who have a Mishkan which they have camped around for the past few decades – hardly a haphazard conglomeration of redeemed slaves.

The second element further supports the idea that this nation is so completely different from their parents' nation. They have a specific command to make a brit milah. Perhaps this is symbolic of their general "specific command" lifestyle. These are post-Sinai people, while their parents were there at the mountain.

This Pesach marks a definite transition from a miraculous existence symbolized by the mann falling. These people are going to live in a world of "tvu'at Eretz Cana'an."

Finally, the nature of the leadership is also drastically different. The malach tells Yehoshua what to do what Moshe did when God Himself spoke to him. This marks a definite downgrade in the level of nevuah that the leader is experiencing.

Update...Don't Get Too Excited

2005-10-20T22:27:00.000+02:00

I finally manage to get free and unlimited internet access (one of the perks of having family in Israel, albeit an hour's bus ride away) so I thought I might catch up with any of you that may still check back. Yes I SHOULD be finishing my analysis of "Mizmor Shir Leyom HaShabbat," but that will have to come some other time.

School is going really really well. Since I get to pick all my own classes, I love every single one. Being surrounded with people intently focused on growing and shteiging really helps in creating an atmosphere conducive to personal growth.

The most astounding thing of all is living in Eretz Yisrael. Every day that passes only further convinces me that I never want to live outside of this country again. And if you think I am only saying that because I'm in my little Torah bubble in the middle of a Chareidi Yerushalayim neighborhood, I should tell you that I am currently sitting at a desktop in Tel Aviv in the house of my "chiloni" aunt.

Just a few choice samplings of what it's like to live in Eretz Yisrael...
(1)On Erev Rosh Hashana you can jump on a bus and be walking towards the Kotel only 35 minutes later.
(2)You can say the part in "Ledavid Hashem Ori" about your enemies surrounding you and taking cover in God's sanctuary as you stand at the Kotel and hear firecrackers from the Palestinians celebrating Ramadan.
(3)The bus driver wishes you a Shabbat Shalom despite his having no outward appearances of being at all religious.
(4)Kind of like the "Happy Holidays" coke cans that I have become accustomed to seing around Christmas time, "Shana Tova" appears on sodas sometime in the middle of Elul.
(5)You can walk up to a waitress in a restaraunt in Tel Aviv and ask her if the food is kosher, and even though she may say no she knows what the heck you're talking about.
(6)On Shabbat the streets are crawling with youth wearing Ezra and Bnei Akiva tilboshot.
...And that's a teeny tiny sampling.

Moadim Lesimcha.

P.S. Another cool tidbit: In the past month I have heard shiurim from Rabbis Ahron Lichtenstein, Moshe Lichtenstein, Elon and Riskin. Gotta love Torat Eretz Yisrael!

Lehitra'ot

2005-09-04T06:35:00.000+03:00

I am writing this post to say "lehitra'ot." Literally "lehitra'ot" means, "to be seen." Israelis say it upon departing from each other. This expression is a cross between "see ya later" and "good-bye."
Many of you know that I will be leaving for Israel soon. I am not sure what the year has in store for me, but I know that I want to spend it completely immersed in Eretz Yisrael and Torat Yisrael. Perhaps this is good-bye, perhaps this is an extended hiatus, perhaps I will visit a few times during the course of the year. I prefer to think of this as lehitra'ot.

The time that I have spent blogging has seen quite a bit of change in the way I view things and express myself. (I literally cringed when reading some of my earlier stuff.) I began blogging to flex my pedagogical muscles and I am glad to say that, thanks to you, I have seen a marked improvement. Many of you haveinspired me and introduced new points of view to my weltanschauung.

I have learned a tremendous amount from so many of you. I have decided to leave links to some real Torah. People who have left an impression on the way I think despite my short exposure to their thought.

ADDeRabbi (A contrarion Rabbi par excellance.)

Mississippi Fred MacDowell (Always an insightful and fresh approach.)

Steg (He may not really know how to be controversial, but he has some pretty interesting ideas.)

Gil Student (His breadth and depth of knowledge make his site a pleasure to read.)

Kaspit (A really well-rounded Torah scholar.)

I am lucky to have gotten to know these Talmidei Chachamim, albeit in an unordinary way.

The following two sites are ones that do not really belong in the above category. I have learned a lot from them about life and Israel (and blogging) and count myself among their regular readers:

David Bogner's Treppenwitz (A phenomenal ba'al chessed who expresses himself so beautifully.)
The Rabbi's Kid (A brilliant individual...who really wants a girl with "oomph." - I couldn't help myself.)

So this is lehitra'ot. I'm not sure when I'm going to finish writing on Psalms 92 or write the countless list of posts that are formulating in my head. Be sure to stop by, I have a hard time leaving things unfinished.

TM

It's All Relative

2005-09-01T02:39:00.000+03:00

Yesterday a friend and I went to visit another friend of mine at her school, a college campus roughly 45 minutes away from where we live. (Actually my other friend went to visit the school, I went to visit my friend. They don't know each other.) To limit the confusion as I retell an incident that occurred there, I'll call them Hashkafa-less (girl who accompanied me) and Plonit (girl on campus.)

I knew I was going to spend a considerable amount of time there, so before we left I made three tuna fish salad sandwiches - I felt like such a mommy. We shared our tuna fish salad sandwiches - the three of us, who knows where this is going? When we finished, the question of zimun came up. Because Plonit doesn't know Hashkafa-less and Hashkafa-less is not the kind of person who speaks up, I told Plonit that there is a distinct possibility that Hashkafa-less would not feel comfortable joining in a zimun. Hashkafa-less immediately jumped in - she was all for it.
I was surprised, apparently I didn't hide it so well. To be sure, I was not surprised that she was willing to do it, she always surprises me in her observance of religious ritual because she doesn't identify with any specific school of thought. My surprise stemmed from the fact that she had an answer readily available and didn't have to ponder it. It's unlike her to have thought through an approach to Women's issues, for example. Once she is confronted with something on a practical level, she is perfectly competent at deciding what to do, but she's not a pre-emptive ponderer. So I was surprised that she had a position on women's joining in zimun.
When I explained to her why I was surprised, she explained that it had come up when she went on Michlelet (a summer program in Israel for high school girls) and they usually decided that since they didn't really know what to do, they should just not do zimun. Plonit laughed and said, "Safek de'Oraita lechumra, safek derabbanan lekula."
Then I responded that it all depends on your perspective. For girls like Plonit and myself we view it as a possibility that it is a chiyuv and therefore "lechumra" would be doing it. On the other hand, Hashkafa-less's counterparts view it from the perspective that it might be assur to do it and therefore "lechumra" would be not doing it. (Doesn't this explanation make me sound like I went to Gush?)

The reason that I am telling this story is because an interesting thought occured to me as a result of what happened. Any inividual studying any text enters with their own personal biases. Even if they are willing to shed their preconceived notions for the sake of intellectual integrity, the latent remains of previous lines of thought are still embedded in their mind - even on a subconcious level.

The implications from a pedagogical perspective (it always goes back to that for me) is fascinating. How soon do we want to expose our children to hashkafa - whether our own, others, or any at all. Maybe we should have our students enter high school with a philosophical tabula rasa so that their experiences of real high level learning is not tainted. Considering the fact that that is pretty much an impossibility, perhaps our schools should be taught by individuals from every walk of life and filled with diverse students. That's probably an impossibility too.

Is there any way to raise a child with the potential for an unbiased approach towards Torah?

Psalms 92..."Mizmor Shir Leyom HaShabbat" II

2005-08-31T18:44:00.000+03:00

Let's take a slight detour from the text at hand to discuss Shabbat. What is its purpose? Rav Ezra Bick of Yeshivat Har Etzion once offered a compelling suggestion that has been turning in my head since I read it years ago.

What is a melacha? The classical translation would be "work." But, as any good non-shomer Shabbat will tell you, "it's not hard work to flick a light switch!" They would be right.
The mishna (Masechet Shabbat 7;2) provides the list of all 39 of the melachot. A choice few: sowing, plowing, baking, shearing wool, painting - again, this is only a few. It seems clear that the actions listed are not labor as much as they are creative behavior. A cursory glance shows something fascinating, each melacha is part of a process of creation. For example: slecting, grinding, sifting, kneading, baking. (To illustrate this concept of creative process take a look at the children's book "The 39 Avoth Melacha of Shabbath" by Rabbi Baruch Chait. In my opinion this is one of the greatest Jewish childrens' books available today.)

So, what meaning can be gleaned from the idea that the high point of our week is the cessation of creative activity? The classical answer would be that we are imitating God - just as He "rested," we should rest. I have trouble with that explanation. That is because imitatio Dei in Judaism is defined by action not inaction. Case in point:

מאי דכתיב (דברים יג) אחרי ה' אלהיכם תלכו וכי אפשר לו לאדם להלך אחר שכינה והלא כבר נאמר (דברים ד) כי ה' אלהיך אש אוכלה הוא אלא להלך אחר מדותיו של הקב"ה מה הוא מלביש ערומים דכתיב (בראשית ג) ויעש ה' אלהים לאדם ולאשתו כתנות עור וילבישם אף אתה הלבש ערומים הקב"ה ביקר חולים דכתיב (בראשית יח) וירא אליו ה' באלוני ממרא אף אתה בקר חולים הקב"ה ניחם אבלים דכתיב (בראשית כה) ויהי אחרי מות אברהם ויברך אלהים את יצחק בנו אף אתה נחם אבלים הקב"ה
קבר מתים דכתיב (דברים לד) ויקבר אותו בגיא אף אתה קבור מתים

What does it mean, 'After the Lord your God you shall walk' (Devarim 13:5)? Can a person indeed walk after the Divine Presence? Does it not say, 'For the Lord your God is a consuming fire' (Devarim 4:24)? Rather, walk after [i.e. emulate] His qualities. Just as He clothes the naked, as it says, (Bereshit 3) "and God the Lord made for man and his wife a garment of leather and he clothed them," so should you clothe the naked. The Holy One Blessed Be He visited the sick as it says, (Bereshit 18) "and He appeared to Him, God, in Elon Mamreh," so should you visit the sick. The Holy One Blessed Be He comforted mourners as it says, (Bereshit 25) "and it was after the death of Avraham, and the Lord blessed Yitzchak his son," so should you comfort the mourners. The Holy One Blessed Be He buries the dead as it says, (Dvarim 34) "and He buried him in Gi'ah," so should you bury the dead.

Action, not inaction is the way through which we emulate God.

Rav Bick writes:
"The cessation of work does not commemorate only God's cessation of work on the seventh day, but rather the entire process of creation, all six days, up until its completion on the seventh day. Shabbat is, in the words we recite in kiddush every Friday night, "a remembrance of the act of creation." We desist from creating in order to testify that "in six days God created the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He ceased and rested." In other words, by abstaining from creativity for one day a week, we testify that God is the ultimate creator, that the world, despite our contribution, is really His, and that our efforts to imitate Him throughout the week are not attempts to supplant Him, but rather to extend, and continue within Divine providence, the Divine creativity. We are not celebrating rest as the goal of human life, but recognizing the divine source and the heavenly nature of creativity, thereby in effect asserting the true value of human creativity. Without Shabbat, we are likely to view our accomplishments as independently valuable, to begin to worship ourselves and our achievements in the manner of the nineteenth-century humanists, to view the world as ours to do with as we see fit, and to use Man as the measure of all value. Resting on Shabbat leaves the world in the hands of God - as the midrash said, He continues to bring rain and move the winds - thereby ensuring that our creative actions and accomplishments during the week will be genuinely valuable, by being rooted in the ultimate source of value and creation. The challenge to be creative is, according to the message of Shabbat, an invitation to be the PARTNER of God in continuing Creation. This does not limit human creativity; it raises to the level of genuine creativity, as a continuation of the divine activity. Only a measure of humility vis-a-vis man's domination of the world can grant man the power and the ability to really change the world."

However, he finds that explanation wanting. Firstly because it is clear that the Sages viewed a Shabbat-type existance as the goal for humanity. Shabbat is treated as a metaphor for a post Messianic world, etc. However, Shabbat divorced from the activity of the six previous days, one extended Shabbat, would be of little use for humanity. The state of affairs would be equivalent to those befor God created the world at all. Another issue is that not all creative work is prohibited. Torah learning, viewed as a primary form of creative activity is not only permitted but encouraged. Another creative act that is not only permitted but encouraged is the mitzvah of procreation.

Using the previous suggestion as a springboard, we can understand how not being creative is relevant to Shabbat:
"One becomes creative only by engaging in creative actions, by engaging the world and the environment and trying to mold and change it. Talent, present potentially in a child, will go nowhere it is not actively exercised, if the child does not engage his talent and confront it with the material of the outside world. One must confront the outside world in order to discover oneself - in fact, in order to have a self at all.
"Ultimately, however, creativity is valued not for the things created, not for the buildings built or the tapestries woven, but for the personality which develops, for the unleashing of creative powers within the individual. This, then, is the relationship between the six days of the week and Shabbat. Six days shall you work, six days you actively engage your powers in changing the world, in using raw materials, in interacting with THINGS outside yourself. But on the seventh day, Shabbat! No more outside materials, no changing the world. On this day, you have to see what has happened to you inside, how much creative potential is active within, how much more you have grown.
"What would happen if six days of work were followed with six more days, and six more, without a break? If one is always expressing one's creativity outward, always depending on material objects to objectify one's creativity, then there remains no core of personality which lives that creativity. How often do we see someone who pours himself out in projects, in monuments, in buildings, and remains inwardly a hollow shell. By being totally outward-directed, by investing THINGS with value, the inner soul, the true measure of the image of God, becomes vitiated, losing its transcendence to the static, limited value of natural objects. By always acting, doing, being busy, experiencing the interaction with the outside world, the personality has never had a chance to experience itself."

Shabbat emerges as a day of evaluation and introspection, to view yourself and your behavior through a new lense. This is essential in understanding the point of view of the Mizmor and the message it conveys.

Psalms 92..."Mizmor Shir Leyom HaShabbat"

2005-08-31T08:28:00.000+03:00

Tehillim is one of my favorite Sifrei Tanach. I love studying it. One of my favorites prakim in Tehillim also happens to be "Mizmor shir leyom haShabbat," otherwise known as Chapter 92.

In examining this perek, I will first take a stab at translating it and effectively preserving its meaning, as well as breaking it into stanzas.

Non-stanza A:
(1) A mizmor shir for the Sabbath day.

Stanza B:
(2) It is good to give thanks to God and to sing to Your lofty name.
(3) To tell, in the morning, [of] Your kindness, and Your emunah at night.
(4) Accompanied by a ashor, accompanied by a nevel, accompanied by the sounds of a kinor.
(5) Because You have made me happy, God, through Your actions, in the works of Your hands I will exult.
(6) How great are Your actions oh God, very deep are Your thoughts.
(7) An ignoramous will not know it, and an idiot will not understand this.
(8) In the sprouting up of the wicked like grass and go flourish all the behaviors of iniquity - to be destroyed forever and ever.

Stanza C:
(9) And You are exalted forever God.

Stanza D:
(10) Because behold Your enemies God - because behold Your enemies will be destroyed, will be seperated all the behaviors of iniquity.
(11) And You have lifted, like a re'em, my horns, have anointed me with rich oil.
(12) And my eyes have viewed those who hate me, in the rising up against me have evil-doers my ears have heard.
(13) A pious individual like a palm blossoms, like a cedar in the Lebanon will grow.
(14) Those planted in the house of God, in the courtyards of our Lord, will blossom.
(15) Still in old age shall they bring forth fruit, sappy and rich they will be.
(16) To tell that righteous (KI YASHAR!) is God, my rock, and there is no iniquity in him.

Translation Notes:

As always, I have translared the "YHVH" as "God" and "Elokim" as "Lord."

A "mizmor shir" - is a specific kind of song, something quite difficult to specify.

In verse 3 the translation posed some difficulties. "Emunatcha" here is usually translated as faithfulness, but I would opt for a more Tanachi use of the word - support. (See Shmot's version of the battle with Amalek and Megillat Esther.)

The italicized words in verse 4 refer to different kinds of instruments. Every commentator seems to have a different take on the instruments and even how many are listed (2 Jews, 3 opinions) so I decided not to dabble in machloket...oh and also a discussion of biblical musical instruments is beyond the scope of this post.

The "re'em" in verse 11 is a kind of ox, but I don't know the exact translation and I didn't want to run the risk of Torah distortion.

Additional Notes:

In the breakdown of stanzas, I have chosen not to include the superscription - hence, non-stanza A.

Notice that Stanza C becomes the fulcrum of the entire perek.

The text suggests that it be broken down as I have done it. Each side of the fulcrum verse is exactly 7 psukim - significant number. Furthermore, each side has three mentions of "YHVH."

**The breakdown of the perek into stanzas was originally the idea of Rav Yitzchak Etshalom, with slight personal changes. See torah.org for further detail.

I hope I will have the opportunity to conclude this analysis before I leave for Israel.

Hmmm...

2005-08-24T18:36:00.000+03:00

I got a good laugh out of this, maybe you will too.
Welcome random guy from Hong Kong (gotta love counter statistics) - I bet he never came here again.

From the Comment's Section

2005-08-24T17:52:00.000+03:00

I wrote this in response to some comments on a previous post. I know that much of it has been expressed previously, but I thought it would still be worth it to post it up here.

Now to cut to the heart of the problem:

Let's say you teach a child that on Shabbat there are things that we do not do. For the sake of simplicity you label all those things as "muktzah." From the time that they are very young they are raised with the idea that they can't touch muktzah - wrong, you can't move it; they can't turn on the light because it's muktzah - actually, it's a melacha; etc. However, it is actually better to create a simplistic workable framework to teach little children about how to observe Shabbat. Later on in life you intend to sort the details out for them (unfortunately not enough people actually learn these halachot correctly and stay with the six year old version, but that's another issue alltogether), but now when they are young you want to raise them with a certain understanding of Shabbat. That's fine because, although not ideal, it is necessary. Shabbat needs to be observed and that's the only way to make it work.
Now, let's pick a different set of halachot - shchita for example. Let's create a "key phrase" under which all shchita related minutae fall and simplify it to the point where there are many falsities mixed in with the truth. The result: your six year old knows hilchot shchita the way he knows hilchot Shabbat. However, the main distinction lies in the fact that it was absolutely necessary for the child to have some primitive understanding of hilchot Shabbat, while teaching him flawed hilchot shchita was an unecessary distortion of Torah. See the difference?
Vehanimshal: Midrash is among the many disciplines in Torah study. Like hilchot shchita it is slightly more complex than what your typical six year old can comprehend. Also like hilchot shchita, there is no necessity for the child to learn it. By teaching it to them on a simplistic level you are distorting Torah for no apparent reason.

Now phase two of the problem:
One thing that teachers do when they teach midrash to young children is effectively weave it into the story line. It makes for a much sweeter fairy tale, but an even greater distortion of Torah. Now, not only has the teacher made the drash mundane and simplistic, but he has also ruined the pshat. A majority of children grow up unable to draw any distinction between the pshat and the drash. Don't believe me? Ask someone to tell you the story of Megillat Esther. (You may want to look it over yourself first and see how many midrashim have snuck into your mental megillah.) So they grow up and they don't understand the pshat of the story and they don't understand the midrash. Why?! Because teachers have decided that the pshat is so mundane, so rigid that our children, influenced by The Little Mermaid and Sesame Street just won't love Torah if no one's arm stretches like a superhero.

Which leads me to another very troubling aspect:
Do we really want individuals who find Torah so boring teaching our children? If someone needs a dose of fairy tales in their Torah to make it more interesting and digestible, maybe they are not people who are fit to teach Torah at all. I should hope that the people we hire as teachers are those individuals who are so immersed in Torah themselves that they exude excitement when learning it and when teaching it so that they don't need to be "entertained." Otherwise, what kind of role models are they anyway?

The Forgotten Ikkar

2005-08-24T01:05:00.000+03:00

Chatzot of the day after Tisha Be'av has passed. That means that long hot showers have been taken, clothes washed, beards shaved, our lives are back to normal (or as normal as they get). The question is, have lessons been forgotten? It is my belief that the seven weeks of consolation in which we find ourselves are geared towards inculcating the lessons learned during the three weeks and Tisha Be'av into our superstructures of knowledge. What better time then to speak of the forgotten ikkar?

No, this has nothing to do with the ikkarei ha'emunah. However, I do think it is important to review this fundamental (ikkar) of Judasim. You can't be a frum Jew without it.

After reading this post by the ADDeRabbi (let's see how many times I can link to him in one post!), my friend (yes Rabbi, that one), had an out burst in which she said something to the effect of:
'See? This is just another example of Orthodox Jews and their skewed priorities. So many things in davening are derabbanan derabbanan derabbanan, Maariv is like a minhag, but 'be nice to orphans and widows' shows up like 100 times in the Torah and let's frown on women when they say kaddish.'
(Can you see why we're friends?)

Her outburst perfectly articulated my apprehension for the future of Orthodox Jewry. Piety has come to be identified with external trappings and bein adam lamakom than bein adam lechavero. A review of classical Jewish sources, if anyone would bother to look, would easily show just how backwards that is.

At the advent of the three weeks I wrote a post that described a scene in Zecharaya. In a nutshell, the navi suggests that fasts are meant to cause serious introspection on personal changes necessary to fix the destruction of the Bet Hamikdash. He then offers suggestions of specific things to "take on" to become more religiously devout. Lest you think his suggestion is stop listening to "Goyish" music, let me tell you it is not.

What he DOES say:

אֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים, אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשׂוּ: דַּבְּרוּ אֱמֶת, אִישׁ אֶת-רֵעֵהוּ אֱמֶת וּמִשְׁפַּט שָׁלוֹם, שִׁפְטוּ בְּשַׁעֲרֵיכֶ וְאִישׁ אֶת-רָעַת רֵעֵהוּ, אַל-תַּחְשְׁבוּ בִּלְבַבְכֶם, וּשְׁבֻעַת שֶׁקֶר, אַל-תֶּאֱהָבוּ: כִּי אֶת-כָּל-אֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר שָׂנֵתִי נְאֻם ה

These are the things that ye shall do: Speak ye every man the truth with his neighbour; execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates; and let none of you devise evil in your hearts against his neighbour; and love no false oath; for all these are things that I hate, saith the LORD.'(8;16-17)

I heard the following drash from Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb on Tisha Be'Av. It is particularly powerful because of its strong wording and imagery. Furthermore, it perfectly depicts the skewed priorities of which my friend was speaking:

בליל תשעה באב נכנס אברהם אבינו לבית קודש הקדשים אחזו הקב"ה בידו והוה מטייל בו ארוכות וקצרות. אמר ליה הקב"ה: מה לידידי בביתי. אמר: רבוני, בני היכן הם? אמר ליה: חטאו והגליתם בין האומות. אמר ליה: לא היו בהם צדיקים? אמר ליה:...היו שמחים במפלתם אלו על אלו - נ"א: היו שונאים זה את זה

On the night of Tisha Be'Av, our father Avraham entered the holy of holies. The Holy One Blessed is He grasped his hand and walked back and forth with him. God said to him: What brings my beloved to my house? He (Avraham) said: My master, where are my children? He (God) said to him: They sinned so I have exiled them among the nations. He (Avraham) said to Him: And there were no tzaddikim among them? He (God) responded: ...they were happy over each other's downfalls. - Another version: they hated one another. (Eicha Rabbati 1;21)

This Midrash has vast implications beyond the superficial reading - maybe for later. For now, the implications are clear. Hashem does not respond by telling Avraham that there were no tzaddikim, the answer is that they had issues when it came to interpersonal skills. That is not the only midrash of that genre.

Hopefully, these seven weeks of consolation become seven weeks of consoling one another. Perhaps that is not the origin of the time period, but it is very fitting that we take the opportunity to reach out to each other during this time.

Midrashim IV - Within Reach

2005-08-18T17:55:00.001+03:00

[I was forced to repost this because of annoying spam comments.]

How this particular Midrash got so famous is beyond me. Every Jewish kid I know who went to an Orthodox Elementary school knows this famous story and has probably done a cutesy little art project on it in kindergarten. The thing that baffles me is that, while this Midrash is quoted by Rashi, he clearly states that it is NOT pshat. So why do children come home knowing this story? I don't know, but they are CLEARLY missing the point.

Setting the scene: Paro has decreed that all males born to Jewish mothers should be cast into the Nile. After hiding him for three months, Moshe's mother realizes that her options are few. She makes a very difficult decision. After crafting a special ark, she places the baby in the Nile. Then...

וַתֵּרֶד בַּת-פַּרְעֹה לִרְחֹץ עַל-הַיְאֹר, וְנַעֲרֹתֶיהָ הֹלְכֹת עַל-יַד הַיְאֹר; וַתֵּרֶא אֶת-הַתֵּבָה בְּתוֹך
(Shmot 2;5) הַסּוּף, וַתִּשְׁלַח אֶת-אֲמָתָהּ וַתִּקָּחֶהָ

Translation: And the daughter of Paro descended to bathe in the Nile, and her maidens are walking along the Nile and she saw the ark amongst the reeds and she sent her ??? to take it.

"אֲמָתָהּ" can be translated in a variety of ways. The two that the Gmarah employs (Rav Yehuda and Rav Nechemiah in Sotah 12b) are arm and handmaid. Both pose textual difficulties. If it is her handmaid why does the pasuk change its wording? The beginning of the pasuk calls them "נַעֲרֹתֶיהָ" and now, using a completely different root, "אֲמָתָהּ." Furthermore, "שפחתה" is a more common way to refer to maids. The Gmarah adds that her arm didn't just reach out, it STRETCHED so that she would be able to reach the ark. However, if it is her arm why not use the more common wording of "ידה?"
Assuming that the world runs pretty naturally and supernatural occurences happen few and far between, it seems safe to posit that the pshat is that the daughter of Paroh sent a person and not her arm out towards the child. (You don't have to take my word for it - look at Rashi, Rashbam, Sforno, and Chizkuni.)
We still have to solve the question we asked earlier about the switch in language from "נַעֲרֹתֶיהָ" to "אֲמָתָהּ."
I have not seen anyone else who says this (although the Sforno might be alluding to it), but that has never stopped me before. It seems pretty clear that the change of language is necessary because it refers to two different kinds of people (and I reflected that in my translation). A "נערה" would, in my opinion, be more of an intimate servant, a lady-in-waiting type. This is reflected in the fact that it can also be translated more generally as maiden, see for example "נערה בתולה" and "נערות רבות" in Megillat Ester. Also, the masculine form - "נער" - is definitely employed more intimately - consider all the Midrashim identifying "נערים" throughout Tanach (Yishmael, Moshe's son, etc.) An "אמה," on the other hand, would be more of a maid. This seems to fit with the passuk - the "נערות" are walking along the banks, while the "אמה" seems to actually be with bat Paroh.

So, why does this pop-Midrash (new term, you like?), not to mention all those cutesy art projects, have bat Paroh's arm stretching out towards the ark in a supernatural manner?

Bat Paroh's adoption of Moshe is a significant clue to her character.
Consider the society she was raised in. Ancient Egypt was not a place which valued human life. Paroh tried every means to kill MANY innocent BABIES - command the maidservants to kill them, drown them in the Nile. The Midrash has him bathing in baby's blood, making bricks out of babies, etc. History also reveals to us the Egyptian preoccupation with death - after taking the throne, the Pharoh's would begin building their massive tombs (pyramids), etc. She is willing to save this life when really life should not have meant that much to her anyway.
Besides valuing life, realize that this is not just any life - this is a member of a slave nation! When any specific people is degraded and treated inhumanely they are viewed as such, especially when they become property (we need only America's treatment of the blacks to strengthen that claim). Even though she obviously values life, her valuing THIS life, despite the fact that it belongs to a "subhuman" people is tremendous.
Consider also the fact that HER FATHER was the one who decreed that babies like this one should be killed. She is now directly disobeying him! Lest you think that Paroh easily forgave the transgressions of his relatives, recall that Moshe (his adoptive grandson) had to flee for his life after killing an Egyptian. (The Midrash in Sotah 12b actually accentuates this - ayen sham.) So, she values a specifically under-valued life at the risk of her own life!

Ever heard the expression, "within reach?" It means that there is something that can be attained, it is within your ability to do it. What bat Paroh did was not something "within reached," she STRETCHED beyond societal norms, beyond who she easily and justifiably could have been to do something valiant and brave. This could be what the Midrash is portraying - someone who, by sending her arm (paradigm of human manifestation of will) out would need it to stretch (go beyond what it is normally capable of) to get the baby (the goal).

I know we can't teach THAT to the kindergarteners, so I have an idea. We can teach them that bat Paroh sent her maidservant to get Moshe and when they are older, say highscool, we can explain to them that Midrash. Wishful thinking, I know.

People I Feel Bad For

2005-08-16T18:03:00.000+03:00

We interrupt our regularly scheduled programming to bring you this message...

The way so many different people from all over the world come to my blog is a constant source of amazement for me. So, every once in a while I will take a look at my "stats" to see what brought people here. Ususally I find that they come as a result of a comment I left on someone else's blog. Every once in a while, however, someone does a web search and ends up at my blog. I really feel bad for the people who end up here, only to be sorely dissapointed.

For example:

disengagement issurim
melachim bais
tzniut modern orthodox
the identity of the frumteens moderator shapiro
(if you know his identity, why are you searching?)
tchelet
torah tapes rabbi orlofsky david free platonic relationships
(I have a feeling they didn't get what they were expecting...)

Then again, there's:

har habayit beyadenu listen
pesach haya
(Type that into google and I'm the second link that shows up...:-))

Well, fruitless web searches, you have inspired some real post ideas - that is, if I ever get around to writing all the things I would like to.

As you were...

Bilam - Who Was He Anyway? VI (Finale)

2005-08-16T07:41:00.000+03:00

Looks like its finally time to wrap things up.

The questions of why Bilam returned and why he was assasinated go hand in hand. The Chizkuni offers two explanations (31;8 s.v."ve'et Bilam") - we will dwell on the second. The original reason that Bilam offers for being unable to curse the nation is the fact that they have not sinned (23;21), now that they have in fact sinned, he was called back to curse them. He returned and was killed.
We can elaborate on this explanation in light of the initial exchanges between God and Bilam. In the beginning Bilam seems only too eager to curse Bnei Yisrael. Hashem tells him that he cannot because they are blessed. He sets off with every intention of being a "holech." After learning his lesson he delivers brachot, but only because God tells him what to say. He seems a reluctant participant in the events in which he is involved. That is, until he gazes out at the sanctity of the camp of Yisrael. He then realizes just a how spectacular and unique they are, he then becomes willing and in fact personally inspired to, quite literally, sing their praises.
However, when that very fundamental aspect of the nation is compromised, Bilam is no longer so awestuck by them. As far as he is concerned they are no longer a blessed nation because that very thing that made them blessed is no longer, therefore they are fair game. Whether he was invited back or went of his own choosing is irrelevent, his motivation is understandable.
Yet, if Bilam teaches us anything it is that relationships with God are complex. Very few individuals are either rotten to the core or good to the core. The clue is to be constantly on the lookout, to be aware of ones actions and surroundings. Bilam displays that at the end of the episode with the donkey and when he blessed Bnei Yisrael for the third time. Bnei Yisrael also display that when Zimri and Cozbi fornicate publicly. Although there has been a widespread epidemic of znut, they are suddenly shocked into a realization of the moral devastation they suffered. The text describes the nation as sitting in front of their tents and weeping at the sight. From this seemingly irreversible corruption, the hero-figure of Pinchas emerges.

Ok, that's it - I hope you enjoyed this as much as I did. I would love to hear any feedback you can offer, especially any holes you could point out in my explanations.

Bilam - Who Was He Anyway? V

2005-08-15T22:55:00.000+03:00

I hope everyone had a meaningful fast full of serious introspection and tshuva. What I really wanted to blog about was a few ideas that made Tisha B'av meaningful for me. However, the crazy "Type A" personality inside me is urging me to finish the Bilam narrative and another Midrash before heading off for the Holy Land.

We left off with quite a few serious questions. I will quickly recap:

Why is Bilam back in Midyan?

Why was he assasinated along with all the other officers?

What is "dvar Bilam?"

For those of you who remember the Gmarah in Sanhedrin that Rashi and numerous other parshanim quote, these questions pose no problem. According to this Gmarah, Bilam suggested to Balak that he create a national movement to seduce the men of Yisrael in order to anger their God. While this particular aggadita is beyond beautiful, I find it problematic as a "pshat" considering the lofty heights to which Bilam rises. Consider the fact that he recognizes the hand of God and delivers a Divinely inspired nevuah - all of that only to plummet to such depths?
Because these posts are intended to explore Bilam's character through the "pshat," we will "set aside" the midrash and focus on the clues that the text itself offers.

Recall that it is specifically the sexual morality of the nation that inspired Bilam to bless it. He realized that that is the cornerstone of the nation, that which insures its continuity. It stands to reason that Balak is aware of this, to some extent. He himself urged Bilam to mount Rosh HaPe'or. In an effort to cut to the very heart of the nation, this trait inspires him to pursue a devious plan.
However, from this arises question 4 - what is Bilam's "etzah?"

(24;14)" וְעַתָּה, הִנְנִי הוֹלֵךְ לְעַמִּי; לְכָה, אִיעָצְךָ"

The Ibn Ezra offers a solution which epitomizes his approach in general - he takes the "pshat" and instead of elucidating it, allows it to carry it's own weight. The first thing he does is reject the premise that this refers to the episode of Bnot Moav (I was happy when I found this, because now people can feel more comfortable listening to me.) He then suggests that it means what it seems - the "etzah" is what Bilam will elaborate on, the future of Yisrael-Moav relations.
If you look in the text, this fits quite beautifully. Bilam never says, "this is what you should do," instead he offers an insight into how the future will play out. In fact, Nechama Leibowitz quotes a source (who's name pronunciation I am unsure of) which explains that "etzah" does not necessarily connote advice. Instead, it is a word that describes speaking in hushed tones.
Now, if Balak was afraid before, you bet he is now. Bilam delivers a nevuah that foretells the downfall of Moav at the hands of Bnei Yisrael. Although this is not supposed to happen anytime soon, Balak takes immediate action.

Balak creates a national movement to lead Bnei Yisrael astray, utilizing the idea of the uniqueness of Bnei Yisrael that Bilam himself shed light on. At first blush, however, this seems like a haphazard involvement, on Bnei Yisrael's side, in arayot and avodah zara:

(25;1)"וַיָּחֶל הָעָם, לִזְנוֹת אֶל-בְּנוֹת מוֹאָב"

I believe that I have posited before that the Tanach assumes that its readers know the rest of Tanach. Therefore, there can be allusions in Tehillim to ideas in Shmot and if a detail is revealed at the end of the narrative, it won't necessarily be said in the beginning. It is not necessary for the text to provide the details of Balak's calculated tactical campaign, because it clears itself up later on (and you're expected to know that). When Moshe gets angry at Bnei Yisrael for taking women as captives, he says:

(21;16)"הֵן הֵנָּה הָיוּ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם"

They were, in fact, "deployed" because of the words of Bilam, perhaps not in the classical sense of the words though. In these words Moshe describes the nature of the znut that takes place in the camp - it is a military strategy. It is highly significant to note that znut is not really the weakness of the Jews who traveled in the desert - their sin of choice was to complain about food and water.

Well, it looks like this will take yet one more post - the downfall of Bilam. (I still like a good Biblical bad guy.)

Religious Evolution and Mesorah

2005-08-11T08:53:00.000+03:00

Although I am in the middle of a series of posts on Bilam, I don't feel it is too much of an infraction to interrupt Torah with different Torah.
I recently wrote a couple of posts on Religious Evolution. Now, if my "hit counter" is any indication, it was quite a hit (excuse the pun). Anyway, thanks to "Kaspit"'s comments, I have been pondering a working practical model for the theory. While I have not come up with that, I have come up with some more sources to support my position.

(By the way, at the prompting of many fellow bloggers I have been (making an attempt in) examining some tshuvot by Rabbi Chaim Hirschensohn. So far it seems like they may lend themselves to a more pragmatic approach to this theory.)

The first thing I did was take another look at the following Gemarah. It's a famous one so bear with me if you've seen it before.

מסכת חולין ו,ב-ז,א
העיד רבי יהושע בן זרוז בן חמיו של רבי מאיר לפני רבי על ר"מ שאכל עלה של ירק בבית שאן והתיר רבי את בית שאן כולה על ידו חברו עליו אחיו ובית אביו אמרו לו מקום שאבותיך ואבות אבותיך נהגו בו איסור אתה תנהוג בו היתר דרש להן מקרא זה (מלכים ב יח) וכתת נחש הנחשת אשר עשה משה כי עד הימים ההמה היו בני ישראל מקטרים לו ויקרא לו נחושתן אפשר בא אסא ולא ביערו בא יהושפט ולא ביערו והלא כל עבודה זרה שבעולם אסא ויהושפט ביערום אלא מקום הניחו לו אבותיו להתגדר בו אף אני מקום הניחו לי אבותי להתגדר בו

(My own translation, so it's a bit loose.)
Chullin 6b-7a
Rabi Yehoshua ben Zaruz the brother-in-law of Rabi Meir testified before Rabi about Rabi Meir that he had eaten leaves of vegetation (without taking off trumot uma'asrot) in Beit She'an. Rabi allowed all of Beit She'an because of his friend. His brothers and the house of his father said to him, a place that your father and the father of your father prohibited you will allow it? He offered an exposition on this scripture, "'He dismantled the copper serpent which Moshe had made because until that day Bnei Yisrael would sacrifice to it and call it Nechushatan.' Is it possible that Asa came and did not destroy it, Yehoshafat came and did not destroy it - did they not all the idols in the world, Asa and Yehoshfat destroy? However, his ancestors left him a place to distinguish himself. I too, a place was left for me by my ancestors to distinguish myself."

While this does not describe halacha evolving in the face of societal change, it does reflect the dynamic nature of the halachik system. (The idea is the same as the one I made about Rav Moshe's psak on Chalav Yisrael.)

In order to gain an appreciation for this Gemarah, I will, yet again, turn to Rav Herschel Shachter:
"The Talmud relates that for years it was assumed that all of the Beit Shean area was endowed with kedushas haaretz, and fruits grown there are tevel and must be tithed. After many years, Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi reversed this accepted practice, after ascertaining that certain parts of that area were never endowed with kedusha when Ezra and Nechemia returned to build the bayis sheni. The prevalent practice was simply based on an error. The Talmud adds as a footnote, that the moral of this story is that when a rabbi comes to reverse a time-honored practice, we ought not always reject it out of hand, but should always consider the possibility of a chiddush in halacha (Chullin 6b).

"Nevertheless, we still assume that a centuries-old halachic position, accepted and observed universally by all of Klal Yisroel, does not lend itself to reversal. The tradition makes room for, and even encourages, chiddush, but not for shinui (see Nefesh Harav pg. 64). According to Rambam, the binding force of the Talmud is precisely due to the fact that it was universally accepted by all of Klal Yisroel."

Unfortunately, instead of elaborating on the difference between chiddush and shinui, he discusses the kind of person who can offer those changes, and yet more examples of times when halacha did not evolve. So, I will propose what I (in my humble opinion) believe is the principle difference by re-writing the words in my previous post:
"The idea is not that the Torah CHANGES with the times, per se, but rather that the way we apply the Torah to our lives changes as a result of our lives changing."

One thing that seems to support what I believe is the difference are the examples he offers. For example:
"Years ago, a prominent rabbi in Eretz Yisrael came up with an original idea as to how to permit Kohanim to go to medical school (i.e., to come in contact with meisim (corpses)).Rav Moshe Feinstein published a teshuva pointing out that this rabbi's suggestion could have been implemented centuries ago, but never was. Therefore we must assume that there must be some good explanation as to why the suggestion is not correct. (Indeed, in my sefer - B'Ikvei HaTzon - I have published what I consider quite a reasonable rebuttal.) And even if Eliyahu Hanavi were to appear and express his opinion in favor of this rabbi's notion, Rav Moshe thinks we would not even follow him on this matter (Igros Moshe, Y.D. 3:155)."

In this case and many others that he brings, the circumstances around the halacha has not changed. Instead, the individual is presuming that he can interpret halacha more competently than his predecessors, an attitude which Rav Shachter seems to feel is a break with Mesorah - shinui. (This would differ from the Gemarah's case because Rabi felt that the halacha was based on an error.) My suggestion considers it axiomatic that the predecessor's interpretation is accurate and works within its framework to reassess halacha lema'aseh - chiddush.

Bilam - Who Was He Anyway? IV

2005-08-09T00:04:00.000+03:00

Now the stage is set: Bilam is a complex character who has a complex relationship with God. God reveals Himself to him with alternating uses of the tetragrammaton and "Elokim." However, after the donkey incident we find a heightened awareness of his dependence on God - the one true Monotheistic God. Balak misunderstands what Bilam is all about. His own paganistic tendencies cause him to view Bilam as nothing more than a magician. "The game is afoot."

Balak takes Bilam to three seperate places from which he can view Bnei Yisrael: Bamot HaBa'al, Sdeh HaTzofim, and Rosh HaPe'or. Rav Hirsch theorizes that each place was meant to target a specific aspect of the nation. According to Hirsch he asessed the physical and material endowments on Bamot HaBa'al and the spiritual from Sdeh HaTzofim. Then, because, "a nation can be blessed with all physical and spiritual gifts and yet be irrevocably hastening to its ruin," he had to assess from another vantage point. That is the view from Rosh HaPe'or, named after the idol Pe'or which stood for the basest and most animalistic of human functions. Hence, the view from Rosh HaPe'or was, according to Rav Hirsch, an opportunity to sum up morality and especially sexual morality (major philosophical implications and further justification for this proposition of the ADDeRabbi - ayen sham).

I will not analyze each of Bilam's speeches, but rather the context that surrounds them. Yes, they are very beautiful and meaningful, but they are tangential to understanding Bilam as a person. The reason will become evident soon.

Bilam tells Balak to prepare sacrifices for God - 7 altars, 7 bulls and 7 rams(23;1). This is indicative of the tension between "Hashem" and "Elokim" that we have identified in Bilam. Although he is aware of God, and he is aware that he can only say what God tells him to, he still hopes to be able to manipulate His will with sacrifices. God appears to Bilam and tells him what to say (23;4-5) (this is why his speeches don't shed light on who he is). Instead of the curses that Balak had expected, blessings flow from Bilam's mouth. Balak complains, Bilam responds that he can only say what God tells him to.
The entire episode pretty much repeats itself with little variation.

On Rosh HaPe'or, however, things change drastically. The story begins the same - Balak takes Bilam to a new place, Bilam tells him to prepare sacrifices, etc. However, this time, instead of going to God to hear what he should say, he is struck by an awareness. As opposed to the episode with the donkey, he recognizes the pattern. He recognizes God's message before the third round, and therefore:

(24;1)"וְלֹא-הָלַךְ כְּפַעַם-בְּפַעַם, לִקְרַאת נְחָשִׁים"

He abandons the avodah zara attitude and aligns his will with that of his creator.
At this point the text uses a very specific phrase:

(24;2)"וַיִּשָּׂא בִלְעָם אֶת-עֵינָיו, וַיַּרְא"

Many of you will recognize this from the story of Avraham, once again paralleling the two characters. This phrase also appears throughout Tanach as a meaningful looking - it's more than just peering, it marks a turning point in the individual, in the story. At this point Bilam looks out, specifically on Rosh HaPe'or and he sees the way the camp is set up. He views the sanctity of the people from the aspect of sexual morality. Rashi expands on this idea - he saw that every tribe settles seperately and that the homes were not open to each other so that they would not invade each others privacy.
Rashbam (s.v. "likrat nechashim) says that at this point Bilam was interested in blessing Bnei Yisrael and the Schinah settled on him out of love. Ramban (s.v. "vatehi alav ruach Elokim") says that Bilam's relationship with Hashem was elevated to that of the relationship between Him and a navi. Chizkuni (s.v. "velo halach kepa'am bepa'am") says that at this point Bilam realizes that magic will not benefit him and he wholeheartedly turns to bless the nation, Hashem agrees and therefore "vatehi alac ruah Elokim."
This would explain why the beginning of his oration dwells on himself - his eyes being opened (24;15), the hearer of the word of God (24;16), the perceiver of "Shadai" (24;16), etc. Bilam is overwhelmed with an acute awareness of God and from his mouth flow brachot of his own initiative.

This would be a nice place to end the story. However, there is one puzzle left:
At the end of his bracha Bilam leaves(24;25). As the story unfolds, Bnei Yisrael sin with Bnot Moav and Hashem declares war on them. In this war many officers are killed, including BILAM (31;8). What reason could there possibly be for his assasination? As if that is not confusing enough, recall that Bilam is from Aram (23;7), what is he doing back at the scene of the crime, which is quite a far distance from his home? Finally when Moshe berates the people for taking female captives from the war he says:

(31;16)"הֵן הֵנָּה הָיוּ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם"

What is this "dvar Bilam?"
Once we understand those things we can gain a greater appreciation for the personality of Bilam.

Bilam - Who Was He Anyway? III

2005-08-08T21:04:00.000+03:00

So, our Bilam character emerged, from a strange episode with a talking donkey and a sword bearing angel, as a new man. He is cognizant of the idea that his "comings and goings" are completely controlled by God. Enter stage right: Balak. Upon greating his guest he immediately protests to his refusal to come earlier. Bilam reminds him that the only thing that he can say is what God allows him. This exchange, although quite short, is highly significant.
Firstly, Bilam's answer offers proof that his lesson was learned. As opposed to before, when he was less than forthcoming about the limits of his power, he now ascribes it all to God.
Something else worth pointing out is that this exchange displays Balak's fundamental misunderstanding of what Bilam does. Initially, when Bilam refuses Balak's invitation, he explained why:

(22;13)"כִּי מֵאֵן יְה וָה, לְתִתִּי לַהֲלֹךְ עִמָּכֶם"

However, Balak misunderstands and expects that Bilam is really refusing from ulterior motives and "pinning the blame" (so to speak) on God. Therefore he responds by sending more and greater men, hoping the heightened prestige will change Bilam's mind. If he understood that it was really only because of God that Bilam refused him, he would have also understood that more honor could not change the response. His complaint to Bilam here:

(22;37)"הַאֻמְנָם, לֹא אוּכַל כַּבְּדֶךָ"

reflects this attitude.
Understanding Balak's attitude sheds light on his messengers as arriving (22;7) וּקְסָמִים, בְּיָדָם. Balak does not view Bilam as an individual who has a special relationship with the one and only God, but rather as a magician, a man who represents access to the (pagan) gods.

Balak then takes Bilam to Kiryat Chutzot (you know you've been blogging to long when you had the urge to transliterate it as Qiryat Hhutzot). What jumped out at me personally was - what, not the palace, not even the Capital city? Imagine if Bush invited a dignitary from another country and set him up in a hotel in Baltimore - close proximity maybe, but kind of disrespectful, no? Furthermore, he SENDS him food. No parties, no festive meals - not exactly the honorable reception that was promised. Rashi points out the use of the singular in describing the food, s.v. "Bakar Vatzon" - ayen sham.
Again, these two psukim are highly significant as they seem to foreshadow a tension between these two individuals.

Ok, now that we've got the "transition psukim" down, let's take a look at some fun stuff. For organization's sake, I will stop this post here and continue with another one.

Bilam - Who Was He Anyway? II

2005-08-07T20:20:00.000+03:00

When we left off, Bilam was underestimating God and asking, yet again, for permission to curse Bnei Yisrael.

Much to our surprise God says:

(22;20)"אִם-לִקְרֹא לְךָ בָּאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים, קוּם לֵךְ אִתָּם"

Doesn't that just make you want to shout, "I'm sorry did I miss something?! Didn't you JUST say no?"
The Ramban (s.v. "im likro lecha ba'uh ha'anashim"), brilliantly exacting in the phraseology of the text, offers an elucidation for the troubling response. In God's initial response, He does not flat out refuse, He also explains why. The passuk is explicit - you can not curse the nation because it is blessed (22;12). Bilam also specifically told the officers that he is dependent on God and can do nothing independent of His will. After all of that was expressed, there is no reason to want Bilam to join them, seeing as he can not assist them. So, if they continue to request his company, and that is all they want - אִם לִקְרֹא לְךָ בָּאוּ - go ahead and join them. However, there is one caveat - וְאַךְ, אֶת-הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר-אֲדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ אֹתוֹ תַעֲשֶׂה - things are not all up to Bilam.

The brilliance of this Ramban lies in the fact that it explains events that happen later in the narrative. Bilam saddles his donkey and sets out, because, being the God-abiding individual he is, he got permission. However, God get's angry at him (notice the use of "Elokim" again). Rav Hirsch points out that the reason that God was angered is expressed quite oddly:

(22;22)"וַיִּחַר-אַף אֱלֹהִים, כִּי-הוֹלֵךְ הוּא"

It should be "ki hu holech" or "ki holech," but the awkward ordering suggests that God was infuriated because Bilam was a holech, a "go-er" if you will. He was someone going of his own volition, with his own interests and goals in mind. This aligns itself beautifully with the Ramban.

The "go-er" needs to be sent a message that will refocus him. The message indeed comes, from the most unlikely (and humorous) of sources.

God sends an angel to stop Bilam from reaching his goal. Although Bilam is not cognizant of the angel, his donkey immediately takes note. Three times the donkey tries to avoid the angel and Bilam responds by hitting her. What ensues sends a powerful message through symbolism. (By the way, this would explain why the Rambam has no difficulty positing that the story never happened, but was imagined. The story in and of itself was not meaningful, rather the message it sent was.)
Their travels begin on the path and the donkey turns into the field. The second of the angel's obstruction occurs in a walled path where the donkey has nowhere to turn. She tries to pass the angel and in doing so smashes Bilam's leg against a wall. Finally, they are in a place where there is nowhere to turn, so the donkey sits. Their journey becomes progressively more restricted, sending a powerful message - God conrols your going, you are not an independent "go-er." It is also important to note that specifically Bilam's LEG that is smashed, man's most natural vehicle.
We see a marked unawareness in Bilam. Three times marks the establishment of a pattern. Bilam, the "high-falutin'," aware of God's will, man that he is should have recognized the message being communicated to him. (In fact there is a definite reiteration of his unawareness in conjunction with the letter three in the text. See 22;28) Moreover, the donkey, a mundane animal, is aware of the presence of a messenger of God and Bilam is not. This hardly reaches the standard to which a true navi should hold himself.
Lastly, the conversation with the donkey speaks volumes of the nature of speech as a gift granted by God.
Bilam, who fancies himself an independent "go-er" is struck with the idea that he is completely dependent on God. He seems to emerge from the episode with a new found understanding of this reality since he offers to return home, but is sent to continue his journey to Balak.

Stay tuned for the next installment of:
Bilam - Who Was He Anyway?

Bilam - Who Was He Anyway?

2005-08-03T05:42:00.000+03:00

This is a question I have been struggling with for a long time, I wanted to share my thoughts on it with all of you in the hopes that someone has something to offer. I have shared before my firm belief that it is essential to understand the characters of Tanach to understand the narratives that surround them.

We all know, whether we admit it or not, that there is a typical way to explain something, the usual way things are learned - usually they can be traced back to Rashi. So the typical understanding of Bilam is that he was a bad guy who only communicated with God so that the non-Jews would not be able to complain that their iniquity is for lack of direction. If they had a navi, they would be good too. He hates the Jews and wants to curse them and only refuses Balak's officers because he wants more money from Balak. Fast forward past the talking donkey episode - everyone has something else to say about that. Three times Bilam tries to curse Bnei Yisrael, but Hashem changes his words to Brachot. Finally, he advises Balak that the best way to defeat the nation would be to cause them to sin, especially through sexual immorality.
(Yes, these ideas can be traced back to Rashi.)

But, as usual, that just does not work for me. So, let's start from the beginning.

Balak requests Bilam's services. When he calls him, he uses words that should, ideally, strike us as familiar:

(22;6) "כִּי יָדַעְתִּי, אֵת אֲשֶׁר-תְּבָרֵךְ מְבֹרָךְ, וַאֲשֶׁר תָּאֹר, יוּאָר"

Compare that with:

(Sefer Bereshit 12;3) "וַאֲבָרְכָה, מְבָרְכֶיךָ, וּמְקַלֶּלְךָ, אָאֹר"

You've got it! That is how God describes AVRAHAM! Rashi, and the Midrash for that matter, use textual parallels like this one to CONTRAST Bilam and Avraham. I would propose that they can also be used to compare them. Perhaps the Torah introduces Bilam very similarly to the way it introduces Avraham in order to identify him as a spiritual individual. He has a relationship with God unlike any other individuals in his paganistic surroundings much like Avraham had.
This assumption is only further enhanced as Bilam identifies God by using the tetragrammaton (22;8) - it is specifically the one and only God to which he ascribes his powers. Furthermore, it is clear from the passuk that he EXPECTS a visit from God that night, implying that it is not an irregular practice.
However, the relationship between God and Bilam seems tenuous at best. God appears as "Elokim" - the name that connotes a more universal interaction. When He appears, He asks who the indivuals are (22;9). God can only appear to us as we perceive Him, if He appears to Bilam as being anything but completely omniscient it reflects a lack in Bilam's understanding of God.
God refuses Bilam's request and so Bilam refuses Balak's. There is no recorded argument, it seems that Bilam fully accepts God's refusal.
Balak seems to misunderstand Bilam's refusal as a desire for more prestige so he sends a greater number of greater officers. Bilam reiterates that ultimately the decision is God's and there is nothing he can do without Him. However, he makes the request again. This may imply an eagerness to curse Bnei Yisrael, but this could also have a lot to do with his ego. It is hard to admit that there is something that is beyond you, especially if you have a reputation for doing it well. This interaction is also highly significant in that it shows us that, once again, Bilam undermines God - he seems to seriously believe that He might change his mind.

To be continued...

A More Composed Version of Previous Comments

2005-08-01T18:17:00.000+03:00

Some of you may have read last night's post. It was the product of working ten straight hours with only a five minute break from mincha. After a long long day, it hit me that although I have been working so hard I am far from where I had hoped to be at this point.
Allow me to explain. Next year I am going to MMY. I am going because God is my biggest priority and I feel the best way to develop a relationship with Him is through the exploration of intellectual faculties. (How that works is a shiur in Bereshit ve'acamol.) After much research I have found that MMY offers one of the most serious and well-rounded opportunities for learning. It is also a place where I can develop as a person - morally, etc. I also plan to use this year as a "pilot trip" of sorts, so that I can make aliyah soon after.
Having said all that, you can imagine what the year means to me. However, my parents hardly support my decision to attend MMY, which affects me from a practical standpoint - they are not paying for it. So, all I have is $3500 of the $16500 tuition (which includes the registration cost). The school's administration have been beyond supportive and encouraging. They have told me that they are willing to be "mochel" part of the sum, but they expect me to come up with a substantial amount of it. Although I have tried, I have failed them.
So, last night, after working the aforementioned ten hour shift in a job I hate but do because I really need the money, I had a bit of a breakdown. I felt exhausted, I felt like a loser, I felt embarassed, etc. Basically, I did a lot more feeling than I am used to or am comfortable with doing.
Although, I do not usually express the way I feel, admit that I need help, or tell strangers about my personal life, last night (and I guess today for that matter) was an exception. So, I apologize for freaking out and sharing my distress with all of you. It was inappropriate.

Having said all that, I would still appreciate if there would be any way anyone could help. If anyone would like to sponsor my learning next year "le'ilui nishmat" someone, I would be open to that (actually, I would be excited beyond belief) - even if it seems to you like a small sum. If anyone has any other ideas, advice, support to offer, please share. If anyone would like to put my plea on their blog, feel free, I would greatly appreciate it. Any support, whether emotional or monetary, that is offered goes towards supporting Torah study...it is a big zechut.

Thank you everyone for bearing with me and thank you in advance because I know you will come through for me.

Education and Goal Achievement

2005-07-27T21:02:00.000+03:00

ואמר רבי אבין הלוי הנפטר מחברו אל יאמר לו לך בשלום אלא לך לשלום שהרי יתרו שאמר לו למשה (שמות ד) לך לשלום עלה והצליח דוד שאמר לו לאבשלום (שמואל ב טו) לך בשלום הלך ונתלה
מסכת ברכות דף סד,א

Translation:
And Rabbi Avin Halevi said, "One who departs from his friend should not say to him, 'Go in peace.' Rather, he should say, 'Go to peace.' For behold Yitro who said to Moshe, (Exodus 4)'Go to peace,' he rose and succeeded. David who said to Avshalom, (I Samuel 15)'Go in peace,' went and was hung."

This passage presents some questions for the less superstitious among us. Does this dictum propose that the words you say have some kind of metaphysical effect on the success of any given individual? (If so, can't we just get away with saying, "tfu tfu tfu?") What exactly is being communicated here.
I think the key to understanding this is by taking note of the specific individuals cited. Yitro was Moshe's father-in-law, however, given the fact that Moshe's father was probably absent during Moshe's formative years it would be reasonable to posit that he was a real father figure to him. David is Avshalom's father. Both Yitro and David are in a position to mentor and advise Moshe and Avshalom respectively. Yitro proves to be a valuable teacher, in fact a large part of Parshat Yitro is dedicated to describing his advice to Moshe on how to lead more effectively. David, on the other hand, while being a good military leader, sees consistently bad results in his children - murders, rebellions, and rape are all part of the family drama.
Perhaps Rabbi Avin is offering a pedagogical tactic. When departing from someone - when allowing them their independence - wish them to go to peace, not in peace. When someone is working towards a goal their will always be obstacles in their way which make it appear as though they will never succeed. The key is to be aware that those obstacles will arise, it does not do anyone any good to pretend that the road to success is traveled in peace. The best one can hope for is that the goal itself will lend itself to peace. By saying "lech beshalom" one is avoiding the inevitability of hardships.

Lately there has been some talk on the web about Modern Orthodox education and how it falls short. One commentor on "Not The Gadol Hador" pointed out that many Modern Orthodox rabbanim opt for Ultra-Orthodox education. Other commentors point out that Ultra-Orthodox is only more effective because "...it is easier to convey fundamentalist messages than balanced ones." I think that "respondingtojblogs" hit the nail on the head with that one. When I was slowly moving to "the left" - as described in this post - I complained to my friend that I wish I could be intellectually dishonest and just stay "Yeshivish." There was so much less to grapple with from a philosophical perspective - the rabbis were always right and everything was always simple.
This seems, in my humble opinion, to be a "lech beshalom" perspective on education. It denies the setbacks on the way to religious goal achievement. (I say this without even touching on the fact that those struggles often enhance the resulting success.) So while it seems, in the short term, that an Ultra-Orthodox education turns out more religious individual, I seriously question the quality of their achievments.

It seems clear to me that both systems are very flawed and that MO schools need to find some kind of balance. However, for the time being, I would propose that the Chareidi system is much more perilous.

Tammuz 17

2005-07-24T19:31:00.000+03:00

I thought I might share with you something that I found meaningful in regard to the time period that we are now entering and today's fast.

There is a fascinating episode in Zecharya that takes place during the fourth year of Darius's reign (i.e. two years after the commencement of the construction of the Mikdash).

זכריה פרק ז
א וַיְהִי בִּשְׁנַת אַרְבַּע, לְדָרְיָוֶשׁ הַמֶּלֶךְ; הָיָה דְבַר-יְדוָד אֶל-זְכַרְיָה, בְּאַרְבָּעָה לַחֹדֶשׁ הַתְּשִׁעִי--בְּכִסְלֵו. ב וַיִּשְׁלַח, בֵּית-אֵ ל, שַׂרְאֶצֶר, וְרֶגֶם מֶלֶךְ וַאֲנָשָׁיו--לְחַלּוֹת, אֶת-פְּנֵי יְדוָד. ג לֵאמֹר, אֶל-הַכֹּהֲנִים אֲשֶׁר לְבֵית-יְדוָד צְבָא וֹת, וְאֶל-הַנְּבִיאִים, לֵאמֹר: הַאֶבְכֶּה, בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַחֲמִשִׁי--הִנָּזֵר, כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי זֶה כַּמֶּה שָׁנִים

The people have a legitimate question - because Yerushalayim is no longer languishing in destruction (at least to the same degree that it had been before), is it neccesary to continue fasting over the destruction? God's response, however, is seemingly less than straightforward.

ד וַיְהִי דְּבַר-יְדוָד צְבָאוֹת, אֵלַי לֵאמֹר. ה אֱמֹר אֶל-כָּל-עַם הָאָרֶץ, וְאֶל-הַכֹּהֲנִים לֵאמֹר: כִּי-צַמְתֶּם וְסָפוֹד בַּחֲמִישִׁי וּבַשְּׁבִיעִי, וְזֶה שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה--הֲצוֹם צַמְתֻּנִי, אָנִי. ו וְכִי תֹאכְלוּ, וְכִי תִשְׁתּוּ--הֲלוֹא אַתֶּם הָאֹכְלִים, וְאַתֶּם הַשֹּׁתִים. ז הֲלוֹא אֶת-הַדְּבָרִים, אֲשֶׁר קָרָא יְדוָד בְּיַד הַנְּבִיאִים הָרִאשֹׁנִים, בִּהְיוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִַם יֹשֶׁבֶת וּשְׁלֵוָה, וְעָרֶיהָ סְבִיבֹתֶיהָ; וְהַנֶּגֶב וְהַשְּׁפֵלָה, יֹשֵׁב.

In what can only be read as sarcasm, He responds, "When you fasted and mourned in the fifth month and the seventh month did I fast?" Basically. God's response is, I did not command you to fast, these days arose out of an intuitive sense that that is the proper thing to do on those days. The point of the fast is NOT the fasting, it is the introspection that the day should ideally cause. The navi then, fittingly, goes on for the next few chapters to describe what is the proper behavior to exhibit in order for the Mikdash to be rebuilt.

I wish all of you a meaningful fast and a meaningful three weeks of introspection. May we soon merit the realization of the words of the Navi:

Zechariah Chapter 8

א וַיְהִי דְּבַר-יְדְּוָדְּ צְבָאוֹת, לֵאמֹר.	1 And the word of the LORD of hosts came, saying:
ב כֹּה אָמַר יְדְּוָדְּ צְבָאוֹת, קִנֵּאתִי לְצִיּוֹן קִנְאָה גְדוֹלָה; וְחֵמָה גְדוֹלָה, קִנֵּאתִי לָהּ.	2 'Thus saith the LORD of hosts: I am jealous for Zion with great jealousy, and I am jealous for her with great fury.
ג כֹּה, אָמַר יְדְּוָדְּ, שַׁבְתִּי אֶל-צִיּוֹן, וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְּתוֹךְ יְרוּשָׁלִָם; וְנִקְרְאָה יְרוּשָׁלִַם עִיר הָאֱמֶת, וְהַר-יְדְּוָדְּ צְבָאוֹת הַר הַקֹּדֶשׁ.	3 Thus saith the LORD: I return unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem; and Jerusalem shall be called The city of truth; and the mountain of the LORD of hosts The holy mountain.
ד כֹּה אָמַר, יְדְּוָדְּ צְבָאוֹת, עֹד יֵשְׁבוּ זְקֵנִים וּזְקֵנוֹת, בִּרְחֹבוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִָם; וְאִישׁ מִשְׁעַנְתּוֹ בְּיָדוֹ, מֵרֹב יָמִים.	4 Thus saith the LORD of hosts: There shall yet old men and old women sit in the broad places of Jerusalem, every man with his staff in his hand for very age.
ה וּרְחֹבוֹת הָעִיר יִמָּלְאוּ, יְלָדִים וִילָדוֹת, מְשַׂחֲקִים, בִּרְחֹבֹתֶיהָ.	5 And the broad places of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in the broad places thereof.
ו כֹּה אָמַר, יְדְּוָדְּ צְבָאוֹת, כִּי יִפָּלֵא בְּעֵינֵי שְׁאֵרִית הָעָם הַזֶּה, בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם--גַּם-בְּעֵינַי, יִפָּלֵא, נְאֻם, יְדְּוָדְּ צְבָאוֹת.	6 Thus saith the LORD of hosts: If it be marvellous in the eyes of the remnant of this people in those days, should it also be marvellous in Mine eyes? saith the LORD of hosts.
ז כֹּה אָמַר יְדְּוָדְּ צְבָאוֹת, הִנְנִי מוֹשִׁיעַ אֶת-עַמִּי מֵאֶרֶץ מִזְרָח, וּמֵאֶרֶץ, מְבוֹא הַשָּׁמֶשׁ.	7 Thus saith the LORD of hosts: Behold, I will save My people from the east country, and from the west country;
ח וְהֵבֵאתִי אֹתָם, וְשָׁכְנוּ בְּתוֹךְ יְרוּשָׁלִָם; וְהָיוּ-לִי לְעָם, וַאֲנִי אֶהְיֶה לָהֶם לֵאלֹהִים--בֶּאֱמֶת, וּבִצְדָקָה.	8 And I will bring them, and they shall dwell in the midst of Jerusalem; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God, in truth and in righteousness.

Orthodox Feminism

2005-07-21T18:09:00.000+03:00

Gil Student at Hirhurim wrote this post regarding Bnot Tzelofchad and whether they are feminists. He quotes Rabbi Elhanan Samet who comes to the conclusion that they were not. His reasoning is that their intention was only to perpetuate the name of their father (see Numb. 27;4) and they were not motivated by a pre-occupation with women's rights. Therefore, they were not, in fact, feminists.

While this may pertain to secular feminism, I would contest its relevance to Jewish Orthodox feminism.

Secular feminism, as I understand it, opposes the idea that there is any inequality between genders. ("Anything you can do, I can do...better.") Feminists will lobby to gain more rights, such as a right to vote or a right to "control their body" (i.e. pro choice). After visiting many websites it seems to me that the goal, at least a majority of the time, is not the end itself but the means to an end. For example, if a feminist supports abortion it is not because she values abortion as an ideal, but because she values the women's right to chose what they do with their body.

I would argue that Jewish Orthodox feminism is of a completely different nature. It is because of a dedication to the goal - God and his Torah - that they wish to exploit every permissible means of arriving at the goal. If a woman decides to learn Gmarah it is more likely that she is doing it because the intellectual exercise intensifies her bond to God, than because she thinks women can do whetever they want. There is no doubt in my mind that there are times they go too far, beyond that which is permissible, but I am a firm believer that the motivations are of a religious nature.

So, perhaps, instead of denying the feministic qualties of the narrative involving Bnot Tzelofchad, we should treat that as the paradigm of Jewish feminism. This could become a wonderful educational tool. Bnot Tzelofchad were motivated by a love of them family and Eretz Yisrael, not affirming their own rights as women. The way in which they acted upon it was not protest or some of the other means that secular feminists have used, they went to their posek to find a halachik means to their goal.

An example of Jewish Orthodox feminism? I think so.

More on Religious Evolution

2005-07-14T23:25:00.000+03:00

I don't know how many of you have heard Rabbi Dovid Orlofsky's "shiur" on platonic relationships. However, it was all the rage throughout most of my high school career. Basically that was the method through which our rabbis kept us from associating with the opposite gender. During the tape he discusses how girls and guys are different so obviously girls studying Gmarah comes up. This is my own transcription of what he says, it's not flawless:

"I was once confronted by a girl who studied in a particular seminary where they studied Gemoroh. She said to me, 'Do you allow women to learn Gemoroh?' I don't know if you could sense - she had an agenda. Sometimes from the question you can tell that people are headed in a certain direction, 'Do you allow women to learn Gemoroh?' - you know? I said, 'Me? I don't allow or disallow anything. Who am I?' That really upset her, because she's trying to bait me as the black hat, stone throwing, flag burning, women hating, you know, fanatic madman. So she had to switch tactics, so she says, 'Does it bother you when women learn Gemoroh?' You like that? You see? Psychological. I said, 'No, it doesn't bother me, it doesn't bother me. But that's basically because I don't care that much about people.
'What do you mean?'
'I don't know, you know, if I see someone in trouble I don't care.'
So she's stuck here, she's getting frustrated. So she says, 'If a girl would come and ask you, should she learn Gemoroh, what would you tell her?' Allright a pretty simple question. So I said, 'What do you care?'
'What?'
'What do you care? You obviously have an agenda, you could care less what I have to say.' You hear the question? 'No, no, wait a sec.' So I said, look, 'You're baiting me. You believe that women should learn Gemoroh, for whatever reason, you know, whatever your sources are.' I say, 'Fine, what do you want my reaction.'
'No really really.'
'Ok.' I say, 'The Gemoroh says that a woman will not find her fulfillment by learning Gemoroh.' So she says to me, 'That's just an eitzah tovah, that's not halacha, just an eitza tova.' Just Good advice. I said, 'That's true. So if a girl comes to me, should I give her bad advice?' Hmmm...she wasn't prepared for that one. 'No give her an eitzah ruh - learn Gemoroh.' So she says, "Well, you have to understand, the Gemoroh was talking to different times, and times have changed and so has education and with changing education people change...' So I said, 'So, when the Gemoroh says that women shouldn't learn Gemoroh it was wrong?'
'Right.'
'It was out of touch?'
'Right.'
'It doesn't relate to us.'
'Right.'
'So what do you want to learn it for?'"

As expected, I find this conversation highly disturbing. Rabbi Orlofsky, a "kiruv professional," is implicitely positing that if any statement in the entire corpus no longer applies in today's day and age, the entire work is not legitimate. In other words - nothing changes. (I won't even address the fact that his rebuttal is irrelevent.)
I have quoted before a shiur by Rav Herschel Shachter in which he describes Modern Orthodoxy. The idea is not that the Torah CHANGES with the times, per se, but rather that the way we apply the Torah to our lives changes as a result of our lives changing.
As an example he tells a story he heard from Rav Schwab of a certain individual who was careful to always wear a gartel when he davened. One day he went to Mincha straight from the office and realized that he had forgotten his gartel. So he took off his tie and tied it around his waist. The humor of the story lies in the fact that the soultion he came to was counterproductive. Because when one davens they must be fully dressed, those who lived in the times of the Talmud were required to wear a gartel. That is because in their society being fully dressed meant wearing a sash around your waist. In today's day and age, it makes more sense to wear a tie around your neck to fulfill that obligation.
I would go so far as to say that if a religion can not cater to a changing society, it is an inherently flawed system. One of the aspects of halacha that I find mind-boggling is the complexity of the system. Situations that are so removed from the reality of Talmudic times still fit in the halachik system.

So, does the fact that this dictum no longer applies suggest that we should discontinue study of the entire Gmarah? Lehefech - it is precisely BECAUSE the system has room to undergo change that it is worth study.

[I would like to reiterate that I do not believe that the reason girls can/should study Gmarah is for the same reason as the girl who confronted Rabbi Orlofsky.]

External Influences and Authentic Judaism

2005-07-10T18:06:00.000+03:00

The evolution of any system of beliefs over a few centuries is inevitable. Values and doctrines can not stay the same, and as far as I'm concerned should not. It is also inevitable that the external culture will influence any given system of beliefs. Historically, for example, the Spanish Jews in the Middle Ages were more interested in Philosophy, Art and Science, as that was the culture of the time, and were interested in inculcating it into their religious lives. In contrast, the German Jews of the Middle Ages, who were located in the epicenter of the Dark Ages where the only culture was religion mimicked the "goyim" with a "Torah Only" approach to Judaism. (Yes, I know that's counterintuitive, but it is still true.)
I would posit that many of the so called "Traditional" religious practices are actually imported from Christianity. (Although it is true that it worked the other way around as well.) For example the "Traditional" stance to women's rights - or rather lack thereof - much of it is actually influenced by Church doctrine.
Never, have I found this particularly troublesome - as I said, it's inevitable. Nor do I suggest that everything return to the way it was before the assimilation of Church ethics - polygamy isn't really my thing. (I do think that some things should change since they are not really halacha, but cultural influences on Judaism, but that's tangential to the topic at hand.)
What irks me is the intellectual dishonesty I find when I bring up influences of the Church on Judaism.

A certain "hashkafa" teacher of mine had a very Chareidi mindset. He spent a series of classes explaining to us why science is avodah zara(!). At some point in my life I realized that some people are not worth responding to, some people prefer to live in a fantasyland and not be intruded on by truths and proofs. So, I left him alone. Apparently my facial expressions revealed that I was perturbed by his thesis.
After class he asked if I would speak to him - I suspect that he thought I would "go off the derech" unless he took matters into his own hands. He tried to bait me into responding and eventually, because I was really in a rush to get somewhere else, I figured that sharing my opinion with him would end the conversation more quickly. I told him that it is quite clear that Science and Torah do not contradict and chances are that if you find that they do you are misunderstanding either the Torah or Science. (In this particular case I think he misunderstood both, but I didn't tell him that.) Then I proceeded to explain that the dissonance that religion feels towards science is a result of centuries of opposition towards it from the church. Hence, many Jews have adopted the stance that the two contradict although they don't.
He was beside himself, and at a loss for words, which afforded me the opportunity to make a hasty escape. Before I left, though, he told me, "Just because two things look the same, doesn't mean they're the same. The church and da'as Torah may seem the same on this one, but they are not. We have to trust da'as Torah."
PROFOUND!

Excuse Me Miss, But Your SJF is Showing

2005-07-07T07:09:00.000+03:00

[SJF = Single Jewish Female]

I have been a bit too serious for my sanity lately, so I felt a need to lighten the mood a bit.

Orthodox Jews are crazy when it comes to marriage. I don't care how modern-liberal-progressive you get, even if you're a feminist, there's some old Eastern European Jew in each one of you who thinks, "oysh, we've got to find her a shidduch." After years of being on the receiving end of "mussar shmoozes" on the subject, I have somewhat come to terms with the insanity. That means that I can get over the fact that so many people who know me think I am crazy because there are things I want to accomplish before I start dating - OY VEY, R"L.
I was always under the impression that the pressure started later in life, 19 or 20 maybe. But apparently it is the summer before seminary when the cracks about motherhood and shidduchim start.
As I have mentioned before, I have been forced to take whatever jobs I can in order to pay for my education next year. One of those jobs is at a restaurant. It is unbelievable how many comments I have gotten from the Orthodox guys who I work with. Here's a sample:

*I am making a squeamish face.
Boss: You have to get over that before you become a mother.
Me: Excuse me> Are you implying that my finickiness would somehow impair my ability to be a good mother?
Boss: Absolutely, there's no room for squeamishness in motherhood.
Me: Thanks for the heads up, I'll do my best to avoid it.
Boss: No it's worth it.
Me: Really? How many times have you been a mother? (Boss is a guy.)
Boss: Uh, I've always been on the other side of things.
Me: Well I guess I have many years until I have to worry about that.
Boss: Aren't you going to seminary next year?
Me: Yah...
Boss: So, just about another year, right?
Me: No.

*I have a proud expression on my face.
Me: Today I made hamburgers - out of raw meat! I touched raw meat!
Co-worker: (heavy sarcasm) I'm proud.
Me: You should be I don't DO kitchens.
Co-worker: Well that's an advertisement for the shadchan - "I don't DO kitchens." (highly amused with himself)
Single Co-worker: (smiling from ear to ear) You need to marry someone who knows his way around the kitchen.
Me: I'm going to take these people's food out to them now.

Hope you had as much fun with these as I didn't.

Views on Disengagement

2005-07-06T18:29:00.000+03:00

Previously, I had been reluctant to share my views on the matter of Disengagement. I don't wear an orange bracelet, I won't discuss it in Bnei Akiva, and when I am in am unavoidable situation in which it is being discussed I usually just nod politely. The contrast with my usual behavior is stark, I usually have no trouble letting everyone know what I think. The truth is, I am very uncomfortable with having views on the Disengagement because the lines between the rational and the emotional have blurred and I don't really know how to deal with that. So I will share my views despite the fact that I have a hard time even labeling them views. Sometimes it will not make sense and it may sound like I don't really have an opinion - that is true, you have been warned.

Each of us has core values - things that are so important to us that they define us and our weltanschauung. There are three things that I value above all else and that is Torah, the Jewish People, and Eretz Yisrael. (The only role I have ever played in Bnei Akiva is as a madricha and I had these values previously - just so you don't think I'm brainwashed.) These three things have always joined cohesively, often overlapping.

Unfortunately, now, the symbiosis has shattered. I know it's a terrible thing to say, but it's true.

Most of the arguments I have heard regarding the Disengagement have been preoccupied with the Torah and Eretz Yisrael perspective. I believe that there is clear halachik precedent to giving up land for the sake of peace. Furthermore, I think that these conversations are irrelevant. Perhaps if the government had any interest in what the Torah had to say it would be worthwhile to offer these proofs, but they are not. Their interests lie solely in what would be most politically strategical.

Ultimately, the aspect of this plan that is so difficult for me to swallow is its effect on Am Yisrael

I love Eretz Yisrael - all of it - but if giving up any of it would save a single Jewish life, I would be willing, based on halachik precedent, to give it up. However, I believe that it is clear that this is a tactical error. It is so illogical to assume that these bloodthirsty adjacent Jew-haters have any interest in stopping with what they got. They want everything! In fact, despite the fact that the Disengagement is imminent has not deterred them from continuing attacks as of yet. In fact it very well may heighten the level of attack because they see they can manipulate us into concessions. I oppose the Disengagement plan because I believe it has little to no strategic value.

The individuals being removed from their homes are a part of a community. Perhaps, they will find somewhere to live, but their neighbor will no longer be their neighbor, their children will no longer go to the school that they had picked for them, etc. As someone who has been evaluating where to live in Israel, I may be overly sensitive to the fact that it is difficult to find a community there. Each place has a distinct flavor. These people found theirs, and they grew in it and it grew because of them and now it is being fragmented. I oppose the Disengagement plan because it means the destruction of the life of full communities.

That's just the community now, but what about the community of previous generations? What will happen to the graves of those buried in these settlements. Are we to pretend that the Palestinians will not desecrate the burial sites? Will allow family members to visit them? Perhaps we should dig up all the graves and re-inter the deceased, causing their families to relive the original pain. I oppose the Disengagement plan because it affects generations of Jews, even those who we may not presently be concerned with.

Mitzad sheni (on the other hand) I sympathize with the Israelis who lay awake at night wondering if their son is alive or dead. They resent the settlements because they view them as a waste of their most valuable gift - their children. What if your son was being put in danger so that he could guard a few families living in a remote location from hostile neighbors? How would you feel? I cannot help but support those who support the Disengagement because of the effect that it has on THEIR families.

I am very much opposed to soldiers refusing to follow their orders. Israel is a democracy and by definition a democracy needs the support of its constituency to survive. The soldiers need to follow orders - perhaps with less force, perhaps with tears running down their cheeks, but they need to do it nonetheless. Furthermore, a refusal to follow orders could lead to a Milchemet Achim (civil war). There is no need to elaborate on how disastrous an effect that would have on both Eretz Yisrael and Am Yisrael. I oppose a refusal to follow orders because it tugs at the fabric of Medinat Yisrael and heartstrings of my brothers.

I am angered by the actions of many protesters. If you think laying in the street, not enabling people to get to where they have to go, causes people to resonate with your views, you're wrong. It makes them angry! It could also hypothetically endanger people, if it hasn't already. There are other ways to make your voice heard, that is not the way. I oppose illegal and dangerous demonstrations which hurt, physically or emotionally, any of my brothers.

So why a blorange ribbon?
Because I view Am Yisrael as an organic whole and although one part of Am Yisrael may support Disengagement and the other oppose it they are all one. Therefore, we, as an organic whole, carry a blorange ribbon. Therefore, I, as a part of this organic whole, show this ribbon.

YESH LANU AHAVA VEHI TENATZE'ACH!(Let that mean what it will.)

Midrashim III...Shakespeare Sr.

2005-07-06T07:32:00.000+03:00

One of the few criticisms that literary critics offer regarding Shakespeare's works is that they are full of anachronism. For example, although the University of Wittenberg did not exist during the time of Hamlet and the clock had yet to be invented in the time of Julius Caser they appear in his plays regarding those two characters. In fact, if you ask someone to explain the concept of an anachronism to you, chances are that they will describe one of the many examples in Shakespeare's works. That is, unless you ask me. I have an even better example of a striking anachronism that is even more obvious...
The Parsha is Vayera - I know that is the setting of much of our last discussion, but I really like Avraham - the place is Sdom. Sdom can easily be described as a city which is extremely hostile to newcomers and guests. They are the kind of people who would gather angrily around your front door with torches and pitchforks threatening to assault any guests you let into your home.
Lot, Avraham's nephew finds strangers in his new hometown, Sdom. Doing what any decent guy would do, he offers them a place to stay. The normal behavior ends there. He tells them that when they come over they should spend the night AND THEN wash their feet. Furthermore, he tells them that they should WAKE UP EARLY and go on their way.
Rashi, in his inimitable fashion, picks up on the first strange instruction - Lot is hardly playing "hostess with the mostest." He explains that if they have dusty feet any Sdomites who see them will assume that they arrived recently. Ramban explains that he told them to leave early because he was warning them not to linger in the city too long because of the wickedness of the city.
One last thing that Lot does that MIGHT strike us as odd - he bakes matzot. Matzot?! You mean those things that we eat on Pesach that taste like the box that they are sold in. Uh huh. What explanation does Rashi offer? Well, quoting a Bereshit Rabbah, he states that CLEARLY it was Pesach. Well, of course, why didn't I think of that? It may have something to do with the fact that the phenomenon that Pesach commemorates had yet to happen. Actually it happens approximately four generations (counting by Moshe's lineage) after Avraham's grandson! Now if that isn't an anachronism I don't know what is! However, unlike the scholars who study Shakespeare, I would not attribute this to the kind of blunder that happens to even the greatest minds. This has a tremendous amount of meaning.

First the pshat...
Lot is in a hurry. If you were desperate to insure your safety in an environment such as this one what might you do? You definitely would NOT make slaughter cows, make cream, and bake cakes the way Avraham did. That is because you live in a time long before refrigeration and would have to make the cream fresh. You would also have to go through the pretty arduous, not to mention time consuming, act of slaughtering and cooking cows. Finally, you could not afford to wait for the dough to rise for cakes. Although you would like to be more hospitable you are in a rush! So what, out of a stroke of ingenuity, do you make? Matzot. Sure, they may taste really bad, but as far as you know these guys are STARVING and it would be a welcome break from cactus fruit and sandy water. Best of all it takes practically no prep time - you can make the whole thing, from the mixing of ingredients to the finished product, in eighteen minutes.

See, that was not too tough. Once again, Chazal expect that you would be able to figure that one out on your own, so they offer a profound inner meaning. What does "Pesach haya" mean? What ARE our sages trying to communicate?

God tells Moshe that He has a job for him. He has to go to the world's superpower and tell him to free a nation of slaves. Moshe's problem is twofold. (1) His duty is to convince this rather intelligent king to allow a large populace of free labor to leave his country which is now prospering and growing as a result of their labor. (2) He must further convince this downtrodden nation to follow him a Midyanite noble who promises that he will lead them to freedom. Yah right... How God responds to these issues is tangential at this point, what is important is how He identifies Himself when He does.
The way the Torah identifies God, and anyone else for that matter, is full of meaning. Whatever role that individual is filling at the time, it is evidenced by what they are called. So when God is repeatedly identified as the God of this nation's fathers it is because that is the role that He is now playing. The Navi in Yechezkel (Chapter 20) informs us of the fact that Bnei Yisrael did NOT deserve redemption.
It seems highly plausible to me that the Jews were only redeemed because of the zechut of their forefathers. The more you look through the relevant sources, the more you will find proof of this hypothesis. (The Midrash about mem tet sha'arei tumah, the classical interpretation of she'ilat hakelim, vehamevin yavin...)

Unfortunately, Jewish people tend to live under the illusion that the generation that left Mitzrayim and accepted the Torah were flawless. No doubt they were exceptional individuals, but perfect they were not. When considering Lot, however, it is easy to point out his flaws. The pshat offers: Lot leaves Avraham to settle in the infamous Sdom, he explicitly states that he would rather offer his daughters to the mob than his guests (however you choose to understand the statement, it aint pretty), and he becomes intoxicated and fathers his own grandchildren. Chazal accentuate any possible misdemeanor on his part: he wasn't really THAT nice when he offered the angels a place to live, Avraham can only receive nevuah again once Lot finally leaves, etc. To sum it all up, Lot does not strike us as THAT great of a guy. Yet, Hashem "swoops in" and saves him from imminent destruction. Why? "...And the Lord remembered Avraham and sent Lot from the upheavel..." (Notice how the impersonal name of God is used. As far as He's concerned there is little to no personal involvement with Lot in this situation. Ve'acamol.)
In the metaphor of "Pesach Haya" Sdom amidst destruction symbolizes Egypt amidst destruction and Lot symbolizes - you guessed it - Bnei Yisrael. Chazal are basically telling us, 'See how Lot is a pretty mediocre fellow? So were you. You know how Lot only got saved because of Avraham? You too.'

Thanks guys, now what? Well this has profound meaning for us, because, well, we're pretty mediocre ourselves. Don't worry though, God has "got our back." Of course we have to do our best to fulfill God's will, but despite our not being the most obedient nation in the world, we are descended from some really great guys.

Bottom line: Chazal's anachronisms have a lot more meaning than Shakespeare's.

Now That I'm Back...

2005-07-05T07:49:00.000+03:00

...two quick updates:

(1) After much thought I have decided on the next Midrash to explore together. I hope to get around to it soon.

(2) I have removed the "blorange" ribbon. This is because my views are not exactly the same as its creator and I don't want my views to be misrepresented. I will, God willing, write up a post explaining my views and only then replace the image.

I have a few other ideas for promising new posts, but those two are at the top of my priority list.

"The Time That Moshe Hit the Rock"

2005-07-04T07:18:00.000+03:00

In this week's parsha, Chukat, the episode in which "Moshe hits the rock" is found. Otherwise identified as "Mei Meriva," if you call it "the time that Moshe hit the rock" you have a greater chance of being understood. This "layman's title," however, is indicative of an issue facing many Biblical narratives.
The issue has been entitled "The Lullaby Effect" by Rabbi Dovid Fohrman. The way the "Lullaby Effect" works is really quite simple. Take your average lullaby - "Rock a bye baby" - it is a song you have perhaps sung a million times. Perhaps singing it would put your child to sleep. However, if you were to really listen to the words a million questions would spring into your mind: Why exactly was the baby in the tree?, Was the baby hurt when he fell?, etc. The problem is that you, whoever sang that song to you, and your child are so used to hearing this song that the absurdities no longer affect you. The same happens to many of the Biblical naratives that we grow up with. We become so familiar with the stories that the really obvious questions no longer concern us.
So why is the aforementioned "layman's title" indicative of this issue? The reader who entitles it as "The Time That Moshe Hit the Rock" is ignoring the fact that this is not the sole episode in which Moshe hits a rock, in fact, shortly after leaving Mitzrayim Moshe hits a rock in order to extract water for the nation. Yet, people continue to call it..."The Time That Moshe Hit the Rock." (I know this is starting to get redundant.) This seems to be a result of the fact that many people consider it axiomatic that the climax of the Mei Meriva incident was Moshe's hitting the rock. It is the climax because that is the reason that Moshe was punished, right?! God told him to SPEAK to the rock and instead he hit it.
Um...
That IS Rashi's opinion. Let's not say it's wrong, let's say it's just not meaningful to me. Allow me to proceed to shatter "The Lullaby Effect."

Issues With Rashi's Explanation:

Why did God specifically command Moshe to take the staff if he was not supposed to hit the rock?

Elsewhere, Rashi himself translates "el" as about, why in this situation is he so convinced that "el" means to as opposed to about? (Especially in light of the staff bearing and the previous episode in which Moshe was supposed to hit the rock.)

Hashem says that the reason for the punishment was "ya'an lo he'emantem bi..." - how does hitting the rock display a lack of "emunah?"

Hashem further describes their sin as a failure "lehakdisheni le'einei Bnei Yisrael" - Rashi's explanation does not provide any elucidation as to how HITTING and bringing forth water is any less of a kiddush Hashem than SPEAKING and bringing forth water.

After everything else that has happened, why is this such a big sin as to deserve a punishment of this magnitude?

Why is Ahron punished as well if the sin is Moshe's?

Where is the middah knegged middah? What does revoking Moshe's leadership have to do with hitting a rock?

So how's that? Now is that a narrative that exemplifies "The Lullaby Effect" or is that a narrative that exemplifies "The Lullaby Effect?"
[Now for all of you who think that this needs an alternative explanation, I am aware. I have not decided whether or not I should type the whole thing up though.]

Relationship with God

2005-07-03T19:10:00.000+03:00

[Computer is back and fully-operational...well, sort of.]

Have you ever had a truly meaningful conversation with a seven year old about God? I have. You see, my nephew is what many might call brilliant. His grandmother, my brother-in-law's mother, says, "You guys keep pumping him full of Torah and Science and Shakespeare." (So true - guess what my contribution is.) One day he got into a tremendous fight with his sister, the five year old who wrecks his toys. Despite his intelligence, he can still be a baby sometimes so he smacked her in the face.
Being the one responsible for their wellfare at the time - I don't know what my sister was thinking - I realized that it was up to me to do something,

"Nephew's name, come here, we need to talk."

(If only you could see the face he made right then. Hehe...)
I spent the next ten minutes discussing the idea that it's not enough for him to learn mishnayot and daven, he needs to care about other people. I know I sounded like a fluffy - can't we all just get along - achdus is our goal idiot, but that's not neccesarily a bad thing...

The point is:
Why do we have such a hard time educating Jewish children to be mentches?!
Why is it that your average Jewishly educating kid will walk by McDonald's thinking "efshi ve'efshi," but when it comes to an exceptionally juicy piece of Lashon Hara, their ethic detectors shut down?
It's puzzling and disturbing.

Checkin' In

2005-06-30T21:52:00.000+03:00

I'm so sorry everyone for having fallen off the face of the (blogging) Earth. I am in a bit over my head at the moment. If anyone else wants to unpack for me, do Israel planning for me, find a way to pay for Israel for me, etc. etc. - they are more than welcome to and then all my attention can be focused on this lovely community which I truly love. Seriously, the people in my real life are getting jealous - one of the perks of not being an anonymous blogger ;).

I did have an idea for a post, but I have to get to it at some other time because, among other things, I don't have a computer in my new apartment yet.

Frumteens...Again

2005-06-24T05:52:00.000+03:00

I know I do not usually say things about the MODERATOR and in general I like to veer away from arguments regarding him, because everyone else is already doing it. However this infuriated me:

"Other reasons why MH is not the "language of the Jew" are:

(a) Its origin is actually anti-Jewish. The creators of MH did so because "it is not possible to be a nation without a national language" (see Eisentein's encyclopedia, 'Ivrit'). This of course is Apikursos, because Jews are a nation not like other nations - whereas other nations need a common spoken language, we only need the Torah to make us a "nation"..."

Shoot, I knew I missed one of the ikkarim.
"Ani ma'amin be'emunah shleimah shehaYehudim lo tzrichim safa lihiyot umah."

I can see the songs now...the swaying...ahh, oppurtunities for spirituality...

Is he nuts?

Just Tmeishar

2005-06-23T16:59:00.000+03:00

After having read this and this over at Treppenwitz, I was intrigued. If I tried to compile a list of my own, what kind of wacky things could I come up with? Which friends would know which items? Which friends will know a pathetic few items? I decided to give it a go:

- There are few things that disgust me as much as body piercings, this includes pierced ears. I have a hard time taking people seriously when they play with their earrings.

- If a Rabbi is immaculately dressed, there is a greater chance that I will be interested in what he has to say.

- I think it is absolutely disgusting to stand and eat in public. I hate being at informal occasions where people stand around chatting and shoveling food in their mouth.

- I hate most occasions at which there will be a lot of people I know, and will do my best to get out of going to them. Once I am there, I tend to stay for a long time because I am worried about being rude and leaving too soon.

- Sometimes when I am really upset I THINK obscenities. (As opposed to normal people who scream them.)

- If I am really really upset I will say certain obscenities, but there are certain words I would NEVER say.

- I will seriously question someone's intelligence if I see them wearing a black hat.

- I would not even consider dating someone who would wear a button-down shirt untucked. This has nothing to do with vanity and everything to do with an anal formality.

- Usually I wish I could go out and fix the world, but sometimes I wish I could just crawl back in bed and not have to face the world.

- Sometimes, when I consider my Aliyah, I wonder if I am making the biggest mistake of my life. (I would never let anyone know though.)

- Often, if I could have more aptly expressed what I was trying to say, I get very annoyed at myself.

- There are times when I will not say anything at all because I can not think of the proper way to express it.

- I get very uncomfortable when I speak to Rabbis; even those with whom I have a long-standing relationship.

- My MMY interview was probably the first time in my life when I spoke to a Rabbi without getting butterflies in my stomache, and that was most probably because I was half asleep.

- I wish I could publicly burn "The Little Midrash Says."

- I value my idiosyncrasies, even though I realize that they are very strange.

- I purposely befriend and associate with others who have idiosyncrasies because I think those people are more interesting.

- It is difficult for me to get along with people who are always nice because I have a sneaking suspicion that they are always faking it.

- I make an effort to be one of those people who are always nice, but I also make a concious effort to really mean it.

- There are certain words that I consider very vulgur even though no one else does. (ex. bathroom, deodorant, underwear, etc.)

- I don't think people should ever discuss something that they would not do in front of other people.

- I hate it when people spray deodorant on in front of other people.

OK, I sound like an absolute nutcase. I am really a lot more normal than I appear from this post. Maybe I should stick to Torah.

Have a good day.

Modern Orthodoxy in America

2005-06-21T17:27:00.000+03:00

CRISIS!

If one more person tells me that they want to be a "right-winger" (their words not mine) when they get older because Modern Orthodoxy is just about making excuses to be lenient, I will go nuts.
Excuse me, but if you really think that THAT hashkafa is more correct, do it now, what the HECK are you waiting for?! Also, are you accusing ME of being more lenient? Which one of us actually observes hilchot tzniut? How about being shomer negiah? How about learning Torah, and for that matter halacha, - do you? How much do you really care about Judaism that you feel you have the right to call Modern Orthodoxy an excuse to be a lenient person? I, for one, do NOT use it as an excuse to be lenient; maybe YOU do.
How many times do I have to explain that Modern Orthodoxy is an IDEAOLOGY, not an excuse to say, "eh, we can do whatever we want?"
Ugh, Americans ruin everything. I can't wait to get out of Shmutz La'aretz.

While we are on the topic...
Do NOT tell me that you don't have to follow a certain halacha because it is not your family's minhag. That does not make any sense!

I actually feel a lot better now...

[Related]

Midrashim II...Thanks Dad III

2005-06-20T04:14:00.000+03:00

OK, let's see if we can get this wrapped up.

We have already established that according to pshat, God chose Avraham. Does the pshat details any specific purpose for which he was chosen, though? Initially, it appears as though it does not. There is, however, a beautifully arranged narrative which may offer some insight into this question.
We are all aware of the opening of Parshat Vayera in which three angels come to visit Avraham following his Brit Milah. Check out how the story "wraps up":

And the men arose from there and they gazed toward Sdom and Avraham walked with them to send them off. And God said, "Shall I conceal from Avraham that which I do?" And Avraham will be a great and mighty nation and through him all the nations of the world will be blessed. For I have known him (Rashi - this connotes an intimate relationship, i.e "knowing in the Biblical sense.") SO THAT he will command his sons and his household after him that they keep the way of God by doing charity and justice..."
(Bereshit 18;16-19)

What ensues is a prayer by Avraham that Sdom be saved from punishment despite their iniquity. The prayer is presumably based on the assumption that is there are a certain number of "good people" in the area they will be able to influence the rest of the population.
This is one of the narratives that make it easy to appreciate the literary qualities of the Torah.
The text quoted above seems to express that the purpose of God developing a relationship with Avraham is to have a family, eventually a nation, which will influence the rest of the world to follow the "way of God." This is set in a situation in which Avraham pleads for "the Goyim," essentially fulfilling his charge. All of this is based on the assumption that a small crowd can influence its surroundings - exactly what he is meant to do. Ah, beautiful.

History continues and Avraham;s children do in fact become a large nation, a slave nation in a foreign land. God performs a miraculous redemption that shakes the rest of the world to its core. He enters into a partnership of sorts with them via the Torah and henceforth they are responsible for the religious well-being of the rest of the world.

(It is hardly a coincidence that John Adams had the following to say about the Jews:
"I will insist the Hebrews have [contributed] more to civilize men than any other nation. If I was an atheist and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations … They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth. The Romans and their empire were but a bubble in comparison to the Jews. They have given religion to three-quarters of the globe and have influenced the affairs of mankind more and more happily than any other nation, ancient or modern.")

Back to our Midrashim:
The pshat has a nationalistic perspective. As a people it is our responsibility to contribute to the world. However, just reading the pshat may be an overwhelming experience. How am I, an insignificant individual, going to make any difference? The midrash offers a solution. Hand in hand with God choosing us is the idea that we must also choose Him. We have to make a concious decision to incorporate Him into our lives. The essential aspect, however, remains His choosing us. It is a responsibility that is handed down dependent on our parentage - morasha kehilat Yaakov.

In this case, it is irrelevant whether the Midrash is meant to be understood literally. The lesson it teaches us is its purpose.

GAMARNU!

[Note to ADDeRabbi: I decided to focus on the interaction between Midrash and pshat instead of analyzing the drash itself. Sorry.]

Midrashim II...Thanks Dad II

2005-06-17T06:08:00.000+03:00

(Wow, now THAT's a confusing title.)

I believe that the best way to approach most narratives in the Torah is by gaining an appreciation for the characters involved. You can not, for example, possibly understand the incident at Mei Meriva without understanding Moshe and Ahron as individuals. No incident happens in a historical vacuum and is therefore part of a larger "Biblical Picture" - if you will. Having said that, perhaps it is also neccesary to try and understand the individual with whom we are dealing from a macroscopic perspective. Once we do that we can hopefully try to understand this Midrash and why it is not in the actual Biblical text.

So first the pshat...
Avraham's makes his debut at the end of Parshat Noach as he travels with his famiy to Canaan. Then once again when Hashem commands him to move in the beginning of Parshat Lech Lecha:
"And God said to Avram, go for yourself from your land and from your birthplace and from the house of your father to the land which I will show you. And I will make you a great nation and I will bless you and make great your name and you will be a blessing..."

Who chooses whom?
- According to the Midrash: Avraham chooses Hashem and is willing to sacrfice his life to prove his devotion.
- According to the Pshat: God chooses Avraham and immediately gives him a command.
That is an important distinction!

Two other well known Midrashim which may reflect the difference between the Midrash and Pshat here:

"How odd of God to choose the Jews; It was not odd, the Jews chose God."

(1) Hashem offers the Torah to each nation and each of them "takes a raincheck." No one wants the imposition of this rulebook. Only the Jewish people are willing to "take the plunge."
(2) Hashem coerces the Jews to accept the Torah by threatening to bury them under a mountain if they refuse.
(Bavli Avodah Zara 2b, Shabbat 88a, etc. - I suggest seeing the ADDeRabbi on this one.)

Keep those Midrashim in mind as we journey back to Avraham. As we said, let's view him on a macrospocic level:
God creates a God and animal "hybrid." "Na'aseh Adam betzalmenu kedmutenu" (Bereshit 1;26, translation:Let us make man in our image, in our likeness.) Ramban posits (in my humble opinion this is the most pshat approach) that God was talking to all that he had just created. He said (kiviyachol) 'I'm going to make something that has a physical and Godly aspect.' However, this amazing creation fails to achieve his potential as he, almost immediately, sins. Catastrophic results ensue as man is banished from his home and now destined to be the humans we are today, replete with pain.
His children also sin - one son murders the other.
Ten generations after man is created, Noach is born into a world which is wholly corrupt. God decides to have a primordial "TAKE 2." He wipes out the entire world, saving only a family and animals.
The early history of man continues with various misdemeanors which demolish any hopes for the man created with high potential to accomplish what he is meant to.
What this world needs is a "good seed." We all know the type - so sparkling good that that everyone around them improves their behavior through osmosis.

Ok, this is getting long and Shabbat preperations await. I'll do my best to get to Midrashim II...Thanks Dad III soon. Last I checked, suspense is STILL healthy.

Midrashim II...Thanks Dad

2005-06-16T16:41:00.000+03:00

This is by far my favorite example of a Midrash that people ruin the Pshat and Midrash with.

Avraham Avinu - why did God choose him?

Check out this Rashi:
"...And an Aggadic Midrash says that he [Haran/Avram's brother] died through his father. Terach denounced his son, Avram, before Nimrod for having smashed his idols. And he [Nimrod] cast him [Avram] into a fiery pit. Haran sat and said to himself, 'If Avram is victorious, I will be with him, and if Nimrod, I will join him.' When Avram was saved, they asked Haran, 'Who do you support?' Haran said to them, 'I am with Avram!' They cast him into a fiery furnace and he was burned."
(Parshat Noach 11;28 s.v "al pnei Terach aviv")
Rashi's source is Bereshit Rabbah.

I am sure that all of you have heard this Midrash quoted before; it is a famous one.

The Problem:
You are living in what appears to be a Pagan theocracy and somehow you manage to develop a Monotheistic approach to the world. Not only that, but you openly rebel and smash a bunch of idols. Before the country's very powerful leader, you are turned in, by your father. You are thrown into a fiery furnace and miraculously emerge unscathed. This is followed by a series of interactions with the God that you have discovered.
Your progeny eventually evolve into a nation of Monotheists who's religious epicenter is a book they call the Torah. In it is an in-depth description of your life, your travels, your tests and travails. Yet it introduces you quite simply:
"And Terach lived for seventy years and begot Avram, Nachor and Haran..."
(Parshat Noach 11;26)
Or, if you prefer, the first narrative in which you are involved:
"And God said to Avram, 'Go for yourself from your land and from your birthplace and from the house of your father to the land which I will show you."
(Parshat Lech Lecha 12;1)
Is that really the best way to introduce his phenomenal character? You could not perhaps mention the near roasting in the name of God?

Who wrote this book anyway?!

So there's your cliff-hanger. I have to go to work.
Mull over that one for a while and I will get back to it when I can. Suspense is healthy.

Surprise for tmeishar

2005-06-16T07:17:00.000+03:00

I always assumed that my blog was not really read. Then I got this nifty hits counter...

According to statcounter, between the days of June 9th and 16th I have had a total of 65 hits.

Pretty cool! Thanks guys.

[Actually, I should have waited longer to post this. It is 8:00 on the 16th and there are 131 hits - COOL!]

Kaballah and Community

2005-06-12T18:45:00.000+03:00

I know that there are a lot of things I do that no one else does. Phrased differently: I know there are things that everyone else does that I disagree with and therefore will not do.

If you use Shacharit on Shabbat as an example:

What most people do:
During the Amidah, there are four places for bowing. Other people will bow their knees at "baruch" then bend over at "atah" and finally stand up at Hashem's name.

What I do:
Bend over at "baruch" and stand up for Hashem's name.

What most people do:
During kedusha they will say "nekadesh et shimcha... before the chazan.

What I do:
Not say "nekadesh et shimcha...". Wait for the chazan to say it and then say "kadosh, kadosh, kadosh..."

What most people do:
Sing "kel adon."

What I do:
Do not say or sing it, just wait until it is over.

What most people do:
Sing "Anim Zmirot," possibly swaying with the music and feeling close to God, despite having no idea what it is that they are saying.

What I do:
Walk out before it starts.

No one who knows me is surprised. You see, each of those things that most other people do are recent ammendment that were made to the liturgy by the Kabbalists. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they were really holy people - spoke to angels and ascended to heaven and everything - it's just not for me. I'm a rationalists, a zealous one at that, and the Shulchan Aruch is good enough for me.

This never bothered me before. When people asked, "What's with the weirdness?" I had no problem explaining that I think that everyone else is doing things incorrectly. That is, until Yom Yerushalayim.
I have a dear friend, one of my dearest, and she, uh, "flipped out." However, she still goes to a Modern Orthodox school. While she tries to get out of as many of these things as possible, there are a few times a year that she feels STUCK. Having been in ferociously Chareidi atmospheres many times, I empathize with her predicament.
On Yom Yerushalayim she walked out for Hallel.
To me this was really really bad and I made sure she knew it. I told her that she was being a "poreshet min hatzibbur" and showing disrespect to the Rabbanim who instituted these minhagim in her school.
These crticisms suddenly made me feel very very uncomfortable...

Am I doing the same thing as she is?!

Introducing My New Series - Midrashim

2005-06-08T17:33:00.000+03:00

Call it a pet peeve if you will, but I hate the way people study Midrashim, especially those found in Rashi. I will use this post to try and explain what I believe is the proper way to study pshat and drash based on a few Rabbinical sources. I hope to, God willing, follow this "methodology" post with a few examples for applying this approach.

Let us begin with a famous Rashbam(Parshat Vayeshev 37;2):
[Note: this translation is my own and not exact, I suggest looking at it yourself if possible.]
"Study and understand, all lovers of elightnement, what our Sages taught us (Shabbat 63a): that the text [of the Torah] does not leave its literal meaning. Even though essentially the Torah comes to teach us and to inform us in hints in the text the legends and laws and statutes through the extending the language, and through the thirty two methods of Rav Eliezer the son of Rabbi Yossi Hagalilee, and the thirteen methods of Rabbi Yishmael (he is referring to the exegetical laws proposed by those sages). The earlier ones (i.e. the Amoraim - compilers of the Talmud) as a result of their Chassidut (Essentially, their greatness, but a bit difficult to translate.) endeavoured to develop these exegeses, and as a result of this they were not accustomed to plunge into the literalistic meaning and therefore they said...(Here he cites multiple Talmudic sayings that advise against an indulgence in the study of pshat.)...And also our Rabbi Shlom, the father of my mother (i.e. Rashi) intended to explain Tanach according to its literalistic interpretation. However, I, Shmuel the son of Meir, his son-in-law ZT"L argued with him and before him. He admitted to me that, had he the leisure, he would re-write his commentaries in more literalistic forms that he uncovers daily."

Phenomenal, isn't it? I personally find the note about Rashi intriguing.
I believe his approach can be explained as follows:
The Midrash and Tanach are two seperate books. Although they do (and should) converge, the exegesis (Midrash) does not solve issues in the text of Tanach.
Anyone who is familiar with the commentary of the Rashbam will see that he holds true to this thesis. For example, at the end of Chayei Sara when Avraham marries Keturah (25;1). Rashi quotes a Midrash that says that Keturah is really Hagar and Rashbam says, "lefi hapshat ein zu Hagar" (translation: According to the literal meaning, this is not Hagar.)

Another monumental insight into the world of drash comes from one of the masters of Legal Exegesis himself - the Rambam. (I won't quote this one because it is quite lengthy.) He identifies three common approaches to dealing with Midrash:
(1) To believe that everything that the Sages say is to be understood literally. This is dangerous and obviously not true.
Basically, he rips this approach to shreds in his inimitable way.
(2) To view them as legends and mystical storytelling simialar to those of other cultures. It is clear from the way that he expressed this that this approach is even more problematic than the previous one.
(3) His view - the Sages wrote in hints in order to offer an idea that could only be accessed by those on a level worthy of understanding it.

If we combine the views of the Rashbam and Rambam, we can come to a more utilitarian method of learning Drash. When the Torah writes it has a point to make and that point should be explored. The Midrash offers a new way of viewing the idea the Torah is offering without superceding the pshat.
Or, as Rav Menachem Leibtag, a modern pashtan who I personally love, puts it:
"...the Midrash is fully aware of the "pshat" and expects that the reader is intelligent enough to figure it out on his own. However, as is often the case, the Midrash is not coming to teach us the "pshat" of Chumash, rather it is 'using' psukim in Chumash to convey a thought..."
In fact, I have heard him say a few times that when people understand Midrash literally they effectively ruin the Midrash and the pshat.

That's all folks.
Now I have to pick one of the many commonly misunderstood Midrashim to follow this up with.

Chodesh Tov!

New "Do"

2005-06-07T19:36:00.000+03:00

I had some time so I did some revamping. Don't hate me cuz I'm beautiful!
[Update: I am shocking myself with my own technological capabilities! Now I even have a counter.]

Educating the "Drop-Outs"

2005-06-07T18:30:00.000+03:00

I will now do something I rarely do, comment on a "Yated" article. However, this comment is unlike most "Yated" commentaries because it is not a critique on the Chareidi system. Although I find that "Yated" often makes ludicrous claims and exaggerated reports, there seems little benefit to belittling and mocking them. They could care less what you say. This article, however, struck a cord with me.

Anyone who knows me knows that one thing that monopolizes my thoughts is effective Jewish education. (Good thing too considering my aspirations of becoming an effective Jewish educator.) As a result, I could not help but be drawn to an article entitled, "A Yeshiva for Boys Who Have "Fallen Through the Cracks."

It reports that a group of well-known Rabbis are opening a yeshiva for boys like seventeen year old "Shloime." They describe this boy as:
"Seventeen-year-old Shloimie was raised in a frum household. Everything about Shloimie's family exudes frumkeit — except Shloimie.

Shloimie's father reminds him to take his black hat for davening, unaware that his son seldom davens any more at all. His mother is sure he'll be a great talmid chochom someday, yet she is oblivious to the fact that her son has lost interest in learning and introduces himself to new friends as "Steven."

Shloimie has fallen through the cracks."

[Public Service Announcement: I will say nothing about the small nuances in this description and in the rest of the article that bother me. This does not mean that I do not take issue with them.]

While I find the effort on the part of these rabbis laudable, I question their effectiveness. If they are in fact aiming to influence boys such as "Shloime," how will they find them? Consider the following - if a kid has deluded his parents, the people with whom he lives and who see what he is like when no one else is around, what are the chances that he will voluntarily enter a program such as this? It will undoubtedly "blow his cover."
This is assuming that the boy still cares and wants to develop himself to become the person he has the potential to be. What if he does not care anymore? What is he has no interest in changing his ways? Then there is not a chance that he will come to a yeshiva that is all about changing the person who he has decided to be.
Furthermore, I am aware that because this is a "Yated" article it could not be so explicit. However, when they aspire to find guys who have "fallen through the cracks" do they only mean those that do not daven or learn? What about those on drugs and those who have been further led astray by girls? If both types of boys are the intended audience of this institution, are the former perhaps going to be negatively influenced by the latter?

I wish these rabbis much hatzlacha in this endeavour.

Psalms 48...THE FINALE

2005-06-06T22:06:00.000+03:00

This has been a very fulfilling exploration of this perek and I thank you all for sharing it with me.

The experience detailed here of being viscerally aware of God because of Yerushalayim was clearly displayed on Yom Yerushalayim of 1967. No Jew had stepped foot on the sanctified ground of a Yerushalayim in centuries. The IDF enters and recaptures it and suddenly it does not matter whether they are religious or not because God is there. As one soldier (Yossi Ronen) in the audio clip I posted earlier says, "Eneni adam dati, me'olam lo hayiti, aval zehu haKotel va'ani noge'ah be'avnei haKotel hama'aravi."
(Translation: I am not a religious man, I never was, bu this is the Kotel and I am touching the stones of the Kotel Hama'aravi.)

No one can dispute the significance of chiloni soldiers breaking into the bracha of shehechiyanu. Of course, everyone knows the HUGE movement of Ba'alei Tshuva following the Six Day War.

I think it is important to note that the Rambam ruled that Divine Sanctity could never leave Yerushalayim. Considering what the perek we just analyzed seems to be saying, that is highly appropriate. It is the epicenter of a congnizance of Hashem, and therefore can never be lacking that which makes it be. Or as the perek itself says, "Elokim yechoneneha ad olam - selah!" (Translation: The Lord will eternally establish it - Selah!)

Yom Yerushalayim Sameach!

Psalms 48...Part II

2005-06-06T20:37:00.000+03:00

Now for the good stuff. (Public service announcement: If you feel that Biblical poetry should not be treated as such, I suggest not reading the rest of this post.)

I think that in order to understand the progression of any given perek in Tehillim it is necessary to break it into stanzas:

1 A "shir mizmor" by the progeny of Korach.

A
2 Great is God and very praised in the city of our Lord - His holy mountain.
3 Fairest of heights, joy of all the Earth - the Mountain of Zion, the Northern area - the city of a great King.
4 The Lord, in her palaces, is known as her Stronghold.

B
5 For behold: the kings, it is known, passed through together.
6 They saw and were astounded, were confounded, were confused.
7 Trembling gripped them there, convulsions like a woman giving birth.
8 With the east wind the ships of Tarshish were smashed.

C
9 Just as we heard, so we saw in the city of God of legions, in the city of our Lord. The Lord will eternally establish it - Selah!
10 We pondered, Lord, your kindness, in the midst of Your sanctuary.
11 As Your name is, Lord, so are Your praises on the edges of the land: Justice fills Your right hand,
12 The Mountain of Zion will be glad, the daughters of Judah will rejoice because of your judgements.

D
13 Surround Zion and encircle her, count her towers,
14 Mark well in your hearts her ramparts, pass through her palaces - so that you may retell it to the succeeding generations:
15 That this is the Lord our Lord forever and ever, He will guide us "al mut."

As to why I have left passuk 1 out is because many Biblical scholars have opted to leave superscriptions out of analayses.

The only two times the tetragrammaton is used is as a form of specific identification - i.e which God are you talking about anyway? Otherwise, a form of "Elokim" is used. Generally, "Elokim" is an expression of a more universal relationship with God, while "shem Havaya" is meant to express a personal identification with God. (The Rav works on this assumption when he develops the concept of Adam I and Adam II.) This should automatically send off red flags regarding either the audience or the character of the chapter.
I would posit that this chapter is describing a "ki miTzion tetzeh Torah, udvar Hashem miYerushalayim" existence of Yerushalayim. It is more than a Capitol, it is the conduit through which we, as Jews, communicate Torah to the rest of the world. (This is essential if you understand the concept of "am Hanivchar" as being chosen to dissemanate Torah throughout the world.

Stanza A - Introduction:
The first of the two uses of the tetragrammaton is here. In this introductory paragraph the author is saying 'God is really glorified in this city.' Considering the audience, it is important to identify God as being a specific being in contrast to the pantheon of other gods.
Consider for a moment the strange imagery of the city where God is really glorified. It is not described as the place of Torah study or religious servitude. Instead it is called, "Fairest of heights, joy of all the Earth..." This is exasperated as it is treated almost fortress-like, "The Lord, in her palaces, is known as her Stronghold." God is referred to as a "Great King" and while this is less than unusual, it does supplement the entire image of an almost physical capital.
However, one of the references to Yerushalayim is "Mountain of Zion." "Zion" is a term that connotes a more lofty and metaphysical aspect of the city.

Stanza B - Scaredy Cats:
In the previous stanza, Yerushalayim was viewed as a fortress-like Capital city that houses a king. Therefore it is hardly surprising when the kings come to visit. This could be interpreted as an arrival with malicious intent or a diplomatic visit. Either way the executive nature is clearly amplified. These guests find something that knocks their socks off.
Textual similarities to the Shirat Hayam (Exodus 15) following the splitting of the Sea of Reeds are blatant here. Pointing out each conjunction is beyond the scope of this "shiur," but if you look in you will find almost every adjective that describes a confounded reaction is in both stories. What the two accounts have in common is highly significant. The non-Jewish population witnesses something PHYSICAL which clearly displays a manifestation of God and affects a change in those who view it. (Unfortunately in Exodus the Amalekim messed up the affects of the experience. Either way the Torah does illustrate for us the desired effects of such an experience via Rachav in Joshua 2.)
(By the way - passuk 8 seems not to really have anything to do with anything. The "Da'at Mikra" explains that it is simply an elaboration of the size of the "trembling" in passuk 7.

Stanza C - Desired Response:
In passuk 9 the narrator processes what he witnessed. Passuk 10 takes it a step further as now it is pondering and it is done "in the midst of Your sanctuary." The witness has seemingly journeyed to this spot of Hashem's manifestation. Zecharya 8;22 details a time in the future, following the Geulah when the nations of the world will flock to Yerushalayim to find God as a recognition of His being found there. The "edges of the land" in passuk 11 are a poetic "everywhere." This passuk fills us in on what is happening. Essentially Hashem's name and praises are filling the world (because of Yerushalayim.) "Justice fills Your right hand,/The Mountain of Zion will be glad, the daughters of Judah will rejoice because of your judgements."is the praise that fills the land.
This stanza is the climax - more on that.

Stanza D - And Now..."
The narrator is telling the reader, pay attention to Yerushalayim. However, this is completely on a PHYSICAL level, towers, ramparts, palaces, etc. It is within the seemingly PHYSICAL aspect that one can recognize the SPIRITUAL. Or rather, the city is so wholly spiritual that even the physical is encompassed in it. As the popular "Journeys" song puts it, "Where else in this world can you find a wall, wherever you touch it, it touches you?"

Getting long...I'll save the finale for another post.

More Yom Yerushalayim

2005-06-06T06:37:00.000+03:00

I got this link on kumah.org and thought it was really awesome. Please take a few minutes out of your day to hear this historical audio clip.

Instructions: Click on the "Listen" button on the top right corner. Following along with the transcript makes it even more meaningful.

Un-tootifying Myself

2005-06-06T04:56:00.000+03:00

(I know that the meaning of "un-tootifying" is as of yet unclear.)

So yesterday's post was on the tooty-fruity (connotations clear) side. Because I prefer to be more concrete, I would like to offer some thoughts on Yom Yerushalayim that do not sound like I am crying as I write them.

Because Yom Yerushalayim falls out on Monday, I thought it would be best to offer an analysis of Yerushalayim based on the "shir shel yom." However, because there is a tremendous amount of information, I will be breaking this "shiur" into parts.

In this part I will translate the chapter - not an easy task, ask anyone who has attempted to translate Tehillim.

Psalms, Chapter 48:

1 A "shir mizmor" by the progeny of Korach.
2 Great is God and very praised in the city of our Lord - His holy mountain.
3 Fairest of heights, joy of all the Earth - the Mountain of Zion, the Northern area - the city of a great King.
4 The Lord, in her palaces, is known as her Stronghold.
5 For behold: the kings, it is known, passed through together.
6 They saw and were astounded, were confounded, were confused.
7 Trembling gripped them there, convulsions like a woman giving birth.
8 With the east wind the ships of Tarshish were smashed.
9 Just as we heard, so we saw in the city of God of legions, in the city of our Lord. The Lord will eternally establish it - Selah!
10 We pondered, Lord, your kindness, in the midst of Your sanctuary.
11 As Your name is, Lord, so are Your praises on the edges of the land: Justice fills Your right hand,
12 The Mountain of Zion will be glad, the daughters of Judah will rejoice because of your judgements.
13 Surround Zion and encircle her, count her towers,
14 Mark well in your hearts her ramparts, pass through her palaces - so that you may retell it to the succeeding generations:
15 That this is the Lord our Lord forever and ever, He will guide us "al mut."

Some notes on translation:
- I highly reccomend looking at this in its original Hebrew. Because this particular chapter uses a tremendous amount of poetic device, the original might make it somewhat less cryptic.
- When the phrasing of God's name was beshem Havaya (i.e the tetragrammaton) it was translated as "God." "Elokim" was translated as "Lord." "Elokeinu" was translated as "our Lord."
- I chose not to translate "shir mizmor" because, although it means song, the exact connotation of that particular type of song is a topic of much debate. The same is true for the words "al mut."

Chag Sameach to you all!

Israel

2005-06-05T05:40:00.000+03:00

No fancy title, just "Israel," because sometimes I feel it in my blood.

I always love Israel, but sometimes it is more latent. It is not in the foremost chambers of my mind. But...
* There are times when a good friend returns from Israel and she tells you how she danced at a Hachnassat Sefer Torah in the Holy Land.
* There are times when you read an e-mail from somebody who just made Aliyah entitled, "Only In Israel," full of little things that make you aware that you are home.
* There are times when you sit at your sister's kitchen table and you discuss where you want to raise your children - Nof Ayalon, Alon Shvut, Modi'in.
* There are times when you find yourself explaining to your 7 year old nephew exactly why you think Israel is so important and he shocks you by asking about Hitler.
[* There are times when all of the above happen in one week.]

That is when Israel is right there with me, a living and breathing entity and it does not matter that Sharon wants to break my home apart or that more people hate me there than in America. None of that matters because I can close my eyes and really mean it when I say, "Im eshkachech Yerushalayim tishkach yemini." I do not think I will forget her, but I might maintain only a quiescent memory of her. To me that is tantamount to full-fledged forgetting.

While I was tempted to entitle this post, "Yom Yerushalayim," I feel that perhaps that day is part of a bigger picture. It is not just about, "Har Habayit beyadenu!" It is about secular soldiers weeping at her walls, "Im eshkachech Yerushalayim tishkach yemini."

(From aish.com - Israeli Soldiers at the wall in 1967)

Halacha and Philosophy

2005-06-03T04:57:00.000+03:00

I once heard a shiur by Rav Hershel Shachter in which he described the Modern Orthodox philosophy. (You can find the shiur here.) Torah is immutable because it is an expression of God, who never changes, and therefore it can never change. Modern Orthodoxy does not attempt to change Torah. Instead, we believe that one is meant to "apply a different se'if." Because halacha has intricacies each case needs to be evaluated. If you want to know, after a drop of milk fell into chicken soup, whether the chicken soup is kosher, you have to evaluate: How much milk was there? Is that chalavi mideRabbanan or mideOraita? There are many questions which lead to the psak halacha. The same is true as time flows. The world becomes a different place and halacha has to be re-evaluated to make sure it is being followed properly. What may have been halachikly acceptable fifty years ago is not necessarily what is meant to be done today. (Think Yitzchak or Yehoshua -- or listen to the shiur yourself.)

Are the people who choose not to allow women to learn Gmarah applying halacha correctly in today's day and age?

Rabbi Yehuda Henkin doesn't seem to think so:
"Today, women who are highly educated in secular subjects but are lacking in Torah contrast the shallowness of their Jewish knowledge with the depth and interest they find in other fields. This is the opposite of the situation described by Rambam; it is the precisely the poverty of women's Torah education that leads them to imagine the Torah as being trivial."Eit la'asot laShem" today is to expand and deepen woman's Torah studies, on condition that there are Halachic grounds for doing so, as I have shown. To seek to prevent all women from learning Talmud as in previous generations is an example of the "piety of fools" and causes souls to be lost, God forbid. But even without this consideration, to the extent that they are exceptions to the majority it is permitted to teach women Talmud."

Basically, after detailing the halachik considerations involved -- Good Reading!-- he explains the danger of not allowing women to explore Torah to the extent they are able. Since, based on many halachik sources, there is no actual prohibition involved, it's not a risk worth taking.

Yet, when offering this idea to my Yeshivesh classmate, albeit not in full, she balked. Why? Not because she was at all familiar with the legal considerations. To her, it was an impossible thing to even consider because "men and women are different."
In other words, it appears as though halacha has been replaced by hashkafa.
(It is noteworthy that she had a similar reaction when I offered many ammendments to frum society which would improve it.)

The reason I find this particularly dangerous is because it is completely backwards!
Philosophy does not form our legal framework, our legal framework should shape our philosophies.

And You Thought Movies Are "Narishkeit"

2005-06-01T17:57:00.000+03:00

"Re'eh et ma'aseh ha'Elokim, ki mi yuchal letaken asher ivto?" (Kohelet 7;13)
[translation: See the actions of God, who can mend that which he twisted?]

When my Kohelet class reached that passuk, my teacher found it especially troubling. After all, it seems to be saying that Hashem destroyed something and we can't possibly fix it. Isn't God supposed to be good?!
I nearly knocked my teacher off my seat when I offered an explanation of my own that he found to be so "emesdik."
I explained that there are certain things that appear twisted to us, but are really meant to be that way. Because we perceive them to be twisted, humankind struggles to repair them, but they do not require repair.

Of course I did not tell him where this brilliant insight came from because he would have rejected it if I had. (Also, it is a lot easier to pretend that I'm really smart.)

If anyone else in my class had ever seen the movie "Gattaca" they would also understood that passuk. Basically, it is a movie set in the "not too distant future" when everyone is genetically engineered. In order to accomplish anything in life, one must be genetically superior. Society divides into classes based on DNA. It is fascinating.
I can not explain how the above idea develops without ruining the movie, but I wanted to inform everyone that it is a viewing must. (Seriously, it is as Godly as "The Matrix.")

A Brief Personal History

2005-05-27T01:05:00.000+03:00

(Or Why Chareidim Baffle Me.)

One might say that my whole life I have been exposed to a variety of approaches to Torah.
I started my life as a member of a typical chiloni Israeli family. We became Baalei Teshuva with Lubavitch when I was around 6 or 7. Basically, for a large part of my life my only exposure to Torah was Lubavitch. I lived in a pretty remote town, so while it had a Young Israel, there was very much a "them" and "us" mentality. Always a healthy way to grow up. Basically, we were the frum ones and they were...how shall we put it...not like us.
Before ninth grade my family moved to a larger Jewish community, mostly Chareidi/Yeshivesh. Never before had I really given my Judaism much thought, it was just something I did. My high school was not a Lubavitch one and it was open to all sorts of ways of thinking. It encouraged questioning and grappling with hashkafa. I was forced to come face to face with all sorts of problems with the other religion that I had been brought up to believe was the only way to live. Let's just say that was a hard stage for me. After some serious soul searching, I settled on a highly Yeshivesh hashkafa. I enjoyed spending time in places like Lakewood and even stayed on the Ner Israel campus once. I wasn't really aware of any other kind of way of thinking. While, my school was progressive, it wasn't political, so I didn't learn about the nuances within Orthodoxy. As far as I was concerned this WAS Orthodoxy.
Then, around 11th grade I started investing myself in my learning. I wanted to know more and I grabbed knowledge wherever I could. Suddenly, a lot of things that I held to be THE truth didn't "shtim" with the way I understood what I was learning. I also had a friend who went to a Modern school and was slowly becoming more Yeshivesh. However, before she "flipped out" she argued with me and I founf I couldn't defend myself. All at once I had to figure out how I felt about Zionism, Secular studies, Kollel. Everyone I respected had a different opinion.
Today, I am happy to say I feel that I have things pretty much figured out. I am a Gmarah toting, Literature and Science learning, Bnei Akiva madricha who says Hallel with the best of them on Yom Haatzmaut. I like to think of myself as devoutly religious and intellectualy honest. In fact, I seek out arguments against my hashkafa just to make sure I'm right.
No one can accuse me of being shletered or only knowing about one hashkafa. No one can accuse me of judging Yeshivesh people incorrectly - especially because I am still in an environment which is very Chareidi.

All of this leads me to my question...

If I, as a high school student, could find the truth, why can't they?

So while I understand their position on most things, this is something I can't fathom. Am I the crazy one?!

Tutoring Bais Yaakov Girls

2005-05-25T16:22:00.000+03:00

In the quest for money to pay for school, I have taken up a variety of jobs. Among other jobs, I tutor three sisters who are all currently in Bais Yaakov Elementary School. Don't get me wrong, I think these girls are great, but they have definitely exposed me to some things that make me really angry.

For example, one kid kisses her Chumash binder because her teacher told her to. One time she picked up a Chumash and threw it across the table. I explained to her that kissing her binder is completely not halachikly justified, but if she wants to show sensetivity to holy material that's fine with me. However, she must at least show the minimum halachik respect for the real Chumash.

You can imagine what other things they come home saying.

Yesterday something happened which made me fuming mad in the "ready to fly out of my chair and scream" sort of way. Of course I didn't, but that's only because I am a stickler for decorum. One of the girls has an end of the year assignment to go through every perek of Chumash they learned and write down a lesson regarding midot tovot that their teacher taught them in it. I was reading through her papers and I found something ugly and prejudiced.

If this project is meant to foster proper behavior and good character, then I can say right now that it is not going to accomplish anything.

In the perek that decribes Yishmael the paper said, and I quote, "The Goyim don't care about raising a pereh adam, but Jews want to have bnei Torah." This is a lesson her teacher taught her! There you go Mrs. Bais Yaakov Teacher, you have just proven that "Goyim" (that term irks me in and of itself) do not care whether their children are crazy and wild, but Jews are very careful to raise children who are conscientious. Clearly!

Problems with that lesson:
- Just because someone is frum does not necessarily mean that they or their children are well-mannered. There are plenty of frum people who could aptly be described as "pereh adam" and there are plenty of non-Jews who treat others courteously. A sweeping generalization like that is easily disproven just by using your eyes.
- A lot of lessons can be taught based on this lesson including ones that could give children political sophistication. Why in the world do we have to focus on negative aspects of all the "Goyim"?
- If you want to teach kids good midot, do NOT teach them baseless prejudice!
- It does not make sense textually for so so so many reasons. Therefore, the teacher is distorting Torah and confusing kids who want to understand God's word as it is revealed to us.

I wish I could write a letter to the teacher, but she wouldn't even understand my issue with it.

Disengagement

2005-05-20T22:14:00.000+03:00

Why I think that the Disengagement is tactically stupid:
"A flare-up in fighting could complicate Israel's plans to withdraw from Gaza this summer. But Asaf Shariv, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's spokesman, said Israel would push ahead with the pullout no matter what."

Hallel and Disengagement

2005-05-20T17:39:00.000+03:00

Though Yom Haatzmaut has come and gone, I was just recently speaking to my friend about the liturgical customs in Efrat (where she lives) on that day. I was surprised to hear that this year many in her community decided not to say Hallel, although they usually do, because of the Disengagemnt. Because I really had to cut the conversation short, I told her I would write her an e-mail explaining my position. After having written it, I decided that it was something I would love to add to my blog. So, I did.
Here it is:

Hey,
As promised, I will now explain why I think it's wrong to not have said Hallel this past Yom Haatzmaut because of the Disengagement.

As you know, one of the arguments that people have against Zionism is that redemption can not come through the conduit of "apikorsim and resha'im." They also believe that it is impossible that Medinat Yisrael is a Malchut Yisrael since its government isn't "frum." A simple reading of Sefer Melachim easily dispels those two statements. (If only people actually learned Navi.)

Because of various classical Jewish sources (such as Sefer Melachim), many, including myself, view Hakamat HaMedinah differently. We see that although it is an imperfect State, and would prefer a more Jewishly run government, it is still a significant event because it returned Malchut Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael.

So we say Hallel, but not without realizing that the road ahead of us is tough and that we are yet far from the ideal situation.

By choosing to not say Hallel, those individuals are, in effect, saying that the pre-Disengagement Plan government was perfect. Now that it is imperfect, we can not say Hallel. No! It was imperfect before because it was (and is) not religious and, if anything, anti-religious. It is imperfect now because it wants to forcibly remove Jewish people from their homes. Yet, it is still a joyous occasion, despite the struggles that we have yet to face. (When Kings of the first Bet Hamikdash were killing out nevi'im and not allowing Jews to go to the Bet Hamikdash, it was still better than having no Bet Hamikdash and being in Galut.)

Having said that, I am very opposed to the Disengagement politically and ideologically. I am not, however, convinced that there is an halachik issue with this decision. That would definitely make not saying Hallel an even greater issue.

By the by, I do not believe in saying Hallel with a bracha either. I think it should be said without a bracha.

An Alternate Read of Avot 3;7

2005-05-20T06:38:00.000+03:00

I'm convinced, and everyone knows how difficult it is to really convince me.
I highly reccomend the ADDeRabbi's post which is both insightful and refreshingly unique.

On the Chareidim and the MO-nicks

2005-05-18T21:48:00.000+03:00

Being constantly exposed to Chareidi Orthodoxy via the school I attend, I have been afforded both trials and oppurtunities. On the one hand it has become increasingly difficult to accept and respect all views. However, because you can only know that you are right if you can refute all your opposition, I have been proven time and time again to be right. (Surprise, I think I'm right!)
Considering the fact that I do my best to stay away from my classmates and a majority of my teachers (they freak me out), I have a wealth of time between and during classes to observe and ponder. I watch the way they ask questions and are answered. How they behave amongst each other versus how they behave amongst their teachers. The little yellow legal pad in my mind is full of notes on the nature of these people I'm observing.
After some time I decided that there must be some kind of Religious Sociopolitical "Theory of Everything." What is the principal difference between Modern Orthodoxy and Ultra Orthodoxy?
While I am aware of symptomatic answers - Zionism, Women and Halacha, etc. - I feel that there must be some core value that causes this tension. Something which manifests itself in the symptoms that identify the two groups.
After much observing and pondering I think I hit the nail on the head. (In another time and place this epiphany would have been deserving of running around wet and naked shouting, "Eureka!") While I was absolutely overcome by elation, I had no one to share my momentous discovery with. That is why I have finally decided to type it up and share it with my non-existent cyber audience.
I believe that the two diverge on the core value of...
*DRUMROLL*
Personal Developement versus Communal Responsibility
It seems quite obvious to me that the Chareidi community values and invests more into developing themselves on an individual level - working on their middot and avodat Hashem as an individual. Modern Orthodoxy on the other hand is more focused on what we need to accomplish on a national scale.
Before developing this thesis further I feel that it is neccesary to make one thing perfectly clear, I do not believe that Chareidim do not care about the entirety of the Jewish people or that Modern Orthodoxy does not value developing as an individual. What I do believe is that they put more of an emphasis on what I identified.

This manifests itself quite clearly in many ways:

(1) Relation to non-Jews:
- Yeshivesh people will generally explain that the "goyim" were put into the world in order to be a tool for punishing us when we don't serve Hashem. Because we are the "am hanivchar" the world revolves around us.
(Frumteens MODERATOR: "The purpose of Akum is not to serve us, but rather to play the same type of role that all other creations in the world play in Olam Hazeh - background players whose actions and fate are all designed by Hashem to assist the Divine Plan for the world to come to fruition. That is, the success of the Am Yisroel in sanctifying themselves and the entire world, thereby causing the coming of Moshiach and Olam Habah.")
- Modern Orthodox Rabbanim will generally explain that we were put here for the greater good of mankind. We were chosen to elevate them and our purpose, in essence, is to serve them.
(Rav Menachem Leibtag explains why Avraham was chosen to develop into a nation that is chosen: "This 'prelude' explains how both stories in this one "parshia" are connected. When God's master plan for the nation of Avraham will materialize, societies such as Sdom could be saved, for there will be a 'model nation' from whom they can learn from. However, at this point in time, Sdom is a 'lost cause' for it lacks a minimal number of "tzadikim" who could possibly influence the rest of the city.")

(2) Zionism:
- Eretz Yisrael is a goal that is attained by select individuals, not en masse and certainly not with Nationalistic intentions.
(I don't have a good direct quote, but enough of my teachers have said it for me to feel confident saying that.)
- Our sovereignty in the land has made it possible to bolster the Jewish community. While this is not in the quote that I will be providing I think it is important to note that many Religious Zionist thinkers point out that being the only Democracy in the Middle East is a huge kiddush Hashem and makes us an example. I don't think anyone would disagree that it is because of Israel that Jews are constantly, for better or worse, in the lime-light.
(Rabbi Alan Haber: " First of all, there is the simple fact that the State allows millions of Jews to fulfill the mitzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael. Furthermore, the existence of a Jewish State and Jewish army ensures that from now on, whenever Jews are in danger anywhere in the world, they will have a place to run, and place that will protect them. (One need only look at the way in which the Israeli government rescued Ethiopian Jews during Operation Solomon in 1991 to imagine how different things would have been had there been a Jewish State in 1941.) Additionally, the Israeli government sponsors tens of thousands of yeshivot, Batei Knesset, mikvaot, kashrut supervision agencies and other Torah institutions. For all these reasons, Religious Zionists view the State of Israel as a very positive thing, and the miracles of 1948 and 1967 as great acts of Divine chessed that obligate us to express profound gratitude to the Ribbono shel Olam.")

The list goes on to include the attitude towards Secular Scholarship, Women and Torah Study, Relationships With Non-Orthodox Heterodoxies in Judaism, etc.

In which I complain about the Frumteens Moderator

2005-05-16T22:17:00.000+03:00

In the past I have left only the most talented Jblogging mockers to prey on Rabbi Shapiro (alias: MODERATOR). Now I am fed up. That brainwashing idiot is unable to make any argument that doesn't sound a lot like: "Well my Rabbi is bigger than your Rabbi and can beat your Rabbi up." Let's not forget all the censored posts that make a complete mockery of what this so called Rabbi has deluded himself into believing! I can't stand the man... There has to be a way to get rid of his site!

On Snootiness

2005-05-06T01:05:00.000+03:00

I recently read a post by a fellow "JBlogger" on the topic of snootiness. The Blogger is a religious man from Brooklyn who takes great pains to not conform - really, a leather kippa and everything. He met a new family on his block and was shocked to find that they APPEARED a lot less religious than he and his family. His wife mentioned similar feelings regarding them not being "our kind of people." Suddenly, he was disgusted to find that he was suddenly perpetrating the crime that he had found himself the victim of countless times.
The conversation that ensued produced another post regarding the question of:

"If you had a choice between your children being mentschen or being Shomrei Torah U'Mitzvos, which would you choose?"
Personally, this led me to wonder, can you truly be a true Shomer Torah U'Mitzvot WITHOUT being a mentsch? Isn't the whole point of following the Torah and doing its Mitzvot to effect a change in our person? I think it is. And if there is someone who has finished Shas 3 times and wouldn't dare do gebroggts on Pesach, keeps Chalav Yisrael and Yashan, and his wife wears bullet proof tights, but he's an obnoxious person who no one can stand, can he really consider himself frum?
I have my doubts.

Especially after reading this by Rabbi Moshe Taragin:
"Pirkei Avot opens with the famous 'list' delineating the stages in the process of our masora's transmission: "Moshe received the Torah at Sinai and transmitted it to Yeshoshua, who transmitted it to the Zekeinim..." This lineage lies at the heart of our tradition: the Torah we study and the laws to which we adhere were delivered to Moshe in an inalienable fashion, and accurately transmitted throughout the generations. This precept constitutes such a seminal feature of religion that many have pondered its placement specifically at the outset of Pirkei Avot. A historical survey of such critical importance should clearly have served as an introduction or prelude to the entire body of Mishna. Why did Rabbi Yehuda Ha-nassi, in his redaction of the mishna, insert this list as the introduction to Pirkei Avot?

Among numerous suggested answers, I would like to highlight the approach adopted by the Meiri. Typically, the landscape of ritual - the mitzvot bein adam la-Makom - is both concrete and universal. Halakhic obligations can be defined in specific terms, and, more importantly, these parameters apply universally. For example, each and every Jew must consume a ke-zayit of matza on the 15th of Nissan, regardless of context. By contrast, the world of interpersonal behavior - bein adam la-chaveiro - as well as the inner world of religious identity - what may be termed bein adam le-atzmo - are far less precise. The world of character development and moral and ethical pursuit is highly dependent upon individual context and situational factors. The amorphous nature of this realm is best captured by the Ramban, in his commentary to Devarim 6:18. Recognizing the dynamic nature of bein adam la-chaveiro, the Torah could not enumerate endless scenarios and legislate in an exhaustive or comprehensive manner. Instead, it demarcated general guidelines (the various mitzvot and issurim of bein adam la-chaveiro) while issuing a general call to moral and ethical sensibility: ve-asita ha-yashar ve-hatov - meaning, act in a manner which is virtuous and honorable. The Torah cannot be expected to iterate proper conduct in the innumerable contexts which life presents. Therefore, adherence to its laws cannot be seen as sufficient; attention to the ethical spirit which underwrites the system is crucial.

It is specifically in this context that the 'transmission sequence' must be emphasized. In the 'precise' world of bein adam la-Makom, the fidelity of the transmission is assumed. However, the relevance of masora to the 'vague' world of interpersonal conduct may legitimately be questioned. In response, the Mishna underscores the masora as a prelude to Avot: though the lessons of Avot are by nature less precise and more fluid, their basic essence still stems from Sinai. Moshe was endowed with fundamental patterns of legislated behavior, and these outlines created a blueprint which was amplified throughout the successive listed generations. This process yielded the body of ethics which govern our moral development and which is encapsulated in Avot."

Rhodora

2005-05-02T17:16:00.000+03:00

I read this poem over Pesach and I believe it is so profound and very worth reading.

The Rhodora

On being asked, Whence Note is the flower?

Ralph Waldo Emerson

In May, when sea-winds pierced our solitudes,
I found the fresh Rhodora in the woods,
Spreading its leafless blooms in a damp nook,
To please the desert and the sluggish brook.
The purple petals, fallen in the pool,
Made the black water with their beauty gay;
Here might the red-bird come his plumes to cool,
And court the flower that cheapens his array.
Rhodora! if the sages Note ask thee why
This charm is wasted on the earth and sky,
Tell them, dear, that if eyes were made for seeing,
Then Beauty is its own excuse for being:
Why thou wert there, O rival of the rose!
I never thought to ask, I never knew:
But, in my simple ignorance, suppose
The self-same Power that brought me there brought you.

New Pope...and YES this is old news

2005-04-29T03:42:00.000+03:00

On April 19th the above shown man was elected the new Pope after the passing of Pope John Paul II. Formerly named Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he has now assumed the title Pope Benedict XVI. On the day of his election I eagerly sat and watched his installation into office as it happened.

Now, why in the world does a frum girl from Baltimore care about a Pope in Italy?

Well, I think it important to note the inroads that the former Pope made in regards to Catholic and Jewish relations. According to this Wikpedia article,"Relations between Catholicism and Judaism improved during the pontificate of John Paul II. He spoke frequently about the Church's relationship with Jews. In 1979 he became the first Pope to visit the Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland. Shortly afterward, he became the first modern Pope to visit a synagogue when he visited the Synagogue of Rome on 13 April 1986. In March 2000, John Paul II went to the Holocaust memorial Yad Vashem in Israel and touched the holiest shrine of the Jewish people, the Western Wall in Jerusalem. In October 2003, the Anti-defamation League (ADL) issued a statement congratulating John Paul II on entering the 25th year of his papacy.
The Pope prays and expresses sorrow for past Catholic mistreatment of Jews at the .
The Pope prays and expresses sorrow for past Catholic mistreatment of Jews at the Western Wall.

On 18 January 2005, in what would be his last public meeting, a group of 141 Jewish leaders from around the world met with Pope John Paul II in the Clementine Hall of the Apostolic Palace, to thank the Pontiff for all he had done for the Jewish People and for the State of Israel.

On 2 April 2005, the ADL stated that Pope John Paul II had revolutionised Catholic-Jewish relations, saying that "more change for the better took place in his 27 year Papacy than in the nearly 2000 years before." "

I was crestfallen when I heard that the current Pope was from Germany. It seemed to me to be an ominous sign that the world was slowly reverting to what it was. Then again, Pope John Paul II was from Poland. So what's the deal with the new Pope?

According to
JPOST, "The choice of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as the new pope on Tuesday, Jewish religious leaders say, is a sign that the warming ties initiated by Pope John Paul II between the Vatican and Jews will continue."

Although there was a scare because he had been in the Hitler Youth, I think that it is important to bear in mind that refusing to join was punishable by imprisonment. Here they say, "When Ratzinger turned 14 in 1941, he joined the Hitler Youth, membership in which was made compulsory in 1941. [7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI#endnote_timesonline). According to National Catholic Reporter correspondent and biographer John Allen, Ratzinger was an unenthusiastic member who refused to attend meetings. Ratzinger has mentioned that a Nazi mathematics professor arranged reduced tuition payments for him at seminary. This normally required documentation of attendance at Hitler Youth activities-however, according to Ratzinger, his professor arranged that the young seminary student did not need to attend those gatherings to receive a scholarship."

He also deserted the Nazi Army, a crime punishable by death.

Ultimately, I believe that there is nothing to fear regarding the ne Pope, who will probably continue the work of his predecessor.

Random Pesach Pics

2005-04-17T21:49:00.000+03:00

Does anyone else ever see pictures like this and find them absolutely hilarious? How often do you have someone taking pictures during the chag? Does anyone else think of things like this or am I the only one?

I did a google images search for Pesach and this is one of the pictures came up. While I do think that people should have 2 Matzot at their seder as opposed to the usual 3, I'm not sure what the source for this many is.

This takes place in Israel. Because I can't pick just one joke to crack, I'm going to leave it to the reader's own speculation.

And now...
Why do people associate Pesach with frogs?

I also found a bunch of pictures of "Shomronim" sacrficing the Korban Pesach, but those are politically incorrect.

Pesach

2005-04-17T21:26:00.000+03:00

So every Pesach something else happens to make me feel like the whole world is wallowing in an epedemic of INSANITY! The problem is that my memory is crazy and makes it very difficult to forget anything. Therefore, every year I recycle past pet peeves, add them to previous ones, and become an all-together unbearable person to those aroud me who have caught the insanity. The good news is that other people find my explosions of ranting quite amusing.

Last year I viewed with with absolute incredulity the hypocrisy of the group of women who sit around discussing all the chumrot that they took on this year, and how their neighbors and friends are severely lacking in the chumrot area of religious observance. ("Have you heard, she uses cocoa in her Pesach cooking?!") So while Lashon Hara remains a issur deOraita regardless of what time of year it is, deciding to go to extreme measures on Pesach is generally completely sourceless. I know, I know, Chametz is LIKE avodah zara, but sinat chinam is shakul keneged avoda zara, giluy arayot and shfichat damim...so THERE!

This Pesach season has found me with an influx of devastatingly dissapointing observations of religious Jews.

I won't spend the next few hours ranting about the sheer stupidity inherent in the chumrah against eating "gebroggts" (Are you more frum than the Tannaim?), refusing to eat garlic on Pesach (Do you still live in Eastern Europe, cuz I sure as heck don't), and all the other stupid things people take on. Instead, I will share two, halachickly sound, ideas with you in the hopes of enlightening someone somwhere.
-First of all: Dust is not a leavened foodsuff.
-Second: Zman Cheruteinu does not, contrary to popular belief, mean "time to re-organize the house."

Finally, a word to the wise...women, if you want someone to do something just tell them. I know you think everyone around you can read your mind, maybe most other females can, I can't. Realizing that would save a lot of people quite a bit of unecessary anguish.

Thank you.
Chag Kasher Vesame'ach from tmeishar