Rationalist Judaism

The One-Way Street

2012-02-12T03:38:00.002+02:00

Some observations:

- Modern Orthodox/ Dati Leumi synagogues support Charedi charities, but Chareidi synagogues do not support Modern Orthodox/ Dati Leumi charities.

- Modern Orthodox/ Dati Leumi synagogues often have Chareidi rabbis, but Charedi synagogues never have Modern Orthodox/ Dati Leumi rabbis.

- Modern Orthodox/ Dati Leumi synagogues and organizations often have Chareidi rabbis as guest speakers, but Charedi synagogues and organizations never have Modern Orthodox/ Dati Leumi rabbis as guest speakers.

- Modern Orthodox/ Dati Leumi schools often have Charedi rebbeim, but Chareidi schools never have Modern Orthodox/ Dati Leumi Rebbeim.

- Modern Orthodox/ Dati Leumi Jews often fund Chareidi publications, but Chareidi Jews never fund Modern Orthodox/ Dati Leumi publications.

It's frustrating that Chareidim do not respect the Modern Orthodox/ Dati Leumi. But it's even more frustrating that Modern Orthodox/ Dati Leumi do not make more of an effort to perpetuate their own existence, and then complain about Chareidim.

(In other news - my Torah Tour of the National Zoo in Washington tomorrow has been replaced by a two-part multimedia presentation on the Animal Kingdom In Jewish Thought, at Beth Sholom in Potomac at 2.30pm, entrance donation $10.)

Extraordinarily Extravagant Exaggerations About Rav Elyashiv

2012-02-10T22:31:00.001+02:00

Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv is an extraordinary person. He is extraordinarily brilliant. He is extraordinarily dedicated to learning Torah. He has survived to extraordinary age, notwithstanding his fragility.

Nevertheless, this editorial from Yated/ Matzav about his critical condition contains some extraordinarily extravagant exaggerations, which illustrate the problematic state of rabbinic authority in the chareidi world.

"We were confronted with a life-changing crisis and shocked out of our stupor when we heard news from Eretz Yisroel on Monday about the health of Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv. We have been hearing for several weeks now about his precarious situation, but each time, we davened and merited a strengthening of his situation. We began, perhaps, to take it for granted and slacken off in our tefillos for the posek and amud hador. We have it so good. We have had it so good for so long that we couldn’t imagine it being any other way."

We have had it good for so long? We are confronted with a life-changing crisis?

What were the recent rabbinic decisions issued in the name of Rav Elyashiv (and it's impossible to know how much he was actually involved with them) that were so invaluable? Was it banning charedim from seeking any form of professional training, and thereby condemning them to poverty? Was it banning Mishpachah? (Well, I guess that one was certainly invaluable to the Israeli Yated, and possibly also helpful for the American Yated.)

For many years now, the public pronouncements of Rav Elyashiv have been deeply problematic at best. They have often been issued without any attempt to hear the claims of the defendants. As Mishpachah magazine pointed out, this is a grievous abuse of rabbinic authority. Things have gotten so bad that YNet ran an article entitled "The Posek of the Generation is Disconnected from the Generation." To judge Rav Elyashiv favorably, once could say that all this is due to his being manipulated by the power-hungry zealots who control access to him. Even if this is the case, it still means that it is far from accurate to say that "we have had it good for so long." And it's a "life-changing crisis" for the power-hungry manipulative zealots who will no longer be able to manipulate him, not for the rest of the nation.

Then there's the way that the article portrays Rav Elyashiv as the halachic mentor for Rav Yitzchak Herzog. Now, it could well be that Rav Elyashiv contributed valuable analyses to Rav Herzog. But Rav Elyashiv went to hear shiur from Rav Herzog, not the other way around! He was his talmid, not his rebbe!

Praising people with false praise is not doing them, or the Jewish People, a service. And people should be placing rabbinic authority where it traditionally belonged: with local rabbis who are in touch with their flock, not centenarians who are cut off from the world and manipulated by askanim.

A Dangerous Gamble

2012-02-09T00:00:00.000+02:00

(Apologies for the delay in posting - I've been overwhelmed with my lecture tour as well as under the weather.)

Many readers misunderstood the point of the previous post, When The Winds Below. Which is my fault entirely, because I didn't spell out what my point was.

I was not getting into the topic of whether Rav Moshe Feinstein and others intended the term nishtaneh hateva as a euphemism for saying that Chazal were mistaken. I've heard Rav Moshe Tendler insist that he did, and others insist that he didn't. That's a fascinating issue to ponder, but it wasn't my point.

I was also certainly not making any point about changing halachah. On the contrary; I favor the approach of Rav Glasner and Rav Herzog, in which halachah does not change even if based upon mistaken beliefs.

My point was as follows: It can be very risky and problematic to insist, and make Judaism depend upon, science being wrong about something. Because maybe there's another way of looking at things. And maybe science will turn out to be correct, after all.

Rav Kook writes about how, when faced with a scientific theory that appears to challenge the Torah, one should not take a knee-jerk approach of insisting that it must be false. Instead, one should "build the palace of Torah above it." One should figure out how, even if the scientific theory turns out to be true, Judaism still survives. Then, when one is not religiously threatened by the scientific theory, one is in a better position to honestly assess its merits.

People who insist that the truth of Judaism depends on scientists being wrong about terefos, that the cessation of respiration is never reversible, or about there being no additional animals in the world with one kosher sign, or on there being no fish with scales and no fins, are taking a very dangerous gamble. And also an entirely unnecessary one.

Ride request: If anyone can drive me from Baltimore to New York on Monday, please be in touch!

When The Winds Blow

2012-02-03T12:53:00.000+02:00

(REMINDER: Over the next ten days I am giving a number of lectures in the New York, Baltimore and Washington region. See my schedule here for more details.)

One of the sharpest statements against science from the medieval period, often cited by anti-rationalists, is from the great Rashba. The context was with regard to terefos. The Mishnah in Chullin lists certain physical defects that classify an animal as a tereifah, which is prohibited to be eaten, and also gives the general rule that animals with mortal defects are classified as tereifos. The Gemara (Chullin 57b) defines a mortal defect as one that prevents an animal from living for twelve months. A question was addressed to Rashba concerning an animal that apparently possessed one of the defects listed in the Mishnah but did survive for twelve months. Rashba replied:

"If you see or hear someone being lenient and pronouncing it kosher… do not listen to him, do not be drawn to him and let there not be something like this in Israel. Anyone who proclaims such a thing to be kosher appears in my eyes as someone who is raising suspicion on the words of the Sages. I am writing at length on this matter so that a line should be drawn for you and for everyone that fears and trembles at the word of God – and the sanctified words of the Sages of Israel should not become as a broken fence for every fox to breach! …That which the Sages listed in these principles can never, under any circumstances, become permitted… And since this is so, even if many were to come and say that they have seen [animals with these defects living longer than twelve months] we would deny it, such that the words of the Sages should be established, and we should not raise suspicions on the Sages’ words by establishing the words of these people… Let this person testifying and a thousand like him be invalidated, rather than invalidating a single thing from that with the holy Sages of Israel have agreed upon, the prophets and the descendants of prophets, and the words that were spoken to Moses at Sinai… the conclusion of the matter is that it is better to chase after arguments in order to establish [the Sages’] words rather than to dispel their holy, true and established words in favor of establishing the empty words of these people… Everyone needs to preserve the principles that are transmitted through the People of Israel--and even if all the winds in the world were to blow, they will not move us from this place." (Responsa 1:98)

Even though the testimony of two witnesses is considered extremely powerful in Jewish law, Rashba insists that that we would dismiss the testimony of a thousand witnesses who claim to have seen an animal with one of these defects living for more than a year.

Seven hundred years later, however, Rav Moshe Feinstein wrote the following remarkable words:

"…even the Rashba, were he to be alive today, and likewise now that he is in the World of Truth in Gan Eden, would agree that some of those listed in the Mishnah and Talmud as being tereifos are, in fact, able to survive…" (Igros Moshe, Choshen Mishpat vol. II 73:4, p. 308)

This is a remarkable development! The Rashba insisted that all evidence to the contrary must be dismissed, if necessary by way of "chasing after" arguments (i.e. contriving forced arguments). But seven hundred years later, Rav Moshe says that it's just not possible. The evidence is too strong. (Rav Moshe continues to state that Chazal's laws still stand regardless, for reasons that I have discussed in Sacred Monsters.)

There is another, similar, change that took place in a different area of halachah. In the eighteenth century, there was widespread fear that people were being buried alive due to their being mistakenly diagnosed as dead before they had actually expired. Many physicians of that era insisted that cessation of breathing does not suffice and that a thorough medical examination was required. A question arose as to whether a kohen could be the doctor to examine a corpse and certify that death had taken place. R. Tzvi Hirsch Chajes ruled that it was permissible, arguing that the absence of respiration did not conclusively mean that the person was dead and thus the doctor could potentially be saving a life. Chasam Sofer, on the other hand, firmly opposed the idea that a person who was not breathing could be considered even possibly alive:

"When respiration has ceased, one does not further violate Shabbos (in a rescue attempt); and this is necessarily a rule for all deaths, for it is the definition which is accepted in our hands from the time that we became a congregation of God and a holy nation. And even if all the winds in the world were to blow against us, they would not budge us from the position of our holy Torah." (Responsa Chasam Sofer, Yoreh De’ah #338)

This time, it only took two hundred years for the winds to budge us. As Rav Shlomo Zalman pointed out, the cessation of respiration should no longer be used to determine death, since it can be reversed:

"With regard to the fundamental words of Chasam Sofer, in my humble opinion it appears that just as with regard to the law that an eight-month fetus is like a stone and one does not transgress Shabbos on its behalf, certainly the rule has changed in our time, and forfend to rule in that way (of the Gemara)… and one is forced to say that only in the times of Chazal was the fetus given the status of a stone, because at that time they did not know how to enable it to survive, unlike in our time… So, too, in my humble opinion it appears clear that in our time, it is impossible to decide that someone as already died except via the latest techniques which establish the boundaries between life and death. And forfend to rely in our time just on the signs of breathing and suchlike, more than other checks, and to rule with someone under a collapsed building on Shabbos that if his breathing has stopped, and his heart has stopped beating, that he should be left under the rubble and Shabbos not be transgressed on his behalf…" (Shulchan Shlomo, vol. II, pp. 34-35)

Of course, irreversible cessation of breathing can still be used to determine death; but that is not what Chassam Sofer was saying. He was saying that all cessation of breathing is by definition irreversible. (See this post for further discussion regarding his view.)

And so we have two of the most famous and powerful rabbinic statements against accepting the scientific advances of their era, both dramatically claiming that all the winds in the world would not change their position. And in both cases, later rabbinic authorities acknowledged that the winds really have blown very strongly indeed, and that the counter-evidence can no longer be rejected.

There's a lesson here...

The Zealots' Perspective

2012-02-01T11:06:00.002+02:00

The following extremely informative video includes an interview (in Hebrew) with the leader of the thugs in Bet Shemesh, as well as some important footage of events (please note that the video includes random advertisements, some of which, according to reader reports, include immodest scenes):

It shows how far apart their worldview is from normal society. I can't think of any short-term solution for this problem. In the long run, however, I think that their society is doomed, due to the freedom of speech and infiltration of ideas that the internet brings. I think that they know it, too, which is why they are getting so worked up lately.

It's good to see a sharp condemnation of their actions, in this report of a lecture by Rav Edelstein of Ponovezh.

(Hat-tip: Rafi G. at Life In Israel, the best news source)

The "Da'as" in Da'as Torah

2012-01-31T08:43:00.000+02:00

Rav Aharon Lichtenstein delivered an important address recently on the topic of Daas Torah. I didn't have time to translate it into English myself, so I asked my friend Joseph Faith to translate it for the readers of this website, which he kindly agreed to do. You can download it at this link. I strongly recommend it!

(Tomorrow, I am leaving to the US for a two-week lecture tour. I'm not sure how often I will be posting. If you usually read this blog via visiting the website, you may want to subscribe via email, using the form on the right, in order to be notified when new posts appear.)

Gedolims' Edicts and Mishpachah

2012-01-30T08:33:00.001+02:00

A while back, in a post entitled The Gedolim's Authority is Tested, I wrote about the ban on Mishpacha magazine by various Gedolim. Things have gotten more heated lately, with the Israeli Yated publishing a very sharp letter, signed by Rav Elyashiv, against Mishpacha.

Mishpacha's response included the following gem:

"While we are not privy to all that's going on behind the scenes, we highly doubt the authenticity of this letter. Anyone who has ever attended a Yeshiva knows that a posek cannot and does not issue a ruling, much less a ban, unless he is presented with both sides of the story and carefully weighs the evidence before he issues a ruling. We know for a fact that this procedure was not followed in this case, since not one person from Mishpacha's Hebrew staff was summoned to Maran Rav Elyashiv's home to explain their side of the story."

It's extremely similar to my own response, drafted with the help of an experienced posek, which I sent to the zealots who were threatening to publicize a ban on my books:

"...it is inconceivable that anyone, especially Gedolim, would condemn someone without meeting and talking with them. I am ready to meet with these Gedolim at their convenience and to hear what their objections are, and to discuss the matter fully. I am certainly willing to retract from anything in which I am proven wrong or mistaken, and kal v'chomer if I am proven to have written something that goes against the fundamentals of emunah, chas v'shalom. Surely to condemn someone without meeting them goes against both the spirit and the letter of Torah and Shulchan Aruch, and would be an unbelievable chilul Hashem befarhesya, and will be widely recognized as such..."

Mishpacha goes one step further and says that because it's so inconceivable that Rav Elyashiv would sign without hearing their side, his signature is suspect.

I have no idea whether the signature is genuine or not. But I assume that Mishpacha is well aware that Rav Elyashiv does indeed frequently sign off on such things without listening to the other side. Yet it is nevertheless true that a posek should never do such a thing. I have heard people claim, in the case of my own books, that there is no reason for a posek/ Gadol to meet with the author, since he can just read the book. But that could only be even suggested if the posek were to entirely initiate proceedings himself after reading the book/ magazine of his own accord. In these cases, he is presented with select parts of the publications, along with the all-important arguments of the zealots as to why the publication is so terrible. Since he is hearing arguments from one side, in person, he must also hear arguments from the person whose publication is being judged, in person.

Unfortunately I have heard an abundance of stories of Rav Elyashiv issuing "Daas Torah" after only hearing one side. Rav Nosson Kamenetzky's experiences are well-known. And a neighbor of mine told me about how his child was kicked out of school after the menahel consulted Rav Elyashiv. My neighbor went to Rav Elyashiv's gatekeeper, who did not want to let him in. My neighbor said, "Dinei nefashos b'tzad echad?" The gatekeeper paled and let him in. The child was reinstated to the school.

Mishpacha, I'm sure, knows such stories only too well. When they say that a posek not only cannot issue a ruling without hearing both sides, but does not, this is not the case and they know it. I don't expect Mishpacha to do an expose on the abuse of rabbinic authority with the Daas Torah system; in fact I am admiring their strategy. They are pointing out that to exercise rabbinic authority in such a way is absolutely wrong, without explicitly castigating those who do so.

It's amazing that there are still so many people who believe in the Charedi system of rabbinic authority and Daas Torah. But my impression is that the number of such people is steadily shrinking.

(My schedule for my forthcoming lecture tour in the US has been updated - you can see it here)

The Making of Haredim

2012-01-26T11:43:00.002+02:00

A book published in the Haredi community claimed that Orthodox Judaism — and specifically, Haredi Judaism — is the traditional approach to Judaism, which started with Moses. In my monograph “The Novelty of Orthodoxy” I explained how Orthodoxy was, in many ways, a new approach to Judaism, which began with Chasam Sofer as a reaction to Reform and the Enlightenment. But Haredi Judaism is itself a novelty vis-à-vis the Orthodox Judaism which preceded it.

I am pleased to announce the e-publication of a new monograph, "The Making of Haredim," which explores the nature of Haredi ideology and demonstrates how it can be rated as distinct from its predecessors. The monograph can be downloaded after making a donation via PayPal; the recommended donation for readers of this website is $5. Please bear in mind that this is not a payment for the monograph itself, which is shorter than the others in this series; rather, it is a donation in exchange for all my writings on this website (including the Jerusalem Post articles - the Jerusalem Post does not pay me for them!), which takes up quite a bit of my time. There are some people who, incredibly, always pay only one cent, but others, who feel that they have gained much from the Rationalist Judaism enterprise, express their appreciation with a larger donation, which is gratefully appreciated.

You can make a donation via PayPal or credit card by clicking on the following icon. After the payment, it will automatically take you to a download link for the document. If you have any difficulties with the download, please e-mail me.

When Saying Sorry Is Not Enough

2012-01-25T12:37:00.000+02:00

Everybody makes mistakes. Goodness knows I've made plenty myself. People who write or speak in public extensively are especially likely to write or say something, at some point, that they should not. In such cases, a retraction and apology is called for. When it is given, people should forgive and forget.

Still, there are mistakes and there are Mistakes. Sometimes people makes mistakes that reveal such appalling judgement, and/or have such potentially devastating consequences, that a simply apology, even a heartfelt one, is not enough. The person to make the error has to take a leave of absence from his or her public role. This does not necessarily entirely erase the damage, but it does show that the person is taking responsibility for it.

The latest such incident, which prompted me to write this post, is Andrew Adler's mindbogglingly stupid editorial in the Atlanta Jewish Times suggesting that the Mossad take out President Obama, and claiming that Israel is already weighing this option.

Watching an interview with Adler in tears, there can be no doubt that he genuinely regrets his mistake. But with a mistake of these dimensions, even a tearful apology is not enough. He had to resign - and he did.

Frankly, I think that there are others who should likewise take a leave of absence from airing their views in public, as a consequence of errors that involve particularly colossal bad judgment and/or have potentially devastating consequences:

Rabbi Dovid Kornreich for publicly suggesting that homosexuals investigate the option of suicide. His subsequent watering down of the suggestion, and his eventual claim that he never really meant it in the first place, are inadequate in light of what he actually wrote.

Rabbi Avi Shafran for his article claiming that Bernie Madoff is more worthy of admiration than Captain Sully, who safely landed his plane in the Hudson, on the grounds that Madoff went beyond what was expected in apologizing, whereas Sully was just doing his job. Rabbi Shafran did apologize, but his apology was somewhat lacking; and even a true apology should not suffice in such a case. Aside from the insanity of even just thinking that it is true, there is also the unbelievable foolishness of putting such a thing in print. Can you imagine if Gawker would have gotten hold of the article? "Prominent Orthodox Spokesman Praises Jewish Swindler, Disses Gentile Hero"?

And most of all: whoever at Ami magazine made the decision to run a cover photoshopped picture of of Nazis marching in front of the White House with swastika-flags hanging from it. What on earth were they thinking?! Even Rabbi Shafran was horrified at that one! Why are they so hesitant about properly apologizing?

Repentance doesn't just mean saying that you're sorry. It means taking responsibility for your mistakes.

(On a related note - I have been very uneasy with some comments that have been submitted lately by radical political right-wingers. I'm still weighing up a formal policy, but if you don't see your comments appear, you now know why.)

The Physical Dangers of Anti-Rationalism

2012-01-24T09:02:00.001+02:00

A number of people sent me details of a tefillah request that has been circulating. A kollel man from Kiryat Sefer wanted to perform the mitzvah of shiluach hakein, sending away the mother bird. As his wife and small children watched, he climbed over the edge of the balcony in order to perform the mitzvah. To their horror, he fell off the balcony, and was rushed to hospital in critical condition. (He is since doing much better, but still has a long way to go before full recovery.)

This case is particularly tragic because, as I explained in my monograph on shiluach hakein, this anti-rationalist view of the mitzvah, in which one should send away the mother bird even if one does not want the eggs, is not the approach of most (if not all) Rishonim, and probably not of Chazal, either. For them, the mitzvah of shiluach hakein is one of compassion, to be performed only if one actually wants to take the eggs (which would generally have been the case in antiquity, when such food was not as easily available as it is today). But if one does not want the eggs - as would always be the case today - there is no reason to send away the mother bird (and it is needlessly cruel to do so).

In the view of Rambam, all mitzvos serve either to teach ideological lessons, to improve our characters, or to improve society. Torah should be teaching us to lead our lives wisely and sensibly. The mitzvos do that - if we would only interpret them correctly. One person who wrote to me pointed out that this tragic case lends new significance in the juxtaposition of the mitzvah of shiluach hakein with the mitzvah of ma'akeh, building a protective fence around one's balcony. I am reminded of the tragedy of the Versailles wedding hall, which collapsed during a wedding. Some people were wondering what area of avodas Hashem was deficient. Tzniyus? Kashrus? Talking during davenning? The obvious contender - ma'akeh, and the idea behind it - was not even considered!

We should pray for the full recovery of Naftali ben Minka Mindel. And we should pray that people let the Torah be a tree of life and a source of wisdom.

The Parenting Dilemmas of a Rationalist ZooRabbi

2012-01-23T11:20:00.001+02:00

On Friday night, my six-year-old was excited to tell me what he had learned in his (charda"l) school. Last year, he had told me about how one frog miraculously became many, which prompted me to write a post bemoaning how drash becomes peshat (and see too this post). This year, things were even worse. His teacher had told him that the plague of arov did not only include lions and tigers and bears. It also included dangerous humanoids that are attached to the ground, like a vegetable, by a cord emerging from their navel (and which were able to come because God brought the entire patch of ground that they were on), as well as giant octopuses which broke through the roofs of the Egyptians' houses and unlocked their doors from the inside. My son, who knows much more than most six-year-olds about animals, expressed particular surprise at the vegetable-man - he had never heard of such a thing.

My dinner guests, who read my material, saw me wincing. Of course, I was familiar with both these views, which I discuss at length in Sacred Monsters. The first was presented by the Vilna Gaon, the second by the Midrash Sefer HaYashar. Needless to say, with all due respect to these authors, I see these explanations as ahistorical. There is no vegetable-man (and in my book, I explain how such a belief developed). And giant octopuses are probably not capable of such things, although they do come close. So we have recent anti-rationalist drash being taught as historical peshat. (This is not a problem unique to charedi or charda"l schools; modern Orthodox schools teach the same things.) Moreover, there is no particular value to being taught such things; it merely encourages children to seek wonder only in the supernatural and not in the natural.

But on the other hand, as my wife points out, undermining your child's teacher is deeply problematic. It's also not great for your child's self-confidence to dismiss an explanation that he is excited to share.

The next day, however, something happened that changed my mind. My eight-year-old showed me a book that she had gotten from school and enjoyed. It was a wonderful Hebrew children's illustrated storybook about the life and times of Galileo. The book explained how Galileo did not accept by rote all that his teachers taught him, deciding instead to evaluate matters for himself - and he was vindicated.

This is quite a strong introduction into the millennia-old clash between tradition and reason. But my eight-year-old and six-year-old had nevertheless read the story, and were both able to understand it. I reasoned that if they can read and understand such a book, it should be possible to carefully explain why I don't believe in vegetable-men, and to explain how other people disagree, but why one should still respect them. I attempted to do just that; and I also took the opportunity to explain to my eight-year-old, for the first time, and very sparsely and carefully, the controversy over my books.

I hope and pray that I was correct and successful.

February Lecture Schedule

2012-01-22T06:01:00.009+02:00

Here is a list of my forthcoming lectures that are open to the public:

NEW YORK:

Shabbos February 4th: Beth Sholom, Cedarhurst
Friday-8PM: “One People, Two Worlds: Rationalists & Mystics”
Shabbos morning-11AM: “Battle for Beit Shemesh: The Evolution of Chareidim”
5PM: “The Animal Kingdom in Jewish Thought

Sunday February 5th:
12pm - "The Challenge of Dinosaurs" - at the YU Sefarim Sale.

2:30 pm - "The Evolution of Orthodoxy: From Chasam Sofer to the Battles of Bet Shemesh"
3:45 pm - "Beasts of Prey: Bears, Hawks and Other Predators in Jewish Thought"
Washington Heights Congregation, 815 West 179th Street
Entrance Donation: $10 for one lecture, $15 for both
Download flyer with details here

Monday February 6th:
7pm - "How (not) to Become a Heretic: What Must a Jew Believe?"
Drisha Institute of Jewish Education
37 West 65th Street, 5th Floor, New York
Tuition: $18; June and July Immersion Program alumni no charge; $10 suggested donation for college students.

BALTIMORE:

Wednesday February 8th:
7pm at Beth Tfiloh’s Epstein Chapel: “Were the Rabbis always Right.” Free admission.

Thursday February 9th:
8pm - "Shaking the Heavens: Rabbinic Responses to Astronomical Revolutions" at Shomrei Emunah. Entrance donation $10. Download flyer here.

Shabbos February 11th: Suburban Orthodox

WASHINGTON:

Sunday February 12th:
9am - The Challenge of Creation - at Beth Sholom
10.30am - Sacred Monsters - at Beth Sholom
2-5pm - The Torah Tour of the National Zoo. Download flyer with details here.
7:30pm - "The Evolution of Orthodoxy and the Making of Charedim" - Kesher Israel. No admission fee, but RSVP required - see www.tinyurl.com/KIZooRabbi.

RIDES REQUEST:

If anyone can give me a ride from Philadelphia to NY (preferably the 5 Towns) on the afternoon or evening of Monday Feb. 13th, please be in touch!

Is Talmudic Science Rated As Torah?

2012-01-20T11:02:00.002+02:00

When Chazal discuss their views on matters relating to the physical world, which have now been rendered obsolete, is this still considered to be Torah? May one study it in the bathroom? Must one say birchas haTorah before studying it? Or is it bittul Torah to spend time on it?

There are different categories to discuss here. One is scientific information that does not relate to Scripture, halachah or theology in any way; for example, the medical remedies in the Gemara. If the medical texts of Rambam are not considered Torah, why would the medical texts of Chazal be considered Torah?

Another category would be scientific information that Chazal attempt to derive from Scripture - for example, the exegeses from Scripture via which Chazal deduce that the sun travels behind the sky or along the horizon at night, and the exegeses via which they deduce the nature of the "firmament."

Of course, the answer to this question depends on how you define "Torah." Is Torah that which was given at Sinai? Or is "Torah" man's attempt to understand and develop that which was given at Sinai? The first definition seems a little narrow; but the second definition is somewhat ambiguous.

Rav Moshe Shapiro commented to a number of people that if anything in the Gemara was nothing more than obsolete scientific beliefs, it would be bittul Torah to learn it. Since we know that people such as the Vilna Gaon were virtually never mevattel Torah, it must be that Chazal were never merely discussing science. Accordingly, everything in the Gemara is discussing metaphysical matters, and is Torah.

But this, of course, stands in contrast to the opinion of most (and perhaps all) Geonim and Rishonim.

Rabbi Moshe Meiselman claims that when Chazal related mistaken beliefs about cosmology or spontaneous generation, they were merely offering their own opinion on scientific matters, which were therefore fallible, rather than expounding the Torah. I'm not sure if he therefore considers that these things are not Torah. But in any case, his position is inherently flawed, because Chazal did indeed invoke derashos for their views on cosmology and spontaneous generation.

So what's the bottom line? Personally, I have no idea.

Building Tolerance – Even For Haredim

2012-01-18T07:00:00.002+02:00

(This article appears in today's edition of The Jerusalem Post)

America! In Israel, that’s often more than just the name of a place. I once saw a commercial which featured it as an adjective, describing a product that was of superior quality. “What can I tell you?” asked the person in the ad, “It’s America!” And it’s getting to be difficult to find a store with a real Hebrew name; they all have English names now, either written in English or in Hebrew transliteration.

This is somewhat of a tragedy. Israel has so much to be proud of. We didn’t make it back to our ancestral homeland and revive an ancient culture just to toss it out in favor of a different and much younger one!

But there are some aspects of America that Israel would do well to emulate. And I’m not talking about the usual new immigrant gripes about poor customer service. Instead, I’m referring to how the ultra-secular in Israel sometimes act in ways that would be considered entirely out-of-bounds in America.

A relative of mine, not especially religious, moved from Israel to the US for a while. On her first day, she was very surprised to see so many religious Jewish women on the bus – and she wasn’t even in New York. She was even more surprised when she discovered that these women were not, in fact, religious, or even Jewish. Rather, it is customary in America for women to dress in a respectable manner for work. When my relative moved back to Israel, she found it jarring to see women turning up for work wearing attire that would be more appropriate for the beach, and men wearing T-shirts with obscene messages.

This is not the only manifestation of ultra-secularism. The New York Times recently ran an article, titled “Israelis Facing a Seismic Rift Over Role of Women,” about the disturbing attitudes to women of many in the haredi world. But there was no mention of an opposing phenomenon: the protest against the Technion offering separate use of a gym, for men alone, after normal hours. The ferocious protest against this “unacceptable segregation” resulted in the gym ceasing to provide this option.

This would be incomprehensible to Americans. After all, every country in the world, including America, has gyms that offer hours for one gender only. It’s not as though the gym at the Technion was imposing on women, or excluding them in any way; it was a matter of giving an after-hours option which was equally offered to women.

Yet while the opposition to the separate hours at the gym was absurd, when one looks at the arguments of the protesters, a distinct theme emerges. It wasn’t the separate hours at the gym per se that offended them. Rather, it was the fear that this was simply one step towards the more extreme exclusion of women that has recently been spreading from the haredi community.

Such fears are perhaps understandable, given the Health Ministry’s haredi-based refusal to allow Dr. Channa Maayan to appear on stage to accept a prize at an awards ceremony. But allowing such fears to prevent a perfectly reasonable request, such as men-only gym sessions after hours, is not only wrong but counter-productive. It simply reinforces the haredi belief – which is not without basis – that there is a rabid, nation-wide anti-religious campaign against them, and that they thus need to circle the wagons and resist any accommodation to the rest of Israeli society.

Haredi society has achieved astounding accomplishments in building up a society of commitment to Torah study and religious observance. But it is now undergoing a period of unprecedented internal and external turmoil. Internally, economic hardship is leading many to reject the kollel-only approach, and the Internet is opening forms of expression that were previously unknown to that world. Externally, there are new stresses with the rest of Israeli society as haredi society grows ever larger; military exemptions become a more serious national matter and growth into new cities (such as Beit Shemesh) causes friction.

More than ever, there is an opportunity, and a need, to integrate haredi society into Israel. But there are forces in haredi society that are strongly opposed to such integration, and many haredim maintain a healthy dose of suspicion vis-a-vis the non-haredi world. Thus, such integration can only work if it is done with tact, sensitivity, and foresight.

This requires that a certain degree of concessions be made to haredi values, however much one might disagree with them. After all, the much-vaunted value of tolerance also requires tolerance of intolerant people, at least insofar as it does not damage the rest of society.

Consider the issue of getting haredim to join the IDF. Deep down, many haredim probably don’t really believe that the country’s security requires having as many people as possible join the tens of thousands already in yeshivot and kollels. After all, this can only be theologically justified with the most tenuous of rabbinic arguments. Furthermore, if haredim really did believe this, then they wouldn’t have taken their 2006 summer break while the country was fighting the Second Lebanon War.

Instead, the haredi refusal to serve in the army is primarily due to their trying to protect a certain religious lifestyle, which is very difficult to do in the army. So at a time when steps are being taken to bring haredim into the IDF, it is essential to help them with this enormous adjustment and show sensitivity to their concerns.

Is it really so very important that religious soldiers attend ceremonies with women singing? To be sure, from a non-haredi point of view, it’s ridiculous for the soldiers to object to it. But it is an issue of great importance to them, and it wouldn’t terribly hurt the army to accommodate it. In the long run, the army would be better off by showing a willingness to be tolerant of haredim, rather than alienating them.

Or consider the Tal Law, which was just renewed. True, it has not been as successful as was hoped, and it probably needs adjustment. But those demanding nothing less than forced full conscription for all haredim lack good judgment, even from the perspective of their own values. Yes, ideally speaking, all sectors would serve the country equally. But it’s just not going to happen, at least in the short term, without civil war. Meanwhile, the idea behind the Tal law is to give haredim more options than simply kollel or full military duty, which inevitably results in them all choosing the former.

At this stage, the challenge for Israel is to begin to enable haredim to willingly enter the army and professional workforce. People should be trying to make this happen more easily and smoothly, rather than making it difficult. We need to show more tolerance of religious minorities – just like in America.

Lunch with the Piecemaker

2012-01-16T11:21:00.006+02:00

Yesterday morning, I wrote a post about age and leadership in the Orthodox world. Later that day, I gained further perspective on this topic when I was privileged to have lunch with Shimon Peres, the octogenarian President of Israel. (No, I can't reveal the how's and why's of the experience, sorry!)

Shimon Peres is 88 years of age and is the oldest head of state in the world. I asked him if he still remembered meeting the Chafetz Chaim for a berachah when he was a child; he joked that he hasn't been allowed to forget it!

We spoke about legendary figures from history such as Ben-Gurion. Peres told me the story of how in 1945, when he was still called Shimon Perski, Ben-Gurion went with him on a surveying trip in the Negev. Perski discovered the nest of the rare and spectacular bearded vulture, which is called peres in the Torah, and he promptly decided to change his European name to the Hebrew Peres.

I asked the President if he knew why the bearded vulture is called peres. He suggested that it is from the phrase lifros kenafayim, to spread the wings, referring to its huge wingspan. However, that is spelled with a sin rather than a samech. I informed him of another suggestion that has been put forward by Biblical commentators: that it is from the root meaning "piece." The bearded vulture is famed for making pieces. It eats bones, which it does via picking them up, flying high over rocks, and then dropping them and smashing them to pieces, as you can see in this video:

I told him that the name Peres therefore means "piecemaker," which, if spelled differently, is a name that I am sure he appreciates!

Anyway, getting back to the subject of age and leadership: While the role of president in Israel is obviously nothing like the role of president in the United States, the President of Israel is much more connected to national politics than, say, Queen Elizabeth, and has frequent, lengthy meetings with the prime minister. Despite his advanced age, Shimon Peres still demonstrates keen intelligence, a good memory, and a great sense of humor. He works harder than most people half his age. He gets up at around 5:30 in the morning, and aside from a rest in the middle of the day, he works until very late at night. He reads voraciously (I just hope that he has time to read the new books that were added to his library yesterday). Without going into detail, I can attest that he has made tremendous personal sacrifice for his job. His staff, who made quite an impression on me, love and revere him and the office of the presidency, and they are in awe of how much he is able to do at such an age.

While I certainly don't agree with Peres' political views, and I was never happy with him as a politician, I think that he is excellent and invaluable to Israel as a president. But even those who do agree with his politics would probably not want him to serve as prime minister at the age of 88. There have been democratically-elected world leaders in their seventies, but eighty-eight is a different league entirely. Yes, Shimon Peres is in incredible shape, both physically and mentally, for his age. There is no question that he is of sound mind. But during the hour and a half that I spent with him, I was very conscious at all times that I was with a very elderly person. This does no harm - it may even help - with the role of president, but it would surely be a hindrance to being prime minister.

The word zaken is homiletically explained to be an acronym of zeh kanah chachmah. With age comes wisdom, and there are great Torah scholars of very advanced age who are likewise of sound mind and are an invaluable source of wisdom. My own mentor, Rav Aryeh Carmell ztz"l, was well into his eighties and still teaching me wisdom. But political leadership requires a degree of strength and vigor that is rarely found with the very old. Is it possible? I suppose so; but certainly in most cases, people should eventually be allowed to retire from such roles.

Charedi society has reformed many aspects of rabbinic leadership, such as transferring it from community rabbis to roshei yeshivah, investing it with broad political leadership, and innovating many aspects of Daas Torah. But, as discussed yesterday, it is the ostensible investment of this leadership in people over a hundred years old (let alone 88), never allowing them to retire from this role, which is perhaps the most tragic. Respect and appreciate them for what they are; don't force them into keeping a role for which they are not suited.

Strength in Leadership

2012-01-15T09:15:00.002+02:00

The Gemara (Nedarim 38a) states that the Divine Spirit only rests on a person who is powerful, wealthy, wise, and humble. Now, we can appreciate the importance of wisdom and humility in a prophet, but why does he have to be powerful and wealthy?

Rambam explains this with a principle discussed in the Mishnah in Pirkei Avos, which states, “Who is mighty? He that subdues his evil inclination. Who is wealthy? He that is satisfied with his lot.” The power and wealth spoken of are internal, spiritual attributes, rather than brute strength and heaps of money. However, this explanation does not appear to be the straightforward meaning of the Talmud’s list of requirements, since the Gemara proves these requirements from cases of prophets who were actually rich and strong. (I am aware of alternate explanations of these proofs, which I discuss in the chapter on giants in Sacred Monsters, but they are not straightforward.)

There is another answer. One of my favorite childhood books was Richard Adam’s best-selling story about life in a rabbit warren, entitled Watership Down. The rabbit Fiver, a small, weak and pathetic bunny, also happens to possess the power of prophecy (admittedly unusual in a rabbit). Fiver experiences a vision that the warren is about to be destroyed by developers, and desperately tries to persuade the other rabbits in the warren to leave. But the other rabbits simple don’t believe him, and who can blame them? This pathetic and sickly little rabbit is obviously delirious, deranged, deeply disturbed, and desperate for attention.

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch explains that anyone who is sick, or poor, or generally pathetic would lack credibility as a prophet. Perhaps he’s pretending to do it out of insanity or to gain attention – after all, he’s got nothing to lose. The requirement for a prophet to be healthy and wealthy is simply to ensure that people take him seriously as a man of stature.

A similar reason applies to the laws of appointing a king. Rambam rules that one may not appoint a butcher, hairdresser, bathhouse attendant or suchlike as a king. This is not because such people are innately unsuitable for the task; Judaism cares more for internal qualities than superficial prestige. However, since the work of such people is not prestigious, the public will not take them seriously and their authority will be compromised. The requirement is based on a pragmatic outlook, rather than being an attestation to the importance of a high-powered career.

Leadership must be strong and vigorous, and must also be perceived that way. When leadership is weak, or even merely perceived that way, there is a problem.

There is a common perception, with much evidence to support it, that the rabbinic leadership in the charedi world suffers from such weakness. I have long wondered whether this problem might stem from the medical innovations of the modern era. For most of history, the only people to survive to adulthood were those of a strong constitution. Very few people reached old age; those who did were people of immense strength. And the authoritative rabbinic figures of fame were often younger than we assume. When Ramban stepped in to the Maimonidean controversy, he was only in his thirties! Today, on the other hand, many people survive to their eighties and beyond, and (perhaps as a result) "Gedolim" usually do not receive this title much before that. On many occasions, this means a decline in mental aptitude. But even if they are mentally acute (as Rav Elyashiv seems to be, at least until very recently), they are often weaker and more subject to manipulation by askanim.

It turns out that I was not the only person to reach this conclusion. There is a fascinating new article, "The leadership vacuum facing ultra-Orthodox Jewry," which makes this point and several important other points. It's an absolute must-read. You can read it at Ha'aretz, or you can read it at Vos Iz Neias and see the mixed reactions of charedi readers.

An Example of a True Gadol

2012-01-12T09:22:00.000+02:00

Fifteen years ago, when I was SuperCharediMan, I viewed Rav Aharon Lichtenstein of Yeshivat Har Etzion with deep suspicion. How can someone have a doctorate in English literature if they are serious about Torah? And why doesn't he have a beard?

Fifteen years on, I have learned to judge people by their deeds. I look at how the Gedolim of the charedi world react to the massive chilul Hashem perpetrated by thugs in their community. I see either explicit support, condemnation of those condemning what happened, silence, or watered-down condemnations. Only one voice calls for repentance, but without making any attempt at serious introspection regarding the cause of the problems, nor to even consider the possibility that at least some of the criticisms of the charedi community might be innately understandable.

In sharp contrast, a reader sent me this transcript of a speech that Rav Aharon Lichtenstein gave after the assassination of Yitzchak Rabin. I urge everyone to read it, in order to see an example of what genuine Torah leadership should be.

Rav Shlomo Fisher and the Scientific Accuracy of Scripture

2012-01-11T10:37:00.000+02:00

Rav Shlomo Fisher, Rosh Yeshivah of Itri, is a very interesting person. Unlike most Roshei Yeshivah, he has extensive knowledge of theology. But his views can be surprising. A friend of mine, who has had many conversations with him, described him as being great in that he is "totally unpredictable and inconsistent"!

I recently came across two fascinating short pieces by Rav Fisher. One was an extremely harsh condemnation of the rishon R. Yosef Ibn Kaspi. (Follow the link to see a response by Rav Shmuel Ashkenazi).

But while Rav Fisher doesn't specify the full range of his objections, it would not appear that he objects to Ibn Kaspi's use of the principle Dibra Torah k'lashon bnei adam, "The Torah speaks in the language of men," which I have cited on numerous occasions in articles and discussed in a blog post. For I just looked at a paragraph by Rav Fisher which I cited in Sacred Monsters, and noticed that the preceding paragraphs address precisely this point. In Drashos Beis Yishai, ma'amar hamo'ach vehalev, footnote 4, he raises the question that Scripture as well as Chazal clearly describe the soul as residing in the heart rather than the brain, whereas we know that the heart merely serves to pump blood. Rav Fisher answers that dibra Torah k'lashon bnei adam. He notes that Rambam explained that Yechezkel's vision of the Chariot includes the incorrect belief that the celestial spheres make noise, because prophecy appears according to the worldview of the recipient, even if that worldview is inaccurate.

(On this point, see Guide for the Perplexed II:8, with the commentaries of Efodi, Shem Tov, Narvoni, and Abarbanel in Ta’anos, 4. For further discussion, see Warren Zev Harvey, “How to Begin to Study Moreh Nevuchim,” Da’at 21 (1988) 5-23 pp. 21-23 (in Hebrew). Ralbag was also of this view; see his commentary to Gen. 15:4 and to Job, end of ch. 39. My thanks to Dr. Marc Shapiro for these references.)

Accordingly, Rav Fisher is of the same view as Ibn Kaspi, as well as Rav Hirsch and Rav Kook, that Scripture itself need not be scientifically accurate; it packages its messages in the worldview of the people that received it.

(See too my monograph The Question of the Kidney's Counsel.)

"We Love You! And Pity You!" Plus, the Inaccuracies in Ami and elsewhere

2012-01-09T16:13:00.002+02:00

Reader Dov Kaiser sent in this photo of a poster displayed in a Charedi street in Rechovot. He wonders whether it is really addressed to Chilonim, as it purports, or if it is to make Charedim feel better about themselves:

It's amazing how some parts of it are so helpful, and other parts so deeply offensive.

In other news, the Mayor of Bet Shemesh, Moshe Abutbol, stated in Ami magazine that the Orot school is "in the middle" of a charedi neighborhood. The same was stated by Yisrael Eichler in HaModia. This is a blatant lie. In fact, the school has a valley behind it, a new charedi neighborhood on one side, and a dati-leumi neighborhood on the other side as well as facing it.

This isn't the only inaccurate information that you'll find in Ami. See this very important post at Life In Israel, which shows that, contrary to the story that Ami magazine ran, significant elements of the Eidah HaCharedis did support the notorious rally in Mea She'arim.

Other false claims that I have seen lately include:

1) HaModia reported a claim that nobody has ever been forced to sit at the back of a Mehadrin bus. But I've seen it with my own eyes! I usually drive, but on one occasion where I had to use the bus, I witnessed a man in charedi attire barricade the front of the bus to prevent religious girls boarding (they could not board at the back, because it was too crowded). Countless people have witnessed such things. How can they report such a blatantly false claim?

2) Someone else claimed that "there hasn’t been any violence" in Bet Shemesh/ Ramat Bet Shemesh "except for by a few thugs a few months ago." I wish that were true, but it's not. There have been many, many incidents of violence against non-charedim over the last few years.

3) Another claim was that "There is absolutely no imposition of Mehadrin standards onto the general public." This is certainly incorrect with regard to Ramat Bet Shemesh. For example, the stores in the main shopping area have been intimidated into putting up signs demanding adherence to certain tzniyus standards, and into allowing mashgichim to deface the packaging of cosmetics that have pictures of women on them. And even a mainstream Anglo-charedi figure, Rav Elimelech Kornfeld (not to be confused with his brother in Har Nof; as we see throughout Tenach and history, people are not to be judged by the actions of their brother!), sought to prevent the opening of eating establishments with seating at the small shopping area near where I live. (In the end, the lawyers were brought in, and this particular effort failed.)

It's Not An Aberration

2012-01-06T00:03:00.001+02:00

I would love to get back to topics relating to Rationalist Judaism - I have a number of posts planned. But when I see certain claims being made about the situation in Bet Shemesh, I feel compelled to respond.

A commonly-heard refrain from Charedi apologists is that the appalling events surrounding the Orot school in Bet Shemesh are merely the aberrant actions of a tiny number of crazy people, termed Sikrikim, who are not remotely representative of the wider Charedi community. As such, it's as ridiculous and offensive to expect Charedim to condemn them, or to perform a cheshbon hanefesh, as it would be to expect Jews to have a particular obligation to condemn Madoff or to perform a cheshbon hanefesh as a result of his crimes.

This apologetic was made a little more difficult after hundreds of people in Ramat Bet Shemesh-Bet rallied around in support of these thugs, including rabbonim in that neighborhood. So the apologetic was adjusted to it being just an aberration of that particular neighborhood, who are not remotely representative of the wider Charedi community.

This apologetic in turn was made a little more difficult after the rally in Mea Shearim in defense of the Jerusalem thug who was jailed, where people desecrated the memory of the Holocaust martyrs. So the apologetic was adjusted to it being just an aberration of radically anti-modern Mea Shearim types, who are not remotely representative of the wider Charedi community.

But what about the events in Ponovezh yeshivah a few years back? According to news reports, "the yeshiva’s administrative director, Aharon Gertner, was arrested after police claimed he attempted to assault members of Rabbi Markovich’s faction with an ax." And "Rabbi Haim Peretz Berman, the new yeshiva head... was assaulted with sticks and hospitalized. Berman was replaced by Rabbi Haim Shlomo Lebovic, whose first lecture was held under heavy security of dozens of policemen. Upon returning home that day, he found an explosive device waiting for him at his doorstep." As a result, "the district police chief summons the yeshiva’s leaders to his office once every few weeks for a talk, which is usually followed by a short-lived truce that ends whenever a new conflict – over the distribution of food or rooms in the yeshiva for instance – emerges." Can anyone imagine this happening in a Modern Orthodox or secular institution of higher learning?

Fine, the apologist says, so maybe it's just an aberration of Israeli charedim - after all, they live in a rough country, and it presumably rubs off on them. But it's not remotely representative of the wider Charedi community!

But what about the events in New Square, where the Rebbe's assistant tried to set fire to the home of a person who did not abide by the community's policies? According to residents of New Square, he was "part of a network of up to 40 men and boys who defend the Skverer Rebbe with intimidation and violence."

Fine, the apologist says, but that's just an aberration of a Chassidic American community. But it's not remotely representative of the Litvish American charedi community!

Well, it's true that I don't have any stories of violence in the Litvish American charedi community. But are they really such a distinct and different entity from the American Chassidic and Israeli Charedi community that they have no need to condemn them, and no need to do a cheshbon hanefesh regarding charedi isolationism, disregard for civil law and civility, and devaluation of outsiders?

And violence is itself just one part of a spectrum of problematic behavior. Other forms of problematic zealotry and intolerance are vastly more widespread. There are simply countless examples of harassment of people who don't toe the Charedi line, in cities from Kiryat Sefer to Bayit Vegan to Beitar to Bet Shemesh - and I presume that there is also no shortage of such stories in the US.

If people are going to seriously deny this, then I will have to collect and publish a long list of examples. For now, I will just cite one particularly striking example of how this problematic attitude becomes endorsed at the highest levels. A recent work, Vayishma Moshe, reports that an avreich consulted Rav Elyashiv after "a spirit of zealotry" entered him and he "embarrassed" a couple on a bus (not even a mehadrin bus) who ignored his request to move to the back. According to the avreich, Rav Elyashiv told him that he acted perfectly appropriately! Of course we have no way of knowing if Rav Elyashiv did indeed say this. But the fact that such a sefer exists, and that it bears the haskamah of Rav Elyashiv and his son, shows that such behavior is considered by many to be acceptable.

At the risk of stating the obvious, I certainly do not believe that all or even most charedim support spitting at people or cursing them. Rather, my point is that such behavior is an extreme but predictable manifestation of an attitude that is, unfortunately, pervasive.

There is a general attitude in the Charedi world of thoroughly delegitimizing all those who do not follow the One True Charedi Way, and having no respect for such people. It is found in the leadership, in the charedi media, and in the street. If people challenge this statement, or claim that it is no more true of Charedi society than of Modern Orthodox society, then I am ready to back it up with countless examples. (It is especially ironic that a recent apologist on Cross-Currents, who claimed that the extreme zealotry is an aberration, is himself a person who has called for homosexuals to look into the option of suicide, and who has zealously maintained a blog entirely dedicated to delegitimizing me!)

Now, some might claim that this problem is inherent to religion itself. I don't have arguments on hand with which to counter that, but I would instead say that if that is indeed the case, then the further to the right one is, the more one has to be careful about this problem!

There are several aspects to charedi society which exacerbate the problem of delegitimizing others. If a person is of rabbinical stature, then people will not protest his expressing intolerance. There is a social structure in which the most zealous, intolerant people wield the most power. In the charedi educational system in Israel, sports and physical activity are frowned upon, leaving no kosher outlet for males to let out their pent-up energy. And there is violent language used and endorsed in Charedi society at the highest levels. The book Chaim B'Emunasam, written as a response to my books, and bearing especially glowing haskamos from various Gedolim, called for the execution, "by any means," of people who believe the Gemara to contain scientifically-inaccurate statements - i.e. me! Do those Gedolim really bear no responsibility for the terrifying and menacing phone calls that I have received?

It is obvious to many people, some of whom are even in the Charedi world, that recent events are but an extreme reminder of a widespread problem. It is tragic that some refuse to acknowledge it.

Everyone is Fighting a Different Battle in Beit Shemesh

2012-01-03T23:23:00.000+02:00

(This article appears in Wednesday's edition of The Jerusalem Post.)

Everyone agrees that the Battle of Beit Shemesh – my hometown for over a decade – is about a group of hostile, hateful people trying to impose their ideology on a group of nice, normal Jews. But whereas the secular, national-religious and moderate haredim (ultra-Orthodox) think that the group of hostile, hateful people trying to impose their ideology on others are the haredi extremists, mainstream haredim think that the group of hostile, hateful people trying to impose their ideology on others are the secular.

Hadash, the weekly haredi newspaper in Beit Shemesh, was formerly owned by Mayor Moshe Abutbol’s official spokesman. It was sold to new ownership which maintains devout loyalty to the mayor and the haredi community. A giant front-page headline last week screamed “THE BLITZ!” Under that, the article said haredi residents of Beit Shemesh have become “a target of persecution, the likes of which have never been seen.”

The entire issue contained article after article about the terrible, evil secular campaign against the haredim, with each article including a graphic captioned “The city under attack!”

The lead editorial ranted on and on about the terrible, baseless persecution of the haredi population and denounced the kippa-wearing people who brought the Banat Orot school situation to the attention of the wider public. There was not a single word condemning the haredi thugs.

Especially ironic was a half-page article about a Haaretz journalist who allegedly spat on a little girl. This was in a newspaper which never prints articles about the countless acts of harassment against the national-religious that have taken place for years in Beit Shemesh – stealing flags, throwing stones, spitting, threatening businesses, attacking children and much more. Even when there was a mob beating of national-religious kids which resulted in my neighbor’s child requiring stitches in his head, the newspaper claimed that it was all the kids’ fault!

JUST AS important, however, the secular interpretation of events is sometimes no more accurate. Many secular Jews possess the absurd belief that all haredim, or even all religious Jews, are of the same mindset as the extremists. Former Meretz Party chairman Yossi Sarid declared that Judaism itself halachically mandates such behavior (!), and that all religious parties should be disqualified from the Knesset.

The widespread talk against religious Jews is no less offensive than the curses heaped by haredi extremists upon others. This also has the effect of encouraging the wider haredi world to adopt a siege mentality and prevents them from acknowledging any wrongdoing in their own camp – which in turn lends credence to the secular charge that haredim are indeed all of the same mindset. Thus, the ultra-secular and the ultra-Orthodox are locked into a vicious cycle which brings out the worst in each.

Yet another interpretation of events was apparently held by the groups that joined the rally in Beit Shemesh, who portrayed the issue as one relating to women. But aside from the question of whether some of them were seeking to force a rift between Netanyahu and his coalition, even those genuinely motivated by a desire to improve the status of women were missing the point.

The events in Beit Shemesh had little, if anything, to do with the oppression of women. The haredi extremists did not object to Banot Orot because it was a girl’s school; they objected to it because it was national-religious. And those who linked the Beit Shemesh extremists to the soldiers who walked out of a ceremony in which women sang got it entirely wrong. Walking out may well have been unwise and even unnecessary, but in that case, the soldiers did not impose their mores upon others; if anything, secular mores were being insensitively and unwisely imposed upon them.

THE INTERPRETATION and reaction among religious Jews outside of Israel is diverse. Modern Orthodox groups such as the OU and RCA issued harsh, unequivocal and unqualified condemnations of the haredi extremists. So did important moderate haredi figures such as Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein and Rabbi Yaakov Horowitz. The mainstream haredi world, however, watered down their condemnations of the extremists by stressing that the (alleged) ultimate goal, of increased modesty, is holy. As in Israel, more extreme elements of the haredi world in America adopted the siege mentality of presenting the entire situation as a secular campaign against Judaism.

But virtually the entire religious community commits the error of attributing all the problems to a miniscule group of extremists. (For foreign-born religious Jews, this often stems from sheer horror at the thought that it could be any more than that.) Yet this is no more accurate than the belief of the secularists that every haredi Jew is a rock-throwing, cursing spitter. The problems in Beit Shemesh are more complex and widespread than that.

It is true that the vast majority of haredim would never dream of spitting on people and cursing them. These are the actions of a fringe element that are feared and detested by the rest of the haredi world. But the mainstream haredi community is supportive of the ultimate goals, and does not see such actions as being terrible enough to justify joining with “outsiders” in order to condemn it. A letter expressing support for Banot Orot and condemnation of the extremists was signed by over a dozen national-religious and moderate haredi community rabbis in Beit Shemesh, but not one mainstream haredi rabbi signed on to it or made any similar such public declaration.

In addition, haredi society is pervaded by a fear of not appearing adequately “frum”; people in haredi communities are always looking over their right shoulders. And it is often the zealous elements that manipulate the “Gedolim,” the elderly Torah scholars that are ostensibly the leaders of the haredi world. As a result of all this, those practicing intolerance and extremism always exert a disproportionately large degree of influence in haredi society as a whole.

THE MORE general problem is that at many levels in haredi society, there is inappropriate behavior towards nonharedim, which is felt particularly strongly in the mixed city of Beit Shemesh. For example, as noted, the Hadash newspaper never reports on attacks against non-haredim; haredim are always innocent and non-haredim are always the enemy. And many haredi rabbis in Beit Shemesh have either overtly or tacitly supported mild harassment of non-haredim and attempts to impose haredi mores on the rest of the city.

The Ramat Beit Shemesh district was originally designated as a mixed area for haredi, national-religious and secular Jews. But the latter group fled after harassment, and Ramat Beit Shemesh is on its way to emulating Beitar, where the national-religious were effectively forced out of the city and extreme haredi elements took control. Under the current mayor, this is an accelerating process, as he gears the expansion of the Ramat Beit Shemesh district primarily towards haredi purchasers.

I don’t know what should or even can be done about the larger social problems of haredim vis-à-vis the rest of Israeli society. But I do know that the first step to solving a problem is facing up to its existence and understanding its nature.

The Letter of the Community Rabbis

2012-01-02T11:47:00.003+02:00

Here is a letter, prepared by local rabbis in Bet Shemesh way back in Elul, which expresses support for Orot, notes that the girls are both religious and dress modestly according to halacha, and denounces the actions of the extremists:

(You can also download it as a PDF here)

The letter is signed by the following community rabbis: Rav David Spector, Rav Avishai David, Rav Sheinkolovski, Rav Kurtz, Rav Rosenzweig, Rav Shalom Rosner, Rav Yitzchak Rones, Rav Vargon, Rav Menachem Cooperman, Rav Naftoli Rones, Rav Boaz Mori, Rav Bagno, Rav Chaim Soloveichik, and Rav Danny Myers. I think that all of them also attended the rallies in support of Orot.

Most of these rabbanim are Dati-leumi (national religious). Some are borderline/ moderate charedi. None of the numerous more charedi rabbanim in the city are signed on it; I don't know how many were approached, but I know that at least some were approached and refused to sign.

(Note: I don't know why the wonderful Piazeczna Rebbe of Aish Kodesh, Rav Shapira, didn't sign this letter, or if he was even asked to sign, but he did attend one of the rallies supporting Orot and opposing the extremists. This is significant, and is also the exception that proves the rule; I did not see more than two or three borderline charedi men or women at any of the rallies. Rav Malinowitz did not sign this letter, but will be writing a letter explaining his stance in a few days; his shul did arrange for a number of people to go to Orot in order to protect the girls on their way home from school.)

Finally, I recommend that everyone read this fantastic statement by Rabbi Shaul Robinson. And there's a fascinating article in the often abominable secular-left Ha'aretz which is thoughtful and balanced.

Essential Reads on the Charedi Controversy

2012-01-01T09:27:00.003+02:00

Rabbi Ron Yitzchak Eisenman of Passaic has issued a moving statement on the events in Bet Shemesh, including a wonderful, monumental story about Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld having nothing but blessings when facing a mixed group of secular Israeli youth. Especially notable in Rabbi Eisenman's statement is his saying that the possible unfair extrapolation and haredi-bashing is "not his issue." Exactly; the more that the charedi community ignores its own problems and just whines about being persecuted, the more they justify the generalized criticism towards them!

Meanwhile, VosIzNeias is showing photos of the charedi demonstration in Mea She'arim where they dressed as Holocaust victims. Check out the comments section, which shows how many frum and charedi Jews are utterly nauseated by it. Some of them are also wondering why the Gedolim, who are vocal on so many issues, are not saying anything about it. And check out Rabbi Adlerstein's brief but sharp headline and critique.

I was also sent the following comment which was submitted in response to Rabbi Menken's post on Cross-Currents but which, inexplicably, was not approved:

Nobody, including Tzipi Hotovely, is protesting the “voluntary separation of genders in public spaces.” What they are protesting is the INvoluntary coercion of others to abide by it. If Chassidim don’t want to sit behind women, this still does not give them the right to force unwilling women to sit at the back. I can’t understand how you can possibly argue otherwise.
It is likewise incorrect to state that “the only Charedi leader who legitimately should have done more was Mayor Abutbol.” How about the entire body of Chareidi rabbonim in Bet Shemesh and Ramat Bet Shemesh, not one of whom was willing to publicly condemn the extremists or express sympathy for the Orot school?

If you ever submit a comment to Cross-Currents and it is not approved, feel free to send it to me, and I may include it in a post.

And if you didn't read my post on Friday about the charedi reaction in Bet Shemesh, or Tuesday's post about how spitting on girls is not the main problem, allow me to recommend that you do so!

The Charedi Reaction

2011-12-30T09:21:00.004+02:00

The reactions to the events in Bet Shemesh have been interesting and revealing. They also show how Jews in the US are out of touch with Bet Shemesh.

The OU and RCA issued an unequivocal condemnation of the kanna'im, along with urging everyone to recognize that "the vast majority of Charedi Jews find these actions abhorrent."

The Agudah also condemned the kanna'im, and claimed that "the extremist element is odious to, and rejected by, the vast majority of charedi Jews." (Though they also spent even more words stressing that the cause of tzniyus is of great importance, inevitably leading many to wonder about the sincerity of their condemnation.)

The local Bet Shemesh charedi weekly newspaper Chadash, which effectively represents the Mayor and his council (it is owned by their spokesman), had a very different reaction.

On the front page, in a gigantic headline, it screamed "THE BLITZ." Under that, it stated that the Charedi residents of Bet Shemesh have become a target of "redifah" (persecution), "the likes of which have never been seen."

Really? Have they been spat on? Have they had stones thrown at them? Have they had their flags stolen? Have they had their cars vandalized? Have they had their social activities broken up? Have they had their businesses threatened if they don't put up certain signs? Have they had their kids beaten? No; that's only happened to hundreds of non-charedim here.

The entire "special issue" of Chadash contained article after article about the terrible, evil secular campaign against the Charedim, with each article including a graphic captioned "The city under attack!"

Especially ironic was a half-page article about a Haaretz journalist who allegedly spat on a little girl (which he entirely denies). This is in a newspaper which never prints articles about the countless spittings and acts of vandalism and physical violence committed by local charedim against the national-religious. Even when there was a mob beating of kids which resulted in my neighbor's child requiring stitches in his head, the newspaper claimed that it was all the dati-leumi kids' faults! Likewise, in the early days of the violence against Orot, Chadash falsely claimed that there was no vandalism against the school, and claimed that the persecution was of the National-Religious against Charedim, who were "setting dogs on them" (which was completely false).

The lead editorial rants on and on about the terrible, baseless persecution of the charedi population. It denounces the kippa-wearing people who brought the Orot situation to the attention of the wider public. It does not issue a single word of condemnation against the charedi thugs. Not one word!

A later article in Chadash asks why the charedi population should be held responsible for the actions of a few extremists.

I'll tell you why the very people behind Chadash should shoulder some of the blame. Because the people behind Chadash never, ever report about charedi wrongdoings or condemn them. Instead, they demonize and slander National-Religious people.

In light of all this, the claims being made about how the actions of the kanna'im are entirely abhorrent to the vast majority of Charedi Jews are a little misleading. To the local Israeli charedim in Bet Shemesh, the actions of the kanna'im aren't anywhere near as abhorrent as the protests against them.

Was Eisav a Vampire?

2011-12-29T22:42:00.003+02:00

Last week I wrote a post on werewolves which stirred up a great deal of interest (and by the way, I uploaded the original text of Rabbeinu Ephraim on werewolves as a PDF- you can download it here.). So now let us turn to vampires. I came across an interesting discussion about Eisav being a vampire. The following evidence was given:

1. The Midrash (Bereishis Rabbah 63:10) describes Eisav as "ensnaring" or, "hunting" people "with his mouth." While the Midrash itself explains that in a metaphorical sense, perhaps it is also intended literally. Hunting people with one's mouth is what vampires do.

2. The Midrash Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer (Ch. 37) says that Eisav wanted to suck out Yaakov's blood:
אמר עשו איני הורג את יעקב בחצים ובקשת אלא בפי אני הורגו ומוצץ את דמו שנ' וירץ עשו לקראתו וישקהו אל תהי קורא וישקהו אלא וינשכהו

3. Why would Eisav trade his birthright for lentil soup? The "red, red stuff" was instead blood. Blood! Blood!

4. The Midrash discusses how Yaakov "gave his life" for the birthright. But how is giving away lentil soup "giving one's life"? Rather, it means that he gave Eisav some of his blood.

5. When Eisav was reunited with Yaakov and "fell on his neck and kissed him", the word "kissed" has dots on it, which the Midrash explains to allude to the fact that Eisav tried to bite him. Who else would bite someone on the neck other than a vampire?

6. When Yaakov was struggling with Eisav's angel, the latter had to leave at daybreak. Why? Because vampires are harmed by daylight!

7. What did the angel mean when he says that Yaakov struggled "with God and with man" Which was it? Answer - it was with a vampire, which is immortal and thus has aspects of both God and man.

8. The Gemara (Sotah 13a) says that when Eisav tried to prevent Yaakov from being buried in Machpelah, Chushim Ben Dan killed him with a wooden stick and beheaded him. That is how you kill a vampire - with a wooden stake, and by beheading.

Finally, the reason given for why all this is not widely known, is that Jews are very sensitive about matters involving blood, due to blood libels.

UPDATE: In the comments, two more pieces of evidence were given:

9. Vampires have hair on their palms, and Eisav had hair all over his body, including, most significantly, on his hands - HaYodayim y'dei Eisav.

10. Eisav was known as "the red one" and this may have been due to the color of his hair rather than his complexion. Red hair is traditionally a sign of vampirism.

It's an ingenious explanation, no? I'm not revealing where I saw this explanation, because the interesting question to consider is this: How would your evaluation of this explanation differ depending on whether it was said by a thirteenth-century Rishon from Northern France, an eighteenth-century Acharon, a contemporary Gadol, or a regular Joe of today?

Missing Chanukah

2011-12-28T21:44:00.001+02:00

Some people miss Chanukah when it's over.

Some people miss Chanukah when it's happening.

Story number one: I was at the printing house last week, arranging to print 2000 copies of my sample chapter about leopards from the Torah Encyclopedia of the Animal Kingdom. I told the (secular Israeli) woman in charge of the printing schedule that I wanted it out in time for Chanukah, because the subject matter is related to Chanukah.

"What do leopards have to do with Chanukah?" she asked.

It was a very reasonable question. I explained that in Scripture, Daniel has a prophetic vision in which he sees various animals which represent different kingdoms, and the leopard represents Greece.

"But what does Greece have to do with Chanukah? she asked.

Story number two: I heard a dvar Torah which, as a launch point, discussed the halachah that if the candles on the menorah blow out, you need not rekindle them. The speaker went on to describe how the message of Chanukah is that everything is in Hashem's hands, about how the Greek army was defeated entirely by way of supernatural miracles, and about how the ultimate message of Chanukah is that Torah and mitzvos is all that counts, and hishtadlus is entirely irrelevant, and basically pointless and unnecessary.

Spitting on Girls is Not the Main Problem

2011-12-27T13:00:00.001+02:00

Charedi zealotry has been a hot topic in Israel over the last few weeks, and Bet Shemesh is the hotspot this week. Today, a huge rally will take place, sparked by a moving interview that aired on television last week. It featured an eight-year-old girl who was traumatized from going to her school, Orot, due to charedi extremists who scream at her and spit on her.

Now, I do not mean for one moment to minimize the awful nature of the situation with the Orot girls. I am extremely upset by it, and I was at several rallies to protest what has been happening there. However, I am concerned that there is an excessive focus on that particular situation which distracts from the larger problem and even plays into it.

The vast majority of charedim are horrified and disgusted at the thought of screaming at girls and spitting on them - or indeed at anyone. These are the actions of a fringe lunatic element that are detested by everyone. But as such, it's easy for charedim, including Mayor Abutbol, to give television interviews protesting their behavior. This neatly enables them to avoid the more general problem, which is this: At every level in charedi society, there is a certain degree of intolerance towards non-charedim, which is never protested by those to their left in charedi society.

That formulation is a little technical, so allow me to illustrate it. The rabbonim and residents of RBS-B (the area where the hooligans are based), and some extreme Charedi rabbonim and residents of RBS-A (such as Rav Perlstein, and certain people in the Kupa Shel Tzedakah in RBS-A), do not support these acts of thuggery against women and children. However, they don't think that it's all that terrible, they agree with its ultimate aims, and they will not actively protest it. And they do support less extreme forms of physical/verbal opposition to non-Charedim - e.g. "encouraging" stores into putting up signs about tzniyus, and incidents such as when Rav Perlstein led a group to break up a concert in RBS-A due to it mixing charedi and non-charedi elements of the population.

The mainstream Charedi rabbonim and residents of RBS-A, such as Rav Kornfeld and the Chadash newspaper, are utterly disgusted at the idea of any physical violence or verbal intimidation of non-charedim - it's so obviously criminal to them that they don't even see a need to make it clear that they oppose it. And they do not support the approach of the RBS-B rabbonim and the extreme Charedi rabbonim. But they will not speak out against them. They will not show any support for the Orot girls. And they do support milder attempts to impose Chareidi mores on the rest of the city and to oppose non-Charedim (which is how non-Charedim were driven out of Betar). Examples include signing notices against women dressing in a non-tzniyus manner, prohibiting the dati-leumi charity organization LeMaan Achai from fundraising in their shuls (which long predates the dispute over how to handle child abuse), hostility to TOV (the non-Daas Torah neo-charedi party), and occasional displays of opposition to achdus with non-charedim - when some people tried to arrange an achdus shiur after some tragic deaths of children, these shuls would only co-operate if the speakers were all charedi and the event was not called an achdus event!

The moderate Charedi rabbonim and residents of RBS-A dislike any form of opposition to non-charedim. But they won't protest the actions of the previous group, because they see themselves as being on the same general team. Furthermore, due to their interest in furthering their own desires for the city, they vote for charedi parties which strengthen more right-wing charedim and which implement changes (such as destroying green areas to make room for cheap housing) that end up driving away non-charedim. And the moderate charedim generally won't even protest the crazy lunatics. Virtually none attended the rallies in sympathy of Orot. One Rav, for whom I generally have the greatest respect, said that to protest the crazy lunatics would strengthen the mistaken impression that he and they are in any way part of the same community. But it's not an entirely mistaken impression. There is a continuum in the Chareidi community. A borderline/ moderate Charedi rav is not obligated to protest the lunatics to the same degree that a mainstream or extreme Charedi rav should protest them, but since he is affiliated with the mainstream and even extreme elements, he does have an obligation to protest to a much greater degree than an entirely non-charedi person.

The end result of all this is that while the crazy violent extremists are indeed only a fringe element, there is a much wider problem of charedi intolerance to non-charedim at many levels, and a general attitude of not protesting unacceptable intolerance that allows it to endure and proliferate. Furthermore, there is a general charedi belief that, once they are in the majority, the neighborhood should conform to charedi sensitivities; and they are generally working to increase the charedi percentage of the population (to bring the city in line with their spiritual ideals)!

Jonathan Rosenblum claimed in The Jerusalem Post that "There is no place for attempts to impose haredi mores on others." For someone who claims to be speaking for the mainstream charedi population (and who is a disciple of Rav Aharon Feldman), this is disingenuous. Many charedim might not consciously intend to impose charedi mores upon others, but this is certainly and inevitably what happens. It happened in Beitar and it's happening here. As a resident of Ramat Bet Shemesh for over a decade, I can attest to a continued attempt to "charedize" the city, which has driven many non-charedim away to Modiin and other towns. Those who engage in violent means to accomplish this are a fringe minority that most charedim detest - but there is a general charedi effort to accomplish this via non-violent means.

The fate of the city will be determined in the next election, two years from now. Anyone who votes for political parties such as Gimmel and mayoral candidates such as Abutbol is part of this problem.

Anti-Charedi, not Anti-Semitic

2011-12-25T07:31:00.000+02:00

On Shabbos, I was at an informal kiddush, and a neighbor of mine got up to speak. Before I report what ensued, let me say that he is a really, really, terrific person - idealistic, dedicated to helping people, great personality, and I really like him - notwithstanding what ensued.

I can't remember the Chanukah tie-in, but he somehow got onto the topic of the inconsistency of Hillary Clinton criticizing Israel's oppression of women via Charedim, when Saudi Arabia beheaded a woman and Clinton remained silent. Okay, I can hear that this is a reasonable case for alleging antisemitism.

But he then moved on to the topic of Ramat Bet Shemesh Gimmel, the new, huge neighborhood being constructed a few hundred yards from where I sit. He claimed that anyone who is against the Charedim taking over RBS-Gimmel is an antisemite who hates Torah and mitzvos.

That was the part where some of us got into an argument with him.

I won't record the entire discussion, but the main part went essentially like this:

Us: Why is it unthinkable to be against the Charedi takeover of RBS-Gimmel? The Charedi population pays much less in city taxes, they cause many non-Charedim to end up leaving Bet Shemesh, and they enable kanna'us such as harassing children, stoning buses, and placing restrictions on businesses in the area (e.g. no tables outside pizza stores, placards insisting on dress codes)!

Him: They have a democratic right to live their lives the way that they want to!

Us: First of all, to the extent that they do have such a right, we equally have a legitimate right to oppose such changes to the city in which we live. Second, what kind of "democratic right" are you referring to, in their dictating to businesses how to operate?

Him: They just tell businesses that if they don't co-operate, they will lose customers.

Us: No they don't! They threaten them with the store being trashed!

Him: Well, all that stuff is just a handful of crazy people.

Us: But it's in Charedi towns that such people have power!

Him: Well, it's just because the mayor and other charedim are afraid of the kanna'im; they don't really support them.

Us: Agreed! But since the end result is that in charedi towns, kanna'us effectively takes place, why isn't it legitimate to be against a town becoming charedi?

Him: Look, if a bunch of secular women wearing nothing but bikinis came to use our shopping center, wouldn't you be in favor of having them <i>physically</i> thrown out?

Us: No... and how exactly is that relevant?

Him: A Beis Din has the power to physically inflict lashes of someone who sinned in the privacy of their home!

Us: ??!!! What's that got to do with harassing little girls for wearing short sleeves?

Him: Well, that's just a few lunatics who should be thrown in prison. Anyway, it's a minor issue that affected one school, there's no general charedi problem like that. You don't see problems like that in Beitar.

Us: In Beitar, some people tried to build a gym for teenagers to work out their energy in a healthy way, and the extremists had it shut down on the grounds that it was Hellenism!

And so on, and so forth. And we didn't even get on to the economic issue, of how the charedi population has a very large proportion of people who do not work and thus result in the city being poorer, with its multitude of effects on everyone else.

What struck me is that this is a nice, normal guy, and a great mechanech, but to whom The Charedi Cause is so important that he can't bring himself to see how other frum Jews might have a legitimate reason to be against the direction that Bet Shemesh and Ramat Bet Shemesh have been taking in the last few years.

(See too this post at Life in Israel)

Was Rachel Imeinu Killed By A Werewolf?

2011-12-21T09:48:00.000+02:00

In Sacred Monsters, I noted that Rabbeinu Ephraim ben Shimshon, one of the Tosafists, wrote about werewolves. But I only recently came across the full text, and I found some additional fascinating material.

Rabbeinu Ephraim refers to werewolves in a curious discussion about Yaakov’s son Benjamin. In this week's parashah, the Torah relates how Yaakov repeatedly expressed concern about Benjamin’s brothers taking him down to Egypt, “lest an accident befall him.” Rabbeinu Ephraim explains this concern to relate to the description of Benjamin as “a predatory wolf” (Genesis 49:27), understanding it very literally:

Another explanation: Benjamin was a “predatory wolf,” sometimes preying upon people. When it was time for him to change into a wolf, as it says, “Benjamin is a predatory wolf,” as long as he was with his father, he could rely upon a physician, and in that merit he did not change into a wolf. For thus it says, “And he shall leave his father and die” (Gen. 44:22)—namely, that when he separates from his father, and turns into a wolf with travelers, whoever finds him will kill him. (Rabbeinu Ephraim, commentary to Genesis 44:29)

Elsewhere in the manuscript of Rabbeinu Ephraim’s commentary, there is further discussion about werewolves attributed to “a writer from Ashkenaz” (apparently disciples of Rabbeinu Ephraim, or other scholars from the region):

There is a type of wolf that is called loup-garou (werewolf), which is a person that changes into a wolf. When it changes into a wolf, his feet emerge from between his shoulders. So too with Benjamin—“he dwells between the shoulders” (Deuteronomy 33:12). The solution for [dealing with] this wolf is that when it enters a house, and a person is frightened by it, he should take a firebrand and thrust it around, and he will not be harmed. So they would do in the Temple; each day, they would throw the ashes by the altar, as it is written, “and you shall place it by the altar” (Leviticus 6:3); and so is the norm with this person whose offspring turn into wolves, for a werewolf is born with teeth, which indicates that it is out to consume the world. Another explanation: a werewolf is born with teeth, to show that just as this is unusual, so too he will be different from other people. And likewise, Benjamin ate his mother, who died on his accord, as it is written, “And it was as her soul left her, for she was dying, and she called his name ‘the son of my affliction’ ” (Genesis 35:18). (Commentary to Genesis 35:27)

In Sacred Monsters, I thought that the description of Benjamin eating his mother was a figure of speech, and metaphorically referred to his causing her death via childbirth. But now I think it might mean that he literally ate her! An earlier comment makes use of the albam system of letter substitution, whereby the Hebrew alphabet is split into two parts, and each letter is replaced by the corresponding letter in the other part. Based on this system, the word tzelem, “image,” as in “man was created in the image of God,” converts to ze’ev, “wolf,” which is explained to have great significance:

Tzelem is ze’ev in the albam system; therefore, those people who change into wolves were created as such from the Six Days of Creation, and do not return to their earlier state until they have eaten the blood of a man or woman. (Commentary to Genesis 2:28)

As I explained in Sacred Monsters, it would be a mistake to look upon those who believed in such things as being "naive" or "foolish." While such a belief would be outlandish today, in the medieval period it was perfectly ordinary. After all, Scripture itself attested to King Nebuchadnezzar turning into an animal. While some would interpret this as mental illness, others interpreted this as meaning that he physically transformed into an animal. Why, then, should a person not be able to turn into a wolf?

(For further discussion of the belief in werewolves, see Darren Oldridge, Strange Histories, pp. 96-105)

Kosher Certification for Maccabees

2011-12-20T08:17:00.000+02:00

(A re-post from last year, slightly updated)

Over Shabbos I dusted off my ancient copy of ArtScroll's Chanukah: Its History, Observance and Significance - A Presentation based upon Talmudic and Traditional Sources, written by Rabbi Hersh Goldwurm and published way back in 1981. The subtitle is interesting, because some of the primary sources used are only traditional in the loosest sense of the term. Presumably sensitive to this concern, the preface to the History section includes the following explanation:

...Through an understanding of the history of the period, we can gain a deeper insight into the significance of Chanukah itself. With this goal, we shall approach our historical inquiry into the events of the period.

For information, we are indebted primarily to the books of Maccabees I and II the authors of which lived relatively close to the time of the miracle (in the case of I Maccabees), or drew upon contemporary sources. The authorship of these books is unknown, but they were undoubtedly written by staunchly loyal Jews. Although there is evidence that I Maccabees was originally written in Hebrew, both books were available only in Greek and Latin for over 1500 years and came down to us through gentile hands. For this reason, the two books were largely unknown to Jewish chroniclers and commentators until recent times... Despite the fact that the books of Maccabees are not mentioned in virtually any early classic Rabbinic work, we may assume that Jewish scholars would have accepted them, because they are cited by the great commentator to the Mishnah, R' Yom Tov Lipmann Heller (Tosefos Yom Tov, Megillah 3:6), and by the great halachist R' Eliyah Shapiro of Prague in his magnum opus Eliyah Rabbah to Orach Chaim 671:1. I know of only three other relatively early Jewish scholars who had access to Maccabees: R' Azariah min HaAdomim (De Rossi) in his Me'or Einayim (Imrei Binah ch. 16, 25, 25, 51, 55); and the disciple of R' Moshe Isserles, R' David Ganz (in Tzemach David, part I, year 3590). Nevertheless, it is fair to assume that such scholars would not have cited the books of Maccabees unless they were convinced of its reliability.

The reader should bear in mind that the period of Scripture was sealed prior to the events of Chanukah. No later book, even if it were historically accurate and true to the underlying spiritual theme of events it chronicled, could have been canonized. Consequently, the status of Maccabees as an apocryphal work does not, in and of itself, prove that it is not reliable.

In general, I'm not into the genre of "ArtScroll-bashing" - for the most part, ArtScroll is simply catering to the needs, desires and sensitivities of their readership, as well as understandably desiring to avoid trouble. But analyzing ArtScroll does afford an opportunity to understand the dynamics of the Orthodox community (as Dr. Yoel Finkelman has shown), and there are a number of observations to be made with regard to these paragraphs.

First, it's fascinating to see how sources are conferred with the status of "traditional," or its equivalent level of kashrus - something that I also have to do quite often. We are first assured that the authors of Maccabees were "staunchly loyal Jews." Then a justification is given for these works not being cited in classic Rabbinic literature. We are then told that prestigious later rabbinic authorities did make use of these works, and thus must have been convinced of their reliability. This also provides the importance assurance that had Chazal and the Rishonim had access to these works, "we may assume... that they would have accepted them." Finally, we are told that the stigma of being "apocryphal works" does not disqualify them "in and of itself," since they were written too late to be canonized. It's quite an elaborate set of justifications.

Also of interest is the statement that the citation of Maccabees by various Acharonim shows that they were convinced of its reliability (and hence we can also be convinced). What exactly does "reliability" mean in this context? Historical accuracy, or kosherness in Orthodox circles? It's hard to see how the citations by various Acharonim confer the former, so I assume that it means the latter, but I'm not certain.

Then, as I started to read the list of Torah scholars cited as endorsing Maccabees, I was intrigued to see R' Yom Tov Lipmann Heller as the first such authority cited. After all, he also quotes from R' Azariah De Rossi, a scholar whose name is anathema in many Orthodox circles, following the vehement condemnation of De Rossi by Maharal and (reportedly) by R. Yosef Caro. Reading on, I was flabbergasted to see that De Rossi himself is one of these authorities cited to show that Maccabees must be reliable! While it is encouraging to see that he is presented as someone who can be relied upon to show that something is reliable, it does raise some interesting questions. For if a source is "reliable" because it was quoted by R' Azariah, then we can also add a number of others to the list of works that Torah Jews can consider "reliable," including the works of Augustine, the works of Sebastian Munster, and the works of Annius of Viterbo (which are, ironically, completely unreliable).

Finally, if the Books of Maccabees are being quasi-canonized as reliable, traditional works, then what does this mean with regard to the reason for Chanukah lasting eight days? For II Maccabees explains the eight days of Chanukah not in terms of the miracle of the oil, but rather as due to the first Chanukah making up for the eight-day festival of Sukkos not having been celebrated in the Beis HaMikdash that year. And Josephus, who is also mentioned in the ArtScroll Chanukah, had a very surprising explanation as to why Chanukah is called "the festival of lights". This is a problem that has been hotly debated in recent years. For a variety of perspectives, see Rabbi Dr. David Berger's article, the comment thread on this post, R. Josh Waxman's discussion - and if anyone has any other useful links, please submit them.

Now, of course it is to be expected that an ArtScroll work is only going to present the view of the Bavli, that the reason for eight days of Chanukah is due to the miracle of the oil (which is also presented in Megillas Antiochus, of uncertain antiquity). But it is interesting that when presenting that account (on p. 55), it adds that when this happened, "they celebrated the rededication of the altar for eight days and offered up peace and thanksgiving offerings." Where did this come from?

It seems to me that this is incorporating the view of II Maccabees, that there was a reason for celebrating the initial eight days that had nothing to do with the oil, but rather was due to there having been an initial eight-day festival which Chanukah commemorates. ArtScroll doesn't give Maccabees' reason as to why they celebrated for eight days, but the fact of describing an eight-day celebration in that first year itself implies that there was a reason that was independent of any miracle involving the oil. (I don't think that quoting this reason is necessarily undermining the reason given by the Gemara; after all, Megillas Taanis also gives two reasons for the eight days.)

Note that much later in the work on p. 95, when discussing the famous question of the Beis Yosef regarding why we have eight days of Chanukah rather than seven, it quotes Megillas Taanis (in the scholia - later additions) that there was an eight-day rededication celebration, and then cites Birkei Yosef as saying that the extra day that we celebrate commemorates this rededication. But Birkei Yosef did not quote Megillas Taanis as saying that there was an eight-day rededication celebration, and with good reason: because it does not say any such thing! As well as describing the miracle of the oil, Megillas Taanis says that it took eight days to repair the vessels of the Beis HaMikdash - not that there were eight days of celebrating its rededication. (Furthermore, Birkei Yosef does not give this as a reason for an eighth day, supplemental to celebrating seven over the miracle of the oil, but rather he says that the eight days of repair are the reason for all eight days of the current festival, and that the question of the Beis Yosef is therefore redundant!) It therefore seems to me that on p. 95, ArtScroll has subconsciously replaced the view of Megillas Taanis with the view of II Maccabees.

The Torah Encyclopedia of the Animal Kingdom

2011-12-18T10:06:00.000+02:00

I am pleased to make available a free sample chapter from my forthcoming work The Torah Encyclopedia of the Animal Kingdom. The chapter is about the leopard and strongly relates to Chanukah. You can download it at www.zootorah.com/encyclopedia. I would greatly appreciate it if people would circulate it as widely as they can. I also plan to print this sample chapter in full color this week, but I am not yet sure how it will be distributed.

This is a project that I began over ten years ago (and although I have revised the material, readers will notice that it is quite different from my writing style today). But then I was sidetracked with the ban on my books, with their subsequent republication, and with my MA. However, I was able to return to it here and there, and now I am able to devote more time to it. Baruch Hashem, the first volume (on Chayos - wild animals) is nearly complete, but I cannot give an estimated date of publication.

Incidentally, my ZooTorah.com website is clearly long in need of a thorough overhaul, but I lack the resources (time and financial) to devote to it. If anyone would like to volunteer to do it, please be in touch!

Interpretations of Maimonides: The Visual Guide

2011-12-16T12:29:00.000+02:00

(This was helpfully contributed by a reader. If you can't see the picture, visit www.rationalistjudaism.com. Yes, I know that this chart is an over-simplification. That's what charts are.)

Gevalt! The Jerusalem Post!

2011-12-14T06:32:00.000+02:00

(This article was published today in The Jerusalem Post)

On November 26th, Agudath Israel of America held its 87th national convention. One of the speakers was Rabbi Shimshon Sherer, son of the late Rabbi Moshe Sherer, the legendary builder of Agudath Israel of America. His address, conveniently posted on YouTube, focused on my first op-ed for The Jerusalem Post, which appeared a few weeks ago, on “The Making of Post-Haredism.” That essay was about the development of Haredi Judaism in the twentieth century, and about how its development of various excesses and problems have caused many people, including myself, to become post-Haredi. The article was picked up by the very popular haredi news-aggregation website Vos Isz Neias (Yiddish for “What’s The News?”) where the feedback was overwhelmingly positive. Some very well-known personalities from within the haredi world wrote to tell me how much it resonated with them (making it clear, of course, that I was to keep their identities confidential).

But Rabbi Sherer was not one of those people. He read out extracts from the essay in tones of horror, and was especially appalled at my allegations of certain problems in the Haredi world. “Es reiss de hartz” – “It tears the heart,” he exclaimed in Yiddish, that I could write such things “for the whole world to see in the Jerusalem Post!”

His distress is easy to understand. It’s hideously discomforting for us to see the world media discussing Katsav’s conviction; imagine how much more frustrating publicity is for an Agudah spokesman who believes that the problems that I described do not even exist. Indeed, I myself would much rather have published my essay in a Haredi publication, where it would reach much more of the people who would benefit from it. But, obviously, no Haredi publication would dream of publishing such a piece. And so I published it in the Jerusalem Post, which, in today’s internet age, is also read by many in the haredi community.

There was a great irony in Rabbi Sherer’s dismay at my publishing in the Jerusalem Post. In my essay, I pointed to some positive signs of change in the haredi world, such as new magazines that—albeit very delicately—engage in some criticism of the haredi world. Rabbi Sherer denounced such publications. He thundered, “The first of the bill of rights for the frumme yidden is not freedom of speech. It’s not freedom of religion. It’s not freedom of the press. The first bill of rights for the frumme yid is Anochi Hashem Elokecha! …There is no freedom of speech and freedom to write in our constitution of Anokhi Hashem Elokecha! …Let it be said very clearly: Total subservience to Torah, total subservience to Daas Torah, is not a democratic right: it is Divinely ordained!”

Agudas Yisrael is entitled to insist that there is no freedom to express criticism of haredi policies in the haredi press. But then how can they be shocked at someone discussing these problems in a non-haredi media source?

Orthodoxy in general, and haredi Orthodoxy in particular, is defined by its struggle with modernity. In general, Orthodoxy has been extremely successful, certainly compared to Conservative or Reform. And, at least in terms of sheer numbers, haredi Orthodoxy seems to be the most successful group of all.

But there are always new challenges. As an observant Jew, and as a parent, I am greatly troubled by the influence of modern society. The television shows that I watched in England as a child weren’t so pernicious, but the same can hardly be said for the culture presented today. Anybody who doesn’t believe that the Internet poses a danger to their children is either naïve or is deluding themselves. And in an era of unprecedented personal autonomy, it is hard to maintain and teach respect for parents, elders and tradition.

How is one to react to these new challenges? Do we continue to build the walls ever higher, or do we try to accommodate the new culture? In my view, there is no single “right” way for a religious Jew to deal with modernity; whether one seeks to grapple with its challenges or to build up the walls, each approach has its advantages and disadvantages. For these and other reasons, I have always found it very difficult to claim that haredi Orthodoxy is the wrong approach compared to modern or centrist Orthodoxy.

Yet some battles have clearly been lost, at least as far as most people are concerned. And controlling information is one of them.

The haredi public is not what it is believed to be by both Agudah spokesmen such as Rabbi Sherer and by the non-haredi public—as is clear from the very positive response to my article from within the Haredi world. They are not all mindless masses who will read only what they are told to read and who will faithfully follow whatever they are told to do when no explanation is given.

In the 21st century, even many haredim have the internet. The Agudah itself posts its convention speeches on YouTube—albeit with the option for submitting comments hastily disabled after a link to my blog was posted! If haredim are bothered by a leadership decision, they will not just accept it on trust, as Rabbi Sherer demanded – they will discuss it, and compare it with views of others that are better explained. If they feel that haredi media sources are not presenting accurate or relevant information, they will turn to other media sources. If they feel that their voices are not being heard, they will write blogs.

While all this results in much terrible negativity and irresponsible mud-slinging, it also has its benefits. For example, it is clear that certain problems in the haredi world are only now starting to be solved due to people publicizing them in non-haredi media outlets. As many people in the Haredi world are well aware, the Haredi world needs the non-Haredi media, the blogosphere, and the perspectives that these present.

Those who protest them the loudest may be those who need them most of all – as a punching-bag, an enemy to justify their own existence. Rabbi Sherer spoke about how Agudath Israel was founded in Kattowitz in 1912 in order to counter Reform and secular Zionism, and about how today, there are new movements to fight, such Centrist Orthodoxy, Open Orthodoxy, Post-Haredism, and blogs. What would he have to speak about without us?

Part Two of my review of "Must a Jew Believe Anything?"

2011-12-13T10:15:00.002+02:00

A while ago, I began my review of Menachem Kellner's Must A Jew Believe Anything? (Read part one at this link). I mentioned how the first six chapters of the book are a superb analysis of the role of dogma in Judaism, showing how Rambam's emphasis on dogma was an aberration from normative Judaism. The seventh and final chapter of the book forms a separate unit; it is Professor Kellner's personal view as to what to do with this information.

Professor Kellner's idea is as follows. Once one realizes that defining "being a Jew in good standing" based on adherence to Maimonidean dogma is an aberrant and problematic definition, then we are left with defining a good Jew based on halachic observance. But nobody keeps absolutely every halachah, and nor is there anyone who does no mitzvos at all. Thus, we have a continuum of observance, extending over Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Jews. While we do not agree with the theology of Conservative and Reform, we can increase our cooperation and unity with them via this insight.

Here is where I must part company with Professor Kellner (notwithstanding my tremendous respect for him and his superb books). My critique is very similar to that raised by Daniel Statman, which Prof. Kellner himself cites and discusses in the afterword to the second edition of his book, but to which he does not, in my opinion, present an adequate response. It seems to me that traditionally, Judaism did not define "being a good Jew" either in terms of adherence to Maimonidean-style dogma or in terms of counting how many mitzvos one performs. Instead, it was based upon commitment and loyalty to the halachic community.

There may well be a continuum of halachic observance amongst all the different flavors of Jews. But there is nevertheless a clear difference between someone who is, in principle, committed to the traditional halachic community (albeit with various lapses) and someone who is not committed to it. (This is not affected by a gray area surrounding the extreme left-wing of Orthodoxy. The gray area simply means that people disagree as to where to draw the line. But all agree that the line itself revolves around commitment to the halachic community.) If a person lapses in his personal observance, he is not undermining the community. But if he supports a rival system (such as the Sadducees and Karaites in ancient times, or Conservative and Reform in modern times), he is undermining the community, and is thus appropriately rejected.

This also applies to the realm of belief. While Judaism as a religion is certainly based upon certain beliefs, and many Torah scholars have discussed what those beliefs should be, we have never cared that much either about the precise parameters of these beliefs, or about what actually goes on inside a given person's head. That is between man and God; we have never grilled people and nor would we ever administer a lie-detector test to people. Instead, what Judaism demands is loyalty to the community and not undermining it. If one expresses beliefs (or lack thereof) in such a way as to undermine the community, he is ostracized. Otherwise, no matter what the person believes privately, he remains a member in good standing.

Kellner sort of acknowledges all this in his discussion of Statman's critique on pp. 136-140, but maintains that there is much to be gained by defining membership in terms of behavior rather than belief, and that excluding people based on their being "public enemies" is untrue to the teachings of Rabbinic Judaism. I disagree - I think that this is how Judaism always operated, either consciously or subconsciously. As for his claim that the new challenges in the modern era require a different sort of response than that given to Sadducees and Karaites, I remain unconvinced.

On a related note, Kellner discusses the critique of Rabbi Dr. David Berger, who insists that Judaism was always defined by dogma. Kellner responds by citing the example of Chabad. He points out that Berger has satisfactorily proved that the extreme strain of Messianism in Chabad is heretical, and yet the rest of Orthodoxy has not excommunicated these people; all members of Chabad are still members of good standing in the community of Israel. Kellner argues that this shows that, at least subconsciously, everyone agrees with him that mitzvah-observance is the true definition of membership in good standing, not theology.

I disagree. The reason why the theological aberrations of the extreme Messianists of Chabad are tolerated is that these people are not still members of good standing in the community of Israel; instead, they are members of good standing in the community of Chabad. Chabad is so isolated from the rest of Orthodoxy that the extreme Messianists can simply be ignored. I guarantee that if Chabad were to start missionary work with the rest of Orthodoxy, they would be banned faster than you can say Slifkin.

All this is not to say that I believe Kellner's efforts in the first six chapters to be wasted. On the contrary; I think that they are extremely useful, and I think that every reader of this website should read Must A Jew Believe Anything?. But in my view, the concepts of the first six chapters are useful in a different way than Kellner proposes. I have briefly mentioned my ideas above, and I plan to discuss them in more detail on a future occasion.

Guest Post: Revisionism and the Rav Revisited

2011-12-11T23:24:00.000+02:00

In 1999, Professor Lawrence Kaplan published an article entitled Revisionism and the Rav: The Struggle for the Soul of Modern Orthodoxy, in which he discussed the misrepresentation of Rav Soloveitchik's views by figures on both the right and left, but especially by Rabbi Moshe Meiselman. A few months ago, I wrote a post in which I pointed to a further instance in which Rabbi Meiselman distorted the Rav's views, this time with regard to the development of the universe.

Recently, Rabbi Meiselman claimed that all this is "absurd." While not offering any counterargument to my own demonstration of his distortion of the Rav's views, he claimed that Professor Kaplan's case has been refuted by the publication of Rabbi David Holzer's book The Rav: Thinking Aloud. I asked Professor Kaplan if he would write a formal response to be published on this website, and he kindly consented. It is a little too lengthy to put into a blog post, so it is available for download as a Word document at this link.

Return of the Monsters

2011-12-09T08:55:00.002+02:00

I am pleased to announce that a new edition of Sacred Monsters: Mysterious and Mythical Creatures of Scripture, Talmud and Midrash has just been published. There are only a few changes from the previous edition: a few small updates and minor corrections in various places, and a thorough reorganization and revision of the material regarding rabbinic authority in the final chapter, including a discussion of the view of Rav Glasner (which you can find here). However, if you only own Mysterious Creatures, it's definitely worth upgrading - there is an enormous amount of additional material not found in that book.

"Sacred Monsters delves into topics (especially “monsters”) in the natural history of the Jewish sacred sources (hence, “sacred” in the title). The book combines competence in more than one field: the history of ideas and of science, the modern biological disciplines, and rabbinic literature of all periods... Slifkin’s book has much to offer folklorists, while catering to a composite public: scholarly or ordinary readers, Jewish or gentile, devout or secular, steeped in Western culture or committed to ultra-Orthodox doxa... a delightful book. Slifkin has achieved the rare feat of writing a book that would appeal to a broad readership, and at the same time will also satisfy discerning scholars." - Review, Fabula 52 (2011)

The book is 394 pages and the retail price is $29.95. This book is now being distributed by Gefen Books (who are also distributing Perek Shirah: Nature's Song and The Camel, The Hare And The Hyrax). It should reach stores in Israel over the next few weeks, and North America in about two months. (Unfortunately there is no distribution in England, South Africa or Australia.)

You can also buy the book online now directly from me using the form below, using either a PayPal account or a credit card. The discount online price is $26.95 plus $10 international shipping or $5 shipping within Israel.

Use this button if you are ordering from outside Israel:

If you are ordering from within Israel, use this button:

Orders will be mailed within a few days of being received. Alternatively, you can pick it up directly from my home in Ramat Bet Shemesh! If you make a reservation, you can also do the Zoo Torah Experience:

A Note On Nits

2011-12-08T09:59:00.002+02:00

In light of the discussion on the previous post regarding lice, I thought it would be appropriate to post something that I wrote for Hirhurim a few years ago and subsequently incorporated into Sacred Monsters (of which a new edition came off the press yesterday).

The Gemara says that one is permitted to kill lice on Shabbos because they spontaneously generate:

Rabbi Eliezer said: One who kills a louse on Shabbos is like one who kills a camel on Shabbos (and has violated Shabbos)… Rav Yosef said: The Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer in the case of lice, which do not reproduce… (Shabbos 107b)

The Rabbis believed that lice “do not reproduce” – that is to say, they do not hatch from eggs laid by other lice. The medieval and later authorities explain that lice are instead generated from sweat.[1] Accordingly, they are not considered to be life-forms like other animals and they may be killed on Shabbos. The Talmud proceeds to question this, based on a statement that seemingly acknowledges the fact that lice hatch from eggs:

Abaye said: And do lice not reproduce? Surely it was said, “God sits and sustains from the eggs of lice to the horns of aurochsen?” (which shows that lice come from eggs)?

The Talmud responds that this statement should be understood differently and does not in fact mean that lice reproduce in the “eggs of lice”:

– That refers to a species which is called “eggs of lice.”

There are many questions and controversies surrounding this passage, which I deal with at great length in my book Sacred Monsters. Here, I want to focus on one question: the strange nature of the last line of the Talmud cited above. As usually understood, it means that the Talmud is responding that the statement about God sustaining the “eggs of lice” does not actually refer to eggs of lice, but rather to a type of insect which is called “eggs of lice.” This seems extremely strange, to say the least! Why would an insect be called “eggs of lice”? Wouldn’t it be much more reasonable to assume that the phrase really does refer to eggs of lice? Furthermore, the beginning of that statement speaks of the God sustaining “the horns of aurochsen,” which are appendages of an animal rather than a type of animal. Accordingly, the last part of the statement would also be describing the appendages of an animal rather than a type of animal. It thus seems very strange for the Talmud to claim that “eggs of lice” are a type of insect!

Another question that people have on this topic is that nits – lice eggs – are not all that tiny. Certainly they can be seen with the naked eye, albeit with some difficulty. Did people really not know about them?

The truth is that if we look at another section of the Talmud, we find an explicit discussion about nits. In a section relating to the law that a nazir may not have a haircut, the Talmud seeks to determine whether hair grows from the tip or from the root. One argument is based on the position of something called “inba” on a hair as it grows:

Does a hair grow from the root or from the tip? …Let us bring a proof from a live inba, which remains at the root of the hair [as it grows]; if you were to say that a hair grows from its root, then the inba should end up at the tip of the hair!
No, one could still say that it grows from the root, and because the inba is alive, it keeps moving down [as the hair grows].
Let us bring a proof from a dead inba, which is at the tip of a hair; if you were to say that a hair grows from its tip, then the inba should be at the root of the hair!
No, one could still say that it grows from the tip, and because the inba has no strength [to grip], it slides along it. (Nazir 39a)

This inba is clearly a nit, and we thus see that Sages of the Talmud had observed nits. So why did they state that lice spontaneously generate? And why did they redefine “eggs of lice” to refer to a species of insect?

In order to answer these questions, let us take a look at what people in the ancient world thought about lice. Aristotle has a fascinating discussion in which he makes it clear that he had seen nits, and he even knew that lice laid them. What he did not know was that lice also hatch from them. Rather, nits were thought to be merely the useless result of two spontaneously-generating lice mating with each other:

But whenever creatures are spontaneously generated, either in other animals, in the soil, or on plants, or in the parts of these, and when such are generated male and female, then from the copulation of such spontaneously generated males and females there is generated a something – a something never identical in shape with the parents, but a something imperfect. For instance, the issue of copulation in lice is nits; in flies, grubs; in fleas, grubs egg-like in shape; and from these issues the parent-species is never reproduced, nor is any animal produced at all, but the like nondescripts only. (Aristotle, History of Animals, Book V, Part 1)

If this is how people thought of lice, then our questions are answered. Rashi states that the “eggs of lice” of tractate Shabbos are the inba of tractate Nazir[2] Accordingly, when the Talmud explains that the statement, “God sits and sustains from the eggs of lice to the horns of aurochsen” refers to a species called “eggs of lice,” it does not mean that there is a species of insect called “eggs of lice.” Rather, it is referring to nits – actual lice eggs. It is stating that they are a distinct entity, that are laid by lice, but not from which lice actually hatch. The Talmud is saying that they are called “eggs of lice” because they are egg-shaped organisms that are laid by lice – but they do not hatch into lice, and thus, according to the Talmud, it is still correct to state that lice spontaneously generate.

Some people have a hard time accepting this, because to their minds, it seems absurd to recognize that lice lay eggs but do not hatch from them; to attribute this belief to Chazal is, in their view, accusing Chazal of being "foolish," heaven forbid. However, they are committing a common error of anachronism. That which seems "obvious" to us today is not at all necessarily "obvious" to people in different eras. Examples of this are legion. But in this case, there's a simple rejoinder to be made: Aristotle was certainly a very, very intelligent and knowledgeable person, and yet he believed that lice lay "eggs" but do not hatch from them.

NOTES

[1] Ba’al Halachos Gedolos; Rambam, Hilchos Shabbos 11:3; Rashba, Commentary to Shabbos 12a; Mishnah Berurah 316:38.

[2] Rashi to Avodah Zarah 3b, s.v. beitzei kinnim, and Rashi to Nazir 39a.

Rav Schachter on Chazal and Science

2011-12-06T21:52:00.002+02:00

I've been inundated with emails in the past few days, linking to this recent shiur from Rav Hershel Schachter, shlita, on the topic of "When Science Contradicts The Talmud." Since I'm already backed up with e-mail, I decided to write a post about it, which will hopefully save me time with e-mails!

If you're looking for a close talmid of the Rav who has a more rational approach to these topics than that of Rabbi Meiselman, then this is the shiur for you! Rav Schachter does not shy away from acknowledging that some things are impossible from the perspective of modern science. Nor does he pretend that rabbinic thought on this topic is monolithic; he freely discusses the diversity of opinions that exists. (Those who were at the shiur tell me that there was also a lot of "body language" that is lost in the audio recording.)

Having said that, I should probably note that I did not entirely agree with the presentation:

I personally side with the approach of Rav Glasner and Rav Herzog (that Chazal's authority is binding even if based upon mistaken beliefs), which Rav Schachter rejects.
It wasn't clear to me if Rav Schachter was saying that it is permissible to kill lice on Shabbos because even though Chazal's reason of spontaneous generation was incorrect, the fact that such eggs are microscopic means that they are halachically irrelevant, or if he was saying that Chazal themselves actually meant that the eggs are microscopic and thus halachically irrelevant. I don't agree with the latter, for reasons explained in Sacred Monsters.
Rav Schachter seemed (though this was not entirely clear) to take the position that Chazal discussed cases of spontaneously-generating creatures and chimeras not because they believed in their existence, but rather because they were laying the ground for future scientific experiments. While in Sacred Monsters I discussed how new scenarios can be resolved via such discussions in the Gemara, I do not believe that Chazal had this in mind; rather, they believed that such creatures existed, as did everybody back then. But again, Rav Schachter's position is not clear to me from the recording.

Notwithstanding these reservations, the shiur is very valuable, for the reasons stated earlier. Perhaps someone should inform Eytan Kobre and Mishpachah magazine that other leading talmidim of the Rav have very different views on these topics from that of Rabbi Meiselman.

On a different note, my forthcoming lecture tour to the US in February is almost entirely booked up, except for Shabbos February 4th. If you would like to arrange a program for your community, please write to me.

"Nothing But The Truth"?

2011-12-05T06:52:00.004+02:00

Last week's Mishpachah had a feature story, by Eytan Kobre, on Rabbi Moshe Meiselman. He was pictured on the cover, with the title, "Nothing But The Truth." In the part of the article dealing with his forthcoming book on Torah and science, we find the following:

"Through a systematic discussion of the views of all the Rishonim, he demonstrates their consensus on a foundational tenet of Torah: that Chazal's halachic pronouncements, including those that implicate scientific matters, were based on a deep and comprehensive perception of physical reality of this world that emerged from their knowledge of Torah, the blueprint of that reality. This is a truth that was acknowledged even by the non-Jewish scientists of Chazal's time. The Rosh Yeshivah points out that 'even in regard to areas of pure halachah, of course, Chazal sometimes said, "Teiku," and left the matter unresolved; but where they spoke unequivocally, their word is definitive and binding. What emerges very clearly from every Rishon, bar none, is that Chazal don't make mistakes'."

Really?!

If it is a "foundational tenet of Torah" that Chazal's halachic pronouncements were never based on incorrect beliefs about the natural world, then how is it that so many outstanding Torah scholars, such as Rav Yitzchak Lampronti (author of Pachad Yitzchak and rebbe of Ramchal), Rav Moshe Shmuel Glasner (author of Dor Revi'i), Rav Aharon Marcus, and Rav Yitzchak Herzog (described by Ridvaz as the world’s outstanding Talmudists) thought differently? Rabbi Meiselman is entitled to disagree with these Torah scholars - but would it not be appropriate to acknowledge that several great Torah scholars disagree with his "foundational tenet of Torah"?

If Chazal had a "deep and comprehensive perception of physical reality of this world," then why are there dozens upon dozens of statements in the Talmud that seem to reflect ancient erroneous beliefs about the natural world, while claims about "advanced scientific knowledge" in the Talmud invariably turn out to be things that Chazal didn't say, things that aren't actually true, or things that non-Jews also knew?

If Chazal's "deep and comprehensive perception of physical reality of this world" is a truth that was "acknowledged even by the non-Jewish scientists of Chazal's time," then why do we find so many instances of Chazal consulting non-Jewish experts on various matters? And why do we find Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi conceding that the non-Jewish astronomers were correct (and the Jewish sages incorrect) about a very basic fact of cosmology?

What proportion of even frum physicians today would say that Chazal's statements about the human body and about medicine are based upon a "deep and comprehensive perception of physical reality of this world"? Rav Sherira Gaon didn't think so! Most people to study the topic (without a charedi agenda) would say that Chazal's statements about physiology and medicine pretty much reflect standard beliefs in the ancient world.

At this point I want to retract a claim that I made previously. I had written that the Rashba's claim regarding Chazal's inerrancy was limited to terefos. Checking it again, I see that it was in fact more broad. But I still don't see him claiming that “all statements of Chazal regarding science are absolutely true.” And to reiterate, Rashba does not represent the unequivocal (or even normative) view. Which brings us to the statement by Rabbi Meiselman that leaves one breathless: "What emerges very clearly from every Rishon, bar none, is that Chazal don't make mistakes." I know that Rabbi Meiselman claims the famous words of Rabbeinu Avraham ben HaRambam to be a forgery (as unreasonable as that may be). But what about Rambam himself?

"It is one of the ancient beliefs, widespread among both the philosophers and ordinary people, that the motions of the spheres produce mighty and fearful sounds... This belief is also well-known in our nation. Thus the Sages describe the greatness of the sound produced by the sun in the daily circuit in its sphere... Aristotle, however, rejects this, and explains that they produce no sound... You must not find it far-fetched that Aristotle differs from the opinion of our Sages in this. For this theory — that is, of the sounds of the spheres — stems from the belief that the sphere is fixed and the constellations revolve [within it]; and you already know that in such matters of astronomy, the matter has been decided in favor of the gentile scholars over the Sages. Thus, it is explicitly stated, “The wise men of the nations have defeated them.” And this is appropriate; for with speculative matters everyone speaks according to the results of his own investigation, and everyone accepts that which appears to him established by proof." (Guide for the Perplexed 2:8, translated from Schwartz edition)

In fact, most of the Rishonim followed the straightforward meaning of the Gemara, that the Chachmei Yisrael were mistaken in their beliefs about the basic structure of the universe. I documented this in my monograph "The Sun's Path At Night," (which, in my view, is the most fundamental topic for understanding the Chazal/ science issue and how approaches to it change over time). Perhaps Rabbi Meiselman would claim that in this case Chazal were only speculating and not speaking definitively. But they seemed pretty definitive about it; note that this Babylonian cosmology was also derived by Chazal from pesukim (see Bava Basra 25a-b, discussed in the monograph). And how does the belief in a flat earth that is covered by an opaque dome behind which the sun travels at night, supported from pesukim, reflect "a deep and comprehensive perception of physical reality of this world that emerged from their knowledge of Torah"?

So in the topic of cosmology alone, we have R. Sherira Gaon, R. Hai Gaon , Rambam, R. Shmuel ibn Tibbon, R. Yitzchak b. Yedaiah, R. Yeshayah di Trani, R. Eliezer b. Shmuel of Metz, Rosh, R. Yerucham ben Meshullam, Semag, Ritva, R. Manoach b. Yaakov, R. Bachya b. Asher, R. Menachem ben Aharon ibn Zerach, R. Todros ben Joseph Abulafia, R. Eliyahu Mizrachi, R. Yitzchak Arama, Maharam Alashkar and Radvaz, all of whom say that the Chachmei Yisrael were incorrect. In the view of all these Geonim and Rishonim (as well as plenty of Acharonim), Chazal's view on this basic matter clearly did not stem from a "deep and comprehensive perception of physical reality of this world that emerged from their knowledge of Torah."

"Nothing But The Truth"? It's the dictionary definition of a puff-piece.

Response, and Further Response, to Rabbi Meiselman

2011-12-02T06:03:00.003+02:00

(In this week's edition of The Five Towns Jewish Times, I present the following response to Rabbi Meiselman's article. He presents a rejoinder, and my response to his rejoinder is at the end of this post.)

Teaching Torah and Science

Is it legitimate to distort Judaism in any way for the purpose of outreach to secular Jews? As reported in a front-page article in last week’s issue of the Five Towns Jewish Times (“Genesis: Allegory or Fact?” by Rabbi Avrohom Sebrow), Rabbi Moshe Meiselman, rosh yeshiva of Yeshiva Toras Moshe and author of a forthcoming book on the subject of Torah and Science, stressed that this should not be done, and he is absolutely correct. We should never distort Torah and rabbinic thought in order to win popularity. We have a responsibility to teach Torah honestly. If that does not gain us popularity with certain secular Jews, so be it.

Of course, this cuts both ways. We may also not distort Torah and rabbinic thought in order to win popularity with contemporary frum Jews. Sometimes, the Rishonim and Acharonim voiced opinions that are unpopular in some circles. Indeed, some legitimately feel that such views may well not be appropriate to teach in every context. However, we cannot distort these views or pretend that they were never uttered, even if some people are uncomfortable with them. In the famous article “Revisionism and the Rav,” (Judaism, Summer 1999) Lawrence Kaplan documented how even some close students and family members of Rav Soloveitchik distorted his views in order to bring them in line with their own beliefs.

Rabbi Meiselman is also correct that great expertise in Torah is required to address the sensitive topic of Torah–science issues. But we need to define the situation more precisely. As Rabbi Meiselman notes, even great Torah scholars do not necessarily possess expertise in all areas. Someone might be the world’s greatest Talmudist, but this does not mean that he is knowledgeable in hilchos gittin. As with any field in Torah, it is expertise in the particular topic that is required. Furthermore, there are different schools of thought within the boundaries of our mesorah.

Likewise, Rabbi Meiselman is absolutely correct in stressing that expertise in science is required when addressing Torah–science issues. But here, too, we need to define the situation more precisely. If someone is merely quoting and relying upon a widely accepted scientific view—for instance, that the earth orbits the sun—one does not need to be an astronomer. At the other extreme, if one is disputing the entire scientific establishment in a particular field, then even distinguished academic qualifications are entirely irrelevant if they are not in that particular field. We would not assign credibility to an astronomer who disputes the entire medical establishment about matters concerning the human body! Would a mathematician have credibility if he were to dispute astrophysicists regarding cosmology or paleontologists regarding dinosaurs?

Let us begin with the topic of Creation. To be sure, there have been many Torah scholars throughout history who insisted that the account of Creation is to be interpreted entirely literally. But it is simply not accurate to state that no Rishon ever understood the details of the Creation given in the Torah to be anything but literal. Rambam explicitly writes that “the account of creation given in Scripture is not, as is generally believed, intended to be literal in all its parts” (Guide for the Perplexed, 2:29). According to the explanation of Shem Tov, Akeidas Yitzchak, and Abarbanel, Rambam was of the view that the “Six Days” are not time periods at all. Here is how Akeidas Yitzchak explains Rambam’s view:

“...the mention of an order of Creation is not describing the sequence of days; rather, [the days are simply serving] to differentiate the status of [the elements of creation] and to make known the hierarchy of nature. This was Rambam’s major esoteric doctrine concerning Creation as those who are understanding can discern from that chapter which is devoted to this extraordinary account.”

Ralbag was of the identical view, and explicitly stated that the six “days” of creation are not six time periods at all, but instead represent the hierarchy of the natural world. Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, in a little-known series of lectures on Genesis, stated, “Evolution and creation can be reconciled merely by saying that six days is not absolutely so, but is indefinite and may be longer. Maimonides spoke of Creation in terms of phases and the Kabbalah in terms of sefiros, the time of which may be indefinite.” It is no wonder that Rav Yitzchak Herzog (a rebbi of Rav Elyashiv, who was eulogized by Rav Aharon Kotler as being a “prince of Torah”), wrote, “It is well to bear in mind that already our ancient sages, to say nothing of our medieval theologians, would not seem to have insisted upon literalness in such transcendental matters as the account of Creation.”

Let us now turn to the topic of the Deluge. Rabbi Meiselman is entirely correct that the Great Flood was understood by all Geonim and Rishonim to be a literal description and record of events that occurred thousands of years ago. However, it is also true that the Scriptural description of the earth standing still was also understood by all Geonim and Rishonim as being a literal description (which is why most early Acharonim denounced Copernican heliocentrism as heresy). Of course the Rishonim understood it that way; they had no reason to think differently!

The more relevant question is, how did recent Torah authorities—who were aware that there is overwhelming evidence for the continuity of civilization and animal life throughout that period in many parts of the world—explain this topic? Nobody denies that there was a devastating flood several thousand years ago; indeed, there is much evidence of it. But to what extent is the Torah’s account literally correct in all its details? Rav Dovid Tzvi Hoffman wrote that the Mabul did not cover the entire planet, but only the “world” of the Torah. This was also the view of Rav Gedalyah Nadel (a leading disciple of the Chazon Ish), who brought some excellent proofs from the Gemara that “olam” does not always refer to the entire planet. My own mentor in these matters, Rav Aryeh Carmell, z’l, told me explicitly (based upon conversations that he had with his own mentors) that, just as Rambam stated regarding Creation, the account of the Deluge need not be literally true in all of its parts.

These are sensitive and complex topics that really require much lengthier discussion than is possible within this forum. But as a general guiding principle with regard to conflicts between modern science and traditional interpretation of Scripture, we can adopt the view of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, who stated in his Genesis lectures that “the Torah is not interested in disclosing any scientific data to man. Revelation was only the revealing of the will of G‑d and not the wisdom of G‑d... Therefore, if the Bible employed the Ptolemaic description of the cosmos, it was only to present to the people of its time and not to present the true scientific view.” This is an approach that Rav Kook specifically legitimized for the early chapters of Genesis. Of course, others are free to dispute this approach—but not to deny that there were Torah giants who legitimized it.

Let us turn now to the topic of Chazal and science. To be sure, there have been many authorities, mostly in recent times, who insisted that Chazal’s statements about the natural world are all correct. On the other hand, we also find dozens upon dozens of Rishonim, Acharonim, and contemporary Torah scholars who held otherwise—for example, virtually all the Rishonim were of the view that Chazal incorrectly believed the sun to travel behind the sky at night. Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch expresses his approach as follows:

“In my opinion, the first principle that every student of Chazal’s statements must keep before his eyes is the following: Chazal were the sages of G‑d’s law—the receivers, transmitters, and teachers of His toros, His mitzvos, and His interpersonal laws. They did not especially master the natural sciences, geometry, astronomy, or medicine—except insofar as they needed them for knowing, observing, and fulfilling the Torah. We do not find that this knowledge was transmitted to them from Sinai.”

Even some of those rumored to have held that Chazal were infallible in all such matters are often seen not to have been of such a view. For example, Rabbi Meiselman cites Rashba as stating that “all statements of Chazal regarding science are absolutely true,” and that anyone who says otherwise is a “melagleg al divrei chachamim and subject to serious penalty.” Yet Rashba himself states that Rabbi Yochanan and the judges of Caesarea erred in a mathematical matter (Eruvin 76b) and doubtless did not consider himself to be melagleg al divrei chachamim! In fact, Rashba’s strong words about the correctness of Chazal’s science are specifically limited to hilchos tereifos, which are halachah l’Moshe miSinai. He was making no blanket statement about all statements of Chazal regarding science.

To his great credit, Rabbi Meiselman acknowledges that there is no such thing as a mouse that is generated from dirt, despite the Gemara’s discussion of it. In this, he is adopting the view of Rav Hirsch, notwithstanding the fact that many distinguished gedolim today, such as Rav Moshe Shapiro and Rav Elya Ber Wachtfogel, consider such a view to be heretical. However, Rabbi Meiselman is not correct in claiming that “Chazal never stated unequivocally” that such spontaneously generating creatures exist. At the end of Maseches Sanhedrin, Rabbi Ami asserts that such a spontaneously generating mouse exists. Rabbi Akiva likewise asserts that salamanders are generated from fire, and in several cases Scriptural exegeses were understood as referring to spontaneously generating insects.

Building upon Rabbi Meiselman’s point that it is forbidden to distort Torah for the sake of popularity, a teacher must likewise be very careful when attempting to “prove” that Chazal knew things that were unknown before modern science. As Rambam writes, if someone discovers that an argument is flawed, they lose their faith in the entire position. If a person finds out that he has been misled, he will understandably lose respect for his teacher, and potentially for Judaism entirely. In such cases of “proving” Chazal to have supernatural knowledge of modern science, it is unfortunately often the case that (a) the Gemara means something quite different, (b) it is something that non-Jews also knew, or (c) the Gemara is not in fact consistent with modern science. Regrettably, the cases that Rabbi Meiselman cites, of hemophilia and liver regeneration, fail on not just one but multiple counts.

Let us consider hemophilia, which Rabbi Meiselman claims the Gemara knew to be hereditary via the mother centuries before non-Jewish doctors discovered it. But there are three points to bear in mind here. First is that this can result from simple prudence: you don’t circumcise babies if their two brothers died from it! Second is that Chazal apparently reached this conclusion fortuitously due to their inaccurate belief that “The man provides the white from which the bones and sinews grow... the women provides the red from which the skin, meat, and blood come.”

Third is that in fact, the Shulchan Aruch rules that the law applies equally to a man whose two sons died from circumcision—even if they are from a different wife. Furthermore, the halachah states that for the third child one must wait until the child gets older and stronger before performing the circumcision. If they understood hemophilia, they would know that it would not help to wait for this.
With regard to liver regeneration: First, Chazal do not explicitly state that the liver regenerates. Instead, they use an ambiguous phrase that was never interpreted that way until a 20th-century figure, seeking to prove the existence of modern scientific knowledge in the Gemara, claimed that it carries such a meaning. Second, although some believe otherwise, many claim that the ancient Greeks already knew about the regeneration of the liver, as seen in the account of Prometheus. Third, the Gemara claims that the animal can survive even if there are only two olive-sized pieces of liver present, but medicine tells us that such an animal cannot survive; in fact, at least a quarter of the liver must remain. We do the cause of Torah no honor when presenting “proofs” of Chazal’s scientific knowledge that do not withstand scrutiny.

This leads us to the topic of tereifos and the difficulty that the Gemara’s list of mortal difficulties in an animal does not correlate with the knowledge of modern science. As already noted, there is a problem with regard to the Gemara’s statement about the liver. Another problem is the Gemara’s statement that the absence of kidneys in animals is not a mortal defect. Rabbi Meiselman attempts to resolve this based on the claim that “ruminants have an excretory system that excretes into the rumen and can thus survive even if their kidneys are removed.” However, Rabbi Dr. Shlomo Sternberg, in Bar Ilan’s journal BDD vol. 4, demonstrates that this is a short-term solution, and such animals will nevertheless die within a month. Thus, the Gemara is still inconsistent with our knowledge regarding the necessity of kidneys.

Rabbi Meiselman asserts that it is not an option to posit that Rambam believed Chazal to have been mistaken in their scientific assessments. Yet Rambam writes explicitly in the Guide for the Perplexed that the Sages’ knowledge of science was not Sinaitic in origin and was thus occasionally incorrect (and indeed he also disputed their statements about certain metaphysical matters, such as astrology and demons). What, then, is his view about tereifos? Let us see Rambam’s words: “With anything which they enumerated as a tereifah, even if with some it is seen not to be fatal based on modern medicine, such that an animal [with such an injury] might sometimes live, we have only what the Sages enumerated, as it says, ‘According to the law that they direct you.’”

As explained by Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glasner, in Dor Revi’i, as well as my own mentor, Rabbi Aryeh Carmell, z’l, Rambam is saying that the laws as established by the Sages were canonized, and are thus unaffected by later discoveries of inaccuracies. Rambam was not denying that certain tereifos can indeed live! As for tereifos being halachah l’Moshe miSinai, Rabbi Asher Benzion Buchman, in “Rationality and Halacha: The Halacha L’Moshe MiSinai of Treifos” (Hakirah, vol. 4) points out that different sources list different numbers of tereifos. According to Rambam, only the root principles of tereifos were halachah l’Moshe miSinai, and it was up to Chazal to flesh out individual cases. Chazal’s final rulings on this are indeed authoritative—but this need not mean that they are correct from a scientific perspective.

Following Rambam, Rav Glasner, and Rav Herzog, we accept the authority of Chazal, regardless of the basis for their rulings. But this does not always apply to medical halachah. Rabbi Meiselman claims that “many halachic statements made by Chazal based on their understanding of the underlying medical situation are authoritative.” This is generally true, but not with cases where there is danger to human life.

For example, no halachic authority in the world follows Chazal’s principle that a fetus born after eight months is less viable than one born after seven months (on the basis of which Chazal prohibit desecrating Shabbos to help such a baby). Some claim that “nature has changed,” but physicians do not believe that eight-month fetuses were ever less viable that seven-month fetuses; it was simply one of the erroneous beliefs that existed in antiquity. Likewise, as Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach points out, Chasam Sofer’s definition of death (based on the Gemara), that a person who is not breathing is declared dead, is clearly no longer acceptable, now that we know how to perform resuscitation. The story that Rabbi Meiselman brings regarding Rav Soloveitchik is where he delayed doing a b’ris against the doctor’s advice that it was safe to do it earlier. Rav Soloveitchik did not advance doing a b’ris against the doctor’s advice that it was dangerous!

If someone is teaching Torah–science issues to students who have been entirely insulated from the modern world, then it may well be legitimate to simplify matters and accept every statement about the natural world by Chazal, Rishonim, and Acharonim as being correct. But if someone is working in the broader arena of people who are more knowledgeable in either science or Torah, this approach can dangerously backfire. It is very, very important for all such writings on Torah and science to bring kavod to Torah—by being thoroughly researched, and by being honest, accurate, and professional with regard to Torah sources as well as the scientific enterprise.

* * *

(Rabbi Meiselman's response can be found at this link. Here is my rejoinder to his response.)

Rabbi Meiselman addresses very few of my points in his response. He states that "if R’ Slifkin wishes to answer the content of my book, he should wait until the book appears and then give a complete rebuttal;" that "to do so in a newspaper article clearly does not enable me to give full demonstration of my positions." I have every intention of giving a complete rebuttal of his book when it appears. But meanwhile, he put forth his views on numerous topics in a newspaper article, and it is to these that I responded in a newspaper article.

With regard to the charge of revisionism on Rav Soloveitchik's views, Rabbi Meiselman says that "either Slifkin or Kaplan would have to be privy to a deep insight into my rebbi’s views based on closer contact than all of us. Whereas this is clearly not true, one can only wonder why they believe that there is any credibility to their opinion." In fact, we do not need closer contact; our opinions are credible based on direct evidence from Rav Soloveitchik's explicit writings and recorded lectures. In my post on this topic, I showed how Rabbi Meiselman selectively quoted from Rav Soloveitchik and thereby completely distorted his position, as can be seen from looking at the full quote and at Rav Soloveitchik's writings elsewhere.

In response to my points about the credibility of people who air views on these topics, Rabbi Meiselman stated that "My credentials lie within the book. If the book shows competence, then I am competent. If it doesn’t show competence then I am not competent." I couldn't agree more. But if so, why is Rabbi Meiselman having his PhD in mathematics from MIT trumpeted as giving him credibility? Why did he tell the Jewish Press that the value of his book lies in his "unique background" which gives him "very broad scientific knowledge"?

Rabbi Meiselman charges me with appealing to authority rather than demonstrating my positions. It's hard to know what to make of this, since much of this is indeed about what the authorities (Chazal, Rishonim and Acharonim) held about matters. If he wants to demonstrate that he understands Rambam better than Abarbanel, Akeidas Yitzchak, Shem Tov, and Ralbag, as well as all modern academic scholars, he is free to do so. However, it would be appropriate for him to clearly state that he believes Abarbanel, Akeidas Yitzchak, Shem Tov, and Ralbag to be confused, rather than stating that he believes "Slifkin" to be confused.

Rabbi Meiselman says that he has "extensive quotes from internationally famed zookeepers who claim that only someone ignorant of zookeeping would think that a local flood is scientifically tenable." Indeed, I also think that positing a local flood is also scientifically untenable, unless other details of the Deluge are taken non-literally. But I am astounded that Rabbi Meiselman is quoting from "internationally famed zookeepers" as to what is scientifically tenable. Is he interested in what internationally famed zoologists, geologists, and archeologists have to say about whether a global flood is scientifically tenable?!

With regard to the Greeks possibly knowing about the regenerative ability of the liver, Rabbi Meiselman claims that I have never substantiated that claim. In fact, one need look no further than Wikipedia to discover that Prometheus seems to discuss it - see Chen T and Chen P (1994), "The Myth of Prometheus and the Liver". A counterargument is provided by Power C and Rasko J (2008), "Whither Prometheus' Liver? Greek Myth and the Science of Regeneration." However, as I noted, even if the Greeks did not know about liver regeneration, it is far from clear that Chazal knew it either (and furthermore, an animal cannot live with a liver reduced to the amount that they specified). Rabbi Meiselman did not respond to either of these points.

With regard to the Rashba, Rabbi Meiselman rather rudely asserts that I have "again showed an inability to understand Rishonim." However, he does not provide the slightest argument to back up this claim, merely a reference to his forthcoming book.

On the topic of the mud-mouse, Rabbi Meiselman claims that I "again misunderstand the Gemara" and that Chazal did not in fact believe it to exist. Since my misunderstanding is apparently shared by every Rishon, Acharon, and contemporary Torah scholar to have addressed the topic, I seem to be in good company, although once again Rabbi Meiselman prefers to refer to me rather than to them. To be sure, Chazal often answered heretics on their own terms; but, given the wider context, it is more reasonable to propose that they described the mud-mouse to heretics (as evidence for resurrection), and discussed its halachos in the Mishnah, because they actually believed it to exist (as Rav Hirsch says, due to it being standard belief in those days). It is unreasonable to propose that while Chazal shared everyone else's belief in the spontaneous generation of insects from fruit and sweat, and in the spontaneous generation of salamanders from fire, they did not share the belief of others in the spontaneous generation of mice from dirt. Why would they have rejected that belief while accepting the others - and meanwhile talking about the mouse in such a way as to give the distinct impression that they believed it to be an actual creature?

With regard to Prof. Sternberg pointing out the flaws in suggesting that animals can survive without kidneys, Rabbi Meiselman asserts that Professor Levi Rabbi Gershon Weiss "demonstrated that Sternberg’s comments were without merit." In fact, Prof. Levi (in Torah and Science, p. 213), in a book that strives mightily to reconcile the Gemara with science, suggests that it is "conceivable" that the animal "might" survive. This hardly counts as a firm reconciliation of the Gemara.

Rabbi Meiselman concludes by saying that he "awaits everyone’s critique once the book appears in a final and complete form." I am not sure whether this means that he has any intention of responding to such critiques. Several years ago, I sent him a letter, regarding his series of lectures regarding my books. In that letter, I pointed out that almost every single claim that he made about my personal history and the contents of my books is demonstrably false, as anyone can check merely by listening to his lectures and looking at my books. I still await a response. Surely the Torah demands nothing but the truth.

Agudah Follow-Up

2011-12-01T06:35:00.000+02:00

I. Who Should be Issuing a Retraction/ Clarification?

Following my earlier post about Rabbi Sherer's mention of my article at the Agudah Convention, in which he failed to read out an important phrase when quoting from my article, a number of people wrote to the Agudah to register their protest. The Agudah responded by pointing out that the phrase which Rabbi Sherer had omitted was only parenthetical. The Agudah also claimed that it is in fact I who owes Rabbi Sherer an apology, for calling his speech “despicable in its dishonesty.”

In fact, I had already retracted that, but I will reiterate: I apologize for referring to Rabbi Sherer's speech as "despicable in its dishonesty." I had not realized that the Jerusalem Post had put my phrase in parentheses.

And now it is Rabbi Sherer's turn to issue a clarification. The Agudah claimed that Rabbi Sherer's omission "did not in any way change the meaning of the sentence." I think that it is not Rabbi Sherer's prerogative to make that judgment. Someone put it very well: Rabbi Sherer was reading directly from the article. If a Rabbi is going to verbally attack a person publicly for a statement that the person supposedly made, then the statement should be quoted in full - especially since what was in parenthesis would have been in the author's favor.

There is another important point to be made. There is not a single reader of my blog who is under a mistaken impression as to what I wrote or what Rabbi Sherer saw and said. On the other hand, there are plenty of attendees of the Agudah conference who, as a result of Rabbi Sherer's speech, think that I wrote something quite different from what I actually wrote. I have already issued a retraction and have clarified matters. It's time for Rabbi Sherer to do the same.

Rabbi Sherer should also clarify that what I wrote was one of several reasons that I gave for becoming post-Charedi, and not - as he implied - the sole reason.

II. On Anonymity

Agudah spokesmen also pointed out that Rabbi Sherer had taken pains not to mention me by name. It doesn't really make a difference to me either way, but this seems absurd. If Rabbi Sherer had not wanted me to be identified, he could simply have read out the part of the article that deals with the reasons for being post-Charedi. It did not add anything to his speech for him to read out the part of the article in which I describe how three of my books were banned seven years ago. But it did mean that everybody knew exactly who he was talking about!

III. On Context

A standard reply that the Agudah sent out to letters of protest included the following:

What is more, Rabbi Slifkin’s attitude toward Gedolim – which was Rabbi Sherer’s focus (although he took pains not to mention Rabbi Slifkin’s name) – is well evident in other writings of Rabbi Slifkin. For example: “How are [Gedolim] suited,” he wrote on March 23 of last year “for leadership positions? The fundamental belief of charedi society, that total dedication to Torah is what makes the ideal leader, is… exposed as hopelessly wrong.”

Strong words, indeed. I was curious to see in which context I had written them, and I was especially curious about the ellipsis (that's the "..." in the quote). So I googled it and discovered the original post. I saw that the ellipsis served to replace a single word: "thereby." And what was the "thereby" to which I referred? It was to Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky having signed a letter attesting to the innocence of the monster Elior Chen, and subsequently defending his signature on the grounds that he signs whatever his rabbis sign. As I wrote in the original post:

"I have always tried to write respectfully about the Gedolim, even when disagreeing with them strongly. But now I am honestly not sure if one should be respectful about the signing of this letter, especially when it is defended on the grounds that other rabbis signed it. The best limmud zechus I can think of is that, due to their intense dedication to staying in the Beis HaMidrash, the Gedolim are simply naive about the world and/or easily manipulated. But if that is the case, and it results in them signing letters such as this, then how are they suited for leadership positions? The fundamental belief of charedi society, that total dedication to Torah is what makes the ideal leader, is thereby exposed as hopelessly wrong. And even with this limmud zechus, one has to wonder how a Rav could attest with certainty to the innocence of someone who has been indicted for such terrible crimes, with one child suffering permanent brain damage and in a vegetative state for the rest of his life, merely because other rabbis say that he is innocent. With the publication of the letter supporting Elior Chen, is there any way to justify the system of leadership in the charedi world?"

Technically speaking, the Agudah did not distort what I had written. However, I think that it would have been more appropriate if, when quoting that sentence, they would have revealed a little more about the context in which I wrote it. Especially when the entire topic here is one of reporting people's positions accurately. So, for example, they could have written, "he wrote on March 23 of last year, in the context of Rav Kanievsky defending Elior Chen." Surely that is at least as relevant as the date!

(I subsequently engaged in a bizarre and fruitless discussion with the Agudah as to how it was justified or understandable for Rav Kanievesky to attest to the innocence of Elior Chen on the grounds that "other rabbis did so," and how this fits in to the notion of Daas Torah. But it was presumably forbidden to even ask this question, since according to Rabbi Sherer, we may not ask the Gedolim to explain their Daas Torah decision.)

Look Before You Leap

2011-11-30T07:27:00.000+02:00

(This article appears in today's Jerusalem Post)

This November, two individuals, both thought to have been consigned to history, unexpectedly reappeared and promptly leaped to fame. Coincidentally, both were frogs.

One was Kermit the Frog. Back in the 70s and 80s, Kermit entertained us on The Muppet Show, which in the 1970s was the most widely watched television show in the world, and he even spawned (if you’ll excuse the pun) several Muppet movies. But the television show’s ratings eventually declined, and it was ultimately cancelled. It looked like the end of the Muppets; everybody thought that Kermit had croaked. And yet one determined Muppet fan has now brought Kermit and his friends back to life in a new movie, The Muppets, which is proving surprisingly popular.

The other frog to make a surprising comeback recently is the Israel painted frog, Discoglossus nigriventer. It was thought to be extinct since the 1950s when its native habitat of the Hula swamp valley was drained and no more frogs were to be found. Yet a single painted frog was just found in the newly re-flooded Hula nature reserve, restoring hope for the species.

It is my hope that Kermit the Frog and the Israel painted frog have more in common than just being frogs that simultaneously and unexpectedly returned from extinction. Perhaps they both denote a societal improvement – or rather, society retreating from that which was previously and mistakenly thought to be advances and improvements.

Why did the Muppets disappear? The muppets were all about innocence; singing, dancing, gentle humor, and always ultimately transmitting messages about loyalty, love and friendship. The only “edge” to them were Statler and Waldorf, the two cynical old men in the gallery who were constantly derisive (although even their taunts were restrained).

But as audiences became more “sophisticated”, the television and movie industry changed. Adults (and even children) were no longer interested in fabric hand-puppets; they wanted animatronic robots and 3-D computer-generated wizardry. The wide-eyed innocence of singing-and-dancing muppets became less popular. Audiences became Statler and Waldorf. They wanted entertainment that was sophisticated, by which was meant racy, biting and cynical. Eventually, even children became too advanced for cheery puppets. The Muppets were replaced by The Simpsons and eventually the horrible South Park.

Why did the Israel painted frog disappear? Because its native habitat of the Hula valley was thought in the 1950s to be nothing more than a malaria-breeding “wasteland.” In the mid-twentieth century, mankind was drunk with its powers in technology and engineering, and decided to refashion such wastelands into more productive terrain. The JNF decided to transform the Hula for agricultural use, and its drainage was trumpeted as a great national achievement.

Both Kermit and the Israel painted frog disappeared as a result of mankind deciding to become more advanced. But you have to look before your leap. The “accomplishment” of draining the Hula, like other mid-20th century ideas about “improving” the natural world, turned out to be a disaster. Stripped of natural foliage, the soil blew away. Water carrying chemical fertilizers began to pollute Lake Kinneret instead of being absorbed by the swamp. And the peat in the dried-out swamp often ignited into underground fires.

Eventually, people realized that they should have more respect for God’s world. There are no “wastelands.” The natural environment has developed with exquisite balance, and while we are able and entitled to develop it further, we should do so with tremendous respect and caution. The Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel was thus formed, and the Hula was carefully re-flooded. It is now an outstanding nature reserve which serves as a stopover for millions of migrating birds each year. And maybe the Israel painted frog will now be able to make a comeback.

The return of Kermit the frog may perhaps likewise signify, and help people realize, that the more “sophisticated” forms of popular culture do not represent a positive improvement. People are starting to wonder whether advancement is always progress.

When I began teaching about the animal kingdom in Jewish thought, I was surprised and disappointed to discover people assuming that my presentations were for children. Adults had been conditioned to believe that they were too advanced for animals and zoos, which are “just for kids.” Yet when menageries were first introduced in the 19th century, they were very much seen as being for adults. Why should an adult not marvel at the wonders of the natural world? Why is it considered more sophisticated to have outgrown such things?

Or consider technology. We have more technology flooding our increasingly busy lives than ever before, but is it always an improvement to our lives? Do the drawbacks of being addicted to emails and Twitter and Facebook perhaps outweigh the advantages? Are our children enriched by being plugged in? Are we really happier by always rushing to upgrade to the latest computer or smartphone? These questions deserve serious consideration. As Britain’s Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks noted recently, we live in consumer society, where everyone always wants to advance their lives by accumulating more technology and possessions, but it does not necessarily help their lives be any more enriched.

On a broader scale, we have often had to learn the hard way that technological innovation can have harmful consequences. Several years back, a fascinating book was published entitled “Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences.” It brought numerous examples of how people assumed that advances in technology would prove beneficial, and yet backfired. This is not, of course, to say that technology should always be avoided. Rather, the point is that great caution should always be exercised. Instead of just getting excited about what we could do, we should think about what we should do.

Kermit the Frog sung a famous and beautiful song, “It’s Not Easy Being Green,” about his learning not to be jealous of more spectacular creatures, and instead being happy with being a frog. Ultimately, the song was about learning to appreciate one’s lot in life. Perhaps the return of both of these frogs, Kermit and the Israel painted frog, signifies that society is internalizing that message: that not every advance is an improvement.

My Left Arm Hurts

2011-11-29T08:35:00.002+02:00

I am currently finishing my trip to London. It's been jolly spiffing, but extremely busy. As a result, I have not had time to write posts, respond to comments, or reply to the flood of emails that have arrived lately. Plus, my left arm hurts, due to my spending yesterday learning more about Rabbeinu Tam's activities:

(If you're reading this post via RSS feed or email, you might have to visit www.rationalistjudaism.com in order to see the picture.)

Thanks to Allan Engel for taking the photo!

I hope to catch up on things soon! Meanwhile, I am currently planning my February lecture tour to the US. If you are interested in having me visit your community for a Shabbos scholar-in-residence program or Sunday lecture, please write to me.

On Omitting Parenthetical Statements

2011-11-28T08:43:00.000+02:00

Yesterday, I objected to Rabbi Sherer quoting me as having written that "When rabbinic authority is invested in yeshivah deans who are isolated from wider society, abuses of rabbinic power are inevitable." What I had actually written was that "When rabbinic authority is invested in yeshivah deans who are isolated from wider society, and often “handled” by various assistants, abuses of rabbinic power are inevitable."

However, I subsequently discovered that the version of my essay which appeared in The Jerusalem Post had been edited such that this phrase had been placed in parentheses. I still personally feel that Rabbi Sherer should have quoted it, as do others. But I can understand that still others feel that he was thereby entitled to omit it. And so I would like to retract my accusation that he deliberately set out to falsify my words. My words were falsely reported, but he is not necessarily culpable.

Of course, I expect him to likewise clarify that his error was due to my words having been altered by others, and that what I actually wrote in my unedited article was very different from what he quoted me as saying. And none of this relates to his other distortion of my words, in claiming that this is THE reason that I gave for being post-charedi, instead of the third reason.

Incidentally, several people wrote to me to tell me that even without the (parenthetical) phrase, my statement was absolutely true.

My (Second) Starring Role At The Agudah Convention (UPDATED)

2011-11-27T19:18:00.011+02:00

Seven years ago, at the Agudas Yisrael Convention, I was honored to be mentioned by Rabbi Uren Reich, in a now-legendary speech. Yesterday, November 26th (my anniversary!), I was honored to be mentioned once again, this time by Rabbi Shimshon Sherer.

He read out from my Jerusalem Post article on Post-Charedism. There wasn't much substantial criticism; he seemed to feel that merely reading out extracts of my article, with expressions of horror, would suffice to show how wrong it was. If only he knew how many people in the audience identified with it!

But his speech misrepresented what I wrote. He asked the audience to "Listen to what he writes!" as he introduced the reasons that I gave for rejecting Charedi ideology. First of all, he entirely omits the first two reasons that I gave, and instead begins with the third reason. And he read out from my article: "When rabbinic authority is invested in yeshivah deans who are isolated from wider society, abuses of rabbinic power are inevitable." Rachamana litzlan! he added.

When I heard that, I was somewhat taken aback myself. Had I really written such a thing? I went back and checked what I had written. And I found that I hadn't written that! What I had written was:

"When rabbinic authority is invested in yeshivah deans who are isolated from wider society, and often “handled” by various assistants (emphasis added), abuses of rabbinic power are inevitable."

He had missed out the crucial phrase!

(UPDATE: I subsequently discovered that the edited version of my essay which appeared in Jerusalem Post had placed the emphasized phrase in parentheses. Personally I still don't think that it was justified for Rabbi Sherer to omit the phrase, but I can understand that others might see it differently.)

Does anyone seriously deny that Gedolim are manipulated by askanim? Jonathan Rosenblum even said so explicitly in Mishpachah! Did Leib Tropper not manipulate Gedolim?! Was it not due to manipulation that Lipa Schmeltzer's concert was irredeemably treife one year and suddenly kosher the next year? Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank wrote about how "young writers who frequent the home of the ancient Rav Yitzchak Yeruham Diskin (may his light shine), for this old man is under the influence of young secretaries... they manipulate him whichever way they please and obtain his signature for all their antics." Rav Aryeh Malkiel Kotler and other Gedolei Torah recently wrote a letter where they admitted to having signed a letter of condemnation due to being manipulated and fed false information! Rav Aharon Feldman, sitting next to Rabbi Sherer, even wrote a letter in which he attested that Rav Elyashiv had said that about various other Gedolim!

But even if one does personally believe that Gedolim are not manipulated - how is it legitimate to allegedly be quoting my words, and yet to omit a crucial phrase?

Rabbi Sherer: You should do the right thing and apologize for falsifying my words.

(Incidentally, he then quotes, with horror, another sentence from my article: "And a siege mentality developed in which any criticism of haredi society, even coming from the inside, was to be fought or silenced." Little does he know that I learned the phrase "siege mentality" about 15 years ago from none other than Rav Aharon Feldman, sitting next to him, who made this precise point in a criticism of the Israeli Yated!)

To my readers: If you would like to register your displeasure with Agudah, please write to convention@agudathisrael.org.

(Follow this link to see the video on YouTube, at the time when he starts speaking about me.)

"The Perfect Torah-Science Authority" - Fact or Fiction?

2011-11-25T10:36:00.006+02:00

A reader asked me to respond to the puff piece by Rabbi Avrohom Sebrow in the Baltimore Jewish Life and Five Towns Jewish Times about Rabbi Moshe Meiselman and his forthcoming book on Torah and science. I didn't want to, because I've already posted plenty on this topic and I'll be giving a more comprehensive treatment when his book comes out. But when more emails came in with the same request, I decided to respond, point-by-point.

1. "Rabbi Moshe Meiselman is the perfect Torah scholar to tackle this subject."

This is a very strange statement. Rabbi Sebrow backs it up in two ways. First, he notes that Rabbi Meiselman attended college courses on science and has a PhD in Mathematics from MIT. However, as we have noted previously, mathematics is entirely irrelevant to expertise the natural sciences, and may even be detrimental to it. And as for the college courses on science, Rabbi Meiselman goes against the entire consensus of scientists in the natural sciences, who would consider his approach regarding the world being only 5772 years old to be ludicrous. Would we trust the credibility of a self-styled medical expert who did college courses on medicine but is deemed to be a crank by the entire medical establishment?

Rabbi Sebrow then states that Rabbi Meiselman was a nephew of the Rav and one of his foremost talmidim. However, other family members of the Rav and foremost talmidim believe that Rabbi Meiselman engages in extensive revisionism of the Rav to bring him in line with Charedi mores. Thus, not only is Rabbi Meiselman not the "perfect Torah scholar to tackle this subject," he is actually someone of whom there is great basis to be suspicious from the outset.

2. "Rabbi Meiselman posits that no Rishon ever understood the details of the Creation given in the Torah to be anything but literal."

Then Rabbi Meiselman is wrong. Rambam explicitly writes that:

The account of creation given in Scripture is not, as is generally believed, intended to be literal in all its parts. (Guide For The Perplexed, 2:29)

Furthermore, according to the explanation of Shem Tov, Akeidas Yitzchak, and Abarbanel, Rambam was of the view that the "Six Days" are not time periods at all. Here is what Akeidas Yitzchak says:

"The Rav, the Guide, gave the reason for the mention of days in the Beginning by explaining the statement of the Sages, who said that “all the products of Creation were created in their full form” (Talmud, Chullin 60a); in other words, everything was created at the first instant of creation in their final perfect form. Thus the mention of an order of Creation is not describing the sequence of days; rather, [but the days are simply serving] to differentiate the status of [the elements of creation] and to make known the hierarchy of nature. This was [Rambam’s] major esoteric doctrine concerning Creation as those who are understanding can discern from that chapter (Guide For The Perplexed 2:30) which is devoted to this extraordinary account."

Ralbag was of the same view:

"You already know from the preceding that God’s generating the universe did not occur in time, since [its generation] was from nothing to something. Likewise, our Rabbis agreed that the heavens and the earth were created simultaneously. In the chapter “One Does Not Interpret,” they said, “Both were created as one, as it is said, ‘My hand has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has spread out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand up together’ (Isaiah 48:13).” It is therefore apparent that the description of creation as being completed in six days is not in the sense that, for example, the first day was [prior] to the second as one [whole] day. Rather, they said this in order to show the priority amongst various created things."

So much for the claim that "no Rishon ever understood the details of the Creation given in the Torah to be anything but literal."

3. "The Great Flood was understood by all Geonim and Rishonim to be a literal description and record of events that occurred thousands of years ago. The world was indeed flooded."

Of course the Rishonim understood it that way; they had no reason to think differently. The question is, how did recent Torah authorities - who were aware that there is overwhelming evidence for the continuity of civilization and animal life throughout that period in many parts of the world - explain it?

Rav Dovid Tzvi Hoffman, who (if I recall correctly) was on the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah, said that the Mabul did not cover the entire planet, only the "world" of the Torah. This was also the view of Rav Gedalyah Nadel, who brought some excellent proofs from the Gemara that "olam" does not always refer to the entire planet.

4. "The accuracy of the Midrash about the dimensions of the Ark being optimally seaworthy has been confirmed many times, even in contemporary maritime engineering laboratories."

I can't for the life of me understand the relevance of this. If this is indeed a known fact amongst boat-builders (although others claim that the Ark would not be viable under ordinary natural means), then how is it significant that Torah says it, too?

5. Is The Mud-Mouse Claimed To Exist?

According to the article, participants at the meeting with Rabbi Meiselman challenged him on the mud-mouse (good for them!). Rabbi Meiselman responded by claiming that "Chazal never stated unequivocally that such a creature exists. There were reports of such a creature, and Chazal discussed the halachic ramifications of its theoretical existence." With this, Rabbi Meiselman has classified himself as a heretic according to Rav Elya Ber Wachtfogel, Rav Moshe Shapiro and many others. However, his Talmudic scholarship is flawed. Chazal DID state that such a creature exists, at the end of Sanhedrin:

A certain sectarian said to Rabbi Ami: You say that the dead will live again—but they become dust, and can dust come alive? He replied... Go out to the field and see the rodent that one day is half flesh and half earth, and on the next day it has transformed into a creeping creature and has become entirely flesh.

How is someone the "perfect person to tackle questions of Torah and science" if their approach ignores basic source texts on the topics that they discuss?

6. Rambam and the Science of Chazal

Rabbi Meiselman makes the following astonishing blanket assertion:

"when a statement is mentioned in the Gemara as a fact, it must be accepted. The Rambam, when confronted with a contradiction between what Chazal said was possible and what contemporary medical knowledge of his time said was impossible, opted for Chazal. For almost all interpreters of the Rambam, this is implicit in his statements about treifos. Not one of the classic interpretations of the Rambam says that he was of the opinion that Chazal made a mistake. This is not an available option."

In fact, Rambam believed that Chazal's statements about science (as well as their statements about certain metaphysical matters, such as astrology and demons) were not Sinaitic and were mistaken, as he says explicitly in the Guide. What, then, is his view about terefos? Let us see Rambam's words:

With anything which they enumerated as a terefah, even if with some it is seen not to be fatal based on modern medicine, such that an animal [with such an injury] might sometimes live, we have only what the Sages enumerated, as it says, ‘According to the law that they direct you’."

As explained by Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glasner, Dor Revi’i, Chullin, Introduction, and Rabbi Aryeh Carmell, BDD vol. 6 pp. 60-61, Rambam is saying that the laws as established by the Sages were canonized, and are thus unaffected by later discoveries. He was not denying that certain terefos can indeed live!

7. Rashba and the Science of Chazal

Rabbi Meiselman claims that "Similarly, the Rashba stated that all statements of Chazal regarding science are absolutely true. If anyone were to suggest that they were less than authoritative, that would classify him as a melagleg al divrei chachamim and subject him to serious penalty."

In fact, Rashba states that Rabbi Yochanan and the judges of Caesarea erred in a mathematical matter (Commentary to Eruvin 76b).

8. Medical Halachah

The article claims that "many halachic statements made by Chazal based on their understanding of the underlying medical situation are authoritative." For life-and-death cases, this is absolutely NOT true. As Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach says explicitly:

With regard to the fundamental words of Chasam Sofer, in my humble opinion it appears that just as with regard to the law that an eight-month fetus is like a stone and one does not transgress Shabbos on its behalf, certainly the rule has changed in our time, and forfend to rule in that way (of the Gemara)… and one is forced to say that only in the times of Chazal was the fetus given the status of a stone, because at that time they did not know how to enable it to survive, unlike in our time… So, too, in my humble opinion it appears clear that in our time, it is impossible to decide that someone as already died except via the latest techniques which establish the boundaries between life and death. And forfend to rely in our time just on the signs of breathing and suchlike, more than other checks, and to rule with someone under a collapsed building on Shabbos that if his breathing has stopped, and his heart has stopped beating, that he should be left under the rubble and Shabbos not be transgressed on his behalf… (R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Shulchan Shlomo II, pp. 34-35)

The story that Rabbi Meiselman brings regarding the Rav is where he delayed doing a bris against the doctors saying it was safe to do it earlier - not when he advanced doing a bris against the doctors saying it was dangerous!

9. "We do find knowledge of medicine in the Gemara that was far ahead of its time."

No, we don't.

The example that Rabbi Meiselman gives is hemophilia, which he claims the Gemara knew was hereditary via the mother centuries before non-Jewish doctors discovered it. But as Rabbi Josh Waxman has explained in detail, there are two points to bear in mind here. First is that this fact can be discovered via simple observation. Second is that Chazal reached this conclusion fortuitously due to their mistaken belief that "the mother supplies the semen of the red substance out of which is formed his skin, flesh, hair, blood and the black of his eye."

10. The Regenerative Power of the Liver

Rabbi Meiselman claims that "The regenerative powers of the liver are part of hilchos treifos. This was unknown in the ancient world."

In fact, the ancient Greeks knew that the liver regenerates, long before Chazal.

Furthermore, as Rivash points out, the measurements that Chazal give for the quantity of liver that can regenerate are not scientifically correct and poses a great problem! Far from bring a proof for Chazal's superior knowledge of science, the liver presents the opposite!

11. The Necessity of Kidneys

Rabbi Meiselman (or Rabbi Sebrow? it's not absolutely clear) discusses the Gemara's statement that the absence of kidneys in animals is not a mortal defect. He quotes Rabbi Levinger's claim that "ruminants have an excretory system that excretes into the rumen. Hence, in fact, these animals can survive if their kidneys are removed.” However, Rabbi Dr. Shlomo Sternberg, in Bar Ilan's BBD journal, vol. 4 presents arguments that they will nevertheless die within a month. Thus, the conflict between the Gemara and our knowledge of kidney requirements remains.

Furthermore, to cite the kidneys as an example of how Chazal knew physiology beyond what others knew in the ancient world, is very strange; after all, Chazal believed that the kidneys serve not to produce urine, but rather to provide counsel to the mind.

12. Jumping Elephants

According to the article, those present at the meeting with Rabbi Meiselman challenged him about Tosafos and jumping elephants. Rabbi Meiselman conceded that perhaps Tosfos had never seen an elephant and was under the impression that they could jump. Finally, the right answer! Of course, I had already put this explanation forth several years ago.

13. Concluding Thoughts

The great tragedy of all this is not that Rabbi Meiselman is insisting upon positions that scientists would laugh at. It is not even that he is distorting rabbinic thought. Rather, the great tragedy is that there are so many people who lack the tools and knowledge to recognize this, and are taken in by a long beard and a PhD from MiT. It is important for those who also possess long beards and/or expertise in science, but who actually know what they are talking about in the field of Torah and science, to make themselves heard.

Chareidi Redux

2011-11-23T18:35:00.005+02:00

A Guest Post by Rabbi Zundel Heimish

I wonder if the creator of Rationalist Judaism ever imagined that it would be such a vital forum for addressing the critical issues facing the Orthodox world. The present dialogue on the form and trajectory of Charedi Judaism – and the broad range of comments that have been put forward – are a testament to the success of this venue. Perhaps most impressive of all is the tenor of the discussion. Rabbi Slifkin has shown us all how to have discourse without disrespect, leaving polemics and acrimony by the wayside. There are some thoughts and ideas of my own that I would offer for consideration.

R. Ploni has identified the core dispute to be the question of whether the “Far Right” (FR) is or is not “seeking to leave the halachic community”. He states they are not and avers “the crux of the issue [is] they steadfastly insist on deferring to the judgments of the askanim who dominate the community and deny the need for sanction from Rishonim to make the changes they recommend”. I would suggest R. Ploni understates the issues. Let me refer to the controversy initiated by Rabbi Schmeltzerfogel over the view of Chazal, Geonim, Rishonim and Acharonim that Chazal could err in scientific matters.

In his article R. Schmeltzerfogel writes:

“I know of course that plenty of Rishonim and Acharonim, and indeed Chazal themselves, stated that Chazal could err in science. But by its plain meaning, and by the simple smell test, this view has the effect today of undermining rabbinic authority, and of affirming for us that Rabbis do not always possess the knowledge that scientists do. In our specific time, given our specific challenges, this view hurts us. We thus find ourselves today in a halachic “sha’as hadchak”, an “urgent circumstance”, the sort of circumstance that justifies utilizing a dishonest stratagem to effectively drop this view from our mesorah.”

Clearly, R. Schmeltzerfogel’s goal from the start is to remove this view as it offends modern Charedi sensibilities. His suggested hashkafic maneuvering is simply a clever means to a pre-determined end. Moreover other pashkevillim coming from charedi gedolim directly affirm the premise that they seek to employ the Daas Torah process to attain congruity with contemporary Charedi mores, no matter how forced or convoluted the “stratagem” might be. Such candor in identifying how they use rabbinic authority is refreshing – but it ought not be mistaken to be an honest search for truth in Torah scholarship.

Perhaps more than the actual opinion by R. Schmeltzerfogel to delete a major view from the Geonim, Rishonim and Acharonim for the sake of Charedi sensitivities is the attitude that permeates his writing. Simply put, he is embarrassed by the Rishonim. Their views smell bad and offend today’s charedi who has limited scientific understanding and little knowledge of intellectual history. But might it not be more worthwhile to encourage study of the Rishonim for charedim so that the complexity of the mesorah could be appreciated and accepted rather than altering centuries of tradition?

Additional statements by R. Schmeltzerfogel vis-à-vis the Rishonim’s views on working for a living and other comments where he challenges the authenticity of their writings and practices in view of charedi sensibilities seem to be at odds with R. Ploni’s own formulation of the criteria for Agudah membership: “The Orthodox community, and the Charedim specifically, ought to welcome into its tent anyone who professes loyalty to the theology of Jewish belief endorsed by Rishonim and Achronim as historically and halachically understood, and whose conduct is governed by classical Jewish law”.

Is condemning – and even deleting – the view of the Rishonim for not conforming their theology to the contemporary zeitgeist consistent with classical Jewish law?

At the risk of over-reaching I will take this critique one step further. Conservative Judaism in this country took root as an attempt to keep Jews Jewish, believing as the movement did, that Orthodoxy was too rigid and rejecting of New World realities. A number of Conservative clergy had Orthodox smicha and some were recognized scholars. The “tshuva” written to permit driving to shul on Shabbos and similar policies were efforts to redefine halachic principles to fit the perceived needs of the people (“sha’as hadchak”?) and give sanction to extrahalachic behaviors so as to maintain a façade of religious adherence. Today it is evident to all how poorly that strategy has played out.

I don’t question the sincerity of Rabbis Wachtfogel, Shapiro, et. al. and their conviction that they are serving Hashem and Klal Yisroel. I believe R. Ploni when he says they are all well-meaning ma’aminim. However, that isn’t the dispute and focusing on personalities obfuscates the real problem.

“Hachachom einay berosho”. One who has eyes sees the chasm opening up between the FR path and that of mainstream Orthodoxy. Certainly, this critique may be wide of the mark and all that will evolve from the FR activity is some expansion of what becomes acceptable within the realm of Orthodoxy. Yet truth requires one to acknowledge that the fears R. Slifkin expresses have substance and are grounded in historical precedent. Can we agree that there are real dangers that ought to be faced as potential threats to the Klal and respected accordingly? In the opinion of many in mainstream Orthodoxy, some breaches have already come to pass: Piskei halachah on people and books have been issued without meeting the baalei din or reading the books; Tefillos such as Hanosein teshuah lemelachim have been exorcised from the siddur; The notion that working for a living is a bedi'eved; A demand that known manipulators and crooks be accepted in positions of authority by the frum world. I fear Jimmy Durante was correct when he said, “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet!”

After making the case for the “big tent” approach to Orthodoxy R. Ploni in fact turned his attention to the “Far Right” and movingly admonished the group for their intemperate excesses and apparent unwillingness to draw some boundaries of their own – a curious rebuke given his reluctance to concretely define where he would place his own borders. While his reproach is welcome, I wonder why it only came in response to R. Slifkin’s essay and not at the very start of “this current firestorm” – i.e., the campaign by R. Wachtfogel and R. Shapiro. Further, putting it at the very end of his response to R. Slifkin seems to suggest that in the spirit of even-handedness R. Ploni must address both sides of the debate, almost pro-forma not to be taken too seriously. The Rav was not timid or time-sensitive in criticizing Rabbi Rackman loudly and clearly. Is that not the model for this discussion?

In reviewing the comments to both articles and the clarifications offered by both R. Ploni and R. Slifkin, I believe it’s worth asking “How far has the Far Right taken us already?” It is not only the practices they advocate that are at issue. By setting the boundary of acceptability further and further to the conservative extreme we are all pulled away from the standards of the past, both in personal practices and in our worldview. How many in the Charedi community presume the Modern Orthodox to be beneath them for their lack of black hats? Did Chasam Sofer look down upon his Western European peers with disdain because they had no yeshivishe shprach supplementing their Torah greatness? R. Ploni is eloquent in his description of Charedi Orthodoxy as combining the best of the Rishonim with modern Charedi hashkofah. Yet where is the balance point between those two sources of knowledge and what influences where the set point is established? The Far Right always exerts pressure on our thinking and behavior. Some – the Far Left – pull fiercely in the opposite direction to countervail a rightward tilt, sometimes with undesirable consequences. Unfortunately, many in the Charedi world take no notice of this drift, subtly reframing their perceptions, allowing it to erode their commitment to Chazal and Rishonim and diminishing their regard for those who choose a more traditional Torah way. I don’t live like the yid in Teaneck, Engelwood, Riverdale, etc. but I recognize there are characteristics of such a lifestyle to admire and even elevate above my own - combining Torah with derech eretz, contributing to the national economy, being self-sufficient and teaching their children to likewise be self-sufficient, following dina d'malchusa, expressing hakaras hatov to their host nation, being honest about the theological views of the Rishonim. Can the Charedim do the same, respect someone whose adherence to many aspects of tradition surpasses one’s own without denigrating their actions or motives?

I would add one final observation. There are many who dismiss the debate over the acceptance or rejection of the Far Right as “same old, same old” and see it as simply a recapitulation of familiar Jewish infighting. Maybe so; maybe not. There is a psychological phenomenon known as the Normalcy Bias. It’s the cognitive process by which we seek to diminish the prospect of danger by identifying elements of an event or trend as something we’ve seen or been through before and survived without needing to take drastic action. It’s been used to explain for example why people stay in their homes even when confronted by imminent disaster like a flood or a hurricane – or a Holocaust. “I got through something just like this before and I can do it again”. There are some challenges to the future of our continuity that may call for extraordinary responses.

(Note: The purpose of this satire is not to challenge the campaign against the deviations of the Far Left, but rather to question why there is no similar campaign against the deviations of the Far Right.)

The Wisdom of ArtScroll

2011-11-22T09:15:00.002+02:00

Some of you may have done a double-take upon reading the title of this post. But this post really is about the wisdom of ArtScroll. And I'm not being sarcastic.

Of course, like many others, I have my criticisms of ArtScroll's revisionism in some places, and I am deeply disappointed at their having omitted Rav Hirsch's critical letters on Aggadata from Shemesh Marpe. But they handle mermaids with great wisdom.

Today, Daf Yomi reaches the topic of "the people of the sea," which I discuss at length in my book Sacred Monsters. In brief: The Gemara provides a perfectly accurate account of dolphins. Rashi, however, for reasons that I discuss in my book, (mis)understood the Gemara to be referring to mermaids. Which, in the view of most (but not all) people, do not exist.

Now, Rav Aharon Feldman, in his much-criticized defense of the ban on my books, claimed that it is only Chazal (the Sages of the Mishnah and Talmud) that have divinely-acquired infallible knowledge about the natural world, and not the Rishonim (the scholars of the medieval period). And Dr. Marc Shapiro recently suggested that "that the opponents of Slifkin do not assume that together with Hazal the greatest rishonim are also infallible on scientific matters."

But it is abundantly clear that for many, many people in the charedi (and even non-charedi) world, it is unthinkable to say that the Rishonim erred in anything. Rishonim k'malachim! I remember only too well how furious many people were at my pointing out that elephants don't jump, contrary to the statement of one of the Tosafists. And when it comes to Rashi, the most beloved of all Rishonim, who is said to have written with ruach hakodesh (however one understands that), people recoil in horror at the notion that he could have been wrong about anything,

But on the other hand, the Gemara is obviously talking about dolphins. It even calls them dolphins.

So let's see how Artscroll handles it in their footnote:

“There are marine animals,” writes Rashi, “half of whose bodies are of human form, and half in the form of a fish. They are called sereine in French.” Rashi clearly refers to mermen (the French sereine derives from Latin siren, meaning mermaid), whose existence was widely accepted in the ancient and medieval world and indeed until recent centuries. (According to Raavad in his commentary to Toras Kohanim 3:7, sirens are mentioned as well in Toras Kohanim ibid.) As understood by Rashi, then, the Baraisa teaches that humans and mermen can interbreed.

Others suggest that the dolphins of the Baraisa are none other than the familiar dolphins of the order Cetaceans. These endothermic (warm-blooded) air-breathing mammals “reproduce as do humans” (following the variant kbnei adam) in that they copulate ventrum to ventrum (the manner ascribed to humans later in the Baraisa), bear live young, suckle their calves, and rear them intensively for six or seven years, to near adulthood. Dolphins were known by very similar names in the milieu of the Baraisa: Latin delphinus, from Greek delphis. Delphis is related to delphys, meaning womb, so that the genitive delphinos probably denoted [a sea creature] possessed of a womb; the very name dolfinin thus suggests that the animals in question “reproduce as do humans.” Rav Yehudah may have called dolphins sons (or people) of the sea because of their affinity for humans (they commonly approach and accompany boats), and because they often evince humanlike intelligence in their behaviors and social interactions.

Brilliant! They manage to make it clear to more enlightened readers that the Gemara is actually referring to dolphins, while not offending traditionalists by explicitly pointing out that Rashi's explanation is not correct.

Now, some people might be asking why I don't manage to emulate ArtScroll and have a more circumspect "tone." The answer is twofold. First of all, they are writing a very brief footnote. I wrote a full-length book on such topics; when discussing something in so much detail, it's impossible to remain ambiguous. Second, we are writing for different audiences. I am writing for enlightened people who want a thorough discussion of a topic in which the author says it straight rather than using weasel words and ambiguity. ArtScroll, on the other hand, is writing for a much broader audience, including many who are much further to the right, and must be more careful.

And so, while it's not the way that I deal with this topic, I congratulate ArtScroll on the way that they handled it. I would be grateful if readers who attend Daf Yomi can tell me what their maggid shiur said about this topic, as well as what he said about egg-laying bats and gestation periods.

Snake Gestation

2011-11-21T09:42:00.000+02:00

(This is a post from a while back which is now greatly revised and re-released in time for Daf Yomi reaching this topic tomorrow).

An oft-cited example of the ability of the Sages to extract scientific knowledge from the Torah is the case of snake gestation.

(The gestation period for) a snake is seven years… How do we know this? Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav…: As it says, “You are cursed from all the domestic animals and from all the beasts of the field” (Bereishis 3:14). If the snake is cursed more than all the domestic animals (which have a gestation period of at least five months), then surely all the more so it is cursed more than the wild animals (whose minimum gestation period is only 50 days)! Rather, it tells you that just as a domestic animal is cursed seven times more than a wild animal – namely., the donkey (which has a gestation period of one year) and the cat (whose gestation period, according the Gemara earlier, is 52 days) – so too is the snake cursed seven times more than the domesticated animal, which results in seven years. (Talmud, Bechoros 8a)

There is a different version of this story in a later source:

A certain philosopher sought to know the gestation period of a snake. He saw some mating, captured them, placed them in a vessel, and fed them. When the elders arrived in Rome, they saw Rabban Gamliel, and asked him, After how long does a snake give birth? He was not able to answer them, and his face fell. Rabbi Yehoshua met him, and asked him why he looked so down. He replied, I was asked one question, and I was not able to answer it. Rabbi Yehoshua asked, What was it? He replied, After how long does a snake give birth? Rabbi Yehoshua said, After seven years. Asked Rabban Gamliel, How do you know? Rabbi Yehoshua replied, The dog is an impure wild animal, and gives birth after fifty days, and an impure domesticated animal gives birth after twelve months; and it says, “You are cursed from all the domestic animals and from all the beasts of the field” – just as a domestic animal is cursed seven times more than a wild animal, so too is the snake cursed seven times more than the domesticated animal. Towards evening, Rabban Gamliel went out and told them. [The philosopher] began to bang his head against a wall, and said, I worked and exerted myself for seven years [to discover this], and this one comes and holds it out on a cane (i.e. answers lightly). (Yalkut Shimoni, Bereishis 3, os 30)

There are several questions to consider here. First of all, was Rav Yehudah/ Rabbi Yehoshua entirely deriving the information about snake gestation from the Torah, with no previous knowledge about this, or was this an already widespread belief? And was the exegesis his own invention, or something that he received as a tradition? There has long been much dispute amongst Rishonim and Acharonim as to the ultimate source of such Talmudic exegeses, with no less a figure than Chasam Sofer (to Beitzah 5a; also Rambam, Introduction to Commentary to the Mishnah) claiming that they are of human rather than divine origin. (Cf. the Talmudic exegeses about the nature of the firmament, which is not correct, and is thus surely not a Sinaitic tradition.)

Second of all, how does the idea of deriving facts about the natural world from the Torah fit in with the myriad of cases in the Gemara where Chazal did not have any such expectations? As I noted in my monograph on Sod Hashem Liyreyav, the Gemara does not generally believe that the Sages had any special source of knowledge about the natural world. The Talmud states that the rabbis learned agricultural information from the descendants of Seir; Rav relates that he spent eighteen months with a shepherd in order to learn about the blemishes that affect sheep; R. Shimon ben Chalafta is described as having performed experiments to discover information; Rabbi Zeira stated that his lack of knowledge of the natural sciences rendered him incapable of rendering rulings regarding menstrual blood; and we also find that Rebbi considered that the sages were proven wrong in fundamental matters of astronomy by the gentile scholars. Indeed, in the version of the snake story given in the Yalkut, we see that the Sages were not all able to derive whatever biological knowledge they wanted from the Torah. Yet on the other hand, it does seem to show that they considered themselves able to do so in some cases.

But is it actually true that a snake's gestation lasts seven years?

It has been confirmed that female snakes sometimes give birth several years after mating. In general, this seems to be due to their ability to store sperm. It has been suggested that in some extreme cases, it resulted from long term “mummification” of embryos instead.[1] In other cases, snakes have been known to reproduce via parthenogenesis, i.e., without a male.[2] Some scientists suggested in the past that all cases of isolated females giving birth are due to parthenogenesis rather than storing sperm or embryos from an earlier mating,[3] but recent genetic research has shown that in at least some cases, sperm has been stored from earlier matings.[4]

Yet although Rav Yehudah’s statement seems to be an astonishing example of scientific information being extracted from the Torah, there are some serious difficulties with it.

First of all, although in one instance it was recorded that an Arafura file snake laid eggs exactly seven years after mating,[5] this was in one case alone. The maximum on record is nine years, with a garter snake,[6] and the majority of snakes do not store the sperm at all; even with those that do, it is usually for far less than seven years. There is no type of snake that has a seven-year gestation - instead, individual snakes can give birth for any number of time after mating, from several weeks to nine years or more.

Second of all, the source for the Talmud's statement is an exegesis based on the ration of snake gestation to donkey gestation being the same as that of donkey gestation to the gestation of a cat (or, in the Yalkut version, a dog) - seven times greater. But whereas the gestation period of a donkey is indeed one year, the gestation period of cats is 61-69 days and that of dogs is 59-65 days - quite a bit more than the 52 and 50 days stated in the Gemara. In which case, the data about animals used as the very basis for the exegesis is incorrect.

In conclusion, then: It would seem that in general, Chazal did not expect themselves to all be able to extract desired information about the natural world from the Torah, but there are cases when such an ability is proposed. The Gemara engages in some polemics about how the Sages were smarter than the gentiles - while elsewhere it takes it as a matter of course that this was not necessarily the case. But even in cases where some Sages are presented as being able to extract such information from the Torah, this is not (according to many Rishonim and Acharonim) a matter of them conveying a Sinaitic tradtion or utilizing Divine inspiration, but rather their own ingenuity. In the case of snake gestation, while this initiative resulted in a claim about snakes that is sometimes valid, it is not ultimately correct, and the data used as the basis for the calculation was not correct.

NOTES

[1] R. Shine, P. Harlow, J. S. Keogh, and Boeadi, (1995), ‘Biology and Commercial Utilization of Achrochordid Snakes, with Special Reference to Karung (Achrochordus javanicus),’ Journal of Herpetology, 29 (3): 352-360.

[2] Parthenogenesis has been documented in some lizards, insects, and other species including domestic turkeys.

[3] University of Arizona herpetologist Gordon W. Schuett, in “Snake Birth An Unlikely Feat,” The Detroit News, Monday October 6th 1997.

[4] Warren Booth and Gordon W. Schuett, "Molecular genetic evidence for alternative reproductive strategies in North American pitvipers (Serpentes: Viperidae): long-term sperm storage and facultative parthenogenesis." See http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228355.200-snake-stores-sperm-for-five-years-before-giving-birth.html

[5] Magnusson, W. E. (1979), “Production of an embryo by an Achrochordus javanicus isolated for seven years,” Copiea: 744-745.

[6] Robert T. Mason, Department of Zoology, Oregon State University.

Chazal Were Right (At Least, According To Me)

2011-11-20T07:09:00.003+02:00

Few pages of Gemara are more significant to the Torah/science debate than Bechoros 7b/8a, which Daf Yomi reaches this week. We have already discussed the inaccuracy of the statement that bats (or owls) lay eggs and nurse their young. There are several other statements on that pages that are inaccurate, such as those describing the gestation periods of various animals, the statement that camels copulate back-to-back (which probably stems from the fact that, at all times other than during copulation, the camel's member is directed posteriorally; see too this post), and Rashi's account of mermaids and of how kosher fish sit on their eggs to keep them warm. However, there are other statements on that page which are accurate - at least, according to me, but not according to others.

Let's start with the following statement:

Everything that bears live young, nurses them, and everything that lays eggs, gathers food for its young, except for the bat, which, even though it lays eggs, nurses its young. (Bechoros 7b)

In my view, aside for the inaccurate statement about the bat, the general rule expressed here is correct. Now, you might be wondering as follows: But what about the duck-billed platypus and echidna? They lay eggs, but nurse their young! Don't they show that Chazal's statement was mistaken?

You might ask a similar question about the continuation of the Gemara, which states that the only living things that copulate face-to-face are people, snakes and fish. As far as I am concerned, this is a valid statement. Yet the more zoologically knowledgeable of you might be wondering: What about the bonobo and stitchbird?

But as far as I'm concerned, platypus and echidnas and bonobos and stitchbirds do not present a problem. They are obscure animals from remote regions. Chazal never in the first place meant to be giving an absolute statement covering all species in the universe. True, Chazal did not know about the platypus or echidna or bonobo or stitchbird, but if you were to go back in a time-machine and tell them, they would justifiably shrug them off as irrelevant.

This is something that I explained at great length in my book The Camel, The Hare And The Hyrax. It is based on the Gemara's own principles that one does not need to concern oneself with rare cases (miyuta d’miyuta), and the principle that ain lemedin min haklalos, “we do not take general rules as being absolute,” and they can have exceptions. On numerous occasions, the Rishonim themselves observed that there were exceptions to the Talmud’s seemingly absolute statements about factual reality. They pointed out that such minor exceptions do not undermine these rules because they were not intended to be absolute in the first place. And R. Yonasan Eybeschitz and R. Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenberg make precisely this point about the Talmud’s seemingly absolute rule that all fish with scales have fins.

I applied this principle to further cases. The Gemara states that there are only four animals with one kosher sign; I argued that there are further types, but these do not undermine the Gemara's statement. Likewise, I argued that the principle of psik raisha velo yamus would not be undermined by discovering a headless chicken that survives.

But there are those who are vehemently opposed to my approach. They insist that if the Gemara states a principle, it is absolute and can have no exceptions. According to them, when Chazal said that there are four animals with one kosher sign, there cannot be any others; when Chazal said that every fish with scales has fins, this is an absolute principle that demonstrates confidence in supernatural wisdom. For these people, then, the platypus, echidna, bonobo and stitchbird contradict Chazal's principles. How ironic!

Rabbi Adam In Eden

2011-11-18T08:12:00.000+02:00

Take a look at this fascinating picture, of Adam in the Garden of Eden, that my middle daughter brought home from gan (those who are reading this via email subscription may have to visit www.rationalistjudaism.com in order to see it):

Now, there is a diverse readership here, but let's allow them a traditional reading of Genesis, that there was a man in the Garden of Eden. Let's not even ask why animals from central Africa are there. What struck me is the number of ways in which this picture contradicts traditional Jewish views on the matter, as well as explicit statements in the Torah! Let me count the ways:

1) Why is wearing clothes? He is supposed to be naked!
2) Why he is wearing a kippah? He wasn't Jewish!
3) Why does he have such a long beard? Isn't he supposed to be twenty years old?

I presume that the artist's mind works as follows: Adam=Biblical figure who was not evil=venerable rabbi.

(My daughter is clearly out of touch by coloring his clothing pink. Only Modern Orthodox males wear pink shirts.)

But I'm not in such a strong position from which to criticize. People often ask me how to teach Maaseh Bereishis to children. My reply: I have a hard enough time teaching it to adults! I really don't know how to successfully teach it to children. My feeling is that one has to adopt a gradual approach, while always making it clear to them that their understanding will still undergo further refinement.

Why Bats Get My Goat

2011-11-17T14:21:00.000+02:00

My post on Bat Responsa generated astonishingly diverse feedback. Some people thought that it was one of my best posts ever, while others, who are fundamentally in agreement with my approach, were nevertheless very distressed at its perceived inappropriate disrespect (or even at its perceived appropriate disrespect). Eventually, due the accumulation of criticism from those with the same worldview as my own, I decided to revise it. But I would like to explain why I wrote it in the first place, and why I think it resonated so strongly with some people.

As everyone knows, I went through a very rough time a few years ago when my books were banned. While it's mostly died down, it's not completely extinct; I still occasionally suffer from its effects. The main issue which started the entire controversy is my stating that in some cases, Chazal's statements about the natural world were not correct, such in their description of spontaneous generation of mice from mud, in their describing the sun as going behind the sky at night, of bats laying eggs, and so on.

Now, if someone were to say, "Chazal were correct; there really are mice that are generated from dirt, there really are bats that lay eggs, and Chazal never claimed that the sun goes behind the sky at night, and I reject the views of all the Geonim, Rishonim and Acharonim who say otherwise," then it wouldn't bother me. At least they would be making it very clear that they are operating within an entirely different worldview and approach to Torah.

But what really gets my goat is that those who condemn me refuse to ever get into specifics. They issue platitudes about how "there are cogent answers to all these problems," about how "on a certain level, these statements are always true," about how "every seeming contradiction can be shown to be of no consequence to a seasoned mind," and about how they are teaching "The Torah of Science." But they do not ever get into the nitty-gritty of the actual cases discussed in the Gemara, and of the actual statements of the Rishonim and Acharonim!

Rav Aharon Feldman claimed that there are cogent answers to all these problems which he will address in a future essay. He wrote that six years ago, and nothing has been forthcoming - despite the fact that these are the problems which led to what Rav Feldman considers to be "probably the public issue most damaging to the honor of Torah and to its leaders in recent memory." And he refuses to address the statements of many Torah authorities who adopt the rationalist approach in these areas.

Rav Moshe Shapiro was vehement in his condemnation of me, insisting that there is no authentic Torah view that Chazal erred in science, and turned several of my colleagues against me. But he never gets into detail about the actual cases that I dealt with! He adopts the Maharal's view as a general approach, that Chazal were always speaking about metaphysics, but does not address the fact that ALL the Rishonim and plenty of Acharonim felt differently (see my monograph "The Sun's Path At Night.") A friend of mine recently approached Rav Moshe and tried to get him to address the opinions of the Rishonim and Acharonim on the topic of the sun's path at night. Rav Moshe replied with typically cryptic platitudes and wouldn't give a straight answer.

The same can be said for all the others that jump on the ban-wagon. They are so eager to condemn the rationalist approach as being the aberrant approach of young Natan Slifkin, and to proudly espouse platitudes about Chazal's knowledge. You'd think that if that's the case, they would go through all the cases that I discuss in my books, and all the sources that I discuss, and explain what they believe to be the correct approach - but they don't.

Why do I bring all this up now? Because next week, Daf Yomi is reaching several discussions in the Gemara and Rishonim that are not scientifically correct. Bats laying eggs, mermaids, super-long gestation periods, and so on. Many, many people experience spiritual turmoil upon encountering these passages. I've actually provided an approach to dealing with them, which I received from my own mentor, Rav Aryeh Carmell ztz"l, and which is in turn well-grounded in the Rishonim and Acharonim. But few are they that even dare even mention my name. Instead, people display allegiance to Rabbonim who condemn me and who claim to have the "right" answers to these cases but who never actually address either the Gemara's cases or the Rishonim and Acharonim that deal with them!

That's what really gets my goat. I apologize if I spoke out of line. But I'm only human, after all.

(See too this very important post: The Mystique of Silence.)

The Seven Wonders of the Jewish World

2011-11-16T07:39:00.000+02:00

(A rather poorly-edited version of this article appears in today's edition of The Jerusalem Post.)

Since ancient times, cultures have perceived significance in the number seven. In antiquity, a list was compiled of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. In the nineteenth century, lists were compiled of the Seven Wonders of the Middle Ages and the Seven Wonders of the Medieval Mind. Mohandas Gandhi made a list of the Seven Blunders of the World. And disappointment reigned amongst many supporters of Israel this week, when the Dead Sea did not win enough votes to make the new list of the Seven Wonders of the Natural World. Meanwhile, the Israel Tourism Ministry is arranging a vote for the Seven Wonders of Israel. But I would like to propose a different list: The Seven Wonders of the Jewish World, with “world” not being a geographical location, but rather the full realm of the Jewish experience.

1. Monotheism

There is an old ditty which says, “How odd of God, to choose the Jews.” One of the many rejoinders is “It’s not so odd; the Jews chose God.” Yet it is that very choosing of God which is odd and remarkable! As Henri Frankfort, archeologist and Egyptologist, wrote: “The dominant tenet of Hebrew thought is the absolute transcendence of God. God is not in nature. Neither earth nor sun nor heaven is divine; even the most potent natural phenomena are but reflections of God’s greatness… it needs an effort of the imagination to realize the shattering boldness of a contempt for imagery at the time, and in the particular historical setting, of the Hebrews.” Aside from its role in shaping religion, monotheism also laid the foundation for the rise of science; as several historians of science have noted, the idea that disparate phenomena all follow fundamental “laws” flowed from monotheism. And the billions of adherents of Christianity and Islam are all adopting a monotheism initiated by the Jewish People.

2. The Land of Israel

The land of Israel, promised to Abraham, is small. It does not host the greatest waterfalls or the tallest mountains. But it is nevertheless remarkable within the natural world. Geographically, the land of Israel is at the junction of three continents: Europe, Asia and Africa. Within its tiny area, it houses an incredible diversity of landscapes: snowy slopes, tropical beaches, arid deserts and green forests. As a result of all this, the land of Israel is home to an astonishingly diverse range of flora and fauna. It is the southernmost range of many northern species, the westernmost range of eastern species, and the northernmost range of southern species. As the Midrash states, Israel is the center of the world.

3. Torah

Literally meaning “teaching,” the word Torah is often used in the narrow sense of referring to the Five Books of Moses. But in its broadest sense, it refers to the entire gamut of Jewish teachings. This marvelous body of literature chronicles a nation’s efforts over millennia to connect with the Divine, to improve the individual, to regulate society and to stretch the mind. Scripture, Talmud, midrash, philosophy, mysticism, law, ethics—it encompasses every intellectual taste and every aspect of our lives.

4. The Calendar

The wonder of the Jewish calendar is not limited to the way in which it manages to synchronize three entirely unrelated natural phenomena: the rotation of the earth on its axis, the revolution of the moon around the earth, and the revolution of the earth around the sun. The very contents of the Jewish calendar are so much richer than in the joke which describes it as consisting of two types of events: “They tried to kill us, we won, let’s eat,” and “They tried to kill us, we didn’t win, let’s not eat.” We celebrate national salvation and religious freedom; we observe days of solemnity, repentance and introspection; and we mourn the loss of people and precious elements of our heritage. Most wonderful of all is Shabbat, during which, miraculously, I am able to resist checking my e-mail for a full twenty-four hours.

5. Jewish Survival

The Jewish People, never large in number, have been faced with hatred for over three thousand years. We have been exiled from our home and forced into servitude and exile amongst hostile nations. We have suffered persecution in every one of the numerous countries in which we have lived. Nations faced with far fewer existential threats have disappeared, and yet we have survived. Mark Twain famously asked, “The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then... passed away. The Greek and the Roman followed. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts… What is the secret of his immortality?” And we made it back to our homeland after two thousand years of exile, an event completely unparalleled in world history.

6. The State of Israel

Like every citizen of Israel, and especially like every oleh, I could rant endlessly about the shortcomings of the State of Israel (though unlike the citizens of our neighboring countries, I could do so without fear of being thrown in prison). But this would be a small-minded perspective that does not take into account the incredible challenges that the state overcomes. Despite having to absorb an enormous number of immigrants in a short span of time, and having to devote a ridiculously large amount of resources to national defense, Israel has managed to create a vibrant democracy, an oasis of prosperity, producing astonishing accomplishments in every field, all while successfully repelling repeated attempts at annihilation.

7. Global Significance

Although numbering only 0.2% of the total world population today, and never having numbered much more than that, the Jewish People have always had an inexplicably large impact upon the world. The spread of monotheism is the most significant example, but we have also made disproportionate contributions in every sphere of knowledge and endeavor. Meanwhile, the United Nations are obsessed with Israel, condemning it more than every other country put together (!). If anything, we are too significant for our own good.

Those are the Seven Wonders of the Jewish World as I see them, which I think are much more wonderful than the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. Colossus, schmolossus.

Bat Responsa (revised)

2011-11-15T08:53:00.008+02:00

Next week, Daf Yomi reaches a challenging passage in the Gemara:

Everything that bears live young, nurses them, and everything that lays eggs, gathers food for its young, except for the bat (atalef), which, even though it lays eggs, nurses its young. (Bechoros 7b)

In contrast to the Talmud’s statement, modern zoology asserts that none of the 950 species of bats lay eggs. It cannot be a platypus or echidna (which lay eggs and nurse their young), since these animals do not fly and the atalef is listed in the Torah as a flying creature. Even if one is to posit that the atalef is a bird, which does lay eggs, there would still be a problem in that the Talmud describes it as nursing its young, which no bird does.

It is likewise not reasonable to address this conflict by arguing that the Talmud is speaking metaphorically. The statement about bats is not aggadata (homiletic discourses), but rather part of a discussion about the natural world. No commentator has ever suggested that it is not meant as a factual statement.

Nor can one solve this conflict by positing that nature has changed. Modern science asserts not only that bats do not lay eggs today, but that they have never laid eggs. The only egg-laying mammals, the duck-billed platypus and echidna, live in Australia and are very physiologically unusual creatures. They are on an extremely remote branch of the mammalian family tree, both geographically and physiologically. An egg-laying bat would be completely contradictory to the neat nested hierarchy of the animal kingdom - and amongst all the millions of known species, no such exceptions have ever been found.

How, then, is one to solve this problem? Here is a guide to a range of different approaches that have been proposed. In some cases I am quoting directly, and in those cases there are quotation marks; in others, I am extrapolating from what they have written elsewhere:

Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch: "In my opinion, the first principle that every student of Chazal's statements must keep before his eyes is the following: Chazal were the sages of God's law - the receivers, transmitters and teachers of His toros, His mitzvos, and His interpersonal laws. They did not especially master the natural sciences, geometry, astronomy, or medicine - except insofar as they needed them for knowing, observing and fulfilling the Torah. We do not find that this knowledge was transmitted to them from Sinai. …We find that Chazal themselves considered the wisdom of the gentile scholars equal to their own in the natural sciences. To determine who was right in areas where the gentile sages disagreed with their own knowledge, they did not rely on their tradition but on reason. Moreover they even respected the opinion of the gentile scholars, admitting when the opinion of the latter seemed more correct than their own... Can Chazal be blamed for ideas that were accepted by the naturalists of their times?"

Rav Aharon Feldman: There are cogent answers to these questions but these will of necessity, G-d willing, have to be the subject of another article (N.S. - which was never written, nor did he ever volunteer to explain what these "cogent answers" to the questions that had perplexed so many people, and had been the source of all this trouble, actually are). In the meantime we can be sure of one thing: the answers which Slifkin proposed (N.S. - by which means Rav Hirsch et al., but he prefers to pin it on me) are not the right ones."

Rav Uren Reich: "If the Gemara says it, it's emes veyatziv. There's nothing to think about. Anything we see with our eyes is less of a reality than something we see in the Gemara. That’s the emunah that a yid has to have."

Rav Moshe Shapiro: Anyone with the slightest grasp of Chazal will realize that they were not speaking about the physical biology of bats. In the world of pnimiyus, the bat actually does lay eggs.

Rav Yisroel Belsky: "The sages of the Talmud were far advanced in all facets of wisdom and correct in every field of knowledge. They spoke only the truth and were the repository of all wisdom. So-called contradictions between Torah and science never present any problem, because there are none that cannot be resolved with ease; every seeming contradiction can be shown to be of no consequence to a seasoned mind." (He did not respond to my question as to how this actually works out in practice.)

Rabbi Moshe Meiselman: (No answer given yet - my prediction is that his forthcoming book The Torah Of Science will not address it).

Rabbi Avi Shafran: "I think there’s a level on which it’s true."

Dr. Isaac Betech: B"H Please tell me what exactly why you believe the Talmud to be problematic. Then let us discuss the protocol for an intellectual, multimedia, respectful, protocolized, neutral, public debate on the matter.

Note - In the comments below, Dr. Betech requested that I repeat that this is not a verbatim quote from him on this matter, but rather it is my own extrapolation based on what he has written in similar cases. I then invited him to present his own view on this topic. As you can see in the comments, he responded as follows:
"I am still willing to discuss in an intellectual, multimedia (sources on screen), respectful, protocolized, neutral, public forum with NS or the representative (Jewish or not) he will choose, on any scientific issue relevant to his 5 controversial books, i.e.
1. Creation of the universe (Big Bang Cosmology).
2. Chemical evolution (increasingly complex elements, molecules and compounds developed from the simpler chemical elements that were created in the Big Bang).
3. The age of the universe.
4. Biological evolution (of the species).
5. “Dr. Betech's own model of recent special creation” (as NS named it).
6. The accuracy of science-related statements made by Chaza”l.
7. After the debate on the scientific issues will be concluded, I am also ready to debate the validity of the theological sources presented by NS on these issues."
So I think that my assessment of what he would answer was pretty good!

Personally, I favor Rav Hirsch's approach, which is very well-founded in Chazal, the Geonim, the Rishonim, and the Acharonim, and which I consider to be the only reasonable explanation. Rav Hirsch also actually gives an approach that can be applied, instead of merely offering platitudes, posturing, and hand-waving. Maybe the others secretly agree with Rav Hirsch, but cannot publicly say so, due to the harm that they believe it could cause to them or to their communities; who knows?

Rebellion in the Ranks of Rav Moshe?

2011-11-14T10:33:00.000+02:00

One of the most intriguing Torah scholars in the world today is Rav Moshe Shapiro. He is utterly brilliant and, in certain ways, has a breadth that is not often seen in the Charedi world. On the other hand, he is single-minded about the Maharal's approach to Chazal - according to which Chazal were always speaking about metaphysics rather than the material world - and considers it to be the only legitimate and authentic approach to ever have existed, rather than a peculiar and unique 16th century invention. As a result, Rav Moshe Shapiro was one of the most outspoken opponents of my books (see his letter of condemnation, and my response, at this link).

Rav Moshe's disciples - many of whom teach in various American yeshivos and seminaries - were thrown into confusion. The weaker of them decided to be mevatel da'as to him. Others broke away from him. Still others simply opted to remain with their bewilderment. Then, when my critique of the notorious Chaim B'Emunasam was released, illustrating how Rav Moshe had warmly endorsed a book that literally re-arranges the words of the Rishonim in order to distort their meaning, this was a source of great embarrassment to Rav Moshe's disciples.

And now for the latest update. A reader directed me to this interesting journal entry of an avreich in a kollel of which Rav Moshe Shapiro is the nasi. The kollel was studying the Gemara which speaks of there being two channels in the male genital organ, one for urine and one for semen (whereas in fact there is only one channel). Chazon Ish responded by claiming that nishtaneh hateva, people have evolved. Rav Moshe Shapiro disputed this and also vehemently objected to the notion that any Torah scholar could ever have been mistaken about the physical reality. Instead, he adopted a Maharal-style approach (though the Maharal never, to my knowledge, explicitly applied his approach to halachic topics) in which the Gemara is talking about the metaphysical reality.

This radical approach took the kollel by surprise. The Rosh Kollel apparently realized the astounding ramifications of such an approach - בסופו של הדיון אמר ראש הכולל שהוא חש אבוד ונבוך בשאלות המעשיות הנובעות מהגישה של רבי משה ואינו יודע כיצד להתקדם. After all, if one refuses to acknowledge that Chazal possessed incomplete knowledge of the natural world, and one refuses to say nishtaneh hateva, then what does one do with, for example, the Gemara which says that one can violate Shabbos to save the life of a fetus born after seven months, but not one born after eight months?

(Incidentally, the claim that "no intelligent person could ever have been mistaken about the number of channels in the male genital organ" is anachronistic. My friend Rabbi Dr. Edward Reichman has an excellent discussion of this topic in his article, "The Rabbinic Conception of Conception: An Exercise in Fertility." Misunderstandings about the number of channels in the male genital organ were widespread in earlier eras; even Leonardo da Vinci, in his careful illustrations, got it wrong. And great people did, and still do, make errors in matters that should be easily verifiable, such as the number of teeth that people have.)

I'm glad that people are starting to realize that, as creative and brilliant as Rav Moshe's approach is, it cannot be used as a methodology for understanding what Chazal were actually trying to say, let alone rated as the sole legitimate authentic approach.

London Schedule (so far)

2011-11-13T09:32:00.002+02:00

Shabbos November 25/26: Golders Green Synagogue
- Details at this link

Sunday November 27th
Morning:
9:30 am - Rationalist Judaism: The Unknown, Endangered, Dangerous, & Life-saving Approach to Torah
11:00 am - Shaking the Heavens: Rabbinic Responses to Astronomical Revolutions
Entrance Donation: £5 per lecture
Location: 44 Manor Hall Avenue, Hendon, NW4 1NX

8pm: Barnet Synagogue
Topic: "How (Not) To Be A Heretic: What Must A Jew Believe?"
- Details at this link

If anyone has a car and is interested in joining me for hawking/falconry (as reportedly practiced by King David and Rabbeinu Tam - details forthcoming in a fascinating study by R. Leor Jacobi) on Friday 25, please be in touch!

Note that I still have an open slot on Thursday November 24 - please be in touch if you are interested in arranging a lecture.

Who Cares About Evolution?

2011-11-11T06:49:00.001+02:00

I have often wondered why some Very Religious People are so hung up on evolution. After all, there are much bigger intellectual threats to traditional Judaism. And there certainly were great Torah authorities who saw no problem with evolution. Why, then, so people obsess over evolution so much?

There are doubtless several reasons for this, but one in particular emerges from another question to be asked on Rabbi Avi Shafran's recent very strange article criticizing the scientific community for failing to be self-critical, which I analyzed in the previous post. It includes a single sentence in which Rabbi Shafran acknowledges that "it may indeed turn out that... as Rav Shamshon Rafael Hirsch considers possible, that G-d created species through a process that began with a single cell."

Praise is due to Rabbi Shafran for acknowledging that evolution, at least in terms of common ancestry, is not to be ruled out on either scientific or theological grounds. (I wonder if this is due to the complimentary copy of The Challenge Of Creation that I sent to him?) But here's an interesting question: How is it that he felt comfortable saying such a thing, and he is not taking flak for it, in light of the Great Torah/ Science Controversy of 2004-2005?

The answer to all these questions is, I propose, that the kerfuffle over evolution has very little to do with its alleged theological difficulties (which are, after all, easily solved). Rather, it has to do with social identification.

Many scientists, and especially evolutionists, are associated with atheism and are therefore "bad guys" (and a strong perception has developed that it is not just evolutionists, but evolution itself which is inherently anti-religious). Correspondingly, trashing evolution has become associated with the religious camp and its duties. That's why there is so much more passion about fighting evolution rather than other, more serious, intellectual threats.

The important thing here, for people in the Very Religious Camp, is to show allegiance to the home team. And so endorsing the theological acceptability of evolution is fine if it's a throwaway sentence in a lengthy article trashing scientists. What matters is that the clear message is given: Scientists=bad, Us=good.

Which Orthodoxies Should One Be Wary Of?

2011-11-09T21:04:00.004+02:00

There is a very strange article by Rabbi Avi Shafran in Ami magazine and Cross-Currents, which returns to a theme that he has written about on several previous occasions. It is entitled "Beware of Orthodoxy!" However, the "Orthodoxy" to which he refers is not Orthodox Judaism, but rather orthodox thinking in other disciplines, especially science. Rabbi Shafran criticizes the "idolatry" of "unyielding reverence for currently regnant scientific dogmas" such as evolution. (Strangely, he also mentions the existence of extraterrestrial life - which is in fact far from universally accepted amongst scientists.) He interjects that there is no religious problem with these notions. And he concludes by urging people to remember that "skepticism of accepted notions is the very core of the scientific method."

I have four questions on his article.

First, while there certainly is a problem of too much rigidity in science, why did Rabbi Shafran paint a picture which is so black? Rabbi Shafran does not consider the possibility that the evolution of life from a single cell has been accepted due to the abundance of evidence for it and the absence of evidence against it! Indeed, even Rabbi Shafran himself writes that "it is always worthwhile to remember that scientific orthodoxies have been toppled by new discoveries." Since that is the case, clearly scientists are not all that closed to orthodoxies being toppled!

Second, what is an article about scientific methodology doing in a magazine about Judaism? According to Rabbi Shafran, there are no religious issues involved in these aspects of science. So why is it relevant to Judaism? (I have my own answer to this question, which will hopefully appear in the next post.)

Third: Rabbi Shafran criticizes "-isms" - such as atheism, communism, nationalism - for being objects of unquestioned veneration. Now, I am no atheist or communist, but it seems to me that those who align themselves to those systems do so because they consider them to be true, meaningful, or beneficial. Couldn't the same be said for another "-ism": Judaism? Surely the worth of a system should be judged by its innate value, and not by whether it is an object of unquestioned veneration - otherwise, couldn't Judaism be subject to the same critique?

Fourth, the irony of a spokesman for the Charedi community criticizing those who have "unyielding reverence for currently regnant dogmas" is enough to make one choke. Is he not aware that this criticism applies a hundredfold to those in the Charedi community? Or does he believe that scientists should not have unyielding reverence for currently regnant dogmas in science, but religious people should have unyielding reverence for currently regnant dogmas in religion? And if so, why?

(See too this post.)

Ummm.... no He doesn't.

2011-11-08T17:28:00.000+02:00

פּוֹתֵחַ אֶת יָדֶךָ וּמַשְׂבִּיעַ לְכָל חַי רָצוֹן

"You open Your hand, and satisfy the desire of every living thing."

This is considered to be a very important verse. It's so important that it is one of the reasons why the Sages required us to say Ashrei three times a day. It's so important that, according to the Shulchan Aruch, if one forgot to say it with proper concentration, one must recite it again.

When I started yeshivah gedolah, and began to have real kavannah in davvening for the first time in my life, the following question occurred to me. He opens His hand, and satisfies the desire of every living thing? Ummm.... no He doesn't! From eels to elephants, there are creatures that die from hunger or thirst.

I asked this question to my Rosh Yeshivah. As I recall, he was somewhat was taken aback by the question. He eventually suggested that the ratzon mentioned in the verse is not the will of every living creature, but rather the will of God.

This appeared to me to be a rather forced interpretation of the verse. Furthermore, it rather limits the praise that the verse is giving. In the context of the lavish praise that this chapter espouses, it seems rather unlikely that here it is saying that God feeds only those that He wants to feed. Besides, a similar question can be asked about other verses with which no such escape clause exists. Does God really support ALL the fallen, and straighten ALL the bent?

I had a similar question about pesukim regarding bitachon, which seem to imply that if you trust in God, He will help you in the way that you desire. My Rosh Yeshivah claimed that this is really true - that if one has sufficient trust in God, He will do whatever you need. But aside from this being an extremely unhealthy approach to teach young men (it forces them to attempt to brainwash themselves), could it really be the meaning of these verses? Could anyone believe that God is really guaranteed to rescue you from all harm, if you have sufficient trust that He will do so?

Only much later, when I was able to appraise things in a more mature way, did the answer become obvious to me. The authors of these psalms lived in a much harsher world than ours, and were well aware that these statements were not actually factually true. But such psalms are expressing religious sentiments, hopes and wishes. They are describing an idealized form of reality, not the factual reality.

The question that I now have is as follows: How is it that there are so many people who have been saying "You open Your hand, and satisfy the desire of every living thing" three times a day with great kavannah, but have apparently never thought about what it actually could possibly mean?

With Respect, You're A Kofer

2011-11-07T08:40:00.001+02:00

"Lula demistafina (Were I not afraid), I would say that we need to posit a completely novel interpretation."

"Lefi aniyos da'ati (In my lowly opinion), this way of looking at the topic is completely wrong."

"With all due respect, you're an am ha'aretz."

Such prefatory comments often strike me as completely dishonest in light of what follows. If you are genuinely afraid to posit a new interpretation, then don't! If you genuinely consider your opinion to be lowly, then don't denounce others! If you genuinely respect someone, don't insult them!

The truth is that it is very, very difficult to balance respect for others with strong disagreement. I find it to be especially challenging, as a parent, to teach it to my children. But there is one figure in Jewish history who stands out as striking an incredible balance between the two.

Ramban, a.k.a. Nachmanides, had strong and well-earned opinions. He viewed many of Rambam's views as being tremendous perversions of Judaism (not without reason). At the beginning of parashas Vayera, he discusses Rambam's radical view that all stories in the Torah concerning angels took place in visions rather than in real life. Ramban concludes that "this view contradicts Scripture; it is forbidden to listen to such things, and all the more so to believe them."

Strong words indeed. Ramban has effectively just deemed Rambam's view as heresy. And there are other places, too, where he uses strong language in denouncing Rambam's radical opinions. Yet this was the same Ramban who wrote an important letter defending Rambam in the Maimonidean controversy!

Nor was it only with Rambam that Ramban was able to find respect even while considering his opinions to be near, or actual, heresy. When writing to the rabbis of Northern France, whom he had heard to view God as being corporeal, Ramban addresses them with great respect, as he politely informs them of the error of their ways.

It's not easy to respect those with whom one disagrees so strongly. We would do well to learn from Ramban.

(See too Bernard Septimus, "Open Rebuke and Concealed Love: Nahmanides and the Andalusian Tradition," in Isadore Twersky, ed., Rabbi Moses Nahmanides (Ramban): Explorations in His Religious and Literary Virtuosity (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983), 11-34)

(On another note: If you live in London, and you are free on Monday November 28, please contact me!)

Interview with a Post-Charedi Jew

2011-11-06T09:29:00.000+02:00

My article on Post-Haredim was picked up by several media outlets and caused quite a stir. I received some interesting complimentary feedback from some very well-known figures in the Charedi world, but unfortunately I cannot reveal their names. In preparing the article, I interviewed several people whom I identified as post-Chareidi in order to clarify the reasons for their change. One of them, a very serious Ben Torah who spent many years in kollel and still comes across as Chareidi in many ways, sent me his answers by e-mail:

I decided to become Post-Chareidi due to:

(A) My disillusionment with the Chareidi leadership. In particular:
(1) Their disconnectedness from the economic situation, or more accurately - fate of Chareidi society and instead of providing solutions, blasting people and organizations who are, and persisting forcefully in their agenda of keeping everyone in learning/ begging at all costs
(2) Their intolerance, and worse: their breeding of intolerance, for any school of thought deviating even in the slightest from their own; each leader creating thereby several elitist and bigoted societies
(3) Their narrow viewpoint regarding Chazal-and-science, and social issues
(4) Their handling of their reaction to Rabbi Slifkin's books.

(B) My growing distance from the lifestyle, habits and attitudes of the classic Chareidi society members. In particular:
(1) Their contempt for Religious Zionist and Modern Orthodox people
(2) Their looking down upon working men as a lower class member of society - unless he donates sufficient money to Chareidi causes, in which case he actually becomes a member of the highest class of Chareidi society (after the Gedolim)
(3) Contempt for general knowledge
(4) Demand of a learning-only lifestyle as an ideal even in the case of economic lack, to the point of lacking fulfillment of familial, moral and social obligations
(5) Their, up until recently, indifference to environmental issues and issues that pertain to the health and stability of society outside of moral issues
(6) Their attitude towards national responsibility outside of the spreading of Jewish practice and belief.

(C) My exposure to, and adoption of objective analysis of alternative schools of thought and lifestyles to Chareidi thought and lifestyle.

This response was fairly typical of what others told me.

In other news, I was pleased to read this article in Ha-aretz, of all places, about post-post-Zionism.

And in yet other news, I still have some openings in my February lecture tour in New York - please email me if you would like to arrange something.

The Making of Post-Haredim

2011-11-03T06:02:00.002+02:00

(A shorter version of this article appears in The Jerusalem Post - and, much to my surprise, at Vos Iz Neias!)

Seven years ago, three of my books were placed in herem by three dozen leading rabbis from the haredi rabbinic establishment in Israel and the US. This was due to my adopting a Maimonidean approach to resolving conflicts between Torah and science—that the account of creation is not to be interpreted literally as referring to a six-day creation, and that the Sages of Talmud were mistaken in some of their statements regarding the natural world. While I sympathized with the concerns of these rabbinic leaders about the effects of such an approach upon those in their community with simple faith, I could not accept that this approach was heretical. It became clear to me that with my line of work, I could not continue to lead my life in the haredi community.

But I was not (at the time) ready to define myself as Modern Orthodox or Religious Zionist. And so when people asked me what I was, I replied with what I thought was an original response: if people who are disillusioned with Zionism are called “post-Zionists,” and people who are disillusioned with Judaism are called “post-religious,” then someone who is disillusioned with Haredism is “post-haredi.”

To my surprise, I eventually discovered that I had not come up with an original idea. The label “post-haredi” (in Hebrew, haredi le’she-avar, abbreviated as hardla”sh) is used by many people. Yet this group is little known or understood.

Post-haredim are not to be confused with the Orthoprax Jews described in a recent Jerusalem Post Magazine article (Sam Sokol, “Haredi Against Their Will,” 10/14/2011). Whereas Orthoprax Jews lack belief in the fundamentals of Judaism, post-haredim do not (necessarily) suffer from any such lack of belief. Instead, they are regular Orthodox Jews who no longer subscribe to Haredi ideology. Some post-haredim remain in the haredi community, either due to inertia or due to their valuing their social ties and community. Others secede from it, changing their manner of dress and moving into a different social and cultural framework. There is not a clear line between the more moderate haredim (such as many Anglo-haredim) and post-haredim; in Betar and Bet Shemesh, the revolutionary Tov political party rejects the haredi system of rabbinic authority, and is supported by a spectrum of people ranging from moderate haredi to post-haredi.

What is it that causes post-haredim to reject the haredi ideology? The answer to this question is best understood by analyzing how the haredi approach to Judaism developed. Contrary to what some may believe, neither Moses nor Maimonides were haredi. Haredi Judaism developed from Orthodox Judaism, which itself differed in small but significant ways from the traditional Judaism that preceded it.

Orthodox Judaism, as the term is used in the academic study of Jewish history (as opposed to the colloquial sense of “observant”), arose in the nineteenth century as a response to the challenges of the Enlightenment and emancipation, and particularly in response to the assault upon traditional Judaism by the Reform movement. In the face of systematic and sweeping deviation from traditional beliefs and practices, traditionalists found it necessary to separate themselves into a distinct sub-community within the Jewish People and to develop a more conservative approach to Judaism in general.

Originally, there were roughly three streams of Orthodoxy in Europe. There was the relatively liberal neo-Orthodoxy of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch and Rabbi Dr. Ezriel Hildesheimer, which advocated adopting the best from the modern world while maintain fidelity to Jewish law. There was the extreme ultra-Orthodoxy of the northeast Hungarians, led by Rabbi Hillel Lichtenstein and Rabbi Akiva Yosef Schlesinger, which was formed not only in response to Reform, but more so in response to the more liberal forms of Orthodoxy, and rejected all secular knowledge and any accommodation to modernity. In between these extremes was the Orthodoxy of Rabbi Moses Sofer (“Hatam Sofer”) and Rabbi Moses Schick.

But over time, the extreme form of ultra-Orthodoxy began to overwhelm the other approaches. In the face of the novel phenomenon of Jews organizing themselves politically (such as with the Zionist movement) and the new personal autonomy of the modern period, Orthodox Jews created Agudath Israel and, in order to bring the Hassidic groups on board, dramatically recast the traditional model of rabbinic authority into the modern manifestation known as “Daat Torah.” The process whereby Orthodoxy became ever more withdrawn from the modern world was further assisted after the destruction of European Jewry in the Holocaust, and the subsequent re-creation of Jewish communities in Israel and the US, when the structure of the Orthodox community changed. Instead of the public synagogue being the locus of religious life, and the community rabbi being the main rabbinic authority, it was the ivory tower of the yeshivah which took center stage, and the heads of the yeshivot who gradually took the reins of rabbinic authority. Furthermore, with the increasing laxity and encroachment of modernity, the conservatism of Orthodoxy was accelerated to an unprecedented degree. As contemporary culture became ever more antithetical to religious values and invaded the home, haredi Judaism responded by building ever higher walls in an attempt to keep it out.

The resultant problems are well-known to all observers of haredi society. The system of mass open-ended kollel, originally created to recover the losses of the Holocaust, has long exceeded its original goals and is ultimately unsustainable. The increasingly extreme conservatism of haredi society results in intellectual and social mores that are often excessive in their restrictions. When rabbinic authority is invested in yeshivah deans who are isolated from wider society, and often “handled” by various assistants, abuses of rabbinic power are inevitable. And a siege mentality developed in which any criticism of haredi society, even coming from the inside, was to be fought or silenced.

As a result, many people in haredi society—including both those born into that society as well as those who joined it in youthful idealism—have grown dissatisfied with it. For some, such as myself, it is dissatisfaction with the narrow boundaries of Haredi thought, which stands in sharp contrast to significant classical schools of thought within Judaism. For others, it is dissatisfaction with various aspects of Haredi society, such as its implementation of rabbinic authority, its relative indifference to wider national issues of the economy and national security, or its heavy social pressures regarding even non-halachic lifestyle aspects.

Ironically, the post-haredi movement is occurring at a time when the haredi world itself is undergoing a process of reversal from its previous excesses. Many more haredim are entering the workforce, and there is even a haredi division in the army. The internet is radically changing the dynamics of discourse and free speech in the haredi world. New weekly magazines such as Mishpachah feature positive profiles of non-haredi figures and delicately air various criticisms of haredi policies, despite the shrill protests of “establishment” publications such as Yated Ne’eman.

But for post-haredim, it’s too little, too late.

Rabbi Natan Slifkin is the author of a variety of works on the relationship between Judaism, zoology and the natural sciences. His website is www.zootorah.com and he also maintains a popular blog, www.rationalistjudaism.com.

Mighty Mouse Struggles

2011-11-02T15:01:00.000+02:00

Earlier this week, Daf Yomi reached the topic of the mud-mouse - the mouse that is (allegedly) generated from dirt. I have a chapter dedicated to this mythical creature in my book Sacred Monsters (and my views on it are part of why my books were put in cherem). The people that encountered this topic fall into three categories, two of which are of little interest to me, and of which fascinates me.

One group is aware that there ain't no such critter, and acknowledges that Chazal (the Sages of the Talmud) shared the mistaken beliefs of everyone else in these things. They follow the approach of Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch, who wrote as follows:

"Imagine if a scholar such as Humboldt had lived in their times and had traveled to the ends of the world for his biological investigations. If upon his return he would report that in some distant land there is a humanoid creature growing from the ground or that he had found mice that had been generated from the soil and had in fact seen a mouse that was half-earth and half-flesh and his report was accepted by the world as true, would we not expect Chazal to discuss the Torah aspects that apply to these instances? What laws of Tum'ah and Taharah apply to these creatures? Or would we expect them to go on long journeys to find out whether what the world has accepted is really true? And if, as we see things today, these instances are considered fiction, can Chazal be blamed for ideas that were accepted by the naturalists of their times? And this is what really happened. These statements are to be found in the works of Pliny, who lived in Rome at the time the second Beis ha'Mikdash was destroyed, and who collected in his books on nature all that was well-known and accepted in his day."

This group of people has the correct approach, and is thus of little interest to me.

The second group consists of people who are entirely unaware that no such creature exists, and are completely confident in the absolute factual truth of everything in the Gemara. The weekly booklet Me'oros HaDaf Yomi took it for granted that such a creature exists, and happily cited R. Yom Tov Lippman Heller's view that it presents evidence for creation ex nihilo.

This group of people has an incorrect approach, but it doesn't bother me or interest me that much. In some ways, I am jealous of their simple faith; I have little desire to change their minds.

The third group of people is the one that intrigues me. These are the people who are pretty sure that no such creature exists, but cannot bring themselves to say so - either because they are genuinely uncomfortable with the notion that Chazal could be mistaken, or because they are afraid to publicly say so. And so they have a mighty struggle with this mouse.

One person told me this week that he had heard of a certain Rabbi in Bar-Ilan's Beis HaMidrash program (i.e. not the academic departments) who claimed that the Gemara was, in fact, referring to a type of snail. Leaving aside the question of how a snail can be part dirt and generated from dirt, there is the rather obvious problem that there is a perfectly good word for snail, chilazon, rather than achbar, which always refers to a mouse.

When Rav Aharon Feldman from Baltimore switched sides regarding the controversial ban on my books, and decided to insist that Chazal were infallible in science, I asked him if he really believes that there is a mouse that is generated from dirt. I knew that he was a worldly person, and so I wanted to see his response. Rav Feldman replied that scientists are constantly discovering new and amazing phenomena - why shouldn't it be true? I received the impression, though, that he was trying to convince himself rather than me.

I posed the same question to one of the rabbis that had endorsed one of my books but was retracting his haskamah out of deference to Rav Moshe Shapiro, who insisted that Chazal were infallible. "Do you really believe that there is a mud-mouse?" I asked him. He paused for a while, and then said, "I don't know." I argued that he wasn't being honest with himself, but what I should have pointed out that Rav Moshe Shapiro demanded that people believe that there definitely was such a thing, not that they do not absolutely deny it!

If anyone here attends a Daf Yomi class, can you post a comment saying what the maggid shiur said about this topic?

Nothing To Gloat About

2011-11-01T16:01:00.000+02:00

About a year ago, I posted about the overall lack of concern in the Charedi community for Gilad Shalit, compared to the tremendous concern for the yeshivah boys in Japan (and for Sholom Rubashkin). One charedi Rav told me that it was understandable, since Shalit is not part of their community, and people naturally feel much closer to those from their own community. But last week, I was amazed when I saw the editorial in Mishpachah magazine, which triumphantly claimed that no gentile could understand the tremendous achdus of the Jewish People in their concern for Shalit, who have all been praying for him for years! It proceeded, displaying incredibly poor taste, to express pity for the Shalit family, who have "a kind of disability" in not knowing the joy of being religious and being able to thank Hashem for Gilad's release.

A friend of mine wrote the following letter to Mishpachah, with some penetrating insights and stark facts from his own community; I am not confident of its chances of being printed, so I am presenting it here:

The Editor
Mishpacha
5809 16th Avenue
Brooklyn
NY11204

Sunday, 30 October 2011

Dear Sir,

Re: “They didn’t feel the Divine caress” by Rabbi Moshe Grylak

Your magazine, on the whole, is to be praised for dealing with interesting and sometimes challenging issues which, hitherto, have been pushed under the carpet or ignored by our Community. This is a valuable service which in many areas is reaping rich rewards.

However, you have seriously let yourselves and your readers down by publishing the “Point of View” column regarding the Shalit family’s response to the release of Gilad Shalit.

Firstly, let’s debunk the myth of Achdus which Rabbi Grylak postulates.

The Charedi community didn’t give a hoot about Gilad Shalit. This was sadly reflected in my own community of Manchester, UK, a community which includes approximately 10,000 Charedi Jews. Over the five and a half long years of Gilad Shalit’s captivity there have been several rallies and meetings to show the outside world, the Government of Israel, and indeed the Shalit family that the Jews of Manchester shared the pain, cared about Gilad and yearned for his release. Where were the Charedi population of Manchester? Absent. Not a minyan of Charedim attended these rallies and meetings.

Contrast that with the turnout for a similar meeting to raise money and support for “Our boys in Japan.” There were over a thousand Charedi men jammed into the hall, with hundreds more outside, clamoring to hear stirring words about the importance of Pidyon Shevuyim.

In various Orthodox publications (including your own) there have been numerous adverts with the leading Rabbonim urging us to daven for the Yeshiva Bochurim in Japan - and quite rightly so - we should all daven for them, they are our brothers. But where were the adverts from the same Rabbonim urging us to daven for Gilad ben Aviva - who is also our brother? They were absent.

When the gatherings took place to say Tehillim for the boys, would it not have been appropriate to add Gilad’s name? No, it wasn’t added, because he is not “one of us”.

So please, Rabbi Grylak, don’t patronize your readers with platitudes about the “Achdus of Am Yisrael, described by the Torah commentators with the analogy, ‘when one part is hurt, the whole body feels it’.” That, I’m afraid applies only when the “part” that is hurt is from one particular section of the body.

And the reason that this lamentable lack of display of care about Gilad Shalit existed in the Charedi Community is due to the very same elitism which Rabbi Grylak eschews in his column. He highlights what he calls the family’s “lack of Emunah. They lack belief in the Creator; they lack belief that when a Jew suffers the Shechina suffers as well”. True, he condescendingly states, “It’s not their fault”. Nevertheless, this attitude of “Nebach, the poor Chilonim, they don’t know any better” merely adds to the feelings and display of elitism and disdain for anyone not in their “club”.

How dare Rabbi Grylak criticize Gilad Shalit’s reaction on his release! Gilad Shalit, in common with thousands of other young men, put his life on the line to protect the Holy Land so that the rest of us can go about our daily lives in relative security. That was his Avodas Hashem, every bit as important as ours and Rabbi Grylak’s.

Hashem is not one dimensional, He appreciates every type of mesiras nefesh for Am Yisroel - not just the Charedi version. Sgt. Shalit was moser nefesh, spending 5 1/2 years in, no doubt, horrible conditions for his Avodah. How does Rabbi Grylak know what is in the heart of that young man or his family? How does he know what thanks to the Divine Being is in his mind and heart? In addition, the fact that Noam Shalit went to ask for Brochos from the Gedolim, in itself demonstrates that deep inside him stirs a recognition of the Borei Olam.

The Mishna in Avos (Perek 2 Mishna 5) tells us clearly, “do not judge your fellow until you are in his place”. Chas Veshalom that Rabbi Grylak or any other person should be in Gilad’s place!

No, we are not in a position to criticize his or his family’s reaction - only to salute his and their courage and to thank the Ribbono Shel Olam and his shlichim for his safe return.

Yours faithfully,

Dr. Jonathan Lieberman
Manchester, UK

Rambam: The greatest doctor and architect of them all?

2011-10-31T09:49:00.000+02:00

In its erev Rosh HaShanah edition, HaModia printed the following remarkable story:

The following story was told to me by the son of one of the prominent Roshei Yeshivah of the last generation.

One morning, shortly after Pesach, the Gadol called his son to say that he had noticed some blood and needed a ride to the doctor’s office. The doctor was, in fact, worried enough about the possibility of intestinal cancer to immediately schedule an appointment for his patient with a well-known gastroenterologist.

Walking back to the car with his father, the son expressed concern over the possibility of receiving a frightening diagnosis from the specialist. The Rosh Yeshivah responded with the following story: An architect once told the Netziv that there was a ﬂaw in the Volozhin yeshivah building; if the defect was not corrected, the expert said, the building would surely collapse.

But the Netziv was not at all alarmed; since the building had been constructed in accordance with structural principles laid out by the Rambam, he told the expert, there was simply no possibility that it would fall in. (Not long ago, I spoke to someone who recently visited Volozhin, and he reports that the building is still standing.)

“It is not possible that I have intestinal cancer,” the Gadol told his son. “The Rambam gave his havtachah that anyone who follows his directives for healthful eating, as I have, will not get sick.”

The Bosh Yeshivah’s trust in the Rambam’s guarantee was well-warranted, as it turned out. When the examination revealed no evidence of bleeding, the specialist questioned the patient about any recent dietary changes. He soon determined that the temporary bleeding had likely been caused by intestinal irritation brought on by the maror the Rosh Yeshivah had eaten at the Sedarim.

I have no idea if either the story about the unnamed Rosh Yeshivah or the story about the Netziv are true. But there are many problems with both of them.

First of all, where does the Rambam write about structural requirements in building a house? I'm not saying that he doesn't - but I consulted a few people and nobody could think of where he writes about such a thing. This leads me to doubt the veracity of the story (but it is true that Volozhin is still standing).

Second, and most importantly, Rambam did not even believe that Chazal any supernatural insights into science. He even believed that prophets were fallible in such things. All the more so would he not have believed himself to possess any supernatural, infallible insights into either architecture or physiology. (See too Menachem Kellner, "Maimonides on the Science of the Mishneh Torah: Provisional or Permanent?")

It is true that Rambam in Hilchos Deyos 4:30 gives an assurance that anyone who follows his dietary and medical advice will never fall sick. But this was no kabbalist's promise (however much they are worth). It was simply a reflection of his belief that he was an excellent physician who had selected the best of Galenic medicine.

Rambam had some excellent advice about healthy eating, exercise, and clean air. But I would not recommend anyone to fully follow his advice; after all, he disapproved of eating fruits. And his medical advice in general was based upon obsolete ideas of "the four humors" and certainly exhibited the standard flaws of medieval medicine, such as recommending a small amount of bloodletting in the spring and fall.

A recent Jewish book about eating a healthy diet purports to be based upon Rambam's principles and claims that "the foundation of this system is perfectly up to date and reliable." I have not read the book, but the evidence given for this claim is rather shaky. The author writes that "Rabbis, doctors and nutritionists have read through this book and verified its principles" - but to what extent does his book accurately reflect Rambam's system? And the fact that "the commentaries on Rambam's works maintain that his advice about health and the prevention of disease remains relevant today" is hardly evidence that it actually is accurate.

I am also wondering to what extent the unnamed Rosh Yeshivah was really following Rambam's advice in such things. Was he engaging in bloodletting? And it is especially interesting that his intestinal bleeding resulted from eating maror. That sounds like he was eating a sizable quantity of horseradish. But according to Rambam, suitable foods for maror are wild lettuce and endives, not horseradish, and a kezayis is the size of an olive. He should have followed Rambam in that area!

Yet I have no doubt that a person who believes himself to be following Rambam's dietary and medical advice, and who believes that Rambam has some kind of divine authority in his assurance, will be extra healthy. My reason for this is not that I believe that Rambam's medical advice competes with that of modern medicine. Rather, it is that the placebo effect is extremely powerful. (Incidentally, Rambam himself was quite ahead of his time in his realization of the power of the placebo effect!)

I'll sign off with the old story about the man who attended a shiur from his Rav about how the Gemara instructs a house to be built. He decided to build his house exactly according to the Gemara's standards, and spent many months constructing it. But as he finished hammering in the final nail, the entire house suddenly collapsed. Furious, the man came to his Rav to complain. The Rav says: "You know, Tosafos asks that question!"

(Thanks to S. for some links)

The Novelty of Orthodoxy

2011-10-30T06:13:00.000+02:00

Is Orthodox Judaism a new phenomenon? Many Jews believe that Judaism has always been Orthodox. In the academic study of Jewish history, on the other hand, Orthodox Judaism is widely considered to be a modern phenomenon, beginning with figures such as Chatam Sofer - but some have recently challenged this view.

I am pleased to announce the e-publication of a new monograph, "The Novelty of Orthodoxy," which explores this topic. The monograph can be downloaded after making a donation via PayPal. The recommended donation for readers of this website is $5. There are some people who, incredibly, always pay only one cent, but others, who feel that they have gained much from the Rationalist Judaism enterprise, express their appreciation with a larger donation, which is gratefully appreciated.

You can make a donation via PayPal or credit card by clicking on the following icon. After the payment, it will automatically take you to a download link for the document.

In other news, this week I am beginning a mini-series of live internet shiurim at WebYeshivah, on various topics relating to Judaism and zoology. Click here for more details and registration.

Is It Acceptable To Believe That...

2011-10-27T08:07:00.000+02:00

Many of the questions that I receive begin with "Is it acceptable to believe that..." For example:

Is it acceptable to believe that evolution happened?
Is it acceptable to believe that there was no global flood?
Is it acceptable to believe that the Sages were mistaken on various matters?
Is it acceptable to believe that parts of the Chumash are non-Mosaic in origin?
Is it acceptable to believe that the Lubavitcher Rebbe/ Rabbi Elazar Abuchatzera/ Nir Ben Artzi was/is the Messiah/ a miracle worker/ a charlatan?

My answer to all these questions is identical.

Acceptable according to whom?

According to some people it is acceptable, according to others it is not!

If they are asking whether it is acceptable to God - well, I don't have a direct line. Presumably, if the belief is true, then it is acceptable to Him (but still not to all sectors of Orthodox Jewish society). If it is not true, then it may or may not be acceptable to Him, but people asking me these questions are usually those who already believe these things to be true.

All I can do is to give my own knowledge as to the extent to which these opinions are supported by earlier authorities or conflict with them. But that will not determine whether they are acceptable in any given Jewish community today.

I once published an article in Hakirah which addresses this point, entitled "They Could Say It, We Cannot: Defining the Charge of Heresy." It can be freely downloaded at this link: http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%209%20Slifkin.pdf

Changing the Siddur

2011-10-25T22:01:00.004+02:00

There is a raging controversy regarding "Open Orthodoxy" and especially its changes to the role of women in Judaism. I must confess that I am really, really not "up" on it. It hasn't reached Israel, and it doesn't actually interest me that much.

Personally, I am fairly conservative, with a small "c," from a halachic standpoint. I believe that in order for Orthodoxy to survive, it must follow the approach of Rav Glasner and Rav Herzog, whereby we accept the authority of Chazal regardless of whether we agree with their reasoning. I believe that, in the face of contemporary challenges to the halachic lifestyle and ideology, a certain amount of stubborn rigidity is required (which is one reason why I don't wear techeles, despite being convinced that it is the Murex trunculus). I see God as undeniably and necessarily unequal in His distribution of opportunities. I see it as being perfectly reasonable, as well as strongly supported by modern science, to state that the differences between men and women extend beyond their physical differences. And I am way too suspicious of the transient nature of contemporary morality to demand that Judaism conform to it.

With that introduction, let me draw your attention to a source that recently crossed my path, and to an observation.

First, the source. Embarrassed apologies if I am late to the party with this one, but the idea that only a modern feminist Reformer would be dissatisfied with the berachah of shelo asani ishah appears to be neatly refuted by this Italian woman's siddur from 1471, which changes the berachah of she-asani kirtzono to she-asisani ishah ve-lo ish:

Though I must frankly admit to being personally very glad that Hashem did not make me a woman!

Second, an observation: It is ironic that, of those who protest the loudest about how any change to the siddur is unthinkable, they are often from communities in which a certain tefillah that was recited by many of their ancestors for generations has been utterly exorcised: Hanosein teshuah le-melachim. Apparently it's okay to change the siddur if you believe that you are doing so for a really, really good reason (which, in the particular case of Hanosein teshuah le-melachim, entirely escapes me).

(On another note, I will be visiting London of a lecture tour for the last weekend of November, speaking at Golders Green synagogue and other places to be announced.)

Dealing with the Deluge

2011-10-24T06:56:00.004+02:00

It's that time of year again... so here is a slightly expanded version of my previous post regarding the Deluge. (I've added some more links.)

Over the years I've received numerous questions about reconciling the traditional view of Noah's Flood with modern science. There are two sets of problems. First are those concerning the scientific impossibility of such an event - how the animals survived, how they got to their various locations, where the water came from, etc. These can all be answered by simply positing numerous miracles, but this is not satisfactory for those who follow the approach of Rambam and others which seeks to minimize supernatural miracles. The second set of problems is based not on the scientific impossibility of such an event, but instead upon the evidence that even a supernatural event of this nature did not happen - i.e. the evidence and records of continuous civilizations throughout the entire period.

There are a variety of different ways of approaching this topic. I tried discussing some of them online back in the summer of 2004, which may well have been one of the factors leading to the ban on my books, and my comments were subsequently widely and wildly (and sometimes deliberately) misquoted. So instead of discussing it, I will just provide references to further reading material which shed light on various different approaches. Many people will condemn these approaches as unacceptable, but until they have a credible response to the scientific difficulties with the simple understanding, they would be wiser to remain silent.

First and foremost, I strongly recommend that people struggling with this difficulty read The Challenge Of Creation, preferably the third edition. I only explicitly deal with the flood in footnote 2 on page 302 (third edition), but there are many other parts of the book which are actually more relevant in terms of determining which options are available and acceptable - in particular, chapters 6-8, and 14-15.

Other relevant sources (remember, not all of these present the same approach) are:

Joel B. Wolowelsky, “A Note on the Flood Story in the Language of Man,” Tradition 42:3 (Fall 2009) pp. 41-48.

Rabbi Gedalyah Nadel, BeToraso Shel Rabbi Gedalyah, pp. 116-119.

Umberto (Moshe David) Cassuto, From Adam to Noah (Jerusalem: Magnes Press 1961).

Rabbi Dovid Tzvi Hoffman, commentary to Genesis, pp. 140-141.

Rabbi J. Hertz’s “Additional Notes to Genesis” at the back of The Pentateuch.

Nahum Sarna, "Understanding Genesis" (New York: Schocken Books 1966). (Note that this is not an Orthodox book, but it contains valuable insights.)

Rav Kook's letter on literalism, translated here.

Marc Shapiro's postings on this topic (I, II, and commentary by Rav Moshe Shamah here).

Chief Rabbi Dr. Jonathan Sacks' essay on the Deluge and the Tower of Babel (here)

Natan Slifkin, "Historical Records Vs. Dramatic Accounts"

Lorence Collins, "Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth."

It's Sukkos: Trick or Treat!

2011-10-19T15:47:00.000+02:00

On the first day of Sukkos, there was a knock at the door. I opened it to find a group of children thrusting a bag in front of me. "We're Sukkah-hopping!" they announced.

I was rather taken aback. It occurred to me that my shock might be because I am English; I am likewise a little disturbed at the custom of ~~Christmas~~ Chanukah presents, which would have been way too Christian to do when I grew up in England. But my American wife was likewise surprised at the kids who showed up begging for candy. "Is it Halloween?" she asked me.

We had Sukkah-hopping in England, but it was something else entirely. It meant visiting friends' sukkahs, and enjoying a snack in their company. But the numerous groups of kids who kept showing up over the course of Yom Tov to the home of complete strangers were not doing that. Kitted out with bulging collection bags, they were on a mission to obtain free sugary loot (especially the kind for which one is not even obligated to make a "lesheiv").

It became such an issue this year in Bet Shemesh/ Ramat Bet Shemesh that people were arguing about it on the local e-mail discussion group. There were those who said that it's a harmless way of helping kids enjoy Chag. Others said that they are glad to host children in their sukkah for singing, divrei Torah and friendly discussion, while enjoying snacks, but they will not give to kids who come with a collection bag to take treats away.

Personally, I agree with the latter. The sort of "Sukkah hopping" that we saw this year was no different from the Halloween custom of trick-or-treating (to which, incidentally, many in England objected when it was imported from the US). Usually, "trick or treat" does not involve a genuine threat of a trick; it's just a vague mention of one - just like "We're sukkah hopping!" has a vague guilt trip that for the sake of Sukkos, you should give candy!

But even if it's a bit of a stretch to view trick-or-treating, and sukkah-hopping, as mild extortion, it's certainly begging. There was a time when even some children once objected to this: for Halloween 1948, members of the Madison Square Boys Club in New York City carried a parade banner that read "American Boys Don't Beg." Today, with the decline of the work ethic, and the rise of the "I deserve everything" generation, this is particularly problematic.

The harm of teaching kids to beg is even more problematic in Orthodox Jewish society. In the last few decades, we have witnessed the rise of the charedi belief that it is normal, legitimate and even preferable to not work for a living, and to instead depend upon the community to support private study which is not directed towards serving any communal purpose. This is notwithstanding the fact that it goes against explicit directives of Chazal (e.g. that "it is better to flay carcasses in the market than to rely upon the community for support") as well as going against the much-vaunted "mesorah" (in which the mass kollel phenomenon was entirely unknown until a few years ago). A recent article in Ami magazine interviewed a "radical" member of the Israeli charedi world who said that the way of "true Judaism" is to combine work and study - for those who lack the aptitude or the motivation to study and cannot make it as full-time learners!

The way of "true Judaism," as described by Chazal, is that it is shameful to beg for our needs and desires, and to expect people to give you something when you are giving them nothing in return. So if your kid comes to my door and wants to share the joy of Sukkos, I'd be glad for him/her to come in to our Sukkah, have a snack, make a berachah and talk. But no collecting bag!

Gilad is Not a Number

2011-10-15T19:13:00.000+02:00

The impending trade for Gilad Schalit is simultaneously wonderful and terrifying. I must confess that my initial euphoria was tempered when I read details of exactly who is being released. Having said that, in this post I would like to rebut two arguments against the trade that I believe to be mistaken from a Torah perspective.

One argument against the trade is that it simply does not make mathematical sense. Without downplaying the importance of saving Gilad, at the end of the day he is just one person, whereas many more are likely to lose their lives as a result of the trade. Just do the math!

This argument, however, is incorrect. Consider the halachah regarding a town of Jews that is besieged by gentiles who order that one Jew must be handed over, or everybody will be killed. Mathematically, it would make sense to hand over one person. But the halachah is that nobody is to be handed over and all are to be killed. I do not mean to draw an exact parallel between that case and this case (there is a dispute regarding the halachah in that case if an individual is actually specified by the gentiles). Rather, the point is that sometimes it's not a matter of weighing up the number of lives involved. In that case, it is better to lose the lives of everyone rather to actively judge one person's life as being worth less than the others. In our case, it can be argued that the ordeal of Gilad's imprisonment is so great for him, his family and for the Jewish People (or at least, for those who aren't only concerned with Rubashkin) that he must be released even at great cost. That may or may not be a valid argument, but it should not be rejected for simply mathematical reasons.

Others who argue against the trade point to the case of Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg (1215-1293) who was kidnapped and refused to allow the Jewish community to pay the ransom. They argue that this shows that such trades should not be done.

But in my view, one cannot draw such an inference. Rabbi Meir was making a decision about sacrificing himself. As Rabbi Dr. David Shatz has shown in his excellent Jewish Thought In Dialogue, the halachah permits a much greater degree of autonomy over one's own life than it does for others. If we consider the previous example of the Jewish town besieged by gentiles, we see this very clearly: while the halachah absolutely prohibits selecting someone to be handed over, a person is permitted (and even praised) if he volunteers himself to be sacrificed. Gilad Schalit has made no such choice, and nor should he be expected to do so - in fact, I would suggest that most of the nation would not even want him to do so. Indeed, one could argue that the situation is reversed: the majority of Israel's population, who apparently support the trade, have collectively volunteered to shoulder the security risk incurred by releasing the terrorists.

Again, all this is not to say that the trade should be done. Although my gut feeling is that it must be done, the bottom line is that I simply don't know. In my humble opinion, there is simply no clear answer as to whether it is right or wrong, and I'm glad that it's not me who has to make such a tough decision. But the decision has in any case already been made. Our task is to pray, as we did today in the misheberach for captured soldiers, that Gilad should return safely, with both a refuas haguf and a refuas hanefesh.

Miscellanous Notes

2011-10-11T23:20:00.000+02:00

I. Here's an interesting perspective: Former Sudanese Slave: “Calling Israel a racist state is absolutely absurd and immoral.”

II. And here's an interesting question that someone forwarded to me: Should a rationalist knock on his head when saying על חטא? After all, the reason we knock on the heart is to say that the heart caused us to sin!... (Answer: No.)

III. I have no idea what's going on in Lakewood, but take a look at the following two letters:

Some observations:
1. Finally, some "Gedolim" admit that they were fed false information regarding a letter that they had signed. They also claim that other signatures turned out to be fake - is the implication that they had signed based on believing them to be genuine and relying on them?
2. Note that they give two reasons for retracting their signatures - first, that the true facts have come to light, and second, that Rav Elyashiv pressed them to do so. Remember the post about the two reasons principle? Whenever someone gives two reasons for something, the second reason is always the real one!
3. I bet that the victims of the first letter flexed some serious muscle.
3. What about the others - why didn't they retract their signatures?
4. Does anyone still take any of these letters seriously?

The Zoo Torah Experience

2011-10-10T11:35:00.000+02:00

Are you going to be in Israel this Sukkot (or any other time)? Are you looking for something to do with your family? Why schlep to a public attraction where you'll be hot and squashed? Experience the wonders of the animal kingdom, with a Torah perspective, in Ramat Bet Shemesh, with the Zoo Torah Experience!

. Encounter some extraordinary exotic animals - hands-on!

. Try out the world's most unusual shofars!

. Discover a variety of prehistoric fossils!

. Put your head in the jaws of a shark! (Body of shark not attached)

. And much, much more!

The Zoo Torah Experience is an educational and entertaining hands-on presentation, under the guidance of the Zoo Rabbi, Natan Slifkin, in his private collection at his home. You and your family will learn so much about Torah and wildlife, and you'll have a terrific time too! The price per group (up to twelve people, for a one-hour session) is $100; the deluxe two-hour experience is $180. For reservations, write to zoorabbi@zootorah.com or call 077-332-0678.

"I would like to personally recommend Rav Slifkin's Zoo Torah Family Experience. Rav Slifkin leads your family or group on an outdoor and indoor tour of his amazing collection of animals. All my children, ranging in age from toddler to 16 were captivated by Rav Slifkin's explanations and were thrilled to be able to handle some of the critters. Normally, on such a tour, my kids would huddle somewhere on the side, unwilling to push forward for a closer look, but the tours are private, so my kids were front and center the entire time. Rav Slifkin's collection of shofarot is stunning; you are unlikely to encounter such a collection anywhere else. There is plenty of time for questions, the tour is right here in RBS, and, quite frankly, we loved it!" - Gina Fishman, RBS resident

The Fracturing of Yom Kippur

2011-10-08T20:32:00.002+02:00

Yom Kippur has always seemed to be a day that unifies the Jewish People. Not only religious Jews, but even many secular Jews fast and attend shul. It is most impressive.

But it isn't always a unifying experience. Seven years ago on erev Yom Kippur, the first posters went up against my books, causing the worst Yom Kippur of my life. Some people were especially horrified that this was done on erev Yom Kippur. Personally, I didn't have such a problem with that. After all, from their perspective, they were saving the Jewish People - why not do that on erev Yom Kippur? True, when one is aware that there are differing views within the Orthodox community, perhaps a little restraint is called for, before taking advantage of Yom Kippur to pursue one's cause. But what can one expect? It is inevitable that people view Judaism, including Yom Kippur, through their own perspective.

A not entirely unrelated event occurred this year on erev Yom Kippur. I received an email, regarding viduy, on the Jem-Sem mailing list, which is sent to alumni (such as my wife) of various girls' charedi seminaries. It was from Rabbi Menachem Nissel - a super-nice person who unfortunately decided to be "mevatel daas" to Rav Moshe Shapiro in the controversy over my work and to condemn the approach of numerous Rishonim and Acharonim as kefirah. The email was about the Chidah, who composed a long lists of sins for which one should confess. In the words of Rabbi Nissel, "Rav Moshe Shternbuch rewrote them in a simplified 'immediately accessible' form. However it is very male-centric (transgressions with women, wasting time when studying Torah etc.) I rewrote it for women with Rav Shternbuchs consent and guidance." He also sent another version by a Rabbi Feigenbaum that was further abridged "for high school girls." Sounds great, I thought. But then I started to read it, and some things caught my attention.

In the Chidah's viduy, one of the confessions is for הִרְהַרְנוּ אַחֲרֵי רַבּוֹתֵינוּ. It's not an easy phrase to translate, but in my view, it has the connotation of thinking negative thoughts about one's rabbis, such as assigning nefarious motivations to them. In Rav Sternbuch's simplified version, this is translated as "We doubted our Rebbeim."

What?! Is is really a sin to doubt one's rebbeim? In some streams of Judaism, such as Hassidic streams, absolutely. But in other streams, there is absolutely nothing wrong in doubting one's rebbe. Rav Chaim of Volozhin writes:

"It is forbidden for a student to accept the words of his teacher when he has difficulties with them. And sometimes, the truth will lie with the student. This is just as a small branch can ignite a larger one." (Ruach Chaim to Avos 1:4)

So here is an example of how the universal viduy of Yom Kippur becomes interpreted in a way as to reflect the attitude of some, but not all, schools of thought. And one can imagine how the sin of "doubting one's rebbeim" is interpreted by a girl who just spent a year in seminary. It's a sin to doubt that you should marry a kollel guy!

With that in mind, let us turn to another one. In the Chidah's viduy, another of the confessions is for דִּבַּרְנוּ זִלְזוּל עַל הָרַבָּנִים רִאשׁוֹנִים וְאַחֲרוֹנִים אֲשֶׁר בְּאֶרֶץ הַחַיִּים הֵמָּה וַאֲשֶׁר עוֹדָם בַּחַיִּים, וְדָחִינוּ דִּבְרֵיהֶם מִבְּלִי שׂכֶל וּבְלִי מוּסָר וְיִרְאַת ה'. "We spoke disparagingly about the rabbis, Rishonim and Acharonim..." In Rav Sternbuch's brief paraphrase, this is condensed to "We disgraced Rabbis," which is fine. But in Rabbi Nissel's women-friendly version, it has become דִּבַּרְנוּ שֶׁלֹּא בַּכָּבוֹד הָרָאוּי עַל גְּדוֹלֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל "We have spoken about Gedolei Yisrael without proper respect"! And in Rabbi Feigenbaum's version, it has become "I spoke inappropriately about Chazal and Gedolei Yisroel" - omitting all the stages in between!

It is certainly a sin to speak about Gedolei Yisrael without proper respect. But what about respectful disagreement? Is it inappropriate to say that they were wrong about something? I could be reading too much into this, and I apologize if that is the case, but in light of previous incidents, I get the impression that this is likewise something for which people are being asked to atone. And wasn't the Chida's viduy about all Torah scholars over the generations, not "The Gedolim"? Isn't it also a sin to speak disrespectfully about Rishonim and Acharonim (such as by disparaging their views as kefirah or suchlike)?

Finally, there is something new that crops up in Rabbi Nissel's version which I find extremely puzzling: תָּרַמְנוּ מִכַּסְפֵּנוּ לִמְקוֹמוֹת שֶׁאָסוּר לָתֵת "We have donated money to places that it is forbidden to give to." Such as what?

I don't think that Rabbi Nissel or Rabbi Feigenbaum were consciously trying to transform the Chida's viduy into a charedi indoctrination strategy. But this is near-inevitably what happens when people interpret Yom Kippur through their own lens (although I wonder if a Centrist Orthodox rabbi would compose a viduy list with "We avoided denouncing chilul Hashem out of wanting to honor rabbis"). Any non-charedi person who is surprised that their daughter returns from seminary having been "brainwashed" has only themselves to blame. And it isn't enough to complain about it. If centrist Orthodoxy wants to perpetuate itself, it has to more actively work towards producing and supporting its own educators and educational materials.

* * *

I wrote the above on erev Yom Kippur, but I didn't get around to posting anything. So, a little belatedly, I would like to take this opportunity to ask forgiveness for anyone that I have written or spoken about inappropriately. If you a specific grievance, please feel free to write to me at zoorabbi@zootorah.com. Shanah tovah!

Charedi Judaism at a Crossroads

2011-10-05T06:49:00.009+02:00

(Part Two of my review of Professor Kellner's book will be posted at a later date. Meanwhile, here is an essay inspired by this article by my beloved mentor, Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein. It is NOT meant to mock or dispute what he wrote; rather, it is intended to show that it should be applied in other areas, too. And on the other hand, it is also intended to challenge those who considered his article to be too intolerant to consider whether they feel the same way about this article.)

What will the rabbinic leadership of the Charedi world do? A wave of provocations from the Far Right challenges the very definition of Judaism. Should Yidden in other parts of the community who are far from the battle lines care? It would take a navi to answer the first question. Responsibility for Klal Yisrael and caring for other Jews demands a resounding “yes” to the second.

Lots of things are happening in the Charedi world – some good, some not so good, and some astonishingly terrible. The far right of Charedi Orthodoxy seems to be intent on continuing an unrelenting drive to push the envelope and change the way people lead an Orthodox life. The Charedi Gedolim, who in many other ways are models of selfless commitment to ahavas Yisrael, have unfortunately become the charismatic leaders of what is now a movement. They led the campaign to brand a mainstream view amongst Rishonim and Acharonim as kefirah. They have also renounced the Gemara's obligation on a man to teach his son a trade, and on a person to take a lowly occupation rather than to insist that the community supports him, claiming that there is no halachic objection, since Eis La'Asos l'Hashem Heferu Torasecha. They have founded a new system of kollel for the masses without a time limit, which has been perpetuating this derech for a number of years. Charedi graduates have quietly slipped into pulpits around the country. It also sports a sister program for teaching girls that they need to support their husbands - in contrast to the traditional model described in the kesuvah.

The Charedim are not the only group flexing Far Right power. When the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA), the rabbinic umbrella group of Modern Orthodoxy worked to standardize giyur procedures for the benefit of future converts, some rabbis on the right were upset by what they saw as a “modernization” of the process, denying them the right to insist upon whatever stringencies they see as appropriate. They founded their own conversion organization, Eternal Jewish Family, which will promote its own competing batei din for giyur, relying on more “authentic” and strict standards they believe are found in certain teshuvos (such as that women must dress according to charedi standards, that one is required to believe that there was no age of dinosaurs, and that Dayanim may not wear colored shirts), ignoring the vast majority of poskim who disagree, and who have disagreed for a century. The children of many geirim are now being sentenced to lives of uncertainty, since the conversions of their parents – whether valid or not – could be questioned years from now, when all that is remembered is that the dayanim who presided over them rejected the standards of the Gedolim.

The Far Right does not rely on notoriety alone to capture attention. It makes steady and good use of the pashkevil, as well as the mainstream Jewish press, all aimed at the rest of the Orthodox community, and well beyond. One of its more effective tools is a newspaper called Yated Ne'eman, written by those who insist that nobody may argue with "the Gedolim," while another, The Jewish Observer, has been resurrected under the ironic name of "Dialogue."

Maintaining public visibility as denouncing many traditional Jewish attitudes produces much thunder and attracts significant media attention outside the Orthodox world. This is designed to increase pressure on mainstream rabbis, and move the majority of the community to view its changes as acceptable. People who lack the background in learning to analyze the arguments on both sides see a group of “authentic” rabbis making a strong stand, which seems like a good thing to them. Then they note a different group of “reactionary” rabbis who insist on scholarship and reasoned arguments. This generates enormous pressure on the center Orthodox to make concessions so as not to alienate growing numbers of their congregants. Years ago, the Far Right sought innovations like making chumras into the norm, and making it a bedieved to work for a living. Those changes are so commonplace that they have lost their cachet. Today the push is for even acknowledged non-halachic views of Rishonim and Acharonim to be "paskened" no longer permissible to be taught, and for traditional family models, whereby the husband works and supports his family, to be looked upon as bedi'eved.

To many, the Charedi axis looks at halacha in so many of its published psakim and communally dictated standards in a manner fundamentally different than the rest of us. It senses where it wants to go, and then looks for any vague aggadic statement within rabbinic tradition to justify it – but without having to offer any arguments for why their shitah is preferable or even defensible. Any shitos can be rejected on an as-needed basis. Absent is the sense of looking for an objective truth. That quest permeates hundreds of years of halachic literature: weighing all the views available, and only relying on those best supported by the evidence of the words of the gemara and rishonim.

Critics of Far Right halacha point to three other elements that differentiate it from traditional halacha:

• Very few on the far right can show any competence with theology, with the broad range of views in the Rishonim and Acharonim, or familiarity with wider society beyond the beis hamidrash.

• In traditional halacha, very serious questions are ruled upon in teshuvos, which provide the rationale for the answer. The right balks at this, seeing this as an affront to the untouchable status of the Gedolim, and prefers to issue decisions without justifications. It also believes that no views of anyone who is not part of the "Charedi Gedolim club," should have any status.

• In traditional halacha, the views of Rishonim are accorded great respect. In Far Right halachah, these are freely dismissed and condemned on the bizarre grounds that "they can say it, we cannot."

What should the Orthodox rabbinate do about the Charedi far-right? The question threatened to split the Orthodox world after the bans on Kamenetzky, Slifkin and Lipa, the silence on Tropper, the neglect of the abuse issue, and the economic collapse of the Charedi world. If even the gemara can be rejected in the name of a claim of it being "emergency times," where will this all lead? Given enough time (and enough headlines), can any shittah be paskened away? Even if no further changes are contemplated, doesn’t the approach suggest an understanding of mesorah fundamentally at odds with the rest of the Orthodox world, whereby mesorah means "what we do" as opposed to "what was traditionally done"?

It is difficult not to think of the dispute between the Wurzburger Rav and R. Samson Raphael Hirsch. When Orthodox Jews were given the right by law in 1876 to withdraw from the community structure dominated by Reform, Rav Seligman Ber Bamberger strongly that they should not. Jewish unity should be maintained, so long as the observant did not have to compromise with their observance of halacha. Rav Hirsch, however, felt that it was imperative to do so. No one can say who was objectively “correct” in that dispute, although the last generations have looked favorably upon Rav Hirsch’s bold decision. Some argue that today’s agonizing choice is different. In Germany, the lines of demarcation between Reform and Torah Judaism were clear. Today, many fear, those lines have to be drawn. To avoid erosion of Torah values and practice, the rest of the community must define the approach of the Far Right as so different, that it can no longer be called traditional Judaism as the rest of us know it.

Why should the more traditional part of the community care about issues completely off its radar? The problems with which the Charedi world is grappling are just not relevant to communities much further to the left. In fact, we should be able to identify several reasons.

Firstly, the impact upon areas of Orthodox cooperation will be enormous. If the Far Right grows stronger in untethering itself from both traditional hashkafos and accepted protocols of determining halacha, there will almost certainly be a reaction in the rest of the Orthodox world. Lemegdar milsa, to draw clear lines of differentiation, the traditional community will move in the opposite direction to oppose changes it sees as dangerous and illegitimate. We will drift even further apart. Cooperation in many areas – education, kashrus, kiruv, gerus, political advocacy – will be jeopardized or eliminated. Much of the left will argue that if Charedi Judaism can tolerate such aberrations in its midst rather than expelling it, than they cannot trust or continue to deal with the Charedim – especially if a Charedi presence becomes mingled with the Modern Orthodox representation in common enterprises. Cooperation that took decades to accomplish may quickly unravel.

The best reason to care is that the Torah demands it of us. Other frum Jews simply cannot be unconcerned about the future of hundreds of thousands of charedi brethren, many of whom are in danger of embracing a treif ideology. We must be concerned for their well being; all members of our spiritual family deserve our love. (Those on the Far Right also deserve our love, but at the moment it may have to be tough love! Sometimes, as a last resort, an errant child needs to be rebuffed before he or she can fully participate with the rest of the family. The gemara speaks of rebuking by distancing with the left hand, while drawing closer with the (stronger) right hand – and allows for reversing the hands at times!)

Minimally, HaKadosh Baruch Hu expects our deep concern about wide-scale counterfeiting of Torah, even if it does not impact upon us directly. We should be prepared to show it. Many charedi rabbis are showing extraordinary mesiras nefesh in refusing to compromise on what they received from their rabbeim. If you learn of a charedi mara de-asra in your community who is valiantly holding a line against incursions from the Far Right, consider offering some chizuk. Let the rov know that you generally daven elsewhere, but admire his tenacity in standing by the Torah while it is under assault. Let him know that while some people think that people’s Yiddishkeit is defined by what they wear on their heads, you believe that what they carry in their heads is far more important. And in that regard, we are much closer to each other than they can ever be to the Far Right.