Great post, as usual. Just want to nitpick on your intro:
>"Until recently, the worst explanation of a Torah verse that I ever heard was from a casually-Orthodox Jew some years back. He justified not being careful to follow halacha on the grounds that the Torah says, regarding observing the mitzvot, Ve-chai bahem, “And you shall live by them” - which he explained to mean that you have to live a life, and you can’t live life properly if you’re keeping all the mitzvot. Which is, of course, removing the entire point of the verse."
In fact, this "casually-Orthodox Jew" is assuming the standard well-known Talmudic interpretation of the verse:
רבי שמעון בן מנסיא אומר: ״ושמרו בני ישראל את השבת״, אמרה תורה: חלל עליו שבת אחת כדי שישמור שבתות הרבה. אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל: אי הואי התם, הוה אמינא דידי עדיפא מדידהו: ״וחי בהם״ — ולא שימות בהם.
Ed. Steinzaltz translation and explanation:
"Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya said: It is stated: “And the children of Israel shall keep Shabbat, to observe Shabbat” (Exodus 31:16). The Torah said: Desecrate one Shabbat on his behalf so he will observe many Shabbatot. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If I would have been there among those Sages who debated this question, I would have said that my proof is preferable to theirs, as it states: “You shall keep My statutes and My ordinances, which a person shall do and live by them” (Leviticus 18:5), and not that he should die by them. In all circumstances, one must take care not to die as a result of fulfilling the mitzvot."
To put it in academic terms, this rabbinic interpretation is antinomian, meaning, used to allow for behaviors that go against halacha. Exactly the way your interlocutor was using it, to not follow halacha 100 percent
The two explanations are not even close. Chazal understand it to mean that you don’t need to give up your actual life for most mitzvos; while this fool is arguing that since keeping mitzvos makes life difficult, you don’t need to bother, and he has the chutzpah to suggest that the Torah agrees with him!
In terms of the explanation of the Bible verse, it's essentially the same. Meaning, if it's a bad 'explanation of a Torah verse' and 'removing the entire point of the verse', the blame is on the Talmudic explanation. This interlocutor is (likely somewhat tongue in cheek) expanding the Talmudic interpretation from giving up life, to general difficulties. He doesn't say 'you don’t need to bother', he says 'not being careful'
But the Talmudic explanation DOESN'T remove the point of the verse! One still has to keep the mitzvos in all circumstances, except where doing so presents a risk to life. And there is no real difference between 'not bothering' and 'not being careful.'
The pshat of the verse, in context, is simply 'live by these laws'. Meaning, this is how you should act (paralleling the first part of the verse: ושמרתם את חקתי ואת משפטי אשר יעשה אתם האדם). The Talmud, as is its wont, reads it hyper-literally, as stressing 'live' as opposed to 'die'.
The tongue in cheek jokey drush, based on a talmudic reading, is pretty standard. I can't tell you how many times I've heard 'dati lite' people make the joke about eating out in a non kosher restaurant due to pikuach nefesh. And yes, there's a difference between not bothering and not being careful. Maybe from a purist perspective there isn't, but from a sociological perspective there is
I agree with you regarding the pshat of the verse. But to blame the Talmudic explanation for this 'jokey drush' is nonsensical. It's not the Talmud's fault if somebody takes its explanation (which doesn't remove the entire point of the verse) and expands it to make his own (which does).
1) it's a riff on the Talmud, clothed in biblical words. So it really has nothing to do with 'an explanation of a Torah verse'. The talmud reads it as living life, and this person explains living life in a metaphorical sense. Ironically, this person closes the circle: Bible -metaphor; talmud - literal; this person - metaphor.
2) again, he's not removing the point of the verse, he's moderating it, the same thing that the talmud is doing. He's justifying not following the strict letter of the law
There may be other discontinuities (polite word) in the Charedi approach.
1 An alleged crook is at or towards the top of a charedi party. What does that show about their Torah values in practice ? In the non-Jewish world business directors have to resign as soon as improprieties are alleged.
2 In the controversial legislation which led up to the crisis I understand that the charedim wanted to reduce the required age at which people were allowed to leave learning and go out to work. The "chilonim" wanted to leave the longer period required for staying in learning in place. So charedim apparently wanted less learning (a shorter obligation). And the chilonim wanted a longer obligation.
So who are the true supporters of learning - those who want less or those who want more ?
You didn't need to bring the very last point of the leaflet for the American rally. They were being deliberately mischievous by employing the Passuk to call for attendance at an anti-draft rally.
That's just childish behaviour in my view, and we don't learn anything from them
Even if intentional, I still wouldn't call it "childish". It would actually be quite clever, and very much in line with the traditional rabbinic demilitarization of biblical verses
Rabbi Neugerschal is wrong, because conquering ארץ ישראל is a מלחמת מצוה and תלמידי חכמים are required to serve in a מלחמת מצוה. The other response is also wrong, because according to the Rambam repelling an attack is also a מלחמת מצוה, so the פסוק of האחיכם יבואו למלחמה would apply to it equally (unless of course you don't think the current war is a מלחמת מצוה, in which case he would be correct.). However, my question to you, Natan, is this: if you accept that the current war is a מלחמת מצוה, why haven't you volunteered? The following is a quote from the IDF recruitment page: ""older" Israelis (including new immigrants) are eligible for volunteering at practically any age. The first stop for "older" Israelis is the IDF Recruitment Bureau and Information Center (Lishkat Giyus and Katzin Hair). You have to visit in person. It should work (for Israelis only!), albeit sometimes only after being quite perseverant."
Had you any personal experience with Liskat HaGius, you would know that they aren''t interested in you *as an individual*. No matter how motivated you may be, unless you fall within a certain demographic range, they just aren't interested in you. Over a certain age? Asthmatic? Cancer survivor? Healed duodenal ulcer? They're just not into you, and there is usually nothing you can do about it. You're outside the range of those statistically likely to be worth their investment.
But not having any experience with them beyond Google, there's no way you would have known that.
I agree there is a group מצווה to fight our enemies,מלחמת מצווה. But also an individual
מצווה to fight . If you can't, such as a physical impediment ,your an אונס who can't perform the מצווה,or other category, such as תומך לחימה בעורף etc.. It would seem that לא תעמוד על דם רעך would also be a part of
Moshe's declaration.
If you are not part of.Chareidi society you are a second.class Jew. Not to be overly worried about.I ft you are educated and not Chareidi not only are you a second class Jewish or worse and religious you can. feel the disdain.
More evidence that Haredi society is inherently evil. BTW the Torah allows the destruction of inherently evil societies. That's what the story of the rape of Dinah is all about.
Great post, as usual. Just want to nitpick on your intro:
>"Until recently, the worst explanation of a Torah verse that I ever heard was from a casually-Orthodox Jew some years back. He justified not being careful to follow halacha on the grounds that the Torah says, regarding observing the mitzvot, Ve-chai bahem, “And you shall live by them” - which he explained to mean that you have to live a life, and you can’t live life properly if you’re keeping all the mitzvot. Which is, of course, removing the entire point of the verse."
In fact, this "casually-Orthodox Jew" is assuming the standard well-known Talmudic interpretation of the verse:
https://www.sefaria.org.il/Yoma.85b.3
רבי שמעון בן מנסיא אומר: ״ושמרו בני ישראל את השבת״, אמרה תורה: חלל עליו שבת אחת כדי שישמור שבתות הרבה. אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל: אי הואי התם, הוה אמינא דידי עדיפא מדידהו: ״וחי בהם״ — ולא שימות בהם.
Ed. Steinzaltz translation and explanation:
"Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya said: It is stated: “And the children of Israel shall keep Shabbat, to observe Shabbat” (Exodus 31:16). The Torah said: Desecrate one Shabbat on his behalf so he will observe many Shabbatot. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If I would have been there among those Sages who debated this question, I would have said that my proof is preferable to theirs, as it states: “You shall keep My statutes and My ordinances, which a person shall do and live by them” (Leviticus 18:5), and not that he should die by them. In all circumstances, one must take care not to die as a result of fulfilling the mitzvot."
To put it in academic terms, this rabbinic interpretation is antinomian, meaning, used to allow for behaviors that go against halacha. Exactly the way your interlocutor was using it, to not follow halacha 100 percent
Well, not exactly the way my interlocutor was using it. But I don't want this to distract from the post, so I'll delete it.
The two explanations are not even close. Chazal understand it to mean that you don’t need to give up your actual life for most mitzvos; while this fool is arguing that since keeping mitzvos makes life difficult, you don’t need to bother, and he has the chutzpah to suggest that the Torah agrees with him!
In terms of the explanation of the Bible verse, it's essentially the same. Meaning, if it's a bad 'explanation of a Torah verse' and 'removing the entire point of the verse', the blame is on the Talmudic explanation. This interlocutor is (likely somewhat tongue in cheek) expanding the Talmudic interpretation from giving up life, to general difficulties. He doesn't say 'you don’t need to bother', he says 'not being careful'
But the Talmudic explanation DOESN'T remove the point of the verse! One still has to keep the mitzvos in all circumstances, except where doing so presents a risk to life. And there is no real difference between 'not bothering' and 'not being careful.'
The pshat of the verse, in context, is simply 'live by these laws'. Meaning, this is how you should act (paralleling the first part of the verse: ושמרתם את חקתי ואת משפטי אשר יעשה אתם האדם). The Talmud, as is its wont, reads it hyper-literally, as stressing 'live' as opposed to 'die'.
The tongue in cheek jokey drush, based on a talmudic reading, is pretty standard. I can't tell you how many times I've heard 'dati lite' people make the joke about eating out in a non kosher restaurant due to pikuach nefesh. And yes, there's a difference between not bothering and not being careful. Maybe from a purist perspective there isn't, but from a sociological perspective there is
I agree with you regarding the pshat of the verse. But to blame the Talmudic explanation for this 'jokey drush' is nonsensical. It's not the Talmud's fault if somebody takes its explanation (which doesn't remove the entire point of the verse) and expands it to make his own (which does).
My point is a few things:
1) it's a riff on the Talmud, clothed in biblical words. So it really has nothing to do with 'an explanation of a Torah verse'. The talmud reads it as living life, and this person explains living life in a metaphorical sense. Ironically, this person closes the circle: Bible -metaphor; talmud - literal; this person - metaphor.
2) again, he's not removing the point of the verse, he's moderating it, the same thing that the talmud is doing. He's justifying not following the strict letter of the law
There may be other discontinuities (polite word) in the Charedi approach.
1 An alleged crook is at or towards the top of a charedi party. What does that show about their Torah values in practice ? In the non-Jewish world business directors have to resign as soon as improprieties are alleged.
2 In the controversial legislation which led up to the crisis I understand that the charedim wanted to reduce the required age at which people were allowed to leave learning and go out to work. The "chilonim" wanted to leave the longer period required for staying in learning in place. So charedim apparently wanted less learning (a shorter obligation). And the chilonim wanted a longer obligation.
So who are the true supporters of learning - those who want less or those who want more ?
It's a very good post, and I agree to most of it.
You didn't need to bring the very last point of the leaflet for the American rally. They were being deliberately mischievous by employing the Passuk to call for attendance at an anti-draft rally.
That's just childish behaviour in my view, and we don't learn anything from them
>"They were being deliberately mischievous by employing the Passuk to call for attendance at an anti-draft rally."
Disagree. More likely the irony that you're pointing out is unintentional. It was a serious event, and a serious poster
It was a chasidish rally either skver or satmar against drafting Israeli bochurim into the army.
It was definitely not unintentional
Natan wrote about it at the time.
Even if intentional, I still wouldn't call it "childish". It would actually be quite clever, and very much in line with the traditional rabbinic demilitarization of biblical verses
Rabbi Neugerschal is wrong, because conquering ארץ ישראל is a מלחמת מצוה and תלמידי חכמים are required to serve in a מלחמת מצוה. The other response is also wrong, because according to the Rambam repelling an attack is also a מלחמת מצוה, so the פסוק of האחיכם יבואו למלחמה would apply to it equally (unless of course you don't think the current war is a מלחמת מצוה, in which case he would be correct.). However, my question to you, Natan, is this: if you accept that the current war is a מלחמת מצוה, why haven't you volunteered? The following is a quote from the IDF recruitment page: ""older" Israelis (including new immigrants) are eligible for volunteering at practically any age. The first stop for "older" Israelis is the IDF Recruitment Bureau and Information Center (Lishkat Giyus and Katzin Hair). You have to visit in person. It should work (for Israelis only!), albeit sometimes only after being quite perseverant."
Had you any personal experience with Liskat HaGius, you would know that they aren''t interested in you *as an individual*. No matter how motivated you may be, unless you fall within a certain demographic range, they just aren't interested in you. Over a certain age? Asthmatic? Cancer survivor? Healed duodenal ulcer? They're just not into you, and there is usually nothing you can do about it. You're outside the range of those statistically likely to be worth their investment.
But not having any experience with them beyond Google, there's no way you would have known that.
The use of the "Your brothers are going to war" quote in election posters seemed callous then, seems worse now. Sad, not good.
Medically we call it a Surgical Enterectomy….
I agree there is a group מצווה to fight our enemies,מלחמת מצווה. But also an individual
מצווה to fight . If you can't, such as a physical impediment ,your an אונס who can't perform the מצווה,or other category, such as תומך לחימה בעורף etc.. It would seem that לא תעמוד על דם רעך would also be a part of
Moshe's declaration.
If you are not part of.Chareidi society you are a second.class Jew. Not to be overly worried about.I ft you are educated and not Chareidi not only are you a second class Jewish or worse and religious you can. feel the disdain.
I 'm wrong. There is no specific group mitzvah. Who? The group is the total of
Individuals.
More evidence that Haredi society is inherently evil. BTW the Torah allows the destruction of inherently evil societies. That's what the story of the rape of Dinah is all about.
No, not "inherently evil," and certainly not worthy of destruction. Do not oost such comments or you will be banned.