Most likely a combination of ignorance, superstition, availability, experience and foresight just like the taboos of every other ancient people. For example perhaps the levant swine carried copious amounts of disease and parasites. People ate it and got sick. So the people decided swine was an abomination perhaps contaminated by evil spirits and declared do not eat it. Or perhaps some animals such as the calf had limited parasites and was more healthful to eat. It became allowable. Also, the calf was associated with their deity and by eating it it was as if they were partaking of their deity. ACJA
“…Another theme is avoiding creatures that are disgusting, as discussed in the previous post. This is clearly the reason for the prohibition of most insects, which the Torah explicitly refers to with the word sheketz, repulsive…”
What is not halachically disgusting to your religion may be “sheketz” to others. Consider slitting a cow’s throat and watching it writhe in awful torment as it dies. Thats the only avenue to render it halachically acceptable to be eaten. To you it is not sheketz, to animal ethicists it’s a very abominable sheketz — an unholy recipe for animal torture. There’s nothing kodesh about shechita when an electric shock to the animal’s brain renders the same result, sans the ungodly torment wreaked on the cow.
What’s kodesh to you is an contemptible abomination to others.
Why isn’t rendering the animal numb to pain before slitting its throat kodesh? After all, we know a lot more about the notion of צער בעלי חיים and methods of reducing or eliminating today than was known 1500 years ago.
Sheketz, kodesh and repulsive is in the eye of the beholder and shechita without first stunning is certainly in a very repulsive category.
In earlier times, slaughtering with a smooth knife instead of a jagged one was probably the most compassionate method. So, your complaint is not against Rabbi Slifkin's explanation of kashrus but rather against a system that didn't allow for change.
<< What is not halachically disgusting to your religion may be “sheketz” to others >>
True. Had you stopped there, this comment would've been spot-on. Instead you turned it into a rant against shechita methods. The topic was specific animals being repulsive or not—not the methods of killing them. That was no more germane here than different people's taste in dishes, or different eating etiquette in different cultures.
Whether one can come up with rationalizations for various mitzvos is not the question. Of course one can. There is no arbitrary religious law that one could not come up with a "reason" for. If the Torah commanded us to not sit on chairs, we could easily come up with a reason for it. If the Torah commanded us to hang a basket of chicken bones from the ceiling, we could easily come up with a reason for it.
The great Rabbis throughout the centuries came up with many and diverse reasons for various mitzvos. They also understood that those reasons are insufficient or not very convincing, as they said many times. אמרתי אחכמה והיא רחוקה ממני.
Indeed, the ways of G-D are so beyond humanity’s feeble limitations that a complete understanding of the divine is so beyond us. Nevertheless, we strive to understand and comprehend and connect to divinity. Seeking reasons for mitzvot from G-D makes sense, but stating that each is “THE” reason rather than “A” reasonable potential reason is probably hubris on our part.
If humans have "feeble limitations" on what we can understand, blame God for that. He created us, but he loses his marbles when we do not live up to certain "ideals." He allowed a 10-year incomprehensible holocaust, and now it is MY fault that I do not understand why he broke every covenant he ever made. So we broke a few mitzvot. BFD! He had to nearly wipe us out for it. No, my intellect is not THAT feeble!
How arrogant and uneducated does one have to be to think you’re the first person to ask the question of evil in the world? Are you not aware of the amount of books written on this, starting from Job? Have you even tried to think about the question, other than some tired, burnt out invocation of the holocaust? If you want to do whatever you want, please continue. But don’t pretend to be some type of intellectual, when you’re lacking the most basic knowledge of the world.
Why r u so defensive, Eli. I NEVER said I was the 1st person to bring up theodicy! But, instead of compounding my question by giving further examples of God's capriciousness, why don't u be the 1st to answer these obvious questions?
I don’t get defensive from puny minds like yours. I get agitated that you think you can approach these age old questions and get a yes or no answer. There are so many assumptions in your question I can’t even begin to start answering. How do you know G-d is good? Do you know what good means? Do you know what the limits of your intellect is? What is the point of the covenant and mitzvos. The point is YOU are the defensive one about the holocaust and your feeble intellect. And this is not the
most obvious question to anyone schooled in a bit of logic. And something that will come up about any answer to the holocaust is some kind of idea that we weren’t worthy of being saved. But very few people are as arrogant as you are to make that statement definitely, so you’ll just continue thinking you won the argument.
U r a very arrogant person. I do not expect a yes or no answer at all. I am searching for how people of faith APPROACH these challenges to their unquestioned faith.
I would say that it’s similar hubris to ascribe intention to G-D to say “we broke some mitzvot and that’s why the holocaust occurred”
There are bad people.
As Elie Wiesel famously said: the G-D was a hanging here on the gallows.
And as Job is famously told from out of the tempest Ch. 38 et al): “who is this who darkens counsel, Speaking without knowledge? …where were you when I laid the earth’s foundations? Speak if you have understanding…” (Sefaria)
I don’t know know why… but as R. Soloveitchik reminds us (in Kol Dodi Dofek) the more important question to answer is a Not “why?” But rather how do we respond to evil, injustice and pain. It remains our role to make the world better and of course make us more moral beings in the process.
What do u mean "the G-D was a hanging here on the gallows"? I do not understand that sentence. I was at a public lecture at the 92nd St. Y where Wiesel said it is a travesty to believe in God after the holocaust.
Look, I do not like purportedly clever evasions like: "the more important question to answer is a Not “why?” But rather how do we respond to evil, injustice and pain." Many people ask why even if there is some purportedly more important questions. Hey, I can ask MY questions, without having Rav S. tell me the questions I SHOULD ask. That is evasion of a question!
“What do u mean "the G-D was a hanging here on the gallows"? I do not understand that sentence. I was at a public lecture at the 92nd St. Y where Wiesel said it is a travesty to believe in God after the holocaust.”
Well, I didn’t write those words, Ellie Wiesel did. In “Night”. I believe it has been interpreted (possibly explained by Wiesel) as an expression of his own loss of faith. And that would seem to fit in with the quote you heard from him at 92Y. But The quote - indeed the entire “Night” has passed from his own personal mind into public art and belongs to us all to find meaning which speaks to us. And I have heard many different interpretations. One of which that speaks to me more than some others is that G-D remains with us and cries and is in pain with us at our darkest moments: When a little boy is hanging, so is G-D right there with him. We are not alone.
Regarding whether I’m evading your question about “why”; I don’t believe I did evade it. I answered it; I said right there at the beginning of my last paragraph I wrote “I don’t know why”.
I’m sorry if that answer you a not good enough for you. But I believe that was R. Soloveitchik’s point as well, he writes: “Evil is a fact that cannot be denied. There is evil in the world. There are suffering and agony, and death pangs….It is impossible to conquer monstrous evil with philosophical-speculative thought…There is evil that is not susceptible to explanation and comprehension….There is evil, I do not deny it… I ask a single question: What should the sufferer do to live with his suffering?…what does suffering obligate man to do?…we do not wonder about the ineffable ways of the Holy One, but instead ponder the paths man must take when evil leaps up at him. We ask not about the reason for evil and its purpose, but rather about its rectification and uplifting…”
“…And I have heard many different interpretations. One of which that speaks to me more than some others is that G-D remains with us and cries and is in pain with us at our darkest moments: When a little boy is hanging, so is G-D right there with him. We are not alone…”
One of which speaks to me more than others? Sounds like a True Believer allocating a heaping measure of confirmation bias to his unfalsifiable religious belief. The next time you see a boy hanging with God right next him, do let me know. I’d like to examine your unimpeachable evidence for that claim.
R' Avigdor Miller, who lived in Europe in the period leading up to the Holocaust, was of the strong opinion that the Holocaust was very easily justifiable. The tochacha is very clear what repercussions are if Klal Yisroel does not follow mitzvos. It wasn't "we broke some mitzvot". Jews were leaving the path in droves.
But why did God decree the rampant poverty, the persecution, the political unrest, the odd progrom, the lack of chinuch, the breakdown of mesorah, the inability of the torah leadership to deal with all the 'isms' of the day all that led many to go astray? He did all that, and then brought a holocaust?
Jews didn't 'leave in droves' in a vacuum one day because they just gave in to the yeitzer horoh. There were causes for it, caused by God himself.
The first lessons in the Torah include responsibility for our decisions (Chava, Adam and Cain), and we are subsequently responsible for much else besides. Playing the victim card should NEVER be the Jewish way.
Jews left Judaism because Judaism fails to explain the "why"s of the Torah - we poorly market the Torah internally, and we don't apply the lessons externally. G-d did not decree any of those things you list: they are consequences of our actions.
I know a lot of people are convinced that G-d Has A Plan. For many people, this is a core part of their faith, and it is a comforting thought: no matter what we see, somehow it will all work out in the end.
But what if there is no plan? After all, the Torah tells us that G-d acts – and reacts – in response to what we do and say. The text is full of examples: Adam and Eve, by eating the fruit, force G-d to react. Cain is only branded after he chooses to kill Abel. The Flood only happens because people choose violence; if they had not done so, then the Flood surely would have been averted. Avraham argues with G-d and changes His mind. So does Moshe.
G-d acting and reacting to mankind is not consistent with some divine plan. Instead, the Torah is telling me that G-d created this world, He put himself in human beings (but not in nature), and then He limited Himself (in time and space) to allow mankind to have free will, to give us the opportunity to independently create and grow and love and – above all – choose.
The ability to choose means that we are free agents. G-d, admittedly, only gives us a few short years on this earth, so our potential is limited. But that hardly makes it any less potent: if anything, mortality makes us much more likely to take risks. And since our choices matter, He gave us the great power along with the great responsibility.
If G-d does not actually Have A Plan, then being religious is fraught with challenges and responsibilities. This kind of religious faith is no opiate; it drives us to action, not passivity. After all, if we can change G-d’s mind, then don’t we have an obligation to try to do so, on behalf of ourselves and our loved ones? Isn’t this an aspect of prayer, as well as good deeds of all kinds?
W/all due respect, R' Avigdor Miller had a lot of strong opinions about a lot of things. Many frum, worthy people would disagree with some of those opinions, and even more would disagree with his strong, tactless way of expressing them.
Pronouncements like that—about the Holocaust being payback for collective Jewish slacking off—turn more people away from the path of emunah and/or teshuvah than they are mekarev.
As someone who knows the chasidish/yeshivish world from the inside, I'm all too familiar with the type represented by this commenter: the high-handed kano'i who thinks spouting off 'shtark', rigid opinions equals fierce, fearless commitment to Torah, and the fact that those opinions offend people somehow "proves" he's on the right track…
Presuming that’s both you and Mekharker are both correct (if that is indeed the case) specifically that:
“Many frum, worthy people would disagree with some of those opinions, and even more would disagree with his strong, tactless way of expressing them.”
And that “R' Avigdor Miller….was of the strong opinion that the Holocaust was very easily justifiable. The tochacha is very clear what repercussions are if Klal Yisroel does not follow mitzvos. It wasn't "we broke some mitzvot". Jews were leaving the path in droves.” And that was according to R. Miller “THE” reason for the holocaust, rather than “ONE” potential reason among many;
And also presuming I am correct based on my understanding of the book description linked by Mekharker that he never published those views, but only spoke of them where he had an audience in front of him and could address unclear points if any questions were raised.
Based on all of the above, it’s quite noteworthy (at least to me) that someone kNOWN as having tactless ways of expressing strong beliefs STILL didn’t publish THESE particular beliefs. (The book was only published posthumously)
I’m not familiar with all of R’ Avigdor Miller’s writings with regard to the Holocaust, but is it possible that he meant the “Tochacha” and “leaving the path in droves” was one potential explanation among many, one, some, all, or none of which might be “The Reason” the G-D had? It would seem to be a necessary understanding in light of Job 38-39 that I quoted earlier.
Good question. Not sure if the reason can really be oversimplified. But the Torah does teach that when tremendous calamities befall us as a nation, we are supposed to take stock of our actions. R' Avigdor Miller lectured on the topic extensively and even wrote a manuscript for a book on it which was published posthumously.
W/all due respect, R' Avigdor Miller had a lot of strong opinions about a lot of things. Many frum, worthy people would disagree with some of those opinions, and even more would disagree with his strong, tactless way of expressing them.
Pronouncements like that—about the Holocaust being payback for collective Jewish slacking off—turn more people away from the path of emunah and/or teshuvah than they are mekarev.
As someone who knows the chasidish/yeshivish world from the inside, I'm all too familiar with the type represented by this commenter: the high-handed kano'i who thinks spouting off 'shtark', rigid opinions equals fierce, fearless commitment to Torah, and the fact that those opinions offend people somehow "proves" he's on the right track…
W/all due respect, R' Avigdor Miller had a lot of strong opinions about a lot of things. Many frum, worthy people would disagree with some of those opinions, and even more would disagree with his strong, tactless way of expressing them.
Pronouncements like that—about the Holocaust being payback for collective Jewish slacking off—turn more people away from the path of emunah and/or teshuvah than they are mekarev.
As someone who knows the chasidish/yeshivish world from the inside, I'm all too familiar with the type represented by this commenter: the high-handed kano'i who thinks spouting off 'shtark', rigid opinions equals fierce, fearless commitment to Torah, and the fact that those opinions offend people somehow "proves" he's on the right track…
Or maybe the Jews who kept up obsolete religious rules and customs in the modern world caused the holocaust! God was sending a message--the reformers got it right!
I did not say we broke mitzvos. On the contrary. I am not arguing that mitzvos are the end-all and be-all. The mitzvos all have underlying purposes to them, each ways of trying to make us engaged with the each other, G-d, and the world. If we do mitzvos but ignore the reasons why they are there, then a holocaust can occur.
Nothing about the role of Jews in the world suggests we are meant to be passive in the face of threatened evil, injustice and pain.
I don't see the holocaust as incomprehensible. I think it is quite simple and justifiable: it is an error to think that prayer and mitzvos trump the free will gifted to every man. On the contrary, combating evil in this world is not G-d's responsibility: it is ours.
Circular reasoning. U think that God had to give Hitler free will to an infinite degree? When God saw what was happening to his people, it was time to step in!
Why do you think this? What if Jews are meant to be responsible to fix the world, to combat evil? We failed to do so. We paid the price.
More evidence that meticulous observance, at least to some extent, misses the point. G-d wants us to step up, not become sheep bleating for divine intervention.
Some people bleated for divine intervention, some did not. If he is our Father, it was up to him to step up to the plate. By 1941, we had absolutely no ability to fix the world! If God wanted a perfect world, he should have created 1. Why should man have to "repair" the lemon he sold us?
1) So, do you mean to say that we have 613 variations of hanging baskets of chicken bones for a Torah?
2) If you look at the source of the statement you quoted it is referring to contradictory details of halacha such as the red heifer solution that defiled some and purified others but not to overarching ideas such as kashrus as a whole or themes that run through these laws.
2) Ok. I was also not talking about overarching themes, but the specific mitzvos themselves. In any case, our great Rabbis are clear that although we can give rationalizations for the chukim, they are still גזירת הכתוב, and our explanations in of themselves are insufficient to justify them.
I am surprised that neither R. Slifkin nor any other poster has brought up Marvin Harris, whose hypothesis is that originally many prohibitions - not merely in Judaism - arose for ecological, not religious, reasons and only later were transformed into religious reasons.
To become holy is the go-to answer for mitzvot that seem illogical. 1 size fits all. But, what does "holy" even mean? I assume it means closer to God, but I do not buy into that goal. What is so great about being "close to God"? I have never found that God particularly wants me to be close. Whether I performed mitzvot or not, I never felt that God was welcoming me in. He seems happier when I keep my distance.
Holiness is defined for us through the Mishkan, the tabernacle. There are different ways to get there: elevation (altar), partnership (showbread), light (Menorah), Intimacy (Ark). Loving G-d AND loving men are both ways to reach for holiness. Kashrut is all about reminding us of these, especially elevation (the most fundamental of the paths to holiness). More here: https://creativejudaism.org/2020/10/12/seeking-holiness/
I do not warm up to a place, the mishkan, a time, Shabbat or YK, or the slaughter of animals as ways to approach God. The concept does not work for me. I do not believe God wants us to burn his creatures to produce a fragrance that he likes. I bug out when I hear people fantasizing about re-instituting sacrifice in the 3rd Temple.
All living things will die, sooner or later. Making our lives (or those of animals) be purpose-driven is to choose to aim for meaning and growth. Eating animals itself promotes life: there are far more pigs and sheep and cows and chickens in the world because we eat them. And the Torah seeks us to promote life as a necessary precondition for lives to mean something. In the case of people, that means choosing to do good. Seeking holiness through the Mishkan includes creativity, partnership with G-d, spreading light and knowledge... there are multiple avenues through which we can seek holiness. Including loving our fellow man.
Aside from fulfilling my responsibilities to my family and to be kind to others, I do not see or need any "higher" purpose to my life. My mortality is simply a fact, not needing further investigation. For sure, serving the Lord is NOT my purpose. I see no evidence that he even wants it. Please do not hit me with the old circular-reasoning "logic" that serving him is intended to improve ourselves--the Bible and Talmud make it clear that mitzvot r intended to serve him. Anyway, I do not see any spiritual elevation or ethics in people who apparently perform many mizvot. Please do not tell me it is the person's fault, not the system's. Any good system must work with real people, not saints. If a diet purports to be great, it is NOT great if the average human cannot stick to it.
Please do not misunderstand me: I do NOT believe G-d wants meticulous observance of mitzvot as the goal for mankind, and I agree with you that merely going through the motions does not bring holiness (though it can reduce the opportunity for less productive things). Mitzvos have a purpose. They are all symbolically linked to those purposes. Doing mitzvos is a gateway to growth, not the purpose in themselves. The text offers explanations for any chok from within the text itself.
I do not need mitzvot to "reduce the opportunity for less productive things." I know how to productively use my time. I do not need hocus pocus inexplicable activities to avoid doing "less productive things."
So why do you think there are responsibilities to your family or to be kind to others? Where does that come from? Hint: every pagan/primitive society in the history of the world has, at one time or another, eaten people. So being kind is in fact counter-natural and counter-intuitive. Where does it come from?
Like most serious Jews, u probably never studied comparative religion. The Bible and Talmud have no idea of anything but their own misconceptions. Trust me, "pagans" know that representational icons have eyes, though they see not, and ears, though they hear not. Like it or not, other cultures r as smart as the Jewish narrative! And I know that 1 day I will die, like most other living things. So what? My life does not rotate around that, and I do not need a fantasy to deal with it.
Unless one starts with certain “givens” such as perhaps that there is a G-D who wishes to communicate with humanity and that there has been / is revelation from G-D to humanity and that the Giving of the Torah is included as an example of such revelation and communication, then it might be very difficult or even pointless to “see or need any ‘higher’ purpose to [] life”
If there is no point to your existence, then you might as well live for hedonistic narcissism, and you are in good company. Most of Western Civilization is in decline for precisely this cause.
So the Israelites developed the laws of Kashrus when and where according to this post? What did God do? Ratify whatever was developed? Anything happened at Har Sinai?
No, won’t. Because each survivor had a different experience, some suffered more than others and you have acknowledge the validity of each survivor’s unique personal experience and response to what happened to him or her.
"Not Kosher" is also a colloquial inaccurate term. The Torah refers to these animals as "impure." A goat is also "not kosher" until properly slaughtered and prepared for legal consumption.
Why does everything need to be scientifically sustainable? Do you have a scientific explanation for Hashem's existence?
Animals that have cloven hooves but so not chew cud are hypocrites. There is a Yiddish expression for someone who is not what is pretends to be - chazir fisl kosher (pigs have kosher feet). I think that the pig is especially hated because during the Hasmonean civil war, Hyrcanos' supporters sent a pig up the wall instead of a kosher sacrifice. This may also be a coded reference to the Romans, as, for the Jews, the pig symbolized Rome. Several legions had a wild boar as their symbol as it symbolized power in Roman culture.
Most likely a combination of ignorance, superstition, availability, experience and foresight just like the taboos of every other ancient people. For example perhaps the levant swine carried copious amounts of disease and parasites. People ate it and got sick. So the people decided swine was an abomination perhaps contaminated by evil spirits and declared do not eat it. Or perhaps some animals such as the calf had limited parasites and was more healthful to eat. It became allowable. Also, the calf was associated with their deity and by eating it it was as if they were partaking of their deity. ACJA
@Rav Slifkin
“…Another theme is avoiding creatures that are disgusting, as discussed in the previous post. This is clearly the reason for the prohibition of most insects, which the Torah explicitly refers to with the word sheketz, repulsive…”
What is not halachically disgusting to your religion may be “sheketz” to others. Consider slitting a cow’s throat and watching it writhe in awful torment as it dies. Thats the only avenue to render it halachically acceptable to be eaten. To you it is not sheketz, to animal ethicists it’s a very abominable sheketz — an unholy recipe for animal torture. There’s nothing kodesh about shechita when an electric shock to the animal’s brain renders the same result, sans the ungodly torment wreaked on the cow.
What’s kodesh to you is an contemptible abomination to others.
Why isn’t rendering the animal numb to pain before slitting its throat kodesh? After all, we know a lot more about the notion of צער בעלי חיים and methods of reducing or eliminating today than was known 1500 years ago.
Sheketz, kodesh and repulsive is in the eye of the beholder and shechita without first stunning is certainly in a very repulsive category.
In earlier times, slaughtering with a smooth knife instead of a jagged one was probably the most compassionate method. So, your complaint is not against Rabbi Slifkin's explanation of kashrus but rather against a system that didn't allow for change.
you couldn't be further from the truth on that...
Can you elaborate?
<< What is not halachically disgusting to your religion may be “sheketz” to others >>
True. Had you stopped there, this comment would've been spot-on. Instead you turned it into a rant against shechita methods. The topic was specific animals being repulsive or not—not the methods of killing them. That was no more germane here than different people's taste in dishes, or different eating etiquette in different cultures.
Whether one can come up with rationalizations for various mitzvos is not the question. Of course one can. There is no arbitrary religious law that one could not come up with a "reason" for. If the Torah commanded us to not sit on chairs, we could easily come up with a reason for it. If the Torah commanded us to hang a basket of chicken bones from the ceiling, we could easily come up with a reason for it.
The great Rabbis throughout the centuries came up with many and diverse reasons for various mitzvos. They also understood that those reasons are insufficient or not very convincing, as they said many times. אמרתי אחכמה והיא רחוקה ממני.
Indeed, the ways of G-D are so beyond humanity’s feeble limitations that a complete understanding of the divine is so beyond us. Nevertheless, we strive to understand and comprehend and connect to divinity. Seeking reasons for mitzvot from G-D makes sense, but stating that each is “THE” reason rather than “A” reasonable potential reason is probably hubris on our part.
If humans have "feeble limitations" on what we can understand, blame God for that. He created us, but he loses his marbles when we do not live up to certain "ideals." He allowed a 10-year incomprehensible holocaust, and now it is MY fault that I do not understand why he broke every covenant he ever made. So we broke a few mitzvot. BFD! He had to nearly wipe us out for it. No, my intellect is not THAT feeble!
How arrogant and uneducated does one have to be to think you’re the first person to ask the question of evil in the world? Are you not aware of the amount of books written on this, starting from Job? Have you even tried to think about the question, other than some tired, burnt out invocation of the holocaust? If you want to do whatever you want, please continue. But don’t pretend to be some type of intellectual, when you’re lacking the most basic knowledge of the world.
Why r u so defensive, Eli. I NEVER said I was the 1st person to bring up theodicy! But, instead of compounding my question by giving further examples of God's capriciousness, why don't u be the 1st to answer these obvious questions?
I don’t get defensive from puny minds like yours. I get agitated that you think you can approach these age old questions and get a yes or no answer. There are so many assumptions in your question I can’t even begin to start answering. How do you know G-d is good? Do you know what good means? Do you know what the limits of your intellect is? What is the point of the covenant and mitzvos. The point is YOU are the defensive one about the holocaust and your feeble intellect. And this is not the
most obvious question to anyone schooled in a bit of logic. And something that will come up about any answer to the holocaust is some kind of idea that we weren’t worthy of being saved. But very few people are as arrogant as you are to make that statement definitely, so you’ll just continue thinking you won the argument.
U r a very arrogant person. I do not expect a yes or no answer at all. I am searching for how people of faith APPROACH these challenges to their unquestioned faith.
I would say that it’s similar hubris to ascribe intention to G-D to say “we broke some mitzvot and that’s why the holocaust occurred”
There are bad people.
As Elie Wiesel famously said: the G-D was a hanging here on the gallows.
And as Job is famously told from out of the tempest Ch. 38 et al): “who is this who darkens counsel, Speaking without knowledge? …where were you when I laid the earth’s foundations? Speak if you have understanding…” (Sefaria)
I don’t know know why… but as R. Soloveitchik reminds us (in Kol Dodi Dofek) the more important question to answer is a Not “why?” But rather how do we respond to evil, injustice and pain. It remains our role to make the world better and of course make us more moral beings in the process.
What do u mean "the G-D was a hanging here on the gallows"? I do not understand that sentence. I was at a public lecture at the 92nd St. Y where Wiesel said it is a travesty to believe in God after the holocaust.
Look, I do not like purportedly clever evasions like: "the more important question to answer is a Not “why?” But rather how do we respond to evil, injustice and pain." Many people ask why even if there is some purportedly more important questions. Hey, I can ask MY questions, without having Rav S. tell me the questions I SHOULD ask. That is evasion of a question!
Now you’re getting to the real intellectuals! Screw R Soloveichik! Elie Wiesel is the philosopher we should all trust in!
R. Solevechik observed the Shoah, Eli Wiesel LIVED IT. I think he has a better grasp of it than even a Rabbi who didn’t.
I agree that the questions are critical - any question that a person believes is important. Nobody should dictate what questions are the "right" ones.
@ Howard,
“What do u mean "the G-D was a hanging here on the gallows"? I do not understand that sentence. I was at a public lecture at the 92nd St. Y where Wiesel said it is a travesty to believe in God after the holocaust.”
Well, I didn’t write those words, Ellie Wiesel did. In “Night”. I believe it has been interpreted (possibly explained by Wiesel) as an expression of his own loss of faith. And that would seem to fit in with the quote you heard from him at 92Y. But The quote - indeed the entire “Night” has passed from his own personal mind into public art and belongs to us all to find meaning which speaks to us. And I have heard many different interpretations. One of which that speaks to me more than some others is that G-D remains with us and cries and is in pain with us at our darkest moments: When a little boy is hanging, so is G-D right there with him. We are not alone.
Regarding whether I’m evading your question about “why”; I don’t believe I did evade it. I answered it; I said right there at the beginning of my last paragraph I wrote “I don’t know why”.
I’m sorry if that answer you a not good enough for you. But I believe that was R. Soloveitchik’s point as well, he writes: “Evil is a fact that cannot be denied. There is evil in the world. There are suffering and agony, and death pangs….It is impossible to conquer monstrous evil with philosophical-speculative thought…There is evil that is not susceptible to explanation and comprehension….There is evil, I do not deny it… I ask a single question: What should the sufferer do to live with his suffering?…what does suffering obligate man to do?…we do not wonder about the ineffable ways of the Holy One, but instead ponder the paths man must take when evil leaps up at him. We ask not about the reason for evil and its purpose, but rather about its rectification and uplifting…”
@Jeffrey
“…And I have heard many different interpretations. One of which that speaks to me more than some others is that G-D remains with us and cries and is in pain with us at our darkest moments: When a little boy is hanging, so is G-D right there with him. We are not alone…”
One of which speaks to me more than others? Sounds like a True Believer allocating a heaping measure of confirmation bias to his unfalsifiable religious belief. The next time you see a boy hanging with God right next him, do let me know. I’d like to examine your unimpeachable evidence for that claim.
My quote from Kol Dodi Dofek is from the version in Sefaria. The chapter - “The Righteous Suffer” paragraphs 7-11
R' Avigdor Miller, who lived in Europe in the period leading up to the Holocaust, was of the strong opinion that the Holocaust was very easily justifiable. The tochacha is very clear what repercussions are if Klal Yisroel does not follow mitzvos. It wasn't "we broke some mitzvot". Jews were leaving the path in droves.
But why did God decree the rampant poverty, the persecution, the political unrest, the odd progrom, the lack of chinuch, the breakdown of mesorah, the inability of the torah leadership to deal with all the 'isms' of the day all that led many to go astray? He did all that, and then brought a holocaust?
Jews didn't 'leave in droves' in a vacuum one day because they just gave in to the yeitzer horoh. There were causes for it, caused by God himself.
Not a satisfactory answer.
The first lessons in the Torah include responsibility for our decisions (Chava, Adam and Cain), and we are subsequently responsible for much else besides. Playing the victim card should NEVER be the Jewish way.
Jews left Judaism because Judaism fails to explain the "why"s of the Torah - we poorly market the Torah internally, and we don't apply the lessons externally. G-d did not decree any of those things you list: they are consequences of our actions.
I know a lot of people are convinced that G-d Has A Plan. For many people, this is a core part of their faith, and it is a comforting thought: no matter what we see, somehow it will all work out in the end.
But what if there is no plan? After all, the Torah tells us that G-d acts – and reacts – in response to what we do and say. The text is full of examples: Adam and Eve, by eating the fruit, force G-d to react. Cain is only branded after he chooses to kill Abel. The Flood only happens because people choose violence; if they had not done so, then the Flood surely would have been averted. Avraham argues with G-d and changes His mind. So does Moshe.
G-d acting and reacting to mankind is not consistent with some divine plan. Instead, the Torah is telling me that G-d created this world, He put himself in human beings (but not in nature), and then He limited Himself (in time and space) to allow mankind to have free will, to give us the opportunity to independently create and grow and love and – above all – choose.
The ability to choose means that we are free agents. G-d, admittedly, only gives us a few short years on this earth, so our potential is limited. But that hardly makes it any less potent: if anything, mortality makes us much more likely to take risks. And since our choices matter, He gave us the great power along with the great responsibility.
If G-d does not actually Have A Plan, then being religious is fraught with challenges and responsibilities. This kind of religious faith is no opiate; it drives us to action, not passivity. After all, if we can change G-d’s mind, then don’t we have an obligation to try to do so, on behalf of ourselves and our loved ones? Isn’t this an aspect of prayer, as well as good deeds of all kinds?
W/all due respect, R' Avigdor Miller had a lot of strong opinions about a lot of things. Many frum, worthy people would disagree with some of those opinions, and even more would disagree with his strong, tactless way of expressing them.
Pronouncements like that—about the Holocaust being payback for collective Jewish slacking off—turn more people away from the path of emunah and/or teshuvah than they are mekarev.
As someone who knows the chasidish/yeshivish world from the inside, I'm all too familiar with the type represented by this commenter: the high-handed kano'i who thinks spouting off 'shtark', rigid opinions equals fierce, fearless commitment to Torah, and the fact that those opinions offend people somehow "proves" he's on the right track…
Wrong! That's an ego trip, nothing more.
@JS,
Presuming that’s both you and Mekharker are both correct (if that is indeed the case) specifically that:
“Many frum, worthy people would disagree with some of those opinions, and even more would disagree with his strong, tactless way of expressing them.”
And that “R' Avigdor Miller….was of the strong opinion that the Holocaust was very easily justifiable. The tochacha is very clear what repercussions are if Klal Yisroel does not follow mitzvos. It wasn't "we broke some mitzvot". Jews were leaving the path in droves.” And that was according to R. Miller “THE” reason for the holocaust, rather than “ONE” potential reason among many;
And also presuming I am correct based on my understanding of the book description linked by Mekharker that he never published those views, but only spoke of them where he had an audience in front of him and could address unclear points if any questions were raised.
Based on all of the above, it’s quite noteworthy (at least to me) that someone kNOWN as having tactless ways of expressing strong beliefs STILL didn’t publish THESE particular beliefs. (The book was only published posthumously)
I wonder why?
Right! 6M Jews died, but Avigdor Miller survived, so he must have the right formula to please Yahweh! Arrogant man!
I’m not familiar with all of R’ Avigdor Miller’s writings with regard to the Holocaust, but is it possible that he meant the “Tochacha” and “leaving the path in droves” was one potential explanation among many, one, some, all, or none of which might be “The Reason” the G-D had? It would seem to be a necessary understanding in light of Job 38-39 that I quoted earlier.
Can you provide a reference to your source?
Good question. Not sure if the reason can really be oversimplified. But the Torah does teach that when tremendous calamities befall us as a nation, we are supposed to take stock of our actions. R' Avigdor Miller lectured on the topic extensively and even wrote a manuscript for a book on it which was published posthumously.
https://www.amazon.com/Divine-Madness-Rabbi-Avigdor-Miller/dp/B071X6HGL1/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
W/all due respect, R' Avigdor Miller had a lot of strong opinions about a lot of things. Many frum, worthy people would disagree with some of those opinions, and even more would disagree with his strong, tactless way of expressing them.
Pronouncements like that—about the Holocaust being payback for collective Jewish slacking off—turn more people away from the path of emunah and/or teshuvah than they are mekarev.
As someone who knows the chasidish/yeshivish world from the inside, I'm all too familiar with the type represented by this commenter: the high-handed kano'i who thinks spouting off 'shtark', rigid opinions equals fierce, fearless commitment to Torah, and the fact that those opinions offend people somehow "proves" he's on the right track…
Wrong! That's an ego trip, nothing more.
W/all due respect, R' Avigdor Miller had a lot of strong opinions about a lot of things. Many frum, worthy people would disagree with some of those opinions, and even more would disagree with his strong, tactless way of expressing them.
Pronouncements like that—about the Holocaust being payback for collective Jewish slacking off—turn more people away from the path of emunah and/or teshuvah than they are mekarev.
As someone who knows the chasidish/yeshivish world from the inside, I'm all too familiar with the type represented by this commenter: the high-handed kano'i who thinks spouting off 'shtark', rigid opinions equals fierce, fearless commitment to Torah, and the fact that those opinions offend people somehow "proves" he's on the right track…
Wrong! That's an ego trip, nothing more.
Or arguably the Jews who WERE keeping mitzvos had turned their backs on the world, and were not taking responsibility for it?
Or maybe the Jews who kept up obsolete religious rules and customs in the modern world caused the holocaust! God was sending a message--the reformers got it right!
I did not say we broke mitzvos. On the contrary. I am not arguing that mitzvos are the end-all and be-all. The mitzvos all have underlying purposes to them, each ways of trying to make us engaged with the each other, G-d, and the world. If we do mitzvos but ignore the reasons why they are there, then a holocaust can occur.
Nothing about the role of Jews in the world suggests we are meant to be passive in the face of threatened evil, injustice and pain.
I don't see the holocaust as incomprehensible. I think it is quite simple and justifiable: it is an error to think that prayer and mitzvos trump the free will gifted to every man. On the contrary, combating evil in this world is not G-d's responsibility: it is ours.
Circular reasoning. U think that God had to give Hitler free will to an infinite degree? When God saw what was happening to his people, it was time to step in!
Why do you think this? What if Jews are meant to be responsible to fix the world, to combat evil? We failed to do so. We paid the price.
More evidence that meticulous observance, at least to some extent, misses the point. G-d wants us to step up, not become sheep bleating for divine intervention.
Some people bleated for divine intervention, some did not. If he is our Father, it was up to him to step up to the plate. By 1941, we had absolutely no ability to fix the world! If God wanted a perfect world, he should have created 1. Why should man have to "repair" the lemon he sold us?
1) So, do you mean to say that we have 613 variations of hanging baskets of chicken bones for a Torah?
2) If you look at the source of the statement you quoted it is referring to contradictory details of halacha such as the red heifer solution that defiled some and purified others but not to overarching ideas such as kashrus as a whole or themes that run through these laws.
1) Huh? No, I don't mean that.
2) Ok. I was also not talking about overarching themes, but the specific mitzvos themselves. In any case, our great Rabbis are clear that although we can give rationalizations for the chukim, they are still גזירת הכתוב, and our explanations in of themselves are insufficient to justify them.
I am surprised that neither R. Slifkin nor any other poster has brought up Marvin Harris, whose hypothesis is that originally many prohibitions - not merely in Judaism - arose for ecological, not religious, reasons and only later were transformed into religious reasons.
How is a cicada "disgusting" but a locust is not? Disgust is in the eye of the beholder - consider the variety of world cuisines.
That's exactly what I'm explaining!
To become holy is the go-to answer for mitzvot that seem illogical. 1 size fits all. But, what does "holy" even mean? I assume it means closer to God, but I do not buy into that goal. What is so great about being "close to God"? I have never found that God particularly wants me to be close. Whether I performed mitzvot or not, I never felt that God was welcoming me in. He seems happier when I keep my distance.
Holiness is defined for us through the Mishkan, the tabernacle. There are different ways to get there: elevation (altar), partnership (showbread), light (Menorah), Intimacy (Ark). Loving G-d AND loving men are both ways to reach for holiness. Kashrut is all about reminding us of these, especially elevation (the most fundamental of the paths to holiness). More here: https://creativejudaism.org/2020/10/12/seeking-holiness/
I do not warm up to a place, the mishkan, a time, Shabbat or YK, or the slaughter of animals as ways to approach God. The concept does not work for me. I do not believe God wants us to burn his creatures to produce a fragrance that he likes. I bug out when I hear people fantasizing about re-instituting sacrifice in the 3rd Temple.
All living things will die, sooner or later. Making our lives (or those of animals) be purpose-driven is to choose to aim for meaning and growth. Eating animals itself promotes life: there are far more pigs and sheep and cows and chickens in the world because we eat them. And the Torah seeks us to promote life as a necessary precondition for lives to mean something. In the case of people, that means choosing to do good. Seeking holiness through the Mishkan includes creativity, partnership with G-d, spreading light and knowledge... there are multiple avenues through which we can seek holiness. Including loving our fellow man.
Aside from fulfilling my responsibilities to my family and to be kind to others, I do not see or need any "higher" purpose to my life. My mortality is simply a fact, not needing further investigation. For sure, serving the Lord is NOT my purpose. I see no evidence that he even wants it. Please do not hit me with the old circular-reasoning "logic" that serving him is intended to improve ourselves--the Bible and Talmud make it clear that mitzvot r intended to serve him. Anyway, I do not see any spiritual elevation or ethics in people who apparently perform many mizvot. Please do not tell me it is the person's fault, not the system's. Any good system must work with real people, not saints. If a diet purports to be great, it is NOT great if the average human cannot stick to it.
Please do not misunderstand me: I do NOT believe G-d wants meticulous observance of mitzvot as the goal for mankind, and I agree with you that merely going through the motions does not bring holiness (though it can reduce the opportunity for less productive things). Mitzvos have a purpose. They are all symbolically linked to those purposes. Doing mitzvos is a gateway to growth, not the purpose in themselves. The text offers explanations for any chok from within the text itself.
I do not need mitzvot to "reduce the opportunity for less productive things." I know how to productively use my time. I do not need hocus pocus inexplicable activities to avoid doing "less productive things."
So why do you think there are responsibilities to your family or to be kind to others? Where does that come from? Hint: every pagan/primitive society in the history of the world has, at one time or another, eaten people. So being kind is in fact counter-natural and counter-intuitive. Where does it come from?
Like most serious Jews, u probably never studied comparative religion. The Bible and Talmud have no idea of anything but their own misconceptions. Trust me, "pagans" know that representational icons have eyes, though they see not, and ears, though they hear not. Like it or not, other cultures r as smart as the Jewish narrative! And I know that 1 day I will die, like most other living things. So what? My life does not rotate around that, and I do not need a fantasy to deal with it.
Unless one starts with certain “givens” such as perhaps that there is a G-D who wishes to communicate with humanity and that there has been / is revelation from G-D to humanity and that the Giving of the Torah is included as an example of such revelation and communication, then it might be very difficult or even pointless to “see or need any ‘higher’ purpose to [] life”
If there is no point to your existence, then you might as well live for hedonistic narcissism, and you are in good company. Most of Western Civilization is in decline for precisely this cause.
great post, keep em coming
Dei, dei, dayenu. Dayenu dayenu.
So the Israelites developed the laws of Kashrus when and where according to this post? What did God do? Ratify whatever was developed? Anything happened at Har Sinai?
No, won’t. Because each survivor had a different experience, some suffered more than others and you have acknowledge the validity of each survivor’s unique personal experience and response to what happened to him or her.
The answer in one word is ignorance. ACJA
Great post.
Shadal in Vayikra 11:1 shares many of your observations.
So how long and where were we practicing Kashrus then before it gets commanded to us in the Torah?
"Not Kosher" is also a colloquial inaccurate term. The Torah refers to these animals as "impure." A goat is also "not kosher" until properly slaughtered and prepared for legal consumption.
Right. Tahor means able to be spiritually uplifted. Animals that cannot be elevated are usually called "not tahor" in the text.
Why does everything need to be scientifically sustainable? Do you have a scientific explanation for Hashem's existence?
Animals that have cloven hooves but so not chew cud are hypocrites. There is a Yiddish expression for someone who is not what is pretends to be - chazir fisl kosher (pigs have kosher feet). I think that the pig is especially hated because during the Hasmonean civil war, Hyrcanos' supporters sent a pig up the wall instead of a kosher sacrifice. This may also be a coded reference to the Romans, as, for the Jews, the pig symbolized Rome. Several legions had a wild boar as their symbol as it symbolized power in Roman culture.
All of that, plus preserving the environment and viability of species.
I do not believe that either are goals of the Torah, or should be goals for mankind. We are here to improve nature, not harmonize with it.