Voice From The Wilderness

Aggregating My Aggravating Comments on CC about RBS

2012-01-30T03:14:00.000+02:00

I first launched this on Cross-Currents about a month ago:

Whose Problem Is It, Anyway?

By Guest Contributor, on January 3rd, 2012

by Dovid Kornreich

There is a recurrent theme that I’ve read on Jblogs and newspapers, and it has two parts:

1) Chareidi society somehow engenders extremism and these incidents in Beit Shemesh are its bitter fruit.

2) Neglect by the rest of Chareidi leadership to publicly condemn the extreme acts is a form of acquiescence by silence.

The response to the first charge is that your average chareidi individual living in, let’s say Bayit Vegan or Har Nof, shares very little of the *cultural* values and norms of Mea She’arim Chareidim. The sad reality is that Chareidim are an extremely factionalized and subdivided group, and the divisions are deep and operate on many different levels of which outsiders simply have no appreciation.

True, on religious and political issues vis-a-vis non-Chareidim and especially the non-religious, most Chareidim seem to rally together as a unified group to oppose a common threat. But socially, there is very little meaningful contact between Mea Shea’rim Charedim (and their RBS offshoots) and the rest of the Chareidi population.

So one can’t credibly say that “Chareidi society” engenders violence, extremism, intolerance etc. There is very little *culturally* that unites all Chareidim. And it is the uniquely extreme form of anti-modern, anti-Zionist culture of Mea She’arim society which engenders physical displays of intolerance, lawlessness, and violence. Mainstream Chareidi society may certainly be anti-modern and anti-zionist and not tolerant to others to some degree, but those attitudes are simply not visceral enough to engender any extremist behavior in emotionally balanced people.

The response to the second charge is a direct corollary to the first. For a Litvish Godol embedded in mainstream Chareidi Society to come publicly against Mea She’arim Chareidim is almost as non-meaningful to the extremists themselves as the Agudas Yisroel of America’s statement of condemnation. (And if they come out publicly simply for appearances sake, they will look shallow and insincere. I have yet to hear anyone say that they have changed their minds about a violent group of people on the basis of its leaders’ condemnation of acts of terror. It is lip service and people know it. People change their minds about another group only once they observe that the group has consistently changed their behavior.)

If I understand the bloggers and the pundits correctly, the point of having Chareidi Rabbonim and Gedolim come out publicly against the extremism is to send an internal social message that such behavior is not acceptable in Chareidi society. The message being sent is that extremists will be socially ostracized for such behavior and the expectation is that such messages will actually pave the way to reverse the trend of anti-social behavior on the ground.

The underlying assumption of this is that Mainstream Chareidi gedolim wield any significant social influence over the Meah She’arim Chareidim (and their RBS offshoots), and that this sub-society will pay attention to any disapproval these Gedolim register. This assumption is simply false, and thus it imposes an illegitimate burden on the Chareidi Gedolim.

We hear all the time how Mea She’arim extremists use threats, intimidation, and even violence towards mainstream Chareidi Gedolim who have taken moderate stances on public social issues which these people consider unacceptable religious compromises. They have always lived in their own sub-society with their own version of religious authority/vigilantism and with dismissive social attitudes vis-a-vis the rule of secular Israeli law over their community and over their actions.

As many chareidim have said time and time again, this is not an “internal Chareidi” problem which can be resolved internally. It is a legal problem of wanton lawlessness on the part of the extremists (unfortunately, in the name of a very moderate religion) and it requires the law enforcement apparatus of the Israeli police and courts to contain it bring it to a halt.

Then I followed up responding in the comments to charges of hypocrisy with a couple of distinctions. I recommend the reader see the original thread to read all the various comments I was responding to. One particular commentor who raised my ire was Rabbi Landesman.

Dovid Kornreich

January 4, 2012 at 5:32 pm

One common complaint I see is that Gedolim come out on all kinds of things that have no effect on their community.
One point to consider: people on blogs often complain loudly that Gedolim are manipulated by askanim and they are the real forces behind the public declarations of Gedolim. Now, all of the sudden, you want the askanim to lobby for your pet cause?

But I would like to address the examples provided to see if the hypocrisy charge sticks. (If you know you are going to dismiss any distinction I could make as hopelessly apologetic, then you need not read further. Those who are interested in a meaningful exchange of ideas and arguments are invited to continue in the conversation.)

Gay pride parades public desecration of Shabbos, and Tznius were the most common examples, (and I’m surprised no-one mentioned the excavation of Kivrei Yisroel,) and they are all forms of protesting one overall principle: “Chillul Kedusha”
The reason why “Chillul Kedusha” is singled out for Chareidi protest, as the leaflets and pashkevilles explicitly state, is because it endangers physical the safety of everyone. Chazal and Kabbalistic sources are very clear about the far-reaching, physically devastating consequences of Chillul Kedusha. So the protests are a matter of simple, physical, self-preservation. (I personally wish the organizers of these protests would be more altruistic and run effective educational drives to explain to the secular why this issue is so sensitive, but they would consider the attempt naive.)

The next category was Liberal Orthodox innovations. Truth be told, I never heard any Israeli Gedolim come out against them, so I don’t see the hypocrisy. If you are asking about the American Agudah, well, they came out protesting this issue as well, didn’t they? Where’s the contradiction?

I found this amusing:
Here’s the thing. If it’s Conservative Judaism, the Gedolim say it’s wrong. If it’s jeans, they issue a responsum prohibiting it. If it’s Women’s Tefilla Groups, they say it’s wrong. If it’s Vos Is Neias, they say it’s wrong. If it’s rabbit-eating kibbutzniks, they say it’s wrong.

And the Eida Chareidis puts up Pashkevillim in Mea She’arim declaring that using violence is wrong. (I saw them myself put up twice. Too bad I didn’t have a digital camera on me to post it.) But you don’t see any media or blog coverage of that, do you? Of course not.

Violence and lawlessness isn’t a new, creeping distortion of Judaism that needs to be identified and pushed outside the pale. It’s as old as Kain and Abel.

I will own up to the problem of the commentor(s) who pointed out that when the Israeli police are vilified for their brutality and the justice of secular courts suspect, it’s hard to blame them for not interfering here.

Dovid Kornreich

January 4, 2012 at 5:38 pm

Some commentors claim that there is a continuum from mainstream to extreme by the very fact that the values are the same but the differences are in degree.
I disagree. I should have emphasized more in the post that the mainstream have additional values which are not shared by the extremists which keep the shared values in check. That is respect for the rule of law.
No-one can deny that the mainstream Chareidim have de facto, accepted the existence of the State of Israel. We participate in elections, pay taxes, and have political parties active in the Kenesset and in all the major population centers. This de facto recognition and respect for the laws of the State put mainstream Chareidim in an entirely different social (and some would say religious) category than the extremists.

I consider the repeated insistence of a continuum of Chareidi values leading to violence and lawlessness to be outright slander. This is perhaps the most pernicious canard being propagated by Orthodox writers about this issue.

Dovid Kornreich

January 4, 2012 at 5:47 pm

By making it clear to the world that these thugs have been condemned by all responsible
Jewish groups and leaders, the world may begin to realize that the thugs are not acting
in accord with true Judaism.

(Wouldn’t you like to see Islamic groups condemn suicide bombings? Why? The crazies
won’t listen to them anyhow?)

I addressed this parenthetically in the main post, but let me ask you personally: Do you take any comfort in the fact that Abbas always comes out with a condemnation of the terrorism emanating from his territory? I don’t. I look at it with a very jaundiced eye. Would you want to subject Chareidi Gedolim to more uncharitable political analysis if they do come out against the extremism?
Oh sure, now people say that this is what they want to see. But trust me, if it finally comes out, then it will be all about political maneuvering and public relations ploys and damage control. No-one will think it’s sincere. Why do they need more cynicism? It’s a no-win.

Dovid Kornreich

January 5, 2012 at 1:41 pm

To Rabbi Landesman:

Is there some reason why the comments here have not penetrated at all? It’s not our pet cause – it is a critical issue that needs to be addressed.

Funny, that’s exactly what the kannoim/askanim claim when they bring problems of Tznius, internet, chillul Shabbos, kevarim, etc. to the attention of the Gedolim to issue public declarations to condemn them…

“Do would you want to subject Chareidi Gedolim to more uncharitable political analysis if they do come out against the extremism.”

I find this statement astounding. Who exactly will be uncharitable – the same vile riffraff who attacked R. Aron Leib for his tacit support of Nachal Chareidi?

That’s not who I had in mind. How about people like Naomi Ragen? She took the Eidah Chareidis’ public declaration placing the “Burqua Babes” outside the pale, and she tried to deduce from it that the Eidah is really jealous of them for coming up with the burqua chumra first! I kid you not:
http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Opinion/Article.aspx?id=249603

People like this are just waiting to find any way possible to twist a straight-forward declaration of protest into tacit approval. Who needs this?

I find the level of violence and lack of civility in chareidi society to be apparent almost across the board

You just conflated two entirely separate criticisms, which allows room for the implication that if you have proof for the latter, you’ve proven the former.
Sorry, but I don’t think this is an honest debating technique. If the problem here is violence and abuse lets talk violence and abuse. It is not helpful to pile on all our pet peeves about Chareidi society as if they are all equally reprehensible and equally worthy of vocal public condemnation.
It is this kind of talk is counter-productive and puts the Chareidi side needlessly on the defensive.

Dovid Kornreich

January 8, 2012 at 3:45 pm

To Nachum:
I’m not sure how you define “Chillul Kedusha,” which is a halachik category that I have never encountered. If it does not include books about gedolim of the past that fail to toe the Chareidi party line (ie “Making of a Gadol”), or books accepting the scientific consensus on the age of the universe and accepting the shita of many rishonim that Chazal were fallible with regard to science (Rabbi Slifkin’s books), or other non Chareidi shittos (eg Rabbi Steinzalts), or separate seating concerts (Shwekey, Avraham Fried, MBD, and others), then your distinction does not hold up.

I think you lost track of the flow.
The “Chillul Kedusha” Category was utilized to explain why we see public protests (demonstrations) spearheaded by Gedolim (or at least their signatures) about issues which do not directly affect their own community.
I thought it was self-evident that when individuals who are embedded to some degree within the Chareidi community produce things for the Chareidi public which are viewed (rightly or wrongly) as undermining Chareidi ideology and values, no explanation for public protest and denunciations would be necessary.

Dovid Kornreich

January 8, 2012 at 5:18 pm

I would like to respond to a piece of historical revisionism by Rabbi Landesman posted on Jan 4, 1:12PM:

The real issues at stake in EY are not gender segregation on the buses. We are at a crossroads where we have to make a decision as to what kind of chareidi society we want to live in. Do we want to be contributors to the Yeshurun model as envisaged by RSRH which may mean that we may well find ourselves in a position where we have to make certain compromises [as sanctioned by qualified rabbanim and poskim] or do we choose to continue to live in the vision of R Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld zt”l and exist through the handouts and good will of the modern day chalukah of the medinah. I am scared because recent statements attributed to Rav Elyashiv would seem to point to choosing the latter.

As I have said numerous times, mainstream Chareidi society has in fact made serious compromises relative to the Eidah Chareidis community and has completely come to terms with living under secular law in Israel. When the mainstream wants something done for their community, they don’t just do it. Their elected factions propose motions in either the local municipality or propose bills in the Knesset. The Knesset! Doesn’t that tell you something very important about the modus vivendi that mainstream Chareidim have struck with the rest of Israeli society? The entire Beis Yaakov system teaches advanced secular subjects in modern Hebrew and with utmost seriousness in order to gain professional employment. This is not an expanded “Old Yishuv” enclave preserving its isolationist mentality.

Look, I’m not saying it’s nearly perfect nor as mentchlech and tolerant as you or I would want, but your dichotomy is simply false on its face.

And speaking of Rav Hirsch *vs.* Rav Zonnenfeld, you need to read up on the term “Austritt,” and know that the latter ADOPTED the model of the former specifically to maintain a religious infrastructure which was independent of the Chief Rabbinate and the dictates of State officials! That isolationist mentality was “the model envisaged by Rav Hirsch” for IRG in Frankfurt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Raphael_Hirsch#Frankfurt_am_Main
I’m not advocating Austritt today in Israel, just setting the record straight.

I then commented on a couple of different threads of other contributors, but the most thorough and convincing description of the entire conflict and its historical and sociological/religious background was definitely this one.

I used that post to attempt to dispel the prevalent myths about all Chareidim being lumped together. Everyone on the ground in RBS and elsewhere in Israel understand this, but no-body outside does.

Dovid Kornreich

January 23, 2012 at 4:26 pm

I have tried to explain in previous posts that Mainstream Chareidi rabbonim primarily (but not exclusively) protest trends and products which they feel threaten the religious standards/beliefs of their community. I seriously have not heard any extremist publicize any religious justifications for vandalism, violence and harassment towards other groups of Jews. There simply is no religious justification and everybody knows it.
So there is no realistic danger of such attitudes encroaching into the mainstream Chareidi community.

I would think it’s obvious that books perceived to be denigrating the honor of Chazal and rejecting the entire mesorah about Creation– purporting to present a valid Torah view and marketed to a frum readership– would seem to not occupy the same category of vandalism and violence.
But maybe that distinction is just a product of my distorted, apologist agenda.

The only value I can see in having Chareidi rabbonim speak out against extremists is to make everyone else feel better about mainstream chareidim. That’s it. It’s about feeling good. It won’t change anyone’s attitudes or behavior.
But as Rabbi Adlerstein said, Israeli Chareidi rabbonim simply don’t care about making people feel good. Unlike their American counterparts, they just aren’t into doing P.R. (And unlike Rabbi Adlerstein, I don’t think this difference in approach to P.R. represents some massive divide between the two communities. People who are professionally involved in P.R. efforts would understandibly tend to think it means everything in the world.)

I’ll hazard to speculate that the mainstream would prefer to present an un-fractured front to non-chareidim even if it means tolerating (but not accepting or condoning) occasional acts which it abhors. Perhaps they see it more as a Chillul Hashem to generate signs of some kind of serious internal schism within the Ultra-Orthodox world. Thiis schism may truly exist on some important levels (as the next post cogently argues, as I have), but to hang dirty laundry in public is something that might be perceived as a victory for the anti-Chareidi world. And Chareidi rabbonim do not want to deliver that victory. I’m not defending this perception, just noting that it may be what’s motivating the deafening silence.

L.Oberstein

January 24, 2012 at 7:33 am

“to hang dirty laundry in public is something that might be perceived as a victory for the anti-Chareidi world.”

This comment reminds me of something my late father, whose Yahrtzeit was yesterday told me about many Southern non Jews. He said that they don’t personally belong to the Ku Klux Klan, but maybe their father or their uncle did and they don’t want a politician explicitly condeming the KKK.Soutern politicians used the same logic as above to keep silent about many horrible things, like lynching.

Thank G-d, we frum Jews don’t carry the violence to that extreme, but words and bans do hurt.
The idea that the most fundamentalist Moslems are winning Elections scares the West and the idea that Jews who reject science no matter what the evidence and reject secular education are growing and multiplying and may indeed some day be very significant, does scare a lot of people.Are they unjustified?

dovid2

January 24, 2012 at 2:13 pm

Dovid Kornreich: “The only value I can see in having Chareidi rabbonim speak out against extremists is to make everyone else feel better about mainstream chareidim. That’s it. It’s about feeling good. It won’t change anyone’s attitudes or behavior.”

That’s not true. Yiddhishkeit is about emmes. When you see evil, call it so. Evil must be rejected vehemently. Don’t play politics. Silence in the circumstances is accepting and encouraging evil.

Eliezer

January 24, 2012 at 11:42 pm

To dovid2:

Bravo!

Woe to a community whose leaders are capable of playing politics while innocent Jewish children are being victimized.

Rabbi Kornreich thinks that he’s defending the leaders of the Chareidi community. What he doesn’t realize is that he’s just delivered the greatest possible indictment.

Dovid Kornreich

January 26, 2012 at 5:02 pm

Yiddishkeit is also about maintaining Sholom and not speaking out when it will do more harm than good. You may not see the harm in speaking out publicly against other Chareidim (even if they occupy a separate sub-society) and making a schism, but others apparently do.

Eliezer

January 28, 2012 at 10:14 pm

Rabbi Kornreich:

With all due respect, I believe that your invoking the midda of Sholom is confusing the issue.

What you wrote in your earlier post was that “to hang dirty laundry in public is something that might be perceived as a victory for the anti-Chareidi world”. That has nothing to do with Sholom, but rather with maintaining the image of the chareidi community. Rashi says in Parshas Kedoshim that the reason the family of a Molech worshipper is punished is because they cover up for him. What I see in this Rashi is that the tendency to cover up for evil within “the family” (in this case the chareidi community) is not viewed positively by the Torah.

Dovid Kornreich

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

January 29, 2012 at 7:45 pm

With all due respect, silence cannot be misconstrued as “covering up”. It is way of avoiding confrontation, passively maintaining internal peace, and not creating (or widening) schism. I think the term Sholom is a wholly appropriate term to characterize those objectives.

I’d like to be clear that I don’t like the status quo of extremists being tolerated (publicly that is–who knows what’s going on behind the scenes?) and I don’t believe anybody here likes it. But perhaps the consequences of disrupting the status quo will be far worse on many levels.

Read more: http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2012/01/20/who-picks-up-the-tab-for-media-manipulation/#ixzz1ktp7MExs

Oh, well.
At least I tried getting my message through.

I don't think many people realized that I wasn't defending Chareidi extremists. But the minute you try to minimize the exaggerated accusations and keep things in proportion, you're automatically branded an apologist.

A Gem From Rav Reuven Leuchter's Latest--Taking on the Kiruv Establishment Mentality About Emuna

2012-01-18T00:54:00.001+02:00

Rav Reuven Leuchter, a leading expositor of mussar and hashkafa who is teaching in one of the world's leading kiruv training programs, and engages in front-line kiruv himself, has published a small sefer (only 120 pages) in English on Tefila.

Although the sefer's approach to teffila is at the same time novel and intuitive, I find that its true uniqueness lies in its ability to render a complex and often esoteric sefer like the Nefesh Hachayim into a guide for practical avodah.
There are many surprises in this sefer, but the one that I feel has should have the greatest impact is how it addresses the role of emunah in Tefilah. To my great satisfaction, it plots out a definitive approach to how one builds emunah in general.
This approach takes up most of chapter 7 in the book. It is really a stand-alone chapter that can be read and understood outside the context of the rest of the book as well as within it.

Here is the crucial quote:

There is a great danger when one deals with emuna solely as an intellectual pursuit, when one constructs his emuna based on his intellect and neglects the essential basis for building his faith-namely, having a faith that is grounded in experiencing it in the simple realities of our lives. For such a person, the slightest intellectual anomaly is liable to shake his faith, and in the end, his faith will disappear..

...Unfortunately, the situation today is that people turn to those who are involved with kiruv, Jewish outreach, as the authoritative voice on issues of emuna. Frequently, kiruv workers assume the role of "experts" in matters of faith. The message they transmit is that with a well-founded and strong emuna, any question can be answered. While such an attitude may be a necessity for this kind of work, it is the wrong approach for building emuna. Emuna is not some state of having arrived at the solution to life's quintessential, existential questions; rather, it is about the simplicity of things and having total clarity. The task of emuna is not to grapple with difficulties;as such, difficult questions pose no threat to emuna. Accordingly, in engaging those who are unaffiliated with Judaism, the primary aim should be to remove their pre-existing myths about Torah and to help them experience a visible, experiential faith through the reality of their own lives.

The chapter goes on to describe building emuna as an exercise of the capacity for "hisbonenus" which could be translated as "focused imagination". You should really get a hold of the book and read it yourself.
To my mind, it is nothing less than a detailed description of the Rambam's "koach hamedameh" which is an essential trait for a prophet to receive prophesy. The chapter allowed me to gain a rare, practical understanding of how tefila can achieve all the lofty levels that seforim attribute to it.
Reading the book is easy. All the concepts flow together and weave a grand tapestry. The implementation is where all the work lies, but at least the book gives you all the perspective and practical tools you need to actually do the avodah she'bilev.

On Addressing the Burning Issues and "Say Anything" Columnists

2012-01-06T02:46:00.000+02:00

Since most people are so busy loudly complaining about how the Chareidi leadership is not responding to the current crisis, no one seems to have noticed that said leadership has just responded to yesterday's crisis: Same Sex Attraction in the Orthodox community.
(I have linked to the FAQ page instead of the actual declaration because I think is should be read first. I don't think its a good idea to be offended by a dogmatic statement of principles and then have to read the explanation and the nuances afterward.)
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the position, it's hard to claim that the statement lacks sensitivity and competence in the relevant factors.

I think people are seriously missing the boat when they complain about the unresponsiveness of Chareidi leadership to the pressing issues of the day. Just because a problem is pressing or even a crisis, doesn't mean it can be instantly apprehended, understood and addressed effectively. But this is the expectation of today's world of instant global communication, and it is counter-productive to finding real, lasting solutions to deep and complex problems.

Sure, its comforting to have first-hand confirmation that one's leadership is not "out-of-touch" with the reality. But people are not aware of the price that will be paid when it becomes obligatory to say something--anything-- about every hot-button issue that arises, and to have to say it fast enough to make it in time for the first few news cycles when the story is still fresh.
The price is often that you have to say something that is either obvious, or obviously publicity-driven. More often than not, a genuine, reflective, nuanced position which actually takes considerable time and thought to formulate, is not an option.

What made the biggest impression on me about the Torah Declaration website was that it was effective in dispelling the myths about the ineffectiveness of "reparative therapy". In addition to publicizing an important statement by the APA and exposing it's history of politically motivated positions, the website offers an important answer to the burning question:

Question 4:

Why don’t we hear more from people who have successfully gone through the process of reparative therapy?

Answer:

In the Torah Observant world there is a whole network of frum individuals who have gone through reparative therapy and have overcome their same-sex attractions. Many of these brave individuals are now married with their wives full knowledge and support and are upstanding members of Klal Yisrael living lives filled with kedusha and consistent with the Torah. These individuals are just like everyone else. Why would they want to publicize a difficult and private struggle in their lives?

Despite this, many of these brave souls know how important it is to bring awareness to this subject and are willing to privately share their personal struggles, the healing and therapeutic techniques and the joy and equanimity that successful change has brought to their lives. They have agreed to speak privately with anyone who is either struggling themselves with this issue or with a Rabbi, teacher, or community leader who needs more information about this issue.

If you fit into either of these two categories and would like to speak to someone who has successfully overcome their SSA, please email us with your specific situation and we can have someone contact you to discuss it further.

You don't read too many media reports and personal anecdotes about successful reparative therapy. Because that would undermine the liberal article of faith that one must accept SSA as an equally valid alternative orientation. You are only allowed to read about how therapy has failed, how the expectation for change is cruel and self-defeating, and how friends, family and modern society as a whole is slowly but inexorably coming to terms with this reality.

This is what all the media-outlets and blogs were screaming about over a year ago.
Were the Rabbinic leadership to officially come out at the time with a hasty press release that orientation change is the ONLY acceptable option for Orthodox Jews with SSA, it would have been dismissed as insensitive. And for all its rapid response time, it would have been regarded as being out-of-touch with reality.
What was needed at the time was not to issue some "say anything" statement, but to look into the facts on the ground, ignore the media hype, make consultations with experts in the field, and finally, get a wide spectrum of support from across the Orthodox rabbinate for a thoughtful and sensitive but definitive statement.
That is what the Torah Declaration represents.

Again, whether you agree with it or not, I believe it stands as a model of responsible rabbinic responsiveness for all such social/religious crises which reach a critical mass in the Jewish world.

I often feel bad for pundits and opinion-makers like Jonathan Rosenblum and Rabbi Adlerstein. Their official job and source of income is to respond to any and every issue that the media foists upon us-- in a matter of days or at maximum, a week.
To their credit, they always manage to find something intelligent and insightful to say, (which is why they are paid for what they write) but rarely do they have the luxury of simply not commenting and just waiting to see what develops.

I always get the feeling that with a little more leg-work and research and by simply allowing enough time to pass to let more voices be heard and the situation play itself out, a much more comprehensive and penetrating analysis could be offered.
That's why this blog usually discriminates and takes its time in responding to the breaking Jewish news that regularly erupts over the blogosphere. (That, and the blessed reality that I am juggling 3 part-time teaching/learning jobs and a growing family.)

Much Ado About Language

2012-01-03T04:36:00.000+02:00

Before all the current hysteria about the maltreatment of women by Chareidim exploded last week, Rabbi Adlerstein was absolutely gushing with praise for an article by Dr. Moshe Koppel about how the halacha and the halachic community develops and evolves in response to various external pressures and internal tensions.
Although it is a very thoughtful article with much some sound sociological insights, I think the enthusiasm over this thesis as some kind of "Grand Theory" by Rabbi Adlerstien over at CC is overblown.

True, the author begins the first chapter with grand claims of the existence of an analogue between language development and halachic development (as small imperceptible steps of expansion and aggregation), but for all this promise, he seems to abruptly shoot himself in the foot in chapter III.

In this chapter he says that, unlike a natural spoken language, halachic practice-- even for the masses-- has in fact been formalized by rules and codes ever since the Mishna.

The rules of language are, as we have noted, occasionally codified by authors of textbooks and dictionaries or by members of august academies. But native speakers of the language don’t actually pay much attention to them. Language evolves in a rather natural way.

This is not the case with halacha. Halacha is forever being codified in codes, responsa, and specialized instructional volumes. Could halacha have developed as naturally as language does?

There is one basic difference between language as process and halacha as process, and this difference leads to many others. The principles of aggregation are exogenous to language but endogenous to halacha. In other words, the rules of grammar say nothing about how consensus is formed with regard to linguistic expansion. But halacha has a great deal to say about how the process is supposed to function. The English language is quite indifferent to the fact that Eminem doesn’t sound like Chaucer. Such considerations are entirely outside the realm of the rules of syntax and usage. Halacha, on the other hand, includes within its scope its own dynamics. Sudden discontinuities violate the rules of halacha itself.

For this reason, the expansion and aggregation of halacha are performed less naturally and more consciously than the analogous linguistic phenomena.

This acknowledgement, even if made begrudgingly and with regret over its disadvantages (see below), effectively ruins the analogy and upends his thesis. If one were so inclined, the rest of the article can easily be perceived as an elaborate intellectual gripe against the effects of codification upon halacha, which freezes it and prevents it from developing more naturally like a language-- as it had done in the past and ought to do now.

Although codification of halacha serves multiple purposes, it also exacts a high price. I will describe this price in considerable detail below. For now I want only to note that the traditional Jewish view, as reflected in the Talmud and in many subsequent rabbinic works, is that halacha in its “natural state” is much more like language than is often realized. Codification was regarded by the sages as a necessary evil. Apart from the Bible, all of Jewish tradition was intended to be an oral, not written, tradition, precisely in order to preserve the nuances that are lost in codification.⁹

The Talmud discusses how an open legal question would work its way up the hierarchy of the courts until being resolved by the Sanhedrin (the Supreme Court).¹⁰ The discussion is capped by an unexpected coda. It is reported that unresolved disputes began to multiply when many students of Shammai and of Hillel failed to serve their masters properly. Given the context, we would have expected to hear that disputes multiplied when the Sanhedrin was abolished, i.e., when the mechanism for dispute resolution ceased operation. But that is not the point being made. In multiple places, the Talmud reports that codification is a necessary response to a malfunction of the oral tradition.¹¹Thus, when oral transmission breaks down due to a failure of the teacher-pupil relationship, as in the case of the students of Shammai and Hillel, the resulting need for codification transforms the natural multiplicity of coexisting views and preferences into formalized disagreements.

This is not just an arcane historical point. Codification often forces us to frame problems in terms of discrete choices precisely where such choices are least productive. This is true in three different realms: law, doctrine, and communal solidarity.

In addition to all this, there is a sharp lack of evidence for his assertions, with no multiple, detailed histories provided to illustrate how exactly halachic development used to work systematically as a language. The scant footnotes provided are quite superficial by way of analysis --and Talmudic sources deserve anything but superficial analysis--and therefore leaves much to be desired as a developed theory. The article seems designed to cater more to the "intellectual junkie" than to the serious scholar.

The assertions in chapters II and III about the role of moral instincts and judgments involved in the halachic decision-making process may be true, but similarly suffers from a complete lack of substantiation needed for such a major idea in the essay.

However, all that being said, I did appreciate the insights in chapter IV and VIII about three moral flavors and how emphasizing one at the expense of the others leads to a lack of equilibrium and distortions of Judaism. These are leading factors which drive people (or keep people) away from Judaism.

This is a concern that is foremost on the author's agenda in this essay, and rightly so. But one gets the uncanny feeling that the author is rooting for a particular flavor of Judaism and is subtly laying the intellectual groundwork for delegitimizing others. Lines like these seem suggestive of this hidden agenda:

Now, one can treat this comparison as a mere intellectual exercise, an interesting metaphor at most, but I believe its potential implications are great and far-reaching. It can shed light on some of the problems that keep many contemporary Jews—myself included—up at night: If Judaism, as it is currently practiced in certain circles, has gone off the rails, how would we know? Is there some Archimedean point from which we could decide the matter? And, if this is indeed the case, is the founding of a Jewish state likely to get us back on track? The answers to these questions, I will attempt to show here, are all inextricably connected, and the key to finding them may perhaps lie in understanding Judaism as language.

Also, chapter VI about the social dynamics of "signaling" and why certain societies embedded in hostile environments suffer from "signal inflation" and precipitate lost of moral equilibrium was also quite insightful. But the author's biases seem to creep in here as well:

The effectiveness of signals can, however, vary with time and circumstance. In the world of American Orthodox Judaism, the refusal to eat non-kosher meat or Hostess Twinkies was once regarded as sufficiently onerous, due to the dearth of alternatives, that it could serve as an effective signal. But then the easy availability of kosher meat and snacks rendered such signals ineffective, because they were insufficiently costly. As a result, the old signals were replaced by new ones that were onerous enough to serve as signals. Kosher was replaced by glatt kosher, which was replaced by hasidishe shechita, yashon, hydroponic vegetables, and so on up the ladder of costliness and strictness. The easier each of these becomes to obtain, the less useful it is.²⁸

But it should be emphasized that, neither of these insights fit smoothly into the "halacha as language" analogy as promised, and they are completely stand-alone chapters. They only tie into the thesis as examples of how Halacha fails to be as flexible as language due to un-nuanced, rigid, codification.

The author tries to recover the analogy in chapter VII by recasting it as Judaism observed in the Diaspora as a whole being analogous to speaking a second language, but it lost all semblance of the original thesis of natural expansion and aggregation in the process.

The formalized Judaism we have described actually has a linguistic analog. Practicing formalized Judaism is something like speaking a second language. Consider how some of us speak a recently acquired second language. First, we grope for rules in order to decide how to frame a sentence. That’s why we tend to speak a second language a bit less idiomatically than a first language. In addition, a second language is often not spoken fluently, but rather self-consciously; we reflect on the fact of our speaking the language as we speak it and maybe even ask ourselves whether it’s worth the effort. Finally, we sometimes need to make conscious judgments about whose linguistic practices we may trust so that we can mimic them.

In short, there are a number of profound and intuitively sound ideas about the origins of the rift between the hyper-halacha conscious vs. the hyper-moral conscious Orthodox communities of today. It neatly describes the sociological dynamics at work which generate the palpable social and religious tensions between the two groups and offers a framework for reconciliation. But although the author has nothing but good intentions--to increase greater understanding between these communities, relieve tensions, and reduce defections-- one gets the distinct impression that the solutions call for the strict to be more accepting and accommodate the lax and not have them return the favor.

And as an intellectual achievement, it singularly lacks the cohesion and unification promised by the author and is sorely in need of greater substantiation and analysis through thoroughly analyzed Talmudic examples.

Revisionism and the Rav Revisited (Again) Rabbi Wurzburger comes to Rav Meiselman's defense against Dr. Kaplan

2011-12-22T00:31:00.001+02:00

Rabbi Gil Student has posted a fascinating excerpt from Rabbi Walter Wurzburger's essay on the Rav in Tradition 1994 which can be read in full online here.
Before addressing the excerpt in Reb Gil's post (which will be done in a future post here, G-d willing) I want to highlight a different excerpt in the essay.

I found it encouraging to see that it seems Rav Meiselman has some distinguished company in his understanding of Rav Soloveitchik's pragmatic view of Zionism:

“The Rav shared with Yitzchak Breuer the conviction that the time had arrived when Torah ideals (especially those relating to Adam I) could best be realized by building a Jewish society in Eretz Yisrael.

As opposed to Breuer, who developed and transformed the Hirschian doctrine of Torah im Derekh Eretz into that of Torah im Derekh Eretz Yisrael, the Rav’s approach to the building of a Jewish state was completely devoid of Messianic overtones but focused upon the material and spiritual needs of the Jewish people and the obligation to do whatever is in one’s power to ameliorate their conditions.15 Similarly, the absence of Messianic motifs prevented the Rav from subscribing to the Gush Emunim philosophy, which of late has made such inroads into Mizrachi circles.

This realistic approach to the State of Israel was responsible for his reluctance to authorize the recital of Hallel on Yom Ha ‘atzmaut and Yom Yerushalayim. If the chapters of Tehillim which comprised Hallel were to be recited, he recommended saying them some time after Kaddish Titkabel and not immediately following the Shemone Esre as is customary on Yom Tov or Rosh Hodesh.”

This is the essence of what Rav Meiselman asserted about the Rav, but Rabbi Wurzburger included a much needed highlight of the contrast between the Rav's view of Zionism and the dominant Messianic Zionism of today.
It is Messianic Zionism which can be rightly characterized as imbuing the State of Israel with intrinsic halachic significance, and this character is remarkably absent from the Rav's Zionism.

What I found even more intriguing is that in the footnote to this passage, Rav Wurzburger indicates that this purely pragmatic view of Zionism can be discerned from the Rav's public addresses and published writings. The very sources that Dr. Kaplan held to be primary in surmising the views of the Rav.

15 See R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Hamesh Derashot, translated by David Telzner, Jerusalem, Tal Orot, 1974 and “Kol Dodi Dofek,” in Besod Hayahid Vehayahad, ed. Pinchas H. Peli (Jerusalem: Orot, 1976), pp. 333-400.

The upshot of all this is that Dr. Kaplan's accusations of revisionism against Rav Meiselman ring all the more hollow-- once it emerges that he is also pitting himself against someone who had a total command of Rav Soloveitchik's thought, and at the same time cannot be assumed to be harboring any right-wing agenda to portray the Rav as a traditional Chareidi Rosh Yeshivah.

Musings on the Passing of an Isha Gedolah

2011-11-18T01:30:00.001+02:00

I was waiting until the passing of her Sheloshim to see what the blogworld would have to say about Rebbetzin Batsheva Kanievsky's life and unique impact on the Chareid world before I ventured to speak my mind, and to my surprise, there was nothing on the web beyond the regular online Jewish news outlet coverage and obituary-type blogposts.
Well, perhaps it is too premature to evaluate the Rebbetzin's historical impact on Chareidi society so soon after her sudden passing, and perhaps it is inappropriate to first discuss sociology and not first express the depth of the loss of such a woman to us.
But in light of the raging blog-controversy over Open Orthodoxy's feminist agenda, it seems that a post on the subject is timely, relevant, and important.
It is too important to let the moment pass without taking the opportunity to highlight the deep contrast in the different Orthodox societies' responses to feminism --which the late Rebbetzin brought subtly into focus.

It is my hope that this seemingly aloof analysis of Rebbetzin Kanievsky's unique position in Jewish society will be a catalyst to further admiration of Chareidi society, dispel harmful myths, and contribute to making a Kiddush Hashem.

I'll begin with a phrase found in last week's Haftarah portion from Melochim 2 perek 4 describing the Isha Hashunamis:

ח וַיְהִי הַיּוֹם וַיַּעֲבֹר אֱלִישָׁע אֶל-שׁוּנֵם וְשָׁם אִשָּׁה גְדוֹלָה וַתַּחֲזֶק-בּוֹ לֶאֱכָל-לָחֶם וַיְהִי מִדֵּי עָבְרוֹ יָסֻר שָׁמָּה לֶאֱכָל-לָחֶם:

ט וַתֹּאמֶר אֶל-אִישָׁהּ הִנֵּה-נָא יָדַעְתִּי כִּי אִישׁ אֱלֹהִים קָדוֹשׁ הוּא עֹבֵר עָלֵינוּ תָּמִיד:

י נַעֲשֶׂה-נָּא עֲלִיַּת-קִיר קְטַנָּה וְנָשִׂים לוֹ שָׁם מִטָּה וְשֻׁלְחָן וְכִסֵּא וּמְנוֹרָה וְהָיָה בְּבֹאוֹ אֵלֵינוּ יָסוּר שָׁמָּה:

יא וַיְהִי הַיּוֹם וַיָּבֹא שָׁמָּה וַיָּסַר אֶל-הָעֲלִיָּה וַיִּשְׁכַּב-שָׁמָּה:

יב וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל-גֵּיחֲזִי נַעֲרוֹ קְרָא לַשּׁוּנַמִּית הַזֹּאת וַיִּקְרָא-לָהּ וַתַּעֲמֹד לְפָנָיו:

יג וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אֱמָר-נָא אֵלֶיהָ הִנֵּה חָרַדְתְּ אֵלֵינוּ אֶת-כָּל-הַחֲרָדָה הַזֹּאת מֶה לַעֲשׂוֹת לָךְ הֲיֵשׁ לְדַבֶּר-לָךְ אֶל-הַמֶּלֶךְ אוֹ אֶל-שַׂר הַצָּבָא וַתֹּאמֶר בְּתוֹךְ עַמִּי אָנֹכִי יֹשָׁבֶת:

We're not used to describing a special Jewish women as an "Isha Gedolah" in the same sense that we describe a special Jewish man as a Gadol. But Rebbetzin Kanievsky's influence on Jewish women shared many facets with the impact of a modern-day male gadol.
My primary fact source for this analysis comes from the page-and-a-half tribute to Rebbetzin Kanievsky's memory, printed in the English Hamodia newspaper of October 27, 2011 on pages A18-A19.

The tribute contains some very striking paragraph titles. Alongside the more predictable "Loving Care" and "Tefillah and Shmiras Hamitzvos", we also have "Ahavas HaTorah", "A Mother, a Leader" and "Segulos and Mofsim".
I noticed that there was a "kennes hisorrerus" organized to eulogize the Rebbetzin on her sheloshim--something that I have never seen before for a woman in Yerushalayim.

To me, the title "leader"--even if juxtaposed to the title "mother"-- is not one that you will find in many descriptions of gedolim's wives. I am hard pressed to think of another Orthodox woman in modern times billed as "a leader" other than Sarah Schenirer.

But a leader she was.
After the article details the Rebbetzin's illustrious lineage and spouse, it goes on to state that

"Yet she was a great woman in her own right, and her brochos were known to be fulfilled. When her husband, Rav Chaim once felt ill, he travelled to his father-in-law Rav Elyashiv, in Yerushalayim to ask for a bracha. Rav Elyashiv was surprised: "Ask your wife, my daughter for a bracha--her brachos are worth more than mine!"
"The Rebbetzin would often relate stories of her grandfather, HaRav Aryeh Levin, zt"l, who showed her special affection. As a young child, she accompanied her grandfather when he went to visit the prisoners."

Women of all Jewish backgrounds and levels of observance flocked to her constantly for segulos, brochos, eitzos, and chizuk. Exactly as a male gadol serves the wider Jewish public! Her tiny kitchen was a "must visit" for American seminary classes in Israel and American female Chareidi tourists, not unlike geldolim's homes are for visiting American bochurim and male tourists.

But the point that needs to be made is that, like the anonymity of the "Shunamite woman" whose name is never mentioned in Tanach--even by those who are directly addressing her-- Rebbetzin Kanievsky's picture is not being sold in any photo store in Geulah, nor is it hanging on anyone's wall in their living room. She was best known for her segula of davening for people while performing the uniquely feminine mitzvah of Hafroshas Challah.
So although she was a Great Jewish Personality, her great impact was felt exclusively among women, in her kitchen, doing women's mitzvos, and being devoted to her husband and his Torah as a model rebbetzin.

All this shows me that although the times perhaps demand that women be given more public consideration and prominence in Jewish life than they have in the past, there is an Isha Gedolah of the highest pedigree and best credentials imaginable, who can serve as a role-model for how do to it right.
Rebbetzin Batsheva Kanievsky has shown us how Orthodox women can have a profound religious impact upon the greater Jewish world without compromising one iota on the values and attitudes of tzinus and deference to Da'as Torah that the Chareidi world takes so much pride in.

Other Orthodox societies tend to navigate this path with an inherent tension, if not flat contradiction between tznius and women's publicity and spiritual influence. They seem to feel she has to be able to address men and women in public as well as in private, in speeches, classes, eulogies, drashot, and various religious functions, or else she isn't going to be taken seriously. They have much to learn from the late Rebbitzin indeed.

So yes, Virginia, times have changed and Yiddishkeit cannot ignore these changes indefinitely. But how one responds to these changes makes all the difference in the world.

The Jewish Music Video--Trends and Critiques

2011-11-11T00:51:00.001+02:00

This post will be commenting on the latest trend in Jewish culture: The Jewish Music Video.

I've been getting links from family members to all kinds of new music videos over these weeks and I want to present something that can put them into perspective for myself and my readers.

I believe this all started when high resolution digital cameras became ridiculously affordable and movie-editing programs allowed any tech savvy individual to put together a sophisticated (although amateur) production.

If I'm not mistaken, David Lavon can be credited with popularizing this new genre single-handedly.

Of course, like most aspects of popular Jewish culture, its form is taken directly from non-Jewish media.

Don't get me wrong. This fact does not automatically mark it for criticism. Newspapers and magazines used to be exclusively non-Jewish mediums as well (not to mention certain musical instruments and styles). Cinematography is certainly an art form and a most powerful one at that. So borrowing it does give it an extra dimension of risk and lends itself to be easily corrupted-- because its just so much easier to imitate the popular and the crude exploitation of this media than to invent your own.

Thus, we find male dance choreography in a video which contributes absolutely nothing to a song that itself is lyrically meaningless. It is a text-book example of entertainment for it's own sake, with zero spiritual value as far as I can tell. This may seem innocuous at first, but after observing how the rest of the world's obsession with entertainment has infiltrated our community, I worry that this new medium will gradually take this already misplaced preoccupation to a new level.

One step up from this is Aish HaTorah's recent Rosh Hashono dance video which does have a message...somewhere...

You can't really hear the lyrics too well, and again, the dancing/gymnastics have absolutely nothing to do with the words. At least there is an official spiritual message being presented. Ostensibly.

But here's an example of how the medium is used right:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKGyI88ZkS8&feature=related

And I'm sure there are many other great examples which I am not aware of.

The subject of Maccabeat videos deserves a treatment of its own.

I previously posted on the Maccabeats' meteoric rise in popularity a few months ago, ending with a certain apprehension as to which direction the group would take in the future.

If the trajectory of their video style is any indication, then the apprehension is certainly warranted.

To date, they have four videos which are very diverse in style.

"One Day" is innocuously pro-Y.U., with zero message other than to depict the origins of the group. No perceivable connection to Matisyahu's lyrics.
The "Candlelight" video which "went viral" and propelled the group to stardom was, according to the Maccabeats themselves, a form of outreach. It was a hip, humorous, and nonthreatening way to get across the real substance behind the Channuka story.
"Purim" was similar in the sense that the message was all about the Purim story with a good wholesome feeling of a family seuda with laughing children and costumes and a line about "not drinking like a fool".
Their latest Rosh Hashana video is the one I really what I wanted to discuss.

This one pushes the message to the max by actually portraying people doing teshuvah and mending their ways over the course of the video! Incredibly touching and inspiring.

I could kvetch that all the sins which were mended were exclusively "bein adam lechaveiro". This puts too much of a humanistic emphasis for my taste and should have been more balanced. But I'm not kvetching because for outreach purposes, "bein adam le'chaveiro" by far and away has the widest appeal to a general audience. SO I can't fault them for catering their teshuvah message to remain as close as possible to viewers' comfort zones. (And they didn't have any male dance choreography-- which is good because it kept the video on a serious tone. Besides, these guys can't really dance anyway.)

But I will criticize this video for making a departure from what seemed to be a studious and principled policy of not featuring any women in their videos. Even in the background.

Now, if any of the first three videos had women in it anywhere, then there would have been no precedent to break from in this video. And as an explicitly Modern Orthodox group with a strong MO ideology, I wouldn't have expected anything different.

But they did set this precedent with their previous videos and it was disappointing to see them dip in their standards.

Now please don't think that I am charging that the women depicted in this video were indecent in any way. On the contrary. All the Jewesses were fully clothed, non-provocative, and even sported complete hair-coverings. (The occasional non-Jewess in the background much less so, however.)

But much of their presence was gratuitous and unnecessary for the story-line (especially at the end with the "across-the-mechitzah" shots). Going from a "no-woman policy" to a "modest woman policy" was a distinct move away from where they were before. I'm sure there is a good reason for it, but the fact remains that the standards have lowered over their short video launching career.

It does not bode well for the future of Jewish music videos.

Random Thoughts on Parshas Vayeirah--Go The Distance

2011-11-09T00:05:00.001+02:00

The following is a dramatic adaptation of Rav Moshe Meiselman's shmuessin spanning the first four parshiyos of Sefer Bereishis.

Anyone who wants to to use it or pass it on is requested to include proper attribution.

Go The Distance

Wewill start with the very end of this week's powerful Torah portion and work ourway backwards.

Imaginefour figures riding on donkeys on a three day’s journey towards a distant unknownmountain top. On the third day, the oldest rider dismounts.

He seemsto recognize a certain mountain in the distance and calls for the other threeto dismount as well. He solemnly tells two of the riders to wait here with thedonkeys until he and the youngest traveler complete the journey on foot and return.He places a large bundle of chopped wood on the back of the youngest traveler,and while he holds a torch and a slaughtering knife, they both walk on togetheron foot toward the mountain in the distance.

Alongthe way, the youngest traveler raises doubts and worries; he starts to falter.But the oldest rider, full of care and concern, reassures him and they forgeahead till they finally arrive at their fateful destination.

Theoldest and youngest travelers who reach the mountain are Avrohom and Yitzchok Ovinuwho are going to the Akeidah.

Thoseleft behind with the donkeys awaiting their return are Eliezer and Yishmoel.

Asidefrom the power of the narrative itself, the journey to Mount Moriahis a powerful metaphor, which amazingly, encapsulates all the previous parshiyosup till this point in Sefer Bereishis.

FallingFrom Grace.

Ifyou want to find a single theme that runs through from the beginning ofBereishis with until the Akeida, it is one of initial success ending in almosttotal failure.

InBereishis, Hashem initially succeeds in creating an amazing world teeming withlife forms which are built with the capability of reproducing and sustaining themselvesperpetually without the need for constant supernatural intervention. It is asystem of complexity and diversity of incredible scope. And it has thepotential for blessing and prosperity which boggles the imagination.

Thereis complexity and versatility on every level of existence--from the dance of theconstellations of stars and galaxies in the far reaches of outer space, to theprecise orbits of the planets and moon which make life on Earth possible.

Closerto home, there is the water cycle and weather systems which maintain a delicatebalance of temperature, wind, precipitation and evaporation, without which lifewouldn't be possible.

Thereare ecosystems spanning entire regions of the planet where each and everyliving plant and creature contributes its link in the food chain to sustain allliving beings in exquisite harmony. Not to mention the world of the cell andDNA which is a micro-universe unto itself-- processing and carrying out encodedinformation at a dizzying speed and uncanny accuracy.

Andall of this fine orchestration and delicate harmony provided an enormous amountof bounty and plenty-- as a natural feature of creation-- and openlytestified to the greatness of its Creator.

Thiswas Hashem's smashing initial success.

Butthen, the pinnacle of this entire creation and its crowning glory--Man—failedmiserably. He was given a unique soul which placed him above the beast and was givena mission to elevate all of physical creation to a higher level. But he mistookthis world as a place of selfish pleasure and indulgence instead of it being aliving testimony to the benevolence of Hashem. Adam and his descendants quicklytook the path of ignoring their spiritual mission on Earth and focused on self-gratificationinstead of selfless devotion to the Creator.

Asa result, they corrupted the very fabric of Planet Earth and crippled itsnatural abundant productivity. The land became cursed. Hashem had no choice butto bring the Mabul and destroy it all.

Itwould seem that from Hashem’s perspective, Ma'aseh Bereishis ended in failuredue to Man’s fatal mistakes.

Butit wasn't a complete failure.

Therewas one human being who rose above the pettiness and selfishness of the rest ofhumanity who was worth saving. With Noach, Hashem was able to start humanityover again.

Noachinitially succeeded in salvaging Hashem's creation on his merit alone. He was atzaddik of indescribable proportions and all of life on planet Earth owes itsexistence to his righteousness. (This is why all living creatures can be eatenby a Ben Noach whereas Adam's generation could not eat any animals-onlyvegetation and fruit--Ramban.)

Butalas, this success was again short-lived.

Immediatelyafter emerging from the Arkwe are met with failure after failure. The great Noach descends (figurativelyas well as literally) from the Arkstraight into vulgar materialism and he indulges in wine and drunkenness.Simultaneously, his third son Chom is vying for a larger piece of the planet.One fourth of the globe is too little for his liking. He insists on getting noless than a full third and exploits the opportunity to castrate his drunken fatherand prevent a shrinking inheritance.

Theentire generation starts to degenerate into idol worship and forms a societywhere belief in Hashem is persecuted and driven underground.

Followingin the Footsteps of Avrohom Ovinu

Onlyone man is brave enough to take a stand and take on the entire civilized world.

Thatman is Avrohom Ovinu.

Buthe is not alone.

Inhis forced exile from his birthplace in Ur Kasdim, he is joined by his fatherTerach and his nephew, Lot.

Chazalsay that Terach, although initially opposed his rebellious son, eventually didteshuvah. But Terach didn't make the journey all the way to the Land of Cana'an along with his son. He stoppedalong the way in Charan and remained there till his death. Avrohom completedthe journey without him.

ButLot continued on with Avrohom all the way toCana'an! He even went down to

Egypt

with Avrohom in the time of famine and didn't reveal Avrohom's truerelationship with Sarah which he could have played to his great financial advantage.We seem to have a hero in the making.

Butwhen Lot does become prosperous, he decidesthat he wants to separate from Avrohom. Lot wants to increase his wealth evenfurther-- and he chooses Sodom.

Ineffect, by choosing to settle among the moral depravity of Sodominstead of remaining with Avrohom, Lot'sjourney to greatness prematurely ends there. In his pursuit of wealth, Lot turns his back on Avrohom and his spiritual values andhe only goes downhill from there. In our parsha he finally hits rock-bottomwhen he commits incest with his two daughters in a drunken stupor.

Yetthere are other players in this unfolding drama.

WhileAvrohom was in Cana'an, his household picked up another bright prospect forgreatness--Hagar.

Afterseeing the enormous spiritual power and purity of Sarah Imeinu, Hagarimmediately became willing to give up her luxurious and pampered lifestyle ofroyalty in the palace as the daughter of the Pharaoh. She trades it in tobecome a humble maidservant in Sarah's household. An amazing sacrifice! Sarahherself finds her worthy of becoming Avrohom's second wife! No smallaccomplishment!

Butin this week's parsha we see that Hagar ultimately proved unsuccessful ininstilling this drive for spiritual greatness in the next generation. Her son Yishmoelturns out to be a negative influence upon Yitzchok and needs to be expelledfrom Avrohom's house. Chazal tell us that after this expulsion, Hagarinstinctively reverts to her idol-worshiping upbringing and chooses an Egyptianwife for Yishmoel.

Herand her son's journey to greatness too, ends here prematurely.

Thisis the symbolic meaning of the two riders left behind with the donkeys. Only Avrohomand Yitzchok continue the journey alone.

OnlyAvrohom and Yitzchok actually make it all the way to MountMoriah and willingly choose to performthe ultimate act of self-sacrifice that should have been the choice of Adam, andNoach, Terach and Lot, Hagar and Yishmoel.

Althoughall these figures make tremendous initial progress in their spiritual journeyto greatness, only Avrohom and Yitzchok actually go the distance. It wasn’t aneasy journey to complete and obstacles had to be overcome every step of theway. But with Hashem’s loving encouragement and assurances to Avrohom, and Avrohom’sloving encouragement to Yitzchok, they finally made it through till the end.

HowFar Can We Go?

Eachof our own life’s journeys to greatness is fraught with obstacles and eventemporary setbacks. We need to know that our rebbeim of all eras--past and present--are there for us, ready toencourage and reassure us through their heartfelt words--either oral or written-- when we feel weak and want to give up the journey. Theyare hoping and praying for us to succeed and make it through till the end.

Andultimately, Hashem Himself is behind us, making sure that we get theinspiration we need to overcome all the tests that He throws our way. We arenot the children of Lot or Hagar and Yishmoelwhose journey to greatness ended prematurely.

Weare the children of Avrohom, Yitzchok and Yaakov.

Justknowing that can give us the strength and the capacity to truly believe, that withHashem’s help, we will go the distance.

Good Shabbos,
Dovid Kornreich

Internal Conflict on Hirhurim Re: "Halachic Feminists"

2011-09-23T03:33:00.002+03:00

Now that Dialogue-bashing month is over at Hirhurim, we can look back and take stock of where things are standing.

I

I know its ancient history in "blogosphere time" but I want to go back and focus on the tension that no-one seemed to notice develop between Rabbi Aryeh Frimer's critique of Rabbi Eytan Kobre's article in Dialouge and Rabbi Gil Student's engaging overview of the Moreothodoxy controversy.

Rabbi Frimer begins with a criticism that I very much agree with, and conscientiously try to avoid being guilty of myself:

Intellectual honesty is the leitmotif in R. Kobre’s review. So to be honest, I must own up to agreeing with much of what the author writes regarding the problematics of Radical Orthodox Feminism in both theory and practice. In light of some of my recent publications,[3] this should come as no surprise.

Indeed, the author spends substantial time quoting and concurring with me – though he notes my admission to the nefarious crime of being a “Halakhic Feminist.”[4] He also quotes liberally from others: from R. Gidon Rothstein “a self-identifying left-leaning Orthodox writer;” from R. Dov Linzer, “dean of Chovevei Torah” (R. Kobre resists using the qualifier Yeshiva); and, last but certainly not least, from haRav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik zt”l, “the preeminent sage of Modern Orthodoxy” (the encomium should not have been limited to Modern Orthodoxy; he was one of preeminent sages of Klal Yisrael). Indeed, all the aforementioned Rabbis are strongly identified with the “Centrist Orthodox” camp.

Since such citations comprise much of the work, it would seem that – by R. Kobre’s own admission – Modern Orthodoxy is innocent of the charge of hypocrisy he lays at its feet. This camp has dealt with the problematic issues raised by radical Orthodox Feminism extensively, critically and above all with painful honesty and candor. The upshot of all this is that R. Kobre’s article has little if anything new to offer in the way of facts or insight.
R. Kobre has thus used a well known debater’s tactic of criticizing an opponent’s camp by describing the worse traits of some of its members, but at the same time praising his own group by describing its best representatives. However, as just noted, many Modern Orthodox spokesmen have publicly pointed out the faults and failings of the Radical Feminists, and chastised those responsible.

Although nowhere in the article does R' Kobre imply that being a "halachic feminist" is a "notorious crime" as R' Frimer alleges, the legitimate charge is that R' Kobre does not give sufficient credit where credit is due. Although there may be what to criticize about Modern Orthodoxy's response to feminism (see below), it hasn't been asleep at the wheel. I concur that there was not enough acknowledgment in R' Kobre's article of the brave, unpopular stances that Modern Orthodox rabbis have consistently taken in opposing inappropriate feminist innovations and distortions of halachic methodology.

As is evidenced by a number of posts on this blog, I have striven to positively acknowledge and encourage these unpopular stances and I try to avoid sounding patronizing in the process.

But then comes the second part of R' Frimer's critique, about which I vehemently disagree. He breaks up this section into smaller parts, but they all share a common theme:

(2) Second, the author has failed to take seriously the legitimate concerns and desires of educated and able women for a greater role in avodat Hashem. Thus, in the course of his citing R. Dov Linzer’s critique of Radical Orthodox Feminism (p. 17), R. Kobre finds it necessary to criticize R. Linzer for empathizing with those women who want to play a more participatory role in ritual. Kobre believes that such compassion and respect encourages theses Feminists to seek unpermitted avenues for themselves. But how can R. Kobre chastise R. Linzer for carrying out what Hazal themselves encouraged him to do: to search for legitimate avenues through which to give women nahat ru’ah (spiritual satisfaction).[8]

And in conclusion:

Yes, R. Eytan Kobre has given Modern Orthodoxy a piece of his mind. But has this same ish emet admonished his own community for ignoring Hazal‘s concern for women’s nahat ru’ah? Has he challenged the Yeshivish/Haredi community for its intolerance of religious practices sanctioned and supported by preeminent Gedolim? Indeed! Let us keep the conversation on Orthodox Feminism honest. Serious Torah discourse deserves nothing less!

One wonders where R' Frimer finds dishonesty and hypocrisy in the Chareidi community's intolerance of religious practices which serve to provide "women's nachat ru'ah". It seems that R' Frimer is wrapping his sharp opposition to the Chareidi community's public policy decisions in a cloak of righteous halachic indignation. He certainly has a right to argue with it, but I don't think R' Frimer has taken the time to truly understand the opposing side's view. If he had, he would quickly realize that large segments of his very own community has adopted the very same view! Here is where the tension comes in.
In light of this revelation, I think we can ignore the charges of hypocrisy leveled against the Chareidi community on this score, and perhaps even turn the barrel around to face R' Frimer instead.

II

Just a few days later on the very same blog, Rabbi Student maps out a very articulate and balanced overview of the liturgy-changing controversy and concluded with his own camp's critique. But what I found surprising is that he does not only critique the blatant innovators and reformers. In very clear and unequivocal terms, Rabbi Student critiques what I would refer to as "the halachic feminist agenda" and opposes the very attempt to expand the spectrum of women's religious practices that can be fully justified halachicly but have simply not been practiced in the mainstream community for centuries (if at all).

Why would anyone critique this firm, halachicly sound position, you ask?

I quote his concluding paragraphs (with emphasis added):

Despite the Tannaitic explanation of the blessing, some people still misunderstand it and are offended by it. Should we change the blessing to accommodate them? I don’t think so, for two reasons. First and primary is that this is part of an explicit agenda of religious egalitarianism that is incompatible with halakhah. Even if this first step can be accomplished within halakhah, it amounts to the proverbial removal of one of the two Yekum Purkan prayers which was Reform’s initial innovation. We cannot be part of the first step toward a non-halakhic goal. Second, we should educate rather than change. A synagogue is supposed to be a place of prayer and learning, certainly learning about prayer. Omitting or changing a prayer due to misunderstanding is neglect of a synagogue’s and rabbi’s role in the Jewish community.

If this blessing was an isolated issue, I would not object to R. Haskel Lookstein’s elegant suggestion (link). He initially established in his synagogue that the blessing be recited quietly. This was misunderstood as omitting the blessing so he now begins the services at a later point to entirely avoid the issue. R. Yehuda Henkin similarly suggested this or that the beginning of the blessing be recited out loud but not its conclusion. Neither allow a change to or omission of this blessing from the Talmudic form, despite the existence of manuscript variants that were generally due to fear of censors (recall that this lessing is part of a trio that includes thanking God for not making us gentiles). However, since this is an ideological issue being promoted by forces of religious reform, I even object to the institution of these suggestions as well.

The truth is that Rabbi Student is guilty of the ugly sin of "reading-in" nefarious egalitarian motivations within the minds of people who want to allow women to do more than has been traditionally practiced by women.

Rabbi Frimer innocently refers to this motivation as achieving "women's nachat ru'ah", but I believe he is being naive.
He doesn't seem to be aware that he is playing a halachic game with people who live by different rules. He wants to be sympathetic and take their concerns seriously-- and this is the tragedy. Unbeknownst to R' Frimer, these people ultimately care more about their personal fulfillment and sense of fairness than the integrity of halacha. It is precisely by labeling their aspirations for equality as "legitimate" that he whets an appetite that is halachicly insatiable. As Rabbi Student mentioned, the only real solution is re-education and not change and accommodation.
Why not have women change their attitude to halacha and service of G-d and not the other way around?

III

To conclude, I would like to conduct the following exercise and see where it leads.

Among Rabbi Frimer's copious footnotes to his post on Hirhurim is a very candid set of quotations designed to buttress R' Frimer's opposition to the Chareidi policy of stonewalling all attempts at accommodating feminists . He employs a very emotional (or should I say "feminine"?) tactic--putting a human face on the feminist side of the conflict combined with a rather desperate appeal to negative consequences.

[14] A former student of mine recently commented: “Being so blithely tossed aside by the likes of R. Kobre is, in some ways, quite liberating. If I am already on the outside, perhaps I am no longer subject to the will of halakhic insiders. I can go off to a Partnership Minyan, trusting that the G-d who created me knows who I am and that the halakhic establishment surely does not. So, in some ways, he provides a fine impetus for women stepping outside the camp and indulging in extra-halakhic practices. It is people like you and R. Linzer that create the problem. If I am being addressed with seriousness, with compassion, with respect for my intelligence and with encouragement for shouldering ol ha-mitsvot with my brother Jews, then I am forced to behave like an insider – weigh the words of the Rabbis and Sages, consider the practices of my sisters in more traditional segments of the community and curb my appetite for halakhically questionable practices that, by any other measure, might make perfect sense to me.”

A prominent talmidat hakham and To’enet Rabbanit had this to say regarding the seeming insensitivity of the right wing Rabbinate, as reflected in R. Kobre’s piece: “There are real issues that pain Orthodox women and men. When the ‘truly Orthodox’ rabbinic establishment totally ignores the legitimate pain and problems, even as they become more and more intense, and chooses to put up barricades to prevent the pain from even being heard – they have only themselves to blame for those who defect, trying to resolve the problem on their own. The pain of being ignored, cast aside, left in limbo, castigated for having an opinion – will not stay bottled up in today’s day and age. When the ‘truly Orthodox’ rabbinate prefers to keep its blinders on, by their very own hands, they are turning the sensitive and needy into the type of individual R. Kobre finds abhorrent.”

In these "testimonials" Rabbis Frimer and Linzer are made to be the real heroes, saving these modern-minded women's souls and helping them remain within halachic Judaism, while R' Kobre has explicitly been cast as the evil villain tying these helpless dames down to the railroad tracks in front of an oncoming freight train.

Yet in so doing, R' Frimer has unwittingly revealed that his primary objective as a halachic feminist is to accommodate rather than to re-educate a soicio-religious movement that, at its core, is anti-halachic.

But this is not the exercise.

The exercise is repasting these emotive appeals to consequences and substituting R' Kobre's name with R' Student's and see if it still fits.

Remember, Rabbi Student stated the following:

Should we change the blessing to accommodate them? I don’t think so, for two reasons. First and primary is that this is part of an explicit agenda of religious egalitarianism that is incompatible with halakhah. Even if this first step can be accomplished within halakhah, it amounts to the proverbial removal of one of the two Yekum Purkan prayers which was Reform’s initial innovation. We cannot be part of the first step toward a non-halakhic goal. Second, we should educate rather than change.

However, since this is an ideological issue being promoted by forces of religious reform, I even object to the institution of these suggestions as well.

Now we plug in the substitutions:

[14] A former student of mine recently commented: “Being so blithely tossed aside by the likes of R. Student is, in some ways, quite liberating. If I am already on the outside, perhaps I am no longer subject to the will of halakhic insiders. I can go off to a Partnership Minyan, trusting that the G-d who created me knows who I am and that the halakhic establishment surely does not. So, in some ways, he provides a fine impetus for women stepping outside the camp and indulging in extra-halakhic practices. It is people like you and R. Linzer that create the problem. If I am being addressed with seriousness, with compassion, with respect for my intelligence and with encouragement for shouldering ol ha-mitsvot with my brother Jews, then I am forced to behave like an insider – weigh the words of the Rabbis and Sages, consider the practices of my sisters in more traditional segments of the community and curb my appetite for halakhically questionable practices that, by any other measure, might make perfect sense to me.”

A prominent talmidat hakham and To’enet Rabbanit had this to say regarding the seeming insensitivity of the right wing Rabbinate, as reflected in R. Student’s piece: “There are real issues that pain Orthodox women and men. When the ‘truly Orthodox’ rabbinic establishment totally ignores the legitimate pain and problems, even as they become more and more intense, and chooses to put up barricades to prevent the pain from even being heard – they have only themselves to blame for those who defect, trying to resolve the problem on their own. The pain of being ignored, cast aside, left in limbo, castigated for having an opinion – will not stay bottled up in today’s day and age. When the ‘truly Orthodox’ rabbinate prefers to keep its blinders on, by their very own hands, they are turning the sensitive and needy into the type of individual R. Student finds abhorrent.”

No, I guess it doesn't seem to fit too well, does it?
But the question is, why not?

I think the answer is because Rabbi Student's tone is not dismissive and judgmental in the slightest. But he isn't being empathetic either. He has struck a delicate balance stating the objections to feminism in emotionally neutral language. He refers to impersonal "forces of religious reform". Women don't hear any insensitivity directed at them personally even though the position is identical to R' Kobre's.

I guess its all in the presentation.

The Liberal Left is Finally Starting to Get It Right

2011-09-15T01:52:00.000+03:00

I seem to be detecting a pendulum swing in the Liberal Orthodox camp regarding Rav Soloveitchik.
While I was coming of age in the 80's and 90's, the dominant trend in the "LO" world was to attach Rav Soloveitchik's name to every controversial stance and envelope-pushing practice that was currently indemand by the liberal left wing constituency. Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, Rabbi Yitz Greenberg, and others, were in desperate need of legitimization-- and found it, (or rather, invented it) by constantly invoking "the Rav" in everything they uttered.

But the times they are a'changin'.

It seems that this crowd is finally owning up to who Rav Soloveitchik actually was--and more significantly, who he was not.
Although he spoke and wrote quite eloquently in modern terms and frames of reference, the Rav was not personally very sympathetic to modern trends and values when they conflicted with traditional ones.
As a result, Liberal Orthodoxy was apparently forced to make the Rav dovetail to its agenda because there was no alternative. At the time, most people realized that the Rav was both the most authentic voice of Judaism fully engaged in the modern world and the dominant personality of Modern Orthodoxy. There was simply no-one else to effectively seek wide legitimacy from.

Now, they are singing a different tune.

(I would speculate that Rav Moshe Meiselman's essay in Tradition 1998 was the first catalyst in the trend and R' Holtzer's book "Thinking Aloud" was the final hammer-blow which is culminated in the left's "dis-owning" of the Rav.)

To demonstrate this radical and refreshing shift, we have this candid admission from a collaborator with Rabbi David Hartman interviewed by Dr. Alan Brill here:

3] Why do you feel so connected to the events from several decades ago that involved Rabbis Emmanuel Rackman, and Joseph D Soloveitchik?

The story about The Rav publicly denouncing Rabbi Rackman at the RCA convention feels extremely relevant to me. Personally, listening to the tape of Soloveitchik’s speech and discussing the incident with Hartman helped me to understand a lot of my own experiences and frustrations as I’ve travelled through the Modern Orthodox world, first in yeshiva and eventually as an Orthodox congregational rabbi.

Soloveitchik’s version of halakhic theology set the template for American Modern Orthodoxy and continues to permeate and dominate its spiritual culture, as well as its attitude towards halakhic development.
It is, I feel, a shadow that continues to loom over this world, and the speech he gave at the RCA — enlisting all the weight of his persona and the authority of his stature to stigmatize and foreclose an empathic, intuitive human way of thinking about the Torah in favor of formalist abstraction and ‘heroic’ self-sacrifice — was, to me, a dark episode. Something about it helped me personally to understand the extent to which many of my own critiques and areas of resistance to various aspects of Modern Orthodox culture can be traced back to his legacy in particular.

For all his theological creativity and religious pathos, Rav Soloveitchik’s essential stance vis a vis tradition and modernity is both triumphalist and apologetic. He does not tend to adopt the posture of having struggled with, much less having had to rethink any of his assumptions or principles, in light of his encounter with Western ideas. His struggles, his pathos (at least, as he tends to characterize them), are all deeply internal to the tradition. When it comes to the encounter with external ideas, he’s read everything, thought it all out, squared all the circles. Torah stands as a wise critique/noble rebuke of some trends of Western thought and culture, and embodies the highest values of others. While often scintillating, illuminating, and deeply moving, the cumulative effect is one of reassurance.
And this, indeed, seems to have been a powerful motive of his teaching and writing–that contemporary Orthodox Jews should not feel “ashamed” (his word) in the face of the Western philosophical tradition. He did not allow for the possibility that Torah itself, and Torah communities, might have something new and important to learn from philosophy or psychology or history–or just daily life (what he pejoratively referred to as ‘the utilitarian marketplace’); he did not advocate a substantive, open-ended encounter.

The net result of this perspective, it seems to me, as it has filtered into MO groupthink, is a prominent strain of complacency, smugness, reflexive superiority, suspicion of subjectivity, anxious insecurity, and alarmist resistance to halakhic change. If the system is perfect — majestic — and has nothing to learn, any change could only be to its detriment, and anyone seeking change could only be misguided, uninformed, or sick, and therefore must be marginalized. Who am I to assert my puny subjectivity against the objective ontological perfection of the Torah? As he says elsewhere in the lecture, “It’s ridiculous to say, ‘I have discovered something which the Rashba didn’t know, and which the Ketzos didn’t know, and the Vilna Gaon had no knowledge. I have discovered an approach to the interpretation of Torah which is completely new!’ It’s ridiculous.”

The community chose the Rav as their paradigm for the encounter between tradition and modernity. I think a central purpose of the chapter about Soloveitchik and Rackman is to show that this was not a foregone conclusion, not the only authentic Orthodoxy available to American Jews.
To me Rackman’s embrace of historical context, subjectivity and self-awareness as legitimate and important factors in religious life and halakhic decision-making — neither contradicting, nor contradicted by, the tradition — could have opened new possibilities for halakhic development and Orthodox culture and led to a more sane, human, inclusive Orthodoxy. The fact that Soloveitchik saw this possibility as intolerable is, in my opinion, a failure of imagination, empathy, and communal leadership.

While it is indeed troubling that the liberal left wing now finds the courage to state that they can find in Rabbi Rackman an alternate source of legitimacy and halachic authenticity (which of course, they could only summon long after the Rav's passing from the scene), it is still a positive development in that they are no longer misappropriating a legitimate name brand for their illegitimate views and practices.

The mask has been removed and the charade is effectively over.

The Rambam on Astrology Part III--The Rambam's Emunah P'shuta

2011-08-30T01:08:00.001+03:00

Part III

There is much about human existence which is neither related to a person's inherent nature nor to his free-willed actions. I refer to the area of things which happen to a person that are not necessarily the result of the actions of any individual human being. This includes a person and his family remaining healthy or contracting illness and dying, getting caught in an accident or a natural disaster, his being fertile or infertile, his success or failure in earning an income, etc.

On this particular question, the Rambam is quite explicit that the worship of the stars has no effect over a person's fate and fortune. But again, we need to keep in mind that the Rambam believed that the stars and the spheres are the intermediaries through which God executes His Divine Providence and makes all things happen in the world. This will be explored regarding the letter against astrology below.

But first we will cite the passages stating that worship of the stars by human beings has no effect on his circumstances:

פירוש המשנה לרמב"ם מסכת עבודה זרה פרק ד

[ז]

אחר כך הורכב כזב שני על זה הכזב הראשון, והן הטליסמאות, ואמרו שאם יהיה כוכב פלוני שמזלו טוב במקום פלוני המתאים לו, תיעשה צורה בתואר כך והיא תביא תועלת כך, ואם היה כוכב פלוני שמזלו רע במקום פלוני המתנגד לו, תיעשה צורה בתואר כך והיא תרחיק נזק כך, והתפשט זה הענין כפי התפשטות גזירת הכוכבים ומה שמיוחס להם מן הפרטים. אחר כך הורכב כזב שלישי על זה השני, והיא עבודה זרה, ונאמר שזאת הצורה אשר תיעשה במזל כך ועל מצבה פלונית אם יוקטר לה באופן פלוני ויתפללו אליה במילים כך וישתחוו לה, וכך וכך, הרי היא תפסיק נזק כוכב פלוני ותביא תועלת פלוני. ואלה הדברים כולם נעשו לצרכים, וזה, שבזמנים שעברו אוחדו בהם המדינות והוטעה בהם המון העם, ונאמר להם שתיקון ארצכם ומצביכם באלה הצורות, ושתתקבצו לבתיהן, ותגדלו אלו הזקנים אשר ילמדו סודותיהן, והתקיימה בזה המלכות, והאמינו שהוא דבר אמיתי, והיו אומרים, זה דבר כוכב פלוני וזה דבר מזל פלוני, ויגדלו אותו וילכו אחריו ויאמינו בו, כמו שנאמין אנחנו בנביאים עליהם השלום מן השלימות והמעלה. הלא תראה איך קראם הכתוב נביאי הבעל ונביאי האשרה. ובאו חלשי השכל אחרי כן ומצאו אותם הספרים ואותם האמרים וחשבו שהם אמת ושבהם תועלת, ולא ידעו שהם כזבים שנעשו בזמן מסוים לתועלת עת. אמר ה' "אל תיראו מהם כי לא ירעו וגם הטיב אין אתם". וכבר ביארו החכמים שכל מה שיחשבו בו שהוא מפעולות אלו הטליסמאות, אמנם קורה במקרה, ומיוחס להן. וזה ענין פילוסופי אמיתי. וכן מצאתי להם הערה על גזירת הכוכבים שהיא נוהגת מנהג הניחוש, לא שהיא הסיבה כמו שחושבים הוברי שמים, אמרו, לא תנחשו, כגון אלו המנחשים בחולדה בעופות ובכוכבים. וזו היא סברת הפילוסופים בה. ואלה הדברים כולם אשר בדו הצאבה אין מהם בפילוסופית יוון לא מעט ולא הרבה.

רמב"ם הלכות עבודת כוכבים פרק יא הלכה טז

ודברים האלו כולן דברי שקר וכזב הן והם שהטעו בהן עובדי כוכבים הקדמונים לגויי הארצות כדי שינהגו אחריהן, ואין ראוי לישראל שהם חכמים מחוכמים להמשך בהבלים אלו ולא להעלות על לב שיש תועלת בהן, שנאמר כי לא נחש ביעקב ולא קסם בישראל, ונאמר כי הגוים האלה אשר אתה יורש אותם אל מעוננים ואל קוסמים ישמעו ואתה לא כן וגו', כל המאמין בדברים האלו וכיוצא בהן ומחשב בלבו שהן אמת ודבר חכמה אבל התורה אסרתן אינן אלא מן הסכלים ומחסרי הדעת ובכלל הנשים והקטנים שאין דעתן שלימה, אבל בעלי החכמה ותמימי הדעת ידעו בראיות ברורות שכל אלו הדברים שאסרה תורה אינם דברי חכמה אלא תהו והבל שנמשכו בהן חסרי הדעת ונטשו כל דרכי האמת בגללן, ומפני זה אמרה תורה כשהזהירה על כל אלו ההבלים תמים תהיה עם ה' אלהיך.

ספר מורה הנבוכים חלק ג פרק ל

ON examining these old and foolish doctrines we find that it was most generally believed by the people that by the worship of stars the earth will become inhabited, and the ground fertilized. The wise, pious, and sin-fearing men among them reproved the people and taught them that agriculture, on which the preservation of mankind depended, would become perfect and satisfy man's wishes, when he worshipped the sun and the stars. If man provoked these beings by his rebelliousness, the towns would become empty and waste. In the above-named books it is stated that Mars was angry with [lands, that form now] deserts and wastes, and in consequence of that anger they were deprived of water and trees, and have become the habitation of demons. Tillers of the ground and husbandmen are praised in those books, because they are engaged with the cultivation of the land in accordance with the will and desire of the stars. The idolaters also held cattle in esteem on account of their use in agriculture, and went even so far as to say, that it is not allowed to slay them, because they combine in themselves strength and willingness to do the work of man in tilling the ground. The oxen, notwithstanding their great strength, do this, and submit to man, because it is the will of God that they should be employed in agriculture. When these views became generally known, idolatry was connected with agriculture, because the latter is indispensable for the maintenance of man, and of most animals. The idolatrous priests then preached to the people who met in the temples, and taught them that by certain religious acts, rain would come down, the trees of the field would yield their fruit, and the land would be fertile and inhabited. See what is said in the Nabatean Agriculture in the chapter on vineyards.

ספר מורה הנבוכים חלק ג פרק לז

Witchcraft is intimately connected with astrology; those that practice it assign each plant, animal, or mineral to a certain star, and believe that the above processes of witchcraft are different forms of worship offered to that star, which is pleased with that act, word, or offering of incense, and fulfils their wishes.

After this remark, which you will understand when you have read such of their works as are at present extant, and have been mentioned by me, hear what I will tell you. It is the object and centre of the whole Law to abolish idolatry and utterly uproot it, and to overthrow the opinion that any of the stars could interfere for good or evil in human matters, because it leads to the worship of stars. It was therefore necessary to slay all witches as being undoubtedly idolaters, because every witch is an idolater: they only have their own strange ways of worship, which are different from the common mode of worship offered to those deities. But in all performances of witchcraft it is laid down as a rule that women should be employed in the chief operation; and therefore the Law says, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exod. xxii. 17). Another reason is the natural reluctance of people to slay women. This is also the cause why in the law of idolatry it is said "man or woman" (Deut. xvii. 2), and again repeated a second time, "the man or the woman" (ibid. ver. 5)--a phrase which does not occur in the law about the breaking of Sabbath, or in any other law; for great sympathy is naturally shown to women. Now the witches believed that they produced a certain result by their witchcraft; that they were able through the above-mentioned actions to drive such dangerous animals as lions, serpents, and the like out of the cities, and to remove various kinds of damage from the products of the earth. Thus they imagine that they are able by certain acts to prevent hail from coming down, and by certain other acts to kill the worms in the vineyards, whereby the latter are protected from injury; in fact, the killing of the worms in vineyards, and other superstitions mentioned in the Nabatean Agriculture, are fully described by the Sabeans. They likewise imagine that they know certain acts by which they can prevent the dropping of leaves from the trees and the untimely falling of their fruit.

...In order that we may keep far from all kinds of witchcraft, we are warned not to adopt any of the practices of the idolaters, even such as are connected with agriculture, the keeping of cattle, and similar work. [The Law prohibits] everything that the idolaters, according to their doctrine, and contrary to reason, consider as being useful and acting in the manner of certain mysterious forces. Comp. "Neither shall ye walk in their ordinances" (Lev. xviii. 3). "And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation which I cast out before you" (ibid. xx. 23). Our Sages call such acts "the ways of the Amorite"; they are kinds of witchcraft, because they are not arrived at by reason, but are similar to the performances of witchcraft, which is necessarily connected with the influences of the stars; thus ["the manners of the nations"] lead people to extol, worship, and praise the star.

In all the above we find a central idea: All the various rituals pagans have concocted in order to communicate with or influence the stars, in order to bring about an improvement in their life conditions is utterly futile. It is actually adhering to the Torah's laws and renouncing idol worship which will bring about such desired improvements. But we do not see that the very power of the stars of control over the Earth is put under question.

Now we have finally come to the letter against Astrology. In it, we will discover two ideas:

1) It is indeed the stars which are the conduit of Divine influence over the entire physical world and through which God affects the state of all beings.

All these, then, are the three sects into which the wise men of the world fall, from the earliest antiquity down to now.

(l ) Those who maintain that the sphere is not a created thing, but that it eternally has been and will be just as it is.

( 2 ) Those who maintain that the Deity has created it out of that matter which always exists by Him.

( 3 ) Those who maintain—just as all the prophets did—that there is no other thing that is with the Deity, just He Himself, and that when He wished, He brought forth this world out of nothing, in conformity with His will.

All of these three sects are in accord on the following point. Everything that comes into being in this lower world—namely, every "living soul" (Gen. 1:30) and every tree and every species of grass and every one of the species of minerals—the whole has the Deity as its maker, through a power coming from the spheres and the stars. And they are in accord that the power of the Creator flows first upon the spheres and the stars; from the spheres and the stars it flows and spreads through this (lower) world—everything that is, thereby coming into being. Just as we maintain that the Holy One, blessed be He, performs signs and wonders through the angels, so do these philosophers maintain that all these occurrences in the nature of the world come through the spheres and the stars. They maintain that the spheres and the stars possess souls and knowledge. All these things are true. I myself have already made it clear, with proofs, that all these things involve no damage to religion. And not only this, but what is more I have understood from the sayings of the sages in all of the Midrashim that they maintain as the philosophers maintained. There is no controversy whatever between the sages of Israel and the philosophers on these matters, as I have made clear in those chapters [in the Guide of the Perplexed, a philosophical treatise].

2) These stars have no INDEPENDENT influence over any individual human being's life. They cannot reduce the range of human free-will.

Know, my masters, that every one of those things concerning judicial astrology that (its adherents) maintain—namely, that something will happen one way and not another, and that the constellation under which one is born will draw him on so that he will be of such and such a kind and so that something will happen to him one way and not another—all those assertions are far from being scientific; they are stupidity. There are lucid, faultless proofs refuting all the roots of those assertions…

… And know, my masters, that it is one of the roots of the religion of Moses our Teacher—and one that all the philosophers also acknowledge—that every action of human beings is left to them and that there is nothing to constrain or draw them. Rather, if he so pleases, a man will worship God and become wise and sit in the house of study. And if he so pleases, he will follow the counsel of the wicked and run with thieves and hide with adulterers. There is no influence or constellation under which one is born that will draw him in any manner toward any one of these ways. Hence it was commanded and told to him: "Do this and do not do that." We have made clear many of the things involved in these matters in most of our Arabic compositions, in the Commentary on the Mishnah and in the rest of the compositions. Thus we ought to know that what happens to human beings is not—as the philosophers maintain—like what happens to the beast...

But then Rambam does something puzzling. While his main thrust of the Letter is to uphold the absolute freedom of the human will and denounce any influence of judicial astrology regarding human behavior, he also extends the discussion to what happens to a human being which is seemingly unrelated to his exercising of free-will.

The Rambam explains this extension. The outgrowth of the power of the freedom of will is taking moral responsibility for one's actions. The Divine response to one who has moral responsibility for his actions is through reward for good actions and punishment for evil actions. The Rambam then says that reward and punishment is meted out to each individual—in response to his free-willed actions—through what happens to him in his world.

…All three of these sects of the philosophers, which maintain that everything is made by means of the spheres and the stars, also maintain that whatever happens to each and every human being is due to chance; it is not due to any cause coming from above, and neither the constellation under which one is born nor nature will avail against it. There is no difference for them between this individual who was torn to pieces by a lion that happened upon him, or this mouse that was torn to pieces by a cat, or this fly that was torn to pieces by a spider. Neither is there a difference between a roof's falling upon and killing someone, or a rock's breaking loose from a mountain and falling upon a tree or upon another rock and breaking it. All this, they maintain, is simply fortuitous. It is said as well of those human beings who are warring with one another over a great kingdom, that they are like a pack of dogs warring over a carcass. This is not due to any cause coming from the stars. Furthermore, this one being poor and that one rich, this one having children and that one being childless—all the philosophers maintain that this is due to chance. The summary of the matter is that they maintain that what happens to each and every thing—be it man or beast or trees and minerals—is all due to chance. But the being of all the species and the things comprehended in the entire world—in which there is not the activity of a living soul—all of this stems from the power of the spheres whose root, in turn, comes from the Holy One, blessed be He. The controversy lies in this, that the true religionists, and that is the religion of Moses our Teacher, maintain that what happens to individuals is not due to chance, but rather to judgment—as the Torah says: "For all His ways are judgment" (Deut. 32:4). The prophet explained: "Whose eyes are open upon all the ways of the sons of men, to give every one according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings" (Jer. 32:19). It is regarding this that the Torah warned and bore witness and told Israel: "But if you will not hearken to Me" (Lev. 26:14), I shall bring hardship upon you. If you maintain that that hardship is not an affliction brought on by your sins, but rather due to chance and one of those things that happen by chance, why then I Myself shall heap more of that chance upon you—as it is written: "And if you walk with Me in (the way of) chance, I too shall walk with you in the wrath of chance" (Lev. 26:27-28). This is a root of the religion of Moses our Teacher, that everything happening to human beings is a (just) decree and judgment. Hence, the sages maintained: "There is no death without sin and no affliction with transgression" (Shabbat 55a)…

So it emerges from the Rambam that nothing in a person's life can be fated because all the circumstances that a person finds himself in must be free to express the Divine plan and the judgment in response to his free-willed actions.

This idea –especially coming from the Rambam—must make intellectuals and academics somewhat uncomfortable. Because they have been so used to philosophizing and intellectualizing the topic of reward and punishment and the problem of suffering and evil to the extent that they have lost the emunah p'shuta of the Rambam. The Rambam's view is that everything that occurs to a person in his daily life—his material success and failure, good fortune and tragedy-- is ultimately due to Hashem's inscrutable calculation of reward and punishment.

…Three disagreements are to be found in these matters. Imagine this situation. Here is Reuben, a tanner, poor, and his children have died in his own lifetime. And here is Simon, a perfumer, rich, and his children stand before him.

(1 ) The philosopher will maintain that this is due to chance. It is possible that Reuben could become a perfumer, grow rich, and have children; and it is possible that Simon could become impoverished, turn into a tanner, and witness his children's death. All this is simply fortuitous. There is no nature in the world and no power emanating from a star that caused this individual to be or not to be thus. This is the position of the philosophers.

(2) The second position is that of those who believe in judicial astrology and whose sayings you have heard and whose follies are widespread among you. They maintain that it is impossible that a given thing should ever change. Never will Reuben be anything other than a tanner and poor and childless, for it was thus fixed by the power of the sphere at the time of his birth. Similarly, it is impossible for Simon to be anything other than a perfumer and rich and with surviving children, just as it was fixed by the power of the sphere at the time of his birth.

. . . These two ways, or these two positions, are regarded as falsehoods by us. The position of the astrologers is given the lie by reason, for correct reasoning has already refuted, by means of lucid proofs, all those follies that they have maintained. It also is regarded as a falsehood by us because of the religious tradition, for if the matter stood thus, of what utility would the Torah and the commandment and the Talmud be to a particular individual? For in that event, every single individual would lack the power to do anything he set his mind to, since something else draws him on—against his will—to be this and not to be that; of what use then is the command or the Talmud? The roots of the religion of Moses our Teacher, we find, refute the position of these stupid ones—in addition to reason's doing so with all those proofs that the philosophers maintain to refute the position of the Chasdeans and the Chaldeans and their associates. The position of the philosophers who maintain that these things are due to chance is also regarded as a falsehood by us because of the religious tradition.

(3) The true way upon which we rely and in which we walk is this: We say regarding this Reuben and Simon, that there is nothing that draws on the one to become a perfumer and rich, and the other to become a tanner and poor. It is possible that the situation will change and be reversed, as the philosopher maintains. But the philosopher maintains that this is due to chance. We maintain that it is not due to chance, but rather that this situation depends on the will of "Him who spoke, and (the world) came into being" (Ps. 33:9); all of this is a (just) decree and judgment. We do not know the end of the Holy One's wisdom so as to know by what decree and judgment He required that this should be this way and that that should be the other way; "for His ways are not like our ways, neither are His thoughts like our thoughts" (Is. 55:8). We rather are obliged to fix in our minds that if Simon sins, he will be punished with stripes and impoverished and his children will die and the like. And if Reuben repents and mends his ways and searches his deeds and walks in a straight path, he will grow rich and will succeed in all his undertakings and "see (his) seed and prolong (his) days" (ibid. 55:10). This is a root of the religion. If a man says, "But look, many have acted in this way and yet have not succeeded," why this is no proof. Either some iniquity of theirs caused this, or they are now afflicted in order to inherit something even better than this.

And even those events which can truly be described as due to random chance, is itself a condition which has been produced directly by the distance that a person has created between himself and God. When a person believes that God does not deal with him directly, then God responds by placing that individual under the caprice of chance. That is a direct Divine punishment!

The words of the Letter are worth repeating:

If you maintain that that hardship is not an affliction brought on by your sins, but rather due to chance and one of those things that happen by chance, why then I Myself shall heap more of that chance upon you—as it is written: "And if you walk with Me in (the way of) chance, I too shall walk with you in the wrath of chance" (Lev. 26:27-28). This is a root of the religion of Moses our Teacher, that everything happening to human beings is a (just) decree and judgment. Hence, the sages maintained: "There is no death without sin and no affliction with transgression" (Shabbat 55a)…

What would make these intellectuals even more uncomfortable is that the Rambam doesn't pretend to claim that he can demonstrate the truth of this direct Divine judgmental relationship with each human being with any logical argument. He says we accept it and we can deny the philosopher's view of blind chance simply as a result of the religious tradition. This is the emuna p'shuta of the Rambam.

The position of the philosophers who maintain that these things are due to chance is also regarded as a falsehood by us because of the religious tradition.

Next, we will explore the Rambam's definition of rationalism as cogently formulated in this letter. Then we will see if the Maimonidean scholars of today's academia are living up to it or are horribly distorting it.

Meseches Sotah on the 21st Century

2011-08-08T05:28:00.001+03:00

In the course of completing Meseches Sotaha for a siyum on a Yahrtzeit, the things that I have come across in the last chapter had my hair repeatedly standing on end. I found myself reading the screaming headlines and the sharpest social critique of our times right there in the gemara.

The last chapter ostensibly discusses the various halachos involved in Eglah Arufah in the event of an unsolved murder. I expected to read about various heinous acts of violence.

But I didn’t expect to see this:

תלמוד בבלי מסכת סוטה פרק ט - עגלה ערופה

תנו רבנן: חלל - ולא חנוק, חלל - ולא מפרפר, באדמה - ולא טמון בגל, נופל - ולא תלוי באילן, בשדה - ולא צף על פני המים; ר' אלעזר אומר: בכולן, אם היה חלל - עורפין. תניא: אמר רבי יוסי בר יהודה, אמרו לו לר"א: אי אתה מודה שאם היה חנוק ומוטל באשפה שאין עורפין? אלמא חלל - ולא חנוק, הכא נמי באדמה - ולא טמון בגל, נופל - ולא תלוי באילן, בשדה - ולא צף על גבי מים. ור"א? חלל יתירא כתיב.

Our Rabbis taught: ‘Slain,’ but not strangled,4 ‘slain,’ but not one who is expiring;5 ‘in the land’,

but not hidden in a heap of stones; ‘lying’, but not hanging on a tree; ‘in the earth’, but not floating

upon the surface of the water. R. Eleazar says: In all these cases, if the person had been slain, they

break the heifer's neck. It has been taught: R. Jose b. Judah said: They asked R. Eleazar, Do you not admit that if he had been strangled and was lying upon a dung-heap,6 they do not break the heifer's neck?7 [Yes:] consequently [you must agree that] ‘slain’ indicates one who is not strangled; similarly ‘in the earth’ indicates one who is not hidden in a heap of stones, ‘lying’ one who is not hanging on a tree, ‘in the earth’ one who is not floating upon the surface of the water! [How does] R. Eleazar [meet this argument]? — The word ‘slain’ is written redundantly.8

This kind of murder speaks of more than just disregard for human life. It speaks of complete disregard for the human being as occupying a special place of dignity above the animal. To treat a human body in such a way reveals a level of dehumanization within the act of murder.

But there are less dramatic, but no less important, revelations from Meseches Sotah regarding the unfortunate state of the frum world of today, as we shall explore below.

Another item which struck me was the corruption of social justice of Jewish society. In contrast to the many tragic loses of noble traits and character at the very end of the meseches which *seem* to be listed without any relationship to one another, one passage has a string of social ills which follow in succession as if suggesting a chain reaction:

תלמוד בבלי מסכת סוטה פרק ט - עגלה ערופה [דף מד עמוד ב]

משרבו בעלי הנאה - נתעותו הדינין, ונתקלקלו המעשים, ואין נוח בעולם. משרבו רואי פנים בדין - בטל +דברים א+ לא תגורו, ופסק לא תכירו, ופרקו עול שמים ונתנו עליהם עול בשר ודם. משרבו לוחשי לחישות בדין - רבה חרון אף בישראל, ונסתלקה השכינה, משום שנאמר: +תהלים פב+ בקרב אלהים ישפוט. משרבו +יחזקאל לג+ אחרי בצעם לבם הולך - רבו האומרים +ישעיהו ה+ לרע טוב ולטוב רע. משרבו האומרים לרע טוב ולטוב רע - רבו הוי הוי בעולם. משרבו מושכי הרוק - רבו היהירים, ונתמעטו התלמידים, והתורה חוזרת על לומדיה. משרבו היהירים - התחילו בנות ישראל להנשא ליהירים, שאין דורינו רואה אלא לפנים. איני? והאמר מר: האי מאן דמיהר, אפילו אאינשי ביתיה לא מיקבל, שנאמר: +חבקוק ב+ גבר יהיר ולא ינוה, לא ינוה אפי' בנוה שלו! מעיקרא קפצה עליה, לסוף מיתזיל עלייהו.

משרבו מטילי מלאי על בעלי בתים - רבה השוחד והטיית משפט, ופסקה טובה. משרבו מקבלני טובתך ומחזקני טובותיך - רבו +שופטים יז+ איש הישר בעיניו יעשה, שפלים הוגבהו והגבוהים הושפלו, ומלכותא אזלא ונולא. משרבו צרי עין וטורפי טרף - רבו מאמצי הלב וקופצי ידים מלהלוות, ועברו על מה שכתוב בתורה +דברים טו+ השמר לך פן וגו'. משרבו +ישעיהו ג+ נטויות גרון ומשקרות עינים - רבו מים המרים, אלא שפסקו. משרבו מקבלי מתנות - נתמעטו הימים ונתקצרו השנים, דכתיב: +משלי טו+ ושונא מתנות יחיה. משרבו זחוחי הלב - רבו מחלוקת בישראל. משרבו תלמידי שמאי והילל שלא שימשו כל צורכן - רבו מחלוקת בישראל, ונעשית תורה כשתי תורות. משרבו מקבלי צדקה מן העובדי כוכבים - היו ישראל למעלה והם למטה, ישראל לפנים והם לאחור.

When hedonists multiplied, justice became perverted,17 conduct deteriorated and there is no

satisfaction [to God] in the world. When they who displayed partiality in judgment multiplied, the

command Ye shall not be afraid [of the face of man]18 became void and Ye shall not respect [persons in judgment]19 ceased to be practised; and people threw off the yoke of heaven and placed upon themselves the yoke of human beings. When they who engaged in whisperings in judgment20 multiplied, fierceness of [the divine] anger increased against Israel and the Shechinah departed; because it is written: He judgeth among the judges.21 When there multiplied [men of whom it is said] Their heart goeth after their gain,22 there multiplied they who call evil good and good evil.23 When there multiplied they ‘who call evil good and good evil’, woes24 increased in the world.

When they who draw out their spittle25 multiplied, the arrogant increased, disciples diminished, and Torah went about [looking] for them who would study it. When the arrogant multiplied, the daughters of Israel began to marry arrogant men, because our generation looks only to the outward appearance. But that is not so; for a Master has declared: An arrogant person is not acceptable even to the members of his household, as it is said: A haughty man one abideth not at home26 — i.e., even in his own house! — At first they jump round him, but in the end he becomes repugnant to them.

When there multiplied they who forced their goods upon householders,27 bribery increased as well

as miscarriage of justice, and happiness ceased. When there multiplied [judges] who said ‘I accept your favour’ and ‘I shall appreciate your favour’, there was an Increase of Every man did that which was right in his own eyes;28 common persons were raised to eminence, the eminent were brought low, and the kingdom [of Israel] deteriorated more and more. When envious men and plunderers [of the poor] multiplied, there increased they who hardened their hearts and closed their hands from lending [to the needy], and they transgressed what is written in the Torah, viz., Beware that there be not etc.29 When there multiplied women who had stretched forth necks and wanton eyes,30 [the need] increased for the bitter water but it ceased [to be used]. When receivers of gifts multiplied, the days [of human life] became fewer and years were shortened; as it is written: But he that hateth gifts shall live.31 When the haughty of heart multiplied, dissensions increased in Israel. When the disciples of Shammai and Hillel multiplied who had not served [their teachers] sufficiently, dissensions increased in Israel and the Torah became like two Toroth. When there multiplied they who accepted charity of Gentiles, Israel became on top and they below, Israel went forward and they backward.32

Sandwiched in between the corruption of judges and the resulting fostering of unscrupulous practices of the common man, we have a digression regarding arrogance. It describes of how arrogance precipitates a loss of dedication to Torah and its adverse effects on… the shidduch market.

The gemara says that marriageable-aged girls began to marry arrogant boys because the generation only focused on externals. These young men apparently effectively disguised themselves as serious b’nei Torah and promising talmidei chachomim, while the reality was something quite different.

As a result of the generation’s preoccupation with how things appear on the outside and its corollary ‘how it will look for shidduchim’, the young women are not able to discern their suitors’ true despicable character. Until after marriage that is, (when it’s too late to do anything about it –including marriage counseling-- because of, again, how a troubled marriage in the family will adversely affect their siblings’ shidduch prospects...).

Our instincts-- which normally detect what is just and proper, what is honest and genuine, can get distorted and contorted to the point where we only see the external things which society tells is paramount. And it distracts us from examining what's really important and lasting.

III

Rashi to this passage and many others explains why there is a dearth of serious students of Torah in the presence of arrogance:

רש"י מסכת סוטה דף מז עמוד ב

ונתמעטו התלמידים - כדקי"ל (קידושין דף מט:) סימן לגסות הרוח עניות של תורה.

חוזרת על לומדיה - מחזרת אולי תמצא לומדיה.

זחוחי הלב - שאין מטין את אזנם לשמוע יפה מפי רבם וסומכים על בינתם לדקדק שמועתם.

When one is arrogant and feels he’s got it all figured out on his own and doesn’t need to defer to any mentors. Or even if one has mentors-- but doesn’t feel the need to exert himself to discern what his mentors are really saying, then we have a poverty of Torah understanding. The Torah goes around and seeks those who are sincerely interested in absorbing its message and integrating its values.

I once heard an idea that there is a storehouse of siyyata di’shmaya of Torah understanding bestowed to every generation. It is accessible to those who devote themselves to the requisite degree to be worthy of it.

One of the gedolim of the past generations—I forget which-- tried to explain that his achievements in Torah were not due to his own effort and proportional amount of siyyata di’shmaya. It was mainly due to the fact that the Torah scholars of his generation weren’t investing themselves deeply enough in trying to understand the Torah and thus were not worthy of the siyyata di’shmaya allotted to them. As a result, “the Torah went looking for its studiers” and found only a few upon which to bestow all the siyyata di’shmaya earmarked for that generation. This godol claimed he was among those few and therefore received a disproportional amount of it.

In another mishna we have a description of how spiritual decline and loss of Divine presence in the world can lead to a deterioration of material benefits and optimal physical conditions.

תלמוד בבלי מסכת סוטה דף מח עמוד א

מתני'. משבטלה סנהדרין - בטל השיר מבית המשתאות, שנאמר: +ישעיהו כד+ בשיר לא ישתו יין וגו'. משמתו נביאים הראשונים - בטלו אורים ותומים. משחרב בהמ"ק - בטל השמיר, ונופת צופים, ופסקו אנשי אמנה מישראל, שנאמר: +תהלים יב+ הושיעה ה' כי גמר חסיד וגו'. רשב"ג אומר, העיד ר' יהושע: מיום שחרב בהמ"ק - אין יום שאין בו קללה, ולא ירד הטל לברכה, וניטל טעם הפירות. ר' יוסי אומר: אף ניטל שומן הפירות. ר' שמעון בן אלעזר אומר: הטהרה - נטלה את (הטעם ואת) הריח, המעשרות - נטלו את שומן הדגן. וחכמים אומרים: הזנות והכשפים כילו את הכל.

MISHNAH. WHEN THE SANHEDRIN CEASED [TO FUNCTION], SONG CEASED FROM

THE PLACES OF FEASTING; AS IT IS SAID, THEY SHALL NOT DRINK WINE WITH A

SONG ETC.25

WHEN THE FORMER PROPHETS26 DIED, THE URIM AND THUMMIM27 CEASED. WHEN

[THE SECOND] TEMPLE WAS DESTROYED, THE SHAMIR AND NOPHETH ZUFIM28

CEASED, AND MEN OF FAITH DISAPPEARED FROM ISRAEL; AS IT IS SAID, HELP,

LORD, FOR THE GODLY MAN CEASETH ETC.29 RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS:

R. JOSHUA TESTIFIED THAT FROM THE DAY THE TEMPLE WAS DESTROYED, THERE

IS NO DAY WITHOUT A CURSE, THE DEW HAS NOT DESCENDED FOR A BLESSING,

AND THE FLAVOUR HAS DEPARTED FROM THE FRUITS. R. JOSE SAYS: THE FATNESS30

WAS ALSO REMOVED FROM THE FRUITS. R. SIMEON B. ELEAZAR SAYS; [THE

CESSATION OF] PURITY HAS REMOVED TASTE AND FRAGRANCE [FROM FRUITS];

[THE CESSATION OF] THE TITHES HAS REMOVED THE FATNESS OF CORN. BUT THE

SAGES SAY: IMMORALITY AND WITCHCRAFT DESTROYED EVERYTHING.

We can see here in the final statement of the Chachomim a source for the primary cause of human suffering: We are our own worst enemy. We destroy our own potential for happiness and contentment by pursuing things that are not good for us.
Beware: Rant Ahead.

וחכמים אומרים: הזנות והכשפים כילו את הכל.

A.
Has not the pursuit of --what is being marketed ubiquitously as—“feminine beauty” rendered modern society completely dysfunctional in so many tragic ways? How much time, money, and energy are expended in 1) generating 2) pursuing 3) but never really acquiring the unrealistic fantasies and illicit pleasures that only bring dissatisfaction and disappointment in the long run?
How much wealth and resources are being invested in producing and consuming cosmetics and toiletries well beyond their due in human utility? How smooth does your skin have to be? At age 50? How shiny does your hair have to be?
How much more good to humanity could have been accomplished with all that massive investment?

If we contemplate the idea of witchcraft, we can find powerful parallels to it in today’s technologically driven society. The primary objective behind witchcraft was getting what you want when you wanted it in unnatural ways. You skillfully manipulated various spiritual forces/beings that/who were responsible for producing various natural phenomena, and presto! You got it.

But in the process, Chazal say, one corrupts the normal functioning of the world. Commensurate with an abundance of spiritual manipulations and unnatural bending of natural processes to produce the desired result, the natural processes themselves became weakened and deteriorated.

Is this not an apt description of the impact of technology on our entire civilization? Cannot both magic and technology be summed up as producing short-term tangible gains in exchange for long term intangible losses?

1) From human resources and the power of the mind and emotions, we clearly see that our constant engagement in instant media and social networking has made our thinking and research more superficial and our relationships and personal interactions much less meaningful.

Short-term, tangible gains in productivity and availability, long-term intangible damage to the human capacity to think and relate deeply.

2) Moving on to the harnessing of the earth’s natural resources we see that genetically modifying various crops and organisms and tampering with delicate ecological systems with chemical or biological pest control strategies has spawned a whole host of unforeseen negative consequences.

Short-term, tangible increase in crop-yield and bug resistance comes with unknown incompatibility issues in humans and depletion of bio-diversity in the long-term. Not to mention totally incalculable, irreversible loss of ecological equilibrium and whatever untold ripple effects that GMO's may have across the continent/hemisphere/planet.

3) And finally the medical field is rife with an intervention mentality. Designing chemicals and therapies to turn on/off this or that gene or hormone or autoimmune response; to search and destroy diseased cells and tissue. All very invasive and unnatural ways of dealing with illness and disease. Every condition can and must be either medicated or surgically eliminated.
Short-term, tangible improvement is the name of the game. Make sure the person can resume independent functioning and performing his daily tasks. His overall long-term heath and wellness of being is completely secondary and is often compromised by the aggressiveness of the invasive treatments continuously absorbed by the body.

It seems that in trying to directly solve the immediate crisis of the individual, we have lost sight of the goal of actually improving people's overall quality of life. You can take this pill to make you feel better and then eat anything you want. And after you eat whatever you want and become dangerously obesse, we can then remove/staple/band your stomach to force you to lose weight. But the underlying issues of bad eating habits and self-esteem are never addressed.

It is very reminiscent of what the Rambam (in physician mode, no doubt) wrote regarding the sources of human suffering:

ספר מורה הנבוכים חלק ג פרק יא

אלו הרעות הנופלות בין בני אדם מקצתם אל קצתם לפי הכוונות והתאוות והדעות והאמונות, כלם ג"כ נמשכות אחר ההעדר, מפני שהם כלם מחוייבים לסכלות ר"ל מהעדר החכמה, כמו שהסומא מפני שהוא חסר הראות נכשל תמיד, מחבל בעצמו ועושה חבורות לזולתו גם כן, מפני שאין אצלו מי שיורהו הדרך, כן כתות בני אדם כל איש כפי סכלותו יעשה בעצמו ובזולתו רעות גדולות בחק אישי המין, ואילו היה שם חכמה אשר יחסה לצורה האנושית כיחס הכח הרואה אל העין היו נפסקין נזקיו כולם לעצמו ולזולתו, כי בידיעת האמת תסור השנאה והקטטה ויבטל היזק בני אדם קצתם לקצתם, כבר יעד אותו ואמר וגר זאב עם כבש וגו' ופרה ודוב וגו' ושעשע יונק וגו', ואחר כן נתן סבתו ואמר כי הסבה בהסתלק השנאות והקטטות וההתגברות, הוא ידיעת בני אדם בעת ההיא באמתת השם, אמר לא ירעו ולא ישחיתו בכל הר קדשי כי מלאה הארץ דעה את ה' כמים לים מכסים, ודעהו:

ALL the great evils which men cause to each other because of certainintentions, desires, opinions, or religious principles, are likewisedue to non-existence, because they originate in ignorance, which isabsence of wisdom. A blind man, for example, who has no guide, stumblesconstantly, because he cannot see, and causes injury and harm tohimself and others. In the same manner various classes of men, each manin proportion to his ignorance, bring great evils upon themselves andupon other individual members of the species. If men possessed wisdom,which stands in the same relation to the form of man as the sight tothe eye, they would not cause any injury to themselves or to others:for the knowledge of truth removes hatred and quarrels, and preventsmutual injuries. This state of society is promised to us by the prophetin the words: "And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb," etc.; "and thecow and the bear shall feed together," etc.; and "the sucking childshall play on the hole of the asp," etc. (Isa. xi. 6 seq.). Theprophet also points out what will be the cause of this change: for hesays that hatred, quarrel, and fighting will come to an end, becausemen will then have a true knowledge of God. "They shall not hurt nordestroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of theknowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea" (ibid. ver. 9). Note it.

ספר מורה הנבוכים חלק ג פרק יב

המין הג' מן הרעות הוא מה שימצא כל אחד מבני אדם מפעולתו בעצמו, וזהו הרוב, ואלו הרעות יותר מרעות המין השני הרבה, ומרעות זה המין יצעקו בני אדם כולם, וזהו אשר לא ימצא מי שלא יחטא על עצמו בו אלא מעט, וזהו שראוי לגנות בעל המאורע על מה שיארע לו באמת, ויאמר לו כמה שאמר מידכם היתה זאת לכם, ועל זה נאמר משחית נפשו הוא יעשנה, ועל זה המין מן הרעות אמר שלמה אולת אדם תסלף דרכו וגו', וכבר ביאר גם כן בזה המין מן הרעות שהוא פעל האדם בעצמו, והוא אמרו לבד ראה זה מצאתי אשר עשה האלהים את האדם ישר והמה בקשו חשבונות רבים, והחשבונות ההם הם אשר הביאו עליו אלו הרעות, ועל זה המין נאמר כי לא יצא מעפר און ומאדמה לא יצמח עמל, ואח"כ באר מיד שהאדם הוא אשר ימציא זה המין מן הרע, ואמר כי אדם לעמל יולד וגו', וזה המין הוא הנמשך אחר המדות המגונות כלם, ר"ל רוב התאוה במאכל ובמשתה ובמשגל, ולקיחתם ביתרון כמות, או בהפסד סדר, או בהפסד איכות המזונות, ויהיה סבה לכל החליים והמכות הגשמיות והנפשיות,

(3) The third class of evils comprises those which every one causesto himself by his own action. This is the largest class, and is farmore numerous than the second class. It is especially of these evilsthat all men complain, only few men are found that do not sin againstthemselves by this kind of evil. Those that are afflicted with it aretherefore justly blamed in the words of the prophet, "This hath been byyour means" (Mal. i. 9); the same is expressed in the followingpassage, "He that doeth it destroyeth his own soul" (Prov. vi. 32). Inreference to this kind of evil, Solomon says, "The foolishness of manperverteth his way" (ibid. xix. 3). In the following passage heexplains also that this kind of evil is man's own work, "Lo, this onlyhave I found, that God hath made man upright, but they have thought outmany inventions" (Eccles. vii. 29), and these inventions bring the
evils upon him. The same subject is referred to in Job (v. 6), "Foraffliction cometh not forth of the dust, neither doth trouble springout of the ground." These words are immediately followed by theexplanation that man himself is the author of this class of evils, "Butman is born unto trouble."

This class of evils originates in man'svices, such as excessive desire for eating, drinking, and love;indulgence in these things in undue measure, or in improper manner, orpartaking of bad food. This course brings diseases and afflictions uponbody and soul alike.

The Rambam explains that much of the standard suffering of ordinary people under ordinary circumstances is caused by a lack of awareness of how our behavior and our ways of using the world adversely affect us. If we only had the right insight and right priorities about how to deal with this very complex and distracting world, so full of potential and so ripe for abuse, we would live with much more genuine material benefits and much less pain and agony.

Loss of that insight and priorities comes directly from pursuing the short-term gains with tangible results which sacrifice the things that really matter in the long run.

We live in a world overrun with technological wizardry, and the metaphor is so very apt.

It's no secret that acquiring the proper Torah priorities with its emphasis on developing internal spiritual qualities and character, renunciation of external and wasteful luxuries and refusal to indulge in material excess is the sure recipe for true, lasting happiness and tikkun olam. But do we have the wisdom to give up our self-destructive attitudes and lifestyles?

In the words of the last daf in Sotah:

ועל מה יש לנו להשען על אבינו שבשמים:

Those Who Fail To Learn The Lessons of History...

2011-08-01T03:20:00.006+03:00

After reading Jerusalem Post's write-up of the new Acappela Jewish group "Maccabeats", I was proud and inspired by the wholesomeness and genuine unapologetic Centrist Orthodox image that these guys are projecting.
In their concerts--which aren't just for Yeshiva kids--(Yes, I attended the one last night with my mother-in-law) they are constantly injecting themes of Torah thought and wisdom, quoting their rebbeim and Rav Hutner very naturally and earnestly. They really believe in what they are doing and are trying to use their music and popularity to make a real difference in Jewish identity among the less affiliated population.

But I was struck by the similarities they have with Matisyahu when he first launched his career into the "big leagues".
Matisyahu too, was humble, unassuming and modest in both his dress and demeanor.
For me, he represented the hope that an outwardly Jewish musician with overtly Jewish themes and lyrics could make a positive, lasting, spiritual impact on general world youth culture.

Before Fame and Fortune:

After Fame and Fortune:

While this side-by-side comparison may seem trivial and superficial, I'm afraid the same can't be said about this clip of Matisyahu's visit to Twitter Headquarters last year.

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/2099587#utm_campaign=synclickback&source=http://www.kensavage.com/archives/watching-matisyahu-live/&medium=2099587

Yes, it was only for a few seconds, and yes, he was only being friendly and casual-- it was nothing serious... But it speaks volumes.

It seems that over time, being subjected to the subtle (or perhaps not-so-subtle) demands of the trendy, the popular, and the expectations of his fans, has moved Matisyahu further from his humble Ba'al Teshuvah beginnings.

Attrition has claimed yet another Jew who made an impressive foray into the non-religious world scene.

So now its the Maccabeats' turn...

Before fame and fortune:

After Fame and Fortune:

Did the Rambam Acknowledge Inborn Inclinations for Good or Evil?

2011-08-01T02:02:00.001+03:00

Introduction

In prior posts we have established that without a doubt, the Rambam clearly affirmed the belief a certain form of astrology. It is a conscious influence of the stars which directly govern all natural processes and determine the generation, development, and duration of all earthly beings. This has been dubbed “natural astrology” as opposed to “judicial astrology which is the belief that the stars determine the individual destiny of each human being.

Before we discuss the actual letter of the Rambam against judicial astrology in detail, we need to clarify what he had already stated in his previous works. This letter against astrology makes explicit references to his prior treatments on the subject and it expects the reader to be familiar with them. By examining these prior treatments we can establish more precisely which areas of human existence the Rambam in fact believed was pre-determined and which areas are completely in the hands of the individual.

There are many statements of the Rambam, presented below in the course of this post, which will indicate the belief that each person receives dispositions and character traits which are determined at birth. But more critically, the Rambam also says these pre-dispositions do not only relate to one’s health or constitution or other morally neutral aspects of his being. They are pre-dispositions for good and for evil character. The statements which express this belief will be highlighted below.

Although the Rambam does not explain how these inborn inclinations are acquired, he does make some references to the term “nature”. It is useful to recall in this context that in the Moreh Book II Chapter 10 the Rambam happened to say that it is fitting to ascribe the influence of the celestial spheres the same attributes which we ascribe “nature”:

...The following are the four principal forces directly derived from the spheres: the nature of minerals, the properties peculiar to plants, the animal faculties, and the intellect. An examination of these forces shows that they have two functions, namely, to produce things and to perpetuate them; that is to say, to preserve the species perpetually, and the individuals in each species for a certain time. These are also the functions ascribed to Nature, which is said to be wise, to govern the Universe, to provide, as it were, by plan for the production of living beings, and to provide also for their preservation and perpetuation. Nature creates formative faculties, which are the cause of the production of living beings, and nutritive faculties as the source of their temporal existence and preservation. It may be that by Nature the Divine Will is meant, which is the origin of these two kinds of faculties through the medium of the spheres.

We now proceed to cite from Shemoneh Perakim where the Rambam says the only things which are not determined by natural (or celestial) forces are actions of the human being. But inclinations towards positive and negative traits are determined by nature.

שמונה פרקים לרמב"ם פרק ח

הפרק השמיני – בטבע האנושי.

לא יתכן שיהיה האדם בטבע, מתחילת ברייתו, בעל מעלה, ולא בעל חסרון, כמו שלא יתכן שיהיה האדם בטבע בעל מלאכה מן המלאכות המעשיות. אבל יתכן שיהיה בטבע מוכן אל מעלה או אל פחיתות, בשיהיו פעולות זו קלות עליו מפעולות זולתה. משל זה, שיהיה אדם שמיזגו נוטה אל היובש, ויהיה עצם מוחו זך, מעט הלחויות, הנה זה יקלו עליו הזכירה והבנת העניינים יותר מאשר על איש בעל ליחה לבנה, רב הליחות במח. אבל אם יונח אותו המוכן במיזגו אל זאת המעלה, מבלי לימוד כלל, ומבלי שיעוררו בו כח – הרי הוא ישאר סכל בלא ספק. וכן אם ילמדו ויבוננו את זה עב הטבע, רב הליחות – הרי הוא ידע ויבין, אבל בקושי וביגיעה. ועל זה האופן בעצמו יהיה איש שמזג לבו יותר חם מן הראוי מעט, ויהיה גיבור, רצוני לומר: מוכן אל הגבורה, ואם ילומד הגבורה יהיה גיבור בקלות; ואחר מזג לבו יותר קר מן הראוי, והוא מוכן אל רוך הלבב והפחד, ואם ילומד ויורגל לזה יקבלו בקלות, ואם תכוון בו הגבורה – בקושי יהיה גיבור, אבל יהיה אם יורגל בלא ספק.

“It is possible that there is a nature which is predisposed ("מוכן") towards a lofty character trait or towards a lowly character trait.”

The Rambam here is referring to intellectual abilities and courage vs. timidity—which he calls “lofty” and “lowly”. But we will soon see from the Mishna Torah and Moreh Hanevuchim that this natural predetermination of inclinations will be extended to moral and immoral traits as well. Indeed, in the Rambam’s view, the intellectual abilities of a person largely determine the extant of his capacity to perfect himself morally and spiritually.

We now continue to quote from the Shemoneh Prakim regarding free-will vs. determinism.

ואמנם בארתי לך זה, כדי שלא תחשוב לאמיתיות אותן ההזיות שיבדון בעלי גזירת הכוכבים, באשר הם טוענים כי מולדות בני האדם ישימום בעלי מעלה או בעלי פחיתות, ושהאדם מוכרח על אותן הפעולות דוקא. אבל אתה דע, כי דבר מוסכם עליו מתורתנו ומפילוסופית יון, כמו שאימתוהו טענות האמת, שמעשי האדם כולם מסורים אליו, אין כופה עליו בהם, ולא מושך לו מבחוץ בשום פנים, שיטהו אל מעלה או פחיתות; אלא אם כן תהיה הכנה מיזגית בלבד, כמו שבארנו, שיקל בגללה דבר או יקשה, אבל שיחוייב או ימנע – אין בשום פנים. ואילו היה האדם מוכרח על מעשיו – היו בטלים הצווי וההזהרה התוריים, והיה כל זה שוא גמור, הואיל ואין בחירה לאדם במה שיעשה. וכמו כן היה מתחייב ביטול הלימוד, והחינוך, ולמידת המלאכות כולן, כל זה היה הבל, הואיל והאדם אין מנוס לו בהכרח, בגלל מושכו מבחוץ, לשיטת מי שסובר כן, ממעשה פלוני שיעשהו, וממדע פלוני שידעהו, וממידה פלונית שתיקנה לו. והיה השכר והעונש גם כן עוול גמור, הן ממנו קצתנו לקצתנו, והן מה' לנו. לפי שזה שמעון ההורג לראובן, אם היה זה כפוי ומוכרח להרוג, וזה כפוי ומוכרח ליהרג – למה נענוש את שמעון? ואיך יתכן גם כן עליו יתעלה, צדיק וישר, שיענישהו על מעשה שאין מנוס לו מעשותו, ואפלו השתדל שלא יעשהו לא היה יכול? והיו גם כן בטילות ההכנות כולן עד האחרונה שבהן, מבניית הבתים, וקניית המזון, והבריחה בעת הפחד, וזולת זה, כי אשר נגזר שיהיה – אין מנוס מהיותו. וזה כולו שוא ושקר גמור, ונגד המושכל והמורגש, והריסת חומת התורה, ויחוס עוול לה' יתעלה, חלילה לו מזה.

ואמנם האמת אשר אין ספק בה, שמעשי האדם כולם מסורים אליו, אם ירצה יעשה, ואם ירצה לא יעשה, מבלי כפיה ומבלי הכרח לו על כך. ולפיכך חוייבה המצוה, ואמר: "ראה נתתי לפניך היום את החיים ואת הטוב [ו]את המות ואת הרע... ובחרת בחיים", ונתן הבחירה לנו בזה. וחוייב העונש למי שיעבור, והגמול למי שישמע: אם תשמעו, ואם לא תשמעו. וחוייבו הלימוד וההתלמדות: +דברים יא, יט; דברים ה, א+ "ולמדתם אותם את בניכם" וכו', "ולמדתם אותם ושמרתם לעשותם", וכל מה שבא בלימוד ובהרגל במצוות. וחוייבו גם כן ההכנות כולן, כמו שכתב בספר האמת ואמר: +דברים כב, ח+ "ועשית מעקה... כי יפול הנופל", +דברים כ, ה+ "פן ימות במלחמה", +שמות כב, כו+ "במה ישכב", +דברים כד, ו+ "לא יחבול רחים ורכב", והרבה מאד בתורה ובספרי הנביאים מזה הענין, רצוני לומר: ההכנה.

אבל הלשון הנמצא לחכמים, והוא אומרם: "הכל בידי שמים חוץ מיראת שמים" – הרי הוא אמת, ומכוון אל מה שזכרנו, אלא שהרבה יטעו בו בני אדם, ויחשבו בקצת מעשי האדם הבחיריים – שהוא מוכרח עליהם, כגון הזיווג לפלונית, או היות זה הממון בידו. וזה אינו אמת, כי זאת האשה, אם היתה לקיחתה בכתובה וקידושין, והיא מותרת, ונשאה לפריה ורביה – הרי זו מצוה, וה' לא יגזור בעשיית מצוה; ואם היה בנשואיה פגם – הרי היא עבירה, וה' לא יגזור בעבירה. וכן זה אשר גזל ממון פלוני, או גנבו, או מעל וכחש ונשבע לו בממונו, אם נאמר שה' גזר על זה שיגיע לידו זה הממון ושיצא מיד זה האחר – הנה כבר גזר בעבירה. ואין הדבר כן, אלא כל מעשי האדם הבחיריים – בהם בלא ספק יימצאו המשמעת והמרי. כי כבר בארנו בפרק השני, שהציווי והאזהרה התוריים אמנם הם במעשים אשר לאדם בחירה בהם אם יעשם או לא יעשם, ובזה החלק מן הנפש תהיה יראת שמים, ואינה בידי שמים, אלא היא מסורה לבחירת האדם, כמו שבארנו. ואם כן, אומרם 'הכל' – אמנם ירצו בו הדברים הטבעיים, אשר אין לאדם בחירה בהם, כגון היותו ארוך או קצר, או רדת מטר או בצורת, או הפסד אויר או בריאותו, וכיוצא בזה מכל מה שבעולם, חוץ מתנועות האדם ומנוחותיו

Here the Rambam is saying all forms of conscious human activity are under the control of man’s free-will because all human action is within the realm of either conforming God’s will or rebelling against it. Every single act can be an expression of one’s yiras shomayim, or manifestation of its absence.

In this, he seems to echo the Chovos Halevavos’ law of the excluded middle: there is no “reshus” activity in the Torah. Each and every act is either a mitzvah--promoting God’s values and objectives; or an aveirah in demoting them.

ספר חובות הלבבות שער ג - שער עבודת האלוקים פרק ד

וכבר התבאר במה שזכרנו, שכל מעשי האדם אינם יוצאים מצווי ואזהרה ודי הספוק, כי כל מה שיוצא מגדר די הספוק או אל התוספת או אל החסרון, איננו נמלט מהשיג בצווי, אם יהיה לשם שמים, או באזהרה אם לא יהיה לש"ש. וכאשר נחקר על די בספוק להגיע מן העולם אל המזון, נמצאנו מצווה בו כמ"ש בראשית היצירה: ויברך אתם אלהים ויאמר להם אלהים פרו רבו ומלאו את הארץ וכבשה, ואמר אח"כ: הנה נתתי לכם את כל עשב זורע זרע אשר על פני כל הארץ, אם כן די הספוק במזון נכנס בשער הצווי. וכיון שהוא כן, כבר התברר, כי כל מעשי בני אדם אינם יוצאים מן הצווי והאזהרה, וביאור זה, כי כל העושה מעשה, אם הוא מן הצווים הוא מעשה טוב, ואם יניח מעשותו, והוא יכול לעמד בחובתו, הוא מקצר. וכן מי שעושה דבר מן האזהרות הוא חוטא, ואם יניח מעשותו, הוא צדיק, כשיניחנו בעבור יראת ה', כמ"ש הכתוב: אף לא פעלו עולה בדרכיו הלכו. ואם יעשה מן המעשים המותרים על דרך שוה ונכונה, הוא צדיק, כאשר אמר: טוב איש חונן ומלוה יכלכל דבריו במשפט. ואם יהיה מרבה ועובר די הספוק, הוא מקצר, מפני שהוא מביא למה שהזהיר ממנו האלהים. ואם יקצר מדי הספוק עם יכלתו עליו, ותהיה כוונתו ליסר נפשו בעבודת ה', ולמשל בתאותיו, כדי להתקרב אל האלהים או לפרש מן העולם ולנטות אל העוה"ב, הוא צדיק ומעשהו טוב, ואם אינו לשם שמים הוא מקצר ומעשהו מגונה.

We will return to this great expansion of the scope of un-predetermined, free-willed activities in an upcoming post, when we will discuss the impact of mazal on what happens to a person as opposed to what a person does.

We now proceed to the Mishna Torah at the beginning of Hichos De’os. We are initially presented with a list of positive and negative human traits. Please note that this list include moral and immoral ones as well as morally neutral ones:

רמב"ם הלכות דעות פרק א

דעות הרבה יש לכל אחד ואחד מבני אדם וזו משונה מזו ורחוקהממנו ביותר, יש אדם שהוא בעל חמה כועס תמיד, ויש אדם שדעתו מיושבת עליו ואינוכועס כלל ואם יכעס יכעס כעס מעט בכמה שנים, ויש אדם שהוא גבה לב ביותר,ויש שהוא שפל רוח ביותר, ויש שהוא בעל תאוה לא תשבע נפשו מהלוךבתאוה, ויש שהוא בעל לב טהור מאד ולא יתאוה אפילו לדברים מעטיםשהגוף צריך להן, ויש בעל נפש רחבה שלא תשבע נפשו מכל ממון העולם, כעניןשנאמר אוהב כסף לא ישבע כסף, ויש מקצר נפשו שדיו אפילו דבר מעט שלא יספיק לו ולאירדוף להשיג כל צרכו, ויש שהוא מסגף עצמו ברעב וקובץ על ידו ואינו אוכל פרוטה משלואלא בצער גדול, ויש שהוא מאבד כל ממונו בידו לדעתו, ועל דרכים אלו שאר כל הדעותכגון מהולל ואונן וכילי ושוע ואכזרי ורחמן ורך לבב ואמיץ לב וכיוצא בהן.

הלכה ב

ויש בין כל דעה ודעה הרחוקה ממנה בקצה האחר דעות בינוניות זו רחוקה מזו, וכל הדעות יש מהן דעות שהן לאדם מתחלת ברייתו לפי טבע גופו, ויש מהן דעות שטבעו של אדם זה מכוון ועתיד לקבל אותם במהרה יותר משאר הדעות, ויש מהן שאינן לאדם מתחלת ברייתו אלא למד אותם מאחרים או שנפנה להן מעצמו לפי מחשבה שעלתה בלבו, או ששמע שזו הדעה טובה לו ובה ראוי לילך והנהיג עצמו בה עד שנקבעה בלבו.

Halacha 2: “…In all these traits and attitudes, there are ones that are 1) acquired by man at the very beginning of his creation by the nature of his body, 2) those traits that his nature is predisposed to acquiring more rapidly than other traits, 3) and traits to which he has no inborn inclination but is only acquired due to influence from others or by his own mental decision.”

הלכה ג

שתי קצוות הרחוקות זו מזו שבכל דעה ודעה אינן דרך טובה ואין ראוי לו לאדם ללכת בהן ולא ללמדן לעצמו, ואם מצא טבעו נוטה לאחת מהן או מוכן לאחת מהן או שכבר למד אחת מהן ונהג בה יחזיר עצמו למוטב וילך בדרך הטובים והיא הדרך הישרה.

Please Note that these paragraphs modify the first one in which moral traits were listed. No distinction is made here regarding inborn traits between morally neutral ones and morally positive and negative ones.

III

We now provide the counterbalancing statement in Hilchos Teshuvah where the Rambam reaffirms the power of free-will.

But we are now faced with a much broader statement than what we found in Shemoneh Perakim. Here we find that not only the realm of human action (to choose to act morally or act immorally) is in the hands of man, but any character trait which makes one righteous or wicked as well:

רמב"ם הלכות תשובה פרק ה

הלכה ב

אל יעבור במחשבתך דבר זה שאומרים טפשי אומה"ע ורוב גולמי בני ישראל שהקב"ה גוזר על האדם מתחלת ברייתו להיות צדיק או רשע, אין הדבר כן אלא כל אדם ראוי לו להיות צדיק כמשה רבינו או רשע כירבעם או חכם או א סכל או רחמן או אכזרי או כילי או שוע וכן שאר כל הדעות, ואין לו מי שיכפהו ולא גוזר עליו ולא מי שמושכו לאחד משני הדרכים אלא הוא מעצמו ומדעתו נוטה לאי זו דרך שירצה, הוא שירמיהו אמר מפי עליון לא תצא הרעות והטוב, כלומר אין הבורא גוזר על האדם להיות טוב ולא להיות רע, וכיון שכן הוא נמצא זה החוטא הוא הפסיד את עצמו, ולפיכך ראוי לו לבכות ולקונן על חטאיו ועל מה שעשה לנפשו וגמלה רעה, הוא שכתוב אחריו מה יתאונן אדם חי וגו', וחזר ואמר הואיל ורשותנו בידינו ומדעתנו עשינו כל הרעות ראוי לנו לחזור בתשובה ולעזוב רשענו שהרשות עתה בידינו הוא שכתוב אחריו נחפשה דרכינו ונחקורה ונשובה וגו'.

The statement “and there is none who draws man to one of the two directions (righteousness or evil) except for he himself- and from within his own mind he inclines to whichever directing he wills.” Requires clarification. For as we have seen earlier in Hilchos Deos, the Rambam does attribute inborn inclinations with the power to engender morally positive and morally negative traits and draw a person in either righteous or wicked directions.

We find a similar inconsistency between the Letter Against Astrology and the Rambam’s Arabic compositions like the Introduction to his Commentary on the Mishna and in numerous places in the Moreh.

First, the crucial excerpt from the Letter Against Astrology:

And know, my masters, that it is one of the roots of the religion of Moses our Teacher—and one that all the philosophers also acknowledge—that every action of human beings is left to them and that there is nothing to constrain or draw them. Rather, if he so pleases, a man will worship God and become wise and sit in the house of study. And if he so pleases, he will follow the counsel of the wicked and run with thieves and hide with adulterers. There is no influence or constellation under which one is born that will draw him in any manner toward any one of these ways. Hence it was commanded and told to him: "Do this and do not do that." We have made clear many of the things involved in these matters in most of our Arabic compositions, in the Commentary on the Mishnah and in the rest of the compositions. Thus we ought to know that what happens to human beings is not—as the philosophers maintain—like what happens to the beast.

Yet we do in fact see clear statements to the contrary regarding inclinations which can draw a man towards evil and sin or goodness and perfection.

The most explicit is in the Moreh Book I chapter 34:

The Fourth Reason is taken from the physical constitution of man. Ithas been proved that moral conduct is a preparation for intellectualprogress, and that only a man whose character is pure, calm andsteadfast, can attain to intellectual perfection: that is, acquirecorrect conceptions. Many men are naturally so constituted that allperfection is impossible: e.g., he whose heart is very warm and ishimself very powerful, is sure to be passionate, though he tries tocounteract that disposition by training; he whose testicles are warm,humid, and vigorous, and the organs connected therewith are surcharged,will not easily refrain from sin, even if he makes great efforts torestrain himself. You also find persons of great levity and rashness,whose excited manners and wild gestures prove that their constitutionis in disorder, and their temperament so bad that it cannot be cured.Such persons can never attain to perfection: it is utterly useless tooccupy oneself with them on such a subject [as Metaphysics].

Another passage is found regarding the necessary qualities for receiving prophecy and thereby attaining spiritual perfection later in the Moreh. There, the Rambam also attributes inborn obstacles to people which tragically, cannot be overcome by human effort!

PROPHECY is, in truth and reality, an emanation sent forth by theDivine Being through the medium of the Active Intellect, in the firstinstance to man's rational faculty, and then to his imaginativefaculty; it is the highest degree and greatest perfection man canattain: it consists in the most Perfect development of the imaginativefaculty. Prophecy is a faculty that cannot in any way be found in aperson, or acquired by man, through a culture of his mental and moralfaculties: for even if these latter were as good and perfect aspossible, they would be of no avail, unless they were combined with thehighest natural excellence of the imaginative faculty. You know thatthe full development of any faculty of the body, such as theimagination, depends on the condition of the organ, by means of whichthe faculty acts. This must be the best possible as regards itstemperament and its size, and also as regards the purity of itssubstance. Any defect in this respect cannot in any way be supplied orremedied by training. For when any organ is defective in itstemperament, proper training can in the best case restore a healthycondition to some extent, but cannot make such an organ perfect. But ifthe organ is defective as regards size, position, or as regards thesubstance and the matter of which the organ is formed, there is noremedy. You know all this, and I need not explain it to you at length.

More subtle in this context of absolute limitations on attaining human perfection by the masses is a passage in the Intro to the Commentary to the Mishna regarding the problem of “Cosmic Inequality”.

הקדמת הרמב"ם למשנה

ונשארה כאן שאלה אחת, והיא, יש למקשה לומר, אתם כבר אמרתם שלא המציאה החכמה האלקית שום דבר לבטלה, ושכל הנבראים תחת גלגל הירח האדם הוא הנכבד שבהם, ושתכלית המין האנשוי הוא השגת המושכלות, אם כן מדוע המציא ה' כל בני אדם שאינם משיגים מושכל, ואנחנו רואים שרוב בני אדם ריקים ממדע רודפי התאות, והאדם המלומד הפרוש נדיר ופלאי, לא ימצא אלא יחיד באחד הדורות.

התשובה, שכל מציאות אותם הנבראים לשתי סבות, האחת, לשרת את אותו היחיד, כי אלו היו כל בני אדם למדנים מתפלספים היה העולם אבד, והיה האדם כולה ממנו בזמן קצר, לפי שהאדם חסר מאד זקוק לדברים רבים, והיה מוכרח ללמוד חרישה וקצירה ודישה וטחינה ובשול, ועשיית כלים לכל אלה עד שיושג לו המזון, וכן היה צריך ללמוד טוייה ואריגה כדי לארוג מה שילבש, ובנין כדי לבנות לו מקום לחסות, ויעשה כלים לכל אלה, ולא יספיקו חיי מתושלח כדי ללמוד כל המלאכות שאדם זקוק להם בהכרח למען קיומו. ואם כן מתי ילמד אותו אדם חכמה ויבין במדע, לפיכך נמצאו כל אלה כדי לעשות את העבודות הללו שהעולם צריך להם, ונמצא המלומד בשביל עצמו, ובכך נבנה העולם ונמצאת החכמה,…

... כך היא הנהגת ה' יתעלה ויתרומם וחכמתו ששעבד בה את הטבע, עצות מרחוק אמונה אומן, וענין זה כבר ביארוהו חז"ל, אמרו שבן זומא היה יושב בהר הבית ורואה ישראל עולים ואומר ברוך שברא כל אלו לשרתני, לפי שהיה ע"ה יחיד בדורו.

והסבה השנית למציאות מי שאין בו חכמה, לפי שבעלי החכמה מעטים מאד, שכך חייבה החכמה האלקית, ואין לומר בכל מה שחייבה אותו החכמה הראשונה מדוע חייבה כך, כמו שאין לומר מדוע הגלגלים תשעה וכוכבי הלכת שבעה והיסודות ארבעה, שכל אלה וכל הדומה להם כך חוייבו מתחלת היצירה, והנך רואה שכבר ביארו עליהם השלום דבר זה במה שאמר ר' שמעון בן יוחאי על אנשי דורו כפי שהיו, ראיתי בני עלייה והם מועטים אם שנים הם אני ובני הם, ולפיכך הומצאו ההמון להיות לצות לבני עלייה. ושמא תחשוב שתועלת זו קלה היא, אדרבא היא יותר גדולה מן הראשונה, הלא תראה שהקב"ה השאיר את הכופרים בארץ להיות לצות לחסידים, והוא אמרו יתעלה ויתרומם לא אגרשנו מפניך בשנה אחת פן תהיה הארץ שממה, וגם ענין זה ביארוהו חז"ל ואמרו מאי כי זה כל האדם, כל העולם כולו לא נברא אלא לצות לזה פירושו להיות לו לחברה.

Hashem has decreed that most individuals will not achieve intellectual perfection and will be involved in material pursuits. Their Divine purpose is to build up a civilization and provide an environment where the few gifted ones can thrive. Thus, for the masses, their free-will has apparently been pre-determined to only take them so far up the ladder of perfection, and no further.

So we are left with a contradiction. On the one hand we have the Rambam ardently insisting in two places that there is no force or influence which draws a person towards good actions and perfection or evil ones and imperfection. Yet in all his majors works we have explicit statements to the contrary, and a deterministic attitude towards those who are eligible to attain high levels of spiritual perfection.

It is tempting to suggest that specifically in the contexts where the Rambam is most eager to impress upon his readers that the foundation of religion hinges upon the absolute freedom of will, do we find these statements negating any power of influence and inclinations swaying a human being. It is as if the Rambam gave himself a license to exaggerate in order to maximize the scope of the freedom of human will and remove any possible excuse for immoral behavior. He perhaps chose to see to it that no-one could resort to blaming his moral shortcomings on astrological or biological forces which might prevent one from taking full responsibility for his actions.

But I hesitate to resort to such explanations (which can easily be lent to abuse in other contexts), and would rather leave the problem unresolved for now.

To be continued...

2011-08-01T01:29:00.000+03:00

Reproduced from the other blog (with small additions) in order to present the entire series here:

The Rambam is well known for saying some very controversial things regarding the primacy of the intellect and philosophical understanding. But I find that often, he is not given due recognition for espousing some very traditional beliefs and opinions.
This makes the Rambam a figure with whom no camp can be completely at ease and frustrates each camp's ardent desire to have the Rambam be enlisted wholly and exclusively within their ranks.

And this situation produces another problem--selective quoting of the Rambam in order to paint a intellectual portrait of the Rambam which suits that camp's taste.

So in the interest of rounding out the public perception of the Rambam, I humbly present The Complete View of Maimonides on Astrology.

We will start with the brief references in Mishna Torah--(only available in Hebrew) and see his great elaboration in the Moreh regarding the belief that EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS ON PLANET EARTH ONLY EXISTS AND IS CONTROLLED AND REGULATED BY THE INFLUENCE OF THE STARS AND HEAVENLY SPHERES. This belief is even affirmed in his famous letter against astrology!

Then we will move on to the Rambam's belief that the only realm not dictated by the Heavens is the free-willed actions of Mankind.
That's it.
The Rambam's vehement objection to Astrology was only that people crossed this line and believed that even human action was fated and influenced by astrological forces. In this objection, the Rambam is joined by Rebbi Akivah and every Jewish sage which affirmed the notion of full human free-will and that reward for righteous acts and punishment for evil acts is deserved. (I think that pretty much covers everybody)
In short, the Rambam affirmed the aphorism of Chazal "All is in the hands of heaven except for the fear of Heaven" to an incredible degree.

We will now present the sources.

First, the Letter Against Astrology:

http://people.bu.edu/dklepper/RN242/rambam2.html

All of these three sects are in accord on the following point. Everything that comes into being in this lower world—namely, every "living soul" (Gen. 1:30) and every tree and every species of grass and every one of the species of minerals—the whole has the Deity as its maker, through a power coming from the spheres and the stars. And they are in accord that the power of the Creator flows first upon the spheres and the stars; from the spheres and the stars it flows and spreads through this (lower) world—everything that is, thereby coming into being. Just as we maintain that the Holy One, blessed be He, performs signs and wonders through the angels, so do these philosophers maintain that all these occurrences in the nature of the world come through the spheres and the stars. They maintain that the spheres and the stars possess souls and knowledge. All these things are true. I myself have already made it clear, with proofs, that all these things involve no damage to religion. And not only this, but what is more I have understood from the sayings of the sages in all of the Midrashim that they maintain as the philosophers maintained. There is no controversy whatever between the sages of Israel and the philosophers on these matters, as I have made clear in those chapters [in the Guide of the Perplexed, a philosophical treatise].

Mishna Torah

רמב"ם הלכות עבודת כוכבים פרק א

וזו היתה טעותם, אמרו הואיל והאלהים ברא כוכבים אלו וגלגלים להנהיג את העולם ונתנם במרום וחלק להם כבוד והם שמשים המשמשים לפניו ראויין הם לשבחם ולפארם ולחלוק להם כבוד,

רמב"ם הלכות עבודת כוכבים פרק ב

וענין זה הוא שהזהירה תורה עליו ואמרה ופן תשא עיניך השמימה וראית את השמש וגו' אשר חלק ה' אלהיך אותם לכל העמים, כלומר שמא תשוט בעין לבך תראה שאלו הן המנהיגים את העולם והם שחלק ה' אותם לכל העולם להיות חיים והווים ואינם נפסדים כמנהגו של עולם ותאמר שראוי להשתחוות להם ולעובדן, ובענין הזה צוה ואמר השמרו לכם פן יפתה לבבכם, כלומר שלא תטעו בהרהור הלב לעבוד אלו להיות סרסור ביניכם ובין הבורא.

Please Note that the mistake of the pagans was not in the attribution of control and direction to the stars' influence but only that they are deserving of worship as a means for procuring benefits. God alone is the only address to petition for procuring material benefit.
The Drashos Haran at the end of the fourth drush which we will cite in Part II makes this most explicit.

We now proceed to cite from the Moreh Hanevuchim at length. You will be astonished to the extent that Rambam held this belief and how it is found throughout Chazal. Along the way, I will highlightthe passages which should serve as its own "guide" to appreciating what role the Rambam played vis-a-vis Traditional Judaism. I believe Book II chapters 10 & 11 are the most crucial.

Moreh Hanevuchim
Book I Chapter 72

As the human body consists both of principal organs and of other members which depend on them and cannot exist without the control of those organs, so does the universe consist both of principal parts, viz., the quintessence, which encompasses the four elements and of other parts which are subordinated and require a leader, viz., the four elements and the things composed of them.
Again, the principal part in the human body, namely, the heart, is in constant motion, and is the source of every motion noticed in the body: it rules over the other members, and communicates to them through its own pulsations the force required for their functions. The outermost sphere by its motion rules in a similar way over all other parts of the universe, and supplies all things with their special properties. Every motion in the universe has thus its origin in the motion of that sphere: and the soul of every animated being derives its origin from the soul of that same sphere.
The forces which according to this explanation are communicated by the spheres to this sublunary world are four in number, viz., (a) the force which effects the mixture and the composition of the elements, and which undoubtedly suffices to form the minerals: (b) the force which supplies every growing thing with its vegetative functions: (c) the force which gives to each living being its vitality, and (d) the force which endows rational beings with intellect. All this is effected through the action of light and darkness, which are regulated by the position and the motion of the spheres round the earth.
When for one instant the beating of the heart is interrupted, man dies, and all his motions and powers come to an end. In a like manner would the whole universe perish, and everything therein cease to exist if the spheres were to come to a standstill.
The living being as such is one through the action of its heart, although some parts of the body are devoid of motion and sensation, as, e.g., the bones, the cartilage, and similar parts. The same is the case with the entire universe; although it includes many beings without motion and without life, it is a single being living through the motion of the sphere, which may be compared to the heart of an animated being. You must therefore consider the entire globe as one individual being which is endowed with life, motion, and a soul. This mode of considering the universe is, as will be explained, indispensable, that is to say, it is very useful for demonstrating the unity of God; it also helps to elucidate the principle that He who is One has created only one being.
Again, it is impossible that any of the members of a human body should exist by themselves, not connected with the body, and at the same time should actually be organic parts of that body, that is to say, that the liver should exist by itself, the heart by itself, or the flesh by itself. In like manner, it is impossible that one part of the Universe should exist independently of the other parts in the existing order of things as here considered, viz., that the fire should exist without the co-existence of the earth, or the earth without the heaven, or the heaven without the earth.

From Book II Chapters 4-10

Chapter 4

This is the theory, and opinion of Aristotle on these questions, and his proofs, where proof is possible, are given in various works of the Aristotelian school. In short, he believes that the spheres are animated and intellectual beings, capable of fully comprehending the principia of their existence; that there exist purely spiritual beings (Intelligences), which do not reside in corporeal objects, and which derive existence from God; and that these form the intermediate element between God and this material world.
In the chapters which follow I will show how far the teaching of Scripture is in harmony with these views, and how far it differs from them.

Chapter 5

As to the opinion of our Sages, I do not see any necessity for expounding or demonstrating it. Consider only the form they gave to the blessing recited on seeing the new moon, the ideas repeatedly occurring in the prayers and the remarks in the Midrash on the following and similar passages:--"And the host of heaven worshippeth thee" (Neh. ix. 6); "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy" (Job xxxviii. 7). In Bereshit Rabba, on the passage--"And the earth was empty and formless" (Gen. i. 2), our Sages remark as follows: "The words tohu and bohu mean mourning and crying; the earth mourned and cried on account of her evil lot, saying, 'I and the heavens were created together, and yet the beings above live for ever, and we are mortal.'" Our Sages, by this remark, indicate their belief that the spheres are animated beings, and not inanimate matter like the elements.
The opinion of Aristotle, that the spheres are capable of comprehension and conception, is in accordance with the words of our prophets and our theologians or Sages. The philosophers further agree that this world below is governed by influences emanating from the spheres, and that the latter comprehend and have knowledge of the things which they influence. This theory is also met with in Scripture: comp. [the stars and all the host of heaven] "which the Lord thy God hath divided unto all nations" (Deut. iv. 19), that is to say, the stars, which God appointed to be the means of governing His creatures, and not the objects of man's worship. It has therefore been stated clearly: "And to rule over the day and over the night" (Gen. i. 18). The term "ruling" here refers to the power which the spheres possess of governing the earth, in addition to the property of giving light and darkness. The latter property is the direct cause of genesis and destruction; it is described in the words, "And to divide the light from the darkness (ibid.). It is impossible to assume that those who rule a thing are ignorant of that very thing which they rule, if we take "to rule" in its proper sense. We will add another chapter on this subject.

Chapter 6

As for the existence of angels, there is no necessity to cite any proof from Scripture, where the fact is frequently mentioned. The term elohim signifies "judges"; comp. "The cause of both parties shall come before the 'judges'" (ha-elohim; Exod. xxii. 8). It has been figuratively applied to angels, and to the Creator as being judge over the angels. When God says, "I am the Lord your God," the pronoun "your" refers to all mankind; but in the phrase elohe ha-elohim, He is described as the God of the angels, and in adone ha-adonim, as the Lord of the spheres and the stars, which are the masters of the rest of the corporeal creation...

Chapter 10

IT is a well-known fact that the philosophers, when they discuss in their works the order of the Universe, assume that the existing order of things in this sublunary world of transient beings depends on forces which emanate from the spheres. We have mentioned this several times. In like manner our Sages say, "There is no single herb below without its corresponding star above, that beats upon it and commands it to grow." Comp. "Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? Canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?" (Job xxxviii. 33). The term mazzal, literally meaning a constellation in the Zodiac, is also used of every star, as may be inferred from the following passage in the beginning of Bereshit Rabba (chap. x.): "While one star (mazzal) completes its circuit in thirty days, another completes it in thirty years." They have thus clearly expressed it, that even each individual being in this world has its corresponding star. Although the influences of the spheres extend over all beings, there is besides the influence of a particular star directed to each particular species; a fact noticed also in reference to the several forces in one organic body; for the whole Universe is like one organic body, as we have stated above. Thus the philosophers speak of the peculiar influence of the moon on the particular element water. That this is the case is proved by the increase and decrease of the water in the seas and rivers according to the
p. 165
increase and decrease of the moon; also by the rising and the falling of the seas according to the advance or return of the moon, i.e., her ascending and her descending in the several quarters of her course. This is clear to every one who has directed his attention to these phenomena. The influence of the sun's rays upon fire may easily be noticed in the increase of heat or cold on earth, according as the sun approaches the earth or recedes or is concealed from it. All this is so clear that I need not explain it further. Now it occurred to my mind that the four spheres which contain stars exercise influence upon all beings on earth that come into existence, and, in fact, are the cause of their existence: but each of the four spheres is the exclusive source of the properties of one only of the four elements, and becomes by its own motion the cause of the motion and changes of that element. Thus water is set in motion by the moon-sphere, fire by the sun-sphere, air by the other planets, which move in many and different courses with retrogressions, progressions, and stations, and therefore produce the various forms of the air with its frequent changes, contractions, and expansions: the sphere of the other stars, namely, the fixed stars, sets earth in motion; and it may be that on this account, viz., on account of the slow motion of the fixed stars, earth is but slowly set in motion to change and to combine with other elements. The particular influence which the fixed stars exercise upon earth is implied in the saying of our Sages, that the number of the species of plants is the same as that of the individuals included in the general term "stars."
The arrangement of the Universe may therefore be assumed to be as follows: there are four spheres, four elements set in motion by them, and also four principal properties which earthly beings derive from them, as has been stated above. Furthermore, there are four causes of the motion of every sphere, namely, the following four essential elements in the sphere; its spherical shape, its soul, its intellect, by which the sphere is capable of forming ideas, and the Intelligence, which the sphere desires to imitate. Note this well. The explanation of what I said is this: the sphere could not have been continuously in motion, had it not this peculiar form; continuity of motion is only possible when the motion is circular. Rectilinear motion, even if frequently repeated in the same moment, cannot be continuous: for when a body moves successively in two opposite directions, it must pass through a moment of rest, as has been demonstrated in its proper place. The necessity of a continuous motion constantly repeated in the same path implies the necessity of a circular form. The spheres must have a soul; for only animate beings can move freely. There must be some cause for the motion, and as it does not consist in the fear of that which is injurious, or the desire of that which is profitable, it must be found in the notion which the spheres form of a certain being, and in the desire to approach that being. This formation of a notion demands, in the first place, that the spheres possess intellect; it demands further that something exists which corresponds to that notion, and which the spheres desire to approach. These are the four causes of the motion of the spheres. The following are the four principal forces directly derived from the spheres: the nature of minerals, the properties peculiar to plants, the animal faculties, and the intellect. An examination of these forces shows that they have two functions, namely, to produce things and to perpetuate them; that is to say, to preserve the species
p. 166
perpetually, and the individuals in each species for a certain time. These are also the functions ascribed to Nature, which is said to be wise, to govern the Universe, to provide, as it were, by plan for the production of living beings, and to provide also for their preservation and perpetuation. Nature creates formative faculties, which are the cause of the production of living beings, and nutritive faculties as the source of their temporal existence and preservation. It may be that by Nature the Divine Will is meant, which is the origin of these two kinds of faculties through the medium of the spheres.

Chapter 11

All we wish to point out is this: in the first place, that the whole Creation is divided into three parts, viz. (1) the pure Intelligences; (2) the bodies of the spheres endowed with permanent forms--(the forms of these bodies do not pass from one substratum to another, nor do their substrata undergo any change whatever); and (3) the transient earthly beings, all of which consist of the same substance. Furthermore, we desire to show that the ruling power emanates from the Creator, and is received by the Intelligences according to their order: from the Intelligences part of the good and the light bestowed upon them is communicated to the spheres, and the latter, being in possession of the abundance obtained of the Intelligences, transmit forces and properties unto the beings of this transient world...

...In the same manner the creative act of the Almighty in giving existence to pure Intelligences endows the first of them with the power of giving existence to another, and so on, down to the Active Intellect, the lowest of the purely spiritual beings. Besides producing other Intelligences, each Intelligence gives existence to one of the spheres, from the highest down to the lowest, which is the sphere of the moon. After the latter follows this transient world, i.e., the materia prima, and all that has been formed of it. In this manner the elements receive certain properties from each sphere, and a succession of genesis and destruction is produced.

We have already mentioned that these theories are not opposed to anything taught by our Prophets or by our Sages. Our nation is wise and perfect, as has been declared by the Most High, through Moses, who made us perfect: "Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people" (Deut. iv. 6). But when wicked barbarians have deprived us of our possessions, put an end to our science and literature, and killed our wise men, we have become ignorant; this has been foretold by the prophets, when they pronounced the punishment for our sins: "The wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid" (Isa. xxix. 14). We are mixed up with other nations; we have learnt their opinions, and followed their ways and acts. The Psalmist, deploring this imitation of the actions of other nations, says, "They were mingled among the nations, and learned their works" (Ps. cvi. 35). Isaiah likewise complains that the Israelites adopted the opinions of their neighbours, and says, "And they please themselves in the children of strangers" (Isa. ii. 6); or, according to the Aramaic version of Jonathan, son of Uzziel, "And they walk in the ways of the nations." Having been brought up among persons untrained in philosophy, we are inclined to consider these philosophical opinions as foreign to our religion, just as uneducated persons find them foreign to their own notions. But, in fact, it is not so.

The Ramam and Rashba on King Solomon's Comprehensive Medical Wisdom

2011-07-15T17:57:00.003+03:00

In the previous post we discussed a dramatic act of King Chizkiyahu which diverged from his predecessors: The scrapping of the Copper Serpent fashioned by Moshe in the wilderness. He did this because the Jews in his time were using it as an object of worship and offering incense to it.

The Mishna in Meseches Pesachim list some other dramatic actions taken by King Chizkiyahu--some approved by the rabbis, and some disapproved. In this post we will discuss the third item which was approved--the sequestering of the "The Book of Remedies":

פירוש המשנה לרמב"ם מסכת חולין פרק ט

משנהמסכת פסחים פרק ד

משנהט

[י]ששה דברים עשה חזקיההמלך על שלשה הודו לו ועל שלשה לא הודו לוגירר עצמות אביו על מטה של חבלים והודולו כיתת נחש הנחשת והודו לו גנז ספר רפואותוהודו לו על שלשה לא הודו לו קיצץ דלתותשל היכל ושיגרן למלך אשור ולא הודו לו סתםמי גיחון העליון ולא הודו לו עיבר ניסןבניסן ולא הודו לו:

The origin and use of this book and the reason behind its confiscation is not explained in the Talmud nor Midrash to my knowledge.
The Commentators are split--The Rambam on one side and everybody else on the other.
And the Rambam was not oblivious to the opposing view. He cites it and criticizes it quite sharply towards the end.
We will discuss each part of his commentary in turn:
פירוש המשנה לרמב"ם מסכת חולין פרק ט

פירושהמשנה לרמב"םמסכת פסחים פרק ד

[י]הלכה זו היא תוספתא,אבל ראיתי לפרשה ג"כלפי שיש בה תועליות. ספררפואות, היהספר שהיה בו סדר רפואות במה שאין מן הדיןלהתרפות בו, כגוןמה שמדמין בעלי "הטלסמאת"שאם עושין "טלסם"בסדר מסוים מועיללחולי פלוני וכיוצא בזה מדברים האסורים,ומחברו לא חברואלא על דרך הלימוד בטבעי המציאות לאכדי להשתמש במשהו ממה שנכלל בו, וזהמותר כמו שיתבאר לך שדברים שהזהיר ה'מלעשותם מותר ללמדםולדעת אותם, כיה' אמר לא תלמדלעשות ובא בקבלה אבל אתה למד להבין ולהורות.וכאשר קלקלו בני אדםונתרפאו בו גנזו.

The first suggestion of the Rambam was that it was a book ofwhat we would call "segulos"--"remedies which have no logical explanation for theireffectiveness".
They are presumed to be of idolatrous origin and a part of idolatrous beliefs and practices--so use ofthem is therefore forbidden.
Why was such a book compiled in the firstplace and why wasn't it confiscated sooner? It was an academic work which investigated the "nature of existence". The Torah permitsJewish scholars to investigate idolatrous practices for the purpose ofdiscerning what it is about them which is forbidden. This ispermitted.

It was later confiscated because people started to actually use these remedies AND WERE HEALED BY THEM, says the Rambam!
The Rambam here surprisingly acknowledges the efficacy of segulos in spite of their inscrutable nature. This statement needs to be reconciled with what the Rambam states elsewhere in the same work about the INefficacy of segulos:
פירוש המשנה לרמב"ם מסכת חולין פרק ט

פירושהמשנה לרמב"םמסכת יומא פרק ח

וסם,שם כולל לכל העקריןאיזה שיהיה. ואיןהלכה כר' מתיה בןחרש שהתיר להאכיל את האדם ביום צום כפוריותרת כבד שלכלב שוטה אם נשך, מפנישאינו מועיל אלא בדרך סגולה. וחכמיםאומרים אין עוברין על מצוה אלא ברפוי בלבדשהוא דבר ברור שההגיון והנסיון הפשוטמחייבים אותו, אבלהריפוי בסגולות לא, לפישענינם חלוש לא יחייבהו ההגיון,ונסיונו רחוק,והיא טענה מן הטועןבה, וזה כלל גדולדעהו.

There is room for reconciliation here in favor of either commentary, but this will take us to far from our topic.
We now proceed to the next suggestion:

ואפשרשהיה ספר שיש בו הרכבת סמים המזיקין כגוןסם פלוני מרכיבין אותו כך, ומשקיןאותו כך, וגורםלמחלה זו וזו, ורפואתובכך וכך, שכשיראההרופא אותם המחלות ידע שסם פלוני השקוהוונותן לו דברים נגדיים שיצילוהו,וכאשר קלקלו בניאדם והיו הורגין בו גנזו.

The second proposal was that is was a compilation of dangerous poisons with their antidotes. This book was hidden because it posed a public hazard and was being abused by assassins to poison people.
Now we get to the critical part: Rejection of the notion that this sefer refuos was composed by King Solomon and contained remedies for every ailment. It was hidden because the masses turned to this book as the only address for cure and neglected turning to Hashem.

ולאהארכתי לדבר בענין זה אלא מפני ששמעתיוגם פירשו לי ששלמה חבר ספר רפואות שאםחלה אדם באיזו מחלה שהיא פנה אליו ועשהכמו שהוא אומר ומתרפא, וראהחזקיה שלא היו בני אדם בוטחים בה'במחלותיהם אלאעל ספר הרפואות, עמדוגנזו. ומלבדאפסות דבר זה ומה שיש בו מן ההזיות,הנה ייחסו לחזקיהולסיעתו שהודו לו סכלות שאין ליחס דוגמתהאלא לגרועים שבהמון. ולפידמיונם המשובש והמטופש אם רעב אדם ופנהאל הלחם ואכלו שמתרפא מאותו הצער הגדולבלי ספק, האם נאמרשהסיר בטחונו מה', והוישוטים יאמר להם, כיכמו שאני מודה לה' בעתהאוכל שהמציא לי דבר להסיר רעבוני ולהחיותניולקיימני, כך נודהלו על שהמציא רפואה המרפאה את מחלתיכשאשתמש בה. ולאהייתי צריך לסתור פירוש זה הגרוע לוליפרסומו.

The Rambam does not elaborate what his objections are to this scenario other than the theological one. Does object to the notion that such a book could have been composed by King Solomon at all? Unclear.

We now come to the Rashba who disapproves sharply of this comment of the Rambam:
פירוש המשנה לרמב"ם מסכת חולין פרק ט

שו"תהרשב"אחלק א סימן תיד

גםמה שכתבת בגנז ספר רפואות משם הרב ז"לראיתי בפירושי המשנה יותר בארוכ'בטעמי'שאני מתפלא על פהקדוש איך יאמר דבר זה. ואיךדעתו הצלול העלה בזה חרס. והסתכלשאמרו כתת נחש הנחשת וגנז ספר רפואות ולאשרפו. ודילי עתה עם הרמיזות בלבד. וכבודךבמקומך מונח כי לא נח דעתי במה שכתבת עתה.ומה אתה מלקנימדברי הרב ואני כבר כתבתי למבראשונה שאניתמה על קצת דבריו עם דבריך חלוקין על דבריוהרבה. וכשתעמודעל דבריו ועל דבריך תדענו.

In the previous teshuvah about segulos and the view of the Rambam, the Rashba justifies the theological fear of relying on medical expertise exessively with a verse from Tanach:

פירוש המשנה לרמב"ם מסכת חולין פרק ט

ובאמתיראה שהדבר מוכרע ממקומו שהם התירו לרפואהאפילו מה שלא יגזרהו העיון הטבעי של חכמיםאלו. ושלמהעליו השלום שעשה ספר רפואות חס ליה לעשותדרכי האמורי. ומהשגנזו חזקיה והודו לו אינו משום שהיה בודרכי האמורי. אלאשהחכם בחכמתו עשה ספרו בענינים המועיליםהרבה בטבעים הנגלים בין בטבעים המסוגלים.עד שהיו העולםסומכים עליהם בחליים ובחליים לא היודורשים את השם על כן גנזוהו והודו לו.וכענין שכתוב (ד"הב' י"ז)גם בחליו לא דרש אלהיםכי ברופאים. עלכן גנזוהו אבל לא שרפוהו כי אין בו משו'דרכי האמורי אע"פשכיתת נחש הנחושת.

I subsequently found a midrash which backs the Rashba's concern

אוצרהמדרשים (אייזנשטיין)שלמה המלך עמוד 528

ר'אלעזר אמר אלו החיותוהבהמות שהיו חקוקות בכסא חציין היו בעליקרנים וחציין בעלי טרפות, ידושינון אלו בגמרא ואלו בטרפה (?) ולאחקקם הקב"הבכסא של שלמה אלא להראות מהן דוגמא לישראללעתיד לבא שעתידין אלו עם אלו להיות דריםכאחד, שנאמר וגרזאב עם כבש ונמר עם גדי ירבץ ופרה ודובתרעינה וגו'. אמרר' יוחנן היו כולםנותנים קולם והיה מרעיד כל העולם כולו,שור גועה אריה שואגאריה איל צוהל נמר צורח כבש חונב, זאבזורד צבי מפרט דוב מגמגם, חמורמבריס פיל נוהם ראם מצלצל גפרית מלבלב,אדם מרנן שד מזמר זיזהיה קורא וקולו עולה לשמים, נשרצועק כקול מים רבים, יונהמהגה נץ מצפצף והיה מקולו מתעוררים כלישני ירושלם, נחשבפיו היה שורק והיו חולי ירושלם מתרפאיןמקולו. ר'אלעזר אומר הואנחש שעשה משה במדבר, הואנחש שכיתת חזקיהו מלך יהודה. שאלותלמידיו את ר' יוחנןוכי חזקיהו מלך יהודה היה ראוי לכתת נחששעשה משה במדבר לישראל נס להתרפאות בושכן כתוב וכתת את נחש הנחשת? אמרלהם לא היה מכתתו אלא מפני שהיו ישראלמובטחים בו באותם הימים ולא היו מבקשיםרחמים מלפני הקב"הלכך כיתתו כדי שיבקשו רחמים מן המקום,שכתוב בומחצתי ואני ארפא.

And it is quite reasonable to suggest that the Rambam was capable of compsing such a book.
The Rambam in his introduction to his monumental Commentary to the Mishna
ascribes supernatural insight to King Solomon in this sphere of remedies and the secret properties of natural ingredients:
פירוש המשנה לרמב"ם מסכת חולין פרק ט

הקדמתהרמב"ם למשנה

אבלמה שהמציאה אותו האומנות האלקית והחכמההטבעית כגון מיני הפירות ומיני העשביםומיני המתכות ומיני האבנים ומיני בעליחיים, יש מהן שאפשרלהשיג תכליתו בחקירה מועטת, ויששתכליתו נישגת בחקירה מרובה, ויששתכליתו עמוקה ונסתרת עד שלא תוודע כללזולתי אם נודעה בחזון או בידיעת הנסתרות,אבל בחקירה מדעית איןהדבר אפשרי, לפישאין ביכולת האדם לחקור ולדעת מדוע המציאהטבע מן הנמלים בכנפים ומהם בלי כנפים,וכן מדוע המציא תולעמרבה רגלים, ואחרפחות רגלים ממנו, ומהתכלית התולעת הזו והנמלה הזו. אבלדברים שהם יותר גדולים מאלה ופעולתם גלויהיותר הנה בידיעת תכליתם חלוקים אנשי המדע,כל מי שהוא מלומד יותרושקדן יותר ובעל תבונה זכה ידע התכליתיותר. ולפיכך כאשרנתן ה' חכמה לשלמהכמו שהבטיחו ידע מתכלית הדברים הללו מהשאפשר לאדם לדעת בהיות אדם, ודברעל תכלית האילנות והעשבים ומיני בעליהחיים, אמר הכתובוידבר על העצים מן הארז אשר בלבנון עדהאזוב אשר יצא בקיר וידבר על הבהמה ועלהעוף ועל הרמש ועל הדגים, והיתהזו הוכחה שיש בו כח אלקי, ואמראחר זה ויבואו כל העמים לשמוע את חכמתשלמה. אך כללהדברים כל הנמצאים תחת גלגל הירח לא נמצאואלא בשביל האדם בלבד, כלבעלי החיים מהם למזונו כגון הצאן והבקרוזולתם, ומהםלתועלת אחרת כגון החמור להעביר עליו מהשלא יוכל להעבירו בידו, והסוסיםלעבור בהם דרך רחוקה בזמן קצר. ומהםמינים שאין אנו יודעים תועלתם ויש בהםתועלת לאדם שאינו יודע אותה. וכךהפירות מהם למזונו ומהם לרפא תחלואיו,וכך העשבים, וכךכל המינים. וכלמה שתמצא מבעלי החיים והצמחים שאין בותועלת ואינו מזין לפי דעתך הרי זה מחוסרידיעתינו, ומוכרחשיש לכל עשב ולכל פרי ולכל מיני בעלי החייםמהפיל עד התולעת איזו תועלת לאדם,והראיה לזה שבכל דורודור מתגלים תועליות עשבים ומיני פירותמה שלא נתגלה למי שהיה קודם, ומפיקיםמהם תועליות רבות, ואיןביכולת אדם להקיף תועליות כלל צמחי הארץ,אבל הדבר מתגלה עלידי הנסיונות במשך הדורות.

So it would seem that the Rambam had no objection to the very notion that King Solomon composed a book of remedies --which included segulos --which no doubt illustrated the usefulness of every object on Planet Earth for man's benefit.

Random Thoughts on the Parsha Chukas--Timeless Torah, Segulah Syndrome, and Innovations

2011-07-08T11:25:00.001+03:00

We have an interesting “segula”in last week’s parsha, but I'm not refering to the copper serpent held aloft on the staff made by Moshe Rabbeinu.
The segula was the snake bite itself because the copper serpent was given life-savingqualities only for those who were bitten by the attacking serpents and no-oneelse.
The Meshech Chochmah understands that this created a situation where allfatally ill people who were already suffering from prior natural ailments wereeager to be bitten by the serpents-- in order to take advantage of this uniquehealing power!

משך חכמה פרשת חקת

(ט) והיה אם נשך הנחש את האיש וכו' וחי. פירוש, משום שהשי"ת אמר(פסוק ח) "כל הנשוך... וראה אותו וחי". לכן אף אם היה חולה מסבה טבעית,והיה קרוב למות, אם נשך אותו נחש והביט אל נחש הנחושת, היה מתרפא ושב לבוריו. לכןהיה שמחה לאיש כזה אם נשך אותו נחש. לכן כתוב "והיה" בלשון שמחה,ולא "ויהי". ופשוט.

TheRamban explains that the segula nature of this copper serpent was not typicalit actually went against the “conventional” understanding of the sickness andhealing process.

TheRamban seems to be describing the phenomenon of psychological trauma andpost-traumatic stress disorder; the way to treat someone who had it was tocater to it.

רמב"ן פרשת חקת

(ט) ויעש משה נחש נחשת –

…והנראה בעיני בסוד הדבר הזה, כי הוא מדרכי התורה שכל מעשיה נס בתוךנס, תסיר הנזק במזיק ותרפא החולי במחליא, כמו שהזכירו (מכילתא ויסע א) בויורהו ה' עץ (שמות טו כה) וכן במלחאלישע במים (מ"ב ב כא). וידוע מדרכי הרפואות, שכל נשוכי בעלי הארס יסתכנובראותם אותם או בראות דמותם, עד כי נשוכי הכלב השוטה וכן שאר הבהמות השוטות אםיביטו במים יראה להם שם בבואת הכלב או המזיק וימותו, כמו שכתוב בספרי הרפואותומוזכר בגמרא במסכת יומא (פד א). וכן ישמרו אותם הרופאים מהזכיר בפניהם שםהנושך, שלא יזכרו אותם כלל כי נפשם תדבק במחשבה ההיא ולא תפרד ממנה כלל עד שתמיתאותם. וכבר הזכירו דבר מנוסה מפלאות התולדה, כי נשוך הכלב השוטה אחרי שנשתטהבחליו אם יקובל השתן שלו בכלי זכוכית יראה בשתן דמות גורי כלבים קטנים, ואם תעבירהמים במטלית ותסננם לא תמצא בהם שום רושם כלל, וכשתחזירם לכלי הזכוכית וישתהו שםכשעה תחזור ותראה שם גורי הכלבים מתוארים, וזה אמת הוא בפלאי כחות הנפש.

But Hashem specifically designedthe cure for these serpent bites to be a representation of the serpent itself! Accordingto their understanding, this should have made their condition even worse.

וכשיהיהכל זה כך, ראוי היה לישראל נשוכי הנחשים השרפים שלא יראו נחש ולא יזכרו ולא יעלועל לב כלל, וצוה הקב"ה למשה לעשות להם דמות שרף, הוא הממית אותם.

But Hashem wanted to impressupon Klal Yisrael that conventional medical wisdom is not sovereign. Thedetermination of life and death is solely in the hands of a Higher Power.

...והכלל, כי צוה השם שיתרפאו במזיק הממית בטבעועשו דמותו ושמו, וכשיהיה האדם מביט בכוונה אל נחש הנחשת שהוא כעין המזיק לגמרי,היה חי, להודיעם כי השם ממית ומחיה:

What I find most ironic is thatover the course of history, developments in the medical world have served to neutralizethe potency of this symbolic lesson.

One irony is that the image ofthe serpent on the staff has been adopted as THE symbol of conventional medical practice!

Perhaps this symbol wasoriginally adopted by bible-conscious doctors who wanted to remind themselvesand their patients that the power of healing is not in human hands but fromAbove.

But the modern medicalcommunity has apparently drifted quite far from its possibly pious roots.

The second irony of history istwo-fold: 1) that the current conventional wisdom in psychology andtrauma management of today has totally reversed itself. Therapists now insistthat maintaining physical or mental distance from any vestige of a traumaticevent will perpetuate the trauma and exacerbate it. The treatment of psychologicaltrauma from a physical event now involves facing it and conquering it at thesource. Terror, crime, and accident victims are instructed to visit the sceneof the tragedy and stare down their fears and reframe their painful memories intomanageable contexts.

2) One of the most widespread techniquesof both conventional immunization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine

and UNconventional remedies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Law_of_similars

is called homeopathy.

It literally means using the verysame substance of the original pathogen as a part of the healing/immunizationprocess!

So what we have here is alesson from Hashem to the Benei Yisroel about the hollow hubris of conventionalmedical wisdom—taught symbolically by being healed via an image of the very serpentwhich bit them. But it was effective only because it went against their conventionalmedical thinking.

Of course the healing was infact rendered supernaturally. Even today, no one believes that one naturallyrecovers from a poisonous viper bite by simply gazing at its image!

And of course the original messageof health and sickness being in the hands of Hashem is eternal and is as vital asever.

But its medium seems tohave become obsolete with the advancement of medical understanding.

Now in case you think, as I do,that it sounds a little problematic to assertthat the intended symbolic effects of a Divine lesson has worn off over thecourse of history, I’m afraid you’re a little too late to complain about thisone.

מלכים ב פרק יח

(א) וַיְהִי בִּשְׁנַת שָׁלֹשׁ לְהוֹשֵׁעַ בֶּן אֵלָה מֶלֶךְיִשְׂרָאֵל מָלַךְ חִזְקִיָּה בֶן אָחָז מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה:

(ב) בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ שָׁנָה הָיָה בְמַלְכוֹ וְעֶשְׂרִיםוָתֵשַׁע שָׁנָה מָלַךְ בִּירוּשָׁלִָם וְשֵׁם אִמּוֹ אֲבִי בַּת זְכַרְיָה:

(ג) וַיַּעַשׂ הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינֵי יְקֹוָק כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂהדָּוִד אָבִיו:

(ד) הוּא הֵסִיר אֶתהַבָּמוֹת וְשִׁבַּר אֶת הַמַּצֵּבֹת וְכָרַת אֶת הָאֲשֵׁרָה וְכִתַּת נְחַשׁהַנְּחֹשֶׁת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה כִּי עַד הַיָּמִים הָהֵמָּה הָיוּ בְנֵייִשְׂרָאֵל מְקַטְּרִים לוֹ וַיִּקְרָא לוֹ נְחֻשְׁתָּן:

Herewe have yet another irony which to my mind serves as direct foreshadowing forthe ones I listed above.

It appears that with the passage of time, thissymbol of Divine healing became woefully distorted by the Benei Yisraelinto a icon of pagan worship! I would only imagine that it became an image of “thegod of healing” and therefore needed to be destroyed. Speaking of psychologicalillness—this was the ultimate “segulah syndrome” at work. Something which wasdesigned to direct Klal Yisrael heavenward for salvation was contorted into becomingthe subject of human manipulation devoid of any authentic spirituality.

Thelesson here for the contemporary “segula mania” is all too relevant...

Now wesee something else which is relevant to our time from Chizkiyahu’s response tothis corruption of the serpent segula. The Radak explains that it was not sosimple to destroy such a valuable historic artifact.

Thereason why it had not been eliminated by Chizkiyahu’s ancestors was becausethere still was great value of preserving the evidence which attested to themiracle and delivered its powerful symbolic message to those who would hear it.It was determined by them that the benefits outweighed the dangers.

רד"ק מלכים בפרק יח פסוק ד

כי עד הימים ההמה היו בני ישראל מקטירים לו - מעת שהרעו מלכי יהודהוטעו ישראל אחר ע"ג עד הימי' ההמ' שמלך חזקיהו היו בני ישראל מקטרי' לו כיוןשמצאו כתו' ורא' אותו וחי היו חושבי' כי טוב הוא להיו' אמצעי ולעבוד אותו והיהמונח מימות משה זה הנחש לזכרון הנס כמו צנצנת המן ואסא ויהושפט שלא בערוהו כאש'בערו שאר הע"ג מפני שלא מצאו כשמלכו שהיו עובדין ומקטרים לזה הנחש והיומניחים אותו לזכרון הנס וחזקיהו ראה לבער אותו כשביער הע"ג כי בימי אביוהיו עובדים לו כמו לע"ג אע"פ שהטובים היו זוכרים בו הנס אמר טוב לבעראותו וישכח הנס מלהניחו ויטעו בני ישראל היום או מחר אחריו ורבותינו ז"לאמרו אפשר בא אסא ולא בערו בא יהושפט ולא בערו והלא כל עבודת גלולים שבארץ יהודהאסא ויהושפט ביערום אלא מקום הניחו לו אבותיו להתגדר בו:

But by the time of Chizkiyahu,the situation on the ground had deteriorated and a re-evaluation had to bemade. Previous generations had made room for future responses. הניחולו אבותיו מקום להתגדר בו

It was no doubt very painfulfor the righteous of Chizkiyahu’s generation to see the copper serpentdestroyed. It no doubt was providing a constant source of inspiration and re-enforcement in their belief in Hashem’s power over life and death.
But the dangers outweighedthe benefits.

This incident brings into focusthe halachic tension that exists between preserving the specific traditions ofthe past and preserving the traditional way of life into new circumstances andenvironments.

תלמוד בבלי מסכת חולין דף ו עמוד ב

העיד רבי יהושע בן זרוז בן חמיו של רבי מאיר לפני רבי על ר"משאכל עלה של ירק בבית שאן, והתיר רבי את בית שאן כולה על ידו. חברו עליו אחיוובית אביו, אמרו לו: מקום שאבותיך ואבות אבותיך נהגו בו איסור, אתה תנהוג בו היתר?דרש להן מקרא זה: +מלכים ב' י"ח+ וכתת נחש הנחשת אשר עשה משה כי עד הימיםההמה היו בני ישראל מקטרים לו ויקרא לו נחושתן, אפשר בא אסא ולא ביערו, בא יהושפטולא ביערו? והלא כל עבודה זרה שבעולם אסא ויהושפט ביערום! אלא מקום הניחו לואבותיו להתגדר בו, אף אני מקום הניחו לי אבותי להתגדר בו.

מכאן, לתלמיד חכם שאמר דבר הלכה, שאין מזיחין אותו, ואמרי לה: אין מזניחיןאותו, ואמרי לה: אין מזחיחין אותו. מאן דאמר מזיחין, כדכתיב: +שמות כ"ח+,+שמות ל"ט+ ולא יזח החשן; ומאן דאמר אין מזניחין, דכתיב: +איכה ג'+ כי לאיזנח לעולם ה'; ומאן דאמר מזחיחין, דתנן: משרבו זחוחי הלב, רבו מחלוקות בישראל.

There is a midrash which dramatizesthis tension and sharpens the point very candidly:

פסיקתא זוטרתא (לקח טוב) בראשית פרק יז

ומה שחידשו הדחיות משום מתיא, דאמרו רבנן במס' ר"ה בתורה נתחדשו,על תקנת ישראל, וכן מצינו כי חזקיהו מלך יהודה כיתת נחש הנחשת אשר עשה משה, כיבעוד הימים ההם היו ישראל מקטרים לו ויקרא לו נחשתן (מ"ב יח ד), ראה משהתיקנו להיות לאות בישראל לזכור נסי אלהינו, וכל השנים שעברו מימות משה ועד חזקיהולא כיתתו אדם לא מלך ולא נביא עד שבא חזקיהו, וכמה ביערו אסא ויהושפט ושארהצדיקים, מבערי האשרות והבעלים איך לא כיתתו זה הנחש, ועוד כמה עתידות אמר משהרבינו ולא היה יודע כי ישראל עתידין להקטיר לו, ולמה הניחו להיות מכשול לישראל,אלא כך דרך העולם, זה בדורו, וזה בדורו, וכולן המשרתים את אלהינו באמת נקראיםעבדיו, ואין דור אחד יכול לתקן כל הדורות, אלא בכל דור ודור שרי ישראל מודיעיןלעם ה' דרך ה' ומתקנין ומחדשין ומוסיפין על הראשונים על דרך עבודת אלהינו.

Innovation in Judaism is anauthentic concept. It is a tool that can be and should be employed in order tofurther the cause of authentic avodas Hashem. But that doesn’t mean it can’t bewidely abused—just like the copper serpent.

In fact, one can turn thisjustification of innovation against itself. One can argue that just asChizkiyahu perceived a danger in the existence of the serpent and went beyond all precedent to eliminate it--eventhough it wasn’t an inherently idolatrous image whatsoever, Jewish leaders canperceive a danger in the possibilities for innovation in Judaism and strive tocurtail it. Even if this requires invoking innovative approaches and interpretations beyond all traditional precedents!

And the results will be absolutely authentic.

Has Nobody Made the Obvious Connection?

2011-07-02T23:59:00.000+03:00

I
After reading the Defense Ministry's conclusions about the sinking of the Altalena and its labeling those who carried out the strike as murderers I'm wondering if it isn't politically correct to point out that the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin seems to be a fulfillment of Hillel's grim statement in Pirkei Avos:

אף הוא ראה גולגלת אחת שצפה על פני המים. אמר לה:

על דאטפת, אטפוך.
וסוף מטיפיך יטופון.

In case it is politically incorrect, I won't bother translating the phrase...

II

Rabbi Student recently discussed the various programs designed for Ipad seforim learning accompanied by a graphic:

This got me thinking. I could easily imagine the frame and supporting bars of a shtender around such a device.
Is it a matter of time till we have shiur rooms equipped with "e-shtenders" where the maggid shiur will be able to present his rabbinic sources and material to all the participants via a network of specially modified electronic shtenders?

In case someone does develop such a device,
you heard about it here first.

Critiques of Reshimu Part VI: Rabbi Sedley Unwittingly Attacks the Rambam

2011-06-28T01:24:00.000+03:00

Continued from here:

http://fkmaniac.blogspot.com/2011/05/critiques-of-reshimu-part-v-more-of.html

III

Getting back to citations from the article.

http://www.hashkafacircle.com/journal/R3_DS_Taku.pdf

We now focus on the final section.

R' Sedley attempts to align those modern scholars who, in his own words, "give science greater weight" than the Torah --reinterpreting the Torah to fit within current understanding of science-- with Rav Saadia and the Rambam. He also aligns the more traditional scholars who force science to be subordinate to "the simple meaning of the text" with Rav Moshe Taku. The treatment of Bereishis is used as the litmus test for this divergence:

Either the Torah must be considered primary, in which case the scientific approach is ignored, refuted, or made to tow the line to the simple meaning of the texts, or science is given greater weight, and the Torah is reinterpreted to fit within current understandings of science. A modern proponent of the latter view is Rav Gedaliah Nadel, who spends half of his book Be-Torato shel Rav Gedaliah reinterpreting Bereishis in light of modern scholarship, science, philosophy and archaeology…

…However, the traditional view of Rav Moshe Taku and the Ashkenazi commentators has become far more popular nowadays.

But this tendentious dichotomy with its contemporary parallels falls apart on two accounts.

1) The modern scholars are unfortunately departing from Rav Saadia Gaon and the Rambam when they place human investigation above the Torah and Jewish tradition. In opposition to the Rambam, they reject all prior approaches to Bereishis which were rooted in the teachings of Chazal in order to accommodate modern scientific theory.

2) The traditional scholars have never advocated a "simple meaning of the text" of Bereishis. They all too frequently express their belief that the verses of the Torah simultaneously contain Peshat, Remez, Drush and Sod. Knowledge of Sod being the most primary level needed for properly understanding Bereishis. It is literally "Ma'aseh Bereishis" which was already acknowledged by Chazal to be an esoteric area of the Torah.

Thus, the Chareidi rejection of the validity of science in the understanding of creation in particular is in no way a rejection of logic or rationalism or anything of the sort. It is an affirmation of a commitment to remain faithful to Chazal's teachings and instructions regarding this impenetrable realm of Briya Yesh Me'ayin.

One detects the tremendous strain necessary in order to align this position with Rav Moshe Taku's anti-rationalism and hyper-literalism. But alas, this has become the standard picture of the Chareidi approach presented by blogs and other internet forums hostile to Chareidi ideology.

We now proceed to the next set of citations brought to support R' Sedley's claim of anti-rationalism rampant in mainstream Chareidi hashkafa: (All emphasis mine)

One modern approach to invalidating a rationalist approach to questions of religion is to claim that anyone who reaches logical conclusions which differ from the literal meaning of the Torah is not seeking truth but is under the influence of their personal partiality. In other words, the claim is made that the Torah offers the only 'true' intellectual and approach, any alternative conclusions are not based on reason but on personal agendas, whether tacit or explicit.

The first person to use this approach was the Alter of Slobodka in his book Ohr HaTzafon51. However this idea became well known and gained mainstream acceptance with the writings of Rav Dessler. He writes:

The question must be faced: how can we ever rely on our intellect to give us true conclusions in any matter? There is no alternative. We must admit that the intellect is powerless to produce reliable results in any moral problem… On what are your opinions based? On your intellect? As long as your regrettable qualities are still firmly entrenched, either more or less in the open, or hidden away in the depths of the heart, your intellect is worthless and its conclusions negligible. It may well be efficient enough to make mathematical calculations or to solve technical problems in which no personal or volitional element is involved. But where the problems are of a very different sort, where the solutions impinge on will and behavior, what possible claim can you have that we should take your conclusions seriously? Their final criterion is merely what "appeals to you," and this we can recognize very well.52

This view has now become accepted by a large segment of Orthodox Jewry.

While it is true that this view has become accepted by a large segment of Orthodox Jewry, R' Sedley neglects to inform us that it was also accepted by the Rambam!

ספר מורה הנבוכים חלק ב פרק כג

אבל מי שיבחר אחת משתי הדעות אם מפני גידול או לתועלת אחת מן התועלות, הוא יתעוור מראות הנכונה, כי הענין המופתי לא יוכל בעל התאוה שתחלוק עליו נפשו, אמנם כיוצא באלו הענינים אפשר לחלוק עליהם הרבה. והנה תוכל אם תרצה להפשיט מעליך התאוות ותשליך המנהג ותשען על העיון לבד, תכריע מה שיצטרך להכריעו, אבל תצטרך בזה אל תנאים רבים, תחלתם שתדע שעור טוב שכלך ושלמות טבעך, וזה יתבאר לך בהתלמדך בשאר החכמות הלמודיות על אמתתם והשגת דרכי חכמת הדבר, והשני ידיעת החכמות הטבעיות ואמתתם עד שתדע הספקות על אמתתם, והג' מדותיך, כי כשימצא האדם עצמו, אין הפרש אצלנו בין שיהיה זה בטבע או בקנין, נוטה אל התאוות וההנאות או בוחר הכעס והקצף, והעביר הכח הכעסני ושלח רסנו, הוא לעולם יחטא ויכשל כשילך, כי יבקש דעות יעזרוהו על מה שטבעו נוטה אליו,

ספר מורה הנבוכים חלק א פרק לא

אמר אלכסנדר הפרדוסי כי סבות המחלוקת בענינים שלש. אחד מהם, אהבת הרשות והנצוח, המונעים האדם מהשגת האמת כפי מה שהוא.

As has been clearly shown elsewhere, one of the Rambam's recurrent themes in his program for personal perfection was that true intellectual truth about anything can only be attained by someone of noble, refined character combined with a repudiation of material pursuits. He says here explicitly that the intellect is corrupted by one's personality flaws.

The Rambam is in total harmony with Rav Dessler who says "as long as your regrettable qualities are still firmly entrenched, either more or less in the open or hidden away in the depths of your heart, your intellect is worthless and its conclusions negligible."

And note that Rav Dessler restricts this handicap of the intellect to areas where one's conclusions have the potential to "impinge on will and behavior". He is not considering a rejection of any field of mathematics, operational science and engineering or technology to which we entrust our lives on a routine basis. It is only possibly relevant to the (many) academic pseudo-scientific disciplines which have insinuated themselves into matters of religion but have studiously camouflaged their secular ideology and materialist philosophy under the guise of objective science.

Again, one is hard pressed to find anything "anti-rational" about a position which rejects the religious validity of pseudo-scientific disciplines.

This approach, where accepted wisdom of the Torah is viewed as the real 'truth' and rational thought is treated as suspect is particularly widespread among those who are newly religious.

Writing for that audience, Rabbi Akiva Tatz states:

There are two parts to the mind – an outer part, the mabat hachitzoni, the "outer view" or "outer eye", and the inner part, the mabat ha-pnimi, the "inner view" or "inner eye". The "outer eye" is easy to define in words: it is that part of the mind which grasps the world through the five senses, and it includes the rational or logical faculty. It deals therefore with the finite, the measurable, the arithmetical, and the logical. Anything which this faculty can grasp can be expressed in words; can be tested and proved...

The "inner eye", the da'at...is intrinsic knowledge. It grasps things as they are and because they are, not because they can be measured or proved or expressed. In fact, the things which the da'at knows can never be expressed, proved or measured. They are never physical or finite.... This inner aspect of knowledge is you, the real you... A brief consideration shows that they [the things which da'at holds] are the most important in one's inner life. Some of the components of da'at are: the knowledge of one's own existence (this is the primary knowledge of da'at); the knowledge of the present; the knowledge of one's own free will; the grasp that life has meaning; the grasp of intrinsic right and wrong; and ultimately... of a transcendent reality.... the dilemma is obvious. How are all these areas to be examined, refined, and elevated in the mind if they cannot be proved or expressed? How can one ever begin to think about them logically?

The answer is simple and staggering. Just as the external mind must be used to grasp those things which are accessible to it, so too the da'at itself mist be used for its material. One must never attempt to use the one mode for the material of the other.... If proof is attempted, it collapses.53

Knowledge of God has been placed firmly in the domain of "da'at" - that which is super rational and beyond logic or critique. It is that which is known despite (or because of) the fact that they cannot be

demonstrated or proven.

While Rambam and the others within the philosophical camp would argue that issues such as freewill, morality and God are to be understood using philosophical reason, Rabbi Tatz claims that they can only be known by "the real you", the one that is beyond any argument or critique. Investigation of such matters must be delegated to the realm of intrinsic knowledge and self awareness.

But is it really true that the Rambam started with no postulates, no axioms and no concept of a priori knowledge? Didn't the Rambam openly concede that true intellectual understanding of human free-will is beyond our human ability to grasp in light of the G-d's foreknowledge?

רמב"ם הלכות תשובה פרק ה הלכה ה

שמא תאמר והלא הקב"ה יודע כל מה שיהיה וקודם שיהיה ידע שזה יהיה צדיק או רשע או לא ידע, אם ידע שהוא יהיה צדיק אי אפשר שלא יהיה צדיק ואם תאמר שידע שיהיה צדיק ואפשר שיהיה רשע הרי לא ידע הדבר על בוריו, דע שתשובת שאלה זו ארוכה מארץ מדה ורחבה מני ים וכמה עיקרים גדולים והררים רמים תלויים בה אבל צריך אתה לידע ולהבין בדבר זה שאני אומר, כבר בארנו בפ' שני מהלכות יסודי התורה שהקב"ה אינו יודע מדיעה שהיא חוץ ממנו כבני אדם שהם ודעתם שנים, אלא הוא יתעלה שמו ודעתו אחד ואין דעתו של אדם יכולה להשיג דבר זה על בוריו וכשם שאין כח באדם להשיג ולמצוא אמתת הבורא שנאמר כי לא יראני האדם וחי אין כח באדם להשיג ולמצוא דעתו של בורא, הוא שהנביא אמר כי לא מחשבותי מחשבותיכם ולא דרכיכם דרכי, וכיון שכן הוא אין בנו כח לידע היאך ידע הקב"ה כל הברואים והמעשים אבל ג נדע בלא ספק שמעשה האדם ביד האדם ואין הקב"ה מושכו ולא גוזר עליו לעשות כך, ולא מפני קבלת הדת בלבד נודע דבר זה אלא בראיות ברורות מדברי החכמה, ומפני זה נאמר בנבואה שדנין את האדם על מעשיו כפי מעשיו אם טוב ואם רע וזה הוא העיקר שכל דברי הנבואה תלויין בו.

Does this admission mean the Rambam treated rational thought as suspect? Or merely limited?

Rabbi Sedley just keeps on misconstruing Rabbi Tatz's true position again and again…

Our challenge is to rise above the world of logic and reason to arrive at Divine 'truth'.

That is exactly our challenge; to rise above the purely finite, the mechanical, and to open wide the faculty of da'at, to being with the simple and profound awareness of "I am" and to strive towards sensing the higher Existence, towards knowing that Existence essentially, intrinsically.54

He repeats this idea that reasoned knowledge is not a valid methodology for seeking God in a later book, Letters to a Buddhist Jew:

No knowledge, indeed no experience, is absolutely reliable...

Even knowledge of the simple fact that you are awake has no demonstrable proof... We never reach absolute knowledge... All knowledge is imperfect, never absolute. Even our immediate experience is not absolutely reliable. One of the consequences or applications of this fact is that we always need to act at least somewhat beyond our proofs. There is always a gap' there must always be emuna in commitment and action.55

55 p. 129. Rabbi Tatz makes the distinction between two types of knowledge, rational and received, later in the book (p. 141-5). He claims that reason and scientific inquiry are limited, and the only way to gain knowledge of the real nature of the world is through Torah study. In a passage which reaches conclusions remarkably similar to the ideas of Rav Moshe Taku he writes:

The two primary avenues of access to that knowledge [of God's existence] are the Sinai revelation and its unbroken transmission throughout subsequent history, and logical enquiry based on objective examination of reality...

The second method of gaining higher knowledge is logical enquiry... An open examination of the Universe suggests that a higher intelligence has designed and constructed it. There are classic sources that present this approach and they should be studied. I am not going to examine the importance of even the cogency of this line of thinking now... Scientific enquiry can take you to the border of the physical world. At the border it becomes apparent that something lies beyond, but what that something is requires other tools to discover. Using science you can demonstrate to a compelling degree that there is a zone beyond science; but to enter that zone you need Torah. That is why our main avenue of access to the knowledge we seek is Torah study.

As a matter of logic, 'rising above the world of logic and reason' is not the same as a repudiation of it. Rabbi Tatz emphasizes the lack of absolute reliance on empirical knowledge. It is an awareness of its limits and the need to transcend it somewhat by using other faculties of mind when it reaches its limits. Again, we can quote the Rambam for corroboration:

ספר מורה הנבוכים חלק א פרק לא

דע כי לשכל האנושי השגות בכחו וטבעו שישיגם, ובמציאות נמצאות וענינים אין בטבעו שישיגם בשום פנים ולא בסבה, אבל שערי השגתם נעולים בפניו, …אבל לשכל האנושי גבול בלא ספק יעמוד אצלו, עד שיש דברים שיתבאר לאדם המנע השגתם, ולא ימצא נפשו משתוקקת לידיעתם לשערו בהמנע זה, ושאין פתח שיכנס ממנו להגיע אל זה, כסכלנו מספר כוכבי השמים ואם הם זוג או נפרד, וכסכלנו מספר מיני בעלי החיים והמקורים והצמחים ומה שידומה לזה.

When a critic mistakes the position that 'human logic and reason is not absolute' as a form of rejection of logic and reason (which is what a true anti-rationalist does), it would lend to the suspicion that there is a subtle irrational bias at work against the ideology being critiqued.

We now come to the concluding segment if the article which brings us to the notorious Rav Aharon Schechter video:

In a questions and answers session recorded and uploaded to the internet, Rav Aharon Schechter, Rosh Yeshiva of Chaim Berlin in New York describes the correct approach to apparent contradictions between science and Torah. His words are almost identical to those of Rav Moshe Taku.

In answer to the question, "How does one reconcile the apparent contradictions between Chazal and science?" Rabbi Schechter bases himself on the verse "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing; but the glory of kings is to search out a matter" (Mishlei 25:2). He explains:

There is a Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni Mishlei 25, remez 961), "God saw all that He had made" (Bereishit). Rabbi Levi says in the name of Rabbi Chama bar Chanina, "From the beginning of the Chumash until "He completed "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing". From here on "the glory of kings is to search out a matter" (Mishlei 25:2). There is that which is beyond our knowledge, which is not for us to delve into, and that is the creation... you don't belong in that which is before you. You have a whole life's work in that which is with you, not that which is before you... it's not our assignment to know the creation...

If you are a holy person, like Chazal, they have what to say, based on the secrets of Torah. That is not my business... I don't know the secrets of the Torah, and I don't know anyone who knows the secrets of the Torah... The simple meaning of Chumash is for us Torat Moshe – Moshe is true and his Torah is true... You have a problem? Ok. It is not a problem I am obligated to address... I don't have to think about it. I am obligated not to think about it.56

It is interesting to note that apart from this modern day version of Rav Moshe Taku's approach to the rejection of philosophical inquiry,

Firstly, R' Sedley again improperly uses the issue of Bereishis and creation as the defining area which separates the rationalists from the anti-rationalists. According to R' Sedley's formula, refusing to accommodate scientific theory in this realm is, for some unknown reason, the equivalent of a total rejection of all rational thought and all scientific knowledge.

Secondly, Rav Aharon Schechter is squarely in the true Ashkenazi consensus by affirming kabbalisitic wisdom and its access to the secrets of creation and opposing Rav Moshe Taku's insistence that kabbalah is another invalid encroachment into the unknowable. Throughout his address of this topic Rav Aharon Schechter continually made reference to the understanding that Ma'aseh Bereishis is "sisrei Torah" and we today are simply not equipped to dabble in this esoteric realm.

He does not insist that the pesukim themselves are limited to their simplistic, literal meaning as Rav Moshe Taku has it. It is only that we, today, do not have any access to the levels of understanding beyond the simple meaning.

It is an approach borne of humility, of knowing one's limits, and not anti-rationalism.

It is probably true to say that in general, those who are championing the "rationalist approach" to Judaism are in essence championing the right to be defiant and renounce the notion that there is indeed superior wisdom in the Torah and Chazal's mesorah which surpassed their non-Jewish contemporaries and beyond. They are playing the rationalist/anti-rationalist game to camouflage their academic approach to Judaism. This approach consists of a one-size-fits-all, stock, simplistic answer of "they were just plain wrong" to all the theological challenges to traditional Judaism posed by academia today.

IT is this idea which truly and starkly separates the two camps. Don't let all the distractions and jargon fool you into thinking this is some kind of historically traceable intellectual, rationalist vs. traditional, anti-rationalist clash of philosophies.