The Gold-Tipped Shofar: A Gevaldige Diyuk

R’ Psachya Fried lecture, Weds 27 Dec 06

What's wrong with a golden mouthpiece on a shofar? We know it's not kosher, but why not?

Based on Avne Nezer 432, 435

(came in late, missed the initial question of the Pri Chodosh)

Question in Bechoros: is it efsher letzamtzem, can we pull the one calf back, so as to make one twin calf a bechor/peter rechem, or is it left in safek, since one calf is not actually touching the rechem?

It's the head that matters. Avnei Nezer: deals with whether a forceps delivery, is the forceps chotzetz between the head and the rechem. Kashye: (Meiri also asked, but the Avnei Nezer didn’t have the Meiri yet): how is it chotzetz, as by lulav, we say col dlnaoso eino chotzetz, noi is not a chatzitza, e.g. a gold lulav holder. Answers: Ramban over here says, min bemino is chotzetz when you need negiah. So too here, the noi gold on the mouthpiece may be noi, but the mouthpiece is not touching the mouth, even if not technically a chatzitzah. It's not a chatzitzah, but it is a hefsek. So too here (OH 589:19) with respect to the shofar nisdak klapei mouthpiece, it's not touching, even if min bemino eino chotzetz.

But do we need negiah in shofar? Pasuk just says utka'tem. Ritva: Hosea 8:1: mouth to the shofar, hints at it. So Avnei Nezer answers 2 Questions: noi eino chatzitzah, and Question from Pri Chodosh about the difference between air & gold.

What about air? Zevahim (?) 87b, and tosfos, air over the mizbeach is mekadesh. But kelim on mizbeach are chotzetz to things above them.

Question: seems a bigger hidush to say you need mouth contact on shofar, than to say that air is a chatzitzah. A: gemara Zevahim 19 that air bubble in bigdei kehuna no problem. Air thus not chotzetz. (Q: but that’s derech malbush? A: Ainochenami)

Ritva in Nisdak lerochbo. Rashi: need minimum shiur at mouthpiece end. Maybe would work if at wide end (Itur, Ritz Geius), since posuk doesn't specify; it's also min bemino; and doesn't specify negia. But Ritva before specifies negia!

Question: Ritva only a problem according to Avne Nezer. A: I could bring Ramban alone, which is consistent. But Ritva is inconsistent. And the Mechaber is also inconsistent: Rules yesh machshirin like Itur in 9, but in 19 insists on touching

Question: but it's part of the same shofar

Answer: you're right, but Ritva then should have said that, not min bemino eino chotzetz.

We have serious problem with this Ramban in Bechoros. If there is a din that min bemino eino chotzetz, but it has to touch, it's not touching. min bemino eino chotzetz

So have to say there is a difference between positive obstruction and lack of contact. So we can say the broken end of shofar is not an active obstruction, which air or gold would be. So min bemino eino chotzetz means the other part of shofar, as part of same shofar, it's not an active obstruction. So there are really 2 halochos: no chatzitzah, and need touching. Solve Ritva: not a chatzitza, and need touching, which it is because it's part of same shofar. Take away chiuvi that it should be mafkia the shaychus, because of min bemino eino chotzetz.

Lefi zeh kumt ois azoi:

Ramban and Ritva are answered.

Ramban elsewhere, if you're touching an object, you're not just touching the spot, you're touching the whole object. Lmai nafkamina? Transmitting tumah, holding lulav - don't have to touch whole 4 tfachim of lulav.

Avnei Nezer: But Gemara on noi being not chotzetz, so why not here? A: Noi only not chotzetz if VISIBLE. Bit in the mouth IS a chatzitzah.

So why aren't gold ties on lulav chotzetz? It's covered by your hand, hence not visible. Avnei Nezer: no din to touch the lulav. Lekicha not negiah. But if gold were chotzetz, you'd be lokeach the gold, not the lulav. Here, no hidur to put gold on shofar. There the hidur is the better manner of lekicha, the nicer tie/basket. No issue here.

What about Question of Pri Chodosh: if gold is a real chatzitzah, how is air not also a chatzitzah? No Raya from tzipa zohov to air!

Only rishon who uses col dlnaoso by shofar is the Meiri. Ran: in Suka on the Rif 18a: Is mechalek - col dlnaoso not a halacha in chatzitzah. Not a chisoron in ulkachtem - thus that's ONLY place it's relevant. So it's not a problem because the noi is batel to the object. So it's not applicable to the shofar: no din of ulkachtem.

[Aside: MB in BH 585: good to blow on right side, see MB, also heard from Or Someach that in RH 34 shofar linked to milchamah, and there they held shofar in right hand. Cute remez, not relevant to halacha. About the only place he quotes a contemporary, and only not nogea lemaaseh. So why here? Peterburg education conference: CC, Rashab, Brisker Rav all opposed to learning Russian, Or Sameach positive on it. R Chaim wanted CC to convince RMeir Simcha to switch. Arranged for them to sit together, when RMS realized what was going on, he stormed out. So CC wanted to show no hard feelings, so he found something to quote him on: HG Rabbenu MShC of Dvinsk.]

Again: col dlnaoso only din in lekicha, not in chatzitzah, except for Meiri. So where did Rishonim get din that tzipisa zohov is a chatzitzah, while air is not?

Know you can't use a blowing machine. Need a tokea. What is tokea? A mouth, or air coming out of mouth? Take case of a hole in the bone, air is going through hole, not through shofar, kosher, because min bemino eino chotzetz. So if all you need is avir going through shofar, why is gold a chatzitzah?

Ramban and Ritva drawing halacha from this: if air was enough, OK. But since there 's a din that tzipa zohov is posul, From this we learn that you need the mouth touching the shofar. Once you have that, if you move the mouth away, you don't have that any more. Or if you blow through nose, also not kosher. Nafkamina: by air, with hole, no problem - mouth is touching, and min beminoi eino chozetz.. But here, since you need mouth, mouth is not touching shofar, so bad.

Sorry about all the heavy yeshivish, but that's the way he talks in Torah. I may translate into normal English, if there's call for it. This was part of R' Aharon Mandel's One-Week Kollel, Flatbush, 2006

Marei mekomos:

Mishna (RH 27a)

משנה שופר שנסדק ודבקו פסול דיבק שברי שופרות פסול

Rashi:

שופר שנסדק ודבקו - בדבק, שקורין גלו"ד: פסול - דהוה ליה כשני שופרות:

Gemara 27b:

נסדק לאורכו פסול לרוחבו אם נשתייר בו שיעור תקיעה כשר ואם לאו פסול וכמה שיעור תקיעה פירש רבן שמעון בן גמליאל כדי שיאחזנו בידו ויראה לכאן ולכאן

Rashi there:

נסדק - כולו, וכן נסדק לרחבו כל רחבו להקיפו: אם נשתייר בו - מן מקום הסדק עד מקום הנחת פה שיעור תקיעה כשר חשיב ליה כמאן דאשתקיל כוליה, והוה ליה ארוך וקצרו:

Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 586:9,19

סעיף ט

(מט) נסדק <יג> לרחבו (נ) במיעוטו, כשר; (נא) יז <יד> ברובו, פסול אלא אם כן (נב) נשאר מהסדק (נג) לצד פיו שיעור תקיעה, (נד) דהיינו * יח ארבעה גודלים, וכשנשתייר בו כך כשר (נה) אפי' אם מעכב את התקיעה; ויש מכשירים בנשתייר (נו) אפילו שלא לצד פיו.

סעיף יט

הרחיק את השופר (עה) ונפח בו (עו) ותקע בו, פסול.

Ritva ad loc.

צפהו זהב במקום הנחת הפה פסול. פי' דהוי חציצה דבעינן שלא יהא חוצץ כלום בין השופר והתוקע ורמז לדבר אל חכך שופר (הושע ח'), ומכאן שאם נפח בו מבחוץ ולא נתן פיו בשופר לא יצא

נסדק לרחבו וכו'. פי' דליכא משום ב' שופרות כדכתיבנא לעיל, וכיון שכן יש להכשיר אפילו כשנשתייר שיעור תקיעה לצד הרחב, ואע"פ שזה המיעוט שבפיו חוצץ מין במינו הוא ואינו חוצץ, שאין אנו רואין אותו כאילו ניטל דא"כ אפילו יש שיעור בקצה הקצר תפסל משום הוסיף עליו כל שהוא, אלא ודאי לא שנא, וזהו ששנו אותו סתם ולא פירשו שנשתייר כלפי פיו, אבל רש"י אומר דדוקא שנשתייר כלפי פיו, ולמעשה ראוי לחוש הואיל והורה זקן.

Ramban in Bechoros ch. 3

רמב"ן הלכות בכורות פרק ג [דף יג עמוד ב]

בעי רבא כרכו בסיב מהו, בטליתו מהו, בשליתו מהו, בשליתו ארחיה הוא, אלא בשליא אחרת מהו, כרכתו אחותו והוציאתו מהו. קשיא לן הכא הא דאיתמר במכילתא [דף טז עמוד א] בפרק קמא גבי ילדה שני זכרים, נהי דאי אפשר לצמצם חציצה מיהא איכא, ופריק רב אשי מין במינו אינו חוצץ, ומסתברא ספוקי מספקא ליה דילמא טעמא דרבנן התם משום דמקצת רחם מקדש, אבל מין במינו חוצץ בבכור דפטר רחם אמר רחמנא וכל דלא נגע ברחם לאו פטר רחם הוא, ורב אשי נמי אפשר דלא בסברא דקושטא מהדר הכי אלא בדרך דחויא הוא דאמר הכי, לומר דמהא לא תפשוט, הילכך קמה לה בעיא דרבא ולא איפשיטא, וכבר ברירנא דינא דספק בכורות.

What is War? On Chanukah

Chanukah has two themes, often seen as opposites: the miracle of the oil, announced and discussed in the Talmud, and the military victory celebrated in the Al Hanisim prayer, and present in the various historical accounts in the Books of Maccabees, and Josephus. The early medieval Megillat Antiochus contains both stories. What is the connection between the two miracles?

What is war?

To the ancient Greeks, evidenced in Homer, men strove for honor. Winning on the battlefield was the greatest honor, public shame the worst thing that could happen. The battlefield was the greatest place to win honor, by killing one’s enemies. The Greek word Αγον, agon, meaning Conflict, was the core of this system. By engaging in conflict, inflicting agony on the enemy, one gained honor. War created the greatest honor, as in the Iliad, one brought honor to his city by fighting for it. War to the Greeks was an end in itself.

War, in the Jewish context, however, is a means to an end. The military wars, of the conquest of Joshua and of David, were not ends in themselves, but means to the greater end, of living in the Promised Land, of having peace so we could build a Temple and worship Hashem. War is also used in a moral sense: the war against the Evil Inclination, and the War of Torah, where scholars compete to gain better understanding of God’s Will, fighting over interpretations of the texts to reach God’s Truth.

The war of Chanukah, where the Jews, the priests, those who worshiped God in His Temple, fought off the Greek-Syrians and the Jewish Hellenists, was to an end – restoring the Temple and God’s worship. It was a war of ideology, between those who adhered to Greek victory-ideals, and those who adhered to war as a means to worship Hashem. Both miracles were necessary, to demonstrate this – that the war was necessary, to demonstrate the superiority of the Jewish concept of war over the Greek concept, and that the oil was necessary, to actually allow the Torah’s values to be restored, to allow God-worship to resume.

This drasha was delivered by R’ Dr. Moshe Sokol
at the Yavneh Minyan of Flatbush,
Parashat Vayeshev, 5767 (Dec. 16, 2006)

Summarized by Jonathan Baker

Harry Potter and Torah: New Book

A new book is out, haven't read it yet, but it looks good.

The title: Harry Potter and Torah. The author is Dr. Dov (Bruce) Krulwich
Click on the title to go to the book's website, or its blog.

The book links ideas in the Harry Potter books with ideas from Torah and Chazal. For example, the sample chapter on the website links multiple instances of z'chut avot (merit of the ancestors) to the mother-love that protected Harry from Voldemort.

I've ordered it, looks worth a good read.

Also, the author is my second cousin.

What's in a Kiss?

What is the meaning of a kiss?

It can express love, or intimacy in general, or a quick hello/goodbye, or even be a “kiss of death”.

When Yaakov and Esav are reunited in this week’s parsha, they kiss. Does it mean all is forgiven, after 22 years’ separation? Does it mean a warning? What?

The midrashim give a number of different answers: Let’s look at them in context of the speakers.

1) Rebbi Yehuda Hanassi, in the Midrash Rabbah, says that the kiss was wholehearted. Esav really bore no grudge, he had done well in the interim, he was just happy to see his brother. What were conditions like between Jews and Romans in Rebbi Yehuda’s time? Quite positive. Rebbi Yehuda had correspondence with Caesar Antoninus. So he doesn’t see any great reason to distrust Esav’s kiss.

2) Rebbi’s text in Yalkut Shimoni, a medieval midrash-compilation, adds one word that changes the whole meaning of the passage. The kiss was not wholehearted. Now, in the time the Yalkut was compiled, relations with non-Jews weren’t so good. Note that this negative text is also found in the tannaitic midrash Sifri, so the Yalkut apparently chose the version that most closely matched the reality of his own time.

3) The Sifri adds, after the negative statement above, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai’s statement that “Is it not known that Esav [taken to include Esav’s descendents, including Rome and the Church] hates Jacob? But in this instance, his mercy was turned around, and the kiss was wholehearted.” Now, Rabbi Shimon is known to have said nasty things about the Romans, on account of which he was on the run from them and had to live in a cave for 13 years. So his predilection was to say that Esav hates Yaakov. However, he recognized that such relations are not exclusive, that things can change around.

4) Rabbi Yannai, in the Yalkut Shimoni, says a funny thing. “Don’t read he kissed him [וישקהו], rather he bit him [וישכהו]. But Yaakov’s neck turned to marble, and he hurt his teeth. So then they yelled, Yaakov in surprise, and Esav in pain.” Now, this is a strange story. But strange stories come to make a moral point. The difference between the words for “kiss” and “bite” is one letter, one fraction of a letter: the caf vs. the quf. A quf is drawn as a caf with an extra little line. The difference between the two is tiny, a hairline, a little line. One can change to the other in the blink of an eye, so we have to be careful, and play our political cards right in dealing with non-Jews.

So while Chazal were not necessarily guided only by the events of their times, clearly their environments played a role in how they interpreted scripture. And just as clearly, we have to be careful how we deal with Esav, with non-Jews, because circumstances can quickly change.

This drasha was delivered by R’ Dr. Moshe Sokol
at the Yavneh Minyan of Flatbush,
Parashat Vayishlach, 5767 (Dec. 9, 2006)

* * *

In conjunction with last week’s drasha, on Yitzchak and Avraham’s repeated deceit in dealing with non-Jewish kings like Pharoh and Avimelech, indicating that deceit in dealing with non-Jews is sometimes necessary, e.g. putting on a façade of “one of the guys” at the office, or not wearing a yarmulke on a job interview; and the news that R’ Alan Brill will be teaching a course on “Orthodoxy and Other Religions” at the JCC in Manhattan next term, I wonder – is there something in the air that makes this an issue? My wife suggests that having a devout Protestant in the White House who is pro-Israel, but only because of a private religious agenda, gets our back up, puts us on notice that we have to be careful how we bring our Jewish selves and values to the world.

What is Kabbalah? What is Authentically Jewish?

How do you define "kabbalah"? Most scholars, I think, would define it to have started in France, Gerona and Spain in about the 12th century, including in its ideational space the Ten Sefirot and Four Worlds, possibly remapped onto the Five Faces and the Tetragrammaton.

Earlier mysticism, such as Heichalot and Maaseh Bereshit, are just that, non-Kabbalistic mysticism. Where they arose is still open to debate, I think, but they are the "authentic" Jewish mysticism, clearly and explicitly rooted in the Tanach - imagery linked to Heichalot ascents is explicit in the Torah, as well as Ezekiel. Where the neoplatonic Kabbalah came from is something else.

Other spiritual concepts seem to dance around these universe-theories: gilgul, demonology, dybbuk, afterlife, eschatology, etc.

For some reason, often for purposes of dismissal (Oh, that's just kabbalah, I hold no truck with that stuff), it's all lumped into "kabbalah" in the popular imagination.

How the Kabbalah came to be marketed and accepted is its own issue, where Scholem and Idel and others (Liebes, Helner-Eshed, Dan, etc.) have more to say. Probably a lot of it is what we would today call "viral marketing".

Part of the question of "what is authentically Jewish" has to do with the idea that "im ein neviim heim, hem benei neviim" - even if they aren't prophets, they are the children of prophets. So any idea that becomes sufficiently widespread in Judaism becomes "Judaic", and has the imprimatur of the Divine Spirit - if it weren't so approved by God, it would never have gained such wide acceptance.

There were definite schools of thought that predated and anticipated kabbalistic literature, e.g. some of the late midrashim, such as Tana Debe Eliyahu or Pirkei Derabi Eliezer. Others included the Chasidei Ashkenaz, the group surrounding Rebbi Yehuda HeChasid, some of whose ideas were so outre by current standards that R' Moshe Feinstein declared several passages in the R' Yehuda HeChasid's Sefer Chasidim to be forged interpolations.

I've just barely scratched the surface, based on vague memories of R' Brill's Intro to Kabbalah classes and Scholem's Les Origines du Kabbale.* Suffice it to say, what is Judaic need not be decided on its being sourced in a continuous chain of texts back to the Tannaim. Maimonidean philosophism was no more based on authentic continuous Torah tradition than De Leon's kabbalism or Beshtian chasidism. Yet we don't see many people protesting Maimonidean inauthenticity.

(from a debate on the Women's Tefillah Network list, where someone argues that gilgul isn't authentically Judaic because a) it was absorbed from outside [Muslim] sources, and b) it was opposed by the gedolim of the time, i.e., Saadia Gaon.)

_____

* It was translated into French before it was translated into English. Not that I read it in French, although I did start Major Trends in French, at my sister's father-in-law's house, before deciding I'd do better in English. He knows about 8-10 languages; he says he's most comfortable reading in French, although he grew up in Prague and immigrated to Palestine in 1938, sneaking in on a fishing boat under the White Paper restrictions.

LiveBlogging the Rav II: Panel: The Complexity of the Rav

Panel discussion - Rav Soloveitchik: The Complex Legacy

(Sound fuzzy, as switching between multiple speakers, so couldn’t hear so well.)

Moderator, Dr. Eliot Malamet (EM)
Ethan Isenberg, filmmaker (EI)
R’ Shalom Carmy (SC)
Dr. Arnold Lustiger (AL)
Dr. David Shatz (DS)

EM: First issue: secular studies – intrinsic good or instrumental?. RAS maintained that it was purely utilitarian, “handmaid to the queen of Torah” in Leo Strauss’ formulation.

AL: really a handmaiden, a tool toward understanding Torah. Use of secular philosophers – pressed into service to explain Judaic worldview. Take any of these essays and separate out the torah content from the secular content, you’ll see a mountain on one side and a molehill on the other.

But does secular studies have intrinsic value? Yes, because hard to say “truth is not intrinsically valuable”. Not only a handmaid. RYTwersky: Rav never really justified his view of secular studies. I think he does, but won’t explicate.

SC: Doesn’t like to rely on personal communications, not verifiable.

Uses entire arsenal of secular studies to explain stuff. Didn’t regret secular studies, did regret tzarchei tzibur taking time away from Torah.

EM: question unclear – something about secular studies for the regular yid in the workplace (?)

EI: big push in schools, e.g., Maimonides, to go to good schools, Harvard etc. Rav even pushed people to go to grad school. RHS: when people asked the Rav if they should go to grad school, he said yes, so RHS never asked him. Clear from school that he took a lot of pride in the students who did well in secular fields, even if he never wrote about it.

RSC: real question – can someone without a good liberal arts education do well in life? Guy at 25 or 30 goes out of yeshiva to get a job, can he continue on his own? Best students look back and think it was a good thing, 15-20 years after college. Even those just above average can do well with college.

EM: Types of people – those who are and aren’t bothered by crisis of religion in post-Enlightenment world. Rav was never bothered by issues about evolution and cosmogony, or ahistoricity of Revelation, etc. My question: why not? Were they not questions at all? Were there things that overrode the dilemma?

DS: Reuven Ziegler in his VBM series talks about this. First: what the Rav was interested in was not metaphysics, or truth claims, but phenomenology, or description of personal inner experience. So such questions didn’t fit his project. Ziegler: Rav didn’t regard them as the most important issues. Main field of combat in the modern world is the soul, not the mind. Intellectual questions are only consequential to soul-based experiences.

Second, what does “not bothered by” mean? 1) just have faith. 2) ___ But he does write about these things incidentally. Was clear that he accepted evolution. Teacher at Maimonides asked Rav how to teach biology, Rav answered, “Teach the textbook.” Rav more bothered by rhetorical excess. Memory from shiur “Rav would say this doesn’t bother me, then next day comes in all tormented over it.

RSC: Evolution: not much of a challenge. Criticism: didn’t give it much credence. Was aware of criticism up to a certain period. We make people believe that these questions are important to one’s weltanschauung, hashkafa

EM: Lonely Man of Faith today?

EI: Technology sets background for someone out to rule the world (Adam I) which has infiltrated the world of Adam II. Religious communities becoming more selfish. Religion demands struggle, sacrifice. In making film, about period of 50s-60s, self-help books about living life properly, religious in content. Now yoga/spirituality has taken over what religion means, except in Orthodoxy. Human connections necessary for modern man.

DS: Rav was talking about faith of man in secular society. Society, America is largely religious today. World has Islam today – religion with aims of Adam I – control, domination, power, removed from actual religious life. So book remains relevant.

SC: Last pages speak about “cultural religion”.

EM Earlier today someone said that main achievement of Modern-Orthodoxy is more brands of chocolate with hechsherim. De facto, people are alienated from religion, don’t want to believe in old ways. In cultural mother's-milk, this religion is not the answer. People want to know “why should I buy into this?”

SC: Kierkegaard: direct vs. inner communication. Barth: belief cannot argue.

EM: Rav held you can take the Jew to water but you can’t make him drink.

SC: UBikashtem note 6 – implies that kind of message. People feel something’s missing, but refuse to respond to what’s being offered.

DS: People want more than criticism. Work essentially on intellectual plane. Often there is a personal “thing” going on, which may be going on for a lot of people. How do you reach these people who think intellectually?

EM: The Rav and Zionism – how did he see Israel, the Zionist Project, the Secular state, a holy land, or functional? How would he relate today to settlements, tensions over disengagement?

AL: Enduring kedushah in the land, whether there’s a state. As for Zionism, lack of messianism [like old Mizrachi], contra current religious Zionism, which follows Rav Kook. Remembers distinctly: “if the security of the country requires giving back the Kotel Hamaaravi, pikuach nefesh is docheh [takes precedence over] territory. Bear in mind that the enemy’s goal is the destruction of Israel. Can’t take the Kotel off the table, even if for most RZ it is off the table.

SC: For the Rav, Kedushah always requires a human act (Kuzari), yishuv, etc. Don’t tell me I [Rav] don’t know about kedushas Yisroel, how many shiurim have I given on this, I knew more on the halachic subject when I was a small child in the crib in my little finger than the editor of this newspaper knows in his whole body. In the 70s often said, “You know, if the Arabs came with a peace proposal, the Jews would leap on it right away, even if they knew it wasn’t worth the paper it was written on. Rav opposed Israeli militarism. [sound drop] Only time he interfered directly was in 1981 Lebanon war, when Christian militias... [connection dropped at 3:45]

LiveBlogging the Rav I: David Shatz, The Rav and The Problem of Evil

Rav in 1950s: religion not a crutch, but a raging torrent of man’s experience – IOW, s’iz shver tzu zein a yid. H’ appears to man “out of the whirlwind”. – Amalek, Akeidah, Chariot – all associated with man’s experience of God –tumultuous. Why this thought?

1) Biographically – personal suffering. Colon cancer 1959, lost mother, brother & wife all in 1967. These essays from just after these experiences. “I am not sure I will make it to my daughter’s chuppah” – she was at the time engaged to RAL. Loved ones are onlookers who cannot help. I stand before G-d, no one else is beside me. This was in ms. of essay. Dr. T.L. said “impossible he could have said that in public”. Sure enough tape bears her out.

2) Spiritually: Distinguishes between pain & suffering. Pain e.g. childbirth. Suffering e.g. knowing one has cancer, but feels no pain from it. Suffering belongs to spiritual personality. Suffering, pain, grief, elevate us above other beings. Story: Jewish anxiety: two Jews waiting to ambush Czar. Czar doesn’t pass them for half hour, hour, two hours. One says to other, “I hope nothing happened to him!”

Why is there evil in the world? R’ Ami in Shabbos: suffering & death are consequences of sin. Jewish view: Chazal, contra R’ Ami: there are people who suffer & die without having sin. Medrash has same memra, without refutation.

Rashi: Jews not to go out when Destroyer comes through Egypt, because plagues don’t differentiate between good & bad people.

Suffering as kapparah

Suffering as yissurim shel ahavah (take away punishment from afterlife; or, to allow tzadikim to rise to higher levels of faith (Iyov)).

Sourcebook: MK: Amar Rava –chayei, banei, umezonei, lo bizchusa talya milsa, ela al mazala talya milsa. Life, children and food depend on luck, not merits.

Rav deals with this in Out of the Whirlwind

How to deal with this? Moral position: Make war on evil. Theodicy has you make peace. Stuck between tziduk hadin vs. fighting evil.

Before this, Rav divides between topical halacha (surface), and thematic (root) halacha. I.e., halacha as set of rules, or as embodying certain metaphysical, philosophical ideas. E.g.: Shabbos – is it 39 melachos, or is it a value of kedushah? RDS thinks thematic halacha means aggada.

Kiddushin: To what are righteous compared in this world? A tree standing in a place of tahara, with a bough haning over into a place of tumah. Cut off the bough, the tree stands only in taharah. So Hashem cuts off the evil from the next world: thematic halacha.

Thematic halacha maintains that evil is a chimera. Even evil is good “vehinei tov me’od” on the whole of Creation. Rebbe Meir – even mavet is tov me’od. Oseh shalom uvorei ra.

Topical halacha: whole structure of mourning, insist on baruch dayan emet bracha. No accommodation for evil within framework of topical halacha, realistic framework which cannot have a place within for evil. Deal with evil, ethic for suffering, rather than accommodating evil, having a metaphysic for suffering.

Ethic of suffering: what can you get out of it, feeling of mortality after the cancer. NOT a metaphysic of suffering.

Three pillars of halachic ethic of suffering:

1) Evil exists, and is bad. World is not free of faults in interhuman relations

2) One must never acquiesce in evil, or accept it. Scientific intervention in struggle for control of man’s environment is all good.

3) Won’t repeat it; see the book.

By this point, thematic halacha is left in the dust. Topical halacha is what really matters to him. Or so it seems.

Story: 1965: Dean of Stern, Dr. Vogel writes to the Rav for summary of his discourse: Judaism does not deal with evil under the speculative, metaphysical aspect. Man cannot answer “why evil”, so must only deal with “how do I deal with evil.”

RDS reading of the discourse – if you have a thematic answer to evil, it will paralyze you, hence useless.

RDS thinks the deeper reason not to speculate, because speculation interferes with your moral agency.

In closing: (story: at conference, speaker says “in closing”, 8-y-o kid in front of him says “10 more minutes)

In the vikuach (?), Ramban gives what he thinks is adequate theodicy from Chazal (details unimportant). However, critic writes, if we know that God’s inscrutable judgment is righteous. So why did you bother to construct a theodicy? Ramban: this is argument of fools. We need to know God better, and trust Him better, since we learn the concealed matters from the explicit ones. Thus, it is the duty of everyone who serves God out of love and fear to investigate God’s mind, why God allows evil. Theodicy is an imperative, contra the Rav who pushes it into the corner. Ramban: why must we learn theodicy? Kedei shetityasheiv daato be’inyan.

This is key to diff between Ramban (Yishuv hadaas), and the Rav (hachavayah hadatit hi chavayah seivli)

* * *

Q: Kaddish: topical or thematic?

A. Don’t think it’s meant to justify God’s ways, rather to create change in the person.

Q:: Rav said elsewhere that evil is due to continuous lack of morality in the world, doesn’t that push responsibility back on us?

A: Connection between evil & morality not that evil is explained by lack of morality, rather, morality is proper response to evil. Kol Dodi Dofek, comes close to saying that Iyov suffered because he sinned.

Q: Rashi in Noach brings down innocent being swept up in destruction, how would Rav deal?

A: Dealt with above.

* * *

2 applications: Versailles wedding hall collapse. Contra stmt that improper dancing led to collapse. What is the effect of saying this? People got what they deserved, no tragedy. This is wrong. Takes away our sensitivity to magnitude of what happened.

9-11: Zohar about 70 days before Moshiach, two big buildings will be destroyed. R’ Yosef Blau writes contra this idea: Some years ago, helicopter crashes, many turn to “fulfillment of prophecy” idea – it’s a coping mechanism. RDS: The Rav would fiercely oppose this, because it falls into thematic halacha, and we have to act through topical halacha – it removes our sensitivity.

From Torah in Motion conference on The Legacy of Rav Soloveitchik

Creation: true or not, it's True: R' Wieder

Just listened to an mp3 of Rabbi Jeremy Wieder of YU, on the limits of non-literal interpretation of Scripture.

He sets the limits pretty far out, for non-halachic material. Halacha has to be interpreted as Chazal say, which may well be non-literal, but halacha is not affected by changes in science (pace spontaneous generation of body lice).

First, he dismisses "ein mikra yotzei miydei pshuto" -

Then, he surveys the sources.

1. R' Saadia Gaon (9th century) - if science and literal readings conflict, allegorize the verses. Four places for non-literal readings: contradicts the senses, e.g. Eim Col Chai not being mother of animals; contradicts the intellect, e.g. anthropomorphizing God; contradictory verses; Chazal's presumption of non-literalism.
2. Rambam (12th century) (Guide II:25) - if philosophy proves that something is true, against our traditional readings of verses, we are forced to allegorize the verses. He talks about two theories of the Eternity of the Universe:
1. Aristotle: matter is indestructible
2. Plato: matter is destructible.
Aristotle's theory is theologically untenable. If there were a proof of it, Rambam would have to suspend his intellect, and surrender to the revealed Truth. Plato's theory only differs from our ideas in that for him, creation is "yesh miyesh" (from pre-existing existence), rather than our "yesh me-ayin" (creatio ex nihilo, from total nonexistence). It would probably be easier to allegorize than all the stuff in the first part of the Guide allegorizing the anthropomorphic verses in the face of the Truth of an incorporeal God.

3. Teshuva of the Rashba: people may study science, and reinterpret verses if they don't work any more, as long as
   1. no violation of fundamentals of faith
   2. no change in halakha

Ramban on the Torah echoes Saadia's first principle, in explaining the rainbow in Noach - the verse seems to say that it was put in the clouds just then, but clearly it's part of the natural order, so that can't be literally true - it must be, that the rainbow already existed, but that it was given this new significance at this time.

Where is his red line? Matan Torah - the Sinaitic revelation, the founding moment of our people. That could not be allegorized, deliteralized from history, without disturbing the fundamentals of Jewish belief. Genesis 1-11, no problem allegorizing that. The Avos, he would be troubled by an allegorizing interpretation, but it doesn't cross his red line. The Exodus, an allegorical interpretation would really really bother him, but it could still be non-heretical. But Sinai must have happened, as stated, or else the whole Torah can't be True.

But cosmogony, evolution - no fundamental problem, as long as we're not dealing with "evolutionism" - a form of atheism centering on evolution - because evolutionary change is random to the human eye. But the knowledge of God isn't like the knowledge of humans - so God may have a pattern that we can't perceive.

And note, stories can be True, if not literally happened. E.g., Chazal say this of Job, it may never have happened, but it still expresses religious Truths.

A few gems:

• Science is DEscriptive, Torah is PREscriptive ... the medievals knew this.
• Some halakhists don't know the boundaries of halakha, some scientists don't know the boundaries of science ... that's where the problem starts.
• Science and Torah run on parallel tracks - they don't intersect, conflict.
  

Jewish Mothers of Studio 60

Complaint about this week's episode:

From an Entertainment Weekly article:

> Also infuriating: the running gag about Harriet's inability to tell a
> joke. She needed one for a speech, and Matt gave her one that she
> kept butchering in her attempts to retell it. Matt likened her gag
> mangling to an ailment.

OK, we can debate whether a sketch actor can tell a joke.

But it was the wrong joke for *her*. Wouldn't matter if she told it correctly or not, *she's* not the person to tell a Jewish-mother joke. At best it would just seem incongruous, not funny, and at worst, some kind of put-down. The whole point of the Jewish mother joke is that through sarcasm, the mother makes the son feel guilty. So what's a blonde female Evangelical Christian's relevance to this joke?

It's like, well, someone assigning me to tell a self-denigrating black joke, when I'm a tubby bearded Orthodox Jew of Eastern European descent. It would look bad, if not offensive.

I raised this on an Aaron Sorkin discussion list, and interestingly, the other person who agreed with me had a Jewish name.

Another commentor held that the whole exchange is "ironic", that an Evangelist would be told to tell a Jewish joke, that a comic couldn't do stand-up. "What am I missing?"

My response:

Context.

Within the context of the character giving the speech, it's just wrong. As in, imagine her actually standing up and giving the speech, the joke would probably fall flat.

Within the context of us watching the show, it's ironic, because "look, Matt the Jew gives Harriet the Evangelical a Jewish joke to tell. Ha ha."

The Bach

Joel Sirkes Bach (1762-1821), the long-lost grandchild of J.S. Bach. His work recently turned up during a search of the PDQ Bach archives at the University of South North Dakota at Hoople.

Composer of a series of 18 symphonies based on the blessings of the Amidah. Why 18? He was trying to fix the last one, as part of a polemic against the new Enlightenment Romanticism, but died in the middle.

His Second Sonata for Clarinet, Keyboard and Percussion foreshadowed the Klezmer movement in its daring adoption of Eastern European folk motifs and styles of ornamentation. He remains one of the best sources of early documentation of this style. The shift from clarino to trumpet between the second and third movements expressed his longing for the rapidly-disappearing instrument. Use of the ophicleide and ocarina in the Bulgar-Rondo, however, is gratuitous.

As Kapellmeister of the Altneuschul in Prague, he created choral settings for many zemiroth, bringing consciousness of the beauty of Sabbath observance to the early Enlightenment, although they were only rarely performed at the Hamburg Temple, and then only at the after-dinner services.

His untimely passing at the tender age of 59 was due to a großbass blokflöte falling on his foot, which subsequently became gangrenous.

His biography has recently been reprinted by Yashar Books.

Oh, that's the exegete and halachic decisor Bach? Never mind.

Commercial Chanukah Tokenism

Stopped by Macy's this evening. Watched various groups rehearse for the Thanksgiving Day Parade - a group of boys in a drumline marching up & down 34th Street, some tap-dancers from the Monty Python tribute musical SPAMALOT.

Wandered into the store. Poinsettias everywhere, banners, wreaths, stars (the store's logo), Christmas everywhere. A grand arcade down the central corridor of the main floor.





And up at the end, next to the escalators, two token acknowledgements that Not For Everyone Is Christmas Paramount:

Good Enough for Us, Not For You

The latest scandal to roil the J-Blogosphere: a mikvah inspector in Jerusalem witnessing rampant man-boy [relations] in a mikva in the main Charedi area of Jerusalem. Harry Maryles called the guy to confirm his story, which he did.

So.

Violent protests against the Gay Parade, which is primarily attended by non-religious, and doesn't actually feature any public lewd acts.

A non-sticky band-aid on mikvaot where Our Guys go, where lewd acts were witnessed. Where the Haredi courts can't do anything more because the guys who financially support the mikva are the ones alleged to be committing these acts. Money talks, after all.

I get it:

• If it's fun Unzerer, OK.
• If it's Thoze Guyz, well, we gotta yell and scream and damage property to let it be known how Evil Evil Evil THEY are.

It's OK for our guys to be Evil, but not for You Guys.

Maybe I should switch to The Black-Hat Uniform. It would let me get away with Abominations (toeivot): cheating in business, like the Shevach butcher in Monsey, or gay sex, like these guys in Jerusalem, or idolatry, like certain elements within Lubavitch. The Torah does use the same word (to'eivah, abomination) for all these sins.

Relative morality. That's what I love about Frummak Judaism. Not.

This is not to say, God forbid, that there is a link between wearing the uniform and tolerating, let alone committing, evil. 99-44/100% of guys who wear The Uniform are, I'm sure, many from personal acquaintance, terrific, learned, ehrlich people. But in wearing the Uniform, one is saying "Look at me, I take pride in my great level of Jewish committment and observance."

Which is why when one of them falls (Jack Abramoff, anyone?) it makes a much bigger splash about the moral laxity among Jews. Visible Jews doing wrong, create a greater chillul hashem than some lesbian gal in a tank-top, because the evil is seen as stemming from their greater committment to Hashem and His Torah. I won't say it's fair to those who choose to wear the Jewish Badge, but it's still a real perception.

That, too, I can say from personal experience. As in, before moving to Flatbush, and living among people who wear The Uniform, I too resented the Uniform-wearers for their trumpeting their frumkeit in their clothing. And thus, when I saw some of them morally fail, in various ways, my first response was "Zoo Torah vezoo sechorah? This is the end-result of a life of learning? Feh! I should throw off the whole thing, if that's the end result!"

Only when I learned to see the individuals under the Uniform, did that go away.

Hat tip: Emes v'Emunah

Computer Culture

Google is now part of the American psyche.

Not only is it a verb, "just google /some subject/", it is now a graffito.

Don't need to express an idea concisely on a lamppost/wall/toilet stall, refer to it via Google.

My Noah Problem

I was asked to give a talk at shul this afternoon, but when I tried to put something together, I couldn't wrap my head around the Noah-flood story. My wife Debbie put it into words: it seems all so arbitrary.

The deeds, the punishment, the covenant, the tower, the tower's punishment - it's the acts of a capricious God. The Torah in Genesis end of ch. 6 says that "vayinachem", God reconsidered His creation of man, who were all behaving with incredible evil. His response? Wipe out all humans, and all animals, with the flood. Who is his messenger? Noah - the most righteous of his generation, but he never once in 120 years of construction goes out and tells anyone why he's building this ark. God tells Jonah to bring his message of doom and repentance, but He doesn't tell Noah anything.

So after God brings this flood, without really giving Mankind a chance to repent, he then says to himself, "I don't think I should do this again."

We have God saying "it was a mistake to create humanity, and I'm going to wipe them out and start again." Then after doing so, "it was a mistake to be so draconian, I'm not going to do that again," and when confronted with an anti-God threat, at Babel, comes up with a less-drastic punishment.

It's a classic repentance tale, except that God is the actor, not the receiver of the repentance. He does something wrong (the Flood), he regrets, decides not to do it again, and when again presented with a threat, goes through with his promise not to do so again. Is that it? Did all those people die so that God could make an example of repentance?

I guess part of it depends on how literally you take the story. If you're willing to take it all as an allegory, the repentance-tale explanation works. If you need the Bible to remain literal, taking Rashi's dictum of "the text does not depart from its literal meaning" as applying to the whole Torah, including the narratives, then you are faced with this arbitrary God. It's like we're expecting God the Great and Powerful, and we get God the charlatan from the Kansas state fair, who doesn't know how to turn the balloon around.

Maybe it's just that our usual medieval paradigms of God, whether of the Philosophers or of the Kabbalists, as omniscient and omnipotent, just don't fit a narrative that was written to be understood by the Israelite exiles from Egypt, 3300 years ago. Maybe there's some other message here. But if we are forced to take the narrative literally (even leaving aside the issues of geological evidence of a global flood), it still makes no sense in terms of contemporary God-ideas.

Men starbt nisht fun a kashye, one doesn't die from a question, but it seems a fairly obvious one, surely it has been addressed in our 3300 years of literary history.

The Chazzan's Responsibility

(gacked from the LSS Echod, their weekly newsletter)

MUSICAL NOTE by Cantor Sherwood Goffin

The Chazzan's Responsibilities

The Chazzan - anyone who leads any service in any shul- has a tremendous responsibility when he stands as the Sh'liach Tzibbur. Many of us who function as Chazzanim take our responsibilities too lightly. The Chazzan is the one person responsible for the Kavannah (concentration, intent) of everyone seated in the shul. He must constantly keep this in mind, since he is davening for every individual there whose mind may not be on his/her davening, as well as praying on behalf of the entire community as a whole. The way the Chazzan davens is the way the Congregation davens. If his intent is on the mark, his melodies effective and his grammar correct, all those in his minyan are uplifted and fulfill their obligation of prayer. In fact, according to the Talmud, the Chazzan also fulfills the obligation to pray for every Jew in the community who is not in shul!!

Daven Well and Sing Along.

Wolfson Notes IV

10/10

Readings: St. Th. I Q2; Maimo II Intro, Ch 1.

St. Thomas

Cf Q1, article 3: Is Sacred Doctrine a single science?

Are the things true of secular science also true of sacred doctrine?

Classification of science: (Aristotelian)

Science:

Speculative, practical, productive

Problem: is there a parallel subdivision of revealed science?

The rational is divided by faculty:

Faculty	Theoretic area	Subject matter
Reason	Metaphysics	Immovable (immaterial) objects
Sense	Physics	Movable material objects
Memory – imagination	Mathematics	Movable immaterial objects

Thus, theoretical science is divided accordgin to object, that is, its subject matter.

Revealed science:

Angels – immaterial

Corporeal creatures – material

Human behavior – practical

No division! Because

1) revealed science involves only one faculty, since all knowledge here comes from revelation.

2) All subject matters are studied only in their relation to God. Therefore, there is only one subject matter.

There is no subdivision between practical and speculative philosophy, but is it one or the other or both? Both are combined in Revealed Science.

Plato & Aristotle: the speculative life is better than the practical life.

Stoics: practical life is more important than the speculative.

But religious commands, unlike philosophy, were categorical. Therefore, each good is intrinsic, and therefore both speculative and practical life are necessary.

[Philosophic scholastics still thought of the speculative life as higher, though not exclusive of practical life.]

Nobility of science:

Speculative higher than Practical. Within speculative science:

Metaphyscis – noblest

Mathematics

Physics - least noble.

Distributed according to

1) measure of certainty;

2) “nobility” of science.

Problem: since faith applies only where an idea will never be proven by reason, articles of revealed science can be doubted, therefore sacred doctrine is less noble.

No! “certainty” = 1) certain to us;

2) certain in themselves

demonstrability implies that it is certain to us but this is only relative to the prover.

Revelation may not be certain to us, but is objectively certain (and can never be overthrown).

Therefore, Sacred Doctrine is most certain and therefore most noble.

Note phrase: other sciences are “handmaidens” of sacred doctrine. It began with Philo as a religious term, though it was defined by the Stoics

Stoics: Science is

1) encyclical (school), grammar, etc.

2) Philosophy: dialectics, logic, ethics, Physics.

Encyclical studies (liberal arts) are the handmaidens of Philosophy.

Philo added revealed science as “wisdom”, “just as encyclical studies are the handmaidens of philosophy, so is philosophy the handmaiden of religion.”

Wolfson Notes III

Please comment, if you read, I'd like to know if I'm getting it more or less right. I sometimes include a {?} when I'm not sure of something; if someone has a better idea what it might be, please chime in.

* * *

10/5

Averroes (cont.)

Philosophical Faith consists of 1^st premises and demonstrables

Religious Faith consists of both demonstrables and undemonstrables.

The two kinds of faith are found in two kinds of people in that the pastor can demonstrate what smiple people cannot.

Boht kinds are equally good for the kind of man for whom it is adapted

(!) – Each kind of man ought to have and stick to the kind of faith suited to him.

Therefore, the Philosopher must be able to demonstrate, while the Simpleton must not try to demonstrate. It would lead to abuses (like popularized medicine) to do otherwise. [Note political reasons (causes).]

Maimonides

Double Faith, like Averroes, but it is better to demonstrate and it is every man’s duty to try to prove. Therefore, the Philosopher is the best type of man.

St. Thomas (#2 {II-II}, question 2)

Faith is an assent but is not identical with it. Faith is a species of assent.

Assent may applie to syllogisms, prime premises or whatever, while Faith is a voluntary choice of one side of a moot point, and then belief in its certainty.

As a religious term, Faith applies onlyt to what isn’t demonstrated. Faith implies that one believes before getting proof.

One can study demonstrations, but when proved, it is no longer an object of faith for hime. Though for others it remains an object of Faith.

Demonstration (and thus demonstration of faith) does not lessen merit, and may increase it,provided that faith precedes science (i.e., demonstration)

There is a problem: why are some demonstrables revealed? [Note: this implies that God (and nature) does nothing in vain.]

Clement

[held that Greek Philosophy was a kind of revelation] à why two revelations? Philosophy as revealed is a short-cut to salvation. But why a short-cut?

Origen

God could not leave Man to his own (intellectual) devices because of the ”necessities of life” (people canpt spend the time) and the “weakness of man” (inadequacy of some at reasoning).

Maimonides (Guide I:34-6)

1) Study of Metaphysics is difficult

2) Some people are inadequate

3) Metaphysics (study of religion) has prerequisites

4) Some people are not “the philosophical type”

5) Metaphysics must be free of financial troubles.

{marginal note – “cf. Summa Contra Gentiles”}

St. Thomas

Because if we use human reason alone

· The ideas are only known to a few

· Only after a long time,

· And are mixed with errors

Question 1: Is the Sacred Doctrine a science, one science, or the noblest science? (cf Aristotle, Nic. Ethics VI ch. 3-6)

It’s a science, vs. Art, Wisdom or Prudence

Science à object of science is a necessary truth

Which can be taught and learned

The scientific faculty is that of demonstrating the less-known from that which is better-known and/or self-evident.

Its Principles come from the Nous (intuition, reason. Therefore science comes from Reason.

Since religious knowledge comes from revelation, is it science?

1) rational	or	1) science
2) revealed		2) revelation

Science:

General line of argument:

Though here Aristotle defined science so, elsewhere he indicate that primary premises may come from:

1) Intuitive, direct knowledge; or

2) Conclusions of another science; or

3) Popular probabilistic assent

Therefore, it’s also legitimate to posit that one’s primary premises come from revelation.

Therefore: Sacred Doctrine is a species (revealed) of science.