Kiruv Styles: Intellectual Depth or Simplicity

A correspondent on Hirhurim blog claimed (paraphrased):

I think that if Torah Judaism is presented as having depth, profundity and having also survived the best and worst aspects of Jewish history, it can attract anyone. The real problem-the Charedi [and kiruv] world all work from this proposition as a given.

OTOH. many MO evince an inferiority complex by obsessive navel-gazing over the future of MO.

I responded, however: (somewhat expanded)

Actually, the Chareidi world just keeps its internal politics out of the UJA-distributed paper, so the non-O world knows little of it. Internal politics leading to fistfights and thuggery on top of the sexual and financial scandals would be just as damaging to the Chareidi image as MO obsession over its future portrays internal weakness – both indicate systemic problems.

MO depth/profundity is often indistinguishable from academia, hidden from the common man, whether through erudition, language or publication in expensive academic journals and books. Meanwhile the Charedim and other kiruv organizations provide predigested pap (I'm thinking of Aish Hatorah's 48 Ways, or NJOP's "Crash Courses") pretending it's profundity. But the real profundity, if any that isn't just rehashes of medieval ideas, is hidden, just as inaccessible behind the Beis Medrash doors - because in either case, the threshhold of knowledge is very high. Profundity is not just in hearing a simple answer to a complex issue, it's understanding why the issue is complex in the first place.

Face it, extremists are better at marketing than moderates. Having a simple message (not a profound message, but a simple, if extreme, message) is easier to explain than the life of tension between kodesh and chol that was the centerpiece of much of RYBS' writing. And, as one co-congregant in my old shul put it, "I like that the (L) rabbi has a plan, an idea. I may not agree with it, but I like that he has it." As opposed to the lack of focus other than politics in his previous C-nagogue.

Right there - the L are not presenting the profundity of chassidus. To really understand that takes years of study. They're presenting the beauty of the Orthodox lifestyle, and the simplicity of letting your will go, relinquishing much individual responsibility onto the rabbi's (or rebbe's) shoulders.

People join Orthodoxy because of emotional pull. They may need to intellectually justify some of the new ideas to themselves, as I did, but that’s a rationalization of the emotional tug. Yes, there are exceptions, like the fellow I know (through the Internet) who had been in a Christian seminary, then started learning Chumash/Rashi and Rashi’s answers made more sense to him than what he was getting in seminary, so he converted to Judaism. But I wonder if there was an emotional component as well – he was a child of intermarriage, his father was Jewish.

The Charedim are not selling profundity, they're selling simplicity, whether through existential* kiruv or intellectual. Really, so does NCSY, but the Charedim have embraced the kiruv concept much more than the MO.

*existential – through emotional appeals to the pintele Yid.

Single-Issue Blindness

Honest Reporting, often a good criticism site, defending Jews against negative media portrayals, has really gone overboard. They have been congratulating themselves for convincing Comedy Central to remove an online video game based on the show "Drawn Together".

What they don't get is that Drawn Together is, if anything, a giant Jewish inside joke, while being offensive to all kinds of groups (blacks, fat people, white racists, Christian extremists, gays, children's programming, Asians, etc.) at least in part. Here are my comments to them:

Responding to this thread, where they defend themselves from critics:

You guys are just blind. You can't tell the difference between a philo-semitic parody of prejudice, and true prejudice.

Yes, philosemitic - between Captain Hero's being traditionally ritually observant, even if a sexual deviant (and the juxtaposition pokes fun at the sex scandals among the Orthodox); and Wooldoor Sockbat being a victim who kills when he has to, who poses as a nice guy, like everyone's favorite tame Palestinian, Walid Shoebat (note the similarity of names), they are parodying issues generally considered internal to the Jewish community.

To quote from the Drawn Together Wiki:

Though never stated explicitly, it is strongly implied that he and his parents are Jewish, as he calls his mother "Ima" (אִמָא), Hebrew for "mommy" (also used in its plural form, "Imahot" (אִמָהוֹת) in "Little Orphan Hero") and has been seen to observe Sabbath rituals; this is part of a running gag of Jewish in-jokes throughout the series (creators Dave Jeser and Matt Silverstein are both Jewish). Since Captain Hero is a parody of Superman, these jokes may also be references to similar hints of Judaism in Superman's background; like Jeser and Silverstein, Superman creators Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel were both Jewish. Captain Hero's homeworld is also called Zebulon which may be a reference to one of the ten lost tribes of the Israelites.

[end quote]

And:

In "The One Wherein There Is a Big Twist, Part II" it is revealed that most of his people, the Sockbats, were murdered in a Holocaust perpetrated by the Sweetcake people (themselves parodies of Strawberry Shortcake), who turned to eating the Sockbats as a remedy for an economic crisis.

[end quote]

The Sockbat thing parodies the ambivalent position of Israel in the world, and the parallel to the Palestinians, given the poor hasbara in Israel these days - the Pal-Arabs have become the new Jew-victims, while the Jews have become the new oppressors, in far too much of popular culture. So too, Wooldor is both a victim and an occasional killer, as well as a Christian who poses as a Jew. He is also said to have been born in 5753, and holds a Bar Mitzvah as a fundraiser. So he's portrayed as Jewish, Holocaust survivor, but with the name derived from the tame Palestinian. Shoebat is a Christian as well, not Muslim Sockbat occasionally commits cowardly terrorist acts: stealing an old man's car then shooting him as he runs away, etc.

So much of it is an inside joke, and you just don't get it, because you can't or won't look past the surface of the skin of the covering of the concept.

Good, pat yourselves on the back for stopping a bunch of JEWS from writing SELF-PARODY. Whoopee.

The Maharats

I finally read the thread on Gil's blog starting from R' Kenny Brander's "clarification" of R' Herschel Schachter's lecture at the RCA convention. And I agree with it, for the most part - the issue regarding women's ordination is socio-historical, not halachic. But I have some problems with the shiur as described, and with the thread in general.

First off, many people made the main issue into one of reportage. There had been rumors that RHS had used terminology like "Yehareg v'al yaavor" in his lecture, that this was a situation where one should accept martyrdom in preference to ordaining women. IOW, that women's ordination is comparably serious to idolatry, incest or murder - the Big Three sins for which one must always allow oneself to be killed rather that be forced to violate.

RKB's report did not use such extreme language, although it did use an apparently rare Hebrew term, harisas hadas, the destruction of the religion. Gil had similarly used a rare/late term, "chikui haminim", giving strength the the heretics' cause, in earlier critiques of women's ordination. Harisas hadas, according to a Bar-Ilan search, only appears in the 19th century, and only in the 20th century is it used to describe heterodox inroads on Orthodox society.

Many commentators thus called for a tape or transcript of RHS' original speech be released, so that it could be compared to RKB's precis. I suspect, though, that given the rumors, what privately excited this call was a desire to see how RHS had put his foot into his mouth this time. After all, in a TorahWeb post, he had compared women to "parrots and monkeys". And he has had other choice words for women who wanted to expand their communal contributions within Orthodoxy. So I'm dismissing that call. Let's just deal with RKB's precis.

RKB/RHS apparently dismisses serarah, the Rambam's concern that women not be placed in any position of power, as insignificant (and R' Steg Belsky points out that in an earlier shiur, RHS had noted that serarah was not a real impediment to women's ordination) compared to the change to the fabric of Orthodoxy.

It is not just an issue of a particular halakhic issur; it is the challenge to the fabric of what defines Orthodoxy in contrast to other movements. Therefore it requires a response which is reflective of more than dealing with a particular issur.

And that's the heart of the argument for me. While RHS, who has been moving in more RWMO/Daas Torah circles, chose to frame the argument around a quasi-halachic term, so as to give it some of the trappings of Daas Torah, I feel that this is not the proper mode to convince people who are not already convinced. The Moderns characterize themselves in contrast to the Chareidim by disbelief in Daas Torah, the mystical authority granted to Torah sages to pronounce decrees on non-legal subjects for which they have no direct training.

Rather, since it is a non-halachic argument (and there really are no insurmountable halachic obstacles to women's ordination as yoreh yoreh, while there are a few rishonim/acharonim who actually support it), it should be made in non-pseudo-halachic terms.

We see this issue arising in American Protestant society in the late 19th century. As women move into leadership positions in the churches, men come to regard church as a women's realm, and stop going. Mark C. Carnes (Secret Rituals and Manhood in Victorian America) has noted that men seem to have an innate need for ritual; this male exodus from the churches fueled a rise in highly ritualistic fraternal orders, such as the Masons. For Catholics, this began to happen in the 13th-14th century, as church rituals shifted to a "bride mysticism", portraying the man/church relationship as bride/groom. Men didn't want to be cast in the role of the bride, so they left, while women's orders were on the rise.

My wife has argued that she does not like the idea of women's ordination for a similar reason to her dislike of partnership minyanim and, to a lesser extent, women's tefillah groups - it's a distortion of Judaism, in that it demeans the women's role, and promotes the men's role as the only proper role and goal for women. I'm aware of Simone de Beauvoir's critique, where there are women's roles and people's roles, and when women try to take on people's roles, they are accused of wanting to be men. But to flip that on its head, in traditional Judaism, which is largely predicated on the existence of different classes of people with complementary responsibilities to the community, to promote only the men's role, demeans and dismisses the women's role, which distorts the whole fabric of Judaism.

This shift has already happened in the heterodox movements - as women are admitted to the rabbinate and cantorate, male applications and admissions to the rabbinic and cantorial schools diminished, until in some cases, there are more women than men training for these positions. (See some statistics for JTSA - now majority women) In part this can be attributed to the general shift in perception of "women's work." As various job categories shift from men to "equal opportunity", they become "women's work," and thus not a suitable career for a man. Take bank tellers - they used to be all men, and a fairly high-status job with a lot of responsibility and trust. Then they let women become bank tellers, and today they are almost all women, and the job has become a low-status job. This is already happening in the heterodox movements.

Experience shows that such shifts will happen. Admitting women to the rabbinate will, willy nilly, disrupt the fabric and society of Orthodox Judaism. Whether this is a good or a bad thing can be debated, on halachic or social bases. But if it happens, history will probably repeat itself. And I'm not comfortable with that happening to Mod-O, the type of Judaism to which I have aspired and worked on myself to accept.

My wife thinks that this will continue the trend towards a total realignment of the Jewish movements. Mod-O will split between the Left and the Right; UTJ has fizzled, Conservative is becoming less halachic and more Reform, the right wing of C will join with an "egalitarian" LWMO under R' Avi Weiss or his successors, and the black hats will continue to grow. The Chasidim have become more Misnagdish, after all, who really follows the path of the Baal Shem Tov any more? while the Yeshivish have become more Chasidish, imbuing their leaders with a Chasidic infallibility and intimacy with God. And the melting pot of Judaism will continue to stir, queasily.

On an individual level, I can't say anything. The program exists, if someone believes that this is the right thing for them to do, and it follows from their principles, then more power to them. People should certainly maximize their opportunities and abilities. But I worry about what it will do to us as a community.

The First Notated Jewish Music

MUSICAL NOTE by Cantor Sherwood Goffin

The First Notated Jewish Music

Historically, Jews have had musical symbols for Torah reading since the time of Ezra, and according to some, from Moshe at Mt. Sinai. Nevertheless, we didn't have Jewish musicians who knew how to notate music until the late 17th century. Except for a 30 year period in 15th century Italy (Solomon Rossi), music was a closed book to all communities outside of the Church. Any Jewish music we have from before that time was notated by non-Jews.

The earliest notated Jewish music ever found was discovered in the Cairo Geniza by Solomon Shechter at the turn of the 20th century. These were two compositions written out by Ovadia HaGer, Obadiah the Norman Proselyte of the early 12th century. A monk from a noble Norman family of Southern Italy, he converted to Judaism in 1102, emigrated to the Near East, and finally settled in Cairo.

He learned Gregorian neume notation as a clergyman of the Church, and was able to compose and notate for various Jewish occasions. The two pieces discovered (actually, three -jjb) include his famed "Mi Al Har Chorev," a eulogy of Moses that was sung on Simchas Torah. Its character is typically ancient Gregorian, and is a fascinating glimpse into the world of the Jews of that period. It is also the first synagogue music ever to be notated!

DAVEN WELL, DON'T TALK, BUT SING ALONG!

(links found by JJB)

Twelve Names for the Chazzan

Twelve Names for the Chazzan
Musical Note, by Cantor Sherwood Goffin

Tazria, 5770

My teacher, Chazzan Macy Nulman, has written that the one who leads the tefillah" has been known throughout history by twelve different names in three different languages." This fascinating insight into the nomenclature of the Chazzan over the centuries reinforces the historical and liturgical importance of this vocation to many generations of Jewish communities throughout Israel and the Diaspora.

"In English he is called cantor, precentor and reader. In Hebrew he is known as Chazzan, Sheliah Tzibbur, Baal Tefillah, and kerobah. In Germany he was called obercantor,vorbeter, vorsinger, schulsinger, and sangmeister." For the position of assistant to the Chazzan, or for those who conducted the lesser important services, Chazzan Nulman cites the names of "ba'al Shacharit, hazzan -sheni (untercantor) and matchil."

Two final names for the Chazzan, which he refers to as "subtitles" are "baal musaf and hazzan-rishon (hazzan elyon)."Whatever name one chooses to use, I am proud to be your Chazzan and hope to daven with you for many more years!

The Necessity of Oral Law

So a Reform correspondent and I are talking about the nature of Oral Law. Beyond our grundnorms of Divine-originated vs. human-originated Oral Law, I got into some discussion of how I have come to understand the different types of Oral Law.

S____:
> I understand that people have to interpret a document. I understand that
> specifics have to be laid down for some laws. However, how is something
> like "don't eat shellfish" need any further explanation? How is that
> "irrelevant [another commentator's characterization of our correspondent's
> argument]", You say that "oral Torah" begins at Sinai. We disagree

Well, from what I can see of the Oral Torah process, a lot of it has to do with places where we [including Our Sages in that "we", since they're the main body of people who actually worked out the derivations] know there's a rule, but it's not entirely clear how it fits with the Torah text. We know they have to be related, that's part of the definition of the system, but the exact relationship is unclear, whether through loss of tradition, or linguistic shift, or whatever.

Take the shellfish, [please].

First the Biblical passage:

9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath snapir and kaskeset in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

10 And all that have not snapir and kaskeset in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

12 Whatsoever hath no snapir nor kaskeset in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

We know, for instance, a rule, as you say, "don't eat shellfish". Our ancestors presumably knew this rule too. But there's no actual verse that says "don't eat shellfish." There is a verse that says "whatsoever hath snapir and kaskeset in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat".

Then ensues a whole discussion on what do those two words mean. Once it's decided that it means "fins & scales", which word means which, etc., then we look at the fish, and find there are 4 kinds of scales. And that's where we get into rabbinically legislated details: Which kinds of scales are kosher (there are 4, of which 2 are kosher)? The Talmud itself says that "everything with kaskeset also has snapir", impying that they knew about the different types of scales, and only the 2 kosher varieties were called kaskeset. What about species where the scales are only present at one stage of the life cycle, but not at the stage where the fish is harvested? etc.?

But establishing the Torah's meaning in relation to known rules, this is also part of Oral Torah, and is presumed to have originated at Sinai. There's no way to prove it, of course, but rules that are universally (pre-1800) accepted, and are general rules, and are known to be based on verses, rather than explicit rabbinic legislation, are treated as if they originated at Sinai, because at that point, there's really no difference - universal ratification being equivalent in force to Divine transmission.

I've been thinking of it as a 2x2 matrix. Say, Written/Oral along one axis and Biblical/Rabbinic along the other

Written Torah is the Five Books of Moses, that's it.

Oral Torah is practically everything else, from the Prophets and Writings, down through the implications of the 4QMMT in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Fast Scroll (both being Hasmonean-period documents), through the Mishnah, Midrashim, Talmuds, and all their further interpretations and elaborations.

Within that, you have Biblical and Rabbinic Law. Biblical Law is rules that can be derived from verses using the 13 Hermeneutical Rules of Rabbi Ishmael (plus possibly some others). Now, we don't know which (or whether any) of those derivations are actually Sinaitic, but we assume that if they can be derived from verses, and were not otherwise legislated, they are treated AS IF they had come down from Sinai. [Yes, I know we say that certain of the rules require a Sinaitic component, but that's a different discussion, and one which is also hard to prove to someone who simply denies Divine origin to Talmudic law.] Because they're part of the interpretive system that began at Sinai.

Rules that are legislated similarly should have some tenuous connection to a verse, to demonstrate that they're within the Torah's system, and not total inventions, but there the textual derivation can be much weaker, because there's no need to prove a strong connection to the Divine.

So yes, even a simple rule like "don't eat shellfish" requires the Talmud, requires an Oral Torah, wherever that tradition is sourced, to turn it into practical law. AND to link it to the correct verse and phrases in the Written Torah to demonstrate the rule's Biblical nature.

The Rambam (Maimonides) further breaks down the Oral Law into different degrees of relatedness to the posited Divine origin, but that's another post.

Go'al Yisra'el Quandary

A special 4-part series (combined) from Cantor Sherwood Goffin:

MUSICAL NOTE by Cantor Sherwood Goffin
THE GO’AL YISRAEL QUANDARY

It is common to hear a Shliach Tsibbur ending the bracha of Go’al Yisrael in a whisper. Yet, as your Chazzan, I do not do so. What is the rule and why are there different ways to recite this? The practice of whispering is a relatively recent innovation. Prior to modern times, every chazzan would always recite the entire Bracha of Go’al Yisrael out loud. In fact, there is NO valid custom of not audibly finishing a bracha. Where did this custom originate and why?

In the next few Notes paragraphs we will examine this phenomenon.

To begin with: In the Talmud (Brachot 42a) and reinforced in the Shulchan Aruch, there is a concept of “Semichat Geulah L’Tefillah.” That is, to link “redemption/Geulah” to tefillah/Amida – and to not interrupt the connection of the blessing of Go’al Yisrael to the Amida. The Talmud seems to treat this as simply a “nice thing” to do.

Rashi and Rabbeinu Yonah give varied philosophical reasons. I prefer the explanation of Rabbi Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg (1884-1966) of Montreux, the “Seridei Aish,” who explains that Go’al Yisrael relates to the past, and that the Amidah is a prayer for the future Redemption. He further states that “a future that is not rooted in the past is unsustainable.” Linking the two, however, seems to present a quandary, since we are required to answer Amen to every blessing that we hear, and saying Amen would constitute a problematic interruption. What are we to do?

[Two] The Mechaber of the Shulchan Aruch (Sfardic minhag) says, based on the Zohar, that one should NOT answer Amen to the blessing of Go’al Yisroel. At that point, the Rama (Ashkenazic minhag) states that Amen is part of the tefilla and MUST be recited. It is therefore apparent that in their day (early 16th century) the Chazzan always said the bracha out loud. Rabbi Ari Zivitofsky, who thoroughly researched this topic, could not find ANY early authorities who suggest that it is to be said silently, or in a whisper.

To further complicate matters, the Aruch Hashulchan (1829-1908) says, that while it is PERMISSABLE to answer Amen there, “the common practice is NOT to.” In Hungary and the Ukraine in the early 1800s, leading rabbis first began to write that the bracha should be said silently. In our times, the great American Lower East Side posek, Rabbi Yosef Henkin (d.1973), strongly condemned “this new custom” of reciting it silently.

Rabbi S. Neuberger, Menahel of Yeshivat Ner Israel, told me that Rav Henkin wrote in the journal “Pardes” that, if the chazzan neglects to say the beginning and end of EVERY bracha in the Birchot Kriat Shma, “he has failed to fulfill Tefillat Hatsibbur (The obligation of communal prayer).” The quandary remains: There those who still recite it softly, and others – such as your Chazzan - who recite it out loud. Which is correct?

[Three] Many contemporary poskim, such as Rav Aharon Lichtenstein and Rav Wosner have written in favor of saying it out loud, saying that even if the bracha is said inaudibly, one must answer amen. Rav Wosner opposes ending it silently because "it is a slight against the honor of the bracha." Some famous recent halachic giants all insisted on saying the bracha out loud. These include Rav Joseph Soloveitchik, the Satmar Rebbe, Rav Yaakov Weinberg and Rabbi Dushinsky of Jerusalem. Other authorities have defended the practice of saying it silently - a practice "standard in the Lithuanian Yeshiva world."

Rabbi Ari Zivitofsky, writing in Jewish Action says, "All of these opinions indicate that throughout most of Jewish History, the chazzan recited the entire bracha of Go'al Yisroel aloud. Apparently, at some point in recent years, the practice of ... concluding Go'al Yisroel in a whisper came about. This practice appeals to many because it allows one to satisfy most halachic opinions." [Next], dear readers, I will give you the final opinion concerning this issue.

[Four] [At least half a dozen recent Ashkenazic authorities thus] insisted that the bracha of Go'al Yisroel be said out loud. It is also true that some Lithuanian authorities have defended the practice of saying it silently - a practice "standard in the Lithuanian Yeshiva world." It comes down to this: Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach writes (Halichot Shlomo) that the practice in the Gra Shul in Jerusalem was to end the bracha out loud. Since it is the minhag of Lincoln Square Synagogue generally to follow the customs of the Gra (The Vilna Gaon), it therefore appears to be very clear that this should be our LSS custom.

The only thing that we have to deal with is the opinion of the Rama - whose opinion we follow - that one should say "Amein" after hearing the bracha. Since that still seems to be controversial, let me make the following suggestion, if I may: The chazzan should say the last paragraph somewhat slower than the rest of the davening, so that the congregants can 1) catch up to him and say the bracha of Go'al Yisroel with him, or 2) start the Amida a bit ahead of his finishing the bracha. In both cases it would obviate saying "Amein," and thereby accommodate all opinions. However, if one is elsewhere in the prayers, and hears the bracha, if he is able to, he should answer "Amein," softly. This should please all viewpoints, and give LSS one custom to follow. Try it - and see how it works for you!

DAVEN WELL, DON'T TALK, BUT SING ALONG!

(c) Sherwood Goffin and Lincoln Square Synagogue, 2010

Part Three was dedicated "in loving memory of [Cantor Goffin's] student, Jonathan Spanbock."

Some paragraph transitions adjusted with square brackets.

Perception and Reality

My interlocutor (R Micha Berger) in the last thread was disappointed that I could not rise to the level of Beis Hillel, and understand where the other side is coming from, while still maintaining my position.

He seems further to want me to understand this without negative value judgments, such as "ignorant of science", "fool", "charlatan", "unwilling to admit the they're out of their depth", etc.

As it is, we only discussed one figure, the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, for whom I had actually given a reasonable excuse for maintaining an idea, largely because the Rebbe's position is out in public for all to see, in English, and can thus be easily critiqued.

The Lubavitcher lays out his position in a letter from 1962, included in Carmell and Domb's book on the interaction of Torah & Science, "Challenge."

That letter was critiqued for flaws in logic and superficial readings of science, by Mark Perakh, here.

There is a reference to an earlier exchange on this topic from 1963, with a Dr. Velvl Greene, a biologist in Minnesota, who was in process of becoming a Lubavitcher, in which the Rebbe refutes the critique, but I don't know if or where the letters were published. Dr Greene himself does not appear to subscribe to the ideas in the Rebbe's 1962 letter, preferring an allegorical/mythological approach.


As I said in the previous post, the late Lubavitcher Rebbe may be excused for dismissing the evidence of an old universe, because part of the Lubavitch theology, is that the universe has no real existence separate from God, because God's infiinitude nullifies the finite universe next to it. They call this the "upper unity". They also maintain a "lower unity", which says that the universe is perceived to have real existence, but we know intellectually that it is all part of God.

To quote R' Norman Lamm, in "The Religious Thought of Hasidism," p. 50:


click on picture for larger image

That idea, it seems to me, undoes creation ex nihilo - if the physical universe is made of "God-stuff" rather than Sagan's "star-stuff", then the matter of which the universe is composed, even if it's "spiritual" matter, is as old and eternal as the rest of the Divine Essence. It's only the form of the Universe which was applied to this pre-existent "matter", to bring the Universe into existence. In view of this complete reordering of the understanding of the Universe, the question of old vs. young earth is battel, since both space and time, which Kant demonstrated had to really exist, don't really exist for Lubavitchers. We may experience them, and be commanded in certain behaviors while "existing", but space and time have no real existence.

This seems further related to the question of whether the "tzimtzum" was real or metaphorical. The major source discussing it, the Etz Chaim by R' Chaim Vital, which presents the teachings of the Arizal, is ambivalent. The Tzimtzum was the moment where God withdrew from the space in which the physical universe would be created, since two things (God and not-God) cannot occupy the same space.

From Etz Chaim, Shaar 1 section 2:

דע כי טרם שנאצלו הנאצלים ונבראו הנבראים היה אור עליון פשוט ממלא כל המציאות ולא היה שום מקום פנוי בבחי' אויר ריקני וחלל אלא הכל היה ממולא מן אור א"ס פשוט ההוא ולא היה לו בחי' ראש ולא בחי' סוף אלא הכל היה אור א' פשוט שוה בהשוואה א' והוא הנק' אור א"ס. וכאשר עלה ברצונו הפשוט לברוא העולמות ולהאציל הנאצלים להוציא לאור שלימות פעולותיו ושמותיו וכנוייו אשר זאת היה סיבה בריאת העולמות כמבואר אצלינו בענף הא' בחקירה הראשונה. והנה אז צמצם את עצמו א"ס בנקודה האמצעית אשר בו באמצע אורו ממש (אמר מאיר בערכינו אמר הרב זה וק"ל) וצמצם האור ההוא ונתרחק אל צדדי סביבות הנקודה האמצעית ואז נשאר מקום פנוי ואויר וחלל רקני מנקודה אמצעית ממש כזה

Is the tzimtzum in "atzmo" or in "oro"? Does it really create a "hollow, empty air/space"? Ambivalent.

The Lubavitchers believe the tzimtzum was metaphorical, that God did not remove Himself, because He is unchanging, but rather designated this space as a space of veils, where whatever bits of Himself were there, would not perceive that they were bits of God. Further, the Lubavitchers maintain that physical Tzimtzum is heretical.

The more common view is that the tzimtzum was real, that God created, as it were, a vacuole in Himself of finite size, in which the Universe could be created, presumably out of bits of God-stuff that were now separated from Him.

What troubles me more, is the apparently bad logic and poorly understood science, masquerading as a real response, that makes up the Rebbe's letter in 1962. That, and his position on geocentrism, which seems to be based on a confusion between perception and reality. That is, in reality the earth and sun revolve around a common center, with perturbations from the other planets. An exact formula may be hard to construct, because of the intractability of the n-body problem. Whereas relativity in terms of frames of reference, as the Rebbe cites it, is only about perception. Given the relative sizes and distances of the bodies, it is still approximately correct, within perhaps 1%, to say that the Earth revolves around the Sun in reality.

Evidently it bothers many people who read the 1962 letter, including the aforementioned Dr. Greene and Mr. Perakh. Now, perhaps the Rebbe felt it was useful in the case of his correspondent, I have no idea to whom he was writing. Perhaps it was better to write a letter which impressed the correspondent, even if a close reading reveals it to have serious problems, than to try to explain very high level spiritual concepts, ideas which, after years of (occasional) study, I'm just barely beginning to grasp. Perhaps this was the "Hashem's secret" that R' Berger referred to.

Perhaps I should just rest assured that others made the critique during the Rebbe's lifetime, and he had answers for the problems, which satisfied Dr Greene.

Theological Absurdities

In a private group communication, I had expressed my rejection of R' Avigdor Miller on the basis of having read a few pages of his book "Rejoice O Youth," at the recommendation of a Chasidic friend. R' Miller sets out to explain the young-earth anti-Darwin perspective as being the proper position for a Jew to hold. To do that, he says that you have to start from ground zero, assuming that scientists are insincere and lying.

Being related to many scientists, whose good-faith I take for granted regardless of their theology, and having some (minimal) science training, I was ready to throw the book across the room. But I just put it down (it not being mine), and decided I wasn't going to try R' Miller any more.

Someone responded that, to be fair, I should try to understand such positions, given that various major Talmidei Chachamim held them, such as R' Miller or the last Lubavitcher Rebbe.

I disagree. If Talmidei Chachomim held such positions, I have to believe it was based on one form or another of ignorance. Knowledge of Torah does not automatically confer expertise in non-Torah areas, nor does it confer the ability to judge among extra-Torah ideas. It does, however, confer a bias in favor of opinions expressed by other Torah scholars that may disagree with scholars in other fields, even where those opinions and fields may be orthogonal to Torah.

But a lot of these positions are absurd. They are logically inconsistent, and theologically difficult. We Jews don't say, Credo quia absurdum est, but we do say, the seal of God is Truth, which idea is derived from the final letters of bara Elokim et, the beginning of Creation. What God communicates to us, through Torah or the physical world, is Truth. And, as the Meiri and Rashi and other Rishonim say, if it's clear that the text cannot be literally true, there's still an allegorical Truth to it. Textual interpretation is malleable (up to a point); physical reality is real truth.

Young earth, the idea that the Universe is no more than 5770 (+162) years old, requires one to posit that not only are all scientists anti-religious liars, but that all science is wrong - even that which produces the life-saving medicine that cures your cellulitis infection, or strep infection, or metal poisoning, or which allows surgeons to stop your heart for some hours while they repair it, etc. It requires one to believe that God is lying to us through physical reality - that the Universe, that behaves as if it were older than 5800 years in factor after factor after factor, from radioisotopes to erosion to fossilization to species diversity, is a all a sham.

Now, for people who believe that the entire universe is just a figment of God's imagination, I can see that. One such system is the Lubavitch "upper unity", where all physical reality is just as much "God-stuff" as the soul or the Infinite Nothingness, but is masked (by itself) from being perceived by us (who are itself). But that way leads to logical absurdities too, in terms of "how do I know the universe wasn't created 5 minutes ago?" Answer: there's no way to tell, therefore, there's no evidence the Torah was ever given to us, and therefore Judaism is false from page one.

So I guess, to be charitable, we can attribute the Lubavitcher Rebbe's young-earthism to

1) a lack of scientific training (his engineering trade school, ESTP, today requires only one semester of physics, even less than I got and a lot less theologically problematic, at the undergrad level, than say biology or geology). I don't imagine he had even the equivalent of high-school biology in preparing himself for secular university studies.

2) a belief that the universe does not have real existence

3) faith in certain earlier sages, who knew even less about science than he did, but who adopted, unfortunately, an obscurantist approach to the new biology and geology of the 19th century. As opposed to, say, the Tiferes Yisroel, who managed to incorporate physical reality into his worldview.

Similarly, I had an encounter with R' Dr. J. Immanuel Schochet once, when he came to speak as a scholar-in-residence at my old synagogue in Park Slope. At the time, I was still trying to convince myself of the plausibility of a Divinely-originated (rather than human-originated) Oral Torah; I felt it was the last hurdle keeping me from calling myself "Orthodox."

I had been bothered by the argument that "the Oral Torah supports the authenticity of the Written Torah; the Written Torah supports the authenticity of the Oral Torah," and found an excuse to find out if he held that position. He did, and he and I argued fruitlessly for a while, my trying to get him to see that it was a circular argument, and in fact, he was just basing his belief on, well, belief. He could not see past his religious biases; his philosophic training (and philosophy almost always begins with Logic, be it from Aristotle or Quine) fell by the wayside in the face of a challenge to dogmatic Truth.

I'm not trying to davka pick on Lubavitch here, it's just that they put themselves and their beliefs up for public view and argumentation, in English, more than other groups.

So, like it or not, my most charitable, caf-zchus explanation for major Rabbinic figures believing things that seem absurd to me, is that they just don't know any better, and their priority being Torah, aren't actually all that interested, nor do they really have the time, to learn enough to know better.

R' Dr. Alan Brill, in one of his YU course tapes, notes that until the mid-19th century, when it became an issue for young-earth Christians, Torah scholars did not insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2. In fact, he gave a whole catalogue of allegorical explanations, by various Rishonim and Acharonim, and noted that (following Rashi) NOBODY took it literally until then. So in effect, it seems to me, insistence on a young Earth might be chukos hagoyim, and inconsistent with our Mesorah. Similarly, R' Hershel Billet has no problem with the various modern reconciliations of physical reality and Genesis on the age of the Universe.

Now, science is not without its dogmas, its paradigms, its blind spots either, as Thomas Kuhn explained so well in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. But as evidence builds up for new theories, it is not totally inflexible. Given sufficient evidence, scientists will change their minds to fit the better perception of reality. And scientists do have their biases for or against religion, which will affect the way they think.

An evolutionary biologist of long acquaintance, who is inclined towards atheism, while admitting that current theories of evolution do not adequately explain the diversity of species, is willing to wait for a naturalistic answer to be found, while I might take a God-of-the-gaps position, and say that God is directing evolution to produce Man and sufficient biota to support him, at this particular moment in geologic time.

For me, the Grand Canyon is evidence of God's hand in an old Earth - that the Canyon, and humanity, each exist in an eyeblink of geologic time; but He placed both of us on the Earth at the same time, giving us the sense of beauty and awe to appreciate His handiwork on the large scale.

Freilichen Shoeshine Pirim

This year for shalech mones, we gave out fruit, hamentashen and home-baked noodle kugels, with an ingredient list and disclaimer. Debbie is now a chef, so why shouldn't she make something nice?

We printed up little cards with a 17th-century painting, Esther and Ahasuerus by Bernardo Cavallino and the disclaimer for the kugel.

For Purim Torah, I handed around flyers of Gershon Rosenzweig's Midrash Esther, from his Talmud Yankee. Rosenzweig wrote a whole series of short Talmud parodies around the turn of the 20th century, many/most of which reflected the immigrant experience. E.g., Masechet America, Ch 2 Mishna 1: All are green[horns]. Whether a doctor or a tradesman, doesn't matter if you changed your name, your clothes, your language - you're still green.

Many of Rosenzweig's tractates are short, only 3-4 pages, which leads me to wonder if they were written to be handed out as Purim torahs with mishloach manot.

For more on Talmud parodies, see Parody in Jewish Literature, for extensive discussion of these and the various Purim tractates linked to by R' Brill.

And then we went to the City for the family Chanukah party. Well, for most of the last 80 years it was a Chanukah party, but for various reasons the last two years it has fallen on or near Purim.

Smiling through the tears

MUSICAL NOTE by Cantor Sherwood Goffin
MEGILLAT ESTHER - SMILING THROUGH OUR TEARS

The startling truth about about the music of the Purim Megillah is that almost half of its musical notes (tropes) are exactly the same as those of "Eicha" (Lamentations) that we read on Tisha B'Av!

This is not at all illogical when you consider that the story of Purim is the only book in the Bible canon that takes place exclusively in the Diaspora. As a Diaspora memoir, it speaks of Jews who have forgotten their religion and their Torah. It begins as they run with alacrity to eat non-Kosher food at the table of the king served in the very Holy Vessels that were stolen from the First Temple by Nebuchadnezzar. At this point, the melody changes to "Eicha" to indicate the history of those vessels.

This is only one of the numerous diversions from the music of the text, frequently using the "Eicha" melody or a joyous march-like chant. These diversions are just a reflection of the nature of Purim itself, where to be happy we have to drink significantly and wear masks, because it is difficult for a Jew to feel truly happy and free outside of Israel. However, we can still enjoy the melody and the variations in the Megillah as we rejoice in the salvation of the Jews of Shushan.

DAVEN WELL, DON'T TALK, BUT SING ALONG!

Yisborach in Kaddish

MUSICAL NOTE
by Cantor Sherwood Goffin
SAYING "YISBORACH' AFTER "Y'HEI SHMEI.." IN KADDISH

When the Chazzan recites the Kaddish, the primary goal of saying Kaddish is to "Sanctify the Name of G-d." This is accomplished by the congregation responding "Y'hei Shmei Rabbo M'vorach L'olam Ul'olmei Olmayo - May His Great Name be blessed forever and ever." This is called "Kiddush Hashem", "Sanctification of G-d's Name", and is the very reason why Kaddish is said in public by the Chazzan. The question often asked is: We know that there are some individuals who add "...Yisborach" in their response. Is this proper?

The Shulchan Aruch does suggest that "Yisborach" be added (O.C. 56:3). However, keeping in mind that the author of the Shulchan Aruch, Rabbi Yosef Caro (1488-1575 CE), was a Sfardi, it is understood that many of his customs quoted are those of Spain and the North African Jewish communities. Our communal Halachic guidelines stem from the Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles - 1520-1572 CE) who posits the customs of European Jewry in his glosses on the Shulchan Aruch. In this case, the East European community (of which we are the descendents) follows the later opinion of the Vilna Gaon (Gr"a) NOT to add the word "Yisborach." However, for those Ashkenazim that do say it, they do have a source on which they can rely - that of Rabbi Yosef Caro.

Whatever custom you follow, be aware that your recitation of "Y"hei shmei Rabbo...", in response to the Chazzan, is one of the most important obligations of every Jew - that of sanctifying G-d's name in every aspect and in every action of our lives as a Jew.

DAVEN WELL, DON'T TALK, BUT SING ALONG!

[From ThanBook: I've been to the Karlin-Stoliner shul in Boro Park, where they actually say from "Amen yehei shmeih..." all the way to "d'amiran b'alma", leaving the chazan to repeat everything and say "v'imru amein". To which they respond "Amein." Which to my ears sounds a bit odd, in that they just said it themselves, so what's the benefit in agreeing with themselves?]

Kavvanah - short talk

The Yavneh Minyan of Flatbush honored me [again? That trick never works!] (among 8 other baalei tefillah) at the shul dinner last night, so I gave the one-minute speech at the end of this. I had wanted to give the 3-minute version below:

What is Kavvanah:

Rambam:

ד,טו כוונת הלב כיצד: כל תפילה שאינה בכוונה, אינה תפילה; ואם התפלל בלא כוונה, חוזר ומתפלל בכוונה. מצא דעתו משובשת וליבו טרוד--אסור לו להתפלל, עד שתתיישב דעתו. לפיכך הבא מן הדרך, והוא עייף או מצר--אסור לו להתפלל, עד שתתיישב דעתו: אמרו חכמים, שלושה ימים, עד שינוח ותתקרר דעתו, ואחר כך יתפלל.

ד,טז כיצד היא הכוונה--שיפנה ליבו מכל המחשבות, ויראה עצמו כאילו הוא עומד לפני השכינה; לפיכך צריך לישב מעט קודם התפילה, כדי לכוון את ליבו, ואחר כך יתפלל, בנחת ובתחנונים. ולא יעשה תפילתו כמי שהיה נושא משאוי, משליכו והולך לו; לפיכך צריך לישב מעט אחר התפילה, ואחר כך ייפטר. חסידים הראשונים היו שוהין שעה קודם התפילה, ושעה אחר התפילה, ומאריכין בתפילה שעה.

Intention of the heart – how is it done? Every prayer without intent is not prayer, and if he prayed without intent, he repeats it with intent.

How does one intend? That he frees his heart from all [other] thoughts, and sees himself as if he were standing before the Divine Presence.

The problem of kavvanah: Nobody has it: Ymi Ber 2:4:

Rabbi Hiyya said, "I have never concentrated during prayer! Once, when I wanted to concentrate, I instead thought about who will meet the king first: the Arkafta [a Persian high official] or the Exilarch [the head of the Jewish community in Persia]?"

Shemuel said, "I count clouds [during prayer]".

Rabbi Bun bar Hiyya said, "I count the layers of stones in the wall [while I pray]."

Rabbi Matnaya said, "I am grateful to my head, because it bows by itself when I reach 'Modim'!"

The responsibility of the Shaliach Tzibur: Sherwood Goffin:

[W]hen [my rabbinic students] daven as the shaliach tzibbur, they have a very serious responsibility: Kavannah [Rambam Hilchot Tefillah 4:15] - the intense concentration and efficacy of the prayers of the congregation, coupled with the transmission of the timehonored and halachically-mandated musical nusach ha’tefillah handed down to us from generation to generation. Each individual sitting in shul is a direct responsibility of the shaliach tzibur (sha’tz) /chazan. “The way you daven”, I tell them, “is the way the tzibur will daven. If you daven with proper kavannah, and as correctly and beautifully as you are capable, the congregation will mirror your enthusiasm and daven with equal kavannah. If, God forbid, you daven with disinterest, with mumbling, with a lack of beauty and melody and a lack of nusach ha’tefillah, you will be responsible for the repercussions to the tzibur - their disinterest, their talking during davening (except for the incorrigible few) and their lack of kavannah.”

The answer: Seth Kadish, wrote a 600-page book on the subject, and, according to his brother, repudiated all the theories of Kavvanah in it. Kavvanah means, for him, that you concentrate on the meaning of what you’re saying, the words and the sentences and the paragraphs.. R’ Baruch Witkin is quoted online saying, "It doesn't matter so much whether you daven fast or slow, as long as it's not the same every single day."

The shaliach tzibur helps you see things differently than you might. The shatz also has to be sure to put himself into it, differently each time. Because you all pick up on that, and we live to serve. That’s why I’m glad to be a part of this company of shlichei tzibur, part of our shul’s deep pool of talent.

As given:

Kavvanah is prayer with intent. We all strive for it, we have trouble achieving it. The Sages of the Talmud had trouble achieving it, as it says in the Yerushalmi, this one counted the tiles on the ceiling, that one thought about the stock market (loosely). The job of a shaliach tzibur, in addition to repeating the prayers for those who don’t know them, is to musically interpret the words of the prayers, to inspire the tzibur to think about their prayers, to work with the tzibur such that he and they pray with kavvanah. It’s a cooperative effort. Intent grows through familiarity with the traditional modes of prayer, and through being wakened from repetitiveness, with Carlebach and contemporary tunes.

I am grateful that you have chosen to honor the shlichei tzibur of this synagogue. I feel humbled to be included among our deep pool of cantorial talent, men who know the ancient nusach hatefillah, as well as current tunes and modes of prayer. I thank my parents, who raised me with everpresent music, in the traditions of my father’s family, the Philharmonic Fishbergs, and even my father became an amateur cantor in his 60s. I thank my wife, who has always encouraged me to grow. And I thank you.

---

I was tempted to say, but good sense prevailed:

ככה יעשה לאיש אשר הציבור חפץ ביקרו

in the spirit of the forthcoming holiday.

Post-Orthodox: Th(ree) Visions

Post-Orthodoxy seems to be the hot buzzword of the moment, in Modern Orthodox blogger circles. There are now three rabbis online trying to define "Post-Orthodoxy" as a parallel to Post-Evangelicalism.

1) R' Gil Student, who started the effort to define it, plays the disingenuous card, claiming that it's just a sociological observation, Post Orthodox does not necessarily imply Non Orthodox, but here are a number of ideas which, if you hold a lot of them, would make you Post-Orthodox. Note that a lot of the ideas are themselves non-Orthodox, while others are themselves are perfectly normal ideas in Talmudic study (see my previous post); what unites them is Gil's unstated-but-real attempt to define a class of people who are no longer Orthodox because of the collection of ideas they hold. That is, it's an attempt to disenfranchise part of the left wing of modern Orthodoxy.

2) R' Jeffrey Woolf has been inching towards trying to define Post-Orthodox as a theological narrowness of vision, turning Judaism into soulless practices that may be solidly based on texts, but do not reflect the weight of Jewish tradition or a concern with using one's ritual observance as a tool with which to build a relationship with God. He thus applies it equally to Right and Left.

The Left creates practices that were never seen before, or at least not in recorded history, that are based in classic texts, that may feed the zeitgeist, but little thought is given to how they will increase people's attachment to Hashem and to traditional practice.

The Right, with its concentration on humra, also increases the punctilio of observance, but in so doing, they don't really pay attention to the classical vision of humra as a personal practice that increases one's attachment to Hashem and His Torah; and by drawing their theological boundaries ever narrower, their new text-based humra culture excludes many Rishonim and Acharonim from the pale of Orthodox belief.

3) R' Brill, who initially posted on Post-Evangelicalism, and speculated on whether there might be a Post-Orthodoxy parallel to it, strongly rejects Gil's idea that it should be the basis for creating a schism, and driving the out fringe of LWMO out of Orthodoxy. Not that he says so directly, of course. Rather, he defines Post-Orthodox narrowly, as a parallel to Post-Evangelicals, of people who self-defined as Orthodox, many of whom were in fact raised Orthodox, but chose it in adulthood as well, mostly in the 1970s through early 1980s, and then regretted their decision. So they left Orthodoxy, consciously, for whatever personal reasons, but continued to struggle with finding a religious identity.

R' Brill's primary example is Rebecca Goldstein, PhD, who wrote an autobiographical novel and a book about Spinoza. She chose Orthodoxy, lived in Orthodox towns (Teaneck and Highland Park), and then left. Her writing seethes with her continuing obsession with Orthodoxy, though.

So for R' Student, it's a way to disenfranchise a subgroup of Modern Orthodoxy, while claiming that Post-O is not necessarily Non-O. For R' Woolf, it's a symptom of the rise of textualism over mimeticism, and a drawing away from a concern with avodat Hashem. R' Woolf's Post-O are, apparently, still Orthodox, but not in modes based on tradition. R' Brill's Post-O are individuals, not a sociological subgroup, who have consciously left Orthodoxy after choosing to enter it. So for him, Jews can be Post-O only by virtue of having become Non-O.

Whose Vision Reigns Supreme?

Post-Orthodox or Pre-Orthodox?

Gil has a cute post (after Jeff Foxworthy) on "You might be Post-Orthodox if..." I suppose it's an attempt to answer his critics that find his use of the term "Post-Orthodox" dismissive (as in the PO are beyond the LWMO, and beyond the pale) yet vague (he doesn't really define what he means as "Post Orthodox" except in terms of "I know it when I see it."). But even this attempt at definition has its problems:

By Gil's standard, CHAZAL are Post-Orthodox.

I mean, look at how many of his statements don't agree with the Gemara:

1) they never heard of the Rambam's Thirteen Principles, certainly not as a standard by which to define heresy, and anyway, they have no problem with lots of ideas that Rambam objected to, like astrology, demons, amulets, etc. Not to mention the author of Yigdal, who leaves out the Fifth Ikkar. OK, that's post-Maimonidean, not Chazal, but still - he must have had a reason. Oh, right, Kallir - Machnisei Rachamim etc.

2) The Gemara itself posits that the last 8 or 12 verses were added by Yehoshua. One day post-Mosaic, a thousand years post-Mosaic, it seems all the same to you.

3) The Amoraim certainly distorted the views of the Tannaim - or why was there so much confusion what the Tannaim said that half the Gemara seems to be trying to work out what the Tannaim said and what they meant. What is "chasurei mechsera vehachi katani" in many cases but an addition of assumptions to the text that may not have been what the Tannaim meant?

4) The gemara itself disagrees with statements like "hilcheta gemiri leih" and "halacha ke-R' XXX". Despite later theorists like Rambam trying to put them up as undisputed conclusions.

As for other issues:

5-6 are part of "Open Orthodoxy" - why persist in using a pejorative term instead of the term they themselves use?

7) I don't know anybody who says that. Unless the professor is himself a rabbi, like R' Sperber, I suppose - in which case, it's a rabbi with an expanded education, like, I dunno, could be, THE RAV (YBS)??!!?

8) What is "accepted"? The whole EJF vs. Rabbi Angel thing shows that standards are changing and have changed in the not-so-distant past.

9) So do all the poskim who talk about "minhag shtus", or the Rav who talked about "stupidity".

10) This is not Post-Orthodoxy, it's naivete. I don't think even RAWeiss, who does talk about interfaith work, believes in it being "complete, unbounded."

11) They already are, in some shuls, with definitely non-"post-orthodox" rabbis. In many cases, the rabbis just don't know who they are. And there are different degrees of "out-ness" - to one's family, to one's friends, walking into shul carrying a sign that says "Ich bin ein Poofter". And what does "equal members" mean? Count for a minyan? Allowed to run for the board? Allowed to lead davening on weekdays? shabbos/yom tov? yamim noraim? lein"

I see here a lot of problems with definitions. And definitions that depend on undefined qualities are still pretty vague/subjective. I start to see what Russell/Wittgenstein were after.

12) "Practices"? "Some practices"? "All practices"? Again we return to Chazal, who did what they could to minimize discriminatory practices, between men & women, but like all of us, they were limited by the grundnorms of halacha. Which is exactly the bind that Orthodox Feminists find themselves in. So the feminism has to give, or else you're out of the system and out of the fold.

13) Again this is naivete, not post-Orthodoxy. If someone knows more, and has more followers, he's more authoritative. But if you feel you have good reason to follow someone who is rejected by others, like, say, the Lub Rebbe or RYBS or R' Kook, is that necessarily Post-Orthodox?

Judaism rises & falls on distinctions. The author is handicapping himself, and maybe consciously so to raise discussions, by being vague about what seem to be critical distinctions.

R' Dr. Jeff Woolf has a similar point-by-point response.

Ki Shem Hashem Ekra

MUSICAL NOTE

by Cantor Sherwood Goffin
Ki Shem Hashem Ekra

I have been asked why “Ki Shem Hashem Ekra” (Devarim 32:3) appears before “Hashem S’fatai Tiftach” at the start of the Amida only for Mincha and Musaf, but is not said for Shacharit or Ma'ariv. The simple answer is that it is because, in Shacharit and Ma'ariv, the blessing of “Gaal Yisrael” is said before the Amida. Since “Ki Shem” is not an integral part of the Amida as “Hashem S’fatai” is, to say “Ki Shem” would be an invalid interruption between “Gaal Yisrael“ and the Amida. However, in Musaf and Mincha, “Gaal Yisrael” is not present (Kaddish is said before the Amida). Therefore it is acceptable to say “Ki Shem” there.

The recitation of “Ki Shem” is found in the Machzor Vitri, the most influential predecessor to our siddur, but not in the siddurim of Rav Amram Gaon or Saadia Gaon. The Rambam omits both “Ki Shem” and “Hashem Sfatai.” Rambam is, however, the Sfardi Minhag, whereas Machzor Vitri is our Ashkenazic precursor, therefore we follow the latter. The words are a meaningful preamble to our tefillot: “When I call out the name of G-d, ascribe greatness to (Him)” – i.e.: acknowledge that His ways are just, His word is true and His prophesies of Redemption will come true. From this the Talmud decides that we should make a blessing before Torah study; the “Rabbosai N’vorech” before Bentching and “Baruch Shem Kavod” to be said after the utterance of G-d’s name in the Holy Temple.

DAVEN WELL, DON’T TALK, BUT SING ALONG!

Fast in Translation

Tomorrow is the 10^th of Tevet, which is a fast day. But did you know that yesterday, the 8^th of Tevet, was also a fast day? The oldest document of Chazal the Megillat Taanit (fast scroll), notes:

On the 8th of Tevet, the Torah was rendered into Greek during the days of King Ptolemy, and darkness descended upon the world for three days.'

The story is recounted in a couple of places, once in Megillah and once as a Braita in the minor tractate Soferim.

'King Ptolemy once gathered 72 Elders. He placed them in 72 chambers, each of them in a separate one, without revealing to them why they were summoned. He entered each one's room and said: 'Write for me the Torah of Moshe, your teacher.' God put it in the heart of each one to translate identically as all the others did' (Tractate Megillah 9[also Soferim 1:8 –jjb]).

(previous two translations from here)

The story is told of five elders who wrote the Torah in Greek for Ptolemy the king and the day was as bad for Israel as the day on which the Golden Calf was made because the Torah could not be accurately translated. (tr. mine; Sofrim 1:7)

We might suspect that these are two successive stories, that Ptolemy hired five sages to translate the Torah, but he suspected that they might be intentionally fooling him by mistranslating passages, so he then hired 72 more, and told them individually, out of hearing of the others, “Translate the Torah for me,” and by a miracle, all 72 came up with exactly the same set of 13 intentional mistranslations. What were the mistranslations? Clarifications, mostly: instead of “In the beginning created God __ the heavens and __ the earth”, they wrote “God created in the beginning…” lest the Greeks believe that there is another deity named “Bereshit” that created “Elokim.” Instead of “Let us make man in Our image”, they rendered it in the singular, lest Ptolemy think the Torah supported polytheism. [I used __ in place of the word "et", which is a particle indicating that the next word is a direct object -jjb]

We should consider the nature of translations.

First, every translation is an interpretation. Rabbi Sokol, when composing his brief dvar torah for the synagogue newsletter, was faced with the word “nivhalu”, describing the state of mind of the brothers when Yosef announced himself. How to translate it? Well, let’s look at how some popular translations render it.

• Aryeh Kaplan Living Torah: His brothers were so startled, they could not respond.
• Artscroll Stone Chumash: But his brothers could not answer him because they were left disconcerted before him.
• Old JPS: And his brethren could not answer him; for they were affrighted at his presence
• R’ Sokol: the brothers were so agitated, that they couldn't even respond.

Each of these has a different emotional content. Agitation is not quite the same as startlement, or fright. Not that any one is necessarily better or worse, but it may well depend on the writer. For more, see later.

2) Every translation is written for some audience and/or purpose. It may be written for a king, to keep Judaism tolerable in his eyes. It may be written for other Jews, to explain the Torah to a populace that has lost familiarity with Hebrew, or for introducing them to the local language. Letters may be translated to show the inner emotional states of a famous figure. And that agenda affects the way the ideas are rendered in the target language.

3) Every translation is written by people, who are affected by their personal experiences, and by their surrounding cultures, to have certain prejudices and biases. R’ Sokol recounts a conversation he had with Dr. David Berger, the noted historian and polemicist. R’ Berger had written a piece for an academic journal, and the editor asked him to revise the translations, such that some of the masculine words would become feminine. “But that’s the way the text is! That’s the way they wrote!” Dr Berger complained to R’ Sokol. Nevertheless, the politically correct editor insisted on changing the translation. The biases of a writer and an editor may be at loggerheads – is the text to be rendered accurately, or in tune with the zeitgeist?

4) Every translation limits the understanding of the text. We speak of the Torah as having 70 facets, but the translation locks it down to having one facet for the population who will be reading it. And that may be the reason for the three days of darkness. If the Torah is light, as the verse says, we were closing down the light, in limiting the reading to one perspective out of 70.

So the translation of the Torah was indeed a calamity for Israel, as not only foreigners, but Jews too would be reading it, and having their understanding of Torah shaped by it, rather than being allowed to roam through the breadth of rabbinic interpretation. It was a calamity indeed, if only because it raised one interpretation to an authoritative level.

(I forget how R’ Sokol concluded it – if LoZ or someone wants to fill in, please do).

This was R’ Sokol’s sermon for Vayigash, 26 Dec 09

Maoz Tzur Origins

Musical Note
by Cantor Sherwood Goffin
MAOZ TZUR ORIGINS

Each year we sing Maoz Tzur on Chanukah, but have little idea of its origins. The words were written by the 13th Century German "paytan" (poet), Mordechai ben Yitzchak Halevi. It was not originally written for Chanukah. The poem is an historical overview, originally in five paragraphs (the sixth is a later addition), referring to Pesach, Exile, Purim, and only the last mentions Chanukah.

The melody, which became popular among German Jewry in the 16th Century, is written in the German chorale style of the 15th/16th Century. It is first recorded as an old German folk song, "So Weiss ich", and was used as Martin Luther's first Protestant hymn, "Nun Freut Euch" in 1523. This is the origin of the suspicion that this is a "Christian" song. The middle section is thought to come from one of two old German songs, the 1504 "Benzenauer", or an earlier "Narrenweise" melody. "So Weiss ich" was already known to the Jews in Germany in 1450 and, therefore, may even have been composed by a Jew! In any case, we are still singing it and Lutherans are not. So enjoy the melody with your children, as tens of generations have done before you!

[Note: I used to sing Adon Olam to Greensleeves on occasion, but there was one Lubavitcher in the old shul who used to complain that I shouldn't use "that Christmas song." Except, well, Greensleeves was a secular song written by King Henry VIII (who was something of a Talmud scholar). The Christmas words to the same old tune were written in the 1890s. So using it for Adon Olam is just as [il-]legitimate. -jjb]

Hellenism in Jewish Palestine

(yes, I know it's the title of a book by Saul Lieberman. I only have the other one, "Greek in Jewish Palestine". I'd love to see what he says about this.)

Commenter Joseph Anonymous Kaplan wrote:

Chanuka now..how long did it take for greek philosophy to become part of "orthodox" Rabbinic Judaism?

Oh, that was very fast. The entire Talmud bears witness to the absorption of Greek philosophy and culture. The Seder is "how rich people ate"? It's modeled after a Greek Symposium, a dinner and educated debate, with all the forms - heseiba, bringing in the food on tabellach (as my gemara teacher called it in 12th grade when we did Arvei Psachim), discussion around the table on a set theme, heavy drinking (arba kosos), etc. Here's a picture that (except for the nakedness) perfectly illustrates the sort of meal described in the Gemara:

Second, the Socratic method, of picking at a concept to uncover the hidden bases and assumptions - this is the basis of Rabbinic debate in the Talmud, as well as of most legal education in America.

Third, while this took somewhat longer to come into Judaism, we have neo-Platonic emanationism which is parallel to, if not the source of (scholars are divided on this) the whole Kabbalistic creation and structure: the ten emanations that fill the pleroma or fullness, the space between God and the physical world, the totality of Divine powers. And in the war between Aristotelian rationalism and Platonic emanationism, it's quite clear - the emanationists, the neo-Platonists, have won.

The division in Kabbala between the unchanging Infinite, and the shifting and changing Sefiros which are the tools by which the universe was created, formed, emanated, made - this parallels Gnosticism, which was a Greek religion which was more or less created to be antisemitic, from what I can tell - where the transcendent Good God does not communicate with the world, but the world was created by the evil Demiurge, a lesser divine being, who actually communicates with the world.

No, there wasn't any widespread adoption of Greek philosophy per se, but of their methods, yes.

Although Rabbi Akiva does seem to speak of man created after an archetype, which is a central Platonic idea - that of abstract forms, the ideal Man vs. the real.

And (shades of the R' Svei zt"l and yblcht"a R' Lamm argument years ago) there does seem to be some parallel between Plato's parable of the cave, and R' Shimon's and R' Eliezer's behavior on coming out of the cave after 12 years - that having been inside the cave, they no longer know how to deal with reality. In fact, it seems so similar that it may be a re-telling, with some remapping of the concepts to fit Judaism and the reputation of Rashb"i.

Quite likely, Euclid's mathematics was relevant to "sod ha'ibbur" calendrical calculations; certainly the unnamed Peirush on Rambam's Hil. Kiddush haChodesh depends on geometry to explain the relative geocentric motions of Earth, Moon and Sun.

Other influences of Greek culture include the Greek bible; Rabban Gamliel's opinion that one can lein Megillah in Greek because the Greek language is equally holy as Hebrew; the adoption of Greek names into Hebrew (any number of people in the Talmud, such as Sumchus); etc.

Rabbi Ephraim Buchwald says, in his Chanukah lecture, "we are all Hellenists" in that we all benefit from, and incorporate ourselves in, modern society, in various ways and to various degrees. None of us reject modern secular American or European society totally.

You can take the boy out of the Bible Belt...

Commenting on the previous post, Mississippi Fred McDowell wrote:

The same tale is told all over the world, where modern European civilization collided with traditional cultures. Indeed, the fact that you are now typing and probably thinking in English means that some form of compromise with modernity was eventually achieved, but not without much growing pains and casualties along the way. The idea that in Germany it could have been resisted entirely by not giving in to any of modernity's temptations is nice, but it would have resulted in a handful of hardline rabbis without a flock, as such a position would not have taken into account the realities and tempermants of German Jews, who were indeed ready for and on the cusp of speaking in German and the like. They were, in fact, chaleshing for it, and it would have happened with or without Mendelssohn, only perhaps without him it would have taken on the form of total apostasy. Or not; I could be wrong. But the point is that modernity itself was a powerful force seducing away from traditional religion.

Could a Lubavitcher have the perspective to sit back and realize, "it wasn't Mendelssohn it was modernity?" For them, the Rebbe said it, no matter how based in polemical distortions of a century earlier, therefore it's gospel truth. Literally. Because their Rebbes are Tzaddikim as described by the Tanya, and thus embody God's will in this world.

The anonymous commenter in the previous post cannot admit the Rebbe was wrong in attributing "Jew in the home, man in the street" to a man who lived his life as "Jew in the home, Jew in the street, Jew in the courts of kings and scholars." There is a letter where Mendelssohn notes that he had to refuse the wine of a nobleman because of stam yeinam. He wrote "Jerusalem" to defend the Jews in the public sphere. He wrote peirushim on the Chumash and the Rambam to make Judaism remain palatable to those affected by modernity.

(Well, there's some debate as to what extent that was the motivation for the German translation, and to what extent he wanted the Jews to be able to speak clear German, as they were already moving into outer society. There are two letters with contradictory ideas: that he wanted to make the Torah palatable to Germanized Jews, and that he wanted to make German palatable to Torah Jews. In either case, he did want to make sure that Torah remained compatible with Germanized Judaism.)

There is a commenter on some of the J-blogs, whom I know IRL. He lives entirely in the modern world, doesn't consider himself a chasid Chabad, but cannot escape the attitudes and ideas about history and relationships among Jewish groups inculcated by his Lubavitch upbringing.

This is hardly an issue limited to Lubavitchers, of course. I took a course on Islam in college, taught by a Muslim academic. He had no end of frustration with the orthodox Muslim students in his class (he was one himself). He required the students to step back and be able to look at Islam and its history as an outsider, without the prejudices of the believer. The students should be able to step out of themselves, but these students, for the most part, could not.

It may be easier for me, having been an outsider all my life. I was raised non0bservant, although my parents have since grown in observance as well. But they sent me to Ramaz, and we went to Lincoln Square Synagogue, because R' Riskin was more accepting of children than R' Miller at the SAJ, where we had been until 1973 or so. So wherever I go in the Jewish world, it's with the experience of not having come to it natively.