28 Dec 2008

I am going to faint

I’m here in University of Warwick for Limmud’s Winter conference and I have a smile as wide as my face and I haven’t even done anything yet. Just the atmosphere. You can breathe it; sense it; live it. Already in 10 minutes, I have seen old grannies, long bearded rabbis, secular women, young families, knitted kippot galore, lots of people I know, hundred I don’t, Muslims, doughnuts, a 10 year old volunteer, a massive chanukiah, people helping out, everyone smiling, everyone ready to learn. Breathe Neil, Breathe

I have just put my stuff down in some university Halls of Residence and this is what it should have felt like to be at university. A culture of everyone together, everyone different, everyone wanting to learn.

My problem will be in deciding what to do. There are 5 days with about 10 time-slots per day. Some timeslots have over 30 things happening at once to choose from. In half an hours time- in just one slot- there are the following to choose from:

· Elijah, the Wandering Jew
· Homeopathy-Jewish Roots
· The State of the Nation- Israel Politics and Diplomacy: What’s on the agenda for 2009?
· Next year where? Thinking about Jewish Future
· Eros and the Jews
· A Tour of Tehillim
· Traditional Jewish Paper Cuts
· Gender and Religious Identity in Orthodox Popular Music
· Limmud South Africa: Democratising a community?
· The First Timers Guide to Limmud
· Introduction to Young Limmud
· How to change the world in three easy steps
· Self, Other Text, G-d: Dialogical Philosophy from Rosenzweig to Levinas
· Can Halacha make sense? Beyond formalism, postmodernism, historicism and sociologism
· The Psychological Significance of Mezuzah: Symbol or Superstition?
· Mass Communication and the Transformation of Contemporary Democracies
· Songwriting and Music Sharing Workshop
· Jewish Magic, Magical Judaism
· Write Reaction to Limmud
· How does a Jew say ‘I’m sorry’?
· A Jewish Lobby in the UK?

All in one session, and most happening only once, and more than one I want to do. Really, I should go to the intro session to Limmud so that I know what the hell is going on. But I can’t, and won’t. Too much to do! I have 25 minutes to choose and get there. Stressful and exciting all in once.

27 Dec 2008

The day that Hamas won

I

Today Hamas has got what it wanted. Today it has celebrated yet another victory. Having riled Israel, committed thousands of unforgivable acts and mobilised world opinion against Israel, it has got Israel to perform an immoral act. Providing no avenue for any constructive solutions to the situation, Hamas have called Israel’s “What else can we do?” card into play to justify something that couldn’t otherwise be justified.

To come from Shabbat to find out that Israel has conducted massive air raids on Gaza and have killed over 200 people is quite frankly sickening. 200 people dead. Forget the rhetoric for a minute, forget who is in the right or in the wrong and forget the situation. Were Israel 100% in the right and it 100% necessary (which it was not), there would be no other reaction one should have apart from desolation. If in Judaism we are taught not to rejoice over the downfall of our enemies, how much more so if innocent civilians have been killed?

It must never be forgotten that hundreds and thousands of rockets have been fired into Israel. Israel must never apologise for the residents of Sderot being well drilled in what to do in an emergency, bomb shelters being effective, or Kassam rockets being crap. Israelis and Zionists must always prefer less people to be killed and have less popularity rather than vice versa. Israel must ALWAYS believe it has a right to exist and never be downhearted or think twice. This is not a numbers game and ‘amount dead’ on each side does not equate to the morality of one’s position.

Yet.... Yet... we must never be desensitized to the amount of pain, hurt and anguish caused to the Palestinians through the death of thousands of them over the years. We must never be deaf to the cries of mothers who have lost their children. Suffering is no one nation’s province. Hurt goes beyond ideology, politics or religion. Tears are a universal language. Israel should never forget this and should never perform an action they know to unnecessarily increase this.
They seem to have forgotten this. Bombing in heavily built-up areas isn’t the most targeted thing one can do, now is it? And for what tangible benefit? For Israel to perform an action that they know will cause so much ‘collateral damage’ (which human life SHOULD NEVER BE) is not something to be criticised heavily.

II

What pains me as a human being, also pains me as a Zionist. Jews and Zionists have already responded by saying “....but what else can Israel do about Hamas?”; “... maybe it is wrong but you can understand why Israel felt it had to do it” and “Don’t you know what Hamas do?”. Yes I do understand and I do know. I said so above. And? What has this to do with the morality of this action? This pains me because we are reducing ourselves to the scum-bag moral level that so-called supporters of the Palestinians show.

People like ‘Baroness Tonge’ understand Palestinian suicide bombers, groups like Jews for Justice for the Palestinians continually point out the ‘oppression’ of the Israelis, and terrorists ask “what else can we do?” The only question we have to ask about suicide bombing is whether it is anything but morally outrageous. Once we know it is, no amount of understanding can serve as a justification for their actions. When Zionists start to use their arguments and we have descended to their moral level, we know we have a problem.

There is a moral disease spreading round the globe. The ‘liberal left’ seem to be infected, the condition in the Arab world seems terminal and I really hope and pray that we are just suffering a bout of illness that will clear up. Where the dignity of human life is sacrificed on the altar of political expediency, someone’s moral condition is at critical.

III

Israel’s actions are frankly what Hamas wants. They are a group that simultaneously spread and feed on this disease. They don’t care about the lives of the Palestinians, one iota. The more Palestinians killed, the more grist to their mill. The worse their lives, the more supporters they have. The more they can provoke Israel, the more hate they can create. They have learnt that terrorism works. TERRORISM ABSOLUTELY BLOODY WORKS.

It doesn’t work in the sense of helping anyone but works in the sense of fulfilling their aims. It works in convincing people of the essential rightness of a position that is essentially wrong. Where the ‘rightness’ of your position is more important to you than human suffering, then they have a great strategy. They can do absolutely anything and get away with it, knowing that they can always lay the blame elsewhere. They don’t have to take moral responsibility for their actions because they were forced into it by “external conditions”. Say it enough and people believe you. Be consistent in your evil and people will understand you. Mobilise everyone on your side and make your enemy think the same way.

IV

Israel try to do the right thing, they get blamed. They try to be PR friendly, they fail. They try to get help from other countries to sort out the terrorists, none is forthcoming. They have a free press and independent judiciary, the world turns it against them. They try their war criminals and their corrupt politicians, they are made out to be nothing but corrupt and criminal. They try for a two-state solution, Palestinians demand its destruction. They try and sort out terrorism themselves, they get mulled. And so on and so on and so on.

EVERYTHING ISRAEL DOES IS ‘WRONG’, SO WHY BE RIGHT? Just as Hamas can do anything and be liked, Israel can do everything short of failing to exist and be hated. Israel’s moral standards do not lead to a moral solution. They will simultaneously get attacked and be blamed for it. The double standards of the international community mean that people will never accept a secure Israel that is able to defend its citizens. This leads to the paradoxical position (to the glee of Hamas) that far from international opinion constraining Israel, it releases them. If they’ll be blamed no matter what, what does is matter to the Israeli government whether they do this or that?

Why risk a targeted ground attack risking Israeli soldiers when you can air bomb the targets? Why warn people in Lebanon that they will be bombed if Hezbollah will intentionally put citizens in just those places? Why allow easy access of supplied to Gaza when they will just use it to transport bombs? Why sit back and let your citizens be bombed by Kassams when you take actions accident. Because the result will be the same- Israel will be ‘in the wrong’ according to international. So Israel might as well do whatever is best for their position, the position we know to be a valuable one, no? NO. ABSO-BLOODY-LUTELY-NOT.

AND I WILL TELL YOU WHY. It is immoral to not allow people humanitarian aid, immoral to endanger innocent lives unnecessarily and immoral to do things which you could not otherwise justify. “What else can we do?” does not overturn a moral decision. It is not a justification. That is Hamas’ position. IT IS THEIR DISEASE. Advancing the ‘right’ position (whether right or otherwise) does not, in an individual moral decision, trump the dignity and infinite value of human life.

I don’t give a flying f*** about world opinion (or at least I should not) but as a human, I care about life and as a Zionist, I care is about the moral integrity of Israel. Let us not be morally debased and stand against wrong wherever it can be found. If, on the other hand, we take Hamas’ position and do whatever they want, then we not only confirm their position to the world but in our own souls

V

At the beginning of last year, Akram, the head of PSG and a co-founder of Leeds Shalom-Salaam told me that Palestinians just want to get on with their everyday lives, want to go to work, and want to raise their families. This, he said, trumps ideology. As a Palestinian himself, I very much wanted to believe him. I still have to have faith that this is true of most Palestinians, but the actions of groups like Hamas and PSG (on Leeds campus and elsewhere) seriously undermine that. If their intentions are good, their actions betray them.

Golda Meir once said, “We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us”. Unfortunately, this is not yet true. Or if it is, and Akram is right, then Hamas have helped spread the disease to me and undermined my ability to see the good in the other side. I must, at least, make sure that our side stays good. Actions, like today’s, make me lose faith. They make me hate Hamas and despair of Israel. They make me see black.

Tonight, we must pray for the Palestinians who have lost their life. We must reaffirm our morality and say that human life is infinite. We must help Israel remain morally strong and a blessing in the world. We must strengthen our resolve to see a solution to this conflict that aids every person’s dignity. We must leave vengeance of our enemies to G-d and not take it upon ourselves. We must weep the tears of others.

23 Nov 2008

Brown's tax cuts: you what?

I don't know a thing about economics- and I'm severely under the impression that people talked themselves into an economic crisis- so I shall keep this short. As I understand, Brown wants to cut certain taxes without any means of paying for them and increase government borrowing. In other words, more spending and less income. This - supposedly- is meant to 'boost the economy'.

Wait a minute..... wasn't part of the reason we are in this crisis because people borrowed more than they could afford? Wasn't it the lack of common sense forgetting that you shouldn't spend more than you have? If this is right, I'm not sure the thinking behind the idea. Doesn't the same 'common sense' apply to countries as much as to people? Why get the country into debt?

And for what? £120 a year! This may be very middle-class of me but £120 isn't going to change the world for the individual but a lot of £120 is a massive amount for the country.

But this is presumably my ignorance

18 Nov 2008

Do you sense that Orthodox Jewish life is...

Do you sense that Orthodox Jewish life is:
  • narrowing its intellectual horizons?
  • adopting ever more extreme halakhic positions?
  • encouraging undue conformity in dress, behavior and thought?
  • fostering an authoritarian system that restricts creative and independent thinking?
  • growing more insulated from non-Orthodox Jews and from society in general?

Do you think that Orthodox Jewish life should be:

  • intellectually alive, creative, inclusive?
  • open to responsible discussion and diverse opinions?
  • active in the general Jewish community, and in society as a whole?
  • engaged in serious and sophisticated Jewish education for children and adults?
  • committed to addressing the halakhic and philosophic problems of our times, drawing on the wisdom and experience of diverse Jewish communities throughout history?

------

The latter is the aim of http://www.jewishideas.org/- a website and journal set up by Rabbi Marc D. Angel. Rabbi Angel is an ex-president of Rabbinical Council America; the largest group of Orthodox rabbis in the States. Thanks to Zak for pointing this out to me as this website is full of interesting articles.

I wouldn't agree with many of the people who write articles for this website. Most of them are part of the 'YCT' crowd. YCT (Yeshivat Chovevei Torah) is a very crusading Modern Orthodox yeshiva, which is to the 'left' of Yeshiva University (YU- the flagship Modern Orthodox institution). The perception is that over the years YU has undergone a 'slide to the right' and becoming ever-more chareidi. Halakha has got far more stringent with historically unfounded and unwarranted stringencies becoming the norm. Intellectual thought has been stifled with the 'Artscroll revolution' taking hold there and censoring a whole part of our mesorah. In other words, Modern Orthodoxy is dying and they are there to reinstate it. Whilst I agree in principle, many of their halachic innovations are very radical and avant-garde!

However, a lot of what they say makes sense- especially stuff on conversion. Where conversions (e.g. done by religious zionist, R' Haim Druckman) are being retroactively annuled causing many more violations of halacha than they solve; where in England you have to live in London or Manchester otherwise you are not allowed to convert even if you are going to be fully observant elsewhere; where in America, new Rabbinical Council of America unnecessarily strict guidelines have come out which tie you to a particular routine (nothing to do with halacha itself) for years with the fear that if you don't, your conversion won't count..... a sea-change needs to happen.

Modern Orthodox Jews are being pulled into the model of the 'saved' and the 'damned' with halacha being paskened in such a way that it only applies to a small sect--- with you only being able to convert if you join this sect. And all this on a false view about the halachot of conversion and what it is for a convert to 'accept upon himself the mitzvot'.

But I'll let you read all about that!

27 Sept 2008

How frum are you, really? Quiz

Fuuny quiz. Written by Yossi Ginzberg seen on www.haemtza.blogspot.com
---

Answer the following questions as best you can. I know that none of the answers will be exactly right for you, because you are so very complicated that no one really understands you, but select the one that is closest to your beliefs.

1) Imagine this scenario: In the course of your work, you find that another “frum” employee is taking large sums from the company, in the process depleting a pension fund so that dozens of lower-level laborers at another site (probably all non-Jews) will be cheated of their retirement funds. What do you do?

A) Ask him for a percentage, implying that if he doesn’t cut you in you’ll tell.
B) Nothing, because taking money would be abetting the theft and telling on him would be mesirah.
C) Tell him to stop stealing and to return what he took.
D) Call the police and/ or the company security force.

2) Your boss, seeing that all 8 days of Chanuka are marked in red on the calendar, asks you if you need all the days off, or just the first two and last two. What do you reply?

A) You tell him you also need a day before and a day after, to set up the Menorah and take it down.
B) Yes, you need all 8 days off
C) Only the first and last days.
D) You tell him the truth, that work is unaffected.

3) A close relative is seriously ill, and you really want to help. What do you do?

A) You fly to a famous Eastern European cemetery, where you recite a prayer.
B) You have a prayer said in the synagogue the next time you are there.
C) You recite Psalms at home.
D) You recite Psalms and give charity.

4) In selecting a bride for your son, how much of a role does her parent’s wealth play?

A) Hugely important, I am tired of supporting him.
B) Hugely important, my son is too learned to have to worry about money.
C) If they have money, it means they are smart, and I want a girl with good genes.
D) More important is how they got the money: is the money kosher?

5) In checking out a potential shidduch, which of the following is a deal-breaker? (Select only the most important, if several qualify)

A) The boy/ girl has been in trouble with the police over drugs & alcohol
B) The family has a history of relatives in jail.
C) The family eats “gebrokts” on Passover.
D) The potential groom/ bride is overweight .

6) If your plumber is known to be refusing to give his wife a “Get”, and your dishwasher isn’t working, what do you do?

A) Call him anyway, since it is impossible to live without a dishwasher.
B) Hire a cleaning lady until you get a number for another “heimishe” plumber.
C) Call a different plumber from the Yellow Pages.
D) Call him, tell him why you are not using him, and call a different plumber from the Yellow Pages

7) Your young child tells you that his Yeshiva is cheating, taking government funding that it isn’t entitled to by inflating attendance figures. He thinks it’s all good fun. What do you do?

A) Ask for a discount on your tuition.
B) Nothing, the Rosh yeshiva is a Godol, and if he does it, it must be okay.
C) Spread the news around in shul.
D) Protest formally to the yeshiva, and take your child out, explaining why.

8) You are down to your last money for the month, there are still four tzedaka appeals in front of you, and you can only respond to one. Which do you send to?

A) Pidyon Shevuyim for a Satmar in jail for beating up an anti-Zalman.
B) Pidyon Shevuyim for a nursing-home crook, a Talmid Chochom caught faking mortgages, or a frum smuggler who “didn’t know”.
C) Kupath Ha’ir, despite their inane ads
D) Your local needy person and/or shul.

9) How do you fulfill the custom of “Kaporos”?

A) I go to the closest place that has live chickens. Period.
B) I use live chickens, but only if they don’t look like they are being abused.
C) I do what my neighbors do, and that’s good enough.
D) I use money only.

10) I skip my evening Daf Yomi when…

A)… Only when my wife won’t find out
B)…..I can find an excuse.
C) . .. I am tired
D) …I need a break.

11) In making a simcha, the following is NOT a factor at all:

A) Money
B) What the “machatonim” want
C) What the kids want
D) What others think

12) My reaction, when I see headlines accusing a religious man of criminality, is:

A) To accuse the media of being anti-Semites.
B) To judge him innocent, period.
C) To judge him innocent until proven guilty.
D) To be ashamed.

13) I drink only Chalav Yisroel…

A) When anyone is looking
B) Always
C) Unless I’m out of town
D) Except for ice cream and candy bars.

14) Shtreimels are…

A) As important as anything else in the Torah
B) Almost as important as anything else in the Torah
C) Optional
D) Too hot to wear in the summer

15) My wife’s hair covering must be…
A) All of it, all the time, double-wrapped.
B) Sheitel, snood, I don’t care as long as it’s covered
C) Whatever, as long as she’s still attractive
D) Basically covered, but it’s really her decision

16) Shabbos meals must be…

A) Precisely the same menu, 52 weeks a year, because it’s holy
B) Absolutely must have at least fish, chicken, kugel and chulent
C) Can vary a little bit, if the Mrs wants
D) Must be inviting to those eating them.

17) After the “Motzi” blessing, I cut the Challah, and then...

A) Handle each piece, dipping it in salt and handing them out
B) The law says to dip it in salt, so I dip it, of course!
C) Realize that salt shakers are a recent invention, as is hygiene
D) Just cut them and pass them around on a plate with the salt shaker

Chai) On Rosh Hashana, the following is on my table:

A) Honey, a dozen fruits whose names I don’t know, and a big animal head
B) Honey, some fruits, and I have no idea why
C) Honey, a pomegranate, and some odd fruit for a shehechyanu blessing
D) Honey, a pomegranate, and a printed guide from a charity that lists customs I can make fun of.

How to score your results:
For every A answer, add one point.
For every B answer, add two points.
For every C answer, add three points
For every D answer, add four points

Add the numbers together to get a total

If your total is:

18 or 19 You should not be reading this, you should be on Yeshiva World or Vos Iz Neiz writing nasty bigoted comments in broken English and in all caps. Also, you need to shower more frequently. Even if they didn’t in the old country.

20 to 36 You are badly in need of continuing education in Judaism’s core values, ethics, and basic morality. Also, you should brush your hat.

37 to 50 You aren’t as closed-minded as some, but you are still far from being a complete human being. You need to learn more about Halacha and about Jewish values.

51 to 65 Mazel Tov, pat yourself on the back, you’re several steps above a Neanderthal. At least you understood all the words here, and most likely feel entitled to act really superior now that you have proven that you are too smart to read the Jewish Press anymore. Still, don’t get too snooty since you actually did demean yourself by taking this quiz.

66 to … Have you already calculated what the highest score could be? I thought so. I also think that you probably cheated a little, choosing answers for point value more than for veracity. So, you’re a top scorer, you think that makes you a mensch? It doesn’t, since you have already betrayed insecurity in your religious values by taking this dumb test. Get with the program- the real program- and start learning so you can help rescue the ignorant from sinking into the morass of ignorance and superstition that is overtaking Orthodox Judaism.

20 Sept 2008

Three year old save his mothers life

This is a beautiful story and has really made my night! (How sad am I?)

A woman had an epileptic fit and her three year old son phoned 999 to tell them his mum was ill and his dad was out. The battery on the phone ran out before he could tell them much, so he found another phone and rang back.

Inspector Ormiston said:


Without doubt, young Jack has saved his mum's life. For such a young boy to have the presence of mind to not only phone 999, but to phone us on another mobile phone after the battery had run down, is phenomenal.

Here Here!

(And for a change in the mood, I'm off to choral selichot)

19 Sept 2008

R' Hirsch against Kabbalah

I was reminded of these quotes by a conversation I had yesterday (you know who you are!).

The good Kantian that Hirsch was he could never accept all these other world that Jewish mystics dream up, to escape to.



What should have been eternal, progressive development was considered a stationary mechanism and the inner significance and concept thereof as extra-mundane dream worlds. . . Practical Judaism which comprehended in its purity, would perhaps have been impregnated with the spiritual became in it, through misconception, a magical mechanism, a means of influencing or resisting theosophic worlds and anti-worlds (N.L., p. 187).

Oh, but for those extra-mundane dream worlds! I must say, I can't be against them as much as R' Hirsch albeit that my sentiments being rather the same. In fact, I'm always quite clear the problem is not with kabbalistic, mystical or chassidic ideas themselves. Then again, maybe it is with those, but not against the sources and beliefs they derive from. The problem is when these original beliefs are taken out of context and turned into something quite alien. They are shorn free of their halachic or aggadic context and made into pseudo-philosophical beliefs. Same words, different beliefs. But anyway, the point is that 'in their place' they... well.. have a place.

The problem that I do have with these beliefs, in common with R' Hirsch, is not simply theory but how it affects the Jewish attitude to the to man, to the world, to G-d and thus, to our task:

A perverted intellect comprehended the institutions which were designed and ordained for the internal and external purification and betterment of man as mechanical, dynamical, or magical formulas for the up-building of higher worlds, and . . . thus the observances meant for the education of the spirit to a nobler life were but too frequently degraded into mere amuletic or talismanic performances (N.L., pp. 9-100).

Kabbalistic views of other worlds, as expounded through current Chassidic and Charedi Judaism, takes away from Halachic Judaism. This is not to say practically, because shemura matzot and all, mystics tend to be extremely strict in halacha (or at least ritualistic elements anyway). They do the acts, as R' Hirsch says above, but what is the quality of the acts? Halachic Judaism frames our attitudes and world-view in a particular way. Now, in this, sense Kabbalah often leads away from what Halachic Judaism teaches us is the main focal point of G-d's will for us: THIS WORLD. As R' Wurzburger (tzatzal) says:


Since, according to Halakhic Judaism, it is our task to seek to encounter God’s presence primarily in the lower realms of being (ikkar shekhinah ba-tahtonim), we must not escape from this world by a flight into transcendental spheres. The human task is to create an abode for God in the here-and-now

Thinking of mitzvot in terms 'other worlds' makes them 'mere amuletic or talismanic performances'; perhaps ways to get our seventy virgins in heaven!

14 Sept 2008

Proof that man evolved from fish...


OLD WOMAN

BLOB FISH (Psychrolutes marcidus)

That is what I call incontrovertbile proof. Suck on that toothless creatures.

4 Aug 2008

Why did so few Talmudic rabbis win the Nobel Prize for Literature?

....apart from of course it wasn't around. But that's a minor point I believe (c.f. the Midrash on Tractate Nobelim)

In English at school they always told you to describe things so you could imagine them. Build up the characters. Set the scene. Have long-winded, really annoying, irrelevant descriptions about stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Okay, so they didn't say the last one but that was the (esoteric) ikkar. That's why I never read much, the literature was too "good" (and by "good" read snotty, pretentious, A* at English). No, I always preferred a book to have a plot, at least of sorts. So that counts out Catch 22: I struggled on to page 150 and there was not a single thing that had happened. Honest! It's through action and dialogue that you really learn about character, not through telling me about character.

The Rabbis in the Talmud, on the other hand, well.... they weren't French existentialists or self-styled radical philosophers; let's put it that way. Not really an artistic bone in their body. They go for the main plot elements, and the main plot elements only. The extreme opposite of Catch 22, and perhaps too much the opposite.

The following story made me laugh. It follows from a discussion about how long men can be away from home (studying) and away from their wives without permission. The halacha according to mishna and Palestinian Talmud is 30 days without exception (and then should stay at least one, probably two months at home). The Babylonian Talmud, however, goes to great lengths, presumably to justify existing practice, and relies on a minority opinion of (guess who?) Rabbi Eliezer which allows them to go away for 'two or three' (Talmudic for 'a few'). However, it is still not 'correct behaviour' to ignore your wife (!) as the following story makes clear:

Rav Rehume would regularly visit his wife every year on the Eve of Yom Kippur. One day, his studies absorbed him. His wife was waiting, "Now he will come, Now he will come". He did not come. She became upset, and a tear fell from her eye. He was sitting on the roof. The roof collapsed under him, and he died

The main story arc:

SHE THOUGHT HE'D COME

HE DIDN'T COME

SHE WAS UPSET

HE DIED

Get it? GET IT? You ignore your wife, YOU DIE. She cries, YOU DIE. (If you are going to study on roof, and you haven't had a civil engineer in, YOU DIE.) GET IT?.

Now of course there is a bit of irony which ups the literature points a bit. Clearly he didn't study too far away as otherwise a day engrossed in study wouldn't have stopped him getting home. Even so, he missed his 'regular' yearly visit. YOU DIE

There is a bit of emotion. The heart rendering moment, a rabbinical extravagance, when 'a tear fell from her eye'; I was almost in tears. THE DESPERATION... and moving on...YOU DIE (probably helped the wife).

But all in all, it's to the point. Not going to win a Nobel Prize. Zero marks for subtlety. But it's too the point. And more happens here than in the whole of 'Ushpizin'. You can't say fairer than that

26 Jun 2008

Kiruv proofs: Rambam and Rav Hirsch speak out

Rambam, the master of criticism, speaks out against the popular theologians of his day, the so called defenders of the faith.  He criticises the Mutakallemim and the method of the Kalam philosophy.  These are mostly 'Mohammadean' but was very worried about the rise of such philosophy 'amongst our co-religionists'.  He thinks the right way to respond to such people  is to say to them: "'Will you mock at Him, as you mock at man?' for their words are indeed nothing but mockery."  These are the people who in trying to bolster religion bring all sorts of 'proofs' to demonstrate the fundamentals of our faith. 

 

In the specific case I will draw from here they try to prove that the world was created (sound familiar?).  He says that "all the proofs of creation have weak points, and cannot be considered as convincing except by those who do not know the difference between a proof, a dialectical argument, and a sophism".  [Proof of the soul kind of misses the point of why we hold the belief, don't they?; it is not something that simply 'is' but something we are called on to be]. In all cases the proofs are "questionable because propositions have been employed that have never been proved".  [As you know, 600,000 people couldn't have lied about the revelation, but on whose authority do we accept that there were that many people? The thing whose very truth we are trying to establish?]  The mistaken tactics of these mediaeval kiruv workers include  mistaking the imaginable for the possible. [Of course one can imagine that G-d created the fossils a few thousand years ago, but really? Really really?]

 

But hey, what's the problem?  If people end up believing the right things, who care about the method they get there?  Turn a blind eye.  They have grown up 'children of the gentiles' .   They want proofs, give them proofs.  But Rambam very well sums up the danger of such an approach:

 

I will not deceive myself, and consider dialectical methods as proof; and the fact that such a proposition has been proved by a dialectical argument will never induce me to accept that proposition, but, on the contrary, will weaken my faith in it and cause me to doubt it.  For when we understand the fallacy of a proof, our faith in the proposition itself is shaken.  It is therefore better that a proposition which cannot be demonstrated be received as an axiom, or that one of the two opposite solutions be accepted on authority

A proof is not only not possible but undesirable!  Here he is not criticising 'dialectical arguments'.  These are the kind of arguments that help you 'see' the world in one way rather than other [the glasses through which the world is seen in correct focus].  Ultimately proofs where there is none, will lead to the destruction of the basic axioms of Jewish belief.  It will fundamentally misunderstand what they are.  These are the principles by which we understand everything else.  Why put forward a fallacious argument that in the end leads to doubt about the very propositions we are trying to protect?  Rambam saw it as a major task to bring down such proofs along with the proofs of the alternatives (in this case the eternity of the world).  Both fundamentally misunderstand the role of such doctrines.

 

As ever, R' Hirsch puts the points beautifully:

 

What is the use of torturing the youthful mind with "proofs" of the existence of G-d... and the rest of what is called rational religion or rational theology?  In reality the maturest mind of a philosopher knows no more about the essence of G-d than the simple mind of the child; nor is it necessary for the moral behaviour of man in this world to know more than the Torah tells us about G-d.  It is not the longing for the world beyond which is the essence of Jewish piety; it is.... to use all the material and spiritual means at our disposal for the noble and enobling purpose of the great edifice of mankind which G-d wants to erect from the generations of the human family.

 

The 'knowledge' of G-d that the Torah gives us isn't the kind of knowledge which waits approval by proof or evidence.  Nor is it the kind we would expect to be.  Is creation simply teaching us some lame 'fact' about how old the world happens to be?  Have those master theologians happened to stumble upon and discover that we are made of a 'spiritual substance' which all those ignoramuses have somehow happened to miss?  A* for your history lesson about that little rock in the middle of the Sinai dessert.  No these aren't facts awaiting discovery but the very starting point of our search:

 

The basis of your knowledge of G-d does not rest on belief, which can, after all, allow us an element of doubt... [The] fundamental truths accordingly are completely out of the realm of the mere believing or thinking and are irrefutable facts which must serve as the starting point of all our other knowledge with the same certainty as our own existence and the existence of the material world we see about us.

 

Hirsch rather runs amok with the notion of 'fact' and especially 'irrefutable facts'.  Nevertheless the point holds, that 'knowledge of G-d' is the very means by which we frame our experiences and our knowledge.  One doesn't wait upon proof of some vague philosophical concept of 'physical world' before acting on it (philosophers have tried unsuccessfully for centuries). [ We don't proof we have eyes by looking for it.  The eyes is not 'in the visual field' but is the very thing that sees.]  It is as Rambam says (if we do have to be philosophical) an axiom.  This might all be nonsense, but that's the very point... If its wrong to believe in G-d or creation (etc) it is not because its false but because it's nonsense.  Either acting upon G-d's word 'makes sense' or is simply a condition of madness.  I keep using the metaphor of sight: either these doctrines are the right prescriptions for our eyes or they are fundamentally blurred.

 

I've got a bit philosophical here, and I don't want to make it seem that I have tried to make it clear what the roles of these doctrines are in Judaism.  Or why we should hold them (as opposed to thinking they are nonsense).  Or what the beliefs lead to.  In fact, I haven't shown much.  But kiruv methods of 'proof' are fundamentally misguided, practically, theoretically and Judaically.  Practically because they will lead us to doubt the fundamentals of faith.  Theoretically because the arguments are logically fallacious.  Judaically, (and this is what I haven't claimed to show) because they miscontrue those very beliefs they aim to defend.

25 Jun 2008

When so little can be done

A couple of months back the excitement was palpable, well it was for me.  Yet no-one else seemed that bothered at the revolution that was taking place.  Robert Mugabe was defeated.  One tyrant down.  No-one including me was so naive to think that Robert Mugabe would go without a fuss, yet the pressure to go seemed overwhelming.  Yet quietly and without (relatively speaking) fuss, he managed to keep hold of his grip on power.  He let the waters settle but managed to stay in the race on a legal technicality (alright.. his opponent didn't have enough to defeat him but still)! 

Then quietly and without much international fuss he starts to murder people and drive others out of their homes right in the pubic eye.  And now the opposition party has pulled out (citing unfree and unfair elections), Mugabe gets to be upset that the average Zimbabwean is deprived of his/her vote.  And what happens... China, Russia and South Africa for the first time agree to a non-binding, watered down resolution.  As if Mugabe could care about a UN resolution, economic sanctions (he's not affected or not being part of the commonwealth  (I'm sure his loyalty to the queen is minimal).

Maybe I should write a letter to my MP and get an emphatic statement read in parliament.  Or maybe I should get depressed about the state of the world and be apathetic and think about me.  Or maybe just pray.  Of course my real instinct is to blat him. Wipe him out.  Diplomacy is great and all but that only works with someone who gives a damn.  What possible advantage does he get from it?  But violence, is that the answer... if you wipe out one dictator there are ten more to take his place.  And what does that say about the rule of law?

It's an easy life for tyrants.  Maybe I should consider my future career prospects.  Hmm

1 May 2008

Quote of the day: 30th April

Soren Kierkegaard:

Truth always rests with the minority, and the minority is always stronger than the majority, because the minority is generally formed by those who really have an opinion, while the strength of a majority is illusory, formed by the gangs who have no opinion—and who, therefore, in the next instant (when it is evident that the minority is the stronger) assume its opinion ... while Truth again reverts to a new minority.

Judaism and other religions: a few sources

1

Exod. Rabbah 15:23: It is written: Let them be only thine own, and not strangers' with thee (Prov. 5:17). The Holy One blessed by He said, "I do not warn idolators concerning idolatry, but you," as it is said: Ye shall make you no idols (Lev. 26:1). Only to you have I given judgment, for it says: Hear this, O ye priests, and attend, ye house of Israel, and give ear, O house of the King, for unto you pertaineth the judgment (Hos. 5:1).

2

"In our days nobody heeds these the laws of discrimination found in the Talmud, neither gaon, rabbi, disciple, hasid."- The Meiri

3

Their acceptance of the practical duties incumbent upon all men by the Will of God distinguishes these nations from the heathen and idolatrous nations of the Talmudic era. (Principles of Education, "Talmudic Judaism and Society,” 225-7)- Rabbi Hirsch

4

“I ask from You that Your Shekhinah should not rest anymore on the nations of the world and we will be separate from all other nations. (Commentary to Exodus 33:16)- Rashi

5

At the beginning, Israel is connected to the nations like a shell around a fruit. At the end, the fruit is separated from the shell completely and Israel is separated from them. (GevuratHashem 23)- Mahral

6

all the deeds of Jesus of Nazareth and this Arab [Muhammed] who arose after him, they are only to prepare the way for the Messiah-King and to order (le-taqqen) the whole world to serve the Lord together, as it is said in Scripture, "For then I will turn to the peoples (el ha-ammim) with clear speech (safah berurah) to call all of them in the name of the Lord and to serve Him with one accord" (Zephaniah 3:9).- Maimonides/ Mishna Torah

7

It is necessary to study all the wisdoms in the world, all ways of life, all different cultures, along with the ethical systems and religions of all nations and languages, so that, with greatness of soul, one will know how to purify them all. (Arpelei Tohar 33)- Rav Kook

8

The Torah calls Israel a treasured nation. However, this does not imply, as some have mistakenly assumed, that Israel has a monopoly on God's love and favor. On the contrary, Israel's most cherished ideal is that of the universal brotherhood of mankind. (Nineteen Letters of Ben Uzziel, R’ Hirsch)

9

Through dispersion among gentiles, [Judaism] gathers and incorporates the fragments of truth wherever it finds them scattered- Rabbi Elijah Benamozegh (1823-1900)

10

"God permitted to every people something he forbade to others... God sends a prophet to every people according to their own language." Nathaniel ibn Fayumi

11a

Original Edition, 2002

Judaism is a particularist monotheism. It believes in one God but not in one religion, one culture, one truth. The God of Abraham is the God of all mankind, but the faith of Abraham is not the faith of all mankind.(37)

Revised Edition, 2003

[It] is a particularist monotheism. It believes in one God but not in one exclusive path to salvation. The God of the Israelites is the God of all mankind, but the demands made of the Israelites are not asked f all mankind.

11b

Original Edition, 2002

The radical transcendence of God in the Hebrew Bible means nothing more or less than that there is a difference between God and religion. God is universal, religions are particular. Religion is the translation of God into a particular language and thus into the life of a group, a nation, a community of faith. In the course of history, God has spoken to mankind in many languages: through Judaism to Jews, Christianity to Christians, Islam to Muslims

Revised Edition, 2003

The radical transcendence of God in the Hebrew Bible means that the Infinite lies beyond our finite understanding. God communicates in human language, but there are dimensions of the divine that must forever elude us. As Jews we believe that God has made a covenant with a single people, but that does not exclude the possibility of other peoples, cultures and faiths finding their own relationship with God within the shared Naohide laws. These laws constitute, as it were, the depth grammar of the human experience of the divine: of what it is to see the world as God’s work, and humanity as God’s image.

R' Sacks

12

Classically, the Christian position was the Messiah came. Classically, the Jewish answer was, the Messiah didn't come…Both sides tacitly admit the truth of the other's claim, in part…. For example, Christians, in talking about the Second Coming, admit tacitly that the Messiah didn't finish the job and that the world is still not redeemed and perfect… Yet the Jewish Sabbath is a kind of mini-messianic world. There are a hundred ways that Jews act on Shabbat as if the Messiah has come already, as if the world is perfect… Jesus is as a failed messiah… the image of Jesus on the cross dying is a classic image of failure. He could have flexed his muscles and wiped out all the Romans. Instead, it was a statement of humility and of unfinished business.- Rabbi Irving ‘Yitz’ Greenberg

13

Genesis Chp 10 “The whole earth was of one language and of a common purpose… And they said ‘Come, let us build a city, and a tower with its tops in the heaven, and let us make a name for ourselves lest we be dispersed across the whole earth’… Come let us descend and there confuse their language, that they should not understand one another’s language”

14

The great faiths constitute different languages of perception, imagination and sensibility. They are only partially translatable into one another… Each has its own resonances and nuances of meaning. There is, after Babel and before the end of days, no universal meta-language. This means that there will be some things we will never fully understand because they can be said only in a language which is not our own.- Rabbi Sacks

15

RABBINICAL COUNCIL OF AMERICA- 1964

We are pleased to note that in recent years there has evolved in our country as well as throughout the world a desire to seek better understanding and a mutual respect among the world's major faiths. The current threat of secularism and materialism and the modern atheistic negation of religion and religious values makes even more imperative a harmonious relationship among the faiths. This relationship, however, can only be of value if it will not be in conflict with the uniqueness of each religious community, since each religious community is an individual entity which cannot be merged or equated with a community which is committed to a different faith. Each religious community is endowed with intrinsic dignity and metaphysical worth. Its historical experience, its present dynamics, its hopes and aspirations for the future can only be interpreted in terms of full spiritual independence of and freedom from any relatedness to another faith community. Any suggestion that the historical and meta-historical worth of a faith community be viewed against the backdrop of another faith, and the mere hint that a revision of basic historic attitudes is anticipated, are incongruous with the fundamentals of religious liberty and freedom of conscience and can only breed discord and suspicion. Such an approach is unacceptable to any self-respecting faith community that is proud of its past, vibrant and active in the present and determined to live on in the future and to continue serving God in its own individual way. Only full appreciation on the part of all of the singular role, inherent worth and basic prerogatives of each religious community will help promote the spirit of cooperation among faiths.

It is the prayerful hope of the Rabbinical Council of America that all inter-religious discussion and activity will be confined to these dimensions and will be guided by the prophet, Micah (4:5) "Let all the people walk, each one in the name of his god, and we shall walk in the name of our Lord, our God, forever and ever."

29 Apr 2008

Quote of the day: 29th April

Rav Kook:

The pure and righteous do not complain about wickedness: they increase righteousness. They do not complain about heresy: they increase faith. They do not complain about ignorance: they increase wisdom.

Two inspiring items from the 'idiot box'

By 'idiot box' I, of course, mean the TV. Most TV is thoroughly wrong-headed and most news very depressing. Yet there were two items which raised a smile from me last night.

The first was an interview with Ben McBean, the soldier who came back from Afghanistan with an arm and leg blown off by a mine. Now quite simply: hew was smiling! It's hard enough to find anyone smile these days, let alone from someone who had something life-changing happen to them only two weeks previous. It is so easy to get knocked off course when things 'happen to you', and get swallowed up in a motley of grief, helplessness and self-pity. Often, bad things are a chance to apportion blame and be bitter. Yet Ben McBean wasn't. He was proud do have served his country, met his prince, done his bit and come out alive. He, in under two weeks picked himself up, adapted to his condition and is now planning for his future (next year he wants to run a marathon with his artificial leg). A lesson for us all.

Secondly, on 'the One Show', they did a feature on Bletchley Park; the place where they cracked German codes during the Second World War. After reviewing what went on there, they looked at a couple who worked there met and got married, and are still together now and smiling broad smiles. Now, people that worked there, not only weren't allowed to talk to people outside about what they were doing, they weren't allowed to talk to each other. This is because everyone played different roles, were all small cogs in the wider machine; and the success relied on everybody concentrating on their own jobs. Not knowing the 'bigger picture' helped to keep what they did there a secret.

Now, that Bletchley Park was such a big secret for so many years is amazing in itself. I just can't imagine that happening now; someone would 'leak' things to the newspaper they found unfair, would tell their mates the important job they do or something similar. But not only this, we found out the couple that got married didn't talk to each other about what they did at Bletchley Park for 35 years! Only when the whole thing became public did they talk to each other about it. Not only was this secret not an obstacle to their relationship, I think it was a sign of their love that they didn't. They didn't need to 'bare all' , they were secure enough in realising that they both served a higher purpose, individually and collectively. I could say more, and what I have written doesn't sound that beautiful, but I don't want to philosophise or make assumptions about their life. I think the facts should speak to each person individually and each person should see how they 'hit' him or her.

  • Face everything with a positive attitude
  • Consider what service you can give to others
  • Live your life with a 'higher purpose' in mind
  • Smile a broad smile.
Amazing! :-)

28 Apr 2008

Were our sages wrong about science? Yes! Get over it!

If there is one thing to make the top rabbis of our generation look an ickle bit silly (okay, a lot silly) is their very late-in-the-day and Christian-fundamentalist-like attitude towards science and particularly evolution. Late-in-the-day because rabbis of hundred years ago didn't seem to be having the problems contemporary rabbis have suddenlt discovered; and Christian-fundamentalist-like because of an ill-conceived battle that has little to do with religion or science. If you are one of those who think people in 'high places' should not be subject to legitimate criticism, you should probably stop reading. Please note that this is not a question of their integrity, moral standing or general intelligence. It's just about how an encounter with secular culture has led them to make pronouncements about the limits of Judaism which are not only 'not the only possible view' but just plain incorrect. That is surely grounds for just complaint.

Of course, the problem isn't their ignorance about science, per se. Who cares about that? Of course, whoever is making halakhic decisions, should know about the intricacies of the area they are dealing with. However, in terms weltanschauung/ hashkafa/ belief, the positive results of science have very little bearing. Or at least that's my opinion. Obviously our gedolim disagree, and think that science is so fundamentally relevant and antithetical to our beliefs that they will fight tooth and nail against it. As far as I'm concerned, the fundamental and eternal paramaters of Jewish faith in relation to science remain the same as they always have been. Science, under whatever theory, sees us as natural beings differing from other organic creatures only in degree and not in kind. Religion, under whatever interpretation, sees us as somehow 'transcendent', as unique, as made in the image of G-d. That, and only that, is the issue [Now the Jewish answer, as I will explain another time, is to accept both horns of the dilemma. We are both 'dust of the earth' and 'the breath of life']

No... their ignorance has got nothing to with their lack of knowledge of evolution or science. It is their (seeming) ignorance of vast swathes of Jewish philosophy and theology as passed down through millenia of our tradition. In relation to the very simple and obvious fact that the sages have made mistakes about science; it has never been a fundamental part of our belief system that they haven't. What the implications are of this is for another time; but that this is a view cannot be stated more clearly. As can be seen from the list below comple by R' Nosson Slifkin, the view that sages were wrong about certain aspects of science is not only legitimate but could be considered the majority opinion. Why the all the book-bannings can take place against those who are quite ready to accept evolution, on the basis that this is disrespectful to our sages or because it undermines the 'truth' of the Torah is quite beyond me. There may be other grounds, but those grounds just show a lack of knowledge of the mesorah.

Now whilst the main aim of yeshivot is 'Talmud Torah' and mastery of the halakhic literature, and indeed this should be their main focus; it is still a bewilderment that they don't the hashkafic underpinnings of that from tanach, midrash, philosophy, mysticism et al. But again... an actual discussion of the issues is for another time as to what a Jewish 'hashkafa' is, and not that I can state to know much. This post isn't about any attempted integration between evolution and science (which I am none too keen on), or to debate what it is to be 'in the image of G-d' or why the Torah talks 'in the language of man' or about the use of drash, stories and mythology, or why the Torah is none too interested (or concerned either way) in the results of disciplines like science or history but instead focuses on action. No.. this is just about a point of detail. It's just a point of detail that I simply can't believe some of our current gedolim can read and still maintain their positions. That is all. Nothing profound. Just simple undeniable detail.

Read and weep.....


  1. Rav Sherira Gaon states that some of the Sages’ medical advice may be wrong and even harmful (Otzar HaGeonim, Gittin 68, #376).
  2. Rabbi Yehudah ben Barzilai states that Rav Yochanan made a mathematical error (Sefer Ha-Itim #113).
  3. Rabbi Eliezer of Metz states that Chazal erred in stating that the sun travels behind the firmament at night (Sefer Yere’im #52). This is with regard to the discussion in Pesachim 94b where Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi concludes that the opinion of the non-Jewish scholars, that the sun travels behind the earth at night, was correct. While Maharal interprets this metaphorically, Rabbi Eliezer of Metz and countless other authorities take the Gemara at face value and explain that Chazal were mistaken; even Rabbeinu Tam, who claims that the Jewish scholars were actually correct and that the sun travels behind the sky at night, disputes the Maharal and takes the Gemara at face value.
  4. Rambam states that the Sages knowledge of astronomy was not based on tradition and was sometimes errant (Guide for the Perplexed 2:8 and 3:14).
  5. Tosefos Rid states that the Sages erred concerning where the sun goes at night (Tosefos Rid, Shabbos 34b, s.v. Eizehu) and expresses surprise that Rabbi Yochanan and the judges of Caesarea erred in a simple mathematical matter (but by implication it is not impossible to err in other scientific matters) (Commentary to Eruvin 76b).
  6. Rabbeinu Avraham ben HaRambam states that the statements of the Sages in medicine, science and astronomy were based on their own investigations and were sometimes incorrect. (I know that Rabbi Moshe Shapiro has repeatedly claimed that this is a fraudulent work that was falsely attributed to Rabbeinu Avraham by the maskilim. However the manuscript experts that I consulted dismissed this theory. Fragments of the
    original Arabic, dating probably from the 14th century, were discovered in the Cairo Geniza. The treatise has been printed in the Ein Yaakov for over 100 years without anyone challenging it as being heretical, and Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach accepted it as an authentic view.)
  7. Ramban presents the opinion of the Greek philosophers regarding conception as an alternative to that of the Sages (Commentary to Leviticus 12:2). He also suggests that the dispute between the Sages concerning terefos may be based on a scientific dispute – where one side would be correct and one incorrect (Chullin 42a).
  8. Tosafos states that Rabbi Yochanan and the Gemara in Sukkah erred in a simple mathematical matter (Eruvin 76b). (The Vilna Gaon is appalled at the idea that they could have erred in such a simple matter; but he does not deny that Tosafos is of this opinion.)
  9. Rashba states that Rabbi Yochanan and the judges of Caesarea erred in a mathematical matter (Commentary to Eruvin 76b).
  10. Rosh states that Rabbi Yochanan and the judges of Caesarea erred in a mathematical matter (Tosefos HaRosh, Eruvin 76b and Sukkah 8b). He also endorses the view of Rabbi
    Eliezer of Metz that the Sages erred concerning where the sun goes at night (Pesachim 2:30; She’eilos U’Teshuvos HaRosh, Kelal 14, #2).
  11. Sefer Mitzvos HaGadol endorses the view of Rabbi Eliezer of Metz that the Sages erred concerning where the sun goes at night (Lo Ta’aseh #79).
  12. Rabbeinu Manoach states that the Sages erred concerning where the sun goes at night (Commentary to Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Chametz U-Matzah 5:11, s.v. Ela bemayim
    shelanu).
  13. Meiri indicates that the Sages’ knowledge of human anatomy was inaccurate (Commentary to Niddah 17b).
  14. Ritva indicates that the Sages erred concerning where the sun goes at night (Commentary on the Haggadah, s.v. Matzah zo she’anu ochlim).
  15. Rabbeinu Bechaya ben Asher presents the opinion of scientists regarding conception as a legitimate alternative to that of the Sages (Commentary to Leviticus 12:2).
  16. Rabbeinu Yerucham ben Meshullam endorses the view of Rabbi Eliezer of Metz that the Sages erred concerning where the sun goes at night (Toldos Adam VeChavah, Nesiv V, Part 3).
  17. Ralbag states that Ezekiel received a mistaken scientific fact in one of his prophecies (Genesis 15:4, Beiur Divrei Hasipur, and Job 38:18-20, Beiurei Divrei Hama’aneh).
  18. Ran expresses surprise that Rabbi Yochanan erred in a simple mathematical matter
    (Eruvin 76b).
  19. Rabbi Yitzchak Arama states that the Sages erred concerning the motion of the stars (Akeidas Yitzchak, Parashas Bo 37).
  20. Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi states that the Sages had a scientific dispute with the non-Jews concerning where the sun goes at night and that Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi decided in favor of the gentile scholars (Responsum #57).
  21. Maharam Alashkar states that the Sages erred concerning where the sun goes at night
    (Responsum #96).
  22. Rabbi Shem Tov ben Yosef endorses Rambam’s view that the Sages erred in matters of
    astronomy (Shem Tov commentary to The Guide for the Perplexed 2:8:2)
  23. Radvaz states that the Sages erred concerning where the sun goes at night (She’eilos Uteshuvos Radvaz, Part IV, #282).
  24. Lechem Mishneh states that the Sages erred concerning where the sun goes at night (Lechem Mishneh to Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Shabbos 5:4).
  25. Maharsha states that the Sages had a dispute concerning rainfall which is to be understood literally as a scientific dispute (and hence one side is wrong) (Ta’anis 9b).
  26. Minchas Kohen states that the Sages erred concerning where the sun goes at night (Sefer Mevo Hashemesh 10).
  27. Rabbi Yosef Shlomo Delmedigo states that the Sages erred in various matters of astronomy (Elim, Ma’ayan Chastum #67).
  28. Rabbi Binyamin Mussafia states that the Sages erred regarding their belief in the salamander being generated in fire and living in it (Mussaf Ha-Aruch, erech Salamandra).
  29. Chavos Ya’ir states that the Sages erred in various matters of astronomy and endorses Rambam’s view on this matter (She’eilos UTeshuvos Chavos Ya’ir #210).
  30. Pri Chadash states that Rabbi Dosa, whose view was adopted in the Shulchan Aruch, erred in a zoological matter concerning whether a non-kosher animal can have horns (Pri
    Chadash, Yoreh De’ah 80:2).
  31. Rabbi Yitzchak Lampronti suggests that the Sages may have been mistaken about lice spontaneously generating, just as they were mistaken about where the sun goes at night (Pachad Yitzchak, erech tzeidah). (Note that even his teacher Rav Brill, who disagrees with him, admits that the Sages themselves thought themselves mistaken in their dispute with
    the non-Jewish scholars.)
  32. Rabbi Aviad Sar-Shalom Basilea states that “one does not compromise his faith in the least by disagreeing with a given statement of Chazal as long as it is clear that Chazal based that statement not on received tradition but on their own reasoning” (Sefer Emunas Chachamim, Chap. 5) – he adds that if Chazal were unanimous on something then they must have been correct due to their superior intellect, which would presumably not apply
    to scientific data that was received from the empirical investigations of others.
  33. Korban Nesanel states that Rabbi Yochanan and the judges of Caesarea erred in a mathematical matter (Eruvin 76b).
  34. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch states that the Sages relied on the scientific knowledge of their era which was sometimes mistaken (Letter to Rabbi Hile Wechsler). (I know that Rav Moshe Shapiro shlita has repeatedly claimed that this letter is not from Rav Hirsch, and his disciple’s work Afikei Mayim claims that it is merely a collection of Azariyah de Rossi’s ideas, but there is irrefutable evidence that it is from Rav Hirsch – we have Rabbi Wechsler’s original letters to Rav Hirsch containing his questions and reactions to the letters.)
  35. Maharam Schick states that certain matters in the Talmud were not part of the Sinaitic
    tradition but rather were assessments that are potentially errant (Responsum #7).
  36. Rabbi Dovid Friedmann (Karliner) states that the Sages’ knowledge of many scientific things did not stem from Sinaitic tradition but rather from their own knowledge and things that they learned from non-Jews (letter quoted in Rabbi Moshe Pirutinsky, Sefer Habris 264:7:11).
  37. Rabbi Yitzchak Herzog states that he adopts the position of Rabbeinu Avraham ben HaRambam that the Sages were not infallible in their pronouncements about science (Judaism: Law & Ethics, p. 152).
  38. Rabbi Eliyahu Dessler states that the Sages sometimes gave mistaken explanations of halachos that were based on the scientific knowledge of their time (Michtav Me-Eliyahu IV p. 355).

18 Apr 2008

I don't often eat dinner but when I do...

I think I should go on masterchef; I really should. I think I have a natural talent for taste combination and I'm quite pretentious.

The only problem is I never cook. I'm a Shabbat- eater really, eating Friday and Saturday means I don't have to eat dinner the rest of the week. To be honest, I just can't be bothered. I don't mind cooking for four hours for Shabbat because we then take four hours to eat, with company. But there is no point spending 50 minutes to cook when it takes 5 minutes to eat by myself. It's not as if I'm really hungry anyway; I rarely feel the need for food. If it's there I'll eat it; if not, I won't. Simple. I'm a 'picker'... if there is food in front of me I cannot stop eating. The worst is crisps at parties or roast potatoes just staring at me from the bowl. But if there is no food around, I don't miss it.

However, tonight my hand was rather forced. I had to use up the scraps of food that I do own in time for Pesach. So it all started quite orthodoxly with the quorn 'chicken-style' pieces going in the pan. Out came the cherry tomatoes, nicely and (almost) neatly chopped and into the saucepan. I was going to stop there but it felt a bit empty.

Then out from the lovely plastic Sainsbury's container provacatively peeped the plums (and alliterated at me). So yes, they got chopped up and put in the saucepan too. But I thought that was a bit boring, it's just quorn with a bit of fruit (slightly hot fruit at that). What was really needed was a sauce... so out came the orange juice (!) and into the pan it went. Now of course this may just taste like fruit salad (slightly hot fruit salad) with quorn randomly stuck in. It needed a bit of cohesion and a balance of taste.

So, and this was the killer touch (killer with a 'ph'- you know like 'phat')- a grand dollop of honey smeared over the quorn. This blended everything together. The tomatoes seeped juice into the orange juice, and in that direction the honey did venture of its own accord. This fruity sauce was born, fitting perfectly with the sweet quorn. It didn't taste like orange juice anymore. But, like... [and at this point I would have to baptize a new word]

Sound disgusting? I assure thee that it was not so. I impress myself sometimes with my own genius. I write this note as a public service announcement. If I have achieved nothing else in my life (and I haven't achieved much else of note) I leave this as my legacy. I have in the past made concoctions that whilst edible, and comparably pleasant, I wouldn't put in the 'outstanding success' column on life's balance sheet. But this actually tasted nice! Actually. Literally. Substantially. I dare you to try it.

The real element of success though........... was NOT adding chilli powder (I was tempted)

4 Apr 2008

Were our matriachs and patriachs saints? Chas Ve-Shalom!

I’ve come across a beautiful passage from Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, the coolest guy this side of Christendom. It is one of the quotes that manages to articulate something so fundamental and yet so rarely said. Something so inspiring and something that there is a desperate need to internalise. It focuses on the very core of Jewish philosophy, the Biblical narrative and the people we are called on to be.

But first, let’s consider that fundamental tenet of Judaism: man is not G-d! Moreover, it is the most beautiful message of Judaism that need not (nay, should not) aspire to be so. Neither is man an angel. All man can aspire to be is man and that is enough! There is no being perfect or transcending our status as men (our soul escaping our body, so to speak); there is only living up to, as best we can, our potential as human beings. Yes- human beings, homo sapiens, humans animals. “Perhaps more than man-as-divine-person, man-as-an-animal needs religious faith and commitment to a higher authority. G-d takes man-animal into His confidence and reveals to him His moral will” (Soloveitchik).

Judaism does not see man as divine-person torn by satanic revolt, falling away from his G-d-Father. There is no Original Sin whereby our very nature precludes us from having a relationship with G-d. No… it is man as an animal, with his animal drives, pleasures and instincts that is called upon to serve G-d. Just consider that it is the very same things that constitute our evil inclination, are the very same things that are our ‘good inclination’. If we sin, that says absolutely nothing about our nature, and everything about the sin.

“Man’s haughtiness becomes for Christianity the metaphysical pride of an allegedly unconditioned existence. Jewish biblical pride signifies only overemphasis upon man’s abilities and power.” (Soloveitchik)

If our nature is not other-worldly, then we are not at fault for not being so. The problem is that we are not being properly and morally this-worldly. Note that we- physical beings- are tzelem Elokim: in the image of G-d. Does this mean being the same spiritual ‘stuff’ as G-d? Of course not. It means precisely being an image, a reflection, a receptacle of G-dliness on earth. This means we are commanded to ‘walk in G-d’s ways’: to visit the sick, to help the poor, to be a creator of worlds etc. We are commanded to find G-d a makom (a place) on earth. And through our actions, we are that makom. G-d’s presence rests ‘within the four cubits of halakha’: i.e. with mans’ actions on earth. To be tzelem Elokim is to be the opposite of other-wordly. Not to be G-d but the image of G-d i.e. do what you have to be quintessentially human.

Judaism’s notion of man-as-animal is the great leveller. Of course, we aren’t (or better, don’t need to be) just man-as-animal. We, if we so choose, can be an animal but have a soul. Or if we want we can just be man as a random example of the species homo sapien. But the fact that, as philosophers would say, we are all ontically the same (the same in essence) means we all start from the same place and can all reach the same heights:

As it says in Judges, “I call heaven and earth to witness, be a man a Jew or a non-Jew, man or woman, manservant or maidservant, only according to their actions will the spirit of G-d rest upon them”.

This applies, and this is my point in this piece, quite generally. There is no essential difference between Moses and you or the Gedolei Torah and the woman down the local fish-market. They have just the same yezer hara- the same physical drives- as Joe Bloggs, Plonie Ben Plonie and Jane Doe.

Consider the following: The Torah doesn’t tell us where Moses was buried. Why? Our tradition tells us that it is so that no-one will make a pilgrimage to that site or be inclined to make Moses, as such, central to the religion (i.e. he will not turn into an object of worship or an aid to worship). Moses as-such is no different to anyone else. In fact, he points out himself that “I am slow of speech and tongue”. We learn that he is ‘a very humble man, more so than anyone else on the face of the earth’. We see hear that there is no equivalent to the Christian ‘son of G-d’ because his leadership wasn’t based on any specific set of ‘natural’ or ‘supernatural’ qualities. It is not vested in his personal authority, charisma, or essential nature. It is not in the person of Moses (as Christians believe it is in the person of Jesus) but in the message- in the Torah. It is not because of any special attribute of his person that he became leader but because he became a receptacle of G-d’s will and G-d’s word. And that is incumbent on each of us!

There is no need for the Torah to hide Moses’ human nature from us. He sinned. The greatest man (ani ma’amin) that ever lived or will live (contra Chassidus, moshiach will not be at his level), sinned. Fell short. He got punished. He got buried who knows where, outside of the Land of Israel. So, on the one hand, we agree with Nietzsche that we are “human, all too human”. Yet this isn’t a cause for denigration of Moses’ personality or as an excuse to have a ‘will to power’, to assert our dominance and to inanely follow our desires (i.e. the very opposite of Moses). It is not the case that if we cannot live up to an ideal, that it shouldn’t be pursued. No- the story is there to teach us the very opposite. Despite- and maybe because of- his human nature, he was the only person to see G-d ‘face-to-face’. If human-Moses can have that relationship with his fellow men and with G-d, then we can to. It does not need a demi-G-d or son of G-d to do so.

So now the quote from Rav Hirsch:

“Our ancestors were never presented to us as angelic models to emulate in every respect; indeed, had they been presented to us as angelic creatures, their example for us to follow in our own lives would have been far less ideal and instructive than it actually is. If we were to discover no shortcomings in their personalities, they would appear to us like higher beings who, free from all human passions and weaknesses, never had to struggle against sin and were never in need of an incentive to virtue. We could conclude that, given our own human imperfections, any effort on our part to emulate their saintly qualities would be doomed to failure. Precisely by not concealing their shortcomings from us, the Word of G-d has brought our patriachs and matriachs closer to us as human beings, humans like us exposed to the same struggles and temptations. And if, nevertheless, they attained that high sense of morality and loyalty to their calling that made them worthy of G-d’s nearness, they thereby demonstrated the heights that are within our power to obtain, depite our weaknesses and imperfections”


------------------------

This is a message that greatly needs to be ‘eaten up’ in modern times where we do portray Biblical figures as basically blameless (e.g. see the Mussar treatment of ‘the sins of great men’) and where we have hagiographies where gedolim are ‘different kind of people’ who never struggle, who are always right, and are moulded into whatever the writers would like their demi-god to be. It takes us away from the great men they actually are and the reasons why they are such great man. It takes us towards the ‘person’ and away from the message. They are not great because their message is correct (because their Torah learning is great) but their message is right just because they say it (G-d forbid). Something is not seen as forbidden because it is not the right way to live but invoking the authority and charisma of the gedolim (and bending or manipulating what they actually say) to ban what they (i.e. not what the gedolim) want banned. An example of this is the following written by Rabbi Moshe Tendler (son in law of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein):

"Occasionally intentional falsehoods are included [in biographies of gedolim] to pervert the truths of their lives. . . . By [a biography of my father-in-law, Rabbi Feinstein] perpetuating such falsehoods as Reb Moshe never reading the newspapers when in fact he read them “cover to cover” daily, they sought to remake him into their perverted image of what a gadol should be. The fact that neither I nor my wife or children were interviewed by them nor shown the galleys confirms the intentional plan to present a fraudulent life story for some less than honorable purposes.

[Instead R. Moshe:] read the newspaper every morning at the breakfast table, whatever newspaper it might be—the socialistic Forward, or the Tag, or the Morning Journal and then the Algemeiner Journal.

Consider the following from an interview with R' Nosson Sherman:

---

How do you respond to critics who accuse ArtScroll biographies of whitewashing history by characterizing great rabbis as saints without faults?

Our goal is to increase Torah learning and yiras shamayim. If somebody can be inspired by a gadol b’yisrael, then let him be inspired. Is it necessary to say that he had shortcomings? Does that help you become a better person? What about lashon hara? You know in today’s world, lashon hara is a mitzvah. Character assassination sells papers. That’s not what Klal Yisrael is all about.

---

Does this fit with what R’Hirsch said? Does yirat shamayim (fear of heaven) come from being inspired by an ideal figure? Are we to be inspired to become a better person by their charisma, or to come to G-d through them? Is it really character assassination to say people had shortcomings and they played a part in their decisions? I don’t think so, let’s look at the great people our gedolim really are and maybe we can follow their example and walk in G-d’s ways. Maybe, just maybe we, like them can be “human, all too human”.

Were our patriachs saints? Chas ve-Shalom!

28 Mar 2008

Urinating on the motorway, Arabs, environment, Israel and the Palestinians, prostitutes and water buffallo.

Just a few completely random points about urinating on the motorway, Arabs, environment, Israel and the Palestinians, prostitutes and water buffallo.

---------

IF YOU ARE AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT, DON’T PISS ON THE HARD SHOULDER OF A MOTORWAY. Apparently it’s illegal, but it’s probably not the worst crime in the world. Obviously you are putting yourself at risk, but then driving when you desperately need to go, can’t be much better. You know… when you get to that point where you have to keep moving otherwise it’s unbearable?!?!?

But if you are illegally here and without a driving license, you don’t want to be found out because you needed the toilet. That’s what happened in ‘Traffic Cops’ last night which I was watching for want of anything better to do (you know, one of those filler programmed for Wednesday nights. Why do they put rubbish programmes on, on Wednesdays?). You know, you’d think they would want to keep their heads down or if you are going to get deported, you might as well go out in style.

But when nature calls…

------

An interesting note by Rav Hirsch (from the 19th century) on the positive qualities of Arabs. Funnily enough, it was in article on Jewish women.

“The monotheism of Abraham, the Hamitic sensuality and thirst for freedom that stamped the personality of Hagar, and the virtual fanatic belief in the providence of Almighty G-d, drawn, as it were, by Hagar from the ‘well of the Living One Who sees me’- this mixture of qualities has shaped the traits for which the Arabs are known to this day and with which they have made their own contribution, in the form of poetry and scholarship, to the spiritual symposium of humanity”

‘Nuff said

------

I got the overwhelming desire today to buy a car. Why? So I can conscientiously not use it! I hate it when people (and I don’t know why, but specifically Jews do it) drive to university when it is less than 15 minutes walk away. It’s disgraceful. Apart from being horrendously lazy, it’s horrific for the environment.

Now when environmental protestors say that people shouldn’t fly or say that horrendous taxes should be put on it, that’s just stupid. Some people need to fly, others want to fly but only do so occasionally, and those who are filthy rich… well… they are going to fly anyway. Stopping flying is not only something that you cannot achieve, it might not be desirable to achieve.

What really matters for the environment is these small things that you can do stuff about. Yes I know it would take a hell of a lot of not going by car to make up for one plane journey. However, firstly there are a lot of people that can ‘not go by car’. It is practical and unless your are bone-idle, there is no reason not to walk. Thirdly, going by car for a short journey bespeaks a whole attitude and if you won’t drive if necessary, you wont do other things either.

Now I’m probably guilty too. I do accept lifts to morning service. It’s too early and I don’t have the wherewithal to move, let alone put up a principled stand. But regardless of whether I get in the car, the car will be driven anyway. I would never ask for there to be a lift if there wasn’t one already going. And that’s why I want a car, so that if no-one else is going, I can in principle refuse to take people!

An expensive gesture, buying a car for that reason!

-----

Good news of sorts. Following a decision from Ehud Barak, travel restrictions are being eased for Palestinians in the West Bank, and the PA police (or at least a loyal subsection of them) are getting new equipment. This is following on from continued negotiations between PA and Israel. Also, talks between Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas continue. This can only be good news if it helps the lives of Palestinian civilians, and increased Paelstinian compliance in aiding Israel’s security. It’s a shame that it is primarily motivated by one-upmanship against Hamas. Rather than (by either side involved) a real concern for peace or the lives of civilians, it is trying to score political points against Hamas in Gaza. Bloody politics. Please G-d, they find a way to help the humanitarian situation in Gaza without having to give political credence to Hamas.

Although one of my points is proved. Criticism from a friend is far more effective than criticism from someone that hates your guts! The good news in part arose from criticism of Ehud Barak by Condoleeza Rice. The Americans overall (and rightly so) agree with Israel about things. As such, Israel has an incentive to listen to them. Where criticism is needed, it should be given (and probably doesn’t happen enough). Criticism from Palestinian groups, on the other hand, is ineffectual and shows that they don’t really have the interests of Palestinians at heart or if they do, they are very misguided. When you justify suicide bombings, deny Israel’s right to exist (however you dress it up) and will criticise Israel come what may, the criticisms will be as effective as a one-legged chair. When you preach immoral things, your valid criticisms will not be listened to.

----

The following incident reminded me of situations with ‘money boxes’ designed to stop people swearing (i.e. put 50p in if you say **** etc) where the child swears, gets told off and says “I’m not ******* swearing, ok?”. This is what Rabbi Ezekial Landau said in court:

"Everyone should know that the wife of the Chief Rabbi is a prostitute and there is a fine, 100 adumim for each utterace that she is a prostitute, and you should also all know that if I had more money I would call her a prostitute again, however I currently do not have the money I will have to satisfy myself with the fact that I have already called her a prostitute."

The following reminded me of when certain Catholics will defend to the hilt not wearing condoms because that is what the Pope decrees, but are quite happy to have sex before marriage (which I’m sure he’s not too fond of):

A Latin document records a troubling incident from 1404 where, "a German speaking Jew visited a non-Jewish prostitute on Shabbat and he refused to pay her, he explained that he could not pay her as it would violate the Shabbat."

It’s fun reading about prostitution!

----

Last but not least, I have decided I am a filthy animal. I was watching the ‘One Show’ where they were looking at a reservation park with water buffalo in. They happened to mention that they had cloven hoofs. All I could think about “I wonder if they are kosher!” I couldn’t get it out of my head. I’m a bad man!

21 Mar 2008

The MP3, the list of questions and an orgiatsic experience (Alternatively titled: Moroccan Jewry)

Shal-oh-m. It’s 2.37 in the morning and I have just finished a shiur (“lesson”/ lecture) that has got me all excited. It’s certainly a good shiur, and how can you tell? Because I started listening at midnight, it’s 1 hour and 9 minutes long, and I have just finished it. Anyone who knows a friend, who knows a friend that does maths, or even lives in a country where mathematicians are present will know that, it doesn’t add up. I live with a Mathematician, ask him!

[I on the other hand, am a philosopher, and should be able to cast doubt on the most simple assertion. Last year, when my housemate arrived home from drinking and found me reading a book with ‘68 + 57 = ?’ on the front, he confidently asserted ‘125’. Of course (so I explained) the book was arguing that there is no fact of the matter as to whether by ‘+’ we meant addition rather than a different mathematical function. As such, you couldn’t castigate me for saying the answer to the question was ‘5’ (or you could, but not on the grounds that 125 is the addition to 68 + 57, which we both agree on). To this he went furious. It turned his mathematical world upside down and was questioning everything he held dear.]

That is [so I will confidently assert on this occasion] I was listening to the shiur for 88 minutes longer than it lasted! Magic, I hear you ask? Practical Kabbalah? A faulty watch? No, I’m afraid. Just having to pause it every five minutes to argue, to pace, to jump up in delight, to kvetch, to relive the point, to go to the toilet, to rewind and relisten to parts.

And what was this wonder? It was by Rabbi Dr. Marc Shapiro on “A Non-Orthodox Traditional Approach: Reflections on the Authority of the Moroccan Rabbinate.” And what was so brilliant? Well, it was worth listening just to the Americanisms: ‘Shal-oh-m’, ‘P-oh-skim’, ‘Takan-oh-t’. ‘A takan-oh-t that if he deflowered a virgin, he had to marry her.’ Ha! Deflowered, I haven’t heard that term since the last virgin who tried to bed me and wed me (/ an episode of ‘Friends’ with fat Monica). And the slightly funny comments like the following:

[Disclaimer: I put ‘slightly’ despite the fact that it was definitely a LOL moment. However, those who wonder why I laugh in synagogue very loudly, and wonder what was so hilarious are less impressed when I point to Rabbi Hertz’s commentary on the first line of Shema. But there you go… some people laugh at Friends, so there really is no accounting for taste]

“Today you go to the Bet Din, they can do whatever they want because they don’t have to adapt to the community because it is all voluntary… Now if the rabbis in America issues Takonot, no-one who wasn’t Orthodox would care, that’s for sure. And even among the Orthodox if the Aguna rabbis issued them, the Chassidim wouldn’t care; and if the Chassidim issued Takanot, the Aguna wouldn’t care; and if the Modern Orthodox issue Takanot, no-one would care, not even the Modern Orthodox.

But witticism aside… this shiur raised such fundamental questions that had my head turning (‘literally turning’ as a misuse of English language might be heard to proclaim’). These are such fundamental issues that I just want to write about now if it wasn’t for the fact I have to be up in 4 and a half hours to daven, hear the megillah and go to Manchester to see my old Rav. The art of the blog is to write briefly but I have not an artistic bone in my body. See how long this is turning out to be and I’m not even writing seriously or putting my incisive, multi-faceted intelligence to (say I). But yeh… ever wondered about:-

  • the nature of Jewish belief: dogma versus ‘just a set of laws’.
  • the role of the Rabbi: to forbid the permitted versus permitting the forbidden.
  • the ‘Chumra’ (stringency) culture versus ‘lets all go have sex' culture.
  • the place of religion in Modern Israel: religious Zionism versus Zionism + Religion.
  • Conversion in Judaism: ‘get lost unless you are a saint’ versus ‘we don’t want the kids to be non-Jewish, so let’s get you quickly converted, no questions asked’
  • Halakhic ‘change’ versus the hegemony of the Shulchan Aruch (and more specifically the Mishna Berura).
  • Why Askenazim have such a thing as ‘Orthodox’ or ‘Conservative’ or ‘Progressive’ denominations where (parts of) the Sephardi world have none
  • The immorality of secular culture, the stupidity of Modern Orthodoxy, the terrifying and ridiculous (in no particular order) nature of Charedi world.
  • Judaism as ‘sect’ (/religion) versus Judaism as a code for society at large

And more. Oh yes. The stuff was positively- I wouldn’t say orgiastic, okay I would- orgiastic. [‘Orgiastic’ is a word that Rav Soloveitchik repeatedly uses in a chapter of ‘The Emergence of Ethical Man’. Now, I’m sure he doesn’t mean it in the sense that the dictionary definition gives it : ‘pertaining to orgies’. But, I think we can understand the word in context]. So much so, I cannot talk about it now, but I had to write something! It will be on my pile of things to write about: I’m already in the middle of writing blog articles which I need to finish including “Chassidism without mysticism?”, “Easy religion”, “Is I Orthodox? Innit”. I get so inspired by things; the first of the aforementioned articles was inspired by “The Wind in the Willows” written by that great sage of old: Kenneth Graeme. But then I can never get them down cos there so bloody complicated (and no-one reads what I write anyway).

But just to give a general flavour…. The shiur was about the decrees of the Moroccan rabbinate and the nature of the Moroccan Jewish community. It was one where the whole community was under the sway of Halakha. Yes individuals were non-observant and very few you would call ‘Orthodox’. Yet the communities were run according to the decrees of the Rabbinate and they lived a traditional Jewish life. There was no ‘reform’ Jews trying to give a different account of what Judaism essentially was or should be. However, neither was there a need for a self-conception of ‘Orthodoxy’ and there was no need to tailor Halakha (or strengthen it) to root out the community of true believers from those who have left the fold.

The Bet Dinim (courts of law) had far more authority over the Jewish community in Morocco (as opposed to these days where, as per the ‘funny’ quote above, you’ll only listen to a Bet Din if you ideologically agree with the people that make the decisions). However, the effect of this is that the rulings were more lenient. Why? Because you are not ruling over a sect, or a group of like minded people, or those who have exactly (or so poskim must think) exactly the same needs. No… Halakhic law is just that. Law. It has to take into account and run society with people in with different needs, different beliefs, different circumstances. Plus they could be lenient because they didn’t think the leniencies would be taken as a concession to other sects of Judaism. How often, these days, do we hear “Oh. Umm. It’s technically allowed but you still can’t do it. It may lend credence to feminism, to other denominations, to secular wisdom, to the gentile customs, etc; plus don’t complain stringency beautifies the mitzvah” Does it heck!

[To a certain extent, this kind of situation still exists even within Sephardi ‘Orthodox’ congregations in Europe. When my brother was in Aix-en-Provence he said that it would be unheard of to have synagogue that weren’t run by ‘traditional’ Rabbis, but they didn’t kick up a poop when women in the ladies gallery put on tallit and tefillin]

Yet when the Moroccans moved to Israel, their culture and their halakhic traditions and thousand year old customs were not respected. There was a general prejudice against sefardim: the secular believed they were ignorant, superstitious and backward looking and the Yeshiva world couldn’t comprehend that there may be some traditions that are not codified in the Shulchan Aruch. Rav Ovadiah Yosef, a major figure, brought back pride for Sephardim but at a cost. In order to win respect from the ‘Orthodox’ (the Chareidi Yeshivish world) he has attempted to standardise Sephardic practice according to the Sephardic opinions in the Shulchan Aruch (despite the fact that many of his rulings deviate from it!). He himself orchestrated attempts to wipe out the halakhic traditions of some Sephardim. For example, based on teshuvot of Rambam, Moroccan Jews do not repeat Mussaf Amidah (especially if there is talking in shul). Unacceptable. Why? Because the Shulchan Aruch defines ‘Orthodoxy’. Why? Because ‘Conservative’ Jews say that halakha changes, whilst that law code was appropriate for the time, it is now no longer. So, G-d forbid that anyone deviates an iota from it (despite the fact that they do) because it lends credence to Conservatives.


What was interesting was some of the halakhic rulings of Moroccan Jews that are very pertinent today. There is a lot of fuss about women prayer groups in our world! Yet they have rulings going back hundreds of yours saying they are fine and happened! [G-d forbid we do them unless we are going egalitarian or copying the gentiles]. There are instances of ‘mi shabeirachs’ about v’imateinu Rachel, leah, v’sarah. [G-d forbid we have prayers like that unless we are reform]. There are other that aren’t directly importable (because they were relevant to their community not ours] but are still interesting. For example, prohibitions on gentiles and wine did not apply. Based on a [previously censored] ruling of the Rema, it was argued that there absolutely nothing wrong with wine handle d by Muslims. In fact, to prohibit it would be to turn the holy into the profane as, G-d forbid we consider worshippers of G-d into worshippers of idols. Obviously, that was a completely Muslim and as such, monotheistic culture, it would be different where there are religions [including Christianity] that may {or may not} be considered avodah Zorah.

In fact, there were lots of interesting rulings and so much to say. Let’s make a date… we’ll talk some time.

Damn its 4 o’Clock