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! :-)

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).

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)

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!