Natan Slifkin's Blog, page 165

Tribalism, Plus A Siege Mentality

In a post entitled Will Charedim Vote In Their Own Best Interests? I noted that in the forthcoming Bet Shemesh elections, it's clearly in the best interests of charedim to vote for the non-charedi candidate, Eli Cohen. Yesterday, I posted a letter from a charedi avreich who recognizes that. Why, then, will many charedim vote to maintain the incumbent charedi mayor, Moshe Abutbol? The answer, I posited, is tribalism.

After having had extensive discussions/ arguments with a friend who is campaigning for Abutbol, and a local rav who is a strong supporter of Abutbol, and reading the Abutbol campaign literature, I think that it's a combination of tribalism with a siege mentality.

The Abutbol campaign speaks about various things that he has achieved. This in itself doesn't mean much; anyone acting as mayor for five years, in a city growing enormously, is going to have some new things to show off. But I haven't heard anyone - not even my friend officially involved in the Abutbol campaign - even attempt to offer any arguments that Abutbol is actually a better mayor than Cohen would be, in terms of knowing how to run a city professionally and enhancing its economy. Perhaps they realize that such a claim would be a non-starter, in light of the relative training and achievements of Abutbol versus Cohen. Instead, the Abutbol campaign boils down to one single message: "Eli Cohen is the secular enemy of the charedim!"

This message appears in several manifestations. One is the charge that "Eli Cohen is not religious!" Of course, that's not necessarily a strike against him; after all, Nir Barkat is even less religious, and yet various Chassidic rebbes supported him. Nor is it clear how it is especially relevant for a mayor to be religious. Unless the idea is that you have to vote for someone who is "one of us" - in which case, are they saying that anyone who is not charedi should not vote for Abutbul, since he's not one of them?

Another manifestation of this message is the charge that "Eli Cohen is supported by Bennett and Lapid, who want to wipe out Torah!" This claim is also a little odd. First of all, Bennett and Lapid do not want to "wipe out Torah." They have nothing against the Torah of the dati-leumi community! They merely want to end the terrible system whereby tens of thousands of men do not share the burden of military defense nor contribute towards the economy nor fulfill their (Torah-mandated) obligation to support their families. Second, what does Eli Cohen have to do with Bennett and Lapid? Sure, they support him, but he wasn't their candidate; he started as an independent, and they only joined on later. Anyone who meets Eli Cohen will realize that he has no animosity whatsoever towards the charedi public, and wants to be a truly fair mayor. What exactly do people think that Cohen is going to do against charedim? The Abutbol supporters are broadcasting the absurd charge that he will run buses in charedi areas of Bet Shemesh on Shabbos. It's too nonsensical for words; there's simply no way that he would want to do it, or that it could ever happen (besides, who would even ride on such buses?). Finally, the clincher is that none other than Agudas Yisrael is running on a joint ticket with Bayit Yehudi in several cities in Israel - Rehovot, Bat Yam and Tel Aviv. If Agudas Yisrael can do it, why can't Eli Cohen?

Another manifestation of this message is that "The Gedolim are against him!" Well, yes, they are. Of course, if you are naive enough to think that the charedi Gedolim are good judges of what is beneficial for the charedi community - including enforced poverty and endless bans - and that they are fully aware of the relative merits of Moshe Abutbol versus Eli Cohen, then there's nothing to discuss.

I was gladdened to receive a letter, signed by about a dozen rabbanim/ roshei kollel of dati-leumi communities in Bet Shemesh, announcing their support for Eli Cohen. They declared that after investigating matters, they concluded that he is a good person who will work fairly for the best of all communities. Clearly these rabbanim don't see him as anti-Torah in any way, nor are they concerned about his running buses on Shabbos.

It's true that Eli Cohen will probably slow down the accelerating charedization of Bet Shemesh - but he will make a better city for the charedim that are already here, due to more professional administration of the city, attracting more business and thereby having an increased budget, and so on. Many charedim realize that. It's unfortunately that others are endlessly stuck in the "siege mentality" whereby anyone running against a charedi candidate is necessarily "the secular enemy." Maybe when they see how the city improves under Mayor Cohen, with no buses on Shabbos, they'll realize that this charedi siege mentality is an unwise and unhealthy attitude.

Meanwhile, here's an interesting flyer that I received today, from "Charedi Bnei Torah Disappointed With Abutbol."

Letter From A Charedi Jew Regarding The Bet Shemesh Elections

The following anonymous letter was delivered to my house on Friday. I decided to scan it and OCR it (you can download it as a PDF here). In the next post, I'll discuss the very revealing anonymous response that was delivered to my house today. For background on the Bet Shemesh elections, especially vis-a-vis the charedi community, see this post from a few weeks ago.

Don't Tell Anyone...
I wish I could tell you who I was. We likely have mutual friends, or may even know each other. But I can't reveal my identity. Why not? Because I am Charedi (wear a black hat, boys in cheder and girls in Bais Yaakov), live in RBS "A" and I'm voting for Eli Cohen.

The truth is that I've been able to 'read between the lines' that more than a few of my chaverim (including but not only those in kollel and chinuch) are thinking similarly — once you hear the facts, the case for Eli and against Abutbol is really, really strong. Still, to 'come out' publicly would cause too many problems for me and my family, so this letter is anonymous. I feel that I have an achryus to the tzibbur and so, in my small way, I am writing this letter in order to perhaps help others make a more informed decision. Whatever you decide is up to you, of course, but each of us should know the facts and not simply repeat what the mayor's people are saying.

Our family has been in RBS for many years. We spent a few years in Kollel in Yerushalayim and, when it was time to buy a dira, came to RBS. Prices were still relatively low and it was a young community of like-minded young frum families. In many respects, this was and is a great place to live. But in other ways, there are real problems here — and things are heading in a poor direction.
Let's start with basics: this town is disgusting. I know they've been cleaning it up over the last month... surprise, surprise — it is election time. But, over the last years, I feel like I'm living in an expensive slum. Seriously — my dira is worth close to 1. million shekels — as are many of yours — and yet there is garbage in the streets, garbage in the Mercaz, graffiti all over the place, etc. The municipality — if it was competent —CAN fix this. Beitar is not like this (and they have big families as well!). Har Nof is not like this. Even Geulah is not like this! Why are there only a few small trash receptacles in the entire Mercaz? Why only two on my street? Why is clean-up so random and ineffective? The previous mayor wasn't great — I voted against him, actually — but things have gotten much, much worse. My parents came to visit over bain hazmanim and couldn't stop talking about the (negative) change. Don't tell me there isn't money to clean up: (a) Abutbul has spent money on plenty of his pet projects; (b) he has put the city of Beit Shemesh into serious debt; (c) he just promised to build a 500,000 baseball field — yes, you heard right (He is a politician trying to buy votes, I suppose. Good luck.) My point is that there is money for things he cares about.
So I'm supposed to vote for Abutbol in order to protect Torah and Chinuch? I did that last time. Interesting that my daughter's Bais Yaakov is still in a caravan. Abutbol specifically promised to solve the problem. He has had FIVE YEARS and done NOTHING. In this and countless other areas, the incompetence of Abutbol is simply astounding. Call me a naïve chutznik, but I expect a mayor to actually improve the city. To do something. To help. He has made it worse and worse. Eli Cohen has been openly talking for years about the legitimate needs of Charedi kids to have proper schools and that all groups in the city will get along if their legitimate needs are met. I've done some serious checking: Eli is a straight, honest arrow. Above all, he is an able administrator. He is a veteran Likudnik. He openly quotes Torah and is a proud, traditional Jew. He is not anti-Charedi at all — quite the opposite.

Of course, I can't write this letter without mentioning the kanaim (the extremists). A small group of crazies —that is what they are — spit on a dati girl — and then spent months yelling "shiksa" at her and her friends as they walked to school every day. Terrible, to say the least. The Mayor had an opportunity — and I know for a fact it was suggested to him many, many times — to make a great Kiddush Hashem. He could have escorted her to school or asked for a group of volunteers to help. Instead, he rationalized, explained.., and did nothing. He didn't even condem it until forced to, way after the fact! His reaction — or lack thereof— was universally panned and make a chillul Hashem into a massive Chillul Hashem. Do you know that our city is now the 3'd most known city in Israel? People around the world have heard of Yerushalayim, Tel Aviv... and Beit Shemesh. It is not famous— it is infamous. What an embarrassment. Combined with his colossal incompetence, his international reputation for weakness against the extremists is causing serious problems for the city: No wonder businesses are staying away. Connected to this is the whole attitude of too many members of his 'inner clique.' They have turned this city into an 'us-vs.-them' battleground. Non-Charedim feel under attack. We all know the city is going more and more charedi. But it can happen with ahava and achva or it can happen with machlokes, lashon hara, motzee shem ra, and worse. Doesn't all this sinas chinam remind you a little too much of Beis Sheni?

"But the Gedolim say to vote for Charedim".... I know. That is what I've been struggling with. I'm a yeshiva man. Pictures of Gedolim take up much of my wall-space. I am fully aware of how important Daas Torah is. But it isn't so simple. In the last national elections, one of the main local RBS charedi rabbanim openly pointed out that a Ben Torah does not need to vote for the charedi parties. I couldn't bring myself to do it - I've always voted Gimmel — and will continue to do so in national elections. (How else can we stop the terrible gezeiros against the Torah world?) But this is a municipal election! This is about cleaning the streets, balancing the budget, and other such topics. Besides, the Gerrer Rebbe said to vote against the Charedi candidate in the last election for mayor of Yerushalyaim — he supported the (very) secular Nir Barkat! And, in our case, Eli Cohen is a very traditional, masorti Jew. This election has nothing to do with Yiddishkeit. In fact, Eli will be much better for our community.

Abutbol has proven himself completely incompetent at just about everything his job requires. He promises everything to everybody.., and accomplishes ZERO. Five more years of epic incompetence, machlokes, in-fighting, hatred and lack of planning? No thanks. Eli Cohen will clean the city. Eli Cohen will get the city's finances in order. In the long run, his victory will even help Shas and Gimmel by teaching them that they need to be competent, not just charedi! Eli's election will bring back business and investment to the city, leading to jobs, a broader tax base and better city services. His election will send a message of inclusiveness—that this city is not a model of hatred, but rather a model of achdus.

This city could have been — and can be —great. It can be a Torah city. It can be a clean city. It can be a city where the charedi community gets all the services it deserves — more than we get now! It can be a city where charedim, datiim, masortim, and even chilonim, get along and work things out. All this can and IY'H will happen — if we do the right thing and put Eli Cohen into office.

With warm regards

An anglo-Charedi resident of RBS "A"

What Is The Best Aliyah for a Neshamah?

A month ago, I introduced the topic of how the mitzvah of Talmud Torah has dramatically changed over the last few centuries, in both function and emphasis - and not in a good way. In this post, I will give an example of this phenomenon.

I recently came across a book entitled The Neshamah Should Have An Aliyah, which discusses how one can benefit the soul of someone who passed away. The book has been very thoughtfully put together, including plenty of web-links and practical suggestions for different projects. Overall, it's a terrific idea.

But the book doesn't simply list all the different ways of giving an aliyah for a neshamah. After all, this might be confusing for someone (and people who are in mourning tend to be very easily confused and overwhelmed). Instead, it gives an explicit order of priorities, based on a nineteenth-century work entitled Sukas Shalom. And here's where things become problematic.

The author of The Neshamah Should Have An Aliyah places Torah study in the first position. He writes that "There appears to be universal agreement among the poskim throughout the centuries that Torah study is the greatest source of merit for the departed soul."

But in the footnote to this claim, the earliest source that he cites is a work called Yosef Ometz, from the sixteenth century. And this work does not say that Torah study is the greatest source of merit - just that it is a greater merit than Kaddish and prayer (which is no great chiddush; Sukas Shalom says the same about resisting sin). The earliest source to state that Torah study is the greatest merit is Sukas Shalom, which only dates back to the 19th century. And the evidence that Sukas Shalom gives for this is very unclear. For example, he refers to Chazal's statement that Talmud Torah k'neged kulam. But as have discussed, Chazal also say that living in Eretz Yisrael, Shabbos, Bris Milah, Tzitzis, and Gemilas Chasadim are equal to all other mitzvos. And Rambam says that Talmud Torah k'neged kulam only insofar as that it leads to one fulfilling other mitzvos.

Furthermore, even if we do say that Talmud Torah is a great or the greatest mitzvah, it does not follow that it is the greatest merit for the deceased. After all, in the prayers of the Yamim Nora'im, we say that teshuvah, tefillah and tzedakah remove the evil decree, and we do not mention Talmud Torah as doing this. Clearly, even if Talmud Torah is effective for some things, it is not so effective for others.

Thus, the earliest source for Torah being the greatest source of merit is in the nineteenth century. Conversely, we have (as the book quotes) Rabbeinu Yonah, a Rishon, speaking in broad terms about providing a merit for one's deceased parent with the fear of Heaven, toiling in Torah and performing mitzvos (and not in any mystical sense, but rather by thereby demonstrating positive results of one's parents' efforts). And if we look at Chazal, the only source discussing merits for the deceased is the Midrash Tanchuma, which only makes mention of charity, and nothing else - even though the Midrash is specifically discussing what one can do to help the deceased. This Midrash is the basis for yizkor, which dates back around a thousand years, and which is fundamentally about pledging charity in order to benefit the deceased, while saying nothing about Torah.


I wrote all this to the author, who graciously responded. The gist of his reply was that many recent Gedolim said that Torah is the greatest merit for the deceased, and they must surely be reflecting the timeless tradition from Chazal. To this I responded that there are all kinds of topics in which we see that the Acharonim (especially the late Acharonim) had a very different view of a topic than the Rishonim, such as shiluach hakein, Chazal's knowledge of science, etc., etc. I haven't yet heard back from him.

Here, then, is an example of what I'm talking about. Chazal only mention benefiting the deceased by giving charity. The notion of benefiting them via studying Torah first receives mention by Rabbeinu Yonah, and only as a general part of being a good person, along with other mitzvos, which thereby shows that one's parent did a good job. Torah study is first elevated to providing a special benefit in the sixteenth century, and by the time we reach the nineteenth century, it has overtaken charity to become the very greatest benefit of all for the deceased. That is giving a very different role to studying Torah than Chazal and the Rishonim ever imagined - and yet this is claimed to be "the universal view throughout the centuries!"

Dealing with the Deluge

It's that time of year again... so here is the slightly expanded version of my original post regarding the Deluge.

Over the years I've received numerous questions about reconciling the traditional view of Noah's Flood with modern science. There are two sets of problems. First are those concerning the scientific impossibility of such an event - how the animals survived, how they traveled to their various locations, where the water came from, etc. These can all be answered by simply positing numerous miracles, but this is not satisfactory for those who follow the approach of Rambam and others which seeks to minimize supernatural miracles. The second set of problems is based not on the scientific impossibility of such an event, but instead upon the evidence that even a supernatural event of this nature did not happen - i.e. the evidence and records of continuous civilizations throughout the entire period.

There are a variety of different ways of approaching this topic. I tried discussing some of them online back in the summer of 2004, which may well have been one of the factors leading to the ban on my books, and my comments were subsequently widely and wildly (and sometimes deliberately) misquoted. So instead of discussing it, I will just provide references to further reading material which shed light on various different approaches. Many people will condemn these approaches as unacceptable, but until they have a credible response to the scientific difficulties with the simple understanding, they would be wiser to remain silent.

First and foremost, I strongly recommend that people struggling with this difficulty read The Challenge Of Creation, preferably the third edition. I only explicitly deal with the flood in footnote 2 on page 302 (third edition), but there are many other parts of the book which are actually more relevant in terms of determining which options are available and acceptable - in particular, chapters 6-8, and 14-15.

Other relevant sources (remember, not all of these present the same approach) are:

Joel B. Wolowelsky, “A Note on the Flood Story in the Language of Man,” Tradition 42:3 (Fall 2009) pp. 41-48.

Rabbi Gedalyah Nadel, BeToraso Shel Rabbi Gedalyah, pp. 116-119.

Umberto (Moshe David) Cassuto, From Adam to Noah (Jerusalem: Magnes Press 1961).

Rabbi Dovid Tzvi Hoffman, commentary to Genesis, pp. 140-141.

Rabbi J. Hertz’s “Additional Notes to Genesis” at the back of The Pentateuch.

Nahum Sarna, "Understanding Genesis" (New York: Schocken Books 1966). (Note that this is not an Orthodox book, but it contains valuable insights.)

Rav Kook's letter on literalism, translated here.

Marc Shapiro's postings on this topic (I, II, and commentary by Rav Moshe Shamah here).

Chief Rabbi Dr. Jonathan Sacks' essay on the Deluge and the Tower of Babel (here)

Natan Slifkin, "Historical Records Vs. Dramatic Accounts"

Lorence Collins, "Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth."

Keneged Kulam Redux

A few weeks ago, I wrote a post entitled K'neged Kulam!, about how the phrase Talmud Torah K'neged Kulam is an exaggeration and does not actually mean that learning Torah is as important as everything else together. While many people appreciated the post, one reader told me this week that his chavrusa became apoplectic with rage! Anyway, one reader submitted a superb insight, which I subsequently added to the original post, but which many readers may not have seen and which deserves attention.

The version that we say in Shacharis, which has a long list of mitzvos regarding which it is said that Talmud Torah K'neged Kulam, is not the original text. The original text is a Mishnah in Pe'ah, where it lists only three mitzvos, and then says Talmud Torah K'neged Kulam. This text also has a corresponding text regarding sins, which is found in the Tosefta in Pe'ah. It states as follows:

על אילו דברים נפרעין מן אדם בעולם הזה והקרן קיימת לעולם הבא: על עבודה זרה ועל גלוי עריות ועל שפיכות דמים, ועל לשון הרע כנגד כולם.

For these things a person is punished in this world, but the principle remains for the World-To-Come: Idolatry, forbidden relationships and murder. And lashon hara k'neged kulam.

Lashon hara is bad, but is it really worse than idolatry, adultery and murder? Of course not. After all, you don't have to sacrifice your life rather than say lashon hara! (This reminds me of a kiddush I attended last Shabbos, where a speaker quoted something about talking during davenning being like murder. A friend seemingly found it necessary to explain to his son that it doesn't mean that it's actually as bad as murder!) Obviously, Chazal's point is to emphasize the severity of lashon hara, which can be far-reaching in its effects.

So, Talmud Torah is equal to all other mitzvos in the same way that lashon hara is equal to idolatry, adultery and murder. I.e., not really.

Thank God Natan Missed The Boat

Today, the 27th of Tishrei, is the 86th anniversary of the founding of the city of Netanya in 1927. Netanya was named for Nathan (Natan) Straus (1848-1931), an American businessman who co-owned two of New York City's biggest department stores – R.H. Macy & Company and Abraham & Straus.

In 1912, Nathan and his brother Isidore were touring Europe. On an impulse, they visited Palestine, at the time a desolate country facing immense challenges. Isidore soon returned to England, where they were due to catch a ship at Southampton to travel back to New York, but Nathan was delayed in leaving Palestine and missed the boat.

Which was fortunate, because the boat was the Titanic.

Straus, grief-stricken over the loss of his brother, felt that his life had been spared via divine providence. He decided as a result to throw his energies into helping Palestine. Straus established a domestic science school for girls, a health bureau to fight malaria and trachoma, a free public kitchen, child-health welfare stations, and various medical centers. All in all, he gave away two-thirds of his fortune to the developing Jewish homeland. At a dinner in his honor, he once said the following:

I often think of the old saying, "The world is my country, to do good is my religion." ...This has often been an inspiration to me. I might say, "Humanity is my kin, to save babies is my religion." It is a religion I hope will have thousands of followers.

Netanya, then a barren area of sand dunes and malaria-infested swamps, is now a bustling and beautiful city. With nearly 200,000 residents and another 150,000 in outlying neighborhoods, it is the fourth-largest city in Israel.

Missing the boat was one of the best things that ever happened to Natan Straus - and to Israel.

Rav Elya Ber Contradicts Himself

A few weeks ago, I published a post entitled Rav Elya Ber Dismisses Geonim, Rishonim, Acharonim, Gedolim. This was in reference to an approbation that Rav Elya Ber Wachtfogel gave to a work about Chazal and science (you can now download the approbation at this link) entitled Sod Liyreyav. But aside from the fact that Rav Elya Ber is dismissing the views of countless Geonim, Rishonim and Acharonim as being heresy, he's also contradicting himself, in a fascinating way.

The goal of Sod Liyreyav, which focuses primarily on the topic of the spontaneous generation of insects, is not really to assert that Chazal were infallible - it takes that as a given. Instead, its purpose is to refute those who claim that Chazal didn't really believe in spontaneous generation (in an effort to avoid Chazal being in error), but instead were referring to insects hatching from microscopic eggs or some other such apologetic explanation. The author of Sod Liyreyav proves that this is a completely untenable explanation of Chazal's intent.

He is, of course, absolutely correct. As I explained at length in Sacred Monsters - now available in iBooks format for iPad! - Chazal were most definitely referring to spontaneous generation. This is clear from their terminology, the arguments used in their discussion, their social context, and other cases of spontaneous generation that they describe (such as mice and salamanders). It is also the unequivocal view of Rishonim and Acharonim right up until the apologetics of just a few years ago. While I, along with many great Torah scholars, disagree with the assertion that Chazal were correct in this belief, I certainly agree that this was their belief!

Defending this interpretation of Chazal's meaning is important to Rav Elya Ber's worldview for several reasons, aside from the fact that it is the correct interpretation. One is that it reflects a proud and firm rejection of science. Chazal knew everything, scientists are fools, and we should not be changing our understanding of Chazal in order to make them fit into science. In fact, Rav Elya Ber writes in his approbation that the very idea of needing to justify Chazal in light of science is wrong. Besides, once you start changing the meaning of Chazal to fit with science, then you'll start doing that with Bereishis, and who knows where that will end? Another reason why this understanding of Chazal is important to Rav Elya Ber is that, as mentioned, it is the universal understanding of the Rishonim and Acharonim - and one does not dispute the Rishonim. As Rav Elya Ber writes, chas v'shalom to adopt the conclusions of scientists, and to kvetch the plain meaning of Chazal and the Rishonim in order to make them match.

Which makes it extremely strange, then, that Rav Elya Ber also wrote an approbation to a book that does precisely that.

I'm referring to Dr. Isaac Betech's book, The Enigma Of The Biblical Shafan: Torah and Scientific Research Suggesting a Solution, Including Appendices on Fish and Lice. Betech claims that Chazal did not believe that lice spontaneously generate, as we all thought. Instead, Chazal were referring to the fact that lice are the most host-dependent of all ectoparasites - that they are born, live and die on their host animal!

Rabbi Moshe Meiselman takes a similar approach in his forthcoming book Torah, Chazal and Science, suggesting that rather than referring to lice spontaneously generating, Chazal were referring to their hatching from microscopic eggs. However, Rabbi Meiselman (in the draft version of the manuscript that I saw) at least concedes that he is arguing with the explanation of the Rishonim (amusingly concluding that the explanation of the Gemara is "obscure"). Betech, on the other hand, claims that his novel explanation is also the view of the Rishonim! See this post by Betech and the comments there, in which Betech makes the following extraordinary claim:

We may say that when the Ramba”m wrote “which do not come into existence from males and females” his intention is "which do not come into existence from males and females exclusively”, i.e. they are completely dependent on an external media.

As Rafi Miller pointed out, if that's what the Rambam meant, he forgot the key word "exclusively" - and instead used the exact term that is used for spontaneous generation! In order to appreciate just how ludicrous it is to claim that this is Rambam's view, let's take a look at the full quote from Rambam, where he also notes that such insects, which do not result from a male-female relationship, are incapable of reproducing:

והמצוה הקע"ז היא שהזהירנו מאכול השרצים המתהוים מן העפושים אע"פ שאינו מין ידוע ולא יתהוה מזכר ונקבה. והוא אמרו ולא תטמאו את נפשותיכם בכל השרץ הרומש על הארץ. ולשון ספרא השרץ הרומש על הארץ אע"פ שאינו פרה ורבה. וזה הוא ההפרש בין אמרו השרץ השורץ על הארץ ובין השרץ הרומש על הארץ. כי השרץ השורץ הוא השרץ שיש בו הכח המוליד לדומה כי הוא ישריץ על הארץ והשרץ הרומש הוא השרץ המתהוה מן העפושים שלא יוליד הדומה לו. 

The 177th prohibition is that we are forbidden from eating an insect which is created from decayed matter, even though it is not a particular species and is not created from a male-female relationship. The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement, "Do not defile your souls [by eating] any small creature that lives on land." In the words of the Sifri, "The verse, 'any small creature that lives on land' [comes to include an insect] even if it does not multiply." This is the difference between the phrase, "a small creature that is shoretz on land," and "a small creature that is romeis [on land]." "A small creature that is shoretz" refers to something that has the ability to produce offspring like itself and reproduces on land. "A small creature that is romeis" refers to something which is created from decayed matter and does not produce a creature like itself. 

Betech's approach is the paradigm of kvetching the plain meaning of Chazal and the Rishonim in order to make them fit science. How can Rav Elya Ber have written an approbation for a book which takes the very approach that he condemns?

The answer is probably that Rav Elya Ber didn't read that part of Betech's book. Perhaps someone can bring it to his attention, so that he can clarify his position.

People Are Amazing

There's a lot of negativity and cynicism on the internet about people. In this post I would like to write about the best side of humanity, which my wife and I experienced five weeks ago. This was in the aftermath of the car crash that took the life of my mother-in-law, Mrs. Anne Samson a"h. (The memorial lecture and musical/choiral tribute that took place in Los Angeles on September 9th can be viewed online at this link.)

My wife and I would like to express our deep gratitude to many people:
- To all the staff at Providence Holy Cross Medical Center - the hospital closest to the location of the accident, which received my parents-in-law - for their kindness, extraordinary sensitivity and professionalism;
- To the hospital chaplain who called us at 1.30am with the terrible news, for her great sensitivity and support for my wife during the small hours of the morning;
- To my wife's uncle's friend, nurse B., who came to us in the hospital at 4am and stayed for twelve hours to provide all kinds of support;
- To B. and M., who brought us a kosher breakfast at about 6am, stayed for much of the day, and continued after Shabbos to make extensive arrangements for the funeral;
- To my wife's cousins, who came to the hospital and helped out with our baby for most of the day;
- To Rabbi T. of Bikur Cholim organization, who spent the day with us at the hospital and helped in all kinds of ways;
- To my wife's friend A., who walked several miles on Shabbos to be with my wife, and, when we discovered on Motzai Shabbos that we would be flying to Israel the next day, stayed with us until 3am to help organize and pack;
- To the woman at El-Al who re-arranged the airplane so that our last-minute seats could be all together with a bassinet seat;
- To our friends and neighbors in Ramat Bet Shemesh, who provided meals, help with the kids, and all kinds of support.

I am grateful to all these people not only for the kindness and support that they showed to us during an exceedingly difficult time, but also for inspiring me about the goodness of mankind.

Sunday is Sun-Day

This Sunday is Sun-Day - the day that Daf Yomi reaches the famous page of Gemara recording the dispute between the Sages of Israel and the non-Jewish scholars regarding where the sun goes at night. The Sages of Israel thought that it doubles back and passes behind the sky, based on their understanding of various Scriptural verses. The non-Jews said (correctly) that it passes on the other side of the world. And Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi concedes that the non-Jews appear to be correct.

Every single Gaon and Rishon, and many Acharonim, agree that this is indeed an argument about where the sun goes at night. And the majority of Gaonim and Rishonim, as well as many Acharonim, understand the Gemara as saying that the Sages of Israel were indeed mistaken (other Rishonim say that the sun does indeed go behind the sky at night). No other topic better demonstrates the validity of the rationalist approach to Chazal and science. No other topic better demonstrates that the charedi Gedolim, who condemned this approach as being heresy, are either out of touch with the history of rabbinic thought in these areas, or are deliberately rewriting it.

While I completely goofed up in not focusing on this topic at the time of the ban on my books, I've since researched it in great detail. My monograph The Sun's Path At Night has been available for a while, but I'd like to take this opportunity to also release a different publication, which contains much of the same material, but presented in a significantly different way. It's my thesis that I used to enter the doctoral program at Bar-Ilan. Rather than simply list all the different views on the topic, it presents them in historical context, showing that the change in attitudes to this topic began in the sixteenth century, and exploring the reasons for this. You can download it at this link.

I hope that you enjoy these publications, and please share them with others - especially those who are under the misconception that normative Jewish thought regards Chazal as having been divinely inspired in their understanding of the universe. Perhaps readers could print a few copies and put them out in shul, especially for those studying Daf Yomi. Chag sameach!

Will Charedim Vote In Their Own Best Interests?

Municipal elections are being held soon in Bet Shemesh (which includes Ramat Bet Shemesh). The issues are very different from those of the national elections, and it gives a window of insight into the dynamics of charedi vs. non-charedi populations.

There are two leading candidates for mayor. One is the current (charedi) mayor, Moshe Abutbol, from Shas. He's a friendly person of average intelligence (picture at right, in the middle, when he was looking at my book The Challenge Of Creation, and asking me what dinosaurs are). But he is utterly incompetent as mayor, and has clearly demonstrated (and more-or-less explicitly said) that he believes in kowtowing to the most extreme factions amongst the charedim. The challenging candidate is Eli Cohen (pictured below), a traditional Jew who has the backing of virtually all non-charedi factions. He's held senior positions in the Jewish Agency and Mekorot Water Company.

It will be a close race: Eli Cohen is leading in the polls, but only by a narrow margin. The question is, will charedim vote in their own best interests, or will they vote to maintain the current charedi mayor?

Why do I say that the non-charedi candidate is the best candidate for the charedim? This isn't out of some paternalistic Yair Lapid-style position that non-charedim know better than charedim what sort of life they should be leading. Rather, it's based on some very simple truths.

1. Everyone needs the municipality to have money, and benefits when it has more money.
2. A significant proportion of the charedi population pays very little in municipal taxes - people in kollel get a 90% exemption.
3. Under Abutbol (and as a result of him), many non-charedim (i.e. people who pay full municipal taxes) left the city, and many non-tax-paying charedim moved in. This pattern would continue and even increase were Abutbol to be re-elected. Non-charedim are not attracted to a city in which Abutbol is mayor.

Thus, it's better for charedim if there is a non-charedi mayor, who will maintain a strong tax-base. QED.

I would also add:

4. Abutbol is hopelessly incompetent at running a city. This is only to be expected, since his job experience, before entering city management, consists of being a radio disc-jockey and an actor. He's been unsuccessful at attracting business to the city and managing the budget. Money designated for projects such as security cameras, the Kav LaChaim fund, libraries, the Cities Without Violence project, and cultural centers, has simply disappeared. The city is a mess (until a recent frantic pre-election cleanup). Posters saying "Jews Hate Zionists" remained up for months, while city sanitation workers are speedily dispatched to take down campaign posters for Eli Cohen. The planning of the new neighborhoods is nothing less than a disaster, with completely inadequate areas for businesses and other communal necessities. Already in Ramat Bet Shemesh, many retailers are reduced to running their businesses from subterranean store-rooms, there is inadequate parking, and it's only going to get worse when the new neighborhoods get occupied. Eli Cohen, on the other hand, is professionally trained in resource management and has successfully run major organizations. Everyone benefits from having a mayor who knows how to run a city professionally.

Are there any reasons why the above simple arguments would not be valid? One reason would be if charedim had to fear becoming an insignificant minority in the city. But this is clearly not the case - they are already at least 40% of the population, and once the new neighborhoods of RBS open, charedim will be the majority of the population forever. There is no chance of charedim becoming an insignificant minority - the future choice is between them being a slight majority or the vast majority.

Another potential flaw in the above logic would be if Eli Cohen had antipathy towards charedim, and would not enable them to benefit from the increased funds that the city will have when he is elected. Abutbol and his team are running a nasty and completely hypocritical campaign, claiming that Cohen is anti-charedi and is running an anti-charedi campaign. But he isn't at all (follow the above link for more details). In hypocritical contrast, Abutbol and his team are running an anti-non-charedi campaign, telling people that Rav Steinman said that it would be a chillul Hashem to vote for a secular mayor. (What they don't reveal is that Rav Steinman and them are thereby condemning the Gerrer Rebbe along with all the Boyan, Viznitz and Sanz chassidus, who supported secular candidate Nir Barkat in Jerusalem against the charedi candidate.)

As Eli Cohen told me personally, under his leadership everyone would benefit, including charedim - when the pie is bigger, everyone gets a bigger piece. Certainly, charedim are not faring well from the non-charedi population leaving Bet Shemesh, which impoverishes the city.

Charedim, then, stand to gain tremendously from having a non-charedi mayor. Some of them recognize this and will be voting for him. But why will others vote for Abutbol? The reason is pathetic and tragic. It's due to simple tribalism. Abutbul is the chareidi candidate, which means that he is "us." Cohen is the non-charedi candidate, which means that he is "them." End of story.

One can only hope that many charedim will be intelligent enough to vote in their own best interests.