Natan Slifkin's Blog, page 168

So Big!

On Friday, after the hyena encounter, I went to meet some elephants. As with the hyena, the goal was to film a clip for my documentary. In this case, I would be speaking about the wonder of elephants, and the blessing that is pronounced on them - Baruch meshaneh habriyos.

Now, I've seen elephants plenty of times before. I've fed them, hugged them, and ridden on them. So I was expecting that I would have to artificially put on an expression of wonder.

But that wasn't necessary. Having an African elephant right next to me, towering above me, was such an awe-inspiring experience that I burst into the berachah spontaneously, with immense emotion. Pictures absolutely do not do this justice, but here are some anyway:



 

NOTE: This was, of course, a trained elephant. One would never, ever, ever do this with a wild elephant, such as those that I hope to see tomorrow! (Even what I did had its dangers; the trainers were constantly assessing the elephants' mood and instructing me accordingly - where to stand, when to move, etc.)

(Additional note to those emailing me - please be aware that while I am traveling, it is very hard for me to keep up with emails.)

A Close Shave With A Hyena

On Friday, I filmed some sequences for the "Zoo Torah" documentary, and I had the thrill of encountering a number of exotic animals - up close and personal. This was the first time that I had interacted with a hyena. (If you're reading this via email, and you can't see the picture above, I recommend that you visit www.rationalistjudaism.com!)

It was an exhilarating, albeit nerve-wracking, experience. Spotted hyenas are exceptionally dangerous creatures, with jaws that are more powerful than those of a lion. Even though this one was trained, there's not really any such thing as a tame hyena. I had a handful of pieces of meat that I was supposed to feed to it. But I was warned to throw the pieces to it, and not to let it eat from my hand - with one bite, it would neatly amputate my entire hand.

So here I was, throwing pieces of meat up into the air as it leaped around me, and it suddenly dawned on me that I was swiftly running out of pieces of meat. Moments later, there was no meat left, and my hands were covered with traces of smelly raw meat. The hyena looked at my hands hungrily, which is the moment at which the pictures below were taken.



I was anticipating being imminently not very handy, but fortunately the handler, who realized what was happening, immediately lured the hyena away. Phew!

Anyway, during the hyena encounter, I really understood how a certain belief about hyenas, recorded in the Jerusalem Talmud, arose. The Gemara states that the male hyena turns into a female. This belief is not unique to the Sages; it's found in many cultures. Looking at this hyena, I saw why people would think this. Female hyenas are the most masculinized mammals in the world. They are larger, stronger, and more aggressive than males - and even their reproductive organs look like those of a male, as I could plainly see. Anyone looking at this hyena would assume that it was a male animal - and upon seeing it give birth, would assume that it had changed gender.

There's all sorts of strange beliefs about hyenas, and it's not surprising - they really are freakish creatures. Still, I've come up with some really inspirational insights about the hyena in Jewish thought, which you can read about in my forthcoming encyclopedia, and watch on the forthcoming movie!

Zoo Torah: The Movie

Twelve years ago, at the dawn of the DVD era, my wife bought me a present from Mea She'arim: a DVD on my favorite chapter of Tehillim, Barchi Nafshi. It turned out to be a montage of clips relating to the verses, many of which were pirated from National Geographic videos, with a voice-over reciting the verses of Barchi Nafshi. There was also amazing background music, which I eventually identified as the soundtrack from Last Of The Mohicans. A charming effort, but it wasn't going to be winning any Oscars for Best Documentary.

More recently, I was given another DVD about animals and Torah. This one at least featured original content in the voice-over, with explanations about the identities of various animals in the Torah. However, it suffered from several drawbacks. The explanations were rather poor, from a rationalist/ academic standpoint, in that they fell into the error that I have discussed previously: not appreciating that the Rishonim of Europe were not familiar with the animals of the Land of Israel. The footage was, again, pirated from National Geographic, along with BBC's Life series. True, this is amazing footage; but aside from the ethical/halachic issues in using such footage, it actually makes it harder to concentrate on the Torah material being presented. Another drawback was that the soundtrack was abysmal, and made me pine for Last Of The Mohicans.

Several years ago, I myself was featured in a big-budget TV special, Beasts of the Bible for Animal Planet. It was a very high-end production, with dazzling visual effects, filmed on location in many places. Still, it was unsatisfactory from my perspective, because it was simply too sensationalistic, and spent more time on strange cryptozoological theories than on actually imparting useful information.

With all these videos being disappointing, I've long wanted to produce my own video about Torah and the animal kingdom (previously, I've just done a few short segments of middling quality for my lecture presentations, some of which can be viewed at www.zootorah.com/videos). And now, the opportunity is finally presenting itself!

The wild animals that are featured in the Torah are no longer found in Israel - today, one gets a better picture of Biblical wildlife by visiting Africa. I'm going there tomorrow night, teaching on a safari that will travel through South Africa, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Botswana. But I'm arriving a few days before my group comes, and I'm using the extra time to film footage for an educational video, tentatively titled Zoo Torah: The Animal Kingdom in Jewish Thought. Arrangements have been made to visit a ranch where there are tame lions, leopards, hyenas and other animals that are used for filming. (Well, as tame as these beasts can be; just this week, Adam Sandler revealed that he was attacked by a "tame" cheetah at one such ranch in South Africa.) This will be supplemented by footage that I'll film in Israel when I return. The plan is to produce a DVD documentary of high quality that is both educational and entertaining.

All this is extremely expensive; apparently, the ranch with the "tame" predators has very high insurance premiums! Plus, there are many other expenses, especially if I'm not going to simply use the soundtrack from Last Of The Mohicans. If you'd like to help sponsor this production, that would be gratefully appreciated by myself and all the viewers. Donations are tax-deductible (in the US) and can be sent to The Torah and Nature Foundation; details at this link. Smaller donations can be made via PayPal:


If you have any ideas or suggestions regarding the video, please write them in the comments! As always, I can be reached at zoorabbi@zootorah.com.

Relating to Tishah B'Av

It's difficult to mourn the Destruction of the Temple, since most of us don't have any particular desire to engage in Temple service, and the persecution and massacres that were involved took place a very, very long time ago. Perhaps one way to relate to it is to read about the distressing phenomenon whereby our enemies today deny that there ever was a Jewish Temple in Israel - with the resultant conclusion that the Jews have no historical right to be in Israel. To quote Professor James Davila: There is an increasing practice among journalists of writing as though the existence of the ancient Jewish temples on the Temple Mount is a disputable question with two legitimate "competing narratives."

Many people tap into the mood of the day via contemplating the Holocaust. I'd like to share some recommendations for books about the Holocaust that I find particularly moving - please feel free to share other recommendations in the comments section.

Yaffa Eliach, Hasidic Tales of the Holocaust - I haven't read this in many years, but I remember it being very powerful. There's valuable mussar in the story about the survivors whom, at a wedding many decades later, asked the waiter not to clear off the table, because they still found it reassuring to see food in front of them.

Rabbi Ephraim Oshry, Responsa From The Holocaust - It's incredibly moving to see what kinds of halachic questions people were asking during this period, and how desperate they were to maintain allegiance to halachah even under the most adverse circumstances.

Victor Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning - A classic. Everyone should read this book.

Diane Ackerman, The Zookeeper's Wife - This is the true account of how a non-Jewish couple, who ran the Warsaw Zoo, used the zoo to hide Jewish fugitives during the war. What I find particularly humbling is that they had a beloved young son, who would have been brutally killed had their activities been discovered. How many of us would place our children's lives at such risk in order to help people of a different religion?

May there be no more such suffering - and may the Jewish People's right and reign over their homeland be uncontested.

Where Yeshivah Learning and Academia Meet

As I've written in the past, I am fascinated by the differences between the yeshivish/ traditionalist approach to Torah and the academic/ rationalist approach. I do not feel that one or the other is better in absolute terms - rather, each has its advantages and disadvantages. The academic/ rationalist approach is superior in terms of ascertaining the historical reality of what is actually going on in the Chumash/ Nach/ Talmud/ Rishonim/ Acharonim. But the yeshivish/ traditionalist approach is generally superior in terms of imparting religious devotion. Of course, in some cases, and for some people, the yeshivish approach is a major turn-off from Judaism. But in general, it is a more inspirational and motivational approach.

This dichotomy is unavoidable. Reaching truth requires intellectual honesty and objectivity; this requires a detached, critical analysis, which harms the reverential experience required for religious inspiration. And the academic approach acknowledges that everyone is a product of their environment, and contextualizes all writings, whereas the traditionalist approach sees religious writings as transcending the time and place in which it was written and thus being equally relevant to us. In fact, one way of summarizing the difference between the two approaches is simply with one word: context. (See this post for examples of how it plays out.)

The two systems of study normally remain worlds apart. But there is one field in which they often meet, and that just happens to be my own specialty: Biblical and Talmudic zoology.

Consider this: ArtScroll, which serves as an excellent barometer of yeshivish/ traditionalist norms and sensitivities, never quotes from academic works. But there does appear to be one, single exception: Professor Yehuda Feliks’ Plants and Animals of the Mishna, which is quoted in a number of ArtScroll works. Why? Someone at ArtScroll once explained to me that this book "somehow found its way into the Beis HaMidrash." But this merely begs the question: Why, of all academic works, did only this one become "acceptable" in the yeshivah world?

I think that there are two reasons. One is that there was simply no alternative. Every student of Tenach and Talmud at some point wants to know the identity of the shafan  or the bardelas. For a long time, Feliks' book was the only such work available.

The second reason is that Biblical and Talmudic zoology appears to be an entirely non-threatening topic. It's not like archeology, where an Orthodox Jew instantly has his guard up. What could be religiously problematic in using modern zoology to assist in identifying the obscure animals of the Torah and Talmud? It's perceived as pareve.

Yet the truth is that this latter point is far from accurate. Contextualization is extremely relevant to identifying the animals of the Torah. Many recent traditional identifications of animals in the Torah come from the great Torah scholars of medieval Europe. But the flora and fauna of Europe is very different from that of the Land of Israel.

Anyone trying to seriously make sense of the identities of animals in Torah and Talmud simply cannot help but notice that the medieval European Torah scholars give very different identifications from those given by Rav Saadiah Gaon and from academic works of Biblical zoology. Furthermore, following the medieval European tradition gives rise to all sorts of difficult problems, which do not exist if one follows the approach of Rav Saadiah and academic Biblical zoology. If the tzvi is the deer, why does the Gemara say that it doesn't have antlers? If the shafan is the rabbit, why is described as habitually hiding in rocks? If the nesher is the eagle, why is it described as being bald? If the shu'al is a fox, which is a solitary animal living far from other members of its kind, how did Samson collect three hundred of them? If the bardelas is a polecat, why is it described as dangerous to man? And so on. You can contrive explanations for each of these - or you can solve them all in one fell swoop by acknowledging that people were only familiar with animals in their own locale. In my forthcoming Torah Encyclopedia of the Animal Kingdom , I saw no way around pointing this out, albeit delicately.

Of course, as discussed in my post "Sugar for Elephants" and in a follow-up post, even many Rishonim and Acharonim acknowledged that European Rishonim were often hampered by a lack of knowledge regarding Eretz Yisrael. Still, this itself strengthens my point - Biblical and Talmudic zoology (and botany) is a field in which the academic approach of contextualization inevitably makes inroads into traditional approaches to Torah.

But is this a good thing or a bad thing? I honestly don't know.

Guest Post: Factual Corrections

Guest Post by Eli Duker
Rav Feldman's speech in Baltimore as transcribed here by R. Yaakov Menken, has several factual errors that I feel need to be addressed. I must add a disclaimer that I am only going on what was written; I do not know what words Rav Feldman actually used.

1. He cites Rav Eliezer Melamed, Rosh Yeshiva of Har Bracha, as claiming that 20% of Hesder students cease religious observance during their army service. But Rav Melamed never said such a thing. What he actually said both here and here is that 20% (or more) of those who go through the Religious Zionist educational system through high school abandon religious observance. Rav Melamed also claims that the number of those who grew up in "Torani" communities and later cease observance is around 5%. Nowhere does he give numbers about Hesder students. A new survey of Hesder alumni had 7% of respondents describe themselves in categories other than "Dati" (Hiloni, Masorati, Non-Orthodox, non-denominational); however, this was a survey of Facebook respondents and hence non-scientific. Nonetheless, there is no evidence for Rav Feldman's rather staggering claim.

2. A second claim Rav Feldman makes is that "the Religious Zionist party" went from thirteen seats at the time of his moving to Israel to five today, and claims that "this is in no small part due to the secularization of their youth in the army." I don't know when Rav Feldman moved to Israel. At no point did the Mafdal have 13 seats. But the fact is that in the current Knesset, the Bayit HaYehudi party has twelve seats – up from seven seats in the previous Knesset (three Bayit HaYehudi/ Mafdal; four Ichud HaLeumi). It is strange that in a speech where R' Feldman is extremely critical of Naftali Bennett he seems to be unaware of Bennett's great political achievement. Moreover, it is incorrect to gauge the religiosity of the Religious Zionist population by the size of the Mafdal, and this is because of several factors:
a) In the years prior to Bennett's catapult of the Bayit HaYehudi, there was generally a right-wing party in addition to the Mafdal which competed for votes of the Religious Zionist population.
b) Religious Zionists have always been represented in other parties, and many never considered themselves obligated to vote for a sectoral party. This is a matter of political strategy and not an indication of secularization. The Likud, whose MKs are elected in primaries, have 4 Religious Zionist MKs out of a total of 20 (without Yisrael Beiteinu) – this is due in part to the large number of religious Likud members, and it is safe to assume that there are a large number of religious Likud voters.
c) There are many Sephardim who identify with religious Zionism and who made up a huge block of Mafdal voters before 1977, if not 1984, and now vote Shas due to the charisma and overall presence and authority of Rav Ovadiah.
All this being said, I fail to see how secularization in the army has drastically weakened Religious Zionist political strength.

3. Out of the seven indicted ministers to whom Rav Feldman points to prove the ethical bankruptcy of any non-Haredi educational system and weltanschauung, two are haredi ministers from Shas!

4. What I found most disturbing was the way the famous meeting between the Chazon Ish and Ben Gurion was related to this audience. R. Yaakov Menken claims that R. Feldman said that "Ben-Gurion went to visit the Chazon Ish to persuade him that religious Jews should be drafted into the Army. Ben-Gurion said that the state could not survive without it. The Chazon Ish countered that the Torah could not survive with it."

In fact, the Chazon Ish never said that it is forbidden to serve in the army, and the notion that he would have told Ben Gurion that the Torah could not survive if "religious Jews" were to serve in the army is patently ridiculous. Ben Gurion was quite ambivalent about his decision to exempt less than 400 Yeshiva students, and the notion that he would have held a discussion with the Chazon Ish about exempting the entire religious population from army service is also ridiculous. Moreover, "Peer Hador" – clearly a Haredi work – claims that the Chazon Ish was opposed to army exemptions being given to anyone who is not in Yeshiva, and quotes the Chazon Ish as saying that anyone took a Yeshiva deferment who isn't learning full time has the status of a rodef.

What is more disturbing, however is that there isn't a single account of the meeting, whether Haredi or not, that claims that the issue of the men's draft was ever brought up. Ben Gurion requested the meeting in the context of the struggle of the Haredi community against mandatory National Service for religious girls who were exempt from army service. But that issue wasn't brought up by either side either. Only the fundamental issue of how secular and Haredi Jews can coexist was discussed, without getting into any details regarding any part of the draft. (See Benjamin Brown's "The Hazon Ish", which deals with this episode as thoroughly as one can).

If one studies the surveys mentioned above about the Religious Zionist world and the Hesder system, they may come to the conclusion that there is a risk of secularization if one serves in the army; this may give Rav Feldman enough information to justify his position, albeit from a Haredi perspective. The Haredim as a whole clearly have different priorities than the religious Zionist community, and they aren't willing to risk their way of life in any way for the sake of doing military service. I fail to understand why this approach cannot be justified to Haredi communities without giving faulty information about other Jews and falsifying accounts of Gedolei Yisrael.

Face Up!

Rabbi Aharon Feldman, Rosh Yeshivah of Ner Israel Rabbinical College in Baltimore, recently gave two addresses about the political situation vis-a-vis the charedi community in Israel. Over at Cross-Currents, in a post entitled Wake Up! , Rabbi Yaakov Menken has posted excerpts from these addresses. Unfortunately, the post is closed to comments. I would therefore like to post some responses here, from both myself and Menachem Lipkin.

It was pleasing to see that Rav Feldman did not make any claims about charedim believing that their Torah provides essential protection for the country. I have written on many occasions about how they don't believe any such thing, and it appears that this excuse is no longer being offered. Instead, Rav Feldman is honest, and gives the real reason why charedim do not want to go to the army: because it is an environment which is very harmful to the charedi lifestyle.

Now, I think that people should be able to understand that, and be sympathetic to it. Yet, contrary to what Rav Feldman thinks, it doesn't settle the matter. To quote Rabbi Yitzchak Adlerstein: "the robbing of our youths’ formative years as a ben Torah would be a price that we could not pay... But how do we ask other, reluctant Israelis to pay a different price so that we don’t have to pay ours? Who gave us that right?"

Everyone, charedim included, agrees that Israel needs a strong army. If charedim feel that they cannot do their share in providing manpower, then this means that they have a debt to the rest of the country. But Rav Feldman, and virtually every other leader and spokesperson for the charedi community, never make any mention of such a debt.

Rav Feldman claims that the charedi community should have the status of conscientious objectors. But they are not objecting to the goals of the army, or to its methods of war. They agree that the State of Israel needs defending from the Arab nations. They are simply objecting to they themselves having to contribute to these efforts, which is not what "conscientious objectors" normally refers to!

Rav Feldman then claims that charedim are doing their public service to the nation by learning Torah. But here he utilizes a tactic that is commonly used by charedi spokesmen. It is to use the word "Torah" without qualification, and thereby to blur the differences between studying Torah, teaching Torah, the relationship between the Torah and the entire nation, and the system of mass long-term uninterrupted yeshivah/kollel. This is a mistake/ distortion that happens all the time, and I would like to elaborate by examining Rav Feldman's statements in turn.

"Learning Torah ensures the survival of the Jewish people."

Yes, that is absolutely true. However, this does not mean that the system of mass long-term uninterrupted yeshivah/kollel ensures the survival of the Jewish people. In fact, the Jewish people survived for thousands of years without mass long-term uninterrupted yeshivah/kollel. And the Religious Zionist community still manages to survive, and thrive, without mass long-term uninterrupted yeshivah/kollel.

"Learning Torah should not be considered on a par with changing bedpans in a hospital?! How outrageous that this should be suggested in a Jewish state!"

It's not outrageous at all. Teaching Torah should certainly be considered at least on a par with changing bedpans in a hospital. But a person who is only learning Torah is not contributing to the rest of society (unless you subscribe to recent mystical ideas developed by R. Chaim of Volozhin). He is building up his own Torah scholarship, but that is not what "national service" is about.

"Without Torah, there would be no Jewish state, no claim to the land of Israel. How can learning Torah not be considered a valid public service?"

This is a perfect example of blurring the differences between studying Torah, teaching Torah, the relationship between the Torah and the entire nation, and the system of mass long-term uninterrupted yeshivah/kollel. It is indeed true that without the relationship between the Torah and the entire nation, there would be no Jewish state, no claim to the land of Israel. But this does not mean that without the system of mass long-term uninterrupted yeshivah/kollel, there would be no Jewish state, no claim to the land of Israel!

Learning Torah, knowing enough to live life as a religious Jew, is an essential task. But it is not fulfilling a service to the nation! Learning to read and write and do math is likewise an essential task, but it would not be considered fulfilling a service to the nation! National service means doing something for other people. Serving in the army is an immense service to everyone else. Learning Torah is not a service to anyone else.

Or, to put matters another way: You can learn Torah and serve in the army. Many, many national-religious Jews do exactly that. There are even some charedim who do that. To have all charedim learning not only for most of their lives, but also non-stop between the ages of 21 and 24, is not an essential national service!

Turning to the topic of education, Rav Feldman claims that the government has no right to impose an educational curriculum upon the charedi community, and that "nowhere in the world would they act so paternalistically towards a minority." How on earth can he say such a thing? Every Western country has compulsory education! Again, to quote Rabbi Adlerstein: "They uphold the need of a democratic society to assure that children are given both a chance at vocational success as well as share some information... that is meant to bring about some social cohesion." (Not to mention the fact that Chazal themselves held that a parent has an obligation to teach his child a trade!)

Rav Feldman complains that the natural leaders of the Charedim should be consulted before making such changes. Why? It's something that is a need for the rest of the country (who are financially supporting the charedim), as well as for many charedim. Adina Bar Shalom, Rav Ovadiah Yosef's daughter, appeared before the Knesset task force to help charedim enter the work force, and begged them to implement math and English because 50% of the boys in her chareidi college drop out due to their lack of math and English. If the leaders of the charedi community were open to discussing how this should be solved, then I'm sure that Lapid and co. would be open to consulting them as to how to go about doing this; but all the charedi leaders say is no, no, no.

Strangely, Rav Feldman then claims that the "primary purpose of education should be... to educate young people to be human beings." Well, yes, but that's not what's under discussion here. Rav Feldman then goes on about how secular Zionist society is morally bankrupt and leaders are bought off by bribery, whereas charedi children are educated not to lie, cheat or steal, and to love Jews and respect authority. Aside from the fact that this is completely and utterly irrelevant to the issue of teaching math, it's also completely and utterly false. Do I really have to go into details about how so many charedi leaders were bought off by the bribery of Leib Tropper? Or about all the lying, cheating and stealing that is done by charedi Jews, sometimes under the auspices of kollels and other such institutions? And this is directly attributable to the fact that charedim do not have the education, qualifications and inclination to be financially self-sufficient. As Chazal state, Whoever does not teach his son a trade, has taught him to steal.

Rav Feldman claims that "Gemara prepares a person for modern technology more than even math and science. When our students enter job training, they score higher than their secular counterparts, because their minds have been developed." But his students in Baltimore learn secular studies in addition to Gemara! In Israel, on the other hand, where they learn virtually no secular subjects, the students are ill prepared for any meaningful education. Again, recall Adina Bar-Shalom's testimony that 50% of her male students drop out due to lacking basic math and English!

And now we come to the tired old canard that the real reason why many non-charedim want charedim to get the most basic secular education has nothing to do with alarm at a growing sector of the population which is under-employed, does not build up the economy or workforce, and has its Knesset representatives insist on a "right" to be supported by the rest of the country. No, the real reason, says Rav Feldman, is the desire to secularize the charedim!

Surely he can't be serious. Eleven hours a week of math, English and Hebrew is going to “secularize” them? He must not have much faith in the Torah that they learn the rest of the time! The charedi-leumi community in Israel and the charedi community in America have even more hours of general studies. Wanting charedim in Israel to be more like charedim in the US is not wanting to "secularize" them!

Rav Feldman then repeats Rabbi Meiselman's slander about Naftali Bennett stating that the Charedim are a greater threat to Israel than Iranian nuclear weapons. As I wrote to Yated, this is a serious distortion of what Bennett said. It's strange that just a few weeks after Rav Feldman publicly apologizes for falsely reporting R. Dov Lipman's positions, he does the same with Naftali Bennett. Is it really so difficult to find out what a person actually said before condemning them in public? (UPDATE: After I sent a complaint to Rav Feldman and Rabbi Menken, this has now been changed to "Bennett said something similar." I'm not sure if Rav Feldman's speeches have likewise been retroactively corrected. And, of course, I would not agree that Bennett said something similar at all.)

Many years ago, in calmer times, Rav Feldman criticized the Israeli Yated for adopting a "siege mentality." He himself does exactly the same in his addresses, talking about "demonization of religious Jews." And it's ironic, considering that the charedi community equals, and probably vastly exceeds, its opponents in its demonization of them. Whether it's Rav Feldman calling Dov Lipman a rasha, Eytan Kobre saying that the Zionist enterprise is a bigger threat than Iran, or the Yated and Agudah rabbis comparing Yesh Atid to Hitler, Bilaam, and Amalek, I think that the charedi community wins hands-down on the demonization front.

Rav Feldman then repeats a claim that he made several weeks ago, that charedim pay taxes just like everyone else. I don't understand how he can say something that is so obviously false. A person learning in kollel does not pay anything like the amount of taxes that someone in a regular job pays. Sure, he pays property tax and VAT. Whoop-de-do! But his company isn't paying company tax, he doesn't pay income tax, and he only pays 10% of municipal taxes.

This in turn shows the flaw in Rav Feldman's complaint that charedi tax money goes to pay for things that they neither want nor use, such as television, sports stadiums, and so on. The amounts that are spent on such things are a miniscule fraction of that which goes to things that charedim do benefit from - infrastructure and defense. But more significantly, the amount of taxes coming from the charedi community, and their contribution to the workforce and economy, is so low that they are certainly not net providers!

Rav Feldman concludes by returning to the army issue, and asking the Israeli government not to "wreck our lives as Jews." I really don't see how the charedi-leumi community, which serves in the army, have had their lives as Jews wrecked. Still, if that is how Rav Feldman feels, to the extent that he talks about pulling his family out of Israel, so be it. In the US, he will find a government that also dictates basic secular education. And also one that, in times of war for national survival, would not grant an exemption to 20% of the population.

Being a citizen of the state carries responsibilities to the state. These may be spiritually threatening. They may even be physically threatening. I'm terrified about sending my sons to the army! But that is part of the responsibility and privilege of being a citizen of this tiny, precarious, amazing country.

Mighty Lambs and Evil Beasts

Yesterday, I delivered a lecture at a seminar organized in honor of the 20th anniversary of the new Jerusalem Biblical Zoo. The line-up of speakers was rather eclectic. A leading gynecologist spoke about his role in the successful artificial insemination of an elephant at the zoo; Mayor Nir Barkat spoke about tourism in Jerusalem; an ornithologist for the Nature Reserves Authority spoke about the rampant problem of raptors with tracking devices being captured in neighboring countries and suspected of being Mossad agents; MK Nachman Shai spoke about the Labor Party's plans for Jerusalem; the director of the Amsterdam Zoo spoke about the history of zoos; the Jerusalem Zoo's curator spoke about the fabulous aquarium that will be built there; and so on. I spoke about the identification and symbolism of various animals in the Bible, and afterwards I got into a fascinating discussion with the chief scientist of the Nature Reserves Authority about whether the yachmor of the Bible is the hartebeest, and whether it should be reintroduced to the wild.

One particularly interesting talk was given by Meir Shalev, a prominent Israeli author. He spoke about his childhood memories of the original Biblical Zoo, before it moved to its beautiful new premises. Shalev's family was friendly with the director of the zoo at the time, the late Professor Aharon Shulov (pictured at right with his wife and a friend). Shulov's zoo was a true Biblical Zoo, which exclusively housed animals from the Bible, unlike the Jerusalem Biblical Zoo of today.

Shalev related that Professor Shulov wanted the zoo to feature not only animals from the Bible, but also animal-related scenes from the Bible. In particular, he wanted to exhibit the wolf lying down with the lamb.

(It's funny that everyone thinks that the Bible talks about the lion lying down with the lamb. It doesn't. It speaks about the lion living with the cow. It's the wolf that is described as lying down with the lamb. Now is not the time to get into the medieval Maimonidean dispute about whether this is to be interpreted literally.)

Anyway, the problem with creating a wolf-lamb exhibit was that it would be prohibitively expensive, due to the need to replace the lamb on a regular basis! But Professor Shulov was determined to find a way around this problem, and he did.

One day, said Shalev, he came with his family to the zoo, and he saw a wolf lying spreadeagled on the ground, with a look of abject misery and exhaustion. "What happened?" he asked Professor Shulov. Shulov replied that it had just returned from the new wolf-lamb exhibit.

It turns out that Shulov had decided upon a rather novel solution to displaying a wolf with a lamb. The wolf was barely more than a cub, just eight months old. The lamb, on the other hand, was a strapping two-year-old, well on its way to becoming a ram. It had spent its time together with the wolf using its head and horns to butt it all around the cage!

But it was a different story that Shalev told that I found more interesting. He was describing how, as a child, he read Gerald Durrell's memoir My Family And Other Animals. This is the same book that I read as a child, about Durrell's experiences with wildlife in Corfu. At one point, said Shalev, Durrell describes how his mentor in biology brought him some specimens of anopheles mosquitoes to study. Shalev said that at the time, he was horrified. He simply couldn't understand how Durrell could describe the anopheles mosquito with wonder and interest. The anopheles mosquito was no mere insect. It was the Evil Enemy of Zionism!

In the early days of the State of Israel, children were taught how to identify the anopheles mosquito, evil enemy of Zionism. This was not really an exaggeration. The formation of the State of Israel was not only threatened by political and military forces; it was also threatened by malaria. Malaria, transmitted by the anopheles mosquito, is a terrible disease with no cure. It was rampant in Palestine, and it led to some early settlements being completely abandoned. Entry permits to Palestine warned that "the mosquito is your enemy!" Thanks to intensive efforts to combat it, it went into decline, and was finally eradicated from Israel in 1967. Had this battle not been fought, the State of Israel would probably not have been able to come into existence and survive.

This story helped me to understand something in Scripture. Dangerous animals are often described in Scripture with the term chayah ra'ah, "evil beasts." Yet these animals are certainly not consciously engaging in acts of wickedness. In Jewish thought as well as contemporary zoology, animals do not possess free will such as to make moral choices. I had previously understood the Scriptural description to mean that these animals are evil in the sense of being vicious. But perhaps it's that they are evil in terms of their effects on people. From a contemporary cushy Western perspective, we don't seriously fear the effects of dangerous animals on our lives. But in harsher times and places, lions and leopards and even mosquitoes really were The Evil Enemy.

I even know of one poor wolf who viewed a certain sheep that way.

(I'll be starting my anti-malaria medication soon, as I head out to my safari in Africa. Readers in Johannesburg are invited to attend my lectures on Shabbat July 20th at Beit Yisrael Waverley. If anyone has availability to drive me around on July 18th-19th, please be in touch.)

Circular Reasoning At Its Best

Here's another installment of my critique of Dr. Isaac Betech's book on the shafan, which will reveal yet another fascinating aspect of irrational thought.

First, a quick summary: In the first post, I discussed the fraudulence of presenting his book as a search for truth rather than as a mission to contrive arguments that will support certain religious beliefs. I also noted his fallacy in presenting the views of Spanish Rishonim, that the shafan is the European rabbit, as evidence for identifying the Biblical shafan as the rabbit (and this comment, I exposed his false claim that he was doing nothing of the sort). He even makes their descriptions of the rabbit into criteria that the shafan must fulfill, e.g. that it must have long ears! (pp. 134-5)

In the second post, I noted that Betech has a habit of arguing that something cannot be conclusively disproved, and then smoothly changing that to mean that it is likely, probable, and ultimately that it is true. I also pointed out that his denial that Rav Saadiah Gaon explained the shafan to be the hyrax has no serious basis.

In the third post, I discussed the reason why every single academic scholar of Biblical zoology, and every reasonable, rational person who is aware of the facts and arguments, dismisses the rabbit as a candidate for the shafan - namely, that the rabbit did not live in Biblical Israel. I also discussed Betech's misrepresentation of the nature of this argument, and his inadequate response.

Betech failed to respond to any of these criticisms, despite his claim that he would respond to difficulties raised with his book, and that he would concede when shown to be in error. He claims that his reason for not responding is that I sometimes makes use of sarcasm. I'm not sure what his alleged reason is for not responding to David Ohsie, R. David Sedley, and R. Josh Waxman, who have been making the same points.

In this post, I would like to address Betech's main argument that the shafan cannot be the hyrax: namely, that the shafan is described as maaleh gerah, bringing up its cud, and the hyrax does not bring up its cud. Now, there are several approaches that have been taken with regard to this point:

1) One approach is to propose that the shafan is not the hyrax. However, this is not viable, because, as discussed at length in my book and on this blog (particular in my second post on his book), there is no other remotely reasonable candidate.

2) Another approach is to say that the hyrax used to chew its cud, and no longer does so. While I don't think that this is reasonable from a biological standpoint, I'm not sure why Betech and co., who believe in rapid evolution (as I shall demonstrate on another occasion), don't consider this as a possibility.

3) Another is to propose that the hyrax practices merycism - a limited form of rumination. But is this actually the case? Having studied my own captive hyraxes for years, and having consulted with zoologists and papers that expressed a range of opinions, I simply can't decide. A hyrax certainly makes many chewing motions at times when it is not eating, but it's not clear if this is related to food or communication. (It should be noted that positing that they are practicing merycism is certainly not as unlikely as, say, proposing that rabbits used to live in Israel.)

4) Another is to say that the Torah "speaks in the language of man," as explained at length in my books. I think that this is the preferable solution for religious Jews. While this approach is well-founded in the writings of Rav Hirsch and Rav Kook, based upon various Rishonim, I can certainly understand why people would not find it appealing. However, if one is to maintain belief in the Divine origins of the Torah, one would in any case have to adopt such an approach in order to account for the Torah describing dew as descending from Heaven, the heart and kidneys as housing the mind, the sky as being a solid firmament, the nesher as carrying its young on its wings, the snake as eating dirt, and so on.

(Or, to put it another way: I'm sure that Isaac Betech can engage in extensive intellectual gymnastics to justify why the Torah describes these phenomena in the way that it does, and far less gymnastics are required to explain why the Torah describes the hyrax as bringing up its cud.)

5) Another is to say that the Torah is simply mistaken, and is thus not Divine. Now, obviously this approach is not acceptable to a believing Jew. However, if someone does not have prior commitment to believing in the Divinity of Torah, and for some reason buys into Betech's rejection of approaches (3) and (4), this would be a far more reasonable explanation than Betech's proposal that the Torah is referring to cecotrophy in rock-dwelling rabbits of South Africa.

Now, Isaac Betech is a devout believing Jew, and therefore option 5 is unacceptable to him. While humans could (and did) mistakenly believe that hyraxes ruminate, the Master of the World could not make such a zoological error; hence, the shafan could not be the hyrax.

But here's where things get interesting. You see, Isaac Betech doesn't merely want to understand the Torah; he wants to use this topic to prove the divinity of Torah. Let's quote his conclusion:

We can recognize with admiration, today as always, that only the Master of the World could state this accurate information thousands of years ago. 

But that means that he is engaging in a classic case of circular reasoning. For it's only because of Betech's a priori belief that the Torah is divine, that he rules out the possibility that the Torah is simply making a mistake about the hyrax! (And the same can be said for Discovery and others who use this topic to prove the divinity of the Torah.) He's saying that we recognize that the Torah is divine, because there are no zoological errors, because we recognize that the Torah is divine!

I'm sure that such circular arguments reinforce the faith of irrational people who are already believers. But to others, it simply makes Torah Jews look foolish. And as Rambam says, using a flawed argument to convince people of something is worse than using no argument.

Amazingly, Betech is explicit about using circular reasoning! On p. 120, amongst a list of reasons as to why the shafan should not be identified as the hyrax, Betech says that if the definition of "bringing up the cud" is broadened to include the hyrax, "then the consequence is that many more animals could also be called maaleh gerah, positing unnecessary challenges against the Torah's and Talmud's exclusive list of one-signed species; hence the importance of understanding that the hyrax cannot be the Biblical shafan." In other words, we recognize that the Torah is divine, because these are the only animals in the list, because to admit that there might be more animals in the list would mean that the Talmud is not divine. Circular reasoning at its finest, and most explicit!

Parameters, Please!

There are several aggadic statements about the protective merit/value of Torah. (It should be noted, however, that it appears to have been a dispute amongst the Sages as to whether Torah provides protection; see Rabbi Dr. Yaakov Elman, "Righteousness as Its Own Reward: An Inquiry into the Theologies of the Stam," Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, Vol. 57, 1990 - 1991, pp. 35-67). At any rate, the charedi community wants to turn this into a halachic exemption from serving in the army and contributing to the economy. Furthermore, they expect all other Jews - even non-religious Jews - to accept this. They even present this argument to non-Jews:

Porush began by explaining the hareidi-religious view of Torah study. Israel survives in the hostile Middle East not due to the strength of its army, but due to the merit of Torah study, he told (French Ambassador to Israel) Bidot.

Well, as a religious Jew who will be sending his sons to the army, and who is (as a taxpaying citizen) sharing the financial burden of those in kollel, I think that we have a right to know the parameters of this protection. If you're claiming that it is a concrete benefit, which exempts you from concrete action while others serve instead and fund those in kollel, as concrete halachah, then I think that you should provide some concrete specifics.

1. Is this protection dependent upon time?

Does the protective effect of Torah even apply when the Torah student is not studying? Does it apply during the night? During vacation?

If yes - then why did many Gedolim urge their students to study during their vacation when various wars were taking place, or when there were even worse threats, such as the draft?
If not - then shouldn't the charedi community be learning in shifts, so that protection is kept steady around the clock, throughout the year?

2. Does this protection apply under all circumstances?

Bava Kama 60a-b indicates that a time of community-wide misfortune, Torah does not protect, and material steps are advised. Responsa Radvaz 2:752 greatly restricts the extent of the Gemara's ruling about Torah scholars being exempt from contributing towards security, including stating that it does not apply in cases where the rabbis consider themselves in need of protection. Rav Shlomo Yosef Zevin wrote that "If you understand that the scholars don't need protection in relatively peaceful times and are exempt from building the protective walls, what consequence has this when compared to a life-and-death struggle, a war which is a mitzvah and in which all are obligated?" So on what basis is the charedi community so certain that their Torah study protects from the clear and present dangers that exist today, such as to exempt them from serving the army?

3. What type of things does Torah protect from?

Based on the Gemara in Berachos 5a, the protection appears to be from physical illness. Other sources that speak about the protective value of Torah make no mention of specifically military threats, and indicate that it provides protection equally from illness, famine, etc. If that is the case, does that mean that the charedi community should receive less government assistance for medical services and other forms of aid? Otherwise, aren't they being hypocritical?

4. Is the protective effect more potent in the area where the Torah study takes place?

Presumably it is, because many stories about its alleged protective effect relate to the particular place where the Torah scholar/ tzaddik lived. But if so, why do the charedi yeshivos flee to safer places when war breaks out, leaving the residents of the city behind? If their Torah is providing any degree of protection, and they are doing their "military duty" in this way, then they should stay in, and even travel to, the cities that are under attack. Soldiers don't go where it is safe - they go where their services are needed, even at personal risk!


5. Is the intent of the person studying Torah relevant?

It's generally accepted that reciting Tehillim for the sick is only, or most, effective if the sick person's name is mentioned and/or "had in mind." Presumably, Torah study is likewise only, or more, effective if explicitly done with the goal of protecting those at risk. If so, then since soldiers are the ones most at risk, why don't charedim, when beginning their study sessions or dedicating their yeshivos, ever specify that their learning is to protect the soldiers? (The reason is presumably that charedim don't want to identify in any way, shape or form with the IDF. But if they won't dedicate their learning to protect the soldiers, why should they be able to claim exemption on the grounds that they are learning to protect the soldiers?)

The IDF can give precise answers as to the parameters of the effectiveness of their forces. If charedim are claiming that their Torah study is of equal or greater effectiveness, they have an obligation to do the same.

(Of course, the charedi community would never answer these questions, because they cannot do so without tripping themselves up. And the true answer to all this is that charedim do not really believe that their Torah protects. It's just an excuse, to cover their real reasons for not serving in the army: that it interferes with the way that they want to conduct their lives and society, and they feel no obligation to the wider Jewish community in this regard.)