Natan Slifkin's Blog, page 172
April 15, 2013
The Tragedy of Segregation
As I noted in my monograph The Novelty of Orthodoxy, prior to the eighteenth century, a Jew was simply a Jew, with no qualifying description (except for those that adhered to alternate traditions). To be sure, there were Jews that were more committed to Judaism and Jews that were less committed, but all were on a spectrum that was included in the general Jewish community.
Orthodox Jews, on the other hand, identify themselves, and organize themselves, as a community distinct from the general Jewish population which includes non-religious Jews. This was the inevitable result of the transition to a world in which religious commitment was no longer taken for granted and walls had to be built against assimilation.
(A striking example of this change emerges from considering a responsum of a leading pre-Orthodox halachic authority, R. Yaakov Reischer (1661-1733). He was asked about a move to reject the kosher status of meat that was slaughtered in outlying villages by Jews that were insufficiently learned or pious. R. Reischer strongly condemned this approach. Drawing upon the Talmud, he argued that one must not cause resentment, that one must also be considerate of the needs of travelers, and most of all that the Jewish community must be united and not splinter into groups with different halachic standards. Needless to say, such splintering became not only acceptable to Orthodoxy, but even a hallmark of it, exercised to a great degree. For the Orthodox, halachic rulings are based on the needs of the immediate community, not the larger Jewish community. It would be inconceivable to many Orthodox Jews that compromising on kashrus standards is viewed by some as a lechatchilah, while insisting on better hechsherim can be viewed as the wrong choice!)
Yet this approach can have tragic consequences, especially when taken too far. For similar reasons to why Orthodoxy became a distinct sub-community, ultra-Orthodoxy became an even more distinct sub-sub-community, especially in Israel. Yom HaShoah and Yom HaZikaron are prime examples of this.
I completely understand the charedi opposition to observing Yom HaShoah on the anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. They see it as implicitly making a statement that those who did not fight back were less worthy or somehow failed - which is indeed how many Jews mistakenly perceive the Holocaust.
But what about the prohibition of Lo Sisgodedu, which Chazal defined as referring to making splinter groups? What about the dictum of "Al tifrosh min hatzibbur - Do not separate from the community"? Let me stress that I am not saying that these should be determinative in this case - but how is it that they are not even considered as a factor at all?
With Yom HaZikaron, it's even more stark. At least with Yom HaShoah, perhaps charedim can say that it's during Nissan, or that they have their own way of commemorating the victims of the Holocaust, etc. But Yom HaZikaron is not during Nissan. And, having learned in charedi yeshivos and lived in charedi communities for many years, I can attest that charedim do not "have their own way" of commemorating the soldiers. Nothing, nada - there is never any mention of the IDF. Furthermore, unlike the Holocaust, where it is only a matter of commemoration, with Yom HaZikaron there is also a very strong aspect of hakaras hatov - expressing gratitude to those who sacrificed themselves, and continue to sacrifice themselves, so that we can have Eretz Yisrael. Moshe Rabbeinu even had hakaras hatov to sand and water! Where is the hakaras hatov for the sacrifices of soldiers? Where are the prayers for the wellbeing of those currently serving? (And yet they wonder why there is ill-will towards them, and ascribe it to evil anti-Torah motives!)
Why is there no hakaras hatov? The reason is that charedim simply do not see the soldiers and themselves as being part of the same community. That's why they not only do not observe Yom HaZikaron along with the rest of Israel, but do not acknowledge the sacrifices of the IDF at all. The IDF is part of a different community. That's why whereas endless attention and prayer was given to charedi yeshivah bochrim in prison in Japan, and to Shalom Rubashkin, virtually no attention and prayer was given to Gilad Shalit. The bochrim are "us," Rubashkin is "us." Shalit is not.
Again, I want to stress that the factors that led to this situation are understandable. Segregation was the inevitable result of the transition to a world in which religious commitment was no longer taken for granted and walls had to be built against assimilation. But when this leads to a situation whereby Torah-observant Jews don't show any hakaras hatov to people who gave their lives for them, it's a tragedy.
I want to end on a positive note, so here is a video showing how certain charedim took it upon themselves to show hakaras hatov to the IDF in a creative and much-appreciated way. It's no surprise that they are mostly Anglos - Jews from the diaspora are inevitably more conscious that what unites us as Jews is more important than what divides us. May they be an inspiration for others.
Orthodox Jews, on the other hand, identify themselves, and organize themselves, as a community distinct from the general Jewish population which includes non-religious Jews. This was the inevitable result of the transition to a world in which religious commitment was no longer taken for granted and walls had to be built against assimilation.
(A striking example of this change emerges from considering a responsum of a leading pre-Orthodox halachic authority, R. Yaakov Reischer (1661-1733). He was asked about a move to reject the kosher status of meat that was slaughtered in outlying villages by Jews that were insufficiently learned or pious. R. Reischer strongly condemned this approach. Drawing upon the Talmud, he argued that one must not cause resentment, that one must also be considerate of the needs of travelers, and most of all that the Jewish community must be united and not splinter into groups with different halachic standards. Needless to say, such splintering became not only acceptable to Orthodoxy, but even a hallmark of it, exercised to a great degree. For the Orthodox, halachic rulings are based on the needs of the immediate community, not the larger Jewish community. It would be inconceivable to many Orthodox Jews that compromising on kashrus standards is viewed by some as a lechatchilah, while insisting on better hechsherim can be viewed as the wrong choice!)
Yet this approach can have tragic consequences, especially when taken too far. For similar reasons to why Orthodoxy became a distinct sub-community, ultra-Orthodoxy became an even more distinct sub-sub-community, especially in Israel. Yom HaShoah and Yom HaZikaron are prime examples of this.
I completely understand the charedi opposition to observing Yom HaShoah on the anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. They see it as implicitly making a statement that those who did not fight back were less worthy or somehow failed - which is indeed how many Jews mistakenly perceive the Holocaust.
But what about the prohibition of Lo Sisgodedu, which Chazal defined as referring to making splinter groups? What about the dictum of "Al tifrosh min hatzibbur - Do not separate from the community"? Let me stress that I am not saying that these should be determinative in this case - but how is it that they are not even considered as a factor at all?
With Yom HaZikaron, it's even more stark. At least with Yom HaShoah, perhaps charedim can say that it's during Nissan, or that they have their own way of commemorating the victims of the Holocaust, etc. But Yom HaZikaron is not during Nissan. And, having learned in charedi yeshivos and lived in charedi communities for many years, I can attest that charedim do not "have their own way" of commemorating the soldiers. Nothing, nada - there is never any mention of the IDF. Furthermore, unlike the Holocaust, where it is only a matter of commemoration, with Yom HaZikaron there is also a very strong aspect of hakaras hatov - expressing gratitude to those who sacrificed themselves, and continue to sacrifice themselves, so that we can have Eretz Yisrael. Moshe Rabbeinu even had hakaras hatov to sand and water! Where is the hakaras hatov for the sacrifices of soldiers? Where are the prayers for the wellbeing of those currently serving? (And yet they wonder why there is ill-will towards them, and ascribe it to evil anti-Torah motives!)
Why is there no hakaras hatov? The reason is that charedim simply do not see the soldiers and themselves as being part of the same community. That's why they not only do not observe Yom HaZikaron along with the rest of Israel, but do not acknowledge the sacrifices of the IDF at all. The IDF is part of a different community. That's why whereas endless attention and prayer was given to charedi yeshivah bochrim in prison in Japan, and to Shalom Rubashkin, virtually no attention and prayer was given to Gilad Shalit. The bochrim are "us," Rubashkin is "us." Shalit is not.
Again, I want to stress that the factors that led to this situation are understandable. Segregation was the inevitable result of the transition to a world in which religious commitment was no longer taken for granted and walls had to be built against assimilation. But when this leads to a situation whereby Torah-observant Jews don't show any hakaras hatov to people who gave their lives for them, it's a tragedy.
I want to end on a positive note, so here is a video showing how certain charedim took it upon themselves to show hakaras hatov to the IDF in a creative and much-appreciated way. It's no surprise that they are mostly Anglos - Jews from the diaspora are inevitably more conscious that what unites us as Jews is more important than what divides us. May they be an inspiration for others.
April 14, 2013
When Wolves Attack
Readers of this website include kollel avreichim from Chaim Berlin and Mir, professors of Talmud, outstanding Torah scholars, and many intelligent people. I would like to ask this talented group to lend of their expertise to assist with a Chazal-science problem for The Torah Encyclopedia of the Animal Kingdom. (This is not intended to be a book about Torah-science conflicts, like Sacred Monsters, intended for a narrow audience; rather, it is intended to be for a broad audience, including charedim who lack the tools and the desire to grapple with Torah-science conflicts.)
An animal is only kosher for consumption if it is in good physical health at the time of slaughter. The Mishnah lists various terefos, fatal defects, which render an animal prohibited for use as food. One of these fatal defects is a mauling by a wolf:
A difficulty with this topic is that the Talmud states that the result of such derusah is that venom is injected into the prey animal (Chullin 53a). Needless to say, this is not consistent with modern zoological knowledge of wolves.
One solution presented for such difficulties (Rabbi Eliyahu Dessler, Michtav Me-Eliyahu, vol. IV, p. 355, footnote 4) is that the Talmud is not referring to a chemical venom generated by the animal, but rather to infections caused by bacteria accumulating in the animal. A variation on this would be to say that bacterial infections led to the belief that venom is injected.
At the moment, I am more concerned with a second difficulty. The Talmud (Chullin 53a) rules that these maulings which are rated as causing fatal defects are referring to maulings inflicted with the claws, not with the teeth (which is implicit in the term derusah, which usually means "trample"). But this conflicts with contemporary observations of wolves, which reveal that wolves never attack prey with their claws, only with their teeth.
The reason why wolves never attack with their claws reflects the very different hunting strategy of wolves compared to members of the cat family such as lions and leopards. A big cat is an ambush predator. It is not built for running at speed, but rather for firmly seizing its prey. It uses its strong arms and claws to grasp its prey, enabling it to make a killing bite in a precise spot. Wolves, on the other hand, are pursuit predators. The legs of a wolf are slender, and the paws are not jointed for grasping; its body is built for long-distance pursuit, not for bringing down prey. The wolf’s claws are strong, but very blunt, because the tips are worn off by constant contact with the ground. These are used for digging and gripping the earth while running, not for seizing or killing prey. Wolves kill with a large number of minor slashing bites.
What, then, are we to make of the Talmud's statement that derusah is only with the claws? Must it be considered an error?
I would like to suggest a way to slightly lessen this problem, if not to solve it entirely. In an entirely unrelated Gemara, we have the following case:
But then, what of the Gemara in Chullin which only lists derusah as causing predator-inflicted terefos, including by wolves, and later says that derusah is only with claws? Is it simply disputing the Gemara in Bava Metzia? Or is there some way to explain the latter statement of the Gemara as only referring to the derusah of certain predators? Or is the Gemara in Chullin not disputing the fact that wolves usually attack with their teeth, and is simply saying that only in the rare case of an attack with their claws would it be considered a terefah? What would Rabbeinu Chananel have said about it?
Your input is appreciated!
An animal is only kosher for consumption if it is in good physical health at the time of slaughter. The Mishnah lists various terefos, fatal defects, which render an animal prohibited for use as food. One of these fatal defects is a mauling by a wolf:
These are the terefos in domesticated animals… if it fell from a roof, if most of its ribs were broken, a mauling by a wolf; Rabbi Yehudah says, a mauling (derusah) by a wolf [is considered a fatal defect] with a small domestic animal, and a mauling by a lion [is considered a fatal defect] with a large animal. (Mishnah, Chullin 3:1)If a wolf mounts an unsuccessful attack against a large animal such as a cow, the animal is not considered to be mortally wounded and it may still be slaughtered for human consumption. Only with small livestock, such as sheep and goats, is a mauling by a wolf considered a fatal defect.
A difficulty with this topic is that the Talmud states that the result of such derusah is that venom is injected into the prey animal (Chullin 53a). Needless to say, this is not consistent with modern zoological knowledge of wolves.
One solution presented for such difficulties (Rabbi Eliyahu Dessler, Michtav Me-Eliyahu, vol. IV, p. 355, footnote 4) is that the Talmud is not referring to a chemical venom generated by the animal, but rather to infections caused by bacteria accumulating in the animal. A variation on this would be to say that bacterial infections led to the belief that venom is injected.
At the moment, I am more concerned with a second difficulty. The Talmud (Chullin 53a) rules that these maulings which are rated as causing fatal defects are referring to maulings inflicted with the claws, not with the teeth (which is implicit in the term derusah, which usually means "trample"). But this conflicts with contemporary observations of wolves, which reveal that wolves never attack prey with their claws, only with their teeth.
The reason why wolves never attack with their claws reflects the very different hunting strategy of wolves compared to members of the cat family such as lions and leopards. A big cat is an ambush predator. It is not built for running at speed, but rather for firmly seizing its prey. It uses its strong arms and claws to grasp its prey, enabling it to make a killing bite in a precise spot. Wolves, on the other hand, are pursuit predators. The legs of a wolf are slender, and the paws are not jointed for grasping; its body is built for long-distance pursuit, not for bringing down prey. The wolf’s claws are strong, but very blunt, because the tips are worn off by constant contact with the ground. These are used for digging and gripping the earth while running, not for seizing or killing prey. Wolves kill with a large number of minor slashing bites.
What, then, are we to make of the Talmud's statement that derusah is only with the claws? Must it be considered an error?
I would like to suggest a way to slightly lessen this problem, if not to solve it entirely. In an entirely unrelated Gemara, we have the following case:
A shepherd was tending a flock, but left them and went to the town, and a wolf came and was taraf, and a lion came and was dores… (Talmud, Bava Metzia 93b)Here we seem to have a contrast presented between the typical modes of attack of a wolf and a lion. A lion is dores. A wolf, on the other hand, is toref. But what is the difference between these two modes of attack? Rashi explains that dores refers to instantaneous slaughter, whereas toref refers to wounding the sheep and then dragging it back to a lair for later consumption. But Rabbeinu Chananel to Bava Kama 16b refers to this Gemara and seems to explain it differently: that dores refers to killing with claws, whereas toref refers to killing with its teeth. He further states that this Gemara expresses the typical difference between attacks by lions and attacks by wolves. This is consistent with our knowledge of how wolves kill.
But then, what of the Gemara in Chullin which only lists derusah as causing predator-inflicted terefos, including by wolves, and later says that derusah is only with claws? Is it simply disputing the Gemara in Bava Metzia? Or is there some way to explain the latter statement of the Gemara as only referring to the derusah of certain predators? Or is the Gemara in Chullin not disputing the fact that wolves usually attack with their teeth, and is simply saying that only in the rare case of an attack with their claws would it be considered a terefah? What would Rabbeinu Chananel have said about it?
Your input is appreciated!
April 11, 2013
Are You Allowed To Choose Who To Vote For?
Does a religious Jew have the right to make a personal choice regarding who to vote for?
The March 21 issue of HaModia featured interviews with a number of Anglo Charedi rabbis in Israel, entitled "Rabbanim Discuss the Rift in Israeli Society." Previously, I wrote about the comments of Rabbi Bloom regarding the alleged greater sacrifice made by people learning in kollel than by soldiers killed in the line of duty. The article is an eye-opener for people who look at figures such as Rav Zev Leff and Rav Yitzchak Berkovitz as being "moderates" rather than full-blooded charedim.
One of the rabbis interviewed is Rav Elimelech Kornfeld, a brilliant Torah scholar whom HaModia mistakenly describes as Rosh Kollel of Kollel Iyun HaDaf (it's actually his brother), but correctly describes as Rav of the Gra shul in Ramat Bet Shemesh. He says the following:
In the absence of a formal system of rabbinic authority such as the Sanhedrin, rabbinic authority is what a person makes of it. If you are part of a community such as that of Rav Kornfeld, this means that you have selected him as your rabbinic authority. You might not agree with his attempts to remove Mishpachah magazine from the city, or his attempts to prevent the establishment of restaurants which have seating, or his opposition to Lemaan Achai, or his opposition to the TOV part; but if you are part of his community, you must respect his authority. This includes accepting his decision regarding the parameters of that authority. And if he believes that this means that you must accept his decision regarding whom to vote for - i.e. UTJ - then that is what you must do - or you are defying the very authority that you have accepted upon yourself.
On the other hand, every person makes a decision (or chooses to accept a decision made for him) regarding who he defines as being his Rabbanim and Gedolim in the first place. And some Rabbanim and Gedolim believe that people should not vote for UTJ. Some Rabbanim and Gedolim - even in Ramat Bet Shemesh - believe that even their own flock are entitled to make their own decisions regarding who to vote for, let alone people outside of their community. (Cue shock and horror!)
The problem comes when people believe that every religious Jew is obligated to accept a certain fictitious objective definition of who "the Rabbanim and Gedolim" actually are. (And when rabbis, for various reasons, tell people to vote for a party that they don't really think the people should vote for.)
The March 21 issue of HaModia featured interviews with a number of Anglo Charedi rabbis in Israel, entitled "Rabbanim Discuss the Rift in Israeli Society." Previously, I wrote about the comments of Rabbi Bloom regarding the alleged greater sacrifice made by people learning in kollel than by soldiers killed in the line of duty. The article is an eye-opener for people who look at figures such as Rav Zev Leff and Rav Yitzchak Berkovitz as being "moderates" rather than full-blooded charedim.
One of the rabbis interviewed is Rav Elimelech Kornfeld, a brilliant Torah scholar whom HaModia mistakenly describes as Rosh Kollel of Kollel Iyun HaDaf (it's actually his brother), but correctly describes as Rav of the Gra shul in Ramat Bet Shemesh. He says the following:
"Olim coming from the United State often have a preconceived notion that one's personal decision of who to vote for is his basic democratic right and that nobody has the right to dictate his vote. They are not always aware that here in Eretz Yisrael serious religious issues are on the line and the decision of who we vote for is made by the Rabbanim and Gedolim, who are most aware of the pressing religious needs."Contrary to what you might expect, I'm not going to say that he is wrong. He is right - sort of.
In the absence of a formal system of rabbinic authority such as the Sanhedrin, rabbinic authority is what a person makes of it. If you are part of a community such as that of Rav Kornfeld, this means that you have selected him as your rabbinic authority. You might not agree with his attempts to remove Mishpachah magazine from the city, or his attempts to prevent the establishment of restaurants which have seating, or his opposition to Lemaan Achai, or his opposition to the TOV part; but if you are part of his community, you must respect his authority. This includes accepting his decision regarding the parameters of that authority. And if he believes that this means that you must accept his decision regarding whom to vote for - i.e. UTJ - then that is what you must do - or you are defying the very authority that you have accepted upon yourself.
On the other hand, every person makes a decision (or chooses to accept a decision made for him) regarding who he defines as being his Rabbanim and Gedolim in the first place. And some Rabbanim and Gedolim believe that people should not vote for UTJ. Some Rabbanim and Gedolim - even in Ramat Bet Shemesh - believe that even their own flock are entitled to make their own decisions regarding who to vote for, let alone people outside of their community. (Cue shock and horror!)
The problem comes when people believe that every religious Jew is obligated to accept a certain fictitious objective definition of who "the Rabbanim and Gedolim" actually are. (And when rabbis, for various reasons, tell people to vote for a party that they don't really think the people should vote for.)
April 7, 2013
The Truth About A Much-Abused Rambam
Amidst the current furious controversy in Israel regarding the role and responsibilities of charedim vis-a-vis larger society, there is one statement from Rambam that is sometimes invoked by rabbinic figures and spokesmen in support of the charedi approach. Unfortunately, it is entirely distorted. (Note that I am not claiming that Rambam's true view is to be adopted in practice - as shall be explained, his was an extreme view. The point is that Rambam certainly does not provide justification for the charedi approach on either exemptions from military service or receiving money for studying Torah, which is utterly at odds with his position.)
The statement is from the very end of Hilchos Shemittah Ve'Yovel. It follows a halachah where Rambam notes that the tribe of Levi did not receive a share of the Land of Israel to develop, nor serve in the army, but instead their role was to serve God and teach Torah to Israel. Rambam follows this by stating as follows:
However, Rambam does not, and could not, mean anything of the sort.
First of all, Rambam is very clear about his views on taking money for engaging in Torah:
What, then, is Rambam talking about at the end of Hilchos Shemittah Ve'Yovel?
First of all, he is not making a halachic statement here at all. As is common with the closing paragraphs of the different sections of the Mishneh Torah, Rambam here is presenting mussar rather than halachah. He is not contradicting, or even qualifying, the halachos regarding taking money for Torah that he discussed in Hilchos Talmud Torah chapter 1, nor the halachos regarding going to the army that he discusses in Hilchos Melachim u'Milchamos chapter 7. Instead, he is praising an ideal - which certainly does not include taking money for Torah, as he has already made clear.
But what is the comparison with the tribe of Levi? First of all, it is not a complete comparison. It does not, for example, include an exemption from military duty in either milchemes reshus or milchemes mitzvah (since it is not mentioned in Hilchos Melachim u'Milchamos). Rather, it is a comparison vis-a-vis devoting one's life to God. It is a comparison vis-a-vis mussar goals and ideals, not halachic exemptions.
Second, insofar as Rambam does equate Torah scholars with the tribe of Levi with regard to material sustenance, he makes the meaning of this clear elsewhere:
What about Rambam himself? There is a widespread belief that he was entirely dedicated to his studies, supported by his brother, until his brother died at sea and Rambam was forced to provide for both his own and his brothers’ families, whereupon he began to work as a doctor. But this is not the case. Rambam learned medicine while his family was still living in Morocco. Upon moving to Egypt, Rambam soon rose to prominence as a physician. He also traded in gemstones, and his brother assisted with his investments, enabling him to devote much time to his studies. At no point was he simply receiving money from his brother. His brother was simply investing Rambam's own merchandise and earnings, just as Rambam permits Torah scholars to have done on their behalf.
(Incidentally, Rambam in Hilchos Shemittah Ve'Yovel is not even only talking about Jews; he speaks about "anyone in the world." He is actually referring to anyone, Jew or non-Jew, seeking an ascetic lifestyle of the pursuit of knowledge. See further discussion here.)
In conclusion: In Hilchos Shemittah VeYovel, Rambam is not remotely describing someone studying in kollel, being exempt from military duty and supported by charitable contributions. His view on this remains as he expresses it elsewhere: that such a person "has profaned God’s Name and brought the Torah into contempt."
Further sources/ resources:
http://www.ravaviner.com/2012/08/rambam-and-drafting-yeshiva-students.html The Economics of Torah Scholarship in Medieval Jewish Thought and PracticeYehudah Levi, Torah Study אליעזר דניאל יסלזון, "פרנסתם של לומדי תורה - שיטת הרמב"ם", תחומין כרך לב
The statement is from the very end of Hilchos Shemittah Ve'Yovel. It follows a halachah where Rambam notes that the tribe of Levi did not receive a share of the Land of Israel to develop, nor serve in the army, but instead their role was to serve God and teach Torah to Israel. Rambam follows this by stating as follows:
Not only the Tribe of Levi, but each and every individual human being, whose spirit moves him and whose knowledge gives him understanding to set himself apart in order to stand before the Lord, to serve Him, to worship Him, and to know Him, who walks upright as God created him to do, and releases himself from the yoke of the many foolish considerations which trouble people - such an individual is as consecrated as the Holy of Holies, and his portion and inheritance shall be in the Lord forever and ever. The Lord will grant him adequate sustenance in this world, just as He granted to the priests and to the Levites. Thus did David, peace upon him, say, "O Lord, the portion of my inheritance and of my cup, You maintain my lot."This is cited by many people to prove that, according to Rambam, anyone who wants to devote themselves to studying Torah, and reach the pinnacle of Jewish existence, does not need to serve in the army, and should be financially supported by the rest of the Jewish People, just as the tribe of Levi was supported by the rest of Israel.
However, Rambam does not, and could not, mean anything of the sort.
First of all, Rambam is very clear about his views on taking money for engaging in Torah:
One who makes up his mind to involve himself with Torah and not to work, and to support himself from charity, has profaned God’s Name and brought the Torah into contempt, extinguished the light of religion, brought evil upon himself, and has taken away his life from the World-to-Come... (Hilchos Talmud Torah 3:10)Rambam was somewhat of an aberration from normative tradition in his views on these matters, but not as much as one might think. He does, reluctantly, permit teaching the Written Torah for money, where such is the norm, and although he opposes receiving money for teaching Oral Torah, he does not do so with the same vehemence that he opposes taking money for studying Torah (Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:8-10). Other Rishonim and Acharonim often permitted taking money for teaching Torah, though almost never for studying Torah. In any case, it is clear that Rambam viewed a lifestyle of being supported in studying Torah via charitable donations - the modern kollel system - as being utterly, utterly wrong. (This is even though the state of Torah study in his part of the world was generally rather poor, especially compared to today.)
What, then, is Rambam talking about at the end of Hilchos Shemittah Ve'Yovel?
First of all, he is not making a halachic statement here at all. As is common with the closing paragraphs of the different sections of the Mishneh Torah, Rambam here is presenting mussar rather than halachah. He is not contradicting, or even qualifying, the halachos regarding taking money for Torah that he discussed in Hilchos Talmud Torah chapter 1, nor the halachos regarding going to the army that he discusses in Hilchos Melachim u'Milchamos chapter 7. Instead, he is praising an ideal - which certainly does not include taking money for Torah, as he has already made clear.
But what is the comparison with the tribe of Levi? First of all, it is not a complete comparison. It does not, for example, include an exemption from military duty in either milchemes reshus or milchemes mitzvah (since it is not mentioned in Hilchos Melachim u'Milchamos). Rather, it is a comparison vis-a-vis devoting one's life to God. It is a comparison vis-a-vis mussar goals and ideals, not halachic exemptions.
Second, insofar as Rambam does equate Torah scholars with the tribe of Levi with regard to material sustenance, he makes the meaning of this clear elsewhere:
Anyone who makes economic use of the honor of the Torah takes his life from this world... However, the Torah permits scholars to give their money to others to invest in profitable businesses (on their behalf)... and to receive priority in buying and selling merchandise in the marketplace. These are benefits that God granted them, just as He granted the offering to the Kohanim and the tithes to the Levite... for merchants occasionally do such things for each other as a courtesy, even if there is no Torah scholarship to warrant it. A Torah scholar should certainly be treated at least as well as a respectable ignoramus. (Commentary to the Mishnah, Avos 4:7)In Rambam's view, Torah scholars, like Kohanim and Leviim, receive benefits, but the benefits are of a different nature. They involve the investment of funds, and assistance in business, rather than financial grants. (This is similar to the Yissacher-Zevulun relationship, which, according to Chazal, was nothing at all like it is popularized today; rather, it involved Zevulun marketing the produce that Yissacher farmed.)
What about Rambam himself? There is a widespread belief that he was entirely dedicated to his studies, supported by his brother, until his brother died at sea and Rambam was forced to provide for both his own and his brothers’ families, whereupon he began to work as a doctor. But this is not the case. Rambam learned medicine while his family was still living in Morocco. Upon moving to Egypt, Rambam soon rose to prominence as a physician. He also traded in gemstones, and his brother assisted with his investments, enabling him to devote much time to his studies. At no point was he simply receiving money from his brother. His brother was simply investing Rambam's own merchandise and earnings, just as Rambam permits Torah scholars to have done on their behalf.
(Incidentally, Rambam in Hilchos Shemittah Ve'Yovel is not even only talking about Jews; he speaks about "anyone in the world." He is actually referring to anyone, Jew or non-Jew, seeking an ascetic lifestyle of the pursuit of knowledge. See further discussion here.)
In conclusion: In Hilchos Shemittah VeYovel, Rambam is not remotely describing someone studying in kollel, being exempt from military duty and supported by charitable contributions. His view on this remains as he expresses it elsewhere: that such a person "has profaned God’s Name and brought the Torah into contempt."
Further sources/ resources:
http://www.ravaviner.com/2012/08/rambam-and-drafting-yeshiva-students.html The Economics of Torah Scholarship in Medieval Jewish Thought and PracticeYehudah Levi, Torah Study אליעזר דניאל יסלזון, "פרנסתם של לומדי תורה - שיטת הרמב"ם", תחומין כרך לב
April 5, 2013
Fictitious History, Shlissel Challah, and the King of Birds
Three entirely unconnected items for today:
1) I briefly peeked at today's HaModia, which featured an interview with some charedi banker about the cuts in financial aid to charedim. He stated that while some people who were anyway planning to eventually work might start a little earlier, the strong community of Torah learners won't be affected, because it has always been the way of Torah to live in poverty, and economic factors have never affected this.
It simply boggles the mind how they can say such things. If we're talking about what has "always been the way," it's been that people work for a living rather then have a system of mass long-term kollel. This was because Chazal mandated working for a living and teaching one's child a profession. The modern reformation was only able to arise precisely because of the change in economic factors that enabled government aid.
2) This week, some people are baking challahs with keys. Personally, I prefer bagels with locks. You can read last year's post on shlissel challah at http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/201....
3) Here's a video about the king of birds, the nesher, first in the list of non-kosher birds in this week's parashah. I put it together from a segment that I did for Animal Planet's Beasts of the Bible, along with some other footage that I shot in England and some amazing documentary footage. Enjoy! If you want to read a more technical discussion about the identity of the nesher, see my essay at www.zootorah.com/essays.
1) I briefly peeked at today's HaModia, which featured an interview with some charedi banker about the cuts in financial aid to charedim. He stated that while some people who were anyway planning to eventually work might start a little earlier, the strong community of Torah learners won't be affected, because it has always been the way of Torah to live in poverty, and economic factors have never affected this.
It simply boggles the mind how they can say such things. If we're talking about what has "always been the way," it's been that people work for a living rather then have a system of mass long-term kollel. This was because Chazal mandated working for a living and teaching one's child a profession. The modern reformation was only able to arise precisely because of the change in economic factors that enabled government aid.
2) This week, some people are baking challahs with keys. Personally, I prefer bagels with locks. You can read last year's post on shlissel challah at http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/201....
3) Here's a video about the king of birds, the nesher, first in the list of non-kosher birds in this week's parashah. I put it together from a segment that I did for Animal Planet's Beasts of the Bible, along with some other footage that I shot in England and some amazing documentary footage. Enjoy! If you want to read a more technical discussion about the identity of the nesher, see my essay at www.zootorah.com/essays.
April 4, 2013
Selflessness and Sacrifice?
With the electoral victories of Yair Lapid (Yesh Atid) and Naftali Bennet (Bayit Yehudi), and the resultant plans to reduce financial aid to people in kollel, draft most charedim into the army, and withhold various financial benefits from those who refuse to serve, the charedi world is in turmoil. Representatives of the charedi world have made statements that are astonishing.
When I was in yeshivah, I was always taught that parnassah is strictly in the hands of the Ribbono shel olam. Only Hashem decides how much money you get. If you get less money than expected, it's not because of someone else's choice; it's because Hashem decreed such for you, based on your spiritual merits and so on. It has nothing to do with worldly endeavor, and certainly nothing to do with other people. (Of course, since then, I've adopted a perspective more in line with the Rishonim.)
But the charedi world doesn't seem to really believe that, considering all the screaming about the evils of Lapid and Bennet. For the most part, instead of wondering how their new fate results from their own actions - whether spiritual or worldly - they are focusing on how it is the result of the elections. Apparently, parnassah is not in the hands of Ribbono shel olam, but rather in the hands of Lapid and Bennet.
The editorial in the UK edition of HaModia, sent to me by a reader, makes this point, noting that the charedi community should be focused upon its own obligations rather than upon others. Unfortunately, these obligations apparently do not include the obligations dictated by Chazal and the kesubah, for a husband to work for a living and support his family. Still, at least they are talking about their own obligations. The editorial states that:
But perhaps the last part of that quote is referring to becoming a financially self-sustaining community, and not requiring government assistance? Apparently not. The editorial continues to note that charedim are actually obligated, from a spiritual perspective, to demand funding from the rest of the country:
Aside from money, the other big issue is military service, and the concept of sharing the burden. Another reader sent me a paragraph from HaModia written in response to these accusations, by Rabbi Shmuel Bloom, former Executive Vice-President of Agudath Yisrael in the U.S. and now at Ohr Somayach. (I have only seen this paragraph - if there is other relevant material in the article, please let me know.) He makes the following remarkable comments:
Yes, it can take more effort to live as a Jew than to be killed as a Jew. But that has nothing to do with which is the greater sacrifice! It also takes more effort to drive a car than to be hit by a car, but that doesn't make it a greater sacrifice!
(Furthermore, it's not as though the only sacrifice made by soldiers is that made by those who are killed. There is also the fear of being captured or killed, the immense physical and psychological hardships often endured by soldiers during their service, and the annual reserve duty that takes them away from their families. I have seen too many charedi spokesmen and apologists who are apparently utterly unaware of the mesiras nefesh that the IDF soldiers and their families engage in on their behalf.)
Finally, there is the issue of who you actually sacrificing for - who you are actually helping with the way that you live or die. It's all very well to do something for your own spiritual growth, but what are you doing for the rest of Klal Yisrael? Not everyone is expected to place their life on the line, but everyone is expected to contribute towards the rest of Israel. However, I will leave that discussion for another post (and please withhold your comments on that topic until I write that post).
When I was in yeshivah, I was always taught that parnassah is strictly in the hands of the Ribbono shel olam. Only Hashem decides how much money you get. If you get less money than expected, it's not because of someone else's choice; it's because Hashem decreed such for you, based on your spiritual merits and so on. It has nothing to do with worldly endeavor, and certainly nothing to do with other people. (Of course, since then, I've adopted a perspective more in line with the Rishonim.)
But the charedi world doesn't seem to really believe that, considering all the screaming about the evils of Lapid and Bennet. For the most part, instead of wondering how their new fate results from their own actions - whether spiritual or worldly - they are focusing on how it is the result of the elections. Apparently, parnassah is not in the hands of Ribbono shel olam, but rather in the hands of Lapid and Bennet.
The editorial in the UK edition of HaModia, sent to me by a reader, makes this point, noting that the charedi community should be focused upon its own obligations rather than upon others. Unfortunately, these obligations apparently do not include the obligations dictated by Chazal and the kesubah, for a husband to work for a living and support his family. Still, at least they are talking about their own obligations. The editorial states that:
"The question now is what should our role as chareidi Jews be at this junction? ...It is clear that the order of the day for Am Yisrael is to increase our chessed in all areas:"Great! Does this mean contributing towards the country, with military duty or national service, as non-charedim do? Unfortunately, apparently not:
"To judge one another favorably, to daven that sins - not sinners - be eliminated, to spread Torah and Judaism and, above all, to use use our resources to make our institutions of Torah and chessed independent or those who would seek to uproot Torah from Yisrael."Okay, apparently increasing chessed doesn't mean actually doing anything tangible for the rest of the country, or starting to express hakaras hatov for what the country does for them. And they wonder why there is ill-will towards them!
But perhaps the last part of that quote is referring to becoming a financially self-sustaining community, and not requiring government assistance? Apparently not. The editorial continues to note that charedim are actually obligated, from a spiritual perspective, to demand funding from the rest of the country:
"Our Hashkofoh obligates us to demand state support for Torah and chessed mosdos, not out of concern that they won't be able to continue to provide vital services to the weaker sectors, but to provide a merit for the government, which is so in need of Heavenly mercy. Even if the government doesn't appreciate and understand the workings of midoh keneged midoh, its support for such institutions will serve its interests."Ah, so all the talk about money is not motivated by an actual desperate desire for money and/or a belief that it is in the hands of others, but rather in order to help the non-charedim! It's all about a selfless concern for the spiritual and material wellbeing of others! How did I miss that?
Aside from money, the other big issue is military service, and the concept of sharing the burden. Another reader sent me a paragraph from HaModia written in response to these accusations, by Rabbi Shmuel Bloom, former Executive Vice-President of Agudath Yisrael in the U.S. and now at Ohr Somayach. (I have only seen this paragraph - if there is other relevant material in the article, please let me know.) He makes the following remarkable comments:
"Living as a Jew is much harder than dying as a Jew. Mesirus nefesh is a one-time giving up of one's life, and even people who weren't so great in their lifetime were willing to be burned at the stake for Hakadosh Baruch Hu, but to live one's whole life as a Jew is very, very difficult. The bnei Torah who are sitting in kollel and learning Torah are living their whole lives for the Ribbono shel Olam, and that's a much greater sacrifice than dying al kiddush Hashem."I don't know whether this paragraph is just too mind-numbingly foolish to be classified as offensive.
Yes, it can take more effort to live as a Jew than to be killed as a Jew. But that has nothing to do with which is the greater sacrifice! It also takes more effort to drive a car than to be hit by a car, but that doesn't make it a greater sacrifice!
(Furthermore, it's not as though the only sacrifice made by soldiers is that made by those who are killed. There is also the fear of being captured or killed, the immense physical and psychological hardships often endured by soldiers during their service, and the annual reserve duty that takes them away from their families. I have seen too many charedi spokesmen and apologists who are apparently utterly unaware of the mesiras nefesh that the IDF soldiers and their families engage in on their behalf.)
Finally, there is the issue of who you actually sacrificing for - who you are actually helping with the way that you live or die. It's all very well to do something for your own spiritual growth, but what are you doing for the rest of Klal Yisrael? Not everyone is expected to place their life on the line, but everyone is expected to contribute towards the rest of Israel. However, I will leave that discussion for another post (and please withhold your comments on that topic until I write that post).
April 2, 2013
Free Hyrax!
Since this week's parashah mentions the hyrax, I've decided to make the chapter on hyraxes from my forthcoming
Torah Encyclopedia of the Animal Kingdom
available as a free download. Click on this link to download it (7.5 megabyte PDF).Much of the information in this chapter is the same as in my book The Camel, The Hare And The Hyrax (with the addition of some small sections, and some amazing pictures that I found). However, it is organized very differently. When I wrote The Camel..., I presented the information yeshivah-style: A list of all the opinions that identified it as the hyrax, a list of the opinions that identified it as a llama, a rabbit, etc. But now that I have undergone academic training, the information is presented in a more meaningful way. The chapter explains how the various opinions arose, based on the context of the scholars.
I'm still tinkering with the page layout of the encyclopedia, so if you have any comments, please let me know; I think that the title bar for each chapter (where it mentions the animal's name in English and Hebrew) needs improving, but I'm not sure how.
On another note, I will be visiting Canada (Toronto and Montreal) for 10 days over Shavuos; I will post my speaking schedule once it is finalized. I also have a free Shabbos in New York on August 2-3, if anyone wants to arrange a scholar-in-residence program; please write to me if you are interested.
March 30, 2013
The ABCs of Writing an Encyclopedia
When I tell people that I'm in the process of writing The Torah Encyclopedia of the Animal Kingdom, they inevitably ask, "Which letter are you up to?"
It's a strange question. Or rather, it's a reasonable question that is based on a strange supposition.
Why would an encyclopedia be written in alphabetical order? The only benefit of such an arrangement is to assist in finding the relevant entry. But we have tables of contents and indexes that can do that.
Since the arrangement is not necessary to assist in locating information, it can be dedicated to other purposes - such as expressing concepts.
In this week's parashah, we have a list of non-kosher birds. It's not in alphabetical order. The nature of the order is not easy to determine, but it seems to be based around a decreasing order of prominence. That prominence itself seems to be based on a variety of factors, including size, prevalence, and degree of abnormality.
For my encyclopedia, the volumes are divided according to the system of classification used in the Torah - chayos, behemos, flying creatures, etc. And in the first volume, chayos, the animals are divided and ordered following conceptual patterns used in the Torah itself - predators, kosher animals, etc. Within each section, the order also follows patterns that appear in the Torah, as much as possible. The primary predators are listed in the same order as in Scripture and Mishnah; the minor predators are ordered according to size and prominence. The kosher wild animals are listed in the order in which they appear in parashas Re'ay, which itself is apparently based on their prevalence. And so on and so forth. You can download the table of contents here and see for yourself.
(Incidentally, I've almost completely finished the first volume - I just have to finish the entry on lions. And, of course, raise considerable funding!)
It's a strange question. Or rather, it's a reasonable question that is based on a strange supposition.
Why would an encyclopedia be written in alphabetical order? The only benefit of such an arrangement is to assist in finding the relevant entry. But we have tables of contents and indexes that can do that.
Since the arrangement is not necessary to assist in locating information, it can be dedicated to other purposes - such as expressing concepts.
In this week's parashah, we have a list of non-kosher birds. It's not in alphabetical order. The nature of the order is not easy to determine, but it seems to be based around a decreasing order of prominence. That prominence itself seems to be based on a variety of factors, including size, prevalence, and degree of abnormality.
For my encyclopedia, the volumes are divided according to the system of classification used in the Torah - chayos, behemos, flying creatures, etc. And in the first volume, chayos, the animals are divided and ordered following conceptual patterns used in the Torah itself - predators, kosher animals, etc. Within each section, the order also follows patterns that appear in the Torah, as much as possible. The primary predators are listed in the same order as in Scripture and Mishnah; the minor predators are ordered according to size and prominence. The kosher wild animals are listed in the order in which they appear in parashas Re'ay, which itself is apparently based on their prevalence. And so on and so forth. You can download the table of contents here and see for yourself.
(Incidentally, I've almost completely finished the first volume - I just have to finish the entry on lions. And, of course, raise considerable funding!)
March 28, 2013
Why Are Minhagim Important?
There's nothing like Pesach for causing perplexity and wars about minhagim - customs. Recently I was disappointed to hear a reasonably well-educated person effectively stating that minhagim are not important and can be freely abolished. In fact, while there is inevitable debate about precisely how important minhagim are, and what exactly is defined as a minhag, and the parameters of their applicability, there is no doubt that minhag is of great importance in Judaism. But why? Prof. Daniel Sperber, in volume three of Minhagei Yisrael, cites three reasons that are given (I'm writing from memory here, so I could be mistaken):
1) Stability. It's important to maintain established practice, so as to maintain stability in Judaism and avoid anarchy. (In times of turbulence, opinions will differ as to whether stability is better maintained by being more rigid, or by being more flexible. I think that reasonable people can understand that both viewpoints are reasonable.)
2) Preventing disputes. If everyone follows custom, this should prevent disputes. (Unfortunately in practice, this sometimes seem to have the opposite effect. However, this is more a result of the modern era, in which the ease of travel enables people from different communities to be lumped together with great frequency.)
3) Finally, Rav Kook states that since minhagim result from people desiring to demonstrate their passion for Judaism, they must accordingly be treated with great respect. (This would appear to apply to only certain types of minhagim.)
I think that before evaluating whether a given minhag should be maintained or not, it's important to understand exactly why minhag has an important place in Judaism.
1) Stability. It's important to maintain established practice, so as to maintain stability in Judaism and avoid anarchy. (In times of turbulence, opinions will differ as to whether stability is better maintained by being more rigid, or by being more flexible. I think that reasonable people can understand that both viewpoints are reasonable.)
2) Preventing disputes. If everyone follows custom, this should prevent disputes. (Unfortunately in practice, this sometimes seem to have the opposite effect. However, this is more a result of the modern era, in which the ease of travel enables people from different communities to be lumped together with great frequency.)
3) Finally, Rav Kook states that since minhagim result from people desiring to demonstrate their passion for Judaism, they must accordingly be treated with great respect. (This would appear to apply to only certain types of minhagim.)
I think that before evaluating whether a given minhag should be maintained or not, it's important to understand exactly why minhag has an important place in Judaism.
March 21, 2013
Two Sentences of Inspiration
For many rationalists and skeptics in today's era, it's increasingly difficult to summon inspiration and faith with regard to Judaism. Torah codes and other outreach proofs just backfire. And when a critical eye is turned to the Torah and Talmud, many difficult questions arise. I constantly receive inquiries from people who are disillusioned and deeply distressed.
Personally, I am able to draw inspiration from the extraordinary Divine Providence that I feel with regard to how my own life has unfolded. But, aside from this being rather non-rationalist, it's not something that can be expected to inspire other people!
However, there is something else that I find extraordinarily inspirational. And it's not some sort of cute shtick, like a Scriptural encoding for Pi or a Midrashic reference to an unusual manner of frog reproduction. Instead, it is a very basic and fundamental part of Jewish history. Furthermore, notwithstanding the disturbing phenomenon of many millions of people that deny it, it is factually true.
The matter I am referring to was mentioned today by President Obama. I'm no fan of Obama, and the reference to Israel in his 2009 Cairo speech was severely disappointing. Still, unlike some people I know, I don't consider him to be Satan incarnate, either. In his speech upon arriving in Israel, he beautifully encapsulated the matter to which I am referring in two sentences:
“More than 3,000 years ago, the Jewish people lived here, tended the land here, prayed to God here. And after centuries of exile and persecution, unparalleled in the history of man, the founding of the Jewish State of Israel was a rebirth, a redemption unlike any in history.”
And there you have it. A simple but mind-blowing historical account: an ancient home, centuries of exile and the worst, most irrational persecution in history, followed by the extraordinary return to the land and creation of a vibrant country. (And if you study some political history, you realize just how extraordinary it was that the State of Israel came into being and survived the War of Independence.) Is it not an astounding history?
It's tragic that many Jews, who will proudly point to the Hand of God in everything from missing a train to the landing of a locust on a table, entirely downplay Providence when it comes to the return of the Jewish People to their homeland and the creation of the State of Israel. It's far and away the most extraordinary and inspirational part of the Jewish experience.
