Natan Slifkin's Blog, page 181

Will The Real Stan Please Stand Up

Here are two letters that were sent to Ami magazine, the first by a neighbor of mine and the second by me. Since there is not the slightest chance that Ami will print either of them, I am posting them here.

The letters relate to this week's column by Rabbi Avi Shafran, Director of Public Affairs for Agudath Israel of America. Some people claim that it is pointless and undignified to pay any attention to him; after all, this is a person who believes that Bernie Madoff is more worthy of admiration than Captain Sully, and who believes that "unyielding reverence for currently regnant dogmas" is more of a problem in the scientific community than in the charedi community! However, since Rabbi Shafran has an important position and his voice is heard by many people, I believe that he cannot be ignored.

Dear Editor,

Ami Magazine has once again demonstrated its knack for reveling in self-righteous arrogance that benefits no one. Two articles in your 30 Sivan issue demonstrate this tendency in particular.

The first is Rabbi Avi Shafran's comparison of Orthodox bloggers with Korach. While he accepts that there are some responsible bloggers, the examples he enumerates (those "who seek to share community news or ideas... [or] explore concepts in Jewish thought and law... [or] focus on Jewish history and society") demonstrate by omission that those who attempt to expose anything negative in Chareidi society are comparable to the villains in Parashat Korach. If a blogger discusses the shameful lack of accountability in cases of abuse and neglect, he apparently violates the negative commandment, "Do not be like Korach and his congregation." Thus, someone who attempts to improve Chareidi society by protecting its most vulnerable members is, in fact, comparable to one of Judaism's greatest internal enemies. This statement is so offensive that I might have assumed that I misunderstood the article, except that it typifies the self-righteousness inherent in your magazine's journalistic ethos.

Less egregious but equally tone-deaf is the examination of the recent New York Federation population study, which found that the Orthodox community in Greater New York is growing. Your analysis is nothing more than meaningless triumphalism, which preaches to a select choir that Orthodoxy is the only future for Klal Yisrael. Is that really what our community needs to hear? Were we in danger of doubting such a view? By citing such studies coupled with self-serving analysis, we blind ourselves to the genuine issues that face religious Jews. Did the nevi'im spend their time telling the People of Israel how great they were, or did they enable them to look for their flaws in order to correct them?

Only by avoiding self-righteousness and engaging in authentic cheshbon hanefesh can Orthodox Judaism achieve its genuine aims: that is, to create a society which is based on the precepts of Torah in fact, not merely in theory. Once again, Ami Magazine has chosen the easy and religiously irresponsible way out.

Sincerely,
Rabbi S. Kahn
Rosh Yeshiva, Yeshivat Yesodei HaTorah
Beit Shemesh, Israel

To the Editor:

R. Chaim Dovid Zwiebel, Executive Vice-President of Agudath Israel of America, was recently interviewed in Mishpachah magazine. He explicitly acknowledged two obvious truths: (1) that abuse and molestation issues have not been taken seriously in the charedi community, and (2) that this has begun to change as a result of pressure created by blogs. In light of that, how could Rabbi Avi Shafran, in his latest column, deny any positive value to blogs that contain criticism of the charedi community, and equate them all with Korach?

I was further taken aback to see Rabbi Shafran derisively describe the world of blogs as "blogistan." The suffix "-stan" is usually used to describe an entity that has taken on attributes of restrictive, dictatorial theocracies that are common in the Moslem world. Is it not ironic that Rabbi Shafran, who insists on the unqualified, unimpeachable authority of Daas Torah and the suppression of any public criticism, uses the term "-stan" to describe those who seek precisely the opposite?

Sincerely,
Rabbi Natan Slifkin
Ramat Bet Shemesh

Choosing for Oneself, Choosing for One's Children

In discussions about the merits and demerits of kollel, and in decisions about supporting people in kollel, there is a crucial factor that is often overlooked.


When someone is in kollel, in 99% of cases, this is not merely a personal direction for their own life. It also means that they are raising their children with kollel as the expected norm, with no secular education, and with no expectation that they will be self-supporting.

In other words, with the exception of kollels such as Torah MiTziyon, or the RIETS semicha kollel, kollel is usually part and parcel of a larger lifestyle choice. Here are some examples of scenarios in which this makes a big difference.

"I want to learn in kollel, and I'm willing to endure the hardships and take the risks."

It's all very well for you to make that choice, but what about your children? What options will be available to them, when they are raised without any general education and taught they are second-class citizens if they work?


"Are Torah scholars less worthy of Jewish communal support than scholars of romance languages and literature, jazz music, or modern dance?"
Amongst many other differences, the university academic is not raising all his children with the expectation that they will also be university academics, and the lack of training or desire to do anything else.

"Chazal said that there is room for individuals to follow in the path of R. Shimon bar Yochai etc."
But Chazal also ruled that a person must teach his children a trade - no exceptions are made!

(Parent of kollel students:) "I'm doing a chessed for my kids. I can afford to support them in kollel. That's why I'm not pushing them to learn a career."
But can you afford to support all their children in kollel? Your kindness to your children is cruelty to your grandchildren!

Summer Lecture Schedule

Here is my lecture schedule, so far, for the summer. If you are interested in arranging a lecture in your community, please write to me at zoorabbi@zootorah.com

NEW YORK REGION
Shabbos July 21: Cherry Hill, NJ - Congregation Sons of Israel
Sunday July 22: Morning: Two multimedia presentations in Cherry Hill, NJ. Download the flyer here. If you can give me a ride back to NY afterwards, that would be appreciated!
Evening: OPEN

LOS ANGELES
Shabbos July 28: Beverly Hills, CA - YINBH

CHICAGO
Shabbos August 4: Skokie, IL - Ohr Torah
Sunday August 5th: Morning and afternoon - Torah Tour of the Lincoln Park Zoo. Download the flyer here.
Evening: To be announced.

I might need accommodations in NY from July 18-24, preferably in the 5 Towns area, and close to a train station. Baruch Hashem I have a number of friends that I can ask, but I dislike putting people on the spot, so I am mentioning it here instead. If you can help out with that, please be in touch.

The Future of the New Charedim

In an earlier post, I referred to a lecture at the Orthodox Forum on the topic of the "new charedim." The speaker, Chaim Zickerman, noted that the new charedim have an uncertain future. They are sorely lacking in self-confidence; they do not have leaders who exemplify their values and to whom they can look up to for direction. This is difficult for them, in light of how they are scorned by other charedim.

In terms of the general reaction to the new charedim by the rest of the charedim, Mr. Zickerman noted that there are three possible scenarios: conflict, silence, and harmony. His favored scenario was harmony. But he described that as being a situation in which there is a Yissacher-Zevulun relationship between the two groups.

To my mind, that is not a good scenario at all.

First of all, the historic/ halachic/ hashkafic basis for such a relationship is weak, to say the least. As I wrote in my post "Is Kollel rooted in Yissacher/Zevulun?," the Yissacher-Zevulun model is mentioned in the Midrash - not the Chumash or Gemara. And in the Midrash it says that Zevulun was helping to market Yissacher's merchandise, not fully fund them. According to Rabbi Prof. Yehudah Levy's analysis of this topic in Torah Study pp. 46-50, the early halachic authorities did not discuss a Yissacher-Zevulun arrangement and it seems that they did not legitimize it.

Second of all, there is a fundamentally conflicting system of values between the "new" and "old" chareidim (yes, I know that the "old" chareidim are also new, but everything's relative). The old chareidim believe that the ideal lifestyle, for which everyone should strive, is to be in kollel; the minority who go out to work have essentially failed. The new chareidim believe (as did Chazal) that the ideal, or at least perfectly acceptable, lifestyle is to be self-supportive. This is a significant difference, and I think that it precludes true harmony.

Yated Wars: Reactions to the New Charedim

There is a ferocious battle going on regarding the takeover of the Israeli newspaper Yated (which is entirely unrelated to the American Yated). In part, it relates to the general power struggle taking place with the decline of Rav Elyashiv's court. It also relates to attitudes to the new chareidim.

The old Yated was vitriolically zealous. It represented the most extreme group of charedim, whose figurehead was Rav Elyashiv and whose natural successor is Rav Shmuel Auerbach (more about him, with whom I am personally familiar, in another post). Here is a link to an editorial from the pre-takeover Yated, regarding the "new charedim" that I discussed in the previous post. It's a strong condemnation of the "new charedim," concluding with a declaration that the Yated is proud to be  extremist. The editorial insists that it is not categorically opposed to the idea of a person working for a living, as long as the person recognizes that it is not the ideal. The ideal is for a person to be supported by others! And to raise one's children with that goal! (It amazes me that they can propose this so brazenly, apparently without an inkling that is entirely contrary to Chazal.)

According to my sources, this editorial was the last straw. The newspaper has now been taken over by the other Charedi camp, whose figurehead is Rav Steinman and who is funded by an American called Shimon Glick. They are not moderate in any objective sense of the term; see this interview with someone from that camp, who cites Rav Shteinman as saying that one should not support any hospital or other institution, only limud Torah! Still, they are certainly more moderate than the previous group. Although not exactly supportive of the new charedim, they aren't in an all-out war with them.

But both camps are in a war with each other. Check out the following links:

Rav Chaim Kanievsky: Rav Shteiman Is The Manhig HaDor

The Shameful Truth Surrounding Yated is Revealed
בשירות המדינה - יתד נאמן (PDF)
 הסכסוך ביתד נאמן: זעקה בבית הרב אוירבעך

Coming up next: The Future of the New Charedim

The New Charedim

This week, I attended part of the Orthodox Forum symposium. There was a very interesting presentation on recent developments in Israeli charedi society and the nature of "the new charedim," ha-charedim ha-chadashim, sometimes known by the acronym charda"shim, and sometimes by the name "blue shirts." The presenter, Chaim Zickerman, was an outstanding example from this group: a graduate of Chevron yeshivah, who then attended law school, and now teaches law at Bar-Ilan university.

Zickerman spoke about several general changes that have occurred in charedi society:
Leadership changes - There has been no real leadership since Rav Schach. Rav Elyashiv is a posek, not a leader; he does not give public speeches and does not enjoy the widespread support that Rav Schach had. Simultaneously, there has been a rise in charedi political leadership, e.g. charedi mayors. Such people realize that it is important to have residents who pay taxes! Cultural changes - Internet, even "kosher internet," is the Etz HaDaas of the charedi world. It shows charedim the existence of alternate views on all issues.Economical changes - The 2003 cuts in child benefits, and the recent recession, has taken a heavy toll on charedi society.One of the biggest changes, which has occurred partly as a result of the previously mentioned changes, is that a group called "the new charedim" has emerged. They work for a living, and are proud of it. They are less isolated from the wider world. They are skeptical of the contemporary incarnation of "Daas Torah." They vote for a political party such as TOV instead of UTJ. (And, of course, they wear blue shirts.)

Zickerman described several ways in which the new charedim can be grouped together with conventional charedim:
How they dress - They wear hats (at least, on Shabbos), and dress in a way that is distinctly charedi, albeit with a "modern" flair.Social identification - They do not form part of non-charedi shuls or communities. They don't recite the prayer for the IDF (even though many of them may have served in the IDF!). The sandak at the bris they make is Rav Chaim Kanievsky.  Self-identification - They self-identify as charedi, perhaps largely because they don't know how else to classify themselves. Retaining an identity is very important (which is why, for example, they don't recite the prayer for the IDF). If there is a showdown between charedim and non-charedim, e.g. with regard to the draft, the new charedim will side with the conventional charedim. They are afraid of losing their identity.

Zuckerman concluded by discussing the future of the new charedim, which I will write about in a different post. And that was the end of the presentation. As you may notice, there is some overlap between the new charedim and the post-charedim that I described in a Jerusalem Post article.

Coming up in the next post: The reaction of the conventional charedim to the new charedim.

To The Batcage!

I love getting the free weekly Yated Ne'eman and the other Israeli Charedi weeklies. They are so valuable! They are the absolute perfect size for lining the cage of my fruit bats. Bats are extremely messy animals, so I need a lot of these newspapers. Fortunately, I have a large supply available to me; the Israeli Yated recently publicized a psak of Daas Torah that it is permitted to take newspapers of a theologically dangerous nature and destroy them, even if they are in other peoples' mailboxes. (True, they were referring to Mishpachah, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander.)

Anyway, as I was lining my bats' cage the other day, I opened up the newspaper and saw the following full-spread advertisement (pictured here at the bottom of my batcage):



Combined in this advertisement are two abuses - that of rabbinic authority, and that of fundraising for charity.

One of the verses in the Torah most abused in the charedi world is "V'asisa k'chal asher yorucha." The general view amongst the Rishonim is that this is a directive to follow the Beis Din HaGadol, when it issues its rulings according to protocol. A minority view, presented by the Sefer HaChinnuch (very much not a major halachic authority), extends this to the Torah leaders of every generation - though the Minchas Chinnuch notes that this is only when they, too, are following the protocols of the Beis Din HaGadol. The Charedi world, however, presents this passuk as unequivocally demanding that everyone follows "Daas Torah" i.e. the pronouncements, issued without any protocol, of a few rabbonim named as Gedolei HaDor.

Fundraising for (alleged) charitable causes is also abused in the charedi world. The charedi world does excel at giving charity - I remember a study many years ago in the Jerusalem Post showing that National-Religious Jews give four times more charity than secular Jews, and Charedim give seven times more. (Of course, there is an issue of whether it really is charity to support people who have no intent to support themselves or to raise their children to do so; assisting them on the path to enforced poverty for their descendants may be cruelty rather than kindness.) However, the techniques used for fundraising are sensationalistic, superstitious and manipulative to the extreme, and sometimes offensive in other ways, too. A entire study could, and should, be written on the various advertisements of the various Israeli charity organizations such as Kupat Ha'Ir. "Ploni drove in an illegal manner, but escaped being punished by the authorities after donating money to Kupat Ha'Ir!" (That was an actual ad that I saw.)

In this ad we see how the charity manipulates potential donors using the popular charedi abuse of  "V'asisa k'chal asher yorucha." Rav Ovadiah Yosef is pictured here writing a check to the charity. Fine. He writes about the importance of charity. Fine. But by headlining this with  "v'asisa k'chal asher yorucha," the charity transforms this into a specific mitzvah for people to give to this particular charity! And it states that only by giving to this charity, does one receive the reward that he promises!

(A similar ad appeared a while back, claiming that one must follow Gadol X who insisted on giving to the kupa tzedakah of Bnei Brak - but of course he did this because it was his local charity - which does not apply to people outside of Bnei Brak!)

In case people accuse me of reading too much into it, and claim that the ad is simply asking people to give charity, I say as follows: If that is all the ad is doing, let them just talk about the value of charity, without having to invoke the Gedolim. Apparently, the mitzvah of tzedakah alone is not sufficient basis to ask for charity. After all, people might give to the wrong charity! But under the allegedly Biblical mandate to follow what the Gedolim say and/or do, one is now obligated to give to this particular charity! And if one gives to a different charity, such as the phenomenal Lemaan Achai, one does not merit the promised blessings!

On a broader level, this ad highlights a general problem: that Torah and Judaism is being transformed such that everything is about the Gedolim. But let's discuss that further on another occasion.

I am very sympathetic to the response to this ad that was delivered by my bats.

Rav Hirsch Lives!

One of the most significant sources in Torah-Science issues - specifically with regard to Chazal's knowledge of the natural world - is Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch's letters on the topic. He considers it as basic and normative that Chazal's knowledge of the natural world was merely based upon common beliefs of their era. (He further writes that there is no basis to condemn someone who does not adopt a literal interpretation of supernatural accounts regarding Chazal.) Here is an extract:

In my opinion, the first principle that every student of Chazal’s statements must keep before his eyes is the following: Chazal were the sages of God’s law – the receivers, transmitters, and teachers of His Toros, His mitzvos, and His interpersonal laws. They did not especially master the natural sciences, geometry, astronomy, or medicine – except insofar as they needed them for knowing, observing, and fulfilling the Torah. We do not find that this knowledge was transmitted to them from Sinai… We find that Chazal themselves considered the wisdom of the gentile scholars equal to their own in the natural sciences. To determine who was right in areas where the gentile sages disagreed with their own knowledge, they did not rely on their tradition but on reason. Moreover they even respected the opinion of the gentile scholars, admitting when the opinion of the latter seemed more correct than their own. (Download more at this link)

Of course, this is nothing that was not already stated and considered normative by the rationalist Rishonim of Sefarad. Still, Rav Hirsch's letters are important, for two reasons. First is that he expounds upon it at much greater length, giving concrete examples such as Chazal's mistaken belief in spontaneous generation. Second is that he is much more recent than the Rishonim, thereby giving this approach continuation, and countering those such as Rav Aharon Feldman who claim that the revelations of the Zohar render the approach of the rationalist Rishonim incorrect and no longer legitimate.

For this reason, Rav Hirsch's letters were a powerful weapon in the great Torah-Science controversy of 2004-5. And the counter-claim by Rav Elya Ber Wachtfogel and Rav Moshe Shapiro was that the letters must be forgeries(!). This claim was based on the fact that the letters from Rav Hirsch were unsigned and were not written in his handwriting. However, Professor Mordechai Breuer, the greatest expert on Rav Hirsch in our generation, noted to me that it was the custom for family members to make copies of correspondence. When I told him that there were people claiming the letters to be forgeries, he laughed.

Proving the letters authentic is not difficult. They were part of an extended correspondence with R. Hile Wechsler, and R. Wechsler’s original handwritten letters are extant. To maintain a belief that the Hirsch letters were forged, one would have to claim that somebody was consistently intercepting the letters that R. Wechsler was sending, and was writing responses in a style and handwriting that fooled R. Wechsler into thinking that he was corresponding with Rav Hirsch and continuing the correspondence! Clearly, this scenario is absurd; the Wechsler letters prove beyond doubt that the Hirsch letters are genuine.

(A friend of mine in Bayit Vegan brought the Wechsler letters to Rav Moshe Shapiro’s attention. Much later I heard that when someone else asked Rav Moshe about Rav Hirsch’s letters, Rav Moshe no longer claimed that the letters were forgeries and replied instead that “Rav Hirsch is not from our Beis HaMidrash." However, he later warmly endorsed Reuven Schmeltzer's notorious buch Chaim B'emunasam which maintains that the letters are forgeries.)

The Hirsch letters were originally published in the journal HaMa'ayan. When Artscroll published a Hebrew volume of Rav Hirsch's letters and responsa, Shemesh Marpeh, it would have been natural to include these letters in that volume. But Rav Shimon Schwab advised the editor, Rabbi Eliyahu Meir Klugman, not to include them. Prof. Lawrence Kaplan, in “Torah U-Madda in the Thought of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch,” BDD vol. 5 (Summer 1997) p. 28, reports a conversation that he had with R. Schwab and says that he is citing him practically verbatim as follows: “The editor consulted with me, and I advised him not to publish them. I told him that the letters are controversial and likely to be misunderstood, and that his publishing them would just bring him unnecessary tzorres.”

With all due respect, I have to disagree. How are they "likely to be misunderstood"? They are written extremely clearly. They will clear up existing misunderstandings of this topic rather than create new ones! As such, while they are (today) controversial, I don't see that publishing them brings unnecessary tzorres, but rather the necessary tzorres that comes with publishing the works of a great figure whose views are not accepted by everyone.

It was truly disappointing that the letters were omitted from Shemesh Marpeh. I was therefore pleased to discover that Feldheim has just published volume nine of "Collected Writings of Rav Hirsch," in which they included these letters!

Inevitably, there will still be those who insist that Rav Hirsch only said it for outreach purposes (despite that his words clearly show that he meant it as a lechatchilah), along with the claim that Torah Im Derech Eretz was only an emergency patch for his generation. Feldheim, however, seems intent on pointing out otherwise. The volume, which is also described as including "an affirmation of Torah im Derech Eretz," is titled "Timeless Hashkafah." And on the website, the book is described as "reflecting the ever-valid Hirschian ideology."

Will it cause a storm? I don't think so. Been there, done that. A few people might make a fuss, but the book will not be withdrawn from publication, and nobody will lose their job or shidduchim for their kids. The ridiculous claim that the letters are forgeries will fade. Rav Moshe Shapiro may continue to claim that "Rav Hirsch is not from our Beis HaMidrash," but many people will fail to understand how that renders his views unacceptable, or why they should not be a part of Rav Hirsch's Beis HaMidrash.

Kol hakavod to Feldheim for keeping Rav Hirsch's legacy alive!

When is a Hyrax Not a Hyrax?

Reader Jonathan directed me to what he described as a story with a "curious hyrax-haredi connection." The story, hereby cut-and-pasted from the English "Times of Israel" website, reads as follows:

Police on Wednesday arrested a couple, residents of the ultra-Orthodox city of Elad in central Israel, after a search of their house revealed 210 marijuana plants and 400 grams of packaged weed. Some of the plants were found in the rooms of the couple’s children, the Hebrew website Ynet reported. The man, 37, claimed to be a Torah luminary and explained that he smoked the marijuana for pain relief. The wife told police that she was opposed to her husband’s drug habit and had brought home a hyrax to eat the plants.

I read this story and instantly realized that it just couldn't be. Nobody in the world has a hyrax (except me). You can't buy one in a store, and although there are plenty in the wild here, you certainly can't just go and pick one up. Not even if you offer it some marijuana. What was going on? Even before I read the original Hebrew story, it was obvious what had happened.

The animal that the woman had brought home to eat the marijuana was not a hyrax but rather a rabbit, which she described as a shafan. The reason why she called it a shafan is that, in medieval Europe, hyraxes were unknown, so the name shafan in the Torah was transposed to the closest equivalent: the rabbit. Even the maskilic writers in the nineteenth century who wrote about animals in the Torah, such as Mendele Mokher Sefarim and Ludwig Lewysohn, were oblivious to the existence of the hyrax. They maintained that the shafan was a rabbit, despite the fact that rabbits do not hide under rocks (as the shafan is described in Scripture) and have never lived in the region of Israel.

These writers influenced the development of Ivrit, such that shafan became a popular name for rabbits. By the time that people who actually lived in Israel corrected matters, and created the new name arnavon for the rabbit (with the arneves referring to the hare), it was too late. Rabbits are popularly called arnavon, arneves, and still shafan. And so the Israeli in this story used the word shafan, but whoever translated the story into English thought that the person was referring to a hyrax.

With this news story, we see an interesting reversal of events. In centuries past, the hyrax was replaced by the rabbit. Now, we have the rabbit being replaced by the hyrax!

(Incidentally, the animal pictured in the "Times of Israel" article is not a hyrax, contrary to the caption. It's a coypu.)

Is There Wisdom In Bans?

At a meeting of rabbis in Kovno in 1885, the suggestion was raised that the community ostracize anyone who studied Darwinian evolution. Rabbi Yitzchak Elchonon Spector and Rabbi Alexander Moshe Lapidus opposed the measure, but only due to the foresight that it would inevitably result in people being more attracted to it and rebelling against rabbinic authority.

I was reminded of this after reading about the Vatican condemning a book by an American nun about sexuality. The day before the Vatican's statement, the book ranked 142,982 on Amazon. The next day, it was number 16.

Of course, the same thing happened with the ban on my own books. While it was an absolutely awful experience that I would not wish on anyone (well, with a few exceptions), it was certainly good for sales and a tremendous boost to my career. Ever since the ban, I have had a long list of speaking invitations.

This doesn't mean that, from the perspective of those banning the books, it is necessarily the wrong decision. It all depends on what their priorities are. It could be that they see it as more important to draw the lines of permissible beliefs, or to prevent certain obedient types of people from reading the books, or to assert authority, regardless of the fact that they will actually cause more people to read the banned books.

But I would imagine that their professed primary goal is to stop the book from being read and thereby harming people. In which case, 21st century rabbis that ban books are out of touch with the results of their actions.

(Inspired by this article. Hat-tip to DES.)

On another note - to the Israeli readers - if anyone can volunteer to translate my museum prospectus into Ivrit (not rabbinic Hebrew!), please be in touch!