They meant, of course, that Zion and Jerusalem were the source of God’s law and not Babylon. In the Talmud of Eretz-Israel [Sanhedrin 6a] we find a truly caustic comment about this matter.
From Zion Goes Out The Word of the Lord
By OJ | July 1, 2009
In response the two sages quote to them the well known verse from Isaiah:
For out of Zion shall go forth the Torah and God’s word from Jersualem.[Isaiah 2:3]
Rabbi Yitzĥak stood up [in the Sanhedrin] and read [as if from the Torah]: “These are the festivals of Ĥananya the nephew of Rabbi Yehoshu’a!” [parodying Leviticus 23:4 - "These are the festivals of the Lord"]. Rabbi Natan then stood up [as if reciting] the Haftarah: “For out of Babylon shall go forth the Torah and God’s word from the River Pekod!”
via Eretz-Israel 007.
Very interesting series of posts on the power struggle between the sages of the Land of Israel and those of Babylon. This particular quote is regarding an attempt to determine the calendar in Babylon independent of decisions in the Land of Israel. That spirit of discourse seems alive and well among the modern movements.
Topics: Religion, halakha, israel | No Comments »
JTS – Parashat Hukkat/Balak
By OJ | July 1, 2009
The Israelites had a history of trusting in God because of what they saw. The most famous example, which we repeat in the daily morning service, quotes their experience after the crossing of the Sea of Reeds: “Israel saw the wondrous power which God had wielded against the Egyptians, the people feared God; they had faith in God and in God’s servant, Moses” (Exod. 14:31). They have needed this public, indisputable evidence of their eyes ever since. God knows that what they see is what is most important. And what he wants them to see is Moses speaking—not striking the rock, as he was commanded to do on the former occasion.
God seems to be trying to wean the Israelites from one kind of perception to another: from dependence on the visible and tangible to reliance on speech in connecting with God. At Sinai, all their senses were engaged, but the revelation itself was auditory. When Moses retells and reframes the story (Deut. 4:12), he reminds the people, “The sound of words you did hear, but no image did you see except the sound.” There is a grave danger in relying on the visible. The word for image in the verse above is temunah—the same word that is used in the Ten Commandments in the warning against idolatry (Exod. 20:4).
What God wants the people to see is that Moses speaks in performing the miracle at the rock. It is a potentially powerful transitional moment in which Moses’s publicly perceived action would be speech. What he would say would become part of the people’s religious consciousness—part of the repeated narrative of the people—a way of adducing to God a caring relationship with God’s people, and conveying that care to the people. We can imagine the speech Moses might give, performing the quintessential task of a prophet, in bringing God and the people closer together. Instead, he calls them “rebels,” distancing the people from himself and, by association, from God; disdaining their legitimate needs; and losing the opportunity to attribute the provision of water to God.
via The Jewish Theological Seminary – Parashat Hukkat/Balak.
Interesting take on why Moses was told to speak to the rock and not strike it. For a generation that had sensory and sometimes tangible proof of God’s existence and providence, it makes sense that God should want them to follow His (God’s) ways without the need for constant miracles and revelations.
Topics: Balak, Hukkat, Parasha, Torah | No Comments »
America’s Original Policy Was To Call the Settlements Illegal
By OJ | July 1, 2009
From the Johnson administration through the Carter administration, the official US stance was that Israeli settlements were illegal – in all territory taken in 1967, including the West Bank, which in turn includes East Jerusalem. Ronald Reagan, taking a position that could be termed voodoo law, said settlements were “not illegal,” though they were ”unnecessarily provocative.” As the New York Times reported in 1983, that put the State Department’s legal office in a serious bind. The lawyers couldn’t disagree with their boss, their president. Professionally, they also couldn’t disagree with the obvious meaning of the law. When asked about the legality of settlements, they would diplomatically evade the question.
From then on, presidents did the same. International law was clear (as I’ve explained here, here and here). But as William Quandt, author of Peace Process: American Diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli Conflict Since 1967, once told me, after Reagan referred to settlement legal, “anyone who said it wasn’t…would be viewed as anti-Israeli” in the U.S. The State Department legal office, on the other hand, never revised its view, as the Washington Post reported two days after Obama’s press conference:
Despite the passage of time, the legal opinion, issued during the Carter administration, has never been revoked or revised. President Ronald Reagan said he disagreed with it — he called the settlements “not illegal” — but his State Department did not seek to issue a new opinion…
After the Post report, a former State Department lawyer wrote a letter to the paper with some important additional info. The article, said David Small,
…might be read to imply that the Carter administration broke new ground in finding Israeli settlements unlawful. It did not… Until President Ronald Reagan took office, our government shared the international consensus that this law prohibits changes such as civilian settlements. Mr. Reagan’s embrace of a distinctly minority contrary view was an unfortunate diversion.
The minority legal argument is that, because Egypt and Jordan — which Israel ousted from these territories in 1967 in lawful self-defense — were themselves illegal occupiers, Israel was not bound by international occupation law… The most important flaw in this argument is that it overlooks the rights of the people living there at the time…
Obama, it appears, has returned to the original stance, the one that accords with what’s distinctly the majority opinion. He has refused to bow to the political pressure of those who falsely equate “pro-Israel” with “pro-settlement.” It may be easier for him to do so because criticism of the settlements has become more widespread among Americans, including American Jews.
via Yes, a Settlement Freeze is Legally Possible. Settlement Itself Isn’t
I did not know that the original American policy was the call the settlements illegal. Growing up on the Zionist myth of Israeli infallibility that appears to have very common in American Jews until recently, I am constantly surprised by new facts brought to my attention. I only recently learned that they violate the Geneva Convention to which Israel is a signatory. (link for the below)
- A particularly significant change in international law was the Fourth Geneva Convention of August 1949. Article 49 bars an occupying power from transferring “parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” As the official commentary explains, this is to prevent the occupier from colonizing the occupied territory to the detriment of the population living there.
- The West Bank is occupied territory, as it was occupied in an armed conflict and lies outside territory over which Israel has recognized sovereignty. It does not matter that no other country is recognized as sovereign there. As its name – “Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War” – testifies, the Geneva Convention wasn’t written to protect the rights of states, but of civilians. In our case, it protects the people who were living in the West Bank and found themselves under occupation, and who are harmed by the steady expansion of Israeli settlement..
So, the issue of a God-given historical claim to the territories is moot in the face of Israel’s having signed the Convention.
Topics: Current Issues | No Comments »
Some defense of the range on Halakhic opinion in the Conservative Movement
By OJ | July 1, 2009
re: the conversation on morthedoxy I’ve posted here because I can’t find Michael/Garnel’s contact information and I think it’s off topic for that blog.
Garnel Ironheart Says:
June 30, 2009 at 7:00 pmThe real fundamental difference between Conservative and Orthodox decision making is that the Conservatives decide on the answer first and, if the halacha does not agree with it, they simply ignore the halacha. When they decided to ordain women, for example, the JTS Talmud faculty researched the subject and reported back to Ismar Schorsch that it couldn’t be done. So he went and held an open vote at the school including the lay faculty and guess what? The majority ruled. That’s halachic decision making? How about their recent approval of gay marriage which abrogates not just the Oral Law (which they don’t accept as binding anyway) but the Written Law (which until now they had)? It’s one thing to dredge up an unused minority opinion, quite another to invent one. Bottom line: a system in which the answer to ever question is always “yes” isn’t a real system.
You should read all the teshuvot before making blanket statements about the Conservative movement. Simon Greenberg has a book called “The Ordination of Women As Rabbis” that prints out most of them. There are also some from the Israeli wing at responsafortoday.com (e.g. האם מותר לבית המדרש ללימודי היהדות להסמיך נשים לרבנות?: הרב דוד גולינקין) that you can read. The one accepted by Joel Roth at JTS was radical, but still conservative. Women could only lead services if they accepted upon themselves all positive time-bound commandments. But, his was not the only teshuva. Some were for, and some were against. And it was decided by the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, not the the media.
- http://www.jtsa.edu/prebuilt/women/roth.pdf
- More teshuvot
- Some more interesting history here, in particular of R’ haLivni
Regarding the teshuva accepted recently that Eliot Dorff wrote, you should read that as well. His is never oker ikar min haTorah as some try. It is a very conservative approach to a real problem.
- http://rabbinicalassembly.org/teshuvot/docs/19912000/roth_homosexual.pdf
- http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/docs/Roth_Final.pdf
- http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/teshuvot/docs/20052010/dorff_nevins_reisner_dignity.pdf
- http://www.shefanetwork.org/glbt_inclusion
The problem from a leadership perspective with the movement is that its tent is too large. Many now lament that driving teshuva, but if you read it, it actually is also misunderstood. It is a sha’at dehak only for people who would never go on Shabbat if they didn’t drive. It’s not a heter to live far away and drive to ballgames or anything.
My point is that the movement is halakhically pluralistic and which includes various approaches to halakha which its own members at times vehemently disagree with.
Topics: Current Issues, denominations | 1 Comment »
How did Moshe know of Bilaam’s prophecies?
By OJ | July 1, 2009
My comment: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 9:30:00 AM
How is including parashat bilaam different from including quotes from moabite songs or the sefer milchamot hashem?
במדבר כא:יד עַל-כֵּן, יֵאָמַר, בְּסֵפֶר, מִלְחֲמֹת ה’
במדבר כא: כז על-כן יאמרו המשלים, באו חשבון
What is the basis for the problem of Moshe writing the parasha?
Also, does this issue of the “authorship” of parashat bilaam relate in anyway to the suggestion of including it in kriyat shema?
via parshablog: How did Moshe know of Bilaam’s prophecies?.
Articles on the Archeological Balaam finding at Deir Alla
Topics: Tanakh, Torah | No Comments »
Goodbye “Shelo Asani – God didn’t make me a …” Hello “She’asani Yisrael” – “God made me a Yisrael” Rabbi Asher Lopatin
By OJ | June 30, 2009
The Aruch HaShulchan (46, yud) like the Bach that rules that if you say She’asani Yisrael, you cannot say the other two negative b’rachot – you would be “stuck” having said just one, positive, B’racha.
The Rosh (Rabeinu Asher) in the back of Masechet B’rachot, upholds the version that we have in Menachot – “She’asani Yisrael”. The Gaon MiVilna affirms it is the correct language to use in his Biur HaGra on the Shulchan Aruch.
Even though the three negative blessings have prevailed in our traditions and siddurim, and She’asani Yisrael has not, the Magen Avraham of three centuries ago and the Mishna B’rura of one century ago mention that in their respective periods there were siddurim – perhaps many of them – that had the b’racha of she’asani Yehudi or Yisrael, but that that is a mistake of the printers.
Asher Lopatin Says:
June 30, 2009 at 2:01 am |Yes, halacha l’ma’aseh. I say every morning She’asani Yisrael. I spoke about this to the shul, but our minhag at shul is to say all of Birchot Hashachar to ourselves, as private b’rachot, and begin the shul’s communal davening with L’olam.
Asher Lopatin
My comments there (though not entirely on topic):
Topics: Current Issues, denominations | No Comments »
Is it important how the Chazon Ish knew urology?
By OJ | June 30, 2009
But of course it does matter, and matters greatly, how the Chazon Ish knew this [Details of urology -BF ] . If one maintains like one of the local rabbonim, then one can deduce that personal righteousness of an individual is sufficient to grant him knowledge from On High about scientific matters. סוד ה’ ליראיו. If so, we might readily extrapolate that the present Gedolim, who are surely extremely righteous, have deep scientific knowledge of the workings of the world, despite their coming from a culture which looks often down on secular knowledge. And if the Chazon Ish did not value studying secular subjects where they had relevance to halacha, but got the right answer anyway, then perhaps a posek need not make himself familiar with the metzius either. Nor is it likely to be deemed important for the hamon am to have some familiarity with modern science and medicine. And if you think a Gadol is simply wrong for maintaining a geocentric model of the universe, or a flat earth, or that gentiles have fewer teeth than Jews, or (and here to issues of greater concern) that the earth is young, or than evolution is nonsense and heresy, then you are not only a kofer but an ignorant one at that, for surely your shallow observations and the shallow observations of modern scientists are nothing compared with the truth which these tzadikim intuited with their ruach hakodesh.
And further, if this was true of the Chazon Ish, who was a recent Acharon, then al achas kama vechama it is true of Chazal. They must have had ruach hakodesh. And so one is a heretic for claiming that Chazal could err in science. If anything in the gemara appears to be scientifically inaccurate, the gemara either must be interpreted non-literally, with a convenient deep mystical significance, or else their science is true and it is the kofer scientists who are in the wrong.
via parshablog: Is it important how the Chazon Ish knew urology?.
Interesting post by Josh Waxman arguing that even halakhic decisors need to reference modern science when making decisions in that domain. What is novel about the post, is that the subject of the example, the Hazon Ish, was very conservative and well-respected.
Topics: Current Issues, Philosophy | No Comments »
JDate: End of an Era
By OJ | June 28, 2009
Your account has been suspended by an administrator. Please call our customer care team (toll free in the USA) at 1-877-453-3861.
via JDate.com – The Leading Jewish Singles Network! Explore the possibilities..
That is the current message on my JDate account. Follows is the story.
My sister called me tonight concerned that after two years of marriage and almost four years of being with my wife that a friend of hers found my profile site on JDate. This was not the first time that someone told me they found my profile, but it was the first that someone seemed to think ill of me for it. I asked my wife if she wanted me to take it down, so she said sure.
Now, the last time I was on was probably in the fall of 2005. I had two accounts and I didn’t exactly remember my emails or passwords. Fortunately, JDate seems to store your password as plain text (MAJOR SECURITY ISSUE) and just emailed it back to me when I guessed the right email. Thankfully I can still access those accounts. (One of which was proudly named meimbenjo4u so you could figure out how to contact me. The other, aher1978 was a reference to Elisha ben Abuyah for some reason.)
So, I logged in and it clearly said I hadn’t been on the site in 4 years (which should have tipped off these friends that I wasn’t still using it). Anyhow, where’s the “I’m married” link?
I couldn’t find it, so I happen to still have the JDate phone number in my phone from when I found it years ago and saved it. I called up and hit 1 for free accounts. After some advertisements, a man answered the phone. I told him I’m happily married and would like to remove my account. He then asked me if I’ve had an account before. Confused, I asked “do you mean if I’d like to remove the account I have previously registered?”. He confirmed. So, I answered “Yes, I’d like to remove the account I registered for.” I’m not sure if that’s some legal mumbo jumbo, but anyhoo, he asked my birth year and suspended it right there. Then I asked him to remove my second account. He asked if there was anything else. I said no, and the line went dead.
And the thought occurred to me– do they not have a standard procedure for this kind of thing? I mean, my account hadn’t been accessed in 4 years and they never sent an email “Hey, you still single?” I’m still showing up in searches. There’s no link to say “I’m married now”. And when I cancel, he doesn’t even ask if I met my wife on JDate. Some follow through. (I didn’t. We met on craigslist).
So, now my accounts are suspended or removed or something and I can finally get back to what I’ve been doing for the last four years– loving my wife.
Epilogue: My wife’s account is presumably still up in the Boston-area, but no one seems to have come across it. I also probably still have accounts frumster and kosher stars. If you want a free Jewish Singles alternative, go to my free site, haZug (The Couple).
Topics: Current Issues | 2 Comments »
Bio of Heshy Fried, Frum Satire
By OJ | June 26, 2009
In much of the Jewish online world, a blog post about someone enjoying Shabbat services would either be mundane, or, at best, a delight for some parental types. But on Heshy Fried’s blog, such a post attracted 224 comments and counting. Some of them chastise the blogger “Your people contribute to Judaism’s death by assimilation that has spiritually destroyed as many, maybe even more Jews than the holocaust”; some laud him “I think we all need a chance to step out of our own boundaries and share ideas”. Why the hullabaloo? The service in question was Reform, and Fried’s blog, Frum Satire, has a largely Orthodox readership.
via The Renegade – by Hadara Graubart > Tablet Magazine – A New Read on Jewish Life.
Interesting bio of Frum Satire, Heshy Fried. I sometimes find his humor a little juvenile, but he’s certainly an interesting guy and glad to have him in the blogosphere. The minyan link referenced above refers to the Isabella Freedman center.
I davened with a reform minyan and loved it!
May 26th, 2009 · 224 Comments
The title is misleading, because technically there wasn’t a minyan, since there were only about 7 men and twice that in women.
I spent this shabbos at the Isabella Freedman center in northwestern Connecticut, and had a lovely time, partially and I know people are going to bitch and moan right now, due to the fact that Congregation Beth El a reform shul in Park Slope was renting out the retreat center. My friend is the mashgiach there and in the past I had a friend who did the Adamah fellowship (of which I contemplated doing many times – but never could get how I could afford to just not make anything for 3 months)
…
I could go all Frum Satire on you and explain to you why these people were enjoying the service so much. They could wear whatever they wanted, I was in shorts and a nice shirt, they didn’t have to daven the whole thing, they sat together (outside of orthodoxy its not really a big deal) and they had good singing rather then rushing through a bunch of prayers with mumbling. In frum shuls everything is so routine and done all the time that we hardly notice, I would be willing to bet that these people rarely make it to shul. No one was talking and the kids present were good and quiet, such a rarity.
Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
Gimmel Tammuz: A test of faith
By OJ | June 25, 2009
So although it may seem that the Rebbe is no longer with us (G–d forbid), in reality he is with us just the same. Why have we been put in this situation? Hashem desires to test our faith in Him and in the Tzaddikim that He sends us, and this is part of the purification process by which Hashem prepares the Jewish people for the coming of Moshiach.
May Hashem give us the strength to overcome this test, and thereby merit to see Moshiach now.
via A Chassidishe farbrengen: Gimmel Tammuz: A test of faith.
It’s the anniversary of the death of R’ Schneerson of Chabad, but some people are having a hard time dealing with it. I don’t think anyone could argue that Jews posit that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had a very special relationship with God back in the day. And yet, we pray in the daily prayers to their God and ask for help based on their merit. We do not attribute them special powers or that they are still with us. The last time Jews thought their dead Messiah was going to return, those people became known as Christians. Regardless of the good work the Lubavitch Chabad does for Judaism worldwide, it is only a matter of time before their theological rift becomes unworkable. It may already be too late to even say amen to one of their blessings.
H/T parshablog
Topics: Current Issues | No Comments »
June 30, 2009 at 5:51 pm | There is a fundamental difference, as I understand it, between Conservative and Orthodox approaches to Halakha. Both movements accept it as binding, but the Conservative movement takes a positive-historical approach of “tradition and change”. Rather than simply accepting the customs of our ancestors as statutes, it understands the history of halakhic development and seeks to derive from there what is truly fundamental and what can change. (Though, the movement as it has existed for the last 100 years covers a wide swathe of halakhic opinion and practice from the very liberal reconstructionist to the more conservative break off, R’ David Weiss haLivni’s Union for Traditional Judaism). However, I think that a careful reading of the way Rabbis poskened up until the Enlightenment showed a much more agile ability to radically change halakha.
Orthodoxy, for the most part today, does not posken based on historical scholarship and is less willing to make radical changes. R’ Lopatin has strong textual basis within the tradition for the change he proposes if one accepts that a halakhic need can be justified by a halakhic precedent.
June 30, 2009 at 6:16 pm R’ David Golinkin (Masorti, Israel) has written a booklet Halakha leYameinu which this seems to be a summary of in case you are curious. You can also review Masorti responsa online at responsafortoday.com
You may be interested in his teshuvot on kitniyot (allows it) and driving on shabbat (forbids it).
I only add this to challenge the idea that the Conservative/Masorti movement cares not for Halakha. There are rabbis that may overreach and certainly the average member does not adhere to the standards of the law committee, but it does still have standards
I doubt that morethodoxy wants the discussion to go that direction, though, so just consider this fyi.
June 30, 2009 at 5:37 pm | You may find this related discussion here interesting as well at original jewish