a parody of some over the top kiruv efforts developed by the jewish organization NCSY.
An interesting application of an interesting thought.
Was Abraham a generalist or a specialist?
By Rabbi Hillel Goldberg
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/hillel/goldberg_2003_11_07.php3?printer_friendly
Just before Passover, 1969, I was sitting in the Beth Joseph yeshiva in Brooklyn. Sitting next to me was Rabbi Jechiel J. Perr. He was broken. His wife's grandfather, Rabbi Avraham Joffen, had died in Jerusalem the night before. Rabbi Joffen, the successor to the founder of the Novorodock branch of the Musar movement, was "the last link," Rabbi Perr was saying in mourning. Now the link was gone.
One reason for Rabbi Perr's description was the simple fact that so many of Rabbi Joffen's students had been killed by the Nazis. There was no remembrance of them — then.
In a few years, this changed. I went to Jerusalem in 1972 and was fortunate to study with another Novorodock master, Rabbi Eliezer Ben Zion Bruk. One day, in 1973 or so, he told me that quite by accident he had been shuffling through some old papers in a drawer one day. He had come upon notes that he had taken some 40 years earlier, back in Poland. These notes were transcriptions of Torah thoughts delivered by promising young students in the Novorodock yeshivas, all of whom were later killed.
Rabbi Bruk was intent on publishing these Torah thoughts. They would become the only memorial to snuffed out lives. Shortly after our discussion, Rabbi Bruk did refine and publish the notes he had found. He called the book "Parchments of Fire" after a Talmudic statement about the martyrs of Rabbi Akiva's time, "the parchments were consumed, but the letters floated upward." The bodies of the martyrs were consumed, but their teachings remained — because Rabbi Bruk published them.
In 1996, Meir Levin published a book that contained a translation of some of the teachings of these young, idealistic scholars. He called the book Novarodok: A Movement That Lived in Struggle, and, Its Unique Approach to the Problem of Man. The excerpt that I reprint from this book is by Rabbi Nisan Bobruisker, murdered by the Nazis in Vilna, Lithuania, in 1941.
I apply Rabbi Bobruisker's Torah thought to Abraham the Patriarch, but it illuminates the ethical (Musar) approach of all the Patriarchs and Matriarchs. Their ethical aspirations encompassed their entire lives; in this they were all generalists. But lofty vision must be applied in real life. The Patriarchs and Matriarchs specialized in applying ethics to their every act.
This point is brought out by the martyred Rabbi Bobruisker in a very charming way — so charming that one can miss his point.
The rabbi's use of a midrash about a dog and a baker's cart teaches us not to be satisfied merely with lofty visions — generalized accomplishments. Each act, no matter how small, is either an ethical victory or an ethical defeat. To overlook a small transgression is to imperil one's entire spirituality.
"Sin crouches by the entrance" (Gen. 4:7). On this Rabbi Tanchum commented: "There are crafty dogs in Rome who know how to obtain what they want. A dog goes and sits in front of a baker and pretends to be sleeping. The baker also falls asleep. The dog then upsets the baker's cart and scatters the breads all over on the ground. Before the baker can gather his loaves, the dog snatches one of them and carries it away" (Genesis Rabbah 22:12).
Why was this specific parable selected to illustrate the tricks of the Evil Inclination ("sin")?
Oftentimes a man who has stumbled and sinned is filled with remorse over his failure. At other times, however, he comes out with pride and satisfaction at his "victory."
For example, a person may be late for work. His Evil Inclination tells him not to put lay tefilin because he is running late. Of course, he doesn't succumb and does put them on, but he hurriedly mumbles the absolute minimum of the required prayers, tears off the precious mitzvah (religious duty) and then speeds off. This man rejoices in his supposed victory and he is proud of his righteousness.
Another example:
A man argues with a friend. The dispute grows and heats up until sharp words are exchanged. At the last moment, the two individuals draw back from the brink to which they have come. They do not say the insults that could have been said. These ones also take pride in their refinement and the purity of their character.
A wealthy man is tempted to keep his store open on Shabbes the Sabbath. He resists, but gradually the business begins to close later and later on Friday and to open earlier and earlier on Saturday night. This man is also proud for, he thinks, he has resisted the temptation of his Evil Inclination.
Similarly, there are those who do not stand up to the wicked but would much rather seek compromises. At the end, they pat themselves on the back for keeping these scoffers from an even greater apostasy through their tolerant attitude and their "ways of peace."
The Evil Urge is a very shrewd tactician and a master warrior. It leaves itself room to withdraw in order to pursue its grand design and to attack again. It is a seasoned negotiator; it demands more than it really wants. Above all, it wants its victims not to feel bad, to think they won, to remain smug and contented, not to regret the losses they have suffered. Then they will not gather strength to resist, to close the breaches, to go on the offensive.
The parable of the Sages is precise. The dog did not want all the breads. All he wanted was one loaf. By upsetting the whole cart, he led the baker to believe that everything was threatened. When only one loaf was lost, the baker felt a tremendous relief. He will not learn from this experience for he does not realize that he has been tricked. Next time the baker will be fooled again.
We can learn from this, each person according to his own level. We must learn not to compromise even as much as a hair's breadth. This is all that the Evil One wants — just a hair's breadth — and this is where the battle lines are drawn.
Abraham, like the dog, knew that each loaf, each sin, compromises the whole. Abraham specialized in remedying each of his transgressions in order to sustain his general spiritual stature.
The kiruv movement has been an unquestioned blessing. Thousands of enthusiastic seekers have joined our communities over the past several decades, bringing with them a spirit of renewal and inspiration that challenges our rote performance and frozen spirituality. As someone who is a part of this world and actively teaches baalei teshuva, I appreciate its accomplishments. However, it has also brought communal challenges. As one kiruv professional has said, frumkeit is and will always remain for a baal teshuva, a coat. No matter how well fitting and comfortable a favourite coat can be, it always remains a coat. In theory, at least, it can always be taken off. For a person born and bred in Torah, Judaism is and always will be his skin. He can no more take it off than a man can shed his skin.
We now, in some places, have entire communities largely made up of baalei teshuva. Under the surface, there fester serious problems. They range from underground survival of secular attitudes to shallow understanding of the Torah, to serious psychological imperfections that are exacerbated by the wrenching effects of adjustments to the Torah lifestyle and abandonment of family and friends. There are shalom bais problems from incompatibility of backgrounds and levels, and rampant deficiency in Torah knowledge. There are few learned laymen in these palces, for becoming a Talmid Chacham requires great sacrifices for many years. On the other hand, many individuals are affluent, owing to their professional training. As sdoctors, attorneys, professors etc. they exert an influence on the entire community. Unlike certain chassidic communities, it is almost impossible to find men of dyed through and through yiddishkeit. Instead one finds shallowness, Gedolim worship and implausible compromises in observance.
I rememer how I was warned by a Rav, when moving into one such community, "Not everyone who wears a black hat here is a ben Torah". I found this warning to be very true. I encountered video rentals, childrearing habits that I couldn't believe, uninformed kashrus violations (a well meaning man, a tsaddik in many ways who did not recognize that there is an issue in using the same oven for milchigs and fleishigs) and other surprising deviation. There was an otherwise black hat family, for example, that induced their teenage yeshiva bochur son to volunteer for the summer in a non-Jewish camp in which a family member worked and also in a local public library. The thought of a teenage boy in the summer in that environement turns my stomach but these well meaning people saw not even a glimmer of a problem with it.
It is not for nothing that most chassidic groups view the kiruv movement with suspicion.
A reasonable historic parrallel would be the Spanish Anusim. Thousands of wonderful, self-sacrificing Jews streamed to Amsterdam and Turkey, seeking authentic Judaism and spiritual renewal. They created wonderful communities and left us treasured seforim. At the same time, it is among these seekers that Shabsai Tsvi found his most devoted followers, it was this soil that produced Spinoza, Uriel DaCosta, and, as Gershom Scholem pointed out, it is the descendents of these families that gave rise to the Reform movement some time later.
I am not wise enough to weigh different considerations and "hidden things". I do, however, respectfully suggest that we be aware of potential pitfalls with kiruv and that we give some attention to broadening and solidifying the committment of even established Baalei Teshuva - afer all we are all in the process of Teshuvan at all times, and there is no insult in becoming deeper and broader.
An issue of the Jewish Observer that implicitly raised these issues, here, http://www.shemayisrael.co.il/jewishobserver/archives/dec/index.htm
Imagine the following scene: Amid the pristine views from Mount Gerizim, in the heart of the small Samaritan community, as if it were a matter of course, two women who could be straight out of a different story are roaming around - Shura, who came from Ukraine and Lena, who arrived here from the plains of Siberia. Both are married to Samaritans. Shura is the daughter-in-law of the sect's high priest, Elazar Ben Tzadka, and is married to his son, Yair. A beautiful, blond Samaritan princess imported from the city of Kherson, in Ukraine.
more, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/780032.html
What is the status of the Chumash text? Where did it come from, who wrote it down, how well has it been preserved over the millennia? We will discuss these questions, no holds barred, in this and several upcoming posts in "On Tanach".
It is quite well-known that Maimonides has formulated the Divine origin of the Torah as one of his 13 principles of faith. The Jews always believed that the Torah with all its laws and regulations was given to Moshe on Sinai. This has been the accepted belief of our people and all of humanity throughout the ages. Not until the rise of Biblical criticism has this fact been questioned. Spinoza was the first to question Mosaic authorship of the Torah, follwed by the French philosophes. It goes without saying that a principle of faith should not be cavalierly challenged or doubted solely because others do so. Disagreement is encouraged when we discuss almost every other topic in Judaism; it must be eschewed at all costs when we deal of a matter as weighty as a principle of our faith. Being wrong about this kind of matter is not like mis-interpreting a verse or misunderstanding a halacha – the price of error in a principle of faith is positioning oneself outside of the community of believers. As can be clearly seen from the quotation you will read shortly, Rambam did not think well of those who championed a position other than the traditional one. Our starting point therefore should be his formulation of principle and all that it encompasses and to accept it as the received wisdom of Jewish religion. That accomplished, the question of whether other opinions exist or are possible will be properly addresses, posed as: Is it possible in our day and age to hold an opinion different than that of the Rambam and still remain within the fold of Orthodoxy? In other words, the question is: “ can we declare one who actively affirms the existence and reliance of a view other than the one codified by Rambam to still be an Orthodox Jew”. It is not whether such an opinion can legitimately be held. As we will see there exists a possibility that there has existed at one time a minority opinion that ascribed the authorship or insertion of one or few verses to a subsequent prophet. It is important to realize that such an opinion, had it ever existed, would be very far from the view of the Bible critics. No one, absolutely no authority has ever claimed non-Mosaic authorship for most of the Pentateuch or existence of a multitude of sources that were later edited into one book as the Bible critics assert.
What is the Rambam’s formulation? The Rambam writes:’ The Eighth Principle – The Divine Origin of the Torah. We believe that the entire Torah which is found in our hands today is the one that was given through Moshe Rabbeinu and that it is entirely the word of G-d. That it came to Moshe entirely from the Almighty in a manner which we refer to, for a lack of better description as speech….Moshe was like a scribe to whom it was dictated while he transcribed all the events that transpired-the narratives and the commandments. Therefore he is referred to as Mechokek-the Scribe.
Nor is there any difference between the words”And the sons of Chan were Kush…”, “and the name of his wife was Mehetavel bas Matred”, or ..and Timan was a concubine of …” and between “I am the Lord your G-d” or the Shema, “Hear or Israel, the L-rd our G-d, the L-rd is One”. For it is all the word of G-d and it is G-d’s perfect Law-pure, holy and true.
The individual who maintains that these of similar verses or narratives were written by Moshe himself, is regarded by our Sages and our Prophets as the most grevious of apostates, for he believes that the Torah contains essential and non-essential sections and he treats the historical narratives and stories as if they serve no useful purpose and they were written by Moshe”.
To fully understand and encompass this formulation of the Rambam, we need to consult his other writing. It is important to realize that this assertion was for the Rambam not a dogmatic statement of ideology but only a part of a well considered and comprehensive theory of prophecy, nature of Divine authority of the Law, the process of transmission of the Law and unique position of the Chumash as compared to other prophetic revelation that he lays out in Moreh Nevukhim 1:35-38 and 46-48 and the Mishne Torah, Laws of the Basics of the Torah chapters 8 and 9.
This is the meaning of the phrase “He who says:The Torah is not from Heaven( has no portion in the World-to-Come) ". In addition it is solidly based on the statement in Talmud Sanhedrin 99b which the Rambam paraphrases as follows:”This applies even to one who says that the entire Torah is the word of Almighty with the exception of the one verse which was said not by the Almighty but by Moshe himself. This is – “for he has despised the word of G-d”. May His name be exalted, contrary to the words of the apostates.
I will not discuss the nature of prophecy, which component of the soul receives Divine inspiration, medieval and rabbinic epistemiology and the voluminous literature on the role of angels as intermediaries in prophecy. From the examination of the relevant Maimonidean passages it becomes apparent that there are several distinct but interrelated issues that claimed his attention and that informed his approach to the question of the Divine origin of the Torah. Paramount among these is the question of how the Torah is different from other prophetic books. Claiming that it is not different results in several undesirable consequences. First of all, it opens the Torah to the challenge of other religions. If Moses was just a great prophet, another great prophet can negate his teaching. In addition, it does not differentiate divinely granted law and other types of prophetic vision. If the Law is nothing more than a prophet’s interpretation of what he had seen in a prophetic vision, conceivably he may have misinterpreted it. One would be most inclined to make such acclaim when the prophecy contradicts some scientific or well accepted tenet. As is already the case, there arise people who claim that they understand the prophet’s intention better than he did himself. Even more commonly, one can re-interpret prophetic works in ways more consistent witth the tenor of the times. One can claim, for example, by interpreting Isaiah in a certain manner that he provided the dispensation to do away with Temple centered worship, if that is what the society induces one to believe. Finally, it is possible to simply disregard Torah laws if contradicted by contemporary scientific dogma or by invoking subsequent developments in philosophy and ethics, presumably unavailable to the ancients. It is even possible to claim that revolutionary developments in human thought, the theories of Einstein, the poetry of Shelley or the philosophy of Kant are in some way also inspired and of similar validity.
The Rambam considered carefully the Biblical statements about uniqueness of Moshe’s prophecy and its superiority over that of other prophets and concluded that the entire Torah, Torat Moshe, was dictated to him. In other words, the spelling, word arrangement and the mode of expression come directly from G-d. Moshe serving as nothing more than a conduit and none of these claims can be made in regard to it.
The Rambam also realized that a document of such exalted parentage could not have been tampered with, forgotten or falsified. He therefore postulated the principle that the Torah that we have in our hands is exactly the same one handed over to Moses at Sinai.
Rambam’s principles have been embraced by the Jewish people to the extent of being incorporated into the siddur at the of the conclusion of the morning prayer. These principle appear to be widely accepted, for in the extensive literature that we possess on the subject of the principles of Faith, there is to be found no explicit disagreement with this principle. No voice has ever been raised against the principle that the Chumash was dictated directly by G-d to Moses, until recent times.
When Wellhausen proposed his Documentary hypothesis, he set of a revolution in the field of Biblical studies. Wellhausen claimed that internal evidence supports the supposition that there were four ancient documents from which the Hebrew Pentateuch was stapled and cobbled together by an anonymous redactor. This was supposed to have explained the frequent repetitions, redundancies and other peculiarities of the arrangement and structure of the Biblical text. He spawned a whole new field of studies in which scholars searched the text for unusual patterns and then used their ingenuity to assign them to the different strata in time of composition. It has become clear in the course of subsequent centuries that Wellhausen’s theories ultimately led to total fragmentation of the Bblical text, unwarranted flippancy in interpretation and deconstruction of the text into meaninglessness. Under relentless attack, the Bible gradually lost its exalted standing as G-d’s word for humanity and became merely a work of ancient literature. Recent advances in archeology, semitic linguistics, near Eastern studies and literary theory have provided much evidence for a unified composition of Pentateuch. What’s more, post-modern philosophy and literary analysis found itself traveling along the same road previously traveled by rabbinic and Midrashic science of interpretation. We will refer to this point in subsequent sections; however, it is important to realize that coping with Wellnausen’s assertions impelled traditional scholars to apply themselves to new methods of studying Tanach. In many ways and from different directions, these scholars have returned the contention of the essential unity of the Pentateuch to academic respectability. While Wellhausen’s observations are no longer widely accepted or considered compelling even in the academia, they have led some Jewish, even some nominally Orthodox scholars, to investigate whether there may be found some opinions in the voluminous Jewish traditional literature to support some version of a critical theory. What one seeks, one finds, especially if one is willing to take exegetical liberties. Several ambiguous passages that can be read to support a view different than the Rambam’s have been found in the process of this search and have been widely discussed in certain circles. It has come to such an unfortunate state of affairs that in some segments it is taken as a fact that there is a pluralistic range of views on the question of Mosaic authorship and that one is free to believe what one wishes regarding this principle of faith.
I must point out at this point that none of these proposed sources were stated in the context of considered discussion of principles of faith or history of the transmission of the Torah. All of the works that do so are in complete agreement with the Rambam. Rather, these are parenthetical or exegetical remarks comments made in the course of discussing other issues. They cannot be relied on to have been as well thought through or as carefully formulated as Rambam’s statement; in addition, it is difficult to see how they can get by the explicit teaching of the Talmud in Sanhedrin that we previously cited.
More to come... 
|
|
|
| The Rebbe seen pouring "Kos Shel Brocha" to many people in the Munkatcher Sukkah on 14th Avenue in Boro Park.
Make sure to check out ww.theyeshivaworld.com
|
More on Yirah and Simchah
Not only must every person, coming to Yerushalayim to learn yiras shamayim, be joyous and bring joy to his household and surroundings, but Yerushalayim itself had to be "the joy of all the land." It must be! This was no coincidence. To be the capital and the mistress of creation it had to be full of joy. But even more so, its destiny to be the joy of all the land required efforts to distance the slightest trace of anguish or unpleasantness: "R' Yochanan said: A hall for calculations was outside of Yerushalayim, and anyone who needed to calculate would go there. Why? - so he should not calculate in Yerushalayim and come to anguish [if his calculations were to result in a tally that was not in line with the person's desire], since is called 'the joy of all the land'" (Midrash Rabbah Pekudei)...
...And when the tribes of Hashem came to the holy city of Yerushalayim, when Bnei Yisrael flowed there to learn to be in awe of Hashem - the highest level of the Torah, the innermost content of a person's life - specifically them the atmosphere in Yerushalyim had to be completely suffused with life and vigor, beauty and happiness. Not even the most minute cloud could be allowed to mar the sky. And even the slightest detraction of the happiness was not to be found in the city. For in coming to learn to be in awe of Hashem - does a person not also need to learn how to live and be happy before Him?
HaSabba MeSlabodka pp. 64-65
from http://www.robbinsbecher.com/
This building, often referred to as "770," has been replicated worldwide with varying degrees of precision, as Chabad centers or for other purposes. Currently there are twelve 770's, including the original, in the United States, Canada, Israel, Italy, Brazil, Argentina, and Australia, and more are under construction in Cleveland, U.S.A and Santiago, Chile.
courtesy of http://menachemmendel.blogspot.com/
Why do Amoraim not dispute Tannaim? Does this apply also to us, or is it something that only they were bound to?Is this fact not a proof that Amoraim
viewed the teachings of Tannaim as having been directly received from
Sinai?
This sensible conclusion is vitiated by the view of the Kesef Mishna who
states that Amoraim did not argue on Tannaim because they accepted on
themselves to not do so. At first glance this acceptance appears somewhat
arbitrary and it is important to go beyond the statement itself and ask,
"Why did they accept this upon themselves?". R. David Nieto in Mattah Dan maintains that it
was because they recognized that the Tannaim were reporting Sinaitic
traditions[1] and because they recognized that Tannaim were greater than
they in wisdom. These are clearly two very different reasons.
The same approach was independently arrived at by the Chazon Ish who
writes: "The truth is that the generation after the Mishna suffered
a declined in stature relative to Tannaim. The knew that the truth is
always with the Tannaim. Once they knew the truth of the matter that
it is impossible for them to understand something that had not been
understood by one of Tannaim, it was no longer possible to disagree
directly with Tannaim on their own authority (Letters 2:24)[2]". This statement may be delibertely formulated in such a way as to allow both of the interpretations above. In any case, whichever of the two reasonss it may be, clearly they apply also to us and in every generation.
In Matteh Dan, this claim that Sages were greater than subsequent
generations takes the scholar and Khazar into the question whether
generations are declining one after another. Khazar points out that
technological and scientific advances in our day belie the conviction
that we are less intelligent or less advanced than our forefathers. The
unstated corollary is that we do not have to follow them in matters
of religion. Uncharacteristically, the scholar avoids countering
this argument directly, responding in a convincing but limited
fashion. Apparently R. Nieto sided with the mystics to whom he alludes
within the discussion and who believed that in certain aspects the
later generations can achieve more than the earlier ones, albeit not
in areas of legal interpretation[3]. He seems to have chosen, however,
not to write so explicitly so as not to play onto the hand of scoffers.
[1] This point was made in book form by R. Z. Lampel in Dynamics of
Disputes. The making of machlokes in Talmudic times, Judaica Press,
1992. With great eruditions and scores of examples he demonstrates that
Amoraim refrained form arguing agaist Tannaim because they were no longer
certain which of their statements were Sinaitic law and which may have
been an interpretation.
[2] It is not clear if Chazon Ish disagrees with the Kesef Mishna or
interprets it; both understandings of his words are defensible. The
Chazon Ish does extend this principle to Rishonim as well. In some of
his other writings he invokes the element of Divine Spirit that rested on
the Sages throughout history. R. Elchanan Wasserman in Kovetz Shiurim 2,
Kuntres Divrei Sofrim, 2 explicitly argues with Kesef Mishna, rejects
its explanation, and interprets Maimonides differently.
[3] The principle that "generations grow smaller" is well established in
Jewish thought, so much so that it served as basis for legal decisions
(See Tslach Pesachim 116b). On the other hand, there are Chassidic and
Kabbalistic sources that allude to the fact that while early generations
were great because they were close to Revelation, later generations also
derive greatness from their closeness to Redemption. See Sod Yesharim
(Radzin) Pesach 121; A. Marcus, Hechassidut, in the name of Ba'a' Shem
Tov, pp. 14-15; R. A. Y. Kook, Orot Hakodesh 2,p. 537; Midrash Pinchas
(Koretz), p. 82. R. Tsadok Hakohen wrote that while the generations are
diminishing, total holiness within the nations as a whole continuosly
accumulates (Tsidkat Hatsadik, p. 116. See S. Sperber, Hemshekh Hadorot,
Haraya, pp. 45-46). Some say that it applies to masses but individuals
are not subject to thsi rule (R. Avraham Simch's Peirush on Zoahr Ne'elam,
Introduction)
|
