Weekly Digest – News and Essays In and Out of Orthodoxy – Week of Parshas Beshalach 5776
- Judaism: On the Torah article found in Rabbi Eitam’s Hy”d computer
- Palestinian suspected of killing Israeli mother detained – “Israel says the violence is the result of a Palestinian campaign of lies and incitement. The Palestinians say it is rooted in frustration over nearly 50 years of Israeli occupation.” Aside from the indescribably vicious pattern of murder and violence against Israelis, the Arab attempt to justify it due to “Israeli occupation” is absolutely vile and disgusting. Even if it would be true that someone is illegally occupying your land, how can you condone, encourage and gleefully celebrate the bloody and sadistic murders and mass terror attacks against people for an alleged offense of land occupation? Civilized societies do not act that way, and those who publicly propound theories of moral equivalency are complicit in the terror and barbarism.
- German Jewish leaders: We are no longer safe here
- Putin offers European Jews refuge in Russia
- Satmar And The ‘Last Lion’
- MLK Day at Hebrew Institute of Riverdale – Annual concert by Baptist church choir in the sanctuary of HIR
- Mizrachi Responds: I’ve Always Respected the Rebbe – Clarification after sharp criticism of Chabad
- Be Honest: It Just Isn’t Orthodox
- “Re-imagine” batmitzvahs urges leading Orthodox female voice – Why must rituals be invented? Where has Mesorah gone? Please see here for my approach.
- Approaching “Niddah” with Radical Openness – What about approaching it with deference and modesty? It is disappointing that a sizable plurality of the new podcasts and responsa of the YCT rosh yeshiva likewise focus on intimacy in a somewhat graphic manner and lack the traditional inhibition, subtlety and nuance that would be expected. (I was really hoping to steer clear of discussion about this, but something must be said.)
- No Holds Barred: The sickening charge of anti-Semitism against Ted Cruz – This was very necessary. The characterization of Cruz’ statement about New York as reflective of anti-Semitism was totally outlandish and foolhardy. Please also see this insightful essay on the matter.
- An orthodoxy of its own – The author writes that by rejecting the ordination of women as rabbis, the RCA has “replace(d) halachic considerations with prejudice.” Has it occurred to the author that the RCA position, which conforms to the halachic ruling of every major rabbinic authority, might actually reflect Halacha/Mesorah and not prejudice?
- Conservative, Orthodox, pluralistic and Reform day school organizations to merge
- Yizkor: A Review of the Ongoing Struggle between Orthodox Jewry and Yad Vashem
Last week’s installment of Weekly Digest – News and Essays In and Out of Orthodoxy can be viewed here.
“The characterization of Cruz’ statement about New York as reflective of anti-Semitism was totally outlandish and foolhardy”
Almost exactly 36 years ago I was in Iowa for almost 2 weeks for work. Before I went my boss told me that when people refer to New York as being different it is usually a code word for Jewish. There is no doubt that using the term “New York values” is intended to play on the Jewish aspect. Of course, that does not mean that Sen Cruz is anti-semitic-it does mean that like most politicians he’ll do/say almost anything to win.
“Aggessive” is also code for being Jewish. Cruz , even if you disagree with his views on domestic issues, is a great Ohev Yisrael as is Rubio. The same can not be said for one of the Democratic candidates whose views are so far LW that he describes himself as an independent socialist and his favorite clergyman as the current resident of Vatican City.
al tiftchu bindivim. Steve we can both think of Rabbis that we trust who have implicitly at least publicly supported Clinton, Carter, Republican party, etc.
My impression is that as far as Israel is concerned based on past record-Rubio would be best among realistic candidates. Of course his record is based when he was a Florida Sen.
Read Dennis Ross’s latest book and you’ll see the pluses and minus of every US president re Israel from Truman on-it is very complex.
Sadly it is not even clear to me that the next president will be better for Israel than Obama
Ross has had his share of diplomatic failures, too, some because of an over-optimistic view of Arab intentions. One could make the case that American Jews working for the US Government on the “peace process” have caused way more problems for Israel than they solved.
I was not commenting one way or the other on Dennis Ross, Danny Kurtzer etc-I was using his book for his analysis of facts. Challenge the facts NOT who said it.
In many cases, we can’t independently verify things Ross says he said or did or heard behind closed doors, so we’d have to rely on his reputation and public track record.
Re: Cruz
We as a people should be smart enough not to fall for the usual lies and smears dumped on conservative politicians.
New York Values, that is, liberal values as practiced in in NYC culture and politics, are largely antithetical to traditional Jewish values. However, many Jews, even some Orthodox, have bought into and identify with these liberal values in whole or in part. This is the near-inevitable result of living in Galus, which (even) NYC is part of. So it’s very easy for many Jews to get defensive when NYC ways are verbally attacked.
It’s very easy for many Jews to support cultural and political trends that threaten Judaism, now or in the future. Cruz as a social and political conservative strongly opposes these trends, but clearly has nothing against Jews as such.
Trump, for his part, brought in the red herring of the valiant NYC response to 9/11. Any values played out in that effort were the residue of traditional values that NYC life had not managed yet to obliterate.
Your sentiments regarding a Jewish wedding being the central and most important milestone in a woman’s life, to contrast the bar mitzvah as a central and most important milestone in a man’s life, are nice-sounding, but reflect relatively modern developments in Jewish thought and have little textual basis. Additionally, many women nowadays, unfortunately and through no fault of their own, never get the opportunity to experience this supposed “most important milestone” of a wedding. It is dishonest to imply that this is a milestone that is celebrated like reaching an age in life; it is no guarantee for any woman. Simply for that reason alone focus should be shifted to a woman’s coming-of-halachic-age as the central milestone in her life, especially in this day and age when women’s Torah learning and leadership positions have grown in leaps and bounds, making women important in their own right.
Well said. I am aware of no textual support for the assertion that a Jewish wedding is the central milestone in a woman’s life. To the contrary, a man’s wedding is cited as “the day of the gladdening of his heart.” (Shir haShirim 3:11).” It is difficult for me to equate a Bar Mitzvah celebration for a boy with a wedding celebration for a woman.
I would ask Rabbi Gordimer to explain the legal or traditional difference between reaching a bar mitzvah or bat mitzvah from the child’s point of view. It is the age at which a child of either gender becomes responsible for fulfilling their respective commandments. There is a difference in the commandments they must fulfill, but no difference in the significance of the day for a child of either gender. It would be presumptious to assume that a man’s mitzvot require greater celebration than a woman’s mitzvot. It is arbitrary to imply that becoming a shliach sibur necessitates a $30,000 party but lighting Shabbat candles for the first time is worth a table for 12 at the back of the local deli.
The difference however is in the blessing that the father recites at the bar-mitzvah of his son. The father may choose to make a lavish party to celebrate the successful completion of his mitzvah of teaching his son. These differences relate to the father and not to the child.
Frankly I’m not aware of textual support for any bar/bas mitzva rituals. I’ve read many a biography from past generations and a recurrent theme was that at most a bar mitzvah was some cake in shul. Many gedolim where away in yeshivos learning at that age and had nothing.
laining and big parties are a modern invention. A bar mitzva party has no status of a seudas mitzvah. If we are looking askance at large bas mitzvahs for any reason (it definitely lacks tznius if non family male members are involved) we should equally look down on large bar mitzvah as not being tznius for materialistic reasons.
The difference however is in the blessing that the father recites at the bar-mitzvah of his son.
The more convincing understanding of “Baruch she-patrani me-onsho shel zeh” is that the father is thanking hkb”h for allowing his son to reach the age where the son will no longer be punished for the sins of the father.
Precisely the same sentiment would be expressible for a daughter.
A Bar or Bas Mitzvah properly celebrated means the celebration that a child has reached the level of adulthood in terms of being bound to be a Shomer Mitzvos. I think that there is a Yam Shel Shlomoh who posits that there is a chiyuv of simcha on such occasion. Nevertheless, the level of simcha at a chasunah is gone into in detail in the first perek of Ksubos, and that is precisely because getting married is no guarantee, but when a chasunah takes place, it is a communal approval of the shidduch with the fervent hopes of success as expressed in the Sheva Brachos. Take a look at at first halacha in Hilcos Ishus of the Rambam where the institution of Chupah v Kiddushin is described as a uniquely Jewish institution that requires communal approval. A Bar or Bas Mitzvah has some element of simcha, but both are parties that may have some Torah content, but with nowhere the sense of reaching an individual, familial and communal milestone as a chasunah-There is no comparison between a Bar or Bas Mitzvah and walking a child down to a chupah in terms of the sheer sense of simcha and being Lifnei HaShem.
Jun Jun wrote in part:
“Additionally, many women nowadays, unfortunately and through no fault of their own, never get the opportunity to experience this supposed “most important milestone” of a wedding.”
I think that this comment is alluding to the twin maladies of extended singlehood and the shidduch crisis. I think that we as a community need to look at the sociological and other factors that have led to the development of both of these phenomena-a life of extended singlehood and the issues and pressure raised by the shidduch system deserve a lot more scrutiny than they are getting.
Ask anyone who has made a bar or bas mitzvah or a chasunah
The Simcha at the latter is far greater because there are no guarantees that you will achieve this mileston
1. about terrorist murderers. they know that the only hope they have of getting their land back will be making the price in jewish blood high enough that the jews retreat, like Gush Katif , because almost no party on the right will give away any of the Patrimony. the British left in ’48 only because of body bags being shipped back to England. the separation wall helped make life tolerable for a good while. what did we expect them to do , give up ? renounce their claim to all the land ? be willing to live as 2nd class citizens? … am afraid that pipe dream won’t come before Mashiach. The settlement movement was designed to prevent being able to separate, to give back land. but it assumed the occupied would lean back and enjoy it….
2. Mizrachi. reminds us of the Orlofsky affair [ when he disparaged in vicious terms the MO world]. there is always public apology , but one assumes the mouth voiced the heart — Mizrachi is after all , a hell-and-brimstone preacher like r amnon yitzchok , and the latter has had a massive following….
I completely agree; OO does not align well with the 19th century response to modernity called “orthodoxy.” Let’s just call it traditional, a more apt description. And btw, a response by gedolim over a century ago to Bible criticism is about as effective as the advanced medicines of that time. Both the hard and soft sciences evolve. Even shiurim by gedolim of 50 years ago no longer (fully) address evolving challenges of Biblical criticism.
“Let’s just call it traditional, a more apt description. ”
Traditional out of habit, when it wants to be, or traditional out of total loyalty to HaShem and His Torah?
i don’t think there is significant statistical difference across the traditional spectrum (chareidi to RW conservative and perhaps beyond) between those who are acting out of convenience/habit and those with deep religious conviction. Deep religious conviction is not close to uniform.
<i>I completely agree; OO does not align well with the 19th century response to modernity called “orthodoxy.” Let’s just call it traditional, a more apt description. </i>
If the OO people would simply say this, then the current controversy would mostly go away.
But the OO are “marketing” themselves as Orthodox and attempting to make inroads into Orthodox communities by mischaracterizing and sometimes obscuring what they believe and promote.
<i>And btw, a response by gedolim over a century ago to Bible criticism is about as effective as the advanced medicines of that time. </i>
Torah Judaism is axiomatically indifferent to interpretative approaches that do not assume Divine authorship of the Torah and the authenticity of prophecy.
Thus what R. DZ Hoffman writes about Wellhausen is (as RDZH himself writes in his introduction) a “l’divreichem” argument. If you want to be uncharitable, it’s an “apologetic”. Consequently what RDZH writes about Wellhausen is not particularly interesting to a Torah scholar – though of course the other aspects of RDZH’s commentary are interesting.
And precisely the same situation obtains regarding the more contemporary writings of R. Mordechai Breuer or R. Yaakov Medan.
Rav Breuer ztl never confronted some of the implications of Biblical criticism. Instead he took classical discrepancies stressed by bible critics and addressed them directly. He often accepted the textual variants identified by critics, and was not swayed by some earlier attempts to homogenize them. His readings of the meraglim, the yomim tovim and their observances, rights of an eved, etc. are remarkable extensions of the Brisker “shteii dinim” approach to the Bible itself. As you are well aware, he did not lack for critics. Unfortunately, I know little about Rav Medan’s writings. The only modern responses to criticism I am aware of, tend to explain the importance/centrality of halakha, even absent a set of beliefs traditionally associated with acceptable emunot/hashkafot.
I tend to agree with you that absent the OO label, there might be less criticism. But if YCT said they were an attempt to redo conservative Judaism with adherence to halakha, something I believe, they would likely also be attacked, albeit a bit differently.
Rav Breuer ztl never confronted some of the implications of Biblical criticism.
This is precisely my point. The difference between Torah scholars and apikorsim in universities has do to with their assumptions not their conclusions. The person who pointed this out most clearly is himself an apikorus ie. Leo Strauss.
But if YCT said they were an attempt to redo conservative Judaism with adherence to halakha, something I believe, they would likely also be attacked, albeit a bit differently.
If YCT said this, they would need to place their graduates in Conservative synagogues or post-denominational congregations. And they don’t want to do that.
When you write: “The difference between Torah scholars and apikorsim in universities has do to with their assumptions not their conclusions. “ I honestly do not understand. To me the distinction is between beliefs and most plausible explanations given (the few) indisputable facts. What is not arguable is as more evidence about the ancient world is unearthed, the case for traditional beliefs is not enhanced.
Those who you label apikorsim probably include the only individuals I am aware of attempting to explain their commitment to halakha despite their hypotheses about the Bible. You can discount their thoughts, but at least give them credit for trying.
When you write: “The difference between Torah scholars and apikorsim in universities has do to with their assumptions not their conclusions. “ I honestly do not understand.
If my assumption is that the Torah is divinely given by hkb”h to Moshe, then when I come across contradiction and repetitions in the text, I interpret these as being present in order to teach something (which is what is done by chazal and classic commentators). Similarly if somebody in a university claims that a word or concept is anachronistic or similar things, I assume that the divine intent was to put those things there for some reason.
On the other hand, if someone ch”v assumes that the Torah is a pastiche of material from the ancient near east, then he will understand things in a totally different manner.
This observation is basic and I think unstatedly intuitive to persons such as R. Gordimer. And the observation is much discussed by Leo Strauss in his analyses of Maimonides and Spinoza.
Those who you label apikorsim probably include the only individuals I am aware of attempting to explain their commitment to halakha despite their hypotheses about the Bible. You can discount their thoughts, but at least give them credit for trying.
A long long time ago, a proto-OO scholar named Dr. Tamar Ross gave a series of lectures in NYC entitled “Can the Torah really be from heaven?” But she was not interested in the topic that you would expect given the title of her lectures. Instead she assumed that Torah was not min ha-shamayim and proceeded to present a series of unconvincing sources and arguments in service of the notion that this wasn’t really so bad. I admit that I was not inclined to give her much credit.
Dr Leiman in one of the Orthodox Forum books, demonstrated that R Breuer ZL and his approach probably would not have been accepted by the average academic Bible critic . That raises this query-let’s assume that no approach to Tanach such as R Breuer ZL would ever satisfy the approach of the overwhelming majority of Bible critics-sometimes, Teiku is a answer ,would it not be better to live with doubts ala Teiku than to offer any “approach” that would never satisfy their views on such issues as Divine authorship, etc?
I believe that teiku is a legitimate response as an observant Jew. I also agree that R. Breuer ztl would never be accepted in academic circles. that said, his pshat in the two volumes of pirkei moadot besides being insightful, was responsible, along with one or two others, for the flourishing focus on parshanut
I believe that teiku is a very legitimate response as an observant Jew. I also agree that R. Breuer ztl would never be accepted in (most) academic circles as a satisfactory response to bible critics. that said, his pshat as he taught and in the two volumes of pirkei moadot, i read besides being insightful, were responsible, along with one or two others, for the flourishing focus on parshanut.
IIRC, prof. Leiman wrote a critique of his methodology, but i may be mistaken.
Name any president more supportive of Israel than Nixon or bush 2
Truman?
Recognized Israel
Had aid embargo during 1948 war
Truman overruled Marshall a Secretary of State who was anti-Israel to be more pro Israel. Bush 2 overruled a VP who was much more pro Israel to be less pro Israel. Thus, Israel was prevented from dealing with Iran when they would have had the chance.
LBJ was more supportive than Bush 2.
Read Michael Oren’s “Six Days in June. LBJ and his administration were too mired in Vietnam and urban crises and would faced substantial opposition from such dovish Democrats such as Fullbright and Mansfield to have offered any help prior to the outbreak of the war. Bush 2 allowed Israel to launch its operations in 2002 and to build the security wall. Truman’s recognition of Israel, in which he sided with Clark Clifford in opposition to George Marshall, was wonderful-but Truman offered no military aid whatsoever.
Military aid started with Kennedy and has increased since then-including the Obama administration which has sent more military aid to Israel than the Bush II years.
You want to refer to big aid in 1974 Nixon look at 1980 Carter aid.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html
Not responsive to my post-Evene with military aid, Obama placed limitations on what Israel could do with American given aid in Gaza in 2014. Don’t rewrite history as to how and when Israel went to war in 1967. It went to war win in 1967 without the blessing of the US or any other country.
I am referring to Nixon’s well known directives to his administration during the critical days of the Yom Kippur War to get the Israelis anything that that they needed. Again-don’t rewrite history-George McGovern and his wing of the Democratic Party are not friends of Israel
Irrelevant-Carter’s record on Israel speaks for itself
Read Michael Oren’s “Six Days in June. LBJ and his administration were too mired in Vietnam and urban crises and would faced substantial opposition from such dovish Democrats such as Fullbright and Mansfield to have offered any help prior to the outbreak of the war. Bush 2 allowed Israel to launch its operations in 2002 and to build the security wall. Truman’s recognized Israel, but placed an arms embargo in effect.
“Steve Brizel
January 24, 2016 at 10:49 am
Not responsive to my post-Evene with military aid, Obama placed limitations on what Israel could do with American given aid in Gaza in 2014.”
ALL American military aid is given with restrictions. Bush II did not even give Israel the military aid requested in the latter part of his term that could have possibly enabled Israel to attack Iran successfully.
“Don’t rewrite history as to how and when Israel went to war in 1967. It went to war win in 1967 without the blessing of the US or any other country.”
Don’t rewrite history after the 6 day war resolution 242 in the English version does not say that Israel must withdraw from “THE territories” only “territories” and that was due to US demands. The difference has been why all US Presidents and UN has tacitly permitted as longas Israel doesn’t go to far Israeli settlements beyond the green line.
“Steve Brizel
January 24, 2016 at 10:55 am
I am referring to Nixon’s well known directives to his administration during the critical days of the Yom Kippur War to get the Israelis anything that that they needed. Again-don’t rewrite history-George McGovern and his wing of the Democratic Party are not friends of Israel”
Nixon was no friend of the Jews-see eg his recorded history. BTW even concerning Yom Kippur War and its lead up read how US was pressuring Israel-only when things got desperate re the USSR did Nixon undertake armament supplies to Israel
Steve Brizel
January 24, 2016 at 10:56 am
“Irrelevant-Carter’s record on Israel speaks for itself”
During his White House Years the Camp David Accord has lead to a non war situation for so far almost 40 years with the power which was Israels biggest threat for its first 30 years.
Carter gave more aid to Israel in FY 80 than Nixon during FY 74 the Yom Kippur War era. I am not saying that Carter is pro Israel just showing how military aid per se is not the proof of being pro Israel.
Why shouldn’t Kurtzer’s record both as ambassador to Israel and as a dean at YC be subject to review?
Those interested in the method of Rav Breuer ZL’ and its limitations should read R S Carmy’s article “Introducing Rabbi Breuer” at Pages 147-158 and DR Leiman’s article in “Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah ( an Orthodux Forum work which by now probably is available on YU Torah) which is entitled “Response to Rabbi Breuer” at PP181-187.