048) Contemporary Daas Torah - Protecting Or Overstepping The Boundaries?

POPULARITY OF THE DAAS TORAH CONCEPT

I am always happy to receive a (very occasional and rare) compliment, but I was completely bowled over when an ex-student called the other day to ask a question. He had just returned from yeshiva and in his latest and updated phraseology, asked what my ‘Daas Torah’ (Divinely inspired opinion) was, regarding the issue of attending a pro-Israel rally during the Sefira period.

Politics aside, I assured him that I certainly did not posses Daas Torah. And added that (in my view) I doubted whether anyone in this generation has the authority to unquestionably speak for G-d, or unreservedly represent His Torah. This doesn’t mean that (outside of pure Halacha), great scholars cannot hold views or opinions, it’s just that they need to remain firmly within the confines of views, opinions, interpretations and postulations. And not become binding, de-facto, on all the community (as would be the case with a Halachic ruling).

Yet, within contemporary Judaism, many would be surprised to discover just how widespread and popular the notion of Daas Torah actually is. It is even used extensively in religious Israeli politics to sway voters one way or another, with leaders claiming to be speaking with Daas Torah.[1]

The irony is that notwithstanding Yeridot HaDorot (the gradual spiritual decline of generations since Sinai), Daas Torah is possibly more popular today than ever before.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DAAS TORAH AND PSAK HALACHA

Technically, the expression Daas Torah refers to a scholar having divine inspiration, NOT specifically in Halachic matters, but particularly in affairs of the secular world, such as medicine, science and politics[2]. And strangely enough, the less he was exposed to secular studies the more ‘expert’ he is considered to be because of his ‘piety’. Now he no longer pronounces just on matters of Halacha, which should be his speciality, but he even advises on whether people should have operations, who should stand for elections, and whether people should move from one city to another.

HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF DAAS TORAH

We are led to believe that Daas Torah has always been the pivot around which the entire Torah world turned. The popular ArtScroll series on Tehillim says: “Many times the Sages describe natural phenomena with which they could not possibly have had a personal acquaintance. The Talmud explains their amazing knowledge with the verse, ‘The secret of Hashem is for...those who fear Him (Sod Hashem Liyereiav).”[3]

Historically, however, this occurrence did not really take place ‘many times’ as claimed. This type of event is only recorded three times in the entire Talmud (and insignificantly at that). There are only three instances where detailed knowledge of the physical was acquired through supernatural means. And even on those three occasions, Daas Torah or (Sod Hashem Liyereiav[4]) is only offered as an optional explanation among other more plausible suggestions. Furthermore, no claim is ever made by the individual himself as to acquiring his uncanny physical insights by supernatural means. All other recorded insights of such a nature, in the Talmud, are made as a result of study or physical observation with no claim of hidden access to Daas Torah.[5]

Following on these three recorded cases of possible divine intervention in acquiring secular knowledge, the vague concept of Daas Torah acquired more and more density in the post-Talmudic era through medieval times.  Some say the expression was used more as a figure of speech, expressing gratitude to Hashem, rather than claiming to be privy to divine knowledge. But it seems as if the ever developing Daas Torah concept was generally understood to be real, literal, and it was gaining momentum.

This evolution reached a radical crescendo with the emergence of the kabbalist Rabbi Shlomo Elyashiv[6] (1841-1925) who applied the Daas Torah concept not just to the secular realm but, unprecedentedly, to Halacha as well[7]. He also included in this category every single statement by the Sages[8], and turned Daas Torah into a prerequisite and mandatory belief. This view has, to a large extent, informed the opinion and belief of many today.

However, our generation has taken it a step forward by applying Daas Torah, not just to the sages of the Talmud, and not just to Halacha, but even to some of our present personalities. And unlike issues of Halacha which were traditionally always predicated on sources and analysis, no reasoning or explanation is required when it comes to modern day Daas Torah.

DEFENDING DAAS TORAH

In defence of modern day Daas Torah, the following extracts may be of interest:

*R. Nisson Wolpin writes, “This exceptional capacity... guides the gadol in dealing with problems that appear to be extra-halachic in nature, appearing to belong to other disciplines, such as politics, sociology, or psychology.”[9]

*In fact, ‘a rabbinic authority has greater latitude when declaring Da’as Torah than when defining a halachic opinion’[10].

*Rabbi Alfred Cohen writes: “From time to time rabbinic figures will make pronouncements about political agendas or personalities...a person who spends his nights and days immersed in Torah wisdom eventually becomes imbued with an almost intuitive grasp of what Hashem wants...Although the role of Roshei Yeshiva, possessed of great Torah scholarship and often personal charisma, may indeed be far more prominent nowadays than in the past, it is hardly indicative of a new phenomenon.”[11]

*“Haredi Judaism espouses the belief that Jews...should seek out the views of the prominent scholars of the generation...not just on matters of Jewish law or matters of ‘religion’, but in every aspect of life, from issues of health to secular politics.”[12]

These popular views, however, seem to fly in the face of many traditional sources, like the post-Talmudic Gaonim, who warned against following some of the medical advice offered in the Talmud; and those Rishonim who said that some Sages were mistaken in their understanding of the natural order.

POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY

But there is another factor that needs to be taken into serious consideration as well, namely, that of relatively recent religious history and politics. As a reaction to the Enlightenment movement, where individual autonomy was fast becoming sacrosanct, the Chassidic movements, in a valiant attempt at perpetuating the authority of their Rebbes, were keen to adopt the Daas Torah concept. Chassidim and their rivals, the Mitnagdim, became strange bedfellows in that they found common ground opposing the newly formed Haskalah, Zionist, Moderate Orthodox and Mizrachi organisations. They merged together forming a new movement, Agudas Yisrael. On the 19^th of June 1914 Agudas Yisrael, in a signed manifesto, officially adopted two resolutions which the Chassidim insisted upon before they would agree to join the organization; 1) The decrees of the Rabbinic leadership would be issued without the need to justify or explain them, and 2) Rabbinic jurisdiction would go beyond issues of Halacha and extend to worldly matters as well[13].

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

If this last analysis is correct, and I believe it is, one needs to think very carefully before subjecting oneself and family to decisions based on the modern representation of Daas Torah, born, probably more out of political expediency than authenticated tradition.

Perhaps the Kotzker Rebbe was pre-emptive to this danger, when he explained the Mishna; ‘Asey Lecha Rav’ (Make for yourself a teacher) - not meaning finding someone to subjugate yourself to - but rather to ‘make yourself’ into ‘the teacher’. And to be aware of the possibility that some may have overstepped the traditional boundaries of rabbinic jurisdiction.

---

[1] See Kotzk Blog 42, where a letter was circulated in Bnei Brak claiming that according to Daas Torah, a certain individual should be voted in as mayor.

[2] Interestingly enough, because of the principle of ‘Lo BaShamayim Hi’ (The Torah is not in Heaven), Halacha has to be rationally and rigorously authenticated and substantiated before it becomes acceptable. Not so when it comes to Daas Torah which generally relates to worldly and non-Halachic affairs. 

[3] ArtScroll/Mesorah 1977 vol. 1 p.313

[4] According to Avi Shafran, Director of Public Affairs for Agudas Yisrael; “The phrase Da’at Torah may be a relatively new one...(but) Emunat Chachamim, or ‘trust in the judgement of the Torah-wise’, has been part and parcel of Jewish tradition for millennia.”

[5] For a detailed analysis of these three cases, see Sod Hashem Liyerayav by Rabbi Natan Slifkin.

[6] Not to be confused with R Shalom Eliashiv (1910-2012), whose father married R Shlomo Eliashiv’s daughter, and changed his surname from Erener to Eliashiv to enter British Palestine.

[7] This application of Daas Torah to Halacha seems to be in conflict with the “Lo Bashamayim Hi’ principal.

[8] Including matters of scientific, medical and general secular nature.

[9] The Torah Personality, p, 15.

[10] Rabbi Yaakov Feitman, Daas Torah: Tapping the Source of Eternal Wisdom. 1995.

[11] Daat Torah, Rabbi Alferd Cohen.

[12] Rabbi Yaakov Feitman, see above.

[13] See Kotzk Blog 41 for another example of a signed manifesto which also changed the historic perspective.





UPDATE 31 AUGUST 2015


A recent Daas Torah ruling is compelling schools to accept children who have not been vaccinated against childhood diseases. The decree states that it is contrary to Halacha to prevent children from attending school, even if they hadn't been vaccinated. It was promulgated by leaders of Lakewood Yeshiva and distributed to boys and girls schools in that city.
It quotes Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky who forbids schools to turn away students who have not been vaccinated.

Rabbi Harry Maryles writes in Emes Ve-Emunah (Friday August 28 2015);

"More importantly, those children that are not vaccinated run the risk of exposing other children to the diseases they are now more likely to contract. To the best of my knowledge vaccination are not 100%  effective. They only improve the odds of not getting the disease. Which increases the risk for others getting it -  even if they have been vaccinated. Which increases the chances of it spreading. The best way to reduce the odds of any child contracting one of those diseases is if everyone is vaccinated. The only exception I would make is if a child is known to be allergic to the vaccine – making his risk of danger greater if he is vaccinated than if he isn’t. Otherwise all children should be vaccinated."

"For me this is a no brainer. It is plain old fashioned common sense. The overwhelming benefits of vaccinations strongly argue in favor of requiring them for a child’s entry into a classroom full of other children."

"I truly do not understand what these Roshei Yeshiva are doing, other than going against vast majority of current medical advice on this issue.

As Rabbi Eliyahu Fink put it on Rabbi Bechoffer’s Facebook page, 

Schools cannot deny enrollment to unvaccinated students.  But schools may or even MUST deny enrollment to students with Internet at home / long hair / blue shirts. So to recap, parents who risk the physical health of an entire school are cool. Parents who are merely perceived as risking spiritual wellbeing of others are not cool."

.

047) Who Killed The Baal Teshuvah?

A Baal Teshuvah is usually defined as someone who was not brought up in a religious home, yet as a result of either internal searching or external influence, he or she becomes religious. Today we have many thousands of Baalei Teshuvah who have merged and blended in to established religious communities throughout the world.

In the lives of many of these Baalei Teshuva there remains an inner conflict that often gets suppressed. While they were still searching, they were made to feel welcome and important. They were the focus and spotlight of the slick machine of Kiruv (outreach) movements. The talks they attended highlighted and contrasted the evils and baselessness of the secular world, as opposed to the flawless functioning and depth of religious communities. The smiling facilitators always had a sense of humour, and as a matter of course, also showed great openness and tolerance for other views.

However, when the spotlight moved on to the next candidate and the Baal Teshuva graduated to a real community with real people who didn’t always smile, weren’t so tolerant, and didn’t abound with a sense of humour; there may have been a possible moment of frustration. When they questioned what they saw, they were told (possibly for the first time) that ‘all people’ and ‘all societies’ have their share of good and bad. This made sense to them, so they continued trying to fit in till they lost any semblance of their previous lives. Now their parents, old friends, old schools and universities suddenly vanished, and they spent an inordinate amount of effort pretending they were always like they are now.

This is sometimes the last time they ever exercise those same inquiring minds that had characterised them till now. Gone is the ceaseless searching and challenging that so defined them when they started on this journey.

Why is it at this point that the Baal Teshuvah dies?

Why can’t he or she continue to challenge and rebel against the aspects of the new society that are less than appealing, and resemble those of ‘all other people’? They showed that they had the strength and courage to do so in the past, but seem to have lost the will to affect any further change. Why? Are the peer pressures of religious life more powerful than those from whence they came? Is there some unspoken fear or apprehension they no longer have the strength to withstand?

The Kotzker Rebbe became a chassid because he saw it as a movement that challenged the sluggish mainstream. Yet he later rebelled against it when he realised that it had simply replaced one mainstream with another even more perfected mainstream.

We need our Baal Teshuvas of today to stop trying to stop being Baal Teshuvas. We need them to remain searchers and challengers so that they can take the religious community and not just live in it but advance it. They bring with them a set of skills they need not be ashamed of. Our Tradition teaches that a Baal Teshuva is greater than a perfect Tzadik. Let them champion and promote the beauty that sets our religious communities above other communities. But let them also speak out against the flaws they were told are found among ‘all people’. They have already shown that they do not want to be like ‘all people’, and there are now enough of them to have a voice and to be heard.

Let them attempt to root out those flaws as only they know how....so that the religious community no longer suffer the same maladies as the people in the societies the Baalei Teshuva thought they were leaving behind. 

046) The Faith Stalkers

Jay Lefkowitz[1] recently wrote a personal account of what he calls ‘The Rise of Social Orthodoxy.’ He is a self confessed religious Modern Orthodox Jew, who shares his experience of a new phenomenon gaining momentum in the community called ‘Social Orthodoxy’.

What is Social Orthodoxy? It is a term used to describe Jews who observe Torah practices and rituals, yet grapple with internalizing and translating these practices to the faith level. Jay describes himself as follows: ‘I start my day each morning by donning tefillin...I occasionally find myself stuck in cities on a Friday far from home because I cannot travel back to New York City in time for the arrival of the Sabbath. I go to synagogue each week and celebrate all the Jewish holidays. My children go a Modern Orthodox day school...I would appear to be the very model of an Orthodox Jew... But...I root my identity much more in Jewish culture...than in faith and commandments. I am a Social Orthodox Jew and I am not alone.’[2]

He certainly is not alone.

But there is emerging, even a more extreme type of Social Orthodoxy compared to the one described by Lefkowitz:  -Philip Gallagher[3], an academic sociologist, uncovered a significant sector of the Orthodox community who ‘...identified as Orthodox, but may not stringently observe the laws of Kashrut and Shabbos...(they) worked to create an image to the larger community of strict religious observance. Activities inside the home that violate the Sabbath...are accepted because they were out of the public eye.’ Often social pressures and the desire to belong play a more important role than theological doctrine.

My own experience of the community bears testimony to the emergence of Social Orthodoxy. Compared to twenty years ago, in many circles it is now considered ‘hip’ to be religious. A woman told me she was seriously considering to become, in her words, ‘shoymies’ (a new word for shomer shabbos), because all her children’s friends were ‘shoymies’. It was clear that she had no desire to understand anything about Shabbos as long as she could be perceived to conform.

The apparent widespread texting on Shabbos that takes place between Social Orthodox youngsters, certainly does not resonate with religious observance. Nor does popular attendance at learning programmes seem to get translated into practice, but this is overlooked as long as the attendees are seen in the right places. Perhaps we are witnessing the birthing and emergence of a new movement: The Ultra-Social Orthodox.

Rabbi Gidon Rothstein writes a fascinating critique on Social Orthodoxy, saying it blemishes the image of Modern Orthodoxy. In particular, he challenges Jay Lefkowitz’s article, even though Jay employs none of the deviousness of the more ‘social’ followers of the Social Orthodox.  Rothstein has difficulty in admitting someone of ‘questionable faith’ into the Orthodox camp, and poignantly compares it to omitting the ’I am the L-rd your G-d’ from the Ten Commandments. He believes we may have over stepped the mark by creating welcoming religious communities, which tolerate and allow for such deviation. He writes; ‘The Talmudic view (adhered to for hundreds of years) was that we could not pray with nonbelievers[4]...Only over time, and especially after the rise of Reform...did rabbis find ways to justify treating deviant Jews with less than the full opprobrium (disgrace) halachic practice until then required...A person who does not subscribe to the faith-claims of the religion...cannot claim to be practicing Orthodoxy.’[5]

I do acknowledge that Social Orthodoxy may have become a little too social. (Although that’s probably not the worst crises to befall the Jewish People, and sometimes I wish our communities would be even more welcoming). But I have to disagree with the notion of us excluding someone who appears to ‘lack faith’. Actually, Lefkowitz never said he lacks faith, he said he is ‘rooted more in Jewish culture than in faith’.  In Kotzker philosophy, Doubt is part of the very fabric of Faith. And even if he did say outright that he lacked faith, that honesty itself would be an act of faith.[6] How, in practice, can we ever be so arrogant as to sit in judgement of another’s faith? Even if someone says they have no faith, it does not necessarily mean they have no faith. They might not use the same definition of faith as we do, and unlike halachic observance which can be readily evaluated, we have no way of evaluating faith.  While two people can keep the ‘same Shabbos’, no two people can believe in the ‘same G-d’. Each person’s faith is coloured by an infinite number of other worldly nuances that even they, never mind us, could never accurately articulate.

I too do not believe in the G-d an atheist doesn’t believe in. His perception of G-d is not the same as mine. The Kotzker Rebbe once said that he ‘does not want to believe in the same G-d any dirty old man believes in’. I too do not want to believe in the same G-d, some people I know, believe in.

If bad weather, for example, prevents you from travelling somewhere, and your companion turns around and says that it’s just as well because maybe something bad would have happened – that’s not an act of faith. It’s an act of irrational belief in random causality.

Many people believe in a G-d of their own creation, spawned by their own fears and superstitions. The astonishing thing is that they tell everyone they believe in G-d - and everyone is happy -  and they are permitted to enter the camp. Yet why do we want to punish someone who because of his honesty, has intellectual difficulty in believing in their G-d?[7]

Halachic observance can be observed. Maybe that’s why it’s called observance. But how can we subject another person to observation and inspection of their faith component?

   

When we do, we become Faith Stalkers.

---

[1] A senior policy adviser to the George W. Bush administration. Served as Special Envoy For Human Rights in North Korea, and currently a lawyer in private practice in New York City.

[2] Commentary Magazine January 2014.

[3] As quoted in: Social Orthodoxy or Sweatpants Orthodoxy, by Alan Brill. Kavvanah.worldpress.com   2014/08/13

[4] It’s interesting to see that Kol Nidrei night, when we are permitted to pray with ‘sinners’, is an exception to this rule.

[5] See ‘Torah Musings. If the Social Orthodox had been in Egypt, would they have been redeemed?’

[6] This is because the foundation of faith has to be honesty. Emet VeEmunah – Honesty then Faith.

[7] The Ten Commandments say: ‘I am Your (not The) G-d’ - leaving room for different perceptions of G-d.

045) If You Can't Think...Follow

Religious independence is not for everyone. Many turn to, or continue to practice religion because they have a need to be nurtured. Independence is something of an anathema to the archetypal spiritual seeker. This type of personality is, typically, non-threatening and even beneficial to all religions that need their traditions transmitted to future generations. Judaism included.

But Judaism must be more than the mere mechanical process of transmission of texts and traditions. Surely, as long as the commitment to Halacha remains sacrosanct, Judaism must be capable of withstanding and incorporating a strong component of freedom of spiritual thought. The Kotzker Rebbe championed this concept of spiritual independence, probably more than most.

The story is told¹ about an amazing interaction between two of his teachers, the Yid HaKadosh and the Chozeh of Lublin; The Yid felt some kind of premonition that he was going to die and mentioned it to the Chozeh. The Chozeh or ‘seer’ responded by saying that if the Yid spent Rosh HaShana with him, he would surely live. Strangely the Yid chose not to stay in Lublin but instead decided to move away from the Chozeh. The Yid said that he did this because had he stayed, he would have become so influenced by the Chozeh that he would have lost any sense of autonomy. He would take his chances and even die rather than lose his independence and individuality. In Kotzk a teacher is important, but independence is more important. The teacher must teach the student independence.

Only when the ‘I’ is clearly defined, can the relationship with any ‘other’ be sustainable. Otherwise who is initiating the relationship? I can't relate to G-d till I know who I am.

The Kotzker had a novel take on the well known Pesach story. The Torah says that one must take a lamb as a Passover sacrifice. Rashi comments² that ‘one who has’ (i.e. a man of means), should take (a lamb) from himself (i.e. from his own flock) – while ‘one who does not have’ (i.e. a poor man), should simply take from the market.  But the Kotzker sees this as talking about something much deeper than the historical paschal lamb.

The expression; ‘One who has’, refers to one who has the ability to think for himself. Such a person is quite capable of taking from his own intellectual stock. Whereas ‘one who does not have’, refers to one who does not have that ability, or is afraid to use his independence. Such an individual should simply take from the marketplace of scholars who are looking for dependants, and become subservient to them.³

This is one of the great challenges of modern Judaism. Everyone knows the theory and principle that as long as you observe Halacha you are free to form any Hashkafa or weltanschauung you wish. Sadly, we only know it. We don't practice it. In reality we frown upon any thinking that is not akin to how we have been taught to think. We also seem to miss the irony that the more we progress to an openness of mind, the more we are in keeping with our ancient tradition.

Thinking can’t be taught, it has to be thought.

---

<sup>1. Niflaos HaYehudi 86 ↩
2. Shemos 12:21 ↩
3. Amud HaEmet p42, par 5 ↩</sup>

044) All I Want...Are My Two Front Teeth

I always believed that we humans have 32 teeth. I do understand that from time to time there may be variations in the number, and that there is a dental condition known as ‘hyperdontia’, but as a general rule we have 32 teeth.

I read with great interest a responsum from one of the most revered leaders of a significant segment of the contemporary Torah world (Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky), in which the following astounding statement is made:

“A non-Jew has 31 teeth while a Jew has 32…” ¹

This, he says, is based on the Midrash Talpiyot², from which he quotes. However, upon examination of this source, while it does say that Jews have 32 teeth, it mentions that non-Jews actually have 33 teeth (and not 31 as he quoted above³). Furthermore the Midrash Talpiyot says this is a tradition it received, but also mentions a different view that there is no physical difference between Jews and non-Jews (except of course for the Bris which is a man made distinction).

The actual question that spawned this responsum was whether Jews are more susceptible to healing than non-Jews⁴ - to which came the reply “Nachon” (correct). And then a further difference between Jews and non-Jews was pointed out – that concerning the number of teeth⁵.

Forgive my irreverence but the question begs; if someone converts to Judaism, do they or their children grow or lose a tooth?

It is well known that often our mystical tradition draws parallels between the human form and energies or channels these forms are said to represent. For example, the right hand represents Chessed or kindness, while the left represents Gevurah or restriction. Similarly in our case, the 32 teeth may represent the 32 roots of wisdom⁶. The problem with this responsum is that the author is not referring to an esoteric allusion or mystical parallel. He is stating a ‘physiological fact’.

This is strange because often our rabbis tell us to consult with experts in the various secular disciplines particularly when it concerns medical matters. What’s even more disturbing is that he chose this particular view from his source, as opposed to the other demonstrably verifiable view (from that very same source) that all people do have an equal number of teeth. He also seems to believe that Jews are, empirically, more prone to recovery from illness than non-Jews⁷.

The Kotzker Rebbe writes that indiscriminate quoting, without logical analysis, is tantamount to a ‘gift’ to those who are waiting to make fun us.

“[Yaakov] took whatever came into his hands as a gift to Esau…” – If a person takes ‘whatever comes into his hands’ and does not ascertain if it is good or bad, while he may think he is doing a mitzvah, he is simply feeding the ‘other side’. A pious person needs to constantly be aware of how he is going to be perceived.” 

(Emet VeEmunah p 28 par 2)

The point is this: For at least the last two thousand years we have known that Homo sapiens have 32 teeth.⁸  Every school child knows this. So how does a modern day Gadol and leader of multitudes stand up and tell us that Jews and non-Jews have a different number of teeth?

The answer is simple. We allow it to happen.

---

<sup>1. Derech Sicha, p 227. Bnei Brak 5764 (2004)↩
2. By R Eliyahu ben Shlomo Avraham, published around the 17th century ↩
3. In another place (Asiach p 396), he ‘corrects’ this by saying that non-Jews do indeed have 33 teeth ↩
4. Because of the expression in Shmonei Esrei: ‘Rofeh cholei Amo Yisrael - G-d heals the sick of His people’ ↩
5. Incidentally, there is also ‘anecdotal evidence’ allegedly attesting to a different number of teeth in the mouths of Jews and non-Jews, and it’s based on rather devious Gematriyos or numerology. One example gleaned from the verse; “They are a nation that shall dwell alone [LEVadad – LEV =32] and not be [LO=31] counted among the nations”. Another example from; “He did not [LO=31] do so for any nation, such judgements they know not [BAL=32]’ ↩
6. This kabbalistic concept is actually the catalyst for the discussion in the Midrash Talpiyot ↩
7. I did, however, find it fascinating to discover that during the Black Death of the 14th C, which annihilated nearly half the population, Jews were indeed less affected than the rest of the population. This was possibly due to their laws of hygiene and their isolation in ghettos. Sadly the price they paid for surviving, was further persecution after being accused of poisoning the wells ↩
8. See the writings of Galen 129-199CE↩</sup>

043) How I Remember Rabbi Bernhard

Rabbi Norman Bernhard passed away and was buried today.

Throughout most of the seventies, Rabbi Bernhard was the real life hero of my teenage years. This may sound strange, for what important rabbi in his early forties would spend time with an acne faced upstart who wasn't even a member of his congregation? Yet, at the time, the two of us developed a genuine friendship. He irreversibly impacted and influenced my life. He was the inspiration for me to want to be just like him and I decided to switch careers and become a rabbi.

Now, you have to remember, these were the seventies. It wasn't popular for a young man to want to be a rabbi. Most of the rabbis of that era were staid, old, incredibly boring and conservative. Not Rabbi Bernhard. He was different. He made the rabbinate exciting. His mind was so vast and open.

I recall how he told me that most people spend too much time sleeping their lives away, so he didn't sleep much. He and I spent many nights awake and learning for hours in chavrusa. I never knew anyone who could make chumash so exciting. We once stayed up an entire night at the Game Reserve, a place he loved dearly, learning, talking and taking close up photographs of hyenas.

He loved cars and so did I. He wanted an American muscle car and got close by driving a Hornet, which had expanded wheel arches and a fast back, and he was so proud of it. He had an interest in guns and so did I. We spent time shooting targets at a mine dump, cleaning our weapons and discussing the possibility making our own bullets.

Many rabbis advised against reading Buber. But he read Buber and lent these books to me (with the ‘veiled’ proviso that I only read the stories and not the philosophies. But I did and we did discuss them. He introduced me to Rebbe Nachman (his namesake) at a time when few knew about Breslov. He told me of Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach before he became a legend. He read Soloveitchik. He loved the Lubavitcher Rebbe and in the fullness of time, became more and more involved in the movement till he later became one of its cornerstones.

He had the most amazing library and loved spending time in it. When you sat there it felt as if you were in a holy place. He was the unofficial Chief Rabbi of South Africa. If anyone needed anything and provided your cause was just, Rabbi Bernhard could and did facilitate it. His mere presence commanded respect no matter where he went.

In keeping with the spirit of those times, I wanted to go to the then Soviet Union and help Jews. No one knew about it but he introduced me to a man who had secretly flown a planeload of Jews out of Russia and who knew how to get in and out of the Iron Curtain.  Rabbi Bernhard also introduced me to someone who worked for Simon Wiesenthal, and arranged for me to do surveillance on an old Nazi who was hiding in this part of the world. Rabbi Bernhard knew how to operate and was extremely effective as an activist for Jews. He was also a great campaigner for social justice.

I remember him telling me that a modern religious Jew has two options. Either he cloisters himself from the world or he embraces it. Both are legitimate pathways. But the latter involves more risk. He said he actively chose the latter, fully aware of the possible dangers for himself and his family. He also explained that his view of Judaism was that it was like playing sport. As long as you are ‘within the lines’ it doesn’t matter where the ball is. Even if close to the sides it is still in. One should never just remain standing on the centre line, but instead make use of the entire length of the field. This is a lesson of his I have never forgotten.

These are some of my recollections of the younger Rabbi Norman Bernhard, who was probably one of the most powerful influences of my young life. He got older, my acne disappeared and life got in the way. I never saw him as much as I wanted to. Sadly I couldn’t find the time for him when I got to my forties, as he had for me as a youngster. I wish I would have told him that I thought about him often and that he was so integral to my life. I wish I would have told him how much I value what he taught me and that our special relationship was one of the most precious I have even known.

042) What They Forget To Tell Us - Reforms of the Ultra-Orthodox Part 2

So now the three Israeli students who were kidnapped and killed, were according to some, a punishment from above, for the new draft law requiring Haredim¹ to serve in the army². In a similar spirit, Haredi leader, Rabbi David Zicherman, threatened the Israeli authorities with ‘suicide squads who will give their lives for the Torah’³, if they were forced to join the army.

This is the way the religious far-right is beginning to think. I feel compelled to write about this, because many unsuspecting and well meaning Jews are pressured into supporting, financially and otherwise, institutions aligned to this way of thinking. And the fundraisers forget to tell the whole story.

Recently, Mishpacha magazine⁴ described in headlines, what it called the utter financial collapse of the Haredi world. Haredi children, it said, are starving and hundreds of marriages cannot take place because there simply is not enough money. Learning institutions have had to close, because donations are just not coming in as much as they used to. Haredim themselves blame this on Israeli politics, but the fact that many of them choose not to work, is probably the main contributing factor. Many Haredim believe that it is the duty of everyone else to support them.

It should be pointed out that much of Israeli Haredi funding comes from American Haredim, who generally have a different mindset to their Israeli counterparts.  American Haredim, to a large extent are more open to secular education and many do believe in working for a living. But they too are feeling the financial pinch, and are no longer able to offer as much support as they have till now.

Pardon my cynicism, but there may be another way to combat this financial crisis. Take a look at the net worth of some of our leading rabbis (in descending order): Rabbi P Abuchatzeira 1.3 billion shekel, Rabbi D Abuchatzeira 750 million shekel, the Gerrer Rebbe 350 million shekel, the Belzer Rebbe 180 million shekel, Rabbi Nir Ben Artzi 100 million shekel, Rabbi Ifergan 90 million shekel, Rabbi Pinto 75 million shekel.⁵ 

Mishpacha magazine⁶ interviewed social workers from the Haredi city of Bnei Brak, who reported that ten percent of their teenagers were no longer interested in being religious, and that many others become addicts or even criminals. A new Sefer⁷ has had to be published, expounding laws for people who are in prison. Laws for people who break laws.

Coca Cola has Rabbi Landau’s kashrut approval. It ran a campaign where it printed people’s names on the bottle labels. Some Haredi communities asked Rabbi Landau to put pressure on the beverage company, not to distribute bottles with names of women, to their areas. I have seen pictures of bottles of coke that had the women’s names covered by pieces of paper, before they would use them. Religious intimidation is a tactic often used by some Haredi communities. Their leaders published a letter saying that according to Torah authority, or ‘daat Torah’, a certain Rabbi Rubenstein should be the next mayor of Bnei Brak. Of course this is what happened, and the new mayor got voted in unanimously. Someone, however, filed a criminal complaint, saying this was intimidation because it deprived people of their democratic rights, and was therefore illegal.⁸

The Shas religious party had come up with a clever life insurance policy for kollel students, at a cost of 30 shekel a month. This was opposed by Rabbi Shteinman who said that the ‘merit of giving charity to widows and orphans is what is saving this generation from destruction⁹”.The Toldos Aharon Rebbe said that if one finds a ‘non-kosher’ cell phone on Shabbos, one may destroy it even if it necessitates the desecration of the holy day (and furthermore, there would be no need to pay damages). The Satmar Rebbe offered to pay 100 dollars to anyone not voting in the Israeli elections. All you had to do, was hand in your identification documents to one of their offices before the elections, and the money was yours.

I have a copy of a Decree from a Beth Din in Jerusalem stating that ‘It Is A Severe Prohibition To Walk In A Public Space With One’s Wife’. It goes on to state that ‘because of the power of Torah, we know that all problems are caused by husbands walking in the street with their wives’.

The Skverer Chassidim have published a new Chumash for girls, that omits the entire portions of Bereishit and Noah. This is because the contents raise too many theological and moral questions. It also censored Lots affair with his daughters, the story of Yehuda and Tamar, and the incident between Yosef and Potiphar’s wife.

A Haredi magazine¹⁰ (I call it a Haredi magazine even though it was banned by other Haredim¹¹), featured a cover story about the Boyaner Rebbe. Yet although going into great detail about his family history, it concealed the fact that the Rebbe’s father and brother were modern orthodox. His father, Rabbi Brayer is a doctor of psychology, who taught at Yeshiva University, while his brother holds a PhD and works for NASA. This information was considered too sensitive for its readership.

Rabbi Shalom Cohen, spiritual leader of Shas, published a letter¹², prohibiting women from academic studies, saying ‘students should not even consider going to learn academic studies in any setting, because this is not the path of Torah’. This raises the interesting question of who will support the family if the husband sits and learns while the wife is not allowed to further her studies. In December 2010 a ban was issued against listening to the radio, any radio, even those with ‘kosher’ stations¹³.

It’s interesting that the Chazon Ish referred to the ‘Kanaim [fanatics] of Yerushalayim’ as incarnations of Jews who lived before the Torah was given, because they were motivated by zealousness and not by Torah. Rabbi Berel Wein said; ‘I do not believe that the Torah wished to create an entire society that is unemployable.’¹⁴

In the Kotzker Rebbe’s view, one who can cross over to the secular world and do productive work is greater than a scholar. 

Nonetheless, from the few contemporary examples cited above, it is clear in which direction Haredism is moving. What will happen to our Yiddishkeit when these voices become even more radical, and when their followers begin to outnumber the mainstream? Haredim have one of the highest birth rates in the world and, at present, number about 15 percent of the Israeli population.  However, as much as one-third of children of school going age, are Haredim. This means, that soon, one-third of the population will be Haredim. What kind of society will we have when such huge numbers of Israelis will not work, will not have qualifications, and will not want to serve in the army?

Not all Haredim share these radical views, but a significant number do. Are our fundamentalists mapping out a new de facto norm for future Judaism, or has it already been created? 

If moderate voices are not heard, speaking out against what is arguably an abuse of ‘daat Torah’, then they too may be guilty of perpetuating this abuse. If it’s not already too late.

Sunday, 31 May 2015

UPDATE TO KOTZK BLOG 42 "WHAT THEY FORGOT TO TELL US"

THE GLORIOUS POOR

The following is an extract from a recent pamphlet distributed by Kupat Haír, a charity endorsed by many contemporary Gedolim: "..when you give a poor man money - you feel great, but....With Kupat Ha'ir you get to be part of feeding tens of thousands of poor people, each a evyon mehudar...We're not talking about people who need a bit of assistance...we are referring to twenty-five thousand people who truly lack bread to eat." 
What amazes me is that notwithstanding what is being described here as a humanitarian disaster and tragedy by any standards, if you were to offer these 25 000 people the possibility to work - how many of them would accept your offer? Any way, their leaders forbid secular studies which to a large extent precludes the possibility of ever being able to earn a living. Is it really such a mitzvah to help people who refuse an opportunity to better their lives and instead opt for charity in the first instance?
And the crowning insult to humanity is calling these poor people 'mehudarim' (glorified).

Counter this attitude with someone like Rabbi Soloveitchik who rejects views held by religious thinkers who see no religious significance in participation in secular society. He was fascinated by space exploration, established Yeshiva University and encouraged religious people to get degrees and professions. He said; "I hardly believe that any responsible man of faith, who is interested in the destiny of his community and wants to see it thriving and vibrant, would recommend the philosophy of contemptus saeculi (contempt for the secular)."

Rabbi Soloveitchik tells us that the concern should rather be for secular man, not secular knowledge.
He also warns us not to confuse religious faith for religious culture.

WOMEN DRIVERS

It now seems as if modern day Belzer Chassidim have inadvertently aligned themselves with Saudi Arabian ideology, which imposes a driving ban on women. The fifth and present Belzer Rebbe, Rabbi Yissachar Dov Rokeach, has thrown his weight behind a directive to expel school children in London’s Stamford Hill, if their mothers drive them to school. This is because in his view, women should not be allowed to drive, as this transgresses the Torah laws of Tzniut (modesty). The Belzer dynasty is no small insignificant sect. They number among the larger and more powerful of international Chassidic movements, with strong communities in the West, including Great Britain, Canada and America.[1]

In 2013, Rabbi Amnon Yitzchak, a leading Sefardi Hareidi, cited HaGaon HaRav Shmuel Halevi Wosner (considered by many to have been the Posek HaDor or leading Halachik authority of the generation), who also said that it was forbidden for women to drive. This, said Rabbi Amnon was forbidden by Rabbi Wosner, “Betachlit HaIssur” (as an absolute and serious prohibition). He further said that “this is halacha because it is not tzniut for a woman to be a driver”.[2]

This is yet another example of the reform and radicalization of Judaism slowly moving across the globe, and an utter misrepresentation of genuine Halacha.

THE iPHONE

Rabbi Yitzchak Yosef, the Sefardic Chief Rabbi of Israel, said; “If there is a student with an iPhone, thgen he needs to be kicked out of the yeshiva...” He went on to say that he had in fact told a student who had such a device, to bring a bowl of water to class and “...I put it inside, it bubbled and was gone.”  He further claimed that he did not have to pay damages to the student who, he suggested, could go to the Beth Din if he had a problem with the decision.

This, however is not a new innovation of the Chief Rabbi. Even the illustrious scholar Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky said; “It is forbidden to be in possession (of an iPhone) and one must burn it.”

Rabbi Kanievsky was asked by a businessman if he could use such a phone for his urgent business, and he replied; “It is forbidden to own one, and one is obligated to burn it. It cannot be sold to a non-Jew under the prohibition of selling weapons to a gentile.” [3]

<sup>1. In this article, the term ‘Haredi’ refers, for the most part, to the extreme far-right of the religious spectrum.↩
2. Yeted Ne’eman June 18 2014.↩
3. Jewish Press. Com Feb 9 2014.↩
4. May 2014.↩
5. According to Channel 2 Israel. ↩
6. January 2014. ↩
7. Asurei HaMelech by R Mordechai Agasi.↩
8. Kikar HaShabat April 2013.↩
9. Mishpacha quoting R Shteinman Nov 2011.↩
10. Mishpacha April 2013.↩
11. Yated Ne’eman Dec 30 2011.↩
12. Kikar HaShabat June 2014.↩
13. There may be some uncertainty as to whether this was a repeat of an earlier ban. Some of these bans can be viewed here .↩
14. Rabbi Wein’s weekly blog Aug 2014.↩</sup>


UPDATE; 16 June 2015

Talking about the growing shift to the right, this is what Rabbi Berel Wein says about the institution of the Chief Rabbinate in Israel:

"Another organization, which is seemingly bent on self-destruction, is the Chief Rabbinate of Israel... The haredi section of Israeli society has long abandoned the rulings and personages of the official Chief Rabbinate of Israel. (Yet) it has successfully infiltrated that institution, which it regards in contempt and derision, and has gained control - granting itself power, patronage, jobs, money and an entrenched bureaucracy. This is a remarkable achievement since it loudly proclaims that it does not support the institution itself nor even deem it to be legitimate.

Because of the ineffectiveness of the Chief Rabbinate and its disattachment from Israeli society, it also has very little influence or presence in Israeli secular society. Except for official marriage and/or divorce proceedings, the secular Israeli has no connection whatsoever to the institution of the Chief Rabbinate." (Rabbi Wein's Weekly Blog 6/11/2015)

041) The Reforms Of The Ultra-Orthodox - A Short History Of Haredim

A strong impression has been created that Haredim, the ultra-Orthodox, are the true custodians of ancient and authentic Judaism. However, when one studies the fascinating historical origins of Haredim, a very different picture emerges. The movement may not be as old as is commonly believed.

Haredim entered the stage of history at about the same time as two other movements were being birthed, namely Reform and Orthodox.

In the non-Jewish world, during the era characterised by the rise of nationalism, Jews began to wonder where they belonged. Although they didn't yet have a homeland, they could still align themselves with their own ideological movements. The age of Enlightenment led to the founding of Reform. This new movement became so popular in Germany that, by the middle of the 1800’s, the more traditional Jews had actually become a minority.

In response to Reform, a counter movement was born. This was spearheaded by Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch and become known as the Orthodox movement. (Certainly, orthodoxy and traditionalism always existed, but now it was crystallised into a movement). However, while keeping strictly to tradition, it embraced elements of the secular and modern culture in which it was nurtured. Rabbi Hirsch introduced secular studies into his Torah schools, and German was accepted as the language of Torah instruction (much like English is the language of Torah transmission in the Anglo-Saxon Jewish world, today). This was the dawn of centrist and modern Orthodoxy.

Now things get very interesting. In response to Orthodoxy, yet another movement is born, this time in the poorer regions of Hungary, and its adherents become known as Haredim. They positioned themselves to the far right of Orthodoxy. This new movement was created by a trio of fervent devotees, Rabbis Sofer, Lichtenstein (and his son-in-law) Schlesinger. They were fearful that Torah values would be undermined by the recent relocation of Jews from rural areas to the cities, and the new legislation requiring compulsory secular education in all schools (there were 300 Jewish schools in Hungary at that time). 

But strangely, for what was supposed and alleged to be a continuum of an ancient tradition, this new right wing movement began with a signed manifesto. It is known as the 1865 Psak Din (Rabbinical Decree) of Michalowce and targeted the Orthodox rabbis of the time. The document includes the following points:

• It is forbidden to deliver sermons in the language of the nations of the world.
• It is forbidden to listen to sermons delivered in the language of the nations of the world.
• It is forbidden to enter choir synagogues.
• It is forbidden to place a chuppah in a synagogue.
• It is forbidden to study Torah from a rabbi who teaches in a foreign language. Appointing such a rabbi is tantamount to idolatry.

Many of these rulings were inspired by the teachings of the Chatam Sofer (no relation to Rabbi Moshe Sofer of the 1865 manifesto), who had passed away a few years earlier. He was so against secular education that he went so far as to condemn the signing of one’s name (in non-Jewish script) even for secular affairs, and threatened to fire a shochet for reading secular literature.

In a similar vein, Rabbi Schlesinger taught that it was forbidden to undergo any form of secular education, even for the purpose of making a living. He taught that the function of the non-Jew is to master science and invent useful technologies, while that of the Jew is only to study Torah (while he is permitted, however, to make use of non-Jewish technology).

According to him, maintaining a Jewish ‘name, language and dress code’ were literally tantamount to the entire Torah. 

He also believed that it was ‘good to elevate a prohibition’. From this, his followers deduced that a rabbinic law could be elevated to the status of a Torah law, and a custom, to a rabbinic law. The authority of aggadic literature (the stories or non-legal aspects of the Talmud) was according to Rabbi Wechsler, to be elevated to that of orally transmitted halacha. This view was vehemently opposed by Rabbi Hirsch.

We now had to fulfil not only the mitzvot of the Torah, but also ‘even the most trifling customs.’ The Shulchan Aruch (Code of Law), according to Schlesinger, ‘is equal to the Ten Commandments.’ In time 71 rabbis signed the Haredi manifesto of Michalowce. They even coined the phrase ‘Yahadut’ or 'Yiddishkeit' (Jewishness) to describe their ‘ancient and authentic’ practices.

With regard to the prohibition of wearing contemporary modern clothing, as opposed to the long frock coats of the Haredim, the alleged biblical infringements mysteriously grew from four (in 1853) to eight (in 1865).

The manifesto also argued that changing any custom was ‘tantamount to eating pork’. The condemnation of any language other than Yiddish, inspired a very creative theory as to its evolution.  The new Hareidim claimed that certainly the earlier rabbis understood German, but had intentionally ‘corrupted’ it, to form a new language, so as not to have to speak a language of the gentiles.

Of course, mainstream Orthodox leadership opposed the radical views espoused by this new group. The Maharam Schick, who became one of the leading halachic authorities of Hungarian Jewry in the 1870’s, argued that to issue such innovative interpretations was against Halacha, and he refused to sign the manifesto. In principle, though, he accepted the general sentiment of the proposals - only as temporary and emergency measures – but not as an escalation of Halacha. He certainly couldn't condemn the synagogues of his day as ‘houses of idolatry’.         

      

The Kotzker Rebbe, although living in Poland and having passed away six years before the Manifesto of Michalowce, felt the rumblings of this new movement. He referred to its adherents as ‘mindless followers of Frumkeit’(in this sense, fanaticism). He was also clearly outspoken in his opposition to the emphasis on the minutiae of law, and the adoption of dress codes (or as he referred to it, ‘the wearing of white socks and fur hats’).

Notwithstanding (what has been called) ‘the invention of a tradition’, and the subsequent growth of Hasidism, it was only about a hundred years later that it evolved into the movement it has become today. This took place after the Second World War when the movement gained renewed impetus as many saw it as the best way to re-establish the destroyed communities of the Holocaust. All in all, it cannot said that their roots go back to ancient times. Their history is a relatively short one.

Today Haredim are often characterised by their dress, militant stance to religion and uncompromising attitude to even the religious societies in which they live. They number about 15% of modern Israeli population and have one of the highest birth rates in the world, with 25% living below the poverty line.

Bibliography

The Emergence of Ultra-Orthodoxy by Michael K Silber.

The Making of Haredim by Rabbi Natan Slifkin.

The Manifesto of Ultra-Orthodoxy (1865) translated by Dov Weiss.

040) Soulless Scholars and Spitting Mystics

It’s amazing how, even a very small number of religious people behaving badly, can have a direct impact on our view of religion. Oh yes, our sophisticated spiritual leaders tell us to look at the system and not at the people who represent the system – but we are still social creatures, very much influenced by our immediate society. When we are confronted by individuals who are visibly extraordinarily religious, with flowing robes and the like, especially when out of geographical context, they do draw very much attention. They may not realize it, but they should.

If they want to stick out against their immediate surroundings and lose their societal camouflage they must behave, or expect to be fair game. Otherwise they bring mine and your religion into disrepute, and I don't see why we have to sit by idly while allowing that to happen.

When an ordinary person does something wrong in public view – that’s bad. When a Jew does something wrong - that’s embarrassing. When a religious Jew does something wrong – that’s inexcusable. When a highly decorated religious Jew does something wrong, it’s time to educate them. If they spit in the streets, push or assault others, send their children out to beg, and then still expect to be entitled to be provided for – something has gone horribly wrong. To find oneself in need, is unimaginably traumatic. To put oneself in need and then fall upon the mercy of a caring community, is criminal. To not educate one’s own children so that they can at least try support themselves when they get older, is child abuse.

I believe that this type of antisocial behavior may sometimes be cultural. But it may even be a result of an exploitation of our mystical tradition.  Mysticism was popularized at a time when the average person never travelled more than 30 kilometers from his birthplace, married someone from his own village, rarely saw beyond the horizon, and felt extremely disempowered. Suddenly there was a system that created wings which could transcend time and space, providing global reach which extended to eternity. Mundane actions and words could bridge the practitioner to Forever. The here and now was no longer real. Reality was always somewhere else and illusive. A beautiful brilliant system when used as prescribed. But a pernicious one when abused.

If my actions are imbued with a type of messianic magic, if my leader’s every actions are world changing and world saving – then why do I need manners?  Why must I prepare for tomorrow, if tomorrow the reality of the world may change? Why should I care about how you perceive me, if I am cemented to something infinitely bigger than you?

Historically countering the mystic, was the scholar. The scholar was either only concerned about acquiring further knowledge, or about becoming a better person and creating a better social environment. In the latter sense, he had to be in touch and interact with his environment in order to affect positive change. This type of scholar followed the rationalist\moralist approach where every action had to create a better here and now. A brilliant system when used as prescribed. But a soulless one when abused.

If my actions are only to create a better society, and if I understand and control the full extent of my reach, then why do I need a spirit or a soul?

The Kotzker Rebbe spoke about Emet Ve Emunah, truth AND faith, rationalism AND mysticism. Good mysticism allows you to become inspired and to be inspiring. Good rationalism allows you build institutions like Hatzollah.

In the politics of the 1970’s you were either right wing or left wing. In today’s politics, aligning oneself to one or the other may be considered a little extreme.  The world is currently so complicated that a thinking person finds himself sometimes leaning a little to the left and sometimes a little to the right. Perhaps we need to do the same with our theology. Those of us locked too tightly into one or the other religious systems exclusively, may find ourselves becoming soulless scholars or spitting mystics.