050) The Ethical Halachist

Jewish Law, or Halacha, is often presented as a dry and matter-of-fact compilation of Torah related jurisprudence. Not having been raised in religious Zionist circles where the writings of Rabbi Eliezer Melamed were studied, I was nevertheless so delighted to have discovered his teachings. He writes and expounds Halacha, clearly, concisely and relevantly, making sure to always place a strong emphasis on morality and ethics.

   

                                                  Rabbi Eliezer Melamed, author of the Peninei Halacha series.

His iconic work, ‘Peninei Halacha’, means Pearls of Law. And I think I have discovered some of these pearls. Let me cite a few examples to give you some idea of what I mean:

1)      With regard to the laws of re-heating liquids on Shabbos, the Ashkenazim and Yemenites differ fundamentally as to its permissiblity.[1] So what happens when an Ashkenazi goes to visit a Yemenite on Shabbos, may he partake of his host’s food?

Now, I did a little experiment. I asked a number of my colleagues what they would say if asked the same question. They all said the answer was no. I also thought the answer would be no. But the Peninei Halacha says: “When an Ashkenazi visits a Yemenite on Shabbos, he may partake of the food because the host is following his own practice and his Halacha. Every single Jew may Lechatchila (in the first instance) eat that food (even though it may not be their practice to do so in their own homes).”

2)      In reply to a question about custom, Rabbi Melamed writes: “I was once a guest at a family whose custom is to wash their hands before Kiddush, and they asked me if I wanted them to alter their custom in my honor. I answered them ‘quite the opposite’.”[2] Custom is something we all take very seriously, but he was prepared to forgo his, in deference to that of his hosts. I wonder how often this scenario of respect plays out in the real world?

3)      It is more important to pray with a Minyan than to attend a Bris Mila (circumcision). However, Rabbi Melamed adds that if the family of the child would get upset by his non attendance, he may pray at home, miss the Minyan and attend the Bris.[3] Here again, human feelings were factored into his equation. 

4)      Regarding the question of whether or not a boy under BarMitzva can be counted towards a Minyan, the Peninei Halacha explains that it is actually a debate among the Amoraim (the rabbis of the Gemora period). Most views say the answer is no. However, after going through various sources, he says that (because the concept of a Minyan is only DeRabbanan – of rabbinical origin) where a community experiences difficulty with their numbers for a Minyan, they may rely on minority opinions and indeed include a young child.[4]  A functioning minyan is often a highly emotive issue, especially in dwindling communities. Once more, his empathy (not just his knowledge), clearly informed his decision.

5)      When it come to the custom of choosing a community in which to belong, he writes; “It would be good to move to a place where there is a synagogue with your minhag (custom). This is on the condition, however, that the community acts with a Torah attitude towards derech eretz, namely, they have a positive attitude towards earning a living and secular studies, or at the very least, do not object to it, as some Hareidim mistakenly do. This is because the right attitude towards work and secular studies is far more important and fundamental than the nusach (rite) of prayer.”[5]

6)      Concerning the very controversial debate in Israeli media as to whether civil, as opposed to religious marriages should be adopted by the state, Rabbi Melamed writes; “While we believe that the State of Israel must have a Jewish character, we also do not wish to cause grief to anyone. Nor do we claim the authority to interfere with one’s personal life and tell him who to live with, or how[6]. It should be established that any two people are entitled to sign a domestic partnership agreement that grants them all privileges derived from a shared life, like a family.”[7]

7)      This is what he says about conversions; “How many laws must a convert be taught before he is asked if he is ready to accept upon himself the commandments of the Torah?...It is clear to all that there is no need to teach him the entire Torah. It is sufficient to teach him some of its foundations, and if he accepts them, it is already possible to convert him. This is what the Shulchan Aruch says; ‘He is taught some of the minor commandments and some of the major commandments. But we do not overburden him and we are not overly strict with him.’[8]  He need not be taught all the fine details and stringencies...The reason for this is that even if he is sincere, if he is suddenly confronted with all these stringencies, he will recoil and change his mind about converting.”[9]

8)      When asked about his view concerning some the contemporary Gedolim (Torah leaders), he said; “Torah greatness necessitates an all-embracing, fully accountable handling of serious issues facing the generation, including: the attitude towards Am Yisrael in all its diversity and various levels – both religious and non-religious...the attitude towards science and work, and contemporary social and economic questions...The simple answer is; I don’t consider them Gedolei haTorah.”[10]

9)      Rabbi Melamed also has a strong position on the thorny issue of segregating men and women on busses[11]. He believes that ‘Mehadrin’ busses undermine family structures, as men are unable to sit with their wives and daughters, and mothers are unable to sit with their sons. “There are very clear boundaries in halacha distinguishing between what is required and what is optional. When you try to obligate people to follow a custom that is laudatory but not actual halacha, you destroy the very foundations of Torah and halacha...It is important not to add additional stringencies when it come to matters of tznius (modesty).”[12]

10)   He is also very in favour of Christians who support Israel. He says; “We must battle missionaries, not moral Christians who respect our religion and support us. These are about 70 million citizens of the largest superpower in the world...Their moral stature is higher and more exulted that that of the Persian King Cyrus who assisted the return to Zion...American Evangelists are the most important and meaningful group supporting Israel nowadays.”[13]                                                                         

                                                                                                                                                  

      It is so refreshing and exciting to follow the teachings of a leading rabbi who carries with him a general ethos of sensibility and social responsibility. This philosophy seems to flow through all his writings, and serves as a constant practical reminder to his students and readers, of the ethical imperative required of a Torah Jew. Far from being insular, he constantly reminds us that it is possible to function in, influence and contribute to, the society around us, without having to compromise our commitment to Torah. Although not without opposition, his work is fast becoming a major force to be reckoned with in the Halachik sphere today.

                                                                          

      It seems as if Rabbi Melamed is finally putting the ‘Jew’ back into jurisprudence.

        

      The Kotzker Rebbe said that there is no mitzvah to just become a scholar, amassing huge amounts of knowledge, if it is not directed to practical good. He said the sole purpose of studying Torah was to affect good[14].

His best friend, the Vurka Rebbe said that the most important thing he learned from the Kotzker, was that “...to get to the inner garment, one first has to remove the outer garment”[15]. This means that before one overly concerns oneself with the ‘inner garment’ - the soul, and the theology that goes with it -  one has to work with the ‘outer garment’ – the social behaviour, which is the only real aspect of the religious persona that the rest of the world actually sees.        

---

[1] Ashkenazim, following the Ramo, do not permit re-heating a liquid (say soup), that has cooled down. Yemenites, however, following the Rambam, Rashba and Ran, maintain that it is permissible.

[2] How Binding is Minhag? By R Eliezer Melamed.

[3] Peninei Halacha, HaMinyan 5.

[4] Peninei Halacha, HaMinyan 6, note 7.

[5] How Binding is Minhag? By R Eliezer Melamed.

[6] In a similar vein consider the Bostoner Rebbe’s recent statement about being “afraid of a Halachik state” should the religious parties get a majority; “...I am afraid of the day we have 61 MKs because I don’t know how you can run a state with the responsibilities of keeping Torah...in the modern world I don’t know how you can do that...Thank G-d no one comes to ask me these types of questions.” Quoted in nrg.co.il 3/3/2015.

[7] R, Melamed quoted in The Jewish Week 06/242014. He does, however, insist on the caveat that not all domestic partnerships are called ‘marriage’.

[8] Yoreh Deah 268;2

[9] How Much Must the Convert Learn Before Conversion? R Eliezer Melamed.

[10] R. Melamed quoted in Israel National News August 13 2013.

[11] R. Melamed does, however, encourage separate seating at religious gatherings such as wedding etc.

[12] R. Melamed quoted in Vos Iz Neias, December 28 2011.

[13]R. Melamed quoted in Breaking Israel News June 29 2014.

[14] Amud HaEmet p 107, par 4. ‘Study it well (good)’ (Yeshayahu 1,17), means study it – not to be a scholar- but (lehaytiv) in order to do good. ‘Bechol haTorah kulo, lo matzanu shum mitzvah liheyot lamdan...vekavanato la’asot  et hatov ’

[15] Amud HaEmet p 191, par 7. The Gemora also speaks of ‘Tocho Keboro’, where the ideal state is for the ‘inside’ to reflect the ‘outside’. Not the other way around. So that, ideally the first thing to change in any religious encounter should be the ‘outside’. 

049) Writing Women Out Of Judaism

When 44 world leaders marched in Paris after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, an ultra-Orthodox newspaper, HaMevasser, reported on the event. The problem was that there were now only 40 leaders because 4 had been photoshopped out of the picture. Why? -Because they were women.[1]

Spot the difference between the first picture as seen through the real lens of a camera, and the second picture, as depicted in HaMevasser:

 

                                                    

             A similar thing happened to Hilary Clinton who was also removed from a photograph taken during the Bin Laden mission, by an American Chassidic newspaper, Der Zeitung:  

Ironically in all these pictures the women were dressed very modestly with coats and jackets, but still, it seems as if the editors were less concerned with Geneivas Da’as (deceit), and more concerned with, totally obliterating women from the public arena.[2]

In a brilliantly jarring article, Shoshana Jaskoll writes:

“Do I care if an insular community, in their own place and tiny publications omit women? Yes I do; but I would not be writing about it if it remained within said small community. Instead it is spreading...

In some communities, women’s names are not printed. Not in publications and not in announcements such as wedding invitations.

A baby formula even stopped printing an outline of a mother holding her baby.

(...words like “breast cancer” are not used in Charedi society...Because of this extreme take on modesty, women are less aware, get fewer mammograms...The rate of death from breast cancer is estimated at 30 percent higher among Charedi women...Excluding women from health pamphlets, both as doctors and as patients, can only exacerbate this phenomenon.)

A (recent) book depicts a Shabbat table – completely female free. The entire book dedicated to the Shabbat, a day of family and Torah, is devoid of even one girl or woman. Where is Ima??

My preteen daughters were told to go to the back of the bus on their way home from school. Extremism seeps outward.

Beyond the damage it does to boys. Beyond the damage it does to girls. Beyond the damage it does to a healthy society where respect, interaction and balance between genders should be the norm. Beyond all of this – it is a falsehood...it is a LIE.”[3]

On the shelves of a shop featured below, the female has been covered over with a piece of paper:

Remember the iconic picture below? This is how the ultra-Orthodox weekly Bakehila (re)printed the photo, blurring out the face of the Jewish women:

Amazingly, we are quick to say ‘yemach shemam’ (may their memory be blotted out) when we speak of the Nazis. But now we print Nazis and blot out Jewish women. [4]

The great strength of the Kotzker Rebbe was his fearless ability to always stand for truth. He spoke out against so many things he believed to be wrong with the  Judaism of his day. I could never, even in my wildest moments of religious fervour, ever believe that this position on women is truthful Judaism. Keeping quiet and not registering opposition, allows the deception to perpetuate itself. Were that to happen, we would have written in new innovations that are nothing other than reforms... and have written women completely out of Judaism.

The Kotzker Rebbe wrote extensively against religious fanaticism, which was rapidly becoming prevalent in the mid 1800’s.[5] (He passed away in 1859). He said; “There will come a time when those who dress in white garb (i.e. the extremists), will need all the help they can get, to prevent them from turning to a distortion of Judaism”.[6]

---

[1] The four women were German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo, EU foreign affairs and security chief Frederica Mogherini, and Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt (who was cropped and only her hand remains in the altered photograph).

[2]It needs to be pointed out that not all Chareidim buy into this new trend of writing women out of Judaism. Unfortunately the term ‘Chareidi’ is very misleading.  I wish we would come up with another designation for the extreme ultra-Orthodox, to differentiate between them and the centralists. See a very balanced article; “Who are THE Chareidim?” by Ronit Peskin, Times of Israel May 22, 2013. Nevertheless, there does seem to be a gradual leaning towards the right, with many centralists tacitly endorsing some of the sentiments of their far-right counterparts.

[3] See full article; ‘Vanishing Women’, Times of Israel January 20, 2015.

[4] See Kotzk Blogs 42 “What They Forget To Tell Us”, for more examples of censorship by the ultra-Orthodox.

[5] See Kotzk Blogs 41 “The Reforms Of The Ultra-Orthodox”, for a short history of the rise of the ultra-Orthodox.

[6] Amud HaEmet p 187, par 3.

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>