Guest Post - On Teaching Ancient Near East Monarchs

By Rav Ben Hecht, president, founder and sole-executive leader of Nishma

Torah’s Perspective of the Historical Timeline

In speaking with Lord Ironheart about his post “Questions Aren’t Fatal, But Stupid Answers Are” I mentioned to him that the real problem with the presentation by Rabbi Shafran was that he didn’t really fully understand the extent of the issue with which he was dealing. Garnel asked me to expand on my thoughts for a guest post on his site…so here it is.

The problem for Rabbi Shafran was the claim by historians that, since the Code of Hammurabi, which predated the Torah, contained ideas similar to the Torah, it must be that the Mosaic Code simply copied aspects of the earlier Babylonian Code. Such an assertion, in Rabbi Shafran’s mind, would challenge the uniqueness and even Revelational quality of the Torah and, as such, could not be tolerated. Rabbi Shafran needed an explanation. The explanation that Rabbi Shafran accepted to explain this phenomenon yet retain his allegiance to Torah was that, in fact, the Code of Hammurabi was actually a product of the Torah which this king was taught by Avraham Avinu. We all know that Avraham learned and followed Torah – although he pre-dated Sinai – and it was aspects of this knowledge that was transmitted, by our forefather, to Hammurabi and from which the latter developed his Code. To Rabbi Shafran, problem solved. To Garnel, though, this answer was, in itself, an even greater problem. Where, for example, did Rabbi Shafran – or, more correctly, Rabbi Weinberg -- get this from? It may be true that, in a simplistic way, this answer solved Rabbi Shafran’s dilemma but there was no further consideration or investigation of what this answer truly meant or implied. What evidence was there to support it? To Garnel, the greater problem was such, as he defined them, stupid answers.

Under direct investigation, Rabbi Shafran’s theory actually already presented problems. As Bob Miller commenting on Garnel’s post pointed out, Hammurabi is generally understood to be the evil Nimrod, who threw Avraham into the furnace. It would seem to be a stretch to argue that Nimrod then learned Torah from Avraham. In truth, there would seem to be some Midrashim that do contend that there was a further relationship between Avraham and Nimrod and even that the latter did teshuva but the general tone of the literature does not seem to support this. There is also a strong opinion that Nimrod was also Amraphel, one of the 4 kings who attacked the 5 kings as reported in Bereishit, Chapter 14. (According to T.B. Eruvin 53a, the debate between Rav and Shmuel was not whether Nimrod and Amraphel was one and the same person but which name was his real name.) According to much midrashic thought, at least part of the plan of the war was also to destroy Avraham. So it would seem that both before Avraham left for Canaan and afterwards, there was bad blood between Nimrod and Avraham – so how could one even contend that Avraham taught aspects of this pre-Sinai Torah to such an evil idolater? One of the goals in throwing Avraham into the furnace was also to limit the very effect of his teachings to the masses; the Nimrod himself adopts these teachings? It’s nice to present answers but what do these answers truly mean? Under scrutiny, it doesn’t seem to add up. If one wishes to present an opinion of what happened in history, one has to consider all the consequences and ramifications of this opinion arriving at conclusions that consider the history of the time period as a whole. This, Rabbi Shafran did not seem to do.

It was also within this context that Garnel truly laid his challenge of Rabbi Shafran. There was much going on; societies developed aside from, it would seem, the direction of Torah law. The very charge against Sodom was not an evil of anarchy but that it possessed an evil legal system. There was a dynamic in the world that involved the movement of humanity into societies with laws and included in Garnel’s challenge was that Rabbi Shafran did not consider the reality of this dynamic in his consideration of what was occurring within this time period. Yibum is a perfect case on point. There was a practice of this type that pre-dated Sinai as evidenced by the story of Yehuda and Tamar (Bereishit, Chapter 38) but this practice clearly was different than that legislated by the Torah which only applied to the brother of a childless man and no other close relative (Chinuch, Mitzvah 598). If one contends that yibum was a lesson from Torah perhaps taught by the Avot, this could not be for its practice did not follow the Torah parameters. If it was a practice that developed within the workings of the ancient societies, though, does that take away from its value as a Torah mitzvah? Rabbi Shafran’s approach is clearly much too simplistic.

Yet there was one challenge I presented to Garnel in his presentation which I felt he overlooked and which needed to be stated. It is important within this consideration of what occurred in ancient history that one continue to recognize a significant distinction between the secular view of what transpired and a Torah view. Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 1:1 attacks this issue in explaining how idolatry developed. From a secular perspective, humanity first considered idolatry, with a study of history attempting to explain how monotheism developed. From a Torah perspective, knowledge of the One God was existent; the need would be to explain how idolatry developed which is what Rambam undertakes in this section of his Code. The complex dynamic of history cannot be simplified but there is a key issue of how to understand the underlying background of this dynamic.

This is the point here. Within the secular perspective, the development of ancient legal systems is recorded based upon the perceived dates of the uncovered legislation. In this respect, the Code of Hammurabi is defined as a most significant historical point in this development. Given that the Mosaic Code is dated to have been formulated at a later date, there is already a preconceived interest in seeing how this latter code was similar to and/or deviated from the earlier Babylonian system. Rabbi Shafran would seem to have problems with this and so tries to develop an answer that ignores the movement of history: i.e. Hammurabi simply knew Torah.

From the Torah perspective, though, there was also a dynamic but of a different nature as the starting point was different. Humanity knew of God but moved towards idolatry. In the same way, humanity also knew of certain societal laws – the Seven Laws on Noach – and moved from there. Hammurabi emerged from a past of a certain perspective. It is clear that he did something new but what exactly was this newness may be a matter of debate based upon how one answers what came before hand. If lawlessness existed prior to Hammurabi, then one can look at his Code from one perspective. If some type of legal perspective, though, existed prior to this pronouncement of his Code, the dynamic that existed would have to be understood from a different perspective. From a Torah perspective, the world of Hammurabi did come out of a vacuum of law but of a pre-existing legal structure of the Seven Laws of Noach. This may provide another reason for similarity -- but it is not simplistic. This recognition causes us to look at ancient history from a very different perspective but it does not ignore the significant dynamic that existed. It does not necessarily simplify it or lessen our challenge in attempting to comprehend it.

The real problem with Rabbi Shafran’s answer is that he seems to maintain with his answer that he has solved all the issues. What he does not recognize is that while he actually may have provided some insight into one problem, at the same time he may have created many more. Clearly, it would seem, for example, from many midrashic sources that Avraham Avinu attempted to affect the ancient world and was successful in this to some extent. But what actually was this effect on the ancient world and what were the further consequences of it? If Shem, Cham and Yafet all experienced the Flood and thereby had no doubt about the existence of God, how could Cham’s very grandson, Nimrod, throw Avraham into a furnace for maintaining this belief? We could also wonder how this knowledge of God could be so lost that Avraham did not know anything of this until he found it on his own. We may also wonder, according to the Torah time line, how the Babel story connects with Avraham being 48 when it occurred. Yet, pursuant to this time line, it would also not be so surprising that this same Nimrod-Hammurabi would have some knowledge of the remains of the Noachide legal system so that he would incorporate it within his Code. This approach does not simplify history but it does recognize that maintaining a Torah perspective in looking at history goes beyond the question of specific details. The issue is the total view of ancient history – and that is not an easy issue. Where Hammurabi’s Code came from is just one minor issue amongst many others that need to be worked out even according to the Torah perspective of the time line. This is the real challenge and complexity that Rabbi Shafran ignores.

Guest Post

A big thank you to Rav Ben Hecht, shlit"a, for this contribution.  Please check out Rav Hecht's home site, Nishma, for great articles, divrei Torah and thoughts.

Balancing the Universals of Halachic Theory and the Specifics of the Facts


A few weeks ago, Garnel wrote a post entitled All Halacha Is Local which effectively maintained that psak is local, i.e. directed and tied to specific circumstances. I commented that while there was much truth to Garnel’s contentions, there were also some difficulties with it. Psak is actually a balance between what we may term the universal and the specific or, I think, more succinctly, the universal-general nature of halachic theory and the specifics of a particular fact situation. Indeed, as Garnel and others who commented on the original post argued, the over-extension of the universal nature of psak is often overlooked with the result being a concretization of psak in what is effectively a most unhealthy and essentially deviant manner. On the other hand, though, much of this over-generalization is a result of a fear of an over-extension of the role of the specific facts. In further conversations I had with Garnel regarding this issue, I further explained my position and expanded on the challenge that exists in maintaining a correct balance between the universal and the specific. He subsequently asked me if I would be willing to write a further post on this subject for his blog. This is that result.

Of course, it must first be understood that psak is by definition the application of specific halachic legal principles to a specific fact situation. It, as such, demands an evaluation of the exact nature of these legal principles and an exact determination of the facts. A disagreement in psak, as such, may, thus, emerge because of a disagreement in the nature of the applicable legal principle or a distinction in the facts. One posek simply could express a different conclusion from another because he has reached a different conclusion regarding the nature of the applicable halachic maxim or because he/she is actually responding to a different set of facts. It is the difference between these two scenarios that is at the essence of Garnel’s point. He argued that it was important to recognize the distinction in facts between the variant circumstances upon which a posek is adjudicating as this will affect the application of this psak in different circumstances. He is correct – but it is also important to recognize that there still is a side to psak that has a universal dimension and thus will not change due to differences in facts including the local circumstances.

His example regarding a distinction in psak between Rav Moshe Feinstein (RMF) and Rav Shlomo Zalman Aeurbach (RSZA) regarding the permissibility of violating Shabbat when one is returning from responding to a life-threatening situation illustrates this issue. Garnel maintained that given that RMF was responding to the situation in America and RSZA was responding to the situation in Israel, it is understandable that the former would be more lenient and the latter would be more stringent; in America there would be a greater need for such a person to return home. He presented this as an example of what he termed the local nature of Halacha. The problem is, though, that neither posek limited their decision to the facts of their local situation. Both contended that their position was of a universal nature. They presented differing opinions on the universal applicable halachic maxim. As such, RMF would state that his psak is applicable even in Israel and RSZA would similarly contend that his psak is even applicable in America. His would not be a classic case of a psak changing due to a change in circumstances. The psak of each of these poskim was actually not local but of a universal nature.

The second example that Garnel gave regarding medical students switching their on-call Shabbat assignments with other Jews, though, may reflect a case where psak does have a significant local nature – because the specific facts are integrated into the psak. As such, if the facts change, the psak indeed does change. This is not to say that there was no inherent disagreement between RMF and RSZA in the applicable halachic maxim regarding switching (there was) but, in responding to this shaila, there was also a need to clarify the specific facts including the nature of the Jew with whom one would be switching. For example, was this individual a tinnok she’nishba? Was this person one who was born frum? How would we answer such questions and others in the general sense? It may be that RMF and RSZA needed to consider the nature of the general population with whom one would be asked to switch and this affected their psak. But in such a case, both RMF and RSZA would also agree that their psak would be different due to the change in facts and, unlike the above example, would possible admit that their psak was intended for America or Israel respectively. A posek though may not clearly articulate such a distinction – i.e. clearly stating that their psak is tied to a specific set of facts – and it is in such cases that it is important not to universalize a law that clearly was intended for specific local circumstances (just as it is similarly important not to localize a certain law, tying it to specific facts, when it actually of a universal nature reflecting a consistent halachic maxim).

Having said all this, though, one other affect of local circumstances should also, perhaps, be mentioned. This affect, though, must be approached with extreme caution and, actually, may have very limited practical application. It is indeed possible that local circumstances may affect the conclusion reached by a posek regarding a universal halachic maxim yet this may be most difficult to determine and even if it is true may have no practical significance. Allow me to explain.

The nature of Halacha is that we are called upon to analyze the halachic system to attempt to determine the underlying halachic principles and maxims that are to be applied in further life situations. Most significant parameters in this regard are the rules of logic. A proposed maxim that can be challenged in such a regard is simply to be discarded. Nonetheless, the nature of Halacha is such that it is very much possible that different halachic theories cam emerge, meeting the challenge of logic, to explain the cases as we have them. The challenge then is to choose between these logical possibilities as to what is believed to be the correct one. This is one of the tasks of a posek – to determine which of the variant maxims or principles he believes to be the correct one and thus to be applied in the case before him and in future cases.

This determination is referred to as shikul hada’at, the weighing of the mind and is a most difficult process to clearly define. It is not an evaluation through logic as, by definition, all the possibilities being considered have already met this test. It simply reflects a determination of which possibility the posek believes to be the truth. It is not a determination of what the posek wants to be the conclusion or which view the posek happens to like. It is a determination by the posek of what he honestly believes to be the emet haTorah. The question exists, though, by what factor does a posek make such a conclusion?

The first factor is his understanding of the corpus of Halacha. Through his extensive knowledge and learning, he has some feel for the halachic system and this inherent perception clearly plays a role in his application of his shikul hada’at. One’s perception of this nature may be affected by one’s education, the overall halachic system to which he was introduced. This could indeed be potentially described as an example of local circumstances affecting a determination of universal principles yet, as mentioned, must be approached with great caution. It is not a simple case of the subjective affecting the objective. It is a fact that may have some validity – but with limited practical affect. The conclusion of the posek in regard to a halachic principle, still stands as of universal significance and cannot be dismissed because of the promotion of such application of local circumstances in the development of this person’s shikul hada’at. The idea itself still must be the focus.

This enters into the whole realm of the role of subjectivity in Halacha. It is a basic principle of the halachic system that subjectivity should have no role. The reality, though, is that this principle really calls upon us to limit subjectivity as much as humanly possible. We must make decisions with a view of the objective – what we believe to be the truth. The reality is, though, that there is an inherent subjective nature to us as human beings. Our personalities are different. Our upbringings are different. We cannot totally dismiss our subjectivity. There are numerous statements in Torah thought that recognize that distinctions in determinations of shikul hada’at may reflect distinctions in the personalities of souls (Beit Hillel, for example, being tied to chesed; Beit Shammai being tied to gevurah). Similarly upbringing and locale can affect shikul hada’at. The point is, though, that one’s objective in psak must be to limit such effects. In the end, the posek must determine what is the correct halachic practice based upon a determination that this is the truth, the universal truth given certain facts. That this determination may be affected by an unperceived or undefined subjective factor is a reality of the human condition which HaKodesh Baruch Hu considered in formulating the halachic system and directing us to apply and follow it. Piercing the veil to determine that there is a subjective or local nature to a posek or a psak must not only be done with great caution but may also have limited practical application for the Halacha itself calls upon us, when analyzing and applying such maxims, to discount their effect on the determination of universal principles.

Another effect of local factors or subjectivity in psak may be in the various motivations in rendering a psak. For example, Rabbi Herschel Schacter describes the Rav going to great lengths to try and find a heter to allow a kohein to marry a certain woman who it would seem he could not marry. Rabbi Schacter describes the Rav as being very distraught in not being able to find such a heter. The Rav gave great value to romantic love and, we can say subjectively, it motivated him to work hard and review the various halachic sources to try and find a heter. To fully illustrate this, allow me to refer to another similar situation where I asked a colleague to raise a similar issue with another gadol with whom he was close. My colleague responded that there would be no point for this gadol would simply say ‘there is always another girl, let the boy simply continuing looking.’ This gadol did not have the same value for romantic love and thus was not motivated to further investigate this issue. But the subjectivity of the Rav still did not lead him to actually pasken that it was permitted – that demanded his conclusion objectively, at least to the extent objectivity is humanely possible. Subjectivity and locality can affect the motivation in a major way but not the conclusion.

Indeed Halacha may have a local nature – but it must be understood what that means within the very parameters of Halacha. Not all Halacha is local but neither is all Halacha, every halachic statement, universal.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

The More Things Change

A guest post by Baruch Pelta:

It is, if I understand correctly, about two weeks since the information we have now regarding one Leib Tropper was released. By now, much of the J-blogosphere has commented on Troppergate. Let's forget about EJF for a moment (R' Adlerstein, as usual, has a very good post, and kol hakavod to him and R' Eidensohn for speaking up on this issue directly with the braveness of attaching their real names to their critiques) and focus on Tropper's status in the haredi world. I would like to add my two cents, as speculative as they may be:
He’s gonna get off scot-free and perhaps be even better off than he was before.
Leib Tropper is still credited as the Rosh Yeshiva of Kol Yaakov (where R’ Nisson Wolpin’s brother is Mashgiach Ruchani) and apparently is still the head of the kiruv organization, "Horizons." Rabbis continue to teach at Kol Yaakov and give the impression that their rosh yeshiva a great man who along with his enablers is qualified to disseminate authentic Judaism. Since Tropper has stepped down from his role at Eternal Jewish Family, R’ Reuven Feinstein has now said he is going to take a more active role in said organization. Tropper’s organization thus is given more legitimacy than it did before.
I recently had a discussion with a friend about this scandal. He told me he’d wait to see what gedolim say, and I assume that this is what the community is going to do as well. R’ Reuven Feinstein seems to have made his position clear and I think, based on what we have seen in the past secular calendar year, others will follow: through their silence, it will be intimated that Tropper can remain in his position as a great teacher of Torah; people will then speculate and twist their thumbs as to why this is so, but the end result will be a keeping of the status quo.
This event, like the Isaac Hersh saga (I won't get into that right now), may fade from the blogs as new controversies wax and wane and Tropper interprets verses. The legitimization of Leib Tropper as a Rosh Yeshiva while R’ Natan Slifkin was banned from teaching Torah for saying things like Chazal can be wrong about science (I’m paraphrasing R’ Wachtfogel)…is disgusting and shows that at the end of the day, moral standards are not as high in some circles as their apologists claim them to be. As a mentor recently noted to me, the phrase kol hapasul bemumo pasul truly applies here.

Guest Post - Authentic Idiocy

I put up a post a couple of days ago about this Rabbi Bearmant which quickly received a bunch of negative comments (so I'm told) and was then taken down. Izgad has since put up a post expressing views very similar to mine.

It is possible, as some commenters have claimed, that Rabbi Bearmant isn't real but is a spoof. The question to me is how many of Rabbi Bearmant's ideas are countenanced in the haredi world and indeed are not considered socially unacceptable. Are there rabbanim in yeshivas that have rabbis who accept or promulgate these ideas? Are these ideas considered off-color in said world? That's the question to me.

Baruch

Guest Post from Baruch Pelta

I don't know if this has ever happened before or if it ever will happen again. Those of you who know me know I'm pretty skeptical for a frum yid, but a cataclysmic event of cosmic proportions has taken place on August 26, 2009: I agree with Jacob Stein on something.

Jacob Stein today posted an excerpt from a Maureen Dowd column attacking anonymous bloggers. I couldn't agree more. Attacking others on a blog while fearing to sign your name to the attack usually indicates cowardice and a lack of courage in your convictions. Of course, there may be exceptions, but the rule for pseudonymous and anonymous idiots is cowardice and stupidity.

Baruch Pelta

Mini-post from Baruch Pelta

I just was doing some historical research for school and I found this cool link: http://www.life.com/search/?type=images&date=1900-1990&q0=rabbi&page=1

I didn't know Life still had a website, and I'm not a big picture guy, but there are some really cool pictures there. I thought Garnel's readers might find them excellent.

Baruch

Souls for Sale

A guest post from Baruch Pelta

There's a new kiruv website out there called sellmeyourjewishsoul.com . Authored by a talmid of Rabbi Yossi Mizrachi (remember these classics?) by the name of Eliyakum Cohen, the concept is rather unique. Eliyakum posts some videos about how Judaism must be true and he is so sure that you'll be convinced that your previous positions are false that -- and I quote, in his words -- "if you get nothing out of these video lectures and are 100% convinced that there is no G-d, no Torah, no afterworld, then [he'll] buy your pathetic soul and all the good deeds that you have done in your life." He doesn't give an estimate of how much he's willing to pay. The site itself is fascinating and full of interesting tidbits about our beautiful religion, like "If you're not Torah Observant then, YOU'RE LIVING LIFE WRONG, YOURE GOING TO GEHINNOM (Jewish Hell)."

In any event, here's what I find interesting about this website: there's a Facebook group surrounding it. Not only does the Facebook group have nearly 600 members, but it has administrators, officers, and hosts an active discussion (largely by frum people) surrounding Eliyakum's website and its content. I think most frum Jews who've heard about this probably don't think this is a good idea, but the fact that the Facebook group is as active as it is this early on is interesting, at least.

I met Eliyakum at a Shabbos table once where we were both mutual guests of a rabbi. Before the meal, he talked about the special powers of the autistics and a story from Rabbi Mizrachi where an autistic "said" something to Rabbi Mizrachi that nobody could've known. What disturbed me as we sat down to eat was that ideas that I've espoused in the past (and al achas kama vikama the ideas people like, say, Rabbi Slifkin have publicized!) are seen as more controversial than what he was saying. His take on the autistics has haskamas.

It will be interesting to see if Eliyakum can get his kiruv site off the ground and perhaps even -- so crazy it might just happen -- get haskamas and be considered somewhat mainstream. Probably not, but it's something to keep an eye out for; I wouldn't be shocked if it happened.

Baruch Pelta

Guest Post from Baruch Pelta

Not that long ago, Garnel offered me to write the occasional guest post for his blog. I have been extraordinarily busy, so time has gracefully not allowed me to brainstorm about the issues as much as I used to.

So I know what you're all obviously wondering; what does Pelta do when he's been working really hard and just needs to sit and relax for awhile? Sometimes good music just doesn't cut it.

What I've found is tremendously effective is watching skeptics and debunkers destroy (and make fun of) pseudoscientific claims, dubious conspiracy theories, and simple nuttery in online videos. I'm sure that sounds like an odd way to relax, especially for a religious fellow. So why have I developed this hobby? Well, they're usually just as entertaining as movies and they are free. And they remind those of us who care for emes not to take every iffy magic(k)al story we hear so seriously. Yes, I am aware that most (all?) of these outspoken skeptics I watch are atheists. Oh well.

Here's a list of videos that I made for the weekly viewing my friends and I have going. All of them save one are from ex-magician and skeptic extraordinaire James Randi, and that is simply due to my preference for his material (his organization is still offering over $1,000,000 to those who demonstrate paranormal abilities in scientific conditions; see their website for details). If you have a paranormal claim or conspiracy theory you wish to examine, remember that Google, Google Videos, and Youtube are your friends.

This post goes out to Rabbi Josh Waxman and Brooklyn Wolf; your posts for our community specifically is appreciated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuaJWLeSmEc -- James Randi debunks Israeli psychic Uri Geller.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7BQKu0YP8Y -- Randi debunks faith healer Peter Popoff in the 70's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxqRN5vjDHQ -- Randi on Popoff in 2007 (scary, isn't it?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxvPJFv6X94 -- Are mediums legit?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvVftFZHXSI&feature=related -- Can your personality be deduced by an expert who touches your personal possessions? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ifi0FpXRT2k&feature=related -- Do modern astrological insights have bearing on the stock market?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sQHYkyq7Hs&NR=1 -- Can details about crimes be deduced from psychic information embedded in objects used?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeYkOHQ683k&feature=related -- Can your personality be deduced from the way you write? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9ojdYsHgmQ -- Are mediums legit? (2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOsCnX-TKIY&feature=related -- Does dowsing for metal work? http://skepdic.com/facilcom.html -- Is facilitated communication legit? The video's at the bottom.

Guest Post by Dr Michael Schweitzer

Hat tip: Failed Messiah
One of the points I made in my article about Modern Orthodoxy which is posted at this blog is that the movement relies heavily on Chareidi/Agudah associated publishers for much of its material, including such basic things as siddurim and chumashim. As I noted:
Also, just as the Agudas Yisroel distributes books and materials emphasizing their points of views and insights through major publishers such as Artscroll and Feldheim, Modern Orthodoxy must retain a publisher and begin spreading books and materials relevant to its philosophy. Why is it that the current Orthodox Union siddur is published by Artscroll and not by a Modern Orthodox publisher? When searching the shelves of the local Jewish book stores, one can justifiably ask: where are the biographies of the Rav and other luminaries from the Modern Orthodox world? The importance of this aspect of the movement cannot be over-emphasized.
Although one of the feedbacks I received criticized the article, I nevertheless felt this point to be correct. The Agudah publishers are in an excellent position to define what Torah observance is and they do this from within their narrow perspective. While there are several excellent Modern Orthodox authorities who have commented on our holy works, only one ever seems to make the cut in the Agudah world, the Rav. But otherwise pious and well-learned authorities from outside the Agudah's circle seem not to exist when Artscroll and Feldheim come to present their sources.
Now this article from the JTA seems to be vindicating my position:
NEW YORK (JTA) -- For decades, Mesorah Publications has towered over the English-language Jewish publishing world like a Goliath.
The Orthodox publishing firm's siddur, produced under the ArtScroll imprint, is the most common prayer text in American Orthodox synagogues, and its myriad translations of religious books -- most notably its groundbreaking English version of the Babylonian Talmud -- have made a vast trove of Judaic literature available to English speakers.
But two new initiatives are posing a fresh challenge to the ArtScroll dominance.
In May, Koren Publishers Jerusalem will release the first English edition of its popular Hebrew siddur featuring a commentary and translation by the chief rabbi of England, Sir Jonathan Sacks. And the Orthodox Union has launched a new publishing arm, which its backers describe as filling a “niche” in the Orthodox world, principally through the publication of the writings of the late Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, the leading thinker of Modern Orthodoxy.
Why is this so important? Aren't all siddurim the same? The answer, I would suggest, is no. A legitimate movement has both literature and leaders. Those leaders are known to their followers who, in turn, learn from them and their philosophies. Reading an Artscroll or Feldheim novel, one quickly gets the sense that the typical proper Orthodox Jew is the one who fills the streets of Boro Park. Knitted kippot, modern clothing, not wearing a black hat during davening (or ever) just don't figure into their view of how you should be if you're religious. Thus it is imperative for Modern Orthodoxy to show that they too have a direction and philosophy.
Hopefully this will be the start of a good initiative for the movement, perhaps with a commentary on the Chumash empahsizing the thinking of MO scholars to follow.
But I'm not sure I'll be buying the new siddur. I'm still a fan of the Birnbaum siddur and I don't see why I have to change.

Guest Post by Baruch Pelta

A Letter by Shua Finkelstein a"h
[When I went to yeshiva, I was in the same shiur as one Shua Finkelstein. Shua was recently niftar -- if I understand correctly, he died in his sleep. The truth is that I barely knew Shua, but I understand that he wrote the following letter which was posted on the Facebook group established in his memory. He wanted it to be publicized and perhaps it can stand as some small tribute towards his own concern for his community: --Baruch Pelta]

There is thing called child molestation that we have all heard of we all know it happens in different places we all know maybe priests or that creepy uncle. Let me tell you a little about this thing and first hand what it can do to a kid. A frum child is molested he knows nothing about tummah and kedusha all he knows is that he was violated that his body is a toy thats what gets engraved into his brain not that he is a person worthy of respect but that he is an object a tool. This kid grows up he knows nothing of sex all he knows is that he is dirty and that his rabbis say sex is bad he doesn't understand he thinks he is bad any mussar shmooz he hears it directly at him and this innocent kid begins to believe of himself as a bad person.Nobody likes being bad he will look for a place with no expectations of him a place were he can be free to fit in a world where everybody is bad....Chances are he will either convince himself this is the normal and pass it in to another innocent child or he will resort to rebelling to prove to himself he is as bad as he thinks he is......Often he will find drugs to take him away to give him an escape from his horrible reality....That being said...Did you ever notice a support our troops symbol on the back of somebody's car? do you know what that represents? that means that thousands of miles there are people no different then yourself fighting a war and that we support them that gives them the morals they need to keep doing what they must do in order to protect us.I dont expect to see "save our kids" on the back of all of our cars but is it too much to ask that each and everyone of us do our part???I will not mention names but there was one play group accused cased closed and dealt with. thats a start but that should send a chill down your spine theses are kids we are talking about.... there is another play group that is still open after over 5 cases have been brought against it!!!!! do you love your kids???? theses are the same kids that some vaad in lakewood will put in ad in the paper to protect from cellphone texting or god forbid a concert but did you see an ad saying Guard your kids!!!!?DO research!!!!! If your in doubt dont send them there! A play group that has had 5 allegations against it is still open????? Of course its there parnasah we are so worried about... Maybe i should fill you in on some facts there is a jewish rehab whose name i will not mention that deals with kids whose lives are in danger i spoke to the intake administrator there about the cliental from Lakewood and i was told 99.% of all kids from lakewood Yes lakewood our holy town who doesn't allow text messaging were molested in this town!!!!! and that is what led to there addiction! now some facts of this rehab which has a high success rate 50% dont stay clean and out of all the jewish kids there that leave and relapse there is an average of 3 jewish souls that die a year!!! Murdered by you and me and all of us unwilling to take a stand against these people in our community the rabbis are scared to do anything? its political?? how dare they say that?? this is life and death we are killing kids over here we are condemning them to a life of misery of lonely depression and god forbid of passing on this horrible sickness.IT IS YOUR DUTY as a Jew, As a Human to find these people in our community and no longer let them live among us!!!! 'Oy le rosha Oy le schayno' I think over here we are all the reshoim if we sit back and do nothing!! and if you dare say you are worried that people in play groups will lose there jobs there is some math you may want to do. a rehab a 6 month program to give a molested kid a chance $5,000 per months totals $30,000 now this place on average has 20 kids per six months thats $60,000 do you want me to count in the average fee of therapy $150-per hour????? or maybe you want the numbers i got from the local funeral homes?????? WAKE UP!!!!!! Ask yourself honestly is it that you are truly concerned about this just isn't your place or do you just not know what to do? I think trying to be worried about innocent money just went the window....This cannot be hidden any more!!!!! you know something speak up!!! have you been thru this??? share your story, help create support groups Help publicize this letter share your story.... If you are an offender seek help it can be done your amends will not be easy but it can be done.You can make one fatal mistake and that is to try and hide and think you will get passed by come out help fix the wrong before you will no longer have that chance EVER. If we all get together as a town to help weed this community it can be done with minimal damage. Anybody innocent who may receive slight setbacks because of this consider it your part in saving a life. ASHRECHA--

"People who lead a lonely existence always have something on their minds that they are eager to talk about."--Anton Chekhov

The First Guest Post

In the comments section of the post: Getting Priorities Straight, a visitor to the site, The Count, left a beautiful d'var Torah that I've received permission to display on its own. Please enjoy.

The Torah tells us in this week's parsha that Abraham was "zakein, ba ba-yamim - he was old and advanced in days".Recognizing the redundancy, the Midrash helpfully points out that "there are some that are 'zakein' but not 'ba ba-yamim' and there are some that are 'ba ba-yamim' but no 'zakein', but Abraham was both 'zakein' as well as 'ba ba-yamim'".

Rabbi Mordechai Rogov, zt"l (formerly from Illinois) explains the Midrash beautifully.The terms 'zakein' and 'ba ba-ymaim' are not synonymous, he says. 'Zakein' means old, and refers to the things that a person learnt, the concepts that he grasped and the values that he cherished when he was younger ("the days of old"). In contrast, 'ba ba-yamim', literally "coming with the days", refers to one's awarenss of contemporary society ("with the times").

The Midrash is telling us that there are some people that remain true to the traditions that they were raised in, but they can't "fit in" to today's world; they can't adjust to the society around them.

Conversely, there are those that quickly reject the teachings that they learned when they were younger to "mesh" with the latest trend, no matter how much it might go against their previous belief system.

Not so with our forefather Abraham. Altough he was advanced in years, he remained firm in the values that he learned as a young man - the belief in one G-d, doing kidness, and mitzvot. He was 'zakein'. At the same time though, he was able to relate to contemporary society, to reach out to them, and to integrate his Torah knowledge with the world around him. He was also 'ba ba-yamim'.

If "the actions of the fathers are a sign for their children" then we should emulate this conduct of Abraham as we adhere to Torah lifestyle while living in the modern world.Shabbat Shalom!