Pushing the Bounds of Orthodoxy

One of the problems troubled the Modern Orthodox movement is its lack of structure. As noted elsewhere, it is too often defined in the negative. It is not Chareidi and it's not heterodox. What it is, however, is harder to define.

There are those who who this nebulous definition to push the boundaries of acceptable Torah observant behaviour in order to satisfy their personal inclinations and desires. Too often these initiatives are undertaken in order to minimize the conflict that many in the Modern Orthodox community undergo when Jewish law and practice conflict with the values of the surrounding secular society.

One of the areas that is pushed most is that of tefilah, prayer. Davening is traditionally a male-dominated affair as women lack the obligation of tefilah b'tzibur that is incumbent upon males. However, we live in a society that strives towards full egalitarianism (except in divorce court, for some odd reason, but I'll save that for a different rant) and this discordance can be quite troubling for the observant Jew who wants to be traditional but also in sync with current values and mores.
The answer for some has been to try and push the boundaries of egalitarianism within the Jewish prayer service. For example, under the guidance of Tova Hartman of the Hartman Institute, the Shirah Hadashah congregation in Israel has created all sorts of innovations and even a mini-guidebook to explain the halachic basis of the liberties they have taken with expanding the role of women within the conventional prayer service. I've previously reviewed this booklet and shown how it abuses the halachic process in order to come to a pre-determined set of answers.
Now comes news from Toronto courtesy of The Canadian Jewish News that another group of pioneers are greating an egalitarian Orthodox minyan called the Partnership minyan. Now, this isn't the first foray of Modern Orthodoxy into egalitarian practice. For decades, many MO synagogues had something called family seating in which married couples and young children sat together while older singles sat in separate wings. With only one exception, these synagogues all left Orthodoxy to join the Conservative movement.
Despite the impressive curriculum vitae of some of its founders, this Partnership minyan misses the point of halachic davening in several major areas, especially that of Krias HaTorah.
With reference to other parts of the service, there is much debate amongst the authorities about the obligations incumbent upon women. This is important to review as some Orthodox egalitarian congregations encourage women to lead certain parts of the service based on certain assumptions.
Krias Shema, for example, is a time-bound positive injunction which implies women are exempt from reciting it, but the Rambam holds that women are obligated to accept the yoke of Heaven upon themselves daily implying that they should say it to fulfill the mitzvah. As for Pesukei D'zimrah, the Mishnah Berurah considers it an adjunct to the Amidah which women are obligated to say and therefore holds that they have to pray that too. However, in his Shaar HaTziun commentary, he questions that assumptom. The Aruch HaShulchan and Kaf HaChayim seem to compromise by saying that women can say pesukei d'zimrah but are not obligated to. However, this would lead to a problem for the Shirah Hadashah congregation which explicity allows women to lead that part of the service. If pesukei d'zimrah is obligatory upon men and not upon women, how can someone who is not obligated (the potential chazanit) fulfill the requirement for those who can (the men)?
The next issue in terms of women leading services comes from the issue of kol ishah (Berachos 24a). Like se'aros ishah, there has been much discussion amongst some modern poskim (see Seridei Eish 2:8, Tzitz Eliezer 5:2 for examples). The most lenient position seems to be that of the German poskim who allowed women to sing zemiros with men. However, it seems clear that a solo chazanit leading services in a shul was not what they had in mind when they permitted this. Thus for a woman to lead services, especially during pesukei d'zimrah where much of the singing is simply the shaliach tzibur moving from paragraph to paragraph, there would be a problem permitting this. The only way around would be to have her read the relevant parts out loud instead of sing them but when contrasted with the ability of the male prayer leaders to sing the same sections, the result would be a highling of the inequality, not a blurring which is clearly the Partnership's intention.
The basis for the belief that women can have aliyos in Torah observant shuls comes from a very suggestive baraisa (Megillah 23a): "The Rabbis taught: All (who go to read the Torah) count towards the seven (who are called up), even a child, even a woman. However, the Sages said: a woman should not read from the Torah out of consideration for the dignity of the congregation (k'vod hatzibur)." This ruling is brought almost verbatim by the Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 282:3) and the Rema, far from disputing it, only qualifies it by noting that since the baraisa uses the word "even" it implies that women and children can have some of the aliyos but not all of them. Even then, he does not set an upper limit so theoretically according to his ruling, women could take six of the seven aliyos.
Rav Yehuda Herzl Henkin in Bnei Banim vol. 4 specifically addresses the question of women getting aliyos. He notes that during the time of the gemara, only the first and and last called to the Torah recited the berachos on the reading. A woman is not obligated to read the Torah and therefore her recitation of the berachah would not fulfill the obligation of the men listening but that only meant she couldn't go up for the first and last aliyos. The middle ones which were free of blessings before and after would be fine. However, he brings two opinions from the Meiri. The first notes that since nowadays each person recites the blessing over the Torah, a woman would not be able to have an aliyah. However the second states that since only the first aliyah is d'oraisa (since Moshe established it) and the remainder are only d'rabbanon, the concern with a woman not fulfilling the men's obligations would only apply to the first aliyah.
There are some halachos that are theoretically possible but impossible to do in practice. For example, one who is eating seudas shlishis at the end of Pesach (assuming the holiday ends on a Saturday night) might, in theory, be able to draw the meal out until chometz is permitted and then eat some bread. Yet because the meal was begun during the holiday, he would be able to mention the holiday of Pesach in his bentching despite having eaten bread! However, this is not possible in a practical way since he must daven Maariv and make havdalah before he can rebuy his chometz and doing so would mean bentching beforehand.
Similarly, while the baraisa permits women to have aliyos, getting them to the bimah would be problematic. The Chasam Sofer (Ch.M. 190) notes that the main reason for avoiding the mixing of men and women in shul is to prevent unseemly thoughts that would lead to the congregation's prayers being rejected. This begs the question: how does the woman get through the men's section and stand on the bimah without mingling with the surrounding men?
(Interestling, the Maharam paskens that in a congregation where all the men are kohanim, a kohen should take the first two aliyos and the rest should be given to women, but this is certainly an exceptional situation. Rav Henkin notes that this negates the concern of peritzus with the woman going up to the bimah with the men. He further brings references from the Rishonim that show that peritzus is not a consideration in preventing women from having aliyos)
On the other hand, the Levush says that "nowadays" (back 450 years ago or so) men and women commonly mingle leading to a habituation that would negate the possibility of unseemly thoughts. (It's interesting to note that the Aruch HaShulchan uses the same reason to permit the reciting of Krias Shema in the presence of a married woman who does not cover her hair) But looking at the context of his remarks, he was talking about a seudas mitzvah which is not as stringent a situation as public prayer. Thus this source cannot provide support for a woman walking through the men's section to stand for a prolonged period of time on the bimah.
Other potential lenient sources are the Mishpetei Uziel and the Igros Moshe who both permit mingling during gatherings. However, they limit their permissiveness to small groups, not fixed congregations.
In terms of the assumptions the partnership group makes to get around these problems, the logic seems quite flawed. For example:
The minyan’s mission statement reads, in part, that the community “follows the approach of those Orthodox rabbis who have argued that the dignity of human beings (kavod ha-briyot) is a crucial halachic value that permits us, and in fact obligates us, to expand the roles of women.”
How does kavod habriyos obligate an expansion of the roles of women in the prayer service? That women have no public roles during prayer is not a humiliation or denigration of the gender that they should need to have their kavod defended in the first place. In other words, the Partnership seems to have made up a problem and found those "Orthodox rabbis" who have a solution to it. But I would contend that the problem doesn't exist in the first place.
Halachic values do evolve, Rabbi Lockshin said. As an example, he said that in halachic literature there is no expectation that a parent will support a child beyond the age of eight or 10, but rabbis in Israel agreed unanimously to change the age until which parents must support their children.
But this also makes no sense when you recall that this minyan is basing itself on a baraisa to permit many of their innovations. In other words, they're not looking at forward evolution but at grabbing at rituals that may have existed centuries ago. I doubt, however, that they are interested in many other unobserved laws, like those of selling one's daughter into marriage or a thief into six years of slavery, things we just don't do anymore today. The article mentions that Prof. Lockshin avoids the obvious comparison with Conservatism but I can think of another reason why: his new group seems to be picking and choosing when it comes to setting their values.
He based part of what he said on an article by Rabbi Mendel Shapiro titled Qeri’at ha-Torah by Women: A Halakhic Analysis, which appeared in the Edah Journal, a modern Orthodox publication, in 2001. (Links to Rabbi Shapiro’s article and other sources can be found at www.jofa.org/social.php/ritual/synagogue/partnershipm.)
The Edah article “has led to some serious changes in the way people are thinking,” Rabbi Lockshin said.
Perhaps this is the greatest article in the world. I haven't read it so I can't say. However, I am not aware of Rav Mendel Shapiro being a posek with any authority. Unlke the world of modern academia where anyone with a degree can write an opinion, the system of halachah is simply not run that way. Grabbing at any halachic opinion without consideration as to whether it has any authority behind it is not a proper way to run a Torah observant group.
Jay Nathanson, a 37-year-old father of two young daughters who was at the meeting, said it’s important for him not to have them excluded. As well, he told The CJN, “it’s crucial for me to raise my [six-year-old] son in a community where every possible effort is made to treat women with as much dignity and respect as is feasible within the rigid confines of traditional halachah.”
This for me is the real crux of the matter. The real gut check of the observant Jew comes when he is told he, or she, cannot do something. There are limits. Not just anyone could offer a sacrifice in our holy Temple (may it be speedily rebuilt). Not just anyone could be king. Not just anyone could serve as a judge. Merit, while important, is not the only criteria for certain social positions within klal Yisrael and a major test of a person's faith is his or her acceptance of those limitations. If this man's two daughters will feel excluded by Torah Judaism because they cannot participate in services, if their fealty to God is entirely predicated on their getting what they want regardless of reigning halachic norms, then how loyal will they be in the first place?
Finally there is the issue of minhag to be considered. The rituals and conduct of k'lal Yisrael during davening are not routines performed without intelligent thought. Each community has its own customs as to how to handle different services and situations. The people of Israel in general have customs that are considered universal amongst all who call themselves Torah observant and it is a great sin to disparage these customs or abandon them on the assumption they have become obsolete.
One quick example will suffice. Would any Torah observant person seriously suggest abandoning the concept of Yom Tov Sheni because we now have a fixed calender? The gemara in Beitzah urges us to be careful with the customs we inherit from our ancestors.
The fourth chapter of Pesachim brings this into greater detail. The mishnayos in this chapter demonstrate multiple cases of varying customs in different places and the respect to be shown by people visiting a locale in terms of regional behaviours. Based on this, one might think that bringing egalitarian innovations into an exisiting shul might be considered improper but that creating a new congregation would avoid the problem since it could create its minhagim from scratch.
But to this, the gemara in Pesachim 51b writes about multiple cases of chachamim going to different places, engaging in behaviour that is technically permitted by halachah and then stopping when the locals complain that "we've never seen such things". The gemara continues that the Sages could have protested and pointed out that their behaviours were perfectly legal but they did not because "we've never seen such things" is a reason to forbid a particular action.
If this is so, what can be said about the innovations of allowing women to lead certain parts of the service or receive aliyos to the Torah? The practice of restricting these roles to men is certainly no local custom but one that has been adopted for centuries (at least) by the entire Torah world. To create a new congregation that allows these changes to the ritual would inevitably run afoul of the gemara's protest: we've never seen such things!
In conclusion, the words of the Rav seem especially relevant. (From "Halakhic Positions of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik" Volume 3, by Aharon Zeigler, p.19-21)
"Our bond and closed with Hashem comes from our performance of His Divine commandments which have intrinsic meaning. The objective fact of the mitzvah is primary and not the subjective emotions of the one performing the mitzvah... The absence of kavanah (emphasis and feeling of job) definitely indicates something lacking in the Divine servce. But the exhilaration is an outgrowth of the mitzvah, not its goal. We to the mitzvot because they are Divine commandments from Hashem... Any uplifting feelings must come from the satisfaction of having served the Will of hashem inthe prescribed manner He has commanded us. Women therefore can acquire the same satisfaction and exhilaration by performing the mitzvot they are commanded and need not seek closeness to hashem through mitzvot they have not been commanded."

Yes He's Religious, But What Religion Is He?

It is not my intention to comment in a lengthy fashion on homosexual marriage. I see the matter thusly: in a secular amoral society, there is no compelling reason that a marriage cannot be defined as the union of any two people. Without a Divine anchor for its values, nothing demands that society define marriage in a way that excludes a small segment of its population.
The only real hypocrisy of the matter for me is the attitude of the gay lobby when it comes to redefining marriage. In the same breath as they demand freedom for any two people to wed, they also protest against polygamy and incest. This is completely irrational. If a marriage can consist of two people, why not three or more? Why does close blood relationship disqualify a union if any two consenting adults can join up otherwise?
What does bother me is how non-observant Jewish leaders wrap themselves in their self-determined flag of "Jewish values" and condemn those who speak out against gay marriage for religious reasons. If one wants to support gay marriage because in a secular society there's no reason to bar it, fine. But to say that one supports it because one's Jewish religious values demand it is deceptive and erroneous.
As I've noted before, what separates Jewish values and those in the secular liberal realm is the difference between responsibilities and rights. America has its Bill of Rights. Canada has its Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But the Torah is about limitations for it is through that which we withhold ourselves from that we raise our level of sanctity. The glory of man doesn't come from ploughing through life in a hedonistic fashion but rather from elevating oneself from the material and towards the spiritual.
It is this regard that the Conservatives and Reformers completely misunderstand the essential nature of Judaism and Torah. For the Reformers, Judaism is secular liberalism with an impotent godhead, one which grants automatic approval for any desires and values, as long as they are politically correct. Conservatism is virtually identical except that it still pretends to grant this state of religious anarchy an "halachic" imprimatur.
For observant Jews, the process is different. We do not demand God approve of our values but try to adopt His as our own. As a result, it is possible for an observant Jew to be deeply conflicted. He may have a gut feeling, or have been influenced by secular culture, into believing certain values are "right" only to find out that the Torah opinion of them is completely different. His ability to overcome his feelings and accept the Torah's opinion over his own is what sanctifies his behaviour and proves his Divinely granted free will.
The article referenced above displays this twisted thinking in all its glory. Note carefully how the author moves from his revulsion over gay bashing to opposition over gay marriage. The moral he is imparting is quite clear: if you're a good Jew you're against gay bashing. And since you're against gay bashing, you must also support gay marriage.
The thrust of one such passage should not override an overarching biblical ethos that teaches us that God loves and affirms the full humanity of each human being.
Except that does not mean that God, in spite of His infinite love for us, automatically approves of anything we want. The unnatural connection between opposing gay marriage and being in favour of violence against them must be challenged. In my community, after a prominent gay cafe owner was attacked a few years ago, our rav attended the protest against this assault held afterwards. This was fully in consonance with Jewish values. We cannot tolerate a society in which any person (other than confirmed communists and those guys who check the parking meters) can be attacked with impunity and without fear of the law. That does not mean, however, that we must approve of the values these people hold. I am against gay bashing but I cannot say that gay marriage is approved of by real Jewish values.
In response to his final assertion:
I see no reason why religious believers like me have any less right than my more fundamentalist brothers and sisters to speak for religion in the public square. Votes against same-sex unions discriminate against gays and lesbians and run counter to the ethos of love that the Bible teaches. It also discriminates against those of us whose religious beliefs mandate us to perform same-sex weddings.
I fully agree. I just don't think religious believes like him should mislead people by saying they are expressing Jewish values.

The 23rd Obsession

There are 22 Muslim states in the world, covering a very large area of territory along with a good chunk of the world's supply. One might think that any reasonable person might consider that to be sufficient for anyone's ambitions. Yet we read over and over again about the obesession the rest of the world has with creating a 23rd Arab state, and on an oil-free patch of land to boot!

Like Bill Clinton before him, George W. Bush has tried, in the final year of his president, to midwife into existence something that has never existed, contrary to the imaginations of the Arab propaganda machine, in the history of the world: a country called Palestine.

Just like Clinton, Bush failed to grasp the actual mechanics behind the push for this new country and why his efforts were guaranteed to fail.

One must remember a few things in order to truly understanding how the Middle East works:

1) The people of any given country, or wanna-be country, have no actual say or influence on how their country runs. Actual decision making always falls on the chief thug/dictator/monarch of the country and his close, personal friends/advisors. The entire populace might want something but if the leader doesn't, it won't happen.

2) The so-called Palestinian leadership isn't interested in the establishment of a Palestinian state. Neither are any important leaders in the Arab world. They interested in the destruction of Israel and any steps that lead towards a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Arab problem are therefore seen as negative by this leadership.

3) Arab states are generally run as incompetent kleptocracies. If it wasn't for oil and the international drug trade, they'd all be broke. In order to keep their people from figuring this out, it has become de rigeur for the Arab leadership to blame all their problems on Israel. We can't afford good health care because of Israel. We can't advance to First World status because of Israel. Israel, Israel, Israel, it's all the Jews' fault!

As a result, Arafat's decision to torpedo the Camp David initiative in 2000 despite being offered 99.5% of what he had demanded without being forced to make any commitments in return, other than recognize Israel as a peaceful neighbour, failed. Had Camp David succeeded, how could the Arabs then turn around and blame Israel for all their problems?

The next sure sign which was ignored by all the peaceniks came after the retreat from 'Aza. When asked by the press why his people were still shelling southern Israel with rockets despite the Israelis having pulled out, Chief Thug Abbas simplied replied: When we said withdrawal, we meant to the 1947 partition boundaries, not the 1967 armistice lines.

Ehud Olmert, in his final days of power, is desperately trying anything to dismember Israel as a final show of revenge against the country which never really appreciated his self-perceived genius. But it is George W. Bush who will ride into the sunset unfulfilled as his promises of a 23rd Arab state by the end of 2008 fail to materialize.

In truth, they will never materialize, because the Arabs don't want one!

(Thank you to Brooklynwolf for spotting a factual error in this post)

Gedolim Who Matter Part 3 - The Rav

From his Wikipedia entry:

Early years, education, and immigration
Rabbi Soloveitchik was educated in the traditional manner at a Talmud Torah, an elementary yeshiva, and by private tutors, as his parents realized his great mental powers. According to a curriculum vitae written and signed in his own hand,[1] in 1922 he graduated from the liberal arts `Gymnasium' in Dubno. Thereafter he entered in 1924 the Free Polish University in Warsaw where he spent three terms, studying political science. In 1926 he came to Berlin, Germany and entered the Friedrich Wilhelm University. He passed the examination for supplementary subjects at the German Institute for Studies by Foreigners and was then given full matriculation at the University. He took up studies in philosophy, economics and Hebrew subjects, simultaneously maintaining a rigorous schedule of intensive Talmud study.
According to the CV, among his "highly honored" teachers in university, "Geheimrat", were Professor Dr. Heinrich Maier and Professor Dr. Max Dessoir, along with Professor Dr. Eugen Mittwoch and Professor Dr. Ludwig Bernhard. He studied the work of European philosophers, and was a lifelong student of neo-Kantian thought.
He wrote his Ph.D. thesis on the epistemology and metaphysics of the German philosopher Hermann Cohen. Contrary to most biographies, which erroneously state that in 1931 he received his degree, he actually passed his oral doctor's examination on July 24, 1930, but graduated with a doctorate only on December 19, 1932. Documents exist to support this assertion, possessed and publicized by the late Manfred Lehmann.[2]
In 1931 he married Tonya Lewitt (1904-1967), who had earned a Ph.D. in education from Jena University.
During his years in Berlin, Rabbi Soloveitchik became a close disciple of Rabbi Hayyim Heller, who had established an institute for advanced Jewish Studies from an Orthodox perspective in the city. He also made the acquaintance of other young scholars pursuing a similar path to his own. One such figure was Rabbi Yitzchok Hutner who would become the rosh yeshiva of the Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin also in Brooklyn, New York. Both of them developed a system of thought that bridged the Eastern European way of traditional scholarship with the new forces of modernity in the Western World. Among the other personalities with whom he came into contact were Professor Alexander Altmann, Rabbi Dr.Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg, Rector of the Hildesheimer Rabbinical Seminary, and Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz.

The neutrality of this section is disputed.Please see the discussion on the talk page. (March 2008)Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.
Relations with Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson
Rabbi Sholem Kowalsky,[3];[4] Rabbi Julius Berman; Rabbi Menachem Genack; and Rabbi Fabian Schoenfeld[5] (all students of Soloveitchik) have asserted that Rabbi Menachem Schneerson and Rabbi Soloveitchik met for the first time while they both studied in Berlin. They met many times at the home of Hayyim Heller. Rabbi Soloveitchik told Rabbi Sholem Kowalsky he "was a great admirer of the Rebbe."[6]
Rabbi Zvi Kaplan states that Rabbi Yitzchok Hutner recalled sitting with Rabbi Schneerson and Rabbi Soloveitchik at a lecture on Maimonides at the University and when the speaker asked R' Schneerson for his opinion on something, R' Schneerson deferred to R' Soloveitchik. R' Soloveitchik's daughter Dr. Atarah Twersky recalls R' Soloveitchik saying that R' Schneerson visited her father in his apartment and the former asked the latter why he was studying in Berlin if his father-in-law was opposed to it. According to R' Soloveitchik's son Rabbi Dr. Haym Soloveitchik, Rabbi Soloveitchik only saw R' Schneerson pass by in Berlin.[7] The two would become more acquainted in New York.
Rabbi Herschel Schacter, who studied with Rav Soloveitchik's father, accompanied him to the Lubavitcher Rebbe's farbrengen on Yud Shevat 5740/1980. R' Schachter described that occasion in an interview.[8]
Boston
Soloveitchik would refer to himself as "The Soloveitchik of Boston". He pioneered the Maimonides School, one of the first Hebrew day schools in Boston in 1937. [9] When the school's high school was founded in the late forties, he instituted a number of innovations in the curriculum, including teaching Talmud to boys and girls studying in classes together. He involved himself in all manner of religious issues in the Boston area. He was at times both a rabbinical supervisor of kosher slaughtering – shechita – and gladly accepting invitations to lecture in Jewish and religious philosophy at prestigious New England colleges and universities. His son-in-law, Rabbi Professor Isadore Twersky was an internationally known expert on the writings of Maimonides and succeeded Professor Harry Austryn Wolfson to the Nathan Littauer chair of Jewish History and Literature at Harvard University.
New York
Joseph Soloveitchik succeeded his father, Rabbi Moses (Moshe) Soloveichik, as the head of the RIETS rabbinical school at Yeshiva University in 1941.
Soloveitchik advocated more intensive textual Torah study for Jewish women at the Stern College for Women, giving the first class in Talmud inaugurated at Stern College. With his enlightened outlook, he attracted and inspired many young men and women to become spiritual leaders and educators in Jewish communities worldwide. They in turn went out with the education of Yeshiva University to head synagogues, schools and communities, where they continue to influence many Jews to remain committed to Orthodoxy and observance.

Philosophy and major works
Torah Umadda synthesis
During his tenure at Yeshiva University in addition to his Talmudic lectures, Soloveitchik deepened the system of "synthesis" whereby the best of religious Torah scholarship would be combined with the best secular scholarship in Western civilization. This has become known as the Torah Umadda - "Torah and Science" the motto of Yeshiva University. Through public lectures, writings, and his policy decisions for the Modern Orthodox world, he strengthened the intellectual and ideological framework of Modern Orthodoxy.
In his major non–Talmudic publications, which altered the landscape of Jewish theology, Soloveitchik stresses the normative and intellectual centrality of the halakhic corpus. He authored a number of essays and books offering a unique synthesis of Kantian existentialism and Jewish theology, the most well-known being The Lonely Man of Faith which deals with issues such as the willingness to stand alone in the face of monumental challenges, and Halakhic Man.[1][2] A less known essay, though not less important is "The Halakhic Mind - An essay on Jewish tradition and modern thought" written in 1944 and published only 40 years later, without any change as the Author himself stresses. [published by Seth Press, distributed by Free Press - ISBN 0-68-486372]
The Lonely Man of Faith
In The Lonely Man of Faith Soloveitchik reads the first two chapters of Genesis as a contrast in the nature of the human being and identifies two human types: Adam I, or "majestic man", who employs his creative faculties in order to master his environment; and Adam II, or "covenantal man", who surrenders himself in submission to his Master. Soloveitchik describes how the man of faith integrates both of these aspects.
In the first chapter, Adam I is created together with Eve and they are given the mandate to subdue nature, master the cosmos, and transform the world "into a domain for their power and sovereignty." Adam I is majestic man who approaches the world and relationships--even with the divine--in functional, pragmatic terms. Adam I, created in the image of God, fulfills this apparently "secular" mandate by conquering the universe, imposing his knowledge, technology, and cultural institutions upon the world. The human community depicted in Genesis 1 is a utilitarian one, where man and woman join together, like the male and female of other animals, to further the ends of their species.
In chapter two of Genesis, Adam II, on the other hand represents the lonely man of faith - bringing a "redemptive interpretation to the meaning of existence". Adam II does not subdue the garden, but rather tills it and preserves it. This type of human being is introduced by the words, "It is not good for man to be alone" - and through his sacrifice (of a metaphoric rib) he gains companionship and the relief of his existential loneliness - this covenantal community requires the participation of the Divine.
Halakhic Man
In Halakhic Man Soloveitchik propounds the centrality of halakha in Jewish thought. His theological outlook is distinguished by a consistent focus on halakha, i.e., the fulfillment and study of the divine law. He presents the halakha as the a priori basis for religious practice and for the theological foundation for Jewish thought. Soloveitchik emphasizes halakha's "this-worldly, here-and-now grounding", as opposed to religious approaches that focus on the nature of the transcendent realm. This work argues that Jewish piety does not, therefore, fit familiar models of Western religiosity, and presents a phenomenology of this religious type. Here, "Halakhic man", as a result of his study of Torah and his observance of the commandments, develops a set of coherent attitudes towards intellectual activity, asceticism, death, esotericism, mysticism, creativity, repentance, and providence. He also underscores the necessity for individual self-creation as the divinely assigned task of the human being.
Halakhic Mind
Halakhic Mind is a four part analysis on the correlation between science and philosophy historically. Only in its fourth and last part the Author introduces the consequences on the Halakha of the analysis performed in the previous three parts.
Other views and controversy
Soloveitchik became a "lightning rod" of criticism from two directions. From the religious left, he was viewed as being too connected to the Old World of Europe, while for those on the religious right, he was seen as legitimizing those wanting to lower their religious standards in the attempt to modernize and Americanize. Despite this criticism, Soloveitchik remained steadfast in his beliefs and positions throughout the years of his leadership.
Departure from the traditional Brisker view of Zionism
Soloveitchik was proud of his connections to the Soloveitchik rabbinic dynasty, speaking fondly of his "uncles" and chiding them from time to time in public. To his relatives and namesakes who now lived in Jerusalem where they had established their own branch of the anti-Zionist Brisk Yeshiva, he was respected for his genius in Talmudic scholarship which few could challenge or disparage. However, Rabbi Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik (the "Brisker Rov") and his followers still viewed him as their wayward cousin who had departed from the family Haredi tradition. At the same time, recent research published by Shlomo Pick has indicated that his father, Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik maintained a close relationship with Religious Zionist (Mizrahi) circles in Warsaw, prior to the father's departure for Yeshiva University and the son's departure for the University of Berlin in 1923.
Modern Orthodox View of
The most left-wing Modern Orthodox figures feel that Rabbi Soloveitchik was a prototype for an ideal type of Jew, but are against what they define as "The Soloveitchik Line,"[10] and wish to establish more dynamism in Orthodoxy. These include Rabbis David Hartman, Irving Greenberg, and Michael Wyschograd. Leading right-wing figures at Modern Orthodox institutions wish to keep Modern Orthodoxy within the boundaries which were established by Rabbi Soloveitchik. This includes much of Yeshiva University's leadership, such as Rabbi Hershel Reichman, Rabbi Mayer Twersky, and Rabbi Hershel Schachter.
The Agudah's View of
After Rabbi Soloveitchik left Agudath Israel, the organization's leadership was mostly quiet when it came to public statements involving Rabbi Soloveitchik. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, who was Rabbi Soloveitchik's cousin, maintained very warm and profoundly respectful relations with him. They corresponded and spoke (at least) on the eve of every Jewish holiday. Rabbi Yitzchok Hutner referred to him as a gadol hador.[11] Rabbi Aaron Kotler, whose public policy in relation to American Jewry was far more right-wing than Rabbi Soloveitchik's, was introduced by Rabbi Soloveitchik at a Chinuch Atzmai dinner[12] and this later became famous as an instance of unity among the Orthodox leadership. Agudath Israel's mouthpiece, the "Jewish Observer" also mentioned Rabbi Soloveitchik as one of the greatest rabbis of the generation when detailing a cable which was sent by various gedolim to former Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol requesting the government to put a stop to Christian missionary activity in Israel. In May 1993, Rabbi Nisson Wolpin penned an obituary for Rabbi Soloveitchik in the "Jewish Observer."[13] The article was criticized for being titled "Zecher L'bracha" ("May his memory be a blessing") as opposed to the usual "Zecher Tzaddik L'bracha" (May his righteous memory be a blessing), for being a mere page long as instead of the Jewish Observer's usually comparatively long obituaries, for the obituary not being mentioned in the table of contents, and portraying Rabbi Soloveitchik as not clarifying his views enough. Rabbi Moshe David Tendler wrote a scathing attack on Wolpin's piece, which was published both in The Community Synagogue of Monsey's newsletter and the Algemeiner Journal.[14]. Rabbi Soloveitchik did not sign Rabbi Moshe Feinstein's proposed ban on interfaith dialogue, instead he published a pathbreaking essay expounding his views on the subject, entitled "Confrontation." He also did not sign the ban by America's foremost rabbis against participating in the Synagogue Council of America, albeit it has been debated whether it was because he believed in participating in the SCA or because he was not happy with the way the ban was instituted.
It is important to note that, despite the Agudah's comparative silence on Rabbi Soloveitchik and his stances, the Jewish Observer has often criticized the Rabbinical Council of America in which he served and his more modern students, including Rabbi Norman Lamm,[15] Rabbi Shlomo Riskin[16] and Rabbi Lawrence Kaplan.[17]
Debate over world view
Many of Soloveitchik's students became leaders in the Modern Orthodox community. These students tend to espouse very distinct world views, often attributing their own views to Rabbi Soloveitchik himself. Those furthest on the left include David Hartman and Irving Greenberg, whose espousals of pluralism have earned them serious delegitimization. The institutions they founded, the Shalom Hartman Institute and the CLAL respectively, are considered to be outside the fold of acceptable Orthodox thought. Rabbis Avi Weiss and Saul Berman, who represent liberal Modern Orthodox institutions such as Yeshivat Chovevei Torah and Edah, are somewhat further to the right of Greenberg and Hartman[citation needed], but still very liberal in comparison to most Orthodox thinkers (Rabbi Weiss has classified this approach as "Open Orthodoxy"). Many students of Rabbi Soloveitchik represent a centrist approach to Modern Orthodoxy (which Rabbi Norman Lamm has coined "Centrist Orthodoxy") such as Rabbis Aharon Lichtenstein, Shlomo Riskin, Lawrence Kaplan, and Norman Lamm. This is the mainstream approach to Rabbi Soloveitchik's thought; the Torah UMadda Journal, Tradition magazine, the Rabbinical Council of America, Efrat, Teaneck, Yeshiva University, Bnei Akiva, the Orthodox Union, and various post-high school yeshivot and seminaries in Israel (i.e. Yeshivat Har Etzion) are largely, if not mostly (but almost never monolithically) populated by "Centrist Orthodox" Jews. Further to the right in the spectrum of Orthodoxy lie Rabbis Yehuda Parnes and Abba Bronspiegel, both of whom resigned from teaching positions in Yeshiva University to join right-wing alternative Lander College. Some of Rabbi Soloveitchik's students even identify themselves and Rabbi Soloveitchik's teachings with the Haredi world, such as Rabbi Moshe Meiselman, Rabbi Soloveitchik's nephew and Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva Toras Moshe in Jerusalem; Rabbi Mosheh Twersky, The Rav's grandson and a teacher at Toras Moshe; Rabbi Michel Shurkin, also a teacher at Toras Moshe; and Rabbi Chaim Ilson, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivas Derech Hatalmud in Jerusalem.
Top Students
Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff believes that Rabbis Chaim Ilson, Hershel Schachter, Aaron Lichtenstein, and Zvi Kanotopsky were each Soloveitchik's top student in their decade.[18] Additionally, Rabbi Yosef Granofsky--Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Ohr David--has noted that many considered Rabbi Hershel Reichman to be the top rabbinical student while the former attended YU. While Lichtenstein leans more towards centrist Orthodoxy, most of the rest tend to be right-leaning forces at Modern Orthodox institutions or completely Haredi.
Integration with secular society
Since his death, interpretations of Soloveitchik's beliefs have become a matter of ongoing debate, somewhat analogous to the long-standing debate about Samson Raphael Hirsch. Some Haredim and some on the right wing of Modern Orthodoxy believe that Hirsch only wanted Jews to combine an observant Jewish lifestyle with learning the surrounding gentile society's language, history, and science, so that a religious Jew could earn a living in the surrounding secular society. It should be noted, however, that this is not by any means a universally held opinion among right-wing Orthodox Jews (see, for example, the writings of Rabbi Shimon Schwab and the biography of Rabbi Hirsch by Rabbi Victor Klugman). There exists a fringe position among scholars of Soloveitchik's philosophy that states that a similar pragmatic approach was adopted by Soloveitchik as well. On this view, Soloveitchik did not approve of Jews learning secular philosophy, music, art, literature or ethics, unless it was for either the purpose of obtaining a livelihood or outreach.
In contrast, most scholars believe that this understanding of Soloveitchik's philosophy is misguided. This issue has been discussed in many articles in Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Thought, published by the Rabbinical Council of America[citation needed]. In this view, both Hirsch and Soloveitchik believed that it was permissible for Jews to learn secular philosophy, music, art, literature and ethics for their own sake and even encouraged this[citation needed].
His son-in-law, Professor Isadore Twersky pointed out in a eulogy published in the journal Tradition in 1995 that Rabbi Soloveitchik's philosophy could be paraphrased as follows: "When you know your [Jewish] Way--your point of departure and goals--then use philosophy, science and the humanities to illumine your exposition, sharpen your categories, probe the profundities and subtleties of the masorah and reveal its charm and majesty; in so doing you should be able to command respect from the alienated and communicate with some who might otherwise be hostile or indifferent to your teaching as well as to increase the sensitivity and spirituality of the committed." Rabbi Moshe Meiselman, on the other hand, believes that Rabbi Soloveitchik's sole purpose of allowing secular study was for purposes of outreach.
Own criticism of his students
Soloveitchik stated that although he felt that he successfully transmitted the facts and laws of Judaism to his students, he felt that he failed in transmitting the experience of living an authentic Jewish life. He stated that many of his students "act like children and experience religion like children. This is why they accept all types of fanaticism and superstition. Sometimes they are even ready to do things that border on the immoral. They lack the experiential component of religion, and simply substitute obscurantism for it....After all, I come from the ghetto. Yet I have never seen so much naïve and uncritical commitment to people and to ideas as I see in America....All extremism, fanaticism and obscurantism come from a lack of security. A person who is secure cannot be an extremist." (A Reader's Companion to Ish Ha-Halakhah: Introductory Section, David Shatz, Yeshiva University, Joseph B. Soloveitchik Institute).
Revisionism
Shortly after Soloveitchik's passing, Rabbi Norman Lamm, President of Yeshiva University, in a eulogy for the Rav delivered on April 25, 1993, urged his auditors to "guard...against any revisionism, any attempts to misinterpret the Rav's work in both worlds [the world of Torah and the world of Madda(Science)]. The Rav was not a lamdan who happened to have and use a smattering of general culture, and he was certainly not a philosopher who happened to be a talmid hakham, a Torah scholar.... We must accept him on his terms, as a highly complicated, profound, and broad-minded personality.... Certain burgeoning revisionisms may well attempt to disguise and distort the Rav's uniqueness by trivializing one or the other aspect of his rich personality and work, but they must be confronted at once." (Lawrence Kaplan Revisionism and the Rav: The Struggle for the Soul of Modern Orthodoxy, Judaism, Summer, 1999).
Relations with non-Orthodox Judaism
Soloveitchik did not approve of a number of practices of Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism. He believed that where these denominations differed from Orthodox Judaism, the non-Orthodox groups were in significant error. He compared religious dialogue with Reform and Conservative leaders to dialogue between Pharisees and Karaites, considering it ridiculous. One of the major differences was in regard to the use of a mechitza in the synagogue, a divider between the men's and women's sections. Consistent with the traditional rabbinic understanding of this issue, Soloveitchik ruled that it was forbidden to pray in a synagogue without a separation between the sexes. This effect of this was to prohibit prayer in any Reform synagogue and in many Conservative synagogues. His responsum on this question was also directed at the small number of Orthodox synagogues that were adopting mixed-sex seating. He was vociferous on this issue. Soloveitchik believed that Reform and Conservative rabbis did not have proper training in halakha and Jewish theology, and that due to their decisions and actions they could not be considered rabbis as Orthodox Jews traditionally understood the term. He was a lifelong critic of all forms of non-Orthodox Judaism. On the other hand, in practice he often granted non-Orthodox rabbis some level of validity (see examples below).
Soloveitchik developed the idea that Jews have historically been linked together by two distinct covenants. One is the brit yi'ud, "covenant of destiny", which is the covenant by which Jews are bound together through their adherence to halakha. The second is the brit goral, "covenant of fate", the desire and willingness to be part of a people chosen by God to live a sacred mission in the world, and the fact that all those who live in this covenant share the same fate of persecution and oppression, even if they do not live by halakha. Soloveitchik held that non-Orthodox Jews were in violation of the covenant of destiny, yet they are still bound together with Orthodox Jews in the covenant of fate.
In 1954 Soloveitchik issued a responsum on working with non-Orthodox Jews, Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jews in the United States: Second article in a series on Responsa of Orthodox Judaism in the United States. The responsum recognized the leadership of non-Orthodox Jews in Jewish communal institutions (but not their rabbis in the Orthodox sense of the term), and concluded that participation with non-Orthodox Jews for political or welfare purposes is not only permissible, but obligatory.
The Haredi Council of Torah Sages of Agudath Yisroel countered with a ruling that such cooperation with non-Orthodox Jews was equivalent to endorsement of non-Orthodox Judaism, and thus was forbidden. In 1956 many Yeshiva leaders, including two rabbis from his own Yeshiva University, signed and issued a proclamation forbidding any rabbinical alumni of their yeshivot from joining with Reform or Conservative rabbis in professional organizations.
Soloveitchik declined to sign the proclamation, maintaining that there were areas, particularly those relating to problems that threatened all of Judaism, that required co-operation regardless of affiliation. His refusal emboldened other Modern Orthodox rabbis, and the Rabbinical Council of America and Union of Orthodox Congregations then joined the Synagogue Council of America, a group in which Orthodox, Reform and Conservative denominations worked together on common issues. (The Synagogue Council of America ceased operating in 1994.)
In the 1950s Soloveitchik and other members of the Rabbinical Council of America engaged in a series of private negotiations with the leaders of Conservative Judaism's Rabbinical Assembly, especially with Rabbi Saul Lieberman; their objective was to found a joint Orthodox-Conservative beth din that would be a national rabbinic court for all Jews in America; it would supervise communal standards of marriage and divorce. It was to be modeled after the Israeli Chief Rabbinate, with only Orthodox judges, but with the expectation that it would be accepted by the larger Conservative movement as legitimate. Conservative rabbis in the Rabbinical Assembly formed a Joint Conference on Jewish Law and devoted a year to the effort.
For a number of reasons, the project did not succeed. According to Orthodox Rabbi Bernstein, the major reason for its failure was that the Orthodox rabbis insisted that the Conservative Rabbinical Assembly expel Conservative rabbis for actions they took before the new Beit Din was formed, and the RA refused to do so (Bernstein, 1977). According to Orthodox Rabbi Emanuel Rackman, former president of the RCA, the major reason for its failure was pressure from right-wing Orthodox rabbis, who held that any cooperation between Orthodoxy and Conservatism was forbidden. In an account prepared in 1956, Rabbi Harry Halpern of the Rabbinical Assembly's Joint Conference wrote that negotiations between the Orthodox and Conservative were completed and agreed upon, but then a new requirement was demanded by the RCA: that the RA "impose severe sanctions" upon Conservative rabbis for actions they took before the new beth din was formed. The RA "could not assent to rigorously disciplining our members at the behest of an outside group." Per Halpern, subsequent efforts were made to cooperate with the Orthodox, but a letter from eleven Rosh Yeshivas was circulated declaring that Orthodox rabbis were forbidden to cooperate with Conservative rabbis (Proceedings of the CJLS of the Conservative Movement 1927-1970 Vol. II, pp.850-852).
Until the 1950s, Jews of all denominations were generally allowed to use the same communal mikvaot (ritual baths) for the purposes of converting to Judaism, observing the rules of niddah in regard to laws of marital purity, kashering dishes, etc. However the Orthodox movement increasingly denied the use of mikvaot to non-Orthodox rabbis for use in conversions. According to Rabbi Walter Wurzburger, Rav Soloveitchik counselled Orthodox rabbis against this practice, insisting that non-Orthodox have the option to use mikvaot (Wurzburger, 1994).
Zionism
Soloveitchik was accepted as the pre-eminent leader of politically conscious pro-Zionist modern Orthodox Judaism; out of respect for this, many leaders and politicians from Israel sought his advice and blessings in state affairs. He was reputedly offered the position of Chief Rabbi of Israel, such as by Prime Minister Menachem Begin, but he quietly and consistently refused this offer. Despite his open and ardent support for the modern State of Israel, he only visited Israel -- then called Palestine -- once, in 1935, before the state was established. Rabbi Yosef Blau has pointed out that Rabbi Soloveitchik's non-messianic Zionism was philosophically similar to that of Rabbi Yitzchak Yaacov Reines (see Tradition 33.2, Communications). Rabbi Moshe Meiselman believes that Rabbi Soloveitchik joined Mizrachi as part of a plan to help Zionistic Jews become more observant. As against that "pragmatic" interpretation, it should be pointed out that, in an essay entitled Kol Dodi Dofek (the voice of my beloved knocking), Soloveitchik argued that the Zionist project was a precursor of redemption.
Affiliated organizations
In his early career in America Soloveitchik joined with the traditional movements such as Agudath Israel of America and the Agudat Harabanim - the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of North America. In fact, Soloveitchik was on the first Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah of America[19]. However, he later removed himself from the former organizations, and instead joined with the Mizrachi Religious Zionists of America (RZA) and became Chairman of the centrist Orthodox Rabbinical Council of America's (RCA) Halakhah Commission (the other two members are the time were Rabbis Hayyim Heller and Samuel Belkin).
Family and last years
During the 1950s and 1960s, until his wife's death, Soloveitchik and some of his students would spend summers near Cape Cod in Onset, Massachusets, where they would pray at Congregation Beth Israel.[20]
Soloveitchik's children married prominent academics and Talmudic scholars: his daughter Tovah married Rabbi Dr. Aharon Lichtenstein, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Har Etzion in Israel (with a PhD from Harvard University); his daughter Atarah married the late Rabbi Dr. Isadore Twersky, former head of the Jewish Studies department at Harvard University (who also served as the Talner Rebbe in Boston). His son Rabbi Dr. Haym Soloveitchik is a University Professor of Jewish History at Yeshiva University. His siblings included Dr. Samuel Soloveitchik (1909-1967), Rabbi Ahron Soloveichik (1917-2001), Mrs. Shulamith Meiselman (b. 1912), and Mrs. Anne Gerber (b. 1915). His grandchildren have maintained his heritage and also hold distinguished scholarly positions.
As he got older he suffered several bouts of serious illness (Alzheimer's Disease). Family members cared for his every need. He passed away on Hol HaMoed Pesach (18 Nisan, in 1993, at the age of ninety. He was interred next to his beloved wife, Tonya, in Beth El Cemetery in the Baker Street Jewish Cemeteries, West Roxbury, Massachusetts.
Legacy
Soloveitchik unfailingly captured the adoration of his students. Known by all as "The Rav", he became arguably the greatest leader of Modern Orthodoxy in the twentieth century, often espousing innovative positions on educational, political, and social issues within the Orthodox world. His ordination of over 2,000 Orthodox rabbis at Yeshiva University, during forty years at its helm, attests to his power and efficacy as well as his consistency and determination.

Why he inspires me:

All movements need a founder, a man with a vision of what the movement should be and who is the living embodiment of those values. Within the community of Modern Orthodoxy, the Rav fills that role. His preternatural genius, combined with his ability to appreciate and combine the finest of Western intellectualism with the holiness of Torah knowledge created a temple for Modern Orthodoxy to use in its growth and development.

In short, the Rav represented the idea that one could be a deep talmid chacham capable of impeccable religious practice and embrace elements of the Modern world at the same time, in opposition to the reigning Chareidi doctrine of secular rejection.

If Modern Orthodoxy has stumbled as a philosophy and not reached its potential, it is because the Rav's example has not been followed. There is also the matter of how some of his students could so twist his legacy as to use it to justify innovations that have removed them from mainstream Orthodox practice. But then, the Reformers think that the Rambam wrote his Moreh Nevuchim just for them. Perhaps this is a consequence of the Rav's greatness and the inability of some to realize his true depth and direction.

But even more than that was the Rav's unfaltering commitment to intellectual honesty in his religious observance. His weltehschau... (can't spell the damned word to save my life!) could not be contained by the ideology of the Agudah and rather than compromise to fit in, he chose to stand alone. Despite the loss of honour that resulted in certain circles, this decision only added to his greatness and ability to teach the next generation of American observant leaders.

Meet the Meat

From my privileged position up here in the Great White North, I've watched the growing scandal over Agriprocessors in the United States with a mix of outrage and amusement. Outrage over the seemingly never-ending stream of new charges and allegations along with the typical "circle the wagons and condemn the state" attitude of their defenders.
But it's amusing to watch all the blogs talk about how the fall of Agriprocessors is a major crisis for American Jewry since it imperils their supply of kosher beef.
Full disclosure: I have a great supplier of meat and other fine kosher products around the corner from where I live. I eat beef at least two to three times a week and enjoy it immensely each time. So read the following comments with this caveat in mind.
And that is: since when did meat become such an essential staple of life that its threatened absence is reason enough for pushing the panic button?
Seriously, I could understand this level of distress a few decades ago when there were really no good alternatives to kosher beef on the market. In recent years, however, the vegetarian market has expanded to include lots of relatively decent products that, if prepared correctly, can easily replace beef in the diet.
Yet, as FailedMessiah notes in his latest post, the politics of beef in the U.S. are causing major legal issues as well as consternation amongst kosher beef consumers.
People, people, do yourself a favour. Try more chicken (it's healthier) or veggie products. And if you really have a strong hankering for the good stuff, come up to Canada. Our beef supply is fine and at this time of year you don't need a fridge. Just leave the stuff outside overnight. It'll be fine.

Incitement is a One Way Road

Ever since Yitzchak Rabin was assasinated, Israeli society has been hyperalert for any signs of "incitement". I still remember the story of the man who was arrested only weeks after Rabin was killed for incitement. He was standing in line in the bank and the teller called out "Who's next?" "Peres!" he answered and then the cops came.
However, in a true reflection of secular liberal hypocrisy, incitement no longer means what the dictionary says it does. One would think that the term refers to any attempt to incite violence against a member or segment of society. This seems to only be partially true. Especially in Israel, where half the society, the one with the right wing views, is considered automatically illegitimate by the more politically correct left half. One can incite against the left simply by criticizing their beliefs. However, it is virtually impossible to incite against the right. As this article notes:
Barak said during Saturday evening's memorial service, "We used to call them weeds, today they are no less than cancerous growths…There was writing on the wall then that we weren’t wise enough to see.
"This is not just writing on the wall, this is a sharp undermining of democracy, the rule of law, the IDF, police and all the authorities serving a normal society. We promise you Yitzhak, we will remove this evil from us."
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said at the start of the cabinet meeting, "I would like to hope that the public atmosphere that led to the assassination of an acting prime minister in Israel has changed, but I cannot be sure that is the case.
"I'm uncertain that the incitement has stopped, I'm uncertain that the situation has changed, and that the attempt to delegitimize a political line which does not match the government's opinion has changed.
"This is an issue for national self-examination and we have to ask ourselves if we have done everything we can to prevent a similar murder."
Get it? You can call right wingers cancer. You can slander the pioneers of Yesha. But mention anything negative about Yitchak Rabin and you face jail time because Olmert wants to prevent "a similar murder".
A sharp underminig of democracy? Barak is incorrect and trying to deflect the truth from himself. The delegimizing of an entire part of society, one that is the most patriotic and supportive of the State, because their views are anathema to the self-hating post-Zionist left is the true undermining of democracy. I'm suprised he didn't call for the pioneers to be denied the right to vote in the next election. He could always justify it, of course, as necessary to prevent "a similar murder".

Crossing Party Lines

When I first heard the news that a Chareidi woman had signed up to be on the Meretz party list, I dismissed it as a joke. After all, the definition of "being religious" is very loose. It was possible that this woman used to be Chareidi and still kept a semblance of observance, or perhaps she insisted on going to shul more than once a year.
But it seems that Tzvia Greenfield still considers herself a genuine, card carrying member of the Chareidi community. Somewhere along the line she became convinced that the Meretz agenda best reflected her Chareidi values and decided it was time to make a stand.
Well, as I and many others have noted, there's plenty wrong in the Chareidi community that needs fixing and speaking out about but I don't think joining Meretz is the way to do it.
As Tali Farkash notes, being Chareidi isn't simply about not having a television in your home or wearing a bad wig in public. It goes far beyond that:
Many people, including me, fail to understand how it is possible to bridge the gap between the views shared by Meretz voters, who believe that the Bible is a collection of folklore tales, and haredim who believe it is the divine word of God.
But on the brink of the abyss between the two sides stands Tzvia, one foot here and the other there, and with impressive skill manages to feel like she is part of both sides at the same time.
It appears that a PhD in philosophy, like Greenfield has, is necessary in order to bridge this impossible gap.
To be honest, I do not presume to be able to put together complex sociological tests and determine the criteria for being a haredi. So, what was it that bothered me so much about Greenfield and made me label her a stranger to the haredi camp?
Well, I could live with the fact that she owns a dog as a pet, although with us fish and birds are more popular. I can also forgive the television set at her house. Many good haredim own one, although I will never let one cross my doorstep. I can live with her definition of the Zaka organization as "necrophilia lovers." Why be petty? Even her impression that haredi women are "ignorant creatures, baby-making machines" is insulting but not impossible to swallow.
But neither I nor you, Tzvia, can sanction, in the name of God almighty, the desecration of the Shabbat, bringing illegitimate children into the world, homosexuality, abortions, and any other bone of contention between believers and heretics. Issues that are an inseparable part of your party's platform, and let me give you a little hint, Tzvia – they don't quite adhere to the Torah's views on these matters.
That is, to put it mildly, an understatement. From the examples brought in the article, it seems obvious that Greenfield's views on Judaism have become distorted through a hateful lens. To call Zaka members necrophiliacs may be accurate, but that's like calling surgeons knife-happy. Both focus on a characteristic of the group, remove it from its context and condemn it. Hardly a fair assessment amongst thinking people.
Perhaps Ms. Greenfield has had a falling out with her community but not her culture. She wishes to remain Chareidi but can't stand actual Chareidim. Perhaps she has concluded that it is impossible to effect change from within the community. After all, UTJ would never allow her on their election list. Again, this is not exceptional. My best friend in Israel is just such a person. However, although the Arabs like to say "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", we don't subscribe to such simplistic thinking. Our bloody history provides too much evidence of the incorrectness of that statement.
As Farkash notes, being Chareidi is a package deal. It includes accepting certain religious and political positions as part of the deal. Rejecting those positions costs you membership in the group.
If Ms. Greenfield has a problem with the Chareidi community she will not solve it by bringing in the enemy of her enemies. She will simply empower those enemies more and give them an unjustified hechsher for their anti-Jewish, anti-Israel views. Hardly worth what she might hope to accomplish.

Just Go Away Already!

For those of you just coming out of your caves, Israel currently has a transitional government as it prepares for elections in late February. As a result of her inability to form a governing coalition, Tzipi Livni never got to remove the word "designate" from the title "prime minister" she so craved.
There is a traditional understanding in democracies that transitional governments do not undertake major initiatives. This is for two basic reasons - one is that the government at this point really isn't in charge anymore but only keeping the seat warm until a new one is elected. The second is that any initiatives it does attempt will wind up being handled by the incoming government which may find itself having to clean up messes it had no hand in creating.
All this seems lost on the most incompetent prime minister Israelis ever elected - Ehud Olmert. Despite a popularity rating inthe single digits, despite not being an actual party leader anymore, despite having only a transitional government to work with, he continues to make state-altering decisions regarding the so-called peace process.
And what's his excuse?
"The decision to set a deadline for the end of the year in a bid to reach an agreement with the Palestinians, while attempting to reach an agreement with the Syrians, has nothing to do with the identity of the US president or leader and the person who will replace him, whether it's Barack Obama or John McCain. I know them both and know they will be Israel's friends.
"Analyzing what is happening here, and the developments in the Palestinian Authority and in the international arena, the question is whether we can delay our handling of these problems. I think not.
The only part of that which makes any sense is the final sentence: Olmert does not apparently think, except of himself and his post-career options.
What is the rush? The last time I checked, Israel still held most of Yesha in its posession. It was the dominant regional military power after Hezbollah. It's the Arabs who are making the demands without offering anything in return. If anything, Israel has time and should be making the Arabs beg for negotiations, not the other way around.
How craven and desperate Olmert is can be seen by his continued efforts to sell out his country even after he has lost all legitimacy to do so.

Calling a Spade a Spade

When I was a much younger boy than I am now, I recall all the hoopla and euphoria over the signing of the Israel-Egypt. It was the breakthrough that Israelis had been praying for since the armistice of 1949, a dream realized.
Who could forget the images of Anwar Sadat stepping off the plane in Tel Aviv or addressing the Knesset in Yerushalayim? Or how it seemed that the break in the wall of isolation around would be the first of many to come?
If anything, the treaty itself was the dream. Shortly after it was signed, Sadat was assassinated. His replacement, who is still the dictator of Egypt until this day, Hosni Mubarak, was not of similar mind to Sadat.
Under his guidance, Egypt has become as hostile as it can without actually openly violating the treaty through military actions. Although Israelis continue to flock to Egypt on tours, few Egyptians return the favour. Although multiple Israeli premiers have gone to Cairo to court Mubarak's favour, he has visited Israel only once - for Yitzchak Rabin's funeral, and he made sure that the stay was brief and as unofficial as possible.
But more than that, Egypt remains the leading producing of anti-Jewish materials - in print, television and movies - in the world. Anti-Israel songs routinely become number 1 and no lie is too vile to be told as fact on Egyption television. How many times have Israeli tourists been shot while visiting the Sinai while Egyptian troops either watched without helping?
Anyone capable of a dispassionate look at Anwar Sadat's peae efforts has long realized that following his defeat in the Yom Kippur war, he came to realize that Israel was not in danger of being imminently destroyed but that if he wanted to retake the Sinai, he could do so through peace and gain all of his 1973 objectives without firing a bullet. More intelligent than other Arab leaders, he bit his tongue and came to Yerushalayim. His reward to was receive everything he asked for and more.
Mubarak, on the other hand, continues to see Israel as his chief competitor for cultural and economic domination in the Middle East. As a result, he works to isolate and demonize Israel at every opportunity.
Is Egypt an important negotiating partner between Israel and Hamas? Says who? Have they gotten Gilad Shalit one step closer to returning to his family? Have they convinced Hamas to modify its venomous beliefs one iota?
Thus when Avigdor Leiberman recently called a spade a space he was simply stating what intellient people have been noting for over 20 years. Mubarak is no friend of Israel and Egypt is only interested in honouring its obligations under the peace treaty if it helps them work against Israel's interests without threat of punishment. Perhaps more straight talk might convince Mubarak the jig is up but as long as deluded leftist peaceniks continue to believe that Egypt is "friends" with Israel, that remains unlikely.

Going Nowhere Fast

Once upon a time, the Mafdal (National Religious Party) was an important part of the Knesset. Controlling enough seats to make it a valuable part of any coalition, it was a member of the government from the inception of the State until 1992.
Over the last twenty years, as part of the increasing obsession within Mizrachi with the pioneers of Yesha, the relevance of the Mafdal has decreased within Israeli society including its constituent base, the Dati Leumi community. The last time the Mafdal turned in a respectable election result in 2003, it chose to join Ariel Sharon's last government and sit at the cabinet table with the Shinui party, further alienating it from the religious public. Following that poor decision, the party returned to opposition and then split into two despite have only a handful of MK's in the first place!
Then, to confound matters, the party chose to run a joint list with the National Union party in the 2006 election. The two parties together only managed to obtain 9 seats and the Mafdal's share was only 3 of them. What a slide into irrelevance!
And now a new announcement out of Israel today: The Mafdal and the National Union are once again merging, but this time into a single party instead of one joint list.
Naturally there is much celebrating by all the official movers and shakers of this deal but I am still disappointed. Much life shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic, this merger does not address the fundamental reason that the Mafdal and the National Religious community have lost influence within Israeli society over the last 20 years.
Let's face it: there are three parties in Israel capable of forming the dominant portion of any government: Likud, Avodah and Kadima. All three parties run on comprehensive platforms and can serve up a full slate of ministers if necessary. The remainder of the small parties, like Gil, the Chareidi parties and Meretz, are single issue vehicles only interested in being part of a governing coalition if their narrow interested are met.
Due to the Yesha agenda, the Mafdal has similarly become a one-issue party and it isn't a popular one. Through the efforts of the leftist governments and media since 1993, the brave pioneers of Yesha who are struggling to keep Jewish control over Jewish land have been villified and turned into the extreme fringe of Israeli society. To support them marks one as a fanatic, a war monger, an obstacle to peace.
Then there is the general wordly nature of the National Religious community. Unlike the Chareidim, most of the Mizrachi live and work within general Israeli society. Like their secular counterparts, they have concerns about the roads, taxes, health care and the direction the State is taking. Does it make more sense to vote for a one issue party like the Mafdal or for a comprehensive party like the Likud which may not be religious but politically reflects many Mizrachi values?
If the Mafdal really wants to regain importance in the Knesset, and the National Religious community wants to start growing and replacing the Chareidim as the definitive form of Judaism today, then they have to rebuild their philosophy. No longer can being Mizrachi be all about Yesha. Through the effort of Mizrachi talmidei chachamim, the issues facing a modern state have been analyzed through the lens of halachah. Being Dati Leumi shows that one can be a member of the modern world while being an observer of Torah law without compromise. It is this element of Mizrachi, that if necessary it could run the State in a normal fashion within the bounds of halachah, not the manner found in Iran, that the movement needs to emphasize.
Mizrachi must not be about Yesha. It must be about making Israel more Jewish.

Gedolim Who Matter Part 2 - Rav Issachar Teichtal

HaRav Issachar Teichtal
From his Wikipedia page

Yisachar Shlomo Teichtal was born in Hungary in 1885 from a family of well-known rabbis and Jewish leaders. His parents were Gittel and Yitzchak Teichtal. His father was a scholar, teacher, and a chasid of the Rebbe of Sanz. At thirteen years of age, Yisachar began his yeshiva study under Rabbi Shalom Weider who was the av beit din (town rabbi) of Nyrdhaa, Hungary. At age fifteen he moved to Gavne, Poland, where he was a student of Rabbi Shalom Unger.
He returned to Hungary and at the age of twenty-one he received rabbinic ordination (semichah) from the Rebbe of Talisheva. Rabbi Teichtal received another ordination a year latter from Rabbi Shmuel Rosenberg and a third ordination the same year from Rabbi Mordechai Leib Winkler. Rabbi Teichtal first married when he was 19 years of age to Freidl Ginz. When Freidl died at a young age he married Nechamah Friedman.
In 1921 Rabbi Teichtal became the av beit din and Rabbi of Pishtian, a city famous for its mineral baths, in Czechoslovakia. Remaining in Pishtian for 25 years he established the Moriah Yeshiva.

World War II
Czechoslovakia was invaded in 1938 while Rabbi Teichtal was still residing in Pishtian. As the Nazi oppression increased he found himself along with ten other family members in hiding at the local beit midrash (house of learning). From his hiding place he witnessed many atrocities including the mass deportation of friends and neighbors.
The Chief Rabbi of Slovakia in Nitra sent messengers offering refuge for Rabbi Teichtal and his family. In the month of Elul, 1942, he and his family escaped into Hungary to go into hiding in Nitra. After much wandering he finally ended up in Budapest where he remained for nearly two years. In Budapest he completed his seminal work, Eim HaBanim Semeichah after working on it for a little more than one year.
In 1944 Hungary was invaded by the Nazis. Thinking that Slovakia might be safe, the Teichtal family returned there to wait out the end of the war. At the time the Nazis stepped up their efforts to find remaining Jews. Rabbi Teichtal and his family were captured and transported to Auschwitz.

Death
As the Soviet army advanced through Poland, in January 1945, the inmates of Auschwitz, including Rabbi Teichtal and his family, were transported deeper into Germany. Rabbi Teichtal died in a train on his way to the Mauthausen concentration camp on the 10th of Shevat, 5705 (January 24, 1945). The following quotation is from an account of his father’s death on a train transport related by Rabbi Chayim Menachem Teichtal:
After starving their victims for a number of days, the oppressors tossed each of them a meager crust of bread, with the evil intent of having them fight pathetically for their paltry allotment. Indeed, one of the Ukrainians grabbed the portion of a Jew – my father’s neighbor - who was desperate for this crust of bread. This angered my father, who demanded the return of the theft. The other travelers begged my father not to get involved, since it might cost him his life. But he said “How can I stand by when the wronged man’s life depends on this food?” Indeed he insisted on taking a stand, and the Ukrainians, with the cooperation of the Nazi soldiers, rose against him and killed him, after torturing him mercilessly.
(from the Historical Introduction of Eim Habonim Semeichah: on Eretz Yisrael, Redemption, and Unity published in 2000 by Kol Mevaser Publications, Mevaseret Tzion, Israel; pg xxiv).

Zionism
As a result of the holocaust Rabbi Teichtal radically changed his position on Israel as he struggled to make meaning out of what was happening around him. His carefully constructed arguments are outlined in his book Eim Habanim Semeichah penned during his wanderings in hiding from his Nazi oppressors and their collaborators. In that work, first published in 1943, he makes a case for Zionism and a call for the Jewish people to unite to rebuild the land of Israel bringing about the ultimate redemption. In this respect his work had a precursor in the works of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook. His original view had been that of the majority in the Orthodox Jewish world at the time which discouraged an active movement for a return of Jews to Israel. The prevalent view at that time was that G-d would bring about a return without the need of human mechanizations. One remnant of this view, now held by only a minority within Orthodox Judaism, is that the State of Israel is itself illegitimate and contrary to the will of G-d. Neturei Karta is an example of one small, but high profile, group which is still actively opposed to the modern state of Israel.

Legacy
Rabbi Teichtal wrote much more than the Eim Habanim Semeichah, in particular שו"ת משנה שכיר Mishneh Sochir (responsa). Rabbi Teichtal was a prolific writer, and miraculously a number of his other works survived both his untimely death and the holocaust. Many of his works are still in manuscript form and have not yet been published. The Mishneh Sachir Center located in Bnei Brak, Israel is an advanced Talmudic learning academy named in the honor of Rabbi Teichtal carrying on his work and preserving his legacy.

Why he matters

Rav Teichtal was not only a genius but also capable of insight that few other of his time were capable of. Too often, very intelligent people become set in their opinions and refuse to consider the possibility that other points of view might have equal merit to their own. Despite evidence to the contrary, they continue to hold to their beliefs and delegitimize all others.

Rav Teichtal, on the other hand, although raised in a staunchly anti-Zionist environment, was able to contemplate during his time in hiding the possible meaning of the conflagaration our people were engulfed in during the Holocaust. His self-reflection enabled him to reach a conclusion far different that the one he had held before the war and his perspective on the return to Israel changed dramatically as a result. With his ability to change his mind, he was able to see how our holy sources actually endorsed a return to Zion as being acceptable in halachah and he proved this in his book, Eim HaBanim Semeicha.

Too often, the arguments for Zionism are couched in political or idealistic terms. We forget that, as Jews, we are obliged to direct our lives within the guiding lines of halachah. With Rav Teichtal's example, we are able to know that those Jews who see the return to Israel in our time as a sign of the beginning of our final redemption are not merely dreamers but fulfilling God's will as foretold to us by our prophets and Sages.